CI--Deaf or Hearing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shoshana said:
HAHA thanks :)

At 9:00 pm my brain starts going into "sleep mode" and I have hard time absorbing and processing the data

After all of that was there ever a CLEAR definition of Deaf militants?
Click to expand...

Not from anyone who isn't Deaf. The Deaf are pretty clear about it.
 
posts from hell said:
Two separate laws, like I said. :giggle:
Click to expand...

One made CCs possible, one made them mandatory. Both laws passed by U.S. Congress, a Congress made up entirely of hearing (possibly with some HoH) individuals, for the benefit of the Deaf, deaf, HoH population.

The point being that the society at large, in the form of the U.S. Congress, took steps to improve deaf and hoh access to television programming.

If you want to see other improvements implemented on a society-wide basis, then working in the larger society is the only way to go.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I don't think it's militant to be an activist. I don't think it's militant to speak up and demand to be heard. I don't think it's militant to become political. I don't think it's militant to lobby, to spread awareness, to propel movements and actions.
Click to expand...

THIS.

All I've ever tried to do on this forum is share my experiences. I am known to argue when my experiences get shot down. Excuse me? They're MY experiences. My life. If I can help even one person, whether deaf, Deaf, or hearing in any way with the experiences I've shared, I'm happy. I shouldn't have to be afraid to speak up for what I believe in, what I stand for, to encourage others, to find new/different ways of doing things, and so forth. It doesn't have to make me militant. That's why I resent that implication. Apparently we don't belong to drPhil's "select group of NON-militants." WGAF.
 
Shoshana said:
HAHA thanks :)

At 9:00 pm my brain starts going into "sleep mode" and I have hard time absorbing and processing the data

After all of that was there ever a CLEAR definition of Deaf militants?
Click to expand...

We were asking Dr Phil.... Then GrendelQ comes in and asks US for our definition, obfuscating the whole discussion... Funny thing: we don't use it, only DrPhil...

The things people do... Now I have to laugh at a few things....... :giggle:
 
Beach girl said:
One made CCs possible, one made them mandatory. Both laws passed by U.S. Congress, a Congress made up entirely of hearing (possibly with some HoH) individuals, for the benefit of the Deaf, deaf, HoH population.

The point being that the society at large, in the form of the U.S. Congress, took steps to improve deaf and hoh access to television programming.

If you want to see other improvements implemented on a society-wide basis, then working in the larger society is the only way to go.
Click to expand...

Who do you think campaigned to have it made into legislation? It certainly wasn't Congress.
 
Shoshana said:
HAHA thanks :)

At 9:00 pm my brain starts going into "sleep mode" and I have hard time absorbing and processing the data

After all of that was there ever a CLEAR definition of Deaf militants?
Click to expand...

:laugh2: I think we all have very different definitions. Some of us think there's a positive role for Deaf militants to make change in the world, considering the definition of militant as someone fighting for a cause, and the cause being access, rights, awareness for the Deaf (I think this is where I am). Others see the term as an insult lobbed at anti-CI people. Others seem to use the term as an insult to classify angry Deaf.
 
Beach girl said:
One made CCs possible, one made them mandatory. Both laws passed by U.S. Congress, a Congress made up entirely of hearing (possibly with some HoH) individuals, for the benefit of the Deaf, deaf, HoH population.

The point being that the society at large, in the form of the U.S. Congress, took steps to improve deaf and hoh access to television programming.

If you want to see other improvements implemented on a society-wide basis, then working in the larger society is the only way to go.
Click to expand...

Yo. One easy question... Would the congress have made it mandatory without the Deaf community making some voice about the CC?
 
I could not care less how others label me. However, I would rather "I" be the one to label myself.

So here goes...

I am a deaf Advocate.

I use the lower case "d" to indicate that I advocate for all that have lost some or all of their hearing regardless of the medical technologies they employ. The Capitol "D" Deaf would probably not consider me one of their staunchest supporters and I would probably appear too soft. the "militant" group would probably consider me a hindrance and someone that takes attention away from their platform. This also means I support deaf/Deaf rights above that of the general population. This might not win me friends in some circles

All this talk about defining "Deaf militant" is just that... all talk. there is no one way to define something that changes from person to person (or from group to group).

Sometimes I think life would be so much easier if I could be a Deaf militant because in my mind that would mean I would take a very narrow view of what it means to be Deaf and shout obscenities at anyone that dared to disagree with me. The real world is not so black and white. There are shades of gray everywhere and exceptions to almost any rule you can think up. If we cannot change and adapt, eventually we die off. Oh, thought for a new topic... "Will new technologies change what it means to be deaf/Deaf? If so, how far off do you think that new technology is?"
 
Last edited:
posts from hell said:
We were asking Dr Phil.... Then GrendelQ comes in and asks US for our definition, obfuscating the whole discussion... Funny thing: we don't use it, only DrPhil...

The things people do... Now I have to laugh at a few things....... :giggle:
Click to expand...

HAHA I agree with you here, the entire time we were asking Drphil to use HIS definition, tables turned!
 
AlleyCat said:
THIS.

All I've ever tried to do on this forum is share my experiences. I am known to argue when my experiences get shot down. Excuse me? They're MY experiences. My life. If I can help even one person, whether deaf, Deaf, or hearing in any way with the experiences I've shared, I'm happy. I shouldn't have to be afraid to speak up for what I believe in, what I stand for, to encourage others, to find new/different ways of doing things, and so forth. It doesn't have to make me militant. That's why I resent that implication. Apparently we don't belong to drPhil's "select group of NON-militants." WGAF.
Click to expand...

This is what blows my mind. That people are so entrenched in their own hearing perpsective, and so unwilling to examine the ways in which that perspective is indeed audist in nature, that they are completely blind to this type of offensiveness.
 
posts from hell said:
Just like what I was thinking. Some people are a hoot.
Click to expand...

But that is exactly my point. Deaf people influenced society at large (in the form of the U.S. Congress) to get these changes made. It took cooperation between deaf interests and the hearing powers-that-be.

So much of this conversation has been about slicing and dicing various groups down into ever-smaller numbers, when in reality, for anything much to really happen, you have to engage LARGER numbers. Inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness.
 
GrendelQ said:
:laugh2: I think we all have very different definitions. Some of us think there's a positive role for Deaf militants to make change in the world, considering the definition of militant as someone fighting for a cause, and the cause being access, rights, awareness for the Deaf (I think this is where I am). Others see the term as an insult lobbed at anti-CI people. Others seem to use the term as an insult to classify angry Deaf.
Click to expand...

Again, the definition is not so varied, as is the intent of the phrase when used by a certain segment of the population. The Deaf don't see it as a negative or as insulting. The hearing intend it to be insulting and a form of social control. It can easily be explained by more than one sociological theory. Labeling Theory and Conflict Theory would be the two most appropriate. It is not the words...it is the intent behind the words.
 
Beach girl said:
But that is exactly my point. Deaf people influenced society at large (in the form of the U.S. Congress) to get these changes made. It took cooperation between deaf interests and the hearing powers-that-be.

So much of this conversation has been about slicing and dicing various groups down into ever-smaller numbers, when in reality, for anything much to really happen, you have to engage LARGER numbers. Inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness.
Click to expand...

Oh, it wasn't cooperation, trust me.:lol:
 
So, Grendel, do you think drPhil was not calling us out as deaf militants? What made you get involved in this subject?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top