I have a question...

jillio

jillio

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
60,232
Reaction score
19
Why is it that people who hold blatantly audist views are so vocal about how right they are, and how wrong everyone who disagrees with them are, yet get so offended and think they are being personally attacked when their audism is pointed out? If they truly believe their opinions are correct, why would it matter if it is audist or not. If they are 100% certain that they have made a decision that is definately in the best interest of their child, why would they care if that decision is seen as having a foundation in audsim?

My thinking is, if you are right, and you are so certain of your convictions, you really don't care one way or the other what someone calls your decision or your opinion. You are confident in it no matter what. So what is the big deal with an opinion being labeled as audist?
 
I have a feeling that they are in denial about the kind of message they are conveying in those discussions.
 
Even if they are sure they are correct, audist is still a created word that is negative.

No person wants a negative label. Thinking their methods are right and being upset about negative labels aren't mutually exclusive.

Just like I don't like "oral failure" even if it may be technically correct.
 
Bottesini said:
Even if they are sure they are correct, audist is still a created word that is negative.

No person wants a negative label. Thinking their methods are right and being upset about negative labels aren't mutually exclusive.

Just like I don't like "oral failure" even if it may be technically correct.
Click to expand...

I don't think audist is intrinsically negative. It is simply a term that describes a way of thinking and perceiving. Hearing perspective means the same thing.:dunno2: It only becomes a negative if that way of thinking is causing you harm. It doesn't cause harm to the the person who thinks as an audist does, so it is not negative in that application.

Nor is it really even negative when used to describe the negative effects it has had on the D/deaf. It is still just a description of a way of thought and action. It indicates a difference in the way that someone who is hearing and aurally auditorily based perceives the world and the way they approach what they perceive as a problem.

There is no value judgement inherent in the term "audism". That has to be inserted by the person who is interpreting the word's effect. But the effect on someone is not necessarily correlated to the meaning.
 
shel90 said:
I have a feeling that they are in denial about the kind of message they are conveying in those discussions.
Click to expand...

That, and a refusal to actually look at their own way of thinking and the beliefs that motivate their decisions honestly.
 
Funny thing. About 10 years back this news station aired a "mircale" fling about a baby getting a CI.

I fired them an email. Explained everything thoroughly. They've never aired a thing about CI's ever since.
 
Bottesini said:
Even if they are sure they are correct, audist is still a created word that is negative.

No person wants a negative label. Thinking their methods are right and being upset about negative labels aren't mutually exclusive.

Just like I don't like "oral failure" even if it may be technically correct.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I don't recall saying or even thinking to myself what an oral failure you are because I don't know. All I know is that oralism, established shortly after the 1880 Milan Conference, has caused untold suffering/damage among the population with a few who got away unscathed.
 
posts from hell said:
Funny thing. About 10 years back this news station aired a "mircale" fling about a baby getting a CI.

I fired them an email. Explained everything thoroughly. They've never aired a thing about CI's ever since.
Click to expand...

Maybe they learned. You know, I've got respect for people that are honest enough to say, "You know what? That is what I thought. It was audist. How do I change that?" and then begin to learn how what they think and how they act affects more than just them. It is the ones that have it pointed out, and continue in that line of thinking, but deny that it is what it is that irritate me.
 
Tousi said:
Hmmmm, I don't recall saying or even thinking to myself what an oral failure you are because I don't know. All I know is that oralism, established shortly after the 1880 Milan Conference, has caused untold suffering/damage among the population with a few who got away unscathed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And "oral failure" is a term used by those that have in inherently audist way of thinking. Otherwise, "failure" would never be attached to "oral".

It is language that is used to get an emotional reaction. "You don't want your child to be an 'oral failure' so you must do this and this and this." It is very manipulative language.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. And "oral failure" is a term used by those that have in inherently audist way of thinking. Otherwise, "failure" would never be attached to "oral".

It is language that is used to get an emotional reaction. "You don't want your child to be an 'oral failure' so you must do this and this and this." It is very manipulative language.
Click to expand...

I hear you.



Whoops.
 
Honesty is the best policy. It does bother the people who are accustomed to sugarcoated opinions. Bluntness is a concept they are unfamiliar with. Often, the deaf are blunt and don't think twice before stating their opinions. I don't sugarcoat my opinions and I don't modify them to please anyone.

People who have dealt with me know this is true.
 
People that care what others think could be doubting their own judgment or think they're being personally attack as being a 'bad' person. Some people can't
separate their emotions from their reasoning. I wish I could spell better to use words I want to use!
 
Banjo said:
Honesty is the best policy. It does bother the people who are accustomed to sugarcoated opinions. Bluntness is a concept they are unfamiliar with. Often, the deaf are blunt and don't think twice before stating their opinions. I don't sugarcoat my opinions and I don't modify them to please anyone.

People who have dealt with me know this is true.
Click to expand...

I am a firm believer in coming at things from Front Street.
 
whatdidyousay! said:
People that care what others think could be doubting their own judgment or think they're being personally attack as being a 'bad' person. Some people can't separate their emotions from their reasoning. I wish I could spell better to use words I want to use!
Click to expand...

You just made a great point.
 
whatdidyousay! said:
People that care what others think could be doubting their own judgment or think they're being personally attack as being a 'bad' person. Some people can't
separate their emotions from their reasoning. I wish I could spell better to use words I want to use!
Click to expand...

Hey, I have a secret..... I wish I could spell better too. I love the spell check in my browser.
 
Back
Top