Proposal for Audism policy to be placed in the guidelines

Implement an Audism policy in the AD Guidelines

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 58.1%

  • No

    Votes: 9 29.0%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • Total voters
    31
If it's habitual... wouldn't an audist be treated as a troll?
 
Yes, souggy, but we have to define what is "offensive" and why. All of this should be covered with "don't be an *ssh*ole" but that alone doesn't work. Especially when the person in question is a concern troll.
 
sallylou said:
Yes, souggy, but we have to define what is "offensive" and why. All of this should be covered with "don't be an *ssh*ole" but that alone doesn't work. Especially when the person in question is a concern troll.
Click to expand...

But the person in question has been banned for his or her audist posts and topics-- repeatedly.
 
souggy said:
If it's habitual... wouldn't an audist be treated as a troll?
Click to expand...

You can define who is a troll and an audist.

A troll will just post anything to instigate an argument or provoke.

sallylou said:
Yes, souggy, but we have to define what is "offensive" and why. All of this should be covered with "don't be an *ssh*ole" but that alone doesn't work. Especially when the person in question is a concern troll.
Click to expand...

An audist knows he posts material intentionally to bait and trap a person into an argument and/or posts materials to downplay another person's intelligence. An act of upper hierarchy based on his/her intelligence; this is where the moderators needs to step in and stop this.

When a person does an act of audism unknowingly; it is Dysonscious audism (DA). DA is an ingrained behaviour: not a learned behaviour that this person is not made aware of this until someone advises him/or her of this.

This is where we need to be cautious of. We cannot just kick a person out based on DA; it has to be a chronic audistic pattern behaviour that this person has no wish to change.

[yt]Bg118lXBZ28[/yt]

There's the passive audists and those malicious audists - definition from Wiki-

A passive audist is an individual who has not given much thought to their actions concerning Deaf people, hearing people, or signed languages. Such a person, often, is only behaving in such a fashion because they are not informed of the differences between Deaf and hearing people. Such people are generally not malicious, and only act from ignorance. Their actions, however, can prevent the employment and education of deaf people despite their benign nature
Click to expand...
Audism from Wiki
 
Ok, I've just read all 244 posts in this thread. I'm content with this:
candybrowneyes said:
[...]

Flaming and trolling will not be tolerated and by the definition of Audism which is basically anyone who puts down Deaf people knowingly to hurt someone of this commuinty will be banned. No questions asked, that is how it has always been here on AD.

[...]

CBE
Click to expand...
 
inspirabull said:
I miss this group terribly but when my posts were being buried and censored it was time to go. I have been a hoh for 35 years with my deaf community being my sister who is "worse" than I. See that is the kind of audism that happens just naturally in that kind of isolation and circumstance slugging it out in a world where everyone hears a lot "better". Where promotions don't happen and you work harder to achieve a higher level of workmanship not to please them anymore because they do not matter, but to find personal satisfaction while moving on whenever the it becomes just another negative situation. I keep a wall about way high around me at all times except once in while. I appreciate the learning experience that I have had here but personally do not care about audism or deafism. This is simply another place I do not fit, but like I say I sure thank you for putting up with me while I was here.
Click to expand...

Chase your dream of fitting in. You might as well work on it here.
 
Ok, I have not made many, if any, comments in this thread and I am hoping that what I am about to say will not be taken the wrong way. This thread as a whole, is a good one but I wanted to offer one caveat: Go about this (and I am sure Alex is monitoring this one since this is a poll) issue with audism with great care and wisdom lest we go down the chasm of being a closed society.
 
Tousi said:
Ok, I have not made many, if any, comments in this thread and I am hoping that what I am about to say will not be taken the wrong way. This thread as a whole, is a good one but I wanted to offer one caveat: Go about this (and I am sure Alex is monitoring this one since this is a poll) issue with audism with great care and wisdom lest we go down the chasm of being a closed society.
Click to expand...

Elaborate a bit on "closed society" please?

I have seen this too many times in other places and I must admit I am saddened to see how one feels the need to categorize another group as a "closed society".

Why is it that such improvements are being met with such criticism yet little praise?

Change is good and healthy.

Accept this.
 
Tousi said:
Ok, I have not made many, if any, comments in this thread and I am hoping that what I am about to say will not be taken the wrong way. This thread as a whole, is a good one but I wanted to offer one caveat: Go about this (and I am sure Alex is monitoring this one since this is a poll) issue with audism with great care and wisdom lest we go down the chasm of being a closed society.
Click to expand...

I agree. A slippery-slope thing when it comes lableling, defining, catergorizing, etc. As for a "closed society" I supposed that it was the Holism blog/vlog which brought that concept forward recently?
Holism: Closed Society is WHY!
 
kokonut said:
I agree. A slippery-slope thing when it comes lableling, defining, catergorizing, etc. As for a "closed society" I supposed that it was the Holism blog/vlog which brought that concept forward recently?
Holism: Closed Society is WHY!
Click to expand...

I don't see any categorizing, labelling and/or defining when it comes to this.

This is where I am puzzled as to how one can arrive to call Audism a "closed society" when there are individuals being treated as sub-humans based on their deafness.

Please define a closed society for me.

By the definition you provided, AllDeaf would be considered a "closed society".
 
Mrs Bucket said:
I don't see any categorizing, labelling and/or defining when it comes to this.

This is where I am puzzled as to how one can arrive to call Audism a "closed society" when there are individuals being treated as sub-humans based on their deafness.

Please define a closed society for me.

By the definition you provided, AllDeaf would be considered a "closed society".
Click to expand...

I wasn't defining anything. I asked Tousi a question as to where he got the "closed society" idea from.
 
candybrowneyes said:
shel I think it is exactly that and deaf audism is infact deafism. I think there is a little bit of a grey area but it seems this is what it is. I do feel a lot of members here have a distorted point of view on what classifies someone as an Audist because personal thoughts and feelings get in the way.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
I still think too many people throw around Audism and constantly use it out of context and redefine it to meet some agenda. That in my opinion leads to misunderstandings and confusion. People should stick to using words by definition and in context.
 
rockdrummer said:
I still think too many people throw around Audism and constantly use it out of context and redefine it to meet some agenda. That in my opinion leads to misunderstandings and confusion. People should stick to using words by definition and in context.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
Tayler Mayer shares that same sentiment about the audism definition bit with DeafVideo.Tv, Deafread and when he disagreed he was called an audist, too.

The most bizarre thing I've seen is if someone disagrees with Deafhood, it's called audism. I made a vlog and there's still people who don't understand.

And I've been called an audist because I didn't feel the definition of audism was clear enough to be enforced on DeafRead/DeafVIDEO.TV. I instead said it wouldn't be tolerated under the harassment rule. It's just harder to enforce something that's not clear. Never mind that wasn't enough for them folks.

The term audism indeed has its merits, but it's been manipulated into a weapon only meant to hurt or intimidate others.
Click to expand...
Source:

And that's coming from a Deaf guy, too, who had his share of attacks for no good reasons.
 
rockdrummer said:
I still think too many people throw around Audism and constantly use it out of context and redefine it to meet some agenda. That in my opinion leads to misunderstandings and confusion. People should stick to using words by definition and in context.
Click to expand...

I share your sentiments, RD.

CBE brought up the similar sentiment; personal feelings and thoughts should be left out of bringing up audism.

kokonut said:
Tayler Mayer shares that same sentiment about the audism definition bit with DeafVideo.Tv, Deafread and when he disagreed he was called an audist, too.


Source:

And that's coming from a Deaf guy, too, who had his share of attacks for no good reasons.
Click to expand...

I suspect a lot of personal feelings & opinions were involved when he was called an audist.

I have mentioned that audistic attitudinal views needs to be changed; I cannot stress that enough. Even I have to work on that myself; audism comes from oneself's attitude; the word itself "audism" is quite a thorny issue.

I am just grateful for the learning experience this thread has provided me and this community.
 
kokonut said:
I agree. A slippery-slope thing when it comes lableling, defining, catergorizing, etc. As for a "closed society" I supposed that it was the Holism blog/vlog which brought that concept forward recently?
Holism: Closed Society is WHY!
Click to expand...

Hi, been away for a few days. Yes, Koko, the Holism's vlog was the impetus and I think that's all I will say for now since this is strictly a poll being proposed to Alex and my comment was a bit off for that. I also agree that closed/open societies are not necessarily wrong/right and fleshing that out here in this thread wouldn't be appropriate.
 
Back
Top