Ha! HA! Ha! HA!
I can spit on your ASL.
I can ignore your values.
I can call you an imbecile.
I can praise my abilities over your inabilities.
I can simply discriminate your ass because you can't hear and I can. You can't speak and I can. You don't wear an aide and I do. You don't have a CI and I do. I can understand hearing people and you can't. We're with the righteous and the proper. You're with stupid. Those monkey miming and ape gesturing people are simply pathetic. And that is okay. You know why?
DeafRead says it is okay to do so because they do not recognize the Deaf Community and the its values. It is okay to discriminate others because they don't speak or hear. It's okay to hold prejudices towards us and bunch us heathens in the same pen because we don't subscribe to the idea that speaking and hearing is necessary and that ASL is an obstruction to the goal of making every Deaf child fully functional by hearing standards.
Note: Hearing Standards
Yep,..it is all the rage,...because Deaf people really have no standards and values. Besides,...ASL isn't even a language. There is no such thing as a Deaf Heritage. What the hell are they thinking?
Fuck Deaf people and their cultural and linguistic values. This is a hearing world and we have the right to impose our values over these thoughtless imbeciles who believe they are so special.
C'mon,..let's talk about how much fun it is to be better than them and lets imagine how depressing and drastic our lives would be if we couldn't speak or hear and let us thank God we can belittle those who don't understand what the world wants for us.
Thank You DeafRead for allowing us to properly piss on the Deaf Community. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge a form of discrimination in which those who speak and hear can insult those who don't, you make it so easy for others to learn how to do the same.
Many Thanks!
Crazy Eight.
Comments:
ReplyDelete1.) Who are the "Crazy Eight"? Inquiring minds want to know.
2.) Deafread is deaf centric...like it or not. Deafread is what we make of it.
Crazy is the 8th guideline that fails to recognize audism.
ReplyDeleteDeaf Centric? Har har Har har
J. J.
ReplyDeleteSome bloggers and some vloggers are still boycotting and will continue boycotting until DeafRead recognises and inserts AUDISM.
Jean
Crazy Eight,
ReplyDeleteRegardless how abused you become by the oppressors spitting on you and others like yourself, this will continue on until you learn how to bite rather than be barking.
Look at the Black community, very similar to the Deaf community before 1960's and the pragmatic shift toward the betterment for the Black community was to be more aggressive against the oppressors whether they are the KKK or AGBell for us Deaf community.
Being respectful in a integrity image will not work while AGBell are "legalized" having the "eugenic" attitude towards the Deaf community.
Do we need to change our attitude at the same level as the abusive but "legalized attitude" as AGBell? Maybe.
But remember that AGBell got tons of money to protect their "legalized eugenic attitudes" towards the Deaf community.
But every problem got a solution and that will come up someday by some vigilant person whether is a hearing or deaf person to wake up the society to realize the Deaf's righteous ambition is to stop the AGBell's eugenic attitude towards the Deaf that are not able to speak or listen like hearing people.
Like Nike said, "Do It"
J.J.
ReplyDeleteYour comment:
Deafread is deaf centric...like it or not. Deafread is what we make of it.
I am not savvy as you are but could you set a poll and ask the Deaf readers of Deafread.com if this aggregator is Deaf Centric aggregator as it once was before?
In my opinion, Deafread.com got contaminated to the point that the Deaf community no longer have the their voices to be heard anymore.
It was so cleverly manipulated and destroyed as usual over the years how the Deaf community were treated.
Set up a poll now or accept yourself as one of the manipulated deaf citizen saying that this Deafread.com is not as a manipulated deaf aggregator blogsphere site.
J.J., I know that you are smarter than that but what has happened to your thinking has puzzled me. Oh man, I am disappointed how weak some "leaders" can be.
deafread offers the option of hide button so the readers have the tools to tailor DR to their preferences.. no deaf people are excluded due to their beliefs. in that essence, deafread practices the true meaning of deafhood by recognizing all deaf people and excluding none. also oral deaf and c.i. wearing deaf people have their own deafhood experiences. deafhood is nothing more than a personal journey for each deaf person. it doesn't mean asl and deaf culture must be integrated for deaf people's deafhoods to be validated.
ReplyDeleteMZ speaking as a blogger, not wearing the dr moderator hat.
It seems to me that you're upset at a few extremist bloggers on DeafRead. The thing is - audism is still very poorly defined, and there's not a critical mass yet, agreeing on the definition of it.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, have you ever considered that by allowing these blogs on DeafRead, they're being given a bigger platform to hang themselves with their own words? (figuratively).
Because it will happen at some point. Trust me on this.
Your post, however... doesn't help you or your point of view.
jeff i left a comment around 7 30 pm or so. it is now 3:30 am. the blog did acknowledged my comment and that it's held for moderation. so far it's not published. i'm resending it.
ReplyDeletedeafread offers the option of hide buttons so the readers have the tools to tailor DR to their preferences. no deaf people are excluded due to their beliefs. in that essence, deafread practices the true meaning of deafhood by recognizing all deaf people and excluding none. also oral deaf and c.i. wearing deaf people have their own deafhood experiences. deafhood is nothing more than a personal journey for each deaf person. it doesn't mean asl and deaf culture must be integrated for oral deaf people's deafhoods to be validated.
MZ speaking as a blogger, not wearing the dr moderator hat. MZ isn't anonymous. it is short for Mishka Zena, a pseudomyn used by Elizabeth Gillespie
i find this quote very appropriate for this post. i hope it helps us maintain our dignity.
ReplyDelete“They cannot take away our self-respect if we do not give it to them.”
~Mahatma Gandhi
MZ
JJ, do you even know what "Deaf centric" means?
ReplyDeleteHint: it doesn't mean what you think it means.
JJ, are you that stupid enough to believe that DeafRead is Deaf-centric? It has strayed its course away from being central to the community itself. If you truly believe that DeafRead is truly deaf-centric, then I felt sorry for you.
ReplyDeleteGood thing, many Deaf people with common sense can see through this as a clear crystal. Your inability to see all of this is rather sad thing to see.
R-
Truth be told, like it or not. Deaf-centric is from pro-Deaf/ASL view and Audism free not from any audist viewpoint or promoting falsehoods about ASL. DR is far from it. Doesn't matter if a person is Deaf or not. Responsibility to social equality counts.
ReplyDeleteSince Ella has defined "Deaf Centric" as "Pro-Deaf/ASL"...then I guess deafread is not "Deaf Centric" enough. More about this later...
ReplyDeleteHowever, when someone says, "Deaf Centric" I think "deaf community" or "center of deaf community". Perhaps a better word should be used like, "Pro-ASL"??
As for deafread not being "Pro-ASL"...whose fault is it? Who left? (not counting folks who got banned) Why not stay? Deafread already has ways to hide everything you disagree with..all you have to do is register then click on "hide" and simply block people from making comments on your blog like Deaf Pundit did recently with Candy. If you want deafread back...just reclaim it...it's that simple.
As for why "Audism" is not a part of the rules...it's VERY SIMPLE...the rule CANNOT BE ENFORCED UNIFORMLY...deafread's mission is to aggregate blogs about deaf culture, deaf people, and etc...therefore if someone posts an article like the one where a hearing person said that deaf people cannot read above a fourth grade level...is that audist? Or say, someone calls you a name...is that audist because someone called a deaf person a name? What is audism, EXACTLY??? HOW WOULD YOU ENFORCE AUDISM??? YOU CAN'T....and that is why it was never added to the guidelines.
Anyway, this argument is as old as deafread..and I am not getting into it much further here...god knows Ridor and I went back and forth on facebook a few years ago....(That was fun, but not doing it again, Ridor).
Call me an idiot if you wish...is that audism by the way? LOL!
Audism: the notion or belief that one is superior to another based on their ability to speak and/or hear.
ReplyDeleteThe longer we wait to address this, the harder it will be for people to actually understand what an act of audism entails.
Re: hearing person saying deaf people cannot read past 4th grade...no that is not audism...that is stupidity.
Re: calling a Deaf person a name is no different from calling a hearing person a name. To insult them because they are Deaf and do not speak,...that would be audism.
I'm amazed that there are people on the DeafRead team who are not comfortable with their own knowledge and experience to be able identify what an act of audism is.
Sure, there are and will continue to be people who want distort the facts and further twist the meanings of things but as I stated at the top of this very comment, audism is the notion or belief that one is superior to another based on the ability to speak and hear.
What is so hard to understand about that meaning/definition and why is it so hard for YOU to understand it?
I know you all understand what I am saying and I'm aware that this is not the easiest of circumstances to iron out but it CAN be done.
It just seems that DeafRead doesn't want to do it.
Whats more.. what part of the word Deaf implies hearing sounds?
Hmmmm...
It requires a great deal of perception to recognize a blog as audist. Several things have to be taken into consideration, one being the general tone of the blog. Is it factual and neutral, or negative and condemning? Does it offer healthy alternatives and suggestions, or leave the reader with a bad taste?
ReplyDeleteFor example, an article saying Deaf people have a 4th grade reading level and blaming it on ASL without a fair overview of factors that explains the low reading level. The article says that the CI/AVT improves reading levels without discussion of other factors that help reading. Then a conclusion that the future will exclude ASL as the CI improves hearing in general, which oversimplifies to the point of advocating oralism.
That would be considered biased, negative and audistic. Guideline 8 prohibits blogs that are racist, sexist, etc., but does not prohibit audist blogs.
However, if the above example were to substitute Black for Deaf:
"Black people generally have a fourth grade reading level due to their use of ungrammatical Ebonics at home and in the community. Prohibition of Ebonics from infancy and enforced listening to classical readings instead of free time at the neighborhood playgrounds will improve their reading level. Only then can Black people be equal to white people." (trumped-up example only.)
This is clearly racist, especially when it leaves out positive factors such as parent reading to kids, parent education level, involvement of school, integration of Ebonics in cultural studies, adult modeling, and exposure to a variety of readings including those that show respect for the Black experience.
Guideline 8 appropriately should include audism, defined as a notion that behaving in hearing ways is desirable and an attitude that to be deaf is pitiable and undesirable. (Humphries definition, summarized.)
So, HOW would you ENFORCE the rule of audism, Jeffery? Who would you ban based on that and why? What is wrong with deafread specifically?
ReplyDeleteYou said it can be DONE...show us the way, Jeffery.
Dianrez,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
It requires a great deal of perception to recognize a blog as audist. Several things have to be taken into consideration, one being the general tone of the blog. Is it factual and neutral, or negative and condemning? Does it offer healthy alternatives and suggestions, or leave the reader with a bad taste?
The tone? Well, doesn't Jeffery's title up above suggest a tone as well? (e.g. "The Joke Is On You!") How could deafread determine whether the "tone" has gone overboard? That's a HUGE gray area. For example, we could look at any of McConnell's posts (aside from his vacation, ragtime piano, strong man, and Hamill blog entries)and interpret it as coming on a bit strong, but are his entries audist? No, I see it as him being a staunch advocate for the HoH, CI, and Cued Speech folks. How about Candy? Can you really call someone who is deaf and from a deaf family, audist? Maybe Dyconscious Audism? Possible...
If it's dyconscious audism, why don't Pro-ASL deaf folks stick around to try to show them the light?
If we are going to have a rule for audism...we should have a rule for Handism* as well. Shit flies both ways....
The whole argument for adding audism is much like democrats whining about republicans overtaking a political discussion forum, IMO.
*ASL folks who think they are better than other deaf people and hearing people.
How do they judge re racism sexism ethnicity sexual orientation q
ReplyDeleteThose r tricky too but try u do so..
Ain't we worthy q
And ya won't know until ya try
It's a value thingy
Value justice or injustice q
Peace
P
does anyone ever consider perhaps some people are like that because their languages and the organizations that helped them acquire their oracy or asl skills are attacked?
ReplyDeletelet me give a scenario. if some deaf people approach asl-using deaf people and start bashing asl and the deaf schools, etc. how would the asl deaf people feel? attacked, of course. if these deaf people say.. oh we are not attacking you personally. i respect that you use asl and that it helps you. i am attacking the deaf schools themselves. the asl itself have so many problems, causing a weak mastery of english, blah blah. of course the asl deaf people are going to take it personally. they cannot separate themselves from the institutes they are raised in and the language they use. totally understandable.
ok. reverse this completely. the asl using deaf people with oral skills are repeatedly told that oralism is horrible and that the agbell and avt programs destroy deaf people. how do you think they feel? attacked personally, too. they feel oralism serve them well and they are thankful for the oral organizations. naturally some attack back. the asl deaf people feel targeted so they responded fighting back. the hostilities escalate and pretty soon they all are shooting arrows at each other.
a vicious cycle evolves. anytime an institution or a language is attacked, the people who benefit from them will feel attacked. unfo, there is no separating the institutions and languages from the individuals.
for me, using the buttons helps me find satisfaction with the aggregator. having the power to design my aggregator empowers me and shields me from certain bloggers and vloggers that i know will give me a lot of aggravation. i know they exist, but i'm not going to give them the satisfaction by paying attention to them. i cannot control them and their mentality. regardless of how i feel about them, they are still a part of the deaf community. some are heavily invested in the deaf culture while others aren't.
keep in mind: the more you get all worked up, you are giving them exactly what they want. why do you give up that power? if you want to maintain the power, don't pay them any attention. shun them like amish people do with their people who commit a serious violation of amish community. they don't fight with or throw them out. they simply turn their back and ignore them completely. it's a very effective strategy.
you have so much passion and yet so little energy and time. why waste limited resources on people who don't deserve a second of your time?
MZ
JJ,
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't be about banning a person. It would be more along the lines of teaching others what is not acceptable. In other words, no blog that portrays being Deaf as pitiful would get published. No blog should exhibit that the quality of life is much better among those who hear than those who do not.
It isn't easy, no, but it isn't impossible either and I really don't underestimate the DeafRead team in their achieving the task of overcoming this obstacle.
dianrez
ReplyDeletethe problem is that everybody has a different defnition of audism. the other side of the coin: deafism. how do we define deafism? very tricky and also on a very slippery slope. the buttons help us design what we perceive to be a -ism free zone for us. yet the -ism free zone we choose may not be the right match for other people.
for example, some people see me as a moderate. yet others view me as an extremist. who am i to tell them they are wrong? i wouldn't appreciate it if someone tells me my interpretations are wrong. they are not me. i am not them.
MZ
Jeffery,
ReplyDeleteEven today, you will find people who are racist. They can be found everywhere on the internet. The KKK is still an organization today. The bottom line is, if people don't want to be taught, you cannot teach them. You cannot force anyone to do anything.
What you can do is to surround them with the opposing view, and isolate them. Ignore and isolate them.
J.J., I would have to respectfully disagree with you about Mike and Candy. I do think those two are audistic. They may not outright name-call people, but it's clear that they do not hold any respect for others who are different than them. They disdain ASL, that's for sure. And oftentimes, they deliberately miss the point in discussions related to ASL or controversial Deaf issues, and then divert it to what THEY want to discuss. That's one of the reasons why Candy is banned from my blog.
Does that mean DeafRead should ban those two? I think it's still a bit too early. Audism has just entered the mass consciousness, and while we have an academic definition of audism, I think we're still struggling to identify it in practical terms.
Not only that, but we can see this as an opportunity. Use these blog posts and show it to the mainstream and say, "Look, this is audism. This kind of attitude is a serious barrier for us in society. Eliminate it."
When that kind of dialogue and understanding reaches a critical mass outside the Deaf Community, then I will agree that DeafRead should revisit their guidelines regarding audism. Until then... *shrugs*
The argument that one can structure DeafRead so that one doesn't see certain bloggers doesn't wash with me. For one thing, the buttons don't work on my PCs. For another, it allows these bloggers to keep on writing, invisible to their critics.
ReplyDeleteMost important is this: DEAFREAD IS ALSO A REFERENCE FOR THE HEARING COMMUNITY. Parents, students, professionals, friends, writers and just plain curious people.
Negative bloggers promote audistic ideas to uninitated people, poisoning the wider community so that ASL users find it more difficult to be accepted. Unchecked, these people can reverse years of progress toward understanding.
With guidelines in place and a barebones definition, we would be able to point these people to it. We could say, "It is audistic to say (cite passage from blog) according to Guideline 8(g-k)" The blog would not need to be removed unless it blatantly continued this.
Being able to cite a guideline is educational and could encourage bloggers to state their position in a more balanced way. Having no guideline gives free rein to vent angst with Deaf people in general, spread false ideas about ASL or the efficacy of the CI, and promote more misconceptions.
deafpundit,
ReplyDeleteI follow you on everything you say and I agree,..one cannot force feed anything upon anyone. That is clear.
I like your idea about surrounding those who practice acts of audism and isolating these people. I believe somewhere along the way, several members of the Deaf Community made the suggestion to the DeafRead team to include audism in the 8th guideline.
Because the issue was argued and debated to no end, the team apparently decided to leave it out. In doing such, they invited the idea among members in this community to boycott DeafRead because the felt they were not going to recieve support. Support that the Deaf Community could use to reach out to the world and make the statement that audism is not cool.
I appreciate all of you for taking the time to express your thoughts and sentiments about this recurring issue and I should hope that this dialogue may continue to the point that the 8th guideline will be revised.
Why do we have to wait until some authority puts it in a dictionary before we can expose the very meaning of such oppressive discrimination?
Stand up and show them that there is zero tolerance for such.
I mean, it is clear that we, in this discussion, are aware of what is accepted and what is not when it comes to respecting Deaf identity as well as the cultural and linguistic values that come with it.
MZ-
Thank you for your comments and participation in this topic. You have also shared valuable thoughts and ideas. I understand where you're coming from with the reversals and examples.
What I don't understand is the fact that DeafRead would allow examples of audism on their aggregator and expect that "push button" screens would make the problem go away.
The problem will persist if you continue to let it show up on the aggregator because no one uses those buttons. You see, they love to poke and prod and they do it with much jest because...
...it is tolerated.
We cannot allow that if we want to promote a colorfully unique and diverse community that celebrates life being Deaf and cherishes the beautiful languages of the hands.
Parents actually need to see that they have choices beyond the hospital. It sure would be nice if they could see a Deaf Community that is happy and progressive rather than one that spends its time bickering and arguing.
I believe DeafRead has enabled the latter by refusing to address and recognize what audism is. I equally believe that the DeafRead team is capable of rethinking it's position and moving forward with the very community that gave this aggregator it's full support.
See See what happens...
JJ-
ReplyDeleteYou asked me what is specifically wrong with DeafRead?
Suppose I want to remove my blog from the aggregator. I can't just push some buttons and take my blog off the list myself. I have to go up to those in control in order to make sure it is removed and I have to wait for them to do it whenever they are ready and feel like it.
If I want to remove it now, make it NOW!
Ta-Da! By the click of a button.
That is user friendly.
While they have features for the readers to click in order to remove certain blogs, they have none that allow the bloggers the freedom to remain or return as they wish. Blog name and all.
That's just a little noticeable flaw I thought I'd address.
More Specifically:
I don't want to enforce the rule of audism because audism should never rule and I will, for as long as I live, continue to stand by the truths of equality and justice for people who are seen as children of a lesser god.
I want to show the world how awesome we are even if we can't hear or speak and I'd love it if we could do it center stage with their understanding that we are equals.
I can spit on your (take out ASL) LSL.
ReplyDeleteI can ignore your values.
I can call you an imbecile.
I can praise my abilities over your inabilities.
There's the other side of the coin, Jeffrey.
There are some Deaf-centric ppl who actually criticize and deride those deaf who choose to hear and speak. Mind you, I KNOW I'm deaf and don't pretend to be otherwise. Yet I don't go around criticizing those who use ASL and are culturally Deaf as inferior.
The prob is that some ppl, regardless of language preference and hearing technology or not, cannot respect the choices others make for themselves and are comfortable with. That's what it comes down to.
There would have to a "deafism" guideline, if an audism guideline is to be adopted in DR.
Fair's fair, but oh, what a headache to enforce such guidelines...
Ann_C
Deaf Cinema,
ReplyDeleteYou have a good question about how DR judges racism, sexism, and etc... Personally, I am of the belief that there should be NO GUIDELINES. Deafread should only have moderators to determine what is "deaf related" and that should be the extent of their involvement. DR should "Live and Let Live". The Internet is really the wild wild west.....there are simply no rules on the Internet...it's true anarchy if you ask me (Google stuff like, "The Dark Side of the Internet"). What I have seen over the years is that all Internet communities police themselves. Some stuff that is acceptable in one place isn't in another place (e.g. You can type, "Obama Sucks" on the FOX News boards, but can't do the same on the NAACP boards.) Think of the quote, "It takes a village to raise a child"...same deal with Internet aggregators, blogs, forums, and so forth. . To answer your question, DR should be hands off and let it's readers determine the content that is allowable. Forget guidelines and etc...
Pundit,
I don't know about the rest of it, but I'll agree that McConnell/Candy have kind of gone out of their way to paint an ugly picture of the ASL using deaf community. Their act is pretty old...but they have every right to post what they want to as long as they aren't doing anything illegal. I will defend to death that right. People might not like the crap I post, but I have every right to my own opinion even if I have stated it 1,000,000,000,000,000 times :-).
Dianrez,
You could simply shoot off an E-mail to DR to see about your technical issues.
As for the part about DR being a reference for the hearing community...honestly...it is a pretty good reference for the hearing community. Our community is divided...maybe it's because of colonialism and etc...(never read Deafhood, but I want to)...but the fact is that it is a divided community..at least on the Internet. As for the audistic users poisoning the water....well like Gahdhi said, "We must be the change we wish to see". Maybe instead of trying to write a bunch of guidelines to fit an impossibly diverse and divided community, we should be encouraging positive people to post here? Maybe we all should be blogging every day about how awesome it is to be deaf?
As for spreading misconceptions because anyone who comes here is ALREADY BIASED and will only see things via their rose colored glasses.
Also, I am a staunch defender of allowing bloggers to post whatever they want to..no matter how stupid, wrong, and/or insulting. Every blogger is responsible for the content they publish and any comments they ever make anywhere on the Internet. I like to think people are very good judges of character and will remember any blogger's history. Let those bloggers hang themselves over the long run. Or ignore them...I mean I don't google, "Deaf People Suck" because I don't care to read the rantings of some lunatic who hates deaf people. I come to DR to read interesting discussions and/or learn new stuff. Yes, we all have to wase thru the junk now and then...but if we keep our eye on the junk we will miss the bigger picture.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you shoot off an E-mail and see if it is possible for a blogger to remove his/her blog from the aggregator IMMEDIATELY NOW? I don't know why it cannot be done, but if I remember correctly it is a quick process...taking no more than 24 hours.
As for the rest of it...it is good that we want truth, equality, justice, and to show how awesome deaf people are. For THEIR UNDERSTANDING that we are equals...one can hope...but I don't expect it...I never have. Nobody believes that everyone is equal...maybe it is just my cynical take on life..who knows...but I know I don't believe that everyone is equal and I wouldn't hold my breath on hoping others would see me as an equal. I think the best thing is to focus on how to be your very best and to be at peace with yourself.
I am hardly ever deeply affected by anything on the Internet enough to "pick up my ball and take it home". Sometimes I get a bit heated then I remind myself that it is ONLY.THE.INTERNET and that if I met EVERYONE here face to face it would be totally different and cool. People are more macho behind a computer screen, I bet about 95-99% of us are "boring normal people" face to face.
Oh, one last request...can you set it up so that commenter that had previously approved comments can be automatically approved the next time?
-JJ
i don't know if the readers are aware the deaf community was offered few times the full control of a specialized deaf aggregator where their own moderators can screen out audistic bloggers, vloggers and posts. however, these offers have been rejected by the very people who wanted this specialized aggregator embracing deaf people, asl and deaf culture. so this begs the question. if they were offered the specialized niche aggregator, why did they reject this option every time?
ReplyDeleteperhaps it may be a good time to reconsider and accept this offer of a specialized deaf niche aggregator.
MZ
Jeffrey
ReplyDeletePhew for the likes of u
Seriously we is blessed when we have folks like u who can say things so precisely firmly and persistently
Re the "even if we can't hear ...". Interesting thing is how studies r showing that because we have a different way of being and doing we actually offer the world a great many things to learn about what it means to be human an humanity. Thus when folks seek out to diss the DeAf and their language and when a Deaf aggregator carries that crap we r actually hurting humanity and progress
This ain't a hard concept to wrap ur head around folks. So what is REALly the issue hmm
And re all the advise re what WE should do. Been there done that. DR it's ur turn to try our idea just for a wee bit
I'm confident u will find the world still spins ur traffic will soar and u will feel much better
But in the meantime we will keep being on the move.
Oh and it goes wo saying but I'll say it just the same. I really do love the folks at DeafreAd.
And Jeff I really love and appreciate that u have undertaken this hard task. Ya got feet and light
Truth force soul force soars
Peace
P
MZ -- If I recall correctly, the reason people "rejected" the "niche aggregator" was because it would be "hidden" as a side part of DR (like the Deaf Extra) instead of "front and center". Perhaps if that "niche aggregator" had a separate domain name from DR so that it could be gone to directly and found through a direct search, etc., then the idea would be more palatable.
ReplyDeleteI was interested in developing such a "niche aggregator" and had (still have) a domain name registered. Unfortunately, my technical skills are not up to that task, and I was unable to find anyone with the correct skills for it.
Ann C,..the flipside is a result of audism being tolerated. If we do not condemn acts of audism we will continue to see acts of deafism. One is the result of the other.
ReplyDeleteYou need to remember that it is not the technology that keeps people out of the community. It is the attitude.
JJ,
Immediately now is not 24 hours. A button for the blogger to do it his/herself would be really convenient.
Hope has made a lot of things possible. Just don't lose it because a lot is accomplished WITH it.
You never know who you're dealing with online. Some people who have been perceived as wimps on the net actually turned out to be serial killers. So, macho or not, you just never know...
As for your request,..I'll look into it.
Thanks.
"Maybe instead of trying to write a bunch of guidelines to fit an impossibly diverse and divided community, we should be encouraging positive people to post here? Maybe we all should be blogging every day about how awesome it is to be deaf?"
ReplyDeleteMy exact sentiments too, JJ!
Jeff,
The prob with condemning audism or deafism is that it promotes more of the same. It is not a wonder that there are as many takes or definitions of audism or deafism online, you see? Nobody sees the definition of audism same as another. (I know Humphries', don't need to remind me of it.) Nobody sees the definition of deafism the same as another. That's due to the fact that each of us come from many different deaf backgrounds and the language/ culture choices we make. It explains why there's no consensus on the definition of either audism or deafism. The result of which, a see-saw, "he said, she said," eventually grows into personal attacks.
Someday the word audism will have a general consensus as to what it really means, like the word racism does today. But right now the definition is too much in flux, in a grey area zone, some edges show and others don't, and perhaps that's a reflection of the deaf community. A flux period is not a bad thing but some ppl get impatient with the gel process, lol. And that's my guess as to why DR wants to stay away from it for the time being. Same thing applies with the word deafism.
One last thing and then I'm outta here:
To condemn something really means you've got some work on yourself to do.
I mean that not as a criticism but as a reminder that none of us is perfect.
Ann_C
JJ...
ReplyDeleteSeriously I don't think you really do understand the real meaning on "audism". From what I read your comments about audism, you really are clueless on that word because you told Ridor that calling you idiot is audism. I was like WTF???? That is NOT audism! That is name calling. DUH! Calling Jeff Dyconsicious Audism, WTF? No, he's not.
You need to learn more about the real meaning of that audism/dyconsicious audism before you ever use that word.
I still can't believe some people tend to misuse and/or abuse the word. It's disgusting and sickening to see 'audism' word being overused and probably overrated eventually if that keeps up like that.
InsaneMisha
InsaneMisha,
ReplyDeleteYou are saying that I don't understand audism...that's fine, but do you realize that you have just proven my point...we cannot enforce a guideline that is not "black/white". The term "audism" can be applied to many many different transgressions against the deaf whether intentional or not. Additionally, I didn't apply the term dyconscious audism to Jeff and I followed my comment to Ridor with a "LOL" as in a joke.
Several points here:
ReplyDeleteI do agree about the flip side of the coin. Deafism is very much real, as well. I think we would be remiss to overlook that. It starts with US. While we get treated audistically, it doesn't mean we should turn around and return the favor to them. And that does happen a lot. I understand why - it's very frustrating and one can't help but feel anger at being discriminated against and encountering bigotry. Ultimately though, it doesn't accomplish anything, except more polarization.
I also want to point out that the courts and society in general has recognized reverse racism exists. So if we want to make sincere progress, recognizing that audism does go both ways, is necessary, in my opinion.
I also agree with Ann_C's comment about our understanding of what audism is, being still in flux. Absolutely. If someone writes a post about them getting a CI, would that be considered audistic? Some will.
There will be some who won't find it audistic at all. For me personally, it depends on the tone, how it was presented, etc. So I can only imagine that it would be a difficult thing for the DeafRead team to moderate at this point of time.
And while I share JJ's sentiments that bloggers should be allowed to say whatever they want on their blog... IMHO, that doesn't 100% apply to DeafRead. The posts that aren't deaf-related aren't posted on the front page of DeafRead, after all. So I see both sides here.
At this point, it's my opinion that we still do not have a critical mass agreeing on what precisely is audism and what makes blog posts audistic. I think *I* have a good understanding, and so do many others, but I don't think the critical mass is quite there yet. We're almost there.. but not yet. I believe that we will get there within 2 years. I really do believe that.
JJ
ReplyDeleteGranted that audism could be in gray area somewhere in there HOWEVER I believe there should be a guideline for it AS LONG AS you guys know the difference on that term. The reason why it's being overused/abused in many ways is one has to clarify it more clearly and in emphasize. Regardless whether you're joking or not, you forget some do react in a different way. However that term 'audism' will finally be recognized and proven to all for once and all eventually in near future.
Joke or not joke, this is not laughing matter, m'ok?
InsaneMisha
DP,
ReplyDelete"While we get treated audistically, it doesn't mean we should turn around and return the favor to them."
Excuse me? Deaf bloggers?
If you agree with the definition of audism still being in flux and that we should turn the other cheek, so to speak, then why have you called McConnell and Candy as "audistic"? Is that not a form of reverse audism?
It's that "not Deaf enough" accusation that no d/Deaf person should lob at another of his own.
I don't care if they have a view different from your own, whether they're culturally Deaf and use ASL, whether they're HOH and hear/ speak, etc., it ain't right to call them "audistic". McConnell's and Candy's views may not jive with what you and others expect them to be, but try to learn to separate the MESSENGER FROM THE MESSAGE. I don't agree with everything they say, but I allow them to have a voice. Same thing applies here. Hearing ppl have cat-called MANY d/Deaf ppl and don't bother with the message, and that's where the term audism should apply.
Reverse audism should not even exist. WTF?
This is not a personal attack on you, DP, my remarks are based on what you've just expressed.
Sorry, Jeff, I apologize for taking up so much of your space.
Ann_C
Ann --
ReplyDeleteWhen someone says something audistic, we can't point it out? That does not make it "reverse audism" -- that is only identifying what we see.
When someone consistently spouts audistic things, in spite of having been told that such things are audistic, then that doesn't make them just ignorant or clueless, but audistic.
It doesn't matter who the MESSENGER is, when the MESSAGE of audism is still the same.
these comments show ample evidence why audism and reverse audism are subjective, based on one's interpretation. what one may consider audistic isn't to another person. that goes for the reverse audism. as of now, these two terms are too ambiguous.
ReplyDeletehave a nice night.
MZ
Wow what a nest of deception
ReplyDeleteGood courage there r more good folks out there than bad.
Re audism - it ain't about the word its abou justice. It aint just for DR to carry crap that attacks Deaf culture and ASL or other natural signed languages
See guideline 8 it lists race gender etc but it null and voids Deaf folks as a cultural and linguistic minority because..... It have to condemn the oppression of the Deaf would require some backbone an braveness and LOVE
It ain't hard but it ain't really hard
Need to be rights he need to do right hmmmm what's it gonna be q
Re deafism. That is LOL cuz there ain't even such a word. Ain't in any book scholarly writings or documentary films
Wow spin baby spin
Would that u would be ur word towards fighting injustice over perpetuating oppression
But no matter there's a party going. What u doing over there q.
DR do the right thing cuz it's the right thing to do and we will ya hoo and u will soar. How do I know q cuz Gandhi told me so and cuz a plaque honoring someone unjustly came down cuz some brave souls said it must be. And a pres was no more cuz some folks said we just be saying nothing without us and cuz nad is soaring and roaring cuz it has returned to it's roots and it recognizes audism and linguicism
DR I say these truth cuz I love you. U r better than the crap u have been carrying Jeffrey until dr does right it ain't rigth for ur might to grace it's pages
Peace all. Patti
Howdy y'all,...
ReplyDeleteNote: I find it quite interesting to discover that this very blogpost is no longer showing up on DeafRead.
I can only wonder why it has been removed.
HMMM?
patti, who are you accusing of practicing deception and spinning? because someone has a different outlook doesn't mean the person is being deceptive and spinning. i hope you realize that. i can assure you that there may be a big difference on how one exclusively oral person interprets the situation than an exclusively asl-using deaf person. apparently it's not so common for a person to be able to see both sides. this is the reason cross-cultural training are constantly being provided. unfo, not many deaf organizations, especially the secondary and post secondary educational programs, provide that. yet polarization may persist. look at democrats and republicans.
ReplyDeletedeaf jeff, that's odd. contact tayler regarding this missing post.
MZ
MZ,...as a participant of this discussion and a member of the DeafRead team...Wouldn't it make more sense that you inquire with Tayler as to why this specific blogpost has been removed?
ReplyDeleteIf an action like this blogpost removal takes place, wouldn't it also make sense to provide the blogger with an explanation as to why it was done 3 days after sitting on the lineup of blogs posted on DeafRead?
This in itself can show how DeafRead is poorly managed and it may also reveal their lack of communication as well as commitment to the very people who bring attention to their website.
www.deafread.com
Manipulative? Perhaps....
An error? Not likely...
So what is it gonna be?
You tell us.
Ann_C,
ReplyDeleteI will name behaviors that I think is destructive or inappropriate. So yes, I do think Mike McConnell and Candy are audistic, and I will NOT back down nor apologize for that. I don't do this lightly, and I've only done this after reading their blogs for at least two years. The pattern of their blog posts is very clear.
And I did say reverse audism does exist. Read my comment again.
And please... let's be honest here. You aren't attacking me personally, but you are criticizing my comments. That's fine with me. A discussion can't really happen if everyone agrees on every point.
Jeff,
You asked for your blog to be removed from DeafRead NOW. I just checked the blog list (which is on the sidebar of DeafRead under Blog Awards), and apparently you're not on there anymore. So why does this bother you, since you asked to be immediately removed from DeafRead in the first place?
DP,
ReplyDeletePlease read the following closely:
"Suppose I want to remove my blog from the aggregator. I can't just push some buttons and take my blog off the list myself. I have to go up to those in control in order to make sure it is removed and I have to wait for them to do it whenever they are ready and feel like it.
If I want to remove it now, make it NOW!
Ta-Da! By the click of a button.
That is user friendly.
While they have features for the readers to click in order to remove certain blogs, they have none that allow the bloggers the freedom to remain or return as they wish. Blog name and all."
Look at the first word of the statement,...
Suppose...
"On the road again -
ReplyDeleteLike a band of gypsies we go down the highway
We're the best of friends.
Insisting that the world keep turning our way"
-Willie
I'm out.
DP...
ReplyDeleteIn any case, have you noticed that Jeff always turns his blog into poetry in the past. Rarely he turns them into reality, hence the poems. DR editors should have at least ASKED him if he really is sure that he wants his blog gone from DR. NO they didn't which is really unbelievable. That is not right away. I recognized his "Suppose" poetry right off the bat. I'm somewhat surprised you and DR editors don't catch on that even some of you had read his past poetry filled (some, mind you..not all) blogs.
I'm really disappointed in DeafRead editors for being too hasty to remove his blog WITHOUT asking him to be more clear and sure. Even on safe side as well.
DP, now I hope you do understand what Jeff is trying to say. No I'm not trying to argue with you or anything. Just saying....
:)
InsaneMisha :P
Hmm, your account, Jeffrey, is still in the DR bloglist but this particular post is removed. It's got to be a mistake, because it isn't abusive. It's a rather intelligent discussion of whether audism rates along with similar hard-to-pin down definitions of racism, sexism, etc.
ReplyDeleteDeafism? Besides being rare, it's a red herring designed to support its elimination from the guidelines. We can acknowledge it, argue about it, but it belongs in the guidelines about the same as "reverse racism". Audism is a far bigger problem and affects everybody. It affects our ability to conduct business, earn a living, assert our rights, and even to live. It begins at home in us, and the responsibility to fight it starts there and extends outward.
i've already stated that i'm not wearing my deafread moderate hat here, but as a blogger. therefore, it's not my responsibility to contact tayler. have you contacted tayler regarding the removal of your blog and also make suggestions directly to him?
ReplyDeletei'm done here. ciao
mz
They say that waking up is hard to dooooo
ReplyDeleteIronies of ironies. If u don't want ur stuf on dr they grab. If u do want it they cut it
Click on. Click off
Truth campaign continues
Peace
Patti
This post was inadvertently moved to DeafRead Extra. One of the moderators, who will remain unnamed, clicked the wrong button. It's been moved back to the front page. Our sincere apologies.
ReplyDeleteJeff, if you wish to be removed from DeafRead, use this online form to submit your request. We'll see to it as quickly as we can!
I will have to take a risk and post my comment here.
ReplyDeleteDP, you don't specifically say exactly what topics we cover that are oppressive towards the deaf community. I for one, have LIVED in the deaf community in the big D deaf culture since I was born. I for one have been part of what is now known as the Deaf culture that is no longer around. You do not know me. My post is not a reflection of who I truly am. I bring up things for a reason. You can choose to see things the way you do, like you saw that Death of Deafness PDF. You are entitled so, I'm not going to judge you except to see that is how you view things which is what it is. I have no clue who you are and I'm not about to judge you base on your post. You are the sum of your post? I think not. Deaf Jeff is the sum of his post? I don't think so either. I don't know you, don't know Jeff, certainly you don't know me and neither do you know Mike.
But, to be fair, if you're going to label Mike and myself an audist, please point out exactly what post, or better yet, the exact wording/sentence we used.
I can assure you that I have more years in the Deaf culture than you and I can assure you that the Deaf culture is much more diverse now than it was back in the day. Thanks to folks like me who spread that awareness, in addition to many others like me.
I truly think that the A word is used to label others as way to get back at them like you are doing, because you failed to specifically point out to the specifics.
The reason many grassroots stay clear of deafosphere is due to the attacks many moderates, like myself, have been subjected to. Many want to be able to say what they think without being judged. I have asked around, and trust me, that is the reason why. Not because of folks like Mike and me. We don't go around judging others in a personal way.
Truth is if people do not like certain blogs, they will avoid reading it, like I do. And, you should stop reading my blogs because it obviously bothers you to no end.
Your definition of audism isn't necessarily the right definition. And, I will be blogging soon about that, something that has bothered me for some time. I think what I bring up wont matter because in the end, that word does nothing but cause chaos.
Take care and I hope you find some peace in your core regarding respecting the right of all deaf/hh to express their views. Let's not be too quick to judge others.
Candy~
Wow, I'd wondered where Jeff's post went and it's back up again. Hey, I know you said "Suppose...". But it goes to show DeafRead will remove your blog as you request within 24 hours, huh.
ReplyDeleteDP,
I saw some contradictions in your previous comments here, that's why I chose to address them. MZ is correct that just because a d/Deaf person has a different view doesn't mean that he is deceptive and spinning. The terms "audist" and "audistic" have too often been applied to such ppl. And that is, to me, a form of reverse audism or deafism, whichever ppl choose to see it. That's why I believe audism has yet to be defined thru general consensus, as some d/Deaf ppl persist in abusing those terms, audist and audistic, by using it on their own d/Deaf. Because of the abuse, those words are losing the power of any meaning.
You may regard McConnell's and Candy's behaviors as destructive or inappropriate, but I don't believe audism applies here. Not everyone, even some who are DOD and ASL users, are going to have the same exact views as yours or Deaf culture's. You may not like what they say, but who are you to call them "audists" or "audistic"?
The words audism, audist, audistic will never wield their power so long as d/Deaf ppl continue to use them on their own ppl. "Justification of their behavior" has NOTHING to do with it. If you want RESPECT for your view, then you have to respect that others are going to have different takes on the same issues and leave it at that.
Don G,
"When someone consistently spouts audistic things, in spite of having been told that such things are audistic, then that doesn't make them just ignorant or clueless, but audistic."
Again, there is no general consensus on the definition of audism, on what things are considered "audistic".
Certainly, McConnell and Candy are not clueless or ignorant, they just have a different view which clashes with yours, that's all there is to it. You're still focusing on the MESSENGERS, not their messages, Don.
That's weird...your blog entry is STILL on deafread? See page 2: http://www.deafread.com/page/2/t/
ReplyDeleteAnyway, let's continue this discussion on McConnell's blog entry titled, "Death of Deafread?". I decided to take a bite on his bait for the hell of it.
Ur entry title just keeps comin truer and truer dont it
ReplyDeleteHere they go round the mulberry bush
... Chased the weasel
... All the kings horses and all the kings men ...
... Ashes ashes we all fall ...
Nah not all of us be falling down
Some of us be standing up
Got a stand q
What's that u say q. U r neutral Hmmm odd. Whyvr u running bs that says ASL is not a language q
Why r u running stuff that says Fuck the Deaf community q
Why r u running stuff that says the Deaf community should be eradicated q
Why r u running stuff that says you must speak and hear to function q
Why can't folks be empowered to disable the auto draw down of their own blog q. Why is that an option q
Why did u say u would add audism and later cultural and linguistic minority instead to guideline 8 and then never do it q
Crazeee
Everybody dance now
Boycott bs folks. Find ur feet and stand by the facts and fight for u people and natural signed language
Or get to nowhere fast riding on the goodwill ship lollipop
The choice is all urs now that u know how the "now u see it now u don't" game works
Ur spin
Oh what's that u want to know q. Me q. Nah I won't be riding. I got feet and they were meant for walking.
(well actually now they r up in a hammock while I gaze at the lake - truths must be told. They just resting while me watch the show and know good folks on the ground be busy)
Peace
Patti
Ann_C,
ReplyDeleteI agree with MZ that just because people have different views doesn't mean it's audistic.
However, when people make posts talking about Deaf Trash, refusing to do extremely basic research on ASL, and declaring that almost everyone signs PSE with zero credentials or research to back them up; declaring that George Veditz signed PSE, which blatantly ignores the extreme basics of linguistics, such as Cand did; *habitually* diverting discussions from the main topic to topics that THEY want to talk about; *habitually* posing inflammatory questions to bait people into having an unproductive discussion; *habitually* mocking/ridiculing ASL users, such as Mike McConnell's orange vlog on DVTV... yeah... I do call people who habitually do these things audisitic.
*handwaves*
ReplyDeleteBingo on the nose o Deaf pundit. U sing the truth
ReplyDeleteThat there is a nasty habit they should kick for sure
And ann c and candy pls note the word audistic vs audism
Read
And see
And DeafreAd - yep they have the right to be autistic in their bvlogging but it ain't the right thing to do
U have rights too DR. U have he right not to carry that trash
It's so easy
So whatcha gonna choose
Justice or injustice
Be part of shift or part of the $hit
Ur option
We on da move. Would love for u to resume being part of this mighty wind
Deafpundit again tu
Jeffrey tu for making this space for truth love hope and faith
Peace
Patti
Nice posting, but why waste your time posting this for Deaf Read? I wouldn't even bother, cause D.R. should go to hell for all I care.
ReplyDeleteSave your energy for a better cause Jeffrey!
Michael Bunjer..
DP,
ReplyDelete*habitually*
-making posts trashing oral deaf, HOH or CI'ers as "audistic", audists, you-name-it.
-refusing to do "extremely basic" research on CI, AVT, or LSL
-declaring every deaf child who hears and speaks as not bilingual, not Deaf enuf
-diverting discussions from main topic to topics THEY want to talk about, ditto
-posing inflammatory questions to bait ppl into unproductive discussions, ditto
-mocking/ ridiculing oral deaf or HOH or CI ppl
Hell, it goes both ways, baby.
Ann_C
i realized i haven't responded to don g's comment, so i'm back temporarily.
ReplyDeletedon g, no, not on these terms. you may want to contact tayler to follow up on that.
MZ
ohhh Ann_C
ReplyDeletei cant speak for Deaf Pundit but im pretty she would agree w/ me that we would not support DeafRead carrying b/vlogs that promote falsehoods and attacks like:
- English is not a language
or
- Fuck oral people
or
- Report such-n-such organization to the dept of justice for removing the word ______ from their bylaws
nope i aint seen DR carry those types but i have seen them carry:
- b/vlogs saying ASL is not a language and is just bad English and/or PSE
- Dissing the Deaf community
- False accusations again and again
i dont support folks dissing folks who are oral or hard of hearing etc etc
re: "not Deaf enuf" - oh goodness - u love da myths-a-making dont ya girl?
twist and spin
your turn
peace
patti
Ann_C,
ReplyDeleteAside from the first line of your list, I do agree with you somewhat. It does go both ways.
However, I don't see any sincere effort for the majority to understand why this is happening. All they want is for the Deaf Community and ASL users to shut up, go away and meekly accept the abuse hurled at them.
And naturally, there will always be a fringe element who turns around and treats them exactly the same way. History shows that happening with all minorities. While I do not condone this, far from it... I do understand why that's happening.
The abuse we're receiving is very real, and to continue to deny that reality, will not help end this war. What will end this war is true acknowledgment and end of the abuses committed against us as a community and culture. And I strongly believe in naming these behaviors for what it is, after careful and long observations on patterns of one's behavior.