Shizune Arc (misha, jigoro)

[Oddball]

Having better access to computers would solve a lot of communication problems.

You'd think that, but Shizune doesn't seem to like writting to reply to people and doesn't even check the messages she does get on her phone very often.

[Potato]

Having better access to computers would solve a lot of communication problems.

You'd think that, but Shizune doesn't seem to like writing to reply to people and doesn't even check the messages she does get on her phone very often.

Shizune learning to be less like Jigoro would solve a lot of communication problems then. She doesn't do herself any favors relentlessly insisting everyone communicate on her own terms or not at all. Seems to be a flaw of hers extending beyond mere communication too, if Lilly and all the rest she drove away from the council are any indication...

@Kutagh: Your excessive grumpiness over literally nothing is of zero interest to me so here's a meme.

[Liminaut]

Having better access to computers would solve a lot of communication problems.

You'd think that, but Shizune doesn't seem to like writing to reply to people and doesn't even check the messages she does get on her phone very often.

Shizune learning to be less like Jigoro would solve a lot of communication problems then. She doesn't do herself any favors relentlessly insisting everyone communicate on her own terms or not at all. Seems to be a flaw of hers extending beyond mere communication too, if Lilly and all the rest she drove away from the council are any indication...
[/url]

Shizune is massively hosing her own career. She can get away with this stuff in high school, and can probably manage in college, but once she's out of college she's dead.

If she enters college in 2008, say four years to get to 2012, plus an MBA in two years gets us to a 24-year-old Shizune graduating now. Japan may be very different, but in the US her graduating cohort has been defining themselves by extensive multimodal communication and extensive social networking. Moreover any employer she talks to is going to expect those skills out of her. About all she'll be able to get is a job running a Starbucks.

It seems like her solution to problems is to work harder, and after a certain point that solution is going to fail. What might happen is her family giver her a position in the family firm, but she and everybody around her will know Shizune did not earn it.

So yes, I'm anticipating a massive collision between Shizune and reality. And I know how the smart money bets on those.

[Atario]

For a "deafie" to communicate with the "hearing," one of them is normally speaking in a foreign language.

That needs stats to back up the word "normally". As I say, I've known plenty of deaf people who could talk and read lips more than well enough to have to fall back on other methods only upon the occasional difficulty.

The ability to communicate in your native language is a luxury most people take for granted until it's gone.

An easy way to experience this is to travel to a country where they don't speak your language(s). I've done this, and it does put one on one's toes.

An additional feature of deafness (tied into the former) that separates it from many other disabilities is that deafies are expected to accommodate the hearing, instead of the other way around.

They are? They can, in theory, but expecting it is a little presumptuous. It might be "considered a good idea", or "probably for the best", but "expecting" implies something more like "screw you if you don't", and I don't think that's what's up (except maybe for the Jigoro types out there).

Deafies are expected to be able to read lips, even to speak, to use a pencil and paper or terrible speech-to-text and text-to-speech utilities (all in a foreign language, mind you), to watch closed-captioned TV shows and movies in a manner convenient to the hearing people around them, all while hearing people can't even remember to give the basic courtesy of looking at them while talking.

Er. I'm a little confused by a couple of items in this list. I'm wondering why speaking is an "even this" item, as it seems like one of the easier of the tasks. Lip reading seems like it would be harder, to me. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about the closed captioning. What does "convenient to the hearing people around them" mean? I mean, you have them or you don't.

The point of all this is that a significant portion of deafies consider their deafness part of their identity; part of who they are.

I can see that being the case; but all the same, it smacks of yet more tribalism in a world plagued by it. We're us, and you're you, and you stay over there or else. :/

many deafies look upon cochlear implants in a very negative light - just the newest in a long line of humiliations deafies are expected to subject themselves to so that they might be "Fixed" and acceptable to the hearing populace.

Regardless of what those who take that view think, I'm pretty sure people who get cochlear implants do not consider it a humiliation. Everything I've seen points to them considering it a miracle of the age. To denigrate (or concern-troll?) people who want them or get them stinks of Crab Mentality.

The cochlear implant issue is more complex than you imply (also, that is one HELL of an false dilemma).

Not seeing the false dilemma I posed. Little help?

You can communicate using radio waves, but you'd be pretty pissed off if people expected you to communicate exclusively by radio waves, because everyone else perceives them just fine (besides, your meat-slapping "vocalisations" aren't a real language, and it's kinda vulgar to look at; certainly not something anyone should have to learn - you should be fine with carrying around a portable HAM radio).

I carry one around right now. We all do. They're called cell phones. And I'm sure many of you know people who, instead of face-to-face, prefer being contacted by phone (or even email or text, or…). Doesn't piss me off in the slightest.

Refer to my previous quote about paraplegics sucking it up and using the stairs.

How many paraplegics do you know who manage to "suck it up and use the stairs" just fine? Meanwhile, I (and I bet many of you) know deaf people who do. This is not a theoretical, it's the set of facts on the ground.

This is a faulty comparison. Especially considering many here seem to think I'm saying the deaf should be required to do these things. I am not. I'm saying they can. It's not close to being beyond them. But if they don't, that's ok too, it's their choice.

Maybe Shizune has heard of the "deaf accent", together with some negatives about it, and has decided she doesn't want to be associated with it, and so has simply decided she just won't talk. If so, that's her choice to make. (More likely, the writers despaired of doing anything to represent this in the game and just went with unexplainable muteness and called it a day. I can't say I blame them.)

And that damn paraplegic is just being lazy by using a wheelchair. With enough physical therapy, he should be able to manage.

It's a little funny you should bring wheelchairs into this. Why are those normal, useful, uncontroversial tools amongst the paraplegic community, but cochlear implants a humiliating, unwelcome intrusion of technology to the deaf one? People are weird, is what I'm sayin'.

How receptive was Jigoro to this advice? - It seems patently absurd that Jigoro would disregard the recommendations of one of the few tutors who actually got any sort of results.

It's possible he disregarded results not to his liking, e.g., anything other than forcing her to talk.

That’s right. The people who are Deaf that I know who use spoken language vary greatly from person to person in terms of how clear their speech is.

They do. But making an effort to understand it is the least any hearing person can do, so I always try my best. I feel like I'm being met more than halfway, so I've no right to complain.

Some choose to go ‘voice off’ because they don’t like their ‘Deaf accent’ or because they prefer to communicate using sign.

Ah. There's my theory I just mentioned!

The North American Deaf community reviles people for getting cochlear implants to regain their hearing, too, branding them traitors. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it.

I absolutely do put stock in it, it’s their community and culture and language.

Is that more important than the choices made by those who want CIs? Or the choices made by anyone in the community about anything else, either?

the general view as I’ve encountered it is more than CIs are not the panacea/miracle cure they’re made out to be. They don’t work in every situation, get uncomfortable after long periods, are expensive, and don’t provide perfect or sometimes even clear hearing.

That's all down to the state of the technology at any given moment. And like any new technology, it's improving all the time. People who undercut them by imposing a stigma don't accomplish anything besides holding back new advances.

I can't perceive radio waves, but I communicate using them all the time…

If you’re not going to take this seriously, I won’t bother talking to you.

Heaven forfend. You're being so pleasant, I wouldn't want to lose you.

You don’t communicate using the radio waves directly, you use them to transmit information that is then reproduced in a form that you can perceive.

That gives the deaf an advantage in using sound that I don't have in using radio. I can neither directly produce nor directly perceive radio waves; but the deaf can directly produce sound waves. So it should be easier for them to communicate using sound than it is for me to communicate using radio. Yet, here I am, using my cell phone all day every day to do just that. In point of fact, I rarely even use the sound-to-radio-to-sound capabilities of this device; the vast majority of the communication I do with it is using something else I can't directly produce: textual data.

On the Internet (and the SMS messages), nobody knows you're deaf.

All things being equal, I'm inclined to say anything Jigoro wants is unreasonable. And, no, a deaf person can't learn not to be deaf. However, it is completely possible for a deaf (or Deaf) person to learn to get along ok in the hearing world. I've known several who did it just fine.

There’s a difference between just ‘getting along’ and having a decent, happy life. That one guy who you claim had a ‘90% success rate’ reading lips is very much the exception. Consider what I said above, that their trying to accommodate you is requiring a lot more effort on their part than you accommodating them.

Again, this sounds like you're accusing me of saying it should be required. Please tell me where I said that so I can edit the typo.

If Shizune's mom isn't alive anymore, it could be that Shizune lost her at the age of 6. It could be that previous to that point, Shizune would interact with her father (not literally talk) due to her mom acting as the motivator and in-between.

That's a pretty interesting theory, actually. It would explain a lot.

There often are over-radicalized people in communities. Just like that there are orthodox religious and others less so. Some are conservative, others are progressive. Some are religious, others aren't.

I'd be interested to see any polling numbers around how the deaf (and the Deaf, for comparison) feel about these things, but my Google-fu is failing me today.

Stop talking if you're only going to consider things only from your own point of view. Those people have their own point of view and while I don't agree with them (including branding CI users traitors), I do get why they view it like that.

Hear that everyone? If you don't admit everyone in the world has a point, you don't get to talk.

her graduating cohort has been defining themselves by extensive multimodal communication and extensive social networking. Moreover any employer she talks to is going to expect those skills out of her.

Really, though, everyone at Yamaku seems to have this problem — low-tech-itis. I suspect it's more a choice on the writers' part to reduce outside entanglements that would complicate (and possibly bog down) the story. Also, there's the problem that technology does much to screw up plot points and dramatic tension. How many classic masterworks of narrative storytelling would be completely ruined by everyone having cell phones they can use whenever they want?

(Dangit that was a long message.)

[ProfAllister]

Well, to everyone here, let's try to calm down a little, before this turns into a Category 5 shitstorm.

And, though it may be a bit presumptuous since they agree with me, I'd kindly request you (that means everyone) be a tiny bit more respectful to Kutagh and metalangel. It is my understanding that Kutagh is deaf (with a CI) and metalangel regularly works with the deaf in his personal and professional life. They have a wealth of firsthand experience and knowledge on this subject. Unfortunately, I have seen several posts here where their insights are flippantly dismissed with references to anecdata (the plural of anecdote).

For a "deafie" to communicate with the "hearing," one of them is normally speaking in a foreign language.

That needs stats to back up the word "normally". As I say, I've known plenty of deaf people who could talk and read lips more than well enough to have to fall back on other methods only upon the occasional difficulty.

I guess I wasn't clear here. Spoken language is essentially foreign to a deafie (with sign language as their native language); Sign Language is a foreign language for most non-CODA hearing people.

And, to be honest, I don't think you realise how ignorant your "I've known plenty of deaf people..." argument sounds. I know someone who's spent her whole life with rheumatoid arthritis, and she appears to do well enough on her own, but I wouldn't dare make the presumption that her apparent ease in handling life with joint inflammation translates to actual ease doing so. No one disputes that deafies can develop proficiencies in communicating with hearing people. We are discussing relative difficulty/accuracy and whether deafies should be expected to develop these proficiencies.
We're all happy for your deafie acquaintances, if their management of deafness is as easy as you seem to imply. But, as a secondhand account from an outside observer, it's relatively worthless in terms of general insight.

The ability to communicate in your native language is a luxury most people take for granted until it's gone.

An easy way to experience this is to travel to a country where they don't speak your language(s). I've done this, and it does put one on one's toes.

My point exactly. It's not an easy experience, and it's one that society often expects of deafies. We can attempt to draw an analogy to immigrants, and how the Italians (generally speaking) learned English in order to integrate into society, tot he point where they are no longer considered "minorities." However, the key distinction here is that, unlike the Italians, deafies can never be taught to "understand" spoken English; they can be taught to make educated guesses and fake it.

An additional feature of deafness (tied into the former) that separates it from many other disabilities is that deafies are expected to accommodate the hearing, instead of the other way around.

They are? They can, in theory, but expecting it is a little presumptuous. It might be "considered a good idea", or "probably for the best", but "expecting" implies something more like "screw you if you don't", and I don't think that's what's up (except maybe for the Jigoro types out there).

Deafies are expected to be able to read lips, even to speak, to use a pencil and paper or terrible speech-to-text and text-to-speech utilities (all in a foreign language, mind you), to watch closed-captioned TV shows and movies in a manner convenient to the hearing people around them, all while hearing people can't even remember to give the basic courtesy of looking at them while talking.

Er. I'm a little confused by a couple of items in this list. I'm wondering why speaking is an "even this" item, as it seems like one of the easier of the tasks. Lip reading seems like it would be harder, to me. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about the closed captioning. What does "convenient to the hearing people around them" mean? I mean, you have them or you don't.

Question, meet answer. You take the ease of living in a sound-based world so much for granted that you can't even see the assumptions you're making. Speaking is far from an "easy" task, for the key reason that they have no direct feedback. It's a poor approximation, but there's a parlor game that might give you a sense of the difficulty involved: Keeping your eyes closed, draw a pig.

...

Doesn't look much like a pig, does it? (And if it does, congratulations - you're a statistical outlier). Now, of course, the more practice you get, the easier it becomes. But the practice you're getting is likely to include direct feedback - you finish, open your eyes, and you get to see what your attempt looks like. Instead, imagine going through this exercise repeatedly until you get it right. Except, you're never allowed to see your results - someone else will look at them, tell you what is and isn't right, and then you try again.

Now, as the final twist of the knife, imagine starting with no idea what a pig looks like - you have a general description, potentially even holding someone's hand as they draw a pig (with their eyes open). That is roughly what it would be like to learn how to speak for a deafie.

Closed captioning/subtitles is an annoyance I've seen expressed many times by deafies and hard of hearing (HoH). It feels like such a minor thing to hearing people, but it's huge for them. How often have you seen a (non-foreign) film with on-screen CC/Sub in a theater? Much more often, the deafie will have to go to the service desk to request a bulky, 40-year-old piece of crap that's barely been maintained. And even with the foreign movies, the CC/Sub is only marginally helpful, because (supplementary) lip reading is used heavily by deafies - it's pretty worthless when the lips don't match the subs.

Little things like that, everywhere you go. Audio cues without corresponding visuals (some video games are absolutely unplayable on mute), loudspeaker announcements, or even the simple annoyance of having to preface every conversation with "I'm deaf/hearing impaired."

And going back to video games, I know off the top of my head that many multiplayer games only allow for voice chat (for example, Mass Effect 3).

Some of those things can't be helped. But far more often, it's because the hearing people making the decisions don't even think about it, and, once it's brought to their attention, can't be bothered to fix it.

The point of all this is that a significant portion of deafies consider their deafness part of their identity; part of who they are.

I can see that being the case; but all the same, it smacks of yet more tribalism in a world plagued by it. We're us, and you're you, and you stay over there or else. :/

Tribalism is a basic reality of the human condition. Any competent sociologist or philosopher will admit to that. People are naturally inclined to associate with others who share something in common. By participation in this forum, you are, to some degree, part of the "Katawa Shoujo" tribe. When participating in this discussion, there's a part of you that groans and thinks "ugh, it's one of them" when someone from the other side of the discussion replies.

There's the separation, but also the community of shared experience. We associate with each other here because we discuss the intricacies of a cripple porn game. You have friends with whom you discuss League of Legends, or World of Warcraft, or whatever else. It's all nice and good to say that you've made peace with the jocks at your school (or whatever), but when they're talking about gains, or the Big Game, or Call of Duty, or whatever else, you feel the profound disconnect, because they care about something you don't, and you don't have the knowledge or inclination to participate in the discussion.

The Deaf community comes from a shared experience. It is more defined than other communities because the inherently communicative nature of deafness creates a massive rift between the Deaf and the hearing. And, as icing on the cake, there is a LONG history of deafies being marginalised.

I know you're well-intentioned, but it is FAR too easy for your comments to come off as "stop whining, stop being stupid with your petty tribalism, and toss aside your own culture and way of life so you can be more like us." Hardly the most diplomatic (or least tribalist) way of approaching things.

many deafies look upon cochlear implants in a very negative light - just the newest in a long line of humiliations deafies are expected to subject themselves to so that they might be "Fixed" and acceptable to the hearing populace.

Regardless of what those who take that view think, I'm pretty sure people who get cochlear implants do not consider it a humiliation. Everything I've seen points to them considering it a miracle of the age. To denigrate (or concern-troll?) people who want them or get them stinks of Crab Mentality.

There's a ton of very nuanced discussion on the topic. Just do a Google search for "ASL Cochlear Implant." This is one example. It's not an example of "we had to do it the hard way, and you do, too;" it's "we have decades, even centuries of culture and heritage here, but we're facing pressure on all sides to give up everything for the sake of integration. This isn't simply changing language; it's changing an entire way of life, with the implication that one is indisuputably superior to the other.

That being said, this really isn't the proper context to discuss something like this - it doesn't appear that we have any representatives from the anti-CI side to really defend that position. The best we have is blog posts from the internet.

The cochlear implant issue is more complex than you imply (also, that is one HELL of an false dilemma).

Not seeing the false dilemma I posed. Little help?

Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus. Whether intentional or not, your counterargument was presented as "The Deaf community also holds [position Y], so there's absolutely no credibility in their embrace of [position Y]."

You can communicate using radio waves, but you'd be pretty pissed off if people expected you to communicate exclusively by radio waves, because everyone else perceives them just fine (besides, your meat-slapping "vocalisations" aren't a real language, and it's kinda vulgar to look at; certainly not something anyone should have to learn - you should be fine with carrying around a portable HAM radio).

I carry one around right now. We all do. They're called cell phones. And I'm sure many of you know people who, instead of face-to-face, prefer being contacted by phone (or even email or text, or…). Doesn't piss me off in the slightest.

You aren't required to use it. And you're using a tool specifically designed to facilitate vocal communications (and designed by hearing individuals). A HAM radio more closely resembles the tech level and level of convenience you'd have in a "radio-only" society - if that good. And no one disputes the legitimacy of vocalisation as a form of communication.

Refer to my previous quote about paraplegics sucking it up and using the stairs.

How many paraplegics do you know who manage to "suck it up and use the stairs" just fine? Meanwhile, I (and I bet many of you) know deaf people who do. This is not a theoretical, it's the set of facts on the ground.

Refer to my previous comment on "deaf people you know." I know several paraplegics who CAN move themselves around to a limited degree without wheelchairs. It's a skill few bother to acquire of use because it isn't expected of them. You go tot he grocery store to get meat, rather than roaming the Serengeti with a spear to hunt for your meat. The fact that you don't know how to do spear hunting on the Serengeti doesn't mean you can't - only that you haven't had the need.

This is a faulty comparison. Especially considering many here seem to think I'm saying the deaf should be required to do these things. I am not. I'm saying they can. It's not close to being beyond them. But if they don't, that's ok too, it's their choice.

I may have misread, but you seem to be heavily implying that it's indisputably better for them to do things the Hearing way, and that there is absolutely no obligation for Hearing society to accommodate them. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Maybe Shizune has heard of the "deaf accent", together with some negatives about it, and has decided she doesn't want to be associated with it, and so has simply decided she just won't talk. If so, that's her choice to make. (More likely, the writers despaired of doing anything to represent this in the game and just went with unexplainable muteness and called it a day. I can't say I blame them.)

Of course we can throw our hands up in the air and say "it doesn't matter, it's a cripple porn game." We've decided that it's better to try reconciling the text with what we know of deafness.

And that damn paraplegic is just being lazy by using a wheelchair. With enough physical therapy, he should be able to manage.

It's a little funny you should bring wheelchairs into this. Why are those normal, useful, uncontroversial tools amongst the paraplegic community, but cochlear implants a humiliating, unwelcome intrusion of technology to the deaf one? People are weird, is what I'm sayin'.

False equivalence. Besides, I already mentioned that deafness is unique in that it impairs communication. Paraplegics (generally) have had no trouble communicating with "walking" people. Also, there's not the same history of paraplegics being abused because their paralysis is simply a mental or neurological block that can be fixed (which would include such "treatments" as training them to get around unaided).

How receptive was Jigoro to this advice? - It seems patently absurd that Jigoro would disregard the recommendations of one of the few tutors who actually got any sort of results.

It's possible he disregarded results not to his liking, e.g., anything other than forcing her to talk.

Indeed. I touched on that possibility. Did you have anything to contribute other than restating what I said?

That’s right. The people who are Deaf that I know who use spoken language vary greatly from person to person in terms of how clear their speech is.

They do. But making an effort to understand it is the least any hearing person can do, so I always try my best. I feel like I'm being met more than halfway, so I've no right to complain.

But the key point is that you expect to be met halfway. That is what they object to. No other disability has this same "meet halfway" requirement.

Some choose to go ‘voice off’ because they don’t like their ‘Deaf accent’ or because they prefer to communicate using sign.

Ah. There's my theory I just mentioned!

A theory disputed by no one here.

The North American Deaf community reviles people for getting cochlear implants to regain their hearing, too, branding them traitors. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it.

I absolutely do put stock in it, it’s their community and culture and language.

Is that more important than the choices made by those who want CIs? Or the choices made by anyone in the community about anything else, either?

Culture's a messy thing. Justified or not, when it comes to reviling individuals who make the choice themselves, it's pretty much the exact same concept as black people and "Uncle Toms." Whether or not someone who holds that opinion would agree is something we can't really determine here. However, I would strongly recommend we not discredit an entire community for the actions and opinions of their worst actors.

You don’t communicate using the radio waves directly, you use them to transmit information that is then reproduced in a form that you can perceive.

That gives the deaf an advantage in using sound that I don't have in using radio. I can neither directly produce nor directly perceive radio waves; but the deaf can directly produce sound waves. So it should be easier for them to communicate using sound than it is for me to communicate using radio. Yet, here I am, using my cell phone all day every day to do just that. In point of fact, I rarely even use the sound-to-radio-to-sound capabilities of this device; the vast majority of the communication I do with it is using something else I can't directly produce: textual data.

On the Internet (and the SMS messages), nobody knows you're deaf.

You're making a poor comparison. The phone comes with instant feedback. A deaf person's voice does not. The equivalent of a deaf person speaking would be you running an electrical current through an antenna. No tools, no intermediaries, just the basic principles of radio transmission.

If Shizune's mom isn't alive anymore, it could be that Shizune lost her at the age of 6. It could be that previous to that point, Shizune would interact with her father (not literally talk) due to her mom acting as the motivator and in-between.

That's a pretty interesting theory, actually. It would explain a lot.

I haven't addressed it directly, but yes, there is definitely the possibility that "Saint Mayoi" was the key that made everything work. I'm just arguing that it's not the only possibility.

Stop talking if you're only going to consider things only from your own point of view. Those people have their own point of view and while I don't agree with them (including branding CI users traitors), I do get why they view it like that.

Hear that everyone? If you don't admit everyone in the world has a point, you don't get to talk.

You (implicitly) denied the legitimacy the opinions of an entire community over a single point. And also seemed to state that there's no rational reason someone would get to that position. If you think it's acceptable to argue that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of bad faith, then you aren't going to be the source of much productive debate.

[Munchenhausen]

Well, to everyone here, let's try to calm down a little, before this turns into a Category 5 shitstorm.

Seems a bit late for that...

[Kutagh]

Having better access to computers would solve a lot of communication problems.

You'd think that, but Shizune doesn't seem to like writting to reply to people and doesn't even check the messages she does get on her phone very often.

What is the main difference between face-to-face communication and conversation through text/paper/whatever? It's an abstraction layer, a filter that removes some of the emotion in the conversation. The medium influences significantly how the emotion is transferred, in Misha's case the stern strict emotion that Shizune tries to convey is partially replaced by Misha's bubbly joyful personality. It's simply different. It's simply not a substitute for conversation, just like Emi's prosthetics are no real substitute for her now-lost real legs: it works but it is not the same.

And Atario, I kindly request you again to stop referring to people you vaguely know, of whom you barely know how much time and effort they invested in their whole life to get to the stage they currently are at, as well as viewing them as society's expected norm for Deaf people. The only people that can even vaguely guess how much effort went into it are most definitely not the bystanders, it's my direct family. So please do not presume that because you 'know' a Deaf person living in the hearing world with apparent effort, that you know how much effort it actually is. You have not seen them when they get home after a long day with various meetings.
I've lived like that my whole life, solely in a hearing world. I still do not really enjoy the hearing world, I prefer the Deaf world. And that is with spoken languages as my native language, sign language as a recently properly acquired second language. That has nothing to do with the friendliness of hearing people or Deaf people.
As for the "fixing" thing: Despite my way of living so much in the hearing world, I still consider myself deaf first. I have two cochlear implants, I live primarily in the hearing world, that never changed my feeling that deafness is part of my identity. Hearing aids, cochlear implants, lip reading etc etc, they're all just tools to use in order to communicate with the hearing world. They're not a fix nor a cure and never will be. And if people talk about 'fixing' or 'curing' deafness, they're indirectly saying that my identity is worthless. That I'm not even worth the same consideration that for example Chinese immigrants often get (Chinatown).

Would you want to be treated basically like a number, like dirt, for literally no benefit because the hearing world will always consider you a hassle, not worth the effort, despite being 'fixed'? Despite having cochlear implants, finding a job is still harder than for hearing people because of prejudices. Why would I want to conform to the hearing world? Do tell me, give me a good reason. Even going through all that effort, I'll still be treated like dirt, like I don't matter.

It should be clear that I'm not living my live like this to conform to the expectations of the hearing people. If I had no need whatsoever for any of this, I'd drop it in a heartbeat, I'd treat you (the hearing population in general) like dirt. I'm conforming because I have personal selfish goals that require it. I'd be surprised if most deaf people (not late deaf, people that actually lived their whole life as deaf people) that live primarily in the hearing world in whatever way they do (lip reading, cochlear implants etc) do it just to conform to the hearing population.

Some of those things can't be helped. But far more often, it's because the hearing people making the decisions don't even think about it, and, once it's brought to their attention, can't be bothered to fix it.

Anecdote: In the Netherlands we have the "OV-chipkaart" (basically a NFC payment card for public transport). When it was still in the design phase, it had been brought to the attention of the committee that the current implementation did not take in account the Deaf population properly (when you check in, you hold the card to a machine, which then beeps and shows that you're checked in. The screen however stays like that for several seconds and with quick check-ins in succession literally does not change, only the repeated beeps are any indication. This means that you either wait five seconds after the previous person or you don't know whether you properly checked in. Doesn't sound so bad? Wait until there's a long queue...). Suffice to say, despite it being brought to their attention in a timely manner, it still was not fixed or changed.

[Potato]

many deafies look upon cochlear implants in a very negative light - just the newest in a long line of humiliations deafies are expected to subject themselves to...

I have never heard implants described as humiliating, nor have I never seen anyone "expect" deaf people to get such implants as if it's some obligation the deaf have to accommodate the hearing folk...

I'd treat you (the hearing population in general) like dirt.

You seem awfully set against people viewing you as less due to your condition for someone who just admitted you'd happily treat an entire segment of humanity like dirt.

[Oddball]

When you're coming right out and admitting that you're willing to treat people like dirt for being different than you maybe it's time to step out of the conversation.

[Atario]

Well, to everyone here, let's try to calm down a little, before this turns into a Category 5 shitstorm.

Ohhh, this is nothing, my friend. This thread is still not even to the point of actual name-calling. I'd say we're keeping it more civil than the vast majority of online communities would do. Pat yourself on the back, everyone!

It is my understanding that Kutagh is deaf (with a CI) and metalangel regularly works with the deaf in his personal and professional life. They have a wealth of firsthand experience and knowledge on this subject.

That may be. But even experts still need to make a case. Argument From Authority won't fly.

Spoken language is essentially foreign to a deafie (with sign language as their native language)

That all depends on the individual. A lot of deaf people acquired their deafness after having been a speaking person.

And, to be honest, I don't think you realise how ignorant your "I've known plenty of deaf people..." argument sounds. I know someone who's spent her whole life with rheumatoid arthritis, and she appears to do well enough on her own, but I wouldn't dare make the presumption that her apparent ease in handling life with joint inflammation translates to actual ease doing so. No one disputes that deafies can develop proficiencies in communicating with hearing people. We are discussing relative difficulty/accuracy and whether deafies should be expected to develop these proficiencies.

I realize that. But I'm neither saying that the deaf have it easy nor am I saying they should learn accommodative techniques or else screw them. I'm simply saying it's not in the same ballpark as, say, dragging yourself by your arms everywhere you go. Lip reading and deaf speaking are not easy, surely, but they're certainly doable, and effectively so, on a day-to-day basis. My "I've known people" statements are merely intended to establish that this is not some pie-in-the-sky impossible dream. If even someone who knows as few people as I do knows people who do it, then it can't be rare, nor herculean. People do it, and they do it all the time.

But, as a secondhand account from an outside observer, it's relatively worthless in terms of general insight.

Then I guess we all have to shut up and let Kutagh declare what is true and what is not. Right? Come on, man.

My point exactly. It's not an easy experience, and it's one that society often expects of deafies.

I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what it is you mean when you keep using that word — expects. It sounds like you mean if we were being fair, we'd all learn sign language.

Speaking is far from an "easy" task, for the key reason that they have no direct feedback. It's a poor approximation

That's fine. I'm not talking about replicating speech so flawlessly that no one can guess you're deaf. I'm talking about speaking well enough to be able to order your meal at a restaurant. You can be pretty sloppy and still manage that much.

Now, as the final twist of the knife, imagine starting with no idea what a pig looks like - you have a general description, potentially even holding someone's hand as they draw a pig (with their eyes open). That is roughly what it would be like to learn how to speak for a deafie.

Again, you're presuming two things: profound or total deafness; and a pre-consciousness onset.

Closed captioning/subtitles is an annoyance I've seen expressed many times by deafies and hard of hearing (HoH). It feels like such a minor thing to hearing people, but it's huge for them. How often have you seen a (non-foreign) film with on-screen CC/Sub in a theater? Much more often, the deafie will have to go to the service desk to request a bulky, 40-year-old piece of crap that's barely been maintained.

Are you suggesting all movies be shown with open captions?

Also, I don't know when the last time was you used an in-theater closed caption device, but all the ones I've used have been pretty new, worked flawlessly, and were no harder to carry than a baton.

And even with the foreign movies, the CC/Sub is only marginally helpful, because (supplementary) lip reading is used heavily by deafies - it's pretty worthless when the lips don't match the subs.

How is an English subtitle ever going to match the lips of a non-English film?

But I can agree that same-language subs should match spoken words. But whenever I say anything, I'm told that it's too hard to keep up unless they simplify the words. Dunno how anyone's coming to that conclusion, though. [shrug] I can only guess they're trying to accommodate slow readers.

Tribalism is a basic reality of the human condition. Any competent sociologist or philosopher will admit to that. People are naturally inclined to associate with others who share something in common.

It's not the association that's the problem. It's the enforcement of norms, the denigration or expulsion of the insufficiently devoted, the exclusion of "outsiders". Tribalism is the cause of a major chunk of the world's woes, and we'd all do well to do what we can against that.

The Deaf community comes from a shared experience. It is more defined than other communities because the inherently communicative nature of deafness creates a massive rift between the Deaf and the hearing.

That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. When I start having a problem is when they start telling people they're traitors because of their personal choices instead of being supportive, or openly wish for children to be born deaf, or the like.

there is a LONG history of deafies being marginalised.

Join the club. Groups of people being marginalized is a common refrain in the music of history. But reacting in an ugly way is a choice too.

I know you're well-intentioned, but it is FAR too easy for your comments to come off as "stop whining, stop being stupid with your petty tribalism, and toss aside your own culture and way of life so you can be more like us." Hardly the most diplomatic (or least tribalist) way of approaching things.

I'd love to know where anything I said sounded anything close to "stop whining" or "be more like us". As far as I have ever seen, deaf people don't whine about much. At least, not more than the rest of us, and even then it rarely has to do with deafness. And as far as "being like us" — they are, for good or ill.

There's a ton of very nuanced discussion on the topic. Just do a Google search for "ASL Cochlear Implant." This is one example. It's not an example of "we had to do it the hard way, and you do, too;" it's "we have decades, even centuries of culture and heritage here, but we're facing pressure on all sides to give up everything for the sake of integration. This isn't simply changing language; it's changing an entire way of life, with the implication that one is indisuputably superior to the other.

These things happen, though. Pen-pals used to be a beloved tradition. Then the Internet came along. Spinning thread and weaving cloth used to be widespread and had its own at-home industry and culture. Then the Industrial Revolution happened. I can see being sad for the passing of a nexus of shared interest. But I can't see wanting to preserve it at the expense of people. I mean, if there were a magic wand amazing technology that meant no one would ever have to be deaf again, would people argue that it should be banned? Some people sound like it, honestly. But pardon my gaucheness when I would say: hell yes we should use it. Having more options is always better.

Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus. Whether intentional or not, your counterargument was presented as "The Deaf community also holds [position Y], so there's absolutely no credibility in their embrace of [position Y]."

I'm not saying everything they say has to be wrong. I'm just saying they're not the single source of truth. "Take it with a grain of salt", the expression goes.

You aren't required to use it.

And if I were? Would I refuse, and instead go through life cut off from most of the world out of spite, or pride? It's possible. But I wouldn't call it the wisest conceivable move.

And you're using a tool specifically designed to facilitate vocal communications (and designed by hearing individuals).

Would a deaf-to-hearing interface device designed by the deaf be better than one designed by others? Maybe. They should try! (Have they not…?)

(But you're forgetting what I said about voice being the least-used feature of the thing…)

And no one disputes the legitimacy of vocalisation as a form of communication.

Is someone saying sign language is illegitimate??

I may have misread, but you seem to be heavily implying that it's indisputably better for them to do things the Hearing way, and that there is absolutely no obligation for Hearing society to accommodate them. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Doing things "the hearing way" or not, it's indisputable that they're better off being able to deal with the hearing world and not be confined to a deaf-only ghetto (regardless of how nice, or of one's own making or not). It's also indisputable that it's far easier for < 0.5% of a population to do something than the > 99.5% to do something. Even so, of course it's still the individual's choice based on the individual's ease and preference (and not the Deaf community extremists nor the Jigoros of the world to make for one). That goes both ways, by the way — a hearing individual has the choice of learning sign language (or whatever else) or not too.

False equivalence.

I don't see how. A wheelchair replaces, imperfectly, the primary functionality of legs in a person who doesn't have a working pair of them; a cochlear implant replaces, imperfectly, the primary functionality of hearing in a person who doesn't have a working sense of hearing. It's just that one kind of device existed before any of us were born and is therefore the right and natural state of the world, whereas the other is an uppity newcomer that won't shut up like it's told.

Indeed. I touched on that possibility. Did you have anything to contribute other than restating what I said?

Getting pretty snippy, aren't we?

I don't see where you addressed that. If you mean your assertion that being successful means being reasonable, and therefore he can't reject results not to his liking, then I'd have to say it's not Jigoro you have a problem with, but the writers. They've very clearly made him both unreasonable and successful. I would also posit that there are lot — a lot — of unreasonable-yet-successful people out there in the real world too.

But the key point is that you expect to be met halfway. That is what they object to. No other disability has this same "meet halfway" requirement.

No, the key point is that you keep accusing me of "expecting". Where in that did I say I expected anything? Answer: nowhere. So please stop it.

What do I "expect"? I expect that if I can't converse with someone by talking and listening, I'm going to have to find some other way. Interpreter? Pen and paper? Typing on something? Ok. So what?

A theory disputed by no one here.

Sorry I recognized what I said being independently invented by someone else. I hope I didn't offend you too badly by doing so.

I would strongly recommend we not discredit an entire community for the actions and opinions of their worst actors.

There's discrediting everyone and everything about a community, and then there's discrediting at least some of the people and at least some of the things about a community. It's this latter thing that I did.

You're making a poor comparison. The phone comes with instant feedback.

Not the textual stuff. Sometimes I don't know whether what I sent got there at all. Even in the best of cases, it's on the order of multiple seconds. Correcting a misunderstanding might take a full minute. Making up for something missed entirely might take all day.

Plus, you're forgetting that even the deaf do have tactile feedback — they can still feel whether their tongues touch this or that feature of the mouth or not, where air has flowed or not, whether the vocal cords have vibrated or not, etc. It's not easy, it's not precise, and it takes some concentration, surely, but it's not just sending inputs 100% blindly into a black box and hoping for the best.

If you think it's acceptable to argue that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of bad faith, then you aren't going to be the source of much productive debate.

Have I told anyone here to shut up? Have I accused anyone here of acting in bad faith? Answer to both is no. Which is more than I can say for the way I'm being treated (not specifically meaning by you). Defense rests, your honor.

And Atario, I kindly request you again to stop referring to people you vaguely know, of whom you barely know how much time and effort they invested in their whole life to get to the stage they currently are at, as well as viewing them as society's expected norm for Deaf people. The only people that can even vaguely guess how much effort went into it are most definitely not the bystanders, it's my direct family. So please do not presume that because you 'know' a Deaf person living in the hearing world with apparent effort, that you know how much effort it actually is. You have not seen them when they get home after a long day with various meetings.

For someone accusing me of presumption, you're pretty presumptuous yourself. How do you know how well I know these people? How do you know who I've seen after a long day? Oh, I forgot. You know everything and I know nothing, so I should just shut up. Right?

As for expected (there's that word again…) norms: all I'm saying is that it's doable. I'm also saying it's not as hard as, say, Lilly playing pool. The choice to go to the effort is up to the individual — taking into account the costs and benefits involved, just like anything else. And anyone choosing whatever path should not be made to feel like shit for it, especially not those framing themselves as compatriots.

Hearing aids, cochlear implants, lip reading etc etc, they're all just tools to use in order to communicate with the hearing world.

This seems awfully shortsighted. Is it not useful to be able to hear if you left the water running without having to go in there and look? Is it not useful to hear the screech of tires on pavement as a car careens out of control behind your back?

I mean, let's turn it around. Let's say someone really invented Geordi's visor from Star Trek: The Next Generation. That would be damned useful to have even if your eyes were fine — you would be able to see a vastly wider band of wavelength than just visible light, you could zoom in or out, you could probably record stills or video of it, I imagine you could use it as a monitor, etc. I bet a lot of people would want that, maybe even if it meant they'd have to sacrifice their own real eyes. Having an added ability must always be a good thing, I would guess.

They're not a fix nor a cure and never will be.

Never's a long time. And technology advances constantly.

And if people talk about 'fixing' or 'curing' deafness, they're indirectly saying that my identity is worthless.

On the other hand, you're defining your identity as being based on an inability to do something. If you were able to perfectly remove that inability, would you reject it because you prefer having the identity over having the ability?

That I'm not even worth the same consideration that for example Chinese immigrants often get (Chinatown).

The primary mission of Chinatowns has been to act as a transitional place for new immigrants to acclimate to the new culture, and in most (if not nearly all) cases, they were set up by the immigrants themselves for the purpose. So they don't quite represent what you think they do.

Would you want to be treated basically like a number, like dirt, for literally no benefit because the hearing world will always consider you a hassle, not worth the effort, despite being 'fixed'? Despite having cochlear implants, finding a job is still harder than for hearing people because of prejudices. Why would I want to conform to the hearing world? Do tell me, give me a good reason. Even going through all that effort, I'll still be treated like dirt, like I don't matter.

I don't know if this will come as bad news or good, but: people generally treat one another like they're going to treat one another regardless of deafness or anything else. Beyond that, it may surprise you to know that we hearing types get treated like dirt or not depending on any number of bullshit factors too. One of yours happens to be more detectable than many. But there are things that have nothing to do with disability that are as discriminated against or worse (I bet I don't have to begin naming any — you can name several right off the top of your head). By the same token, this makes it easier for you to tell who's an ass and who's not by how they treat you right from the start. A lot of us have to guess, or await the day when whatever it is gets detected and then all of a sudden everything changes for no discernible reason. On the other hand, knowing makes it clear a lot of people are asses. I'm not saying it's better or worse either way, it just is what it is.

If I had no need whatsoever for any of this, I'd drop it in a heartbeat, I'd treat you (the hearing population in general) like dirt.

This sounds like spite. It won't serve you well in life.

"OV-chipkaart"

Could be a problem even for people who are just getting old too.

[Steinherz]

Never's a long time. And technology advances constantly.

People said the same thing about Polio and look what we have now.
There will be a cure for deafness, and there will be a fix for it.
The question is not "if there will ever be" but "if people will use it".

[Kutagh]

On the other hand, you're defining your identity as being based on an inability to do something. If you were able to perfectly remove that inability, would you reject it because you prefer having the identity over having the ability?

If I would not view it as necessary to my goals, yes. I'd think that if you did read the point of me easily giving up on hearing aids etc, you'd already know the answer. And your sentence shows a massive misunderstanding of my identity: It's my lifestyle, the Deaf culture, Sign Language to name but a few. Several things that are part of my identity but not an inability. And I do not feel the need to "fit in", especially not with the hearing world.
Add to this that identity is mainly based upon things that makes me different from you. If we were one big community of identical people, there would be no identity. Therefore, removing one thing that makes me different from a lot of people essentially removes part of my identity.

For someone accusing me of presumption, you're pretty presumptuous yourself. How do you know how well I know these people? How do you know who I've seen after a long day? Oh, I forgot. You know everything and I know nothing, so I should just shut up. Right?

Is it really presumptuous when I know the exact feeling they have after a long day? People handle it differently, but I know from experience most of us that live that way are keeping up a front. Let me just tell you what we're constantly doing when listening to someone:

In my case, it is:
- Finding the speaker/source.
- Listening to the sounds, trying to focus on specific voices. Which is a skill that is not as well developed as for hearing people (better hearing allows you to hear more differences as well as usually being more passively trained in it by hearing from your birth onwards). This allows me to understand about 50% when concentrating well (another tiring aspect, constant concentration).
- Reading body language, lip reading: A skill that allows you to understand about 30%, which does not stack onto the above. In combination with hearing, it should yield an expected understanding of 60~65%.
- Racking my brain constantly, puzzling to fit the pieces... Just like when you hear 'to beer' you first think and then realize it was "two beer". We're doing that even more often than you are. Combined with the above two, it brings understanding to about 90%.
Those numbers are in (almost) ideal situations. Make it extremely noisy, talking in a group, it drops easily to 30% that I understand on sound/lip and rest of it guesswork, which makes it even more tiring.

This means that two in every three words, I can understand. Which seems like a lot and with good guesswork, you'll understand most of it. However, with that Deaf person you mentioned that gets by on lip reading (and if you know him well enough to know he wouldn't mind helping out), prepare a short story that is not clear, really confusing etc (for example, change subject halfway the sentence). Tell it to him (but do not tell him the purpose of the experiment, just that you want to see how much he really understands) and afterwards ask him to repeat it... That should clarify it for you.

And as for myself... I don't show everyone how tired I am after a long day. It's only the direct family that really knows it. The people that you see every morning, every evening, when you're sick... Not the hundreds of people that you see during the day, when working or at school.

So, is it really presumptuous of me to know how that other Deaf person is feeling at the end of the day? And that you would most certainly have realized how exhausting it is and either dismissed it, thus reinforcing the idea of being lazy, letting other people do all the work so you don't have to, or you would have mentioned it to have a reasonable discussion by laying out all the facts? As I said, good guesswork is a major part of my life, since I'm doing it all the time when communicating with the hearing world.

As for expected (there's that word again…) norms: all I'm saying is that it's doable. I'm also saying it's not as hard as, say, Lilly playing pool. The choice to go to the effort is up to the individual — taking into account the costs and benefits involved, just like anything else. And anyone choosing whatever path should not be made to feel like shit for it, especially not those framing themselves as compatriots.

And you're now going back to presumptions once again. The fact that there are several deafies that are capable of it, does not mean that it is doable for others. Here, you're assuming equal talent or skill or aptitude or whatever. Clearly not everyone has the same skills, talents etc. I most certainly don't have much of an aptitude for mathematics: I get by when needed, but it's not my forte. And there are the (amazing?) mathematicians that are finding new formulas, new proofs.

It's certainly doable for the few that are doing it. Your mistake is overgeneralizing it to the whole Deaf population, with no real support for it except the observation of a few deafies you encountered and most likely don't know it well. And as for expected... And as for Lilly playing pool, she is pretty skilled in spatial awareness. If you let her touch the balls on table (and adapt them properly so they're still fair but have recognizable properties and let me remind you, that is less than what the Deaf have available) and she had a lot of practice, she could do it. Just like speech therapy for the Deaf, which is even harder for a significant portion because a lot don't hear the results (only can approximate a bit with vibrations of the throat, which suffers from some drawbacks similar to lip reading) while Lilly can feel the results of her shots. Can she become a snooker champion? Extremely unlikely, because despite her awareness and such, it is still not as good as being able to see (which is more precise when it's about alignment, just like despite all the possibilities, our "hearing" will still be inferior to normal hearing.

This seems awfully shortsighted. Is it not useful to be able to hear if you left the water running without having to go in there and look? Is it not useful to hear the screech of tires on pavement as a car careens out of control behind your back?

I mean, let's turn it around. Let's say someone really invented Geordi's visor from Star Trek: The Next Generation. That would be damned useful to have even if your eyes were fine — you would be able to see a vastly wider band of wavelength than just visible light, you could zoom in or out, you could probably record stills or video of it, I imagine you could use it as a monitor, etc. I bet a lot of people would want that, maybe even if it meant they'd have to sacrifice their own real eyes. Having an added ability must always be a good thing, I would guess.

Technology can fail in many ways and needs maintenance. There were a few instances of that in TNG. And a lot of people don't realize that various areas related to hearing are significantly worsened for Deaf people like directional placement of sounds. Technology does not fix that yet. And you're assuming an "added ability" always being a good thing, which is only the case when there are no drawbacks whatsoever. Your eyes don't have to be recharged, can't be dropped etc, unlike a visor.
And besides, we got by so far. I'm pretty sure we will get by. If I discount communication with the hearing world, all that is left is at best convenience as you mentioned and music which is a personal taste anyway and which can be substituted in other ways. Also, the screeching of a car... Do you realize cars are getting more silent constantly? And honking is so over(ab)used, that it is just like "the boy that cried wolf": meaningless. Hearing just the screeching of the brakes rarely allow you to get to safety with the average speed(ing) of cars, if they do even try (even more dangerously, because you hear the screeching, you can attempt to evade it while the driver is trying to evade you, both going in the same direction... And because if you hear screeching of brakes, you don't have the time to look and guess properly).

Do you even realize those hearing aids etc can be turned off at will? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I know what exactly I'd miss out on.

I don't know if this will come as bad news or good, but: people generally treat one another like they're going to treat one another regardless of deafness or anything else. Beyond that, it may surprise you to know that we hearing types get treated like dirt or not depending on any number of bullshit factors too. One of yours happens to be more detectable than many. But there are things that have nothing to do with disability that are as discriminated against or worse (I bet I don't have to begin naming any — you can name several right off the top of your head). By the same token, this makes it easier for you to tell who's an ass and who's not by how they treat you right from the start. A lot of us have to guess, or await the day when whatever it is gets detected and then all of a sudden everything changes for no discernible reason. On the other hand, knowing makes it clear a lot of people are asses. I'm not saying it's better or worse either way, it just is what it is.

No need to tell me that it happens for various other reasons. I'm mentioning it to clarify the feeling of "us vs them" because there is a parallel with the negro history: black versus white. Negroes were viewed as stupid, so were Deaf people (in both cases, lack of (suitable) education was the issue). They're still often being discriminated in the 'white' job market, like the Deaf. That makes it no less of an issue.

This sounds like spite. It won't serve you well in life.

What do you know about it serving well? So far I'm doing well, just fine. I'm pretty sure that if you want to dig around, you can see some facts that I stated about myself. Suffice to say that I'm higher educated than 80% of the Dutch population and that I'm looking at a master's degree.

Could be a problem even for people who are just getting old too.

Yes it is, they supplement the numbers of HoH people (which are in the main majority).

People said the same thing about Polio and look what we have now.
There will be a cure for deafness, and there will be a fix for it.
The question is not "if there will ever be" but "if people will use it"

Maybe properly quote & read the context. "They" in this instance refers to "hearing aids, cochlear implants, lip reading". I'm not saying deafness can be fixed, simply not this way. People have been saying ages ago that we would have cybernetics or whatever that would be better than our own body parts. Also, to really be able to create a device that can fully fix all causes of deafness, there is one big major area of knowledge that we lack: The brain. We still have so much more to learn about the brain. But if you want something that really can equal or surpass what you already have, you need a way to present this information in a way that the brain can reliably process it, without damaging the brain.
And if you say that we know plenty about it, we don't. Otherwise we would have cybernetics with nerve interfaces by now. The best prosthetics available now don't interface with nerves, they're triggered by muscles.

[Atario]

If I would not view it as necessary to my goals, yes. I'd think that if you did read the point of me easily giving up on hearing aids etc, you'd already know the answer. And your sentence shows a massive misunderstanding of my identity: It's my lifestyle, the Deaf culture, Sign Language to name but a few. Several things that are part of my identity but not an inability. And I do not feel the need to "fit in", especially not with the hearing world.

Then the next question becomes: even given that you would still know sign language and retain all memories of/ties to the Deaf culture even after said perfect hearing installation, would you still not want to be able to hear?

Add to this that identity is mainly based upon things that makes me different from you. If we were one big community of identical people, there would be no identity. Therefore, removing one thing that makes me different from a lot of people essentially removes part of my identity.

Do you think nothing makes us different besides level of ability to hear?

Do you see differing identity as something merely to loathe others over?

prepare a short story that is not clear, really confusing etc (for example, change subject halfway the sentence). Tell it to him (but do not tell him the purpose of the experiment, just that you want to see how much he really understands) and afterwards ask him to repeat it... That should clarify it for you.

Do the same with a hearing person and he's going to be confused too.

And that you would most certainly have realized how exhausting it is and either dismissed it, thus reinforcing the idea of being lazy, letting other people do all the work so you don't have to

What work is it you think I owe you?

The fact is, regardless of who one is, no random person owes one anything.

or you would have mentioned it to have a reasonable discussion by laying out all the facts?

I have said it isn't easy. I have also said it isn't impossible. But whenever I point out this latter fact, I get called ignorant or insensitive or any number of things. Odd, that.

And you're now going back to presumptions once again. The fact that there are several deafies that are capable of it, does not mean that it is doable for others. Here, you're assuming equal talent or skill or aptitude or whatever.

I have very carefully done the exact opposite of presuming. I said it is up to the individual to make the call based on his own personal cost/benefit analysis. His talents/skills/aptitudes obviously enter into that calculation.

And as for Lilly playing pool, she is pretty skilled in spatial awareness. If you let her touch the balls

You don't know how sorely tempted this makes me to crack a dirty joke. But it would lighten the mood of this Very Serious Debate we're having, and we wouldn't want that…

(and adapt them properly so they're still fair but have recognizable properties and let me remind you, that is less than what the Deaf have available) and she had a lot of practice, she could do it.

Problem: even sighted people mostly kinda suck at it. Also, there are pretty strict rules against non-regulation equipment, against touching things improperly, etc. None of that applies to talking aloud. That's why I used that as an example: it's far harder.

Technology can fail in many ways and needs maintenance.

Same applies to regular body parts.

And besides, we got by so far. I'm pretty sure we will get by.

I thought "getting by" was not good enough, exhausting, etc.?

In any case, we got by without a lot of things. The Internet, for example. But I sure as hell prefer having it.

If I discount communication with the hearing world, all that is left is at best convenience as you mentioned and music which is a personal taste anyway and which can be substituted in other ways. Also, the screeching of a car... Do you realize cars are getting more silent constantly? And honking is so over(ab)used, that it is just like "the boy that cried wolf": meaningless. Hearing just the screeching of the brakes rarely allow you to get to safety with the average speed(ing) of cars, if they do even try (even more dangerously, because you hear the screeching, you can attempt to evade it while the driver is trying to evade you, both going in the same direction... And because if you hear screeching of brakes, you don't have the time to look and guess properly).

Careful, don't pull a muscle grasping for that straw.

The car thing was intended to stand in for the general category of safety. A few other things that one might be interested in being able to hear from out of one's line of sight:

• Gunshots
• Sirens/alarms
• Explosions
• Screams
• Babies crying
• Wild animals growling/barking/etc.

I mean, come on. Vertebrate species universally possess the ability to sense fluid vibrations for a reason, and it's not because they find it fun.

No need to tell me that it happens for various other reasons.

I'm only saying, it's nothing specific to being deaf. Everyone goes through this kind of thing to one degree or another.

I'm mentioning it to clarify the feeling of "us vs them"

If you let it consume you with hate, you'll be hurting yourself the most.

They're still often being discriminated in the 'white' job market, like the Deaf. That makes it no less of an issue.

The solution is not to hate Whitey (or Hearie(?)), but to enlighten those you can, discredit those you can't, and sue those you can prove a case against.

What do you know about it serving well? So far I'm doing well, just fine. I'm pretty sure that if you want to dig around, you can see some facts that I stated about myself. Suffice to say that I'm higher educated than 80% of the Dutch population and that I'm looking at a master's degree.

Do you think a master's degree stops people from not wanting to be near a spiteful person holding it?

Yes it is, they supplement the numbers of HoH people (which are in the main majority).

So is anyone suing the appropriate agency about it?

People have been saying ages ago that we would have cybernetics or whatever that would be better than our own body parts.

We're getting there, slowly but surely. Runners' prosthetic legs (like Emi's) are getting so good, people pretty famously run better after losing their natural legs. Just imagine what's going to happen when someone perfects implantable smartphones. With any luck, they'll figure out Ghost In The Shell technology before I die so I can go all full-body prosthetic and stuff.

Also, to really be able to create a device that can fully fix all causes of deafness

It won't be a single thing; there will be as many treatments as there are causes. For example, they're also looking into stem cell therapies for things like cochlea hair cell damage/malformation.

Otherwise we would have cybernetics with nerve interfaces by now.

A lot of work is being done in this area, and some products do already exist. (Brain-computer interface.) More specifically, there are direct brain implants for deafness untreatable by cochlear implants. (Auditory brainstem implant.)

[ProfAllister]

Ohhh, this is nothing, my friend. This thread is still not even to the point of actual name-calling. I'd say we're keeping it more civil than the vast majority of online communities would do. Pat yourself on the back, everyone!

I know it's not bad yet, but my experience in coprometeorology indicates that all it takes is a high-pressure front meeting a low-pressure tolerance. Evne the two of us seem to be getting slightly on edge, despite our (apparent) self-awareness.

That may be. But even experts still need to make a case. Argument From Authority won't fly.

This is true. I suspect that it may be a matter of "one man's good point is another man's flippant and unserious dismissal."

That all depends on the individual. A lot of deaf people acquired their deafness after having been a speaking person.

Kinda funny how we're sort of coming full circle here, seeing as much of this newer discussion was started by a hypothetical in which Shizune was not deaf from birth.

As to how to answer this, it's certainly something above my pay grade. But, if I were to be so bold as to take a stab at it, I would be inclined to make the comparison to a young immigrant. From personal experience, I know that my grandfather came to the U.S. from Italy when he was about 12. Needless to say, Italian was his first language. But he spent his teenage years speaking English, and spoke English to his children, grandchildren, etc. He retained enough Italian that, when he went to visit Europe later in life, he was able to manage. But he was much more comfortable, at that point, speaking English.

In this context, what is his native language? Italian, because it was his first language? Or English, because it was the language he used all his life? Even if we grant that "native," coming from natus (birth), allows only for Italian to be his "native" language, English is the language he used to live his life, his language of choice, and the one with which he was most comfortable.

So "native" may have not been the best word. But the (post-speaking) deafie who tries to communicate in a spoken tongue is not working with his language of choice - he is working with a memory of a language from his childhood. And this is the best-case scenario.

I realize that. But I'm neither saying that the deaf have it easy nor am I saying they should learn accommodative techniques or else screw them. I'm simply saying it's not in the same ballpark as, say, dragging yourself by your arms everywhere you go. Lip reading and deaf speaking are not easy, surely, but they're certainly doable, and effectively so, on a day-to-day basis. My "I've known people" statements are merely intended to establish that this is not some pie-in-the-sky impossible dream. If even someone who knows as few people as I do knows people who do it, then it can't be rare, nor herculean. People do it, and they do it all the time.

And this is where it fails. You're claiming that it's not in the same ballpark as dragging yourself by your arms everywhere you go. Personally, I'd argue that neither of us are competent to make that judgment. It's easy to see (or imagine) the physical struggles of a paralytic or an amputee. For deafies, most of the struggles are on a mental and cognitive level. Insofar as a comparison can be made, it's like saying Michael Jordan worked harder than Einstein (theoretical physics is hard and all, but it's simply not in the same ballpark as top-tier professional basketball).

And your argument of personal encounters is 100% anecdotal. It fails to account for the possibility of statistical outliers, to say the least. If a man lives in Chinatown, his personal experience supports the notion that the world population is 95% Chinese.

Then I guess we all have to shut up and let Kutagh declare what is true and what is not. Right? Come on, man.

That's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that your assertion is essentially hearsay, but without an actual statement. You are presenting evidence, so to speak, that deafies operating in a spoken world is possible, because you have encountered people capable of doing so. For the record, I do not believe anyone here absolutely opposes that statement. You appear to be willing to accept the nuance that not all deafies are capable of doing this, so we'll consider the following statement as uncontroversial:

"It is possible for many deaf people to learn lip reading and deaf speaking to an extent where they can operate in a hearing world with little apparent trouble."

The controversy comes in this next step. You use more nuanced terms, but your argument is being read as "I know a couple people who get along just fine, so it can't be that hard." Testimony from these people that it wasn't hard, that they get along fine, and they have few or no issues would have some relevance. Not much, because the expected response would be "I'm happy for you, but surely you realise that you're the exception to the rule." But, coming from a hearing individual, and phrased in a manner that implies you haven't actually directly talked to them about how hard or easy it is, it looks pretty bad.

To put this in less crude (or perhaps differently crude) terms, Kutagh is shitting a brick because you are presenting yourself as a walking, talking incarnation of the entire Bellite school - a hearing individual making a judgement on what deaf people can and can't do (and how easy it is) based solely on anecdotal evidence of his personal observations.

We can perhaps go on about whether or not this is an appropriate action, whether it's logical, justified, etc., but the fact remains - your well-intentioned efforts to present your opinion on this subject have, through no fault of your own, been worded so poorly as to appear explicitly designed to piss deafies off.

I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what it is you mean when you keep using that word — expects. It sounds like you mean if we were being fair, we'd all learn sign language.

I don't presume to have the right answer. But I use the term "expects" in a less extreme sense than you, evidently. "A good idea," "for the best," and "not beyond them," among others, are all phrases that, to me, imply expectation. It's a sort of "Yeah, I guess they can opt out if they really want to, but it's such a shame that they'd purposely cut themselves off from the world over some silly sense of tribalism and customs." That may not be a fair representation of what you feel, but it's a reasonable interpretation of what you've said.

That's fine. I'm not talking about replicating speech so flawlessly that no one can guess you're deaf. I'm talking about speaking well enough to be able to order your meal at a restaurant. You can be pretty sloppy and still manage that much.

For the record, that right there? That's an expectation. "In order to perform a basic task of social interaction, they should really try to do it our way. We're even willing to be patient with them."

Again, you're presuming two things: profound or total deafness; and a pre-consciousness onset.

1: Don't use the term "pre-consciousness" - it carries a whole raft of implications, baggage, and off-topic discussion that would be better for everyone if we leave it alone.
2: For this final detail, yes, that's the worst-case scenario. And for the earlier details, yes it's more extreme for the profoundly deaf. But if you were to have some kid with coke-bottle glasses try to draw a pig without his glasses, it probably wouldn't be much better than the normally-sighted people trying with their eyes closed.
3: Do you mean to imply that someone who is "merely" hearing impaired has much less of an excuse to choose deaf culture over hearing culture?

Are you suggesting all movies be shown with open captions?

Also, I don't know when the last time was you used an in-theater closed caption device, but all the ones I've used have been pretty new, worked flawlessly, and were no harder to carry than a baton.

I'm not suggesting that all movies be shown with open captions, but I challenge you to do a quick search. Do you have ANY theaters within a 60-mile radius that have ANY open captions? I don't, and I like in the DC Metropolitan area (the same DC Metro area that houses Gallaudet, so it's reasonable to expect there's a market). As for Captiview, the image you posted, it's not without criticisms. It and Sony Access are the dominant accommodations in my neck of the woods, but it's worth noting that these are both relatively new technologies that are leaps and bounds ahead of what used to be available.

As a side note, I will admit that I do find it intriguing that you actually have used closed captioning devices. From the way you've presented yourself, I wasn't aware that you'd have any need/desire to use something like that.

How is an English subtitle ever going to match the lips of a non-English film?

My point exactly. Many people assume that deafies have no issue with foreign films, because no one understands the words and they all read the subtitles. And you can probably guess how often they have subtitles in the language of the film itself (to accommodate the deafies in the audience who know more than their local language).

But I can agree that same-language subs should match spoken words. But whenever I say anything, I'm told that it's too hard to keep up unless they simplify the words. Dunno how anyone's coming to that conclusion, though. [shrug] I can only guess they're trying to accommodate slow readers.

Kind of unclear who is telling you this, and what position of authority/expertise they have on the subject.

It's not the association that's the problem. It's the enforcement of norms, the denigration or expulsion of the insufficiently devoted, the exclusion of "outsiders". Tribalism is the cause of a major chunk of the world's woes, and we'd all do well to do what we can against that.

You want the heads side of the coin without the tails side. You have no issue with people associating with each other, but object if there is a common thread that's considered a requirement for association? Without having societal norms, without having a sense of who is "in" (and, consequently, who is "out"), you gut the entire concept of community. You seem to imply that it's a grave and hateful offense to have a computer programming club where you aren't allowed to use the CD drives as cupholders and are required to at least know how to turn a computer on. That hits all thsoe points of enforceemnt of norms, denigration/expulsion of insufficiently devoted, and exclusion of "outsiders."

That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. When I start having a problem is when they start telling people they're traitors because of their personal choices instead of being supportive, or openly wish for children to be born deaf, or the like.

It may be hair splitting, but when you first mentioned the North American Deaf Community, you spoke of it as a monolithic whole that universally reviles CI users. You then drew a false equivalence, implying that everyone in the North American Deaf Community that dislikes AG Bell also hates CI users. It's a fair to interpret your comments as a denigration of the community as a whole. Any community has bad actors, so it's unfair to paint the whole community due to the actions of a few. It's also unfair to dismiss one position some members in a community hold because you disagree with another position that some (and rarely the same exact some) members of that same community hold.

In other words, if you disagree with the opposition to AG Bell, disagree on the merits of the issue. If you disagree with the idea that CI users are cultural traitors, disagree on the merits of the issue. That also goes for any other objection to any other position. There is simply no excuse for responding to "Parts of [Community A] hold [Position 1]" with "(Parts of) [Community A] also hold [Position 2], therefore the merit of [Position 1] is questionable."

To illustrate (via Godwin): "The Nazi party argued that the Treaty of Versailles was inequitable and an insult to the Germany's honor." "The Nazi party also supported systematic extermination of the Jews, so I think it's healthy to be skeptical of their criticism of the Treaty of Versailles."

Join the club. Groups of people being marginalized is a common refrain in the music of history. But reacting in an ugly way is a choice too.

It's a bit of a balance. While I can agree that it's better to be the bigger man, it can be hard to fight an emotional response. It may not be justified, but things get uncomfortable if the imagery too closely resembles past discriminations.

I'd love to know where anything I said sounded anything close to "stop whining" or "be more like us". As far as I have ever seen, deaf people don't whine about much. At least, not more than the rest of us, and even then it rarely has to do with deafness. And as far as "being like us" — they are, for good or ill.

You've repeatedly said (or implied) that deaf speaking and lip reading can't possibly be as hard as some deafies make it out to be; Your phone analogy is extremely clueless and tone-deaf (I'll be getting to that); and you've repeatedly protested that you have no issue with social groups - provided they are all-inclusive and have no expectations of their members.

You are correct. Deafies are "like us." They are also "unlike us." No one denies the similarities, but many people (potentially yourself included) seek to minimise the differences. That's all well and good - within reason. But attempts to minimise differences need to respect those differences - something you consider trivial may be of extreme importance to the other side. You don't begin your outreach to Hasidic Jews with a pork rib cookout and a game of tackle football.

These things happen, though. Pen-pals used to be a beloved tradition. Then the Internet came along. Spinning thread and weaving cloth used to be widespread and had its own at-home industry and culture. Then the Industrial Revolution happened. I can see being sad for the passing of a nexus of shared interest. But I can't see wanting to preserve it at the expense of people. I mean, if there were a magic wand amazing technology that meant no one would ever have to be deaf again, would people argue that it should be banned? Some people sound like it, honestly. But pardon my gaucheness when I would say: hell yes we should use it. Having more options is always better.

Now, you see, you're comparing things which may be similar, but aren't the same. This isn't a concern of "no one (or far fewer people) will be spinning thread if it's not economically viable." It's not "this magic is demonhellwitchcraft!" This is probably more akin to (for the more reasonable parties) "Instant teleportation is great - when it works. I'm just a tiny bit concerned that we might be a little hasty in adopting it. We want to still have our current highway infrastructure intact for the cases when we can't use teleportation. And, well, the more people use teleportation, the harder it is to justify the expense of maintaining the highway infrastructure, which really sucks for the people who can't teleport at all. And I know it sounds silly, but I kind of like driving on occasion."

Obviously that's not a perfect example, but it does help illustrate part of the dilemma - an incomplete "solution" like a CI is wonderful for some of the people, but it (by definition) leaves others behind. And when it has a tendency to uproot everything that came before it, it becomes downright dangerous, especially to those left behind (who only become marginalised even further).

The main argument against a CI is that it is not a magical cure for deafness. It is one tool of a whole assortment which can assist a deafie in living in a hearing world. For some, it's the only tool they need - and no one should begrudge them that. But when people - deafies and hearing alike - start believing and acting like it actually is a cure, other tools lose favor, and are likely to become abandoned. This is a detriment both to those who don't/can't get CIs and to those that do/can. Because it's not a cure, it's a tool. CI or not, a deafie is still a deafie, and there are times when the tool isn't enough. And if/when the tool isn't enough, the CI-wielding deafie will certainly want to have more tools at his disposal.

I'm not saying everything they say has to be wrong. I'm just saying they're not the single source of truth. "Take it with a grain of salt", the expression goes.

No one implied they were authoritative or a sole source. Metalangel said that there are many people in the community that oppose AG Bell; in response, you attacked the community itself. Whether or not that was your intended meaning, there's no way you can fault someone for making that interpretation.

And if I were? Would I refuse, and instead go through life cut off from most of the world out of spite, or pride? It's possible. But I wouldn't call it the wisest conceivable move.

Either you have a very dim view of many deafies, or we took a wrong turn somewhere in Analogysville. In our thought-experiment, the majority of society communicates directly through radio waves. You can't perceive those radio waves, and you don't know how to control your personal electromagnetic field to modulate the radio waves you broadcast (you don't know it, but your natural radio wave broadcasts resemble robot farts). You and other broadcast-impaired people have devised a rudimentary "language" by blowing wind through your food-consumption orifice and slapping a slab of meat in your mouth against other parts of your mouth.

In order to communicate with the rest of society, you need to use a tool that can translate your meat-slapping orifice wind into radio waves (and translate radio waves into meat-slapping orifice wind analogues). Or perhaps enlist a kind soul who is radio-sensate, but also decided to learn how to communicate with meat-slapping orifice wind. Those are workable, but the radio-sensate find it awkward, and a bit of a hassle. They'd much rather you learn to figure out what radio waves they're broadcasting by their body posture, and would really like it if you learn how to control your own radio-wave broadcasting - it doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough that they can understand what you're saying.

I could go on, but I think we've played out that analogy for all it's worth.

Would a deaf-to-hearing interface device designed by the deaf be better than one designed by others? Maybe. They should try! (Have they not…?)

Venture Capital. Investors. Plausible Market. There's generally one or two big companies that provide accessibility tools. So there's not terribly much competition - meaning high prices and glacial innovation. And very little opportunity for market disruption.

And yes, it is reasonable to expect that a device designed with input from people who have personal experience with deafness has significant potential to be more useful than one designed by a bunch of hearing people who have a vague idea of what deafness is, but no personal or practical experience.

(I'm also hoping you realise just how insulting your suggestion sounds. I hope you were being sarcastic due to honestly not believing that deafies could provide any insight (or believing that they're heavily involved in development of accessibility devices.)

(But you're forgetting what I said about voice being the least-used feature of the thing…)

I'm not forgetting it; I am pointedly ignoring it, because your cellphone example as a whole is a uniquely terrible analogy. The radio waves from a cellphone are derivative of meat-slapping orifice wind. The corresponding device for deafness would be a machine that translates Sign Language into unique auditory cues (to be interpreted by other telesigns back into Sign Language). The theoretical device used to talk to the radio-sensate would likely work like some bastard child of push-to-talk and speech-to-text.

And, while we're at it, your meat-slapping orifice wind grammar won't help you one bit when writing in the radio-sensate's visual language - you don't even have any concept of metanouns or parasitions. Not as discrete units, anyway - it's implied int he meat-slapping orifice wind.

(I think I'm enjoying the phrase "meat-slapping orifice wind" a bit too much)

Is someone saying sign language is illegitimate??

Not very often any more, but a quick glance at the history of Sign Language makes it clear that that's a very recent development.

Doing things "the hearing way" or not, it's indisputable that they're better off being able to deal with the hearing world and not be confined to a deaf-only ghetto (regardless of how nice, or of one's own making or not). It's also indisputable that it's far easier for < 0.5% of a population to do something than the > 99.5% to do something. Even so, of course it's still the individual's choice based on the individual's ease and preference (and not the Deaf community extremists nor the Jigoros of the world to make for one). That goes both ways, by the way — a hearing individual has the choice of learning sign language (or whatever else) or not too.

As a society, we have enshrined in our laws that there are instances where the 99.5% are obligated to accommodate the 0.5%. The whole point of a marginalised group is that they lack the majoritarian influence to make their needs heard. It is certainly more efficient and more logical that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one), but that does not mean that it is necessarily right.

Of course it's better to swim to shore rather than complain about how no one's sending a life boat. It is far more profitable to do things yourself than it is to wait (or whine) for assistance. But when you're in charge of the life boat, you're the one at fault, not the guy who's drowning. Especially when he appears to be drowning, has explicitly indicated that he' having trouble keeping afloat, and your reason for not sending the life boat is because it's inconvenient. Whether or not he can get to shore on his own is irrelevant. (And yes, I'm being fluid with my analogies. Let's try to avoid getting sidetracked by the analogy and focus on the ideas and principles it's trying to illustrate.

I don't see how. A wheelchair replaces, imperfectly, the primary functionality of legs in a person who doesn't have a working pair of them; a cochlear implant replaces, imperfectly, the primary functionality of hearing in a person who doesn't have a working sense of hearing. It's just that one kind of device existed before any of us were born and is therefore the right and natural state of the world, whereas the other is an uppity newcomer that won't shut up like it's told.

Wheelchairs have never been billed as a cure for paralysis. Paralysis does not have a long and troubled history of being considered a mental deficiency (at least, not as long or troubled). Paraplegics have generally had a platform to express their own opinions on treatment received. A wheelchair is not a (semi-permanent) surgical process. I could go on.

Getting pretty snippy, aren't we?

I don't see where you addressed that. If you mean your assertion that being successful means being reasonable, and therefore he can't reject results not to his liking, then I'd have to say it's not Jigoro you have a problem with, but the writers. They've very clearly made him both unreasonable and successful. I would also posit that there are lot — a lot — of unreasonable-yet-successful people out there in the real world too.

If I'm getting snippy, it's because people seem to consistently miss my point on this front. Time and again, I have noted that yes, Jigoro could be a total asshole without any redeeming qualities; my argument has always been that there are other possibilities, which, it can be argued, are quite reasonable.

We do not get anything near a complete picture of Jigoro. We get a picture of him from the perspective of his daughter's boyfriend. The last panel of this comic illustrates the general tenor of the relationship between prospective father-in-law and prospective son-in-law. When we see Jigoro being unreasonable, it is primarily in the context of his interactions with his daughter's boyfriend (and, as I've argued previously, there's a reasonable basis that Hisao was antagonising Jigoro - intentionally or otherwise).

So yes, he could be successful, in denial about his daughter's deafness, and unwilling to listen to experts who don't tell him what he wants to hear. I don't believe that that's likely (in my headcanon) when there are other possibilities that put a lesser strain on my credulity. There are all sorts of things that are theoretically possible (for example, Kenji's right, Hisao was the only hope for mankind, and each route is the unfolding of another feminist plot to enslave mankind forever), but I choose to develop a headcanon where everything is reasonably mundane, reasonable, and consistent.

And, as I noted before, I don't give two shits what the writers intended. They put onto paper what they put - in my opinion, that's essentially the end of their role (generally speaking). I'll certainly take their own interpretations into account when looking at things, but I do not consider it infallible. If the text supports something, it's a reasonable assumption; if the text contradicts, the interpretation fails; if the text doesn't say wither way, it's open to interpretation.

No, the key point is that you keep accusing me of "expecting". Where in that did I say I expected anything? Answer: nowhere. So please stop it.

What do I "expect"? I expect that if I can't converse with someone by talking and listening, I'm going to have to find some other way. Interpreter? Pen and paper? Typing on something? Ok. So what?

Looks like there's enough snippiness to go around. I concede that you never explicitly said that you expect anything. I will, however, note that you have repeatedly expressed ideas to the effect of "I don't understand why deaf people make such a big deal about learning how to talk;" "It makes more sense for the deaf person to put in the effort to accommodate hearing people than the other way around;" and "I don't see how people can take pride in being defective - especially when it's so easy to fix." You did not necessarily express those sentiments, and most definitely not in these words, but you have repeatedly presented a worldview in which the ideal is for deafies to learn to get by in a world which ignores them, marginalises them, and, in a very real sense, rejects them. You allow deafies to choose not to conform, but you make it clear that this is not ideal, and is most likely stubborn and shortsighted.

And you know what? You may be right. But you're still imposing expectations. If you consider one course of action to be superior to other courses, that's an expectation. Expectations aren't inherently bad, but it's absurd to deny that they exist.

Sorry I recognized what I said being independently invented by someone else. I hope I didn't offend you too badly by doing so.

This back-and-forth? It's called "scoring points." We both really should be above it. I'll try to do better on my part, and I apologise for any low blows I may have dealt (or have yet to deal - being hot-blooded gets to you like that).

There's discrediting everyone and everything about a community, and then there's discrediting at least some of the people and at least some of the things about a community. It's this latter thing that I did.

We probably want to condense these separate points, as we're repeating ourselves. You may have intended a narrow scope, but "The North American Deaf community reviles people for getting cochlear implants to regain their hearing, too, branding them traitors. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it." is both sweeping and unambiguous.

Not the textual stuff. Sometimes I don't know whether what I sent got there at all. Even in the best of cases, it's on the order of multiple seconds. Correcting a misunderstanding might take a full minute. Making up for something missed entirely might take all day.

Wrong feedback. Unless your screen is broken, you get instant feedback on the textual stuff. You push the button, the character comes up. The text response is the physical person replying to you. The text on the screen is you hearing yourself.

Plus, you're forgetting that even the deaf do have tactile feedback — they can still feel whether their tongues touch this or that feature of the mouth or not, where air has flowed or not, whether the vocal cords have vibrated or not, etc. It's not easy, it's not precise, and it takes some concentration, surely, but it's not just sending inputs 100% blindly into a black box and hoping for the best.

Uhm... yes, yes it is. Let's go back to the pig drawing (did you actually try that, by the way? It is kinda fascinating). When drawing the pig, you can feel the pencil, probably the paper, the relative position of your hand, etc. Those give you a vague sense of feedback, but not near enough for most people to draw a good pig. The first time you do it, most people expect that their pig will turn out much better than it does.

And you keep talking about practical use. If you draw a pig, then show it to another person without telling them what it is, they might guess it's a pig, especially if they sit down and puzzle over it for a bit, but it's very likely they will have no idea what they hell they're looking at.

Have I told anyone here to shut up? Have I accused anyone here of acting in bad faith? Answer to both is no. Which is more than I can say for the way I'm being treated (not specifically meaning by you). Defense rests, your honor.

Whether it's true or not, no one cares for the persecuted martyr act. It's a petty "holier than thou" rhetorical trick. As we've both touched upon, it's better to be the bigger man and let the evidence speak for itself.

As for the implicit accusation, I was more focusing on your derision of the "Deaf Pride" subset of the deaf community. You're perfectly free to find them distasteful, but please, if you want to bring up an idea you disagree with, I'd ask you to at least try to represent it in a manner that won't draw accusations of "strawman argument." If you want to convince someone that an idea is wrong(or unlikely, or ambiguous), you want to present the idea as strong as possible, then explain how this beefed-up idea is still insufficient. So no more of these "CI users are race traitors" or "I hope my kids are deaf" one-liners; a much better argument can be presented with "I have serious misgivings about CIs because A B and C" or "CODA have major struggles and alienation from their position straddling two cultures. I know it's terrible to say this, but I kind of hope my kids are deaf so they aren't left adrift in the confusing cross-currents of the CODA experience."

And if you feel I should take my own advice, feel free to call me out on it (using specific examples - people are notoriously bad at self-assessment). Please. I can't get better if I don't know what's wrong.

[brythain]

Well, that was a good response from my limited perspective, ProfA. The last few posts here have also provided a useful (if not painless) discussion in terms of what I've learnt about deafness. Thanks!