4 ms·

> But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal? And I suspect if the author of that

by jlebar 4y ago

> But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal? And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say, $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blinding surgery, they would very quickly admit blindness is a negative As you can verify with some Googling, there are many Deaf people who choose not to undergo surgery to gain the ability to hear. (This isn't a universal preference by any means, but it's also not fringe.)

geoduck14 4y ago
I'll point out that if you can't hear by ~11 years old, you won't be able to understand language - even if you can hear later in life. So it is possible that you are reading stories of people who decide not to get the surgery because they know they won't get full function.
- teaearlgraycold 4y ago
  But music though
  - crdrost 4y ago
    Deaf people dance to music all the time.
    - teaearlgraycold 4y ago
      I’m aware.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- crdrost 4y ago
  You are simply wrong about this, that is not the cultural attitude that generates this response in something like 95%+ of cases. Capital-D Deaf culture does not as a rule view their lack of hearing as a horrible wrong that needs to be corrected for them to live a “normal” life. They believe that they are living a normal life, and screw you for suggesting otherwise, and many would tell you that they do not want to speak your inferior language anyways, because it is broadly technically inferior due to its inherent one-dimensionality: you describe things with a scalar pressure varying with time only, their language describes things with motions in three dimensions of space as well as in time. This means that in the 95% case, the dominant attitude is not “I’m afraid,” it's “those folks are assholes half the time, why would I want to join them if I don't have to?”. It's a cultural objection rather than a physiological one.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    >those folks are assholes half the time, why would I want to join them if I don't have to? "The grapes are sour anyway." I'd bet the rate of assholes among the deaf is probably about equal to the non-deaf.
- MrJohz 4y ago
  > I'll point out that if you can't hear by ~11 years old, you won't be able to understand language I don't know the specifics of this claim, so I won't talk about the argument that I assume you're trying to make. However, the argument you're actually making here is completely untrue. Almost all deaf people understand and can communicate through language. In fact, if you put a group of deaf people together for long enough, they may well spontaneously generate a language. Sign languages are real languages with almost all of the features of spoken languages (and with additional features of their own). The idea that someone can only understand "language" if they are and to hear is completely wrong. I assume what you're trying to say is that if you can't hear by this age, you will not be able to decipher sounds into language - I have no idea if this is the case. But this is an important semantic distinction (understanding language versus understanding language from sounds alone), and the fact that you seem to have inadvertently confused them seems relevant to the issue at hand: it is very easy for us to accept spoken language as a universal standard, when in practice, spoken language is just one (more common) variant of many different forms of language.
  - necovek 4y ago
    Being on HN, I think it's fair(er?) to assume that the GP was aware that "language" can mean a standard of expression and communication that is not a spoken human language (maybe a programming language?), but also that it's fair(er?) to assume that they meant "spoken human language" too. I'd be more interested in the source for their claim, than being pedantic about them missing "spoken" in where they clearly meant that.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
What's the ratio of deaf people who choose to get cochlear implants or similar vs hearing people who choose to intentionally deafen themselves?
- jlebar 4y ago
  The entire point of this linguistic exercise is that your opinion that you would not give up your ability to hear is no more or less valid than someone's opinion to the contrary.
  - nomel 4y ago
    I think his question is asking for objective evidence that would suggest either.
    - jlebar 4y ago
      Right. And I am saying, Deaf people, and other people who don't think they have a disability, are asking for us not to say that they do when they don't think they do. And the answer from some quarters seems to be, I think "objectivity" is on my side, screw your conception of your identity. It's not that different from refusing to use someone's pronouns. I think that both are a mean way to respond to a fellow human.
      - nomel 4y ago
        Fully embracing the reality of ones own personal life experience is important. This seems to be where you want the conversation to stop. I think I can see the positivity and benefit in stopping there, choosing not to see any possible ugliness beyond. Maybe that's the bigger question here. Should language be precise, or nice? Or, to the extremes we're seeing here, should language be formed to make certain types of subjects difficult or impossible to present themselves? Maybe freedom of thought, and the ugliness beyond, is something that should only be allowed in ones own head?
        4y ago
retrac 4y ago
It's also complicated by cultural factors. The culturally deaf (often written "Deaf") have their own culture -- sign language is a complete and distinct language, there are norms and practices unique to the culture. Acquiring the ability to hear is also the ability to, in effect, leave that culture and acquire the mainstream culture. Many Deaf people do not, in fact, view themselves as disabled or impaired. Particularly those who grew up mostly around Deaf people and who have an entirely Deaf experience in life. Everyone around them seems fine, they have their own distinct culture, etc. As a consequence, getting an implant as an adult, or allowing your deaf newborn to be implanted, touches issues of social status and identity and politics within the Deaf community. It doesn't take long for a culturally Deaf person to do a little thought experiment. What if the hearing can one day "solve" deafness in say 98% of children at birth? The cultural Deaf community may well face extinction under those circumstances. There would be no more children learning sign language as their native language, the chain of cultural transmission from deaf parent to deaf child would be broken. It is quite literally the end of their distinct culture and way of life, which they do not view as impaired or lesser. You can even take this argument a step further. If mainstream society starts pushing and not simply offering cochlear implants to deaf children -- such as by creating a narrative that the Deaf are lesser or impaired in some way -- then that may well constitute a form of cultural genocide, taking the children of a particular culture judged as less or inferior, mutilating them, and forcing them to be raised in a different culture. I'm not particularly convinced by the more extreme form of the argument, but it has been made, and the argument as a whole in all its various forms, I don't think can be fully dismissed easily. There is a point there.
- Gartent 4y ago
  >Pushing cochlear implants is like genocide on deaf people. If this is serious, I've now read the dumbest thing I may ever read in my life. People who've been traumatized by rape affirm their lives as rape survivors. Yet, we don't consider preventing rape an attempt at cultural genocide of the rape survivor culture and community. Likewise, combat veterans have their own culture and community. We don't consider preventing war as cultural genocide of veterans. Call it culture if you'd like, it arises from being injured in some way, or not having an ability. Restoring this ability and preventing the injury is an absolutely good thing. Reframing the community of the disenfranchised as a 'culture' so you can call this benefit 'cultural genocide' is nonsense semantics. Deaf 'culture' dying is as good as people being born with functional hearing.
Gartent 4y ago
Being deaf is an inherently negative aspect. You either have the ability to hear, or you do not. If you do not, it is a dis-ability. No one wants to lose an ability to do something. Someone who lives an extensive period of time without an ability may have learned how to live without this ability. They learn to cope and affirm their life with its faults in their current state. Offering the ability they lost and have learned to live without may be declined because of the affirmation of their life as it is. It could be declined because the transition is uncomfortable as well. Either way, being deaf is still negative, they've just psychologically coped well. If you had the choice, would you choose that your child be deaf or not? That you be deaf or not? If one isn't deaf, would they choose to become deaf or not? This entire argument results from academic nonsense that anyone outside that context can see through.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  You might enjoy the book True Biz.
- soundnote 4y ago
  > No one wants to lose an ability to do something. This is true, though strictly speaking there are people obsessed with the idea that they eg. have too many limbs and suffer body dysmorphia related to that. They often amputate their own limbs in an attempt to feel right.

by jlebar 4y ago

geoduck14 4y ago

I'll point out that if you can't hear by ~11 years old, you won't be able to understand language - even if you can hear later in life. So it is possible that you are reading stories of people who decide not to get the surgery because they know they won't get full function.

teaearlgraycold 4y ago
But music though
- crdrost 4y ago
  Deaf people dance to music all the time.
  - teaearlgraycold 4y ago
    I’m aware.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
crdrost 4y ago
You are simply wrong about this, that is not the cultural attitude that generates this response in something like 95%+ of cases. Capital-D Deaf culture does not as a rule view their lack of hearing as a horrible wrong that needs to be corrected for them to live a “normal” life. They believe that they are living a normal life, and screw you for suggesting otherwise, and many would tell you that they do not want to speak your inferior language anyways, because it is broadly technically inferior due to its inherent one-dimensionality: you describe things with a scalar pressure varying with time only, their language describes things with motions in three dimensions of space as well as in time. This means that in the 95% case, the dominant attitude is not “I’m afraid,” it's “those folks are assholes half the time, why would I want to join them if I don't have to?”. It's a cultural objection rather than a physiological one.
- boppo1 4y ago
  >those folks are assholes half the time, why would I want to join them if I don't have to? "The grapes are sour anyway." I'd bet the rate of assholes among the deaf is probably about equal to the non-deaf.
MrJohz 4y ago
> I'll point out that if you can't hear by ~11 years old, you won't be able to understand language I don't know the specifics of this claim, so I won't talk about the argument that I assume you're trying to make. However, the argument you're actually making here is completely untrue. Almost all deaf people understand and can communicate through language. In fact, if you put a group of deaf people together for long enough, they may well spontaneously generate a language. Sign languages are real languages with almost all of the features of spoken languages (and with additional features of their own). The idea that someone can only understand "language" if they are and to hear is completely wrong. I assume what you're trying to say is that if you can't hear by this age, you will not be able to decipher sounds into language - I have no idea if this is the case. But this is an important semantic distinction (understanding language versus understanding language from sounds alone), and the fact that you seem to have inadvertently confused them seems relevant to the issue at hand: it is very easy for us to accept spoken language as a universal standard, when in practice, spoken language is just one (more common) variant of many different forms of language.
- necovek 4y ago
  Being on HN, I think it's fair(er?) to assume that the GP was aware that "language" can mean a standard of expression and communication that is not a spoken human language (maybe a programming language?), but also that it's fair(er?) to assume that they meant "spoken human language" too. I'd be more interested in the source for their claim, than being pedantic about them missing "spoken" in where they clearly meant that.

TulliusCicero 4y ago

What's the ratio of deaf people who choose to get cochlear implants or similar vs hearing people who choose to intentionally deafen themselves?

jlebar 4y ago
The entire point of this linguistic exercise is that your opinion that you would not give up your ability to hear is no more or less valid than someone's opinion to the contrary.
- nomel 4y ago
  I think his question is asking for objective evidence that would suggest either.
  - jlebar 4y ago
    Right. And I am saying, Deaf people, and other people who don't think they have a disability, are asking for us not to say that they do when they don't think they do. And the answer from some quarters seems to be, I think "objectivity" is on my side, screw your conception of your identity. It's not that different from refusing to use someone's pronouns. I think that both are a mean way to respond to a fellow human.
    - nomel 4y ago
      Fully embracing the reality of ones own personal life experience is important. This seems to be where you want the conversation to stop. I think I can see the positivity and benefit in stopping there, choosing not to see any possible ugliness beyond. Maybe that's the bigger question here. Should language be precise, or nice? Or, to the extremes we're seeing here, should language be formed to make certain types of subjects difficult or impossible to present themselves? Maybe freedom of thought, and the ugliness beyond, is something that should only be allowed in ones own head?
      - 4y ago

retrac 4y ago

It's also complicated by cultural factors. The culturally deaf (often written "Deaf") have their own culture -- sign language is a complete and distinct language, there are norms and practices unique to the culture. Acquiring the ability to hear is also the ability to, in effect, leave that culture and acquire the mainstream culture. Many Deaf people do not, in fact, view themselves as disabled or impaired. Particularly those who grew up mostly around Deaf people and who have an entirely Deaf experience in life. Everyone around them seems fine, they have their own distinct culture, etc. As a consequence, getting an implant as an adult, or allowing your deaf newborn to be implanted, touches issues of social status and identity and politics within the Deaf community. It doesn't take long for a culturally Deaf person to do a little thought experiment. What if the hearing can one day "solve" deafness in say 98% of children at birth? The cultural Deaf community may well face extinction under those circumstances. There would be no more children learning sign language as their native language, the chain of cultural transmission from deaf parent to deaf child would be broken. It is quite literally the end of their distinct culture and way of life, which they do not view as impaired or lesser. You can even take this argument a step further. If mainstream society starts pushing and not simply offering cochlear implants to deaf children -- such as by creating a narrative that the Deaf are lesser or impaired in some way -- then that may well constitute a form of cultural genocide, taking the children of a particular culture judged as less or inferior, mutilating them, and forcing them to be raised in a different culture. I'm not particularly convinced by the more extreme form of the argument, but it has been made, and the argument as a whole in all its various forms, I don't think can be fully dismissed easily. There is a point there.

Gartent 4y ago
>Pushing cochlear implants is like genocide on deaf people. If this is serious, I've now read the dumbest thing I may ever read in my life. People who've been traumatized by rape affirm their lives as rape survivors. Yet, we don't consider preventing rape an attempt at cultural genocide of the rape survivor culture and community. Likewise, combat veterans have their own culture and community. We don't consider preventing war as cultural genocide of veterans. Call it culture if you'd like, it arises from being injured in some way, or not having an ability. Restoring this ability and preventing the injury is an absolutely good thing. Reframing the community of the disenfranchised as a 'culture' so you can call this benefit 'cultural genocide' is nonsense semantics. Deaf 'culture' dying is as good as people being born with functional hearing.

Gartent 4y ago

Being deaf is an inherently negative aspect. You either have the ability to hear, or you do not. If you do not, it is a dis-ability. No one wants to lose an ability to do something. Someone who lives an extensive period of time without an ability may have learned how to live without this ability. They learn to cope and affirm their life with its faults in their current state. Offering the ability they lost and have learned to live without may be declined because of the affirmation of their life as it is. It could be declined because the transition is uncomfortable as well. Either way, being deaf is still negative, they've just psychologically coped well. If you had the choice, would you choose that your child be deaf or not? That you be deaf or not? If one isn't deaf, would they choose to become deaf or not? This entire argument results from academic nonsense that anyone outside that context can see through.

elliekelly 4y ago
You might enjoy the book True Biz.
soundnote 4y ago
> No one wants to lose an ability to do something. This is true, though strictly speaking there are people obsessed with the idea that they eg. have too many limbs and suffer body dysmorphia related to that. They often amputate their own limbs in an attempt to feel right.