6 ms·

In my life, I have been deaf, hearing impaired, hard of hearing, hearing challenged. I suppose at some point I will be acoustically disadvantaged. You know wha

In my life, I have been deaf, hearing impaired, hard of hearing, hearing challenged. I suppose at some point I will be acoustically disadvantaged. You know what? At the end of the day, I'm still deaf. It's true. I have limitations that others take for granted. If I can't see someone speaking or if I'm out of batteries, we aren't going to be communicating well. That's pretty deaf. I won't be offended, it's just reality. Changing language does not, and never did, give me preferential treatment. People are always always going to discriminate and pretty words won't stop them. Character and intent is what matters.

imoverclocked 4y ago
> Character and intent is what matters. This. I recently ran up against a filter on Reddit where I used a phrase that I was completely unaware of. My account was flagged for hate speech. The comment had no ill-intent. The problem with language is that we want individual words to have inherent meaning but as people adopt phrases to identify a movement, those meanings get carried along for the ride. eg: until recently, I would have just curiously nodded along to the phrase "It's ok to be _____" but learned that it's actually a dark dog whistle thanks to Scott Adams. I suspect the unease you perceive with people using different terms for blindness are unease with their own attachments to those words. Fighting to keep using words with established meaning is laudable IMO. I still use "literally" as not "figuratively" despite the media-dulled connotation.
- josephg 4y ago
  > I suspect the unease you perceive with people using different terms for blindness are unease with their own attachments to those words. Nah. I think people are just terrified of coming across as a jerk for not knowing the latest non-offensive term for things. Black? African American? Oh black is ok again? Will I get in trouble with HR/Twitter for calling you blind? And if so, what word do I use instead? Do I ask? Is that awkward? Am I making it awkward?? It feels like a minefield, where the location of the mines change every few months and stepping on a mine could cost you big time. The language police keep finding new things to get offended by, too. The Stanford “harmful language list” includes things like “user”, “tribe”, “client” and “addict”. Pleasing these people is exhausting. [1] https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguag...
  - smcl 4y ago
    "Terrified" is a bit much, I think most people just want to get along and are happy to use whatever term is acceptable to those it describes. Our understanding of what those terms are might shift over time, and it may get muddied by well-intentioned people trying a bit hard to avoid offence (or by people clumsily trying to police it) but it's generally progressing fine. And I think as long as you're compassionate, willing to listen and learn it's hard to really fuck up to the point that you're "cancelled" (to the extent that actually exists) unless you're deliberately looking to cause trouble.
    - josephg 4y ago
      I agree it’s usually fine in practice, but I know plenty of people who still find the whole thing quite anxiety inducing. Having your language policed isn’t an enjoyable experience. Doubly so when it feels counterproductive - like avoiding the word “blind” with blind people who might quite like the term.
      - smcl 4y ago
        I'd say more generally "Being embarrassed isn't an enjoyable experience" - it's embarrassing to find out you're using an offensive word or to feel like you're out of touch, but what's important is what you do with those feelings, how you react. If someone politely reminds you that some word is inflammatory and not well-liked among a given community it describes, then you can either take it politely or blow up about how the world is going crazy and complain about stuff being "woke". That said if someone goes thermonuclear on you because you used "deaf" instead of "hearing-impaired", yeah that person is clearly a dick, doesn't deserve your time of day (note: just re-purposing the example from earlier, obviously this is not something anyone in this thread has done) It'd be good to be able to convey that to someone who does feel like there is a "language police" or that it is anxiety-inducing to engage with younger people. I should note though that when I've encountered this - among people being racist or homophobic - people tend to dig in, become stubborn and rant about "woke culture" or genders so clearly the problem cuts both ways (and I hope you can see I'm clearly not the type to fly off the handle at someone for something innocuous).
- b112 4y ago
  "It's ok to be _____" but learned that it's actually a dark dog whistle thanks to Scott Adams. The fact that someone can be labeled something, because they use a phrase which is currently, out of the blue, a big deal? And you can only know if you obsessively read all sorts of popculture websites, or fluff news stories daily? That's very sad.
  - yathaid 4y ago
    Sure. But you should do your research on the phrase and the polling company that pretends it is a straightforward question before going on a racist screed to get away from a racial group.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  I would not take claims of something being a "dog whistle" at face value. The entire concept has largely been weaponized and bastardized, appropriately enough as a means of effecting language policing. A perfect example is over the past several years how the media spent quite a lot of energy dedicated to convincing people that "America first" was some sort of a secret dog whistle. [1] The "logic", so far as it can be called that, runs that e.g. the KKK also liked this concept and slogan. So if you like this concept and slogan you're therefore somehow secretly dog whistling for the KKK. It's just a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. If the head of the KKK really liked Honey Nut Cheerios then I suppose that also becomes a secret dog whistle? It's simply a way to attack things without actually considering what's being said. I think if you polled Americans, white/black/brown/blue/green and orange, almost all would agree that the government should put the interests of the country and the people above the interests of other countries and the people of other countries. But in a world where political power emerges from divisions in society, that sort of unity is dangerous. So rather than attack the idea, which would be likely to backfire, they instead chose to attack our language. And it was successful. People who still believe anything the media says became cautious about advocating for things like 'America first', because they didn't want to be seen as e.g. endorsing the KKK. By contrast those who are actively skeptical of the media, mostly disregarded what they did and continued to happily advocate for 'America first.' Now the members from the other group not only were no longer comfortable saying 'America first', but even began to see those as advocating for it as secret racists, or even KKK advocates. Divisions widened, policy destroyed (or at least made into a partisan affair), language policed, mission succeeded. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/21/end-of-the-american-dream-the-dark-history-of-america-first https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/21/end-of-the-ame...
  - erulabs 4y ago
    I couldn't agree more. The "dog whistle" concept is somewhat brilliant as an iron-clad logic trap though. Any time anyone is saying something you don't want to engage with, you can ignore everything they're saying and claim they're really saying something else. There is absolutely nothing the person can do to change your mind, because you can make their words mean whatever you want! The exact second you stop engaging with what people are saying, and start deciding what they actually mean, is the exact second you stop all learning and all growth. These terms "dog whistle", "normalizing", "shifting the overton window" are all just means of being able to ignore the argument itself in favor of ad hominem.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  I find it highly unlikely that Scott Adams is a "dark dog whistle" kinda guy. At best the most I'd believe would be that "some people who Scott Adams pissed off now like to say that when he says X he actually means Y".
  - delecti 4y ago
    Scott Adams' descent into reactionaryism [1] has not been subtle or quiet. If you were surprised that it eventually exploded in a public way, that just tells me you haven't heard much of anything about him in the past decade. Also, "it's okay to be white" is not a hidden rake of a dogwhistle to stumble on. If that were a serious position, it immediately leads to the question of "who is saying otherwise". And then you learn about replacement theory, "a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory" [2], and realize what Scott Adams was really saying without saying. Lots of language policing is dumb. Hell, language policing would drive me away from even using "dumb". Scott Adams did not stumble into this controversy through zealous language policing, he charged into it with eyes open, and knew exactly what he was saying. [1] I think the word is actually reactionism, but chrome's spellcheck prefers reactionaryism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement
    - jwond 4y ago
      > Also, "it's okay to be white" is not a hidden rake of a dogwhistle to stumble on. If that were a serious position, it immediately leads to the question of "who is saying otherwise". I found a few examples if you are interested: > conservatives are objecting after the discovery of a speech by Berkeley Professor Zeus Leonardo in which he discussed the need “to abolish whiteness.” […] “to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people” https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/02/abolish-white-people-berkeley-faces-new-free-speech-controversy/amp/ https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/02/abolish-white-people-b... > Abolishing whiteness has never been more urgent https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whiteness-has-never-been-more-urgent/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whi... > Coca-Cola, Facing Backlash, Says 'Be Less White' Learning Plan Was About Workplace Inclusion https://www.newsweek.com/coca-cola-facing-backlash-says-less-white-learning-plan-was-about-workplace-inclusion-1570875 https://www.newsweek.com/coca-cola-facing-backlash-says-less...
- dqpb 4y ago
  [dead]
- glonq 4y ago
  Reddit is a cesspool. If I had time and money to waste, I'd do reddit a spiteful favor and write a WokeBot that calls out every instance of non-equity language. Maybe it even auto-submits hate speech reports for significant transgressions.
- Izkata 4y ago
  > eg: until recently, I would have just curiously nodded along to the phrase "It's ok to be _____" but learned that it's actually a dark dog whistle thanks to Scott Adams. It was a troll campaign created on 4chan to trick leftists into reflexively saying "it's not okay to be ____". Anything darker ascribed to it came later, from people who didn't understand the purpose.
smcl 4y ago
Aren't "hard of hearing" and "hearing impaired" intended to cover a range of deafness or hearing-related problems though? "Hearing challenged" definitely sounds a bit daft though for sure.
- elcomet 4y ago
  Yeah that's what I thought, like "blind" and "visually impaired" are not the same thing to me, the second refers to many different visual issues
mrguyorama 4y ago
Even the most progressive of tiktok circles refer to it as "The deaf community" so I have no idea why you think it was renamed.
- Sunspark 4y ago
  Context matters here I think. Historically "the deaf community" was used to refer to people who used sign language to communicate and did not include people who didn't. It is possible to be deaf, and not part of the deaf community in this context if one is not a signer.

imoverclocked 4y ago

> Character and intent is what matters. This. I recently ran up against a filter on Reddit where I used a phrase that I was completely unaware of. My account was flagged for hate speech. The comment had no ill-intent. The problem with language is that we want individual words to have inherent meaning but as people adopt phrases to identify a movement, those meanings get carried along for the ride. eg: until recently, I would have just curiously nodded along to the phrase "It's ok to be _____" but learned that it's actually a dark dog whistle thanks to Scott Adams. I suspect the unease you perceive with people using different terms for blindness are unease with their own attachments to those words. Fighting to keep using words with established meaning is laudable IMO. I still use "literally" as not "figuratively" despite the media-dulled connotation.

josephg 4y ago
> I suspect the unease you perceive with people using different terms for blindness are unease with their own attachments to those words. Nah. I think people are just terrified of coming across as a jerk for not knowing the latest non-offensive term for things. Black? African American? Oh black is ok again? Will I get in trouble with HR/Twitter for calling you blind? And if so, what word do I use instead? Do I ask? Is that awkward? Am I making it awkward?? It feels like a minefield, where the location of the mines change every few months and stepping on a mine could cost you big time. The language police keep finding new things to get offended by, too. The Stanford “harmful language list” includes things like “user”, “tribe”, “client” and “addict”. Pleasing these people is exhausting. [1] https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguag...
- smcl 4y ago
  "Terrified" is a bit much, I think most people just want to get along and are happy to use whatever term is acceptable to those it describes. Our understanding of what those terms are might shift over time, and it may get muddied by well-intentioned people trying a bit hard to avoid offence (or by people clumsily trying to police it) but it's generally progressing fine. And I think as long as you're compassionate, willing to listen and learn it's hard to really fuck up to the point that you're "cancelled" (to the extent that actually exists) unless you're deliberately looking to cause trouble.
  - josephg 4y ago
    I agree it’s usually fine in practice, but I know plenty of people who still find the whole thing quite anxiety inducing. Having your language policed isn’t an enjoyable experience. Doubly so when it feels counterproductive - like avoiding the word “blind” with blind people who might quite like the term.
    - smcl 4y ago
      I'd say more generally "Being embarrassed isn't an enjoyable experience" - it's embarrassing to find out you're using an offensive word or to feel like you're out of touch, but what's important is what you do with those feelings, how you react. If someone politely reminds you that some word is inflammatory and not well-liked among a given community it describes, then you can either take it politely or blow up about how the world is going crazy and complain about stuff being "woke". That said if someone goes thermonuclear on you because you used "deaf" instead of "hearing-impaired", yeah that person is clearly a dick, doesn't deserve your time of day (note: just re-purposing the example from earlier, obviously this is not something anyone in this thread has done) It'd be good to be able to convey that to someone who does feel like there is a "language police" or that it is anxiety-inducing to engage with younger people. I should note though that when I've encountered this - among people being racist or homophobic - people tend to dig in, become stubborn and rant about "woke culture" or genders so clearly the problem cuts both ways (and I hope you can see I'm clearly not the type to fly off the handle at someone for something innocuous).
b112 4y ago
"It's ok to be _____" but learned that it's actually a dark dog whistle thanks to Scott Adams. The fact that someone can be labeled something, because they use a phrase which is currently, out of the blue, a big deal? And you can only know if you obsessively read all sorts of popculture websites, or fluff news stories daily? That's very sad.
- yathaid 4y ago
  Sure. But you should do your research on the phrase and the polling company that pretends it is a straightforward question before going on a racist screed to get away from a racial group.
somenameforme 4y ago
I would not take claims of something being a "dog whistle" at face value. The entire concept has largely been weaponized and bastardized, appropriately enough as a means of effecting language policing. A perfect example is over the past several years how the media spent quite a lot of energy dedicated to convincing people that "America first" was some sort of a secret dog whistle. [1] The "logic", so far as it can be called that, runs that e.g. the KKK also liked this concept and slogan. So if you like this concept and slogan you're therefore somehow secretly dog whistling for the KKK. It's just a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. If the head of the KKK really liked Honey Nut Cheerios then I suppose that also becomes a secret dog whistle? It's simply a way to attack things without actually considering what's being said. I think if you polled Americans, white/black/brown/blue/green and orange, almost all would agree that the government should put the interests of the country and the people above the interests of other countries and the people of other countries. But in a world where political power emerges from divisions in society, that sort of unity is dangerous. So rather than attack the idea, which would be likely to backfire, they instead chose to attack our language. And it was successful. People who still believe anything the media says became cautious about advocating for things like 'America first', because they didn't want to be seen as e.g. endorsing the KKK. By contrast those who are actively skeptical of the media, mostly disregarded what they did and continued to happily advocate for 'America first.' Now the members from the other group not only were no longer comfortable saying 'America first', but even began to see those as advocating for it as secret racists, or even KKK advocates. Divisions widened, policy destroyed (or at least made into a partisan affair), language policed, mission succeeded. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/21/end-of-the-american-dream-the-dark-history-of-america-first https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/21/end-of-the-ame...
- erulabs 4y ago
  I couldn't agree more. The "dog whistle" concept is somewhat brilliant as an iron-clad logic trap though. Any time anyone is saying something you don't want to engage with, you can ignore everything they're saying and claim they're really saying something else. There is absolutely nothing the person can do to change your mind, because you can make their words mean whatever you want! The exact second you stop engaging with what people are saying, and start deciding what they actually mean, is the exact second you stop all learning and all growth. These terms "dog whistle", "normalizing", "shifting the overton window" are all just means of being able to ignore the argument itself in favor of ad hominem.
tpoacher 4y ago
I find it highly unlikely that Scott Adams is a "dark dog whistle" kinda guy. At best the most I'd believe would be that "some people who Scott Adams pissed off now like to say that when he says X he actually means Y".
- delecti 4y ago
  Scott Adams' descent into reactionaryism [1] has not been subtle or quiet. If you were surprised that it eventually exploded in a public way, that just tells me you haven't heard much of anything about him in the past decade. Also, "it's okay to be white" is not a hidden rake of a dogwhistle to stumble on. If that were a serious position, it immediately leads to the question of "who is saying otherwise". And then you learn about replacement theory, "a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory" [2], and realize what Scott Adams was really saying without saying. Lots of language policing is dumb. Hell, language policing would drive me away from even using "dumb". Scott Adams did not stumble into this controversy through zealous language policing, he charged into it with eyes open, and knew exactly what he was saying. [1] I think the word is actually reactionism, but chrome's spellcheck prefers reactionaryism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement
  - jwond 4y ago
    > Also, "it's okay to be white" is not a hidden rake of a dogwhistle to stumble on. If that were a serious position, it immediately leads to the question of "who is saying otherwise". I found a few examples if you are interested: > conservatives are objecting after the discovery of a speech by Berkeley Professor Zeus Leonardo in which he discussed the need “to abolish whiteness.” […] “to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people” https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/02/abolish-white-people-berkeley-faces-new-free-speech-controversy/amp/ https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/02/abolish-white-people-b... > Abolishing whiteness has never been more urgent https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whiteness-has-never-been-more-urgent/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whi... > Coca-Cola, Facing Backlash, Says 'Be Less White' Learning Plan Was About Workplace Inclusion https://www.newsweek.com/coca-cola-facing-backlash-says-less-white-learning-plan-was-about-workplace-inclusion-1570875 https://www.newsweek.com/coca-cola-facing-backlash-says-less...
dqpb 4y ago
[dead]
glonq 4y ago
Reddit is a cesspool. If I had time and money to waste, I'd do reddit a spiteful favor and write a WokeBot that calls out every instance of non-equity language. Maybe it even auto-submits hate speech reports for significant transgressions.
Izkata 4y ago
> eg: until recently, I would have just curiously nodded along to the phrase "It's ok to be _____" but learned that it's actually a dark dog whistle thanks to Scott Adams. It was a troll campaign created on 4chan to trick leftists into reflexively saying "it's not okay to be ____". Anything darker ascribed to it came later, from people who didn't understand the purpose.

smcl 4y ago

Aren't "hard of hearing" and "hearing impaired" intended to cover a range of deafness or hearing-related problems though? "Hearing challenged" definitely sounds a bit daft though for sure.

elcomet 4y ago
Yeah that's what I thought, like "blind" and "visually impaired" are not the same thing to me, the second refers to many different visual issues

mrguyorama 4y ago

Even the most progressive of tiktok circles refer to it as "The deaf community" so I have no idea why you think it was renamed.

Sunspark 4y ago
Context matters here I think. Historically "the deaf community" was used to refer to people who used sign language to communicate and did not include people who didn't. It is possible to be deaf, and not part of the deaf community in this context if one is not a signer.