4 ms·
> being deaf was actually the same as being able to hear. That's not even close to the argument being presented. The fundamental crisis within the deaf commun
by crystal_revenge 2y ago
> being deaf was actually the same as being able to hear.
That's not even close to the argument being presented.
The fundamental crisis within the deaf community is around the fact that deaf people share a common language. This is very different than most other disabled communities. Language is fundamental to shared culture.
To be clear, I'm not saying that deaf children should not be given cochlear implants, but the issue is much more complex than "being deaf is the same as being able to hear." It's that deaf people historically felt a sense of shared community and culture. The ability to "fix" (a term many of them would not agree with) deaf people leads to a challenging position where a culture is slowly being destroyed.
It's much closer to the choice white American parents who adopt Asian children have around what culture should those children be exposed to and how much. Is it okay to raise an adopted Chinese child exactly the same a white American child? Should the adopting family try to learn Mandarin? Teach the child them about Lunar New Year? Make friends with other Chinese families in the community? There's no absolutely correct answer for any of these questions, but they are issues families in these situations must navigate.
I suspect your immediate response is that being Asian isn't a disability, but I would point out the first point in my comment: deafness, unlike other disabilities, does have it's own distinct culture because of shared language (not shared disability).
- jl6 2y agoCultures come and go, arising from circumstances that can change. Does preservation of a living culture take priority over the wellbeing of its members? Perhaps a culture is something that can be decommissioned humanely.
- jonathanlb 2y ago> Does preservation of a living culture take priority over the wellbeing of its members? Perhaps a culture is something that can be decommissioned humanely. This is problematic. Who, but the members of a living culture, can determine any of these questions? My understanding is that most cultures are self-preserving, until they aren't, usually through conquest or other external forms of eradication.
- throwawayk7h 2y agoWhen can the child be considered part of that culture though? They may be deaf, but when do they become capital-D Deaf as defined in the article? Is it while in the womb, when they're born, when they gain the capacity for signing and potentially speech, or when they are first introduced to members of the Deaf community? I don't see the problematic aspect of "curing" the child's deafness before they become a member of the Deaf community. It's not removing someone from the Deaf community. Deontologically, it ought to be fine, surely? (I'm looking at this deontologically, because from a utilitarian perspective, we should be asking what is the correct percentage of otherwise non-deaf children we should surgically make Deaf.)
- giraffe_lady 2y agoWe need to decommission the culture of this website that makes straightforward eugenics a popular position here.
- h0l0cube 2y agoUtility monsters are definitely overrepresented here. But it’s just a consequence of intellectual discussion that all ideas are entertained, no matter how perverse. But that shouldn’t be absent any reflection of how these ideas would affect real peoples’ lives. Especially in tech circles where there can be a large potential to affect many lives
- akoboldfrying 2y agoWhere is your threshold for "culture"? Because you do have such a threshold, and you consider things that fall below that threshold not to be "culture", and therefore not to be worth preserving. Which leads to: How do you justify this choice of threshold?
- h0l0cube 2y agoSpecies come and go. Should we be concerned about the existential threat to species such as homo sapiens? Why should we limit ourselves in the present day to protect our biosphere? Everything is inescapably transient after all? Nihilism is perfectly fine as a philosophical argument, but few would support it in practice
- h0l0cube 2y agoCan’t tell if the downvoters think I’m the nihilist, or they are the nihilists.
- sdwr 2y agoI think they are taking issue with escalating an already dismissive argument to infinity. It's Godwin's law - even if you're calling the other guy Hitler, you still brought it up in the first place
- h0l0cube 2y agoI’m pointing out the argument’s absurdity. Saying that things don’t last forever to justify destroying something you don’t value, can easily be redirected to something you do value
- akoboldfrying 2y agoThe point at issue is: What subset of things (what individuals, groups, ideas, cultures) "deserve" to continue? I agree that your reductio ad absurdum argument shows that "nothing deserves to continue" is in untenable position. But surely the opposite extreme (namely, "everything deserves to continue") is just as absurd? So the question remains: Where to draw the line?
- h0l0cube 2y ago‘The people’. Whatever scale that is. Democracy as imperfect and inefficient it is, is our best vehicle for the collective consciousness (of humanity) to decide at the scale of a polity. A family can decide amongst themselves what’s best for their infant, and as they grow, the person can decide for themselves as an individual. Moralizing on the behalf of others, is at best performative, at worst harmful and denigrating. It of course gets messy when we’re talking about irreversible decisions made by parents, but I don’t believe that’s relevant for cochlear implants. Certainly not relevant for continuing a culture either
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stoical1 2y agoRealbeing > wellbeing
- d0mine 2y agoEnglish is the dominant language at the moment. Should Quebec abandon French? Should Europe? The rest of the world?
- akoboldfrying 2y agoSingapore did exactly this under Lee Kuan Yew, and transformed itself from essentially a wasteland into one of the top countries in the world both in economic and quality-of-life terms. In the opinion of many (though of course not all) who went through that difficult transition, yes, it was more than worth it.
- throwawayk7h 2y agoIf I understand correctly, what you're saying is that the tradeoff is whether or not for the child to have the disability but along with it the opportunity to gain a close-knit and supportive community with a shared language. (Although, given the child will continue to need a cochlear implant or similar device, they'll still be disabled either way, and nothing is stopping them from learning sign language too.)
- Balgair 2y agoAside: We're teaching the kiddos ASL but all of us are hearing. Yeah, it is a different language and culture as a result. Not any worse or better, just different. You have to be a lot more expressive in ASL to get the points across and just more active in general. Also more patient as it takes longer to communicate, but maybe that an 'us' thing. We like it a lot, and it's a lot of fun really. We;re thinking of tutoring in ASL for the fam, but like, we don;t have the time to even cook dinner, haha. I'd say give it a try with your kids.
- stn8188 2y agoI echo this same comment. Myself and my whole family are all hearing, so I can't/don't feel qualified to weigh in on the details of the article. That being said, we've just started learning ASL together this year and it's been wonderful. I have nothing but respect for the entire Deaf community: we've been to a few Deaf church events and it's been amazing to meet and get to know everyone. While our reasons for learning ASL are personal, it's really opened our eyes to both the challenges and the incredible feats of the Deaf community.
- stoical1 2y ago"All of us are hearing" really? We already use sign language, we already use our entire body to communicate, infact 55%, more than we do speaking and listening.
- Balgair 2y agoI mean, there is a pretty big difference between how your body language affects your communication and like 'Where is the apple?'.
- akoboldfrying 2y agoFor avoidance of doubt, I'll flip the polarity of your adoption hypothetical: In my opinion, a Chinese family adopting an ethnically European child have no obligation to teach that child "Western values" or "Western culture". Their only obligation is to raise that child with love and care.