Disqus - Latest Comments for iteratix

Re: The Bridge Between Self & Soul

bobby — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:19:05 -0000

Hello! How would you folks feel about either providing ASL translations of these teachings and thoughts, or me providing ASL translations via another site? I feel that these teachings are critical for the Deaf community, and as they are they are not as accessible as they could be.

Re: Debunking the 10% Myth

bobby — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 14:44:59 -0000

Not captioned on mobile unfort. Bah!

Re: Kippt on Mobile - Kippt Blog

bobby — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:45:06 -0000

Not working at all.

Re: Four ways to create a safe space

bobby — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:26:04 -0000

I planned on doing that but ran out of time, and decided to post rather than let it languish. I'm going to re-post another article as an ASL version! Thanks for the prod, smile. I know its really important to make sure that articles like this are accessible to the entire deaf community.

Re: Resisting Dialogue: The Bear Hunt Statue at California School For the Deaf, Fremont

bobby — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:05:22 -0000

Jerry, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us! I have to respectfully disagree with your definition of cultural appropriation. In the "Bear Hunt" sculpture, the body of a native american is appropriated and used to represent a rivalry between Stanford (at the time Indian mascot) and Berkeley (Bear mascot). I agree with you that the sculpture was introduced before awareness of that was widespread; however, the statue sits in front of the CSDF campus with no contextual information or sensitivity to the native american communities.

Just because Tilden was not aware of this does not mean that we have to willfully ignore that in the sculpture's current placement, context, or placement in CSDF's curriculum.

Re: Resisting Dialogue: The Bear Hunt Statue at California School For the Deaf, Fremont

bobby — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:30:45 -0000

If one goes to the counter-petition site, (http://www.petitionbuzz.com... and read the comments, you'll find that most of them are very dismissive of the whole dialogue concept. If you read this and agree with the points here, I encourage you to engage the community in dialogue and share your thoughts about the Bear Hunt statue.

Re: AG Bell is in the past

bobby — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:43:55 -0000

Barry, I support direct confrontation during the exact moments of "throwing in the trash-heap" or confronting educators in oral-only environments.

The problem is, even when we confront these individual instances of the problem, quite often, we have no compelling alternative. We can't say that we have a gorilla helping us, like those supported by AG Bell. We can't send everyone to CSD Fremont.

Let's make our own gorilla, is my article in a nutshell.

Re: AG Bell is in the past

bobby — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:12:20 -0000

Barry, my posting isn't "Even though Deaf children were damaged by an upbringing which left them psychologically,

morally, vocationally and socially damaged, those victims of abuse should simply
forgive and forget the past and move on with their lives, without any thought to
the ongoing damage being done to similarly victimized children today by these
same perpetrators.”
I think you are jumping on a slippery slope and expanding the scope of what I'm saying. From the 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, there's a great example about Victor Frankl and the Holocaust. Suffice it to say that, in spite of being in a terrible catastrophe, Victor Frankl realized that he had absolute control over the thing that mattered most -- his response to the situation. He became more powerful than his captors simply because he had something that they could never extinguish.

This is what I'm addressing. I'm saying, regardless of what happens to us as a group or individuals (victims of abuse for example) we have the power to choose our response to the situation. So, to continue your example, an powerful response could be to directly support similarly victimized children today by working WITH them, or indirectly prevent future victimized children by ensuring that strong organizations exist as an alternative to AG Bell. Or perhaps what may be more Patti's taste, direct confrontation in the moment that something is happening.

Here in the Bay Area, a very strong voice for deaf-centric education is CSD Fremont. So, to extend my example further, supporting CSD Fremont directly, locally, is better long term for the same victimized children. Or supporting another organization that offers a more compelling and true vision than AG Bell.

Re: AG Bell is in the past

bobby — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:02:51 -0000

There is definitely a time and place for protesting and nonviolent resistance, such as Occupy. I fully support speaking out.

I also support peaceful direct confrontation when it is rooted in the present, and about what's happening in the moment. However, AG Bell is not going to listen to us no matter how "repeatedly we tell them that."

I think its a far better and more healthy and effective in the long term solution to offer or support an strong and ultra visible alternative to AG Bell. Something that people can choose to support rather than dwell on what AG Bell is doing wrong, which has been shared many many times over.

Side note, I'm speaking only about AG Bell here, mostly -- but referring to your quote of "First they came for..." Standing up _IN THE MOMENT_ is critical. No doubt about that. But I question whether its productive to dwell on AG Bell aside from individual incidents that are worthy of attention; and use our time to support organizations that desperately need it!

Re: Other worlds

bobby — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:22:59 -0000

Thanks! I thought so too. The smell of a given house is like a fingerprint, none are the same. It's a crazy meld of bodies and things!

Re: The YouTube Video You Don’t See

bobby — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:55:46 -0000

Ran across this link from a friend. Sarah appeared on the Ellen Degeneres show. Has captions. http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: The Problem of Speaking

bobby — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:01:26 -0000

I'm going to stand here, Michelle, and tell you flat to your face, and to anybody who is listening:

It is okay for a deaf person to use their voice in general. Never let anyone tell you otherwise.

Now that I've said that, there are of course situations that arise in which it's rude to use your voice, just like that there are situations in which its rude to point, or rude to fart. Those situations in which its rude to use your voice are likely unique to deaf culture. Personally, I don't like sim-com, but I would never dare to go up to a deaf person using sim-com and tell them, YOU HAS VIOLATED A CULTURAL RULE. Because that's equally (if not more) rude.

I submit to you that there are other, larger, and more concrete cultural rules that are hiding behind the "rule" that we are talking about here, of not speaking. In other words, its a tragic simplification to say that its not okay to use one's voice.

Your example of sim-com is a great one. It's precisely not okay to use sim-com because it degrades ASL, NOT BECAUSE THE OTHER PART IS THAT ITS SPOKEN. I, like you, don't like sim-com (maybe even detest). But let's not allow that dislike to taint our view of spoken language.

Re: The Problem of Speaking

bobby — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:52:38 -0000

Fuzzyw5, I'm not specifically subscribing to anyone's version of deaf culture. Let me make that clear. I'm specifically calling Michele out for her repeated attempts at bludgeoning people with her views.

I'd like to take a moment though to reply to your point -- I think what you said, "If that rule didn't exist, the weight wouldn't exist. The weight is there, because the rule exists." is what is known as a tautological statement, a statement proving itself. It is a logical impossibility.

I don't like to engage in pointless discussion about the minutiae of culture because culture is bigger than any of us, bigger than any one person, and is an ever-changing ever-moving thing.

I will agree that speaking has weight because it is something that is associated with hearing people and hearing culture (among other things). However, speaking itself has value in its sheer utility or usefulness; for those that are able to speak (or speak without realizing they do) its simply another useful tool.

Any stigmata that I've seen placed on speaking has usually come from a dark, ugly place; a place where it's deemed okay to ostracize or shame others for doing something (speaking) that has no inherent evilness, and is in actuality equivalent to moving the arms, in that one is using one's body for the purpose that evolution has developed it for.

I would really like to see us move beyond pointing fingers. Gandhi famously said that no culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive. I've touched upon this before in other comments. A culture isn't defined of what it isn't, but of what it beautifully is.

One last thought. Hayakawa said, "If you see in any given situation only what everybody else can see, you can be said to be so much a representative of your culture than you are a victim of it." Let's not be victims here?

Re: The Problem of Speaking

bobby — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 02:21:46 -0000

Michelle, I think you are wrong. Culture changes across generations, and speaking is definitely treated differently in the younger generations than a simple 'it's not accepted to use your voice between two deaf people.'

I've seen you make a lot of cultural assertions thoughout your comments, without a lot of good evidence other than declaring that you are culturally deaf and using yourself as an authority source. That's not good enough anymore, I'd like to see more evidence backing up your claims.

Re: The Problem of Speaking

bobby — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:47:35 -0000

Elena -- When I worked at Gallaudet, I had similar thoughts and feelings. When I would encounter voicing (speaking in this context) I would always feel a jolt. Or when I knew that my hearing coworkers were talking in their offices (to other people or on the phone). I could feel the speaking/voicing part of Gallaudet like a layer, a weird fog that floated on top of the University.

Its not necessarily a bad thing into itself, speaking/voicing. Like you said, it carries weight. And I think the REAL problem is that the administration, faculty, and staff as a whole do not understand the weight that this carries, and behave accordingly. In general, from what I see and hear, its a non-issue. Or when it comes up, it's already been polarized to the extreme.

Re: The Problem of Speaking

bobby — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:41:33 -0000

Nothing changed, Candysblog -- just that deaf people are more aware of the repercussions of behavior around them. In earlier days, less people were aware of colonized mindsets, less aware of audism, and so on.

Re: A Visual Language Manifesto

bobby — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:46:52 -0000

Hi Scott -- thanks for the feedback. I understand your points; especially about backing up my statements.

There's nothing wrong with a parent wanting their child to hear. My point is that they need to learn language through the eye. I had hearing aids growing up but I learned language best through visual means; I don't resent the fact that my parents hooked me up with sound.

"High unemployment, poverty, and a vastly lesser living standard" while I did not provide proof in that article, it is well known -- Here's an example article http://blog.deafpolitics.or.... There's a lot more information out there.

But really, I'm not arguing against parent choice -- I'm arguing something else, that it's a human rights violation of a deaf child to NOT use visual language with him/her. Pretty simple, really... implant them all you want but ensure that sign language is an important part of the child's life!

Re: An Open Letter to Marlee Matlin

bobby — Wed, 25 May 2011 21:13:43 -0000

Michele you make a good point about Starkey not being a Deaf-owned Deaf-run business, and that their business does depend, to some extent, for the need to hear.
What I completely, and respectfully disagree with, is the assertion that "The minute ALL deaf people understand that they don't need hearing aids or CIs and the minute ALL parents accept that it's OK for their deaf children to be Deaf, all hearing aid and CI companies will die, just like that."

The desire or curiosity to hear is universal, as it is one of the basic human senses. It's not inherently a bad thing. There are many deaf people (including myself) who enjoy using hearing aids because hearing the sounds in their environmentis useful, and sometimes plain fun (as in the case of music and other kinds of auditory entertainment, such as sounds in movies). So, no, the hearing aid companies (let alone the CI companies) are not going anywhere even if we somehow eradicate audism.

The problem with this whole line of argument is that often folks conflate/confuse audism with the mere desire or want to hear. Witness the surge in CI implantations among the 20-30 year old set. Putting audism aside, or even dysconscious audism, or even plain brainwashing -- there is a genuine desire among human beings to hear sounds. And this isn't a bad thing at all.

Re: An Open Letter to Marlee Matlin

bobby — Wed, 25 May 2011 18:49:34 -0000

Chris's point wasn't about membership. It was, to put it simply, before
pointing fingers at someone else (like Marlee), check our own contributions
and put our money (and time) where our mouth is. I'm a member of NAD. I
support them when I can.

Marlee was just at the NAD Gala in the Bay area and she did a great job
supporting NAD, as well as helping fundraise thousands of dollars during the
event. That's more than I've ever done. So its not really fair for us to
accuse her of not supporting the Deaf community.

Re: Six Ring Ring: Random Thoughts on Metaphor and Music in Signed Language

bobby — Wed, 11 May 2011 12:45:37 -0000

This discussion has been closed; thanks to Joe Santini for writing an excellent article and the commenters for generating discussion.

Re: First Billboard by Deaf, for Deaf

bobby — Fri, 06 May 2011 21:06:39 -0000

Hey I'm glad to be corrected; do you have any further information on the NDT billboard? That'd be fun to add to the article.

Re: Choosing a Cochlear Implant

bobby — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:54:59 -0000

Just a heads up, we don't delete comments because of ideology, but
because of civility. Personal attacks or other boorish behavior for
example.

Check out our guidelines on the about page.

Sent Wirelessly

Re: Involuntary Membership (or, Lets Be Raised Hearing!)

bobby — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:31:55 -0000

Pain of colonization.

Re: Involuntary Membership (or, Lets Be Raised Hearing!)

bobby — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:31:09 -0000

Joseph, yes, I do conflate the condition of deafness with Deaf people/Deaf culture. Definitely a weakness of my posting. I freely acknowledge that, and thank you for pointing it out in a constructive way.

Re: Involuntary Membership (or, Lets Be Raised Hearing!)

bobby — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:06:35 -0000

You said: raising a child Deaf means rasing them in the Deaf community, with visual language

I said: Raising a child 'deaf' means focusing on ASL and visual language

Looks like we don't disagree?