Thanks Guys I guess I`m going about finding it wrong..
Next time I`ll just ask for help..
LOL!!..
........................... 
...OUTLAW
5 Reasons Why the DEAF Masturbation Video is different than anything before...
by BluePill2 241 Replies latest jw friends
-
OUTLAW
-
still thinking
I'm pretty sure lamallcool pointed out that these guys weren't even deaf, he could tell by the way they were signing.
We need to be shooting our poisoned arrows at the watchtower society for producing shit like this...not each other for thinking their stupidity is funny.
Lets face it. The WTS doesn't give everyone much to laugh about...take it while you can.
-
mamochan13
I agree, Still Thinking. Laughter heals, and I'ts important to be able to laugh at ourselves. I think many of us are doing just that, laughing because we actually used to go along with this kind of crap and laughing in relief that we now see it for the stupidity it is.
-
King Solomon
lamallcool said:
Paulapollos, there are very few deaf people working at Patterson.
On the question of whether the guys in the video are deaf and where they're from, I was relying off info in this post (someone who seems to have some insight into the workings at Bethel):
Post 252 by MC Rubber Mallet in this thread:
Everything ASL does NOW is visual. They even go door to doo with mobile DVD players! Even though this is relatively new, it's made possible because of technology. Previously, they had 'deaf' literature. The friends used it the best way they could, but overall it was pointless. It's so much cheaper to produce an English tract than an ASL DVD to hand out in service, but the DVD is so much more effective in recruiting new ones. So they switched over.
The 'signers' in the DVD's are all deaf. They live in Patterson. Their only job is to produce and improve the product. In order to make work life in bethel, yes, they need to know to at least read English. I wasn't discrediting ALL deaf from that.
Mamochan said:
Laughter heals, and I'ts important to be able to laugh at ourselves.
Yup, just as long as people remember that laughter when it's directed at you also hurts, too....
I think many of us are doing just that, laughing because we actually used to go along with this kind of crap and laughing in relief that we now see it for the stupidity it is.
Maybe that's it for some? I dare say those who should be asking that question of themselves are also the very ones least likely to, due to the power of denial...
PS re: the straw-manning of Lady Lee's thoughts by PP (saying LL doesn't believe that the deaf need to read English, when she said the EXACT OPPOSITE).
I did an internship at McKay on the Deaf side of the school for a year when I was in college. The kids got a very rich education in ASL. And that was great. They started kids off when they were 2 or 3 years old and tried to get the parents (hearing) involved in learning to sign. But the teachers believed that ASL was all they needed so the kids never really got to learn English very well. It was the teachers - the deaf teachers! - who had this attitude that you really could not expect the average deaf child to learn English. They weren't capable. Interestingly it was a deaf teacher who was telling me this despite the fact that she had gone to Gallaudet for her education. She thought she was an exception to the rule.
That is such a cop out for the poor education the kids were getting in English. Just because you can't hear how a word sounds doesn't mean you can't recognize what it means if you see it written down. I live in a building run by a Russian Orthodox Church. It is primarily for Russian people. Signs by management and letters to the people in the building are always in Russian and in English. If I saw a word spelled and asked someone what it means they would tell me and then I would know what those Russian letters stand for. There are many people here who only speak Russian or Polish or Ukrainian even after decades of living in Canada. They fully realize how not learning English had limited their lives.
The vast majority of children who are deaf are bright, intelligent, creative kids who need the best education possible. And I don't know that they are getting it. I hope that since I left the Deaf community (the larger one - not JW) things have progressed to the point where teachers like the one I knew see the benefits in making sure deaf kids get what they deserve.
AND
I totally agree. In Montreal as soon as a child is diagnosed with a hearing problem they are referred to McKay Centre and the child is enrolled in school. They want to get these children communicating as early as possible. I taught the parents of these kids for a couple of years. Not all parents participated but those who did saw a vast improvement in connecting to their toddler. They are also encouraged to use hearing aids if there is sufficient hearing to make use of them.
Deaf children of deaf parents learn ASL (so at least they have a language with its own grammar, syntax and idioms etc) and when they attend school learn English as a second language.
These kids are way ahead of not only their deaf counterparts with hearing parents but are also ahead of hearing kids period. They communicate way ahead of when most kids can talk. People used to believe that because kids didn't talk by a certain age it meant they didn't understand. I have sat in on linguistic classes where the prof was spouting this kind of crap. I couldn't let that go by and told her about the research on deaf children of deaf parents and how early they could communicate. My own daughter was "talking" to me in sign well before she could talk. By 6 months old she had a vocabulary of about 100 words. It wasn't ASL. There were no sentences but she had the words to tell me if she wanted milk or juice, a cookie or toast. She could recognize a dog, cat, cat, truck or train. She had names for people. The prof was surprised and said she would do some research on the matter.
But still they they must learn English often without the same level of phonetic input...and without the same grammatical experience. That is why many deaf adults still write "broken English" for lack of a better word....and even highly educated deaf adults often ask hearing peers to review and edit their written work.
This is where the deaf child falls behind dramatically. "Broken English"? Have you read the posts on this thread by people who are deaf? They all seem to be writing in proper English. They read books. The see the sentences and the grammar. English grammar and French grammar are very different. But people can learn them. Clearly the people here who are deaf learned English. As long as hearing is the only problem and is not compounded by a cognitive issue then every deaf child has the potential to learn English or French or whatever language they are exposed to.
It really angers me when people say they can't learn. Harder? Yes but not impossible.
-
Paulapollos
KS,
Ok, it’s clear that you and I are going to disagree fundamentally on a number of points here.Rather than pulling the old trick of “clarifying what I meant”, thereby shifting the ground, let me respond to you point by point.
Your first response seems to be saying, at some length, correct me if I’m wrong:
- You accept there are a number of “acceptable” NMF’s that the “translator” could have used.
- The “translator” chose one they personally wanted to/was within their natural range
- As such, people who are laughing at this “translator” are laughing at him personally
- If I say that they are not laughing it at him personally, I should explain what they are laughing at
- It cannot be that it is not a personal attack, and not an mockery of Deaf people either
Ok. Firstly, there are indeed a number of “acceptable” ways he could have signed it, which is exactly what I said, as you acknowledged. Except, and this is where I think your lack of knowledge regarding the way that the Society approaches translation, shows itself.
The person you see on the video is NOT the translator, generally. He is a presenter. He is filming from a visual prompt, prefilmed by the translation team. He has VERY LITTLE CHOICE regarding what NMF to sign – it has been CHOSEN for him, after an extensive field-testing with a group of JW Deaf. If you think that any translation team, after months of hard work, is going to let a presenter come in and make his own choices about what to sign, you obviously have little experience of way the Society works on these things. The NMF is specifically chosen, when discussing “sensitive subjects” such as masturbation, by the translation team. They follow principles laid down in the GMBT manual, for all translation teams. The presenter does NOT get to change the NMF – he does what he is told, and Is monitored during filming by a proofreader and a checker. The question is, why did the translation team ask him to sign it like that? Why did they choose to convey it in a certain way? I can sign, as can many other interpreters and professionals, the exact same information, in a far less visually-rich manner. They made a choice.
Since the presenter did what he was told, if people are laughing at the “way he signs”, they are laughing in actual fact at what is signed, since most people are not subtle enough to know that there is a difference. They are laughing at his facial expression, and the fact that he uses a visual sign that means “to masturbate”. And? Deaf people laugh at that sign all the time, particularly when it is used by people they think shouldn’t be using it. Are hearing people not permitted to laugh at it, without you accusing them of being “discriminatory”? Deaf people use it pejoratively, just as hearing people do. It is indeed “taboo” within general conversation, with people you don’t know. But it can be used, under certain circumstances, as is the case with hearing people. The point is, the sign is considered rude, pejorative, or funny as a matter of course within the deaf community, and people laugh at it. So why shouldn’t hearing people? What gives you the right to call people on this board out, as "mocking" the deaf?
This is the real crux of the matter – you are equating people laughing at the sign, as a personal attack on the signer, or mockery of the deaf. You are making the claim. YOU PROVE IT. The burden of proof is on you, not me. So I repeat: you have no right to make that assumption of the posters here. I agree, I don’t think people are laughing at the WT when they do laugh. But that does not mean they are mocking and discriminating against the deaf, and you know it.
Your second response is interesting, because you again avoid my point. You said “this approach o exploiting a video….to get a cheap laugh.” Again, I ask you – where is your proof that this is the purpose for which it was shared? Where is your proof that Cedars, or whoever you keep referring to, is so low as to want to poke fun at deaf people? I see no proof – just a lot of hot air, and empty accusations. You are engaging in personal attacks, not them. Show me some proof, KS. Otherwise, I repeat – you are simply throwing statements out there, with no evidence to back it up.
In a way, the third point is irrelevant. That does not prove that the OP intended the video as a mockery of deaf people. Your over-sensitive nature confuses the issue.
The fourth point is remarkable only for its baseless assumption. According to you, I “cannot appreciate [the] fact” that there should be “tolerance of those who are different.” I presume that this is based on……well, you tell me. What, exactly, is this based on, pray tell?
You then say something that, KS, with all due respect, is frankly stupid. According to you, I fell I am “entitled to speak on behalf of ALL deaf”. Now that is ridiculous. Because that is PRECISELY what I am not doing. Your “how dare you patronise deaf people” rant at Cedars is where you presume to speak for all those “poor deaf souls”. They don’t need you, me, or anyone else. Which leads me to your fifth point, where you just grab a word out of JWFACTS post, namely “anyone”, and respond to that, without addressing the point that I made. Respond to me, KS. I say it again – you are being offended on behalf of “the deaf”, when you know that they are not a homogenous community. Frankly, I said it then, and I’ll say it again. Your attitude, not Cedars, not any of the other posters, is what is patronising and offensive, as I found your little story of the bullied boy, and the presumed link you feel it has to the “deaf”. Don’t mistake me, I appreciate your sincerity – but in your rush to defend the “dignity” of the deaf, you make the all-too-common mistake of deciding that they “must be offended”, as so often do those who presume to speak on the “behalf” of ethnic minorities, of which I am also one.
The sixth response is interesting. You think I am using a strawman, although you do me the courtesy of implying later that you believe this to be an unintentional error on my part. It is not a strawman. You are a Berkely graduate, from what you say, so let me speak as one specialist to another. You know full well that your definitions as a professional, differ from that of a layman. I won’t presume to infer Bluepill’s meaning, I leave that to you. But I will tell you, that as a professional, people in my field do indeed refer to many deaf people as “illiterate” as in “unable to read.” And here, as one professional to another, I quote part of Mayberry’s seminal piece in my field: “The median reading level of the deaf, high school population does not reach the level required for a person to be considered literate (i.e., the 6th to 8th grade level and beyond). Indeed, the median reading levels of the deaf student population have not changed much over the past century (Chamberlain and Mayberry, 2000). This discouraging, but often replicated, finding….” (Mayberry 2002:72) I invite you read the rest of that chapter, which I attach for you: http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~rmayberry/pubs/Mayberry-CogDev-Hndbok.pdf She points to only 50% of deaf students being over that level, and recent research by Powers goes as high as 70% being “illiterate”, hence my use of that stat in my original post. I don’t use strawmen, KS.
I ask your forbearance on point seven about the taboo sign, I don’t understand your point at all.
As for point 8, regarding Lady Lee.. You say that I used a strawman, saying that “LL does not believe that deaf people need to read English”. Bollocks. Let me quote what I ACTUALLY said. “ You use LadyLee, JGNat and others. Let me put this as clearly as I can. Lady Lee is WRONG. And she is WELCOME to send me a message and her evidence that proves to me that 45 years of research into the subject is INCORRECT. Deaf people, in general, are UNABLE TO READ ENGLISH TO A LEVEL THAT ENABLES THEM TO FUNCTION WITH THE SAME EFFECTIVENESS AS HEARING PEOPLE.” I said, very clearly that LadyLee is wrong to simply say that “Deaf people can read English.” That’s all I said. Nothing else.
Let me reiterate it, to make it even CLEARER. You used Lady Lee as a reference regarding the “stereotype” of “hearing-impaired people” being illiterate apparently thrown out by BluePill. I made a clear point, I thought. I read the link you hotlinked on your post. Lady Lee points out that Deaf people can read English, and later seems to infer that it is harder but not impossible. I and most other researchers disagree. She says: “Just because you can't hear how a word sounds doesn't mean you can't recognize what it means if you see it written down.” I respect LadyLee, and I am uncomfortable disagreeing with her without her knowing, so I hope she is reading this. Her statement is simply not backed up by the research, as Dr Maired Macsweeny’s work at DCAL, as well as the work of other cognitive scientists, and the work of Stephen Powers and Chamberlain demonstrates. Most deaf CANNOT read to a skilled level, for very simple reason that they cannot map the auditory signal to its orthographic representation. It doesn’t matter how HARD they try. It’s not a matter of Deaf people needing to read, or even that some manage to do so, after a number of years. My point regarding LadyLee was that as she is NOT a professional in this field, I can understand why she thinks the way she does, nevertheless she is wrong. Again, like I said, you used that point to back up your statements to BluePill. But you do not know what you are talking about.
Now, your final points, which is also linked to Jpicard, and Jgnat. Firstly, I re-read that link to “page 8”. I cannot see where Jpicard states that Bethel uses “deaf” translators. He says that “In service, these congregations seek out only the Deaf and present these videos on DVD.” That is nearest I can find. Also, his claim that the Society know about “deaf culture” is laughable. Do they care about the “culture” of other groups, racial or otherwise, within the Society? Believe me, from *POLICY* experience, they don’t give a short, sharp, sh*t about “deaf culture”. Either way, yes, for your information, I DO know many of the ASL team, as well as the Russian Sign Language Team, as it was anyway, before it’s relocation. The head of the ASL team was a hearing child of a deaf parent, and for propriety’s sake, I won’t mention his name, but interested parties can pm me regarding him, the ASL team, and so on. The fact is, that only deaf presenters are used, NOT translators, except in rare cases. There are very FEW deaf indivduals used by Bethel, and there are very good reasons. In fact, most translation teams don’t even have deaf team members. Llamacool – I never claimed that deaf people work at Patterson, I said that actually, that is not the general case, just as it is not in the UK.
So, KS, I think it is clear. You said that it was clear that people can disagree on this, and I certainly agree with you on that. My objections to your points remain. No matter how sincere, I see a person who, in this debate, uses facts *exceptionally* loosely, and exhibits an oversensitive, paternalistic, and frankly offensive attitude, to attack other members of the board. I don’t know you, and for all I know, you are a perfectly pleasant individual with reasoned arguments. But, as far as I am concerned, what you have said about some of the posters on this board is reactionary, and over the top. I have no vested interest in “defending” Cedars, or anyone else - I rarely even post, having a rich and time-consuming academic field to work in - and as I said, I find that I, as a “native” member of the Deaf community, do not need you to “defend” me from the “offensive” attacks of others, as a self-proclamied "defender of the vulnerable".
PP
-
jeanpicard
Well, this is just getting exhausting.
-
cedars
jeanpicard - it would be a lot less exhausting if King Solomon's posts were less wordy and, frankly, self-indulgent. He obviously has lots of time on his hands with which to write his essays, and he likes to think we will indulge him by reading every word of his posts - even though his posts aren't exactly content-rich - they simply use a hundred words to make a point when you could get away with ten. Dredging through all that is an exhausting and thankless task, but something those who care about the issues feel compelled to do.
Like you, Paulapollos is an ACTUAL member of the deaf community and feels compelled to defend it against some of the aspertions and misconceptions that KS casts in pursuit of his agenda - which seems to be to stop us all from making fun of the Watchtower, using intimidation and character-assasination if needs be. It's a shame that Paulapollos NEEDS to write such lengthy replies to debunk KS's claims, but he/she obviously feels a need to defend the deaf community (which I find highly commendable) even if it means dissecting the lengthy volumes of text that KS enjoys burdening us with.
Cedars
-
Iamallcool
for the record, NOT all of the signers on the DVDs are deaf. Mark my words. I only have seen three deaf working on the videos that includes making songs and everything.
-
soft+gentle
If you compare the three presenters and their way of signing it is quite clear that the young man who everyone is laughing at does all of his signing with greater emphasis and theatricity - not just the masterbation signs. I think I read somewhere on here that he probably is deaf himself. If that is the case it explains the way he signs even more.
I must say the vid did make me laugh and this may be because the scene is isolated from what comes before and what comes after (which if left in would show us that the young man puts his heart and soul into alll of his signing) and as we are seeing this part in isolation it makes it much more slalacious than it actually is. So I guess in its new presentation it is no longer the watchtower society's vid as such that we are watching but it is one produced by the xjw community for a different purpose - one that the watchtwoer society would view as dirty, lewd and disorderly - like all of us
-
Iamallcool
s/g said I think I read somewhere on here that he probably is deaf himself. If that is the case it explains the way he signs even more.
Nope, I would think he is hearing. I can tell if he is hearing or deaf by the way he signs. You want to bet?