as some of you have noticed the asl video warning against masturbation (another guilt trip) is creating waves.
this is not small fry.
1. it is humorous - most topics (like other policies) are serious/depressing (blood, shunning, pedos).
Sorry about the length of my reply, I just don't like the fact that certain people have been called "bullies", accused of "exploiting the disabled", and so on and so forth, by someone who seems to be playing fast-and-loose with facts. Character assasination annoys me.
PP
as some of you have noticed the asl video warning against masturbation (another guilt trip) is creating waves.
this is not small fry.
1. it is humorous - most topics (like other policies) are serious/depressing (blood, shunning, pedos).
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
as some of you have noticed the asl video warning against masturbation (another guilt trip) is creating waves.
this is not small fry.
1. it is humorous - most topics (like other policies) are serious/depressing (blood, shunning, pedos).
Cedars,
Thanks. I shouldn't have posted, I normally don't - my language in the post is intemperate, and to be honest, I haven't even bothered to get into the details that KS misuses - it would have taken all night. However, the tone, the attitude, the self-righteousness of it all, just annoyed me. I'm sure that KS is a great person, I bear him/her no ill-will.
For the record, I happen to think that the work that you and other posters have done, and continue to do, to expose the Watchtower Society for what it is, is absolutely invaluable. Whether or not a person always agrees with how each issue is handled, one cannot fault the overall aim - to let people see what the Watchtower Society is really all about. After that, people can make their own decisions.
As far as I am concerned, the WT has been preying on the deaf community for years, deliberately targeting a section of society that for historical reasons that I won't go into here, trusts religious figures. My experience of deaf people and the WT Society is one of outright exploitation, and ruined lives. I don't know who decided to use this clip, but as far as I am concerned, it was a masterstroke. With a little bit of thought, it could be even better. I personally would love to see an expose of the British Sign Language translations - some of the things that deaf people in the UK are taught about what the Bible is supposed to say, are frankly scandalous, and I am convinced that people don't realise simply because no-one has bothered to draw attention to it.
Keep up the good work, Cedars, et al.
PP
as some of you have noticed the asl video warning against masturbation (another guilt trip) is creating waves.
this is not small fry.
1. it is humorous - most topics (like other policies) are serious/depressing (blood, shunning, pedos).
Hi,
I must say, I've read King Solomon's posts with a fair degree of astonishment, and disbelief. I'd just like to say, before, I get into this, that my degree is in Sign Language, and Linguistics. My postgrad work is in Sign Language and Linguistics. I worked as a translator and presenter for the WT Society, in Sign Language. My family has profoundly deaf members in it, and I am classed as a native sign-language user. And my professional career, is as an interpreter and researcher in Sign Languages. So, you could say that I have some background in this issue. While some of KS's points are eminently reasonable, I'm absolutely amazed that King Solomon has said some of the stuff he has.
King Solomon said: "anyone who giggles and makes fun of the video is likely running the risk of insulting a protected classes language, making fun of hearing impaired."
Rubbish. While facial expressions (actually, they're called Non-manual Features) are part of the language, the nmf's used in the video are not "proper ASL" as you said. A number of expressions could be used by the presenter. The decision has been made by the translation team for the presenter on the video to manifest the facial expression of a weird, dry heaving, and above all, gormless expression. It is a deliberate choice, designed to negatively express masturbation. Why, exactly, should the fact that a person sees that facial expression and laugh, automatically mean that they are "mocking the deaf"? Get over yourself. It's a clear non-sequitur. I watched it. I laughed. My deaf family watched it. And laughed, and said "what the hell are they doing." Other deaf friends of mine watched it and had the same reaction.
King Solomon said: "his approach of exploiting a video designed for the hearing-impaired to get a cheap laugh". Again, nonsense. The reaction of deaf non-jw's to this video clip is "who the hell do they think they are, to tell us that". So some people find the video funny. Okay. And? Do you have proof that the motive behind the OP showing the video is "trying to get a cheap laugh"? I agree with you, the focus should be on the intrusion into private lives, but let's get something straight here. "try not to trample the boundaries of the hearing-impaired in the process by making fun of a video that accurately depicts someone communicating in correct ASL." There is no correct ASL, just as there is no "correct English". Laughing at a facial expression that the signer has chosen, does not mean the audience is mocking the deaf. You are making assumptions, and dare I say it, you are being offended on the behalf of "the deaf". Now let me say it here: THAT IS PATRONISNG. THAT IS OFFENSIVE. Deaf people don't need you to be the "protector of their dignity". JWFACTS had it bang on. "The purpose is not to insult a language, and anyone taking offense is being overly sensitive."
King Solomon said: "It's not hard to imagine the org consulted with ASL committees (whether JW only, or outside the org) before they proceeded with making the videos; it doesnt seem to be a sloppily-produced effort to me, in the least...." In that, you are entirely right, except the Society never consult outside groups in sign language, even tho they are obviously lacking in language skills.
Now let's get onto the bit where KS decided to say that BluePill2 was:
Sooo, then how do all the hearing-impaired posters on JWN (including LAmallcool, above) read and respond to posts, without being able to read? You've just perpetuated one of those ugly stereotypes about the hearing-impaired that shows a lack of awareness of their plight, the daily challenges they face in a hearing World that is ignorant of their experiences, and you aren't doing this to be an advocate or to help, but simply to exploit the disabled because it serves YOUR purposes. That's ugly...".
My god. KS, if I didn't think you were sincere, I would actually call you a complete buffoon. Here's a little statistic for you. Up to 70% of deaf high school gradutes in the US, CANNOT READ ABOVE THE LEVEL OF A TEN-YEAR OLD. FACT. You want the proof? Read Marc Marshark, from Gaulladuet University. Or Professor Bencie Woll from UCL. Or Professor Gabriella Vigliocco from the same institution. Or, ANY OF THE LAST 45 YEARS OF RESEARCH, from numerous institutions around the world - pm me, I'll send you the goddamn books myself, I've got hundreds of the bloody things. It's a fact. Where in the hell do you get off, accusing another poster of, essentially, discriminatory statements, without knowing MUCH ABOUT THE FIELD? Seriously?
This is where it starts to get surreal. KS gets into a discussion of translation, basing his authority on "The signs you find "hilarious" ARE an accepted part of the ASL, as confirmed by many deaf posters and translators." Do me a favour. That statement, in itself, shows you know NOTHING about the language. If I didn't know better, I'd say you are deliberately acting offended on behalf of "the deaf", and clutching at straws.
I mean, take this: "The parallel between the Hunter case and this masturbation video is that BOTH signs (in Hunter's case, the hand gesture of a pointed finger simulating a gun; in JW video, emulating masturbation) ARE signs that are part-and-parcel of ASL. Making fun of his finger sign isn't to be tolerated under all basic principles of human decency (not to mention the ADA); same thing here.... What you call "hilarious" IS someone else's PRIMARY means of communication in public with others: do you make fun of people with Chinese accents, too, or mock people with speech impediments? Same thing, no matter how you want to spin it."
Absolute rubbish, every word. Deaf people do not exist in a vaccum. They don't use the sign "masturbate" in general, everyday speech. It is a "taboo" sign, and is normally only used in conversations among friends, or as an insult. The reason that the Society used it is simple - it's because they wanted to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, and they lack the subtelty to approach the translation differently. As I said above, their language skills are LACKING, because they use amateur translators.
Now, before you get on your high horse, let me just make something clear. 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. God, is that so hard to understand? I have immense respect for LadyLee, she does a lot of good work. But, to quote, " I am not fluent in ASL and I can't read ASL very well. But I can get by with a lot of patience from them. My second daughter's first expressive language was sign. She could communicate with signs before she could talk.I am not just some person sitting on the sidelines." She is an deeply concerned person. But she is not a professional, nor is she a researcher into these issues. I am, my PHD thesis is on the cognition of deaf people, when reading written English. Oh, I can talk all day about eye-tracking studies, brain scans, and how we qualify and test fluency in English and Sign languages......but no-one cares, and I'm having a beer at the moment. So you can take my "opinion" on these matters to the bank.
As for JGnat, I don't know if he said that the "translators are deaf". But here's a little thing. After spending years at Bethel, ACTUALLY doing the job, I can assure you that the "translators" are not deaf. They're hearing, for very good reasons. The point is, you're just quoting things, to back up your own sense of unjustified outrage. And frankly, it's stupid.
In fact, I'm gonna stop here. Pretty much EVERYTHING you've said about this issue, in terms of facts, is WRONG. And what really, really pisses me off, is that you use these "facts" as a basis to get offended and attack people like Cedars. I could detail here, right now, all of your ridiculous mistakes, but it's so time consuming, and frankly boring, that I just cannot be bothered.
As a final point, I love the fact you talk about people with deaf family members learning sign language as an "act of love" and start getting all mushy and offended on my behalf - because that is me. Deaf parents. Do me a favor, don't use me as a cover. Argue your points with facts. Don't get all offended on my behalf. You're patronising, offensive, and frankly, you've overreached yourself. As Pistoff put it so well.
"What the hell are you talking about? Now you compare an enthusiastic and emotive ASL diatribe about masturbation by a repressed culty to yet another thing that is completely unrelated.
You need to get real. I think a video is funny, and now I am culturally insensitive and my world view is off??
If others don't get ASL, that is not my problem; deal with them.
I am not responsible for educating every fool out there, that seems to be your job.
WTF??"
Bang on.
PP
as some of you have noticed the asl video warning against masturbation (another guilt trip) is creating waves.
this is not small fry.
1. it is humorous - most topics (like other policies) are serious/depressing (blood, shunning, pedos).
Hi,
I must say, I've read King Solomon's posts with a fair degree of astonishment, and disbelief. I'd just like to say, before, I get into this, that my degree is in Sign Language, and Linguistics. My postgrad work is in Sign Language and Linguistics. I worked as a translator for ths Society, in Sign Language. My family is deaf. And my professional career, is as an interpreter and researcher in Sign Lnaguage. So, you could say that I kind of know what I'm talking about. I'm absolutely amazed that King Solomon has said some of the stuff he has.
King Solomon said: "
I know quite a few people on that list. Those email addresses are pretty much correct. Also, it is relatively up to date.
PP
or to acheieve any goals in their life.
and how dare you try to enjoy your life in this sick and demonic world.
dont you know that this world wont be here for long?
Sadly, you're absolutely right. A more envious, self-aggrandizing, anti-self fulfillment organisation, I have never seen.
PP
me personally, considerably weaker.
in fact i have.
become an agnostic.. since i discovered this site over 6-7 yrs, we have.
CyberJesus,
thanks. more an evolution then a transformation. you live and learn, I suppose. Well, some do. Are you still a believer?
PP
me personally, considerably weaker.
in fact i have.
become an agnostic.. since i discovered this site over 6-7 yrs, we have.
Jam,
Perhaps you should, if you haven't already, read Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins. I think it would speak to you, especially where you seem to be mentally. Maybe take the time to think on what he wrote there - it certainly helped me:
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia....
Here, it seems to me, lies the best answer to those petty-minded scrooges who are always asking what is the use of science. In one of those mythic remarks of uncertain authorship, Michael Faraday is alleged to have been asked what was the use of science. 'Sir,' Faraday replied. 'Of what use is a new-born child?' The obvious thing for Faraday (or Benjamin Franklin, or whoever it was) to have meant was that a baby might be no use for anything at present, but it has great potential for the future. I now like to think that he meant something else, too: What is the use of bringing a baby into the world if the only thing it does with its life is just work to go on living? If everything is judged by how 'useful' it is -- useful for staying alive, that is -- we are left facing a futile circularity. There must be some added value. At least a part of life should be devoted to living that life, not just working to stop it ending. This is how we rightly justify spending taxpayers' money e species and beautiful buildings. It is how we answer those barbarians who think that wild elephants and historic houses should be preserved only if they 'pay their way'. And science is the same. Of course science pays its way; of course it is useful. But that is not all it is.
After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn't it a noble, an s sssssenlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked -- as I am surprisingly often -- why I bother to get up in the mornings. To put it the other way round, isn't it sad to go to your grave without ever wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be a part of it?"
[http://richarddawkins.net/articles/91-to-live-at-all-is-miracle-enough]
PP
me personally, considerably weaker.
in fact i have.
become an agnostic.. since i discovered this site over 6-7 yrs, we have.
Knwsnothing,
great video. Any idea what that piece of music is?
PP
