You're banned!

 

She swore at an idiot now banned, how many of us have been taunted to do that!    The poster needs to ID trhe site as one to avoid.  We need deaf and HoH to know we aren't' going to tolerate these people their sites or their 'Trump democracy'.

When you see some of the stuff that is posted then see someone has been banned for something pretty harmless it is rather confusing. Weird fb.

ATR:  I believe I hold the online record in the UK still being banned from 2 deaf sites after 6 YEARS. Some of these sites are run by Hitler clones, who bask in the adoration of other wannabees, it is sad because they deny deaf or others a place to see both sides of any question.   I had to leave my country in (UK), to be still online via an American Aggregate, some of these clowns followed ATR there and lambasted the aggregate for allowing me to post.

A  right to disagree has to be upheld.  All too often those losing their point can resort to baiting others to get them banned and to cement the view they were right, and you, were wrong.  If the responses heat up then the accusations of you being personally abusive, racist, homophobic, tone-deaf, (from people who have never heard a tone in their life),  discriminating, are a deaf or disability hater, any ist or ism, you are the personification of them, short of being convicted as a mass serial killer it gets no worse.  All because your view differed from theirs.

They are the homes of isolation and extremism, don't be fooled by the suggestion they are people like you they aren't. They are the 'Janus' sites forever presenting two faces.  That is the bait to lure you in. So long as you stick to the 'rules' they invent interpretation of, all is fine, disagree, then you are out. 

Sites to avoid in the UK are the BDA/Deaf EU/Deaf UK ones, hotbeds of real discrimination and purveyors of lies who don't allow discourse, you support what they do or you don't, if you don't you are out.

True there are many misconceptions of charitable, media, and dedicated deaf sites, to a lesser degree Hard of Hearing ones.  E.G.  The RNID closed down social media, and forum feedback areas, they don't allow open criticism or constructive criticisms to be aired.  The BBC removed all their deaf SEE HEAR and disability feedback sites too.

Users are not allowed to disagree and must remain obliged they even get a mention.   The net is not a free platform for everyone, it is more closed than most. 

The sad issue is that deaf are being deprived on awareness, and just fed a constant diet of hate against hearing people or criticism their right to be a hidden minority fully supported by those they want to ignore isn't playing the game.  Many are fake/distorted news sites and one-sided views of deaf want or need.  All presumably based on what these losers think what news deaf get assures their continuation as big fish in small pools.

They will use 'facts' and stats to bolster their stance, but don't allow other equally valid facts to counter them being seen.

The Deaf Way to endorse abuse.

It has to be said the isolated nature of the 'Deaf' communities,  and some accepted 'norms' borders on real neglect of women's rights to their detriment.  There is almost an incestuous nature of the communal makeup where a dearth of females can mean they get 'passed around' the deaf menfolk, women may feel that is still their choice to choose a partner, but that 'choice' is very limited.

Promiscuity can be pretty evident too with a number related by marriage or by children, who become part and parcel of the set up too.  Women can be assaulted on a regular basis and they appear to put up with it, and it is all down to the restrictions a deaf life puts on them, feeling where else can they go?  You can find an acceptance of abuse tends to go on even when other deaf peers know about it.  

The Deaf Way' contributes to more of the same, and women deaf need to understand they don't have to put up with it, and there are alternatives to abuse.  If you need to leave that deaf set up where are the options to do it?  Having deaf history related to me over the years, teen sex and abuse started pretty much in deaf schools, some down to ignorance, a lot down to a refusal to educate deaf children on sex, contraception or relationships, so as to 'not put ideas into their heads' attitudes.  

Of course, sex knowledge is discussed by deaf children at very early ages the same as hearing children, so they don't get real knowledge except by experimentation, with obvious negative results.  Good relationships and socialising is at risk because of the real lack of options.  You can have any colour so long as it is black etc... Hearing-deaf relationships can and do work, but the closed nature of the 'Deaf Way' is a ripe hunting ground for the abuser, who knows his peers tend to turn a blind eye to it all.  A lot of deaf men don't respect their deaf women. 

The cultural 'closing of the ranks' when issues appear contribute to more of the same abuses happening.  Deaf women and Menfolk tend to adopt the view they only have each other to choose partners from, because of issues integrating or communicating to those unlike them.  In some Asian deaf areas that tends to vary because parents arrange who their partners are, so deaf women can be married off to hearing men.  A lot of deaf Asian women are also not allowed to attend non-Asian deaf areas or have relationships with non-asian peers either because of their 'norms'.

A lot of deaf women in the clubs who are older will relate on how things were as teens in school and their blithe acceptance of what the men and they engaged with on a sexual basis would be wholesale abuse by any hearing norm today, the institutional and isolated nature of deaf schools provided a ready-made situation deaf men could easily exploit, some came from the people caring for them.  Teens, of course, ignore tuition anyway, but the deaf years ago never had it to start with and the social norms were what they got away with mostly.

Yes, rape was more a norm in the deaf world than they care to admit. We would urge any deaf woman get out of it, tell someone, stop it all, no one has a right to abuse you.

I need an ID, so what am I?

I know it might sound silly, but i don't know anything about hearing loss etc, so now there have said I've got mild-moderate hearing loss does this get classed has partiality deaf??? , I'm really sorry if it's a daft question

To be or not to be seen, appears to be your question.   I don't envy the poster wondering what on earth his 'classification' is, just pick 'n mix your own, where a silly hat,  it really doesn't matter, it won't address your loss of hearing.  Searching for an ID suggests you have other issues, not just hearing loss.  Perhaps get that seen to first?  Not everyone needs to be social 24/7.

All is absolute confusion and awareness whatever you make it. There used to be a quite simple identification of hearing loss, if you CAN hear ANYTHING [with or without alleviation], then, you are NOT deaf, if you CANNOT hear anything at all with or without alleviation then you were deaf simples. 

Didn't the DWP make a legal challenge to 'deaf' people who took their aids out and stated they were deaf, as attempting to gain welfare and concession support by fraud? insurance companies did too.   Look at the problems of mask-wearing today and nobody believing you have a valid excuse.  

Deaf were refused ID cards that identified them because nobody clarified what deaf meant, and the Deaf themselves felt it ID's them as disabled, then rights entered the fray and all was clear as mud because a lot of Deaf had some useful hearing, but changed the debate to lack of inclusion.

The issue is not what they can or cannot hear but if what they do hear can be effectively followed, however, the DWP said that 'moves outside clinical loss', because not everyone follows everything the same way hearing or not.   This led to legal challenges where deaf lip-readers were also said to not be deaf at all by the DWP AND by BSL deaf areas too, who said that lip-reading and speech, was a clear indication you were not deaf.  It descended into rank silliness.

The arguments seem to go on and on and on about it. 'Quality of life' entered the arena, but nobody could quantify it. Quality of deaf life revolves not on lack of inclusion but on ensuring their lifestyles are protected, that lifestyle seems EXclusive not INclusive..  Access is still primarily via 3rd parties so social inclusion is relative.

BSL people have it easy! 'I sign therefore I am obviously deaf', and the system accepts that, but, a number of them we would identify as severely hard of hearing, NOT profound deaf because 'profound' means total/extreme, it is an absolute, and their loss isn't. The HoH version tends to be shrugged off as 'hear when we want to..' because hearing loss varies considerably, and because those with it are unsure what they are supposed to able to hear.  

Hearing loss isn't subject only to ears failing.  It can be nerve induced, a mental health issue etc, it is incorrect to put it own to  hearing loss alone.

Goalposts shifted, they were a culture, debate erased. 

For them! I think personally HoH rolled over far too quickly in accepting that point which effectively shut them out and replaced any voice they had. 

That's their problem, they need to speak up for themselves.

BSL is a visible disability, hearing loss isn't.  In obtaining help and support it pays to take up sign language clearly, but is that fraud? Given it is not aligned with deaf culture or that area at all?

Who cares? Desperate people will take desperate means to get help.  If you are struggling, all's fair.