Probably the easiest way to win a game is to ban the opposition but!! A healthy discourse of opposites is essential in a democracy, it would be extremely boring and wrong for everyone to agree anyway, more feedback online to those challenging the Deaf status Quo (or even any status quo).
Is there no room now for a personal view online any more? The major problem is a lot of people pretend assent to avoid conflict, BLM e.g. and other areas know it, and know there is nothing to be done about it too. BAME? whatever happened to that term I wonder? Mention either that area, gender or equality and inclusion, then things tend to polarise very rapidly and online moderators stretch out to the 'edit' or 'ban' button etc, not because they disagree but afraid others will. One or two have actually banned people for life (Or life as such as it exists on a site anyway).
Quite obviously, ATR sails on the edge of things most of the time, we just feel anything is invalid unless you hear pros and cons in equal measure to arrive at a consensus, we don't accept media support as valid, charity is a hindrance, and dedicated sites with an obvious 'slant' and vested interest. The BBC in the UK is no longer viewed a valid or neutral media. Nobody has a priority over anyone else access-wise. I doubt anyone can identify a SINGLE online site where democracy happens, even at deaf.read there are posts they won't allow, with some not really being validated why, or reasons being given. Obviously, as a Non-American poster, you have to take other countries foibles and laws into account, as do American posters have to toe whatever the current UK line is if they want to be seen. The key message is to avoid obvious dedicated sites altogether, albeit easier said than done.
Mostly because the dedicated sites are created to include 'like with like' so people who won't rock their boat, spotting the deaf variety is relatively hit and Miss it is either signed or the splash the D everywhere discarding basic grammar rules to make their point. In reality, easily identifying a site others want to avoid, so it doesn't always work as they wish.... Such sites immediately identify as a clique, and goes downhill rapidly then, sometimes, only contention keeps a site alive, (Not trolling of course), there is little or no place for the independent or 'lone ranger' but we are the spearhead of raising issues even if after the 'reasonable majority' make it real and dump us after, we still serve a vital purpose.
We accept our 'collateral damage' status as par for the course. Our annoyance (And we have lots!), are people I know share a different view but still agree with those that don't and cop out of standing their ground to avoid a row or something, just what good does that do? Harmony? I wonder if a 'Harmony of hypocrites is a thing? Silence is the very definition of disagreement, and like people who don't complain until after the event, it doesn't count, like voters who didn't. In most cases people are running scared of being targetted by the righteous few etc, maybe when we ditch Human Rights laws for one that recognises real equality and common sense it may be viable. So many heads need banging together it is difficult to know where to start.
We have deaf areas campaigning for laws/bills that just suit their view of deafness, access or inclusion, it is a questionable way to go, to use the law as a discriminator and separator, which is what happens. Culture has a lot to answer for and without it these deaf would be just the minority they really are instead of being empowered to establish an image that takes us ALL in and very aggressive when challenged on that. Those that need specific support, of course, they should get it, those that 'prefer' support that isn't their actual prime need, and they have viable alternatives to use, I can't go with.
It's not a right to pick and choose how equality or inclusion should work depending on your mood at the time, or the current campaign being run, assessment should define, the UK welfare agencies already use that criterion The USA as we understand it also has a 'legal' definition of who is deaf or blind. Assessment looks to be the real way to determine need, what we 'choose' is up for grabs. We have people who are perfectly literate refusing to speak when they can or even read a letter because they 'prefer' to sign instead. You can't do that, that is a choice, not a need and need comes first.
It is all rather sad people with the same disability issues are at each other's throats :( but the Deaf are the 'Mice that roared'.
