I assume there must be a reason why sign language is superior but I genuinely don’t know why.

  • DeadPand@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    Im deaf and it’s real weird seeing you get downvoted for saying you can’t translate english to sign language verbatim, cause it’s true. Sign language is a lot more like broken english combined with body language, you don’t word for word translate english to sign, there’s too many words for starters, and lost in translation is a thing that exists.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Part of it is well intentioned people that don’t know any better, and I’m sure you’re aware there’s significant parts of the deaf community who are isolanists and view it as their whole identity rather a small piece of what makes a person who they are. And back 50-60 years ago, that was kind of true.

      Even back on Reddit, commonsense is rarely common when talking abouts ASL and especially cochlear implants.

      • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        So my take on this comes from having a hearing friend who grew up in a anti-cochlear implant / hearing restoration family (deaf parents, grandparents, her and her sister are the only immediate family with “normal” hearing) and their preference was definitely to drive ASL which probably informs my outsider take on the matter.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Now, I’m not part of the deaf community in any real way (don’t know any deaf people, and only a few who know sign, but I used to know the alphabet), but im badly near-sighted. Like, I didn’t realize that everyone else could see individual leaves on trees instead of vague green blobs where the canopy was. And birds just disappeared into them. The first time I saw a Monet painting, and impressionist art in general, while I still appreciated the beauty my first thought was, “Ah, a painting of the world as seen by a near-sighted person.” That said, I’m very happy to wear glasses and see a truer representation of what the rest of the world sees rather than walking through life in an impressionistic world.

          So, for me, I can’t see why anyone would choose to perceive less of the world than they could. If I could further augment my senses in a convenient manner, I would. If my parents had had to choose between some surgery and me being isolated from so much of the world, I’d ask for the surgery if I could.

          • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            The TV show See does a pretty good job of covering the why for this.

            My understanding is that part of it is a “we’re not broken, we’re full people” along with “this is our culture” and the restoration of hearing is an erasure or something? I struggle to understand it myself and as a parent I would gladly lose my vision too if it meant restoring any healthy functioning for my son. It’s weird to me/

            That said, I’m an outsider so I am only judging not understanding entirely.

            • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yes, I get the culture aspect of it, I’ve seen and read a fair amount on the subject, but I just can’t see it as worth it. And as technology improves, it’s going to be even harder. As for the not broken, I disagree with that, too. It doesn’t make them less of people, just like not being able to walk or see doesn’t, but there are still many things the average person can do that they can’t, just like how I can’t legally drive without corrective lenses and would be pretty nervous if I had to.