5 Reasons Why the DEAF Masturbation Video is different than anything before... (page 19)

Paulapollos

Bluepill,

sounds like you know what I mean! Thanks

PP

Has anyone here noticed that there are other versions of sign language presented on the website (not just American Sign Language)? I saw the Australian and Japanese versions, and I have to say that the way the Japanese handled those difficult signs seem more appropriate for religious discourse (at least to me).

I don't get it. Clearly sign language isn't written in stone; no language is. Languages are always constantly evolving and developing. So why didn't the American deaf community ever come up with signs that are not as vulgar, much in the same way all other languages engage in euphemism when discussing difficult topics?

Thanks,
Jack

EDIT: I also think the Italian version is better. Just seems more dignified for some reason.

jeanpicard

So why didn't the American deaf community ever come up with signs that are not as vulgar, much in the same way all other languages engage in euphemism when discussing difficult topics?

It's just the nature of the language and the culture. Deaf culture tends be very blunt and very detailed. The culture has evolved that way, whereas most hearing cultures have evolved to be more sensitive to certain topics, and some hearing cultures are far more sensitive to said topics than those of English-speaking cultures.

As an aside, I think it's a shame that, even here, we refer to topics like sexuality and masturbation as difficult or vulgar or potentially offensive. A thing--a word, a gesture, a topic, a discussion, etc.--is only offensive if it offends us, and as obvious as that might sound, we really can choose, if we want, to not be offended by things.

Glander

A thing--a word, a gesture, a topic, a discussion, etc.--is only offensive if it offends us, and as obvious as that might sound, we really can choose, if we want, to not be offended by things.

So true - reminds me of the old adage "only a fool takes offense where none was intended"

jmorgan74

As an aside, I think it's a shame that, even here, we refer to topics like sexuality and masturbation as difficult or vulgar or potentially offensive. A thing--a word, a gesture, a topic, a discussion, etc.--is only offensive if it offends us, and as obvious as that might sound, we really can choose, if we want, to not be offended by things.

That's true. But I would say that the reaction that most here seemed to have - mainly laughter - is probably typical of the reaction that most would have when viewing the ASL's signs depicting masturbation, unless you happen to be a very mature person. I think the question becomes, is it more reasonable to expect that ASL communicate terms involving sex without pantomiming the specific acts, or do we expect the rest of the American culture to change their reaction upon viewing sexual acts that are being pantomimed?

Thanks,
Jack

Paulapollos

Hi JMorgan.

"I think the question becomes, is it more reasonable to expect that ASL communicate terms involving sex without pantomiming the specific acts, or do we expect the rest of the American culture to change their reaction upon viewing sexual acts that are being pantomimed?"

Why should this be a question at all? The historical experience of Deaf people, both in the US and UK, mitigates that most deaf people will not change their language, simply because the "hearing" don't think it is "appropriate". You won't be aware, I'm sure, but the development and proliferation of sign-languages was a direct effort by young deaf people to resist cultural hegemony by hearing people. Frankly, if hearing people find certain signs "offensive" or "innappropriate", that will be seen as immaterial, to say the least.

PP

King Solomon

JP said:

Well, this is just getting exhausting.
Yes, it is.... Can we just leave it on that note, or can I say one more thing?

PP, you are working on what: a AVT cert or some-such? It's all becoming clearer: you are one of those know-it-all grad students, no doubt struggling with the student loan burden, eating ramen, dealing with your meanie advisors, project deadlines, etc. Gotcha.... It dawned on me when I read that part where you felt the need to edumacate (sic) silly-ol' ignorant me on the principles of sensorineural development, when you seemingly are quite clueless as to the history of WHERE that knowledge came from (and you'd think when I said 'amblyopia', that you'd have gotten a hint?).

You DO realize that what the field of medicine knows about concepts like "critical phase" of neurosensory development came from the work of pioneers in my field, eg Hubel and Wiesel's Nobel-Prize-winning elucidation of the formation of ocular dominance columns in the 1960's; this work offered clinically-applicable models of amblyopia? The study of treatment of ambylopia and binocular vision dysfunction (strabismus) was started back in the 1930's by the respected names of the giants in the field of medicine and cognitive science/psychology (Parks, Jampolsky, etc). Much of that ground-breaking work WAS conducted by vision scientists at my alma mater UC Berkeley, which is a World-renown research center with professors recognized as the experts? I've participated in studies that have been published in the journals and lit, and many of my friends at Cal are vision scientists currently engaged in the cutting-edge work of the day. That's what Berkeley IS: a research center, with clinical training.

I got a chuckle a few years back when I saw those investigating auditory developmental processes coined the term "amblyauria", to indicate the deficits encountered due to lack of auditory input: nice work, guys! They were applying the basic principles of development of the visual cortices to the processes that occur in higher-level auditory cortex centers, and since neurons ARE neurons, and while the work needed to be replicated to study development of hearing, the researchers had a well-worn path to follow.

So back when cochlear implant surgeons were wondering why cochlear implants worked better when used ASAP on infants vs full-grown adults, the eye guys were saying, "Well, YEAH: it's the same reason we cannot preform cataract Sx on a child and somehow expect the child to magically "see" afterwards. Vision is a LEARNED process, but more importantly, the visual stimulus of photonic impulses coming from in-focus images formed on the macula is needed to stimulate neural development and growth of the cells in the downstream pathways (magno/parvo cells, etc)".

No kidding: that child needs surgery to remove the cataract, PLUS optical correction (to prevent aneisikonic/refractive amblyopia), PLUS patching, PLUS active therapy to allow normal developmental processes to catch up. Same with deficits from otitis media obstructions, etc. AVT is used to compensate once the 'block' is removed.

BTW, I'd reassess your "lack of hope" claim for treating anything other than infant amblyaudia: in the 1960's, most ophthalmologists were told that unless the patient is treated before the "critical development" period ends (from 2-6 y.o), and aggressive therapy isn't started ASAP, then all hope is lost. NOT SO. Mounds of subsequent research has confirmed that significant brain plasticity remains even late into life, and it's never "too late".

I don't just KNOW that from reading med literature: I've OBSERVED it clinically in patients who've engaged in aggressive vision therapy later in life (in their 70's), where they actually have an advantage over an infant since they can actually COOPERATE and UNDERSTAND why they're doing VT, and what they need to do. You are correct in that therapy generally takes much longer to achieve results vs when started younger (due to more brain plasticity when young, when they're already actively making synaptic connections), and the end results may not be AS impressive, but I have plenty of letters from satisfied patients (not to mention an avalanche of clinical studies for those who are impressed by that) thanking for telling them there WAS a hope, and they DID appreciate then difference, when they'd always been told "SORRY, it's too late" by their prior doctors.

(BTW, the best-case outcome for such patients is a condition called 'monofixation syndrome': a constellation of findings that indicate residual deficits in various indices of visual performance, eg intermittent suppression, anomalous retinal correspondence, decreased visual/stereo-acuity/contrast sensitivity, lack of bifoveal fixation, loss of peripheral suppression, etc. Nevertheless, many patients DO report subjective significant improvement in their vision, and hence it's THEIR DECISION after informing them of the details: they have to be willing to make the effort. The PATIENT decides, NOT the smarmy know-it-all doctor or therapist).

See, I've actually TREATED (or more accurately, oversaw the treatment performed by vision therapy techs: it IS a team effort) over 20k actual VT patients in MY career, as I ran a (4) doc/(8) tech/(4) admin clinic (plus ofc manager) facility, treating NOT just rats in a lab, but ACTUAL REAL-LIVE BREATHING TALKING patients with FEELINGS. It seems to have worked for us: we're starting to see the grand-children of many of the original patients back when the clinic opened (which is NOT a good sign, in other ways, LOL!). I've since sold my portion to a junior doc, but I still remain in contact with the partners, etc.

In order to do all of that, I needed to maintain my licensure as a physician by the State, board certification, pay the medical malpractice premiums, meet payroll (!), deal with managed care plans, practice-building with influential members of the community (Rotary, mostly, but a bit with Kiwanis via the junior partners). It was very busy practice, but very rewarding personally and professionally (I had the insight to buy and build the clinic in the 1990's (when real estate was at a low), so own the building; I dabble in CRE.). It was a multi-million-$ gross practice (as it needed to be, due to the chair and overhead costs).

Within the practice, we had a dedicated staff of 'vision therapists' who per CA law may seek certification, but regardless, the bottom line is they worked with MY patients under MY therapeutic umbrella, covered by MY malpractice coverage (via "doctrine of respondiat superior": look it up, if you don't know what that means yet). It is a large successful vision-therapy center in our metropolitian area, and we garnered referrals from/for other specialists in the community (including clinics run by otologists/surgeons doing cochlear implants; the thing is, kids with hearing issues often have visual problems, as you should know). I hired and paid salaries for many staff doctors, therapists over the years, funding their retirements for their hard work (we had VT techs who performed non-cert ASL; CA law requires having it on demand, to avoid getting sued under ADA).

Besides that, our facility served students on clincal rotation in their last year of training (plus a few residents, who came through to learn more about VT in an additional year, when we started that program). I taught the principles you think I'm unaware of to many students, and I wrote reports for grad students on their performance during their clinicals, etc.

The interesting bit was occasionally we'd have a "know-it-all" researcher lab rat who came in, but seized up when working with a real-live patient, as they didn't know how to translate their egg-headed brilliance into a treatment plan, or never learned to TALK to the patient to perform a basic case history. And when it came to communicating with the parent (the mom IS the family member who makes healthcare decisions), they often came off as you do: superior, demeaning, intolerant. HINT: patients don't tolerate it, and will simply go elsewhere. It's a PRACTICE KILLER, the kiss of death to the bottom-line (as any practice management consultant would tell you, if you've gotten that far). Worse is, it was often the student's piss-poor defeatist attitude that had them getting in their own way, with their "woe is me, you're out to get me" defensive thinking.

I rarely had to send a few very-smart (but arguably Asperbergers) students back to wherever it was they came from, before they completed their rotation, just so they could figure out what they were going to do with their life: it certainly wasn't going to be caring for patients! They lacked the skill-set: not just the knowledge, but a smattering of charisma, caring attitude, empathy, people-skills, or even the basic decency to be involved directly in patient care. Sad they had to get so far into student debt to figure it out, but oh, well: it's not MY problem if their dream was only that, a dream (like the New System™ is for so many JWs).

Success in practice comes from putting the needs of the PATIENT first, NOT your ego, or YOUR wants and NEEDS, or what you THINK you know. Loyal patients are created on the basis of what you DO for them, NOT what you TELL them you can do, or what you KNOW.

NOW, time for going all "God on Job" time.....

If someone like you EVER walked in MY clinic and thought they could edumacate (sic) me with your kind of arrogant attitude, they'd be packing their suitcase and carry-on and heading home that same day (maybe you could see if that cot back at Bethel is still available, with that lucrative $5 a month paycheck, as your back-up plan?). You have got A LOT to learn about how the "Worldly World" works, and you're not making a great impression on me (and let's not blame the cloistered nun-like covent environment of Bethel, m'kay?). Having practiced in many varied multi-disciplinary settings with a broad ranges of personalities, and brilliant providers, etc, the first thing everyone learns (if they don't know it already) is to BLEND, and sublimate THEIR ego to the mission, the needs of the "team". I am highly unimpressed with what you've displayed here, with that typical cloistered narcissistic JW "I'm better than you" attitude. That's NOT going to work anywhere in the real World.

More concerning, though, is the seeming lack of integrity: that cannot be learned, unfortunately. It seems we've found a likely etiology of the video leak, right here in this thread? I'm imagining a scenario were someone in Patterson, NJ (nice area I hear, BTW. I dunno, I've never been...) on the Deaf team didn't like some of the production decisions that were made, and objected ("BUT, he made the sign too salacious!!!"), but they got their ego boo-booed when no one listened to them, so they let the green-eyed envy monster get the better of them. So they decided to try and embarrass others on their team, like a petulant child. Am I getting warm, anyone? Sorry, but I wasn't born yesterday: no non-JW hearing person was clicking thru ASL videos on jw-org, and ran across a video about masturbation, and decided to add a tag-word "masturbation" and upload to YT. That's nonsense: someone knew it was there, and decided to make a deal of it....

That kind of passive-aggressive tactic is universally deplored in ANY professional setting, whether it's a medical facility, the military, or the corporate World. It's TOTALLY unprofessional to turn on your team, and "ends don't justify the means". It's as slimy or duplicitious as anything the GB does, when it comes to what it says about the person who did it....

So now you're stripping ME down, as if I don't know anything about dealing with the needs of patients with impairments, trying to throw flak? You're trying to blame ME for your callous, heartless uncaring attitude, willing to throwing anyone under the bus in order to put YOUR own self-serving ego-driven agenda (destroying the WT) as MORE IMPORTANT than anything else? EVEN IF you don't know the guy in the video, you should be ASHAMED of trying to embarrass him: most here can intuitively understand that as mature adults (and you have to read no further than this thread, or the 4-page thread talking about how embarrassed the guy MUST BE to know the intent and/or likely outcome is mocking: there's demanded proof to meet your requirements of "burden of proof". It's called "common sense": unfortunately, you will be getting it from a PhD).

PP, encountering self-entitled people like you don't surprise me a bit, at my age (and I probably have neuro books older than you, I bet: are you even in your 30's yet?), but empty, soul-sucking people like you nevertheless do manage to DISGUST me, even still.... All you've got to offer is sanctimonious pomposity, when you haven't even earned the degree or experience to back it up.

As far as the JW apologist crap: ever consider that it's petty, self-centered narcissistic individuals like you and BluePill who make it such a bitter, toxic environment in the JWs? Ironic, no? Many here on JWN are self-actualized enough to come up with an exit strategy, and simply vote with their feet and move on with their lives (novel concept, no?), putting on their big-kid undies and pay the price (DF/shun). Others fester in their mire, and try to drag others into their pain, or use ineffectual acting-out tirades that usually just blow up in their faces and hurts them when it's sloppily implemented.

I DID something with MY life, and don't want to attend your "pity party" but thanks for the invite. So screw you and that hearing-impaired donkey you rode in on, and consider taking him back to Bethel if you truly cannot manage to leave it behind you emotionally, as well. See, you're STILL in Bethel, even if you're body is not.

I had more to say, point-by-point (eg how YT videos go viral, and your delusion thinking that this is a professional discussion forum and hence the definition of words like 'illiterate' as used by pros vs gen public means something, or that anyone on YT gives a flyin'-flip about questionable ASL translations used on the UK site, etc) but I won't waste my time: life is too short to waste on people who already know-it-all anyway.

rebel8

The cult should not be talking about this subject under any circumstances.

The cult should not make a video with graphic "jack off" gestures under any circumstances.

The dumbass interpreters shouldn't have agreed to make the video. It defies common sense.

It's that simple.

jmorgan74

Why should this be a question at all? The historical experience of Deaf people, both in the US and UK, mitigates that most deaf people will not change their language, simply because the "hearing" don't think it is "appropriate". You won't be aware, I'm sure, but the development and proliferation of sign-languages was a direct effort by young deaf people to resist cultural hegemony by hearing people. Frankly, if hearing people find certain signs "offensive" or "innappropriate", that will be seen as immaterial, to say the least.

Hey, Paulapollos.

Ah, yes. I kinda figured that way of thinking was behind some of this, I was just waiting for someone to say it.

So basically, we have a minority group insisting upon their rights to communicate in a particular way (even though it doesn't have to be that way, as can be seen from other forms of sign language), even though they know it will make other people (likely the majority of Americans) uncomfortable/offended. They simply don't care about how others might view it.

Now I don't feel so bad about laughing.

Best regards,
Jack

5 Reasons Why the DEAF Masturbation Video is different than anything before...

Hermano

Paulapollos

jmorgan74

jeanpicard

Glander

jmorgan74

Paulapollos

King Solomon

rebel8

jmorgan74

Share this