I have been (un?)fortunately reminded why I did not want to be a part of any social media groups, relating to or based on deafness / sign language. For I am now much happier, without, having since left quite a few.
Having this extraordinary second chance at life has meant I have very little tolerance for such toxic “deaf world” attitudes. For me to get extremely angry nowadays is very rare but as always, is justified.
My personal experience (here in the UK) is that because deaf people do not support each other, that often makes matters worse. Sadly, causing mental health issues from within.
The deaf community has however, come a long way and that should not be forgotten. From being hidden away, or being forbidden to sign, to what it is today for we now, are able to be an equal. There is still a lot to do to improve the mental health state within the deaf community and it is down to the deaf community to work harder through legal means to improve situations.
Each and every being, deserves to be respected – regardless.
Each one of us, deserves better.
I would like to publicly thank my friends, for your continued support. For one another especially. For your courage and conviction.
Much love and admiration to you all. 💖💖💖
Bless your cottons! 😜
May positivity and peace reign over us all, once more.
The one thing I have noticed about (British) sign language is how it is always evolving. How they signed in the 1930’s is different yet similar to today’s. Back then it was mainly fingerspelling at a very fast speed!
I also observe that there is no right or wrong way to sign a word, due to regional “accents”. Much like how spoken languages is always evolving, has accents and have adopted foreign words too.
I bring this up solely because I’ve noticed people continuously trying to correct a person’s signing “No, wrong!”, I have even ‘heard’ (pardon the pun!) that someone was trying to suggest to the signing community, not to adopt any foreign signs.
There are different signs to words like “Deaf” and “Thank you” today, to what I learnt as a child.
Keeping the Tree House fb group going as a wise friend put it “was a form of self defeatist self abuse.”
I have long since been locked “in an intimidated interaction.”
The damage has been done, by all those who consciously chose to target, to spread slander & manipulative lies, acted on their disdain simply because they could not succeed in playing games with me. They could not get what they wanted which was their own way and my Tree House.
The Tree House fb group is now, closed.
The website however, will remain open to view as a lot of hard work has been put into it. I thank once again, all those who willingly contributed and kindly supported.
By removing myself from the equation, mainly the negativity generated by the offenders of the deaf world, I am now free.
That same old drum is being banged upon once more.
Deaf people always seem to resent having to pay the full license fee to the BBC, just because the blind get a concession and they do not. In the old days, I might have agreed as there was evidently a real lack of captions and hardly any in-vision signers. Nowadays, the accessibility is there. And then some.
My father went through the very same motions a few years back, which my experience with, has prompted this post.
Any petition, past, present or to come, to reduce the BBC licensing fee on grounds of being deaf (regardless of how severe it is) and that programmes are inaccessible will fail. Without a doubt.
It does not matter if you do not watch the BBC even if it’s out of protest. If you watch or listen to any of the other channels or even access them online over devices, this is prescisley what the fee covers. That space. The fee is basically a tax, so you can watch or access any channels over the air space that is owned by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Better known as, the BBC.
It is extremely hard, to keep deaf people happy, especially if they love anything that’s free.
The other day I was concerned to find quite a passionate post, ranting about being denied the opportunity to watch a captioned screening of a film they particularly and most eagerly wanted to watch. They went as far as to complain to Cineworld because they felt as though they were “at their fecking mercy”. So not my words.
Then I spot an editor adding fuel to the fire by suggesting they write a post about the dispute they were locked in, with Cineworld – for them to publish on their blog. Surely an editor is meant to fact check first? Or are they just desperate for ratings…
These days I do not wish to get involved with anything deaf related because usually, it’s the brutal truth which people know but refuse to accept. They are happy in their dream world, assuming all is against them when the fight to break down barriers are sometimes of their own doing.
This current dispute with Cineworld is unjustified. Because I myself had been following listings not just from “Your Local Cinema” but comparing them with official listings by the cinema companies themselves.
Why would I accept a third person’s say so? I’m going to double check it and make sure it’s correct or otherwise. This is how I knew Cineworld was not wrong and so felt the need to inform the complainer, of my findings. That actually, ‘Your Local Cinema’ was in fact publishing incorrect listings on occasion and even listed non-existent cinemas. Some of which had long been demolished. I had been checking throughout the holidays as there were and are films we, that my kids and I, would like to see and saw for myself, the inconsistencies.
Double check, the information and yourselves. Try not to be so trigger happy, eh?