Ok so, this is my area

This isn't as performative as it might appear.

90% of signing deaf people, are deaf from birth or nearabouts, and have had the education system massively fail them. Their literacy is at a year 3 or 4 level, they are still learning to read, instead of 'reading to learn'

People able to use subtitles have already learnt english, and then lost their hearing to the point they need subtitles, or its for people playing late at night or in a noisy environment...

There is actually very little overlap between the two. Not that there aren't a couple few deaf people who became literate, but it really is 10% who overcome that barrier at about the age of 9 or 10, and don't plateau.

u/vebent isn't wrong, if I became deaf, even though I understand a sign language myself, I'd much prefer subtitles/closed captions, but then we'd be among the 'post-lingually deafened. But if we were born deaf, we likely wouldn't be able to read them.'. The 'pre-lingually deafened' are an entirely different population, with different needs.

I'm as anti virtue-signally as anybody, but this isn't that bad. I'll tell you what is bad though: For a live interpretation, what the interpreter signs is roughly 6 seconds behind what the person is saying. The reason for this 'lag time' is that we don't interpret it word for word, it would be a pretty awful and meaningless interpretation doing that. The 6s lag time lets the interpreter process and understand the actual meaning of the sentence and sign that. So each time the news broadcast shows some tosser politician with an interpreter and ends right as the politician says something, then cuts, that is entirely performative of the broadcaster. The last 6 or so secconds of the important announcement were cut. But the hearing people don't know that, they think the deaf were given access, after all they could see an interpreter right?

I've long been of the opinion that if you are going to offer foreign languages as classes and as subtitles, it should be your native ones first. Including your area's sign language. Not spanish. Not french. They can and should learn English if they're coming here. But the native languages and the sign language, in this case American Sign Language (ASL). There's a nationalist argument for pushing this over foreign languages.

Ok so, this is my area

This isn't as performative as it might appear.

90% of signing deaf people, are deaf from birth or nearabouts, and have had the education system massively fail them. Their literacy is at a year 3 or 4 level, they are still learning to read, instead of 'reading to learn'

People able to use subtitles have already learnt english, and then lost their hearing to the point they need subtitles, or its for people playing late at night or in a noisy environment...

There is actually very little overlap between the two. Not that there aren't a couple few deaf people who became literate, but it really is 10% who overcome that barrier at about the age of 9 or 10, and don't plateau.

u/vebent isn't wrong, if I became deaf, even though I understand a sign language myself, I'd much prefer subtitles/closed captions, but then we'd be among the 'post-lingually deafened. But if we were born deaf, we likely wouldn't be able to read them.'. The 'pre-lingually deafened' are an entirely different population, with different needs.

I'm as anti virtue-signally as anybody, but this isn't that bad. I'll tell you what is bad though: For a live interpretation, what the interpreter signs is roughly 6 seconds behind what the person is saying. The reason for this 'lag time' is that we don't interpret it word for word, it would be a pretty awful and meaningless interpretation doing that. The 6s lag time lets the interpreter process and understand the actual meaning of the sentence and sign that. So each time the news broadcast shows some tosser politician with an interpreter and ends right as the politician says something, then cuts, that is entirely performative of the broadcaster. The last 6 or so secconds of the important announcement were cut. But the hearing people don't know that, they think the deaf were given access, after all they could see an interpreter right?

I've long been of the opinion that if you are going to offer foreign languages as classes and as subtitles, it should be your native ones first. Including your area's sign language. Not spanish. Not french. They can and should learn English if they're coming here. But the native languages and the sign language, in this case American Sign Language (ASL).

Ok so, this is my area

This isn't as performative as it might appear.

90% of signing deaf people, are deaf from birth or nearabouts, and have had the education system massively fail them. Their literacy is at a year 3 or 4 level, they are still learning to read, instead of 'reading to learn'

People able to use subtitles have already learnt english, and then lost their hearing to the point they need subtitles, or its for people playing late at night or in a noisy environment...

There is actually very little overlap between the two. Not that there aren't a couple few deaf people who became literate, but it really is 10% who overcome that barrier at about the age of 9 or 10, and don't plateau.

u/vebent isn't wrong, if I became deaf, even though I understand a sign language myself, I'd much prefer subtitles/closed captions. But if we were born deaf, we likely wouldn't be able to read them. But then we'd be among the 'post-lingually deafened'. The 'pre-lingually deafened' are an entirely different population, with different needs.

I'm as anti virtue-signally as anybody, but this isn't that bad. I'll tell you what is bad though: For a live interpretation, what the interpreter signs is roughly 6 seconds behind what the person is saying. The reason for this 'lag time' is that we don't interpret it word for word, it would be a pretty awful and meaningless interpretation doing that. The 6s lag time lets the interpreter process and understand the actual meaning of the sentence and sign that. So each time the news broadcast shows some tosser politician with an interpreter and ends right as the politician says something, then cuts, that is entirely performative of the broadcaster. The last 6 or so secconds of the important announcement were cut. But the hearing people don't know that, they think the deaf were given access, after all they could see an interpreter right?

I've long been of the opinion that if you are going to offer foreign languages as classes and as subtitles, it should be your native ones first. Including your area's sign language. Not spanish. Not french. They can and should learn English if they're coming here. But the native languages and the sign language, in this case American Sign Language (ASL).

Ok so, this is my area

This isn't as performative as it might appear.

90% of signing deaf people, are deaf from birth or nearabouts, and have had the education system massively fail them. Their literacy is at a year 3 or 4 level, they are still learning to read, instead of 'reading to learn'

People able to use subtitles have already learnt english, and then lost their hearing to the point they need subtitles, or its for people playing late at night or in a noisy environment...

There is actually very little overlap between the two. Not that there aren't a couple few deaf people who became literate, but it really is 10% who overcome that barrier at about the age of 9 or 10, and don't plateau.

u/vebent isn't wrong, if I became deaf, even though I understand a sign language myself, I'd much prefer subtitles/closed captions. But if we were born deaf, we likely wouldn't be able to read them. But then we'd be among the 'post-lingually deafened'. The 'pre-lingually deafened' are an entirely different population, with different needs.

I'm as anti virtue-signally as anybody, but this isn't that bad. I'll tell you what is bad though: For a live interpretation, what the interpreter signs is roughly 6 seconds behind what the person is saying. The reason for this 'lag time' is that we don't interpret it word for word, it would be a pretty awful and meaningless interpretation doing that. The 6s lag time lets the interpreter process and understand the actual meaning of the sentence and sign that. So each time the news broadcast shows some tosser politician with an interpreter and ends right as the politician says something, then cuts, that is entirely performative of the broadcaster. The last 6 or so secconds of the important announcement were cut. But the hearing people don't know that, they think the deaf were given access, after all they could see an interpreter right?

Ok so, this is my area

This isn't as performative as it might appear.

90% of signing deaf people, are deaf from birth or nearabouts, and have had the education system massively fail them. Their literacy is at a year 3 or 4 level, they are still learning to read, instead of 'reading to learn'

People able to use subtitles have already learnt english, and then lost their hearing to the point they need subtitles, or its for people playing late at night or in a noisy environment...

There is actually very little overlap between the two. Not that there aren't a couple few deaf people who became literate, but it really is 10% who overcome that barrier at about the age of 9 or 10, and don't plateau.

u/vebent isn't wrong, if I became deaf, even though I understand a sign language myself, I'd much prefer subtitles/closed captions. But if we were born deaf, we likely wouldn't be able to read them.