Enh, sounds like a bogus reason to prevent people from making noise during the conference. Possibly don't want it known who has support and who doesn't. The few deaf people I've met would not object to clapping or whooping. I'll have to ask my roommate about it. He's taken ASL classes and knows a lot more of the deaf than I do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jazz hands...that offends my sense of taste.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hama, the piece you linked is misleading.
If you click through to the original article in the Daily Telegraph, there is no mention of "deaf people" (except for the headline that is supposed to raise the ire of the mostly conservative readers).
Attendees were asked not to whoop. The Union later introduced a motion to prevent clapping and whooping in the future (which goes a little too far). There was no ban or a threat of "consequences" during the conference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hama, the piece you linked is misleading.
If you click through to the original article in the Daily Telegraph, there is no mention of "deaf people" (except for the headline that is supposed to raise the ire of the mostly conservative readers).
Attendees were asked not to whoop. The Union later introduced a motion to prevent clapping and whooping in the future (which goes a little too far). There was no ban or a threat of "consequences" during the conference.
this.
Yeah... I want to see a link to the NUS rule. Otherwise I call b+!%&~*@.
People propose all sorts of stupid rules at large events/meetings. Just because someone proposed it doesn't mean it was accepted or adopted. It doesn't even mean it was popular.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has become common at the rallies and protests I go to that indoors we use the ASL signs and not our voices. I was at a large event (city council meeting) with hundreds of people the night the council was voting on a gender/sexuality civil rights ordinance.
Shouting and clapping were forbidden. So everyone switched to ASL signs. Police have used the argument that shouting is disorderly conduct and as a pretense to remove people from the meetings. Our side used that to our advantage, since the people against the ordinance kept yelling and interrupting. The police were targeting them, not us.
It actually gives council a MUCH better measure of how many people are supporting something. Sound levels are hard to calibrate. But how many hands are up isn't. It's pretty amazing to walk back from the the podium and see hundreds of fingers twinkling. A veritable forest of arms.
It also speeds things up, since speakers don't have to pause their remarks to wait for the noise to die down before they continue speaking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what percentage of the population can actually understand sign language?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what percentage of the population can actually understand sign language?
There are only two that we use: applause and rebuke.
I first saw them being used about 6 years ago at rallies. It's become much more common since then, especially indoors. You don't need to know ASL as a language to use some words from it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or Bronx cheers.
I've been around and that one fingered salute is pretty universal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has become common at the rallies and protests I go to that indoors, that we use the ASL signs and not our voices. I was at a large event (city council meeting) with hundreds of people the night the council was voting on a gender/sexuality civil rights ordinance.
Shouting and clapping were forbidden. So everyone switched to ASL signs. Police have used the argument that shouting is disorderly conduct and as a pretense to remove people from the meetings. Our side used that to our advantage, since the people against the ordinance kept yelling and interrupting. The police were targeting them, not us.
It actually gives council a MUCH better measure of how many people are supporting something. Sound levels are hard to calibrate. But how many hands are up isn't. It's pretty amazing to walk back from the the podium and see hundreds of fingers twinkling. A veritable forest of arms.
It also speeds things up, since speakers don't have to pause their remarks to wait for the noise to die down before they continue speaking.
interesting...very much so.
Wish we could introduce that to the local governing body. After the past two sessions where some NIMBY folks were disrupting the meeting with their clapping all 'Proletariat-style', it'd be a blessed change.
Wish we could introduce that to the local governing body.
What's stopping you?
I can send you some links to news reports from that council meeting that you could share with your elected officials. Usually councils set their own rules for conducting business. It's quite common to limit the amount of time someone can speak, for example. And to forbid signs on sticks. Forbidding yelling and shouting and/or clapping is not all that unusual
The public hearing had so many people sign up to speak that they moved the meeting from the council chambers to a local movie theater to accommodate everyone. There were probably 400 people in the audience.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this inhumanly idiotic
It is interesting that you changed the headline from "Because it Excludes Deaf People" to "Might Offend The Deaf".
The reason given in the article you linked to is "because it has “serious impact” on the accessibility of the conference". Have you never asked someone to be quiet or turn down the volume so you could hear better?
"Deaf" doesn't mean "can't hear any sounds". Deaf means "has difficulty hearing". And as many people can tell you, noisy environments make it difficult to hear human speech.
That's not 'being offended'. That's simply trying to hear what is being said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking for the full letter but...from the UK telegraph
The motion calls for “reduced cheering or unnecessary loud noises on conference floor, including whooping and clapping” and warns of “consequences for those who ignore this requirement”. In the past, NUS events have banned clapping on the grounds that it might “trigger anxiety”.
which is a vastly different rationale.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lot of clickbait here. The quote in the headline for this thread does not actually seem to be a quote from either the article linked to, or from the article it is based on. The OP seems to be outraged by something that didn't happen, so s/he changed the story to to be something that would be outrageous if it had happened.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Outrage porn? In my TTRPG off-topic forum? It's a lot more likely than you think!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Outrage porn? In my TTRPG off-topic forum? It's a lot more likely than you think!
To be fair Poes law does swing the other way occasionally. (sparking outrage from the original side)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hama, the piece you linked is misleading.
If you click through to the original article in the Daily Telegraph, there is no mention of "deaf people" (except for the headline that is supposed to raise the ire of the mostly conservative readers).
...
I'm confused by your statement. The very first sentence mentions deaf people.
Students who whoop, cheer and clap should face “consequences” because they are excluding deaf people, delegates at the National Union of Students conference said.
As a side issue, I notice that the headline misspells the word "because." This looks like a really competent news organization.
Hama, the piece you linked is misleading.
If you click through to the original article in the Daily Telegraph, there is no mention of "deaf people" (except for the headline that is supposed to raise the ire of the mostly conservative readers).
...I'm confused by your statement. The very first sentence mentions deaf people.
You're right, of course. I overlooked that. However, that statement is not supported anywhere.
"Jazz hands" are inherently exclusive of those with limited use/mobility in their arms, and also exclusive of the visually-impaired. On the other hand, cheering or clapping provide a visual as well as auditory display, can be performed by those with limited arm use (cheering) and by those with limited use of their voices (clapping), and are therefore MORE inclusive, not less.
The attempt at inclusiveness isn't necessarily bad, but the glaring obliviousness to basic logic is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe what happened is that the more progressive people said "no cheering because of disabilities" meaning social anxiety, sensory processing disorder etc. Older/ less progressive reporters not knowing that those were a thing, assumed that because disabilities consist of blind ,deaf, or mobility impaired that they must have meant deaf.
I believe what happened is that the more progressive people said "no cheering because of disabilities" meaning social anxiety, sensory processing disorder etc.
I would think that just sitting among a huge crowd would already present a barrier for those people -- wouldn't they be more likely to watch it televised, rather than live, and text or tweet in comments/approvals? I, personally, have a very hard time being around that many people (my father has the same problem), but those people not cheering doesn't in any way lessen the issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously anecdotal, but I'm fine in sitting crowds until they get loud. Clapping is okay for short periods, but if a lot of people are yelling around me it makes me very anxious.
Sure, I have issues too, going back to the Army and the spectrum and the fact that I'm half deaf. I don't like loud crowds.
The answer to that however, is to leave, when the crowd gets loud, not to tell the crowd to be quiet. There are certain places where quiet is expected of a crowd (like a movie theater), and certain places where it is not (like a ball game). If we're in the latter, it is on us, the uncomfortable, to remove ourselves from the situation, which we knew going into, was going to be uncomfortable.
This idea that the entire world should rearrange for the most offended person needs to go away. It's preventing reasonable accommodations from being seen as anything other than a political talk point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This idea that the entire world should rearrange for the most offended person needs to go away. It's preventing reasonable accommodations from being seen as anything other than a political talk point.
Any time you have a social consensus where most of the population hovers around "reasonable" you're going to have people being rather unreasonable at both extremes.
It might be worth pointing out that the article refers to various forms of noisemaking excluding the deaf, not offending them. It is trivially obvious that people who are totally deaf will not hear clapping, shouting, or other noises. Depending on what proportion of the audience is deaf, I suppose that avoiding signaling by loud voices would ensure that everyone is "on the same page" as to what is going on.
On the other hand, if a substantial proportion of the audience is blind but not deaf, then making noise for their benefit would actually be helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, if a substantial proportion of the audience is blind but not deaf, then making noise for their benefit would actually be helpful.
Exactly so. I'm all in favor of making accommodations for a disadvantaged group, but not if it's at the expense of disenfranchising an even more underprivileged group.
And, like I said, you can see who's clapping, and you can easily discern yelling even if there's no sound
A point was made that people who don't do well in noisy crowds would prefer the "jazz hands," but one might reasonably assume there are an equal number of people who don't do well in large crowds of people who are making exaggerated arm movements.