(also for the record, most of this is mostly theoretical -- I've not had someone get mad at me for this, it still just seems to be an expectation) (and again, every instance of talking here implies communicating in a way that the person in question can understand)
With the first one, though, it could *very* easily show your privilege if it was aimed towards the person in question ("Oh, c'mon, it wouldn't hurt for you to try this."). Not having chronic pain means not having to worry about that sort of thing, and it comes across as "Well, everyone *else* can do this; why won't you?" without realising that something *might* hurt for them.
Well, for me I guess it depends on context... (and I am pretty sure I have *some* chronic pain condition -- I mean hurting for 4 months is not normal)
To me "It won't hurt to run <marathon>" might show lack of understanding. But stuff like "It won't hurt to try to get a job." meaning that it won't be bad (for me in the long run, for my pocketbook etc..) seems like it shouldn't be avoided.
As for the third, while I agree that, as stated, it's fine to talk about the concert you found, it's probably subject to a few caveats. I think it's possible that a lot of deaf people would probably get sick of the assumption that they can hear (another function of privilege), and as such, somebody might be on the edge if you start talking about a new artist, for example. So unless they knew me well, I probably wouldn't talk about it.
Well, if you ask them if *they* like the band, I agree that that could be taken as "assuming they could hear", but talking about the night you had ( assuming the person was someone you are "friends" with, not just a random deaf person -- or if you are talking publicly in front of them in IRC or something ) should be totally fine I think?
Of course, it differs based on the mode of communication. If you're signing to someone in real life, it's a lot more obvious that you *know* they can't hear, so I probably wouldn't have any qualms in signing it. It's in text-based modes of communication - text messages, IM, IRC, etc - that would be worse, since text has a way of making these things disappear, which can be both a blessing and a curse. (To anybody who feels differently - please let me know, as I'm not deaf and thus can't know this for sure.)
Hence why I said "I get if the specific person asks you to avoid the subject... I just don't get it as an up-front expectation." -- If theoretical deaf person who i've been talking to in IRC or the like tells me to not talk about the subject, I would -- not cause TDP is deaf, but because TDP is a person -- and a *valid* up-front expectation is that if I ask someone to avoid a subject about *anything* around me -- within reason, that subject should be avoided.
It's just that I've noticed people seem to expect avoiding anything up front that *might* offend someone -- disabled or otherwise -- and growing up I was always taught to basically avoid even saying something that might kinda sorta refer to someones disability (like talking about walking about someone who can't) and it's just all confusing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-25 03:07 pm (UTC)With the first one, though, it could *very* easily show your privilege if it was aimed towards the person in question ("Oh, c'mon, it wouldn't hurt for you to try this."). Not having chronic pain means not having to worry about that sort of thing, and it comes across as "Well, everyone *else* can do this; why won't you?" without realising that something *might* hurt for them.
Well, for me I guess it depends on context... (and I am pretty sure I have *some* chronic pain condition -- I mean hurting for 4 months is not normal)
To me "It won't hurt to run <marathon>" might show lack of understanding.
But stuff like "It won't hurt to try to get a job." meaning that it won't be bad (for me in the long run, for my pocketbook etc..) seems like it shouldn't be avoided.
As for the third, while I agree that, as stated, it's fine to talk about the concert you found, it's probably subject to a few caveats. I think it's possible that a lot of deaf people would probably get sick of the assumption that they can hear (another function of privilege), and as such, somebody might be on the edge if you start talking about a new artist, for example. So unless they knew me well, I probably wouldn't talk about it.
Well, if you ask them if *they* like the band, I agree that that could be taken as "assuming they could hear", but talking about the night you had ( assuming the person was someone you are "friends" with, not just a random deaf person -- or if you are talking publicly in front of them in IRC or something ) should be totally fine I think?
Of course, it differs based on the mode of communication. If you're signing to someone in real life, it's a lot more obvious that you *know* they can't hear, so I probably wouldn't have any qualms in signing it. It's in text-based modes of communication - text messages, IM, IRC, etc - that would be worse, since text has a way of making these things disappear, which can be both a blessing and a curse. (To anybody who feels differently - please let me know, as I'm not deaf and thus can't know this for sure.)
Hence why I said "I get if the specific person asks you to avoid the subject... I just don't get it as an up-front expectation." -- If theoretical deaf person who i've been talking to in IRC or the like tells me to not talk about the subject, I would -- not cause TDP is deaf, but because TDP is a person -- and a *valid* up-front expectation is that if I ask someone to avoid a subject about *anything* around me -- within reason, that subject should be avoided.
It's just that I've noticed people seem to expect avoiding anything up front that *might* offend someone -- disabled or otherwise -- and growing up I was always taught to basically avoid even saying something that might kinda sorta refer to someones disability (like talking about walking about someone who can't) and it's just all confusing.