If they can see...they can read!!

Why is it now, we have to watch 1/4 of all breaking news report screens taken up by some guy flashing what look like gang symbols (sign language), when it would be just as easy to turn on subtitles? If people can see, then they can read! Seriously!

Why are we burdening everyone else by taking up 25% of every breaking news screen with some guy, or gal, fumbling around with sign language? Seriously, this is just another woke initiative. Every single video on any video streaming service (U-toob and every other) has ample amounts of subtitles (in multiple languages). Having every news story taken up by some person flashing finger symbols is...well...offensive to me!

This distracts me, and I can't pay attention to the video with this nonsense!

So, stop it...dammit!!

edit - And BTW, if you have someone who knows sign language translate this stuff it makes zero sense (most of it). Most of these people are just fumbling around without knowing what they're saying. It doesn't translate at all. (Some does, but most of it is nonsense just for show. This has been proven on numerous occasions).

Lmao, yep. My favorite is this guy

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I want to see a Biden or Harris speech translated into sign language. The nonsense and word salids should make their hands cramp.

And while I find it slightly distracting, I have heard of others that cannot even watch sign language at all. The motions are too distracting for them.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Here's a thread on Reddit where actual deaf people talk about their preferences. Seems most preferred ASL as a primary, but others found both are agreeable.www.reddit.com...

I can see your point however. It should be an option and not a requirement for all viewers.

Captions on/off

Annoying ASL terping on/off

Makes sense.

The left is trying to create jobs for people doing sign language that would never be able to hold a job producing anything.

Like you said FD, they do not need both, especially when they have multiple languages available for subtitles. It is just as hard to learn to read sign language as it is to read in a language. But also, to learn sign language, often a person with lots of experience is required, someone who most often gets paid to teach these people with government money. What next, a person in every class room teaching a class that says in sign language what the teacher is saying? Extra expenses for the schools for just one kid in the class. If the person doing the sign language is a really cute girl, I focus on her and not on what is being said...after all, even though I am sixty nine, I still appreciate a nice looking girl to look at doing her job.

I suppose that is good if the person giving the speech in politics is making mistakes or giggling when they are supposed to be saying important true things. I often wonder if the person doing the sign language is actually saying what the person is actually saying even remotely accurately.

And it is not just because I am a guy, I am sure a Lesbian would be focused on the girl doing the sign language too. Same goes for woman watching a young guy I suppose.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeah, but It’s a sweet gig if you can get it.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I cant speak for all (Deaf or deaf) folks but what I will say is that deafness is similar to blindness in terms that - it is quite rare to have a stone cold 100% deaf person from birth, for what of a better term but a lot of folks dont know or even want to know. Just like it is rarer to have a completely black-out blind person from birth and most can see something rather than nothing at all. It can be extremely frustrating for people who do not experience it to understand when conveying. Also you can get untreatable deafness too, a hearing aid doesnt fix it or some implant like many seem to think its a one size fits all thing just like with blind folks not all can be treated with glasses etc.

I myself am a lip-reader and fortunately I can read and speak - some can and some cant, as they might have been brought up in a Deaf household for example or some other situation).
I prefer subtitles when it comes to the topic as its too difficult to try and lip-read when camera shots change if viewing something for example but half the time even the subtitles are not accurate.

What I have observed... is that this seemed to become the norm during the covid hysteria (suddenly every channel had a sign interpreter) - as if it somehow fixed how deaf people who do not use sign language were being completely overwhelmed and left unable to communicate in even more social situations/workplaces etc than before hand with face masks.

Its an actual piss-take the fact that so much of it is just someone moving their arms around in some of those vids if true, and I would hope it is deeply insulting to folks that actually do practice sign language and use it regularly, but quite often more than not a lot of this "new normal" is a total piss-take so nothing surprises me and it will only get worse.

Just my opinion and thought might be worth sharing as someone that can see and read but cant hear vocal ranges at all. Cheers

a reply to: MRTrismegistus

I myself am severely deaf (though not in the Deaf community.) I learned to sign but never kept it up. I have been able to get through a conversation or two when needed.

I wanted to chime in to point out what you stated, live subtitles are never trustworthy, never. And like you said many require different cues to pick up: audio, visual, lip-reading etc. to take in a full conversation.

I myself do better just putting in some good ear buds, have captioning on, and yes I can recognize a bit of the signing but don't follow along much.

I can see where it's advantageous for truly Deaf community members who are more used to signing, and can't trust live captioning that isn't reliable.

Now this issue alone would solve OP's problem. We need better live captioning services.

But not sure where OP gets off taking issue with a disability accommodation, but Deaf people are out there and it has been a struggle for them to get disability accommodation for things like the invention of closed captioning.

I don't have a problem with it. If it pisses off OP so much not sure why they can't just read the article instead of the news broadcast. He can see AND read, right?

Is it virtue signaling on the part of media? Almost certainly yes. Is it a disability accommodation that gets zero use? Of course it gets use.

originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeah, but It’s a sweet gig if you can get it.

Indeed, licensed interpreters can make six figures easy. It's a freaking skill!

Not sure why OP completely dismissed ASL as a valid language.

a reply to: AlroyFarms

I thought you turned over a new leaf.

Guess not.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: AlroyFarms

I thought you turned over a new leaf.

Guess not.

What leaf? I stated my side. You stated yours. I treat you the same as anybody.

You're complaining about a disability accommodation. I think it's silly to whine about because some people (half a million) use it. Why not leave it at that?

Your leaf sucks man. Grow up.

a reply to: AlroyFarms

The OP didn't dismiss anything of the sort. The OP only commented that taking up 1/4 of the screen with some animated gymnastics which is distracting is, well, distracting. Especially when subtitles, even automated ones, convey far more information. AND, the OP (whom happens to be me) has exactly zero issue with accommodating disadvantaged persons, contrary to your allegations. But the OP doesn't feel these animations are anything other than "lip service" in most instances. AND, if you compared the same level of content supplied by ASL, compared to that of subtitles (even including automation errors) you would find subtitles win on almost every occasion.

Lastly, if we want to talk about the OP "virtue signaling", then it would be my contention that it is you who is the one virtue signalling with your defense of something which is clearly more of a feel-good concession to the woke cult than it is helpful to the disadvantaged.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: AlroyFarms

That's not what I was talking about, and you know it!

I was referring to your previous alias (here on ATS). The long standing one, which you have now seemingly reinvented.

edit - Furthermore, I always knew you had multiple identities here. Now I have proof!

So, who's the one who needs to grow up?

P.S. - I've done you the courtesy of not "spilling these beans", so do me a favor and don't start sh!t with me. You and I don't get along...at all. And, I am like an elephant; I never forget.

a reply to: AlroyFarms

Nobody is against deaf people, nor is anyone making fun of them or is rude.
I too hate big signers on screen but all that's needed is an option.
Click for subtitles, click for big sign language person.
No clicky none of the above.
I need subtitles to watch most things, but I'll be damned if I would demand them to be extra large and unselectable.

a reply to: Hecate666

But you have options. Change the broadcast that uses those annoying ASL signers that vexes thee so much. Change the channel. Read the article.

First world complaining at this point.

a reply to: Hecate666

Exactly!

Just make it an option, just like subtitles. I don't think that is unreasonable to ask. It's the up front, in your face, part which is so bothersome.

Heck, I use subtitled too sometimes so I can figure out what people are saying (often with heavy accents). Sometimes we are all disadvantaged in some ways.

a reply to: Hecate666

I work with a person who has a brother who was born completely deaf. She is so competent with ASL that she even contemplated going into teaching ASL as a career. We've had numerous conversations about how the signing we see people at many of these press conferences do is, in her words, "just completely laughable, and not even remotely close to what is being said"

Her conclusion (and mine) from this is, the signing is actually serving a different purpose other than conveying information to hearing challenged persons, but instead intended almost exclusively to send the diversity message to viewers (who can hear just fine). And, this is why it is so prominently shown on TV now days.

Those are her words, not mine.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It would seem that having a ASL interpreter is better than closed captions. Many deaf people who speak other languages learn ASL. So the ASL interpreter can cross the language barrier. Plus the ASL interpreter can convey some nuances better than the closed captions. It's a much richer communication experience. Especially since some 90% of human communication is non verbal.

a reply to: grey580

Fair enough, but what is wrong with having it be an option for viewers, similar to subtitles?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Maybe one day they will have an alternate layer of video that can be added for the hearing impaired. Or a device that can add the layer on top using AI. Until that day you'll just have to make do.