TV Sign Language

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

I've personally noticed a large uptick in sign language in tv and movies. I think it's refreshing. I have multiple deaf friends and I'm legally hearing impaired myself. I'm not good at sign language but I can get by, and in case I lose the rest of my remaining hearing, it'd be good to know more. Plus, the deaf community basically gets ignored. I don't see the problem.

Hell, it was taboo to have the closed captioning on just a few years ago. Its standard by necessity in our house.

Why should the hearing impaired have to look at a screen to follow a conversation?


ETA: Out of all the things to complain about tax spending... Disability? Really!?

a reply to: MRinder

fair point but having seen some of the mistakes on youtube and TV on closed caption there is still a way to go. I have seen errors where it completly changes the context of the conversation.

Was probably added to a bill back in the days of 'pork' in another time. those days are gone, and your right it's redundant.



a reply to: MRinder

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

That's the point. Deaf people wouldn't be cut out they would just have to use closed caption just like they do when they watch everything else on TV. Only .38% of the population in the US is deaf. Does it really make sense to waste the money when they can just use closed caption? Are we going to cater to every single disability and minority in existence when there is already a viable solution that's free?

The mean annual wage for federal sign language interpreters was over $82,950 in 2018. This is not accounting for the current year or the additional locality pay which would put their salary well above $100K.

Take into account all these Federal positions and State ones, the cost to tax payers is in the millions. Likely 10's of millions. All for a service that is basically a luxury when CC can do it for much less with good results.

I can think of much better uses for this money for actual needs instead of a primo luxury for the hearing impaired.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Did Harambe teach you nothing?

Zoos have snipers on the payroll. Having someone doing sign language on standby is actually pretty reasonable.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Even if I did...

But you haven't, because you're lazy.

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

That's the point. Deaf people wouldn't be cut out they would just have to use closed caption just like they do when they watch everything else on TV. Only .38% of the population in the US is deaf. Does it really make sense to waste the money when they can just use closed caption? Are we going to cater to every single disability and minority in existence when there is already a viable solution that's free?

Do you think .38% of your tax dollar goes towards the deaf? Do you think its more or less?

Sorry: 25,000,000 people in America deaf and hard of hearing

C/o:
www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-hearing

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Far more than you would imagine.

Flagler College really pushed for me to learn it when I mentioned an Education Degree. That arm twisting was part of what made me drop, to be honest.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

That's the point. Deaf people wouldn't be cut out they would just have to use closed caption just like they do when they watch everything else on TV. Only .38% of the population in the US is deaf. Does it really make sense to waste the money when they can just use closed caption? Are we going to cater to every single disability and minority in existence when there is already a viable solution that's free?

The mean annual wage for federal sign language interpreters was over $82,950 in 2018. This is not accounting for the current year or the additional locality pay which would put their salary well above $100K.

Take into account all these Federal positions and State ones, the cost to tax payers is in the millions. Likely 10's of millions. All for a service that is basically a luxury when CC can do it for much less with good results.

I can think of much better uses for this money for actual needs instead of a primo luxury for the hearing impaired.

Now compare the cost of communication, in which you're against, against the cost of one bomb.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Take into account all these Federal positions and State ones, the cost to tax payers is in the millions. Likely 10's of millions. All for a service that is basically a luxury when CC can do it for much less with good results.

There's 13 Federal employees, I seriously doubt it's tens of millions across the United States.

a reply to: sine.nomine

Yeah we should probably also cut back on the bomb buying as well... being as we are $24 trillion in debt.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Even if I did though you still believe the service is needed. Nothing is going to alter your reality on it so what are we talking about.

Show ME one then.

I'll believe you, promise.

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

That's the point. Deaf people wouldn't be cut out they would just have to use closed caption just like they do when they watch everything else on TV. Only .38% of the population in the US is deaf. Does it really make sense to waste the money when they can just use closed caption? Are we going to cater to every single disability and minority in existence when there is already a viable solution that's free?

We're talking about a global pandemic, or any other catastrophic where they are utilised to relay, in real time, the words being spoken.

Not Seinfeld.

originally posted by: Insalinity

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

That's the point. Deaf people wouldn't be cut out they would just have to use closed caption just like they do when they watch everything else on TV. Only .38% of the population in the US is deaf. Does it really make sense to waste the money when they can just use closed caption? Are we going to cater to every single disability and minority in existence when there is already a viable solution that's free?

We're talking about a global pandemic, or any other catastrophic where they are utilised to relay, in real time, the words being spoken.

Not Seinfeld.

Do you realize that they close caption the news in real time for local and national broadcasts?

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Every mayor and governor has one on their staff despite all TV's having closed caption.

Not everythone that speaks does so through a TV. Two people conversing, with one being hearing impaired, requires sign language. It's hardly obsolete.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

I love the expressions in the signers face.
They are quite humorous at times.

There are many different sign languages so even though somebody knows it, they may not know the one being used so right there, it's not beneficial to everyone who knows sign language; only to those who know that particular one. That's why I say get rid of it. It would be better to spend the money on improving AI for CC. I get the jokes on CC but it could be drastically improved to where the jokes practically stop. A sign language AI could also be used with options for each different sign language.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Next time you see one, if you have Facebook Messenger, aim your phone at the sign languager and change their face and record it. It'll be worth it.

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

That's the point. Deaf people wouldn't be cut out they would just have to use closed caption just like they do when they watch everything else on TV.

It would surprise you how many people don't have televisions that can handle closed captioning. Then there is a surprising number of people who live in areas where they have no cable and now way to receive closed captioning.