TV Sign Language

Every mayor and governor has one on their staff despite all TV's having closed caption. If they still want sign language, software could be written as another option for TVs.

I honestly see no need for this service today and frankly feel it's a ridiculous waste of tax dollars. More of a gimmick to extract as much sympathy as possible and keep the conversation and dialogue light and fluffy.

It needs to be addressed as an antiquated service that has run its course for TV. Willing to bet there is also some nepotism involved with the translator being a relative or with strong ties to the politician.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Have you ever watched close captioning when it's live? The amount of errors and misspellings is comical.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And I bet there are an equal amount of errors or ad libbing with the translator. The translator also has the ability to alter responses without the hearing impaired knowing.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
And I bet there are an equal amount of errors or ad libbing with the translator.

Yeah? Show me some good ones.

How many people are even capable of reading sign language? I can honestly say I've never seen anyone using sign language except when it's that person signing next to the governor or mayor or suchlike.

I've read before that most blind people cannot read Braille. A quick search turned up this article which claims only 10% of blind people know Braille.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
And I bet there are an equal amount of errors or ad libbing with the translator.

Yeah? Show me some good ones.

The best one was the one Obama had that was making up jibberish fake sign language. Video of it out there.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

You talking about Mandela's funeral? Duh. How do you think people figured out it was fake? Because deaf people let everyone know.

But it must be a big conspiracy since only you figured it out.

Also, a fake signer is not what you are bitching about in your Original Post.

All those sign language signers LIE!!

When a politician is speaking, all they should do is just constantly give everyone in the audience the middle finger!! Actually, double middle fingers would be the most accurate!!

Then periodically bend over, drop their pants and pull their butt cheeks apart, and then point at the audience!

Then stand back up and dump a half a cup of sand into a half a cup of vasolene. Then point at the audience and bend over again.

Then just go back to flipping people off!!

ETA - Then make an "okay" sign with their left hand, and repeatedly and violently stick the index finger of their right hand through the hole...and then point at YOU!

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Most people don't use handicapped ramps. Guess we don't need those either.

I'd like to see them sigh Ben Shapiro .....lol...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

You talking about Mandela's funeral? Duh. How do you think people figured out it was fake? Because deaf people let everyone know.

But it must be a big conspiracy since only you figured it out.

Also, a fake signer is not what you are bitching about in your Original Post.

You asked for a good one and I delivered it. Are you saying I did not provide it to you. If not tell me what I need to do to check the box that these translators do in fact make errors and are not translating with 100% accuracy.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

That wasn't someone reinterpreting what someone else was saying, that was someone who doesn't even speak sign language hoaxing people so it's a terrible example.

You said this:

And I bet there are an equal amount of errors or ad libbing with the translator.

That wasn't adlibbing or errors, that was someone speaking gibberish.

I was going to preface my request with 'don't use the Mandela one' but I didn't think anyone was disingenuous enough to use it so omitted saying that. You proved me wrong on that point. Once again ATS shows me the level of dishonesty people will resort to when trying to prove a moronic point.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Are you yourself deaf?

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Most people don't use handicapped ramps. Guess we don't need those either.

Most TV shows don't use sign language. Only ones I see using them are politicians and televangelists, two of the most beloved professions in society outside of used car salesmen.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

That wasn't someone reinterpreting what someone else was saying, that was someone who doesn't even speak sign language hoaxing people so it's a terrible example.

You said this:

And I bet there are an equal amount of errors or ad libbing with the translator.

That wasn't adlibbing or errors, that was someone speaking gibberish.

I was going to preface my request with 'don't use the Mandela one' but I didn't think anyone was disingenuous enough to use it so omitted saying that. You proved me wrong on that point. Once again ATS shows me the level of dishonesty people will resort to when trying to prove a moronic point.

Even if I provided you with 100 examples showing the number of mistakes with percentages sign translators make you would still scoff at it so what's the point. You believe the service is needed. I do not. It's not an essential service. Close caption does have errors but anyone that can read on an 8th grade level can normally figure it out easily.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Even if I provided you with 100 examples showing the number of mistakes with percentages sign translators make you would still scoff at it so what's the point.

You have yet to provide one where the signer egregiously or intentionally mistranslated, mostly because you're lazy.

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.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Every mayor and governor has one on their staff despite all TV's having closed caption. If they still want sign language, software could be written as another option for TVs.

I honestly see no need for this service today and frankly feel it's a ridiculous waste of tax dollars. More of a gimmick to extract as much sympathy as possible and keep the conversation and dialogue light and fluffy.

It needs to be addressed as an antiquated service that has run its course for TV. Willing to bet there is also some nepotism involved with the translator being a relative or with strong ties to the politician.

OMG. So glad you brought this up. I say exactly what you said to my wife every time I see one of these press conferences on the news.

But I want to add if you ever get a chance to watch a press conference from the Governor of Ohio, Mike Dewine, you have to watch it purely for the interpreter. She looks like a female version of him and she is very animated. I watch them purely for that.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

how much does this service set back the average tax payer, it must be a considerable amount if you deem it a waste

While i agree in principle any tax money saved is good, not sure how cutting out a section of society who require it would be a good thing, lets hope you keep your sight and hearing throughout you life and never require it, i imagine anyone who is deaf and is working also pays tax which may goto things you use, such as roads or public services, can they ask for their money back if they dont see it as important?

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?