I we knew all deaf people could read the text captions, there might be a point, but i do not think that's the case. Reading and understanding speech are closely related (since most of us were taught by the phonetic "sounding words out" method; I am sure some deaf people can read, but others need the interpreter. like the OP, I can't see why someone is so bothered by it.
FWIW, my cable channel has an alternative audio portion for blind people that describes the pictures and actions and can be accessed by a click--maybe some day we can have alternate video channels for jerks like that removing the sign interpreter.
Note the origin of this attempt to invent another clash for the culture wars. Chris Rufo's entire purpose on this planet is to generate grievance out of nontroversies in order to keep the Fox and Daily Mail audiences enraged and engaged. The "outrage" of having ASL interpreters has nothing to do with any actual real-life concern. Anything that smacks of inclusiveness or assistance to any group other than straight white gun-owning able-bodied Christian men is automatically woke gay communist sharia law taking away cherished rights of the majority in a Jewish conspiracy to replace good hard-working Americans with invading hordes of criminal immigrant Democrats.
I wish the politics of this country weren't so abjectly stupid, but this is where we are.
But the best we can do in return is to provide a rational response; sure it won't sway the assholes, but maybe some pople looking at the posts, videos, whatever, are enlightened. Face it, there are jerks who believe it, but many others who don't see it as pure bullshit and aren't sure, and we have to try and reach them.
First, please understand that the sign language interpreter is NOT THERE FOR THE TV AUDIENCE. They are there for the live audience in the room. It's a little hard to project little words under the speaker or on the podium. THIMK!
Come to think of it, there is no second
A friend of Doc's, one of only two B-29 bombers still flying.