This is fascinating. Do you have some sort of blog or LiveJournal where you document stuff of this sort?
This is silly. It’s more likely that a person will perceive something if it’s rational (and it’s also more “understandable”). Of course, a person may irrationally perceive something, but that applies to all sides.
In terms of our discussion here, it’s possible that a black person may irrationally overestimate the danger of a white boy abusing his daughter and it’s possible that a white person may irrationally overestimate the danger of a black boy abusing his daughter, but it’s more likely and “understandable” if it also happens to be based on actual facts at this time. So if we’re assessing how “understandable” (versus motivated by bigotry) it is, it’s more understandable if it’s also a (more) rational and fact-based belief.
Here’s some news for you. 99% of discussions and disputes here and elsewhere ultimately boil down to subjective judgments. Including yours. That applies whichever side of the argument you’re on. That’s life. You can call it arrogant or paternalistic if it suits you.
The problem you’re having here is that in-out group dynamics constitutes a complete explanation to the phenomenon. On other words, there are no gaps that the dialect theory is needed to fill. Additionally, To make it for you’re having to contort what we know about dialects.
I think you’re saying “it’s more reasonable/understandable for a white father to be concerned if his daughter is dating a black guy because of the actual facts” – those actual facts being crime stats. I’m saying that the “actual facts” about what assumptions are ‘reasonable’ with regards to interracial relationships would include far, far more data than just crime stats – such as personal experiences, a history of repression and bigotry on both an individual and societal level, and much more.
Not that this is a particularly significant part of the discussion, and I think you’re incorrect for other reasons (noted by andros and Hippy Hollow) as well.
That’s ridiculous. The vast majority of people are not rational. That vast majority of things people do is not based on rationality but feelings and half truths. You are doing it right now and defending such. You’re defending looking at just a small picture and choosing to discriminate against an entire race because of it.
It is true that an illusion of rationality is often a useful arguing technique. It’s what makes scientific racism so insidious. But the idea that people perceive the majority of things in a rational way is ridiculous. Rationality requires work to overcome our innate pattern seeking abilities and our innate predilection to only perceive what confirms our own ideas.
And I’m not saying the end result of being rational will lead you necessarily to disavowing your racist views. But my attempt at being rational does lead me to thinking that the actual truth contains nuances that make it pointless to maintain a racist view and accept the downsides that doing so does.
To hold out a racist view as truth, I need to be very sure of it, or else the negatives of having that view outweigh the positives. We’re not in magellan’s hypothetical world where any racist beliefs have been proven.
I don’t think it does. If it did, then someone in the in-group could use the word “nigger” in non-dialect speech and be okay. The dialect is a necessary part of the word being accepted. Semi-fluency in AAVE is a necessary but insufficient part of having “N-word privileges.”
Said fluency is part of indicating that you are part of the in-group. Without it, the in-group theory is incomplete.
But perhaps more importantly, stats represent real actual occurances. It’s not like people’s only knowledge of what happens in the world is from stats that someone compiled. They experience it. But stats document whether this knowledge is correct.
IOW stats document that a randomly selected black guy is more likely assualt someone than a randomly selected white guy. That doesn’t mean that everyone who thinks this is true thinks so because they read some stat somewhere. They may have acquired this knowlege through other means. But the stats demonstrate that their perception is correct.
Or, put another way: suppose a guy thinks - based on his experiences etc. - randomly selected blacks are more likely than whites to cheat on their spouses, and actual stats shows that this is incorrect. Then this guy has made a faulty judgment, perhaps colored by bigotry. But if the guy thinks - based on his experiences etc. - that randomly selected blacks are more likely than whites to assault people, and stats show that this is correct. In that case, it’s more likely that the guy has made a valid judgment.
Have you actually read this exchange? If not, try it.
You’re assuming a lot here that’s not established as hard fact.
AAVE as a dialect is a lot more than just a tone of voice and pronunciation. Just saying “Nigga, please!” in a “black” tone of voice does not mean that you have necessarily switched to AAVE dialect. It is used in the same way by black speakers while speaking in a general American dialect. The only critical difference is the social context (e.g., who is saying it to whom), not the linguistic one.
Yes, you did. You think that your inability to use the word “nigger” is an issue of inequality. You think anyone should be able to say it. You were specifically asked if you thought no one should be able to say the word, and you specifically said that you wished it could be said as easily as other words.
No they don’t. They can be used to support it. They do not demonstrate that the perception is correct. Someday someone should come up with a pithy line about how statistics can be used in deceptive ways.
Do you find yourself in a position of constantly believing that nobody else is smart and/or attentive enough to have a conversation with you? I find myself in a position of hearing you suggest it quite often.
No, AAVE is not just tone of voice and pronunciation. But using that tone and pronunciation are fairly good indicators that one is using that dialect. Knowing when it is appropriate to use that phrase is a matter of understanding the dialect. It’s not a part of the “standard” dialect, so people who use it correctly must be calling on another dialect, and AAVE is the most likely.
And if you aren’t using AAVE and thus don’t use it correctly, that’s exactly what I mean by saying the lack of dialect being an indication of out-group status. Being in the in-group requires semi-fluency in the dialect: enough fluency to know when to use the term, at the very least.
If the dialect were not necessary, neither would be the tone of voice and pronunciation.
Leaving aside whether the distinction is correct in this case, it’s the same thing, for our purposes (i.e. whether the person is “understandable”).
I’ve not at any point in this thread defended “looking at just a small picture and choosing to discriminate against an entire race because of it”. (That was Hippy Hollow.) And to make this clear (not that it shouldn’t have been anyway) I reiterated this in post #359. BigT’s statement was a lie, and I was being charitable in allowing that he not have followed the exchange.
I can understand that objections of this sort bother you, as you naturally prefer to have a freer hand when you play the same types of games in distorting others’ words. FYI, I intend to keep on pointing out when you do this - sorry.
Objections of that sort bother me, specifically, because they throw into genuine doubt whether you appreciate that the question of you having that sort of myopic perspective on the issue is exactly what we’ve been talking about and that there’s some disagreement on the point, and are just being a dick about it, or whether you have a kind of disorder that prevents you from realizing that outright declaring that something doesn’t matter does not actually resolve it for other people.
For instance, “it’s the same thing, for our purposes.” Ain’t no “our,” cousin.
This is just wrong. If you are speaking AAVE, then you know it because the dialectical markers are there — grammar, syntax, word order, vocabulary. You don’t need to rely on tone of voice and attitude.
In fact if you think that that’s what makes the difference between AAVE and standard American dialect, then they’re not two separate dialects at all.
It’s quite common for black people to use “nigga” with each other without switching to AAVE. I know that because I’ve heard it. They might be speaking casually and informally, but they’re still using the grammar and syntax of general American.
This is all just wild speculation that has little to do with actual linguistics or social interactions.
.
They’re not. What’s necessary is the group dynamics.
You’re calling him a liar for saying you’re only looking at a small piece of the picture, because you are not. You’re suggesting that this is so obvious that it was charitable of you to allow for his having simply not read the exchange.
Meanwhile, whether you’re only looking at part of the picture is pretty much the only thing the whole exchange which started with Hippy Hollow’s post has been about.
As written, BigT did not accuse me of looking at only a small piece of the picture. His exact words were “You’re defending looking at just a small picture and choosing to discriminate against an entire race because of it.”
Read that slowly, including the word “defending”, and try to think to yourself “now what might this mean?” Then get back to me.