I’m sorry, should I pretend I don’t know what I know and haven’t researched what I’ve researched so that you’ll find me less haughty?
I’ve done the work, I know I’ve done the work, I’m proud of having done the work.
If this bothers you, tough.
No, you should just stop acting haughty.
Some sort of cite, elaboration, or discussion?
Or you just gonna snipe?
How exactly am I haughty?
Not to belittle your relative inexperience but I’ve been speaking the English language for over four decades. And this has given me enough proficiency to recognize that there was never an language issue present in this thread until you began arguing about a point nobody else was trying to make.
Again, I will put my systemic inquiry into peer reviewed data over your experience as someone who simply speaks the language. Just because you speak the language, doesn’t mean you know a thing about linguistics, or cognitive science, or education, etc…
I couldn’t care less what everybody else was trying to say.
I have a point, t is based on actual research, and it iscorrect.
And until I have time to essentially sit down an write an essay in answer to all the questions/responses, that’s all the elaboration I can give.
The fact that you don’t see my point, especially since you’ve had no training in the mechanics of language, cognitive science, linguistic/perceptual relationships, etc… is not surprising.
Or do you honestly think that simply speaking the language tells you, for instance, whether the strong morpheme or weak morpheme hypotheses are correct?
D’oh! My mind was going in two directions at once.
Strong Sapir/Whorf/Korzybski vs. Weak.
Little Nemo, FinnAgain’s ivory tower focus on psychology, education, linguistics and semantics does not negate his own experience, nor does his seeming haughtiness.
Further, he does seem to have a better grasp on what classification is as well as what it is not. Differing neccessities produce different classifications. An individual thing has no classification until we assign it to one. It’s a social construct.
FinnAgain, when I first read your post about your studies, I mistakenly thought that you had been studying for half a century and I was impressed.
Dude, you are a Comic Book Guy in the worst way.
First off, someone in the GD thread this topic spawned pointed out something elucidative. An ethnicity refers to a bloodline. You cannot transfer into a bloodline. You cannot choose to become black, for example. But you can convert to Judaism. So, Jewish =/= an ethnicity.
(yes, there are ethnicities within Judaism, and I’m getting to that)
Second, one of my objections is that throught history Jews have been oppressed by precisely this logic. That being Jewish meant you were The Other to any group, and in any nation of which a Jew was a citizen, they could be declared a foreigner due to their being a Jew. And yes, it does strike me that that was the exact construction of identity the Nazis used to dehumanize and demonize the Jews while setting up a binary opposition between being Jewish, and being German.
Allowing this kind of thinking lets that sort of thing happen again. If, for instance, a politican was never again able to whip up hatred by claiming that Jew = not-a-true-citizen, I think that Jews everywhere would be far better off.
Yes, it would make me happier. Because otherwise “half german and half Jewish” sets up an opposition between someone being both fully German, and fully Jewish.
And it is about a group, because saying that Hitler was ‘half Jewish’ implies that there were two mutually exclusive groups, namely Germans and Jews.
LaurAngeo: Someone’s status as Ashkenazic or Sephardic does indeed define an ethnicity, becuase it’s talking about fairly stable bloodlines down through the centuries. But obviously Sephardic Jews do not share the same exact ethnicity as you, and convert Jews might not have any ancestors in common with you at all. So at best we can talk about certain bloodlines within the umbrella-concept of people who happen to be Jewish, but ascribing a fundemental ethnic identity to all Jews is in error.
And that is why, in a great many circumstances, generalizations are to be avoided like the plague while more precise and accurate language is used in its stead.
All generalizations are false, including this one.
That’s why we need to concentrate on the objective (and literally un-speakable) level of reality rather than focusing on the grids through which we filter the primacy of experience.
And they would be correct. There is a culture which grows up around any long standing use or ritual and tradition. But cultures aren’t ethnicities, or nationalities.
For instance, the hippies were a sub-culture, and yet, you wouldn’t say that someone was “Half hippie and half mexican.”
Boxers are in correct alignment and all is well 
While there are ethnic ties amongst some Jewish communities, there are not among Jewish converts. As such, Judaism as a whole is not an ethnic grouping. It is, ultimately, fragmented and splintered and contains many varying and competing models of identity, which may or may not apply in personal situations. But it doesn’t apply to the whole, and so we should endevour to use language which reflects this fact.
There is no real ‘harm’, but it the language used does not reflect reality. If, for instance, I say that I like Chinese girls, this implies I find all Chinese girls attractive. In reality, a more correct formulation would be “I find some Chinese girls attactive, and some Chinese girls unattractive. But I do find some features which are traditionally found in some Chinese people to be attractive depending on their arrangement with other features.”
Unless, of course, you find any girl from China, do matter how hideous, to be attractive.
In addition, let’s say you’re sitting next to a girl and she has features which are typically found among ethnic Asians. Let’s say you don’t know if she’s from China or not. You would still be attracted to her based on her individual merits and flaws, not any ‘group’ to which she belonged.
Naw. Call me Mitzvah Man. 
First, it obfuscates reality becuse you like some-but-not-all girls in ‘group’ X.
Second, only some of those constructions describe actual characterstics. A rich girl is defined by having money, a white girl is defined by the color of her skin, a vegan girl is defined by her eating habits, etc… but saying a girl is Jewish tells us virtually nothing about her. It doesn’t tell us if she’s Orthodox, Reform, Conseravtive, or Reconstructionist. It doesn’t tell you what foods she likes to eat, what her philosophy is, what her ethnicity is, etc… In short, you could be sitting next to a girl and have no idea she’s Jewish, and not be attracted to her. If that’s the case, it becomes more accurate to say that you are attracted to the idea of a girl being Jewish, rather than her actual identity.
And, Zoe, I don’t quite grok. Am I being wooshed, or do you get where I’m coming from and see it as valid?
There, I think that answers everything directed my way. If I missed anything I apologize.
Ah, I see, you refuse to provide a cite for your claims, and yet keep making them. Am I to assume that every time I ask you to prove your assertions you’ll simply insult me again? Should I even ask why my requests that you prove your assertions make me ‘comic book guy-esque’, or will you then call me some other name which doesn’t fit?
You started by calling me haughty for pointing out, correctly, that I’ve been trained in this field and know what I’m talking about. Or at least that’s why I assume you did it since you’re being a little bitch and won’t provide cites.
When I pointed out that I’d done the research, I knew my facts, and I wasn’t about to keep quiet about it, and that didn’t make me haughty, you simply answerd with this same childish bullshit. I know you’re calling me haughty, but what text of mine supports that view?
Give proof or retract.
Or are you just being a purile asshole?
Ah well, just because this is sticking in my craw and you’re being a little bitch, I’ll pretend that you had the courage to actually make an argument rather than snipe at me.
Perhaps you are claiming that I was
But, is it condescending for a doctor to point out that he knows more about medicine than someone who isn’t trained as he is, and that he’ll take his training over their unfounded opinion?
Is it condescending for an engineer to point out that he knows more about how to build something than someone who isn’t trained as he is, and that he’ll take his training over their unfounded opinion?
Is it condescending for a student of language/linguistics/cognitive science to point out that he knows more about the structure of language than someone who isn’t trained as he is, and that he’ll take his training over their unfounded opinion?
Is speaking the honest truth with no malice or meanness condesencion? I guess it would be condescending for Roger Clemens to point out that due to his talent and training he can pitch better than I can?
Is it scornful to state the truth? That due to my training I most likely have more specialized knowledge in this field than many other Dopers who did not receive my training?
Or are you just being one of those whiney bitches who can’t stand to see anybody be honestly and openly proud of their accomplishments? Does it frustrate you to see someone eschew false modesty and humbleness and instead make no bones about the fact that they’re competent in a field?
What, exactly, is your objection?
Finn, we’re calling you haughty because you’re acting haughty. You seem to be saying, “I know so much more than you do. I know so much I couldn’t even take the time to explain what I know. So just accept that I’m smarter than you are and believe what I say.”
The problem is that you’re claiming to be an expert on the English language. And then you’re using this supposed expertise to cite yourself as an authority on Judaism. If you were a theologian that might be acceptable but as a language student you’re no more entitled to claim yourself as an authority than I am. What you appear to be doing here is saying that any debate that uses the English language is one in which you define the terms. And I, for one, am not accepting that premise.
And if the rest of us are mistaken about your intent and are misunderstanding the message you are trying to share … well … you’re the language expert. It must be all the rest of us that are wrong.
What grade was she teaching?
I was never taught Anne Frank in school and I have never actually read the book.
I disagree with the notion that because some part of a cultural group is not ethnic that the entire culture is not ethnic. Saying “Jewish =/= and ethnicity” is extremely overbroad and just about as patently false as any other generalization.
It also seems that your use of the Sapir/Whorf hypo is more of a justification for your pedanticness, but that’s for you to decide. It seems we’re all arguing over an extremely small, niggling little detail that, to many of us, has no bearing on our realities.
Sam
P.S.- I can’t tell you how I’ve grown to dislike Linguistics and Anthropology lately.
If I seem to be saying that, someone has very poor reading comp.
I do know more about the disciplines I’ve studied than most other people, because I’ve studied them and others haven’t. I was posting to several threads at once, and didn’t have the time to write the long post that I did in this thread. But I’ve never claimed I was somehow smarter than anybody.
So you can see me having studied this while you have not, being too busy to write a post, and telling people that I could only make quick remarks until I had time to post a long post as haughty… but I think that’s absolutely absurd.
That’s simply untrue. I’ve never said I’m an expert. But the fact of the matter is, I’ve studied it. You have not.
That you can’t seem to understand the importance of this fact is beyond me.
Again, should the doctor pretend he doesn’t know more than you about medicine?
WTF are you smoking dude? Cite one single place I call myself an expert on either field. You’re either mistaken or lying.
I do understand the linguistic and semantic issues involved in the creation of identity, and I’ve studied just that field in school. So yes, if I’ve done the research, and you have not, I’ll trust my work over your opinion. That you think this makes me haughty or as if I’m pretending to be an expert is, well, ridiculous.
Well that’s exceedingly stupid of you to say.
As someone who has studied semantics, linguistcis, cog’ sci’, etc… I’m not entiteld to speak to the creation and representation of relaity via language? Sorry, but no, that’s exactly what I’ve been studying and I won’t keep my mouth shut when I’m right just because someone people are evidently offended by, what, knowlege, competence? I don’t quite grok, and I don’t understand why I’m getting this reaaction.
Again, would you tell and engineer that he didn’t have the right to consider himself more educated than you when it comes to engineering? If you did, wouldn’t you be an idiot?
Dude, I think you may very well have the worst reading comprehension of anybody I’ve ever spoken with on the Dope. Where hve I claimed that I get to define the terms in any debate? No fucking surprise you don’t agree with the strawman you’ve just attributed to me.
And, no, I don’t get to define them, but I can speak to the linguistic, cognitive, etc… reality which underlies them, because that’s my training.
Your objections strike me as so much whining, as if you were discussing language and a linguist came along to clear some things up, but you wouldn’t listen because he was using definitions which were not inherent in the common sense use of language. Lay people do not look at language the same as those who know how it’s put together and how it affects and is affected by cognition. It’s a simple fact, and I have no idea why you and others are hostile to it.
Personally I think you and others are simply upset because I do know my shit, in this field I do know more than you, and I refuse to couch my knowledge and research in terms of opinions. You have opinions, i’ve studied the subject. And if this upsets you, I really don’t care.
Actually, saying Jewish=ethnic is a fallacy of composition. Because parts are, the whole is? No, that’s wrong. So Judaism as a whole is not ethnic, even though there are ethnicities within Judaism. Is a convert ethnic? The fact is, Jewish =/= ethnic simply states that one cannot generalize from parts to the whole if they do not all share that characteristic.
The strong S/W/K hypothesis states that language controls thought, this is patently false. The weak S/W/K hypothesis states that language and thought influence each other, and all the research I’ve seen supports this claim, to a certain degree. As such, I believe they are supremely relevant to this discussion.
There’s a difference between you not seeing how it has a bearing and it honestly not affecting your reality.
As long as people have the ability to look at look at you, or me, and use the fact that we are Jews in order to marginalize, dehumanize, demonize, persecute, etc…
As long as there is that concept of a ‘Jewish identity’ which makes any jew, convert or not, a different class of human being than every other person on earth… as long as this is the tacit belief inherent in the linguistic patterns we use, we won’t properly be fighting anti-semitism.
To each their own. For my profession, such knoweldge is pretty much required, and it fascinates me. Reality, to a large extent, it constructed after-the-fact by the language we use. The implications of this are absolutely vital.
Look at how NLP works, or how via mantra and concentration a phrase can actually lower your heart rate, make you feel rested, etc…
I mean, we could run an experiment right now, to be played out in the laboratory of everybody’s nervous systems: If you walk around for a week, and every day talk about “all” of whatever you’re discussing. “All people feel this…” “All birds are that…” What have you, and then next week switch to “Some but not all people are…” you will notice that each phrasing carries with it certain assumptions and paradigms, often held unconsciously and held due to the structure of the language.
But that’s not the issue. The issue is that it OFFENDS you, which is total bullshit.
And that’s precisely the objection we have to your anal-retentive, niggling little rant. You would reduce us to the sad state of affairs in which we would be forced to substitute a ridiculously fussy 35-word paragraph for the simple, innocuous phrase, “I like Chinese girls.” We already KNOW that not every Chinese girl is the same. It GOES WITHOUT SAYING that I’m not attracted to EVERY Chinese girl on the planet. The meaning is clear to everyone except you. So you can hurl insults at me, puff out your chest, and brag about what an expert you imagine yourself to be all you want, but your position is without merit.
Dude, nice strawman.
Cite for where I’ve said I was offended?
I did say I was getting a bad vibe, and did point out the implications of using language in such a way, but I never said I was offended.
In other words, quit lying. I’ve just said what the issue was, quite clearly. Not that it did harm, but that…
If you want to lie through your teeth and claim that the ‘real’ issue is that I’m offended, ~shrugs~. Kinda slimey though.
So just to clarify for anybody not deliberately trying to misrepresent my posts, the problem is that it is an innacurate reflection of reality. Blowero, you can go off and fantasize about my mental states, if you’ve really got that kind of free time.
No, attempting to be more accurate with our language does not obfuscate reality, if you honestly think that, you’re a moron. Moreoever, whatever you claim you mean, the semantic import and cognitive impact of such phrasing is to consider ‘groups’ as real, to ascribe ‘fundamantal’ characteristics to them, etc… Ignore this at your peril, call me a nit picker, but I’ll still be right, and you’ll still be ignorant, and being a real schmuck in your ignorance. So the ‘meaning’ may very well be clear to everybody but me (which is lie on your part, because I understand exactly what you mean, and I also understand that your text has greater implications than you realize) but the implications, evidently, you are hostile towards.
Is it really such a crazy concept to consider that even though the semantic content of a sentence may mean one thing, the paradigms which it reinforces may mean another?
And by the way, saying “chinese girls are hot” does not include a some-but-not-all caveat. We may assume that you’re not saying you find all Chinese girls hot, but that is not a necessary consequence. “I find some Chinese girls hot.” is in accord with reality while “I find Chinese girls hot” is not in accord with reality, and sets up a fallaciously fungible group. In short, you’re using language imprecisely. And being a dick about it.
Says the person with no training in the discipline.
Oh, and, I’ve never said I was an expert, yet again. Simply that I have more training than you.
Until you can talk to me about the relationship between language and thought, you’re talking out of your ass, and, coincidently, your position is thus without merit.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Dude, nice strawman.
Cite for where I’ve said I was offended?
You said, and I quote:
Seriously, dude, you need to give up here. You’re really coming off as a jackass.
This is a message board, and all communication is nonverbal. -1 for inaccurate language.
-1 for inaccurate language.
It’s perfectly possible to have a different opinion on language than yours, and have an IQ above 70 or below 50. -1 for inaccurate language.
Clearly, if blowero can read this post, think cognitively, and type out a reply, he is not solely a penis. -1 for inaccurate language.
There is no “talking” on a message board, only electronic communication. Additionally, anuses are incapable of human speech. -2 for inaccurate language.
Maybe to you, but you’re deliberately twisting my words to make your strawmen, so pardon me if I don’t give up in the face of your dishonesty.
You will notice that I did not say even once that I was offended in the material you just quoted.
I did point out that the roots of racism lie in fallacious fungibility, because that was, and is, still one of my main points of debate. Namely, that these paradigms themselves allow and encourage racism.
But no, I’ve never said I was offended, and I would please appreciate it if in the name of fighting ignorance you retract your falsehood.