‘No, you do not like Jazz. You may like some jazz, a mere subset, a smidgeon, an iota but to say you like Jazz as an entity, sets up a runcible spoon. My cognito-neuropsychophysioheptobariolistic training tells me this. Why are you walking away?’
Still, you seem to be missing the rather large point that much (verbal) communication consists of implicit or contextual elements. Nobody speaks like an academic text.
Awwww, you can’t address the substance of my points, so you’re being an obnoxious little bitch. That’s so cute.
In case you’re wondering, lying through your teeth is a metaphor, it does not literally mean you’re speaking through clenched teeth. -1 point for being ignorant and nit picking something that’s not even tangentially related to the main topic.
I’m dyslexic and dysgraphic. If this bothers you, I suggest you go fuck yourself.
Listen you reading comprenehsionaly challenged bitch, I did not say that if one disagreed with me they were a moron, but that if one thought that making language more clear was obfuscatory, they were a moron. Try to actually be able to read and understand what you quote. -1 point for being an idiot -1 point for being a bitch -1 point for lack of reading comp -1 point just because you have nothing to add to the debate other than being an ignorant bitch
Wow, what a dumb bitch you are. Or do I get -1 point because you’re not really a dog, just a stupid obnoxious girl?
And yes, you dumb bitch, he was using language impreciesly, and being a dick about it. You, you’re just a dumb bitch.
Wow a whole post with not one substantive thing to add, and you being a dense dumb bitch. What’re the odds?
“Do you like Jazz?”
“I like some jazz, including pieces X, Y, Z, by composer A, B, C. I generally like intricate jazz, but a sometimes I find that too much going on detracts from my overall enjoyment of a piece… etc…”
If you want to treat the straight dope as a cocktail party that’s your right, but I’m here to fight ignorance. It should be fairly obvious that the mission of a cocktail party is not to fight ignorance, so it’s the wrong venue. This, however, is the correct venue. So I’ll invite you to fuck off with your analysis of my conversational habits in meatspace.
Um, no, you’re missing the fact that I’ve already stated that.
Those are them thar paradigms and such that are reinforced by language of this type. And they are reinforced whether it is spoken or written.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but Tracy Lord, “lying through your teeth” and “talking out of your ass” are generally known to be idiomatic. No one I know in real life actually uses an anus for communication, but it’s still a valid phrase. It still means something, and reasonable people don’t generally believe there are anal cavities with the power of speech.
As for “moron,” it has definitions now that do not refer to mental retardation. Did you go to the Liberal School of Lexicography? (And before I upset Liberal, whom I really don’t mind so much, I know what his handle means. I also know why it confuses people.)
I think maybe you could’ve discussed your problems with FinnAgain in a more constructive, and certainly more correct, manner.
FinnAgain, I think you’re being a little pompous and reactionary, but I understand where you’re coming from with the “Jewish” thing. Could we just say that “Jewish” is not an ethnicity in and of itself, unless we’re talking Sephardic or Ashkenazic? I don’t think you’re going to get anywhere with nitpicking generalities though, as a good deal of people use them.
I’m honestly not trying to be pompous or reactionary. I’m attempting to make the paradigm I’m discussing as clear as possible and explain why I know what I know so that I’m not simply spouting things. It is important, as I understand it, that my beliefs are based on hard research and not opinion.
We could and that is exactly my point. There are ethnicities within Judaism, but being Jewish =/= ethnicity.
I guess I’ll have to wait a few generations for a perceptual revolution to occur… I honestly believe that generalizations, especially onces which establish harmful paradigms, should be done away with as soon as possible. But evidently there is great hostility to the idea now… this isn’t exactly surprising, as Korzkybski discussed the training of semantic reactions and how, literally, the S.R’s of one generation are ‘unthinkable’ to previous generations.
I’ll ponder this… but thanks for being rational Nocturne, I’ll raise a pint in your honor.
It’s okay. I don’t know much about linguistics (I’ve only had one class on it), but I understand it’s a complex field. I can follow some of what you’re saying, but not all.
On the other hand, you’re being a little…high-handed with some posters here. That may not have been your intention. I know the Pit is for all kinds of hissyfits…but sometimes if you want people to listen to what you’re saying, you have to tone down the vitriol and defensiveness. You get me?
Cites might be good to provide. With analysis if necessary. I find generalities annoying too, but I realize that people use them, and I can interpret them to mean something reasonable.
Thanks for the pint in my honor. I’ll raise a glass of bubbly back. Namaste.
Naw, devoting my life towards education is fine, I don’t think I need a robot. But it would be helpful, that way I could teach more than one class at once…
And I’m not attempting to destroy anything, merely clear up some ignorance. Ah well.
I thank you for your generous offer, but I’ll decline.
Best not to walk into a fight unarmed, then.
If you can demonstrate that non-insulting, personally-derived generalisations about a group contribute to negative perceptions about said group, then go ahead. And incidentally, your translation of ‘I find Chinese girls hot’ to ‘I find some Chinese girls hot’ is unlikely to be correct anyway - you’ll be wanting something more like ‘The probability of me finding a given girl to be hot is greatest if they are Chinese’. Your ‘some’ is not correct in the context, and does not convey the meaning of the original statement.
Strawman. There are TWO arguments going on here. ONE was whether Judaism is an ethnicity. That argument is pretty much concluded.
THE OTHER is whether it’s offensive to say, “Jewish girls are hot”. Do not try to frame the latter argument as an “enlightened” person vs. “people who think Judaism is an ethnicity”. That has nothing to do with it. I know Judaism is not an ethnicity.
I do… it’s just frustrating. When someone said that I essentially don’t know any more than anbody else, I pointed out that I’ve been trained, and so I can deal with facts rather than opinions. Then for that I was called haughty. I probably should get better at how I respond to such provocation, but I am just an egg.
The problem is that most of my research has been done in peer reviewed journals, and I can’t even link people to them unless they’re members of a university which grants its members access to the journals, or a subscriber of the journals; they can’t read them. I’d also be wary about emailing out copies of articles as they are copywritten and dublication is illegal without their consent. I’d rather not have my schools IT department wondering just why I’m sending out dozens of copies of copywritten journal articles. I also doubt anybody here wants to drop fifty bucks per cite just so they can subscribe and read one journal article at a time…
I will, however, endevour to find material on the 'net.
Here’s my point in clearer terms: There’s a spectrum of language use, ranging from “accuracy at the expense of brevity” to “brevity at the expense of accuracy.” In conversation, the latter is generally preferred; in academic and technical settings, the former.
I tried to get you to tell me WHY you were calling me haughty, but you were a little bitch and refused to answer, and then called me comic-book-guy, or whatever phrase you used, for attempting to get you to justify your claims.
You were too much of a little bitch to give me a cite or elaborate just what I was doing that was somehow haughty, so I assume that it was in reaction to my statements. If you’re going to call bullshit, you at least have to have the balls to say why you were calling me haughty. And as of yet, you’ve been a cowardly little bitch about it. So, absent of you growing a pair, I’ll assume that my reading is correct. If you want to clear up my ignorance on your position, go for it. It’s about, what, 30 posts late now?
Moron, and an ignorant moron to boot!
Research won’t help? You do realize that you’ve just glommed onto ignorance and are sucking at the teat of willful ignorance like a starving man? Of course research into how language and thought affect each other is relevant to the creation of reality via language! Jesus, are you really this stupid?
The strawman is yours! I’m telling you what I am arguing, you’re also trying to tell me what I’m arguing, but you’re making shit up!
Besides, in order for me to make a strawman, I’d have to ascribe positions to you, which I was not doing in the quote you refrenced. I was agreeing on another way to phrase my position, not making a strawman. Yeesh.
Liar!!!
How dare you ascribe a starwman to me, and then tell me that my argument includes your strawman?
I have never said I or anybody else is or should be offended by saying that Jewish girls are hot, simply that it didn’t reflect reality well enough and that fallaciously fungible groups are the basis of racism. So fuck off with your goddamn strawman!
Tracy, no lack of creativity, bonus points for an accurate description. You were being a dumb obnoxious bitch. Now, however, you’re just being slightly obnoxious by calling for ‘points off’. Your point, however, means nothing. Yes, there is a divide in how people speak. But that doesn’t mean there should be. People should always attempt to be as accurate in their conversation as possible.
My point exactly. You are ignorant of the issues I’ve been trained in, so you shouldn’t step into the fight as if you had knoweldge.
As I’ve already pointed out, I can’t link you to peer reviewed journals, and send you unauthorized copies is illegal. I am looking up material on the net. And, further, I have not said that non-insulting generalizations contribute to negative perceptions about the group, but that any fallaciously fungible thinking about a group allows such negative-group-definitions. The difference, I hope, is clear to you?
If you can talk about “the Jews” as a real entity, obviously you can attatch a value judgement to this group. If you cannot, then you can’t talk about “the Jews” as a group or attatch value judgements. This does not mean that a positive value judgement on a group directly contributes to a negative value judgement. It means that the entire affair of ascribing value judgments to groups allows such negative-group-perceptions.
No, I don’t think so.
If you said you prefer Chinese girls to other girls, then yes, the probability example would fit. But simply saying that you find Chinese girls hot does mean that you find some girls who are Chinese hot, but not all of them.
Most of the cog’ sci’ work I’ve done is in journals or hardcopy books in my personal library, ditto for linguistics. I’ll attempt to find more about those ,too, on the 'net.
The creation of reality via language? Heh, doesn’t sound like weak Sapir-Whorf to me…
Truly nonsense. Real life is not academia, and the ‘purpose’ of language is not accuracy and nor is complete accuracy always desirable.
You should be very careful when using these appeals to authority, FinnAgain. If any of us turn out to be - say - cognitive psychologists of >>5 years experience, then would you capitulate to our authority? Hmm?
You can, or you can just provide cites.
Yes, it does. Again, you are completely missing the social context of the transaction. If I say ‘Chinese girls are hot’, only a cheese-headed melon fucker would assume I find every single Chinese girl hot.
Next, certain generalisations of this type are indeed true for the individual who makes 'em. For example, it is possible (if unlikely) that I do find all Chinese girls hot. (Of course, you’ll argue than in Finnagainworld these ambiguities would never exist).
Now, this is simply incorrect. There is a wealth of science that demonstrates different ‘groups’ do exist on physiological and sensory grounds. An example is gender, where males and females have been shown to differ on many factors other than the simple physiological differences (e.g., perception of pain). As another example, asian ‘groups’ have been found to have different perceptions of taste than caucasian ‘groups’.
Basically, there are certain groups that can be demonstrated to exist using sound science. Other groups may just be social constructions.
If nothing else, your use of language here is weak and imprecise; I cannot tell whether you really mean ‘there is no such thing as a group’. If you really mean this, you are entirely incorrect.
I will state, simply for the record, that I’m more than willing to call a ‘truce’ with anybody who’s got problems with me. (That goes for you too Blowero, to my knowledge I’d said nothing impolite to you before you called me haughty)
I started posting in this thread as politely as possible, even making an entire post devoted solely to pointing out that I had no problems with Spoffe.
I would be more than willing to continue to discuss the linguistic, cognitive, etc… aspects of language-and-thought.
But I would request that strawmen would stop being attributed to me. I’m not an expert, but I probably do have more specialized training than others in this thread. I’m not smarter, I just posses more knowledge on this specific subject than someone who hasn’t studied it in depth.
