You’re just a monkey in shoes.
Please! The PC term is “differently mentally abled”!
No offense, but that’s a terrible argument and justification for saying “these are our words and you’re not allowed to use them no matter what”. If you’re going to separate the two dialects, you don’t get to decide for both dialects which words the speakers are and are not allowed to use.
This is exactly why people don’t buy into it and go from there into the whole “It’s unfair” mindset.
I had a Jewish girlfriend who informed me that the right one was the schlemiel, the left one was the schlemozel.
No one is “separating dialects”, or choosing which words different dialect speakers are allowed to use. It’s a fact that these dialects exist, and it’s a fact that the word “nigger” means different things in the two dialects. In AAVE, it’s not a racial slur. In standard American English, it is a slur.
Then I don’t think you understand it. Imagine there are two languages, A and B, and the word “plubbiwump” means “friend” in A, and “asshole bastard-man” in B. Speakers of language B, which may have a lot in common with language A, should not feel it’s “unfair” that they don’t get to use the word “plubbiwump”- the word has a different meaning in the different languages. Unless one is a native speaker of language A, one should not call anyone a “plubbiwump” unless one wants to cause trouble.
You’re doing exactly that by saying AAVE has a separate set of rules and AAVE speakers are allowed to decide when both AAVE speakers and when “standard” English speakers are allowed to use specific words.
I understand it, I just don’t at all agree with it.
And this “native” AAVE speaker stuff is a joke. A black kid raised up the the Drummond family can say “nigger” because he’s black not because of any silly “native AAVE” excuse.
Sorry for stating facts about linguistics. Anyone can use any word they like, obviously. But some words have different meanings in different dialects, and it would be wise for people be be aware of that.
The field of linguistics disagrees with you.
Well, next time someone disagrees with the whole “Who can say what thing” be sure to just chant “Linguistics disagrees with you” over and over. That should do the trick!
Anyone can say anything they want, as I’ve said. And next time someone explains facts about linguistics to you, you can just chant “I don’t agree with it”. That should do the trick!
Seriously, do you not believe in dialects, or something?
I never said I don’t believe in dialects. I said I don’t buy the argument you’ve made using “dialects” as an excuse.
That’s all fine though. Like I said before, I’m not especially vested in the debate. I think it’s silly and irrational and arbitrary but I’m not worried enough about getting to use any specific words that it has me worked up. But, once again, the whole “These are special words that I get to use but you don’t” is potentially going to offend someone just as much as “Mommy and Daddy get to say these but you don’t”. I suppose when someone takes offense to it you can say “linguistics” and when they don’t accept that just shake your head, cluck your tongue and sadly say “They must just be racists”.
You still don’t seem to be understanding my argument. Anyone can say anything they like. Some words have different meanings in different dialects. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not calling anyone a racist, or telling anyone they can’t say certain words.
Which part of my argument do you not buy? That AAVE is a real dialect? That “nigger” has a different meaning in AAVE then in other dialects? These aren’t exactly disputed among linguists.
That’s okay, you don’t seem to be understanding mine. Or maybe you do and you just don’t find it to be a good argument. I’m okay with that (even if you’re not).
I’d like to, though.
Well, not racist, necessarily. Maybe you just have a thing for right turns, which F1 drivers occasionally take.
It’s not that I hate all left turns. It’s just that I believe right turns have a genetic predisposition toward greater intelligence.
At the heart if this is the question “who is responsible when person A says something with a certain (innocent) intention, but it is said in such a way that person B understandably interprets person A’s intention to be something nefarious?”
It’s not easy. Each case is different, but IMHO on balance the responsibilities come out typically around fifty-fifty – person A needs to learn how to adjust how they express things, while person B simultaneously needs to adjust how they interpret motives.
I’m counting ALL such miscommunications, not just “racist” ones, in this formula. Incidents with “racist” overtones tend to place more of – but not always ALL of – the burden to adjust on person A, because “innocent intention” refers to such a small (sometimes nonexistent) portion of what’s being communicated in those cases.
A more everyday, non-racist example happened to me just this morning, when my wife vented to me about certain frustrations in taking care if our three-year-old, and I interpreted it as an unjust criticism of MY fulfilling of parental duties. The potential for misinterpretation is inherent in the subject matter and each person’s relationship with that subject matter, and both persons need to work to deepen their awareness of what’s going on.
Sex-ist. Ist, not sexy.
“Buddy, you take that back or step outside.”
You could have just told me to keep the change.
Some RWs are reasonable people who understand stuff. Some are absofuckinglutely breathtakingly tone-deaf
*On Thursday, the hosts of Fox & Friends … asserted that even Democrats were afraid to criticize the president because they didn’t want to be called racists.
“Do you see racism when Harry Reid called President Bush a loser? Is that respect for the office?” Brian Kilmeade asked. “Bill Clinton was impeached for his actions in the office? Is that racist?”
“I don’t know that Barack Obama could have been elected president if he was living in a racist nation,” co-host Steve Doocy opined. “Are there racists out there? Absolutely. Is it a majority of people? No. A majority of the people, according to the polls, simply don’t like his policies.”
“And certainly throwing around racist accusations, calling someone a racist certainly for disagreeing when they are indeed not, would undermine racism when it does occur,” Hasselbeck chimed in.
“There’s so much rude stuff toward 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in my lifetime,” Kilmeade said. “Reagan was dumb, remember. George Bush was incompetent and illegitimate. Bill Clinton, we know where he ended up with the Monica Lewinski stuff. Where was the racism there? This, to me, is a situation where you’ve gone six years with almost no criticism of the president.”
“But this is someone as powerful as Oprah instilling fear in those that may come to critique policy under a cloak of racism when it may not be there,” Hasselbeck declared. “So again, it undermines racism when it does occur.”*
I guess I am missing something here. Are these people trying to gin up a race war situation? Does this have something to do with Tea-Bagger criticism (because many or most of them do seem a bit bigoted)?