quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Here's the thing: it is indeed a big deal.
Why?
Because the people who are speaking "unprofessionally" in this case have grown up their whole lives learning a particular dialect. This dialect is as valid and as comprehensible as any other dialect of English, and has served them well; they are not necessarily any more unlikely to misunderstand the sentence "he asked what she was thinking" just because they'd pronounce the second word "axed." Then, at some point, they have to speak across class and regional divides, and discover -- or, in this particular case, are more likely to have grown up knowing -- that the way they (and everyone to whom they are close) speak is considered somehow inferior. A symbol of ignorance. A symptom of some lack.
And so when they answer the phone, maybe up to half the people to whom they're speaking will hear them say "axed" and think, "Oh, great. I've got someone who disrespects women and police and does casual violence to our beautiful English language on the line." But those same people will then, when "axed" about it, say "but it's no big deal."
I'm not saying it's surprising. After all, broadcasters have been training for far longer than I'm alive to ditch their regional accents in favor of "American standard" -- which, luckily for me, just happens to be the predominant dialect of the area in which I was born and raised. But it is indeed a big deal, especially when your dialect is not considered merely an indicator of the region in which you were born but a predictor of whether or not you're likely to sell drugs and cheat on your child's (unmarried) mother.
You're conflating a lot of issues here, Tom.
You get close to the point in your last paragraph, when you talk about news broadcasters being encouraged to ditch their native accents. It's not just "Black English" accents that I'm considering a little unprofessional.
Forgive me if I'm misremembering, but I could swear you are one of many folks here on Hatrack that holds posters to a higher standard than some places. That is, you expect people to largely communicate in correctly spelled, grammatically sound sentences. How exactly is this different?
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Don't feel sorry for me. I'm fine. Also, you included what others have said into what I have said before making giant, high horsed, elitist worded, incorrect, assumptions. And then lectured me (again) about those (again incorrect) assumptions.
I dislike a very specific subculture for good and valid reasons.
No, your reasons are neither good nor valid. And you can deflect as much as you like by casting aspersions on me and my " high horse." You're the one who hates black American culture, and said about as much a few posts back. You are pitiable. Honestly. I understand you didn't say that you hate black people- you know better. But you forgot where you were. You forgot who you were talking to. You forgot how far your bullshit would carry you here.
Oof, Orincoro, you're laying it on way thick.
I personally think that a lot of folks who have some level of "Black English" accent have little or nothing to do with the more repugnant elements of the particular black subculture that Stone Wolf is talking about. The same way that many black people don't speak that way in the first place, many people who speak that way aren't actually in the subculture.
It's a way of speaking that's pretty common in Oakland, near where I live. I don't think any of my coworkers in that old job were meaningfully invested in the subculture.
All that being said, oh man, Orincoro, your dense and histrionic attack against Stone Wolf is laughable.
The subculture (not the way of speaking, but the actual subculture) is filled with horrendous cultural memes and some common, awful values. It's hardly an isolated example of a subculture with some really atrocious values and traditions (see: hippies, goths, Libertarians, a subset of unlabeled gamer nerds, the list goes on.)
Sorry, you can jam your PCness down Stone Wolf's throat all you like, but it doesn't change the truth.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is, you expect people to largely communicate in correctly spelled, grammatically sound sentences. How exactly is this different?
The big difference, to me, is between dialect and error. Someone who posts on the Internet exclusively in leet-speak is not someone who can't tell the difference between "their" and "there," necessarily.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is, you expect people to largely communicate in correctly spelled, grammatically sound sentences. How exactly is this different?
The big difference, to me, is between dialect and error. Someone who posts on the Internet exclusively in leet-speak is not someone who can't tell the difference between "their" and "there," necessarily.
Sorry, it might just be because I've got a low-grade fever, but I'm having a hard time parsing this.
So, in the internet example, leet is dialect and their/there is error? Which one do you disdain and/or correct people and/or suggest they change their behavior?
And "black english" is... a dialect, or an error?
Sorry I'm failing to read between the lines, but I genuinely want to understand.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Here's the thing: it is indeed a big deal.
Why?
Because the people who are speaking "unprofessionally" in this case have grown up their whole lives learning a particular dialect. This dialect is as valid and as comprehensible as any other dialect of English, and has served them well; they are not necessarily any more unlikely to misunderstand the sentence "he asked what she was thinking" just because they'd pronounce the second word "axed." Then, at some point, they have to speak across class and regional divides, and discover -- or, in this particular case, are more likely to have grown up knowing -- that the way they (and everyone to whom they are close) speak is considered somehow inferior. A symbol of ignorance. A symptom of some lack.
And so when they answer the phone, maybe up to half the people to whom they're speaking will hear them say "axed" and think, "Oh, great. I've got someone who disrespects women and police and does casual violence to our beautiful English language on the line." But those same people will then, when "axed" about it, say "but it's no big deal."
I'm not saying it's surprising. After all, broadcasters have been training for far longer than I'm alive to ditch their regional accents in favor of "American standard" -- which, luckily for me, just happens to be the predominant dialect of the area in which I was born and raised. But it is indeed a big deal, especially when your dialect is not considered merely an indicator of the region in which you were born but a predictor of whether or not you're likely to sell drugs and cheat on your child's (unmarried) mother.
You're conflating a lot of issues here, Tom.
You get close to the point in your last paragraph, when you talk about news broadcasters being encouraged to ditch their native accents. It's not just "Black English" accents that I'm considering a little unprofessional.
Forgive me if I'm misremembering, but I could swear you are one of many folks here on Hatrack that holds posters to a higher standard than some places. That is, you expect people to largely communicate in correctly spelled, grammatically sound sentences. How exactly is this different?
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Don't feel sorry for me. I'm fine. Also, you included what others have said into what I have said before making giant, high horsed, elitist worded, incorrect, assumptions. And then lectured me (again) about those (again incorrect) assumptions.
I dislike a very specific subculture for good and valid reasons.
No, your reasons are neither good nor valid. And you can deflect as much as you like by casting aspersions on me and my " high horse." You're the one who hates black American culture, and said about as much a few posts back. You are pitiable. Honestly. I understand you didn't say that you hate black people- you know better. But you forgot where you were. You forgot who you were talking to. You forgot how far your bullshit would carry you here.
Oof, Orincoro, you're laying it on way thick.
I personally think that a lot of folks who have some level of "Black English" accent have little or nothing to do with the more repugnant elements of the particular black subculture that Stone Wolf is talking about. The same way that many black people don't speak that way in the first place, many people who speak that way aren't actually in the subculture.
It's a way of speaking that's pretty common in Oakland, near where I live. I don't think any of my coworkers in that old job were meaningfully invested in the subculture.
All that being said, oh man, Orincoro, your dense and histrionic attack against Stone Wolf is laughable.
The subculture (not the way of speaking, but the actual subculture) is filled with horrendous cultural memes and some common, awful values. It's hardly an isolated example of a subculture with some really atrocious values and traditions (see: hippies, goths, Libertarians, a subset of unlabeled gamer nerds, the list goes on.)
Sorry, you can jam your PCness down Stone Wolf's throat all you like, but it doesn't change the truth.
:facepalm:
Whatever "the subculture" is, and whatever a "meaningful investment" might mean, you have no clue what you're talking about. Moreover you address nothing of what I was posting to SW, other than to react to my attitude. As if I was some PC militant. Don't be so thick.
"Doesn't change the truth" indeed. This is the natural refuge of the ignorant when confronted with his ignorance. "I know what I know." no argument against that. Because it doesn't mean anything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan...meaningfull communication with him when he is like this nigh impossible. I suggest that you only try if the process amuses you and not with any expectations of breaking through the rhetoric.
Jeff...thanks, you too man.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Whatever "the subculture" is, and whatever a "meaningful investment" might mean, you have no clue what you're talking about. Moreover you address nothing of what I was posting to SW, other than to react to my attitude. As if I was some PC militant. Don't be so thick.
"Doesn't change the truth" indeed. This is the natural refuge of the ignorant when confronted with his ignorance. "I know what I know." no argument against that. Because it doesn't mean anything.
Dude, first of all, despite the fact that you addressed SW, the line you quoted was written by me, so you were, as SW said, conflating things written by different people and concocting a complete straw man in your head. Since you were also doing this with a really histrionic over-the-top tone, yeah, I decided it wasn't worth it to even wade into the details, and I just chastized you on tone.
But it's okay, I can go into details if you prefer.
In case you've forgotten what was said, here it is again:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:(Originally posted by Dan, not SW) Or was it the "professional otherwise" comment, because that's implying that speaking "Black English" is fundamentally at least a little unprofessional?
Yes. Would you consider "y'all" to be unprofessional? What about the word "warshed," to stand in for "washed?" Do you believe that most people who pronounce "washed" "warshed" are not educated or professional enough to spell the word correctly?
I have a hard time finding a starting point in addressing the very broad sort of prejudice displayed in the previous post. This one is easier: SW seems to approach language and dialect/idiolect with the baseline assumption that that which is proper and professional is that which is spoken by the highest social class. This is an unspoken assumption, naturally, but it underpins the viewpoint. Black English is demonstrably inferior *because* it is associated with criminality and poverty. The fallacious reasoning is in insisting, again through an unspoken assumption, that the fault in character or moral fortitude that ostensibly causes poverty and criminality, also produces the perceived "degradation" of language- which is perceived as degraded due primarily to an association with the living and social conditions of a major underclass.
Again this is made more difficult by the fact that you're combining me and SW in your quest to make up motives, but since you're reacting to something I said, I'll go ahead and treat it as if this was talking about me, not him. If you think this was the wrong decision, let me know!
That being said, this whole paragraph is wrong. The reason I think it's less professional, as I've said numerous times, is that it involves a lack of proper grammar and pronunciation. That's it! There are jobs where this type of "professionalism" is largely irrelevant (I work in one right now, in fact!), but in the type of job where you dress in a suit to talk on the phone, your tone and diction and syntax all matter a great deal.
Everything else you said here is just made up. You say it's an "unspoken assumption" wisely, because that's true. It's unspoken, and the only one assuming it is you.
What else is there to say? I can't disprove this any more than I can disprove someone's belief in god. You think you know why I'm really saying what I'm saying, and no amount of counterargument or denial is sufficient.
Your theory is immune to criticism, not because it can refute said criticism, but because it never lowers itself from its lofty pedestal to a place where criticism can reasonably be applied.
And I think I can prove it, too. If I'm wrong, explain to me what the failure condition of your argument is. What point here are you offering up for criticism that, if criticized, would cause you to change your mind?
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It's kind of the central assumption of this kind of American Calvinist thinking: the actual circumstances trace their ultimate roots to moral fortitude and god-given righteousness. And you can take that as far as you want: Blacks could have done better after slavery, they could have escaped their masters, they could have avoided being pressed into slavery; centuries ago, they could have developed as a society to the point where Europeans couldn't take such advantage of them. The senseless causes of history and geography and chance are ultimately ignored in favor of a viewpoint which favors the current circumstances as the natural result of moral superiority.
You just keep going with it. I don't know what specific criticism to offer here, man, since this attitude doesn't reflect the reality of the positions put forth in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: There is little room left for a subtler approach to the issues of personal responsibility and social conditions. Not surprising- the social conditions favor the person making the judgement, regardless of whether he cares to make that admission. It is likely he does not wish to, or is not capable of doing so. Typically he may reject this appeal to a subtler view by saying: "then nothing is anyone's fault!" because in this system of thought there is no room at all for the idea that moral righteousness is at all relative, or is at all dependent upon the conditions necessary for it to thrive.
Here you've almost got an interesting topic for discussion. I mean, it's still totally devoid of any relation to anything anyone in this thread was actually saying, but on its own merits, this is interesting fodder for discussion. To what extent is it okay for people to blame their situation on external forces? And to what extent should they take individual responsibility and devote their energy towards improvement?
But yeah, not at all related, for the reasons stated above.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If you dig deeper into that, it provides the justifications for torture (as it did in Soviet Russia), because there is no admission that a person can be degraded to a subhuman state by any external force- that force instead merely reveals one's external behaviors as a facade masking moral bankruptcy. Something Alexander Soljetnitson found interesting about sleep deprivation and it's effects on him personally- his belief in his own moral righteousness as a unique entity were crushed by it.
Again, interesting stuff on its own merits, but unrelated to anything I said. And, vaguely insulting because you're literally trying to equate my (or SW's) position to one advocating torture! Pretty slick!
But, you know, slick like something gross and slimy, not something nice and lubricated.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This is why I feel bad for SW. He *hates* this culture, and one could imagine that he fears it as well. He is barred from any appreciation of the way that people so different from him think or feel or behave as anything but an abomination. That's very unfortunate,I think. I do wish I knew a solution.
One could imagine all sorts of things. One could imagine that you are so wracked with guilt at your own racism that you project it onto others. But one would be spinning that theory from whole cloth, and it'd be just as bogus as what you're imagining.
I think you've amply demonstrated the sort of attitude you get when you value moral and cultural relativism above all else, though, which is interesting.
Stepping away from the fact that you attributed this thing I said to Stone Wolf for a second...
Stone Wolf explicitly laid out the stuff that bothers him about the hip-hop subculture. You can disagree with him about that, and point out how it's not like he said (good luck with that!) or you can point out that there's much more to it than what he said (good luck with that in a not-sarcastic way!), but you're doing neither of those things. The last couple sentences you had here are the closest you got to it, and it was just a set-up for a jab, not an actual observation of some value in the hip-hop subculture.
Anyway, the beginning of this post is the most important. If you care to respond to any of it, that's the stuff that actually gets to the heart of the problem. It's the heart of the problem with most people deeply invested in "social justice" really: Imperviousness to Criticism.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Dan...meaningfull communication with him when he is like this nigh impossible. I suggest that you only try if the process amuses you and not with any expectations of breaking through the rhetoric.
That's the only reason I ever argue with anyone on Hatrack!
Well, not just "amuses" me, I guess. I also learn from it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've tried in the past, because at times it -is- amusing, but be forewarned, Orin tends to make it personal.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: To what extent is it okay for people to blame their situation on external forces?
Slightly more then what is true.
quote:And to what extent should they take individual responsibility...
Slightly less then what is true.
quote:...and devote their energy towards improvement?
110% because even if every single one of someone's problems are not their fault, no one else is going to fix their problems for them.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I've tried in the past, because at times it -is- amusing, but be forewarned, Orin tends to make it personal.
I've argued with Orincoro many times, I'm not too worried about it. He's a decent enough guy, he's just a little prickly. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
