welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Revolution!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5130
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Do you mean you deny the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?


The fu-?
I deny Sapir-Whorf because it's not so. But you seem to have misrepresented what it is. It's the idea that your language shapes your worldview. Again, you're just 100% wrong in this thread.

Damn it, why did I come back to this thread. Just leave linguistics alone, Darq. Please. Leave linguistics alone right now. I mean it.

Edit: I know that line wasn't directed at me, but I'm responding to it anyway.

Second Edit: Ok, I see what happened now. Still: no one should believe in Sapir-Whorf. It's just wrongheaded.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca


Last edited by Mizike on Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:25 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10717
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm pretty sure you don't even know what you're saying. In the reply above you responded to one of my comments to say, "people need to learn not to get offended so readily," then in reply to the very next comment you act surprised and ask, "I said people shouldn't be offended?" WTF, dude? On top of that, I said you denigrated a woman and you say, "No, I denigrated a person." Yet you're not a prescriptivist. You just want to tell everyone how to interpret everything - when they should and shouldn't be offended, when a word with a connotation of slut shaming should be gender neutral even when applied to a woman by a man, etc. You have zero internal consistency in your argument. You don't even have internal consistency in that one post. You have no idea what you're doing, but you're pretty sure it makes you an awesome linguistic or social rebel who's waiting for the world to catch up. Congrats. You probably should have taken an intro to logic course instead of an intro to linguistics course, because even though you're blatantly wrong (to everyone, you seem to think you're saying things you aren't. So, you know, it's time to move on.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10717
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That bit about Sapir-Whorf was me. He just quoted me badly. I was trying to get him to explain what it means to be "left" of linguistics. Apparently it means he gets to decide what we should all feel about words, or something. But yeah, you should probably just stop... Wink
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Darqcyde wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Darqcyde wrote:
Then give me a list of english pejoratives I can use for "someone being sexually promiscuous and/or unfaithful" that isn't biased against women. Whore was the most neutral I could think of.
Check it: http://thesaurus.com/browse/whore

So you admit the term is used mainly as a pejorative against women now?
Does the fact that all of its synonyms also apply mainly to women not drive home the point about the double standard faced by women regarding claims of promiscuity, vis a vis the fact that there are no male-only pejorative terms for being promiscuous?

As I see it there should be pejorative terms that are gender neutral. I understand why there's not (patriarchy and what not) but there's nothing immutable or fixed about it.

Quote:
Quote:
Also you're proving my point. It's the continued habit of society using the term against women that causes the association not the other way around.

Okay, so when you use the word to denigrate a woman for her sexual promiscuity, as you did here, you're fighting the good fight... right?

No, I denigrated a person, I didn't take her sex into account except when choosing the gender of pronoun. Had the roles been reversed I would have called him a whore.

Quote:
Quote:
Words are weak, defenseless, inanimate objects that can do nothing without us putting them into context to give them meaning. We determine if they insult us or not.

Is this a, "It's not my fault my insults hurt you, it's yours" argument? Wow, dude. You are just skyrocketing up the egalitarian charts here. Next you'll claim if a woman gets raped she must be asking for it.

You're right, taking the stance of trying to change the majority of the world's view is ludicrously stupid and utterly doomed venture but it's the overly idealistic stance I take. Also I think people need to learn to not get insulted so readily, I'm pretty sure it hasn't helped humankind in the long run, but to me that's only partially related. When a person IS insulted I feel they should, if able to, ask the offender to clarify their position to verify the context of their statement. You know, something you can readily do on an internet forum. Also, overly promiscuous behavior simply isn't healthy for the general populace or the individual and neither is betraying a loved one's trust. As someone who is in favor of some forms of punitive justice I see insults as an interpersonal extension of that i.e. you commit this social violation you receive this verbal punishment. It's pretty much what Willem has been doing to me with all the name calling since he sees me as having violated one of his mores.

Lastly, I feel chastising a person for their actions isn't the same as denigrating them for an intrinsic value or attribute of theirs. That's why I'm ok with words like 'whore' and 'dick' but not 'bitch' or 'nigger' and why i feel terms like 'fat ass' shouldn't be unilaterally applied.

Quote:
Quote:
As a descriptive, not a prescriptive language, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO PERMANENT RULES FOR ENGLISH. It's what allows it to be flexible and incorporate so much jargon, slang, loanwords, calques, and neologisms. It's why it's okay to readily split an infinitive. The old meaning and connotations can be changed, it is possible, or at least I'd like to think so.

Yeah. A lot of people took linguistics or anthropology 101. The funny thing about telling people that they shouldn't be offended by a word? That's prescriptivism. The connotations of a word develop as a result of social factors over time. They're arbitrary and fluid. You cannot tell someone what a word should mean to them.

I said people shouldn't be offended? Did I? Of course you can't tell them, but you can try to persuade them.

Quote:
For what it's worth, I am WAAAAAY radical left in my english language views

I have no idea what the fuck this means. Denying linguistic prescription isn't radical... like at all. It's the norm. Do you mean you deny the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? You believe language is an innate structure in the human brain? If you could make this somehow relevant to the discussion of context that would be super.
I think I explained this above. Feel free to call me insane, I'll sit comfortably outside the asylum.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6053
Location: California

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Him wrote:
And really, so fucking what if she had slept with someone behind his back?


Well, all other things being equal and assuming you're in a conventional relationship that implies monogamy, it's an assholeish thing to do. It's a violation of trust.

But that goes equally for both parties, it doesn't justify any sort of retribution even though this particular case is a hoax, and it doesn't really help Darq's bizarre little argument that calling women whores is his contribution to gender equality or that he can change the meaning of words simply by willing it to be so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10388
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
I'm pretty sure you don't even know what you're saying. In the reply above you responded to one of my comments to say, "people need to learn not to get offended so readily," then in reply to the very next comment you act surprised and ask, "I said people shouldn't be offended?" WTF, dude? On top of that, I said you denigrated a woman and you say, "No, I denigrated a person." Yet you're not a prescriptivist. You just want to tell everyone how to interpret everything - when they should and shouldn't be offended, when a word with a connotation of slut shaming should be gender neutral even when applied to a woman by a man, etc. You have zero internal consistency in your argument. You don't even have internal consistency in that one post. You have no idea what you're doing, but you're pretty sure it makes you an awesome linguistic or social rebel who's waiting for the world to catch up. Congrats. You probably should have taken an intro to logic course instead of an intro to linguistics course, because even though you're blatantly wrong (to everyone, you seem to think you're saying things you aren't. So, you know, it's time to move on.

Prior to that post, I'm pretty sure I didn't mention whether people should get offended or not. To me, focusing primarily on what a speaker says and trying to alter word choice seems like a symptomatic approach. It merely gives the illusion that people are behaving better. As I see it, this type of thinking would seem supportive of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Dennis J. Squidbunny



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3720
Location: AUSTRALIA YOU FAKIR

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I AM THE LEFT LEANING REVOLUTIONARY FOLK HERO OF LANGUAGE! CHANGE WORDS, FOR I COMMAND IT SO! WOMEN! WHORE IS JUST A WORD, BE NOT OFFENDED BY IT! DISREGARD ALL OF ITS USAGE UP TIL NOW.

CHANGE LANGUAGE! CHANGE... THE WOOOOORLD!
_________________
"Eight hundred pounds of nitro, his boots are thunder as he plays."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10717
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Prior to that post, I'm pretty sure I didn't mention whether people should get offended or not. To me, focusing primarily on what a speaker says and trying to alter word choice seems like a symptomatic approach. It merely gives the illusion that people are behaving better. As I see it, this type of thinking would seem supportive of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

I guess I'm just psychic then, because you totally said it, whether before or after me. Either way, WTF? Communication is not a one-way street. When you convey a message to another person all you can do is hope they grasp your intent, because it's not inherent in the message. What comes out of your mouth are merely words that are interpreted by the recipient through their own filters, and they derive their own idea of your intent. How well it matches your actual intent depends on how carefully you craft your message (and how well you know one another).

That being said, if you, as a man, call a woman a whore, regardless of what you think it means in your head, to the rest of the world it looks like some asshole denigrating a woman by calling her a whore. Does that make sense? Anything beyond that - all of the "take back the word" stuff - is utterly irrelevant, because at the end of the day your message is only as clear as the person receiving it perceives it to be. So if you want to be an effective communicator you have to think about how the recipient will interpret your message. Which you can't control by telling them they shouldn't be offended, you can only adapt your message to try and clarify your intent.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lasairfiona



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9702
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
you can only adapt the language of your message to try and clarify your intent.

Fixed. Because I think he was trying to change his message through different understanding of his language but that obviously isn't being accepted since the language was part of the message he was sending, unintentionally or not.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10717
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fair enough. I figured that was implicit because I pointed out that the message doesn't include intent, only words (although I left out body language and tone, because we're on the innertube). But you're right - good communicators choose their words carefully so as not to muddle their intent with emotionally charged words. Good communication doesn't require a follow-up in which you explain why the other person shouldn't be offended by you (unless your point is to be a dick, or you don't care/are lazy).
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lasairfiona



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9702
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After this big thing, I am not assuming anything is implicit.

Other than Benny buttsex of course.

_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Him



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 4189
Location: On edge

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darq, I will say this again, etymology does not trump social context. That you imagine you use it genderneutrally(you dont but I'll get to that in a sec) sure as fuck does not trump social context. You called a woman who was, seemingly, the victim of a pretty horrible crime a whore because her ex, and the perp, claimed she had cheated on him. Your problem is not a linguistical one, omar.
_________________
A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17181
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Fair enough. I figured that was implicit because I pointed out that the message doesn't include intent, only words (although I left out body language and tone, because we're on the innertube). But you're right - good communicators choose their words carefully so as not to muddle their intent with emotionally charged words. Good communication doesn't require a follow-up in which you explain why the other person shouldn't be offended by you (unless your point is to be a dick, or you don't care/are lazy).


or to put it another way, the absolute _last_ thing we need is more perjoratives, gender-neutral or not, because they are all about emotion -charged.

just think, darq, had you not insisted on a perjorative, we all could have had hours of useful time instead of wasting it wading though _this_ steaming turd.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Page 8 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group