We Hit Peak 2019

[Dill]

(12-21-2019, 01:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So your take is that double negatives being poor grammar isn't a universal rule, it is just a way in which power is exercised in the US?

Definitely not a "universal rule"--except as qualified in my post.

Double negatives would indeed be a deviation from what I called the standard dialect. But it is not standard because it is somehow, in some transcendently universal sense, correct.  It is standard because those who spoke it in 19th century America had the power to position it as the standard in schools and universities. Once they said no double negatives or "ain'ts," the speech of millions of other Americans became defective.

And yes, the policing or otherwise standardizing of dominant dialects is one way power is exercised in modern nations. That is true in every nation which selects a dialect to be taught in its schools as the "correct" one.  Check out Fred's story about his struggle to repress linguistic aspects of his cultural heritage. He is describing how he negotiated the power differential between his and the dominant culture.

So far in this discussion, my use of the term "power" has been neutral. It is not possible for a modern Western nation to function without at least one dominant dialect, sanctioned in schools. So I am not arguing bad whitey needs to stop with the red pen and let everyone have his own personal dialect.

I am arguing, though, that people should recognize how power is exercised through language, and not mystify power relations with talk of some universal correctness--which just happens to coincide with speech of an economically and politically dominant ethnic group.

[fredtoast]

(12-20-2019, 10:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I know exactly what my point is. You do too. You cannot generalize whole groups of people. You keep generalizing all black people as one homogenous group. You are continuing to do it. 

If you can't generalize whole groups of people then you can't have an issue with the way "white people" use the term "well educated".

And you also can not have anything called "African American Studies" in any high scholl or University.

And you also can not have programs in schools specifically designed to help african American children transition from AAVE to standard English. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-23-2019, 12:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you can't generalize whole groups of people then you can't have an issue with the way "white people" use the term "well educated".

And you also can not have anything called "African American Studies" in any high scholl or University.

And you also can not have programs in schools specifically designed to help african American children transition from AAVE to standard English. 

*Waits to hear how you're again proving his point for him this time.*

[BmorePat87]

(12-23-2019, 12:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you can't generalize whole groups of people then you can't have an issue with the way "white people" use the term "well educated".

And you also can not have anything called "African American Studies" in any high scholl or University.

And you also can not have programs in schools specifically designed to help african American children transition from AAVE to standard English. 

I have been saying things like "often times" to explain the history of its use, never actually generalizing anyone. At no point did I accuse anyone of using it in a racist way, which is why I had to tell you multiple times to stop arguing straw men because you kept suggesting that I was "calling every white person a racist" when they used it. 

You, however, have made the blanket statement that "black culture promotes improper grammar" numerous times. 

If you are going to continue to outright refuse to acknowledge that I am not calling anyone racist and have repeatedly said that the point is that there is a troubling history of its use and we need to be aware of how community react to that, then we have nothing left to discuss. 

[fredtoast]

(12-23-2019, 12:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you are going to continue to outright refuse to acknowledge that I am not calling anyone racist and have repeatedly said that the point is that there is a troubling history of its use and we need to be aware of how community react to that, then we have nothing left to discuss. 

If the comment is not racist then why is anyone upset?  Why do people have to apologize?  This "troubling history" you speak of, would that happen to involve a racists element involved with the comments?

The fact is that this entire conversation has been about racism.  You called it "implicit" racism.  Crazydawg called it "subconscious" racism.  But it is ALL about racism.  

And if you really are saying there was no racism then you are proving MY POINT. Because if there is no racism then there is no need for anyone to get upset or demand an apology in the first place.

[BmorePat87]

(12-23-2019, 03:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the comment is not racist then why is anyone upset?  Why do people have to apologize?  This "troubling history" you speak of, would that happen to involve a racists element involved with the comments?

The fact is that this entire conversation has been about racism.  You called it "implicit" racism.  Crazydawg called it "subconscious" racism.  But it is ALL about racism.  

And if you really are saying there was no racism then you are proving MY POINT. Because if there is no racism then there is no need for anyone to get upset or demand an apology in the first place.

All of these questions can be answered by rereading all of my posts. 

I never called any of this racist. You're free to go back and reread my posts. We've had multiple posts where you claimed that things were being labeled racist and I said they were not. The one word I did use was an "implicit bias". This is your problem. You're continuing to argue straw men. I have already corrected you multiple times on this whole "racist" thing. I haven't called anyone a racist with regards to this topic.

Things do not have to be racist for them to be wrong to say or for them to have a reaction in people. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-23-2019, 05:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: All of these questions can be answered by rereading all of my posts. 

I never called any of this racist. You're free to go back and reread my posts. We've had multiple posts where you claimed that things were being labeled racist and I said they were not. The one word I did use was an "implicit bias". This is your problem. You're continuing to argue straw men. I have already corrected you multiple times on this whole "racist" thing. I haven't called anyone a racist with regards to this topic.

Things do not have to be racist for them to be wrong to say or for them to have a reaction in people. 

IMO you haven't called anyone racist in this thread; however, you have made numerous suggestions of ignorance and ignorance is the root of racism. 

Also, your reputation proceeds you so I can forgive Fred for assuming you are playing the "racist" card. 

Simple question: Do you think Bloomberg should have apologized? 

[fredtoast]

(12-23-2019, 05:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:  The one word I did use was an "implicit bias". This is your problem. 

Why is it my problem if you are the one who used it?


If none of this was about racism then what exactly was it that go so many people so upset that Bloomberg had to aoplogize?

[BmorePat87]

(12-23-2019, 06:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why is it my problem if you are the one who used it?

Ummmm, you may not want to cut off the rest of my post...

Quote:This is your problem. You're continuing to argue straw men. I have already corrected you multiple times on this whole "racist" thing. I haven't called anyone a racist with regards to this topic.

I wasn't saying your problem is implicit bias. I said using straw men despite being corrected on using them is your problem.

Quote:If none of this was about racism then what exactly was it that go so many people so upset that Bloomberg had to aoplogize?

This has been clearly answered multiple times in this thread. 

[CJD]

(12-23-2019, 06:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO you haven't called anyone racist in this thread; however, you have made numerous suggestions of ignorance and ignorance is the root of racism. 

Also, your reputation proceeds you so I can forgive Fred for assuming you are playing the "racist" card. 

Simple question: Do you think Bloomberg should have apologized? 

Simple answer: Yes.

I'm not sure why this society thinks apologizing is some terrible thing. Like the very concept of admitting that you aren't aware of 100% of human interactions is a personal weakness or something.

Bloomberg said something that upset a group of people based on their life experience. Bloomberg said this wasn't his intention and he was sorry. The vast majority of people moved on.

I don't see what the problem with this is.

[GMDino]

(12-24-2019, 09:49 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Simple answer: Yes.

I'm not sure why this society thinks apologizing is some terrible thing. Like the very concept of admitting that you aren't aware of 100% of human interactions is a personal weakness or something.

Bloomberg said something that upset a group of people based on their life experience. Bloomberg said this wasn't his intention and he was sorry. The vast majority of people moved on.

I don't see what the problem with this is.

The problem is that some feel admitting you were wrong, or admitting that others have a different perspective that you need to ackowledge is a sign of weakness.

Must be "strong" and always right all the time.

Personally I agree with you.

[fredtoast]

(12-23-2019, 07:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This has been clearly answered multiple times in this thread. 

No it hasn't.

You keep talking about a "history" and that history is of racism.

It is all about raacism.  Many african Americans saw racism where it did not exist so Bloomberg had to apologize. 

[fredtoast]

(12-24-2019, 09:49 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Bloomberg said something that upset a group of people based on their life experience. Bloomberg said this wasn't his intention and he was sorry. The vast majority of people moved on.

I don't see what the problem with this is.

The problemis that the people who wer upset should not have been.  If this had been a case of Bloomberg making these comments about a stranger he had never met then they could have voiced their outrage, but it is silly for them to be offended when Bloomberg calls a Rhodes Scholar with a law degree from Yale "well spoken".

I am amazed that you don't see the problem with accusing people of racial bias when it does not exist.

People should not be required to apologize when they do nothing wrong.

[CJD]

(12-24-2019, 12:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problemis that the people who wer upset should not have been.  If this had been a case of Bloomberg making these comments about a stranger he had never met then they could have voiced their outrage, but it is silly for them to be offended when Bloomberg calls a Rhodes Scholar with a law degree from Yale "well spoken".

I am amazed that you don't see the problem with accusing people of racial bias when it does not exist.

People should not be required to apologize when they do nothing wrong.

Turns out you can't dictate to people what they are and are not allowed to get upset about. No matter how many times you try.

It has been explained to you multiple times why, even if Bloomberg wasn't thinking about Booker's race when he said what he said, it is still tinged with historical context. It is not important what qualifications Booker has.

I am amazed that you don't see the problem with rejecting another person's world view and personal experience.

Bloomberg could have easily said what you're saying. "I don't agree with the idea that this sentiment is racially tinged, so I refuse to apologize that I upset some people, even though I had absolutely no intention to."

But he chose to apologize because there is, literally, no harm in saying "sorry that I said something that upset you. I wasn't aware of the historical context before I said this and I know now."

If you're not sorry, don't apologize. But don't feign ignorance when those people that you upset do not want to vote for you.

[BmorePat87]

(12-24-2019, 12:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it hasn't.

You keep talking about a "history" and that history is of racism.

It is all about raacism.  Many african Americans saw racism where it did not exist so Bloomberg had to apologize. 

We both know it has, but if you want to behave this way then by all means don't let me stop you. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-24-2019, 09:49 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Simple answer: Yes.

I'm not sure why this society thinks apologizing is some terrible thing. Like the very concept of admitting that you aren't aware of 100% of human interactions is a personal weakness or something.

Bloomberg said something that upset a group of people based on their life experience. Bloomberg said this wasn't his intention and he was sorry. The vast majority of people moved on.

I don't see what the problem with this is.

We will just disagree that anyone should ever have to apologize for calling another person "well spoken". If folks are upset about that they may want to look at themselves rather than the person extending the compliment.