Venting thread that still excludes eddy (2)

[Xephyr]

Kinda a shot in the dark here: have you considered looking into Eastern religion/spirituality and meditation? There are sources around about the more purely psychological aspects of practicing it, if you're not into religion or are into some other religion and don't want to actually start believing in reincarnation or hungry ghosts etc. Might help, might not.

[Vijay]

I've met a lot of friends on this board but it is true that this board can behave like elementary school kids at the playground sometimes.

Exactly!

Sometimes I think that if you aren't among the board's power circle you have to be either a masochist or just one of those people who's always above it all to be an active member here. Unfortunately I fall into the masochist category. I've left this board so many times but keep coming back. But that's because there are some great people here who I enjoy conversing with.

I suppose I'm a little bit of both.

Then again, any place on the internet is full of people acting like they're elemetary school kids at the playground (and yes, that's a rant too).

All the more reason why it's not exactly necessary here, too.

I for one am glad you're still among us Vik .

Me, too!

Because a) some people are awfully rude and narcissistic, and the occasional reminder that they aren't the only people in the world is probably good for them, and certainly good for our ability to cope with them; and b) sometimes people don't seem to be reachable through reasoned dialogue, and it's necessary to make clear just how wrong and/or annoying they are.

A lot (maybe even most) of your posts on the longer side seem to be fairly condescending if not downright rude, and I'm not even the first person to say something to that effect, so those don't seem to justify being rude or condescending as often as you are. I find all of the following to be examples of that:

More: show

a) One example is this, where you chose to talk about "adult offspring spong[ing] off [their parents] perpetually" and so on in response to posts that were discussing my relationship with my parents, which you know nothing about apart from what I actually said about it, which was not that, and it's pretty rude of you to presume that you do know what's really going on there when you barely even know me. I really try not to be rude, although I'm sure I can come across that way sometimes when defending myself against accusations other people make about me. I assure you I am not a narcissist and am indeed "reachable through reasoned dialogue"; I do try to have self-respect, although honestly, even that (let alone narcissism!) has been pretty hard to develop given that I have an anxiety disorder and unfortunately have also been the target of an awful lot of criticism my whole life, and I have nothing against reasoned dialog though I do have something against racism (gee, that should be surprising coming from a brown guy, right?), even subtle or unintentional racism, and against people just attacking other people rather than offering some sort of even vaguely constructive criticism. The people who defended me in that discussion were also not rude, narcissistic, or unreachable through reasoned dialog AFAICT.
b) In the very same post: "surely the adult, married response is for you to go on holiday, and him to cope perfectly well in your absence?" in response to Viktor's dilemma over traveling in Europe when his husband said he didn't want to. To me, at least, that pretty much comes across as a euphemistic version of "oh, quit being such a baby," which is a rude thing to say even euphemistically. I have my disagreements with Viktor sometimes, but I wouldn't exactly call him "rude," and I am certain this was not what he was being in that context. Nor do I see him as "narcissistic"; he may not always be aware of other people's perspectives on a given issue, but that's different, and I don't think any of us always are anyway. And FWICT, if you choose to have a reasoned dialog with him, he either participates in that dialog without going off on you or just opts out of it, so he's not incapable of that, either.
c) In this post, you effectively called Koko a psychopath. Yeah, that's rude, too. Koko is not rude; I may not know him that well, but I know him a hell of a lot better than you do, and he really isn't. And once again, being unaware of how things affect other people is not "narcissistic," nor is he unreachable through reasoned dialog.
d) In this one, you dismissively told someone who said they were making an announcement that they were "masturbating," and that's rude. They were not rude; they just said whatever they felt like saying. No, I don't get why, either, but that doesn't mean I have to put them down for it. I don't see how it's narcissistic on their part or showing that they aren't reachable through reasoned dialog, either.
e) Here, again, you basically accused me of saying all kinds of things, some of which I did say as hyperbole, some of which I never said at all. There is so much wrong with this one. It's not just rude, more like the most bizarre exercise in whitesplaining I have seen to date, but in particular, I'd like to point out the first sentence: "Somebody should probably point out at some point that the idea of Europeans going out and 'fucking up' everybody else's 'countries' is both anachronistic and frankly a little racist in its noble savage romanticism." I mean, really?!? Are you not a white British person, Sal? Do you really fail to see what is wrong with a white British person dismissing a brown person whose grandfather was imprisoned and probably nearly killed at the hands of the British government as "a little racist" and engaging in "noble savage romanticism"? Now, in this particular case, yes, it is probably true that I am not "reachable through reasoned dialogue" if your idea of "reasoned dialogue" involves, basically, racism, which certainly is not justified on your part!
f) Somewhat similarly, you chose to end this post with an ageist remark; just because I am younger than you and defended the idea that calling Hillary Clinton a "bitch" in a Twitter comment was misogynistic, you assigned a label to my entire generation and chose to generalize over all of it.
g) Both here and here, you made quite a few accusations about zompist that also don't seem to be justified in context. Of course I know you know zompist better than me, but I find it hard to believe that he was trying to hurt you or whatever by expressing his opinion there, so to me, that reaction seems uncalled for. I'm sure zompist is reachable through reasoned dialog; otherwise, this forum would be in a far worse state than it is now. I'm also sure that he is not "rude" or "narcissistic" for trying to defend women - and pointing out what the only actual woman in the discussion had to say about it.
h) And here, someone even had to ask you not to reply condescendingly to a question they had after you did before and even said they were "trying to have a civil conversation," then you went ahead and did it anyway, despite the fact that you hadn't really clarified what you meant in that context by "Sanders supporters."

When it comes to things like the AmeriNyland Hypothesis, I do do my best to use my indoor voice as long as possible - but sometimes rational argument just lulls people into thinking that they're within the domain where people have rational arguments

What is that part I just bolded even supposed to mean?

and it needs to be pointed out that they're actually being crackpots like the people in the crackpot thread, and if they weren't members of the board people would be laughing about them in the crackpot thread.

"The crackpot thread"?

But if you have any complaints about people mistreating you, do let us know. I think we've actually got a pretty good record on responding to concerns like that.

I know this was addressed to Viktor, but I'm guessing you mean this for all members in general, so this is precisely what I've done.

Rant: Damn, all Easter choclates and candy are 50% off. I shouldn't have bought them, now I'm just trying to lose the calories I gained today, tonight at the gym, instead of the ones I was trying to lose that were already on me...

Oops.

No, the last time someone called someone else stupid was this:

My the idiocy astounds me.

You guys clearly don't understand linguistics. [...] "open-mindedness" is not an excuse for ignorance and stupidity.

Apart from being rude, it's also ablist.

what

Well, people with some mental disorders at least are often wrongly and unfairly labeled just "stupid," but maybe something like this would help explain, too.

[ObsequiousNewt]

No, the last time someone called someone else stupid was this:

My the idiocy astounds me.

You guys clearly don't understand linguistics. [...] "open-mindedness" is not an excuse for ignorance and stupidity.

Apart from being rude, it's also ablist.

what

Well, people with some mental disorders at least are often wrongly and unfairly labeled just "stupid," but maybe something like this would help explain, too.

This helps explain nothing. Can you please explain this concept of "ableist"?

[Xephyr]

I spend an awful amount of my free time on the internet watching or listening to debates. Moderated debates, unmoderated debates, debates where the audience is polled; debates about religion, about politics, about science, about social policy, about whether The Force Awakens is just a retread of A New Hope... I've honestly probably seen over a thousand. And so far I don't think I've seen anybody win one of them by saying that what their opponent is saying hurts their feelings.

Vijay, allow me to be frank with you. And just so we're clear, "frank" means that I respect you enough as an adult that I will tell you the truth, and won't infantilize you by putting on kid gloves or by being deliberately deceptive in order to avoid upsetting you: I think you may have misapprehended the purpose and nature of this message board. This is a conlanging and linguistics board, with an active community of people who talk about other things like politics. It is true that the level of vitriol has varied by quite a bit over the years, but it has never been the case that somebody can present a position on linguistics or on politics and not expect other people to challenge it. People take positions, other people take counterpositions, and they argue it out, often quite vigorously, but seldom does it evolve into any actual "flame wars" where people hate and insult each other in earnest. I have often seen new people on this board see two older members arguing over something-- two people whom I know like each other, and who have argued many times in the past-- and they get the mistaken notion that what is going on is a flamewar or that the two people are trolls. Which is fine: different places on the internet and in the real world have different degrees to which people become "loud" when they argue and each one takes getting used to.

The truth is, most of us here respect each other just fine, even when we argue with each other. In fact, if you ask me, it is more respectful to challenge someone's opinions than to just let them slide no matter how ludicrous you think they are, because it means you acknowledge their intelligence enough to know that they either ought to be convinced by your arguments or to have arguments capable of convincing you, and failing either of those outcomes both parties in any case come out more informed, with a more sharpened wit, and with a greater sense of respect (if grudging) for each other. For instance, I can't seem to agree with anything that faiuwle says, but I have said numerous times on IRC that I respect her because she tenaciously sticks to her guns and argues it out, defending her position and never declaring others to simply not be worth talking to, or getting upset at the mere fact that they think she's wrong.

I told you via PM once that I'm not a fan of the "no religion or politics at the dinner table" rule-- the essence behind that is that I think "let's just agree to disagree" (taken as an initial position) is condescending, and that if two people disagree they should argue it out (at least for a while). And if that argument gets heated, then so long as the two remember not to take it too seriously, then that is not flame or acrimony-- it is passion. And some of us are passionate about politics, or linguistics. You can see that in the Na-Dene thread that Salmoneus and Zompist got into an argument over... I can't remember, to be honest, but it got slightly heated, but I can almost guarantee you (you'd have to ask them) that they don't think lesser of each other for it. I also argued with both of them over reindeer herding's effect on language diversity, and in the end they convinced me that they were right and I was wrong. This is what we do.

Which is why I, personally, take umbrage at the fact that you have been here a mere two months and seem (to me at least) to be saying that you want us to stop being critical about linguistics claims, to stop being passionate about what we care about, and to stop respecting each other enough to challenge each other's opinions when we think they're wrong. Some places on the internet are like that. And if Zompist says that from now on it is to be like that, or if someone says that I am wrong about all of this and am glamorizing the nature of discussion on this forum, them so be it. But if you think that I am trying to make new people like yourself unwelcome, then I can only assure you that I am not. You are welcome to present your ideas, and I and others will treat you with the same regard we treat Salmoneus, and respond to those ideas in the same way as if they had been given by Salmoneus or anyone else. And I (hopefully "we") fully expect you to be just as critical of our ideas. If you think I'm full of shit in this post, then tell me why. If you think that we're all wrong about the origin of Native American languages, or about the policies of colonialist Great Britain, or about anything else, then tell us why. But please, please do not simply plant your flag of victimhood, say that everybody is being too "rude" to have a discussion with them, and then demand that the rest of us stop debating each other. Because you will not make very many friends that way.

(The "Crackpot Thread" is the Linguistic Crackery Thread, btw, located in None of the Above.)

[Vijay]

Can you please explain this concept of "ableist"?

Discriminating against people with disabilities. Does that help at all?

[ObsequiousNewt]

Can you please explain this concept of "ableist"?

Discriminating against people with disabilities. Does that help at all?

Sure, but what about Travis' post is doing that? He's calling you stupid for what I think is a perfectly reasonable, well, reason: that you are holding on to an idea that is inherently laughable, and which Cev pointed out as being idiotic. I'm not going to say that Travis should have used insulting words directly, but I have to agree with his observations.

And all of this has nothing to do with disabilities—why is that relevant at all?

[Travis B.]

Claiming that "stupid" is albeist is essentially saying that criticizing one for having markedly poorly thought-through ideas, in this case ideas that reflect a very poor apparent understanding of basic linguistic principles that even I, a non-linguist, understand, especially since the person in question really ought to know better, is somehow discriminating against people with mental disabilities, even when in context it clearly has no such implication. Are we now not allowed to use words like "stupid" and "idiotic" to directly describe amazingly poor thought or judgement, just because someone somewhere has judged those words to be "problematic" (no, I am not following the link)? And saying that I was being rude is in essence saying that I should have been oblique instead of direct in saying that, as if I should have treated Vijay with kid gloves, as if being rude were somehow worse than pushing ideas with fundamental, insurmountable failings, in this case by channeling Edo Nyland, and then refusing to listen to any criticism of such, including by using an argument from authority, i.e. "I have a master's degree", as if that somehow made what one said any more valid.

[jal]

As for "ableist", I will refer you to a few blog posts of people who can explain it better than me (yes, they're all from the same blog site, but that doesn't matter to get the gist).

Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Post 4

Note that I do, for a large part, not agree with most of their opionions, especially not with mundane words like "crazy" (I argued against it being ableist in the 3rd post in the comments). But in general, I think it is good to know why people could find certain language offensive, even if you think they shouldn't, or don't find it offensive yourself.


JAL

[hwhatting]

Insults are supposed to be offensive, what's their purpose otherwise?

[jal]

Insults are supposed to be offensive, what's their purpose otherwise?

Insults are not supposed to be offensive to someone else besides the one insulted. If I were to call you a "sissy" or acting "gay", some of the resident population might be offended (and rightly so).


JAL

[hwhatting]

Insults are supposed to be offensive, what's their purpose otherwise?

Insults are not supposed to be offensive to someone else besides the one insulted. If I were to call you a "sissy" or acting "gay", some of the resident population might be offended (and rightly so).

If you were the type of person who uses "sissy" or "gay" as insults, would you care about people who are offended by these words?

[ObsequiousNewt]

Insults are supposed to be offensive, what's their purpose otherwise?

Insults are not supposed to be offensive to someone else besides the one insulted. If I were to call you a "sissy" or acting "gay", some of the resident population might be offended (and rightly so).

But this isn't even comparable. "Gay" describes a quality that is not inherently bad (unless you believe it is, in which case, you wouldn't care if you were offending anyone.) Whereas "stupid" is a quality that is inherently bad.

[jal]

If you were the type of person who uses "sissy" or "gay" as insults, would you care about people who are offended by these words?

Yes, you might*. The whole idea of pointing such things out is to inform people that they may be inadvertently offend people, so they can choose to either change their language, or be knowingly insulting other people in the process.

*"That's so gay" seems a common expression amongst youth meaning "that's so boring/annoying/otherwise not suitable".

But this isn't even comparable. "Gay" describes a quality that is not inherently bad (unless you believe it is, in which case, you wouldn't care if you were offending anyone.) Whereas "stupid" is a quality that is inherently bad.

That makes them not completely similar, not incomparable.


JAL

[Travis B.]

As for "ableist", I will refer you to a few blog posts of people who can explain it better than me (yes, they're all from the same blog site, but that doesn't matter to get the gist).

Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Post 4

Note that I do, for a large part, not agree with most of their opionions, especially not with mundane words like "crazy" (I argued against it being ableist in the 3rd post in the comments). But in general, I think it is good to know why people could find certain language offensive, even if you think they shouldn't, or don't find it offensive yourself.

In other words, because someone somewhere has used "stupid" to describe intellectually disabled individuals or with the implication that the person so described is intellectually disabled, we all cannot use the term regardless of context or implication, at risk of offending said intellectually disabled individuals (or more like inflaming SJWs* that have declared the term to be "problematic" rather than actual members of said group), regardless of what the term actually means in English. So now we cannot use any term that has been used anywhere by anyone to describe <choose your group> negatively or to imply that membership in <choose your group> is negative, lest we somehow offend members of said group (or, in reality, inflame SJWs who have declared themselves as defending said group)?

* Sorry, but there really is not a better term in English.

[jal]

In other words

Yes, I think that's basically what they are implying, plus the fact that more people have a mental illness (including depression) than is apparent for obvious reasons (people don't like to come forward with it in general, though this board seems an exception), so both mental illness and the use of words like "crazy", "idiotic" etc. are quite common, so in this specific case there might be a point to it (iirc bestowing Republican presidential candidates with terms like "insane" was I think the motive for writing the aforementioned blog posts).


JAL

[Travis B.]

In other words

Yes, I think that's basically what they are implying, plus the fact that more people have a mental illness (including depression) than is apparent for obvious reasons (people don't like to come forward with it in general, though this board seems an exception), so both mental illness and the use of words like "crazy", "idiotic" etc. are quite common, so in this specific case there might be a point to it (iirc bestowing Republican presidential candidates with terms like "insane" was I think the motive for writing the aforementioned blog posts).

A fallacy people seem to make is that just because such-and-such term has been used at some time by some to refer to such-and-such group negatively that is automatically the prototypical meaning of said term synchronically. Take the term idiotic, for instance; they would say that just because idiot once referred to intellectually disabled individuals, the use of the term idiotic synchronically is ableist, even when the original usage of the term idiot has become archaic if not simply forgotten. Likewise, because insane is etymologically derived from sane, which has as one meaning "mentally healthy" (mind you it can also mean "reasonable, sensible"), they would say that the use of the term insane to refer to people who are markedly lacking reason is ableist, even when it is synchronically not being used in context with any implication of mental illness.

[Travis B.]

In other words

Yes, I think that's basically what they are implying, plus the fact that more people have a mental illness (including depression) than is apparent for obvious reasons (people don't like to come forward with it in general, though this board seems an exception), so both mental illness and the use of words like "crazy", "idiotic" etc. are quite common, so in this specific case there might be a point to it (iirc bestowing Republican presidential candidates with terms like "insane" was I think the motive for writing the aforementioned blog posts).

Another factor to consider is just who are writing these blog posts. From all appearances they are people who are easily offended or, shall we say, offended-as-proxies. As for myself, I am mentally ill, yet I for one do not feel that negative things are being implied about mentally ill people such as myself when people use terms like "insane" to describe Republican presidential candidates or "crazy" to describe crackpot linguistic theories, as I have a sufficient understanding of the English language to know better and I do not go out of my way to get offended.

[linguoboy]

Take the term idiotic, for instance; they would say that just because idiot once referred to intellectually disabled individuals, the use of the term idiotic synchronically is ableist, even when the original usage of the term idiot has become archaic if not simply forgotten. Likewise, because insane is etymologically derived from sane, which has as one meaning "mentally healthy" (mind you it can also mean "reasonable, sensible"), they would say that the use of the term insane to refer to people who are markedly lacking reason is ableist, even when it is synchronically not being used in context with any implication of mental illness.

I'm not seeing the parallelism between these terms. The use of "idiot" to mean "intellectually disabled" is, as you say, obsolete at this point. But the use of "insane" to mean "mentally ill" is very much an active part of the language and it's not at all clear in every context whether or not that is the primary meaning.

For instance, Ann Coulter is frequently called "insane". But beyond that, I see people speculating openly about whether she has some kind of mental impairment which causes her to think as she does and I genuinely can't tell how serious they're being.

[Travis B.]

Take the term idiotic, for instance; they would say that just because idiot once referred to intellectually disabled individuals, the use of the term idiotic synchronically is ableist, even when the original usage of the term idiot has become archaic if not simply forgotten. Likewise, because insane is etymologically derived from sane, which has as one meaning "mentally healthy" (mind you it can also mean "reasonable, sensible"), they would say that the use of the term insane to refer to people who are markedly lacking reason is ableist, even when it is synchronically not being used in context with any implication of mental illness.

I'm not seeing the parallelism between these terms. The use of "idiot" to mean "intellectually disabled" is, as you say, obsolete at this point. But the use of "insane" to mean "mentally ill" is very much an active part of the language and it's not at all clear in every context whether or not that is the primary meaning.

For instance, Ann Coulter is frequently called "insane". But beyond that, I see people speculating openly about whether she has some kind of mental impairment which causes her to think as she does and I genuinely can't tell how serious they're being.

To me, the vast majority of times when people use the term "insane" they do not really mean that the person so referred to is mentally ill. To me, when people refer to Ann Coulter as "insane", they are not implying that she is actually mentally ill, and I have not seen anywhere anyone seriously considering that she is depressed, bipolar, schizophrenic, etc. etc. Rather, the "mental impairment" they are implying that she has is her markedly lacking reason, as the positions she takes are clearly unreasonable to anyone other than hardcore conservative ideologues. Note that this is distinct from actual mental illness, as being mentally ill and being markedly unreasonable are two entirely different things.

[linguoboy]

Travis, as a simple experiment, Google "ann coulter mentally ill" and tell me what you see. Either these people are seriously discussing whether or not Coulter does, in fact, suffer from a DSM-defined disorder or they are using "mentally ill" with the same non-literal value as "insane". Since armchair psychological diagnosis is our real national pastime anymore, I genuinely cannot tell in most cases.

[ObsequiousNewt]

If you were the type of person who uses "sissy" or "gay" as insults, would you care about people who are offended by these words?

Yes, you might*. The whole idea of pointing such things out is to inform people that they may be inadvertently offend people, so they can choose to either change their language, or be knowingly insulting other people in the process.

*"That's so gay" seems a common expression amongst youth meaning "that's so boring/annoying/otherwise not suitable".

But this isn't even comparable. "Gay" describes a quality that is not inherently bad (unless you believe it is, in which case, you wouldn't care if you were offending anyone.) Whereas "stupid" is a quality that is inherently bad.

That makes them not completely similar, not incomparable.

No, see, that's not how it works. The words are incomparable in the way that you are using them. Calling something "gay" in such a manner is (debatably) attaching negative meaning to a word. Calling something "stupid" isn't; it's using the word, which has by definition a negative meaning, exactly the way it would descriptively be used.

[Pole, the]

Hey look Salmoneous, I agree with you. Belgium has been absolutely shit at everything you mentioned.

Ah, no no no no no. Belgium looks like shit among the countries that have been attacked recently.

If, for instance, it were Poland that had been attacked, then it would be a whole new world of post-tragedic institutional mayhem.

[Astraios]

Vent: Life.

[zompist]

Since armchair psychological diagnosis is our real national pastime anymore, I genuinely cannot tell in most cases.

Ooh, positive "anymore" captured in the wild.

[jal]

A fallacy people seem to make is that just because such-and-such term has been used at some time by some to refer to such-and-such group negatively that is automatically the prototypical meaning of said term synchronically.

That is bascially what I also argued in the comments. But still, if many* people think it's offensive to use these words, you could at least be informed that this is the case, right? (I would perhaps not use this words around people I know don't like them, for example.)

*I don't think there has been a conductive survey, but at least that's what we're lead to believe.


JAL