site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37173 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 22, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A lot of the more obnoxious prescriptivism came from elites who wanted to impose (imagined) Latin grammatical structures on English. Entirely status and in-group signaling, and totally contrary to English as spoken by anyone at the time.

Recognizing that AAVE has its own consistent structures doesn't mean you can't teach SAE. But it's kind of important to recognize that it's a shibboleth to indicate education level and class membership. That way you know that someone who says nucular is an outsider and therefore an enemy (if only by virtue of the fact that they're choosing to use the vernacular of the enemy).

SAE is not merely a shibboleth. Keeping language variation small enough that mutual intelligibility is largely maintained is an important practical goal.

It's totally a shibboleth. I speak 'redneck English' and can easily understand both Ebonics and standard American English(and can speak either) a bit more easily than the Queen's English and whatever the hell Marianne Williamson speaks(and can't really speak either of those), and understand both of those with less effort than blue collar Hispanic ESOL(where it'd be 50/50 on whether it's easier to switch to Spanish), and understand that a bit more easily than Chinglish, which I in turn find easier to understand than something like Dutch(which I can, haltingly, string together a few sentences in).

Now the signal "I am literate" is a valuable one to exist and we don't have to pretend it isn't. That someone finished society's basic educational expectations is important information, and choosing to share or not share that information is an important contextual signal. A black who speaks Ebonics in a job interview is sending a signal and that signal is 'I'm either uneducated or don't give a shit'.

'redneck English'

I was about to ask you a question under the impression that you meant the dialect(s) spoken in Appalachia, and then remembered that you live in Texas, not in my neck of the woods. Rednecks are everywhere!

Anyway I mostly agree with you. Dialectal variation in American English is shockingly small, certainly compared to e.g. the variation in Great Britain. Aside from maybe AA(V)E, which does seem to have some unusual grammatical constructions, pretty much all varieties of American English are easily mutually intelligible if you are willing to try. (For what it's worth, though I grew up in Appalachian Virginia, my parents are highly educated transplants. My brain seems to produce exclusively SAE even though I have no trouble understanding the Appalachian dialect/accent.)

Southern American English is likely considerably closer to AAVE than Midland or Mid-Atlantic, so no surprise you can understand it better than many other white Americans. And most Southerners seem to code-switch to something less distinctively southern when talking to Northerners.

Yes, in a formal register I speak something closer to SAE than my usual red dirt dialect. "I" instead of "aaah" but I keep the guttural R and the WH sound.

“Guttural R”, as in French or German? Can you give an example word?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_velar_approximant#Voiced_velar_bunched_approximant

When I say agree and argue it sounds like I'm saying the standard American English R and a modern Greek gamma or Arabic GH at the same time. It's not a gargle like the Parisians use. Clear sounds like 'klee-a-growl' said by an auctioneer. Raise and red sound a bit closer to the SAE counterparts but rude and rub don't.

Languages naturally diverge over time. To counteract this, you need some kind of central coordination to act as a centripetal force. I don't trust any group to police language in a way that doesn't betray their own parochial biases. And, in particular, I don't trust the people who today have the power to police Proper English not to mangle it even more than they already have as a display of raw power.

It's better to let individuals use language in whatever way that's most useful to them. Those who want to participate in the broader consolidated market can naturally learn to code switch to the dialect they need to.

To be clear, I don't think you have any obligation to try to communicate with people using dialects that are grating.

Languages naturally diverge over time.

And this is generally bad, as it makes communication more difficult.

I don't trust any group to police language in a way that doesn't betray their own parochial biases.

Indeed. And some of those groups (like the woke, and AAVE speakers demanding other blacks not "talk white") are going to try. So the other groups better try too, or they're just going to get wiped off the language map.

I think we've arrived at the reason why so many hegemonic empires choose a prestige dialect with few or no native speakers- Latin, Mandarin, Koine, etc.

So the other groups better try too, or they're just going to get wiped off the language map.

Your claim is that SAE is in danger of being wiped off the language map?

Your claim is that SAE is in danger of being wiped off the language map?

Not "Standard American English", the living dialect. But the version spoken today, yes.

Yeah, I guarantee that all dialects spoken today will be unrecognizable in a few hundred years except for those fortunate languages who are already dead, that being the only real way for a language to endure unchanged.

Shakespearean English is recognizable today. And I'm talking about dialect, not accent. And I'm not talking about a few hundred years, but a few decades. Your post is just a smokescreen.

Nuh uh, your post is just a smokescreen!

Shakespearean English is recognizably and intelligibly English but the meaning of many words have shifted and many words have fallen out of favor. This process will continue over the next decades and the next centuries if English is fortunate enough to endure.

I realize that changes to the English language until you were born are based and trad and everything after is soy and degenerate, but there is literally (I am using the original form) no escaping this process for any living language.

It makes communication between groups more difficult. But it makes communication inside the group and communication of who is in the group easier. Which of those is more useful or valuable is largely dependent on what you're valuing and circumstances.

If everyone in the world spoke perfect English only then communication would be easier. But we would certainly have lost something of value I think.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats