Gender 'Equality' Nonsense

[SRC]

People who make their words far more complicated than necessary are usually lawyers or are trying to show that they are smarter than everyone else. The latter is only effective if your grammar and spelling is impeccable.

Or they spend a lot of time looking up words on Thesaurus.com in order to "appear" smart. I've read this person's posts and look at how the words are used in the sentances .. and they aren't always used in the correct tense.

That says something to me ....

First of all, your complete misconception of what I stated is a trifle compared to the fact that this is totally irrelevant to what I said. I am citing historical, biological and anthropological facts.

A lot of people write a lot of demagogic and disingenuous books by conveniently ignoring facts. You cannot accurately judge a situation unless you understand the facts and have a theory by which to organize these facts into a coherent narrative.

The sort of anthropological, historical and economic understanding that is necessary for any real historical or sociological work is what's most lacking in 'popular sociology'.

Just so you know, I had to fix this post, just so I could read it, so that's what's lacking in this instance (things are always lacking, huh?)

You can twist facts and findings and use them any which way you like .. and that won't make them anymore right, sensible, or understandable. You may have quoted "facts" and historical findings .. but "facts" aren't always relayed correctly or fairly. Sometimes "facts" find themselves being miscontrued and used as agendas.

Being able to coherently understand how the social structure of this nation works .. would help YOU to better understand my posts and reasonings .. before jumping on your high horse and trying to appear so "scholarly".

 

[GraceAbounds]

You can twist facts and findings and use them any which way you like .. and that won't make them anymore right, sensible, or understandable. You may have quoted "facts" and historical findings .. but "facts" aren't always relayed correctly or fairly. Sometimes "facts" find themselves being miscontrued and used as agendas.

Being able to coherently understand how the social structure of this nation works .. would help YOU to better understand my posts and reasonings .. before jumping on your high horse and trying to appear so "scholarly".

:clap

:thumbup

 

[LiberalVichy]

I bet a dollar that if you talk like you write, you get a lot of blank stares

Not much of a problem, most of the people I talk to are at least reasonably up on philosophy and things like that. People who read a lot a classical liberal tend to understand those words, too, even if they don't use them.

The problem with discussing a lot of these things is that colloqueal language does not have it's own, independent words, nor easy phrases to accurately describe, many of the concepts. I mean, what do you want "Austrian theory of the Firm" or a 2 page essay? It's a specialized discipline, like engineering, and any detailed discussion is going to involve something like "linear stress is a rank-two tensor quantity". Someone who wanted to could go read a wiki article, but there is no way to convey it in a short piece and it would - anyway - eat up a lot of space and time. Best case scenario is I could give more outlines and a lot of links, but I am not here to publish essays and, frankly, you're not here to read them.

You're right there, she's already stated elsewhere that she dosent give a fuck about people dying of starvation.

Said it's not my problem. No one has a claim on me or my affection, I give it at my discretion. Anyway, this is such a retarded and really irrelevant example people always bring up. Like people don't starve en masse in Statist societies.

When my first impression reading something is "huh?"

And really, I don't give a fuck. It is not a fault that I have a completely different linguistic culture to you, that I have a more thorough knowledge and command of words. You know what? I read all the time. Sublte and nuanced meanings do make a difference, for those who can understand them, and frankly that's where most of my target audience is. Unlike the late Bill Buckley Jr, I do not intentionally affect my speech or writing. But my desire to be both precise and concise can require the use of terminology which, to the general public, may have vague or totally mysterious meanings. Oh well. I'm writing for the remnant, anyone who wants to be really educated will have to be self-educated. The materials are out there, I have at various times linked them and a simple google search will provide a vast array of literature, videos, lectures and the like. Those who will not trouble themselves to read a couple of articles and watch a few videos are really beyond my help, or my desire to help.

 

[gillibean]

Not much of a problem, most of the people I talk to are at least reasonably up on philosophy and things like that. People who read a lot a classical liberal tend to understand those words, too, even if they don't use them.

The problem with discussing a lot of these things is that colloquial language does not have its own, independent words, nor easy phrases to accurately describe, many of the concepts. I mean, what do you want "Austrian theory of the Firm" or a 2 page essay? It's a specialized discipline, like engineering, and any detailed discussion is going to involve something like "linear stress is a rank-two tensor quantity." Someone who wanted to could go read a wiki article, but there is no way to convey it in a short piece and it would - anyway - eat up a lot of space and time. Best case scenario is I could give more outlines and a lot of links, but I am not here to publish essays and, frankly, you're not here to read them.

Please learn to spell before you lecture people. It's "colloquial" and "its" not "it's."

 

[LiberalVichy]

Please learn to spell before you lecture people. It's colloquial.

I wasn't lecturing. I was stating a fact of my linguistic culture. My spelling and grammar are better than most, but it is largely informal. I can make myself precisely understood, at least assuming the person I am talking to understands the terms and I am willing to give a full exposition. This, in addition to the fact that it is natural, makes my normal mode of speech - advantages and disadvantages being what they may - my preferred method of communication.
In other words, I am not saying anyone 'ought' to speak as I do, I am simply saying that the barriers to comprehension that may exist are not contrived nor due to some inherently faulty method of communication which I have adopted. Science, philosophy and political radicalism lend themselves to a rather different dialect than the majority of the population.

 

[gillibean]

I wasn't lecturing. I was stating a fact of my linguistic culture. My spelling and grammar are better than most, but it is largely informal. I can make myself precisely understood, at least assuming the person I am talking to understands the terms and I am willing to give a full exposition. This, in addition to the fact that it is natural, makes my normal mode of speech - advantages and disadvantages being what they may - my preferred method of communication.
In other words, I am not saying anyone 'ought' to speak as I do, I am simply saying that the barriers to comprehension that may exist are not contrived nor due to some inherently faulty method of communication which I have adopted. Science, philosophy and political radicalism lend themselves to a rather different dialect than the majority of the population.

Can you define linguistic culture?

 

[LiberalVichy]

Can you define linguistic culture?

The environment of spoken and written word which one develops one's habits and modes of language. Someone like myself, who has been exposed to a lot of written works of non-fiction over the last couple hundred years is going to develop a familiarity with many terms, not simply specific but common to high-brow intellectualism (which is prevalent in works before 1900). It seems apparently very difficult to understand, but very intelligent and specialized people do, quite naturally and totally comprehensibly, speak in a different manner and with a different understanding than other people do. I am not being mysterious or pretentious, I am saying precisely what I intend to in a way which may be incomprehensible to some or most, but is no less precise because of it.

Or they spend a lot of time looking up words on Thesaurus.com in order to "appear" smart. I've read this person's posts and look at how the words are used in the sentances .. and they aren't always used in the correct tense.

It is really quite condescending to presume anyone who uses words you don't is doing so to 'seem smart', as it has the obvious problem that a person who was smarter than you would probably know things you didn't and yet, say things you didn't accept and use terms you weren't familiar with. Why? It might well be because they are smarter. Affectation of speech may indeed occur, but if you just assume it because you don't like what the person says, you are a pseudo-intellectual douchebag.*
There are also multiple uses for many words in the English language, so before getting The Truth from dictionary.com (whatever its merits) one ought to consider the history of the word in different disciplines and in literature which was not produced within the last ten years. Archaism are archaic, but they are a perfectly valid method of communication.

*And yes, I have a definition of a pseudo-intellectual. "Someone who has been educated beyond their ability to reason."

 

[gillibean]

The environment of spoken and written word which one develops one's habits and modes of language. Someone like myself, who has been exposed to a lot of written works of non-fiction over the last couple hundred years is going to develop a familiarity with many terms, not simply specific but common to high-brow intellectualism (which is prevalent in works before 1900). It seems apparently very difficult to understand, but very intelligent and specialized people do, quite naturally and totally comprehensibly, speak in a different manner and with a different understanding than other people do. I am not being mysterious or pretentious, I am saying precisely what I intend to in a way which may be incomprehensible to some or most, but is no less precise because of it.

Please learn to use grammar properly. The underlined sentence says that you have been reading for 200 years. I know exactly what you are trying to say but that is not what you actually said. People will never be able to understand you until you take the time to learn proper grammar or at the very least, use spellcheck. The number of people on here who have no idea what you are saying makes it pretty clear that you are not, in fact, writing very clearly.

 

[LiberalVichy]

You're right about the syntactic error, but you spotted it. But the grammatic conclusion was cleared up by contextual knowledge. I am not, one may presume, 200 years old. It is my aim to avoid things like this which could be literally mistaken, but the majority of confusion does seem to stem from a lack of familiarity with terms. I can disprove minimum wage just by calling it an example of 'price control', but many people may not know that.
The lack of effort I sometimes put forth is because there are very few things said on here that actually interest me. I am not 'in with the crowd', most of the things most people care about are either uninteresting or comically fallacious to me.

 

[gillibean]

You're right about the syntactic error, but you spotted it. But the grammatic conclusion was cleared up by contextual knowledge. I am not, one may presume, 200 years old. It is my aim to avoid things like this which could be literally mistaken, but the majority of confusion does seem to stem from a lack of familiarity with terms. I can disprove minimum wage just by calling it an example of 'price control', but many people may not know that.
The lack of effort I sometimes put forth is because there are very few things said on here that actually interest me. I am not 'in with the crowd', most of the things most people care about are either uninteresting or comically fallacious to me.

Someone jumping to the correct conclusion does not excuse bad grammar or bad spelling, especially when it is so easy to use spellcheck.

 

[SRC]

If you are so highly educated .. please explain why can't you spell, punctuate, or form paragraphs properly .. but instead type out random blocks of rambling incoherant text?

I sincerely hope you only talk to smart people; because if they EVER saw how you write .. lol .. well ...

 

[Minor Axis]

Liberal, don't all this talk about how you write stop you from posting here...

 

[Zorak]

ROFL this thread had me on the floor

Linguistic culture??

Your writing like a pretentious twat, fuck, if I wanted to look like a complete holier than thou fuckwit I could just read a few Canterbury Tales and then Chaucify my posts to make sure I sound intelligent, but illegible enough so no one can counter argue.

 

[gillibean]

ROFL this thread had me on the floor

Linguistic culture??

Your writing like a pretentious twat, fuck, if I wanted to look like a complete holier than thou fuckwit I could just read a few Canterbury Tales and then Chaucify my posts to make sure I sound intelligent, but illegible enough so no one can counter argue.

She's not even using linguistic culture correctly. It's a term that applies to the whole of society not a personal thing that changes for each individual.

 

[groundpounder]

..I am not being mysterious or pretentious...

whoa whoa whoa...:unsure:

Not pretentious? :ninja

you're not appealing to the proletariat, and I don't mean that in a likability aspect (even thought that may be the case). You'll understand what I mean...

 

[groundpounder]

you know what I like?

The title of this thread is "Gender 'Equality' Nonsense" and the thread is rife with "quality nonsense"

How cool is THAT?!?!

 

[thatguyjeff]

Strangely enough, I'm both amused and annoyed that this discussion has degenerated into a grammar/spelling "nit - off."

 

[Zorak]

She's not even using linguistic culture correctly. It's a term that applies to the whole of society not a personal thing that changes for each individual.

She's thinking of idiolect I think...

 

[gillibean]

She's thinking of idiolect I think...

Now that would make sense.

 

[groundpounder]

Yawl gone pissat gal off now, ya heah?

*spit* pting!