i answered the points you mentioned in my comments.
as for dialectic/polemic, i'm not aware of any other way to state it. i'm always surprised, actually, that you haven't come across those words a lot, given your interests.
I hate academic language with an intense passion. I do bother to wade through the queer theory books full of it, but I think they'd all be much more real, useful, human and beautiful if translated into plain English.
Modern academic language just continues the ancient European tradition where scholars wrote their scholarly works in Latin - and it's all the more indistinguishable from that tradition since the English language consists largely of two languages merged into one, Anglo-Saxon merged with Latin. Because of that merging, English contains twice as many words as most other languages, and invariably the word commonly used to represent any meaning is derived from Anglo-Saxon, whereas the scholars consistently choose to select the synonym derived from Latin. I know I do use Latin-derived words from time to time myself, but when there's a perfectly simple Anglo-Saxon substitute, I try to use it.
I looked up your words in the dictionary. It appears to me that all you were trying to say with the dialectics/polemics references was "Let's discuss this politely instead of angrily." You're not aware of any plain English way to state that? Don't bullshit me.
a dialectic is a process. there is a thesis, an antithesis, then a synthesis, which becomes the new thesis and the process continues.
a polemic argument assumes that the points of view are diametrically opposed and there can be no progress aside from one position conquering the other.
you make much more sense than my merriam-webster did. you have talent. you should use that talent.
i admit, the point at which i decide that the use of big words has gone too far does coincide to a suspicious degree with the point at which i cease understanding them. however, i still think the explanation above is a much nicer and less show-offy way of making a point.
i don't think "bullshit" necessarily equates to "liar." i think it equates to "you're feeding me a lot of worthless nonsense," without passing any final judgment on whether you know it to be worthless nonsense or not. however, i admit your grasp of words' meanings seems to be better than mine, and my dictionary does not contain the word "bullshit" so i cannot verify my belief.
i am now convinced that you did not believe your words to be worthless nonsense, and thus you are not a liar. i do, however, still personally believe it to be nonsense. i think arguments nearly always flow much smoother if you use humbler terminology.
the problem with my above definitions is that they are a lot of wordsm gayle. yes, they're clear and easy to understand but it's a lot of have to type every time i want to talk about dialectical or polemical ideas. that's really the point of those kinds of words, right? that they mean something not easily said in another way. if a word has a unique definition and serves a unique purpose it is a good and useful word.
it should also be noted, perhaps, that quentin pulled "dialectic" out of his bag before i did. there is also a certain value in demonstrating clearly that you are familiar with, and proficient in, the terminology used by your adversary in debate.
okay, i didn't realize quentin had pulled "dialectic" out of his bag first. i did realize he'd pulled plenty of other unnecessary big words out of his bag, and i was annoyed with him for it. but i thought "dialectic" was your fault. you are now exonerated (::pauses, looks around for a smaller word::), er, um . . . found not guilty.
i do not, however, believe that one necessarily gains ground in an argument by copying an opponent's move toward very academic language. switching to increasingly academic language usually signals defensiveness, a lashing out against an opponent's perceived lack of faith in one's own education. the goal should then be to defuse the defensiveness. since you knew the words i suppose there wasn't a whole lot else you could have done in that direction than what you did do; but if i'd been the one debating, since i didn't know the words, i would have simply stated that i didn't know them. my education is not perfect, but it is adequate for the purpose: my ability to form an intelligent opinion about racism, "ebonics," and the evolution of language cannot be discredited on the mere basis of the fact that i did not know the meaning of the words "dialectics" and "polemics." anyone who tried to discredit me on that basis would just be making a fool of themself, and it's not my job to worry about whether others choose to make fools of themselves.
it saddens me that the entire debate, on both sides, was couched in such extremely elitist, academic, thoroughly un-"ebonic" terms. it saddens me that many of the very people being discussed - those who speak "ebonics" but have not acquired equal fluency in standardized english - were by this language rendered incapable of following or participating in the debate about their lives. i understand that there are reasons why quentin felt it necessary to debate in such academic language, and also that there are reasons why you felt it necessary to use a few equally polysyllabic words of your own in your replies - but the progression of it is still ugly and still saddens me.
it saddens me that the language of the debate crescendoed into such elitist language that i myself did not receive an expensive enough education to be able to follow all of it. i attended a cheap and distinctly shabby state college in which words like "dialectic" were never used to me, despite the fact that i was even an english major. i do not believe, coming from the background that i did, that i could reasonably be expected to have self-educated myself any better than i have done - yet it's perfectly clear to me that i have not managed to equal the size of your vocabulary nor to read even half as many works of social theory as you have. this very fact is itself the basis for my annoyance with your original journal entry that touched off the debate: you write as though it's these people's own responsibility to educate themselves in the rules of your language, yet i'm all too aware of just how impossible it really is to make up for unequal educational resources with sheer personal effort. and i'm also aware that in the grand scheme of things, although i received an education somewhat inferior (in terms of what the ivy league professors of our country consider valuable) to yours, i still received an education somewhat superior (again, in terms of what the ivy league professors of our country consider valuable) to what the average american citizen receives - and an education absolutely, completely, appallingly incomparable to the education which children who grow up in inner-city sacramento continue to receive.
Actually, dialectic is his word... I wouldn't use it, I don't like it, I only know what it means and how to use it. (Ah! The beauty of choice!)
*lol*
And I wanna see my name-dropping... Chomsky? When people start talking about "ebonics" and how they are students of linguistics, well... I have to go to theory as a large part of linguistics _is_ theory.
And Gayle, even Frank... this is pretty much the way I talk. Gayle, you didn't find a different wordsmith when we talked on AIM, you found the same one -- you just found him "to your liking" -- neither the person nor the writing changed -- I have the conversation saved to prove it.
I have nothing to prove -- I am smart and clever and intelligent. Give me my props! But don't hide behind a sheild of "I hate academic talk" because that is a crutch -- I haven't figured out what I believe it signifies, but it signifies something. Although my mentor, Amittai, would tell me that it is a symbol of Americans... how anti-intellectual we are. But I think it has deeper implications -- especially as I have heard this primarily from women -- not men.
*shrugs*
Peace y'all.
Frank, no hard feelings -- but it needed to be said and you proved to me what I already knew.
Gayle, next time, don't pull me into something with the sole purpose of using me as a weapon -- because not only am I not a weapon, but I am uncontrollable.
I have enjoyed this. Maybe it'll end up in a paper somewhere -- which is how I keep my sanity.
Re: some thoughts on the matter frankepi 2002-01-05 06:13 (link) which culture doesn't discriminate and label? it seems to have been the sole constant in my anthropolgical wanderings. write something concrete, will you?
and i'm all for dialectic. it beats the hell out of polemics.
Quentin, the problem is that I was not trying to use you as a weapon. Please re-read the text of my post, and you will find that there is NOTHING about my wording which implies I was asking for weapons, name-calling, or snideness.
But I did find a different personality on AIM - a person who was not calling anybody names. Silly me, I should have known that wouldn't last. And don't go back to making sexist remarks, either; if you thought women and/or specifically I were so lacking in linguistic talents, you should never have asked for my advice on your writing. After all, your vocabulary (and willingness to show it off) is so much larger than mine, what else could I possibly have to offer? Why would anyone ever want to say in words of one syllable what they can say in words of ten syllables instead? What nonsense I'm spouting; there's no excuse for anyone ever using any word of less than twenty syllables. Thanks so much for educating my tiny little female brain on that.
What are you talking about? Where I am I being sexist now?
You know, you don't notice it, but you have a thing for thinking people are always talking down to you. I don't get it. You have to know how much I appreciate you, but nothing is enough. I don't understand what is behind that, but I keep seeing the pattern occur over and over again. I think you mis-read and mis-understood me. When it came to linguistics, I was referring to the guy who responded to you attempting to use his background in linguistics to validate himself and silence you -- not to say that you were stupid and inferior. That is your interpretation. But I find it is most always the interpretation you reach for first and I don't understand it. I mean, people do call people stupid, but it seems that you expect every male to do that and make no difference. There is some inferiority complex going on here and if I can help you, I would love to do so because you shouldn't feel that way -- seriously. And I am not covering my as because you know I am not that way. But you completely mis-read me, personalized something, and forgot the specifics of what was going and reacted in kind (reaction formation... it is one of my favorite terms/concepts).
You feel I was being condescending and snide and "name-calling" -- I do not. That is a difference of opinion, not saying that you are wrong or something. I don't agree. Yes, it can be just that simple. I don't want to start arguing with you again -- especially over something like this which I know is not based on _me_, but is based on something within you which isn't being satisfied.
once a conversation goes meta, becomes about himself, dialectic and polemic are, i find, almost unavoidable words.
they're not even particularly elitist. it's not a big deal you didn't encounter them in your studies'; it's an accident. they people generally pick them up from hegel or marx (or occasionally brecht or nabokov).
i went to a state school (rutgers) before transferring to NYU and would have stayed there had my focus been academic.
listen, at one point i wasn't familiar with the terms and then i was and i found them invaluable. if there were less hoity-toity substitutes i would use them.
while i still remember q. using the word first (as a dismissive barb, if i am not mistaken) i don't think he was wrong to do so. at that point we were discussing the form and structure of the discussion and those terms are almost unavoidable.
it is not entirely meaningful that i know a number of people who rose above shitty primary education. my elementary school sucked, for example. the greatest single flaw in this country's current social structure is that education funding is still local, still linked to property tax. it creates a huge disparity, gives a lot of kids an unfair head-start, thrusts others into an atmosphere in which it is extremely difficult to learn.
HOWEVER.... at some point, inevitably, the only choice is to seize responsibility for yourself, consider yourself self-determined and challenge your own inferiority complex. this is the responsibility of parents and children: invent and educate yourself.
or not. it's all about priorities. but the excuses only hold up for so long. we make choices and are then responsible for the consequences of those choices. just as it is a significant challenge to reinvent your sexuality in a world that has always proselytized its expectations assumptions.
(try to remember, too, that i'm a BFA, not a BA. nearly 70% of my courseload was non-academic. i chose my academic classes based on my interests, was graces with several good teachers and chose to further explore the topics that interested me. and there is still a GREAT deal i don't know.... which is good, because i'm pretty much stuck here for the next 50 or sixty years. there's a lot still to do.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
queerbychoice) wrote2002-01-04 10:26 am
Re:
as for dialectic/polemic, i'm not aware of any other way to state it. i'm always surprised, actually, that you haven't come across those words a lot, given your interests.
no subject
Modern academic language just continues the ancient European tradition where scholars wrote their scholarly works in Latin - and it's all the more indistinguishable from that tradition since the English language consists largely of two languages merged into one, Anglo-Saxon merged with Latin. Because of that merging, English contains twice as many words as most other languages, and invariably the word commonly used to represent any meaning is derived from Anglo-Saxon, whereas the scholars consistently choose to select the synonym derived from Latin. I know I do use Latin-derived words from time to time myself, but when there's a perfectly simple Anglo-Saxon substitute, I try to use it.
I looked up your words in the dictionary. It appears to me that all you were trying to say with the dialectics/polemics references was "Let's discuss this politely instead of angrily." You're not aware of any plain English way to state that? Don't bullshit me.
Re:
a polemic argument assumes that the points of view are diametrically opposed and there can be no progress aside from one position conquering the other.
so no; i didn't mean "just be nice".
and i don't bullshit you.
don't call me a liar.
no subject
look, plain english!
you make much more sense than my merriam-webster did. you have talent. you should use that talent.
i admit, the point at which i decide that the use of big words has gone too far does coincide to a suspicious degree with the point at which i cease understanding them. however, i still think the explanation above is a much nicer and less show-offy way of making a point.
i don't think "bullshit" necessarily equates to "liar." i think it equates to "you're feeding me a lot of worthless nonsense," without passing any final judgment on whether you know it to be worthless nonsense or not. however, i admit your grasp of words' meanings seems to be better than mine, and my dictionary does not contain the word "bullshit" so i cannot verify my belief.
i am now convinced that you did not believe your words to be worthless nonsense, and thus you are not a liar. i do, however, still personally believe it to be nonsense. i think arguments nearly always flow much smoother if you use humbler terminology.
no subject
it should also be noted, perhaps, that quentin pulled "dialectic" out of his bag before i did. there is also a certain value in demonstrating clearly that you are familiar with, and proficient in, the terminology used by your adversary in debate.
no subject
i do not, however, believe that one necessarily gains ground in an argument by copying an opponent's move toward very academic language. switching to increasingly academic language usually signals defensiveness, a lashing out against an opponent's perceived lack of faith in one's own education. the goal should then be to defuse the defensiveness. since you knew the words i suppose there wasn't a whole lot else you could have done in that direction than what you did do; but if i'd been the one debating, since i didn't know the words, i would have simply stated that i didn't know them. my education is not perfect, but it is adequate for the purpose: my ability to form an intelligent opinion about racism, "ebonics," and the evolution of language cannot be discredited on the mere basis of the fact that i did not know the meaning of the words "dialectics" and "polemics." anyone who tried to discredit me on that basis would just be making a fool of themself, and it's not my job to worry about whether others choose to make fools of themselves.
it saddens me that the entire debate, on both sides, was couched in such extremely elitist, academic, thoroughly un-"ebonic" terms. it saddens me that many of the very people being discussed - those who speak "ebonics" but have not acquired equal fluency in standardized english - were by this language rendered incapable of following or participating in the debate about their lives. i understand that there are reasons why quentin felt it necessary to debate in such academic language, and also that there are reasons why you felt it necessary to use a few equally polysyllabic words of your own in your replies - but the progression of it is still ugly and still saddens me.
it saddens me that the language of the debate crescendoed into such elitist language that i myself did not receive an expensive enough education to be able to follow all of it. i attended a cheap and distinctly shabby state college in which words like "dialectic" were never used to me, despite the fact that i was even an english major. i do not believe, coming from the background that i did, that i could reasonably be expected to have self-educated myself any better than i have done - yet it's perfectly clear to me that i have not managed to equal the size of your vocabulary nor to read even half as many works of social theory as you have. this very fact is itself the basis for my annoyance with your original journal entry that touched off the debate: you write as though it's these people's own responsibility to educate themselves in the rules of your language, yet i'm all too aware of just how impossible it really is to make up for unequal educational resources with sheer personal effort. and i'm also aware that in the grand scheme of things, although i received an education somewhat inferior (in terms of what the ivy league professors of our country consider valuable) to yours, i still received an education somewhat superior (again, in terms of what the ivy league professors of our country consider valuable) to what the average american citizen receives - and an education absolutely, completely, appallingly incomparable to the education which children who grow up in inner-city sacramento continue to receive.
no subject
Actually, dialectic is his word... I wouldn't use it, I don't like it, I only know what it means and how to use it. (Ah! The beauty of choice!)
*lol*
And I wanna see my name-dropping... Chomsky? When people start talking about "ebonics" and how they are students of linguistics, well... I have to go to theory as a large part of linguistics _is_ theory.
And Gayle, even Frank... this is pretty much the way I talk. Gayle, you didn't find a different wordsmith when we talked on AIM, you found the same one -- you just found him "to your liking" -- neither the person nor the writing changed -- I have the conversation saved to prove it.
I have nothing to prove -- I am smart and clever and intelligent. Give me my props! But don't hide behind a sheild of "I hate academic talk" because that is a crutch -- I haven't figured out what I believe it signifies, but it signifies something. Although my mentor, Amittai, would tell me that it is a symbol of Americans... how anti-intellectual we are. But I think it has deeper implications -- especially as I have heard this primarily from women -- not men.
*shrugs*
Peace y'all.
Frank, no hard feelings -- but it needed to be said and you proved to me what I already knew.
Gayle, next time, don't pull me into something with the sole purpose of using me as a weapon -- because not only am I not a weapon, but I am uncontrollable.
I have enjoyed this. Maybe it'll end up in a paper somewhere -- which is how I keep my sanity.
Again:
Peace,
Q
no subject
frankepi
2002-01-05 06:13 (link)
which culture doesn't discriminate and label? it seems to have been the sole constant in my anthropolgical wanderings. write something concrete, will you?
and i'm all for dialectic. it beats the hell out of polemics.
no subject
But I did find a different personality on AIM - a person who was not calling anybody names. Silly me, I should have known that wouldn't last. And don't go back to making sexist remarks, either; if you thought women and/or specifically I were so lacking in linguistic talents, you should never have asked for my advice on your writing. After all, your vocabulary (and willingness to show it off) is so much larger than mine, what else could I possibly have to offer? Why would anyone ever want to say in words of one syllable what they can say in words of ten syllables instead? What nonsense I'm spouting; there's no excuse for anyone ever using any word of less than twenty syllables. Thanks so much for educating my tiny little female brain on that.
Re:
What are you talking about? Where I am I being sexist now?
You know, you don't notice it, but you have a thing for thinking people are always talking down to you. I don't get it. You have to know how much I appreciate you, but nothing is enough. I don't understand what is behind that, but I keep seeing the pattern occur over and over again. I think you mis-read and mis-understood me. When it came to linguistics, I was referring to the guy who responded to you attempting to use his background in linguistics to validate himself and silence you -- not to say that you were stupid and inferior. That is your interpretation. But I find it is most always the interpretation you reach for first and I don't understand it. I mean, people do call people stupid, but it seems that you expect every male to do that and make no difference. There is some inferiority complex going on here and if I can help you, I would love to do so because you shouldn't feel that way -- seriously. And I am not covering my as because you know I am not that way. But you completely mis-read me, personalized something, and forgot the specifics of what was going and reacted in kind (reaction formation... it is one of my favorite terms/concepts).
You feel I was being condescending and snide and "name-calling" -- I do not. That is a difference of opinion, not saying that you are wrong or something. I don't agree. Yes, it can be just that simple. I don't want to start arguing with you again -- especially over something like this which I know is not based on _me_, but is based on something within you which isn't being satisfied.
I am not the enemy.
*hugs*
Q
no subject
don't press it.
thank you.
::calms down::
no subject
no subject
they're not even particularly elitist. it's not a big deal you didn't encounter them in your studies'; it's an accident. they people generally pick them up from hegel or marx (or occasionally brecht or nabokov).
i went to a state school (rutgers) before transferring to NYU and would have stayed there had my focus been academic.
listen, at one point i wasn't familiar with the terms and then i was and i found them invaluable. if there were less hoity-toity substitutes i would use them.
while i still remember q. using the word first (as a dismissive barb, if i am not mistaken) i don't think he was wrong to do so. at that point we were discussing the form and structure of the discussion and those terms are almost unavoidable.
it is not entirely meaningful that i know a number of people who rose above shitty primary education. my elementary school sucked, for example. the greatest single flaw in this country's current social structure is that education funding is still local, still linked to property tax. it creates a huge disparity, gives a lot of kids an unfair head-start, thrusts others into an atmosphere in which it is extremely difficult to learn.
HOWEVER.... at some point, inevitably, the only choice is to seize responsibility for yourself, consider yourself self-determined and challenge your own inferiority complex. this is the responsibility of parents and children: invent and educate yourself.
or not. it's all about priorities. but the excuses only hold up for so long. we make choices and are then responsible for the consequences of those choices. just as it is a significant challenge to reinvent your sexuality in a world that has always proselytized its expectations assumptions.
(try to remember, too, that i'm a BFA, not a BA. nearly 70% of my courseload was non-academic. i chose my academic classes based on my interests, was graces with several good teachers and chose to further explore the topics that interested me. and there is still a GREAT deal i don't know.... which is good, because i'm pretty much stuck here for the next 50 or sixty years. there's a lot still to do.)