/lit/ - Literature

I still don't see what's wrong with, in a formal conversation or argument, resorting to what has been decided over centuries of linguistic development to be the formal meaning of a word to prove a point. If we were talking about sports and whether bowling was a sport, we can research the meaning of the word sport in the English language to help figure it out. Even if straight white men were the ones that created the definitions of certain words, they were certainly intelligent straight white men who didn't always come up with the definitions out of thin air- I'm going to assume that they did their homework on it and discussed it with other academics. If we're going to be having conversations and arguments that involve the meanings of certain words or whether or not one thing could be classified in a certain way, we cannot discount using a time honored source for the meaning of words.

Similarly, we can basically say that a guy who uses wrong grammar is using wrong grammar because they're speaking a language but using improper grammar. This doesn't always change our understanding of what they're saying or their point, but we can still say that they are speaking the language incorrectly. If an English speaker learns French, there's probably going to be a little English in their French. But if you're going to learn a new language and try to use it in an academic or intellectual way, you should adhere to the grammatical rules so that you can get your thoughts out as clearly as possible and without any potential confusion.

Obviously things like racism cannot be discussed solely off the definition of a word. But if you think somebody said something racist and another person doesn't think they did, then I have no clue what's wrong with looking at the several definitions by scholars of the word 'racism' to at least get a start on figuring out who is right.

>>6589438
Perhaps the reason black people talk isn't addressed is because it's grammatically incorrect?

The use of the term "white men" is irrelevant and unnecessarily brings the notion of "race" in to the discussion.

>>6589434
So this guy is saying that dictionaries are bad because they're written by academics trying to create an objective source for the meanings of words in their respective language? I don't exactly see the 'white straight academic opinion' in
>prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
or
>sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex
>the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

Things seem fine if we just leave everything to the whites though.

>>6589434
Do we need to include African American speech when it's just shortened 'white English' the majority of the time?

'I don't have to go'
'I don't got to go'
'I don't gotta go'

>>6589434
>using the dictionary definition is wrong because it's overly rigid and influenced by the people who wrote the dictionary
okay
But standards aren't bad.
If we can't ever agree on what words mean, how can we ever have a meaningful discussion?

Dictionaries have pretty big issues, maybe the biggest one being they don't have to show evidence or references or sources of shit. It's just someone telling you things are a certain way and that you should accept their word for it.
That comic is pretty shitty and lacks any real argument, though.

>>6589547
It seems like the author of the comic doesn't realize that without a source that we all sort of agree to be somewhat objective, his comic would make no sense.

>>6589505
That can't be the case because vernaculars themselves can't have incorrect grammars. "She be here" is grammatically correct and it's completely legible for non-African American vernacular English speakers to boot. On the other hand, "black people talk" is incorrect, and it highlights your ignorance of the subject you're talking about.

>>6589518
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgHNtzxO0y8

>>6589494
The issue is that the author is, to use a /pol/ term, "Anti-White". He is not against something - or, really, anything - because he is actually against THAT as a thing. He is against things because he conflates them with being "White" which he feels is bad because of brainwashing/propaganda/being Jewish/being a lemming/a misunderstanding of history and biology/whatever.

Dictionary.com defines racism as:

>1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
>2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
>3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Thus, when the author hates all "White" people for being "Racist" he is in fact being racist himself (And more so as he is implying every single "White" person is guilty of some sort of wrongdoing). This is of course a problem. It can be solved too ways. One is the "Christian" way by saying "We are all racist, and must fight against this". But that won't work as it ultimately means the author can't be a "heroic revolutionary" fighting against "evil White Privilege". He must ultimately get over his bigotry. This leads us to the second method of dealing with his irrational hatred: Change the meaning of "racism". But of course, once you change one word, that opens the doorway for all others.

This political language editing was heavily used by Communist states (Mao went so far as to try and change the entire writing system to fit his agenda) and is also popular amongst people who think Communism is a blanket that can fix every problem under the sun. An example of language editing is the altering of racism from "being a douche to someone because they're of another race" to "Privilege X Power" or some other "equation". The entire point of this is exercise is to try to redefine "Racism" in such a way that people who are not "White" or are fighting against "White" people can never themselves be racist.

>>6589494
>what has been decided over centuries of linguistic development
That's not how languages work. Otherwise we, speakers of contemporary English, wouldn't be using "you" as a singular and plural second person pronoun. The survival of all elements of languages are really just matters of convention adopted, morphed, eliminated, absorbed, eroded, and reapplied over time and space. Why else are French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, and other languages derived from Vulgar Latin separate languages? Our English is an "incorrect" form of Middle English, and so on, but only if you accept grammar (as well as phonetics, vocabulary, all parts of language) as dogmatic and not organic, which you shouldn't.

>>6589569

Very good post. The amount of unjustified statements and leaps of logic in that comic is ridiculous - although I'm sure that logical arguments are oppressive in this context, provided that the author is black/female/alive enough

The dictionary can be a good tool if you turn on your logic and critical thinking. Besides, if you're going to have discussions about the meanings of certain words, there's no reason to even be talking about it unless we have a fundamental source to start from. Why not start from a document that has been developed for centuries by various academics whose sole purpose is to categorize the objective meanings of words? If we don't have that, then every single conversation just boils down to 'well that's my OPINION on what the word means', which doesn't really apply in court or in a debate.

Jesus, for people who claim to make a stand against self-victimizing you sure are a bunch of cry babies

>>6589596
Believe it or not, it's actually from /pol/

>>6589569
>mfw /pol/fag proves OP right but still thinks he's wrong

>>6589577
So the author of the comic is doing exactly what he says he is fighting against, which is redefine words to push HIS ideals and views.

Very 1984 of his part.

>>6589577
>>6589577
There are similarly bizarre equations for rape (IE, (Rape = (Men / Time ) X ((Agitation + Irritation) X Privilege) X Power ) that are designed in such a way as to imply that women can never be guilty of rape.

And all of this is hilarious because the very idea of "Racism" as a defined concept (instead of just something everyone did because thinking your group is the best) was created by Leon Trotsky as a means of trying to shut down discussion about why ethnic Russians should be lead by an all powerful Jewish man.

Ultimately, the biggest problem with what he is suggesting is that it leads to "cult speech" as I'd call it. That is, as you constantly redefine words to fit your political agenda you also decrease your ability to relate to people outside of your political ideology. Take a look at radical feminists, or esoteric hate groups, or philosophical Communists, or even just actual cults. They're so far off the deep end that proselytizing is impossible because the question "Tell me about your beliefs" devolves into ranting about how all men are guilty of the original sin of thought rape, or how we need to secure a genetic-ethnocracy in order to further our solar beliefs so we can bring about the end of the chaos-era.

But Linguistic Relativism is in and of itself flawed. Even if a cat is only called a cat because we all agree, politically changing words removes the key part of linguistic relativism: the agreement between everyone as to the meaning. So unless the author proposes we get a committee together and redefine racism as something "non-Whites" are incapable of, what's the fucking point? You're just creating needless confusion instead of making your point clear.

>>6589434
I love how the comic makes no qualms about the 'linguist' being a patronizing asshole.
>Language is complicated and the meanings of words cannot be authoritatively defined, yet let me interrupt your sentence right there and tell you how it is wrong, because as a PROFESSIONAL LINGUIST my knee-jerk reaction trumphs anyting you possibly could have wanted to say.

>>6589438

I'm reading the black parts with a nigger stupid voice, i can't help myself.

>>6589618
>"Racism" as a defined concept was created by Leon Trotsky

Oh /pol/, what is wrong with you? Seriously, we're all worried about your mental health. Maybe, idk, read a book sometime?

>>6589624
The linguist is a patronizing asshole, but he's also correct and is justified in attempting to cure this common error.

>>6589577
>>6589618
Actually insane, holy shit.

>>6589434
>supposed to be an authority on how we speak and write
>dictionaries are prescriptive
>prescriptivists vs descriptivist continues to this day
But that's completely wrong, mr. linguist and information professional.
>>6589438
>no document can encompass the whole language, but I'm going to whine English dictionaries don't include this particular dialect
Dialects are languages, mr. professional. Do you also complain that there are no swahili words in Merriam Webster?

I'm now dumber for having read this doublethink webcomic. Thanks OP.

>>6589434
O christ how are there still people that believe in institutionalized racism?

>You can't be racist if the subject is white
>Why not?
>Because it IS racist if the subject is black
>That's ludicrous, why should we treat prejudice as though it were a limited resource?
>I dunno, 'cuz some blogger said so.

We live in a society plagued by these STEM-centric ideas about classification and objectification. Too many search for absolute truths instead of personal value, meaning, and ideas.

This is why these people choose to 'identify' themselves based entirely on superficial virtues: they would be lost if they had to describe themselves by any other means than their most base attributes. This rampant classification leads to insane tribal identities and the desire to further segregate, all under the guise of some crusade against a mythical oppressor (à la Nazi Germany's Jewish 'oppressors' and other historical instances of the like).

There is no inherent virtue in being a woman, a man, black, white, aboriginal, or otherwise (save for the obvious physical discrepancies). To assume otherwise is to be a complete fool. We must strive toward a human race that sees itself as a whole, constantly producing new and more complex ideas. NOT playing around, trying to identify ourselves.

>>6589641
I'm apparently wrong about the creation of the word. Trotsky does use it to deflect criticism away from himself, but did not coin the word. It apparently comes from a period in which French separatists were trying to justify their independence. My mistake.

>>6589569
>literally
How to spot people who don't read.
he's right about the rest

>>6589666
>Trotsky does use it to deflect criticism away from himself
Okay then Satan, do you have a citation for that? Too lazy to search marxists.org myself right now, and you're the one making claims, so...

>>6589642
>common error
Well, except that he didn't wait for the actual error, he just assumed that it was imminent. Statistically, it probably was, but the intention alone that you want to cite a dictionary definition isn't an error. The error would be to ascribe a false authority to the dictionary definition, but that error is not already contained in the idea of citing a dictionary definition.

Dictionaries aren't objective and words don't have objective meanings. The definition of individual words is formed through their popular use; dictionaries do their best to collect and represent these popular meanings.

If the majority of the English-speaking population understands "racism" to mean prejudice that is based on race, and if the majority of the English-speaking population uses the word "racism" in conversation to mean prejudice that is based is on race, then one of racism's definitions (and its most popular and authoritative one) will simply be "prejudice based on race". This will not change unless the vast majority of the English-speaking population stops using racism to describe "prejudice based on race" and begins to only use the word racism to describe "prejudice based on race held by those in a position of social power (i.e. white devils)".

This comic doesn't bother me too much because despite all of its mental gymnastics and willful ignorance, those who believe that "racism" can only mean white discrimination against other races have already lost the debate. As long as English-speaking people continue to describe prejudice based on race as "racist", racism will continue to mean prejudice based on race no matter what secondary or preferred definitions Twitter academics, self-hating whites, and professional victims try to replace the word with.

This isn't "post-structuralism", it is political correctness using and twisting some elements of "post-structuralism" as a weapon in their broader strategy. (Basically, it's part of that shallow reading of Derrida by the US academia.)

>>6589837
To continue, Derrida wouldn't respond to a dictionary definition with "oh, but this is problematic". He would have accepted the definition and showed how it produces from within radically different meanings than it wants to.
In short, he would play the game in a Nietzschean spirit rather than respond by withdrawal from the game like a Buddhist.
So there's nothing *wrong* with dictionaries.

>>6589877
>a precise prediction of what Derrida would do
I have a better one: He would have told you that you're over-simplifying things.

does anyone know of marxist critiques of post-structuralism?

>>6589885
Of course I am, why would anybody think otherwise?

>>6589887
Well, there's Zizek, but the most rabid polemics come from the publications of the anti-germans, an obscure faction of pro-zionist german marxists.

>>6589908
I'm fairly familiar with the Antideutsche. Who are you thinking of?

>>6589744
Why are people so butt-blasted by the fact that White people created racism? Africans and Native Americans didn't make the transatlantic slave trade and create economies based on the genocide and slave labor of Whites for hundreds of years, only ending slavery 150 years ago but continuing legal discrimination and terrorism against of Whites in other forms until not-even a lifetime ago. Why is it you circle-jerk about your superiority and then you get all passive-aggressive when the historical record is actually examined? Get over yourself and accept reality, cry baby.

>>6589434
>>6589438
tl;dr:
>dictionaries are too oppressive, language is free!
>dictionaries are subjective to certain language/dialect/style

why the fuck do people always make these infographs so needlessly long. make a point, but quickly, attention span is under 10 seconds these days

>>6589928
Every society has been aggressive, racist and violent. If any other society but western Europe had mastered intercontinental travel first and had powerful technology to subdue all other societies, they would have been just as bad and probably much worse, and probably would not have developed a concept of human rights to mitigate and eventually end the worst of their aggressions.

>>6589518
When a disenfranchised person complains about the status quo, deny your advantaged position and accuse them of creating conflict for no reason, reversing victim and offender. Classic.

>>6589505
that's the point of vernaculars m8
and grammatics are relative and change through history

>>6589915
Mainly the folks from Bahamas and the ISF Freiburg/ca ira.

http://www.redaktion-bahamas.org/auswahl/web07.html

http://www.ca-ira.net/verlag/buecher/gruber.lenhard-gegenaufklaerung.html

>ITT: /pol/ is functionally illiterate and talks about things they don't understand

Read the Unfolding of Language and you'll (maybe) understand why language purism is incoherent.

>>6589942
>If any other society but western Europe had mastered intercontinental travel first and had powerful technology to subdue all other societies, they would have been just as bad and probably much worse

Thank God they had merciful white men to destroy their cultures instead.

>>6589944
Who gives a fuck about niggers?

>>6589954
You are yourself white and male. Stop posting.

>>6589948
thx m8.
I really hate the antisemitic hardcore antiimp left and I believe that the Antideutsche have every right to criticize them but jesus christ they're crazy
>Sharon is an antifascist hero

>>6589942
>Every society has been aggressive
Nope.
>racist
No.
>and violent
Presumably.
>If any other society but western Europe had mastered intercontinental travel first and had powerful technology to subdue all other societies, they would have been just as bad
Could be! But the fact remains Europeans did it and didn't have to.
>and probably much worse
>probably
How defensive of you.
>and probably would not have developed a concept of human rights to mitigate and eventually end the worst of their aggressions
Considering the Great Mongol state had primitive notions of human rights some thousands of years before Europeans had their primitive notions of human rights should make us question this, shouldn't it? Wait, didn't the great author of a great European declaration of the rights of man not only keep slaves after writing this document but fucked them and kept his half-breed children in slavery? Why to go paste-skins. :^)

>>6589434
everything was reasonable until

>white straight male

These people use "racism" when they actually mean something like "systematic racism" or "institutional racism", which most people would understand easily. Why not use that instead?

>>6589970
Not everyone is as delusional as you are. Getting flustered, /pol/io?

>>6589964
Decent people with empathy and respect for human rights that aren't blinded by dehumanizing caricatures. I understand you don't fit in this category, but it seems like spending time on insular, racist internet communities has made you underestimate how fringe your mindset actually is.

>>6589984
Because they mean the same thing.

>>6589978
*Way to go, rather.

>>6589976
Oh well, nothing wrong with defending bourgeois society against those who will sublate it negatively, through mass extermination. But let's not do this. I got the feeling you and I already had this conversation, on this very same board, some time ago.

>>6590004
Aah yeah I remember you from one /marx/ general. Negative sublation of bourgeois society is fascism.

>>6589556
People could talk and write before they were dictionaries m8.
>>6589547
Dictionaries is just a mean of consensus among others. Not all dictionaries will have the exact same definitions or word.

>>6589993
Well, not according to the dictionary definition which a lot of people agree with. Why bother convincing everyone to use your specific definition of racism instead of just using the more common expressions? Just so you can go around saying "whites can't be racist"? Prejudice based on race is still bad, regardless whether there's institutional oppression behind it or not.

>>6589970
>You are yourself white and male

Yes, so what? I don't have a problem with either of these things, but I accept not everything my ancestors did was ethical. Europeans didn't conquer the New World out of a benevolent desire to prevent more brutal regimes from triumphing in the region.

>Stop posting

You're free to go on /r/WhiteRights if you want a racist echo chamber where mean SJWs opinions won't be upvoted :^)

>>6590024
>:^)
You keep doing that. It doesn't make you look as edgy as you think it does.

>>6590038
>The only thing you respond to is the smiley

It sure got your attention. You alright there, buddy?

So, in essence: everyone is correct -- unless they disagree with me; then they're wrong.

>>6590043
Because I wasn't the guy you were talking to and don't care about the rest. It just kept irritating me.

>>6590047
Welcome to postmodernism, enjoy your stay!

>>6590057
>It just kept irritating me.

Mission accomplished.

>>6590047
Strawman: the post

>>6590078
u lookin 4 a fyt?

>>6589978
>>Great Mongols had primitive notions of human rights some thousands of years


>Mongols murder millions of people if they didn't accept their rule and pay tribunes to them
>Considered a great Empire by John Green and other anti-Western revisionists

>The West does the same, while simultaneously accomplishing milestones in the arts and sciences
>considered evil by the same revisionist

Just proof that you are just salty that Europeans won in the end. You can go on Tumblr and the other blogs that cared about non-Western history, and you will see the same praise for non-Western conquerors and Empires that did the same acts as the West, while also condemning the West for their similar actions.

>>6590113
>You can go on Tumblr and the other blogs that cared about non-Western history

Tumblr is a single, monolithic blog now, apparently. Nevermind the fact that you can find both left, right and non-binary politics on there just like 4chan, Reddit or any other major website. Your thinking is so polarized and secondhand.

>and you will see the same praise for non-Western conquerors and Empires that did the same acts as the West, while also condemning the West for their similar actions.

Where are the masses of SJW blogs praising the genocides of Genghis Khan? This is completely imaginary.

>>6589438
>>6589434
CRINGE

These people are getting weaker and weaker everyday, the dissolution of human conditions of existence further sinks downwards; this person is literally filled with resentment over books being too well-written. That's literally the essence of his argument. Behind his bullshit on dictionaries, it's literally "Books were written by superior people, and everyone is equal, thus books are an attack at equality and language must be as common and base as possible".

These people need to die and be forgotten.

http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsage.pdf

>Not even jesting at this point, y'all are dumb.

>>6589569
/thread.

>>6590201
>accuses others of being resentful
>feels the need to attach a specific identity to posts on 4chan

>>6590606
u wot m8

>>6589569
Well put, especially the part about how post-structuralist academia alone trivializes rape.

>>6589438
>>6589434
>ebonics language butterflies! descriptivism is the future! don't tell people how to express themselves! standards are bad!
>two generations later, blacks in america have IQs on par with children with downs syndrome, and are almost entirely excluded from international scholarship, which is conducted in an academic lingua franca that is thoroughly prescriptivist because fixed standards are surprisingly helpful for mediating discourse between people separated by mother tongue

SHE BE HERE BIX NOOD DINDU NUFFIN MUH LANGUAGE IS A UNIQUE BUTTERFLY *can't read books that schoolchildren on six other continents can read*

Let's just keep patronising them, excusing them, and blaming whites for everything they do poorly, and see if it works. Again. For the fiftieth time that it hasn't worked so far.

>>6589525

Wow you racist bighorn, that description doesn't take into account that its IMPOSSIBLE to be prejudiced against evil oppressors cis white men, and is thus discriminatory against all protected minority castes.

I hope you die of cancer you filthy bigot.

>>6589438
>dictionaries don't define language, people do
>unless you're white, then you don't get to define language because you're an oppressor

>>6589438
>>6589434
Well, seeing as how words are subjective now, I'm going to have to disagree with EVERYTHING this person just said because he or she was just speaking pure babble. I disagree with his or her meant definitions of all of those words because I'm a huge antagonistic faggot

>>6589438
what does the aboriginal book talk about?
gasoline?

>>6591398
Dream time, and several different kinds of sticks

>>6589642
Except he just wants to replace it with his own error.

>>6591389
10/10.
It' show you treat relativists

>>6589928
what the fuck are you saying dude? Guess who imprisoned and SOLD african slaves in the first place? The wealthier Africans, that's who.
Blaming whites for having black slaves is like demonising smokers for buying and smoking cigarettes instead of the tobacco companies in the first place.