Texas State Newspaper writer fired for racist column

[Dragon Angel]

Uuhhh...

Revan...

Another, completely different language is not comparable to something written in English that has two subtly different meanings to two different people. I don't know why I have to point this out.

Your point is so not served by it that you're now ironically contributing to the confusion on the opposite end of this discussion.

[Lord Revan]

Uuhhh...

Revan...

Another, completely different language is not comparable to something written in English that has two subtly different meanings to two different people. I don't know why I have to point this out.

Your point is so not served by it that you're now ironically contributing to the confusion on the opposite end of this discussion.

My point was that it might as well be written in another language, swedish or german might have served my point better as those are germanic and thus close but not quite there compared to english but my skill in those is worse then my skill in english.

I used an extreme example to further illustrate my point, writing something in english wouldn't have been as easy to understand.

Something that's writen with such extreme amount of subject specific terminology that looks like general english but isn't to me is no longer really english, sure it looks like it but when I try to understand with my skill in english the end result ends up being something totally different so I must conclude that dispite the similarities it isn't written in english but some different language that I'm not familiar with.

I used finno-ugric language to illustrate my point because that's what I'm most familiar with but something like afrikaans would work probably better as it's closer to the "looks like english but isn't" but I'm not familiar with that language.

[Dragon Angel]

My point was that it might as well be written in another language, swedish or german might have served my point better as those are germanic and thus close but not quite there compared to english but my skill in those is worse then my skill in english.

I used an extreme example to further illustrate my point, writing something in english wouldn't have been as easy to understand.

Something that's writen with such extreme amount of subject specific terminology that looks like general english but isn't to me is no longer really english, sure it looks like it but when I try to understand with my skill in english the end result ends up being something totally different so I must conclude that dispite the similarities it isn't written in english but some different language that I'm not familiar with.

I used finno-ugric language to illustrate my point because that's what I'm most familiar with but something like afrikaans would work probably better as it's closer to the "looks like english but isn't" but I'm not familiar with that language.

You're missing my point.

Another language is another language, whether it is in the same language family related to English or not. I cannot understand, at all, a sentence of German, or Dutch, or Afrikaans, or other languages that are not directly English, despite them being descended within the Germanic family. They use completely different words, enough such that the entire meaning is lost.

In English, I still have an understanding of words and grammar. If something is written in a subset of English that is used for a certain field, like let's say Medical English, I still have the ability to understand most of it, just not the extremely dense terminology it uses to describe various parts of the human body.

English subsets like the ones used in critical race theory are still part of the English language. I may or may not understand certain terms, or understand usage of English words that formerly had a different meaning in common English, but they are still nevertheless English. Not another derived Germanic language closely related to English, but English.

[Lord Revan]

My point was that it might as well be written in another language, swedish or german might have served my point better as those are germanic and thus close but not quite there compared to english but my skill in those is worse then my skill in english.

I used an extreme example to further illustrate my point, writing something in english wouldn't have been as easy to understand.

Something that's writen with such extreme amount of subject specific terminology that looks like general english but isn't to me is no longer really english, sure it looks like it but when I try to understand with my skill in english the end result ends up being something totally different so I must conclude that dispite the similarities it isn't written in english but some different language that I'm not familiar with.

I used finno-ugric language to illustrate my point because that's what I'm most familiar with but something like afrikaans would work probably better as it's closer to the "looks like english but isn't" but I'm not familiar with that language.

You're missing my point.

Another language is another language, whether it is in the same language family related to English or not. I cannot understand, at all, a sentence of German, or Dutch, or Afrikaans, or other languages that are not directly English, despite them being descended within the Germanic family. They use completely different words, enough such that the entire meaning is lost.

In English, I still have an understanding of words and grammar. If something is written in a subset of English that is used for a certain field, like let's say Medical English, I still have the ability to understand most of it, just not the extremely dense terminology it uses to describe various parts of the human body.

English subsets like the ones used in critical race theory are still part of the English language. I may or may not understand certain terms, or understand usage of English words that formerly had a different meaning in common English, but they are still nevertheless English. Not another derived Germanic language closely related to English, but English.

Actually you're miss understanding my point.

I'm not saying they aren't english I'm saying to me and anyone else with my level of understanding of english it might as well be another language with similar similar (to point of being near identical) grammar to english and similar looking words but it's filled with "false friends" as each time I try to understand what is said with my english skill I end up with something totally different then inteded.

And yes different languages with near identical grammars do exist Swedish and norwegian for example. finnish and estonian as well to point that to non-speaker they sound idetical (or so I'm told I can see the difference but then I'm a finn).

the TL:DR of my point is "choose your words carefully or expect to be misunderstood"

[Elheru Aran]

Linguistic issues aside...

I think we can all agree that the problem with the original article is that while the author may have been correct in a very narrow, critical-race-theory-interpretation fashion, to say 'Whiteness must die', the great majority of people will simply not understand that it's not a *literal* 'White People must die' statement. The article says nothing (as far as I recall) about it being from a CRT viewpoint, and falls into the same trap as for example a physicist trying to explain quantum mechanics to a child.

If there had been a disclaimer that the article was going to use jargon, that would have been one thing, and the whole story would be an non-issue. But because of the jargon, the message was lost in the midst of quite natural 'what the crap is this guy talking about' confusion. So half the discussion constitutes of figuring *that* out, and by that point most people are just going to go 'oh so he doesn't actually mean we have to die, well whatever, that's nice, I'm done now' and nothing in particular is going to change because of that.

[Dragon Angel]

Actually you're miss understanding my point.

I'm not saying they aren't english I'm saying to me and anyone else with my level of understanding of english it might as well be another language with similar similar (to point of being near identical) grammar to english and similar looking words but it's filled with "false friends" as each time I try to understand what is said with my english skill I end up with something totally different then inteded.

And yes different languages with near identical grammars do exist Swedish and norwegian for example. finnish and estonian as well to point that to non-speaker they sound idetical (or so I'm told I can see the difference but then I'm a finn).

the TL:DR of my point is "choose your words carefully or expect to be misunderstood"

sigh

So which is it? Is your point that writing in a closer Germanic-descended language fits your point better, or this, which waffles between trying to say something related to Point A, or backpedaling to not saying they aren't English? You're being incoherent.

By your definition, American English, Southern English, British English, and African American English are separate languages. Your metaphor reaches out too far and wide and does the action people here have criticized the OP for, which is redefining certain words that are commonly understood as something else to fit the point.

The reason I'm harping on this is because if this criticism is to hold any weight on the OP, it should apply toward people criticizing the OP as well. There cannot be a double standard.

[Lord Revan]

Actually you're miss understanding my point.

I'm not saying they aren't english I'm saying to me and anyone else with my level of understanding of english it might as well be another language with similar similar (to point of being near identical) grammar to english and similar looking words but it's filled with "false friends" as each time I try to understand what is said with my english skill I end up with something totally different then inteded.

And yes different languages with near identical grammars do exist Swedish and norwegian for example. finnish and estonian as well to point that to non-speaker they sound idetical (or so I'm told I can see the difference but then I'm a finn).

the TL:DR of my point is "choose your words carefully or expect to be misunderstood"

sigh

So which is it? Is your point that writing in a closer Germanic-descended language fits your point better, or this, which waffles between trying to say something related to Point A, or backpedaling to not saying they aren't English? You're being incoherent.

By your definition, American English, Southern English, British English, and African American English are separate languages. Your metaphor reaches out too far and wide and does the action people here have criticized the OP for, which is redefining certain words that are commonly understood as something else to fit the point.

The reason I'm harping on this is because if this criticism is to hold any weight on the OP, it should apply toward people criticizing the OP as well. There cannot be a double standard.

Ever tought I'm using extreme and unambigous example to make my point clear and impossible to be taken as "it's just some whitie being racist", probably not.

Yes the OP and arguments for it are much, much closer to english the even Afrikaas (that btw to non-native speaker sounds like wierdly spoken english). However (and please for the holy everything that's holy remember there's a word outside the borders of USA), that makes those arguments even harder for me to understand as it sure as hell looks like english but based of what's said it isn't (yes I know it's a very specific dialect but as far as my understanding goes it might as well be a different language).

That's the risk of using specific terms that aren't universally known, you end up with people who aren't familiar with those terms misunderstanding things because you didn't explain that you're using a different defination and what that defination is.

the linguistics are irrelevant, the understanding part is what's relevant here. In essense if have to learn a whole new definations for commonly used words to understand your meaning at all then maybe you should provide those definations or at least notify me that you're not using the common definations.

Lets say that a game had done things thru a certain set of rules then suddenly starts using a totally different rule set without giving any outward indication that rules have changed, you shouldn't be surprised that people will try to use the old set and fail.

Defination of words like rules in this hypothetial game, if you change them without giving indication that things have changed, people will use the old definations and you shouldn't be surprised when you get misunderstood.

[Dragon Angel]

throws hands up in the air

It does not take a fluent speaker of English to see that all the regional dialects of English that I'd mentioned are close enough such that it is almost a trivial matter to translate concepts between these dialects that are represented differently. People who are fairly new to English can understand an American speaker alongside a British speaker without much of an issue, save for perhaps some mishearing due to accents.

Since you keep on backpedaling, I can't get a good fix on what you are actually trying to say, so to save myself the rise in blood pressure from running between goalposts that are frantically added and swiped away as soon as I reach them, and to spare this thread from further derailing, I'm going to head off here.

And yes, I do realize there is a world outside the USA. What you fail to realize in your spiel is that you introduced a comparison that just does not make sense in the context of this thread. It not only fails to make your point but also adds even more ambiguity because this, if I was on the side of people who completely did not get the article, would not have read as an incomprehensible foreign language. A burning, acerbic tone of English yes, but not unable to be read in the slightest. Linguistics are relevant because you brought linguistics into this conversation.

[Lord Revan]

throws hands up in the air

It does not take a fluent speaker of English to see that all the regional dialects of English that I'd mentioned are close enough such that it is almost a trivial matter to translate concepts between these dialects that are represented differently. People who are fairly new to English can understand an American speaker alongside a British speaker without much of an issue, save for perhaps some mishearing due to accents.

Since you keep on backpedaling, I can't get a good fix on what you are actually trying to say, so to save myself the rise in blood pressure from running between goalposts that are frantically added and swiped away as soon as I reach them, and to spare this thread from further derailing, I'm going to head off here.

And yes, I do realize there is a world outside the USA. What you fail to realize in your spiel is that you introduced a comparison that just does not make sense in the context of this thread. It not only fails to make your point but also adds even more ambiguity because this, if I was on the side of people who completely did not get the article, would not have read as an incomprehensible foreign language. A burning, acerbic tone of English yes, but not unable to be read in the slightest. Linguistics are relevant because you brought linguistics into this conversation.

I AM NOT BACKPEDALLING YOU MORON! My stance hasn't chanced one bit, I've tried to clarify what I meant but choose to think that was chance in my stance.

I assume you have brain USE IT!

What I am is frustrated trying to explain this like to bloody 2 year old infant. I am starting to think you understand what I was trying to say perfectly but ignore it.

OK I say this as clearly as it's humanly possible. I have just as much possiblity of correctly understanding an article written in professional slang pretending(perhaps unintentionally) to be common language as you would have possibility of correctly understanding a sentence written in finnish. Sure the words might look like familiar words in english but the definations don't match those I known. Now if it was said that this article used atypical defination then I might done research before hand so find out what those definations are but there was 0 indication that atypical definations where you used so you end up with a sentence that looks english, but what words mean don't seem to match reality, so it might as well be written in klingon.

So put down your rage and use that brain of yours and I repeat linguistics are irrelevant and a red herring since my point is and always was about understanding things not about linguistics. To repeat my point is and always was, I have as much chance of understanding correctly an article written in slang (I'm unfamiliar with) that uses words that are (near) indentical to those in common language but with radically different definations as you have of understanding something written in finnish, so one should preferbly not use terms that can mistaken for words in the common language or at very least clearly indicated that slang is used.

EDIT:I neither the skill nor the time to fight over semantics so this will be my final post on this matter, slaughter each other over misunderstanding for all I care I'm done with this clusterfuck.

When something looks like duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck with no indication that it's anything else then a normal duck, I assume it's a duck when then tells me it's not duck but someone wierd alien that just happens to be nearly identical to a duck I get confused.

[Simon_Jester]

Linguistic issues aside...

I think we can all agree that the problem with the original article is that while the author may have been correct in a very narrow, critical-race-theory-interpretation fashion, to say 'Whiteness must die', the great majority of people will simply not understand that it's not a *literal* 'White People must die' statement. The article says nothing (as far as I recall) about it being from a CRT viewpoint, and falls into the same trap as for example a physicist trying to explain quantum mechanics to a child.

Not quite. I've been that physicist, and for that matter that child.

A physicist trying to explain quantum mechanics to a child wouldn't deliberately use scary terminology that means something very different to the physicist than it does to the child. Especially not terminology that is vaguely documented at the interface between physics and popular awareness. They would almost certainly, unless they were a truly royal fuckup, make a child think they hated the child, then get mad at the child for misunderstanding.

This is the nature of the fuckup taking place here. FIrst use ambiguous language to make someone think you hate them, then get mad at them for daring to misunderstand you because they're too ignorant to know that you use common words to mean things other than what they mean in common usage.

Which, come to think of it, is why physicists normally use terms that are totally different from common usage, with a handful of exceptions.

[Dragon Angel]

On one hand, people say "You should not write in such a way that your point is lost in a sea of confusing word use and acerbic tones. You should try to communicate in a way that people outside your circle, or even, outside your own head, can understand your message."

Okay. I may not completely agree with you applying that with regard to the discourse in this thread, but I'll take your words into consideration.

And then on the other we have Revan, who insists on holding onto an ambiguous point and that I should be a telepath and read his mind to determine where he was going with this metaphor and how I should read it. When pointed out that he is committing the same kind of violation as the OP, he descends into frothing condescension.

I guess we have learned that this can happen on any side, today.

...

As an aside, jargon occurs in many other subsets of English besides the one used in this thread. The difference is that the OP, as Elheru pointed out, didn't mark that jargon clearly to the outside reader, and also there were so complete different understandings of the jargon in this thread's discussion that it was very difficult to talk about it.

It just isn't valid to compare this to the mechanics of different entire languages, and there is no way to softball around that. Doing that now confuses the people you are trying to make your point toward.

[Dragon Angel]

I'm going to be completely fair and honest and point out I made a similar mistake much earlier in the thread, when I posted this:

This conversation is absolutely fascinating because it seems like there are two sides using two different dialects of academic English who are using words that connote absolutely different meanings to each other. Having interacted with people of both sides, it's interesting because I can somewhat imagine they probably want the same thing, but that language barrier prevents any sort of understanding.

(And then there are worse-than-useless sides such as Patroklos', who just plugs his ears and screams "neener neener I can't hear you!!!")

I haven't read it all yet since the second page is monstrously long, but I am interested in further seeing this progress.

If I could travel back in time I'd tell myself that "dialects of academic English" is also ambiguous and makes the exact sort of comparison I'm criticizing now. Use something else.

I guess, too, we all learn as time goes on...

[Simon_Jester]

On one hand, people say "You should not write in such a way that your point is lost in a sea of confusing word use and acerbic tones. You should try to communicate in a way that people outside your circle, or even, outside your own head, can understand your message."

Okay. I may not completely agree with you applying that with regard to the discourse in this thread, but I'll take your words into consideration.

Well, this issue arises in part in the context of the original article this was all about, because the main defense being made of the Texas State newspaper article is that saying "whiteness needs to die" is both unambiguous and unobjectionable, in the language of critical race studies, which is clearly the language the author was using.

The main counter to this defense is that insofar as the language of critical race studies diverges this sharply from the common usage of the English language, it is predictably apt to be misunderstood by the general public. As such, it should not be used in efforts to communicate with the general public. Unless, of course, one is going for shock value, and doesn't care about the damage that will be done to the reputation of either critical studies, minority rights activism, or both.

...

I also think MarxII was onto something earlier:

"Reading over this thread and comparing it with my own experience, I find it hard to shake the feeling that the misunderstandings at issue are not entirely unintentional, at least not in all cases. It seems to me that probably for a blend of reasons (social capital, academic marketability, genuine satisfaction at outing racists by whatever standard, et cetera) there is in some circles an incentive to cultivate the miscommunication that has been the basis of these several pages."

There does seem to be a perverse incentive structure that perpetuates some of the toxic features of this discussion. In my opinion, this incentive affects both the ultra-enlightened-ish scholars of critical theory (who can get social/academic capital by competing to see who can make the most shocking utterances and most effectively condemn their opponents), AND the borderline-racists (who can gain social/political capital by mocking the scholars of critical theory when they overextend themselves).

And then on the other we have Revan, who insists on holding onto an ambiguous point and that I should be a telepath and read his mind to determine where he was going with this metaphor and how I should read it. When pointed out that he is committing the same kind of violation as the OP, he descends into frothing condescension.

I guess we have learned that this can happen on any side, today.

I can't speak to Revan, but honestly, if I were trying to communicate an academic/political concept to people outside my field, using misleading jargon that is predictably likely to be interpreted in an inflammatory way would be a worse mistake than using Finnish.

If I write my paper in Finnish, the worst that happens is that nobody understands it.

If I write my paper in jargon that is predictably interpreted as hate speech, the worst that happens is that everyone decides I'm a shrieking mass of mindless fury, the publication of my paper becomes a scandal, and I scar the reputation of myself, my field, and my political cause.

As an aside, jargon occurs in many other subsets of English besides the one used in this thread. The difference is that the OP, as Elheru pointed out, didn't mark that jargon clearly to the outside reader, and also there were so complete different understandings of the jargon in this thread's discussion that it was very difficult to talk about it.

Also, most fields with specialized jargon use jargon that is clearly distinguishable from mainstream English at a glance.

If I start talking about eigenstates of a Hamiltonian, you may not know what I'm talking about, but you immediately know I'm talking about something foreign to your intuitions. Something you must approach in a careful, disciplined, and intellectually rigorous manner to understand. Here There Be Dragons, as it were. Because terms like 'eigenstate' and 'Hamiltonian' do not have clearly defined connotations in regular English. Even if I talk about things like 'wavefunctions,' where you probably have a working sense in your head of what 'wave' and 'function' mean in common speech, the phrasing and context will make it clear that 'wavefunction' does not mean what you might expect.

Thus, most fields' jargon serves the desirable purpose of clearly differentiating between subjects that can only be discussed within the precise language of the field, and subjects that can be discussed informally using common language.

...

Terms like "whiteness" as used in at least the parts of critical race theory exposed in this thread... They do not have this advantage.