I decided to check out the Stormfront forum today. I had heard it mentioned a few times, and was curious what all the fuss was about. Boy, that place is a riot. My first impression was that it was amazing just how many legitimately delusional people were there. It seemed like a case of mass hysteria or something.

Then I came across this thread: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/bad-scientific-arguments-used-white-120656.html

I was seriously relieved to find that there were indeed a few intelligent people in the community. Some renounce the idea of "all-around white superiority", some are quite knowledgeable about biology and acknowledge that racial mixing is generally good for genetic health. Some have no racial superiority ideas and understand the impact of culture, environment, and chance on human advancement.

So, like I said, I was pleased to see that not everyone there was insane or borderline retarded, but the vast majority are. The Movie Reviews section is hilarious and sad at the same time...people analyzing the significance of the movie "WALL-E" having a black baby in a scene, or some psycho complaining about "the dirty negro superhero and dirty Jew Jason Bateman" in Hancock. I think that entire community is worthy of discussion, and I couldn't find any other threads about it. Anyone want to share their thoughts on it/its posters?

There are a lot of people with a very low quality/accountability threshold for the ideas they choose to accept. At the same time, I have a hard time believing a large proportion of people in this country share those particular ideas (that the causes of racial behavioral trends are almost entirely biological). There's too much cultural stigma associated with them.

These people don't realize that you can't isolate yourself, it never worked in the past and it can never work in the future, I especially don't like their obsession with racial preservation, it's idiotic the way they refer to people who date members of other ethnicities as "race traitors".

Most of today's ethnic groups are the result of racial mixing, it's really stupid to try and preserve something that does not exist, I also don't agree with their convinction that if races are kept separated all problems that affect today's society will disappear, their idea of a white utopia is laughable at best.

Insanity:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/biblical-garden-eden-northern-europe-518077.html

They are lunatics.

Robots are the superiors. If white people are actually superior it is by so little it is not worth bitching about.

wow, you people aren't very tolerant of other peoples beliefs :rolleyes:

Race mixing, it's a step up for the black guy I guess, but for both parties...no. A mixed child, will have an IQ higher than a black person, but not a white person. Please show the thread where someone at stormfront said that, and that site loses the little credibility that it had with me.

Supremacy will be judged by who survives, not who is responsible for civilization. so it's yet to be decided who is supreme. White power is about keeping the beautiful traits of white people alive, and smashing anyone who is against it. I dont care for stormfront, because they are more into bitching about how "the jews aren't fair" than actually committing violence like they should be doing :mad:

Show me the thread where someone said miscegenation was ok though.

wow, you people aren't very tolerant of other peoples beliefs :rolleyes:

Race mixing, it's a step up for the black guy I guess, but for both parties...no. A mixed child, will have an IQ higher than a black person, but not a white person. Please show the thread where someone at stormfront said that, and that site loses the little credibility that it had with me.

Supremacy will be judged by who survives, not who is responsible for civilization. so it's yet to be decided who is supreme. White power is about keeping the beautiful traits of white people alive, and smashing anyone who is against it. I dont care for stormfront, because they are more into bitching about how "the jews aren't fair" than actually committing violence like they should be doing :mad:

Show me the thread where someone said miscegenation was ok though.

Why on Earth should we be "tolerant" of a belief that's absolutely delusional, and often directly results in hate and violence?

Saying idiotic, completely false things like "a mixed child has a higher IQ than a black person, but not a white person" is the exact reason why Stormfront and white nationalists aren't tolerated.

Why on Earth should we be "tolerant" of a belief that's absolutely delusional, and often directly results in hate and violence?

Saying idiotic, completely false things like "a mixed child has a higher IQ than a black person, but not a white person" is the exact reason why Stormfront and white nationalists aren't tolerated.

There was a world IQ map by country that was done that I saw not long ago, and the entire continent of Africa was the dumbest one, Asia, and countries like Iceland were the highest. The US was about the same as South america.

Why be tolerant? Because that is your beef with them. All the anti-white people complain about "intolerance". So ok, we're both intolerant of each others beliefs, what can we do? Fight about it, and see who lives. Nature at work.

There was a world IQ map by country that was done that I saw not long ago, and the entire continent of Africa was the dumbest one, Asia, and countries like Iceland were the highest. The US was about the same as South america.


1) IQ is not a true measure of "intelligence". Although there often is a correlation between IQ scores and what we percieve to be "intelligence, it's actually a projection of how people will perform in a particular social or educational environment. The actual cognitive abilities encompassed by the word "intelligence" can't possibly be summarized by a standard IQ test, and often IQ tests measure education (cultural or otherwise) rather than pure cognitive abilities and development.

2) IQ is not a set number that people are born with. It's predominantly a function of environment, and it (as well as cognitive development as a whole) can be influenced by many things, including how nurturing one's parents are, how conducive the child's environment is to learning, and what cultural values they are raised with. A study was done where a young child was given a motor task and was aided by his or her mother. Some of the mothers simply showed the child how to do the task, while others offered the child suggestions and clues. When the children were later IQ tested, those that were simply given the solution to the task consistently scored lower than those who were given suggestions and hints. That study alone effectively disproves any notion of naturally determined IQ.

So, while it may very well be possible that blacks on average have a lower IQ, and perhaps even a lower intelligence(again, "intelligence" is the quality of their collective cognitive abilities), there's absolutely no evidence that it is genetic. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that it is cultural and environmental.

By the way, you apparently don't even understand what the "genetically stupider" idea suggests. It doesn't mean that any black person is always innately dumber than any white person. It means that the population has a lower average intelligence, due to genetics. Trying to argue the former is completely disproven when you look at ANY black or mixed people that scores higher on cognitive tests than a white person. Both arguments are scientifically baseless, but you should at least argue something that hasn't already been clearly disproven.

I do not believe there is any evolutionary or genetic superiority with Blacks VS Whites.

It could be said that with the civilization of white-people there people must have been smarter. Not true. Perhaps their leaders were, but the average person led a life of general-labor and there was no reason to breed in intelligence.

There simply was not enough time for any kind of superiority to develop.

I hate the "Gangsta" culture, and believe it to be among the stupidest and degenerate shit around. I really hope an Obama Victory may inspire many blacks to give up that bullshit.

....that racial mixing is generally good for genetic health. \

it really makes no difference one way or the other.

Stormfront has too many idiots to be taken seriously.

How many times has it been said that any white version of NAACP or BET would be called racist? Well, this is what ends up happening - bigoted morons get together and lose their credibility.

I will give Stormfront credit for at least not letting anglo heritage go quietly into the night under political correctness. There's nothing wrong with being proud of your ancestor's accomplishments, and learning from them.

But everytime I hear someone whine about 'the Jew', I just roll my eyes. The only people I ever hear say that are tradesmen, upset with the fact they're "lower class", yet refused to adapt to changing times.

Enjoy this thread. It will be the last one like it for a while.

Enjoy this thread. It will be the last one like it for a while.

....?

It was an OK post DerDrache, but, quite predictably, the discussion is degenerating into the typical race-banter thread I want to minimize here. See the sticky. Because we haven't had one for a while, I'll leave it open, but i'll be closing similar ones. I feel minimizing the proliferation of this subject is good for the forum - because it tends to get out of hand, and become little more than "hate vs anti-hate" type rhetoric and argument - which is asinine and does not belong here. I don't want to outright censor it, so the odd thread is ok. But the subject gets old real fast and i want to be vigilant about it.

In short, this discussion (racial superiority) has been done to death in this forum and other forums on &T.

So get it all out now people, lol.

1) IQ is not a true measure of "intelligence". Although there often is a correlation between IQ scores and what we percieve to be "intelligence, it's actually a projection of how people will perform in a particular social or educational environment. The actual cognitive abilities encompassed by the word "intelligence" can't possibly be summarized by a standard IQ test, and often IQ tests measure education (cultural or otherwise) rather than pure cognitive abilities and development.

2) IQ is not a set number that people are born with. It's predominantly a function of environment, and it (as well as cognitive development as a whole) can be influenced by many things, including how nurturing one's parents are, how conducive the child's environment is to learning, and what cultural values they are raised with. A study was done where a young child was given a motor task and was aided by his or her mother. Some of the mothers simply showed the child how to do the task, while others offered the child suggestions and clues. When the children were later IQ tested, those that were simply given the solution to the task consistently scored lower than those who were given suggestions and hints. That study alone effectively disproves any notion of naturally determined IQ.

So, while it may very well be possible that blacks on average have a lower IQ, and perhaps even a lower intelligence(again, "intelligence" is the quality of their collective cognitive abilities), there's absolutely no evidence that it is genetic. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that it is cultural and environmental.

By the way, you apparently don't even understand what the "genetically stupider" idea suggests. It doesn't mean that any black person is always innately dumber than any white person. It means that the population has a lower average intelligence, due to genetics. Trying to argue the former is completely disproven when you look at ANY black or mixed people that scores higher on cognitive tests than a white person. Both arguments are scientifically baseless, but you should at least argue something that hasn't already been clearly disproven.

It doesn't matter if black people are smarter or dumber than white people. You are an ugly lot and the white people don't want your ugly ass genes creeping into their gene pool.

Quite understandable.

I'd creep into Halle Berry's gene pool anyday.

What was this thread about?

I'd creep into Halle Berry's gene pool anyday.

That made me fucking laugh out loud.

Red Raven my buddy! No long no see! How you been?

Red Raven my buddy! No long no see! How you been?
Bored out of my mind, only to find I still remember my Totse password. After browsing a while, I notice a lot of the same players playing the same games. That makes me happy and sad all at the same time.

In any case, I am not "back." At least not yet. We'll see.

What was this thread about?

the discussion of the regulats at stormfront; and internet nationalism/sociology in general.

Bored out of my mind, only to find I still remember my Totse password. After browsing a while, I notice a lot of the same players playing the same games. That makes me happy and sad all at the same time.

In any case, I am not "back." At least not yet. We'll see.

lol I was going to email you and say 'hi' and how I can piss off less people. Remember to check the Anime board too.

(btw I didn't see these 3 new posts as I was busy doing other stuff on tabs and the like..lol)

the discussion of the regulats at stormfront; and internet nationalism/sociology in general.

dude u always make me laugh, you are like a white dude in a black guy's body

dude u always make me laugh, you are like a white dude in a black guy's body

Why does everyone call me a goddamned oreo? :p

I grew up in the South Side (of Chicago), my environment predisposed me to being 'black' (see my family and where I went to grammar school, etc....lol) but I still speak and act....different. :mad:

I guess that's what Autism does to you......

Why does everyone call me a goddamned oreo? :p


Because society expects you to act like a thug.

Fuck society though. It's great to see black people speaking the English language properly.

Fuck society though. It's great to see British people speaking the English language properly.

I concur.

Because society expects you to act like a thug.

Fuck society though. It's great to see black people speaking the English language properly.

Ironically, the expectations of such idiots helps perpetuate the very thing they hate. If a black's a thug, then "Omg I hate niggers". If a black is an educated, contributing member of society, he's somehow betraying his race.

People are idiots.

Because society expects you to act like a thug.

I am a thug :mad:
Well not really :(

It's bad when the educated and 'intelligent' black people notice that too.....lol they don't like Linkin Park. Or me wearing a Star Wars or Domo-kun hat (yes I have those)

Not to mention the fucking body language and jestures really being different....ahh that shit is complicated as fuck

Fuck society though.

amen dude, its contradictions and hipocrisies...

It's great to see black people speaking the English language properly.

technically their dialect is as valid and 'proper' as yours :p

technically their dialect is as valid and 'proper' as yours :p

It's valid (in the sense that it is a functional dialect among its speakers), but it's not proper English.

I'd say that dialect does great harm. "Yo dawg I gotta eat" instead of "I am going to rob a jewelery store at gunpoint, because I am too lazy to work for my money"

The language's norms allow a lot of crime and stupidity to flourish.

I'd say that dialect does great harm. "Yo dawg I gotta eat" instead of "I am going to rob a jewelery store at gunpoint, because I am too lazy to work for my money"

The language's norms allow a lot of crime and stupidity to flourish.

Speaking of stupidity...

It's valid (in the sense that it is a functional dialect among its speakers), but it's not proper English.

same applies to American English, the UK people can rag on the USA about that a LOT (one of the royalty bitched about how the US does their words, and I remember a book by someone in the UK with a similar statement)...

The language's norms allow a lot of crime and stupidity to flourish.

wut (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAfrican _American_Vernacular_English&ei=g2vASOrPKIvOiAH35bW8BQ&usg=AFQjCNFKxAp1XN-4zVEwTlzmOG6QICBBXA&sig2=xzntZ8AsxQelz5KGVCxYng)

EDIT: also


I'd say that dialect does great harm. "Yo dawg I gotta eat" instead of "I am going to rob a jewelery store at gunpoint, because I am too lazy to work for my money"

a dialect cannot 'do harm' as it's simply a type of language that is characteristic of some of the language's speakers.

Especially given the roots of Ebonics date back to the grammatical structures of the West African languages.

also there's a way of phrasing the last sentence in AAVE with more accuracy lol

same applies to American English, the UK people can rag on the USA about that a LOT (one of the royalty bitched about how the US does their words, and I remember a book by someone in the UK with a similar statement)...



I always lol when Brits comment on North American "misuse" of English, when Brits themselves are the very ones with the knife in hand at the butchers....

I always lol when Brits comment on North American "misuse" of English, when Brits themselves are the very ones with the knife in hand at the butchers....

well yeah given the British simply ripped off German

EDIT: well a German language from German people

same applies to American English, the UK people can rag on the USA about that a LOT (one of the royalty bitched about how the US does their words, and I remember a book by someone in the UK with a similar statement)...



American English, British English, and a few other forms are widely accepted standards. They are all generally consistent as far as grammar rules and vocabulary, with accents being the main difference. Ebonics is not proper English by any of these standards. Period.

well yeah given the British simply ripped off German

EDIT: well a German language from German people

I actually wasn't even referring to the origins of the language.

or some psycho complaining about "the dirty negro superhero and dirty Jew Jason Bateman" in Hancock.
You gotta admit, Hancock was pretty dirty. :D I was so disappointed in that movie...

Ebonics is not proper English by any of these standards. Period.

see the link I posted


Phonology

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg/44px-Wiki_letter_w.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_letter_w.svg)
Please help improve this article or section (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_American_Vernacular_Englis h&action=edit) by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African_American_Vernacular_English) or at requests for expansion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion). (May 2008) The near uniformity of AAVE pronunciation, despite vast geographic area, may be due in part to relatively recent migrations of African Americans out of the South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_South) as well as to long-term racial segregation.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-7) Phonological features that set AAVE apart from forms of Standard English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English) (such as General American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American)) include:


Word-final devoicing of /b/, /d/, and /ɡ/, whereby for example cub sounds like cup.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-8)
Reduction of certain diphthong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphthong) forms to monophthongs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophthong), in particular, /aɪ/ is monophthongized to [aː] (this is also a feature of many Southern American English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_American_English) dialects). The vowel sound in boil (/ɔɪ/ in Standard English) is also monophthongized, especially before /l/, making it indistinguishable from ball.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-9)
AAVE speakers may not use the dental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_consonant) fricatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fricative_consonant) [θ] (the th in thin) and [ð] (the th of then) that are present in SE. The actual alternative phone used depends on the sound's position in a word.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-10)

Word-initially, /θ/ is normally the same as in SE (so thin is [θɪn]).
Word-initially, /ð/ is [d] (so this is [dɪs]).
Word-medially and -finally, /θ/ is realized as either [f] or [t] (so [mʌmf] or [mʌnt] for month); /ð/ as either [v] or [d] (so [smuːv] for smooth).


Realization of final ng /ŋ/, the velar nasal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velar_nasal), as the alveolar nasal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_nasal) [n] in function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_word) morphemes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheme) and content morphemes with two syllables like -ing, e.g. tripping is pronounced as trippin. This change does not occur in one-syllable content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_word) morphemes such as sing, which is [sɪŋ] and not *[sɪn]. However, singing is [sɪŋɪn]. Other examples include wedding → [wɛɾɪn], morning → [mɔɹnɪn], nothing → [ˈnʌfɪn]. Realization of /ŋ/ as [n] in these contexts is commonly found in many other English dialects.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-11)
A marked feature of AAVE is final consonant cluster reduction. There are several phenomena that are similar but are governed by different grammatical rules.

Homorganic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_of_articulation) final consonant clusters (that is, word-final clusters of consonants that have the same place of articulation) that share the same laryngeal settings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_%28phonetics%29) are reduced. E.g. test is pronounced [tɛs] since /t/ and /s/ are both voiceless; hand is pronounced [hæn], since /n/ and /d/ are both voiced; but pant is unchanged, as it contains both a voiced and a voiceless consonant in the cluster.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-12) Note also that it is the plosive (/t/ and /d/) in these examples that is lost rather than the fricative or nasal. Speakers may carry this declustered pronunciation when pluralizing so that the plural of test is [tɛsəs] rather than [tɛsts].[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-13) The clusters /ft/, /md/, are also affected.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-14)
More often, word-final /sp/, /st/, and /sk/ are reduced, again with the final element being deleted rather than the former.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-15)
Clusters ending in /s/ or /z/ exhibit variation in whether the first or second element is deleted.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-16)


Similarly, final consonants may be deleted (although there is a great deal of variation between speakers in this regard). Most often, /t/ and /d/ are deleted. As with other dialects of English, final /t/ and /k/ may reduce to a glottal stop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottal_stop). Nasal consonants may be lost while nasalization of the vowel is retained (e.g, find may be pronounced [fãː]). More rarely, /s/ and /z/ may also be deleted.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-17)
Use of metathesised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_English_consonant_clusters #S-cluster_metathesis) forms like aks for "ask"[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-18) or graps for "grasp".
AAVE is non-rhotic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents), so the rhotic consonant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_consonant) /r/ is usually dropped if not followed by a vowel. Intervocalic /r/ may also be dropped, e.g. SE story ([stɔri]) can be pronounced [stɔ.i]. /r/ may also be deleted between a consonant and a back rounded vowel, especially in words like throw, throat, and through.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-19)
/l/ is often deleted in patterns similar to that of /r/ and, in combination with cluster simplification (see above), can make homophones of toll and toe, fault and fought, and tool and too. Homonomy may be reduced by vowel lengthening and by an off-glide [ɤ][21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-20).
Before nasal consonants (/m/, /n/, and /ŋ/), /ɛ/ and /ɪ/ are both pronounced as [ɪ], making pen and pin homophones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophone).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-21) This feature is also present in other dialects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_English_high_front_vowels# Pin-pen_merger).
The distinction between /ɪ/ and /iː/ before liquid consonants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_consonant) is frequently reduced, making feel and fill homophones. Before /r/ specifically, /uː/ and /oʊ/ also merge.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#cite_note-22)
Dropping of word initial /d/, /b/, and /ɡ/ in tense-aspect markers, e.g., the pronunciation of don't as own.
Lowering of /ɪ/ to /ɛ/ or /æ/ before /ŋ/ causing pronunciations such as [θɛŋ] or [θæŋ] for thing.

uh; yes it follows grammatical rules. Linguists studied it and noted that

I actually wasn't even referring to the origins of the language.

oh, k.

see the link I posted


[/LIST]
uh; yes it follows grammatical rules. Linguists studied it and noted that

It doesn't follow English's grammatical rules, you fucking retard, and thus it is improper English.

It doesn't follow English's grammatical rules, you fucking retard, and thus it is improper English.

So based off your shit-for-brains logic Ebonics is a separate language and therefore should be accepted as a separate language-therefore enshrining in our cultural identity....

....thanks faggot

This site is lol. I was banned because I said something along the lines that russians and other slavic people aren't aryan either and are racially impure if you consider the national socialistic science behind it. Those people are idiots. Both ways round.

If you judge Totse on its most retarded members we'd look just as stupid.

Also, Ebonics is a language.

Klingon and Sindarin are languages.

Doesn't mean it's not retarded.

Race is nothing more than a social delusionist method used for tribal techniques.

We are, what we are because of our experiences and the way society potrays us, labels us, and classifies us. Nothing less, nothing more.

Race is nothing more than a social delusionist method used for tribal techniques.

We are, what we are because of our experiences and the way society potrays us, labels us, and classifies us. Nothing less, nothing more.

This. Even if you consider that humans can be put in genetically distinct categories, the reality is that any person can be "trained" to be a certain way. Any black person can be a scholar, any white person can be a street thug, any Asian can be unintelligent, etc.

well yeah given the British simply ripped off German

EDIT: well a German language from German people

No you silly person, he meant that they speak a very poor dialect of Scots.

No you silly person, he meant that they speak a very poor dialect of Scots.

oh....sorry :)


Also, Ebonics is a language.

Klingon and Sindarin are languages.

Doesn't mean it's not retarded.

Say that to the fanatics and those linguists who can speak it fluently and have conversations with it. Assuming they don't kick your ass, especially given it's likely you'd be doing it in a fantasy or sci-fi con for good effect..

oh....sorry :)



Say that to the fanatics and those linguists who can speak it fluently and have conversations with it. Assuming they don't kick your ass, especially given it's likely you'd be doing it in a fantasy or sci-fi con for good effect..

Klingon and Ebonics don't fall in the same category. At all. Ebonics is poor English. It has perhaps evolved to the point where it can be considered a dialect, but it is still improper English.

Your notion that "Brits stole English from Germans" is also retarded. Retard.

Klingon and Ebonics don't fall in the same category. At all. Ebonics is poor English. It has perhaps evolved to the point where it can be considered a dialect, but it is still improper English.

Your notion that "Brits stole English from Germans" is also retarded. Retard.

I agree. Thing is, if someone wants to declare it's a language, there's no way of defining it separately to a dialect. Similar case in point, American English. Even though many of the changes from British English are intentional, there's no way to prove that it's not a language by definition.

Of course, I agree with you that Ebonics and similar are simply sloppy versions of English, but that doesn't stop people coming along and saying that it's a dialect or a language. I'm adamantly against accepting it as a separate language, worthy of teaching, and its classification is obviously a dialect. It's like breed and species. The extent to which one becomes the other is entirely subjective, and it's a semantic problem more than anything else.

.

Of course, I agree with you that Ebonics and similar are simply sloppy versions of English,

they incorporate grammar structures and vocabulary from West African languages...

Your notion that "Brits stole English from Germans" is also retarded. Retard.

I said 'okay, sorry' earlier, faggot.

they incorporate grammar structures and vocabulary from West African languages...

No, American Ebonics does not. If you're going to say something retarded, then you should cite examples. (Though I assume any example you provide is just going to refer to a form of English that is rare and regionalized, and that you've idiotically used to generalize the majority of Ebonics.)

Why don't you two just get it over with and fuck :)

I really liked the comparison of Ebonics to American English - particularly in application to non-academic "ordinary" language. I think if its successful in communicating ideas or meaning, it has to be considered a language. I don't believe its a "separate" language, more of a derivation, but no less linguistic.

The degree to which language reflects "abstract" or "higher order (so to speak)" concepts is not of superiority but of necessity - no moreso than abstract ideas are superior to functional ideas. The degree to which abstract language is important reflects that of privilege, not utility (the privilege of abstract ideas). Ebonics is as "linguistic" as it needs to be. It is not, of itself, a reflection of superiority or inferiority, but rather social inequality.

No, American Ebonics does not. If you're going to say something retarded, then you should cite examples. (Though I assume any example you provide is just going to refer to a form of English that is rare and regionalized, and that you've idiotically used to generalize the majority of Ebonics.)


One theory is that AAVE arose from one or more slave creoles (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Creole%20language) that arose from the trans-Atlantic African slave trade and the need for African captives to communicate among themselves and with their captors. During the Middle Passage (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Middle%20Passage), these captives (many already multi-lingual speakers of dialects of Wolof (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Wolof%20language), Twi (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Twi), Hausa (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Hausa), Yoruba (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Yoruba), Dogon (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Dogon), Akan (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Akan), Kimbundu (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Kimbundu), Bambara (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Bambara) and other languages[citation needed (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Wikipedia:Citation%20needed)]) developed what are called pidgins (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Pidgin), simplified mixtures of two or more languages. As pidgins form from close contact between members of different language communities, the slave trade would have been exactly such a situation. Dillard quotes slave ship (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Slave%20ship) Captain William Smith[50] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=African%20American%20Vernacular%20English#cite_n ote-49):

I also have a question: Would you consider Singlish to be a bastardization of British English or not? Would you consider Serbian and Croatian a single language or several different ones?

edit: the terms 'voodoo' 'jive' and similar are examples of transported words

EDIT 2: enjoying your fellow yuppies on the north side ;)

I also have a question: Would you consider Singlish to be a bastardization of British English or not? Would you consider Serbian and Croatian a single language or several different ones?

edit: the terms 'voodoo' 'jive' and similar are examples of transported words

EDIT 2: enjoying your fellow yuppies on the north side ;)

Some isolated vocabulary is not enough to establish Ebonics as anything more than bad English. The majority of AAVE was bourne out of a lack of education, nothing more.

As someone mentioned earlier, the borders between "dialect" and "language" are rather sketchy, but none of that changes the fact that Ebonics is butchered and modified English.

The degree to which language reflects "abstract" or "higher order (so to speak)" concepts is not of superiority but of necessity - no moreso than abstract ideas are superior to functional ideas. The degree to which abstract language is important reflects that of privilege, not utility (the privilege of abstract ideas). Ebonics is as "linguistic" as it needs to be. It is not, of itself, a reflection of superiority or inferiority, but rather social inequality.

Drawing pictures and using nothing but names and numbers can communicate any concept that the practical elements of language can. Does that mean we should stop writing English and start drawing each other pictures?

Of course I agree with you about the subjectivity of it all. It's just that for me, and I imagine for many people, the sophistication of a language and its ability to deal with abstract concepts are what elevate it about simple primitive commands and directions which just happen to be directed through our vocal chords, or a string of symbols representing these vocalizations.

Language is a utility for communication - nothing more. Its only as "sophisticated" as communication requires.

Putting a language on a pedestal and claiming perfect forms of it is fallacious. All language evolves and changes with context. Claiming British English is superior is just a form of imperialism. It evolved to meet its speakers needs just like any other language. Passing judgment otherwise is just tired ethnocentrism.

My guess - languages used in wealthy societies will generally be more complex and intricate because they have more free time to discuss complex and intricate things. Philosophy, politics, academics in general - these are not the forte of most poor people. How much sense does it make to you for people living in a ghetto to spend their time discussing Ontological Relativism? Their language develops with the context of their needs

snip

Again, it's subjective. It's like arguing that red is a better colour than blue.


What makes one language superior for me can be different to what makes it superior for you. I may argue English is better, because I prefer having a massive pool of vocabulary and sets of words with many shades of meaning. You may argue French is better, due to its far more consistent grammar system and its sonorance.

However, I challenge you to come up with criteria for assessing the utility of a language in expressing the greatest possible range of concepts which does not elevate British English above Ebonics.

Again, it's subjective. It's like arguing that red is a better colour than blue.


What makes one language superior for me can be different to what makes it superior for you. I may argue English is better, because I prefer having a massive pool of vocabulary and sets of words with many shades of meaning. You may argue French is better, due to its far more consistent grammar system and its sonorance.

However, I challenge you to come up with criteria for assessing the utility of a language in expressing the greatest possible range of concepts which does not elevate British English above Ebonics.

Exactly. If you take everything that is exclusively a part of Ebonics, you just have assorted jargon that's meaningless without the English language to support it.

No you silly person, he meant that they speak a very poor dialect of Scots.

No I didn't...

Again, it's subjective. It's like arguing
However, I challenge you to come up with criteria for assessing the utility of a language in expressing the greatest possible range of concepts which does not elevate British English above Ebonics.

given how Ebonics formed and how words were added from East African vocabularies, it should be damn easy (for example, the term "iron chariot" could explain "tank" if you want to use 'basic' english.) The French make up new words for their stuff (Ordinateur-computer for example) That and people steal the terms; not ot mention UK English sucks compared to the several dialects of US English

Some isolated vocabulary is not enough to establish Ebonics as anything more than bad English.

There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" language.

The majority of AAVE was bourne out of a lack of education, nothing more.

"We affirm the students' right to their own patterns and varieties of language—the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style. Language scholars long ago denied that the myth of a standard American dialect has any validity. The claim that any one dialect is unacceptable amounts to an attempt of one social group to exert its dominance over another. Such a claim leads to false advice for speakers and writers and immoral advice for humans. A nation proud of its diverse heritage and its cultural and racial variety will preserve its heritage of dialects. We affirm strongly that teachers must have the experiences and training that will enable them to respect diversity and uphold the right of students to their own language."

Conference on College Composition and Communication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_on_College_Composition_and_Communicatio n) (CCCC), 1974..

There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" language.


No, Rain Man. Aside from what glutamate pointed out above, the fact of the matter is that English has rules. When the rules are violated but the language is still identifiable as English, it is "bad English". No, not in the sense that is "objectively inferior", but in the sense that it has significantly violated the rules of English.

Could Ebonics evolve into a complete language? Sure. Is it a language? No. It's poor English grammar, predominantly English words, and some jargon.

Oh, and the thing you quoted has absolutely no relevance to what I said about AAVE's origins. If you're tool mentally handicapped to have a coherent and logical thought process, maybe you shouldn't be posting.

No, Rain Man. Aside from what glutamate pointed out above, the fact of the matter is that English has rules. When the rules are violated but the language is still identifiable as English, it is "bad English". No, not in the sense that is "objectively inferior", but in the sense that it has significantly violated the rules of English.


English doesn't have dedicated and universal rules however, they change depending on situation. Also there's all that hidden bullshit regarding correct 'usage' of words and connotations of things. English doesn't have these strict 'rules' otherwise there'd be more strict 'formal' and 'informal' things-like there still is to an extent in French.

for example if you say you 'damaged' yourself in reference to 'hurting' yourself some connotation says that's wrong-when in fact the definition fits and it's only connotsated with machinery, not living things. Same for 'fixing' yourself and what thay implies.. Some would claim that's 'breaking' the rules of english.

If you're tool mentally handicapped to have a coherent and logical thought process, maybe you shouldn't be posting.what the fuck does that imply...chrome://dictionarytip/skin/book.png

Again, it's subjective. It's like arguing that red is a better colour than blue.


What makes one language superior for me can be different to what makes it superior for you. I may argue English is better, because I prefer having a massive pool of vocabulary and sets of words with many shades of meaning. You may argue French is better, due to its far more consistent grammar system and its sonorance.

However, I challenge you to come up with criteria for assessing the utility of a language in expressing the greatest possible range of concepts which does not elevate British English above Ebonics.

You're talking in circles. In one breath your saying its all subjective and then in another you're advocating for the objective superiority of one over the other - the typical fallacy of dualism (polarize and privilege).

What I've already noted is that its not about what one language is capable of doing over another. Nor is it about preference. Its about communication and utility. You are implying that the agendas of the traditional British are more significant than that of poor black Americans, and so the former's language is preferable.. Believe that if you want, but its an ethnocentric and not "factual" preference. You're merely privileging the version of communication closest to your own, or based in your own idealism of language. Complexity and abstractedness in language doesn't make communication "better" it makes it privileged and elitist in its non-inclusion. Complex academic language describes an uneducated poor persons life in the ghetto about as much as Ebonics can be used to discuss quantum physics. Language is relative to the context in which its used. Choosing one context over an other is simple bias.

If a discourse allows two people to understand one another, then its effective. That's all that matters. Implying that Ebonics doesn't capture some aspect of culture only relevant to white academics misses the point of language entirely. Language that requires an "education" to be effective is no more a language than one that doesn't. In fact the more complex and abstract a language is the more readily it can actually occlude meaning - for those uninitiated into the privileged fold. That is, complexity and abstractedness can just as easily serve to limit communication as facilitate it. Your preference for one form of communication over another is itself a preference for one culture over another. It bears no reflection on the language in and of itself, as language is only a tool for expressing meaning, it is not meaning itself.

Language is a utility for communication - nothing more. Its only as "sophisticated" as communication requires.

Putting a language on a pedestal and claiming perfect forms of it is fallacious. All language evolves and changes with context. Claiming British English is superior is just a form of imperialism. It evolved to meet its speakers needs just like any other language. Passing judgment otherwise is just tired ethnocentrism.

My guess - languages used in wealthy societies will generally be more complex and intricate because they have more free time to discuss complex and intricate things. Philosophy, politics, academics in general - these are not the forte of most poor people. How much sense does it make to you for people living in a ghetto to spend their time discussing Ontological Relativism? Their language develops with the context of their needs

This man moderates the forum?

You're talking in circles. In one breath your saying its all subjective

Yes....

and then in another you're advocating for the objective superiority

Where?

I said for utility. Again, utility is subjective. I define utility as being able to accurately express oneself with a wide range of vocabulary, being able to pick and choose my words, each having its own interesting connotations.



Choosing one context over an other is simple bias.

No shit, Sherlock. I'm biased towards English over Ebonics in the same way I am biased towards eating salad over the rotting carcasses of Savannah animals. Sure if I were a hyena, I'd prefer the latter.

If a discourse allows two people to understand one another, then its effective.

Naturally.

That's all that matters.

That's your opinion.

In my opinion, the range and shade of meanings and connotations available for me to draw upon makes English superior. If you don't care about that, then English confers no advantage.

Implying that Ebonics doesn't capture some aspect of culture only relevant to white academics misses the point of language entirely.

Where the hell do white academics come into this? You're implying that the only people who don't speak a degenerate version of English must be highly educated.

Language that requires an "education" to be effective is no more a language than one that doesn't.

Okay?

In fact the more complex and abstract a language is the more readily it can actually occlude meaning - for those uninitiated into the privileged fold. That is, complexity and abstractedness can just as easily serve to limit communication as facilitate it. Your preference for one form of communication over another is itself a preference for one culture over another. It bears no reflection on the language in and of itself, as language is only a tool for expressing meaning, it is not meaning itself.

Sure. If I use a word someone doesn't know, the meaning of what I am saying is lost. By the same reductionistic perspective, we should eliminate all unnecessary words from the language in order to improve 'effectiveness'. That'd be doubleplusgood, eh?

You're not comprehending. You're arguing intrinsically from the perspective that your "subjectivity" is somehow foundational. You aren't "stating" it (ie "I am doing this"), you are just doing it. Its implicit in your language.

Sure. If I use a word someone doesn't know, the meaning of what I am saying is lost. By the same reductionistic perspective, we should eliminate all unnecessary words from the language in order to improve 'effectiveness'. That'd be doubleplusgood, eh?

The language does not exist independent of the actual perspectives utilizing it. Its not a paper to be graded.

You don't have a good grasp of the concept, much like most people who like to harp on the subject/object dualism. Subjectivity implies objective ambiguity and lack of foundation(alism). You are contradicting yourself and its a poor choice of words. Really all I'm getting from you is a sense of entitlement about language, not an understanding of it.

Your focus on words and their objective meaning, as opposed to their communicative function, begs this question - who decides what is "valuable" about language other than its direct ability to facilitate communication? Words are communicative inventions. They do not have "absolute" meaning. They are signifiers of one ontology (a map) intended to be read by another ontology. Its the degree of relation that signifies the degree of effect this has - not each individuals aptitude for relating to universal concepts. That is, the fact that poor black people cant relate to rich white language is no indication of inferiority - only of context. This applies between species,cultures, groups, individuals, and any other communicative entity. Claiming the superiority of one over the other is nothing but bias and blind centrifugal assertion. Your use of the word "degenerative' to describe derivations from your own use of language is elitist. I assure you, the language you use on a daily basis is no less "derivative" of previous forms - Its the nature of language, as it evolves with contextual necessity. Its not coming from perfection, nor is it going there. There is no "natural" or "foundational" language. It's "truth" is solely in its effective communication. If it gets the job done, the English language is of no more value than the language of bees, or fish, or amoebas. Not all "ideas" are important to all entities. Ebonics captures what it needs to capture to be functional for the people that speak like that - as does any other form of language. It becomes more an issue of whose values are most important - and no particular type of consciousness can claim this. There is no platform to do this, which is why people that try are merely insisting. Any allusion to this otherwise and you are objectifying language - mistaking the map for the territory, and are inherently "up your own ass rather than in the conversation", so to speak.

Its no different than the fallacy of assuming western culture in general is "superior" to poorer cultures because we have Ipods and 30 different types of cola. The value of culture, and of personal experience, lies elsewhere - within the context of peoples lives - all of which are equal in their epistemic voting power.

Your ability to "accurately express oneself with a wide range of vocabulary" is a pointless ability unless the individual or group you are conversing with has the same values, and access to meaning. Communication is no more about the speaker than the listener. If all the academics (traditional English speakers lets say) died tomorrow your language would mean nothing. The derrivations of black america on white English reflect differences of context, not intrinsic inferiority. The inferiority is only in your judgement, not in fact, and your implied "superiority" of one form of communication over an other is rooted in nothing other than your insistence on the matter - a fact easily recognized by a true "subjectivist"

Simply stated you are assuming a legitimate platform from which to dictate and judge, but this platform is illusionary and prefaced only by bias for your own ideals. It has nothing to do with how people actually communicate or the intrinsic value of language (utility). Your insisting and little else. If your definition of utility in language is " being able to accurately express oneself with a wide range of vocabulary, being able to pick and choose my words, each having its own interesting connotations", is this imporant beyond necessity? If yes are you then not being pedantic and elitist? If no then how are non context specific variables relevant? Objectively speaking? Or are you just insisting your linguistic particularity makes you a better person?


Communication is not "subjective", it is a bridge between subjects. Its "truth" is inferred at best, and non precise for this reason. Its value therefore lies in its practical use, for purpose that will vary by individual and culture - not epistemic privilege to some standard foundational ontology.

Dagnabbit, I can't believe you wrote all that.

Ebonics is not a language; it's grammatically poor English with a comparatively small amount of unique jargon thrown in. End of discussion.

EDIT: Though yes, as long as a language allows for effective relay of information, then you can't objectively say one is better than another. If, however, a language is limited in what information it can relay, it is indeed inferior as far as language goes.

Not if information is contextually relevant, and sufficient for effective communication.

Ebonics is grammatically derivative from English, much the same way the slang and euphemism you use in your normal life is compared to the literary elite of the 1700's.

The value of language is in its use, not its formal structure. I simply don't buy that it can be judged outside of its effectiveness as a tool for relevant communication.

vomit

Does any of this even stand up once you consider that it's my perspective? I'm not judging it objectively. I mention several times that it's subjective to my perspective.

Consider what we eat again. To me, cake is delicious, while human shit is disgusting. To a scat fetishist [who has an aversion to cake], the inverse may be true.

Can either of us objectively claim that what we eat is better?

No.

Can I subjectively decide that human shit is a disgusting choice for a meal?

Yes.

In the same way, I can decide that Ebonics is retarded and of inferior utility to English.

prefaced only by bias for your own ideals. I

Scotland Yard really is missing out, isn't it?

Yes. Thank you for restating yourself, again.

I will certainly take your unilateral insistence into consideration when thinking about this topic

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. "This is my perspective" doesn't legitimize anything. You can have any opinion you want, but if you want to make an argument for something you need to follow objective rules- IE, when you claim something true generally, like you have, it ceases to be an opinion because you are legislating for others by claiming epistemic authority.

And your subject/object fallacy you keep regurgitating assures me you and I are not thinking of the issue in the same way - Ie, we are not having the same conversation.

By the way, no bad blood I hope, I generally like your posts. Sometimes its fun to pick fights :)

Yes. Thank you for restating yourself, again.

I will certainly take your unilateral insistence into consideration when thinking about this topic

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. "This is my perspective" doesn't legitimize anything.

Against what authority am I attempting to legitimize my opinion though?

snip

Objectively, though, doesn't everything abstract, such as language, break down into subjectivity?

Like my previous examples?

And in that sense don't all abstract concepts become baseless?

It's almost like solipsism in its irrelevance to reality.

By the way, no bad blood I hope, I generally like your posts. Sometimes its fun to pick fights :)

Absolutely. Picking fights is not only fun, but helps improve debate skills, too. If I never argued, I'd have learnt a lot less, and my opinions would be far less grounded. People who don't argue about their views are more easily swayed away from them. I was in a debate club at school once, and the topic that day was the death penalty. I'm not very fond of it, but believe it has its very rare place. But for that hour I was an executioner's best friend. The thrill of trolling IRL is unbeatable. The torrents of disagreement when I said "Yes, I do believe people have a right to life, but I believe that in taking someone else's, you forfeit that right.", aaah... good times.

the thrill of trolling irl is unbeatable.
aaah... Good times.
niggers are animals
nuke africa
pedophilia disad

niggers are animals

Humans are animals.

Humans are animals.

oh; those were the names of cases and negatives I used in debate :P

oh; those were the names of cases and negatives I used in debate :P

Oh snap

oh; those were the names of cases and negatives I used in debate :P

You make no effort to hide the fact that you're a retard in public, huh?

You make no effort to hide the fact that you're a retard in public, huh?

http://www.themadhat.com/images/fail_20at_20failing.jpg

Oh snap

lol...nice to piss off the judges and the like. good thing I didn't go against those Gingle-A fags; they'd pull all sorts of BS and hack the debate ("the purpose of debate is to HELP, not HURT people" lololol..then I could follow them in that type of shit..

White nationalists, separatists, supremacists, etc. are just as retarded as modern day leftists as well as the religious right and other neoconservative current of thought. Basically, they all fall for the same folly: viewing humans as a number of group (e.g. whites vs blacks, workers vs businessmen, faithful vs. sinners, etc.) instead of a large number of individuals.