The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in “Policing” One’s Thoughts

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

DLS — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:21:15 -0000

"Michael Stickings and Kathy Kattenburg"

Both of them rant (ironically, Kathy recently referred to the "ranting" of someone else, who did nothing of the kind), but at least Kathy isn&#39t vicious or pathological, just a lefty activist who believes in that stuff.

I&#39m still surprised Shaun didn&#39t come back to post something about McNamara, glorify wrongly the often-degenerate as well as subversive and even treasonous opposition to the Vietnam war, and somehow cast Code Pink and Move On (along with, say, the Militant as a media "beacon") as modern-day anti-Iraq-Bush-and-Cheney heroes.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

DLS — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:15:22 -0000

"Liberals choose to see people as members of groups."

[grin] Careful about that remark, J. West. It&#39s similar to what boorish Boortz once said, pretty much the same thing. As it implies non-liberals do not, do you see the inherent problem with "Liberals..."?

What matters here is that while people make innumerable destinctions between themselves and Others of all kinds, and even react defensively to the unfamiliar, that is perfectly normal, and is not the same as "racism," "sexism," and all the rest. And, yes, charges of "racism" and "sexism" continue to be taken to the most ludicrous extremes by extremists (name befitting) on the Left, who explain every event that happens in the universe as "racist," "sexist," "classist," "occurring due to the domination of the evil heads of the established privileged-group hierarchy-patriarchy," and other related ridiculous lies and nonsense.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

DLS — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:21:15 -0000

"Michael Stickings and Kathy Kattenburg"

Both of them rant (ironically, Kathy recently referred to the "ranting" of someone else, who did nothing of the kind), but at least Kathy isn't vicious or pathological, just a lefty activist who believes in that stuff.

I'm still surprised Shaun didn't come back to post something about McNamara, glorify wrongly the often-degenerate as well as subversive and even treasonous opposition to the Vietnam war, and somehow cast Code Pink and Move On (along with, say, the Militant as a media "beacon") as modern-day anti-Iraq-Bush-and-Cheney heroes.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

DLS — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:15:22 -0000

"Liberals choose to see people as members of groups."

[grin] Careful about that remark, J. West. It's similar to what boorish Boortz once said, pretty much the same thing. As it implies non-liberals do not, do you see the inherent problem with "Liberals..."?

What matters here is that while people make innumerable destinctions between themselves and Others of all kinds, and even react defensively to the unfamiliar, that is perfectly normal, and is not the same as "racism," "sexism," and all the rest. And, yes, charges of "racism" and "sexism" continue to be taken to the most ludicrous extremes by extremists (name befitting) on the Left, who explain every event that happens in the universe as "racist," "sexist," "classist," "occurring due to the domination of the evil heads of the established privileged-group hierarchy-patriarchy," and other related ridiculous lies and nonsense.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

Dr_J — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:26:41 -0000

GreenDreams, IMHO those studies don&#39t show racism. The fact is hiring is a competitive sales process, and the most successful candidates are the ones who can come across to hiring managers as just like rock-stars they&#39ve hired in the past. Anyone who departs from their vision in the way they dress, the dialect they speak, or the subculture they come from will be at a disadvantage. Most hiring decisions--perhaps your own bear this out?--are ultimately based on fear for one&#39s own success, not hatred of the candidate or the desire to keep anyone down.

Which is to say there&#39s no such thing as a completely level playing field. Studies do indeed confirm that minorities, the ugly, and the bald all have to work harder to do as well. The short will be severely disadvantaged to play professional basketball, the fat to be fashion models, and the crippled to be track stars.

So liberals want to extend blacks extra help, but I disagree with jwest&#39s characterization that it&#39s because of genetic disadvantage. It&#39s because the inertia built into the system makes it hard to shake the legacy of the past. It&#39s harder for Da&#39Wan to get hired because the last three superstars were Josh, Steve, and Alexei, not Shaquanda, Kshawn and Tyrone. And those last three never applied, because they got diverted earlier in their careers, maybe because of the same pattern, maybe for a hundred reasons. It&#39s inertia, but it&#39s not fair to whites to call it racism.

The disagreement is over what to do about it. In my mind, the answer is clear: demolish the legal structures keeping minorities back. But then stop, and be clear that the onus is on them to go the rest of the way--and they&#39re going to have to work extra hard to accomplish it. It&#39s not fair, but anything more the government tries to do ultimately works against them in the long run.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

tidbits — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:43:14 -0000

Pacatrue - Thank you for the brief education on Ebonics. I now know something I didn&#39t know before you posted.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

pacatrue — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:24:23 -0000

Re-reading the quote: "but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language," I see I might have to say a bit more to explain my comment.

Ebonics is English. It&#39s a dialect of English spoken by millions of people that has historically been centered in the black community. It is not made-up, irregular, stupid, or uneducated. It has it&#39s own rules of grammar and phonology, just like every dialect of English does. Non-native speakers trying to speak Ebonics can speak it incorrectly just like people can speak other dialects incorrectly.

Most common dialects of English differ from one another in the sounds they use, typically in the vowels. That&#39s the biggest difference. Some dialects also differ by grammar a bit as well. Southern English has patterns like "I might could do that" and "I&#39m fixing to do that". Those grammatical patterns don&#39t exist in Standard English. Ebonics also has a few different grammatical patterns, such as the use of the double negative, and the use of the word "be" for certain types of habitual patterns.

But these are all just different grammatical and phonological (sound) choices and they are all simply dialects of English. Moreover, this isn&#39t simply an opinion. People have been studying the dialects of English for several decades now, including Ebonics. The primary grammatical structures are documented and clear. It&#39s not political correctness. It&#39s information.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

pacatrue — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:10:53 -0000

jwest might be interested to know that many people he wishes to communicate with here skip posts that are full of "good-natured goading" that comes across mostly as vitriol, disdain, and bomb throwing. I stopped reading Shaun Mullen&#39s posts for that reason. I also skip several regular commenters on both the left and the right on this site for that reason as well. I would list those people, but it would only start a fight.

That said, I did read almost all the posts on this site and as a linguist I found it... amusing? ironic? that jwest attacks liberals for having disdain for one dialect of English, often called a Southern accent (I&#39ve got in several similar arguments myself over this issue, though the prejudice against southern accents is not exclusively a liberal one), and yet on the other hand attacks a different dialect of English, known as Ebonics (it&#39s also called African-American Vernacular English or sometimes Black English). In fact, his disdain for this centuries old dialect, spoken by rural people and urban people, youths and parents, workers and farmers and store owners, is so great that he seems to think if an employer has a hint that someone speaks this dialect, then they should think twice about hiring them.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

casualobserver — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:51:15 -0000

@@Kathy,

“Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.”

”How?”@@

And you call yourself a liberal? You ought to be ashamed.

3 syllable girl&#39s name with accent on the second.

Out of vogue white boy&#39s name, beginning with a hard consonant, contracted and with an accented second syllable.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

GreenDreams — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:45:48 -0000

jwest, you are evidence enough that not having an anglo name, even with an advanced degree and years of managerial experience at a fortune 100 company, could imply a poor mastery of English. Pitiful.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

jwest — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:10:56 -0000

GD,

From your Chicago study:

“Bertrand cautions that employers may infer not just the race of the applicant, but also social class, assuming that certain African-American sounding names are associated with having more underprivileged backgrounds.”

Social class equals speaking ability. Just ask Eliza Doolittle.

Kathy,

“Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.”

”How?”

How? How? Let me pause for a moment because the oxygen was temporarily sucked from my body by the shear mass of the stupidity of that question.

(sigh)

There. I seem to have recovered. Let’s pass on the particulars of this item so that I’m not accused of saying something unkind.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

Gootmud — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:26:41 -0000

GreenDreams, IMHO those studies don't show racism. Getting hired is a competitive sales process, and the most successful candidates are the ones who can come across to hiring managers as just like rock-stars they've hired in the past. Anyone who departs from their vision in the way they dress, the dialect they speak, or the subculture they come from will be at a disadvantage. Most hiring decisions--perhaps your own experience bears this out?--are ultimately based on fear for one's own success, not hatred of the candidate or the desire to keep anyone down.

Which is to say there's no such thing as a completely level playing field. Studies do indeed confirm that minorities, the ugly, and the bald all have to work harder to do as well. The short will be severely disadvantaged to play professional basketball, the fat to be fashion models, and the crippled to be track stars. Life is unfair, and not only that, it's unfair along quite arbitrary dimensions, not along the tidy racial lines of affirmative action laws.

So liberals want to extend blacks extra help, but I disagree with jwest's characterization that it's because of genetic disadvantage. It's because the inertia built into the system makes it hard to shake the legacy of the past. It's harder for Da'Wan to get hired because the last three superstars were Josh, Steve, and Alexei, not Shaquanda, Kshawn and Tyrone. And those last three never applied, because they got diverted earlier in their careers, maybe because of the same pattern, maybe for a hundred other reasons.

At least that's one theory. Another is that they just don't want the job, or they didn't study hard enough to qualify for it, or any of a host of reasons it's presumptuous to second-guess. Either way, it's not fair to whites to claim that their prejudice is responsible for the outcome.

Even assuming blacks are reliably victims of this cultural inertia, the left and right disagree over what to do about it. In my mind, the answer is clear: demolish the legal structures keeping minorities back. But then stop, and be clear that the onus is on them to go the rest of the way--and they're going to have to work extra hard to accomplish it. It's not fair, but anything more the government tries to do creates more unfairness and works against the minorities in the long run.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

GreenDreams — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:27:00 -0000

Jwest, I never try to convince you of anything. I believe your views are driven by ideology and not subject to intellectual consideration. The research you seem to think is tainted, is not a single study but has been proven from England, Chicago and Australia</font>. The Chicago link describes the study design in detail. Feel free to find flaws in it. The authors are Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

casualobserver — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:49:41 -0000

And your own comment again highlights our different ways of perceiving things.

You weight all the words equally, where as I weight the punchline heavier.

No matter.........as is typical, the government has since (since the 60&#39s) issued a bunch of bureaucratic and formulaic red tape regarding affirmative action and, is also typical, we have learned how to competently comply with the letter and totally ignore the spirit. Life goes on.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

tidbits — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:43:14 -0000

Pacatrue - Thank you for the brief education on Ebonics. I now know something I didn't know before you posted.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

pacatrue — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:24:23 -0000

Re-reading the quote: "but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language," I see I might have to say a bit more to explain my comment.

Ebonics is English. It's a dialect of English spoken by millions of people that has historically been centered in the black community. It is not made-up, irregular, stupid, or uneducated. It has its own rules of grammar and phonology, just like every dialect of English does. Non-native speakers trying to speak Ebonics can speak it incorrectly just like people can speak other dialects incorrectly.

Most common dialects of English differ from one another in the sounds they use, typically in the vowels. That's the biggest difference. Some dialects also differ by grammar a bit as well. Southern English has patterns like "I might could do that" and "I'm fixing to do that". Those grammatical patterns don't exist in Standard English. Ebonics also has a few different grammatical patterns, such as the use of the double negative, and the use of the word "be" for certain types of habitual patterns.

But these are all just different grammatical and phonological (sound) choices and they are all simply dialects of English. Moreover, this isn't simply an opinion. People have been studying the dialects of English for several decades now, including Ebonics. The primary grammatical structures are documented and clear. It's not political correctness. It's information.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

pacatrue — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:10:53 -0000

That said, I did read almost all the comments on this post and as a linguist I found it... amusing? ironic? that jwest attacks liberals for having disdain for one dialect of English, often called a Southern accent (I've got in several similar arguments myself over this issue, though the prejudice against southern accents is not exclusively a liberal one), and yet on the other hand attacks a different dialect of English, known as Ebonics (it's also called African-American Vernacular English or sometimes Black English). In fact, his disdain for this centuries old dialect, spoken by rural people and urban people, youths and parents, workers and farmers and store owners, is so great that he seems to think if an employer has a hint that someone speaks this dialect, then they should think twice about hiring them.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

Polimom — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:02:13 -0000

jwest -- sorry it took so long. Life intervened for a few hours.

I did read your article, though, and I liked it a lot -- both in context of this discussion, and generally. Furthermore, I see where you&#39ve found nuance that doubtless set your teeth on edge.

Rather than go into great length here, though, I&#39m probably going to put up a separate post about that article. Something titled along the lines of, "It&#39s a Southern Thing".

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

Polimom — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:51:13 -0000

CO -- thanks for hunting that down. I see that it&#39s the last sentence upon which this entire argument rests:

"We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

Indeed, taking that sentence and hanging it out there on its own calls into question the desired end result of the entire exercise. In context, though (and I&#39m sure you knew I&#39d say this) -- this quote does not support the "AA was set up to make up for a genetic deficiency" argument in any way whatsoever. I don&#39t see, in fact, even an implication -- unless one severs the statement from its setting, both temporally and contextually.

As for me tending to be too "literal".... yes, I absolutely do approach some discussions frontally. I&#39ve found that nuance can be too easily misread, and so I try to clarify before engaging when possible.

:>

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

kathykattenburg — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:40:54 -0000

Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.

How?

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

jwest — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:55:58 -0000

GD,

Studies that use suspect methodology such as the one you mentioned lead to erroneous and unfair conclusions.

Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language. Personally, I believe that a black candidate has the edge over a white applicant if their speaking skills are equal.

Barack Obama found the need to go by “Barry” prior to his national introduction. People also know that an easily spelled and remembered name helps in business situations.

As I mentioned before, some determined people can find racism in the vacuum of space. This study was probably commissioned and carried out under this mindset.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

casualobserver — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:51:15 -0000

@@Kathy,

“Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.”

”How?”@@

And you call yourself a liberal? You ought to be ashamed.

3 syllable girl's name with accent on the second.

Out of vogue white boy's name, beginning with a hard consonant, contracted and with an accented second syllable.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

GreenDreams — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:45:48 -0000

jwest, you are evidence enough that not having an anglo name, even with an advanced degree and years of managerial experience at a fortune 100 company, could imply a poor mastery of English. Pitiful.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

GreenDreams — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:35:11 -0000

Just a comment on the "right to compete" meme. The problem, unfortunately, is that racial prejudice is still widespread and there is not a "level playing field" right to compete. This was proven by a study done a few years ago about employment opportunities. The study submitted a matched pairs of employment applications to employers. Thousands were sent out. In each pair, the applicants had identical education and work experience. The only difference was that in each pair, one had an African-American sounding name. Those applications received fewer responses, and far fewer invitations to interview than those of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant applicants, John, Mary or Bill. Prejudice is very much still with us, and we still have a long way to go to provide the opportunities for minorities that are already represented for Caucasians. The ideal that anyone can prosper with only the "right to compete" is unfortunately, not yet a reality.

Re: “Policing” One’s Thoughts

jwest — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:28:12 -0000

Tidbits,

I would like to believe that there is some way to improve communications and understanding, but I hold little hope. This is contrary to my normally optimistic outlook and the general conservative trait of being able to overcome any obstacle.

The reason for my pessimism is best demonstrated through a visual exercise. Think of meeting a person in a KKK hood and gown. Whatever the subject of conversation, your opinion and acceptance of whatever the person is saying will be tainted or dismissed due to your negative feelings toward the symbolism of the outfit.

This is how liberals approach conversations with conservatives. Granted, conservatives come to the table thinking leftists are incredibly naive, ignorant and cowardly, so the initial biases are not one sided. But the main problem remains that regardless what the other side says, the first reaction is to dismiss their arguments as having no merit.

It’s basic Dale Carnegie material. No matter what, you never win an argument. You can prove what you’re saying fifteen different ways from Sunday and your opponent may even fold in the end and admit defeat, but as they walk away, they’ll be saying to themselves “I know I’m right and they’re wrong”.

This is why I listen and try to learn the language of the left. Hoping that someday, I’ll be able to put a sentence together that is read the same way it was written.