Again, the emphasis of the post is “obvious truths.” But yes, I think the reaction to Summers’ talk was atypical. Gender differences and IQ and women in mathematics are standard topics in introductory psych textbooks. I think the reaction to his talk was deplorable, but I think that a big part of the explanation here has to do with “former administration official” and “university president.” People with these titles are subject to stricter rules.
I had been reading this (and its more common cousin “er”) for years before I saw someone point out that they’re just different spellings of “um” and “uh”. Edit:Not different pronunciations (modulo the difference in accent), for anyone who doesn’t know what amacfie and I are on about.
...but people (around me, at least, in the DC area) do say “Er...” literally, sometimes. It appears to be pronounced that way when the speaker wants to emphasize the pause, as far as I can tell.
I hear “er”, literally (rhotically), quite infrequently and I always assumed that people said it that way because of seeing “er” in written English and not knowing that it was intended to be pronounced “uh”; similarly, I’ve heard “arg” spoken by people who thought “argh” from written English was pronounced that way.
In my previous commented I restrained myself from linking to Ant Phillips’s Um & Aargh but now you’ve given me sufficient excuse. (The chorus sounds to my American ears like “um and ah”.)
’My reading of the use of “erm” here is as a replacement for “my repetition of the word taboo seems awkward in this context (since the point is we don’t share a mutual understanding of the word) but I don’t know a better word of phrasing this”.
Do the British commonly use “erm”? I didn’t know that.
I think you may have missed the point. “Erm” is just a British spelling of what Americans would spell “um.” The pronunciations are quote close. (Similarly, British writers use “er” where Americans would write “uh.”)
From Middle English, from Old Norse um, umb (“around, about”), from Proto-Germanic umbi (“around”), from Proto-Indo-European ambʰi- (“by, around”). Cognate with Old English ymbe (“around”). More at umbe.
Also, I’ve ignored the recordings—I actually can’t listen to them on this computer—but why would there be a mispronounced pronunciation guide? I mean, wouldn’t people who aren’t US speakers correct it, if they knew better? I’m not a US speaker, and I would.
ETA: apparently “hum” may come from the old English version of this—from which we also get um and hmm. Or something.
Revisit the post. I explicitly wanted examples of obvious truths. I very clearly stated that I didn’t want statements that are “taboo” relative to a specific context. I think that university presidents saying things that correlate with “downplaying gender discrimination in the sciences” is an excellent match for things about which I’ve been quite clear. Is there any particular connotation on which I should elaborate?
What does “taboo” mean if it doesn’t mean “taboo relative to a specific context”? I don’t understand the criteria you’re using to judge other people’s answers; to the extent that I do, you seem to be using “taboo” in a nonstandard way. All taboos are context-dependent.
You’re treating “context-dependent” in a trivial way. I am not. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be floating the question, since presumably we can whisper about any statement to a close confidant.
I still don’t understand what you mean. I would ask you to give an example of something you think is genuinely taboo, but I suppose the reason you posted this is because you can’t think of any. Might I suggest the possibility that whatever definition you have in mind, it’s too strict and isn’t what other people mean by taboo?
I still don’t understand what you mean. I would ask you to give an example of something you think is genuinely taboo, but I suppose the reason you posted this is because you can’t think of any.
Correct, in the specific sense I meant, i.e. factual, well-established truths, in pretty much any venue, etc. I’ll continue in a moment.
Might I suggest the possibility that whatever definition you have in mind, it’s too strict and isn’t what other people mean by taboo?
Tell me a true statement that is taboo like this: “niggers, unlike most races, are subhuman and untrainable, and are intellectually similar to the chimpanzee.”
I would suggest that that statement isn’t taboo by your own definition either, because there are contexts (such as speaking in the year 1900 among Klan members) in which it’s probably acceptable to say. Every taboo is dependent on context.
It doesn’t have to be that statement, either. Tell me something that comes close to that, something so grave that it even approaches such a statement, something even near a thing so awful that I have trouble repeating it and feel awful for even making such a proposition exist.
I’m not proposing a new and better definition of “taboo.” I’m proposing a new and useful notion of taboo under particular circumstances: what true things can we really not say? If we can talk about them but must do so carefully, let’s do it carefully.
Here’s the other side of this usefulness: there’s a moral to the story here. Statements that are marginalized are often marginalized for good reason. People who claim to be speaking taboo truths are giving us and themselves a very self-serving story in which they feature as heroes. I think it’s a worthwhile caution, particularly in a forum so full of contrarians like myself.
I think we’re trying to do different things with similar concepts. Frustrated people who think that “taboo” facts consequently receive too little attention get a new answer: learn to communicate. Right now, they form communities of whiners. Some of these things are important. And they can be talked about. Figure out how to talk about them. I’m offering a means of improvement here.
Right now, they say that “race realism” is “beyond the pale.” But is it? Or is it that “beyond the pale” looks much more like the statement I gave in my previous comment?
Don’t think of not-actually-taboo things as taboo. It sounds like sound advice to me.
You’re not proposing a definition, you’re just proposing a notion? I have difficulty here distinguishing between a notion and a definition and it’s not because I don’t speak English. You seem to be making a very artificial distinction.
Of course the distinction is artificial, but it is worth making, as I explain in the rest of the comment. Is there something wrong with my motivations?
Once people start talking about things that are “beyond the pale”, they become less taboo, at least in some contexts. So I’m not sure you can find what you are looking for—something obvious that no one at all will discuss.
To emphasize: I’m not interested. Go back to the thread about misogyny and give us more of your profound insights about the harm done at Steubenville. I think you’re a scumbag, and I think you’re either sockpuppeting or—much worse—part of a small coterie of scumbags that runs around here downvoting everything you disagree with while whining about freedom.
I’m not going to pretend to be interested in what you have to say.
This isn’t simply your conversation. This is a public conversation and I strongly suspect I’m not the only one interested in your response to my question in the parent.
What one wants and what one needs are frequently different things.
Now as to what you what. Judging by your behavior in this and the misogyny thread, what you appear to what is a way to quickly dismiss any arguments that challenge your comfortable world view.
Do you think that the position that Larry Summers was in is atypical, or do you think that he was bad at carefully introducing good topics?
Again, the emphasis of the post is “obvious truths.” But yes, I think the reaction to Summers’ talk was atypical. Gender differences and IQ and women in mathematics are standard topics in introductory psych textbooks. I think the reaction to his talk was deplorable, but I think that a big part of the explanation here has to do with “former administration official” and “university president.” People with these titles are subject to stricter rules.
It is no longer clear to me what you mean by “taboo.” Can you, erm, taboo this?
Any particular reason why you write “erm” even though (I assume) you don’t have a British accent?
I had been reading this (and its more common cousin “er”) for years before I saw someone point out that they’re just different spellings of “um” and “uh”. Edit: Not different pronunciations (modulo the difference in accent), for anyone who doesn’t know what amacfie and I are on about.
...but people (around me, at least, in the DC area) do say “Er...” literally, sometimes. It appears to be pronounced that way when the speaker wants to emphasize the pause, as far as I can tell.
I hear “er”, literally (rhotically), quite infrequently and I always assumed that people said it that way because of seeing “er” in written English and not knowing that it was intended to be pronounced “uh”; similarly, I’ve heard “arg” spoken by people who thought “argh” from written English was pronounced that way.
In my previous commented I restrained myself from linking to Ant Phillips’s Um & Aargh but now you’ve given me sufficient excuse. (The chorus sounds to my American ears like “um and ah”.)
Edit: Grumble grumble Markdown parser bug grumble grumble.
...but “argh” is pronounced that way… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOlKRMXvTiA :) Since the late 90s, at least.
’My reading of the use of “erm” here is as a replacement for “my repetition of the word taboo seems awkward in this context (since the point is we don’t share a mutual understanding of the word) but I don’t know a better word of phrasing this”.
Do the British commonly use “erm”? I didn’t know that.
I think you may have missed the point. “Erm” is just a British spelling of what Americans would spell “um.” The pronunciations are quote close. (Similarly, British writers use “er” where Americans would write “uh.”)
Really? I’ve always considered those distinct sounds, but then I read a lot from both sides of the Atlantic as a kid.
Here’s some evidence.
Er: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/er#Etymology_1
Uh: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uh#Pronunciation
Erm: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/erm
Um: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/um#Etymology_1
I think the recordings at those pages are misleading, because they’re all from a US speaker. The phonetic markings are what to look at.
Um … evidence?
pronounced: /ɜː/
etymology: copying the sound people make when hesitating.
pronounced: /ʌː/
No listed etymology, but attached to a list of such sounds from various languages.
pronunciation: no phonetic markings listed; recording only.
no etymology listed, but attached to an entirely different list of such sounds in other languages.
pronounciation: /ʊm/
etymology:
Also, I’ve ignored the recordings—I actually can’t listen to them on this computer—but why would there be a mispronounced pronunciation guide? I mean, wouldn’t people who aren’t US speakers correct it, if they knew better? I’m not a US speaker, and I would.
ETA: apparently “hum” may come from the old English version of this—from which we also get um and hmm. Or something.
Exactly. As an American, I obviously prefer “er” instead.
It’s more fun? I dunno.
Revisit the post. I explicitly wanted examples of obvious truths. I very clearly stated that I didn’t want statements that are “taboo” relative to a specific context. I think that university presidents saying things that correlate with “downplaying gender discrimination in the sciences” is an excellent match for things about which I’ve been quite clear. Is there any particular connotation on which I should elaborate?
What does “taboo” mean if it doesn’t mean “taboo relative to a specific context”? I don’t understand the criteria you’re using to judge other people’s answers; to the extent that I do, you seem to be using “taboo” in a nonstandard way. All taboos are context-dependent.
You’re treating “context-dependent” in a trivial way. I am not. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be floating the question, since presumably we can whisper about any statement to a close confidant.
I still don’t understand what you mean. I would ask you to give an example of something you think is genuinely taboo, but I suppose the reason you posted this is because you can’t think of any. Might I suggest the possibility that whatever definition you have in mind, it’s too strict and isn’t what other people mean by taboo?
Correct, in the specific sense I meant, i.e. factual, well-established truths, in pretty much any venue, etc. I’ll continue in a moment.
Tell me a true statement that is taboo like this: “niggers, unlike most races, are subhuman and untrainable, and are intellectually similar to the chimpanzee.”
I would suggest that that statement isn’t taboo by your own definition either, because there are contexts (such as speaking in the year 1900 among Klan members) in which it’s probably acceptable to say. Every taboo is dependent on context.
Okay. I think this is too strict. (Also, note that I’m posting under my real name.)
It doesn’t have to be that statement, either. Tell me something that comes close to that, something so grave that it even approaches such a statement, something even near a thing so awful that I have trouble repeating it and feel awful for even making such a proposition exist.
Qrgnvyrq naq snpghnyyl npphengr qrfpevcgvbaf bs jung gnxrf cynpr qhevat gur jbefg sbezf bs gbegher, zhgvyngvba, naq qrtenqngvba. (V jvyy abg cebivqr rknzcyrf.)
I would guess that lawyers and law-enforcement personnel have generated or commissioned many court documents containing lots of that.
I’m not proposing a new and better definition of “taboo.” I’m proposing a new and useful notion of taboo under particular circumstances: what true things can we really not say? If we can talk about them but must do so carefully, let’s do it carefully.
Here’s the other side of this usefulness: there’s a moral to the story here. Statements that are marginalized are often marginalized for good reason. People who claim to be speaking taboo truths are giving us and themselves a very self-serving story in which they feature as heroes. I think it’s a worthwhile caution, particularly in a forum so full of contrarians like myself.
I think we’re trying to do different things with similar concepts. Frustrated people who think that “taboo” facts consequently receive too little attention get a new answer: learn to communicate. Right now, they form communities of whiners. Some of these things are important. And they can be talked about. Figure out how to talk about them. I’m offering a means of improvement here.
Right now, they say that “race realism” is “beyond the pale.” But is it? Or is it that “beyond the pale” looks much more like the statement I gave in my previous comment?
Don’t think of not-actually-taboo things as taboo. It sounds like sound advice to me.
Have you read Paul Graham’s essay What you can’t say? The reason I ask is that it addresses several mistakes you keep making.
You’re not proposing a definition, you’re just proposing a notion? I have difficulty here distinguishing between a notion and a definition and it’s not because I don’t speak English. You seem to be making a very artificial distinction.
Of course the distinction is artificial, but it is worth making, as I explain in the rest of the comment. Is there something wrong with my motivations?
Once people start talking about things that are “beyond the pale”, they become less taboo, at least in some contexts. So I’m not sure you can find what you are looking for—something obvious that no one at all will discuss.
So let me get this straight. You want something that’s taboo in every public context except the LW forum?
To emphasize: I’m not interested. Go back to the thread about misogyny and give us more of your profound insights about the harm done at Steubenville. I think you’re a scumbag, and I think you’re either sockpuppeting or—much worse—part of a small coterie of scumbags that runs around here downvoting everything you disagree with while whining about freedom.
I’m not going to pretend to be interested in what you have to say.
No, I want a conversation that doesn’t involve you.
This isn’t simply your conversation. This is a public conversation and I strongly suspect I’m not the only one interested in your response to my question in the parent.
What one wants and what one needs are frequently different things.
Now as to what you what. Judging by your behavior in this and the misogyny thread, what you appear to what is a way to quickly dismiss any arguments that challenge your comfortable world view.