Because I'm slow, that's rhetorical, yeah? In which case, what term would you prefer we use to demonstrate something like this: A qualified white person is turned away from a job, which is given to a less qualified minority in order to promote "equal job opportunity"? In effect the white person's race was used against him/her = racism, based on some definitions, except it's a typically non-stigmatized person. (I understand the bigger, complicated argument and am not picking a side, I just want to know how you'd talk about this debate w/o saying reverse racism).
I'm prob annoying you b/c you just wanted to vent and here I come all serious about RACISM discussions.
And on another note. There was a study done on grammar (ew, right?) and they found that grammar isn't innate (lamest use of researching dollars ever). Tell me how you would interpret the following sentence then I'll come back and harass you about it:
Gretchen, you are not annoying me. I do take this subject seriously, and I love that you want to discuss it with me. I have answered you in a new post. :)
"The soldier was hit by the sailor." I interpret as, the sailor hit the soldier. Is there a nuance I'm missing?
I guess a shockingly large number of people read it as "The soldier hit the sailor"...the whole "hit by the" doesn't register (the passive voice confuses people). The major conclusion they walked away with was "Gee, people are dumb, we better re-write public signs and notices so they're not confused".
That's a good conclusion, I guess. I mean, it would be completely beyond the realm of possibility to uphold proper standards of education. Double plus ungood.
Because I'm slow, that's rhetorical, yeah? In which case, what term would you prefer we use to demonstrate something like this:
ReplyDeleteA qualified white person is turned away from a job, which is given to a less qualified minority in order to promote "equal job opportunity"? In effect the white person's race was used against him/her = racism, based on some definitions, except it's a typically non-stigmatized person. (I understand the bigger, complicated argument and am not picking a side, I just want to know how you'd talk about this debate w/o saying reverse racism).
I'm prob annoying you b/c you just wanted to vent and here I come all serious about RACISM discussions.
And on another note. There was a study done on grammar (ew, right?) and they found that grammar isn't innate (lamest use of researching dollars ever). Tell me how you would interpret the following sentence then I'll come back and harass you about it:
The soldier was hit by the sailor.
Gretchen, you are not annoying me. I do take this subject seriously, and I love that you want to discuss it with me. I have answered you in a new post. :)
ReplyDelete"The soldier was hit by the sailor." I interpret as, the sailor hit the soldier. Is there a nuance I'm missing?
I guess a shockingly large number of people read it as "The soldier hit the sailor"...the whole "hit by the" doesn't register (the passive voice confuses people). The major conclusion they walked away with was "Gee, people are dumb, we better re-write public signs and notices so they're not confused".
ReplyDeleteThat's a good conclusion, I guess. I mean, it would be completely beyond the realm of possibility to uphold proper standards of education. Double plus ungood.
ReplyDelete