[OB] Justified racism on Roshar and elsewhere

[Vissy]

Well that's all well and good, but it's all rather academic isn't it. The kind of pure hatred you describe simply doesn't exist. 

[Calderis]

43 minutes ago, Vissy said:

Well that's all well and good, but it's all rather academic isn't it. The kind of pure hatred you describe simply doesn't exist. 

I strongly disagree. When did I say anything about "pure" hatred? If anything it's rare for there not to be some level of it there. It shouldn't be, but humans are bad at regulating our emotions, and when something is done to us, the emotions we feel towards the perpetrator are expanded out onto those who remind us of them. As such, yes the hatred born in oppressed peoples is perfectly understandable, but when it expands beyond the perpetrators it is still wrong.

As I said originally, Kaladin is a fantastic example of this. His anger spilled out beyond the people who wronged him, until it reaches a point that he assumes that all lighteyes are horrible, even if they aren't aware of it. How is that any different than someone like Amaram assuming that all "Darkborn" are somehow lesser? 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Calderis

[Llarimar]

@ROSHtaFARian2.0, I think you make a very good point that adds to the discussion, which is that hatred from a higher group and reactionary hatred from the oppressed group are not the same thing, and that a distinction needs to be drawn between them.  I don't want to make it seem like I'm playing devil's advocate, because I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but there's one argument you express in particular that I take issue with.  

4 hours ago, ROSHtaFARian2.0 said:

...there is LITERALLY nothing the oppressed can do to change that dynamic, because they did nothing to merit it in the first place. Only the oppressors can decide to stop hating those they oppress, because they essentially decided to hate them in the first place, in order to support whatever agenda they had that required dehumanizing or devaluing an entire group of people.

This does sound logical - if the superior group initiated the hatred, and they did so baselessly, then only they can choose to stop the hatred, because the oppressed group never asked for it in the first place.  However, I think it's very important to remember what @Calderis said in response, which is that showing blind reactionary hatred towards all members of the oppressing group is not the same as productively fighting against that hatred, and it does indeed worsen the situation.  Just because one group of people begins displaying hatred towards another group, that does not give the oppressed group justification for violently hating them in response.  Then you get into a "You started it!  No you started it!" circular argument where the original reason for the hatred eventually becomes glossed over, and the only thing that matters is the "us versus them" mentality.  And once both groups - the oppressors and the oppressed - begin viewing each other in broad faceless categories, then any chance for reconciliation and mutual respect is lost, because everyone feels justified in their grievances, and they stop seeing the humanity of the other side.  

3 hours ago, Calderis said:

My entire point was that that kind of blind hatred alienates people who would be allies in the fight against oppression, precisely because there are people who would see equality in justice in every group. And hate prevents those alliances from forming. 

You can see this very clearly in the example with Kaladin and the lighteyes.  Kaladin hates the lighteyes so intensely that it doesn't really matter why he originally started hating them - yes, he has plenty of reasons for hating lighteyes, but it really comes down to the fact that he hates them ideologically, and he can't see beyond that.  The actions of Amaram and numerous other lighteyes have so scarred Kaladin that he has developed an ideological hatred towards the entire caste, and refuses to believe that not all of them are like that.  For example, in tWoK, Dalinar is a great champion of honor and dignity for all people, and Kaladin is unable to see this - it takes him a very long time to trust Dalinar and work together with him, because of the fact that he is so blinded by his hatred.  Throughout all the Stormlight books we've seen so far, Kaladin really struggles with this.  He cannot move past his disdain for lighteyes, even though numerous lighteyes he has met - Dalinar, Adolin, Shallan - are all good people who respect Kaladin, and are doing little or nothing to actively fuel the hatred between the two groups.  His hatred is making the situation worse - even though it was "started" by the superior group, Kaladin is contributing a great deal of fuel to the fire to keep the hatred alive.      

So no, the oppressed group is not powerless.  If there are people in the superior group (like Dalinar) who are trying to heal the wounds of hatred, they can only do so if people in the oppressed group (like Kaladin) are likewise willing to let go of their reactionary hatred as well.  Respect and compassion are required from people in both groups for any real progress to be made.  This can be seen in people like Kaladin's parents, who taught him to respect all people and even wanted him to marry a lighteyes girl - it was only Kaladin's experiences later in life, not his childhood upbringing, which soured him on lighteyes.  Kaladin's parents do not show hatred towards lighteyes, and are able to see the good in them, and Dalinar does not show hatred towards darkeyes, and is able to see the good in them as well, and it is this mutual compassion from both groups that is required for the systemic hatred to heal.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Llarimar

[Calderis]

@Llarimar exactly. In the initial stages yes, it is completely the fault of those creating the imbalanced system, but once the impetus of momentum is in place, both sides need to work together.

It's what makes these kinds of issues so storming hard to overcome. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Calderis

[Vissy]

3 hours ago, Calderis said:

I strongly disagree. When did I say anything about "pure" hatred? If anything it's rare for there not to be some level of it there. It shouldn't be, but humans are bad at regulating our emotions, and when something is done to us, the emotions we feel towards the perpetrator are expanded out onto those who remind us of them. As such, yes the hatred born in oppressed peoples is perfectly understandable, but when it expands beyond the perpetrators it is still wrong.

As I said originally, Kaladin is a fantastic example of this. His anger spilled out beyond the people who wronged him, until it reaches a point that he assumes that all lighteyes are horrible, even if they aren't aware of it. How is that any different than someone like Amaram assuming that all "Darkborn" are somehow lesser? 

What I'm saying is that hatred isn't just hatred, it's a complex emotion that is derived from one's environment. You can't detach hatred from what forms it. I'm not arguing against your whole point here, but rather just one part of it. It's also not quite right to say that hatred that expands "beyond the perpetrators" is wrong; what if you hate racism, and despite there being obviously racist people there's also an entire system full of people that unknowingly and "innocently" perpetrate its tropes, or people who "innocently" buy into state propaganda, arguably not entirely of their own fault, and end up dehumanizing some group of people or another?

Edited May 23, 2018 by Vissy

[Calderis]

4 hours ago, Vissy said:

What I'm saying is that hatred isn't just hatred, it's a complex emotion that is derived from one's environment. You can't detach hatred from what forms it. I'm not arguing against your whole point here, but rather just one part of it. It's also not quite right to say that hatred that expands "beyond the perpetrators" is wrong; what if you hate racism, and despite there being obviously racist people there's also an entire system full of people that unknowingly and "innocently" perpetrate its tropes, or people who "innocently" buy into state propaganda, arguably not entirely of their own fault, and end up dehumanizing some group of people or another?

I guess in that, you're actually applying what I'm trying to say, but only to one side. 

No one is innocent. Just ignorant. No one is without hate. Most of it is just slight interactions that people take for granted, completely unaware of their own bias. 

I honestly believe that if someone truly believes that they are guilt free in this matter, then they aren't looking at themselves hard enough. 

[Vissy]

Well that's all well and good since I didn't talk about guilt at all.

[Llarimar]

4 hours ago, Vissy said:

Well that's all well and good since I didn't talk about guilt at all.

...What?  I'm honestly a little confused by this back-and-forth, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.  I just want to review what's been said so far...

20 hours ago, Calderis said:

My entire point was that that kind of blind hatred alienates people who would be allies in the fight against oppression, precisely because there are people who would see equality in justice in every group. And hate prevents those alliances from forming. 

So yes, hate is hate. 

18 hours ago, Vissy said:

Well that's all well and good, but it's all rather academic isn't it. The kind of pure hatred you describe simply doesn't exist. 

17 hours ago, Calderis said:

I strongly disagree. When did I say anything about "pure" hatred? If anything it's rare for there not to be some level of it there. It shouldn't be, but humans are bad at regulating our emotions, and when something is done to us, the emotions we feel towards the perpetrator are expanded out onto those who remind us of them. As such, yes the hatred born in oppressed peoples is perfectly understandable, but when it expands beyond the perpetrators it is still wrong.

13 hours ago, Vissy said:

What I'm saying is that hatred isn't just hatred, it's a complex emotion that is derived from one's environment. You can't detach hatred from what forms it. I'm not arguing against your whole point here, but rather just one part of it. It's also not quite right to say that hatred that expands "beyond the perpetrators" is wrong; what if you hate racism, and despite there being obviously racist people there's also an entire system full of people that unknowingly and "innocently" perpetrate its tropes, or people who "innocently" buy into state propaganda, arguably not entirely of their own fault, and end up dehumanizing some group of people or another?

9 hours ago, Calderis said:

I guess in that, you're actually applying what I'm trying to say, but only to one side. 

No one is innocent. Just ignorant. No one is without hate. Most of it is just slight interactions that people take for granted, completely unaware of their own bias. 

I honestly believe that if someone truly believes that they are guilt free in this matter, then they aren't looking at themselves hard enough. 

4 hours ago, Vissy said:

Well that's all well and good since I didn't talk about guilt at all.

Yes, you were talking about guilt because you said that there are people who unkowingly and "innocently" perpetrate racism.  You did put the word in quotations, so you may have been implying that "innocent" perpetrators of racism are not really innocent at all.  But just using the word innocent does imply guilt on the other side - if you are not innocent in a situation, you are guilty.  So what it seemed like you were saying was "There are people who innocently perpetrate racism," and so it makes perfect sense for Calderis to respond by saying that "No one is innocent.  Just ignorant. ... I honestly believe that if someone truly believes that they are guilt free in this matter [a synonym for innocent, which is the word you used], then they aren't looking at themselves hard enough."  Then for you to say "I wasn't talking about guilt" is just kind of circular and contradictory because you were referring to guilt indirectly when you said that sometimes people are "innocent" (or "guilt-free") perpetrators of racism.    

Edited May 23, 2018 by Llarimar

[ROSHtaFARian2.0]

The thing is, there's no such thing as a member of a group of oppressors that 'has done nothing' to a group being oppressed, because we're talking about society wide systems here. Many members of groups of oppressors would say they've done nothing TO the group their own actively oppresses, but inaction is an action in and of itself. If they're not doing anything to actively combat and dismantle the systems of power their group uses to keep that other group oppressed, they ARE in fact doing something to that oppressed group themselves. They are saying implicitly and through their own inaction against the status quo, that they are alright with the status quo (which does, it can't be forgotten, benefit them in a variety of ways). They are saying 'the fact that you are undeservedly oppressed by members of a group that have more power than you and that I have equal power to, does not affect me personally enough or move me enough that I feel a need to use my power to help change that because it is right and good and moral, this is your problem, not mine.' Enabling oppression - even in the form of passive condonement - IS supporting oppression, and yes, that absolutely is something members of an oppressed group can hate them for.

If you are on fire, and there is a person standing nearby watching you burn and doing nothing to help you, nothing to put the fire out, get you a blanket, grab some water, call for help - are you going to hate that person, even if they didn't set you on fire themselves? The fact that they see you suffering, see you dying, but it doesn't affect them personally enough that they care....that's not cause for hatred?

And then when you start yelling at that person "I'm on fire, I'm suffering, I'm dying here, I need help, get me some water, what's wrong with you?" and that person starts yelling back about not making them feel guilty, this isn't their fault, they didn't do anything to you personally so why are you acting like they're the enemy, and suddenly they're having an argument with you, a person ON FIRE AND IN ACTIVE PAIN AND SUFFERING about how their guilt and feelings and emotional conflict because of what you yelled at them is just as big a problem and more of a priority for them then the fact that you're on fire and they could do something to help you but they're too busy being worried about how you've made them feel and justifying that's a bigger issue than your immediate pain and suffering?

You're not gonna hate that person who won't just shut up and help you because they've somehow taken your pain and suffering and made it about them and how it affects them personally? 

Because you know what? There may be people standing around who DO try and help and put out that fire, and like....they may get caught in the crossfire of the person on fire yelling at all the people standing around doing nothing. But a person taking action to put out the fire because they see you suffering and want to help is NOT going to care that they get yelled at even while trying to help because the person is ON FIRE AND IN PAIN and lashing out due to suffering and there are a LOT of people standing around not caring and doing nothing about it, and someone who actually cares about your suffering is not going to begrudge the fact that in your active state of pain and suffering, your aim is a little off and they got hit with some vitriol they know they didn't deserve. Because THAT person understands it is not about THEM, that if they only help you when its convenient for them or you make them feel good about themselves for helping, they'd still be making it about them when it should be purely about "regardless of all other facts, this person is suffering and I want to help them."

Edited May 23, 2018 by ROSHtaFARian2.0

[Llarimar]

Okay, @ROSHtaFARian2.0, a couple of thoughts. 

57 minutes ago, ROSHtaFARian2.0 said:

If you are on fire, and there is a person standing nearby watching you burn and doing nothing to help you, nothing to put the fire out, get you a blanket, grab some water, call for help - are you going to hate that person, even if they didn't set you on fire themselves? The fact that they see you suffering, see you dying, but it doesn't affect them personally enough that they care....that's not cause for hatred?

No.  It's not a justified cause for hatred.  Talking about a "justifiable" cause for hatred is just kind of weird and antithetical to basic decency and humanitarian kindness (yes, I realize the title of this thread is "Justified Racism on Roshar," but I have since decided that I should have used a different word than "justified").  Especially in the example that you give, in which the person who is standing nearby is not doing anything to actively fuel the hatred, it is of course not justified to hate them - perhaps you can be annoyed or frustrated with them, but hatred is too strong of a word and is unwarranted.  And if the person who is on fire does begin feeling blanket hatred towards them and all other members of the oppressing group of people, that is when reasonable discourse and progress stops towards healing the hatred, because everyone just ideologically hates each other and no one is willing to work together. 

57 minutes ago, ROSHtaFARian2.0 said:

Because you know what? There may be people standing around who DO try and help and put out that fire, and like....they may get caught in the crossfire of the person on fire yelling at all the people standing around doing nothing. But a person taking action to put out the fire because they see you suffering and want to help is NOT going to care that they get yelled at even while trying to help because the person is ON FIRE AND IN PAIN and lashing out due to suffering and there are a LOT of people standing around not caring and doing nothing about it, and someone who actually cares about your suffering is not going to begrudge the fact that in your active state of pain and suffering, your aim is a little off and they got hit with some vitriol they know they didn't deserve. Because THAT person understands it is not about THEM, that if they only help you when its convenient for them or you make them feel good about themselves for helping, they'd still be making it about them when it should be purely about "regardless of all other facts, this person is suffering and I want to help them."

Members of the oppressing group have a responsibility to put out the fire.  However, that doesn't mean there is no responsibility for the oppressed group to not only assist the oppressing group with mending the hatred, but also to mend their own hatred as well towards the oppressed group.  If the person who is on fire ideologically hates the people who set them on fire, they are not going to stop ideologically hating them just because a few members of the oppressing group stoop over to try and smother the flames.  Once the flames are put out, what do you think will happen then?  The person who was burning on the ground will just stand up and say, "Oh, I'm all better now, thanks for your help, guys!"  No, of course not - there will still be intense hatred simmering between the two groups - in order for the hatred to truly heal in the long term, both the oppressed and the oppressors need to show mutual compassion and understanding.  They both have a responsibility.  If someone is trying to eliminate hatred, and the hated group is yelling at them and spewing vitriol, then of course that is going to put them off and discourage them from wanting to help - especially if they themselves did not directly start the hatred in the first place.   Compassion, empathy and logical discourse on both sides are required at every step of the healing process in order for hatred to be mended.  Meeting blind hatred with blind anger does nothing to solve the situation, and will undoubtedly discourage and put off people from the oppressing group who are trying to help.

57 minutes ago, ROSHtaFARian2.0 said:

"regardless of all other facts, this person is suffering and I want to help them."

This is very nice and idealistic, but in the real world, very few people are like this.  If you are trying to help someone, and that person is actively yelling at you, and accusing you of things that aren't directly your fault, then of course you are going to be put off, even if you genuinely want to end their suffering.  Because in order for hatred to be mended, the oppressed group must want to end the hatred, and if they are spewing vitriol at the people who are trying to help them, I think that's evidence that they don't want to end the hatred at all.  Because the truth is, people like tribalism and social groups, and if the oppressed group is determined to hate the oppressing group, then nothing is going to change, even if members of the oppressing group are trying to make a difference.  

In Stormlight, which is what got us started on all of this, it's not just that Kaladin has been directly hurt by lighteyes.  He is at a point where, regardless of his past experiences, he ideologically wants to hate them, and he wants to believe that they are selfish and cruel.  He is very loyal and tribal with his support of the darkeyes, to the point where all of his logic has been reduced to an "us versus them" mentality.  So even though he has less of a responsibility than the lighteyes do to put out the fire (because he didn't start it in the first place), he still has a responsibility, and the hatred will not end unless he does his part.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Llarimar

[Llarimar]

Also on a side note, not to distract from the intense discussions we're having, but I'm quite surprised this thread has lasted so long and has racked up so many posts - it didn't seem to me like the type of thread that would fill three pages when I started it.   Thank you to everyone who has participated, and I'm so thankful we've been able to courteously express our thoughts and opinions here.  And I hope nobody has been offended, since a lot of this thread has dealt with touchy subjects like racism and religion.  Hopefully we can keep the conversation civil and stimulating, and I hope everyone's enjoying these discussions! 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Llarimar

[ROSHtaFARian2.0]

Yeah, I'm going to bow out of this conversation, because when you respond to the example 'how would you feel if you were on fire, in pain and suffering and dying and a person near you was watching, doing nothing' with "you could feel ANNOYED or FRUSTRATED" but hatred, no, that's too far, that's not justified.....like, we are never going to reach an agreement because I do not think it is my ideals that are the problem.

Sorry, I just think that the viewpoint that most people are inherently selfish is a convenient self-justification people make to never actually act towards change. They don't have to as long as they feel everyone else is just as self-motivated as themselves. I think there actually are quite a lot of people in the world whose first response to seeing a person on fire would be to do what they can to put it out regardless of what the person is yelling at them. That a person on fire making them FEEL bad isn't going to make them go, 'you know what? you don't deserve my help' and walk away, not caring that they can still hear them suffering behind them.

Literally everything you're saying keeps coming back with ways to treat victims as being as crucial to resolving the hardships their victimizers inflicted on them, and you keep quoting me while conveniently sidestepping how I've pointed out that when oppressors point to their oppressed victims' reactions to justify their continued oppression, that is a convenience, not a necessity, because they didn't need that reaction to make their first action. You seem to want so badly to hold the oppressed to a higher standard of behavior than the oppressors, because over and over you keep focusing on what the oppressed SHOULD do and the importance of THEIR actions, while treating 'of course the oppressive group should stop hating and oppressing people' like an offhanded footnote of little consequence rather than the CAUSE AND DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of an oppressor/oppressed dynamic.

I maintain if we all spent more time holding the group that's actually responsible for a dynamic accountable for perpetuating that dynamic, we'd get a lot further in ending these dynamics. When you prioritize focusing more on how the oppressed should not respond with hate WHILE continuing to be oppressed than you do on getting the oppressors to stop doing what they're doing REGARDLESS of whether it benefits them, all you do is expect more from the victims while expecting nothing from the victimizers, because based on your own theory of most people not being able to do something unless its comfortable or convenient for them, why on EARTH would oppressors ever STOP oppressing people and benefiting from having more power than them so long as they continue to feel comfortable about doing so?

 

Like, you're hypothetically worrying more about what will happen with the oppressed group's hatred of their oppressors ONCE the system of oppression is dismantled, and using that to argue more about what THEY should do than worrying about what their oppressors are doing. But the thing is.....you're literally looking to a future time/event that hasn't happened yet and using what MIGHT happen wrong after that point to justify not doing anything to fix what's wrong in the current day, because you do know, whether you admit it or not, that regardless of whatever the oppressed do, the situation will not change unless and until the oppressing group (the group with the POWER) is forced or feels shamed or pressured into changing things. And you're content to let the status quo exist because you're more worried about what MIGHT happen when the oppressed group is no longer oppressed than you are about the fact that the current oppressive dynamic exists. So.....yeah. This is all very intellectually and morally dishonest, and I have no interest in catering further to it. You expect more from the oppressed group than the oppressors because you're worried if they don't manage to be the bigger people, the oppressors might someday end up oppressed and that scares you, because you think about how bad that would be....FOR THE OPPRESSORS. And that hypothetical future is a bigger priority to you than the reality of the present where things are that bad for the oppressed.....and yet you've managed to convince yourself that you're not part of the problem and not like other members of an oppressive group who ACTUALLY make things bad for the oppressed.

Let's call a spade a spade: You're literally arguing that its okay for people to stand around watching a person on fire burn, because they don't want to do anything to put out the flames unless they're sure the person on fire isn't going to hate them for anything once they're safe and not on fire anymore. BUT at the exact same time, in the exact same post, you are also arguing that its not justified for the person on fire to HATE those who are willing to stand by and watch them suffer, because of 'basic decency and humanitarian kindness'.....that you don't actually seem to believe exists, given your stance that most people would not help a person on fire just for the sake of helping end their suffering, if that person were yelling at them and making them feel bad at the same time. It's hypocritical reasoning that only exists because you're interested in advancing an argument that benefits and validates a stance you already feel justified in taking....rather than because you're interested in your stance being formed by an argument that looks at the entire situation rather than just the facet that centers on your stake in that argument.

Edited May 23, 2018 by ROSHtaFARian2.0

[Llarimar]

1 hour ago, ROSHtaFARian2.0 said:

Yeah, I'm going to bow out of this conversation, because when you respond to the example 'how would you feel if you were on fire, in pain and suffering and dying and a person near you was watching, doing nothing' with "you could feel ANNOYED or FRUSTRATED" but hatred, no, that's too far, that's not justified.....like, we are never going to reach an agreement because I do not think it is my ideals that are the problem.

I've been assuming that your example of a person "on fire" is metaphorical.  If it is not metaphorical than I think that it overstates the urgency and desperation of most types of racism/discrimination.  If you're talking about some sort of horrific, violent, genocide, then yes, the example of a person whose body is literally on fire is relevant.  But most types of societal hatred are much more... mundane, I guess?  In Stormlight, for example, the darkeyes are oppressed, but they are not being literally set on fire.  

1 hour ago, ROSHtaFARian2.0 said:

You seem to want so badly to hold the oppressed to a higher standard of behavior than the oppressors, because over and over you keep focusing on what the oppressed SHOULD do and the importance of THEIR actions, while treating 'of course the oppressive group should stop hating and oppressing people' like an offhanded footnote of little consequence rather than the CAUSE AND DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of an oppressor/oppressed dynamic.

I think that both the oppressors and the oppressed should be held to a higher standard - that is the only way for hatred to mutually end.  Perhaps I am overly focusing on what is required of the oppressed because it is more intuitive to assume that only the oppressors have a responsibility, and I've been arguing that both have a responsibility.  And if it seems like I'm treating "of course the oppressive group should stop hating and oppressing people" as an offhand footnote, that may be because, well... it's obvious.  Of course the oppressors need to stop hating in order for the hatred to end.  But slightly less obvious (and therefore more worth discussing) is the fact that the oppressed people need to mend their hatred as well, if they have begun ideologically hating the oppressors.  Compassion is required from both sides.  This is especially true for long term healing.  

1 hour ago, ROSHtaFARian2.0 said:

Let's call a spade a spade: You're literally arguing that its okay for people to stand around watching a person on fire burn, because they don't want to do anything to put out the flames unless they're sure the person on fire isn't going to hate them for anything once they're safe and not on fire anymore. BUT at the exact same time, in the exact same post, you are also arguing that its not justified for the person on fire to HATE those who are willing to stand by and watch them suffer, because of 'basic decency and humanitarian kindness'.....that you don't actually seem to believe exists, given your stance that most people would not help a person on fire just for the sake of helping end their suffering, if that person were yelling at them and making them feel bad at the same time. It's hypocritical reasoning that only exists because you're interested in advancing an argument that benefits and validates a stance you already feel justified in taking....rather than because you're interested in your stance being formed by an argument that looks at the entire situation rather than just the facet that centers on your stake in that argument.

Once again... I think the example of someone who is on fire is kind of ridiculous, and it greatly overstates the reality of day-to-day societal hatred.  Most societal hatred/discrimination is not that dire or immediate.  Of course, if someone was ACTUALLY on fire, then everyone around them should obviously rush forward and put out the flames, regardless of what the person on fire is yelling at them.  But the way I originally read your description of somebody on fire was metaphorically - the person who set the fire is the oppressor, the person on fire is the oppressed.  Saying that people who receive societal hatred are lying on the ground, literally burning with flames is a very extreme and graphic image which kind of makes it impossible to logically discuss anything.  

1 hour ago, ROSHtaFARian2.0 said:

This is all very intellectually and morally dishonest, and I have no interest in catering further to it. You expect more from the oppressed group than the oppressors because you're worried if they don't manage to be the bigger people, the oppressors might someday end up oppressed and that scares you, because you think about how bad that would be....FOR THE OPPRESSORS. And that hypothetical future is a bigger priority to you than the reality of the present where things are that bad for the oppressed.....and yet you've managed to convince yourself that you're not part of the problem and not like other members of an oppressive group who ACTUALLY make things bad for the oppressed.

...You're getting a little to passionate about this, I think, I'm honestly starting to feel personally attacked.  When you start castigating people so personally on a fanbase discussion board it kind of crosses the line.  "The oppressors might someday end up oppressed and that scares you" ... "That hypothetical future is a bigger priority to you than the reality of the present" ... "You've managed to convince yourself that you're not part of the problem.."  These types of comments stray from a civil discussion to just plain vitriol - it honestly reminds me of a YouTube comments section where everyone just starts yelling at each other and calling each other names.  I think I've actually annoyed you and made you angry, which was not my intention at all and should obviously never happen on a friendly discussion board.  All I've been doing is responding to your comments and disagreeing with you where I genuinely disagree.  You have no idea what type of societal group or demographic I'm from, so saying that I'm afraid the oppressors will become oppressed, or that I've "managed to convince myself I'm not part of the problem" is just really uncalled for and rude. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Llarimar

[wotbibliophile]

This conversation was making me very uncomfortable. I was very relieved that @ROSHtaFARian2.0 brought up the points I wanted to bring up. Especially the point that doing nothing but still benefiting from the systematic oppression of others does make you at fault and deserving of resentment, criticism, etc.

1 hour ago, Llarimar said:

In Stormlight, which is what got us started on all of this, it's not just that Kaladin has been directly hurt by lighteyes.  He is at a point where, regardless of his past experiences, he ideologically wants to hate them, and he wants to believe that they are selfish and cruel.  He is very loyal and tribal with his support of the darkeyes, to the point where all of his logic has been reduced to an "us versus them" mentality.

I disagree. This might describe Kaladin in WOK and WOR, but he is very different by OB. Anyway, I believe feelings only matter so much. Actions matter much more. I believe Kaladin is in the right. He has every right to his feelings and he is responsible for his actions. If his feelings lead him to poor actions then it is his actions that put him in the wrong, not his feelings. Look at his actions. End of WOK the tower. End of WOR still willing to protect even if he feels hatred. Kaladin is in the right because he actions matter so much more than his feelings.

[Calderis]

@ROSHtaFARian2.0 my issue, is that in most cases, it's not hatred towards someone who sees that you're on fire and refusing to help. It's hatred towards someone in another room, unaware that you're on fire. They know that people set a lot of fires in the past, and that some groups still do, but they think that the majority of the fires have been put out.

Our entire society has been structured to keep people mollified. Pacified and distracted, and uninterested in anything outside of their interests. It sad, and frankly disgusting. 

Willful ignorance is different, and anger towards people who simply deny truth because they don't want to face the truth I completely understand. People who look at you, see the burning and then turn away are deserving of scorn.

I just disagree that it's always a choice. Too many people believe that the fires are dying, and those people aren't worthy of hatred. 

I understand completely if you want the conversation to end. I honestly mean no offense by any of this. I just see hatred as an impediment to solving the issue. 

Active oppressors should be fought. Those who are willfully ignorant should be scorned and shamed. But the truly ignorant? They need to see the truth. They need to see that the idea that this is all in the past is a lie.

[ROSHtaFARian2.0]

I know I said I was done, but I have to respond...yes, I am getting passionate. Yes, I do feel personally about stuff like oppression. But the fact that you feel personally attacked, Llarimar, is not on me. It is a reflection of your continued stance that you are only comfortable even just having discussions about oppression, let alone acting around it, so long as you feel comfortable and affirmed. At no point in any of this have I made any kind of attack on your PERSON. I have heatedly condemned the positions you've put forth here, but that is about words, ideas, not about you PERSONALLY. As you said, I don't know you. I don't know what groups you are or aren't a part of, just like you don't know the same about me. But neither have I actually inferred anything about you beyond what your own words have said about your position on this. Like, how could I be making assumptions about what groups you're part of when we're not even talking about specific groups? Everything I've said is based on YOUR words, and that I think your stance continues to benefit the oppressors more than anyone else and thus seems to speak to the fact that either consciously or unconsciously, they're the real focus of your concern - and since so much of your argument is about how people naturally prioritize themselves and their own feelings before deciding how and in what ways to take action, THAT is what makes me feel that YOU are reacting from a place of defensiveness, and thus lumping yourself in with at least some group of oppressors and identifying more with them than a group that is oppressed.

But like....we've been talking about dynamics, not specific groups. I take responsibility for my words and the things I read into what you say, but you have to take responsibility for whatever YOU read into a conversation too. If you've decided this conversation is specifically about white people and people of color, and you're a white person and reacting defensively because of that - that's on you, because you don't know that I'm not white. And because this conversation could equally be about the oppressive dynamics between straight people and gay people, cisgender and transgender, etc.

But literally nothing I've said has been personal beyond the fact that I am responding aggressively, yes, but aggressively to words and ideas that you have put forth. I condemn them, yes, but I have not done so by means of any slurs, insults, insinuations about anything you do or don't do outside of this conversation. If you feel personally attacked by that, that's something you need to reflect on. Because opposition to an idea, even passionate opposition, is not an ATTACK.

The fact that you equate anything YOU deem to be too forceful a pushback to an idea you put forth says a lot more than any ID badge about what you do or don't believe constitutes oppression. I freely admit that I do have my doubts that you are in any way qualified based on your own personal experiences (WHATEVER they may be) to determine what's 'serious' enough to merit an analogy as extreme as my person on fire metaphor. Yes, it is an extreme metaphor. But it is also not as ridiculous as you seemed to think it is, because many forms of oppression even in first world countries ARE extremely dire, urgent and life-threatening, and the fact that you have the personal distance from such a notion so as to be able to think it in the first place - that is what says to me that whatever groups you are part of, your personal experiences with being oppressed are not as much as certain others in society. You seem bemused by the fact that I'm not treating this discussion as academically and abstractly as you are able to.....and that is because it is neither academic nor abstract to me, and while it may not be for you either, you are the one who has chosen to present yourself and your positions in such a way.

And yes, Calderis, there is a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance, and I maintain we see it illustrated in this thread. Because maintaining that an analogy that presents an instance where someone is in extreme pain and suffering as being too ridiculous or extreme for the discussion we're having because most racism/oppression/etc isn't that dire, is WILLFUL ignorance to the realities of what life is like for some members of oppressed groups BECAUSE of their oppression. If you're able to utilize the internet as adeptly and thoroughly to make your way to this forum, you can only be ignorant of the reality that even in America, in 2018, members of oppressed groups are murdered, beaten, in a myriad of ways violently harmed and oppressed by members of oppressing groups, even while in some cases, people merely stand by and watch (and film it).....if you're WILLFULLY choosing not to see these things because they don't support your unsubstantiated theory that 'racism/oppression is bad yes, but not THAT bad, its not like people DIE because of it, guys.' I'm paraphrasing here, but this is the attitude I feel is conveyed by certain posts here, and a large part of my forceful response.

Please learn to recognize the difference between passion and aggression and actual threat and harm. I am very passionate at this moment, and yes, that manifests in the form of language that is phrased more aggressively towards people in this thread and their ideas than it strictly needs to be, but there is no way, shape or form that in doing so I present a threat to anyone here, and that they are in any way being attacked personally.

Edited May 24, 2018 by ROSHtaFARian2.0

[Calderis]

@ROSHtaFARian2.0 I've taken nothing personally. I'm well aware of issues as the stand. And as they come more and more to the forefront if current events I agree that in more and more instances that it is a choice.

But blanket statements as a whole bother me, because the moment you assume that every individual who is unaware is unaware by choice... I'm in my mid 30s, and prior say... A decade ago I was far less aware than I am now. As I opened my eyes to things I was startled at just how oblivious I'd been prior. 

Not all ignorance is willful. Sometimes, all it takes is a moment to cure that problem. But if someone is truly ignorant and treated like an enemy for something of which they are literally unaware.... 

Yes, all of the information is at everyone's fingertips, but if someone is truly ignorant they don't even know to look. The moment they do, their perspective changes. 

[Llarimar]

I respect what you had to say in your last post, @ROSHtaFARian2.0, and I think I understand where you’re coming from a lot better now.  Sorry if I did take some of your comments personally if you didn’t intend them to across that way – and I also acknowledge, that I, of course, don’t know you any better than you know me.  And I also recognize there is a lot of severe oppression and suffering in the world, much of which I am not personally aware of through my own experiences, and I apologize if I downplayed that reality in my comments.  I think we should let it lie there, and hopefully just understand that we have different opinions in some regards – thank you for the discussion, and I hope there aren’t any hard feelings!    

Edited May 24, 2018 by Llarimar

[galendo]

Okay, forget all this boring racism stuff.  Let's get back to the really interesting topic in this thread: languages.

(Disclosure: no Stormlight stuff here.  I've been meaning to write this response for a while but haven't had the time.  If you're not interested in contemplating languages and their pros and cons, you're probably best off skipping this post.)

On 5/3/2018 at 11:36 PM, Llarimar said:

For example, all languages follow a basic word order - it could be subject-verb-object, like in English ("I love bread") or it could be object-subject-verb ("bread I love") or another word order (there are six options).

Is this really true?  Aren't there some languages where the inflections on the words indicate the part of speech and the words can be put in any order?  I think I've read that old Icelandic did something like that.  I mean, Japanese almost does something similar with its particles, with the primary exception that the verbs always come at the end of the sentence.  I guess I'd just find it strange to think that all languages had a fixed word order.  It certainly doesn't seem like a requirement.  It would probably say something interesting about human thought patterns if true.

Quote

There are very real differences between languages, yes - languages are incredibly diverse.  However, if one language seems better suited to a particular purpose than another language, that most likely just speaks to the cultural context of that language.  The language would not be considered "better," it would just be considered fully adapted to its cultural environment.  For example, someone might say that during the Norman invasion, the French language was "better" about expressing ideas related to cooking and food than Middle English was, because English borrowed so many culinary terms from French.  However, this was not because French was "better" at discussing food, but because the French language was fully adapted to its cultural environment - a culture that had invented many foods and cooking methods that were not present in Anglo-Saxon culture.

I admit I'm not quite sure that I'm following what you're saying here.  I mean, I get that the sounds themselves don't much matter.  Like, if the word cat in my language is "blern" and in your language it's "smeth", then clearly one language isn't better or worse than the other.  But if cat in my language is "blern" and your language doesn't even have a word for cat, then clearly my language is better at discussing cats than your language is.  You'd better come up with a word for cat if you want your language to be as awesome as my language.

So if French had hundreds of different words for foods and cooking methods over Middle English, then yeah, I'd say that French would have been the better language to discuss food in.  Assuming that French and Middle English were otherwise equivalent (which might or might not have been true, I really have no idea), then I'd say that French was a better language than Middle English.  Vocabulary matters, at least as I see it.  All other things being equal, it seems the language with the larger functional vocabulary should be considered better.  The language that doesn't have as many words needs to catch up before it can be considered equal.

Quote

We can separate blue from green, but this doesn't really give us a communicative edge - it doesn't really matter that blue and green are different colors - and it also can be subjective, since certain shades of color could be labeled as either "blue" or "green," like the color teal.

Doesn't it, though?  Say I realize that I'm out of blue paint, so I ask my friend to pick some up when he goes to the grocery store.  If he comes back with a tube of green or even a tube of teal, I'm going to be kind of annoyed.  Or if I request someone to pour me a cup of tea in my personal mug, and they ask which mug that is, sometimes it's just easier to say "the blue one" than to describe it as "the one that doesn't hold quite as much as most of the others, kind of tapered near the bottom, with a large handle."  Functional vocabulary matters, and more is better.

Quote

Babies have a very hard time learning color - color has to be taught to them, whereas they can intuitively separate objects by size, weight or texture at a much earlier age.

Babies have to be taught everything.  I'm guessing you're saying that it's harder for babies to learn color than it is for them to learn shapes, which may be true but I'm not sure whether that's relevant.  I admit it's been several years, but I'm fairly certain my niece could eat all the Skittles/jellybeans/licorice/Starburst of a specific color out of a batch before she knew the formal words for what colors they were.

Quote

There are some languages that inflect a high amount of information on nouns, pronouns, adjectives and other parts of speech.  This is sometimes called agreement - when you say "la chica bonita" ("the beautiful girl") in Spanish, the article "la," the noun "chica" and the adjective "bonita" are all agreeing for feminine gender.  I think it's a bit misleading to say that this is information that you have to say, because that makes it seems like agreeing with gender is a burden for speakers of Spanish.

It's not a burden in the "extra work" sense, but it is a burden in the "I'm forced to mention this" sense.  Like, suppose I'm fine letting you know that I have a child, but for personal reasons I don't want you to know whether it's a boy or a girl.  In English, I can just say "my child", but in Spanish I have to specify "my boy" or "my girl".  By forcing me to mention the gender of my child, the language is taking away my freedom to withhold information.

I guess it's really just the vocabulary problem again, flipped on its head (and due to pervasiveness, probably much harder to correct).  By not having a gender-free word for child (or neighbor or cousin or...), Spanish forces me to disclose gender when I might rather not.  This lack of a vocabulary would seem to make the language worse -- again, all other things being equal -- than one that did not.

Quote

English is no "better" than any other language

Again, I'm not quite sure whether I'm understanding you correctly, but unless I'm wrong, this "all languages are created equal" seems to me more politically correct than actually correct.  Because I can think of at least one fully functional language that English is, for effectively all intents and purposes, strictly superior to: Pig Latin.

Why is English better than Pig Latin, when Pig Latin is basically just English dressed up in a different coat?  Well, along with things you can say (where more is better) and things you must say (where less is better), it seems to me that the conciseness of a language might also be considered (where faster and/or less space is better, depending on whether the language is spoken or written).  To continue the example from earlier, if cat in my language is "blern" and in your language is "isselmanjorborakseminisselhorneth", then probably my language is better for talking about cats in.  Yours takes too much space/time/tongue-twisting.

I doubt this conciseness matters much for "real" languages, but it certainly does for Pig Latin.  Pig Latin and English are clearly equivalent in every other respect, with exactly the same vocabulary and exactly the same rules, but Pig Latin has a pointless syllable added to the end of its words, which makes each sentence unnecessarily longer.  No wonder we haven't switched languages!  It's not that English and Pig Latin are equivalent -- it's that English is just plain better.  So clearly some languages can be better than others

For an even more extreme example, if I make up my own language with ten nouns and two verbs and only one adjective, then let's face it -- my language sucks.  Or consider the fictional language from 1984.  It's a severely restricted language that nonetheless is adapted to its cultural environment, though the theory in this novel is more that language shapes the cultural environment rather than the reverse.  I don't know whether such a thing can actually happen, though it's always seemed quite plausible to me.  I can't imagine that a culture without a word for entrepreneur would have quite so many business-starting risk-takers as a culture that does.

I'm not saying it would be easy to compare real-world languages and probably all but impossible to do so in an unbiased fashion, but pretending that they're all equally valid also seems rather foolish.  It's one thing to say "Comparing languages is really hard and involves some value judgments and would probably offend the speakers of the less useful language, so we're not even going to try," but that still seems very different from saying "All languages are equally good", which just seems wrong.

[Vissy]

1 hour ago, Llarimar said:

...What?  I'm honestly a little confused by this back-and-forth, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.  I just want to review what's been said so far...

Yes, you were talking about guilt because you said that there are people who unkowingly and "innocently" perpetrate racism.  You did put the word in quotations, so you may have been implying that "innocent" perpetrators of racism are not really innocent at all.  But just using the word innocent does imply guilt on the other side - if you are not innocent in a situation, you are guilty.  So what it seemed like you were saying was "There are people who innocently perpetrate racism," and so it makes perfect sense for Calderis to respond by saying that "No one is innocent.  Just ignorant. ... I honestly believe that if someone truly believes that they are guilt free in this matter [a synonym for innocent, which is the word you used], then they aren't looking at themselves hard enough."  Then for you to say "I wasn't talking about guilt" is just kind of circular and contradictory because you were referring to guilt indirectly when you said that sometimes people are "innocent" (or "guilt-free") perpetrators of racism.    

I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not talk about guilt, I used the word as an euphemism (hence the ellipses). The issue here is that I'm describing systematic racism to you, and perhaps you haven't heard of that term (or what it means) before and don't recognize it. Innocence or guilt doesn't come into this. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Vissy

[Calderis]

12 minutes ago, Vissy said:

I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not talk about guilt, I used the word as an euphemism (hence the ellipses). The issue here is that I'm describing systematic racism to you, and perhaps you haven't heard of that term (or what it means) before and don't recognize it. Innocence or guilt doesn't come into this. 

I understand systemic racism. It's rampant. Viewing everyone on the side that benefits from the systemic problem as a contributor to that problem is exactly what I was speaking about though. Alienating people who are sympathetic to the plight of the oppressed group is problematic, because the very systemic issue makes those people more likely to be able to enact changes. 

It's why I keep referencing the Kaladin example. If he weren't growing past his issue he wouldn't be in a position to work with people and become proof that the very concept of darkeyes being lesser is wrong. 

Dalinar, and other lighteyes in power who are sympathetic are far more capable in the current system to enact change, because they are already accepted by the flawed system. 

Tearing down the system from the bottom up is both much much harder, and much more likely to result in an equal flawed system in the opposite direction. 

As Sigzil said to Kaladin, and Moash agreed, would you set yourself in their place? 

The point of fixing things is to make a system that is truly equal. And for that both sides need to come together and only the actual people who continue to push for imbalance should be punished. 

To paint with too broad a brush just puts a different group in power and creates and different group of oppressed people. 

[Vissy]

Every white person in America is a contributor to systematic racism. That's what it means to be a part of a racist system. While I agree that Kaladin is a good example of how to push through your issues, I wouldn't go so far as to say that every individual in oppressed groups should be superheroes in order to get taken seriously. That's not how you realistically achieve changes, you achieve them via large-scale societal movements such as the Civil Rights Movement. Also keep in mind that the Stormlight series is rather simplified when it comes to racism and societal problems in general, it's still very much YA in terms of what content Sanderson is writing into it. In the real world, cooperation is just as important as making people realize just how much they're contributing to a racist / oppressive society and getting them to think of ways to counteract that.

19 minutes ago, Calderis said:

The point of fixing things is to make a system that is truly equal. And for that both sides need to come together and only the actual people who continue to push for imbalance should be punished. 

To paint with too broad a brush just puts a different group in power and creates and different group of oppressed people. 

Smacks a bit of reverse racism to me. Just because you're willing to make concessions doesn't mean that you suddenly get to flip the situation around and call the oppressed people oppressors. Look up the term "white fragility" - that might help. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Vissy

[Llarimar]

Thanks for coming back to this, I love talking about languages!

2 hours ago, galendo said:

Is this really true?  Aren't there some languages where the inflections on the words indicate the part of speech and the words can be put in any order?  I think I've read that old Icelandic did something like that.  I mean, Japanese almost does something similar with its particles, with the primary exception that the verbs always come at the end of the sentence.  I guess I'd just find it strange to think that all languages had a fixed word order.  It certainly doesn't seem like a requirement.  It would probably say something interesting about human thought patterns if true.still seems very different from saying "All languages are equally good", which just seems wrong.

There are many languages that have what we call a "free word order," which means that many or all possible word orders (subject-verb-object, object-verb-subject, etc.) are permissible in the language.  Old Icelandic was like this, yes (as is modern Icelandic), and Japanese as well has a relatively free word order, I believe (I haven't specifically studied Japanese).  However, even in languages that have free word order, they do indeed tend to favor one word order over all the others.  The idea of "basic word order," is that if you were to ask a native speaker of a language to strip down their dialogue and produce a very basic, simple sentence, they will choose a specific word order, which would then be considered the most basic to their language.  Icelandic and Japanese are both SOV (subject-object-verb) languages ("I to the store went") - or perhaps a better way to phrase this is that they are primarily SOV languages, because other word orders are permissible.

What you have to say about French being better than English at expressing culinary terms during the Middle Ages is exactly what I meant - you understood correctly.  And like you say, if the word "cat" is "blern" in one language and "smeth" in another, than neither language could be called "better" at discussing cats.  However, if a language does not have a word for "cat," that does not mean the language is bad at discussing cats.  It probably just means that there are no cats in that specific region where the language is spoken.  If there were cats in that region, the people would come up with a word for them.  All languages are perfectly capable of expressing the environment in which they exist - under this criteria, no language is better than another.  

Yes, color perception is valuable information when you are describing something, but the point is that color is still very subjective, and color perception can be very different from language to language.  

2 hours ago, galendo said:

Babies have to be taught everything.  I'm guessing you're saying that it's harder for babies to learn color than it is for them to learn shapes, which may be true but I'm not sure whether that's relevant.  I admit it's been several years, but I'm fairly certain my niece could eat all the Skittles/jellybeans/licorice/Starburst of a specific color out of a batch before she knew the formal words for what colors they were.

This is not true - babies do not have to be taught everything.  There are some things that babies do naturally.  Language acquisition, for one thing, is a natural occurrence - babies are hardwired at birth to acquire language.  No one teaches them how to learn language.  In the same way, there are certain perceptions and understandings (such as big versus small) that do not have to be taught, and are very universal.  Color is not one of those - a child needs to be taught to recognize and identify different colors in the way that their specific culture perceives color.  It is much easier for babies to separate objects by size or texture, whereas color needs to be shown to them.  I remember some of my younger siblings really struggling with this - we would sit down with them and help them to memorize different colors.  As far as your example, I'm not sure how old your niece was - that probably played a factor, since some kids learn color faster than others.  And also, if she were separating very different colors like red and green, it would probably be easy, but more similar colors like blue and green would be more of a challenge (they are sometimes a challenge even for adults).  Another good example is purple and pink - people are constantly confusing these colors.  

2 hours ago, galendo said:

It's not a burden in the "extra work" sense, but it is a burden in the "I'm forced to mention this" sense.  Like, suppose I'm fine letting you know that I have a child, but for personal reasons I don't want you to know whether it's a boy or a girl.  In English, I can just say "my child", but in Spanish I have to specify "my boy" or "my girl".  By forcing me to mention the gender of my child, the language is taking away my freedom to withhold information.

 As far as the Spanish example, I suppose that the grammatical gender in the language does remove your freedom to withhold information to some extent, but I'm not sure how common circumstances would be in which you would not want to disclose the gender of your child.  This could alternatively be seen as a benefit - the gender of your child is plainly obvious, rather than leaving room for ambiguity when you just say "my child."  In addition, I have studied Spanish for awhile and I am not a native speaker so I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it would not be incorrect if you were to say "mi niño" ("my boy") to just refer to a nonspecific child, because masculine gender in Spanish can stand for both masculine and neutral gender (male or female).  The only time gender is really specific in Spanish is when it is feminine.  

2 hours ago, galendo said:

Again, I'm not quite sure whether I'm understanding you correctly, but unless I'm wrong, this "all languages are created equal" seems to me more politically correct than actually correct. 

Linguists genuinely believe that no language better than another - this is very foundational to the science of linguistics.  It's not just trying to be politically correct.  Consider linguistics like a science and compare it to other sciences - a geologist would never say that one mountain is "better" than another mountain.  Saying "all languages are created equal," however, is misleading, because languages are not "created," they form, and they form to perfectly fit the environment in which their speakers live.  There is drastic variety between languages and so in that sense they are sometimes difficult to compare, but no language can be responsibly called better than another language from a scientific perspective.  It would be slightly more acceptable to argue that one aspect of a language is better (although I still feel uncomfortable even using the word "better") - you could say, for example, that the phonology of Spanish is "better" than the phonology of English (although an argument could be made for the opposite).  But saying that the Spanish language as a whole is certifiably better than English (or vice versa) is just misleading and linguistically incorrect because it's a gross oversimplification and is very subjective and biased.  Why would one group invent a language that is horrible, while another group invents a language that is great?  People are equally intelligent, and the languages they speak will be equally intelligent as well. 

2 hours ago, galendo said:

Why is English better than Pig Latin, when Pig Latin is basically just English dressed up in a different coat?  Well, along with things you can say (where more is better) and things you must say (where less is better), it seems to me that the conciseness of a language might also be considered (where faster and/or less space is better, depending on whether the language is spoken or written).  To continue the example from earlier, if cat in my language is "blern" and in your language is "isselmanjorborakseminisselhorneth", then probably my language is better for talking about cats in.  Yours takes too much space/time/tongue-twisting.

I doubt this conciseness matters much for "real" languages, but it certainly does for Pig Latin.  Pig Latin and English are clearly equivalent in every other respect, with exactly the same vocabulary and exactly the same rules, but Pig Latin has a pointless syllable added to the end of its words, which makes each sentence unnecessarily longer.  No wonder we haven't switched languages!  It's not that English and Pig Latin are equivalent -- it's that English is just plain better.  So clearly some languages can be better than others

For an even more extreme example, if I make up my own language with ten nouns and two verbs and only one adjective, then let's face it -- my language sucks.  Or consider the fictional language from 1984.  It's a severely restricted language that nonetheless is adapted to its cultural environment, though the theory in this novel is more that language shapes the cultural environment rather than the reverse.  I don't know whether such a thing can actually happen, though it's always seemed quite plausible to me.  I can't imagine that a culture without a word for entrepreneur would have quite so many business-starting risk-takers as a culture that does.

Yes, English is better than Pig Latin, because Pig Latin is not really a language.  No culture or group of people would actually develop a language like Pig Latin.  Pig Latin is just a parody - it is contrived and made up for the purpose of being ridiculous.  In addition, no people would take something as simple as a cat and call it "isselmanjorborakseminisselhorneth" - that just wouldn't take place in a real language.  For such an ordinary, common noun, people would come up with an ordinary, common word.  And yes, a language with ten nouns and two verbs and only one adjective would be terrible - because it wouldn't really be a language.  For a language to be productive, it must be spoken, and no one could speak a language with only ten nouns, two verbs and one adjective.  Oh, and by the way, adjectives are not a requirement for a language.  There are plenty of languages without them.  

I have not read the book 1984, but I would be interested to look at the language from the book that you mention.  I would just point out, however, not having read the book, that George Orwell was not a linguist, and we can't expect his fictional language to make perfect sense linguistically.  

It is possible that the fact that we have so many business-starting risk-takers is because there is a word for it in English - entrepreneur - but you could say this about any highly specific word.  If I were to invent the world "fizzler," and say that it refers to a person that drinks soda when they finish hiking to the top of a mountain, then maybe people will start drinking sodas at the tops of mountains and calling themselves "fizzlers." But that doesn't mean that English has "improved" - it has just added new vocabulary.  An entrepreneur is a rather abstract and highly specific concept, and so I don't think we can condemn other languages if they don't have a word that means exactly the same thing.  I am sure you could find other languages in which there are words that express a complex thought that we would take much longer to explain in English - that does not make those languages "better" than English.  

2 hours ago, galendo said:

I'm not saying it would be easy to compare real-world languages and probably all but impossible to do so in an unbiased fashion, but pretending that they're all equally valid also seems rather foolish.  It's one thing to say "Comparing languages is really hard and involves some value judgments and would probably offend the speakers of the less useful language, so we're not even going to try," but that still seems very different from saying "All languages are equally good", which just seems wrong.

I would not use the phrase "All languages are equally good" because the word "good" is too vague and broad.  All languages are, however, equally functional within the environment in which they exist, and in that way, none of them are better than another.  And again, like the example I gave before with Spanish versus English phonology, you could say that a certain aspect of one language is more useful than another language - I find Spanish direct object pronouns, for example, to be more useful and convenient than direct object pronouns in English - but to say that an entire language is better or more useful than another entire language is almost certainly going to overly simplistic and misleading.  When you start studying linguistics, this becomes clear - even though languages can be very different, they are all equally functional and useful within the environment in which they exist.  There are concepts you could express in Mandarin, for example, which would be difficult to express in English, and vice versa.  This does not make either language better or worse, or more or less useful.  It just makes them different.  

Edited May 24, 2018 by Llarimar

[Toaster Retribution]

Firstly, I think everyone here agrees that oppression sucks. 

Secondly, I think most people here (if not all) agree that hatred is never a good thing. And thus, hatred should never be encouraged. If the oppressors hate the opressed, then the opression will obviously continue. And if the opressed hate the opressors, then the opressors will lack motivation to change their ways. Instead, they will be scared of the opressed, and keep on being prejudiced and racist against them. 

The point I am trying to make is that hate never does anybody any good, and if we want to make the world into a great place, everyone has to try and stop hating. 

[Calderis]

6 hours ago, Vissy said:

Smacks a bit of reverse racism to me. Just because you're willing to make concessions doesn't mean that you suddenly get to flip the situation around and call the oppressed people oppressors. Look up the term "white fragility" - that might help. 

I'm not calling the oppressed oppressors... I just don't think that falling into a similar mindset if the oppressors lends itself well in the event that the system does change hands. 

6 hours ago, Vissy said:

While I agree that Kaladin is a good example of how to push through your issues, I wouldn't go so far as to say that every individual in oppressed groups should be superheroes in order to get taken seriously. That's not how you realistically achieve changes, you achieve them via large-scale societal movements such as the Civil Rights Movement.

I completely agree, and it's exactly the reason I say the things that I do. If all the entire civil rights movement had been broke  into "us vs them" and all white people were were demonized, many people involved in that movement would have been ostracized and the group would have made less progress. 

I'm not saying everyone needs to be a super hero. Just that they need to avoid falling into the very same modes of thought that dehumanize people that started this whole problem I  the first place. 

I will repeat myself here. Anger and hatred are not the same thing. Being angry at the system, and angry at perpetrators acceptable. Hate at anyone who benefits from the system is not.

Saying that anyone who benefits from a system in which they are unaware and have done nothing active to proppogate it or also contributors is just plain false. If someone never paid a dime in taxes and weren't caught, they aren't suddenly unable to use the public road system or emergency services. Benefit and contribution are two separate points. Awareness changes that. 

2 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

The point I am trying to make is that hate never does anybody any good, and if we want to make the world into a great place, everyone has to try and stop hating. 

That's my very issue though. The idea that reactionary hatred is justified, says that's not the case. 

There is a man named Daryl Davis, who is an amazing individual. He has collected over 200 KKK robes from members who have quit the organization because of him. And do you know how he did it? He, a black man, went to KKK rallies and made friends with people. That action and it's results would be made impossible if he hated them. 

Love overcomes hate. Anything that makes people see the individuals instead of the lies about the group is a good thing, and anything that makes you view a group of people as a homogenous, faceless group rather than as individuals is damaging. 

I just... I don't care what group were talking about. Race, sexual orientation, gender identity, anything... When you start referring to any of them as a group rather than as individuals you start distancing yourself from the people and start forming them into blocks.

Thats not a good thing.