For all the talk from the left side of the socio-political spectrum nowadays about discrimination, human rights, freedom of speech, etc. they're pretty intolerant of people that don't agree with them. Now, that, in and of itself, isn't a problem. It only becomes a problem when they try to enshrine their intolerance into law.
"WAIT!!!!" I can hear you shout now, "That's the right wing, not us!!" Well, it's both actually, but at least the right wing is somewhat honest about their intolerance.
Let's get some definitions down before we go any further.
Prejudice: a preconceived notion about something or someone, not based on reason or actual experience.
Bigotry: an habitual state of mind including an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from one's own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.
Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction for or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs or is perceived to belong, rather than individual merit. It is based primarily in prejudice and bigotry, though, technically, not always. (E.g. discriminating against mass murderers or cobras is not based in prejudice or bigotry)
hate speech: speech that expresses hatred, offense, or insult to groups based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
"fightin' words" face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that they are likely to start an immediate fight.
----------
On bigotry and prejudice:
One big difference between prejudice and bigotry is the aspect of choice. Most, if not all, of us with prejudices (and, please don't say you have none. We ALL have prejudices against SOMEthing) don't choose to have these preconceived notions. We do choose, however, to continue having them if we purposely do not educate ourselves about what we're prejudiced against, but, again, the prejudice itself is not a choice.
Bigotry, on the other hand, is always a choice. You choose to intolerant of a differing opinion. If you are unfairly intolerant to it (remember, "unfair" is part of the definition), you are a bigot. That being said, there is no such thing as "bigotry" against the KKK. I dare say, according to most of us, intolerance toward the KKK is not "unfair"; they are people who espouse evil ideas. There IS such a thing as bigotry (and remember here, the intolerance must be UNFAIR, i.e. not grounded in fact) against anyone whose names starts with "J" just because everyone you ever met (which is NOT the same as "everyone") whose names started with "J" was a jerk to you for some reason.
Please note, you can be a bigot without being prejudiced. I don't like heavy metal music. But, because of what "prejudice" means, that does NOT mean I'm prejudiced against it: I have experienced it, I've even studied its musicality. I still don't like it.
On the other hand, I don't tolerate it in my hearing. If you ride with me in my car, or are in my home, I will not allow you to play heavy metal music. That is unfair. I freely admit, I am a bigot against heavy metal music.
-------------
On free speech
Freedom of speech. It's right there in the 1st amendment to the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law........abridging the freedom of speech..........". but what exactly does "freedom of speech" entail?
I'm sure we can all agree that the 1st amendment does NOT protect slandering another person. We can also agree that it doesn't protect overt threats to another's life, safety, or property. now, by "overt" I mean saying it flat out: "I'm going to assassinate the King" that is an overt threat against another person's life. "The king really deserves to die" is not a threat, overt or otherwise. A little more into "grey" territory are things like yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, or bomb threats (especially when there is no bomb). Most people (maybe even all people) would say that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect this kind of speech either, mainly because the effect of this speech is the extreme likelihood that its utterance will result in a panic-driven stampede (for which there is no justification) for the doors which will most probably injure (or even kill) others.
Now, we move onto speech over which there is more controversy. Let's start with "fightin' words". I believe this type of speech should be considered protected speech under the 1st amendment. Why? Well, if somebody comes up to me and calls me a "flappy-wristed, nelly faggot" (considered to be "fightin' words" by the law) and a fight ensues, who is really the one responsible for the fight? The name-caller? Or is it me, the guy who threw the first punch? If I were to just walk away and he doesn't pursue, that's the end of it----now, if he does pursue and continues saying these words, I may become afraid for my well-being. At that point, the 1st amendment protection vanishes. Of course, the difficulty here is determining if there was indeed a threat to my well-being. My mere saying so should not be grounds for denying someone his freedom, because let's face it, if the speaker is someone I hate, here's a perfect opportunity to get him in trouble!
No, there has to be some outward sign that I do indeed fear for my well-being. I may start trembling, or go into a panic, or worse, actually pee my pants out of fear. Any one of those things together with my saying "I feared for my well being" would be enough to justify depriving my opponent his freedom of speech. But his merely saying "You're a flappy-wristed faggot" does not, morally, justify my punching him in the face, (regardless of how much I want to do it) but that's exactly what the "fightin' words" doctrine says: I have the right to punch him in the face because of the words that he said to me. Really? Are we that emotionally immature that we need the force of the law to keep us from being insulted? Are we so weak-willed that merely hearing an insult against us gives us NO choice but to lash out with violence? I'm sorry, but I call "bullshit." Those are the actions of children.
This brings us to the broader concept of hate speech. Hate speech, in and of itself, is not in the same category as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. There is no probability, great or otherwise, that anyone is going to be maimed or killed by hateful words. Just because some rube calls me a faggot (which in today's political correctness dominated arena is considered "hate speech") that means nothing more than the fact that he hates be because I'm a gay man. There is little (if any) substantial difference between "You faggot!" and "I hate you because you're gay, and gay people sicken me." So why is the first considered "hate speech" worthy of prosecution but the second one is not (so far, any way)? Please don't start harping on the words used. They're just WORDS. They are not harmful in the same way a rock up side of the head is harmful. Sure, they're offensive, and they hurt my feelings, but as the saying goes, "There is no freedom from offense" (and the good ol' "Sticks and stones........") and it's a very good thing there isn't any such "freedom from offense" because if there were, we'd ALL be in jail because EVERYONE has at one time or another offended SOMEBODY over SOMETHING. If you want to be completely free from offense at all times, I suggest you go find yourself a cave or deserted island and move there, cuz that's the only way you're gonna get what you want.
Now, I can imagine that some of you are saying, "Well, OK, but that only applies to the government, so if your boss fires you because you call him a nincompoop on your facebook page, you can't do anything about it." As things stand now, that's true, but people should not be liable to punishment for exercising their rights, either by the government or by private entities. So, if Francis can be fired for expressing himself because "it wasn't the government" then by that logic, his boss should also be able to fire Frencis for being a Catholic. After all, it wasn't the government! Oh, Francis has freedom of religion, you say? Well, guess what? The same constitution that says he has freedom of religion says he also has freedom of speech! You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the boss can't fire Francis on the basis of his religion, regardless of how offensive the boss may find Catholicism, then he can't fire Francis on the basis of his speech, either. They are both freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. If you honor one, you must honor the other; if you reject one, you must reject the other also. To say otherwise is to be a hypocrite. The law should give absolutely no consideration to emotions, only physical harm and forced violation of rights. If you believe otherwise, you are no more than a slave and your being an adult is only a matter of chronological timespan, and not maturity. In other words, strap on a pair and deal with it. The first amendment was not written to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech.
Friday, March 25, 2016
Saturday, March 19, 2016
One of those "other topics as life happens" posts
If you don't live it, don't proclaim it!
I'm talking about the claim to value (so-called) "diversity."
There's a phenomenon in psychology called "cognitive dissonance" which means, among other things, performing an action that is contradictory to one's beliefs or values. If cognitive dissonance becomes a habit or lifestyle, then it becomes what some people call "hypocrisy." There. I said it.
If you claim to value diversity and then go and threaten associates with no longer associating with them (or some other childish reaction, such as calling them stupid or self-delusional, or actually defriending them on social media) whenever they express an opinion you don't agree with, and you make a habit of this? That means you are a hypocrite.
There are only two ways to NOT be a hypocrite here: 1. Stop claiming to value diversity (because your actions show otherwise), or else 2. Stop acting like a spoiled toddler who doesn't get his way when you're confronted with an opinion you don't like.
If you truly value diversity like you claim to, then grow a thicker skin and either let it go, or discuss why you think they're wrong in a calm, logical manner. Be an adult and refrain from false accusations or threatening bad fall out unless they keep their opinion to themselves.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Blog reboot, St. Patrick's day, 2016
Since my (mostly self-imposed) exile from the Esperanto Community, I've been trying to figure out a theme for this blog, and I've decided that there would be 2 main threads: 1. Veg*n (see note below) and cheap eating, and 2. A healthy dose of Christian Orthodoxy (note, that's "big O" Orthodox (as in the Greek or Russian Orthodox churches) not "small o" which many non-Orthodox just take to mean "believing exactly the way I do") with a sprinkling of other topics as life happens (these will mostly be about liberty and/or L/libertarian ideals and my involvement with the Libertarian party).
Since today is St. Patrick's day, I'm going to rant a little.
I don't like what has happened to the ancient and venerable feastday of St. Patrick. It has turned into a debauchery of drunkenness and a tip of the hat to all things Irish. Not that honoring our Irish heritage is a bad thing, but we must remember, before and above anything else, His Grace was a bishop of the Church not very long after Gaelic Ireland (as a sociopolitical entity, not, of course, the island) came to historic knowledge. And by "the Church" (since we ARE talking about the 400's AD here), I mean the Church now known as the Orthodox church. The distinctive doctrines that make the Roman Catholic Church what it is today were not believed by anyone in the 5th century and wouldn't even be made mandatory or professed liturgically till 1014 AD, a mere 40 years before the Great Schism.
The other big surprise for many, will be that he wasn't actually Irish! He was born in Roman Britain of Brythonic heritage (Brythonic is Welsh, Cornish, or "P-Celtic" as opposed to Irish and Scottish "Q-Celtic). Here's an icon and his story:
(Of note, I should explain that "veg*n" is a relatively new internet term (as far as I know) that encompasses everything from strict vegan to lacto-ovo vegetarian (which is just vegan with the addition of eggs and dairy products))
Since today is St. Patrick's day, I'm going to rant a little.
I don't like what has happened to the ancient and venerable feastday of St. Patrick. It has turned into a debauchery of drunkenness and a tip of the hat to all things Irish. Not that honoring our Irish heritage is a bad thing, but we must remember, before and above anything else, His Grace was a bishop of the Church not very long after Gaelic Ireland (as a sociopolitical entity, not, of course, the island) came to historic knowledge. And by "the Church" (since we ARE talking about the 400's AD here), I mean the Church now known as the Orthodox church. The distinctive doctrines that make the Roman Catholic Church what it is today were not believed by anyone in the 5th century and wouldn't even be made mandatory or professed liturgically till 1014 AD, a mere 40 years before the Great Schism.
The other big surprise for many, will be that he wasn't actually Irish! He was born in Roman Britain of Brythonic heritage (Brythonic is Welsh, Cornish, or "P-Celtic" as opposed to Irish and Scottish "Q-Celtic). Here's an icon and his story:
Saint Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland
March 17
March 17
Saint Patrick, the Apostle of the Irish, was seized from his native Britain by Irish marauders when he was sixteen years old. Though the son of a deacon and a grandson of a priest, it was not until his captivity that he sought out the Lord with his whole heart. In his Confession, the testament he wrote towards the end of his life, he says, "After I came to Ireland - every day I had to tend sheep, and many times a day I prayed - the love of God and His fear came to me more and more, and my faith was strengthened. And my spirit was so moved that in a single day I would say as many as a hundred prayers, and almost as many at night, and this even when I was staying in the woods and on the mountain; and I would rise for prayer before daylight, through snow, through frost, through rain, and I felt no harm." After six years of slavery in Ireland, he was guided by God to make his escape, and afterwards struggled in the monastic life at Auxerre in Gaul, under the guidance of the holy Bishop Germanus. Many years later he was ordained bishop and sent to Ireland once again, about the year 432, to convert the Irish to Christ. His arduous labours bore so much fruit that within seven years, three bishops were sent from Gaul to help him shepherd his flock, "my brethren and sons whom I have baptized in the Lord - so many thousands of people," he says in his Confession. His apostolic work was not accomplished without much "weariness and painfulness," long journeys through difficult country, and many perils; he says his very life was in danger twelve times. When he came to Ireland as its enlightener, it was a pagan country; when he ended his earthly life some thirty years later, about 461, the Faith of Christ was established in every corner.
Well, that's my "healthy dose of Orthodoxy" for this episode of my blog.
(Of note, I should explain that "veg*n" is a relatively new internet term (as far as I know) that encompasses everything from strict vegan to lacto-ovo vegetarian (which is just vegan with the addition of eggs and dairy products))
Thursday, February 4, 2016
new language announcement
Hello, all! I'm back.
Or as we say in Govro, Kajxo a xutis! Mi renaidekar! (pronounced: KYE-sho ah TOO-teese. me REH-nah-ee-deh-KAHR)
You may well be asking "What the heck is Govro?" Well it's a new language project, started by yours truly :). I've devoted a whole other blog to it: http://govroanesperantoalternatie.blogspot.com/2015/11/kajxo-tutis-kaj-bonaida-to-all-and.html in case you're interested (and if you're not, you won't hurt my feelings, lol).
Anyhoo, Not much of any import has happened since last summer. It seems that the people who run Lernu (the Esperanto learning site online) are not the tolerant liberals they profess themselves to be. Let's just say, when you have to resort to locking someone out of a forum because of their political and religious beliefs, you are not the lover of tolerance you tout yourself as being, and leave it at that.
I am again living alone; roommate finally took the hint and moved out. I don't think he was too dumb to realize what was going on; he just didn't have anywhere else to go (he finally did find another person to dupe). So, I'm back to my severe budget crunch, which includes eating as cheaply as possible, which usually translates as no meat.
Of course, here in Iowa, where pork subsidies are a way of life, it's not too hard to buy pork. A pound of ground pork (not sausage) is usually a third of the price of similar-fat-content ground beef, and ham is relatively cheap, so there is all that. Once in a while, like yesterday, there's a great deal at Aldi's (a no-frills grocery store): I got an 8.5 lb bone-in ham for $7.34! When all was said and done, there were fixin's for about 7 dinners and 4 or 5 lunches with tons of leftovers expected. Add all that to the deals I get at the local Amish store (e.g. a 6.8 lb bag of navy beans for just under 6 bucks, which will probably last me about 3 weeks) and living on a food stamp budget isn't as hard as the Welfare Industrial Complex would have us believe.
As most of us are well aware, the Iowa Caucuses were this past Monday. No, I didn't go. Why? Well, being a Libertarian, there was no need for me to go. My candidate gets chosen at our convention later in the spring. I guess you could say the convention IS the Libertarian caucus, but every state Libertarian Party picks their candidate at their conventions instead of a primary election, not just Iowa and New Hampshire. Frankly, I don't like the idea of the caucus, at least not for picking the candidate for president. A primary election, as done in the other 48 states, has a much better chance of getting a more representative result of the voting process. Of course when it comes to the two major parties (or The Party, if your opinion goes that way), that's probably not such a good thing. I have yet to hear any Democrat and more than a scant handful of Republican cite "what's best for the country" as the reason for the voting choice they'll be making. For Bernie supporters, I've noticed (of course this is all in my own experience) it's almost entirely "what's in it for me??" I just can't help but wonder how popular he'd be if he were NOT promising "free" college and "free" medical care and "free" this and "free" that. I honestly don't know if the John Doe American Voter is greedy and selfish or just plain stupid. Where do they think all the money for this "free" stuff is going to come from? Oh, sure, Bernie SAYS "start making the super rich pay their fair share" (they already do and then some), or "end corporate welfare" (I agree with him in this regard), but in reality it's going to end up coming out of every taxpayers pocket, eventually.
Or as we say in Govro, Kajxo a xutis! Mi renaidekar! (pronounced: KYE-sho ah TOO-teese. me REH-nah-ee-deh-KAHR)
You may well be asking "What the heck is Govro?" Well it's a new language project, started by yours truly :). I've devoted a whole other blog to it: http://govroanesperantoalternatie.blogspot.com/2015/11/kajxo-tutis-kaj-bonaida-to-all-and.html in case you're interested (and if you're not, you won't hurt my feelings, lol).
Anyhoo, Not much of any import has happened since last summer. It seems that the people who run Lernu (the Esperanto learning site online) are not the tolerant liberals they profess themselves to be. Let's just say, when you have to resort to locking someone out of a forum because of their political and religious beliefs, you are not the lover of tolerance you tout yourself as being, and leave it at that.
I am again living alone; roommate finally took the hint and moved out. I don't think he was too dumb to realize what was going on; he just didn't have anywhere else to go (he finally did find another person to dupe). So, I'm back to my severe budget crunch, which includes eating as cheaply as possible, which usually translates as no meat.
Of course, here in Iowa, where pork subsidies are a way of life, it's not too hard to buy pork. A pound of ground pork (not sausage) is usually a third of the price of similar-fat-content ground beef, and ham is relatively cheap, so there is all that. Once in a while, like yesterday, there's a great deal at Aldi's (a no-frills grocery store): I got an 8.5 lb bone-in ham for $7.34! When all was said and done, there were fixin's for about 7 dinners and 4 or 5 lunches with tons of leftovers expected. Add all that to the deals I get at the local Amish store (e.g. a 6.8 lb bag of navy beans for just under 6 bucks, which will probably last me about 3 weeks) and living on a food stamp budget isn't as hard as the Welfare Industrial Complex would have us believe.
As most of us are well aware, the Iowa Caucuses were this past Monday. No, I didn't go. Why? Well, being a Libertarian, there was no need for me to go. My candidate gets chosen at our convention later in the spring. I guess you could say the convention IS the Libertarian caucus, but every state Libertarian Party picks their candidate at their conventions instead of a primary election, not just Iowa and New Hampshire. Frankly, I don't like the idea of the caucus, at least not for picking the candidate for president. A primary election, as done in the other 48 states, has a much better chance of getting a more representative result of the voting process. Of course when it comes to the two major parties (or The Party, if your opinion goes that way), that's probably not such a good thing. I have yet to hear any Democrat and more than a scant handful of Republican cite "what's best for the country" as the reason for the voting choice they'll be making. For Bernie supporters, I've noticed (of course this is all in my own experience) it's almost entirely "what's in it for me??" I just can't help but wonder how popular he'd be if he were NOT promising "free" college and "free" medical care and "free" this and "free" that. I honestly don't know if the John Doe American Voter is greedy and selfish or just plain stupid. Where do they think all the money for this "free" stuff is going to come from? Oh, sure, Bernie SAYS "start making the super rich pay their fair share" (they already do and then some), or "end corporate welfare" (I agree with him in this regard), but in reality it's going to end up coming out of every taxpayers pocket, eventually.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
New Developments and a sad "adiaŭ"
I will probably be an Esperanto speaker for the rest of my days. I will continue to attend our local meet-up, as long as it continues, if only in support of the others that come.
I will not be burning any of my Esperanto books, but I will also not be renewing my membership in any Esperanto organizations; I will do no more "varbing (recruiting for the cause)," and my will has been changed to divert all the assets that I had originally steered toward the Esperanto movement (the mid-5-figure range if anyone is interested; sorry, Esperanto-USA and Radio Verda) and give them to other, more worthy, causes.
You're probably asking why the sudden attitude change. Well, yesterday saw more knife blades to my back from so-called "samideanoj (comrades, same-idea-fellows)" and I'm sick of it. The slanderous language, mockery, and bullying I have received (especially the ones that were posted after yesterday's blog entry) from other Esperantists around the globe has shown me that the "community" (a term I now use very lightly) is not worthy of any more of my time or money. I wash my hands of it.
Esperanto had such promise, but alas, the spirit of "more Zamenhof than thou"(no pun intended) not to mention the hypocrisy, arrogance, bigotry, slander, and condemnation I have received in the past few months over a perfectly correct, Zamenhofian, Esperanto word (albeit one that is rarely used, even though it is used in the Ekzercaro and also defined in the Universala Vortaro) has shown me that my time and energy can be put to better use elsewhere.
I wonder, though..........would the reaction to my use of that perfectly correct Esperanto word have been different had it not been out of religious obligation but out of a sense of equality and tolerance and other such nice leftist buzzwords? I guess that will never be known for sure.........however, based on some of the more outrageous comments I read yesterday, I really think it would have. It's sad, really, that a community of people that touts itself to be oh-so-liberal and tolerant would allow such hatred and intolerance (no matter what the cause) to go unchallenged within its ranks.
I will not be burning any of my Esperanto books, but I will also not be renewing my membership in any Esperanto organizations; I will do no more "varbing (recruiting for the cause)," and my will has been changed to divert all the assets that I had originally steered toward the Esperanto movement (the mid-5-figure range if anyone is interested; sorry, Esperanto-USA and Radio Verda) and give them to other, more worthy, causes.
You're probably asking why the sudden attitude change. Well, yesterday saw more knife blades to my back from so-called "samideanoj (comrades, same-idea-fellows)" and I'm sick of it. The slanderous language, mockery, and bullying I have received (especially the ones that were posted after yesterday's blog entry) from other Esperantists around the globe has shown me that the "community" (a term I now use very lightly) is not worthy of any more of my time or money. I wash my hands of it.
Esperanto had such promise, but alas, the spirit of "more Zamenhof than thou"(no pun intended) not to mention the hypocrisy, arrogance, bigotry, slander, and condemnation I have received in the past few months over a perfectly correct, Zamenhofian, Esperanto word (albeit one that is rarely used, even though it is used in the Ekzercaro and also defined in the Universala Vortaro) has shown me that my time and energy can be put to better use elsewhere.
I wonder, though..........would the reaction to my use of that perfectly correct Esperanto word have been different had it not been out of religious obligation but out of a sense of equality and tolerance and other such nice leftist buzzwords? I guess that will never be known for sure.........however, based on some of the more outrageous comments I read yesterday, I really think it would have. It's sad, really, that a community of people that touts itself to be oh-so-liberal and tolerant would allow such hatred and intolerance (no matter what the cause) to go unchallenged within its ranks.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Mergatroid!
One would think I ate someone's dog!
I'm talking about the reactions i've been getting lately over my use of "ci" in Esperanto. "Ci" was introduced by no less a personage than Zamenhof himself to be a 2nd person singular pronoun. Granted, it's rarely used and is wrongly associated with informality (Zamenhof himself admitted that this nuance was from the outside influence of other languages). It also happens to be convenient for distinguishing singular and plural in the 2nd person. So why the fuss?
I've even had people tell me that the English counterpart (a la Quaker "Plain Speech", i.e. "theeing and thying") is offensive? Sorry but I call BS. This isn't the 1600s people! Put on your big girl panties and deal with it ;).
Considering the reasons why the Quakers retained these older forms, it (insisting that being called "thee" is offensive and "please use "you" when talking to me") strikes me as arrogance, plain and simple. Think about it: back in the day, "thou/thee/thy" was used much as "tu" is nowadays in Spanish and French: with children, animals, subordinates, etc. and "you" was used as an honorific, as a form of flattery or in biblical language, "respect of persons" (which, by the way is condemned in the New Testament). So basically what these people are saying is "I insist that you treat me with a level of honor" one that they probably don't even deserve ;).
Why am I talking about this? Well, as I told you all last time, recently I have adopted some Quaker practices as a way of advancing my spiritual life. I look at a couple of these practices as religious obligations: it is my belief, that it is essentially untruthful to speak to one person with a plural pronoun for one thing. The other is that, in my church tradition, we use "thou" in our prayers, and it struck me one day: by calling God "thou/thee" and calling my fellow humans "you" I was essentially (again, according to my belief) elevating man over God. Now, whether you agree or think I'm a total loon is irrelevant. As the Quakers would say, "it is my leading and not thine". Now, let's return to those poor souls offended by my calling them "thee"......what they're saying is that they are insisting that I bestow honor or respect upon them that I do not give to God. Yeah, good luck with that!
Anyway, to get back to "ci", I use it when speaking Esperanto to one person. No nuance of familiarity or contempt (oh, you'd know when I'm being insulting and it's not because I use "ci"!), just 2nd person singular, plain and simple. I've been told, even, that this is "wrong." Well, it's in the Fundamento. Defined in the Universala Vortaro as 2nd person singular pronoun. If that's the way I use it, then it can't be wrong, can it?
The other thing i've been accused of is "leading beginners astray". Ha! Not bloody likely with the "kontraŭ-ci-istoj" around! Whenever I happen to post something in an Esperanto group using "ci" less than 2 seconds later some buttinski comes swooping in castigating me for it. Yeah, no chance of komencantoj being led astray with that kind of thing going on!
And the nastiness about it! Ho, mia kor'! As I said above, one would think I just ate someone's dog!
So,
1. This ain't the 1600s people, so stop with the "i'm offended" BS. Calumny is wrong.
2. If you must "warn" komencantoj, it is sufficient to say "'ci' is not used in everyday Esperanto even though you may meet some who insist on using it. It is equivalent to the singular use of 'vi'." Anything more than that is unnecessary, and, depending on what you say, can be considered bullying or even discriminatory. Better is expected of samideanoj!
I'm talking about the reactions i've been getting lately over my use of "ci" in Esperanto. "Ci" was introduced by no less a personage than Zamenhof himself to be a 2nd person singular pronoun. Granted, it's rarely used and is wrongly associated with informality (Zamenhof himself admitted that this nuance was from the outside influence of other languages). It also happens to be convenient for distinguishing singular and plural in the 2nd person. So why the fuss?
I've even had people tell me that the English counterpart (a la Quaker "Plain Speech", i.e. "theeing and thying") is offensive? Sorry but I call BS. This isn't the 1600s people! Put on your big girl panties and deal with it ;).
Considering the reasons why the Quakers retained these older forms, it (insisting that being called "thee" is offensive and "please use "you" when talking to me") strikes me as arrogance, plain and simple. Think about it: back in the day, "thou/thee/thy" was used much as "tu" is nowadays in Spanish and French: with children, animals, subordinates, etc. and "you" was used as an honorific, as a form of flattery or in biblical language, "respect of persons" (which, by the way is condemned in the New Testament). So basically what these people are saying is "I insist that you treat me with a level of honor" one that they probably don't even deserve ;).
Why am I talking about this? Well, as I told you all last time, recently I have adopted some Quaker practices as a way of advancing my spiritual life. I look at a couple of these practices as religious obligations: it is my belief, that it is essentially untruthful to speak to one person with a plural pronoun for one thing. The other is that, in my church tradition, we use "thou" in our prayers, and it struck me one day: by calling God "thou/thee" and calling my fellow humans "you" I was essentially (again, according to my belief) elevating man over God. Now, whether you agree or think I'm a total loon is irrelevant. As the Quakers would say, "it is my leading and not thine". Now, let's return to those poor souls offended by my calling them "thee"......what they're saying is that they are insisting that I bestow honor or respect upon them that I do not give to God. Yeah, good luck with that!
Anyway, to get back to "ci", I use it when speaking Esperanto to one person. No nuance of familiarity or contempt (oh, you'd know when I'm being insulting and it's not because I use "ci"!), just 2nd person singular, plain and simple. I've been told, even, that this is "wrong." Well, it's in the Fundamento. Defined in the Universala Vortaro as 2nd person singular pronoun. If that's the way I use it, then it can't be wrong, can it?
The other thing i've been accused of is "leading beginners astray". Ha! Not bloody likely with the "kontraŭ-ci-istoj" around! Whenever I happen to post something in an Esperanto group using "ci" less than 2 seconds later some buttinski comes swooping in castigating me for it. Yeah, no chance of komencantoj being led astray with that kind of thing going on!
And the nastiness about it! Ho, mia kor'! As I said above, one would think I just ate someone's dog!
So,
1. This ain't the 1600s people, so stop with the "i'm offended" BS. Calumny is wrong.
2. If you must "warn" komencantoj, it is sufficient to say "'ci' is not used in everyday Esperanto even though you may meet some who insist on using it. It is equivalent to the singular use of 'vi'." Anything more than that is unnecessary, and, depending on what you say, can be considered bullying or even discriminatory. Better is expected of samideanoj!
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Li vivas! He lives!
Hello, all! Saluton al ĉiuj!
Yes, I'm alive!
First of all I must apologize AGAIN for taking (gulp) 6 YEARS (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!) to come back and update my blog. There truly is no excuse!
So, developments since last time.......well, the most important is I'm now retired. I had very nasty fungal infection in my lungs back in early 2012, which left a lot of damage. Damage to the tune of I only have the equivalent of one lung left, hence being on disability. Other than making it nearly impossible to find work, (I have a LOT of work restrictions, and those combined with modern technology making clerical jobs that are still done by actual warm bodies a thing of the past means there isn't a lot out there I can do) the worst thing about my disability, I suppose, is that I can no longer hold notes nearly as long as I used to when singing. Now to some this may not seem like such a big deal but music, and particularly singing, has always been a very big part of my life. I've been in some sort of choral group since 8th grade (cough1974cough) and am currently one half of the bass section in church choir most weeks.....and once in a while the whole bass section! So, yes, when I have to breathe basically twice as often, most of the time in the middle of phrases I used to be able to sail right through, it's a little depressing. That and the 50% pay cut makes for a very home-bound life!
Esperanto: Due to the above-mentioned pay cut (ouch), my Esperanto activities have not been what I would wish them to be. I never did make it to a Landa Kongreso (not even when it was just down in St. Louis!) and also never made it to Finland. Sadly, the Finland situation may be no longer an option (even if I did have the money). This year there was no week-long course listed and enquiries have returned nothing. Sigh.
I have, however, had great luck with the local Esperanto club! There are now four of us who meet on a weekly basis to chat (I plan a screening of Incubus very soon) and there are more than us four listed on the Meet-up page. Sadly one of those "more than four" is going away to university this fall, 90 miles to the north, so won't be able to join us during most of the year. Another of the "more than four" has disappeared. Ric, where is thee??
Ah, yes. That last sentence brings me to the other big, new thing in my life. I've been doing genealogical research the past couple years (I found some cousins right here in Iowa City!) and one of my discoveries was that one of my great-great-great-great grandfathers (in the Mosier line) and his family were Quakers. Now, I used to belong to a small Protestant sect where the members adopted Quaker-style "Plain Speech" mainly out of scruples about "truthfulness in speaking" and "avoiding heathen ways." This translated to, for us, using the Quaker-style "thee as a subject pronoun" to one person with what is modern English is the 3rd person singular form of the verb ("thee is" instead of "thou art"), as well as avoiding the names of the days (felt to be honoring pagan gods, all) and the months (either honoring pagan gods or else pagan rulers). I have decided (out of 1. a cognitive dissonance that has lately developed in my language-addled brain about using plural pronouns to refer to singular persons, and 2. as a way to honor my forbears) to take up Plain Speech once again. At first I didn't feel any need to go back to saying "first month" for January, and "second day" for Monday, etc. but lately I've "felt a leading" (as the Quakers would say) to do that as well. Please note, all you who speak languages with a T-V distinction, that my use of this form does not carry any particular nuance of familiarity or contempt (unless, of course, my voice is dripping with scorn, lol)
I guess that's about enough for today. I promise you all! I will be updating this at least once weekly (usually on Tuesday night after our local Esperanto club meet-up). Till then,
Cheers
Dimo
Yes, I'm alive!
First of all I must apologize AGAIN for taking (gulp) 6 YEARS (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!) to come back and update my blog. There truly is no excuse!
So, developments since last time.......well, the most important is I'm now retired. I had very nasty fungal infection in my lungs back in early 2012, which left a lot of damage. Damage to the tune of I only have the equivalent of one lung left, hence being on disability. Other than making it nearly impossible to find work, (I have a LOT of work restrictions, and those combined with modern technology making clerical jobs that are still done by actual warm bodies a thing of the past means there isn't a lot out there I can do) the worst thing about my disability, I suppose, is that I can no longer hold notes nearly as long as I used to when singing. Now to some this may not seem like such a big deal but music, and particularly singing, has always been a very big part of my life. I've been in some sort of choral group since 8th grade (cough1974cough) and am currently one half of the bass section in church choir most weeks.....and once in a while the whole bass section! So, yes, when I have to breathe basically twice as often, most of the time in the middle of phrases I used to be able to sail right through, it's a little depressing. That and the 50% pay cut makes for a very home-bound life!
Esperanto: Due to the above-mentioned pay cut (ouch), my Esperanto activities have not been what I would wish them to be. I never did make it to a Landa Kongreso (not even when it was just down in St. Louis!) and also never made it to Finland. Sadly, the Finland situation may be no longer an option (even if I did have the money). This year there was no week-long course listed and enquiries have returned nothing. Sigh.
I have, however, had great luck with the local Esperanto club! There are now four of us who meet on a weekly basis to chat (I plan a screening of Incubus very soon) and there are more than us four listed on the Meet-up page. Sadly one of those "more than four" is going away to university this fall, 90 miles to the north, so won't be able to join us during most of the year. Another of the "more than four" has disappeared. Ric, where is thee??
Ah, yes. That last sentence brings me to the other big, new thing in my life. I've been doing genealogical research the past couple years (I found some cousins right here in Iowa City!) and one of my discoveries was that one of my great-great-great-great grandfathers (in the Mosier line) and his family were Quakers. Now, I used to belong to a small Protestant sect where the members adopted Quaker-style "Plain Speech" mainly out of scruples about "truthfulness in speaking" and "avoiding heathen ways." This translated to, for us, using the Quaker-style "thee as a subject pronoun" to one person with what is modern English is the 3rd person singular form of the verb ("thee is" instead of "thou art"), as well as avoiding the names of the days (felt to be honoring pagan gods, all) and the months (either honoring pagan gods or else pagan rulers). I have decided (out of 1. a cognitive dissonance that has lately developed in my language-addled brain about using plural pronouns to refer to singular persons, and 2. as a way to honor my forbears) to take up Plain Speech once again. At first I didn't feel any need to go back to saying "first month" for January, and "second day" for Monday, etc. but lately I've "felt a leading" (as the Quakers would say) to do that as well. Please note, all you who speak languages with a T-V distinction, that my use of this form does not carry any particular nuance of familiarity or contempt (unless, of course, my voice is dripping with scorn, lol)
I guess that's about enough for today. I promise you all! I will be updating this at least once weekly (usually on Tuesday night after our local Esperanto club meet-up). Till then,
Cheers
Dimo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
