when i meet someone online, my entire opinion of them is formed by their facility with language. someone who doesn't communicate clearly in writing will make a poor impression. absent face to face interaction, a poor writer can't fit into my "theory" and therefore must be deficient.
unless my theory is wrong.
I don't think you're wrong. I think it's just a matter of context.
I'm not much of a fan of cultural relativism, because it's usually used as an excuse from asshats who say we shouldn't get involved in ending oppression.*
However, when it comes to language skills, I think it's important to think about culture when figuring out whether a given person is "deficient."
I'm not going to knock the language skills of someone who comes from a culture that has other ways of communication, or doesn't have the same emphasis on communication.
I also am generally tolerant of people whose proficiency is in other forms of reasoning. M, for instance, can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, but he lives and breathes about six different programming languages, so I'm not about to argue. Sometimes the verbal part of people's brains just is grossly overridden by other parts.
However, I'm a lot less tolerant of people who are born into and raised in cultures in which language is valued, who have easy access to education and who don't show signs of other kinds of proficiency who can't be bothered to use apostrophes correctly.
I feel quite comfortable judging people who are obviously intellectually lazy or have a disdain for education.
*My argument to them is usually something along the lines of: If the oppressed people aren't participating in their culture because they have no power, then we can't assume they're consenting to their oppression just because said oppression is common in that culture.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-12-12 08:01 am (UTC)unless my theory is wrong.
I don't think you're wrong. I think it's just a matter of context.
I'm not much of a fan of cultural relativism, because it's usually used as an excuse from asshats who say we shouldn't get involved in ending oppression.*
However, when it comes to language skills, I think it's important to think about culture when figuring out whether a given person is "deficient."
I'm not going to knock the language skills of someone who comes from a culture that has other ways of communication, or doesn't have the same emphasis on communication.
I also am generally tolerant of people whose proficiency is in other forms of reasoning. M, for instance, can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, but he lives and breathes about six different programming languages, so I'm not about to argue. Sometimes the verbal part of people's brains just is grossly overridden by other parts.
However, I'm a lot less tolerant of people who are born into and raised in cultures in which language is valued, who have easy access to education and who don't show signs of other kinds of proficiency who can't be bothered to use apostrophes correctly.
I feel quite comfortable judging people who are obviously intellectually lazy or have a disdain for education.
*My argument to them is usually something along the lines of: If the oppressed people aren't participating in their culture because they have no power, then we can't assume they're consenting to their oppression just because said oppression is common in that culture.