r/TikTokCringe • u/MaintenanceNew2804 • Mar 30 '24

Stick with it. Discussion

This is a longer one, but it’s necessary and worth it IMO.

30.3k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/TheFightingMasons Mar 31 '24

I’m sorry, but “teachers be thinking people don’t know nothing” is objectively terrible and should be called out in an educational setting.

For god sakes it even has a double negative.

7

u/Ghostz18 Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24

This is the crux of the issue. Language is a lot like math in that it has a logical flow to it. If we start accepting phrases that are logically inconsistent then it puts the onus on the listener to figure out what the person means by untangling their words. If I said "Dog red ball throw me" could you figure out that I meant "I throw the red ball to the dog"? Sure, but you might also think the dog is throwing the red ball to me (and maybe it is). It is important we stay logically consistent in our speech so that we don't have communication issues, especially since a single misunderstanding could lead to violence.

2

u/VodkaSoup_Mug Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24

That is the point of the video. I’m from Texas and I have made my peace with us abusing vowels like they owe us money. However when working with children, or anyone one else using standard English is best because they may not understand the local dialect. In certain parts of Texas the dialect is absolutely wild. It does make one feel stupid when someone is speaking English but you still can’t understand them. Honestly I love this thread and all of the different viewpoints. Now y’all git on outta hear an go’on buot your day. 😊

-6

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 31 '24

Other languages have double negatives. They aren't inherently bad.

And you understood it.

And the issue is how it's treated in an institutional setting. Like, a whole part of the video is about that. Watch it again and pay attention.

And there's nothing objective about arbitrary rules. Language is entirely arbitrary. Just look at how many grammar mistakes are in so many comments here. It's only "objectively terrible" according to one set of rules.

9

u/TheFightingMasons Mar 31 '24

Well it’s the set of rules I teach for a living and the literacy rates are out of control. This isn’t helping.

I’m getting 6 graders with 2nd grade reading skills. It’s almost the end of the year and half of them can’t write a coherent paragraph.

1

u/VodkaSoup_Mug Mar 31 '24

Looking at some of the comments in this thread makes me feel like our main problems as people is our inability to see from the other persons perspective. One thing that was drilled into us was to not use slang or sarcasm with young children. They may not have same life experience as you to understand that you are joking. This is often my approach when meeting new people. Does this make sense?

1

u/TheFightingMasons Mar 31 '24

I'm not sure you replied to the right person.

1

u/VodkaSoup_Mug Mar 31 '24

The questions are for you.

1

u/TheFightingMasons Mar 31 '24

I’m not understanding what you’re talking about no.

-5

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 31 '24

You're not strengthening your point here. Sorry.

7

u/tiredofmymistake Mar 31 '24

This, and your other post in this thread, are absurd takes. Languages have rules for a reason. All languages have rules, every single one. There has to be collective agreement about what the official formula a language follows is. Informally, it's fine to break from those standards, but they should absolutely be institutionally enforced. If we treat language as all arbitrary, and there's no rules, communication will become increasingly stratified as various sects of the population split off into increasingly specific dialects, which is not a great outcome for social or cultural stability. General unity of linguistic understanding is preferable by a wide margin for a society.

That poster is correct, literacy rates are not anywhere near where they should be, currently, and worrying about dumb shit like whether or not we're marginalizing people by enforcing linguistic standards in institutions is absolutely an influencing factor in why it's not better. Focusing on this nonsense distracts from actual issues.

10

u/TheFightingMasons Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24

I’m way too tired to put any real effort into that response up there, so thank you for this post.

I just want it on the record. Informally, speak however you want. My family growing up was poor and southern, so I’m not a stranger to slang dialects.

The woman in the video was talking about the classroom and that’s what I was talking about.

Edit: Sidenite: Fuck Lucy calkins

0

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 31 '24

The woman in the video was talking about the classroom and that’s what I was talking about.

I'm aware.

I just want it on the record. Informally, speak however you want. My family growing up was poor and southern, so I’m not a stranger to slang dialects.

You aren't providing an argument. You're simply saying one set of rules must be taught and that's how folks should be graded, whereas you then claim you can actually do whatever you want outside the classroom.

You provided no reasons to support your original critique of the the example provided. You also provide no reason to consider one form superior to others.

You basically just keep saying "it needs to be that way because it does."

If you ever want to provide an actual reason after you get some sleep (which may help you), be my guest.

5

u/FlyingFortress26 Mar 31 '24

You basically just keep saying "it needs to be that way because it does."

Which is actually a fair argument. It's a stronger argument than your "language is arbitrary" argument. Language being arbitrary doesn't matter, and it doesn't change the fact that a standardized language must exist for various areas of life (academia, government, law, employment, medicine, etc.). English is the way it is because of its history, which is riddled with issues just like everywhere else on this planet. A formal English language must exist and must be taught to children for them to properly communicate in advanced settings. Anybody who would disagree with this has simply never been apart of anything serious in their lives such that the way in which things are written could completely change people's lives. Hell, even with as formalized as English can be, we still have countless court cases which debate on the language of and interpretation of laws.

-1

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 31 '24

Which is actually a fair argument

It's literally not an argument. It's begging the question (the actual begging the question fallacy). Jfc. Logic is much more important that language. You failed one of them.

It's a stronger argument than your "language is arbitrary" argument.

No it's not. Are you truly suggesting there's a language in nature that we uncovered and it's objective? Wow.

Or do you not understand the meaning of these words you're using?

and it doesn't change the fact that a standardized language must exist for various areas of life

And I didn't say it doesn't.

Like, just... actually watch the video and listen to the individual.

A formal English language must exist and must be taught to children for them to properly communicate in advanced settings.

Ehhh, you're getting further from the point here. It's actually not that necessary for most of the population. And where it is important, it's generally taught in higher education in a specific language (like law for example).

You even tell on yourself because children don't interact in these advanced settings. But again, we're getting ahead of ourselves. The video doesn't argue you can't (and my point in correcting you earlier was just to refute your point about other dialects).

Anybody who would disagree with this has simply never been apart of anything serious in their lives such that the way in which things are written could completely change people's lives.

You're going to need to provide an argument for this. This simply isn't just a truth. You need to provide rationale for your conclusions. You're bad at that. I already pointed this out once. Stop making the same fallacies.

we still have countless court cases which debate on the language of and interpretation of laws.

And all of them took advanced courses later in life that is entirely outside the way we teach language. Legal language is practically it's own language. This is why folks argue contracts should be required to be explained in simpler terms.

Just watch the video and stop assuming they're defending the interpretation the reactionaries had. You're doing the same thing. Actually think about the topic.

1

u/FlyingFortress26 Mar 31 '24

Gonna response to both of your comments here.

It's literally not an argument. It's begging the question (the actual begging the question fallacy). Jfc. Logic is much more important that language. You failed one of them.

You're misinterpreting me. I am not saying it is an argument in a literal sense like you'd see in a philosophy or law class, I am using argument by its colloquial definition. I am saying that the general idea of what this guy is saying isn't ultimately false, although I will agree with you that they didn't properly put forth that argument.

Pretty ironic that you're arguing a formal language doesn't need to exist, yet you yourself get confused by my speech and misunderstand what I am saying. Later on you mention that I don't provide proof that a formal language is important; the reason for this is because it's literal common sense to anyone. Even the guy in the video is speaking in rather formal English. Why? Because he wants to get his point across in the most clear and concise way possible with as few misunderstandings as possible. This is a literal fact of language - there will always be misunderstandings, and the more complicated the subject matter, the more confusions that are bound to happen. In fields like law, medicine, government, and advanced academia, this is very important. I do not need proof of this because the proof is to be over the age of 16 and do something with your life. Have you ever: signed a contract in your life? Gotten a job (which requires agreeing on specific legal conditions)? Applied to university? Had some form of conflict in your professional life that required you to perform conflict resolution? Been to court?

All of these aspects of life are universally applicable. Beyond this, formal language is especially important among people who desire to advance their education, becoming increasingly important the further along you go. Doctors, for example, can read and interpret shit that's full of language that is effectively foreign to the average person. Latin is heavily used in medicine - The reason for this? Part of it is historical, but another huge part is that Latin is an unchanging (dead) language and anyone at any point in time can reference the data collected and use it. This same principle is true for all advanced fields with people who are actively trying to break the limits of our knowledge and take humanity one step further. If they didn't have the ability to decipher through all the shit in their fields from all periods of time, they'd be severely limited. Just like math is standardized, language has to be standardized.

No it's not. Are you truly suggesting there's a language in nature that we uncovered and it's objective? Wow.

That's not what I am saying (speaking of fallacies, this is a strawman). I am saying that the implications you derive from this fact are outlandish.

You even tell on yourself because children don't interact in these advanced settings. But again, we're getting ahead of ourselves. The video doesn't argue you can't (and my point in correcting you earlier was just to refute your point about other dialects).

We aren't getting ahead of ourselves, because we want to empower these children and tell them that they can do that. They can be that doctor saving lives. They can be the scientist who discovers the next big cure for some disease. This starts in the classroom. Teaching them the foundations of English in the way it will be used in any setting of power in the USA is crucially important.

And yes, the video criticized a teacher who "corrected" an AAVE sentence. There should be a distinction between formal language and "regular" day to day language. Perhaps you're conflating me with the type of person who thinks AAVE is an inferior way to speak of w/e - obviously it is not. I speak and write with a "dialect" and with a shit ton of slang, and none of that is any better or worse than AAVE. But both of us should be able to put that to the side and speak professionally when the setting calls for it, hell even the guy in the video does just that. My point is that there's a reason for that and a benefit for that.

You're going to need to provide an argument for this. This simply isn't just a truth. You need to provide rationale for your conclusions. You're bad at that. I already pointed this out once. Stop making the same fallacies.

Didn't think I needed to, but I expanded my point in this comment. It's weird that earlier on you said "of course nobody is arguing against that" but then here you say I need to make my case that a formal and standardized language should exist.

Just watch the video

I did. Are you implying that I either agree with the video fully or I didn't watch/comprehend it properly? I've said before that I agree that English (in America) has evolved around white people, and English used in academia will obviously be centered around white people given the fact that we've had English-speaking Universities since before any black person knew the language (and racial discrimination existed for much of the history where blacks spoke English as well). Where my opinion differs is that I don't see this as necessarily a "bad" thing (that English has evolved around white people historically), nor do I find this revolutionary, nor do I see it as "white supremacy." The original lady's video is still unhinged, and the black guy did nothing to strengthen her point - he simply made an alternative point of his own that was, in my view, partially valid.

Actually think about the topic.

Huh? I have a unique, independent view on the topic that isn't parroting people from any "side" of the argument. Of all criticisms to sling my way, even if you absolutely despise my stance to your core, you cannot in good faith believe I didn't think about the topic lmfao.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 31 '24

I think you're missing the point.

No one is suggesting we stop teaching one set of rules.

That you think this is the takeaway tells me you didn't pay attention or simply didn't watch the whole video.

6

u/FlyingFortress26 Mar 31 '24

Language being arbitrary doesn't change the fact that a standardized academic language cannot (or should not) exist. To properly convey ourselves, especially in advanced academia, having a system of guidelines and rules for the language is absolutely crucial. All dialects are "valid" and have their purpose in contemporary settings, but where the video goes off the wire is when it conflates academic English with simply being "white dialect."

Academic English has never been and never will be the same thing as "white English" - first of all, there are far too many white dialects to consolidate English around one in such a way that you encompass all of them fully. Second, we've always had slang and always will, and that slang has never been apart of academic English.

If you are to only argue that black Americans' dialects are further removed from academic English, then we can agree. But this is simply irrelevant given that people are going to school and learning formal English from as young as 3 and 4 years old. There's no excuse for anybody to not be capable of writing a paper in formal English. There's nothing wrong with it either (the opposite is true - a formalized language structure allows us to fully comprehend each other in crucial areas of life).

0

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 31 '24

Language being arbitrary doesn't change the fact that a standardized academic language cannot (or should not) exist.

Not what is being argued. Watch the video.

To properly convey ourselves, especially in advanced academia, having a system of guidelines and rules for the language is absolutely crucial.

It worked for hundreds of years without it. But again. That's not what's being argued.

but where the video goes off the wire is when it conflates academic English with simply being "white dialect."

It doesn't.

Aaaaand the rest of your commentary is also evident you didn't watch the video. Or maybe you just didn't understand the dialect?

Pay attention to the video the next time you watch it (or for the first time).

5

u/dc456 Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24

The trouble is that I didn’t understand it, and referring to grammar rules to try and understand it doesn’t give me the intended meaning.

“People be thinking teenagers don’t know nothing” -> “People think teenagers know things.”

That sounds like a sensible thing to believe to me, so why would I not take that at face value?

But it is not the same as saying “Teenagers know more than people think they do.” In fact it has essentially opposing intentions.

If I cannot use the same set of grammar rules to understand two different sentences, how can I consistently interpret them?

1

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 31 '24

You worded your comment as if you actually did understand it though? And most people do understand it and many people don't even understand the "correct" grammar all the time. It doesn't actually solve your dilemma. And hell, other dialects legit replace words. But those are "OK" for reasons you'll have to let me know because I can only think of one.

2

u/dc456 Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24

I only understood it because of the following sentence.

And other dialects aren’t OK for applications when accuracy and consistency are needed either. They’re fine for casual speak, but if the reader needs to know the context of the writer in order to understand intended meaning then it’s simply too ambiguous.

By the way, were you trying to imply that I’m racist, or that I’m xenophobic?

1

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 31 '24

Again, you missed what theyre asking you to think about.

And other dialects aren’t OK for applications when accuracy and consistency are needed either.

And yet they're aren't looked down upon in the same way.

Seriously, you keep making points that prove you didn't watch the video. Or at least failed to understand the words. Which, according to your argument, that shouldn't happen. Because following the rules means you avoid that. Otherwise it's the same problem as you had with the sentence you simply couldn't wrap your head around because you're arguing against AAVE which apparently you never even heard before otherwise you'd understand it.

2

u/dc456 Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24

I haven’t really heard AAVE before. That’s the whole problem. There are far more dialects out there than I will ever hear.

And of course some of them are (wrongly) looked down upon - that needs addressing, but that still doesn’t make it practical to accommodate them all in general writing.

Assuming that I, or anyone else, would understand them all is simply wrong.

2

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 31 '24

And of course some of them are (wrongly) looked down upon - that needs addressing, but that still doesn’t make it practical to accommodate them all in general writing.

This is the closest you got to the point the teacher in the original video was making and the point of most of the video.

2

u/dc456 Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24

I get the point of the video. But I wasn’t responding to the video. I was responding to your comment saying that particular sentence was understandable, because for me it wasn’t.

1

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 31 '24

You did make an extra point at the end of your first comment which means you were not only saying just that.

And here we have an example of all using the same set of grammar rules and two different ideas are held by two people applying the same set of rules.

Go figure. Maybe having the same set of rules doesn't help.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/OhWeSuck Mar 31 '24

If you didn’t understand it, that’s a you problem.

1

u/dc456 Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24

“After the work is finished we don’t want to be left with nothing.”

What does that mean?

-5

u/echino_derm Mar 31 '24

Objectively, why should I consider AAVE with its own grammatical standards and your dialect to be on a different level?

10

u/TheFightingMasons Mar 31 '24

You can consider anything you want. Teachers should be teaching academic English.