I've never understood why people care how other folks spell or type. It's not that big of a deal, at all.
It's primarily because in online interactions like this, typing is how you represent yourself. It's the only thing of you that people get to see, aside from avatar/sig I suppose. Bearing that in mind, taking the time to type eloquently shows you as verbose and having merit as someone to consider a valid discussion partner. Someone who capitalizes every word comes across as either not knowing which words are meant to be capitalized, or not caring enough to do so... which appears dim-witted at best. I'd also say "lazy", but the effort it takes to actually hit the shift key on every single word rules that out; it instead nails them firmly into the role of not knowing when and where it's appropriate, bordering on the illiterate, along with those who reduce words to a single letter.
So yes, it IS a big deal, assuming you don't want people to perceive you as unintelligent.
No one wants to read a post from someone that spells like a bulimic food fight after alphabet soup.
I've never understood why people care how other folks spell or type. It's not that big of a deal, at all.
It's primarily because in online interactions like this, typing is how you represent yourself. It's the only thing of you that people get to see, aside from avatar/sig I suppose. Bearing that in mind, taking the time to type eloquently shows you as verbose and having merit as someone to consider a valid discussion partner. Someone who capitalizes every word comes across as either not knowing which words are meant to be capitalized, or not caring enough to do so... which appears dim-witted at best. I'd also say "lazy", but the effort it takes to actually hit the shift key on every single word rules that out; it instead nails them firmly into the role of not knowing when and where it's appropriate, bordering on the illiterate, along with those who reduce words to a single letter.
So yes, it IS a big deal, assuming you don't want people to perceive you as unintelligent.
No one wants to read a post from someone that spells like a bulimic food fight after alphabet soup.
While you are completely correct on all points, and I agree entirely, you didn't really address "Why people care how other folk spell or type"... but rather "Why it's important for that person to spell and type correctly."
If you ask me, the only reason anybody cares how other people spell or type, or even speak (and don't get me wrong, I'm completely guilty of this) is because we ourselves have put the effort in to learn the "correct" ways to use language, and in that process we have come to appreciate and even love those ways. When someone uses bad grammar or language it pisses us off because it's something we genuinely care about and we perceive it being treated (and this is the only real way I can put this) like shit.
It's kind of like working really hard on your garden or yard, lovingly tending to the plants and trees, creating a beautiful thing, only for your neighbour to turn his garden into a rat infested trash dump, and bags of rubbish are starting to flow over the fence.
I can't believe that this has transformed from a topic about PETA and Subnautica to Asperger's Syndrome, grammar, and the ethics of nazing (naziating?, are these even words?) others way of writing. I honestly don't know how that happens, but you guys pulled it off. Well done.
And here I thought that's what the Internet was for, and excelled at, LOL. Let's not forget the old form of Shorthand, as well as Superwrite (that was short lived). I guess you could even chuck pig Latin in there. Now we have "txt speak", which is still "leet speak" to me. Heck, I resisted texting in the beginning, and even "LOL" hurt when I used it, but things indeed do change, morph, and move on... with or without us. Oh... and we could even discuss the modern use of... ellipses..........
All this is good timing as "Arrival" has recently been released in theaters. I haven't seen the movie, only read the short story, so I'm assuming it foucuses on the use and interpretation of language, as well.
I enjoy language, and prefer to see it written in standard accepted form. I also understand that linguistic excursions and exceptional use are a constant and ever evolving thing. Any language is 50% its own history of usage, and 50% how it's currently used. Just like the monetary system of your country, language only has meaning because we all generally agree on how its used. If everybody started capitalizing every word, it would become an accepted norm, the rules of language would eventually catch up, and the current usage of NOT capitalizing every word would become history. 100 years from now, people would see this paragraph as difficult to read because of its antiquated style.
However, I have generally thought very poorly of those who willfully diverge from the norm because they just don't like it or want to be different. Look up this dude named Cormac McCarthy and his book Suttree. It's painful to read, but all the artsy academic types praise his rebellious refusal to use common punctuation like periods or quotation marks.
100 years from now, people would see this paragraph as difficult to read because of its antiquated style
It's a weird thing, you may be right about 100 years into the future, because language seems to be changing faster than ever before thanks to mass communication capabilities. But I love the history of language, and even with basic reading skills you could easily manage to read stuff from quite a long time ago. Here's an example from 1792, and it's very similar to modern English. At least to us "educated" fellows. It takes a little bit of practice to read the old "S" which looks like our modern "F", but other than that it's basically the same as now.
Even the famous Canterbury Tales by Chaucer, which are well known for being "hard" to read, I personally find pretty simple to grasp. You're probably the same, though I admit we're probably in a minority. Being an avid reader from a young age massively helps with this stuff. Or maybe I'm just blessed, I don't know. How easy do you find this?
And that's from 1392, classic Middle English. This is what the archers at Azincourt may have sounded like when filling Frenchmen with arrows just 24 years later.
Now I'm just geeking out anyway. Thanks for the discussion though people, nice to have this kind of thing on here. We should probably start utilising the off-topic forum more.
Hello, all. Linguist here, who finally stopped lurking and made an account because grammar is calling me. Talesin is right in that people perceive other people who do not use "correct" (that is, prescriptively correct) grammar as unintelligent; this is mostly because the prescriptive rules are what we are taught in school, and therefore adhering to them is a marker of education. That said, education is not intelligence, and the case of language as it is written online - strange capitalization and all - is actually really interesting, in terms of both what innovations it's developed to convey emotion when tone of voice is impossible to type and what changes (particularly things like spelling) we see in it.
I... may have done a lot more talking than I'd intended to. Thus, this is all below a spoiler tag.
Edit: That is also an understatement. My sincerest apologies for the proceeding incessant ramble. I am extremely excited about language.
If you ask me, the only reason anybody cares how other people spell or type, or even speak (and don't get me wrong, I'm completely guilty of this) is because we ourselves have put the effort in to learn the "correct" ways to use language, and in that process we have come to appreciate and even love those ways. When someone uses bad grammar or language it pisses us off because it's something we genuinely care about and we perceive it being treated (and this is the only real way I can put this) like shit.
It's kind of like working really hard on your garden or yard, lovingly tending to the plants and trees, creating a beautiful thing, only for your neighbour to turn his garden into a rat infested trash dump, and bags of rubbish are starting to flow over the fence.
I respectfully disagree, quite a bit. People learn language within the first few years of life. There's a critical period, and after that point, learning a language gets a lot harder, if not impossible; before a kid is five years old, they already know all the rules of a language - as an example here, English. They have in their head a full, complete set of what we call "descriptive" grammar. So really, everyone who speaks English as a first language puts in the exact same effort, give or take language/developmental delays, to learn the language. What you spend time and effort learning later in school isn't actually the English language you learned in those first few years - it's "prescriptive" grammar, which essentially means it's a collection of the "right" and "wrong" ways to speak, decided by... well, tradition, mostly.
Someone who doesn't learn prescriptive rules, or doesn't understand them, or doesn't take them to heart, isn't any better or worse at communicating their ideas than someone who does, because they learned a perfectly valid form of the English language; most linguists ignore prescriptive grammar, because it's just not reflective of the way people speak without being trained to do so. You said on the last page that "...we've developed proper English for good reasons, because it works. But then it's always changing and evolving." Really, that proper English that works, that's any variety of English; if it didn't work, people wouldn't speak it. If what you mean is spelling etiquette... that doesn't really have anything to do with "English" as a spoken language, just the current convention for putting that language down on (digital) paper. And honestly, given today's technology, these conventions don't always work well in getting one's point across, particularly online.
What this is basically getting at is that language is language; there are rules and regulations that educated individuals use to create essentially a prestige dialect that is supposed to be a "correct" (which can be a little ironic because sometimes there are cases where non-prescriptive grammar fills a hole of ambiguity that prescriptive grammar leaves open, like the introduction of a distinction between singular and plural second person when someone uses "y'all", which is just really useful). So, calling any form of a language a "rat infested trash dump" is just a bit odd, because hey, the speaker communicates just fine. They use complex grammatical rules, and follow established syntactic patterns, and get their point across. And sure, maybe they get on the internet and they use "you're" when you would use "your". These two words sound the same, so there's that obvious confusion, but more importantly they are almost never found in the same environments, and so there's little benefit to distinguishing the two via text. This is why it is so difficult for some people to keep them straight, while they don't mix up homophonous nouns like, say, "cent" and "scent" nearly as often; "I have five scents" - well, are you broke or pungent? And even then, context does wonders, and so you still see these spelling errors in places where it just doesn't affect comprehension.
That's not to say there aren't people whose spelling is so bad that it is incomprehensible, just that "incorrect" spellings, if they are understood, clearly served their purpose. English spelling is a glorious mess, though, and I won't get into all of that here.
English online is doing some really fascinating things. Since we can't convey tone of voice well through text, a lot of people have learned to read sentences differently based on choice of punctuation, capitalization, and yes, spelling. i am using all lower case to convey the sense of a small comment rather than a firm statement. Capitalizing sentence-initially only really serves to ease the reading of long paragraphs; in short, one line-paragraphs, it doesn't serve much purpose, and since a lot of online communication (on forums, Twitter, what-have-you) consists of short individual posts (unlike this one - sorry), it makes more sense to repurpose the feature to convey something that is lost in text. I am speaking formally. i am speaking casually. What I Am Saying Is Important. This is a bit of a different case than the your/you're thing, but my point is that language use differs, and it differs for reasons other than intelligence. It's exactly as you said - we use the systems we do because they work. But nowadays, those systems that work aren't always the same as what we're taught in school.
People do not use poor grammar because they are shitting on the language they're speaking. Their grammar is likely perfectly fine; they learned a language as a child just as most of us did. They use "poor grammar" in text because the rules of "proper grammar" (by which people almost always mean "proper spelling" - no one ever actually confuses "your" and "you are", and so it's not really an issue of grammar at all) simply do not make useful grammatical distinctions or provide much benefit to comprehension in the text-based environment in which they are using it. What do provide distinctions are innovations like differences in capitalization to convey certain vocal tones. And yes, some of those can be very difficult to read and downright annoying. That doesn't make them bad English any more than someone coming up to you and speaking in a high, nasally voice - while potentially hard to understand and very annoying - is bad English.
People are entirely welcome to have different opinions! The only point I'm trying to make is that using prescriptively "incorrect" grammar - or spelling - does not mean that someone is using an inferior form of language. It's not really that you created a beautiful thing and your neighbor is shitting on it; you learned English, and your neighbor learned English, and when you go online you use one form of English and they use another, each responding to the discourse environment in different ways. Yes, people developed prescriptive grammar over a long period of time, and EnglishInfidel, you are perfectly in the right to think of those rules as a beautiful thing that you are proud to use! Being eloquent, using the tools and rules we're taught in school (which sometimes directly contradict the language we actually speak), that's a downright useful thing, particularly since (as you and Talesin said) it is seen in society as a marker of education, and thus how much one's words should be heeded. I mean, here I am being all prescriptive while I type; heck, I'm even using semicolons, though I'm about to start a sentence with a conjunction and I swear I can feel my high school English teacher rolling in her grave. But someone else not using those rules doesn't mean they're defiling them. You could view them as two different dialects of the same language.
...This was a very long post. I am sorry. I only half know what I'm talking about - English dialects and whatnot are, suffice it to say, nowhere close to my specialty. This was mostly just a small rant about prescriptivism vs. descriptivism when it comes to judging one's competence in language, and the fact that the latter matters (being the way someone actually speaks understands the language) while the former really just indicates how well someone can adhere to rules that don't always let them get their point across as clearly as it could, or make distinctions that simply don't aid comprehension and thus are difficult to remember. A lot of linguists I know (myself included) were avid "correctors" of others' grammar for a long time, and I just think it's worth throwing the other side out there, since a decade ago I would have shared your opinion entirely.
That said. If PETA does decide to attack Subnautica for animal cruelty, I'm sure we can all agree that it is our own fault for not electing the EPCA, who have always had the best interests of all flora and fauna at heart.
If it were actually just a mentality thing I'd agree, but he has stated on a couple of occasions that it's his way of being "COOL", nothing more.
It was only in this thread that he actually claimed to have a "critical thinking" condition.
As I have already pointed out in another thread, his way of being "COOL" is mostly just annoying and he needs to at the very least, attempt to reevaluate that decision in the context of how he plans on interacting with others, for the rest of his life.
You said "mental defect" as if aneurotypicality is inherently a bad thing. There's no such thing as a "mental defect"; it's a "mental condition".
I'm confident I won't be telling you anything new when I say that people with autism or any other mental condition do not go around informing people about that. We know that's a bad thing to do. We know that that makes us a target for abuse and ostracization. But then there's also people like you who mock us for what we are on the assumption we aren't and then backpedal when you hear that's what we actually are. We're doomed if we tell and trapped if we don't. That's not fair. I've been through so many of these situations myself and they're never fair.
Saying something is "cool" or whatever is a cover; a way to reclaim something that you will otherwise be denied. It's easier to be mocked for something you claim to do for being cool than it is to be rejected for something you do to keep yourself... calm. It's less vulnerable. I do not hold it against you that you haven't developed a sense to genuinely detect the possibility of aneurotypicality and I would rather not have this conversation either, but I wouldn't forgive myself if I didn't speak up and maybe get you to be more careful in your words/responses next time. They're more damaging than you realize.
I respectfully disagree, quite a bit. People learn language within the first few years of life. There's a critical period, and after that point, learning a language gets a lot harder, if not impossible; before a kid is five years old, they already know all the rules of a language - as an example here, English. They have in their head a full, complete set of what we call "descriptive" grammar. So really, everyone who speaks English as a first language puts in the exact same effort, give or take language/developmental delays, to learn the language. What you spend time and effort learning later in school isn't actually the English language you learned in those first few years - it's "prescriptive" grammar, which essentially means it's a collection of the "right" and "wrong" ways to speak, decided by... well, tradition, mostly.
Someone who doesn't learn prescriptive rules, or doesn't understand them, or doesn't take them to heart, isn't any better or worse at communicating their ideas than someone who does, because they learned a perfectly valid form of the English language; most linguists ignore prescriptive grammar, because it's just not reflective of the way people speak without being trained to do so. You said on the last page that "...we've developed proper English for good reasons, because it works. But then it's always changing and evolving." Really, that proper English that works, that's any variety of English; if it didn't work, people wouldn't speak it. If what you mean is spelling etiquette... that doesn't really have anything to do with "English" as a spoken language, just the current convention for putting that language down on (digital) paper. And honestly, given today's technology, these conventions don't always work well in getting one's point across, particularly online.
Firstly, welcome, and thanks for your input. It's always good to get a professional opinion.
Secondly, I'm not sure what it is you disagree with, as I completely concur. Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough, but I was indeed talking totally about "prescriptive" grammar. Where I grew up, in North West England, that first five years of learning English was a very different English than the written word. Most of the rest of the English speaking world wouldn't really keep up in a conversation with the spoken English, with all its strange local slang and weird pronunciations.
The problem, I feel, is when people who learned and love the prescriptive grammar come into contact with people who type or write the way they speak.
And sure, maybe they get on the internet and they use "you're" when you would use "your". These two words sound the same, so there's that obvious confusion, but more importantly they are almost never found in the same environments, and so there's little benefit to distinguishing the two via text. This is why it is so difficult for some people to keep them straight, while they don't mix up homophonous nouns like, say, "cent" and "scent" nearly as often; "I have five scents" - well, are you broke or pungent? And even then, context does wonders, and so you still see these spelling errors in places where it just doesn't affect comprehension.
I do understand what you're saying, and I agree for the most part here too. However I have to disagree that there's "little benefit to distinguishing the two via text."
You see, for those of us who have learned the prescriptive, "correct" way to write out our words, we are simply "used" to that way of things. When I see "I have five scents" it causes a moment, (perhaps only a millisecond) of confusion and frustration. Sure, the context may mean it's obvious what the person intended to say, but it makes all the difference between reading and comprehending at lightning speed and having to do mental translations, which feels like being mentally hobbled. I'm just speaking from my own experience here, and how I feel when reading such things. I'm sure I'm not alone.
People do not use poor grammar because they are shitting on the language they're speaking. Their grammar is likely perfectly fine; they learned a language as a child just as most of us did. They use "poor grammar" in text because the rules of "proper grammar" (by which people almost always mean "proper spelling" - no one ever actually confuses "your" and "you are", and so it's not really an issue of grammar at all) simply do not make useful grammatical distinctions or provide much benefit to comprehension in the text-based environment in which they are using it.
Well, when I said "they are shitting on the language" I didn't mean they intend to. I only mean that's how it feels to someone who takes pride in their own "proper" use of grammar/spelling/whatever. It comes down to having ego invested I suppose.
As for the rules of "proper grammar" not making useful distinctions or having a benefit in a text-based environment, I have to disagree I'm afraid. I'm thinking right now of the correct use of the apostrophe, as it's probably the most likely source of confusion in communication. (Your and you're are easily interchangeable, but only because at this point we're all so used to them being used "incorrectly".)
The only point I'm trying to make is that using prescriptively "incorrect" grammar - or spelling - does not mean that someone is using an inferior form of language. It's not really that you created a beautiful thing and your neighbor is shitting on it; you learned English, and your neighbor learned English, and when you go online you use one form of English and they use another, each responding to the discourse environment in different ways. Yes, people developed prescriptive grammar over a long period of time, and EnglishInfidel, you are perfectly in the right to think of those rules as a beautiful thing that you are proud to use! Being eloquent, using the tools and rules we're taught in school (which sometimes directly contradict the language we actually speak), that's a downright useful thing, particularly since (as you and Talesin said) it is seen in society as a marker of education, and thus how much one's words should be heeded. I mean, here I am being all prescriptive while I type; heck, I'm even using semicolons, though I'm about to start a sentence with a conjunction and I swear I can feel my high school English teacher rolling in her grave. But someone else not using those rules doesn't mean they're defiling them. You could view them as two different dialects of the same language.
Yep, you're completely correct, I concede that the metaphorical neighbour is not intentionally shitting on English, but again, all I'm saying is that it can feel that way sometimes.
I used to be the sort of person who got really annoyed, I was the stereotypical "grammar Nazi", but as I've got older I've more and more come to what seems to be your way of thinking. And it's a change that's still ongoing, even this conversation gives me food for thought.
Thanks a lot buddy.
I'm interested in your opinions on my previous post, about English in the past and how it's changing faster now than ever before. Now that I think about it, I'm inclined to say that part of the pride and protectiveness towards the "correct" use of English is because it feels like such a benefit to be able to grasp it. I would find such frustration in not being able to read older English and comprehend it. And I'm not talking about Chaucer's English, but even things from recent times.
When you learn how to use grammar correctly, you also learn how to spell, and when you learn how to spell, you learn hundreds, thousands of words. Your vocabulary is improved immensely, and with that comes this amazing ability to comprehend.
I know lots of my old school friends who simply never had the patience or inclination to learn, who ridiculed reading books because it was considered a waste of time in the culture I grew up in. Who wants to read boring old history books when there's video games to play? Why bother reading Lord of the Rings when the movie is available?
I find that incredibly sad, because they're missing out on so much richness in life. I know it's not my place to put such a value judgement on it, but I can't help it. I'm sure you understand that being passionate yourself.
I can't believe that this has transformed from a topic about PETA and Subnautica to Asperger's Syndrome, grammar, and the ethics of nazing (naziating?, are these even words?) others way of writing. I honestly don't know how that happens, but you guys pulled it off. Well done.
I can't believe that this has transformed from a topic about PETA and Subnautica to Asperger's Syndrome, grammar, and the ethics of nazing (naziating?, are these even words?) others way of writing. I honestly don't know how that happens, but you guys pulled it off. Well done.
Pfft we've done much bigger things, this one was childsplay
If it were actually just a mentality thing I'd agree, but he has stated on a couple of occasions that it's his way of being "COOL", nothing more.
It was only in this thread that he actually claimed to have a "critical thinking" condition.
As I have already pointed out in another thread, his way of being "COOL" is mostly just annoying and he needs to at the very least, attempt to reevaluate that decision in the context of how he plans on interacting with others, for the rest of his life.
You said "mental defect" as if aneurotypicality is inherently a bad thing. There's no such thing as a "mental defect"; it's a "mental condition".
I'm confident I won't be telling you anything new when I say that people with autism or any other mental condition do not go around informing people about that. We know that's a bad thing to do. We know that that makes us a target for abuse and ostracization. But then there's also people like you who mock us for what we are on the assumption we aren't and then backpedal when you hear that's what we actually are. We're doomed if we tell and trapped if we don't. That's not fair. I've been through so many of these situations myself and they're never fair.
Saying something is "cool" or whatever is a cover; a way to reclaim something that you will otherwise be denied. It's easier to be mocked for something you claim to do for being cool than it is to be rejected for something you do to keep yourself... calm. It's less vulnerable. I do not hold it against you that you haven't developed a sense to genuinely detect the possibility of aneurotypicality and I would rather not have this conversation either, but I wouldn't forgive myself if I didn't speak up and maybe get you to be more careful in your words/responses next time. They're more damaging than you realize.
What I said...,
Was based on previous limited conversations with the individual in question.
Who only made specific indications at that time, that his particular choice of communication, was to be "rebellious" both here in the forums and in his general application to life.
Mainly because he felt it was "COOL".
There was absolutely no indication or even a mention of any medical dysfunction being involved.
(self-created neurological words, not withstanding... "aneurotypicality" ???)
You'll have to forgive me for not using my 'internet telepathy' (which I was unaware of even having) for interpreting his comments in such a way other than how they were represented.
Apparently, I will have to strive in the future to assume that everyone who posts radically on the internet, is mentally challenged in some way, shape or form and curtail my sardonic tone.
InClUdInG mYsElF.
BTW: As an occasional financial contributor to PETA, I do find their reaction to video gaming to be completely asinine.
Was based on previous limited conversations with the individual in question.
Who only made specific indications at that time, that his particular choice of communication, was to be "rebellious" both here in the forums and in his general application to life.
Mainly because he felt it was "COOL".
There was absolutely no indication or even a mention of any medical dysfunction being involved.
(self-created neurological words, not withstanding... "aneurotypicality" ???)
You'll have to forgive me for not using my 'internet telepathy' (which I was unaware of even having) for interpreting his comments in such a way other than how they were represented.
Apparently, I will have to strive in the future to assume that everyone who posts radically on the internet, is mentally challenged in some way, shape or form and curtail my sardonic tone.
InClUdInG mYsElF.
I already said I don't hold you lack of radar against you, so, sure, you're forgiven. Wish you'd own up to that "mental defect" comment, but whatevs. "Aneurotypicality" is a word, btw. It refers to the mental state of people with a mental condition. You can google it.
And yeah, that's some advice you try to make a joke out of, but would actually be very wise to follow. Do assume a mental condition when you spot what you consider "odd" behavior and act properly. It's what I try to do and it's not like you have anything to lose by aiming to be nice.
Was based on previous limited conversations with the individual in question.
Who only made specific indications at that time, that his particular choice of communication, was to be "rebellious" both here in the forums and in his general application to life.
Mainly because he felt it was "COOL".
There was absolutely no indication or even a mention of any medical dysfunction being involved.
(self-created neurological words, not withstanding... "aneurotypicality" ???)
You'll have to forgive me for not using my 'internet telepathy' (which I was unaware of even having) for interpreting his comments in such a way other than how they were represented.
Apparently, I will have to strive in the future to assume that everyone who posts radically on the internet, is mentally challenged in some way, shape or form and curtail my sardonic tone.
InClUdInG mYsElF.
I already said I don't hold you lack of radar against you, so, sure, you're forgiven. Wish you'd own up to that "mental defect" comment, but whatevs. "Aneurotypicality" is a word, btw. It refers to the mental state of people with a mental condition. You can google it.
And yeah, that's some advice you try to make a joke out of, but would actually be very wise to follow. Do assume a mental condition when you spot what you consider "odd" behavior and act properly. It's what I try to do and it's not like you have anything to lose by aiming to be nice.
Sorry, "Aneurotypicality" is not a word, even on Google. (nor in any Dictionary)
And if it were a word, it would pretty much mean the exact opposite of what you are attempting to use it for.
"Atypical" though is a word, and it means "NOT representative of a type, group, or class".
So by attempting to create your own word, you've completely missed the subtext of your intended meaning.
Now if you would care to drop the "A" at the beginning, then I would be more than happy to somewhat agree with you, as that is an urban word (see here:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neurotypicality) created in the last decade or so.
But even that doesn't really mean what you are trying to convey.
Fortunately, I get the gist of what your are saying despite the awkward grammar.
Therefore, I am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt toward my fellow posters, up to the point where they tell me that their behavior is a "CHOICE" not a "Condition", which is how the person in question presented himself initially.
BTW: I typed my "mental defect" post based on what I was led to believe at the time to be a correct assumption.
Therefore, there's no reason for me to "own up to" anything as it is perfectly clear that that post is attached to my forum name, and as it stands now, with the continuing conversation in this thread, I think I've made it pretty clear that I am now aware of the facts of his situation and will take that information into account from now on.
Essentially, I'll just ignore him for the foreseeable future, as that seems to be his tacit goal anyway.
And as for this conversation, it seems to have completely drifted off the rails and perhaps it's time to move on.
When people stop donating to them, or when they've "euthanized" every animal on the planet.
I believe the word you were searching for is "Neutered" as in making the subject Sterile, not "Euthanized" as in making the subject Dead.
Though perhaps you were indicating a "Death Sentence" for every animal on the Earth, but that truly is not in any way, shape or form, PETA's stated goal.
I believe the word you were searching for is "Neutered" as in making the subject Sterile, not "Euthanized" as in making the subject Dead.
Though perhaps you were indicating a "Death Sentence" for every animal on the Earth, but that truly is not in any way, shape or form, PETA's stated goal.
I was exaggerating, but PETA has a dubious track record when it comes to re-homing animals. Most of the animals that enter their shelters are euthanized and very few are actually re-homed.
I'm all for sterilising domestic cats and dogs since it means there's less unwanted offspring. But come on, in 2014 alone they euthanized 2,454 out of 3,369 voluntarily surrendered animals at their Virginia shelter. Most of them were within a day of arrival.
PETA's stated goal is noble, but they save far less animals than other charities do with a fraction of their budget.
You said "mental defect" as if aneurotypicality is inherently a bad thing. There's no such thing as a "mental defect"; it's a "mental condition".
And a mental defect would be a mental condition with an inherent negative connotation. And yes, there is such a thing as a mental defect in the real world, outside of Tumblr.
I believe the word you were searching for is "Neutered" as in making the subject Sterile, not "Euthanized" as in making the subject Dead.
PeTA have an overall kill rate of over 85% of all 'rescues' year after year, with several in the last decade topping 97% kill. Many 'action vans' carry euth kits, and are known for catching strays and euthanizing on the spot. These are not animals in pain, or who could not be re-homed. Within the last year there have been at least two cases where PeTA stole a dog off the owner's porch, and euthanized it immediately. Then sent a vegan fruit basket to one owner by way of 'apology'.
So no. Not neutered/spayed. PeTA are worthless murdering fuckheads. If you care about animals, support the ASPCA.
People learn language within the first few years of life. There's a critical period, and after that point, learning a language gets a lot harder, if not impossible
As someone who has taken the time to learn two more languages reasonably well after early childhood, and bits of two more (not enough to converse), I'd have to call bull on this. It's more of people getting set in their ways of thinking in one language rather than in concepts. It's breaking that routine that tends to be the difficult part, and getting yourself to stop trying to translate everything into your mother tongue that makes or breaks the capability.
So, calling any form of a language a "rat infested trash dump" is just a bit odd, because hey, the speaker communicates just fine. They use complex grammatical rules, and follow established syntactic patterns, and get their point across.
[snip]
People do not use poor grammar because they are shitting on the language they're speaking. Their grammar is likely perfectly fine; they learned a language as a child just as most of us did. They use "poor grammar" in text because the rules of "proper grammar" (by which people almost always mean "proper spelling" - no one ever actually confuses "your" and "you are", and so it's not really an issue of grammar at all) simply do not make useful grammatical distinctions or provide much benefit to comprehension in the text-based environment in which they are using it. What do provide distinctions are innovations like differences in capitalization to convey certain vocal tones. And yes, some of those can be very difficult to read and downright annoying. That doesn't make them bad English any more than someone coming up to you and speaking in a high, nasally voice - while potentially hard to understand and very annoying - is bad English.
Pidgin English say hi. If are going YouTube comments area, see word dumpster fire. Many are need slam head in door when until squish come, still understand what mean they. Question be are when understandable enough, you is say is still English.
Eventually, when a cat gets run over enough times, it stops being a cat. The same thing goes for the mistreatment of the English language in the pursuit of personal expression, identity, shorthand, or imbuing an emotive slant. The question comes down to being more of a subjective opinion as to when that mangled, bleeding lump of meat and hair crosses the line.
Sorry, "Aneurotypicality" is not a word, even on Google. (nor in any Dictionary)
And if it were a word, it would pretty much mean the exact opposite of what you are attempting to use it for.
"Atypical" though is a word, and it means "NOT representative of a type, group, or class".
So by attempting to create your own word, you've completely missed the subtext of your intended meaning.
Now if you would care to drop the "A" at the beginning, then I would be more than happy to somewhat agree with you, as that is an urban word (see here:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neurotypicality) created in the last decade or so.
But even that doesn't really mean what you are trying to convey.
Fortunately, I get the gist of what your are saying despite the awkward grammar.
Therefore, I am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt toward my fellow posters, up to the point where they tell me that their behavior is a "CHOICE" not a "Condition", which is how the person in question presented himself initially.
BTW: I typed my "mental defect" post based on what I was led to believe at the time to be a correct assumption.
Therefore, there's no reason for me to "own up to" anything as it is perfectly clear that that post is attached to my forum name, and as it stands now, with the continuing conversation in this thread, I think I've made it pretty clear that I am now aware of the facts of his situation and will take that information into account from now on.
Essentially, I'll just ignore him for the foreseeable future, as that seems to be his tacit goal anyway.
And as for this conversation, it seems to have completely drifted off the rails and perhaps it's time to move on.
"A-" means "not" or "not quite". So, yes, "atypical" means "not-typical", whereas "aneurotypical" means "not-neurotypical". The grammar works out just fine, even by the rest of what you written (and Google gets me uses aplenty of both words, whether with "-ity" at the end or not). A neurotypical is anyone who is considered not to have a (labelled) mental condition, an aneurotypical is anyone who does. Sometimes, "neurotypical" is used to refer specifically to non-autistic individuals, but I prefer "allist" from "allism" for that. Explaining why would go into the troublesome position of autism vs other mental conditions, which I surmise you don't have the capacity nor interest for. Some people prefer "neurodiversity", but that technically includes the entire range of mental states, neurotypicality included.
None of these words are ones that I came up with. Don't know if it's in the dictionary or not, but it's a common term in (English-speaking) circles concerned with mental conditions. Been so for at least the years I've been with it; mind that dictionaries tend to have delays (and omissions; can't exactly find every chemistry term in existence in it either. Or retail term. Or fandom (gaming) term.) when it comes to words that do not serve the dominant portion of the population.
Though if it pleases you, feel free to propose another, non-insulting word to refer to the collection of mental states not characteristic of the neurotypical label. I could use it when sharing discussion space with you in the future.
Choice and condition are interchangeable concepts when it comes to mental state and personality. This is a huge part of why it is so easy to get into an identity breakdown when you have a mental condition because you're taught it's like a mind disease but it's not. It's you. Coming to terms with the bindings between "you" and the "mental condition" and the solutions to make it work can be a process of years. You're making separations where they don't exist based on a deeply faulty neurotypical worldview. Hence why my entire problem with "mental defect" is not right or wrong application but the fact you had the nerve to use that term in the first place. It's disheartening you don't see how that's not okay. Or don't want to see; I detect emotional distress on your side and I don't want to aggravate that so I can agree to let this topic be by now.
As someone who has taken the time to learn two more languages reasonably well after early childhood, and bits of two more (not enough to converse), I'd have to call bull on this. It's more of people getting set in their ways of thinking in one language rather than in concepts. It's breaking that routine that tends to be the difficult part, and getting yourself to stop trying to translate everything into your mother tongue that makes or breaks the capability.
My apologies; I should have been clearer. I meant a critical period for first language learning. You're entirely right that it's possible to learn second/third/etc. languages after childhood (we are both examples of this), but there is significant evidence (mostly, I believe, from Deaf individuals who grew up without signing parents, attempts to teach language to feral children, and the language development of people of different ages with brain injuries) that after that first period ends, it is very difficult for a person to learn any language if they have not already learned at least one. I was not referring to second language learning here, and I should have said that.
Pidgin English say hi. If are going YouTube comments area, see word dumpster fire. Many are need slam head in door when until squish come, still understand what mean they. Question be are when understandable enough, you is say is still English.
Eventually, when a cat gets run over enough times, it stops being a cat. The same thing goes for the mistreatment of the English language in the pursuit of personal expression, identity, shorthand, or imbuing an emotive slant. The question comes down to being more of a subjective opinion as to when that mangled, bleeding lump of meat and hair crosses the line.
Pidgins are, by definition, simplified forms of languages. People do not learn pidgins as a first language; they arise as a result of language contact in an area. When children do begin to learn pidgins as first languages, they add significant complexity to said pidgin. They develop clearer, more regular structure, and the ability to express very complicated ideas naturally. This is how creoles are made. The case of English as a second language, which seems to be what you are going for here, is rather different to the issue at hand, which is that of English as a first language but not used according to the prescriptive rules; ESL learners can most certainly use English incorrectly, in that they violate grammatical constraints common to the language as a whole, and thus cannot be understood. In those cases, yes, there is most certainly such a thing as "bad" English, but the people using it are learning, and I personally try to cut them some slack and help them where possible. But, as you said, this can all be very subjective.
"A-" means "not" or "not quite". So, yes, "atypical" means "not-typical", whereas "aneurotypical" means "not-neurotypical". The grammar works out just fine, even by the rest of what you written (and Google gets me uses aplenty of both words, whether with "-ity" at the end or not). A neurotypical is anyone who is considered not to have a (labelled) mental condition, an aneurotypical is anyone who does. Sometimes, "neurotypical" is used to refer specifically to non-autistic individuals, but I prefer "allist" from "allism" for that. Explaining why would go into the troublesome position of autism vs other mental conditions, which I surmise you don't have the capacity nor interest for. Some people prefer "neurodiversity", but that technically includes the entire range of mental states, neurotypicality included.
Isn't "neurodivergent" a commonly-used opposite of "neurotypical"?
"A-" means "not" or "not quite". So, yes, "atypical" means "not-typical", whereas "aneurotypical" means "not-neurotypical". The grammar works out just fine, even by the rest of what you written (and Google gets me uses aplenty of both words, whether with "-ity" at the end or not). A neurotypical is anyone who is considered not to have a (labelled) mental condition, an aneurotypical is anyone who does. Sometimes, "neurotypical" is used to refer specifically to non-autistic individuals, but I prefer "allist" from "allism" for that. Explaining why would go into the troublesome position of autism vs other mental conditions, which I surmise you don't have the capacity nor interest for. Some people prefer "neurodiversity", but that technically includes the entire range of mental states, neurotypicality included.
Isn't "neurodivergent" a commonly-used opposite of "neurotypical"?
Correct. I forgot to list that one due to its visual similarity to "neurodiversity". Whether it or "aneurotypical" is used is a matter of preference. In my case, I come across the latter more than the former and being unable to readily distinguish "neurodivergent" from "neurodiversity", I prefer "aneurotypical".
And what happened? Did your home burn down? Were babies mysteriously murdered? Did the universe fold into itself? *looks around* no... no. All is fine. People had a discussion. What the majority of folks wanted to talk about rose to the top. It happens, it's ok, and I'm sure it'll happen again; you'll be none the worse for it.
Comments
It's primarily because in online interactions like this, typing is how you represent yourself. It's the only thing of you that people get to see, aside from avatar/sig I suppose. Bearing that in mind, taking the time to type eloquently shows you as verbose and having merit as someone to consider a valid discussion partner. Someone who capitalizes every word comes across as either not knowing which words are meant to be capitalized, or not caring enough to do so... which appears dim-witted at best. I'd also say "lazy", but the effort it takes to actually hit the shift key on every single word rules that out; it instead nails them firmly into the role of not knowing when and where it's appropriate, bordering on the illiterate, along with those who reduce words to a single letter.
So yes, it IS a big deal, assuming you don't want people to perceive you as unintelligent.
No one wants to read a post from someone that spells like a bulimic food fight after alphabet soup.
While you are completely correct on all points, and I agree entirely, you didn't really address "Why people care how other folk spell or type"... but rather "Why it's important for that person to spell and type correctly."
If you ask me, the only reason anybody cares how other people spell or type, or even speak (and don't get me wrong, I'm completely guilty of this) is because we ourselves have put the effort in to learn the "correct" ways to use language, and in that process we have come to appreciate and even love those ways. When someone uses bad grammar or language it pisses us off because it's something we genuinely care about and we perceive it being treated (and this is the only real way I can put this) like shit.
It's kind of like working really hard on your garden or yard, lovingly tending to the plants and trees, creating a beautiful thing, only for your neighbour to turn his garden into a rat infested trash dump, and bags of rubbish are starting to flow over the fence.
And here I thought that's what the Internet was for, and excelled at, LOL. Let's not forget the old form of Shorthand, as well as Superwrite (that was short lived). I guess you could even chuck pig Latin in there. Now we have "txt speak", which is still "leet speak" to me. Heck, I resisted texting in the beginning, and even "LOL" hurt when I used it, but things indeed do change, morph, and move on... with or without us. Oh... and we could even discuss the modern use of... ellipses..........
All this is good timing as "Arrival" has recently been released in theaters. I haven't seen the movie, only read the short story, so I'm assuming it foucuses on the use and interpretation of language, as well.
We all start talking about PETA and Aspergers and Grammar and Nazis and shit.
I enjoy language, and prefer to see it written in standard accepted form. I also understand that linguistic excursions and exceptional use are a constant and ever evolving thing. Any language is 50% its own history of usage, and 50% how it's currently used. Just like the monetary system of your country, language only has meaning because we all generally agree on how its used. If everybody started capitalizing every word, it would become an accepted norm, the rules of language would eventually catch up, and the current usage of NOT capitalizing every word would become history. 100 years from now, people would see this paragraph as difficult to read because of its antiquated style.
However, I have generally thought very poorly of those who willfully diverge from the norm because they just don't like it or want to be different. Look up this dude named Cormac McCarthy and his book Suttree. It's painful to read, but all the artsy academic types praise his rebellious refusal to use common punctuation like periods or quotation marks.
$.02
J
It's a weird thing, you may be right about 100 years into the future, because language seems to be changing faster than ever before thanks to mass communication capabilities. But I love the history of language, and even with basic reading skills you could easily manage to read stuff from quite a long time ago. Here's an example from 1792, and it's very similar to modern English. At least to us "educated" fellows. It takes a little bit of practice to read the old "S" which looks like our modern "F", but other than that it's basically the same as now.
Even the famous Canterbury Tales by Chaucer, which are well known for being "hard" to read, I personally find pretty simple to grasp. You're probably the same, though I admit we're probably in a minority. Being an avid reader from a young age massively helps with this stuff. Or maybe I'm just blessed, I don't know. How easy do you find this?
And that's from 1392, classic Middle English. This is what the archers at Azincourt may have sounded like when filling Frenchmen with arrows just 24 years later.
Now I'm just geeking out anyway. Thanks for the discussion though people, nice to have this kind of thing on here. We should probably start utilising the off-topic forum more.
I... may have done a lot more talking than I'd intended to. Thus, this is all below a spoiler tag.
Edit: That is also an understatement. My sincerest apologies for the proceeding incessant ramble. I am extremely excited about language.
Someone who doesn't learn prescriptive rules, or doesn't understand them, or doesn't take them to heart, isn't any better or worse at communicating their ideas than someone who does, because they learned a perfectly valid form of the English language; most linguists ignore prescriptive grammar, because it's just not reflective of the way people speak without being trained to do so. You said on the last page that "...we've developed proper English for good reasons, because it works. But then it's always changing and evolving." Really, that proper English that works, that's any variety of English; if it didn't work, people wouldn't speak it. If what you mean is spelling etiquette... that doesn't really have anything to do with "English" as a spoken language, just the current convention for putting that language down on (digital) paper. And honestly, given today's technology, these conventions don't always work well in getting one's point across, particularly online.
What this is basically getting at is that language is language; there are rules and regulations that educated individuals use to create essentially a prestige dialect that is supposed to be a "correct" (which can be a little ironic because sometimes there are cases where non-prescriptive grammar fills a hole of ambiguity that prescriptive grammar leaves open, like the introduction of a distinction between singular and plural second person when someone uses "y'all", which is just really useful). So, calling any form of a language a "rat infested trash dump" is just a bit odd, because hey, the speaker communicates just fine. They use complex grammatical rules, and follow established syntactic patterns, and get their point across. And sure, maybe they get on the internet and they use "you're" when you would use "your". These two words sound the same, so there's that obvious confusion, but more importantly they are almost never found in the same environments, and so there's little benefit to distinguishing the two via text. This is why it is so difficult for some people to keep them straight, while they don't mix up homophonous nouns like, say, "cent" and "scent" nearly as often; "I have five scents" - well, are you broke or pungent? And even then, context does wonders, and so you still see these spelling errors in places where it just doesn't affect comprehension.
That's not to say there aren't people whose spelling is so bad that it is incomprehensible, just that "incorrect" spellings, if they are understood, clearly served their purpose. English spelling is a glorious mess, though, and I won't get into all of that here.
English online is doing some really fascinating things. Since we can't convey tone of voice well through text, a lot of people have learned to read sentences differently based on choice of punctuation, capitalization, and yes, spelling. i am using all lower case to convey the sense of a small comment rather than a firm statement. Capitalizing sentence-initially only really serves to ease the reading of long paragraphs; in short, one line-paragraphs, it doesn't serve much purpose, and since a lot of online communication (on forums, Twitter, what-have-you) consists of short individual posts (unlike this one - sorry), it makes more sense to repurpose the feature to convey something that is lost in text. I am speaking formally. i am speaking casually. What I Am Saying Is Important. This is a bit of a different case than the your/you're thing, but my point is that language use differs, and it differs for reasons other than intelligence. It's exactly as you said - we use the systems we do because they work. But nowadays, those systems that work aren't always the same as what we're taught in school.
People do not use poor grammar because they are shitting on the language they're speaking. Their grammar is likely perfectly fine; they learned a language as a child just as most of us did. They use "poor grammar" in text because the rules of "proper grammar" (by which people almost always mean "proper spelling" - no one ever actually confuses "your" and "you are", and so it's not really an issue of grammar at all) simply do not make useful grammatical distinctions or provide much benefit to comprehension in the text-based environment in which they are using it. What do provide distinctions are innovations like differences in capitalization to convey certain vocal tones. And yes, some of those can be very difficult to read and downright annoying. That doesn't make them bad English any more than someone coming up to you and speaking in a high, nasally voice - while potentially hard to understand and very annoying - is bad English.
People are entirely welcome to have different opinions! The only point I'm trying to make is that using prescriptively "incorrect" grammar - or spelling - does not mean that someone is using an inferior form of language. It's not really that you created a beautiful thing and your neighbor is shitting on it; you learned English, and your neighbor learned English, and when you go online you use one form of English and they use another, each responding to the discourse environment in different ways. Yes, people developed prescriptive grammar over a long period of time, and EnglishInfidel, you are perfectly in the right to think of those rules as a beautiful thing that you are proud to use! Being eloquent, using the tools and rules we're taught in school (which sometimes directly contradict the language we actually speak), that's a downright useful thing, particularly since (as you and Talesin said) it is seen in society as a marker of education, and thus how much one's words should be heeded. I mean, here I am being all prescriptive while I type; heck, I'm even using semicolons, though I'm about to start a sentence with a conjunction and I swear I can feel my high school English teacher rolling in her grave. But someone else not using those rules doesn't mean they're defiling them. You could view them as two different dialects of the same language.
...This was a very long post. I am sorry. I only half know what I'm talking about - English dialects and whatnot are, suffice it to say, nowhere close to my specialty. This was mostly just a small rant about prescriptivism vs. descriptivism when it comes to judging one's competence in language, and the fact that the latter matters (being the way someone actually speaks understands the language) while the former really just indicates how well someone can adhere to rules that don't always let them get their point across as clearly as it could, or make distinctions that simply don't aid comprehension and thus are difficult to remember. A lot of linguists I know (myself included) were avid "correctors" of others' grammar for a long time, and I just think it's worth throwing the other side out there, since a decade ago I would have shared your opinion entirely.
That said. If PETA does decide to attack Subnautica for animal cruelty, I'm sure we can all agree that it is our own fault for not electing the EPCA, who have always had the best interests of all flora and fauna at heart.
You said "mental defect" as if aneurotypicality is inherently a bad thing. There's no such thing as a "mental defect"; it's a "mental condition".
I'm confident I won't be telling you anything new when I say that people with autism or any other mental condition do not go around informing people about that. We know that's a bad thing to do. We know that that makes us a target for abuse and ostracization. But then there's also people like you who mock us for what we are on the assumption we aren't and then backpedal when you hear that's what we actually are. We're doomed if we tell and trapped if we don't. That's not fair. I've been through so many of these situations myself and they're never fair.
Saying something is "cool" or whatever is a cover; a way to reclaim something that you will otherwise be denied. It's easier to be mocked for something you claim to do for being cool than it is to be rejected for something you do to keep yourself... calm. It's less vulnerable. I do not hold it against you that you haven't developed a sense to genuinely detect the possibility of aneurotypicality and I would rather not have this conversation either, but I wouldn't forgive myself if I didn't speak up and maybe get you to be more careful in your words/responses next time. They're more damaging than you realize.
Secondly, I'm not sure what it is you disagree with, as I completely concur. Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough, but I was indeed talking totally about "prescriptive" grammar. Where I grew up, in North West England, that first five years of learning English was a very different English than the written word. Most of the rest of the English speaking world wouldn't really keep up in a conversation with the spoken English, with all its strange local slang and weird pronunciations.
The problem, I feel, is when people who learned and love the prescriptive grammar come into contact with people who type or write the way they speak.
I do understand what you're saying, and I agree for the most part here too. However I have to disagree that there's "little benefit to distinguishing the two via text."
You see, for those of us who have learned the prescriptive, "correct" way to write out our words, we are simply "used" to that way of things. When I see "I have five scents" it causes a moment, (perhaps only a millisecond) of confusion and frustration. Sure, the context may mean it's obvious what the person intended to say, but it makes all the difference between reading and comprehending at lightning speed and having to do mental translations, which feels like being mentally hobbled. I'm just speaking from my own experience here, and how I feel when reading such things. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Well, when I said "they are shitting on the language" I didn't mean they intend to. I only mean that's how it feels to someone who takes pride in their own "proper" use of grammar/spelling/whatever. It comes down to having ego invested I suppose.
As for the rules of "proper grammar" not making useful distinctions or having a benefit in a text-based environment, I have to disagree I'm afraid. I'm thinking right now of the correct use of the apostrophe, as it's probably the most likely source of confusion in communication. (Your and you're are easily interchangeable, but only because at this point we're all so used to them being used "incorrectly".)
Yep, you're completely correct, I concede that the metaphorical neighbour is not intentionally shitting on English, but again, all I'm saying is that it can feel that way sometimes.
I used to be the sort of person who got really annoyed, I was the stereotypical "grammar Nazi", but as I've got older I've more and more come to what seems to be your way of thinking. And it's a change that's still ongoing, even this conversation gives me food for thought.
Thanks a lot buddy.
I'm interested in your opinions on my previous post, about English in the past and how it's changing faster now than ever before. Now that I think about it, I'm inclined to say that part of the pride and protectiveness towards the "correct" use of English is because it feels like such a benefit to be able to grasp it. I would find such frustration in not being able to read older English and comprehend it. And I'm not talking about Chaucer's English, but even things from recent times.
When you learn how to use grammar correctly, you also learn how to spell, and when you learn how to spell, you learn hundreds, thousands of words. Your vocabulary is improved immensely, and with that comes this amazing ability to comprehend.
I know lots of my old school friends who simply never had the patience or inclination to learn, who ridiculed reading books because it was considered a waste of time in the culture I grew up in. Who wants to read boring old history books when there's video games to play? Why bother reading Lord of the Rings when the movie is available?
I find that incredibly sad, because they're missing out on so much richness in life. I know it's not my place to put such a value judgement on it, but I can't help it. I'm sure you understand that being passionate yourself.
Anyway, again, thanks a lot. This has been fun.
Wtf right?
Pfft we've done much bigger things, this one was childsplay
What I said...,
Was based on previous limited conversations with the individual in question.
Who only made specific indications at that time, that his particular choice of communication, was to be "rebellious" both here in the forums and in his general application to life.
Mainly because he felt it was "COOL".
There was absolutely no indication or even a mention of any medical dysfunction being involved.
(self-created neurological words, not withstanding... "aneurotypicality" ???)
You'll have to forgive me for not using my 'internet telepathy' (which I was unaware of even having) for interpreting his comments in such a way other than how they were represented.
Apparently, I will have to strive in the future to assume that everyone who posts radically on the internet, is mentally challenged in some way, shape or form and curtail my sardonic tone.
InClUdInG mYsElF.
BTW: As an occasional financial contributor to PETA, I do find their reaction to video gaming to be completely asinine.
I already said I don't hold you lack of radar against you, so, sure, you're forgiven. Wish you'd own up to that "mental defect" comment, but whatevs. "Aneurotypicality" is a word, btw. It refers to the mental state of people with a mental condition. You can google it.
And yeah, that's some advice you try to make a joke out of, but would actually be very wise to follow. Do assume a mental condition when you spot what you consider "odd" behavior and act properly. It's what I try to do and it's not like you have anything to lose by aiming to be nice.
When people stop donating to them, or when they've "euthanized" every animal on the planet.
Sorry, "Aneurotypicality" is not a word, even on Google. (nor in any Dictionary)
And if it were a word, it would pretty much mean the exact opposite of what you are attempting to use it for.
"Atypical" though is a word, and it means "NOT representative of a type, group, or class".
So by attempting to create your own word, you've completely missed the subtext of your intended meaning.
Now if you would care to drop the "A" at the beginning, then I would be more than happy to somewhat agree with you, as that is an urban word (see here:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neurotypicality) created in the last decade or so.
But even that doesn't really mean what you are trying to convey.
Fortunately, I get the gist of what your are saying despite the awkward grammar.
Therefore, I am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt toward my fellow posters, up to the point where they tell me that their behavior is a "CHOICE" not a "Condition", which is how the person in question presented himself initially.
BTW: I typed my "mental defect" post based on what I was led to believe at the time to be a correct assumption.
Therefore, there's no reason for me to "own up to" anything as it is perfectly clear that that post is attached to my forum name, and as it stands now, with the continuing conversation in this thread, I think I've made it pretty clear that I am now aware of the facts of his situation and will take that information into account from now on.
Essentially, I'll just ignore him for the foreseeable future, as that seems to be his tacit goal anyway.
And as for this conversation, it seems to have completely drifted off the rails and perhaps it's time to move on.
I believe the word you were searching for is "Neutered" as in making the subject Sterile, not "Euthanized" as in making the subject Dead.
Though perhaps you were indicating a "Death Sentence" for every animal on the Earth, but that truly is not in any way, shape or form, PETA's stated goal.
I was exaggerating, but PETA has a dubious track record when it comes to re-homing animals. Most of the animals that enter their shelters are euthanized and very few are actually re-homed.
I'm all for sterilising domestic cats and dogs since it means there's less unwanted offspring. But come on, in 2014 alone they euthanized 2,454 out of 3,369 voluntarily surrendered animals at their Virginia shelter. Most of them were within a day of arrival.
PETA's stated goal is noble, but they save far less animals than other charities do with a fraction of their budget.
PeTA have an overall kill rate of over 85% of all 'rescues' year after year, with several in the last decade topping 97% kill. Many 'action vans' carry euth kits, and are known for catching strays and euthanizing on the spot. These are not animals in pain, or who could not be re-homed. Within the last year there have been at least two cases where PeTA stole a dog off the owner's porch, and euthanized it immediately. Then sent a vegan fruit basket to one owner by way of 'apology'.
So no. Not neutered/spayed. PeTA are worthless murdering fuckheads. If you care about animals, support the ASPCA.
As someone who has taken the time to learn two more languages reasonably well after early childhood, and bits of two more (not enough to converse), I'd have to call bull on this. It's more of people getting set in their ways of thinking in one language rather than in concepts. It's breaking that routine that tends to be the difficult part, and getting yourself to stop trying to translate everything into your mother tongue that makes or breaks the capability.
Pidgin English say hi. If are going YouTube comments area, see word dumpster fire. Many are need slam head in door when until squish come, still understand what mean they. Question be are when understandable enough, you is say is still English.
Eventually, when a cat gets run over enough times, it stops being a cat. The same thing goes for the mistreatment of the English language in the pursuit of personal expression, identity, shorthand, or imbuing an emotive slant. The question comes down to being more of a subjective opinion as to when that mangled, bleeding lump of meat and hair crosses the line.
"A-" means "not" or "not quite". So, yes, "atypical" means "not-typical", whereas "aneurotypical" means "not-neurotypical". The grammar works out just fine, even by the rest of what you written (and Google gets me uses aplenty of both words, whether with "-ity" at the end or not). A neurotypical is anyone who is considered not to have a (labelled) mental condition, an aneurotypical is anyone who does. Sometimes, "neurotypical" is used to refer specifically to non-autistic individuals, but I prefer "allist" from "allism" for that. Explaining why would go into the troublesome position of autism vs other mental conditions, which I surmise you don't have the capacity nor interest for. Some people prefer "neurodiversity", but that technically includes the entire range of mental states, neurotypicality included.
None of these words are ones that I came up with. Don't know if it's in the dictionary or not, but it's a common term in (English-speaking) circles concerned with mental conditions. Been so for at least the years I've been with it; mind that dictionaries tend to have delays (and omissions; can't exactly find every chemistry term in existence in it either. Or retail term. Or fandom (gaming) term.) when it comes to words that do not serve the dominant portion of the population.
Though if it pleases you, feel free to propose another, non-insulting word to refer to the collection of mental states not characteristic of the neurotypical label. I could use it when sharing discussion space with you in the future.
Choice and condition are interchangeable concepts when it comes to mental state and personality. This is a huge part of why it is so easy to get into an identity breakdown when you have a mental condition because you're taught it's like a mind disease but it's not. It's you. Coming to terms with the bindings between "you" and the "mental condition" and the solutions to make it work can be a process of years. You're making separations where they don't exist based on a deeply faulty neurotypical worldview. Hence why my entire problem with "mental defect" is not right or wrong application but the fact you had the nerve to use that term in the first place. It's disheartening you don't see how that's not okay. Or don't want to see; I detect emotional distress on your side and I don't want to aggravate that so I can agree to let this topic be by now.
Pidgins are, by definition, simplified forms of languages. People do not learn pidgins as a first language; they arise as a result of language contact in an area. When children do begin to learn pidgins as first languages, they add significant complexity to said pidgin. They develop clearer, more regular structure, and the ability to express very complicated ideas naturally. This is how creoles are made. The case of English as a second language, which seems to be what you are going for here, is rather different to the issue at hand, which is that of English as a first language but not used according to the prescriptive rules; ESL learners can most certainly use English incorrectly, in that they violate grammatical constraints common to the language as a whole, and thus cannot be understood. In those cases, yes, there is most certainly such a thing as "bad" English, but the people using it are learning, and I personally try to cut them some slack and help them where possible. But, as you said, this can all be very subjective.
Isn't "neurodivergent" a commonly-used opposite of "neurotypical"?
I shall now put a cork in it.
Hot offtopic more like it >_>
Correct. I forgot to list that one due to its visual similarity to "neurodiversity". Whether it or "aneurotypical" is used is a matter of preference. In my case, I come across the latter more than the former and being unable to readily distinguish "neurodivergent" from "neurodiversity", I prefer "aneurotypical".
And what happened? Did your home burn down? Were babies mysteriously murdered? Did the universe fold into itself? *looks around* no... no. All is fine. People had a discussion. What the majority of folks wanted to talk about rose to the top. It happens, it's ok, and I'm sure it'll happen again; you'll be none the worse for it.
How do you know this, are you a wizard?