184
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2025
184 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13965 readers
734 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't understand how one conclusion or the other of this affects white supremacy, nor did I ever claim you need to have any level of qualification. My point is that you're going on vibes assuming that there is counter-evidence in material that wasn't covered, not because you know anything about that other material but just because there must be something somewhere that proves you right, and it wasn't what was covered, so it must be in that other stuff! My whole point is that there is no standard of evidence that you would accept, which you somehow managed to invert into me demanding infinite evidence when I only asked you to cite literally any evidence at all.
The study does discuss many sign languages outside of ASL, as you noted in the last message. ASL is over-represented, I agreed with you on that already, but it's not remotely the only language involved.
Honestly this seems like a cynical and gross weaponization of the idea of white supremacy to misrepresent the study because you're just mad at me.
This especially feels confusing. I'm not demanding you have credentials, what I'm saying is that your epistemology is bad if you simply assume there is evidence that proves your case. I literally asked if you had a "single piece of evidence" about something being hidden -- which was your accusation -- and your response was to scream at me and act like I think you need to be fluent in literally anything. I'm just asking you for a single piece of evidence for your accusation and you scream at me, insinuate that I'm a useful idiot for white supremacy, accuse me of "twisting sources"(?!), and call me a "ridiculous fool." I was pretty rude (sorry about that, I tried to tone it down but evidently that wasn't enough), but this seems pretty uncalled for to me.
you EXPLICITLY did. are you just used to talking to bots on reddit? i'm not fucking stupid and my memory extends beyond the last 10 minutes.
Demonstrate that YOU have the qualifications to interpret that article more appropriately than me. Three sign languages that support the non-language suppositions of the paper, according to the arguments it makes.
I think that you're seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying, which is definitely partly my fault. I'm sorry for being unclear.
I present the article as evidence regarding the sign vs gesture issue. You accuse the article of bad faith arguments, claiming it make use of selective information. I ask you if you can provide one single example of something that was excluded from the paper that challenges any of their conclusions. You start screaming.
The nebulous fact that some other linguists have different conclusions is not an example of counter-evidence, that's the vibe-laundering part, but you can provide information from them that is evidence, e.g. if one of them has said something about Indian sign language that is contrary to a claim that the paper makes only with the support of other languages. I didn't mean that you need to be a trained linguist, I meant that you need to engage with the argument rather than use the mere fact of some linguists believing something else as a permission structure to dismiss evidence that challenges your claims. Hence my asking for a "single piece of evidence" for a few messages now, which you hopefully understand isn't asking for fluency or expertise.
Your "interpretation" of this article was to dismiss it as being a bad faith use of evidence. I'm just asking you for evidence, literally any single piece of evidence using any language to challenge literally any single point that the paper makes, because I don't think you have any basis in evidence for challenging their evidence, which the logic of your accusation hinges on.
Reread the bolded parts. Do you have one single piece of evidence to support your accusation?
Edit: I didn't want to complicate this too much because you tend to take one single thing I said and ignore the rest of it, so please make that selection from some part of the above, but I wanted to explain my view of expertise. Specifically, I think that structures of certification are good from a regulatory standpoint, but in terms of two people just having an argument, I think that if it's a field where you actually need to engage with the world, then you can point to the experience you have as evidence, but if it's just having a formal education and writing papers back and forth, there is nothing in there that counts as evidence aside from maybe making a claim about what people write papers about. Theoretical expertise is a good thing to have, but in an argument would need to be exercised rather than just pointed to, e.g. if you're a mathematician, show them the math instead of just saying you're a mathematician (though there's nothing wrong with also saying you are a mathematician). If one can't actually make their theoretical expertise concretely relevant, then functionally it is not relevant.
Obviously none of that is about you because you aren't claiming to be an expert, as you said from the outset, I'm just explaining my own view on the topic because you felt that I was fixating on expertise as a gatekeeping thing. My views are so far opposed to that that many academics would call me a philistine.