These companies products generally aren't simply a website - their web sites serve as a catalyst for delivering an actual product that provides functionality. The link is question isn't a product hosted on the web, its simply a personal website.

I'm not convinced its not any less childish screwing around just because it generates a shared vocabulary for people. It's not progress of culture or language, simply an increase of quantity of slang and in-jokes.

> I'm not convinced its not any less childish screwing around just because it generates a shared vocabulary for people. It's not progress of culture or language, simply an increase of quantity of slang and in-jokes.

Why not both? Culture and language "progresses" (progress implies linearity– might be more accurate to say "develops" or "unfolds") through slang and in-jokes!

Check out linguist John McWorther's work on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McWhorter

In fact it's quite interestingly parallel to how technology often starts out as toys and games (and instruments of war and pornography).

I just fail to see the progress part here, I suppose. Maybe my view of this is daft, but the slang being created by the generation today isn't helping us say things we couldn't say before or moving anything forward - its simply the nature of slang, it constantly changes through the generations.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts about what progress has been so far. What do you feel have been works or movements or creations from the past that allowed for progress?

ah, I believe if we got into a deep conversation about that here it would be a bit of a derail. You can e-mail me at sevensharpscales at gmail dot com if you're genuinely curious about my thoughts on this subject. Personally, I don't think they'll be of much interest.

I'm curious, have you ever read Shakespeare?

Because Shakespeare's slang and in-jokes are normal English today.

Some of it is; others are obscure references that must be explained along with the historical context. Still others are likely lost forever.

That's not a very compelling argument.

edit: The comparison to Shakespeare just seems kind of off, but beyond that, I never argued that the vernacular / slang being generated today wouldn't be used or become accepted by society at large.

To me, the follow 2 sentences look like they contradict each other:

>It's not progress of culture or language, simply an increase of quantity of slang

>, I never argued that the vernacular / slang being generated today wouldn't be used or become accepted by society at large.

If those 2 sentences are not contradictions, can you clarify your comment?

Isn't "accepted by society at large" part of what culture __is__ ?

Something being accepted by society does not imply progress.

You're using "progress" as a judgement of something that's "better" or "improved" ... like "technological progress".

A "language progress" is a movement in usage and meaning. We "progressed" from "thy" "thee" to "your" "you" etc. It doesn't mean the words starting with "y" are "better" or "clearer" (in fact, they are the opposite of the previous formal/informal distinctions.) Nevertheless, language/culture has moved on.

I agree with the example of the macro usage of thy->thee->you/your as being an instance of progression, but I don't see the current trends in internet slang as a parallel example of something that will have such a long lasting effect on our language as a whole, but instead, well, just what I said, I see it as a trend that will eventually be a ghost. This is a prediction, of course.

it's called pro-gress. the optimistic interpretation is for a move to the better

There is no progress. English is not better than it used to be. It was not wrong in Shakespeare's day and it's not wrong now. We have new words for new things. Adaptation is not progress.

It really wants me to go to Witchita for some reason. The troll in the cage does seem quite nice, but its just shy of two thousand miles away from me.

It tried to send me to a nice place 800 kilometers (500 miles) away. I wonder whether the problem is with locating me or with the database of great outdoor places.

It would be nice if there were some way to look at that database, so I can know whether I ought to go through the effort to look up my old pictures of the Brooklyn Bridge Park carousel or whether not to bother.

The missing context isn't race - the context needed was already there, being in the inner city and exposed to gangs. Simply put, the whole United States isn't like this because there aren't more black people across the entire country, but because the entire country isn't made up of inner city areas with high gang activity.

I agree that too much has already been said about it, but I'd say too much was said about it when it was simply posters calling themselves assholes and sexist for making a simple mistake. On that note, I'll step away from this topic :) It would be nice if this entire comment tree was removed from the thread, it detracts from the actual subject at hand.

Asshole is of course facetious, and I don't think anyone suspects any of the posters here of beating themselves up horribly about it, but the general sentiment being expressed is still one of regret and feeling bad, and for what? Because you assumed the sex of someone in an article and ended up being wrong? This doesn't hurt anyone, I suspect. I don't believe that the positive energy in the ether is going to suffer a net loss because some people made this assumption either.

But it's not just that, feeling bad about about assuming the incorrect sex of an author and recognizing a simple mistake. This can be seen in the fact that one poster even went so far as to describe their assumption and one of another user's as being 'sexist', which it most likely is not. Someone said it best earlier, so I'm just going to quote them,

'Making an assumption about someones gender, race, age, etc based on what is most common (or most common to you) does not make you a sexist, racist or agist. It just makes you human.'

When presented with a faceless author and no hints of their sex or appearance, its pretty typical for one to fill in the blanks in their mind. The picture they come up with will be informed by all the experiences that they have encountered in their lifetimes. Simply being wrong doesn't suggest any ill will, belief of inequality, discrimination, or prejudices towards or against any group of people. Whoops seems like a level headed response, Oh shit I'm being sexist seems like a bit of an exaggeration.

Although it totally could be case, and kudos to someone who suddenly has the self realization that they're a sexist and wants to post about it.

Don't be too hard on yourself. By your own admission you assumed the sex of the author just because you have a wife who is teaching your own child. As far as my understanding of sexism goes this is miles away from being an example of sexism.

I assure you that you're not an asshole for incorrectly assuming the sex of an individual whose sex was not identified.

I find I need a mental model of who the person is. It is based on assumptions of course.

First I assumed a man.

Now I know it is a woman, I still have some mental assumptions of what she looks like, what her son looks like etc. Weird.

I don't think it is sexist just human nature. I mean you can't imagine a person who is a 'schrodinger's cat' of all possible people :-)

Isn't this more an issue of class more than race, doe? Even with the argument that members of a certain race tend to belong to a certain class it doesn't change the fact that its still inherently a class and environment issue.

Like, from your post, I would say that Crew is an obscure reference for anyone living in the inner-city, not just minorities.

In this specific instance, it's really excluding all but the elite. I remember learning what crew was for the first time while visiting colleges, and I grew up in middle-class suburbs.

The idea is that if something negatively affects protected group(s) disproportionately, then it doesn't matter whether the mechanism by which it does so is via class -> strong race/class correlation. It's still discriminatory.

I don't think anything was arguing that they weren't discriminatory, or in the very least I wasn't trying to argue that. The claim was that it was discriminatory towards non-whites. I'm claiming its discriminatory to anyone regardless of race and instead its more dependent on their income level and environment they grow up in.

I'm a white male but I know that personally I had no clue what Crew was during my high school years. Anecdotally, I went to school in an area where the public school population majority was, well, what we consider the minority when discussing race relations.

Also, although racism is quite possible, the lack of social mobility may explain why race and social class are closely related (i.e. if you inherit both race and social position we'd expect a society to look like this)

That would assume that race and class can be entirely separated. I'd say that they cannot.

But even if they cannot be separated (a conversation for another time) these questions are still difficult for anyone living in the inner city, especially those in the lower income class, not just those who are minorities, wouldn't you agree?

Well,it sounds like you've already made up your mind, so at what number did you reach the breaking point and made the decision that the entirety of our law enforcement system was spoiled?

When the Senate declared we torture people and the president decided not to prosecute.

Well, there's your answer.