Words/phrases I wish would go away

[Josiecat22222]

My words that I wish would go away: "vibing" or things are a "vibe".  Also "bussing" which means "very very cool".

I resent that railing against the popular vernacular of my teenage son makes me feel OLD.  But I truly hate these words.   

[Davnasty]

My words that I wish would go away: "vibing" or things are a "vibe".  Also "bussing" which means "very very cool".

I resent that railing against the popular vernacular of my teenage son makes me feel OLD.  But I truly hate these words.

This has nothing to do with being old. Your feelings about these words are objectively correct.

[Metalcat]

My words that I wish would go away: "vibing" or things are a "vibe".  Also "bussing" which means "very very cool".

I resent that railing against the popular vernacular of my teenage son makes me feel OLD.  But I truly hate these words.

This has nothing to do with being old. Your feelings about these words are objectively correct.

How so? Teens always have their own slang and their parents' generation always think it's ridiculous/offensive.

I can't remember how many times I was told as a teen that it was wrong that I used "wicked" to mean cool.

ETA: also, "bussin" is yet another example of an AAVE word that has been around for many decades, but has only recently made it into white-youth popular vernacular. Evidently it's been a term used for excellent food for a very long time and over the past decade or so has evolved to be applied to very good things in general.

But it's the kind of word that people from your grand parents generation would likely have used, if they were black and American.

There is currently debate though if the current mainstream use of applying it to things other than food is cultural appropriation and misuse. But that's getting too into the weeds where it's not appropriate for me, a white person who is not an expert in this particular area of linguistics, to comment any further.

[slackmax]

I'm OK with "vibe", as in the 'ethereal  mood vibration' of an event or person. Similar to 'she and I are on the same wavelength'.

Other words bug me, but vibe is OK in my book, lol.   

Malcat, I had to look up AAVE. Thank you.         

[Metalcat]

I'm OK with "vibe", as in the 'ethereal  mood vibration' of an event or person. Similar to 'she and I are on the same wavelength'.

Other words bug me, but vibe is OK in my book, lol.   

Malcat, I had to look up AAVE. Thank you.      

I am a linguistics nerd, so I forget that people don't automatically know what that means. We have gotten heated in this particular thread before with people labeling AAVE constructs as "bad grammar" instead of understanding it to be a legitimate dialect of English. The same way it's not an error for a British person who speaks BrE to refer to a piece of cake after dinner as "pudding" or for them to drop articles like saying "I was in hospital" as opposed to "I was in the hospital." We're just used to certain *white* dialects being considered "correct" while POC dialects are considered "grammatically incorrect."

Then when things are pulled from POC dialect or another minority culture into pop culture, which often happens to AAVE through popular music and then disseminated through social media, it's seen as some kind of young-people foolishness, when it's really something that people have been saying for generations. A lot of the people who have said "bussin" in their lifetime probably thought using the word "Google" as a verb was pretty ridiculous.

It's always a good idea to track the etymology of popular phrases, not only to understand where new ones come from, but also to understand why so many of the widely accepted ones are actually rooted in deeply offensive origins.

So ironically, a lot of the words and phrases we are totally comfortable with, we really shouldn't be, and a lot of the things we perceive as "new" are often very old.

There's a lot of history behind why we say what we say, and like most history, it's largely quite ugly.

[GuitarStv]

AAVE is bad grammar.  Giving examples of bad grammar that English people use doesn't make AAVE any more valid.

[RWD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0j2dVuhr6s&t=57s

[Metalcat]

AAVE is bad grammar.  Giving examples of bad grammar that English people use doesn't make AAVE any more valid.

You really believe that BrE is "bad grammar?" Seriously? Their English structure predates ours. "I was in hospital" is not bad grammar, it is a different dialect of English.

Actually, no, I'm not going to have this fight again.

Man, I was kind of excited to come back to full participation in the forums, but you're making me question that choice.

[GuitarStv]

AAVE is bad grammar.  Giving examples of bad grammar that English people use doesn't make AAVE any more valid.

You really believe that BrE is "bad grammar?" Seriously? Their English structure predates ours. "I was in hospital" is not bad grammar, it is a different dialect of English.

Actually, no, I'm not going to have this fight again.

Man, I was kind of excited to come back to full participation in the forums, but you're making me question that choice.

Yesterday, when my 8 year old son proudly said "Sup brah!" to his 80 year old Chinese grandmother . . . we just corrected his mistake.  We don't lecture the grandmother about how he's really in the right and speaking AAVE.

Different dialects are fun, and provide colour to the language of English.  Great for use in poetry, creative writing, music, etc.  Dialects often use bad grammar and slang words though.  If you wouldn't teach it to an immigrant learning to speak the language in a classroom, then it's probably incorrect grammar.




I don't always agree with you, but am happy to see you back!

[slackmax]

AAVE is bad grammar.  Giving examples of bad grammar that English people use doesn't make AAVE any more valid.

You really believe that BrE is "bad grammar?" Seriously? Their English structure predates ours. "I was in hospital" is not bad grammar, it is a different dialect of English.

Actually, no, I'm not going to have this fight again.

Man, I was kind of excited to come back to full participation in the forums, but you're making me question that choice.

Not taking a side, here, Malcat, but I look forward to reading your posts here all over MMM.   Chin up!

[Josiecat22222]

AAVE is bad grammar.  Giving examples of bad grammar that English people use doesn't make AAVE any more valid.

You really believe that BrE is "bad grammar?" Seriously? Their English structure predates ours. "I was in hospital" is not bad grammar, it is a different dialect of English.

Actually, no, I'm not going to have this fight again.

Man, I was kind of excited to come back to full participation in the forums, but you're making me question that choice.

Yesterday, when my 8 year old son proudly said "Sup brah!" to his 80 year old Chinese grandmother . . . we just corrected his mistake.  We don't lecture the grandmother about how he's really in the right and speaking AAVE.

Different dialects are fun, and provide colour to the language of English.  Great for use in poetry, creative writing, music, etc.  Dialects often use bad grammar and slang words though.  If you wouldn't teach it to an immigrant learning to speak the language in a classroom, then it's probably incorrect grammar.




I don't always agree with you, but am happy to see you back!

This is truly a sticky situation.  While AAVE has its own grammatical rules, structure and vocabulary, the interface with "standard" English (for lack of a better term) is fraught with difficulty.  If "sup bruh" or "bussin" is utilized by a paler complected individual such as myself, is that incorporating AAVE into the broader worldview (which is lauded) or is it "cultural appropriation" and likely to result in being ostracized or "cancelled"??  Couple that with phrases such as "sup bruh" or "bussin" are often pronounced with a "blaccent" and the temperature gets turned up still more.   These are not easy questions and the difficulty of honoring/accepting vocabulary from a broader population brings with it concerns of being perceived to do the opposite.

[marble_faun]

I was reading a children's book to my toddler that incorporated AAVE (I think as a means of being inclusive to black children who speak in AAVE), but as I read aloud, I changed those sentences to standard English. My child is a language sponge and probably would have begun using the AAVE phrases after hearing them repeatedly in the book.

It did raise some issues in my mind - according to the people who have strong opinions on these matters, was it cultural "erasure" to change those sentences? or would my two-year-old be engaged in "cultural appropriation" by using AAVE phrases?

Ultimately I did decide it was "incorrect English... for us, a white family."

I had similar thoughts coming across a black person online whose preferred pronouns were "dey/dem." It's like a riddle: Do I respect the person's stated pronouns, even though as a white person I'd sound pretty weird calling someone "dey"? I think in that case I would roll with they/them.

[merula]

Malcat, I really appreciate your contributions to the forum and hope you stick around.

Following the rules of a dialectal grammar is not "bad grammar". People who speak AAVE still made mistakes that were outside of AAVE grammar rules when they were learning to speak, like kids who say "He breaked my toy". So there's the possibility of bad grammar within any dialect (I don't know of any where "breaked" is correct), but being non-standard is not automatically "bad grammar".

For a super white example, in Minnesota "go with" and "come with" are verb forms on their own that do not require the addition of a noun. This is because of Germanic/Scandinavian influences with equivalent verb forms (mitkommen and mitgehen in German, I don't speak any Scandinavian languages but I've been assured it's similar). So "Do you want to come with?" is grammatical in the Minnesota dialect (the me/us is implied), but it's not standard English, which requires a noun to complete the prepositional phrase.

It can, however, be inappropriate for a given situation, as can many other things we would agree are perfectly grammatical. It would be inappropriate for a medical pamphlet in the US to say "While you are in hospital", just as it would be inappropriate for a medical pamphlet in the UK to say "While you are in the hospital". It may or may not be appropriate to repeat AAVE depending on the situations. (A book where a Black American character is speaking it? Probably OK representation. A book that seems to be randomly in AAVE read aloud by a white person? That's weird.)

If you come to Minnesota to visit me, and I say "I'm planning to go up Nort for the opener, do you want to come with?" and you say I'm using bad grammar, you've fundamentally misunderstood how dialects work. And you're a jerk.

[sui generis]

Malcat, I really appreciate your contributions to the forum and hope you stick around.

Following the rules of a dialectal grammar is not "bad grammar". People who speak AAVE still made mistakes that were outside of AAVE grammar rules when they were learning to speak, like kids who say "He breaked my toy". So there's the possibility of bad grammar within any dialect (I don't know of any where "breaked" is correct), but being non-standard is not automatically "bad grammar".

For a super white example, in Minnesota "go with" and "come with" are verb forms on their own that do not require the addition of a noun. This is because of Germanic/Scandinavian influences with equivalent verb forms (mitkommen and mitgehen in German, I don't speak any Scandinavian languages but I've been assured it's similar). So "Do you want to come with?" is grammatical in the Minnesota dialect (the me/us is implied), but it's not standard English, which requires a noun to complete the prepositional phrase.

It can, however, be inappropriate for a given situation, as can many other things we would agree are perfectly grammatical. It would be inappropriate for a medical pamphlet in the US to say "While you are in hospital", just as it would be inappropriate for a medical pamphlet in the UK to say "While you are in the hospital". It may or may not be appropriate to repeat AAVE depending on the situations. (A book where a Black American character is speaking it? Probably OK representation. A book that seems to be randomly in AAVE read aloud by a white person? That's weird.)

If you come to Minnesota to visit me, and I say "I'm planning to go up Nort for the opener, do you want to come with?" and you say I'm using bad grammar, you've fundamentally misunderstood how dialects work. And you're a jerk.

I've never even been to Minnesota and I use "come with" all the time!  To the extent it's a specific dialect vs. standard English, I have no idea.  But it does make me wonder how many dialects of English I cycle between in an average day.

[RetiredAt63]

Don't we all switch regularly anyway?  My oral English is much less formal than my written English.  And both vary depending on my audience.

I also worked with many students whose first language was French.  Their English was fine but they often used sentence structures that were grammatically correct but a bit odd, because they were actually using French structures.

And of course we all have dialects.  I had to really think about what I was saying when I first moved to Ontario, because I spoke Quebec English, a recognized dialect.  And I know people in Ontario who use "youse" and it is standard for the area.

[GuitarStv]

And I know people in Ontario who use "youse" and it is standard for the area.

You go up into Nordern Ontaryo en every body speek lek dey rader use Francaise.  :P

[Metalcat]

I was reading a children's book to my toddler that incorporated AAVE (I think as a means of being inclusive to black children who speak in AAVE), but as I read aloud, I changed those sentences to standard English. My child is a language sponge and probably would have begun using the AAVE phrases after hearing them repeatedly in the book.

It did raise some issues in my mind - according to the people who have strong opinions on these matters, was it cultural "erasure" to change those sentences? or would my two-year-old be engaged in "cultural appropriation" by using AAVE phrases?

Ultimately I did decide it was "incorrect English... for us, a white family."

I had similar thoughts coming across a black person online whose preferred pronouns were "dey/dem." It's like a riddle: Do I respect the person's stated pronouns, even though as a white person I'd sound pretty weird calling someone "dey"? I think in that case I would roll with they/them.

These are all cultural issues on which I hold no authority, I was only commenting on the fact that a dialect being different doesn't make it grammatically wrong.

This is basic linguistics, of which I hold a degree, so I can speak to the linguistics question.

[RetiredAt63]

And I know people in Ontario who use "youse" and it is standard for the area.

You go up into Nordern Ontaryo en every body speek lek dey rader use Francaise.  :P

Because if they weren't talking to you they would be.   ;-)

[marble_faun]

@Malcat Wasn't intending to refer to you or anyone else in this thread specifically - just general "people" out there.

[Dicey]

Damn, @Malcat! Leave it to you to inject new life into this old conversation.

[GuitarStv]

I was only commenting on the fact that a dialect being different doesn't make it grammatically wrong.

This is basic linguistics, of which I hold a degree, so I can speak to the linguistics question.

Maybe this is where the disconnect is.  A dialect that uses different grammar than standard English is grammatically wrong in reference to standard English, which has always sort of been my argument.

But sure . . . I suppose that dialects could be perfectly grammatically correct with whatever separate set of rules are used to define the dialect.  Where are dialects defined and codified?  And if they are defined/codified, does that mean that some people who speak them are speaking them wrong and should be corrected?

I've always thought of dialects as relatively unstable . . . given that they are not really taught in a systemized way, but learned and passed on by informal usage.  So it makes sense that the rules governing them are in flux.  'Fleek', 'lit', 'bae', 'woke', 'cheugy' . . . a huge number of terms associated with and in regular use in AAVE today weren't in use in that context even thirty years ago.  And a great many terms in common use in the 90's ('Fly', 'Wiggity Whack', 'Phat', 'Hittin' Skinz', 'Jiggy', 'Bling-bling') have almost completely fallen out of regular usage.  Go back to the '70s and the differences become even more pronounced.  If the rules are constantly and quickly changing, is it really valid to say that there is a defined set of grammar that's adhered to?

[Metalcat]

I was only commenting on the fact that a dialect being different doesn't make it grammatically wrong.

This is basic linguistics, of which I hold a degree, so I can speak to the linguistics question.

Maybe this is where the disconnect is.  A dialect that uses different grammar than standard English is grammatically wrong in reference to standard English, which has always sort of been my argument.

But sure . . . I suppose that dialects could be perfectly grammatically correct with whatever separate set of rules are used to define the dialect.  Where are dialects defined and codified?  And if they are defined/codified, does that mean that some people who speak them are speaking them wrong and should be corrected?

I've always thought of dialects as relatively unstable . . . given that they are not really taught in a systemized way, but learned and passed on by informal usage.  So it makes sense that the rules governing them are in flux.  'Fleek', 'lit', 'bae', 'woke', 'cheugy' . . . a huge number of terms associated with and in regular use in AAVE today weren't in use in that context even thirty years ago.  And a great many terms in common use in the 90's ('Fly', 'Wiggity Whack', 'Phat', 'Hittin' Skinz', 'Jiggy', 'Bling-bling') have almost completely fallen out of regular usage.  Go back to the '70s and the differences become even more pronounced.  If the rules are constantly and quickly changing, is it really valid to say that there is a defined set of grammar that's adhered to?

Honestly dude, I'm so fucking fed up with having this conversation with people, I'm really not up to getting into it. I literally once called off a wedding over this exact argument, so I'm 1000% over it.

There are wonderful resources out there, and linguistics is a truly fascinating and incredibly complex topic, it's what got me into neuroscience in the first place.

Understanding why and how languages and dialects differ and the relative impacts of those differences is pretty interesting shit, I highly recommend it if you're bored and want to learn something new.

[SpeedReader]

"Pregnant persons" and "X individual uses they/them pronouns".  I don't care how people live their lives -- they can identify as triple-gendered space unicorns for all it matters to me -- but stop butchering the language.  Please.

[dandarc]

"Pregnant persons" and "X individual uses they/them pronouns".  I don't care how people live their lives -- they can identify as triple-gendered space unicorns for all it matters to me -- but stop butchering the language.  Please.

Thanks for reminder to update the sig line - it is pretty damn important to make an effort on other people's pronouns.

[Tyson]

"Pregnant persons" and "X individual uses they/them pronouns".  I don't care how people live their lives -- they can identify as triple-gendered space unicorns for all it matters to me -- but stop butchering the language.  Please.

The good thing about language is that it's flexible and will adapt to changes like this pretty easily. 

[Kris]

"Pregnant persons" and "X individual uses they/them pronouns".  I don't care how people live their lives -- they can identify as triple-gendered space unicorns for all it matters to me -- but stop butchering the language.  Please.

Thanks for reminder to update the sig line - it is pretty damn important to make an effort on other people's pronouns.

Good point. Thanks for making it.

[ATtiny85]

"Pregnant persons" and "X individual uses they/them pronouns".  I don't care how people live their lives -- they can identify as triple-gendered space unicorns for all it matters to me -- but stop butchering the language.  Please.

I do find interesting who tries to dictate things and how it is attempted to be dictated.

[Taran Wanderer]

In a world where women have been and still are often considered second class citizens, perhaps this use of language is necessary to help remind us that every person, wherever they fall on the gender or racial or other spectrum, should enjoy the same rights and freedoms as each white male property owner.

[Kris]

In a world where women have been and still are often considered second class citizens, perhaps this use of language is necessary to help remind us that every person, wherever they fall on the gender or racial or other spectrum, should enjoy the same rights and freedoms as each white male property owner.

Indeed. If pregnant humans had always been called people, maybe we would give them rights based on their permanent, inalienable status as such, rather than taking them away based on their temporary status as pregnant second-class citizens trumping said rights.

[Dicey]

Initially, I was uncomfortable and kind of pissy when a volunteer gig pushed us to include our preferred pronouns on our new nametags.

A loved one recommended this TED talk by someone we both know. I get it now. New badge ordered.

https://youtu.be/XguYZXUChhY

[Metalcat]

"Pregnant persons" and "X individual uses they/them pronouns".  I don't care how people live their lives -- they can identify as triple-gendered space unicorns for all it matters to me -- but stop butchering the language.  Please.

I do find interesting who tries to dictate things and how it is attempted to be dictated.

People try to dictate shit all the time. What ends up part of the language is usually what is agreed upon by the majority. English is a pretty democratic language because of how adaptable it is.

A change can't really be dictated, only adopted.

[getsorted]

I have a degree in English with a concentration in linguistics, and I freelance as an editor and writing coach. Most of my clients are either non-native speakers of English or neurodiverse in a way that makes them want to seek help with formal writing. Here's how I explain the rules to them:

There isn't a "standard English." There is formal English and there are formal written and spoken conventions. Even within formal English, the conventions of speaking and writing can vary significantly. For example, the use of passive voice may be required in one journal and banned in another.

There are different dialects with different grammatical conventions and they each have their own standards of correctness. I don't use "good English" or "bad English." It's much more useful to educate about formal and informal register. 

Some of those dialects have prestige status and if you would like to gather some prestige status, learning those rules is one way to do it. Most of the rules that will cause someone to pick on you for breaking them don't actually affect intelligibility; they simply exist to show that you have been taught the rules.

What I find interesting (and sometimes distressing) about my work is that I work with people who are much more intelligent and educated than I am. Most of my clients in the last five years have been working for world-class research institutions and publishing in top-caliber journals. They still  struggle with the finer points of formal language. Sometimes it's because they speak five other languages! So I reject the idea that something being well-written or someone being well-spoken indicates intelligence. My core clientele are stats people-- Big Data Revolution scientists who seem to have brains that are fundamentally incompatible with the rules of academic writing. I'm just the scribe they hire to get them past the shibboleths.

[getsorted]

I think it was the ACLU who recently tweeted using the phrase, "women and people who can become pregnant," which I thought was admirably deft.

The phrase I wish would go away is "Going forward," because it adds absolutely nothing in a language that has this handy thing called the future tense. But because there is no God and all existence is suffering, I am forced to use this phrase every day, because The Boss Likes It.

[Paul der Krake]

Being well spoken is 100% of sign of intelligence. It's not foolproof, there are people at the margins, immigrants, unconventional thinkers, blablabla. At the population level all that fades away and you can bet money all day long that the people with the better grasp of language are the intelligent ones.

Sharp language is a symptom of sharp thinking. Pretending otherwise in a misguided attempt at inclusivity does everyone a disservice.

[Metalcat]

Being well spoken is 100% of sign of intelligence. It's not foolproof, there are people at the margins, immigrants, unconventional thinkers, blablabla. At the population level all that fades away and you can bet money all day long that the people with the better grasp of language are the intelligent ones.

Sharp language is a symptom of sharp thinking. Pretending otherwise in a misguided attempt at inclusivity does everyone a disservice.

But people can be "well spoken" in their own dialect.

I'm in Newfoundland right now and the English here is WILDLY different. Someone here is not less intelligent or clever because they speak Newfie English. Many of them can also code switch depending on who they're talking to.

Someone speaking a different dialect is not making errors, they are following a completely different set of linguistics rules. They are perfectly capable of expressing themselves and their complex thoughts.

Assuming someone who speaks a different dialect is less intelligent is as rational as saying that someone who speaks a.different language is less intelligent.

Someone who speaks Acadian is not speaking bad french, they are speaking a unique dialect that blends English and French with its own distinct structure. It is COMPLETELY different from the blend of French and English that occurs in regions where both languages are spoken and where people substitute words for each.

I can speak French and English and can understand the Franglais blend that is spoken at the border of Ontario and Quebec, but it is not a dialect. There is no specific structure, just common errors and substitutions made on each side. Although I speak both languages, I cannot understand Acadian at all. I can pick up words here and there, but the structure is fundamentally distinct, so it's like a totally different language to me.

Rarer dialects have just as many rules and structures are more dominant dialects. They aren't just a collection of mistakes, they are fully structured and can be analyzed as such with syntactic analysis.

It doesn't sound like you've actually studied languages at all, meanwhile I've spent countless hours mapping out the syntactic structures of many languages and even more dialects of those languages. I've spent hundreds of hours parsing the rules and interactions, it's mind blowingly complex when you get down to the granular level of syntax trees and prime structures.

This isn't some woke nonsense, this is a formal, highly technical academic subject that many people have doctorates in and they literally pretty much ALL agree on these very basic, first year level linguistic concepts.

This isn't obscure social theory, this is intro to linguistics level information. Basic survey knowledge. Arguing this is like someone in intro to chemistry arguing against the concept of electrons acting like both a wave and a particle.

[ATtiny85]

I see the term “future skilling” on my company's intranet and around the net. Sounds like some attempt to act like it is something different than it is. Or to sound fancy with an angle towards tech.

Somehow we made it to the moon without being future skillinged. Or is that futured skilling?

[ATtiny85]

This isn't some woke nonsense, this is a formal academic subject that many people have doctorates in and they literally pretty much ALL agree on these very basic, first year level linguistic concepts.

So the people making a living making a point about something agree there is a point to their point they are making?

I am with Paul der Krake in my life’s experience. If I talk to someone who is well spoken, they are generally intelligent. Naturally that does not mean someone who is not well spoken is not intelligent.

Eta: the first statement is me trying to be funny. Not discounting the academic work, just making a joke. Realized it likely reads differently than intended.

[Metalcat]

This isn't some woke nonsense, this is a formal academic subject that many people have doctorates in and they literally pretty much ALL agree on these very basic, first year level linguistic concepts.

So the people making a living making a point about something agree there is a point to their point they are making?

I am with Paul der Krake in my life’s experience. If I talk to someone who is well spoken, they are generally intelligent. Naturally that does not mean someone who is not well spoken is not intelligent.

Eta: the first statement is me trying to be funny. Not discounting the academic work, just making a joke. Realized it likely reads differently than intended.

It's not a coincidence that people who "speak properly" tend to be more intelligent, because education has a particular dialect, the one that people think is "correct."

My whole point, and I don't know how many times I can say this before my BRAIN FUCKING EXPLODES is that other dialects exist. They are not errors, they are different structures.

Many educated people who have learned the dialect of academia can easily code-switch between dialects with ease because they are fluent in both.

It's not that they learned better to stop making stupid errors and speak "right," it's that they learned a whole second set of linguistic structures and can switch fluently between them depending on the context.

As I said, I'm in Newfoundland right now. I don't speak Newfie, so many of the residents will code-switch so that I can understand them. They don't start speaking "correctly" they start speaking mainlander, which is not just a different dialect, it's almost a different language compared to Newfie.

Thanks for the clarification about the joke, I would not have taken it that way.

[Josiecat22222]

I don't think that @Paul der Krake and @Malcat points are necessarily mutually exclusive. As I understand it, Paul der krake stated that generally when one is well spoken, it is a marker of intelligence. Being able to clearly and effectively communicate one's thoughts is a central component of intelligence.  However, he did not state the converse (that when one is not well spoken, they are not intelligent). I think that Malcat's points regarding various dialects having different rules which may not be immediately clear to non-native speakers is an important one.   
I think there is space for both of these viewpoints to co-exist. 

[Paul der Krake]

I don't think that @Paul der Krake and @Malcat points are necessarily mutually exclusive. As I understand it, Paul der krake stated that generally when one is well spoken, it is a marker of intelligence. Being able to clearly and effectively communicate one's thoughts is a central component of intelligence.  However, he did not state the converse (that when one is not well spoken, they are not intelligent). I think that Malcat's points regarding various dialects having different rules which may not be immediately clear to non-native speakers is an important one.   
I think there is space for both of these viewpoints to co-exist.

Right.

There's something like 250 million French speakers, and I, a natural born citizen of France, am fully aware of the existence of some other dialects. As a person of reasonable intelligence, I am perfectly capable of making adjustments on the fly in how I perceive others when I interact with people who live in places as varied as Ivory Coast, French Polynesia, or Madagascar. I've never even heard of Acadian French, but I'm pretty sure I could adjust too.

But guess what, if you have a super limited vocabulary or your thoughts are vague and incoherent, I sure am going to think you're a dum dum.

[Taran Wanderer]

I’m tired on the Facebook posts about how farmers, and “family farmers” in particular (whatever that means in today’s world of mega agriculture), are super special because 3% of the people are farmers who grow the food that the other 97% of us eat.

Okay so what? X% are road builders who build the roads that the food travels to the mills and processing plants. Y% are engineers who design the food plants that turn the raw materials into something tasty and shelf stable. Z% are the food plant workers.  ABC% are the truck drivers, grocery store workers, bankers, etc. DEF% are the military and police and regulators who protect us from foreign invaders and help us generally follow the rules. And so on.

Yeah, we need farmers. But we need everyone else, too. Except maybe Elon Musk. I’m getting tired of his antics.

[Metalcat]

I don't think that @Paul der Krake and @Malcat points are necessarily mutually exclusive. As I understand it, Paul der krake stated that generally when one is well spoken, it is a marker of intelligence. Being able to clearly and effectively communicate one's thoughts is a central component of intelligence.  However, he did not state the converse (that when one is not well spoken, they are not intelligent). I think that Malcat's points regarding various dialects having different rules which may not be immediately clear to non-native speakers is an important one.   
I think there is space for both of these viewpoints to co-exist.

Right.

There's something like 250 million French speakers, and I, a natural born citizen of France, am fully aware of the existence of some other dialects. As a person of reasonable intelligence, I am perfectly capable of making adjustments on the fly in how I perceive others when I interact with people who live in places as varied as Ivory Coast, French Polynesia, or Madagascar. I've never even heard of Acadian French, but I'm pretty sure I could adjust too.

But guess what, if you have a super limited vocabulary or your thoughts are vague and incoherent, I sure am going to think you're a dum dum.

I guess I don't understand your point though.

At no point has there been a debate about whether or not someone has a decent vocabulary or can barely speak their own language.

The ongoing argument has always been in this thread about people considering phrases and word constructs from other dialects to be errors. From there people claim that a certain dialect is correct and everything else isn't.

So since that's been the ongoing argument, when you come in and say what you said, I assume you're arguing that along those lines.

[GuitarStv]

In a world where women have been and still are often considered second class citizens, perhaps this use of language is necessary to help remind us that every person, wherever they fall on the gender or racial or other spectrum, should enjoy the same rights and freedoms as each white male property owner.

Indeed. If pregnant humans had always been called people, maybe we would give them rights based on their permanent, inalienable status as such, rather than taking them away based on their temporary status as pregnant second-class citizens trumping said rights.

Logic doesn't seem to follow.

Roe V. Wade was decided in '73, long before anyone had to identify pronouns commonly.  It was repealed this year . . . right at about the time that more people than ever before were identifying their pronouns.  It doesn't make sense to me that they would be linked in any significant way . . . but trying to argue that pronoun identification results in greater women's rights would seem to fly in the face of evidence.

[RetiredAt63]

In a world where women have been and still are often considered second class citizens, perhaps this use of language is necessary to help remind us that every person, wherever they fall on the gender or racial or other spectrum, should enjoy the same rights and freedoms as each white male property owner.

Indeed. If pregnant humans had always been called people, maybe we would give them rights based on their permanent, inalienable status as such, rather than taking them away based on their temporary status as pregnant second-class citizens trumping said rights.

Logic doesn't seem to follow.

Roe V. Wade was decided in '73, long before anyone had to identify pronouns commonly.  It was repealed this year . . . right at about the time that more people than ever before were identifying their pronouns.  It doesn't make sense to me that they would be linked in any significant way . . . but trying to argue that pronoun identification results in greater women's rights would seem to fly in the face of evidence.

Maybe it gave more incentive to those who long for the 1950s to work harder?

More seriously, I think it shows that there are 2 distinct societies re these social attitudes.  One has managed to shift social views and the other has grabbed the levers of power.

[FIRE Artist]

Acadian is really tough for outsiders to pick up, it isn’t just slang (there is a lot of that), but includes the usage of old words that are not typically used by other native French speakers.  It would be the equivalent of someone using obscure Old English words in conversation and blend in some Mikmaq for shits and giggles.  Their version of Franglais is called Chiac. 

I am an Anglophone, grew up in Moncton and took my entire 12 years of grade schooling in French immersion (where we were taught formal French) and still could not really converse with my neighbours.  It was a waste of time if that was the goal.

[RetiredAt63]

Acadian is really tough for outsiders to pick up, it isn’t just slang (there is a lot of that), but includes the usage of old words that are not typically used by other native French speakers.  It would be the equivalent of someone using obscure Old English words in conversation and blend in some Mikmaq for shits and giggles.  Their version of Franglais is called Chiac. 

I am an Anglophone, grew up in Moncton and took my entire 12 years of grade schooling in French immersion (where we were taught formal French) and still could not really converse with my neighbours.  It was a waste of time if that was the goal.

I grew up in Montreal and also had formal French.  I could not understand people at all on the bus - I had not learned joual.  I was fine at academic meetings where people spoke more formally.  The weirdest thing is, I read someplace that Quebec English is a formal dialect - I just thought we had vocabulary issues.  I had no idea what a 7-11 was when I went to University in Ontario.   And of course I knew no-one would understand me when I talked about going to the dep (depanneur).

[sui generis]

I think it's been mentioned before, but using "no" when you really mean "yes" is bothering me lately.  It's funny because I think before I've understood that it *felt* right even if there technically wasn't anything being negated.  But recently there was a use of it that made me wonder if I'm getting old and I've un-accepted something I've previously been willing to roll with, or if this use was just so egregious that it doesn't work, while other uses have some subtlety or nuance about them, which I can't articulate, that makes them different and more ok.

This instance was on a podcast and the podcast host was asking the interviewee something to the effect of, "Well, isn't it true that....(something that is true)" and the interviewee responded, "No, that's exactly right."

I don't know.  Do others here have a sense of times it makes more sense to use a negative even when you're not negating anything and when it's not and goes too far?  Does it seem like the sentence above is not going too far to anyone? (Admittedly, hearing it makes a big difference...I think the interviewee sort of paused after saying no, but before the rest of the sentence and I thought they were actually disagreeing about the thing for a moment.)

[FIRE Artist]

I think it's been mentioned before, but using "no" when you really mean "yes" is bothering me lately.  It's funny because I think before I've understood that it *felt* right even if there technically wasn't anything being negated.  But recently there was a use of it that made me wonder if I'm getting old and I've un-accepted something I've previously been willing to roll with, or if this use was just so egregious that it doesn't work, while other uses have some subtlety or nuance about them, which I can't articulate, that makes them different and more ok.

This instance was on a podcast and the podcast host was asking the interviewee something to the effect of, "Well, isn't it true that....(something that is true)" and the interviewee responded, "No, that's exactly right."

I don't know.  Do others here have a sense of times it makes more sense to use a negative even when you're not negating anything and when it's not and goes too far?  Does it seem like the sentence above is not going too far to anyone? (Admittedly, hearing it makes a big difference...I think the interviewee sort of paused after saying no, but before the rest of the sentence and I thought they were actually disagreeing about the thing for a moment.)

We do this a lot in Canada, I didn’t really know how much until I saw a TicTok about it, and was like yeah, no, we do that all the time!  Haha.

yeah, no
No, yeah
Yeah nooooo

[Padonak]

Withdrawal (as a verb)

[sui generis]

I think it's been mentioned before, but using "no" when you really mean "yes" is bothering me lately.  It's funny because I think before I've understood that it *felt* right even if there technically wasn't anything being negated.  But recently there was a use of it that made me wonder if I'm getting old and I've un-accepted something I've previously been willing to roll with, or if this use was just so egregious that it doesn't work, while other uses have some subtlety or nuance about them, which I can't articulate, that makes them different and more ok.

This instance was on a podcast and the podcast host was asking the interviewee something to the effect of, "Well, isn't it true that....(something that is true)" and the interviewee responded, "No, that's exactly right."

I don't know.  Do others here have a sense of times it makes more sense to use a negative even when you're not negating anything and when it's not and goes too far?  Does it seem like the sentence above is not going too far to anyone? (Admittedly, hearing it makes a big difference...I think the interviewee sort of paused after saying no, but before the rest of the sentence and I thought they were actually disagreeing about the thing for a moment.)

We do this a lot in Canada, I didn’t really know how much until I saw a TicTok about it, and was like yeah, no, we do that all the time!  Haha.

yeah, no
No, yeah
Yeah nooooo

Ok, you've clarified something for me about when I've seen those used successfully.  I think the times I've used Yeah, no (and I used to use it a lot) and I heard it used, the Yeah is ....sarcastic?  Like you're faking out that you agree with what the person just said, but then you really vehemently disagree and saying yeah first and then flipping it actually emphasizes how adverse you actually are to it. This is really going far back (to like the 80s?), but for me it's a little similar to when someone would pretend like they were agreeing with you or on your side about something and then, "Psych!"  Yeah, no is the more modern Psych.

Sometimes I've seen No, yeah work.  Like if Person 1 says they hate ice cream, there's nothing redeeming about it, and Person 2 says, "Well, it's nice on a hot day, no?" and then Person 1 realizes they made an overly ambitious declaration and says, "No, yeah that's true." so it's like they are negating, not what Person 2 said, but almost back to what they said initially.

But the example I just heard was not that.  The No, yeah didn't serve any purpose that I can see.  Thank you for helping me realize what was bothering me about this one when I was usually fine with it before!