Posts by Michelle Sanders72

If you can get your hands on a pool, I’d say that would be a pretty solid move. But honestly, even if you don't, just staying in shape is worth its weight in gold, I guess. Especially if you're actually serious about getting ready for this, right?

come on guys, I'm really bummed I couldn't make it

Look, I don't mean to be blunt, but I feel like you might be complaining just for the sake of it. I spend a ton of time lurking on that thread, and honestly, the way the mods handle things seems pretty fair to me, I guess.

Just hanging out at the shopping mall!

alright, so you can't actually delete your profile, but I guess you could maybe reanimate Nik?

I was wondering, what do you guys think an HP ProBook 4540 with an i5 processor and a 500 GB drive would be worth if it’s about a year old?

I honestly think you really ought to learn these exercises under some kind of supervision. It's just so incredibly tough to actually tell if your body is sitting in the right position while you're mid-movement, you know?

So, he only played three new tracks, and even then, it was just right at the start of the set.
If you’re calling that "teasing the crowd," then I don't know what you'd call it when everyone else promotes a new album.

Anyway, the show itself was killer. Honestly, just incredible.

As for the organization... man, we were practically dying laughing. Nothing felt quite right, but the main thing was seeing those little local guys preening themselves with their fancy cars, uniforms, and all those gadgets. 🤣

Mind you, his shout-out was pretty good: "Hello San Francisco, good evening USA." Clearly, he knows this place belongs to us. 🤣

Chris Anderson48 said:Precisely.
I mean, honestly—we spent all semester grinding through one specific curriculum, only to walk into the final exam and find out they’d tacked on ten extra chapters we hadn't even touched. It’s almost impressive how much they can pivot at the last second.
So, what’s my move here?

Aha, okay, so I guess you went to him because you thought he was actually going to tell you—or, you know, teach you—exactly what would show up on the SAT? 😂

And now you’re thinking about suing him just because what he taught didn't perfectly line up with the exam? 🤣

Michelle Scott32 said:I guess chatting with Didi helps take the edge off, but honestly, my blood is still kind of boiling over here. It’s such a massive pain because my juicer—well, more like a total disaster of a juicer—actually wiped out my entire long-form response I wrote for you. I had everything laid out in a perfect list, answering all those little doubts you were having, and I even wrote the whole thing in English. It’s just a real shame, really. So, I guess I'm just counting on you to read between the lines and catch what I'm trying to say. 😉

Yeah, I caught that too.

I still can't quite wrap my head around why you haven't handed out even a single warning or a strike, especially since they just keep pulling that same kind of nonsense over and over again. I feel pretty bad that I was a bit slow getting the link to that specific post over to the Corner here, but I'm assuming the mods can find it easily enough within the Social Science threads without me having to point the way.

I mean, honestly, I guess I’d just suggest you try tackling that one on your own. I mean, I guess you could say things are getting a little bloody... or maybe just intense? Not that I'm trying to be dramatic or anything, but man, it feels like everything is just hitting the fan lately. It’s kind of wild how fast things can spiral, I suppose. Just one of those days, I guess. Just take a breath and chill out. For what it's worth—and I mean this more seriously than anything else I've said—you're actually doing a pretty decent job so far. 🙂

I can see you're really putting in the work here, so just... try not to blow the whole thing.

Look, don't take this personally or anything, I guess, but if someone else was acting exactly like you, I'd probably be calling them out too. 🙂

Man, I’m not saying he didn't go way too far—though honestly, it’s nothing compared to the stuff people usually get away with, if you look at my first post in this thread

but seriously, provoking someone just so you can hit them with a ban? what kind of logic is that even?

So, following that recent debate, it looks like we’re still seeing ad hominem attacks and insults popping up in this subforum.

It’s really the same old crowd, honestly. You’ve got the people throwing the insults, and then you’ve got the ones just letting it slide.
To be more specific, one particular user was only given a tiny insulting post warning, even though this isn't their first rodeo and we've already talked about this exact style of communication before.

Personally, I feel like if someone drops an insulting comment once in a blue moon, maybe we could just look the other way, especially if they're usually pretty chill. But this kind of thing isn't a one-off; it keeps happening, and it's actually caused some other users to speak up and protest.

Look, I’m not a moderator or anything, so the call is ultimately yours to make. I just reported the post. I guess I'm just letting you know that things haven't fully improved. They've gotten better to a point, I suppose, but it's not quite there yet.

Thanks

PS
If that previous thread about complaints on this subforum hadn't been locked, I probably would have weighed in over there. As it stands, it might actually be a good idea to just merge these two topics together.

northerntiger said:The PDF Social Science section is one of those rare little havens on this forum where actual experts—mostly linguists—still try to give serious answers to questions. It’s also one of the few spots that hasn't turned into a total playground for everyone and their mother.

Look, I don't care about swearing. You can curse all you want; what actually gets to me is stupidity, shallowness, and this idea that literally anyone can just chime in on any topic.

They can't. And honestly, they shouldn't.

This whole tabloid-style craze that hit the forum has become pretty terrible. Not every PDF needs to be left wide open to a free-for-all, especially when it has "science" right there in the title.

If we're talking Social Science, then the moderation should be handled by people in those fields who actually know their stuff. We have plenty of great contributors here who bring so much to the table because they're well-educated and actually think before they type. It's a shame that even here, we've seen this kind of "encroachment," where the wild crowds end up chasing away the professionals.

How exactly do you think sensationalism has affected the forum?

Actually, I think it's the opposite—it was the restrictions that hit the forum, and unfortunately, they were necessary. Just like how any kind of restriction on freedom throughout history has been necessary. But hey, whatever.

Look, it's obvious this forum is essentially private property. There's no denying it. And clearly, the owner has every right to enforce justice on his own land, however he sees fit. Of course, it's all aimed at boosting traffic and selling more ad space.

But, you missed the underlying logic and the philosophy that usually governs the internet. That core idea is that everyone has the right to say whatever they want (as long as it isn't hate speech).
Now, what I put in parentheses is definitely open to debate. Back in the day on Usenet groups, things were handled by an abuse department that would— troll—whoever started a flame war—completely cut off their internet access.
But there was never any talk about having specific credentials as a requirement to join a discussion. People without competence eventually get weeded out through natural selection, provided they aren't being obnoxious or provocative.

Places like that existed then, and they still exist now, but they're closed off; you can only get in if someone invites you. And honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that. Professionals discussing things among themselves on a private forum or wherever.
But this forum isn't that kind of place.

So, the process actually moved in the exact opposite direction of what you're imagining. The online community wasn't restrictive and exclusive from the start; it was quite the opposite. The need for more serious moderation only popped up after Web 2.0 arrived—you know, with the rise of forums, blogs, and all those things that gave the average, untrained user easy access to a keyboard. Once those technologies showed up, the user base shifted, and suddenly moderation became way more vital than it used to be. But in the beginning, it just wasn't like that.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

Yeah, I think that’s exactly where the issue lies.

See, the job of a moderator in the Social Science section shouldn't really be about validating linguistics as some heavy-duty academic discipline; it should mostly be about stepping in when people start being insulting or acting out in ways that just aren't okay.
A moderator in Social Science shouldn't be busy pushing aside people just because they insist that a fact—which might be scientifically wrong according to the textbooks—is actually true based on their own personal experience or whatever.

At the end of the day, a forum is a place where anyone should be able to say whatever they want about a topic, provided they aren't disrespecting their interlocutors or crossing those lines of what's socially acceptable. That’s when a moderator should step in, not when someone crosses a line regarding scientific accuracy or how well-grounded an argument is in a specific field.

Anyway, I won't ramble too much:

So, in that same vein, I guess the question is: why would a future moderator for Social Science even need to be a top-tier expert in every single subject within that field?

Shouldn't the most important thing, really, be how they treat others and how decent they are in a discussion, rather than just raw expertise? Like, having a sense of social etiquette and being able to spot when someone is stepping outside those bounds.
And obviously, they should probably at least follow the topic and actually care about it.

A bunch of people have been chiming in on this thread—myself included, if you count my very first post here—saying that you can't just walk away from culture.

I guess my question was really just rhetorical, though. 🙂

Once you've actually engaged with culture, I suppose you can't really shake it off. Maybe you can rise above it or something, but I think people have already touched on that bit earlier in the discussion.

swiftcobra15 said:

Humans have always been social creatures; true isolation simply doesn't exist for us.
"Individuals don't" actually come together. It was only with the rise of organized class structures that people actually started drifting apart.

See what I mean?

I try to say something without getting all sidetracked, and they just jump right on it, I guess. 🙂

If you look closely, I wasn't even talking about specific people, just individuals in a general sense.

I mean, obviously, being part of a society is baked into the whole definition of being human. So, by extension, that includes culture and language too, I suppose. 🙂

And honestly, how people drift apart or come back together doesn't really change the core point. Even pulling away from others is sort of its own way of being connected to the group, which we've already touched on in this thread anyway. 🙂

But, uh, that's not really what today's episode is about... Today's big topic is actually....

why malizia is feeling so depressed

Look, malizia, why wouldn't you just walk away from culture? Because that would be way too much to give up, I think. A person's life is basically just a long string of choices where you sacrifice a little piece of yourself to get something else in return. Life is mostly just compromise. You can't have light without shadow, and you can't have any kind of gain without making a sacrifice. You can't even have happiness without those low moods creeping in sometimes. 🙂

Quincy:

swiftcobra15 I guess I should probably mention what Edward Flores4 was saying about this... maybe? It’s kind of hard to wrap my head around, honestly, but if you look at it from a certain angle, I suppose there's a bit of sense to it, even if it feels a little bit out there. Not that I'm saying anyone is right or wrong, per se, but it’s just one of those things that makes you sit back and wonder, I guess. I mean, I’ve been sitting here wondering about this for a while now, like, does language actually come before culture, or is it more like they just kind of spark into existence at the exact same time? It’s one of those deep rabbit holes you fall down when you can't sleep, I guess. Maybe language is the foundation that lets us build a culture in the first place, or maybe culture is what drives us to invent new ways to talk, so it’s all just this big, messy loop. I don't know, it feels like trying to figure out if the chicken or the egg came first, only much more complicated because everything is so intertwined. It's probably both, honestly, just two sides of the same coin spinning around forever.

First off, I should probably clarify things right out of the gate so nobody gets the wrong idea—when I’m rambling on about stuff like culture or language, I’m really just talking about how we communicate as beings capable of abstract thought, I guess. It's more about that mental leap than anything else, maybe.

I mean, I guess it’s kind of hard to even wrap my head around the idea of culture existing without a language, or honestly, trying to imagine a language that isn't totally shaped by its own culture... it just feels like one of those things where you can't really separate them, you know? Like, they're just so deeply tangled up together that trying to pull them apart seems almost impossible, I suppose.
Like I was saying before, those two concepts are just so tangled up together that it’s kind of impossible to even look at them as separate things, I guess.

I guess I was just sitting here thinking about how everything kind of boils down to a function, you know? Like, if you look at any given process or even just a random interaction, there’s always some underlying purpose or role being played, though I suppose it’s easy to get lost in the weeds and forget that part sometimes. It’s funny how we overcomplicate things when really, most stuff is just performing its specific task and moving on, which is probably why I spend so much time overanalyzing things that don't even matter, I guess. Anyway, just a stray thought floating around my head while I was staring at my coffee this morning. I mean, at the end of the day, language and culture are really just two sides of the same coin when it comes to how we actually connect and vibe with each other in a group. I guess it’s almost obvious why individuals bother forming societies in the first place—it’s basically baked into our DNA—but we could probably get lost in that rabbit hole for hours if we really wanted to. Anyway, my point is that wherever you find a community, you're inevitably going to find a culture, and where there's a culture, there's always a language tied to it. You can't really have one without the other; language doesn't just float around in a vacuum without some cultural context, and honestly, trying to imagine a culture existing without its own unique way of speaking seems pretty much impossible to me.
I mean, when I say... I guess I was just thinking about language today... you know, how much it shapes everything we do and say. It’s kind of wild when you really sit down and ponder it, though maybe I’m just overthinking things again. Language is such a massive, messy thing, isn't it? It’s basically the fabric of how we connect with everyone else here in the States. I mean, it's more than just words on a page or sounds coming out of our mouths; it's like this whole invisible framework that dictates how we see the world around us. Sometimes I feel like we get so caught up in the rules of grammar or trying to sound smart that we forget it's supposed to be a tool for actually being understood. It's all a bit fluid, I suppose. Anyway, just some random thoughts rattling around my brain while I was staring at my coffee this morning.I mean, it’s not just about the words we say, you know? It’s way deeper than that. There’s the whole non-verbal side of things—the gestures, the little movements, all those symbols and other ways we shoot off signals without even trying. We're constantly sending out these messages, both on purpose and, I guess, kind of subconsciously too. So, like... I guess I’m just sitting here thinking about how much we rely on language, you know? It's kind of wild when you really stop to look at it, like, how everything we say or write basically shapes our whole reality, which is probably a bit deep for a random thought, but still. Maybe it's just me being weirdly philosophical today, but there's something about the way we communicate that feels so heavy yet so effortless at the same time. Anyway, just some random musings I had floating around my head while I was staring at my coffee this morning. I mean, I guess the whole point of talking to other people is just... connection, right? Like, what else is there? It's really just about reaching out and actually communicating with everyone else out there. Maybe it's more complicated than that, but honestly, I figure at the end of the day, it's all just about that exchange between individuals.
I mean, I guess culture carries a whole lot more weight than just the surface stuff, you know? It’s got these much more complicated, kind of abstract layers to it that go way beyond the obvious things we see every day... maybe it's just me, but it feels like there's always some deeper subtext running underneath everything. I guess I’m just sitting here thinking about how much the language changes depending on who you're talking to, you know? It's kind of funny how we all use different slang or weird ways of phrasing things without even realizing it, though maybe that's just me overthinking it. It’s like, one minute you're talking normally and the next you've drifted into some specific dialect or a bunch of local idioms that wouldn't make sense to anyone else in the States. I don't know, maybe it's just the way people express themselves differently in every corner of the country, but it's pretty interesting if you actually stop to look at it.I guess it's kind of like how some things decide what actually counts as acceptable and what doesn't, though maybe that’s just a simple way of looking at it... because, honestly, there's probably this much deeper, more abstract layer to it all that people who actually live and breathe the culture just sort of intuitively pick up on and understand without having to say anything, I suppose.

swiftcobra15 said:

Does language precede culture, or do they evolve side by side?

Is pre-verbal communication, like gestures or signs, just as valid as the spoken word we use today?

"Do images speak louder than words? Is there a chance that visual language could eventually surpass verbal communication?"

I mean, I guess if you really sit down and think about it, there was probably some kind of edge to having spoken language over just, you know, all that non-verbal stuff back when humans were first figuring things out and actually needed to develop it. It’s like, maybe having actual words gave us a bit of a leg up in those early stages compared to just pointing or making noises, though I don't know, it’s hard to say for sure without being there, obviously.
I mean, I guess it really just comes down to how much capacity someone has for abstract thought and, you know, general intellectual horsepower. It feels like once we hit that evolutionary sweet spot where the prerequisite for a whole new way of communicating was finally met, the whole thing just sort of naturally unfolded into the shape it takes today. Maybe.

swiftcobra15 said:

Does language precede culture, or do they evolve side by side?

Is pre-verbal communication, like gestures or signs, just as valid as the spoken word we use today?

"Do images speak louder than words? Is there a chance that visual language could eventually surpass verbal communication?"

I probably wouldn't have phrased the question quite like that, if I'm being honest. Maybe it was just me, but I guess there's a better way to go about it.
I mean, I guess you could say that visual language speaks in a totally different way than actual words do, if that makes sense. It’s not really about one being better or more important than the other, I suppose. It just feels like they both serve their own purposes—like, one might be way more effective for a certain kind of abstract communication, while the other handles a completely different vibe entirely.
I guess it really just boils down to whatever the market demands at the time, you know? Like, the dominant language is probably just going to be whichever one happens to be most useful for whatever people are actually doing. It’s all about necessity, I suppose. I mean, I guess it’s just a bit more useful, if that makes sense... maybe? Not that I'm trying to say it's a total game-changer or anything, but it definitely seems to get the job done better than the other option. It's just one of those things that feels a little more practical, I suppose. I guess you could say it’s all happening within a certain timeframe, if that makes any sense... maybe? It’s just one of those things where everything sort of settles into place during a specific window of time, I suppose.

Quincy:

I don't really know what to make of that, I guess. It’s just one of those things where you see a name or a word and you kind of stare at it for a second, wondering if there's some deep, hidden meaning behind it or if it's just... well, nothing. Maybe it's an inside joke or something, who knows? I'm probably overthinking it, though. That's usually what happens when I try to find substance in things that might not actually have any. Anyway, just a random thought floating around in my head, I suppose. Michelle Sanders72 says: I mean, looking at it another way... I guess you could say that discourse, identity, and how we actually value things don't just exist in a vacuum, right? They kind of emerge from all that back-and-forth interaction we have with each other. It’s all sort of interconnected, maybe.

That’s pretty much what I was thinking too, though I guess I was being a little more cautious about it, maybe just playing it safe. 🙂

loneorca34 said:

I honestly can't decide if an individual can actually have their own culture, or if you need at least two people present just for "culture" to even exist in the first place.

It’s definitely the second one. All that stuff—discourse, identity, judging things—it only happens when people interact.

So, the question isn't whether a culture is "good" or if a language is "good," but rather what kind of culture *is* good and what kind of language *is* good.

Actually, I'd swap out the word "good" for "useful."

A good culture (and language) is simply the one that allows a society to achieve whatever that society wants to achieve.

Well, sure, it does enable that, but the catch is *how* it goes about doing it. Culture has this built-in need to convince you that what it's providing is actually something you need. Honestly, that applies to pretty much any option you throw at me.

Anyway, I got a little bit carried away earlier (they say being "unbalanced" is where creativity comes from, right? 😁 )and I came up with this wild definition for language...

Language is like a massive dick; all tangled up in hair, and at the end of every single strand is a little Tarzan waiting to reward you for every attempt you make to untangle the mess. The deeper you go into it, the more you realize how dark and stinky it is, yet somehow it's still soft and warm.

Does that sound any better? I mean, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but I guess I'm just wondering if it hits the right note.
It’s honestly kind of easy to see what's actually going on, I guess... I guess that was actually kind of helpful, if you think about it. I guess it’s just... something. Or maybe it's everything? I don't know, I probably shouldn't even be bringing this up, but there's just this feeling about it all that I can't quite shake, if that makes any sense. It's hard to put a finger on, really. Maybe I'm just overthinking things again, which is kind of my thing, I suppose. alright then.

loneorca34 said:

I honestly can't decide if an individual can actually have their own culture, or if you need at least two people present just for "culture" to even exist in the first place.

It’s definitely the second one. All that stuff—discourse, identity, judging things—it only happens when people interact.

So, the question isn't whether a culture is "good" or if a language is "good," but rather what kind of culture *is* good and what kind of language *is* good.

Actually, I'd swap out the word "good" for "useful."

A good culture (and language) is simply the one that allows a society to achieve whatever that society wants to achieve.

Well, sure, it does enable that, but the catch is *how* it goes about doing it. Culture has this built-in need to convince you that what it's providing is actually something you need. Honestly, that applies to pretty much any option you throw at me.

Anyway, I got a little bit carried away earlier (they say being "unbalanced" is where creativity comes from, right? 😁 )and I came up with this wild definition for language...

Language is like a massive dick; all tangled up in hair, and at the end of every single strand is a little Tarzan waiting to reward you for every attempt you make to untangle the mess. The deeper you go into it, the more you realize how dark and stinky it is, yet somehow it's still soft and warm.

I mean, if you really sit down and think about it, isn't culture just... I don't know, maybe just the end result of an individual's basic desire to actually live? Like, it’s that deep-seated drive to exist fully, plus having the actual capacity to make that happen—which I guess is what separates us from the animals, anyway.
I mean, I guess if you have a society, you’ve pretty much got a culture to go along with it, right? It’s kind of an inevitable thing. It definitely puts certain boundaries on you—which can feel pretty stifling sometimes, I suppose—but at the same time, it sort of acts like a safety net that keeps everything from just falling apart. It's a weird balance, really.

It’s kind of warm out here in the city, I guess, but man, there is definitely a smell lingering in the air. 🙂
I think it was Hemingway who said that, I guess.

So, I guess it really just boils down to this: you’re either gonna freeze your butt off out in that crisp, fresh air, or you’ll eventually just get used to living in a cloud of stank. It’s kind of a lose-lose situation if you think about it too long, though maybe I'm just overthinking things.

I guess it’s actually pretty tough sometimes, you know, to just wander off from the crowd—mostly because you need that weirdly specific awareness that anything exists outside the pack in the first place—and then somehow find your way back to them again.
But, like I think someone else already pointed out around here, those kinds of people are usually the ones doing the most for the group. Or, well, that’s probably just what we’d like to tell ourselves, anyway. 🙂

Please don't hold it against me if I say something a little weird, or maybe just logically messy, or if I totally miss the point entirely. I haven't exactly spent my life devouring philosophy textbooks or sitting through endless lectures at Yale or something, so I’m definitely just a layman here, though I guess I do enjoy a good debate every now and then.

If my little monologue feels irrelevant to you, honestly, just ignore it.

I suppose culture only really happens when there's communication and memory involved.
I can't quite decide if an individual can actually have their own culture, or if you need at least two people for culture to even exist. I mean, if someone can communicate with themselves, then both requirements for culture are technically met, so maybe culture exists even in isolation.
But, I guess that isn't even the most important part.

The real thing is that culture necessarily exists within a society—assuming we accept that societies involve communication and memory.

Memory, or remembering things, is basically just a collection of individual memories from different people. It can be written down too, but if nobody actually reads it and commits it to memory, it only contributes to the culture as a sort of reflection left behind by the act of writing it down.

Language acts as a tool for communication, but at the same time, it’s totally intertwined with culture. Just like culture shapes language, language shapes culture.
If you step back from all those abstract concepts for a second, it becomes pretty clear that culture and language aren't anything other than people. They are just groups of individuals interacting, where every single person is simultaneously both the subject and the object. A person is shaped by culture and language just as much as they shape culture and language in return. Every interaction between people is governed (and, let's face it, limited) by culture and language, but those interactions also define what culture and language become in general. No matter how tiny that influence might seem, it's there. Every action carries some kind of consequence.

So, I guess it’s not about whether culture is "good" or if language is "good," but rather about defining what kind of culture and what kind of language *should* be considered good.

A "good" culture (and language) would be one that allows a society to achieve whatever it actually wants to achieve.
Of course, the individual is usually the one making the biggest sacrifice in that equation, but they're also the biggest winner.

Anyway, I’d like to circle back to that comparison with the immune system.
I think it's a pretty solid metaphor.
Because, just like an immune system can develop allergies, a culture can have these intense, volatile reactions to things that are actually perfectly benign. Those reactions have a cause, and I guess they can actually be useful in certain situations.

Just like not every illness is a true disease, maybe not every state of "health" is actually healthy either.
Sometimes a mutation can save a life (or a culture), and sometimes it can absolutely wreck it.

And since life isn't static, culture isn't static either. It’s constantly shifting, changing from the inside out and the outside in, trying to adapt to its environment. As long as that mechanism of self-correction and self-shaping keeps working, culture and language will keep existing.

Can people communicate without language?
Can a society exist without communication?
Can a person exist as an individual without a society? 🤷

Damien, is that actually you?

I guess you're just dreaming up nonsense again...🤣