zashika

1

zashika wrote (edited )

As much as I want this to be true, I want to be critical of its findings. Since I don't have access to the original article, I'm going with the sciencemag's overview.

Was this a double-blind study where the rater(s) didn't know the person's social class? Because, if they did, there would be a higher chance subjectivity would've played a role. After all, researchers have a greater incentive to confirm their hypotheses. Taking a third-party view may not have been written in open-ended questions if people didn't feel the need to - so, could it have been a difference in communication? The article could've provided examples to make this point clearer. Or close-ended questions along open-ended questions would've given a fuller picture.

Edit: There's also the fact that data are from self-reports. If 'taking a third-person's view' could be somehow built into an experimental scenario, it would be more valid.

3

zashika wrote (edited )

  1. It's the way you've phrased it. I never said there's anything funny or embarrassing about it. "Gays" wasn't offensive, just an awkward use of the word.
  2. I have heard this. It may be true for some people out there, but to label all hate towards the lgbt community as an internal issue frames it in a very weird way. The article I linked to you explains it more.
3

zashika wrote (edited )

Just letting you know why you're being down-voted.

  1. The use of the word "gays".
  2. You make it sound like people "wanting big dicks in their mouths" sound like a funny and embarrassing thing. I don't know if you meant otherwise, but it sounds very much so.
  3. Even if it's true that some people turn out to be gay, it's homophobic to label homophobic hate as a trait of homosexuality. It stigmatizes the orientation and lets straight people off the hook. https://the-orbit.net/teacosy/2013/07/02/why-you-need-to-quit-calling-homophobes-closet-cases/
8

zashika wrote

I commend the idea behind Esperanto, that it was created to promote international cooperation and is against linguistic imperialism.

I'm not even against it's perceived 'Eurocentrism' - which is a step up from anglocentrism. But a language that is fixed (its community at large is against reform, except for sub-communities like Ido) and not having a cultural context is tricky.

It seems quite difficult to turn the tides against major languages becoming lingua francas. Also remember that learning languages require time, hence not something we can expect from all parts of the working class. But what we can do (IMO) is to promote multilingualism and recognize the validity of variations in dialects (such as African American Vernacular).