3 ms·

You admitted that you don't speak fluent spanish, yet you decided to put words in my mouth about a post I wrote entirely in spanish, that was written that way b

You admitted that you don't speak fluent spanish, yet you decided to put words in my mouth about a post I wrote entirely in spanish, that was written that way because it was directed very specifically at the poster I replied to. I never said language was a "rich versus poor thing", and I never belittled your hardships, especially since the first thing I did in the post you're responding to was validate them, yet you interpret this as us having an argument: why? If anything, it is that very interpretation that proves the entire point I've been making about the cultures picking their battles very differently. I might not see why any of these things need to be met with such emotional resistance, but it is clear that some people do, and that's the only difference I was pointing at. Everything else I said was an attempt at having a discussion clarifying why such a difference might arise. And if in a bit of irony, I'm misinterpreting you, then please do clarify, cause I might be fairly assimilated, but I'm still not perfect. I can't even begin to describe how many egg shells I regularly walk on trying to talk with americans to this day still.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
I don't think I've said anything about your post in Spanish. A third party replied to that post fully in English and I responded to that. Let me suggest this is a misunderstanding. I haven't said anything was taboo. I merely said that people who have suffered can still believe use of language is worth arguing over and that your willingness to continue this argument aligns better with that assertion than with the assertion that if you've known real suffering, you wouldn't bother to argue such a thing. I don't believe I've put words in your mouth. Yet, you feel disrespected at the idea that I might do so. Disrespected and affronted. And you feel compelled to defend your words. FWIW, I did run your comment through Google translate since I can only pick out a few words here and there. I think it likely butchered it and I believe it also cut it off somewhere in the middle. It struck me as both impassioned and compassionate. I wish I had a proper English version of it to consider. But my desire to enjoy your thoughts seemed too trivial to remark upon and it struck me as egomaniacal hubris to impose upon you with such a request, so I didn't bother. Peace.
- axlprose 8y ago
  > Let me suggest this is a misunderstanding. I'm cool with that. Misunderstandings happen more often than people like to admit, even when speaking the same language; the interpretation of language seems to be universally subjective and particular to the person interpreting it. You never know for sure how something will be received until you throw it out there. > your willingness to continue this argument aligns better with that assertion than with the assertion that if you've known real suffering, you wouldn't bother to argue such a thing I agree with that, because I never argued to the contrary, like the person that first responded to me might've. I believe it's most likely the product of an entire country/population suffering without any sources of comparison nearby that can produce a certain cultural cynicism/stoicism that habitually overlooks a lot of things. There will always be exceptions when it comes to individuals from these cultures, but I think it's at least worth exploring why some debates that are popular in the US right now likely wouldn't rise up to the level of national discourse in countries like china/russia/colombia/guatemala/etc anytime soon (dubious political regimes aside). > I don't believe I've put words in your mouth. The notion of word translations ever being suggested as a "rich vs poor thing" was a pretty notable one, but since I just explained my position a bit more, it's fine. Hopefully it's clear that it's a far more nuanced observation than "americans are spoiled" or something like that. > Yet, you feel disrespected at the idea that I might do so. Disrespected and affronted One thing I've learned in interacting with people from a variety of different cultures, is that their ideas of what's considered "respectful" or "disrespectful" are often quite different from each other. In this case for example, I would never use the word "disrespected" to describe myself in this situation. I actually think "confusion" would suit my interpretation of the whole language debate a lot better, which is why I usually try to respond with clarifications of some sort (which I can see how that can come off as "defending my words", but I'm usually much more concerned with being understood than I am with defending any particular point of view). In my mind, "disrespect" is something I associate mostly with gang members getting upset and overreacting about trivial nonsense. But that could just be me!
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    but I think it's at least worth exploring why some debates that are popular in the US right now likely wouldn't rise up to the level of national discourse in countries like china/russia/colombia/guatemala/etc anytime soon (dubious political regimes aside). That's a completely different sentiment from (roughly) "Hey, brother, the truth is that folks in privileged countries simply can't comprehend the lived experience of those from poor countries where corruption is the norm." I would say that you need a certain amount of cultural capital and baseline material wealth to have the resources to spare for certain things that might be deemed luxuries or trivial details when you are really struggling to simply survive. That doesn't mean they actually are trivial. There is also the complicating detail that sometimes people argue about trivialities because it is vastly less threatening than wrestling with the real problems. We can discuss such further if you like. But I'm not interested in being perceived as arguing it in the sense of fighting about it or being confrontational.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

I don't think I've said anything about your post in Spanish. A third party replied to that post fully in English and I responded to that. Let me suggest this is a misunderstanding. I haven't said anything was taboo. I merely said that people who have suffered can still believe use of language is worth arguing over and that your willingness to continue this argument aligns better with that assertion than with the assertion that if you've known real suffering, you wouldn't bother to argue such a thing. I don't believe I've put words in your mouth. Yet, you feel disrespected at the idea that I might do so. Disrespected and affronted. And you feel compelled to defend your words. FWIW, I did run your comment through Google translate since I can only pick out a few words here and there. I think it likely butchered it and I believe it also cut it off somewhere in the middle. It struck me as both impassioned and compassionate. I wish I had a proper English version of it to consider. But my desire to enjoy your thoughts seemed too trivial to remark upon and it struck me as egomaniacal hubris to impose upon you with such a request, so I didn't bother. Peace.

axlprose 8y ago
> Let me suggest this is a misunderstanding. I'm cool with that. Misunderstandings happen more often than people like to admit, even when speaking the same language; the interpretation of language seems to be universally subjective and particular to the person interpreting it. You never know for sure how something will be received until you throw it out there. > your willingness to continue this argument aligns better with that assertion than with the assertion that if you've known real suffering, you wouldn't bother to argue such a thing I agree with that, because I never argued to the contrary, like the person that first responded to me might've. I believe it's most likely the product of an entire country/population suffering without any sources of comparison nearby that can produce a certain cultural cynicism/stoicism that habitually overlooks a lot of things. There will always be exceptions when it comes to individuals from these cultures, but I think it's at least worth exploring why some debates that are popular in the US right now likely wouldn't rise up to the level of national discourse in countries like china/russia/colombia/guatemala/etc anytime soon (dubious political regimes aside). > I don't believe I've put words in your mouth. The notion of word translations ever being suggested as a "rich vs poor thing" was a pretty notable one, but since I just explained my position a bit more, it's fine. Hopefully it's clear that it's a far more nuanced observation than "americans are spoiled" or something like that. > Yet, you feel disrespected at the idea that I might do so. Disrespected and affronted One thing I've learned in interacting with people from a variety of different cultures, is that their ideas of what's considered "respectful" or "disrespectful" are often quite different from each other. In this case for example, I would never use the word "disrespected" to describe myself in this situation. I actually think "confusion" would suit my interpretation of the whole language debate a lot better, which is why I usually try to respond with clarifications of some sort (which I can see how that can come off as "defending my words", but I'm usually much more concerned with being understood than I am with defending any particular point of view). In my mind, "disrespect" is something I associate mostly with gang members getting upset and overreacting about trivial nonsense. But that could just be me!
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  but I think it's at least worth exploring why some debates that are popular in the US right now likely wouldn't rise up to the level of national discourse in countries like china/russia/colombia/guatemala/etc anytime soon (dubious political regimes aside). That's a completely different sentiment from (roughly) "Hey, brother, the truth is that folks in privileged countries simply can't comprehend the lived experience of those from poor countries where corruption is the norm." I would say that you need a certain amount of cultural capital and baseline material wealth to have the resources to spare for certain things that might be deemed luxuries or trivial details when you are really struggling to simply survive. That doesn't mean they actually are trivial. There is also the complicating detail that sometimes people argue about trivialities because it is vastly less threatening than wrestling with the real problems. We can discuss such further if you like. But I'm not interested in being perceived as arguing it in the sense of fighting about it or being confrontational.