The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[bilpol]

Cats have a third eyelid, or nictitating membrane, in the inner corner of the eye, which is also covered by the conjunctiva. The cat third eyelid gives them an extra level of protection:

[ernestm]

If I may extend that thought, there are a number of colloquial examples of linguistic differences between Western rationalists and African American speakers. Most notably perhaps is that a double negative emphasizes negativity rather than evaluate as a positive, viz. 'there ain't no more that can be said.' This results in many anomalies of thought regarding antonyms.

If the writer is sufficiently aware of the cultural differences in linguistic practices, the paradox could even be intentional.

Seemingly the concept of 'double negative' has become arbitrary and being used wrong nowadays. As far as I know, a double negative will provide a positive answer. But I have seen many occasions where it is used to convey a "NO".

Eg: I don't have nothing to say

This should mean (grammatically) that I have something to say. But this is used often to say that I have nothing to say. I am not sure whether this is due to differences in linguistics practices. But it is seen more and more today. Seemingly the care for grammar is growing less and less by day by day.

Oh, it is a long standing observation of African American vernacular that a double negative acts as emphasis, and has been enjoyed so much one now hears white people using it occasionally. It was first observed last cetnruty that it could account for why African Americans perform less well on comprehension tests, but the research was banned as racist after some outbreaks of violence at conferences discussing the issue.

I am not a racist. And I am not against making a language simpler. All the grammar and spelling makes it difficult to learn a language. But it is necessary to have some agreement when a language is used. If I understand the total opposite of what you say, how can we communicate with each other. And when it is put into thought, I don't see a way to emphasize a "NO" by saying it twice in a sentence. It will always be a "YES" to me.

Well its a little more complicated than that historically. The objection was to the Sapir Whorf hypothesis as being racist because it states that African American dialects create more widespread comprehension difficulties, because they are contrary to the rules of formal logic, and therefore, the definition of truth overall.

[Good_Egg]

One person doesn't speak good English, and we take it that he hasn't learned it properly yet. Two people don't speak good English, and it's a minority culture that we're supposed to respect...

The enemy of my enemy is someone I should be able to co-operate with because we have an interest in common. Friendship is something more than that.

[Sushan]

Cats have a third eyelid, or nictitating membrane, in the inner corner of the eye, which is also covered by the conjunctiva. The cat third eyelid gives them an extra level of protection:

Although the response about cats and their third eyelid may seem unrelated to the original post at first glance, one could argue that it serves as a metaphor for the complex nature of human relationships and allegiances during times of conflict, such as in the case of Billy Springer in Vietnam.

The third eyelid in cats provides an additional layer of protection, much like how Billy Springer found a sense of security and belonging among the local Vietnamese population, rather than with his own comrades. This situation highlights how individual experiences and perspectives can shape our understanding of who we perceive as friends and foes, even in the most unexpected circumstances.

Racism, as mentioned in my original post, could indeed have driven Billy Springer to reconsider his allegiances, revealing that the lines between friends and enemies can be blurred by deeply ingrained biases and prejudices. The metaphor of the cat's third eyelid serves as a reminder of the need for extra layers of understanding and empathy in navigating complex human relationships, especially during times of conflict and division.

[Sushan]

Seemingly the concept of 'double negative' has become arbitrary and being used wrong nowadays. As far as I know, a double negative will provide a positive answer. But I have seen many occasions where it is used to convey a "NO".

Eg: I don't have nothing to say

This should mean (grammatically) that I have something to say. But this is used often to say that I have nothing to say. I am not sure whether this is due to differences in linguistics practices. But it is seen more and more today. Seemingly the care for grammar is growing less and less by day by day.

Oh, it is a long standing observation of African American vernacular that a double negative acts as emphasis, and has been enjoyed so much one now hears white people using it occasionally. It was first observed last cetnruty that it could account for why African Americans perform less well on comprehension tests, but the research was banned as racist after some outbreaks of violence at conferences discussing the issue.

I am not a racist. And I am not against making a language simpler. All the grammar and spelling makes it difficult to learn a language. But it is necessary to have some agreement when a language is used. If I understand the total opposite of what you say, how can we communicate with each other. And when it is put into thought, I don't see a way to emphasize a "NO" by saying it twice in a sentence. It will always be a "YES" to me.

Well its a little more complicated than that historically. The objection was to the Sapir Whorf hypothesis as being racist because it states that African American dialects create more widespread comprehension difficulties, because they are contrary to the rules of formal logic, and therefore, the definition of truth overall.

It's important to acknowledge that language and its usage evolve over time, often reflecting the cultural, social, and historical contexts in which it is spoken. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posits that the structure of a language influences the way its speakers perceive and understand the world, has indeed been a controversial topic. However, rather than viewing linguistic differences as inherently negative or limiting, we can instead appreciate the richness and diversity they bring to human communication and thought.

Regarding the use of double negatives in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and other dialects, it is essential to recognize that the rules and conventions of one dialect or language do not necessarily apply universally. While it may be challenging for some to understand and accept unconventional grammatical structures, this does not necessarily imply that the speakers of such dialects are less capable of comprehension or logical thinking. Instead, it reflects the diverse ways in which human beings express themselves and engage with the world around them.

[Sushan]

One person doesn't speak good English, and we take it that he hasn't learned it properly yet. Two people don't speak good English, and it's a minority culture that we're supposed to respect...

The enemy of my enemy is someone I should be able to co-operate with because we have an interest in common. Friendship is something more than that.

It's essential to differentiate between language proficiency, dialects, and cultural differences when discussing communication and interpersonal relationships. While it's true that language plays a significant role in connecting people and fostering mutual understanding, we must also recognize that friendship and cooperation extend beyond linguistic barriers.

The ancient proverb, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," suggests that shared interests or common goals can bring people together, even if they may not have been allies under other circumstances. In the case of Billy Springer, it appears that he found common ground with the Vietnamese people due to their shared experiences of racial discrimination. This connection transcended linguistic and cultural barriers, allowing for a sense of camaraderie and understanding.

It's crucial not to conflate linguistic proficiency with cultural respect or understanding. Just because someone may not speak "good English" does not mean they are incapable of forming deep connections or establishing cooperative relationships with others. The diversity of human languages and dialects reflects the richness and complexity of human experience, and embracing these differences can lead to a more inclusive and harmonious society.

[ernestm]

Oh, it is a long standing observation of African American vernacular that a double negative acts as emphasis, and has been enjoyed so much one now hears white people using it occasionally. It was first observed last cetnruty that it could account for why African Americans perform less well on comprehension tests, but the research was banned as racist after some outbreaks of violence at conferences discussing the issue.

I am not a racist. And I am not against making a language simpler. All the grammar and spelling makes it difficult to learn a language. But it is necessary to have some agreement when a language is used. If I understand the total opposite of what you say, how can we communicate with each other. And when it is put into thought, I don't see a way to emphasize a "NO" by saying it twice in a sentence. It will always be a "YES" to me.

Well its a little more complicated than that historically. The objection was to the Sapir Whorf hypothesis as being racist because it states that African American dialects create more widespread comprehension difficulties, because they are contrary to the rules of formal logic, and therefore, the definition of truth overall.

It's important to acknowledge that language and its usage evolve over time, often reflecting the cultural, social, and historical contexts in which it is spoken. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posits that the structure of a language influences the way its speakers perceive and understand the world, has indeed been a controversial topic. However, rather than viewing linguistic differences as inherently negative or limiting, we can instead appreciate the richness and diversity they bring to human communication and thought.

Regarding the use of double negatives in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and other dialects, it is essential to recognize that the rules and conventions of one dialect or language do not necessarily apply universally. While it may be challenging for some to understand and accept unconventional grammatical structures, this does not necessarily imply that the speakers of such dialects are less capable of comprehension or logical thinking. Instead, it reflects the diverse ways in which human beings express themselves and engage with the world around them.

Of course, experimental results demonstrating the correlation empirically have no relevance, lol,

I quote Neil De Grasse Tyson, actually simplified it, because it was too long to read for most people

Reason is irrelevant to opinions that were not reached by reason.


The administrator has completely blocked my sharing of any external link whatsoever, so I will not be visiting here again. Good bye and good luck.

[Good_Egg]

The ancient proverb, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," suggests that shared interests or common goals can bring people together, even if they may not have been allies under other circumstances.

Depends on what you mean by "bring people together".

The classic example is allying with Soviet Russia to defeat Nazi Germany.

The Soviet system was a ghastly tyranny. Nobody should approve of it, embrace it, feel deep respect for it, appreciate it as part of the richness of human experience, or any other woolly-minded we're-all-wonderful-underneath cliche.

It was necessary to work with it to defeat a greater or more proximate evil, and that's all.

There is a wider gap between "ally" and "friend" than you seem willing to admit.

[Sushan]

I am not a racist. And I am not against making a language simpler. All the grammar and spelling makes it difficult to learn a language. But it is necessary to have some agreement when a language is used. If I understand the total opposite of what you say, how can we communicate with each other. And when it is put into thought, I don't see a way to emphasize a "NO" by saying it twice in a sentence. It will always be a "YES" to me.

Well its a little more complicated than that historically. The objection was to the Sapir Whorf hypothesis as being racist because it states that African American dialects create more widespread comprehension difficulties, because they are contrary to the rules of formal logic, and therefore, the definition of truth overall.

It's important to acknowledge that language and its usage evolve over time, often reflecting the cultural, social, and historical contexts in which it is spoken. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posits that the structure of a language influences the way its speakers perceive and understand the world, has indeed been a controversial topic. However, rather than viewing linguistic differences as inherently negative or limiting, we can instead appreciate the richness and diversity they bring to human communication and thought.

Regarding the use of double negatives in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and other dialects, it is essential to recognize that the rules and conventions of one dialect or language do not necessarily apply universally. While it may be challenging for some to understand and accept unconventional grammatical structures, this does not necessarily imply that the speakers of such dialects are less capable of comprehension or logical thinking. Instead, it reflects the diverse ways in which human beings express themselves and engage with the world around them.

Of course, experimental results demonstrating the correlation empirically have no relevance, lol,

I quote Neil De Grasse Tyson, actually simplified it, because it was too long to read for most people

Reason is irrelevant to opinions that were not reached by reason.


The administrator has completely blocked my sharing of any external link whatsoever, so I will not be visiting here again. Good bye and good luck.

Your reference to Neil De Grasse Tyson's quote raises an interesting point about the role of reason in forming opinions, particularly in relation to the discussion about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the use of double negatives in African American Vernacular English (AAVE).

Indeed, reason plays a crucial role in our understanding and interpretation of the world. However, it's also important to note that our perceptions and opinions are shaped by a multitude of factors beyond reason, including our cultural, social, and linguistic backgrounds. The way we perceive and interpret language is one such factor.

With regards to the use of double negatives in AAVE and other dialects, our understanding or opinion of it might be influenced by our own linguistic background and the norms and conventions we're accustomed to. If we approach it purely from a logical or grammatical perspective, it might seem counterintuitive or even incorrect. However, if we consider it in the context of the cultural and linguistic traditions from which it arises, we might come to appreciate it as a valid and meaningful form of expression.

In this sense, the quote you've provided might be seen as an invitation to reflect on the ways in which our opinions about language are formed, and the role of reason, cultural context, and personal bias in shaping these opinions.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. How do you think our linguistic backgrounds influence our perceptions and opinions about language? Can reason and cultural understanding coexist in our interpretation of linguistic phenomena like double negatives in AAVE?

[Bright U]

Racism took men to unimaginable extents in those days. For Billy, at the time, it made more sense to align with his allies than with his comrades. The idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a complex concept because the enemy of your enemy may turn out to not really be your friend.

[Sushan]

The ancient proverb, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," suggests that shared interests or common goals can bring people together, even if they may not have been allies under other circumstances.

Depends on what you mean by "bring people together".

The classic example is allying with Soviet Russia to defeat Nazi Germany.

The Soviet system was a ghastly tyranny. Nobody should approve of it, embrace it, feel deep respect for it, appreciate it as part of the richness of human experience, or any other woolly-minded we're-all-wonderful-underneath cliche.

It was necessary to work with it to defeat a greater or more proximate evil, and that's all.

There is a wider gap between "ally" and "friend" than you seem willing to admit.

Your response brings up a very pertinent point about the distinction between "ally" and "friend," and the potential danger of conflating the two. Indeed, while alliances can be formed out of necessity or shared interests, this does not necessarily imply a deeper bond or mutual respect, as the term "friend" might suggest.

The case of the alliance between the Allies and Soviet Russia during World War II that you've mentioned provides a stark illustration of this distinction. While they joined forces to defeat a common enemy, their ideologies and political systems were fundamentally at odds. This alliance was strategic and pragmatic, rather than a reflection of mutual affection or shared values.

Your point highlights the importance of maintaining a nuanced understanding of relationships, particularly in the political and international spheres. The adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" may be a useful heuristic in certain contexts, but it oversimplifies the complexities of these relationships and the motivations underlying them.

This leads to some interesting questions for further discussion. For instance, what does it mean for two parties to be truly "friends," in the context of international relations or politics? Can shared opposition to a common enemy ever form the basis for a more lasting or meaningful relationship? And how should we navigate the ethical implications of allying with parties whose values or practices we fundamentally disagree with? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on these matters.

[Good_Egg]

I'm imagining an RAF officer and a Soviet pilot interned in the same Nazi prisoner of war camp.

Seems to me that they could become real friends.

Because the circumstances would strip away much of their different cultural contexts. And they might well find in each other something to like and admire, that goes beyond a solidarity in the face of their common enemy.

But I'd guess that, re-encountering each other after the war, that friendship would be strained. Re-united with their separate cultures, and with no common enemy, they would see a different side of each other.

Culture gives us role models for behaviour. And while we're more than the roles we play, those roles do rub off on us. I want to assert both that a person is more than their roles & culture, and that they are not independent of their roles and culture.

[LuckyR]

Racism took men to unimaginable extents in those days. For Billy, at the time, it made more sense to align with his allies than with his comrades. The idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a complex concept because the enemy of your enemy may turn out to not really be your friend.

The enemy of your enemy make have a similar interest to your's, but friendship depends on a lot more than sharing a common interest.