On-Topic Oh, the comparisons we make!

[Kulindahr]

Democrats, socialists.
Republicans, Nazis.
Tea Party, Taliban.

And on and on.


Most automatically insert an equals sign in between -- but is that what's being said? To do that shows a very shallow grasp of the English language, or a desire to be snide and put others down... or both.

See, the English language has more than one way to make a comparison. There's the equation route, putting in that equals sign, but that's a simple-minded lazy one. There's the allegorical route -- sort of the other end of the spectrum, it's subtle and can be pretty deep. In between there are analogy, simile, hyperbole, and metaphor (some add parable, but that is separate, really, because it can employ more than one of those to make a single point). So when one encounters a comparison, there's a question that has to be asked:

What is the point of the comparison?
​

That's what isn't being asked, though that failure makes people look like fools. Here's an example, one used often on JUB -- and almost as often misunderstood:

Gay Republicans are like Jews supporting Hitler.
​

The knee jerk response, bypassing grey matter, of many is to say "Gay Republicans = Nazi Jews". Besides being grammatically ignorant, it's... doubly grammatically ignorant, because of that word "like". It isn't a universal rule, but when the word "like" rests between two substantives, the phrase or statement is almost always a simile.

Here's a good illustration of a simile:

Faster than a speeding bullet....
​

And here's a metaphor, one commonly made use of in university courses:

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women but players.
​

Hopefully most here recognize the work of the Bard. Hopefully, most also recognize that Shakespeare isn't saying the world is a flat surface with side wings and curtains and walkways above for moving scenery about.

Obviously, the gay~Jew comparison isn't a metaphor, but rather a simile. The problem with similes is that one has to ask, "What is the point of comparison?" Hopefully, with the gay~Jew comparison, it isn't that gays are a distinct race, and isn't that Republicans are Nazis; the first is obviously wrong -- but to anyone with a fair smattering of literacy, so is the second.


Enough of the lecture; time for discussion. What I'd like to see is posters who've made such comparisons telling us what sort they were making (simile, metaphor, analogy), and what they meant. Those who have misunderstood keep silent, unless you have an observation about the grammar and a rational statement for why you think the original poster wasn't doing what he says he was.


So...

be now like a pack of beavers, building....

 

[chance1]

such a pioneer

 

[Benvolio]

Not sure why this is in CE and P.

 

[bankside]

such a pioneer

Again with the insults. Pioneer movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[chance1]

^ what no tortured tea party/Taliban connect the dots ?

Pioneers START something not regurgitate

Hence my comment

It's pre-K time clearly

 

[Kulindahr]

such a pioneer

In getting people in CE&P to understand grammar? I hope so. Especially lately, there's been a serious lack of that, especially by people more interested in insulting all and sundry rather than actually participating. It's become common to act as though there's no difference between "Republicans are like Nazis" and "Republicans = Nazis". Almost without fail, the second is only being said by people not bothering to use their gray matter, and they're using it to try to shut down discussion instead of being part of it.

Now, for a quiz: was your statement I quoted a form of comparison, and if do, which form?

 

[Kulindahr]

^ what no tortured tea party/Taliban connect the dots ?

Since you brought that comparison up in this thread, please explain the form of comparison that was used and explain what was thus being said.

 

[shastamc24]

Kulindahr, my respect for you has increased ten fold. I always appreciate a grammar Nazi. Oh wait! What a thing to say!

 

[chance1]

In getting people in CE&P to understand grammar? I hope so. Especially lately, there's been a serious lack of that, especially by people more interested in insulting all and sundry rather than actually participating. It's become common to act as though there's no difference between "Republicans are like Nazis" and "Republicans = Nazis". Almost without fail, the second is only being said by people not bothering to use their gray matter, and they're using it to try to shut down discussion instead of being part of it.

Now, for a quiz: was your statement I quoted a form of comparison, and if do, which form?

gray matter need not be wasted on such a comparison

I prefer masturbation to be real/physical vs. mental

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, my respect for you has increased ten fold. I always appreciate a grammar Nazi. Oh wait! What a thing to say!

The point of comparison being, of course, the devotion to purity.

 

[Kulindahr]

gray matter need not be wasted on such a comparison

I prefer masturbation to be real/physical vs. mental

So you prefer your animal side to your human side?

If you can't take a moment to think about your own communication, it says a lot about how you regard those with whom you communicate. I'd like to think that most of us in CE&P can be bothered to communicate clearly, out of respect.

 

[chance1]

So you prefer your animal side to your human side?

If you can't take a moment to think about your own communication, it says a lot about how you regard those with whom you communicate. I'd like to think that most of us in CE&P can be bothered to communicate clearly, out of respect.

you're confusing mental masturbation with critical thought - this thread is the former, not the latter

love critical thought/ideas/opinions - those that are based in reason and reasonability

this is not that Kuli

this is a sideshow - no better no worse than Rolyo's disingenuous TP = TB - just dressed up a little better

 

[Rolyo85]

And you're the ultimate judge on what's genuine and what's worth discussing?

Here's my descriptive example:

A user in this topic who isn't me or the OP consistently and profusely uses the EXACT SAME tactics and vocabulary as someone trying to mask his frustration of the fact that he never has ANYTHING relevant to say.

 

[palbert]

I think I understand and appreciate the OP's call, basically, for clarity and adherence to the customary rules of English construction, although I regard it as labored and a little late, being educational system deficiencies. I will try to do better. (The OP should also comment to the NEA.)

What I do not understand is the unsupportable vitriol addressed at the OP. Few discussions or even relationships are without tension but many of the above comments are inappropriate and unnecesary.

 

[bankside]

Kulindahr I'm not sure I observe all the grammatical nuances you catalogue in the opening post, in part because in not sure the distinctions are always, or always fully, there.

I think the laws of grammar notwithstanding, the enormity of the comparison can prevail in the reader's mind.

Bankside's Law: Godwin's Law operates independently of any of Fowler's Laws.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think I understand and appreciate the OP's call, basically, for clarity and adherence to the customary rules of English construction, although I regard it as labored and a little late, being educational system deficiencies. I will try to do better. (The OP should also comment to the NEA.)

What I do not understand is the unsupportable vitriol addressed at the OP. Few discussions or even relationships are without tension but many of the above comments are inappropriate and unnecesary.

I burn my letters before I send them to the NEA -- I don't want to get arrested.

Kulindahr I'm not sure I observe all the grammatical nuances you catalogue in the opening post, in part because in not sure the distinctions are always, or always fully, there.

I think the laws of grammar notwithstanding, the enormity of the comparison can prevail in the reader's mind.

Bankside's Law: Godwin's Law operates independently of any of Fowler's Laws.

So long as we at least try. I'm not always clear on the difference between a simile and a metaphor, but so long as we all remember that comparisons are not equations, and to look for the point of comparison, discussion should clear up a lot.

Of course, if we all used complete sentences, or at least stated our main point in one, it could help, too.

Just let's not go so far as to start diagramming each other's sentences -- at least not on line; I've done it several times trying to figure out what the heck was supposed to be getting said.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've decided that a common CE&P fallacious argument falls under the rubric of comparison -- it's a stretch, maybe, but since it keeps getting used in this thread, I'm going to include it. It goes sort of like this:

Poster A says, "I think X is wrong".
Poster B replies, "Then you obviously endorse Y, Z, and W."

JustBelieve could probably tell us the name of this fallacy, but what it boils down to is that if someone speaks up for a certain point, then the assumption is made that he embraces everything on the flip side. Here's an example:

A: "Gotta give Mussolini credit -- he sure got those trains to run on time!"
B: "Oh, you're defending fascism! You believe in secret police and executions without trials!"

The argument fails because fascism, secret police, executions without trials (and any other wild item B might throw in) miss the point of comparison, which is trains. The comparison is implicit: many leaders can't get their nation's trains to run on time, but Mussolini did. So on the subject of trains, he should be given credit. So that sort of reply from B shows a l;ack of ability to think clearly.

One valid response would be, "Trains belong in the private sector -- it shouldn't even be Mussolini's business". Another might be, "Well, yeah, when you run fewer trains so they have lots of time to make their trips, it's easy to make them stay on schedule.

A tempting response might be, "Well, so did Prime Minister So-and-so", but that's also a failure to grasp the point of comparison: the point is with leaders who haven't gotten the trains to run on time. Mussolini's accomplishment is no less for the fact that someone else may have done it -- any more than the fact that hundreds of people have now been to the South Pole diminishes in any way the struggle and valor of those who did it first.

Stick to the point of comparison, and this forum would be a much more interesting place -- a lot of the screaming would be avoided, because people would actually be listening to each other.

 

[bankside]

OH, so you're saying you're exempt from falling into that fallacy, but the rest of us inevitably must?






(i'm trying for a subtle layer of good-natured satire over top of my otherwise frank question. and perhaps a legitimate example of "irony.")



(not "Alanis Morissette Irony" but real irony.)






(don't worry about answering the question, incidentally; it was rhetorical.)




(just be aware that you may have your post quoted sometime.)



(Even in other threads. And I declare in advance that that practise would not constitute "mining other threads;" it is simply citing best practises.)

 

[chance1]

 

[palbert]

Kuli - I find your self-discussion overly American academic. These are arguments I encountered in American undergraduate courses and in graduate school. What percentage of our membership has that training - assuming their curriculum offered that study. Without post-graduate requirement undergrad Logic was a "C." Then, how many have not had the benefit of any college training.

JUB spans the world and its members may not be "disciplined" as you and I. If they - or we - draw extravagant but odious comparisons we should reflect on the speaker's background as well as his words. Odious comparisons are part of mans' history: "All of Gaul is made of three parts" or "Carthage must be destroyed." Each a rhetorical exaggeration.

I suggest you belay your sternness and join in making JUB less viperish, but continue your instruction in gentler ways.