Quote from: nullius on January 31, 2018, 12:29:35 PM

Quote from: Erelas on January 31, 2018, 09:57:02 AM

Though I am appreciating a lot of the etymological discussion that has gone on before this comment, it is missing something...oh yes, the "Hot for Words" person from YouTube. I'm going to pretend one of you are her in what I hope, is a disturbing image for that person to be thought of as.

There seems to be a lot of prejudicial thinking against those who lack an absolute or near absolute mastery of the English language. I hope that impression is not accurate, but seeing the last few pages really harping on "let's get rid of those non-English speaking newbs trying to make a buck, we don't care if they have to start somewhere" indicates to me that it is.

Oh no, a run-on sentence, I am doomed to be judged harshly.

The day I let some pretentious moral moron shame me over my own language mastery is a day which shall never happen. Moreover, it is an ill omen when anybody accepts your transvalued inversion, whereby illiteracy is a mark of virtue and high standards a brand of vice.

And no, persons who lack adequate English skills do not belong in an English-language forum. Full stop. Their economic status is irrelevant; and your mention of that only makes it worse: People with mediocre but passable English who have something worthwhile to say have never been rejected anywhere in such situations; but those who have nothing contribute are spammers and scum, whether they be dirty dirt-poor or otherwise. Nobody has a right to start somewhere and make money by befouling the communications of other people.

To be excruciatingly clear: Your dear non-English speaking newbs trying to make a buck are unwelcome, and I wish to make them feel that as intensely as I can.

That attitude, though I am loving seeing you stretch your usage of English so well, kudos, is precisely what is wrong. I sincerely hope that you are not a merit source. To be bigoted against someone because of a language barrier that they are endeavoring to overcome and broaden their horizons is possibly the most non-meritocratically aligned agenda. Personally, I am a huge proponent of meritocracy, but the very idea of "merit" is subjective and now, destined to be defined by a very limited number of people who are sources in this forum. This concentration of sMerit power is creating more of an oligarchy than the Default Trust system.

A drip type of system, where every active user generates sMerit over time would be preferable to concentrating sMerit in such a small group.

Of course, we're having a conversation, and in a purely Platonic system, merely the fact that a conversation is taking place is "meritorious" and sMerit sources should, according to the systems design, seek out our posts in this conversation and award them merit equally. Not because the sMerit source agrees or disagrees with one position or another, but because we add "merit" to the forum by discussing the system.

(As a funny aside and a jab at myself, I accidentally put Plutonic in place of Platonic, wouldn't Freud have fun with that slip, corrected now though.)

To address a couple of your points, because I find them, confusing. I certainly did not attempt to shame your mastery of English, on the contrary, I applaud it. I really thought I was clear on that. Illiteracy is certainly not a measure of "virtue", and I think I hammered that point home with mention of Plato in response to your use of the word virtue. I do not doubt that Platos defining of virtue and my mention of your use of the word is understood. If you take that as insult, and I can't really see why you would, unless your values are inverted as you state mine seem to be.

I am beginning to get the feeling that if I diagrammed out the double negatives in your response, I'd be more certain I was being "trolled", but as long as my point is not deliberately convoluted and my stance clear that I think the sMerit concentration is ill-advised, then I can handle a little trolling.