MetaChat - National Review irritated by Sotomayor being so damned... ethnic

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

27 May 2009

National Review irritated by Sotomayor being so damned... ethnic Deferring to people's own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English ... This may seem like carping, but it's not. ... one of the areas where conformity is appropriate is how your new countrymen say your name, since that's not something the rest of us can just ignore, unlike what church you go to or what you eat for lunch. And there are basically two options — the newcomer adapts to us, or we adapt to him. And multiculturalism means there's a lot more of the latter going on than there should be.

post by: Joe Beese at: 09:57 | 55 comments

This may seem like carping, but it's not.

A great new slogan for the Right!

posted by DarkForest 27 May | 10:00

I'm getting really sick of this. Burying my head in the sand until Sotomayor is elected and people setting down about her being "a reverse racist" or whatever the Slander Of The Day will be.

Also, I look forward to the National Review editorial on how, in their eyes, Scalia is "unnatural in English" and should be pronounced "scale-ia"... except that would never happen.

posted by muddgirl 27 May | 10:01

I always wondered why it wasn't Clarence Thom-ASS.

posted by lukemeister 27 May | 10:54

Argh.

posted by halonine 27 May | 11:00

That's right! Alberto GonZAYLES totally understood this!

posted by scody 27 May | 11:09

Argh.

That's pretty much the only rational response to the National Review.

posted by octothorpe 27 May | 11:26

How cute, they're fussing.

posted by Miko 27 May | 11:28

This is where I'd link to that SNL skit with Jimmy Smits about over-pronouncing spanish words. Too bad NBC makes it such a pain to find video clips.

posted by mullacc 27 May | 11:48

Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English

The words "Schadenfreude", "shampoo", "reconnaissance" and "Chicago" probably didn't sound too natural in English when we first started using them.

But we managed to survive somehow.

posted by jason's_planet 27 May | 12:04

I still call it Chica-a-go-go. I don't care what the chicas think it should be called.

posted by taz 27 May | 12:07

I'm not embarrassed to say I don't know how to pronounce Schadenfreude. Is it Shay or Shah? Frood? Froid? Freed?

Also - the NR people are a buncha putzes.

posted by deborah 27 May | 12:12

No, c'mon guys - I get their point. Seriously. I think standardization is key to why the U.S. has what it has in the world.

For instance, I pronounce National Review, with the emphasis placed on the first word, so it sounds like,
"Jesus Fucking Christ Grow The Hell Up Already."

posted by Lipstick Thespian 27 May | 12:18

Sha, as in Shack

Den, as in Den Mother

Freud= "froid"

with "uh" being the last syllable.

Sha-Den-Froid-Uh.

posted by jason's_planet 27 May | 12:19

I wasn't aware there was a huge mass of people insisting on an extra emphasis on the "OR".

Straw man, thy staunchest friend is the right-wing media.

That said, this really isn't an appropriate post for Metachat, if you ask me. Joe, lurk a bit more and try to understand the culture, here and at the blue.

posted by dhartung 27 May | 12:27

The National Review Introduces "Carping Diem: The Day of the Bottom Feeders."

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 27 May | 12:29

Thank you, Mr. Planet! Now I can practise it as well as pronounce it!

posted by deborah 27 May | 12:30

I wasn't aware there was a huge mass of people insisting on an extra emphasis on the "OR".

Isn't that how it's pronounced, though? "So-to-may-YOR"? At least that's how the law geeks on NPR are pronouncing it.

I live in the land of Silly Anglicization (south Texas, where Spanish words are pronounced as in English and German words are pronounced as in Spanish) and we still have a respect for how people choose to pronounce their name. We recognize down here that there is no newcomer; alternately, we are all newcomers.

posted by muddgirl 27 May | 12:43

That said, this really isn't an appropriate post for Metachat, if you ask me.

Really? Seems perfectly suited for metachat to me. We post these sorts of things all the time, no? Or has there been a moratorium on political stuff that I'm not aware of? (Not a snarky question -- I'm genuinely curious.)

posted by scody 27 May | 13:30

[[ Many Metachat users also use Metafilter which has a self-policing policy - that is, users are encouraged to publicly call attention to poor quality posts, doubles, self-linking, etc. usually within the thread.

This is heavily discouraged in Metachat.

Metachat's policy is so loose that no user should ever feel the need to admonish another user for not meeting the guidelines.

If you see a post or comment that you think should be deleted or edited then e-mail the mods and they'll deal with it. ]]

http://metachat.org/wiki/Metachat_FAQ#Is_Metachat_.22self-policing.22.3F

posted by Joe Beese 27 May | 13:43

HA!

posted by Hugh Janus 27 May | 13:50

I live in the land of Silly Anglicization (south Texas, where Spanish words are pronounced as in English and German words are pronounced as in Spanish) and we still have a respect for how people choose to pronounce their name. We recognize down here that there is no newcomer; alternately, we are all newcomers

That's the truth. I live north of south Texas in magical Austin where there's a street called Guadalupe that is pronounced gwada-loop. A street called Manchaca that is pronounced man-shack.

posted by birdherder 27 May | 13:59

Don't forget Burnet (Burn It) and Manor (May-nor) roads. Or the town of Boerne (Bernie).

posted by mudpuppie 27 May | 15:11

We have some French place names here in Western PA that the locals mangle horribly. My favorite is the town of Versailles which is pronounced "Ver-sales".

posted by octothorpe 27 May | 15:17

I think the real litmus test is "Huebner".

posted by muddgirl 27 May | 15:17

As to appropriateness, I sometimes wish Joe Beese would put a little commentary as to why a post interested him enough to put it here.

posted by muddgirl 27 May | 15:20

He thought maybe a 20+ comment conversation/chat might ensue? I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think it's pretty obvious, and with this one he seems to have hit the mark.

I'm not trying to start or join a fight, and I don't really think you're being unreasonable in wishing for more explanation, muddgirl, but dhartung's "appropriate" comment is the only thing wrong with this thread.

posted by Hugh Janus 27 May | 15:50

this looks like a completely normal post, to me.

posted by gaspode 27 May | 15:55

My point is that it's obvious why jonmc posts about working at the store, or a new beer he tried, or some new song he listened to. It's obvious why essexjan posts about her crappy clients or about a nice walk she took at lunch. But when I look at the aggregate of Joe Beese's post/comment history I'm a little confused - single-link posts with little commentary or follow-up about his own opinions or reactions to the story he's posting. I don't think there's anything wrong with single-link posts or posts with little commentary, but it just makes me curious is all.

posted by muddgirl 27 May | 15:59

I share that reaction, muddgirl. If there are statements implied, they're really obtuse.

posted by Miko 27 May | 16:04

essexjan posts about her crappy clients or about a nice walk she took at lunch.

But her obsession with small furry animals is completely inexplicable and, in my opinion, entirely inappropriate.

posted by mullacc 27 May | 16:06

I don't think there's anything wrong with single-link posts or posts with little commentary, but it just makes me curious is all.

Right, and that's why the way you put it, "wishing" and "curious," is so much more palatable than dhartung's pretense of authority and condescension towards a newer member.

(Maybe Joe hasn't found his voice yet? Maybe his idea of fun on the site is to propose a topic of conversation and see what people think? There are so many more maybes, and there are so many different posting styles, and really, here at Metachat, I think pretty much the only way to do it wrong is to tell people to shut up, like dhartung did).

posted by Hugh Janus 27 May | 16:09

Not a snarky question -- I'm genuinely curious.

Another great catchphrase for the right! Except it's not true (for the right).

posted by danf 27 May | 16:26

(A musical interlude relating to some upthread stuff. . .)

(A song about a certain vocabulary word that was parsed, up there.)

posted by danf 27 May | 16:30

I'm with my unicorn-in-crime Hugh. Nobody should feel the need to justify the things they post here. I'm enjoying Joe's posts and hope he will carry on.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 27 May | 16:50

Well, I can see why dhartung thinks it may be inappropriate. Perhaps there are people who read both Metachat and the National Review and don't like the way they are characterized by the post. That's not me, personally, but I can imagine how some of my own opinions could be negatively characterized by conservative members here. Yes, the National Review article seems in bad taste to me, but the framing of this post doesn't help matters - it attributes the attitude of one contributing commenter to the entire paper, for one.

Alternately, wouldn't a general open thread on Sotomayor's appointment facilitate more discussion and less back-and-forth between me and Hugh?

posted by muddgirl 27 May | 17:22

That said, dhartung's tone was pretty harsh. I have been told by many here that harsh tones are common on the internet and that I should grow a thicker skin.

posted by muddgirl 27 May | 17:23

What we really need is a site for threads that are light, conversational, daft, and that don't necessarily belong on MetaTalk, MeFi, or AskMe.

posted by lukemeister 27 May | 17:27

@lukemeister: Dude... and you know what we should call it?

Monkey Filter.

I got the in-joke right, right?

posted by TrishaLynn 27 May | 17:40

TrishaLynn,

Or Monkeychat.

*Proposes free MeFi membership for all Monkeyfilter members.*
They wanted to be here.

posted by lukemeister 27 May | 20:09

Sorry if I came off harsh. I would make a horrible mod, that's for sure.

posted by dhartung 27 May | 21:12

Thanks, dhartung. My buzz is now unharshed.

posted by lukemeister 27 May | 21:30

Sorry for my intemperate words, dhartung. I have the flu and I tend to be a self-righteous prick anyway. My apologies, sincerely.

posted by Hugh Janus 27 May | 21:40

And since I still have a fever and I'm still a little punchy:

Alternately, wouldn't a general open thread on Sotomayor's appointment facilitate more discussion and less back-and-forth between me and Hugh?

I see what you did there.

posted by Hugh Janus 27 May | 21:44

Well *I* want a man-shack. Where do I get one?

posted by lysdexic 27 May | 22:16

"That said, this really isn't an appropriate post for Metachat, if you ask me. Joe, lurk a bit more and try to understand the culture, here and at the blue."

To be fair to dhartung, I made a similar recommendation to Joe Beese a couple weeks ago. I would hate to Metachat destroyed by politics the way far too many other web communities have been. We already have enough personality clashes around here with which to contend.

posted by Ardiril 27 May | 23:12

You can't stop Joe Beese. You can only hope to contain him.

posted by lukemeister 28 May | 00:05

What's in the link? I don't know, not my business.

posted by Meatbomb 28 May | 05:40

I would hate to Metachat destroyed by politics the way far too many other web communities have been.

But actually, these posts/topics are pretty mild sauce compared to many of the political (and personal) conversations we've had in the past. It's not the content that's causing a few people the discomfort, it's that it's not clear what Joe Beese is saying. There's no personal voice here, just selected quotes from news sources. On a site which is basically all personal voice that does stand out as confusing.

We already have enough personality clashes around here with which to contend.

Again...it ain't nothing like it used to be. The only thing that I think can destroy MetaChat is lack of interest from people in staying part of the community. It is probably more harmonious now here that at any time I can remember, but I personally find it less compelling. That's part of the usual group dynamics cycle though. We're in 'conforming' not 'storming' and 'norming.'

posted by Miko 28 May | 09:50

There is no evidence of Metachat being "destroyed by politics," in this thread or in any other of Joe Beese's threads.

If you look at his posting history, you can see what kinds of things he's interested in. That's voice.

Anyway, it's the telling people how and what to post here that sucks. That's the only thing that's never really flown here. Allowing longstanding members to box out newcomers in order to impose false standards on the site is far more dangerous to Metachat's future than allowing members to post whatever they like and comment however they like, or to not comment if they aren't interested.

I'm surprised people want to muzzle Joe Beese; he doesn't post only about politics, he does comment in his own voice in other threads, and above all, there's a tradition here of people giving each other room to grow used to each other and this site. It would be nice if that continued.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with this thread until people started in on the poster; that's when it started to suck. I guess my participation in the self-policing discussion is part of that problem, but I felt I needed to balance some of the bullying.

I think there's a way in which the site upholds whatever norms there may be. If people don't like a post, they don't comment. Posters who have a continual lack of comments on their posts will change their style or leave.

And there's never been a policy against not following up a post with further opinion (was that a triple negative?). You may wish for it, but to demand it is out of line.

It may sound like I'm way too crazy over this, but I think it matters and I don't like when people play deputy according to their own made-up laws.

posted by Hugh Janus 28 May | 10:20

Allowing longstanding members to box out newcomers in order to impose false standards on the site is far more dangerous to Metachat's future than allowing members to post whatever they like and comment however they like, or to not comment if they aren't interested.

Hear, hear!

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 28 May | 10:37

"There is no evidence of Metachat being "destroyed by politics," in this thread or in any other of Joe Beese's threads."

Oops, I posted that other too late last night. That whole comment was supposed to refer to my original attitude toward JB. Now I don't care. My comment in his thread today wasn't meant to be self-policing either, but it does come off as condescending. I'm not even sure if this is coming across the way I mean. I got too much stuff on my mind.

My apologies, Joe Beese.

posted by Ardiril 28 May | 10:45

Posters who have a continual lack of comments on their posts will change their style or leave.

Or not. I mean, lack of feedback is not a big community builder either. Eventually it just means that no one really cares what's going on here, and it becomes a subway wall.

I don't think chastising Joe Beese over imagined posting guidelines is the right thing to do, but I think feedback in the style of muddgirl's - sincere questions and honest statements that she's unclear about what these are - is a fine way of interacting here.

In many ways, it's the unspoken and insidious community norms that are the most dangerous to the newcomer, as many minority individuals in majority situations will tell you. I don't perceive silence as inherently better than comment. Hashing things out demonstrates commitment to community; freezing people out is simply the silent treatment, and leaves that person at a bit of a loss to figure out why their offerings are not welcome.

posted by Miko 28 May | 10:48

I see what you did there.

((((Hugh Janus)))) I think the "problem" is that we're too much alike...

posted by muddgirl 28 May | 10:58

Oh I know, muddgirl, and I was having these dreadful thoughts that my tone was just so out of hand that it really wasn't clear that I'm trying to be constructive.

I'm gonna leave that sentence right there, unedited, just to show how incoherent I can be. As usual, I sound really strident, but like the t-shirt says, "I SWEAR BECAUSE I CARE."

I'm very relieved that you aren't super pissed-off at me for that swipe, muddgirl; thanks for the hugs and big hugs back. I might still be contagious though, so we might want to hug at arm's length. If that's even possible.

but I think feedback in the style of muddgirl's - sincere questions and honest statements that she's unclear about what these are - is a fine way of interacting here.

I agree, and said as much upthread. Then I got all caught up in polemic and edged toward disaster. I'm too combative. Sorry folks.

posted by Hugh Janus 28 May | 11:38

might want to hug at arm's length

That's how I feel about most of humanity. Except for a young Marlo Thomas. Maybe.

posted by DarkForest 28 May | 13:49

← Bunny! OMG! || I'm Free! →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN