I've noticed that many of the forum discussions that TA has tweeted lately have contained glaring grammatical and spelling errors. I find this disappointing and even personally embarrassing as it inevitably reflects not only on the original poster but on the forum as a whole and, by extension, the larger atheist community. I know written communication isn't everything, and it certainly isn't a high priority among the public generally, but we should try to meet a higher standard. Given the unlikelihood that individual posters will suddenly take more care when writing, I think the operators of the site's Twitter feed should consider not tweeting discussion titles with serious errors.
That's one poster's opinion, for whatever it's worth.
more as a barrier to general communication than an aid
Teens invent or appropriate language that feels more peer-level-expressive, or practical (as in text shorthand or emoticons). But it's not usually invented for the purpose of covert communication. So we agree (I think?) that that is not what this thread is about, nor is it about ESL or writers with other, genuine language disabilities.
I still think it's useful for people to understand more about where their language prejudices come from. You can disagree with me on that. I'll say no more about it (here, in your thread).
I'm with you in that I, too, will often skip a lot of people's careless writing, when it's not worth my time to decipher it to perchance discover its relevance. But, it's not worth my time to read a lot of the ad hom responses to writing errors. If a friendly correction or comment won't work (e.g. "I really don't understand most of your writing"), then I'd rather just move on to something more constructive.
But it's not usually invented for the purpose of covert communication.
Perhaps your youth was different from mine. My peers enjoyed expressing ourselves in ways that went over the adults' heads.
RE: "try to absorb some of this, yo"
You put the sizzle in the dizzle, Papito! Word!
All this carpizzling is drivizzling me crazizzly.
I agree. Elitists don't promote basic standards. Elitists promote standards that people of mortal intelligence and skills can't hope to meet.
I agree with that, mostly. Perhaps I'm bending the meaning by assuming that 'elitism' can imply a positive, somewhat attainable (in principle) standard, even if never fully realized.
My own English skills are only a little better than average. Andrea suggested I use the word 'mavenry' instead of elitism. I used to use the phrase 'language snobbery'! I'm definitely open to suggestions. One way or another, I hope to refine the concept and words over time.
Ha, thanks for the win this round, and the correction! I will now abscond, with both well hidden in my warm, soft, hairy bosom. (That's about as poetic as I can get.)
Rather than "'language snobbery," how about, "Unseenery"? Has a nice ring to it --
I suppose it beats "Luthory." I like it!
Just because someone didn't get an A in English, does not mean they are not free-thinkers.
Furthermore why should their views be restricted?
If forums were restricted to the intellectual elite - then their views become largely invalid. Progression of an idea, theory (religion even) requires understanding & acceptance of the common people. Surely the objective of TA is to help enlighten those that are still under the spell of religion?
Having a grammer test for contributors is not going to help.
A good point you have made. Of course, lowercase letters at the start of sentences and inane abbreviations are enough to drive a man insane, though I hardly know y.
Has someone recommended restricting their views?
It's not our problem, it's theirs. They are crippled both in expressing their views and in being taken seriously. Think back. When was the last time any profound or important statement was also illiterate?