This girl/woman has a serious of videos talking about the southern dialect, she's quite charming, and goes into the different sounds and words a bit.

*Comment redacted

I don't want to make fun of everyone with an Appalachian dialect.

I think the way I'd put it is that I disagree that "Hegelian dialectic" is being appropriately used in the video. Here is a nice concise introduction to the concept. It's an alternative method for reasoning, and therefore is about trying to reach a better understanding of truth -- it has nothing to do with psychology, politics, or trying to control people.

The triadic structure of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis can, if you squint a bit, be re-purposed as a general theory about how political and scientific progress happens. First you have a thesis (e.g. "property is the only right"), then you have an antithesis ("property is theft"), and once people realize that while both positions contain insights, neither absolute position is fully correct, and so we generate a new thesis that combines the valid insights of each -- a synthesis ("a right to property is one of many rights, and without limits can and will infringe on those other rights"). But that's not a Hegelian Dialectic, that's just a slightly stilted way at looking at how "classical" reasoning sometimes plays out in the real world.

All that said, none of this serves to support the thesis that modern conceptions of the political left and right have been invented in order to achieve some sort of nefarious synthesis. Worse, if you think it's a Hegelian Dialectical synthesis we're heading for, then not only is it not a Reichstag fire, it's a giant leap forward in humanity's understanding of itself, because we will have figured out how to simultaneously resolve the left's criticisms of society (not enough equality in wealth and power), and the right's (too many people disputing the rightful distribution of wealth and power that arises from market action), though personally I don't think the resolution of that thesis/antithesis conflict will result in synthesis, just in the right's thesis being discarded. Again.

Long story short, if this is the foundation for a conspiracy theory, it's already gone way out into left field before it's even gotten started.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

I don't like stigmatizing anyone I try real hard not to do that sort of garbage. But, man I think that comment is racist. Seems your implying only white people are racist.

Oh and by the way whether the killer shot him as a racist act or not I think the reason they still have a good reason to call it racist is because the killer of a black boy is still on the lose when he could and very would be in jail had the boy been white.

>> ^bobknight33:

Is wasn't whit a man. He is an Hispanic Democrat.
If his name was Jorge or to say it "HOR-hay" which is the same as George but in Spanish dialect then this would be a non story.
The only raciest thing going on it the leftest implying it to be raciest.

truth is that we only have a media which hunt and not the truth, which will come out in due time.

Is wasn't white a man. He is an Hispanic Democrat.

If his name was Jorge or to say it "HOR-hay" which is the same as George but in Spanish dialect then this would be a non story.

The only raciest thing going on it the leftest implying it to be raciest.


truth is that we only have a media which hunt and not the truth, which will come out in due time.

>> ^westy:

This is just annoying , Yes its possible for sum one to compose general music around random notes.
seems like a mastabatory celebration of the protentoise interpretation of what a piano is.


Well I, for one, completely agree with westy. Ms. Kronenberg's arrangement of this piece belies the typical human ignorance involved when trying to project the metaphysical onto the postmodern darkness of the everyday conditional object. Her lack of finesse when dealing with the emotional spectrum involved with the derivatives of dialectical emotional power is clumsy at best. At worst it becomes a maladroit nightmare of unresolved, vernal weltschmerz.

Additionally, my balls can play the key-fiddle better than this chump.

I find his gangsta talk to be legit. I think its the kids movies and fame that aren't authentic or indicative of his upbringing, in the that way his dialect is.

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
why does he have to put on that gangsta speak? it's clearly a put-on, and inauthentic at this point... bothers me.

Also, there's a new documentary about the Eames.. and one of my favorite films is a documentary about LA culture as it shows up in movies.

>> ^Payback:

The Holocaust = Problem Reaction Solution.


the hegelian dialectic.talk about a vile tool but effective.

Cool, did not know that. The one we get to hear most often is the ghoti = fish example for unphoneticness of English.

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
How about Ladle Rat Rotten Hut?

Your point about the sounds shifting is interesting, I've noticed that if I watch a long enough (subtitled!) Dutch movie, by the end I can pick up a few words which are similar or the same as English once a few sounds are changed a little.
In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
I've onyl read ballads and such from these periods, I can read middle english Ok, old english: Not really, only if I really get into it and learn some symbols again. Reading frisian is far easier than understanding it by hearing, the same probably goes for swabian. Most of the times you just have to shift some different sounds to certain letters and you've got an approximation of a more standard german.
The northern german intonation (of their dialect) however is hell for me to understand, that's completely different, as you said. Swabian is spoken more softly and sonorant in the back of the throat, whereas northern german sounds 'headier' and nasal to me.

How about Ladle Rat Rotten Hut?

Your point about the sounds shifting is interesting, I've noticed that if I watch a long enough (subtitled!) Dutch movie, by the end I can pick up a few words which are similar or the same as English once a few sounds are changed a little.
In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
I've onyl read ballads and such from these periods, I can read middle english Ok, old english: Not really, only if I really get into it and learn some symbols again. Reading frisian is far easier than understanding it by hearing, the same probably goes for swabian. Most of the times you just have to shift some different sounds to certain letters and you've got an approximation of a more standard german.
The northern german intonation (of their dialect) however is hell for me to understand, that's completely different, as you said. Swabian is spoken more softly and sonorant in the back of the throat, whereas northern german sounds 'headier' and nasal to me.

>> ^oritteropo:

Have you ever read any old or middle English? I studied "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight", which is middle English, but old English should be a bit closer to Frisian... which as I read it would be about as far from swabian as you can get?
In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Hehe. I had to think about it for a second before I knew what he meant with "gopfertamti." A northern german would have been unlikely to understand the phrase, but my dialect (swabian) and his dialect (high alemannic) are related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German (It's funny to hear french people from the Alsace with a related dialect in a different language.)
That's also why you can't get a translation from the internet, it's more of a dialect than a variant.
[...]


I've onyl read ballads and such from these periods, I can read middle english Ok, old english: Not really, only if I really get into it and learn some symbols again. Reading frisian is far easier than understanding it by hearing, the same probably goes for swabian. Most of the times you just have to shift some different sounds to certain letters and you've got an approximation of a more standard german.
The northern german intonation (of their dialect) however is hell for me to understand, that's completely different, as you said. Swabian is spoken more softly and sonorant in the back of the throat, whereas northern german sounds 'headier' and nasal to me.

Have you ever read any old or middle English? I studied "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight", which is middle English, but old English should be a bit closer to Frisian... which as I read it would be about as far from swabian as you can get?

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Hehe. I had to think about it for a second before I knew what he meant with "gopfertamti." A northern german would have been unlikely to understand the phrase, but my dialect (swabian) and his dialect (high alemannic) are related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German (It's funny to hear french people from the Alsace with a related dialect in a different language.)
That's also why you can't get a translation from the internet, it's more of a dialect than a variant.
[...]

Hehe. I had to think about it for a second before I knew what he meant with "gopfertamti." A northern german would have been unlikely to understand the phrase, but my dialect (swabian) and his dialect (high alemannic) are related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German (It's funny to hear french people from the Alsace with a related dialect in a different language.)
That's also why you can't get a translation from the internet, it's more of a dialect than a variant.

In recent years the swiss got increasingly anti-german and their school-classes of high german language lose popularity. (Edit: Dunno why I wrote that, probably to underline the relation between politics and language)

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Thanks for your reply. I suspect a field trip would help me understand more, particularly in Oktoberfest season : Well, maybe one day.

Thanks also for posting the English translation of that Swiss German insult, google translate really had no idea (try it in yourself, but for me it passed it through unaltered and didn't even try to translate!).

>> ^charliem:

What language are they speaking?
Certainly doesnt sound like Chinese....sounds more like Japanese.


The Mongolian language is one of its own; wiki says: As for the classification of the Mongolic family relative to other languages, the Altaic theory (which is increasingly less well received among linguists[28]) proposes that the Mongolic family is a member of a larger Altaic family that would also include the Turkic and Tungusic, and usually Korean and Japonic languages as well.

There are more Chinese languages/dialects than Mandarin, which is regarded as THE Chinese language to most people. Mandarin became the standard language in 1924, but the other dialects and variants are still spoken today.