User talk:Smerdis of Tlön
(→Wikipedia) |
AgingHippie (Talk | contribs) (→"Speak White" (I believe yo mentioned the phrase recently...): new section) |
||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
::::FWIW, I thought the article needed to introduce some basic concepts of sociolinguistics, and I thought that writing a textbook into the article would be even less topical. - [[User:Smerdis of Tlön|Smerdis of Tlön]] ([[User talk:Smerdis of Tlön|talk]]) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC) | ::::FWIW, I thought the article needed to introduce some basic concepts of sociolinguistics, and I thought that writing a textbook into the article would be even less topical. - [[User:Smerdis of Tlön|Smerdis of Tlön]] ([[User talk:Smerdis of Tlön|talk]]) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == "Speak White" (I believe yo mentioned the phrase recently...) == | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Speak white | ||
| + | :il est si beau de vous entendre | ||
| + | :parler de Paradise Lost | ||
| + | :ou du profil gracieux et anonyme qui tremble dans les sonnets de Shakespeare | ||
| + | |||
| + | :nous sommes un peuple inculte et bègue | ||
| + | :mais ne sommes pas sourds au génie d'une langue | ||
| + | :parlez avec l'accent de Milton et Byron et Shelley et Keats | ||
| + | :speak white | ||
| + | :et pardonnez-nous de n'avoir pour réponse | ||
| + | :que les chants rauques de nos ancêtres | ||
| + | :et le chagrin de Nelligan | ||
| + | |||
| + | :speak white | ||
| + | :parlez de choses et d'autres | ||
| + | :parlez-nous de la Grande Charte | ||
| + | :ou du monument à Lincoln | ||
| + | :du charme gris de la Tamise | ||
| + | :de l'eau rose du Potomac | ||
| + | :parlez-nous de vos traditions | ||
| + | :nous sommes un peuple peu brillant | ||
| + | :mais fort capable d'apprécier | ||
| + | :toute l'importance des crumpets | ||
| + | :ou du Boston Tea Party | ||
| + | |||
| + | :mais quand vous really speak white | ||
| + | :quand vous get down to brass tacks | ||
| + | |||
| + | :pour parler du gracious living | ||
| + | :et parler du standard de vie | ||
| + | :et de la Grande Société | ||
| + | :un peu plus fort alors speak white | ||
| + | :haussez vos voix de contremaîtres | ||
| + | :nous sommes un peu durs d'oreille | ||
| + | :nous vivons trop près des machines | ||
| + | :et n'entendons que notre souffle au-dessus des outils | ||
| + | |||
| + | :speak white and loud | ||
| + | :qu'on vous entende | ||
| + | :de Saint-Henri à Saint-Domingue | ||
| + | :oui quelle admirable langue | ||
| + | :pour embaucher | ||
| + | :donner des ordres | ||
| + | :fixer l'heure de la mort à l'ouvrage | ||
| + | :et de la pause qui rafraîchit | ||
| + | et ravigote le dollar | ||
| + | |||
| + | :speak white | ||
| + | :tell us that God is a great big shot | ||
| + | :and that we're paid to trust him | ||
| + | :speak white | ||
| + | :parlez-nous production profits et pourcentages | ||
| + | :speak white | ||
| + | :c'est une langue riche | ||
| + | :pour acheter | ||
| + | :mais pour se vendre | ||
| + | :mais pour se vendre à perte d'âme | ||
| + | :mais pour se vendre | ||
| + | |||
| + | :ah ! | ||
| + | :speak white | ||
| + | :big deal | ||
| + | :mais pour vous dire | ||
| + | :l'éternité d'un jour de grève | ||
| + | :pour raconter | ||
| + | :une vie de peuple-concierge | ||
| + | :mais pour rentrer chez nous le soir | ||
| + | :à l'heure où le soleil s'en vient crever au-dessus des ruelles | ||
| + | :mais pour vous dire oui que le soleil se couche oui | ||
| + | :chaque jour de nos vies à l'est de vos empires | ||
| + | :rien ne vaut une langue à jurons | ||
| + | :notre parlure pas très propre | ||
| + | :tachée de cambouis et d'huile | ||
| + | |||
| + | :speak white | ||
| + | :soyez à l'aise dans vos mots | ||
| + | :nous sommes un peuple rancunier | ||
| + | :mais ne reprochons à personne | ||
| + | :d'avoir le monopole | ||
| + | :de la correction de langage | ||
| + | |||
| + | :dans la langue douce de Shakespeare | ||
| + | :avec l'accent de Longfellow | ||
| + | :parlez un français pur et atrocement blanc | ||
| + | :comme au Viêt-Nam au Congo | ||
| + | :parlez un allemand impeccable | ||
| + | :une étoile jaune entre les dents | ||
| + | :parlez russe parlez rappel à l'ordre parlez répression | ||
| + | :speak white | ||
| + | :c'est une langue universelle | ||
| + | :nous sommes nés pour la comprendre | ||
| + | :avec ses mots lacrymogènes | ||
| + | :avec ses mots matraques | ||
| + | |||
| + | :speak white | ||
| + | :tell us again about Freedom and Democracy | ||
| + | :nous savons que liberté est un mot noir | ||
| + | :comme la misère est nègre | ||
| + | :et comme le sang se mêle à la poussière des rues d'Alger ou de Little Rock | ||
| + | |||
| + | :speak white | ||
| + | :de Westminster à Washington relayez-vous | ||
| + | :speak white comme à Wall Street | ||
| + | :white comme à Watts | ||
| + | :be civilized | ||
| + | :et comprenez notre parler de circonstance | ||
| + | :quand vous nous demandez poliment | ||
| + | :how do you do | ||
| + | :et nous entendez vous répondre | ||
| + | :we're doing all right | ||
| + | :we're doing fine | ||
| + | :we | ||
| + | :are not alone | ||
| + | |||
| + | :nous savons | ||
| + | :que nous ne sommes pas seuls. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --Michele Laslonde | ||
| + | [[User:PowderSmokeAndLeather|PowderSmokeAndLeather]] ([[User talk:PowderSmokeAndLeather|talk]]) 02:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:57, 22 January 2014
The bus came by/and I got on.Cool username! Is it a reference to that Borges story? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 08:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is. I am Ihcoyc on Wikipedia, but have called myself Smerdis of Tlön there for a long time. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
"Don't tell me we have to humor this one too"
"Too"? Who else are we having to humor then? SophieWilder
17:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just don't want to have to add another stripe to the rainbow of body identity subcultures, or experience the resulting 'awareness campaign' of moral aggression. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Sysop
Sysop. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
16:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
"Soultrean" and "Koro"
Neither of those pages are linked from anywhere except your user page: Two things. 1. Can you find relevant pages to link to them and 2. Could you not make links to new pages you create on your user page until those pages are linked from somewhere in the mainspace, or else they won't show up as "lonely pages" on the relevant report. Thanks! PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
20:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Gender again
I wrote an essay partially as a counterargument to the part of yours with which I disagreed earlier. I'd like your opinion. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 23:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Evo psych derail
The idea that resistance to evo psych is mostly political is a canard thrown out by types like Buss and Pinker to avoid having to answer to legitimate critics. First, we have to distinguish what, exactly, "evo psych" is. Most of the attention has been focused on what Buller has called "EP" (as opposed to "lower-case ep"), or the Santa Barbara school, which is a specific research program entailing certain assumptions an empirical results. Many evolutionary psychologists themselves argue that EP is partially or totally flawed. I'd start with the Buller book -- Adapting Minds -- or the Stanford Encyclopedia article for a dense and stuffy, but thorough overview. Both are decidedly non-political in nature. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Msybe. The parts of evo psych that I've found most interesting are the ones that deal with the evolution of moral sentiments and the heritability of a number of personality traits. The weaknesses here are mostly in the 'psych' part; our ability to measure personality traits and moral impulses aren't all that sharp. Here, at least, the evidence is convincing for modularity; there does seem to be a "disgust" routine, a "jealousy" routine, an "unfair" routine, and an "us vs. them" routine. There is also evidence suggesting that several of these traits are heritable, tested on twins the usual way. It's also been shown that parents don't really shape their children's moral outlook all that much. Morality is something they absorb like language, and peers soon outweigh parents in matters of morality even as they outweigh them in matters of language.
- But if any part of human brains and behaviors is shaped by evolution, sex and mating would be those parts. The idea of "sexual objectification" is yet another reflection of the facts that sperms are plentiful and cheap while eggs are expensive. Males are disposable drones; females are precious vessels of life. His ideal reproductive strategy looks like a dandelion's; Hers looks like a human's. So He's inclined to spend his seed and his substance on other women, and She's predisposed to mind that very much. And "sexual objectification", like all other products of human reasoning, is Her attempt to make coherent and rationalize Her feelings for public consumption. The underlying dynamic is immune to mere argument, so "sexual objectification" is going to be an idea with legs. I still don't think we have to accept it at face value. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that there's any controversy over the idea that, say, basic emotions have biological components. Modularity is another thing, but that is difficult to debate because so many different definitions of modularity have been proposed. Certain conceptions of modularity are pretty reasonable. EPists, though, take this to ridiculous extents by positing modules for just about everything, reaching phrenological heights.
- As for "men just wanna spread their seed," that's a cartoonish view of parental investment. Parental investment is not identical to gamete production. Indiscriminately having offspring may not be optimal for males, especially in humans where babies require massive amounts of investment. Female promiscuity may also be adaptive in certain cases, e.g. in creating paternity uncertainty to avoid abuse of offspring by males. As for whether ideas about parental investment as developed by Bateman, and later Trivers, can be applied to humans in any straightforward manner, the evidence appears to be pointing in the direction of "no." ([1]) In fact, even Bateman's original experiments on fruit flies have recently been called into question. (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/06/1207851109.abstract) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Finally, even if all the above is invalid, you're still just making a long-winded appeal to nature. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Essay:English spelling reform
This is great, and should basically be a mainspace article - David Gerard (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- A bit late to the scene, aren't we? Smerdis and I have been arguing that point for a while now, with little success. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Race
Your viewpoint on race is that is indeed a biological construct, right? It really is because of left-creationism and their ideas of human equality and human exceptionalism that makes them say otherwise, would you agree? — Unsigned, by: 70.29.27.161 / talk / contribs
- No. Not even sure that I'd use the phrase "biological construct", but race really is a social construction, born of a naive or superficial analysis of human genetic differences like skin and hair color. These differences themselves are hereditary, of course, but they only scratch the surface of human genetic diversity. Race is purely a matter of social categorization. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Mop and bucket stuff...
Hey: when replying to an unsigned comment, please put the "unsigned" template on said comment. Thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
15:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
"the feminist agenda is reparative therapy for all men."
That is the stupidest thing I have seen a human being write this year. And I read Conservapedia. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
16:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I see feminism as trying to force unworkable changes in the way human male minds work and relate. It's doomed to failure and will not increase the stock of human happiness. Feminism, or at least the flavors I'm talking about, reproduces the mistake of reparative therapy exactly: it's an attempt to alter the sexuality of specific people by ideology and argumemt. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is so ludicrous ~I can't take it seriously. From now on I'll just wave your lunacy in your face whenever you comment. SophieWilder
17:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Smerdis, do you realise that other people can read what you write here? You should be fucking embarrassed. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- It would appear that I've touched on something sacred here. I'm told I'm not only wrong, but embarrassingly so, by comparing two agitations with quite similar goals. And I don't even have an issue with feminism to the extent that it's about women. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Smerdis, do you realise that other people can read what you write here? You should be fucking embarrassed. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- "I see feminism as trying to force unworkable changes in the way human male minds work and relate."
- Only because you have a warped view of how the mind works and what feminism is. Christ Alfuckingmighty, you sound so much like Lovecrafty.
- " It's doomed to failure and will not increase the stock of human happiness."
- Yes, yes, we know you think feminism will fail and women will go back to their proper place of Kinder, Küche, und Kirche. Except it has already made many women happy. The only unhappiness I see from feminism is on the side of the MRAs...which I've now identified you as one of. What's your particular preference? A Voice For Men? Or are you one of the Neo-Reactionaries? C'mon. 'Fess up.— Unsigned, by: Castaigne / talk / contribs
- No, none of those. I'm just an aging Sixties radical wannabe who continues to take freedom of expression, including freedom of sexual expression, very seriously. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, Christ, return of the supposed 1960s radical for whom time passed by. Newsflash: If you are adhering to "radical" movements and ideals that existed before I was born, you need to stop, upgrade your thinking to modern standards, and move the fuck on. I'm not going to bother with someone who is stuck in the last century. Even my hidebound conservative Catholic parents are more advanced in thought than you.
- Your ideas of freedom of expression are over 50 years obsolete. Your ideas of freedom of sexual expression are over 50 years obsolete. Upgrade the obsolete, or be deleted.
- Because until you do, you're really no different than an aging MRA. --Castaigne (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, none of those. I'm just an aging Sixties radical wannabe who continues to take freedom of expression, including freedom of sexual expression, very seriously. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is so ludicrous ~I can't take it seriously. From now on I'll just wave your lunacy in your face whenever you comment. SophieWilder
It's not that your understanding of feminism is "not only wrong," it's not even wrong. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
18:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing how. What's the difference between trying to "fix" gays so that they suppress same-sex desires, and trying to "fix" heterosexual men the same way? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I see what Smerdis is saying here as not too far off the mark. Foster, your response seems overly harsh to me, even borderline dickish. A supporting anecdote comes from my experience in a thriving tech company some time ago, with a fair mix of women working as hardware engineers, programmers, and technicians, coming from a variety of American, European (including Russian), and Asian (both east and south) cultures. On the whole, they were a well socialized crew, free from excess gender-related tension. If I had to generalize, I'd say that the white-bread American females were the ones most liable to consider male human behavior as something requiring correction. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The false equivalence you are making
Reparative therapy seeks to change an individual's desire; what his or her brain tells them that they want. Feminist critiques of rape culture seek to change what people do with their desires. in the world of reparative therapy, it's not okay that you want to have sex with men. That's where the problem is, and they believe they can re-wire your desire. They can't. In the world of feminist critique, it's okay that I want to have sex with women. It's not okay that I demand it, or force the issue, or use any power that I have to get it, or to objectify another human being in the name of it. I can't control that I want women the way that you want men, but I can, and must, control what I do with that. And you're not seeing the difference. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
21:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Something for you to consider.
If race is a social construct, why not gender? And, if gender is a social construct, a movement designed to undo the inequalities enforced by that construct is something one ought to support. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
19:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that's an excellent point; in this context race and sex/gender are significantly different. Race has no biological significance at all. (The main reason The Bell Curve was obviously talking out of its ass was its neglect of evolutionary explanations: the thesis amounts to a claim that intelligence is less adaptive for some human populations than others.) Sex profoundly changes human bodies and metabolisms; there are male and female brains, hell, there are male and female livers. Sex plays a key role in human reproduction. (snicker.) I'd expect biology to have a huge impact here, psychologically as well as physically.
- I would indeed support a movement designed to undo the inequalities, frustrations, and conflicts enforced by biology. Understanding that biology is behind much of that stuff means that expectations of what might be achieved here ought to be tempered towards the reasonable. Part of the way forward for me is that we should come to understand that sniping at the content of each other's inner lives isn't helping. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sex and gender are significantly different; different from each other, just as "skin colour/hair texture/common facial features" and "race" are different from each other; in each case, the latter is a set of arbitrary social roles/expectations/limitations placed on an individual because of the latter. Expectations of what might be achieved here should be tempered towards the reasonable. It is reasonable to expect that I do not let my biological urge to have sex with women dictate my daily interactions with women, that I do not, for instance, approach strange women late at night in a confined space (sorry to harp on this, but it's still the only case that you brought up; give me better material and I'll work with that) and invite them to come into a room with a bed in it. It is reasonable to expect people to question whether or not a billions-of-dollars-a-year industry that profits from transforming half of humanity into nothing more that empty receptacles for sexual desires is a positive step forward for humanity. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
22:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- The question is where to demarcate the line between sex and gender, then. For instance, I would assign to the 'sex' side such generally human universal features as the male role in communal violence and community defense, the female role in child rearing, the different structures of male-focused and female-focused social organizations, and, of course, the fact that the male usually takes the initiative in open courtship. These assignments are not arbitrary. The logic of all of these universals flows out of facts like sperms are metabolically cheap while pregnancy is metabolically very costly, and that humans are a high-investment, slow-breeding species; these human universals are sex, not gender. Culture will of course intersect with many of these things and determine what their local expression looks like. All of our fellow primates have a sexual division of labor; it would be really weird if we didn't. No effort is required to enforce them; people free from cultural compulsion will naturally move towards the roles they were made to fill.
- Please, let's step back a bit further. What does your vision of the good society entail? I want one where people get along; one where cultural diversity adds color and flavor rather than tension. One where people are able to run their lives and seek their pleasures without their neighbor's attention or disapproval. Where straights, gays, the transgendered and everybody else can arrange their sexual lives as they please, with no more drama than those things always bring. One where people mind their own business. I doubt that your utopia differs strongly from mine, though we may differ widely on how to get there.
- So how do we move closer to an ideal? My recipe calls for calming moral dudgeon and diminishing social friction, by cultivating an ethos that expects little of people and that encourages tolerance and forgiveness of human weakness. This is why I think that accusing your neighbors of "transforming half of humanity into nothing more that empty receptacles for sexual desires" is a hostile caricature of some of your neighbor's inner lives. That is a weirdly puritanical idea, one that ultimately goes back to the odd ideas of some Christian denominations about sex and the nuclear family. It is a sister of the argument that since sex is for procreation, using birth control turns it into mutual masturbation. Walk a mile in the shoes of the lonely guy who buys them. I'd even suggest that the logic of the "privilege" doctrine, by my understanding of it, suggests reasons why you might want to reconsider that. (Were it meant to apply even-handedly, as we know it was not.) Why do people need to pick on each other this way? What does it achieve? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll answer part of this. I have no vision of a "good" society insofar as I do not recognize the existence of "good" outside of a personal concept thereof. I do not care whether people get along or have tension due to cultural differences, so long as they follow the law. I am not required to, and do not care to "like" everyone. I do not care if a person is disapproved of by their neighbor; so long as it is kept within legal boundaries, it is not my business. However, that does not make them immune from the social consequences of their choice. There will never be a society without drama; there will never be a society where people mind their own business. And if there is, I can almost guarantee it will be totalitarian in nature and derived from fear.
- It's essentially comes down to you regarding "freedom" and "absolute tolerance, including tolerance of the intolerant" as a definite Good. I view them as entirely value-neutral. The freedom to murder someone and feast on their innards is still freedom. Doubt you'd call it good. --Castaigne (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sex and gender are significantly different; different from each other, just as "skin colour/hair texture/common facial features" and "race" are different from each other; in each case, the latter is a set of arbitrary social roles/expectations/limitations placed on an individual because of the latter. Expectations of what might be achieved here should be tempered towards the reasonable. It is reasonable to expect that I do not let my biological urge to have sex with women dictate my daily interactions with women, that I do not, for instance, approach strange women late at night in a confined space (sorry to harp on this, but it's still the only case that you brought up; give me better material and I'll work with that) and invite them to come into a room with a bed in it. It is reasonable to expect people to question whether or not a billions-of-dollars-a-year industry that profits from transforming half of humanity into nothing more that empty receptacles for sexual desires is a positive step forward for humanity. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
Wikipedia
"We do not generally link to Wikipedia. If an article falls within our mission statements then we prefer to write it and expand it ourselves from our own point of view. If we need additional references we usually get our own rather than link to WP.". That article was a link-farm. Either explain the stuff properly, or, if you can't, wonder about missionality. Thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is largely a personal crusade for you - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, that comes off way snippier than I thought I was being. I don't disagree that excess Wikipedia links are bad writing, but they do the basic "this is what it is" job better than we do, so swinging them for background is fine IMO. Basically, we can't legislate good writing, but Smerdis is a good writer. I'd disagree that Wikipedia links necessarily mean "off-mission article". Perhaps this is a Saloon Bar discussion (if not a Dive Bar one) - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW, I thought the article needed to introduce some basic concepts of sociolinguistics, and I thought that writing a textbook into the article would be even less topical. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"Speak White" (I believe yo mentioned the phrase recently...)
- Speak white
- il est si beau de vous entendre
- parler de Paradise Lost
- ou du profil gracieux et anonyme qui tremble dans les sonnets de Shakespeare
- nous sommes un peuple inculte et bègue
- mais ne sommes pas sourds au génie d'une langue
- parlez avec l'accent de Milton et Byron et Shelley et Keats
- speak white
- et pardonnez-nous de n'avoir pour réponse
- que les chants rauques de nos ancêtres
- et le chagrin de Nelligan
- speak white
- parlez de choses et d'autres
- parlez-nous de la Grande Charte
- ou du monument à Lincoln
- du charme gris de la Tamise
- de l'eau rose du Potomac
- parlez-nous de vos traditions
- nous sommes un peuple peu brillant
- mais fort capable d'apprécier
- toute l'importance des crumpets
- ou du Boston Tea Party
- mais quand vous really speak white
- quand vous get down to brass tacks
- pour parler du gracious living
- et parler du standard de vie
- et de la Grande Société
- un peu plus fort alors speak white
- haussez vos voix de contremaîtres
- nous sommes un peu durs d'oreille
- nous vivons trop près des machines
- et n'entendons que notre souffle au-dessus des outils
- speak white and loud
- qu'on vous entende
- de Saint-Henri à Saint-Domingue
- oui quelle admirable langue
- pour embaucher
- donner des ordres
- fixer l'heure de la mort à l'ouvrage
- et de la pause qui rafraîchit
et ravigote le dollar
- speak white
- tell us that God is a great big shot
- and that we're paid to trust him
- speak white
- parlez-nous production profits et pourcentages
- speak white
- c'est une langue riche
- pour acheter
- mais pour se vendre
- mais pour se vendre à perte d'âme
- mais pour se vendre
- ah !
- speak white
- big deal
- mais pour vous dire
- l'éternité d'un jour de grève
- pour raconter
- une vie de peuple-concierge
- mais pour rentrer chez nous le soir
- à l'heure où le soleil s'en vient crever au-dessus des ruelles
- mais pour vous dire oui que le soleil se couche oui
- chaque jour de nos vies à l'est de vos empires
- rien ne vaut une langue à jurons
- notre parlure pas très propre
- tachée de cambouis et d'huile
- speak white
- soyez à l'aise dans vos mots
- nous sommes un peuple rancunier
- mais ne reprochons à personne
- d'avoir le monopole
- de la correction de langage
- dans la langue douce de Shakespeare
- avec l'accent de Longfellow
- parlez un français pur et atrocement blanc
- comme au Viêt-Nam au Congo
- parlez un allemand impeccable
- une étoile jaune entre les dents
- parlez russe parlez rappel à l'ordre parlez répression
- speak white
- c'est une langue universelle
- nous sommes nés pour la comprendre
- avec ses mots lacrymogènes
- avec ses mots matraques
- speak white
- tell us again about Freedom and Democracy
- nous savons que liberté est un mot noir
- comme la misère est nègre
- et comme le sang se mêle à la poussière des rues d'Alger ou de Little Rock
- speak white
- de Westminster à Washington relayez-vous
- speak white comme à Wall Street
- white comme à Watts
- be civilized
- et comprenez notre parler de circonstance
- quand vous nous demandez poliment
- how do you do
- et nous entendez vous répondre
- we're doing all right
- we're doing fine
- we
- are not alone
- nous savons
- que nous ne sommes pas seuls.
--Michele Laslonde PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)