https://nypost.com/2021/07/09/eric-adam ... s-at-raos/
![Image](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/07/eric-adams-bo-dietl-catsimatidis.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=2000)
Eric Adams dined at Rao’s with billionaire Republican John Catsimatidis.
The NY Post, Murdoch's rag, endorsed him.
I think he'll get rid of the mandates.
dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:22 pmI can see how the word "illiterate"--when attached to a specific person--could be stigmatizing. But the broad term "illiteracy" to describe a thing--I'm not seeing that.
It was the same deal with "hunger", which some time back was shelved and replaced with "food insecurity". At least for me.
But perhaps there's an angle or perception I'm not aware of.
Skimming Catsimatidis Wiki doesn't change my original opinion of Adams. Catsimatidis has been a high level donor to many Dems in the past as well, especially the Clintons. 1970s Dem, the very, very, very pro-union kind is how I think of Adamsti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:14 pm Many pics of him during the election showed him with prominent NYC GOP'ers. There was one taken at Rao's, the exclusive East Harlem Italian eatery that has like five tables and a waiting list that literally goes on for years. I'll see if I can find it. If you watched L& O original flavor that cozy Italian place they showed all the time was Rao's. I also don't like the fact that as Brooklyn Borough President and now as Mayor he really lives in Jersey.
I think he'll get rid of the mandates.
But if you take that route, aren't you going to an extreme? By that definition, I am illiterate in almost all languages in the world, and that is not the usual definition. The definition of illiterate is, basically, that you can't read and/or write the language which you speak. Therefore, the sole source of information and knowledge for you is oral tradition, which of course limits your capacity for improvement.dmforever wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:40 pm ...
It's awesome that you don't attach a stigma to the word "illiterate". I wish the world were filled with more people like you.However, I think in most societies being "illiterate" is highly stigmatized, especially since it often intersects with racism and classism.
I also used to think in terms of a "literate" vs "illiterate" binary, but it's actually more of a range. For example, some people can read simple words but not more complicated ones. Some people can write their names and some words they have memorized but that's it. Some people can read more complicated texts but not really understand a lot.
If anyone is interested in literacy, a great way to really get how it works is to put yourself in the position of trying to become more literate. Try learning how to read and write in a foreign language that doesn't use an alphabet that you know. You can go for Hindi, Arabic, Thai, Mandarin, Japanese, Russian (except for the Russian speakers here), Farsi, Urdu, Korean, or a bunch of other languages. Sorry if I've left yours out. It's a very very humbling experience and most people become immediately more empathetic with people who are struggling to become more literate.
Thanks for your post and I apologize for kind of hijacking it and going off on a tangent.
Kevin
Don't disagree with you, but what's real interesting is that this appears to be a concept that originated with the World Bank. First Google result is theirs. Second is UNESCO.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:24 pmOff TopicBTW. The English language capacity to use terms such as "knowledge poverty" to convey messages does not easily translate to other languages. I am trying to find a Spanish equivalent and nothing rings the same (POBREZA DE CONOCIMIENTO can be easily thought of but that can be misconstrued as poverty of knowledge in ONE subject). As this is the WHO, an international organism, the choice of words may not be useful when you translate to other languages
On this we all agree.
My point about other languages wasn't that we are illiterate in them. Sorry if that wasn't clear. My point was that those of us who were lucky enough to be taught how to read and write a young age have probably forgotten what it was really like to learn that. Trying to learn a new alphabet and the sight and sound correlation that go with it, even with the advantage of already being literate in another language, can be really hard, and might give people a better understanding of what other people who are less literate go through. It was only meant as a way to have a more experiential understanding of the literacy/illiteracy spectrum.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:24 pmBut if you take that route, aren't you going to an extreme? By that definition, I am illiterate in almost all languages in the world, and that is not the usual definition. The definition of illiterate is, basically, that you can't read and/or write the language which you speak. Therefore, the sole source of information and knowledge for you is oral tradition, which of course limits your capacity for improvement.dmforever wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:40 pm ...
It's awesome that you don't attach a stigma to the word "illiterate". I wish the world were filled with more people like you.However, I think in most societies being "illiterate" is highly stigmatized, especially since it often intersects with racism and classism.
I also used to think in terms of a "literate" vs "illiterate" binary, but it's actually more of a range. For example, some people can read simple words but not more complicated ones. Some people can write their names and some words they have memorized but that's it. Some people can read more complicated texts but not really understand a lot.
If anyone is interested in literacy, a great way to really get how it works is to put yourself in the position of trying to become more literate. Try learning how to read and write in a foreign language that doesn't use an alphabet that you know. You can go for Hindi, Arabic, Thai, Mandarin, Japanese, Russian (except for the Russian speakers here), Farsi, Urdu, Korean, or a bunch of other languages. Sorry if I've left yours out. It's a very very humbling experience and most people become immediately more empathetic with people who are struggling to become more literate.
Thanks for your post and I apologize for kind of hijacking it and going off on a tangent.
Kevin
Take the concept of innumeracy, which I talked about above. Are you innumerate? If I decide that you are so because you, for example, don't know how to do integral calculus, differential calculus or analysis, then I am the one designating you as such when in reality maybe you are brilliant in trigonometry, topology or some other math field. A final point is that I may be illiterate in Russian, but that does not mean that I cannot be versed in Russian literature and be an expert in Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, since I can read my language and read their translations.
You also make a point of illiteracy as a "Yes/No" condition, when professionals on the subject will agree with you that illiteracy comes in gradients. For example, I am convinced that Donald Trump is technically illiterate and really can't read a book above nursery rhymes level, yet he is not considered illiterate.
I guess the point for some of us was: why the strange denomination? Why not use the word "illiterate"? It is not a crime to be one and the goal should be to help everybody in that condition overcome it, but now declaring that "illiterate" is a "bad word" is, to me, indeed raising an unwelcomed condition to the level of stigma.Off TopicBTW. The English language capacity to use terms such as "knowledge poverty" to convey messages does not easily translate to other languages. I am trying to find a Spanish equivalent and nothing rings the same (POBREZA DE CONOCIMIENTO can be easily thought of but that can be misconstrued as poverty of knowledge in ONE subject). As this is the WHO, an international organism, the choice of words may not be useful when you translate to other languages
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests