Can anyone pick this accent??? WTF?

[dani67]

lol. She's a looney lefty numb nuts. She happens to agree with Milo. So what? He's hardly a bastion of social conservatism.

And what does trump have to do with the price of tea in China?

He has much to do with that. The Chinese say, "we want deal. Bing bing bing".

This girl says in the video that she's working for Rump. Maybe you should watch your own OP link so you don't appear quite so clueless.

Rich Pogo talks about someone else being clueless.


Google may help you too!!! hip hop culture - Google Search

--- how did I become "rich"?

I'm not comfortable with that. Want some money? Apparently I've got extra.

please borrow me 1 billion $ . thank you very much

Done. Check your inbox.

thank you very much .
i need this money very much for this ladies
can you buy beirut ticket for me ?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I don't hear any particular "accent". Of course everybody has an accent but I don't hear anything at much variance from standard American English, insofar as there is such a thing. There's very little in her speech that stands out as off-normal.

Do you mean the rising inflection at the end of each line?

Her diction is virtually flawless --- she either has an exceptionally good ear for language, or she's making the whole thing up.

I suspect the latter, since she ducks away from pronouncing her own name (or pronouncing anything other than English) and so sidesteps any opportunity to establish credibility for the identity she claims.

Anyone with any common sense would abandon a fucked up cult like Islam... Islam is nothing but a Repugnant cult you fucking bed wetter... lol
Like she says fuck Islam fuck it...

The uh, actual topic is about her accent, Sparkles. Why don't you go back to your game of "find your foot".

What does her accent have to do with anything? Cookie

The OP'er asked the question about the accent in the video, so yeah her accent has everything to do with the responses...

 

[Pogo]

I can think of only one person I've ever met of that age (at the time) who's English was that flawless as a second language. He was a Belgian. You just don't linguistically assimilate that completely, cadence, idioms, the whole shebang -- in three years.

She's either a very cunning linguist or a fakir, and my money's on the latter. And that's an intentional pun (both of them).

I can see where one might think that she is a fake. I really do not care one way or another though - who she is happens to be utterly irrelevant to WHAT she said.

If you happen to think that what she states is reasonable then even if she made it up it is a good point. If you happen to think that what she claims is not reasonable then the source does not suddenly make it so.

I could care less if she was genuine or not - I judge the merits of her statements on their own.

Western Arabic woman pretends to be an immigrant.

Am I right?

She looks Arabic but she's most likely Italian. She sounded like she was from NYC, can't say Brooklyn or Queens. Not from Long Island.

I'm not hearing NYC Brooklyn or Queens. More like SoCal.

I can see that in her face. Being from CA she certainly has the look.

I was going by the tonal inflection -- the way her tone rises at the end of every sentence? As if she's asking a question? Even when she isn't?

That's really a generational formation rather than geographical (although it does seem prevalent in California, or did when it developed thirty years ago or so) but it's a distinctly USian one, and not one that anyone learning English as a second language ever incorporates, at least not without an actor's voice coach, so it's a dead giveaway that she's far more experienced in US language and culture, down to the tiniest detail, than her story suggests.

 

[Rustic]

Just because you don't like when Muslims are exposed for doing Muslims things .... doesn't mean it didn't happen. I bet you didn't even listen to her.

What the fuck actually happened was that I challenged you to show anywhere your own link said anything about religion, as opposed to you pulling it out of your ass. And you couldn't do it, because you *did* pull it out of your ass, and we both know it.

Loser.

Appeaser

 

[Rustic]

I can think of only one person I've ever met of that age (at the time) who's English was that flawless as a second language. He was a Belgian. You just don't linguistically assimilate that completely, cadence, idioms, the whole shebang -- in three years.

She's either a very cunning linguist or a fakir, and my money's on the latter. And that's an intentional pun (both of them).

I can see where one might think that she is a fake. I really do not care one way or another though - who she is happens to be utterly irrelevant to WHAT she said.

If you happen to think that what she states is reasonable then even if she made it up it is a good point. If you happen to think that what she claims is not reasonable then the source does not suddenly make it so.

I could care less if she was genuine or not - I judge the merits of her statements on their own.

Western Arabic woman pretends to be an immigrant.

Am I right?

She looks Arabic but she's most likely Italian. She sounded like she was from NYC, can't say Brooklyn or Queens. Not from Long Island.

I'm not hearing NYC Brooklyn or Queens. More like SoCal.

I can see that in her face. Being from CA she certainly has the look.

I was going by the tonal inflection -- the way her tone rises at the end of every sentence? As if she's asking a question? Even when she isn't?

That's really a generational formation rather than geographical (although it does seem prevalent in California, or did when it developed thirty years ago or so) but it's a distinctly USian one, and not one that anyone learning English as a second language ever incorporates, at least not without an actor's voice coach, so it's a dead giveaway that she's far more experienced in US language and culture, down to the tiniest detail, than her story suggests.

You must like talking out of your ass

 

[The Great Goose]

Western Arabic woman pretends to be an immigrant.

Am I right?

maybe she is jewish

Possibly, but I think not.

 

[FA_Q2]

I can think of only one person I've ever met of that age (at the time) who's English was that flawless as a second language. He was a Belgian. You just don't linguistically assimilate that completely, cadence, idioms, the whole shebang -- in three years.

She's either a very cunning linguist or a fakir, and my money's on the latter. And that's an intentional pun (both of them).

I can see where one might think that she is a fake. I really do not care one way or another though - who she is happens to be utterly irrelevant to WHAT she said.

If you happen to think that what she states is reasonable then even if she made it up it is a good point. If you happen to think that what she claims is not reasonable then the source does not suddenly make it so.

I could care less if she was genuine or not - I judge the merits of her statements on their own.

I take it that means the opposite --- that you could [NOT] care less.

Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks

The thing is, her entire content is based on a personal recounting of experience, and that in turn depends on whether she is what she says she is. If that's not the case, then her entire story is made-up crap.

Like I said, I dont agree.

SHE may be trying to use her 'personal' account to strengthen her message but I, in general, find personal account meaningless to the position itself. There is her position and then there is a silly 'background' that neither lends weight or takes it away from the position itself no matter how much she wants to use appeal to emotion to bolster that position.

In this particular case and the way it is presented, I could care less if her 'story' is crap or not. It does not lend any actual weight to her statement - at least IMHO.

And from the indications it does not sound like she is what she says, which I believe was the original question here. So if her identity IS made-up crap, then she has no merits of her statements on their own. Her identity is crucial to that. It's how she set it up.

No one can say for sure from this clip but it just doesn't pass the smell test.

You are right, that was the original question and it does not pass the smell test. I think that my grater point here is that the original question is the wrong one making it pointless and a distraction. The real question in my mind is weather or not there is any merit to the point she raised - should we be welcoming 'Muslims' here rather than seeking out those escaping from them (and yes that is reading a little into her statements).

If the above is utter garbage, and I think it clearly and resoundingly is, then what does it matter what the source of the statement is. She could have a true story about a harrowing escape from an oppressive Muslim husband and an epic tale of struggle to get here and succeed. It would not change the fact that while her fears may make sense to her, they are irrelevant to creating sound policy. He position would still be asinine.

OTOH, had she made a logical and sound point about immigration policy but her story was utter garbage I would still not discount the logical and sound point. Her deceit does not negate a sound position in the same manner that a logical fallacy does not negate an argument (just a particular supporting point). Personal accounts tend to add emotional support to a point and I do not think political discourse or positions should have anything to do with emotion. Had her story added some sort of proof on knowledge that makes her opinion carry more weight and she established why that might matter but simply existing in a Muslim home in another country does not add something that is worthy of greater weight in her opinions - it is not a grater measure of people in general.

I really don't see where the content of her point can stand on its own independent of the history she claims. Her entire rant is based on personal experience; therefore that experience totally informs -- nay, creates -- that point. If that experience is, as we suspect, fabricated, then she has in effect demonstrated that her motivation is to spread that point (first) and support it (second) with a contrived autobiography. Which, if that's the case, makes her entire point bogus since it has no basis.

Her point is entirely personal. She goes out of her way to say exactly that, that she personally intends to disseminate "ass kicking". Rhetorical that may be, but it's entirely based on "I take this personally". If her story is made up, then no she doesn't and the entire point crumbles.

Meh - we see statements differently then I guess. There is no such thing, in my opinion, of supporting statements 'creating' a point. They are made to lend credence to an argument and that is what I see her personal story as an attempt to do.

That story, true or not, does not lend any credence to her point.

Ask yourself this, if you assume that everything she stated was 100 percent fact (and even assume that the story is missing harrowing details) do you think that her point still stands? Would you agree with her then or would your view of her point remain unchanged?

 

[Pogo]

I can think of only one person I've ever met of that age (at the time) who's English was that flawless as a second language. He was a Belgian. You just don't linguistically assimilate that completely, cadence, idioms, the whole shebang -- in three years.

She's either a very cunning linguist or a fakir, and my money's on the latter. And that's an intentional pun (both of them).

I can see where one might think that she is a fake. I really do not care one way or another though - who she is happens to be utterly irrelevant to WHAT she said.

If you happen to think that what she states is reasonable then even if she made it up it is a good point. If you happen to think that what she claims is not reasonable then the source does not suddenly make it so.

I could care less if she was genuine or not - I judge the merits of her statements on their own.

I take it that means the opposite --- that you could [NOT] care less.

Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks

The thing is, her entire content is based on a personal recounting of experience, and that in turn depends on whether she is what she says she is. If that's not the case, then her entire story is made-up crap.

Like I said, I dont agree.

SHE may be trying to use her 'personal' account to strengthen her message but I, in general, find personal account meaningless to the position itself. There is her position and then there is a silly 'background' that neither lends weight or takes it away from the position itself no matter how much she wants to use appeal to emotion to bolster that position.

In this particular case and the way it is presented, I could care less if her 'story' is crap or not. It does not lend any actual weight to her statement - at least IMHO.

And from the indications it does not sound like she is what she says, which I believe was the original question here. So if her identity IS made-up crap, then she has no merits of her statements on their own. Her identity is crucial to that. It's how she set it up.

No one can say for sure from this clip but it just doesn't pass the smell test.

You are right, that was the original question and it does not pass the smell test. I think that my grater point here is that the original question is the wrong one making it pointless and a distraction. The real question in my mind is weather or not there is any merit to the point she raised - should we be welcoming 'Muslims' here rather than seeking out those escaping from them (and yes that is reading a little into her statements).

If the above is utter garbage, and I think it clearly and resoundingly is, then what does it matter what the source of the statement is. She could have a true story about a harrowing escape from an oppressive Muslim husband and an epic tale of struggle to get here and succeed. It would not change the fact that while her fears may make sense to her, they are irrelevant to creating sound policy. He position would still be asinine.

OTOH, had she made a logical and sound point about immigration policy but her story was utter garbage I would still not discount the logical and sound point. Her deceit does not negate a sound position in the same manner that a logical fallacy does not negate an argument (just a particular supporting point). Personal accounts tend to add emotional support to a point and I do not think political discourse or positions should have anything to do with emotion. Had her story added some sort of proof on knowledge that makes her opinion carry more weight and she established why that might matter but simply existing in a Muslim home in another country does not add something that is worthy of greater weight in her opinions - it is not a grater measure of people in general.

I really don't see where the content of her point can stand on its own independent of the history she claims. Her entire rant is based on personal experience; therefore that experience totally informs -- nay, creates -- that point. If that experience is, as we suspect, fabricated, then she has in effect demonstrated that her motivation is to spread that point (first) and support it (second) with a contrived autobiography. Which, if that's the case, makes her entire point bogus since it has no basis.

Her point is entirely personal. She goes out of her way to say exactly that, that she personally intends to disseminate "ass kicking". Rhetorical that may be, but it's entirely based on "I take this personally". If her story is made up, then no she doesn't and the entire point crumbles.

Meh - we see statements differently then I guess. There is no such thing, in my opinion, of supporting statements 'creating' a point. They are made to lend credence to an argument and that is what I see her personal story as an attempt to do.

That story, true or not, does not lend any credence to her point.

Ask yourself this, if you assume that everything she stated was 100 percent fact (and even assume that the story is missing harrowing details) do you think that her point still stands? Would you agree with her then or would your view of her point remain unchanged?

I don't think it's complex at all. She's relating an intimately personal view, directly based on her own intimately personal history.

If that personal history is made-up crap ---- then all the air is let out of the balloon of that personal view. It in fact never had any to begin with. It is, if that's the case, a fake backstory created to try to hold up a view one wished to be the conclusion, created cart before the horse. It is, if that's the case, a matter of declaring "here's the point I want to make, now I'll make up a story that makes it sound credible". That's simply not valid argument.

If the view were simply pieced together out of observing third parties in the world, it would have a basis. Without a basis ----- there's nothing holding it up.