>>6
It really isn't about accidental spelling mistakes.
Writing down something like "ying and yang" genuinely is a pretty infallible indication that the person writing it has a very vague, very sketchy idea of East Asian (specifically Chinese) thought and culture.
You know what I mean: the whole "Well, that's the kind of noises they make, isn't it? Ching chong chang Hoo Flung Shit" misconception, that someone suffers from who really has acquired the impression from somewhere that all you have to do is vary the vowel in a handful of monosyllables ending in -g and you've got all the Chinese words you'll ever need.
Someone who went around condemning every Westerner who suffered from such crude misconceptions about the Chinese language might well indeed be open to the charge of elitism. A large proportion of Orientals get by, it's true, in almost total ignorance of Western languages, so there's no reason why the same shouldn't apply in reverse.
But your fault wasn't just ignorance. What you did was cite a set of concepts - admittedly as just one set among dozens of others that you also cited along with them - in a tone of authority, and in such a manner as to lead the reader to presume that you had some knowledge of said concepts.
Your elementary mistake, though, betrays the fact that the concepts are just words to you - indeed not even that.
And "improve the status quo", by the way, sounds just about as stupid and ignorant in English / Latin as "ying and yang" does in Chinese.
By referring to a "status quo", you refer, by definition, to a state of affairs which is NOT altered or improved. If it's "improved", it's not a "status quo" any more.
You seem like a guy with staggering depth of philosophical and religious insight.
But is there ANY language that you CAN actually speak?