Will you tell me if you think this looks cool?


Welcome to real life 'newspeak'

I'm not sure, but if you meant that I'm not in touch with how things are in "real life"(wich is the biggest and more convincing illusion of all), well, I don't agree.

I understand how things are but the fact is I don't agree most of the time. I accept it the best I can but agree with it? No way!! I guess I really try to do the right thing, for the greater good making sure not to kill anyone(like Vash and yes he is real too :)). Of course I fail and fail again(but no kills yet). But I learn by those failures and keep trying.

I'm lucky, I met a couple of people that can cope with my unrelenting obsession (they are so very rare :)).

Words are powerfull people! You don't have to do anything about it, but at least knowing it may help you keep your freedom and your judgment. And maybe offend/be offended less.

Now, enough about me, let's talk about me. :D
 
I've pondered over it awhile, and believe "adjectives" and "nouns" have nothing to do with this subject as this does not matter to anyone.

Name one noun that refers to a group and may have negative connotations which is socially acceptable to use. An adjective borrowed from a noun will always have less impact then a noun.

Of course no one thinks saying "SUVs are gay" means you are making a reference to homosexuals. But I am arguing it's still insensitive and ignorant. If SUVs are "unrelated to the homosexual population", why on earth would someone say "SUVs are gay", and perpetuate the negative view that gay is equal to wrong?

This is something I actually fear - "word destruction". The word "gay" is an archaic reference to "happy". It was someone's idea to start calling homosexuals "gay", and I'm not even sure this happened before or after the slang "gay" came into use. In fact, we could even evaluate the word "gay" with the opposite of "good" (from its original meaning, "happy"), just as "bad" can mean "good" in terms of slang. The word that truly defines the homosexual population is "homosexual". Must we continually censor ourselves based on the whims of a slang-wielding community?

Words also have a hypnotic effect, and people do on some conscious level accept these statements as true. It's one reason homophobia is a reality. I'm a thinking, rational human being, but I'll confess to being at least a little homophobic, because words have that power.

I completely disagree. One cannot manifest homophobia just from hearing the word "gay" used in a negative context unrelated to homosexuals. Homophobia mostly stems from the "hetrosexual macho" image hetrosexual men try to uphold, and homosexuality is a clear negative to one's "hetrosexual macho" image.

Approaching something this sensitive ideologically is unfair because ideologically human beings would never be offended by anything. They are, and it's not often or always their own problem.

A lack of adaptability in this world does represent a personal problem. However, just because it is personal, doesn't mean we should let them deal with it on their own. I am willing to provide whatever emotional assistance to fragile people that they require. If they refuse, and instead insist on avoiding their problem instead of confronting it, then that is indeed their problem. Avoiding issues only degrades the overall mental health of a person. Treating people with respect, while still speaking frankly, requires a level of maturity on both sides of the discussion.

Apologizing is the best solution when you offend somebody when you shouldn't have. But has the damage not still been done?

People who are fragile enough emotionally that an apology cannot ease their anxiety require more help then self-censorship can provide. In fact, self-censorship seems more like trying to skirt dealing with these people on a personal level, then actually caring about their feelings. As said before, while trying to avoid the issue entirely may promote a short-term solution, it could actually cause long-term damage, enabling the sensitive person and providing them with the illusion that they should be treated special just because they are fragile.

I realize I'm approaching this in a kind of Machiavellian "ends justifies the means" way, but that's a proactive stance. Stop using the words "gay" and "bitch" in a degrading context and you will be destroying dicrimination in yourself and others.

One cannot destroy discrimination just by using words differently. Words are just a form of communication, dialog. Words are still generally unable to convey even a smigedon of one's real emotions, and are many times used to mask those feelings. Discrimination is a dark bias cradled deep within one's pysche. Changing one's words only changes what one says, not what one means.
 
Welcome to real life 'newspeak'

I'm not sure, but if you meant that I'm not in touch with how things are in "real life"(wich is the biggest and more convincing illusion of all), well, I don't agree.
No, I meant the 'newspeak' from the novel 1984 by George Orwell, except real life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've pondered over it awhile, and believe "adjectives" and "nouns" have nothing to do with this subject as this does not matter to anyone.

Name one noun that refers to a group and may have negative connotations which is socially acceptable to use. An adjective borrowed from a noun will always have less impact then a noun.

I can't think of one, but why should I? Is there strong need in our society to use "negative connotations which are socially acceptable"? No. Nouns, adjectives, adverbs, words, whatever -- all have the power to be offensive, mean, or discriminatory. Yes, "I saw that faggot walk into the library" is more offensive than "I saw him walk into the library with that faggot backpack." But who cares? Both are unacceptable. Carrying a Webster's Dictionary around won't help fight racism; sensitivity will.

"generalnmx" said:
Of course no one thinks saying "SUVs are gay" means you are making a reference to homosexuals. But I am arguing it's still insensitive and ignorant. If SUVs are "unrelated to the homosexual population", why on earth would someone say "SUVs are gay", and perpetuate the negative view that gay is equal to wrong?

This is something I actually fear - "word destruction". The word "gay" is an archaic reference to "happy". It was someone's idea to start calling homosexuals "gay", and I'm not even sure this happened before or after the slang "gay" came into use. In fact, we could even evaluate the word "gay" with the opposite of "good" (from its original meaning, "happy"), just as "bad" can mean "good" in terms of slang. The word that truly defines the homosexual population is "homosexual". Must we continually censor ourselves based on the whims of a slang-wielding community?

Ack, no one's destroying the word "gay", and what a silly worry anyway. Gay is still acceptable when it means happy, just not when it puts down homosexuals. And homosexuals nor anyone else has a problem refering to homosexuals as gay people, as far as I know. Once again, this is deterrent. Slang is a problem when careless people use it, and it hurts someone. Nobody got together and decided, "let's all go destroy the word gay"; trust me, the word and its various meanings are not going away.

"generalnmx" said:
Words also have a hypnotic effect, and people do on some conscious level accept these statements as true. It's one reason homophobia is a reality. I'm a thinking, rational human being, but I'll confess to being at least a little homophobic, because words have that power.

I completely disagree. One cannot manifest homophobia just from hearing the word "gay" used in a negative context unrelated to homosexuals. Homophobia mostly stems from the "hetrosexual macho" image hetrosexual men try to uphold, and homosexuality is a clear negative to one's "hetrosexual macho" image.

Yeah, but who do you think invented the definition of "gay" as "wrong or uncool"? That's right, the "heterosexual macho"!

"generalnmx" said:
Approaching something this sensitive ideologically is unfair because ideologically human beings would never be offended by anything. They are, and it's not often or always their own problem.

A lack of adaptability in this world does represent a personal problem. However, just because it is personal, doesn't mean we should let them deal with it on their own. I am willing to provide whatever emotional assistance to fragile people that they require. If they refuse, and instead insist on avoiding their problem instead of confronting it, then that is indeed their problem. Avoiding issues only degrades the overall mental health of a person. Treating people with respect, while still speaking frankly, requires a level of maturity on both sides of the discussion.

Apologizing is the best solution when you offend somebody when you shouldn't have. But has the damage not still been done?

People who are fragile enough emotionally that an apology cannot ease their anxiety require more help then self-censorship can provide. In fact, self-censorship seems more like trying to skirt dealing with these people on a personal level, then actually caring about their feelings. As said before, while trying to avoid the issue entirely may promote a short-term solution, it could actually cause long-term damage, enabling the sensitive person and providing them with the illusion that they should be treated special just because they are fragile.

OK, general, can we agree to disagree? :p

"general" said:
I realize I'm approaching this in a kind of Machiavellian "ends justifies the means" way, but that's a proactive stance. Stop using the words "gay" and "bitch" in a degrading context and you will be destroying dicrimination in yourself and others.

One cannot destroy discrimination just by using words differently. Words are just a form of communication, dialog. Words are still generally unable to convey even a smigedon of one's real emotions, and are many times used to mask those feelings. Discrimination is a dark bias cradled deep within one's pysche.

I didn't say or mean this would "destroy all discrimination" but I can see how my statement was misleading.

Changing one's words only changes what one says, not what one means.

Yes, yes, we communicate with words, and we show our emotions in other ways too, no one argued against that. What is important, words often manifest or represent what one means or believes! When it doesn't, as saying "SUVs are gay" does not mean I think homosexuality is wrong, it still shows a carelessness or insensitivity to a minority we live with. I realize this isn't exactly compelling; I just believe it to be a simple truth.

The people you consider "fragile" I would often consider victims of discrimination. Six years ago, I was in a summer course that focused one day on racism. The teacher asked a fourteen-year-old black student: "If you were with a white friend and he said, 'Let me see that book, boy', how would you feel?" The student said he would be really angry, and would want to hit him.

"OK, what if he noticed you were angry and said he was sorry?" The student said he'd still feel angry, like he wanted to hit him.

"Well, what if instead he said 'my bad, my bad', then how would you feel?" The student said he would feel angry, but a little better.

It was a moment of epiphany to me. The teacher, who was black, somehow knew what each of these words would do. What's more, the black student had been my best friend for two weeks, and no one including myself would have ever guessed he could become this angry or emotional. Saying sorry was not even the best solution (I was wrong if I said it was earlier this thread), because this is patronizing.

But no, general, I don't think you could "offer emotional assistance to fragile people" because you label them "fragile" and assume it's their own problem. When your method is philosophy, and when what people need is simply understanding, analyzing words will not ease anyone's pain.

It's not only fragile people who are offended or hurt. Bill Cosby is one of the strongest and most brilliant individuals I can think of, and he says he's hurt when someone is racist, even if they think they are just joking. Most black people are hurt (this is not stereotyping, this is simply true; just talk to them seriously), so to say for instance, "people who are hurt by joking or thru contextual misunderstanding are fragile" you would also be saying "most black people are fragile." This would be racism.

Have you ever been hurt by a joke that wasn't meant to hurt you? Everyone has, and for some people, like myself, this is as close to understanding as we can come.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Nelligan" said:
And it is easier to say this man is an alcoholic than this man has an alcohol problem. Some people have no problem with the former but others take the phrase literally and sum up what they are to an alcoholic wich leads them to more suffering.

This is what I'm talking about, expressed so much more vividly through this example. People need to learn mediation skills. A mediator would never say "this man is an alcoholic".

And the reason has nothing to do with being PC. It's more of a realization that if the man listens to such things, he may begin living up to the world's definition of him, i.e. an alcoholic. All people do not possess this kind of skill or tact, I know I don't because I sometimes call my friends and myself "slackers", but people should learn and practice it just the same.

And, sorry for the broken record, it's not only fragile people who are victims to this. It's everybody. You might become an artist if your math teacher says you make nice doodles but are not "mathematically minded", and I might be wrong, but I think Bobby Fischer became more egomaniacal after people started calling him an "egomaniacal genius" a long time ago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One cannot destroy discrimination just by using words differently. Words are just a form of communication, dialog. Words are still generally unable to convey even a smigedon of one's real emotions, and are many times used to mask those feelings. Discrimination is a dark bias cradled deep within one's pysche. Changing one's words only changes what one says, not what one means.

I agree with the fact that words do not convey much in the true meaning department. That they are a sequencial, slow and unefficient way of communicating. And also that they are used VERY often to hide the thruth. I think also that discrimination is buried deep. But, words CAN change what one means, if used towards that goal. Forcing oneself to use the appropriate words can help reduce prejudice towards others or ourself.

I think it works both ways. We charge words with emotions and intention and they can charge us just the same. Some wisemen attained enlightment by repeating some kind of mantra over and over for days. A simple prayer is an example too. When I was younger and often not feeling well, I found this trick. I would repeat words like freedom, love, peace and it would bring me inner peace(for a couple of minutes :)). I think that when we say something, it's like we are giving birth to an entity. This entity is our responsability just like a child and has more power than we think, over ourselves and others, if we or they let it have that power.

Then it's a matter of what we want to do with our entites. Manipulate others, heal, hurt or maybe we don't give a flying fuck about them, maybe we prefer dealing with the consequences when we see them(if we see them). I don't think trying to say words that don't hurt is over pampering others. What I find over pampering is not telling the thruth by fear of hurting others or having to deal with the reaction. And there is always a way to tell the thruth and minimize the hurting, it just requires maturity and wisdom. Wich is not a piece of cake, but worth it in my opinion.

I hope that the quality of my english doesn't erode my meaning too much.
 
Everyone has made excellent points. I think perhaps one of the main problems with my points is that they were partly practical and partly ideological. Unfortunately, we all know that what is ideologically practical is not always realistically practical. For example, I would never go up to a Native American and say, "Hello, chief", as I have a strong suspicion they would not find that amusing (on a side note, I prefer "Native American" because it is less confusing then having two groups of people named "Indians", and it's also more descriptive).

Ideologically, we should be able to say anything we want, and people shouldn't care about what others think. Realistically, we should limit ourselves to words that do not hurt others. However, we should also risk a little just to get ourselves closer to that ideological perfect - otherwise, nothing will change, and words will become even more meaningless.
 
Funny, my college Sociology teacher calls herself and others 'American Indian'. I asked why she chose that over 'Native American', she said something about everybody who's born in America is considered Native American and American Indian terms that the white people to her people and that she prefers to be called Ojibwe-something, but doesn't because it's too confusing and the general terms are Native American or American Indian.
 
"generalnmx" said:
Everyone has made excellent points. I think perhaps one of the main problems with my points is that they were partly pratical and partly ideological.

LOL, if it must be said, I think my points were totally emotional. That's just how I write, sorry to get lost on a tangient once in a while.

"generalnmx" said:
Ideologically, we should be able to say anything we want, and people shouldn't care about what others think. Realistically, we should limit ourselves to words that do not hurt others. However, we should also risk a little just to get ourselves closer to that ideological perfect - otherwise, nothing will change, and words will become even more meaningless.

Yeah.. I mean, YEAH, summed up quite nicely!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ideologically, we should be able to say anything we want, and people shouldn't care about what others think. Realistically, we should limit ourselves to words that do not hurt others. However, we should also risk a little just to get ourselves closer to that ideological perfect - otherwise, nothing will change, and words will become even more meaningless.

Yep as jot2b said. Nice sum up.
 
Back
Top