Soft Language: Tautological Replacements

[actmyname]

The idea of PC/soft language is ridiculous. Carlin did a piece on it that you can watch.

All that you're doing by calling retards mentally handicapped is creating a tautology: it doesn't change the definition. If the intention is malicious, there is no intrinsic difference. It's the same thing as calling someone an unmarried man as opposed to a bachelor.

The use of this kind of language is obfuscation. It's akin to tautologies when dealing with news about war. Silly. Propaganda.

Why confuse people to "avoid negativity" when you're still discussing the same thing?

[Spendulus]

The idea of PC/soft language is ridiculous. Carlin did a piece on it that you can watch.

All that you're doing by calling retards mentally handicapped is creating a tautology: it doesn't change the definition. If the intention is malicious, there is no intrinsic difference. It's the same thing as calling someone an unmarried man as opposed to a bachelor.

The use of this kind of language is obfuscation. It's akin to tautologies when dealing with news about war. Silly. Propaganda.

Why confuse people to "avoid negativity" when you're still discussing the same thing?

Sure you can ridicule factually the grammar, but that's missing the point.

The point is that certain people seek to gain power over others by creating positions where they can dictate proper speech.

It's all about the power.

[actmyname]

Sure you can ridicule factually the grammar, but that's missing the point.

The point is that certain people seek to gain power over others by creating positions where they can dictate proper speech.

It's all about the power.

Well, that's the more serious way of looking at it.

Pushing a narrative, innit? By controlling one's language, their way of communicating, you in turn control the way that they're able to think. If they cannot express an anti-X idea then nothing will come to fruition when one tries to oppose it. Something similar to Newspeak from our classic dystopian book

[ATMD]

The idea of PC/soft language is ridiculous. Carlin did a piece on it that you can watch.

All that you're doing by calling retards mentally handicapped is creating a tautology: it doesn't change the definition. If the intention is malicious, there is no intrinsic difference. It's the same thing as calling someone an unmarried man as opposed to a bachelor.

The use of this kind of language is obfuscation. It's akin to tautologies when dealing with news about war. Silly. Propaganda.

Why confuse people to "avoid negativity" when you're still discussing the same thing?

I believe language plays a significant role in human psychology. Some words are "scarier" than others, I am sure there is a psychological benefit to using euphemism, these propaganda guys are clever, they don't do things for no reason. George Carlin was simply calling them out, he saw through the psychological manipulation.

[actmyname]

I believe language plays a significant role in human psychology. Some words are "scarier" than others, I am sure there is a psychological benefit to using euphemism, these propaganda guys are clever, they don't do things for no reason. George Carlin was simply calling them out, he saw through the psychological manipulation.

It's enforcing an equivalence, subconsciously or not, through synonymous words.

For example if we create new terms for homosexual:
rainbow dancer
pit digger

The former is associated with lighter or happier terms whereas the latter bends slightly towards negativity.

I believe what happens, though, is there is a cultural push toward a certain connotation (given the most common tone/inflections) for given words. The "less abrasive" language nowadays seems that way because they were not yet given the overarching negative connotation but were pressed to initially seem positive.

That's why it's really never colloquial language that's used: to obfuscate any cynicism and to reset the tone to 0 so that it can be morphed into that of a softer connotation.

[ATMD]

I believe language plays a significant role in human psychology. Some words are "scarier" than others, I am sure there is a psychological benefit to using euphemism, these propaganda guys are clever, they don't do things for no reason. George Carlin was simply calling them out, he saw through the psychological manipulation.

It's enforcing an equivalence, subconsciously or not, through synonymous words.

For example if we create new terms for homosexual:
rainbow dancer
pit digger

The former is associated with lighter or happier terms whereas the latter bends slightly towards negativity.

I believe what happens, though, is there is a cultural push toward a certain connotation (given the most common tone/inflections) for given words. The "less abrasive" language nowadays seems that way because they were not yet given the overarching negative connotation but were pressed to initially seem positive.

That's why it's really never colloquial language that's used: to obfuscate any cynicism and to reset the tone to 0 so that it can be morphed into that of a softer connotation.

Exactly, and the examples in describing homosexuality are highly illustrative of how words can significantly impact connotation.

[Spendulus]

Sure you can ridicule factually the grammar, but that's missing the point.

The point is that certain people seek to gain power over others by creating positions where they can dictate proper speech.

It's all about the power.

Well, that's the more serious way of looking at it.

Pushing a narrative, innit? By controlling one's language, their way of communicating, you in turn control the way that they're able to think. If they cannot express an anti-X idea then nothing will come to fruition when one tries to oppose it. Something similar to Newspeak from our classic dystopian book

There is no other way to look at it. Note WHO is trying to dictate what you say, then you will know WHY.

[ATMD]

Sure you can ridicule factually the grammar, but that's missing the point.

The point is that certain people seek to gain power over others by creating positions where they can dictate proper speech.

It's all about the power.

Well, that's the more serious way of looking at it.

Pushing a narrative, innit? By controlling one's language, their way of communicating, you in turn control the way that they're able to think. If they cannot express an anti-X idea then nothing will come to fruition when one tries to oppose it. Something similar to Newspeak from our classic dystopian book

There is no other way to look at it. Note WHO is trying to dictate what you say, then you will know WHY.

Very true, once we see who is pushing the narrative, it becomes quite obvious.

[TECSHARE]

Sure you can ridicule factually the grammar, but that's missing the point.

The point is that certain people seek to gain power over others by creating positions where they can dictate proper speech.

It's all about the power.

Well, that's the more serious way of looking at it.

Pushing a narrative, innit? By controlling one's language, their way of communicating, you in turn control the way that they're able to think. If they cannot express an anti-X idea then nothing will come to fruition when one tries to oppose it. Something similar to Newspeak from our classic dystopian book

Funny you mention Newspeak, as this is exactly what is going on. George Orwell wrote an essay on this topic exactly called "Politics and The English Language" where he details the purposeful degradation of speech and thought in order to exert political control. It is not long at all, free all over the web, and a very enlightening read.

[actmyname]

Funny you mention Newspeak, as this is exactly what is going on. George Orwell wrote an essay on this topic exactly called "Politics and The English Language" where he details the purposeful degradation of speech and thought in order to exert political control. It is not long at all, free all over the web, and a very enlightening read.

I have actually read that essay before. It is indeed insightful.When it boils down to it, language is just a set of axioms and rules derived thereof. Control the rules and you control the dialogue.

[mOgliE]

By removing negativity you remove targets.

I wouldn't be literate enough in English to make solid list of new terms that have replaced the old ones, but I have no doubt that the language is undergoing the same transformation as French and Spanish are right now.

Funny thing is that right wing people love to call it a "leftist strategy". I think anyone really political is targeted by this, left and right equally.
People currently in power are removing negative words to avoid conflicts and discussion. If there is nothing negative to adress then there is nothing to change.

In French for example you no longer say "a redundancy plan" you say "a job rescue plan". How can you be against that? Same way you no longer say "migrants" you say "refugees" while 20 years ago being a refugee was short for political refugee which was a very different title very difficult to have and... Quite honorable in fact. Same way, how can you be against taking refugees?

They took the negative words so we can no longer disagree. I wouldn't say it's about power, it's even more cunning and vicious. It's about no longer being able to think because you can no longer name the problems. That's causing much more damages that one could think...

I'm all for free speach and free language. Talk about the inferior sub-race leeches invading us, and I'll talk about the alienation of bourgeoisie domination. Getting rid of the words won't solve anything.

[TECSHARE]

By removing negativity you remove targets.

I wouldn't be literate enough in English to make solid list of new terms that have replaced the old ones, but I have no doubt that the language is undergoing the same transformation as French and Spanish are right now.

Funny thing is that right wing people love to call it a "leftist strategy". I think anyone really political is targeted by this, left and right equally.
People currently in power are removing negative words to avoid conflicts and discussion. If there is nothing negative to adress then there is nothing to change.

In French for example you no longer say "a redundancy plan" you say "a job rescue plan". How can you be against that? Same way you no longer say "migrants" you say "refugees" while 20 years ago being a refugee was short for political refugee which was a very different title very difficult to have and... Quite honorable in fact. Same way, how can you be against taking refugees?

They took the negative words so we can no longer disagree. I wouldn't say it's about power, it's even more cunning and vicious. It's about no longer being able to think because you can no longer name the problems. That's causing much more damages that one could think...

I'm all for free speach and free language. Talk about the inferior sub-race leeches invading us, and I'll talk about the alienation of bourgeoisie domination. Getting rid of the words won't solve anything.

While technically a technique that the left or the right could abuse, the idea that because this is technically possible is a false equivalency that is blind to the reality of actual deployment in reality, which is in fact overwhelmingly a tactic of the left. Those on the right are largely individualists, the left largely collectivists. Collectivists inherently have more to gain from manipulating words and ideas than individualists by the very nature of collectivism.

[actmyname]

Up! Let's get some more discussion going. Hopefully.

[mOgliE]

Up! Let's get some more discussion going. Hopefully.

Can't, otherwise I'm going to insult TECSHARE xD

Anyway it seems we all agree on this so i'm not sure there is much more to discuss.

Especially as you're on a complete free speach forum. There is no chance you get someone coming here saying "yeah we should censore some expressions that are hurting the feelings of some people. Stop offending minorities".

[actmyname]

Anyway it seems we all agree on this so i'm not sure there is much more to discuss.

Perhaps we should redirect the topic to specifics of free speech. Surely, despite enabling the majority of speech there should be some limitations, right?

As an example, an exception to one's right to free speech could be a call to action that is probable to cause danger to an individual. (i.e. fire in a crowded theatre example)

Is this limitation acceptable? Why or why not?

[mOgliE]

As an example, an exception to one's right to free speech could be a call to action that is probable to cause danger to an individual. (i.e. fire in a crowded theatre example)

Well I can only strongly disagree.

You could currently say I'm calling action to cause danger as I'm a French Yellow Vest strongly claiming we should have the most violent protests possible.

Danger is part of existence and you need to be able to fight for what you think is right. Even if that means putting yourself or others in danger.

[Carlton Banks]

As an example, an exception to one's right to free speech could be a call to action that is probable to cause danger to an individual. (i.e. fire in a crowded theatre example)

Is this limitation acceptable? Why or why not?

This was always a terrible example The phrase "shouting 'fire' in a theater" was dreamt up by a judge in a 1919 US court case, it has never been a real concern in itself. The charge was that of distributing leaflets convincing people to refuse the draft during WW1. The "fire in a theater" comment was a comparison used by the judge to demonstrate that the leaflets were dangerous free speech, that refusing to fight in WW1 was placing the whole US in danger. No such danger existed, but distorting the truth was needed to convince the largely non-interventionist US people that they needed to fight in Europe to defend the US (which began the continuing"Team America: World Police" propaganda).

So people reacting to war propaganda had this "fire in a theater" nonsense used against them in a situation where they were trying to undermine someone powerful abusing free speech. They were found guilty. And the US was transformed into a covert dominant empire.

[BADecker]

As an example, an exception to one's right to free speech could be a call to action that is probable to cause danger to an individual. (i.e. fire in a crowded theatre example)

Is this limitation acceptable? Why or why not?

This was always a terrible example The phrase "shouting 'fire' in a theater" was dreamt up by a judge in a 1919 US court case, it has never been a real concern in itself. The charge was that of distributing leaflets convincing people to refuse the draft during WW1. The "fire in a theater" comment was a comparison used by the judge to demonstrate that the leaflets were dangerous free speech, that refusing to fight in WW1 was placing the whole US in danger. No such danger existed, but distorting the truth was needed to convince the largely non-interventionist US people that they needed to fight in Europe to defend the US (which began the continuing"Team America: World Police" propaganda).

So people reacting to war propaganda had this "fire in a theater" nonsense used against them in a situation where they were trying to undermine someone powerful abusing free speech. They were found guilty. And the US was transformed into a covert dominant empire.

People have forgotten how to stand as a man in court. And, I don't mean macho.

If you are accused, and are made a defendant in court, turn the tables on the accuser by stating something to the affect of:
1. I, a man/woman, claim that nobody will come before this court and show injury that I have done to him/her.
2. If anybody has a claim of injury or debt against me, show the injury, or where I signed on the line to become indebted, and I will repay the debt or make good on the injury.
3. If there is no claim of injury or debt, I require payment to be made to me in the amount of $$$$$$ (itemized list in a schedule) for wasting my time, unauthorized regulation of my property (my body); and to cover my court costs (whatever else).
If you have time, and if it is appropriate, take it to Federal District court. This makes it outside of the authority of the judge... except that the judge acts as a referee. It's between you the claimant, whoever (if anybody) who becomes the claimee (if no claimee shows up to present the injury you did to him, the case has to be dismissed or discharged), and the jury.

Doing something like this makes you the plaintiff. Why? Because you have turned their complaint against you into a claim against them. A claim by a man/woman is stronger than a complaint.

Google and Youtube search on "Karl Lentz."

[TECSHARE]

Danger is part of existence and you need to be able to fight for what you think is right. Even if that means putting yourself or others in danger.

By your own logic then I would be justified in attacking you. You are willing to put me in danger, therefor you are a direct threat to me and force is justified. You don't spend too much time thinking out your reasoning do you?

[mOgliE]

By your own logic then I would be justified in attacking you. You are willing to put me in danger, therefor you are a direct threat to me and force is justified.

Yes.