|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2001 : 15:51:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Now, when it comes to insults I have a pretty thick skin. Call me a bitch, a hoe, a skank, I won't care. Water off the back. He picked the one word that would piss me off and he called me a cunt. (Reasoning: I am being called a hole that is good for naught but fucking. Almost as bad as calling me stupid or a liar.)
You put such negative spin on such a positive concept. When I think of “cunt” I think of such phrases as “the most beautiful sight on Earth,” “that which is most desirable,” “that which gives meaning to life,” or even “summum bonnum,” but then perhaps I'm obsessed. 
Of course, of course, they're very lovely, I'm sure! But the rest of me is worthy of attention too! (No, this is not a cry for said attention.)
Maybe it should be 'that which gives life' considering that all human life proceedes from hence?
Still, when used to refer to the organ, it can be playful, used to refer to a person is not so damn playful.
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
 |
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2001 : 17:21:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(Valiant Dancer) ... My point is that squelching the speech won't fix the problem. Fighting speech with differing speech will. Forbidding the usage of words will not change the attitudes behind them. ...
Quite true, VD, and I think that most if not all of us can agree.
Howsomever, that wasn't the intent of the poll question, I think.
And I believe that tergiversant is right on the target: the first thing we can do to change the underlying attitudes is to change the language. Not the only thing, of course, but I think it's the best first step.
"If in the last few years you haven't discarded a major opinion or acquired a new one, check your pulse. You may be dead." |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2001 : 18:55:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sounds to me like some folk think language does not shape our thinking and others think it does. For the record, I side with the latter group. Language does indeed shape our thinking. This is evident in everyday life as well as scientific reasoning -- the concepts we are taught (via language) shape the paradigms in which we interpret data. Many linguists, psychologists, and philosophers of language have dedicated tomes to this very issue.
one of the very best essays on the use of the language to limit the range of thought is the appendix to george orwell's "1984", which describes the language "newspeak".
while the political correctness movement was motivated by the highest of ideals, the reality more resembled intellectual censorship.
this is an especially apropos topic, what with the justice deparment issuing a subpoena for the bookstore purchases of a US senator and "all his agents". the justice dept (fbi) subpoenaed the home phone records of the journalist reporting on the afore mentioned case. or the justice deparment having a texas journalist jailed for refusing to turn all of her research (originals and all copies) for a book over to the fbi. the attorney general of the united states refuses to discuss these cases.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2001 : 00:35:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The other question is that by limiting the speech, do we limit the idea of racism/sexism/religionism? I don't think the attitudes change. I prefer to hear the words, at least I know how the people who use those words perceive others.
I was not familiar with the term 'kike' until a couple of years ago. Similarly I was not familiar with modern anti-Semitic sentiments. (WWII did not make much sense to me for this reason). Perhaps getting rid of the words will help break the cycle, eventually. Hey, I can dream can't I?
Sounds to me like some folk think language does not shape our thinking and others think it does. For the record, I side with the latter group. Language does indeed shape our thinking. This is evident in everyday life as well as scientific reasoning -- the concepts we are taught (via language) shape the paradigms in which we interpret data. Many linguists, psychologists, and philosophers of language have dedicated tomes to this very issue. Some prominent modern examples include the concept of physical laws and evolution which have greatly altered our thinking away from the framework of divine will or providence.
Sorry, I've seen people who hid their racism by not "saying" the words in public. They still acted as a racist. My point is that squelching the speech won't fix the problem.
That's right. One doesn't need speech to have thoughts.
nlm
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2001 : 07:03:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Sorry, I've seen people who hid their racism by not "saying" the words in public. They still acted as a racist. My point is that squelching the speech won't fix the problem.
That's right. One doesn't need speech to have thoughts.
I agree on both counts. Creating speech taboos will not fix the problem, and racists need not use the language of hate to be hateful. However, it seems that the speech taboos do help to fix the problems of racism (sexism etc.) by shaping thinking, and that they makes considerably more socially difficult for hatemongers to evangelize, which is a Good Thing.
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/07/2001 07:45:15 |
|
|
|
The Bad Astronomer
Skeptic Friend
137 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2001 : 20:38:30 [Permalink]
|
Funny this would come up. I am trying to rid myself of using "derogatory" words. Why? Because for the most part, words we use are silly. Why should I say "shit" when something bad happens? How does that make any more sense than saying "nuts"? Why should I ask "what the hell is this?" when I don't believe in hell? How is blaspheming in someone else's religion in any way useful to me?
So I now use "golly" or "gee whiz" or even "gee whilickers". Yes, really.
Also, I have stopped blessing people after they sneeze. I figure, if I'm gonna be a skeptic, I'm gonna be a skeptic.
*****
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
"With tremendous respect to [the] BA, the problem isn't getting scientists to talk, the problem can be getting them to shut up." |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2001 : 21:01:27 [Permalink]
|
"Funny this would come up. I am trying to rid myself of using "derogatory" words. Why? Because for the most part, words we use are silly."
I agree with Bad Astro, and I tend not to use these words because aside from being silly, they essentially say nothing. If someone calls me an "asshole," what's that mean? Who knows? If I'm critical of someone, I try to express the criticism... using contemptuous slang or profanity seems to say I'm outpouring emotion, and I'm not sure of exactly what offends me, or whether what's upsetting me has anything to do with the target, for that matter.
Ron White |
|
|
|
Ray K
New Member
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2001 : 21:29:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Suppose for the nonce that English language taboos fall into four broad categories: slurs, sex, potty, and blasphemy. Which of these taboos do you take most seriously?
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/06/2001 10:44:36
The willingness to be offended by slurs only gives power to those willing to use slurs.
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind... Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always triumph" |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2001 : 23:49:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Funny this would come up. I am trying to rid myself of using "derogatory" words. Why? Because for the most part, words we use are silly. Why should I say "shit" when something bad happens? How does that make any more sense than saying "nuts"? Why should I ask "what the hell is this?" when I don't believe in hell? How is blaspheming in someone else's religion in any way useful to me?
So I now use "golly" or "gee whiz" or even "gee whilickers". Yes, really.
Also, I have stopped blessing people after they sneeze. I figure, if I'm gonna be a skeptic, I'm gonna be a skeptic.
The Bad Astronomer
With me all those 'shity' words are just spontanious.
When I called my X-sister a god damn fucking cheap jew bitch, I'm not sure I meant exactly that. I really would rather she die, but all those words came out instead.
As far as blessing some one who sneezes, in my family we always said, Gesundheit, which is not religious.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2001 : 23:57:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Also, I have stopped blessing people after they sneeze. I figure, if I'm gonna be a skeptic, I'm gonna be a skeptic.
The Bad Astronomer
Oh yea! And you could, as a skeptic, say, You might be getting a cold, or not. Would be interesting to see.
Or if you want to be polite, just say, hope you are not getting sick. Which is what 'Gesundheit' pretty much means.
nlm
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2001 : 06:24:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So I now use "golly" or "gee whiz" or even "gee whilickers". Yes, really.
How does saying "golly!" differ from saying "shit!"?
Why is calling someone a "shithead" worse than calling someone a "poophead"?
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
The Bad Astronomer
Skeptic Friend
137 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2001 : 09:40:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How does saying "golly!" differ from saying "shit!"?
"Golly" probably has origins in the word "God", but now is just a silly nonsense word. In that way, it is no worse than saying anything else. But if you're going to say a non-sequitor, it makes more sense that the non-sequitor make no sense. ;-)
*****
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
"With tremendous respect to [the] BA, the problem isn't getting scientists to talk, the problem can be getting them to shut up." |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 13:17:22 [Permalink]
|
For what its worth, took the last choice. An interesting thread, me tinks. IMO we choose to take offense at some slurs, which in turn, empowers them to distract us from rational thought. Other terms aren't a rational response at all, in my own case, anyway, but a mindless outburst to relieve pent up frustration aimed at no one or anything. Am uncomfortable with censorship in any form. To my mind, it comes down to a question of manners and nothing more. Still, must admit..,
"The quality of our thoughts is bordered on all sides by our facility with language."
-J. Michael Straczynski-
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2001 : 09:41:31 [Permalink]
|
I think I'm getting too old. Twenty years ago, if someone called me a dog, or my wife, (girlfriend) a ho' or a bitch, I would have cut my knuckles on their jaw. I still wouldn't use those words on a fellow human being. (Whatever happenned to George Carlin's list of the words you can't say on TV?) Now, these words are standard fare on daytime talk shows.
Like morals, taboos change with time, and half the time I don't even remember what is politically correct at the moment. However, I do know the language, and I do know tones, facial expressions, and body expression, and these tell me much more about a person's character than the words they use.
I don't want to say that the words we use aren't important. They are, but only in the context that they are being used. And, no matter what we do, some words will always be more offensive to some than others, and, maybe, that's why we choose to use them.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2001 : 10:04:21 [Permalink]
|
I think I completely missed this thread somehow. Yikes! Anyway...
Political Correctness is a subject upon which I have a rather bizarre (?) opinion but in some sense a rather pertinent one. Controlling the words that one is allowed to use as regards certain concepts is in and of itself a form of control of the masses. The better argument made for this is in George Orwells 1984. He titled it New Speak instead of Political Correctness.
By altering or disallowing the use of certain words it is an attempt by some to enact a form of control and impinge upon our right to free speach. I do not use certain terms by choice, however, I would rather the honest opinion of one, no matter how revolting, than the same opinion couched in innuendo. Honest revolting opinions are more easily combated than the hidden innuendo, as with innuendo one may miss the untold meaning.
Who really cares what the color of someone's skin is? Is there a difference once that is stripped away?
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
