Words We'd Wish Away

[Kennedy 0]

I was just thinking how much better SC would be if we could just make certain words untypable. You know, an annoying error message that you couldn't post until you deleted the listed words. Personally I'd list Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, nazi, hitler, and progressive. What would you get rid of?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

Goodthink!

Blackwhite and duckspeak persons become unpersons.

Proposal is doubleplusgood.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mistercwood 287]

I don't know if I'd ditch the party terminology outright. I definitely would like to see the bastardised putdown versions of them gone, ie Libtard/Conservatard, Rescumlican, Obummer... They're all childish.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[dmcoco84 4]

Kennedy

I was just thinking how much better SC would be if we could just make certain words untypable. You know, an annoying error message that you couldn't post until you deleted the listed words. Personally I'd list Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, nazi, hitler, and progressive. What would you get rid of?

Seriously...?

[Kennedy 0]

Actually this is the opposite of newspeak. That was meant to rob people of the words needed to form ideas. This is meant to make people think and learn to articulate their ideas. I am sick of people using those words to automatically define something as good or bad. Folks throw them out there are stop as if just saying it makes a valid point. They don't bother to support their position or refute those they disagree with.

Imagine how much better any recent thread in SC would be if those words weren't in it. Imagine if posters had to explain their ideas. Imagine if liking things "other" was not all they needed to invalidate a post (at least in their own mind).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[normiss 622]

So you're in support of limiting people's free speech.
Interesting.

[Kennedy 0]

normiss

So you're in support of limiting people's free speech.
Interesting.

Impressive line of bullshit there. First, this is a privately run forum, and free speech is already limited. Second, I don't want to limit anyone's speech. I was pointing out how annoying people are who throw around titles as if that makes their argument. They're almost as bad as people who put words in other's mouths and practice reducto absurdum. I'm not limiting anyone's ability to share ideas. I'm hoping they can do better.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

We essentially already have what you purpose- Bonfire. Or maybe a sort of Speakers Corner Lite. Though I doubt that would guarantee civility of discussion. For example, instead of calling someone a goat raper, you could always just politely tell him his mom sends her regards, and compliment how adept she is without her dentures.

[aphid 0]

normiss

So you're in support of limiting people's free speech.
Interesting.

I interpreted his statement more to the effect that should people choose to speak freely, they should at least try to be more articulate. Anything short of that is perhaps just "noise by rote".

[Kennedy 0]

Andy9o8

We essentially already have what you purpose- Bonfire. Or maybe a sort of Speakers Corner Lite. Though I doubt that would guarantee civility of discussion. For example, instead of calling someone a goat raper, you could always just politely tell him his mom sends her regards, and compliment how adept she is without her dentures.

Meh. If anything what we have tends towards Soeakers Corner Shallow. I'd like to see them actually freaking THINK. Tell us why, not just what.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mr2mk1g 10]

Kennedy

Actually this is the opposite of newspeak. That was meant to rob people of the words needed to form ideas. This is meant to make people think and learn to articulate their ideas. I am sick of people using those words to automatically define something as good or bad. Folks throw them out there are stop as if just saying it makes a valid point. They don't bother to support their position or refute those they disagree with.

Imagine how much better any recent thread in SC would be if those words weren't in it. Imagine if posters had to explain their ideas. Imagine if liking things "other" was not all they needed to invalidate a post (at least in their own mind).

I was going to post essentially exactly this after Quade - whose post I like BTW - good humour. Turned out I couldn't actually be arsed though.

Conceptually at least, the suggestion is the opposite of Newspeak. Removing the automatic labels and stopping everything instantly becoming a partisan issue could lead to people actually stopping and thinking about the issue rather than simply sticking it in a box and saying "that's their idea - their ideas are crazy - I don't even need to think about it as it's one of their ideas".

That thought process doesn't add anything to the conversation. You end up in a Monty Python room for an argument sketch "Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes... No it isn't.".

If it had any hope of working would be a nice little experiment and might actually go some way to working out a few issues, at least in people's minds. It wouldn't though - people would just work round it and continue being a bunch of 'tards.

[normiss 622]

Phrase it as you please. it still comes across as you not liking what people say or how they say it.

Such is life.

[Andy9o8 0]

Kennedy

***We essentially already have what you purpose- Bonfire. Or maybe a sort of Speakers Corner Lite. Though I doubt that would guarantee civility of discussion. For example, instead of calling someone a goat raper, you could always just politely tell him his mom sends her regards, and compliment how adept she is without her dentures.

Meh. If anything what we have tends towards Soeakers Corner Shallow.

Sorry, I wasn't clear on what I meant since I was on my phone at the time.
What I meant was that we already have a Speakers' Corner, as well as a Bonfire; and that what you seem to be proposing is a sort of "Speakers' Corner Lite" - not Bonfire, since we'd discuss political-type issues, but a SC in which all conversation would have to be 100% civil, both in terms and in tone. Sort of like discussing current events with your grandma, while a nun and 9-year old kid are in the room listening.

Personally, I think I'll pass - my head would explode.

[CygnusX-1 42]

What you are opposing is a slippery slope. The next person will want to ban such words as "guns", "abortion", "Jews", "Christians", etc. Instead of banning words in a forum, I suggest we ban certain letters. That would make people really have to think if you couldn't use say the letter "g" in your posts.

I suggest we create a new forum and ban these letters:

" a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z "

Smilies will always be welcome...

[wmw999 2,146]

Quote

I interpreted his statement more to the effect that should people choose to speak freely, they should at least try to be more articulate. Anything short of that is perhaps just "noise by rote".

That's how I thought of it when I read it first, too.

One advantage of that language, though, is that it lets me know which posts not to pay attention to.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 3]

Kennedy

Actually this is the opposite of newspeak.

Disagree. Vehemently.

The purpose of Newspeak wasn't to eliminate thought. The purpose of Newspeak was to control it. Specifically, control thought so people wouldn't disagree with those in power; couldn't disagree because there would be no words with which to do so.

If you eliminate words which describe an idea, you effectively remove the idea. What's left over is "officially approved" thought and speech.

Newspeak is the reductio ad absurdum of your proposal. That's not simply my opinion, it was the intent of Orwell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#To_control_thought

Let me take the discussion in another direction though; words don't offend people, people do.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 622]

While I personally believe your last comment, there are people that are simply offended by words.

[popsjumper 2]

normiss

Phrase it as you please. it still comes across as you not liking what people say or how they say it.

Such is life.

And this, ^, applies to him differently than to each and every one of us, how?


Kennedy....
Please don't include my favorites.....goobermint and gun-o-phobe

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[quade 3]

normiss

While I personally believe your last comment, there are people that are simply offended by words.

Yes, but to explain that properly I don't get to phrase it in NRA terms.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 622]

Just that he started the discussion, so I replied to him.

I never implied nor inferred that this was unique to him only.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

If you eliminate words which describe an idea, you effectively remove the idea. What's left over is "officially approved" thought and speech.

?????
BS. Plain and simple. Eliminating words forces you to express your thoughts in other terms..hopefully in more precise terminology.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[normiss 622]

Or in more government or corporate speak.
Just a pile of big ole words with no meaning.
Fluff.

[quade 3]

popsjumper

Quote

If you eliminate words which describe an idea, you effectively remove the idea. What's left over is "officially approved" thought and speech.

?????
BS. Plain and simple. Eliminating words forces you to express your thoughts in other terms..hopefully in more precise terminology.

Negative. That is precisely why specific words exist; to serve as a symbol for a specific idea.

For instance, give me THE English word equivalent of the German word "schadenfreude." You can't. It doesn't exist.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 622]

Reminds me of getting kicked out of German class in High School.

Bear in mind I was raised in a US Air Force family.
There is NO German translation of US Air Force.
Luftwaffe is totally unacceptable.

German teacher disagreed.
I decided that 4 years of German language was sufficient.

[Kennedy 0]

normiss

Reminds me of getting kicked out of German class in High School.

Bear in mind I was raised in a US Air Force family.
There is NO German translation of US Air Force.
Luftwaffe is totally unacceptable.

German teacher disagreed.
I decided that 4 years of German language was sufficient.

What is the name of the modern German Air Force? The current aviation defense force of the Bundeswehr, in existence since 1956 or so. Hint: you're wrong.

Quote

There is no organizational continuity between the current Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr and the former Luftwaffe of the Wehrmacht founded in 1935, which was completely disbanded in 1945/46 after World War II. The term Luftwaffe that is used for both the historic and the current German air force is the German-language generic designation of any air force, thus not establishing a link between the two forces.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*