Topic: Soft Language: Tautological Replacements (Read 390 times)

George Carlin is one of my favorite comedians; wish we had another one of him.


I'm not a fan of "political correctness": people simply find new ways to put the same old meaning on new words and phrases. Forcing others into acting politically correct has replaced genuine respect, or disrespect with people who are constantly offended by everything: these circumstances  don’t leave much room for open discussion, debate or healthy discourse.

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

       Also: in today’s climate of “political correctness” frequently... negative connotations are added to words where they didn’t exist to begin with.


actmyname,
I want speech to have very few restrictions by my government.
I would like citizens to start putting more restrictions on our government.

You know it's going to be a great thread when BADecker replies to it. I'm excited.

---

Let's redirect the argument back to full points rather than ad-hominem, yes?

Do you want free speech to have no restrictions^*, full stop?

To be sure, TECHSHARE has had his troubles in life. Thank you for forgiving him. Now if you could only become as logical as he is...

It's quite fun to see how empty is your speech. I've never seen you bring anything on the discussion. You're just here to troll without bringing anything constructive. Even on a discussion where we agree you're still the sad little rat coming to point finger towards "leftists" saying how horrible they are.

You're a sad, angry little man that's for sure.

But I forgive you. You're not even responsible for it. You probably strongly lack any education and I bet you never had more than 5 books at home.

You most certainly had a hard life working a lot hence giving you little time to think.

I don't condemn you for being what you are now. You're a product of your environment. 

Well that should be fun having nothing to stand by.

You say


I answer that I stand by my own logic. That's all.

Yahuh. You are quick to enter into death battles with people you don't know on the internet aren't you? If you can take a break from LAARPing for a second, you can see I said "by your own logic" not "we can never agree and we are justified in killing each other." I only support violence in defense from violence, and to a lesser extent to protect ones rights and property.

You however were very eager to toss debate out the window in favor of violence. Little boy, you don't even have a clue what you are trying to get into. You have no frame of reference for which to understand the hell your play revolution is going to cost, because one day it is going to get VERY real.

You're even dumber than what you seem.

I'm saying that there is no error in my logic and that you are justified to attack me.

We're in completely opposed ideologies. There is NO WAY to live together. We have never managed to reach even one consensus on anything. Not even once.

You are everything I hate and despise and I guess it's the same for you. Hence force is fully justified unless we can live far enough from each other.

Well, I am glad you can see the error in your logic -_-

There is something called "Euphemism" in literature. It's a better way of expressing a bitter truth. Even though it still doesn't obstruct the intrinsic meaning, it does help the impact to be mild. Soft language is valuable. Otherwise Americans would be free to call Mr. Trump an idiot right to his face. But they do have a soft way of saying it.

Yes.

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?

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."

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.

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.

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?

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".

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

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.

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.