ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags atheism , Atheism Plus

Closed Thread
Old 19th February 2013, 03:22 AM   #4161
jof
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

So A+ has developed an intellectual fragility that has resulted in impotence. Could this have been avoided, or is it the result of too many good intentions?
jof is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 03:35 AM   #4162
Quinn
Breathtakingly blasphemous.
 
Quinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
In a related thread, "Oppressive Vocabulary", they've gone from objecting to the use of Homosexual as a noun (arguments for which I can profess certain agreements with, but which has the hope of a snowball in hell of succeeding), to working on getting rid of "male" and "female".

I will take your word for that, as I've filled my daily quote of people who are unknowingly imitating Mr. Van Driessen from Beavis and Butthead.

Quote:
I'm just dying to see their version of the OED by the time they're done. It might actually be able to be abridged to a pocket book size.

Not a chance. For every word they eliminate, they invent two or three more, and the new ones are usually longer. "Stupid" is out, but "ablenormativity" is in.
__________________
It's not a matter of living life without mystery or wonder. It's a matter of living life without the approval of people who ignorantly assume that by rejecting the irrational, I experience no mystery or wonder. And frankly, I do just fine without that.

Last edited by Quinn; 19th February 2013 at 03:36 AM.
Quinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 05:36 AM   #4163
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,128
Originally Posted by jof View Post
So A+ has developed an intellectual fragility that has resulted in impotence. Could this have been avoided, or is it the result of too many good intentions?
To me it looks like the result of too many people revelling in their own percieved intelligence and political correctness, while being unable to see due to their unfortunate habit of wearing their anus as a hat.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 06:49 AM   #4164
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,274
Re: Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The sad thing is, this is actually true.
I fully appreciate the irony.





Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I'm just dying to see their version of the OED by the time they're done. It might actually be able to be abridged to a pocket book size.

I don't know what they'd call it, though, since 'Oxford', 'English', and 'Dictionary' are all socially unjust words.




Originally Posted by jof View Post
So A+ has developed an intellectual fragility that has resulted in impotence. Could this have been avoided, or is it the result of too many good intentions?
I'm going to go with 'not nearly enough good intentions'.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 06:56 AM   #4165
Nihilus
Thinker
 
Nihilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
I think their engine room is on fire.
This is an incredibly insensitive comment to any water nymphs that may be working there.
Nihilus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 07:01 AM   #4166
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,059
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
In a related thread, "Oppressive Vocabulary", they've gone from objecting to the use of Homosexual as a noun (arguments for which I can profess certain agreements with, but which has the hope of a snowball in hell of succeeding), to working on getting rid of "male" and "female".
(minor derail, asked as a question, not a challenge)

I'd read that thread and it raised my curiosity, though obviously there's no way in hell a productive discussion could be had over there about it. Since you say you have 'certain agreements' with objections to the noun form of "homosexual", can I ask what those objections to it are? I've known a large number of gay and lesbian people (at one point I worked at a company where I was in the very small heterosexual minority :-) ) and their personal preferences for a term ran the gamut from 'gay' to 'queer' to 'fag', and others all over the map. While it might not have been the term of first choice I don't recall any specifically objecting to "homosexual", absent any other clearly offensive context (e.g. talking about 'the homosexual agenda').

What is it about "homosexual" as a noun that causes offense?

Last edited by Joe Random; 19th February 2013 at 07:03 AM.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 07:05 AM   #4167
Nihilus
Thinker
 
Nihilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by jof View Post
So A+ has developed an intellectual fragility that has resulted in impotence. Could this have been avoided, or is it the result of too many good intentions?
The idea that any social incongruence must be remedied by forced verbal/emotional affirmative-action from the party who happens to be in a better "beneficial" position at the moment is logically dead on arrival.

It's a huge intellectual and ethical disservice to promote the idea that only with an even playing field for everyone under every remote circumstance can a proper sense of self-worth be built. It's taken the silly, fantastical "you can be anything!" method of supposed morale-bolstering thrust upon kids and made a grown-up version of it.
Nihilus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 07:07 AM   #4168
Nihilus
Thinker
 
Nihilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
What is it about "homosexual" as a noun that causes offense?
The potential for one person, somewhere (hypothetical or not), to find it distasteful.
Nihilus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 07:09 AM   #4169
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,347
It's using it as a noun rather than an adjective which is seen as problematic, ie describing someone as a homosexual, rather than a homosexual person. I think this is because using it as a noun seems to define the person as that thing and that thing only, rather than it being an attribute the person has.
Professor Yaffle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 07:10 AM   #4170
Nihilus
Thinker
 
Nihilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle View Post
It's using it as a noun rather than an adjective which is seen as problematic, ie describing someone as a homosexual, rather than a homosexual person. I think this is because using it as a noun seems to define the person as that thing and that thing only, rather than it being an attribute the person has.
Like "human", instead of "human primate".
Nihilus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 07:18 AM   #4171
jof
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Originally Posted by Nihilus View Post
The idea that any social incongruence must be remedied by forced verbal/emotional affirmative-action from the party who happens to be in a better "beneficial" position at the moment is logically dead on arrival.

It's a huge intellectual and ethical disservice to promote the idea that only with an even playing field for everyone under every remote circumstance can a proper sense of self-worth be built. It's taken the silly, fantastical "you can be anything!" method of supposed morale-bolstering thrust upon kids and made a grown-up version of it.
So while attacking the dream (" in this wonderful democracy you can be anything") ,arguing for social justice, they are creating a feverish verson of the same internally.?
The "stupid is abelist" idea could take everything to its logical conclution.
jof is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 07:32 AM   #4172
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,059
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle View Post
It's using it as a noun rather than an adjective which is seen as problematic, ie describing someone as a homosexual, rather than a homosexual person. I think this is because using it as a noun seems to define the person as that thing and that thing only, rather than it being an attribute the person has.
I can understand that, though it hardly seems specific to homosexual. That could apply to any sort of noun (Bob the footballer, Gina the clerk, Eddie the twice-convicted sex offender). Heck, it could even apply to any of the Pluser's neologisms.

Isn't the (most logical) objection the reduction of a whole person into a single attribute, and not the specific word used to do so? I get it that this isn't necessarily your argument and you're just explaining it, but I'm still at a loss.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 07:33 AM   #4173
Nihilus
Thinker
 
Nihilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by jof View Post
The "stupid is abelist" idea could take everything to its logical conclution.
The false parallel comes with the idea that a factual description of something, if it can be equated with something potentially embarrassing at any moment for that individual, should be amended.

Calling someone an amputee is ableist, then. Calling someone a cancer survivor is ableist as well.

Either that or it is a clever way by which the A+er can one-up themselves in conversation by reverse-trolling in the manner of reverse-ableisting. What I mean here is that, using homosexual as the example, the implication is that the non-A+er already has a (knowingly or not!) demeaning outlook on homosexuals because of being accused of using said term as a noun (creating circular logic); when, in reality, what is happening is that it is the A+er who has interjected the idea of insult where none was in the first place.

Unless you're talking to an obvious homophobe, people in mature discussions don't say "homosexual" as a noun thinking to themselves: "Ha! Although this word is perfect contextually to describe someone in the terms of the discussion we're having, I also subtly get to insult them by turning them into a one-dimensional caricature!" But the A+er sneaks that possibility in as "true" based solely on the fact that: (a) they were able to think of it, and (b) they can conjure up at least a hypothetical person who could find the use of whatever term uncomfortable.

It's like getting roofied a sidecar of argumentum ad hominem when you're not looking.

Last edited by Nihilus; 19th February 2013 at 07:41 AM.
Nihilus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 07:53 AM   #4174
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
 
H'ethetheth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,499
Originally Posted by Nihilus View Post
The false parallel comes with the idea that a factual description of something, if it can be equated with something potentially embarrassing at any moment for that individual, should be amended.

Calling someone an amputee is ableist, then. Calling someone a cancer survivor is ableist as well.

Either that or it is a clever way by which the A+er can one-up themselves in conversation by reverse-trolling in the manner of reverse-ableisting. What I mean here is that, using homosexual as the example, the implication is that the non-A+er already has a (knowingly or not!) demeaning outlook on homosexuals because of being accused of using said term as a noun (creating circular logic); when, in reality, what is happening is that it is the A+er who has interjected the idea of insult where none was in the first place.

Unless you're talking to an obvious homophobe, people in mature discussions don't say "homosexual" as a noun thinking to themselves: "Ha! Although this term is perfect contextually to describe someone in the terms of the discussion we're having, I also subtly get to insult them by turning them into a one-dimensional caricature!" But the A+er sneaks that possibility in as "true" based solely on the fact that: (a) they were able to think of it, and (b) they can conjure up at least a hypothetical person who could find the use of whatever term uncomfortable.

It's like getting roofied a sidecar of argumentum ad hominem when you're not looking.
And what's more, every time you ban some perfectly cromulent word like homosexual or foreigner and supplant it with a non-offensive new word like same-sex or immigrant, the very same bigots that used the previous term as an insult will adopt the new word and use it as an insult or continue to use the old word.
H'ethetheth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 07:54 AM   #4175
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 25,890
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle View Post
It's using it as a noun rather than an adjective which is seen as problematic, ie describing someone as a homosexual, rather than a homosexual person. I think this is because using it as a noun seems to define the person as that thing and that thing only, rather than it being an attribute the person has.
I'd originally heard the complaint from a gay activist friend in Hong Kong. (Sanity check: He used the term "gay activist" and I've got to say I still use gay more often than not.... is that in the lexicon at A+, or is my privilege showing?) The same complaint is reiterated in the OP of that thread - that it's an outmoded/outdated term. He/She (the OP) was originally speaking of the word "homosexuality", but the thread morphed into condemnation of both words. I don't go as far as to agree with them on some of the politicization nonsense.... e.g. I don't find "most scientiests" to be conservative and don't find the term to be a dog whistle, either.

Most of the community that I've dealt with (as in "gay community", not A+ community) use "gay", have repatriated "queer", and among friends will often use terms like "queens" and "homos", but I sincerely doubt that they'd take it well if, say, George Will used either of those.

As I said, though, I can see some of the arguments but I really don't come down strongly on their side. I suppose I use either term (homosexual or homosexuality) out of old habit, but having heard from a friend that it's not perceived well, I've tried to avoid them. I wouldn't go so far, though, as to ban their use which, naturally enough, is what's being proposed by the OP over there.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 08:08 AM   #4176
Nihilus
Thinker
 
Nihilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by H'ethetheth View Post
And what's more, every time you ban some perfectly cromulent word like homosexual or foreigner and supplant it with a non-offensive new word like same-sex or immigrant, the very same bigots that used the previous term as an insult will adopt the new word and use it as an insult or continue to use the old word.
Which shows that our "social justice" soldiers really couldn't care less about helping to promote rationality to where instances of bigotry and stupidity slowly get wiped away on a grand social scale, but would rather wax the uncleaned car by playing linguistic games to assuage the very same pseudo-victimization that they are simultaneously fostering by telling people that they should feel that way.
Nihilus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 08:54 AM   #4177
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,243
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I'm just dying to see their version of the OED by the time they're done. It might actually be able to be abridged to a pocket book size.
I think you mean Newspeak Wordbook.
__________________
Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+
More Atheism+ stuff

Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 08:56 AM   #4178
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,255
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
This is exactly it, IMO.

It's not so much that one is demonized for not being 301-level at the A+ forums - it's that having new ideas about where the 301 level discussion should go is off limits.

It's all very sad to me. The political right in today's political environment is reduced to rehashing Reagan-era slogans, and the left is just in a total state of disarray. The skeptical "we" on the left could hash out so much. But that's not what A+ is or does. And I really do think that's unfortunate.
I don't think that politics should be off limits from skepticism; far from it. I think that we could benefit from a healthy, back-and-forth dialog between left-wing and right-wing skeptics.

The sad truth is that skeptics suffer from that same angry "I'm-right-you're-wrong" partisanship that has infected all of US politics, so that any political debate is likely to exacerbate rifts in the movement.

This, of course, is exactly what A+ wants. Setar quotes PZ Myers, and then responds here:

Originally Posted by Setar
PZ hits the nail on the head in his first post here:
Originally Posted by PZ Myers
Unfortunately, opening up the skeptic community to actually discussing these topics would lead to Deep Rifts that make the one over religion look insignificant. We’re riddled with wacky libertarians and their worship of the capitalist status quo (or worse, demanding a greater reduction in government and compassion). A libertarian speaker who openly espoused the opinions of a loon like Ron Paul — and there are people in this community who regard him as a saint — would pretty much guarantee a kind of noisy riot in the audience, and lead to a big chunk of organized skepticism decamping in fury.

Which would probably be a good thing.

It would be a good thing, but of course, while it's okay to just ignore all the harassment thrown at the leftists, we can't even consider turning a reality-based spotlight on the libertarians. That's a purge. It's always the right-wingers who have to get a pass on their horrible beliefs. Always.

Seriously, **** that noise. Someone needs to go after Shermer and the libertarians publicly. Otherwise, skepticism is nothing but a bunch of ivory-tower-dwelling privilege defenders =/
Axiom_Blade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 10:58 AM   #4179
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,320
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle View Post
It's using it as a noun rather than an adjective which is seen as problematic, ie describing someone as a homosexual, rather than a homosexual person. I think this is because using it as a noun seems to define the person as that thing and that thing only, rather than it being an attribute the person has.
There was a similar issue among the medical profession where I used to work.
For example, say in a research slide , at a conference or internal meeting, instead of "acromegalics" it would say "patients with acromegaly", or in another field, you might replace "schizophrenics" with "patients with schizophrenia" etc , Still patients, but not completely identified with their condition.
A reminder that doctors are treating people , not just a bundle of symptoms or syndromes etc .

Last edited by Rrose Selavy; 19th February 2013 at 10:59 AM.
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 11:23 AM   #4180
Quinn
Breathtakingly blasphemous.
 
Quinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Nihilus View Post
Which shows that our "social justice" soldiers really couldn't care less about helping to promote rationality to where instances of bigotry and stupidity slowly get wiped away on a grand social scale, but would rather wax the uncleaned car by playing linguistic games to assuage the very same pseudo-victimization that they are simultaneously fostering by telling people that they should feel that way.

Furthermore, it shows that they are in utter, ear-plugging denial of the inescapable reality that human beings like short words, and that this preference is simply a matter of linguistic efficiency rather than aggression and oppression. In casual conversation, we take shortcuts rather than laboriously spelling out every detail when those details aren't relevant to the context, or when we can assume that they'll be understood.

But in the A+ universe, every detail that has ever been used to oppress someone is relevant to every context, and is worthy of being tediously clarified with every utterance; every abbreviation is an act of invalidating or belittling someone's experience and identity; and a charitable interpretation of words that leave even a little room for doubt can never simply be assumed. They're effectively trying to retrofit every identifier and every descriptor with a Seinfeldian "not that there's anything wrong with that."

They seem genuinely oblivious to the fact that most people, most of the time are simply not willing to go to the additional effort of saying "African-American cismale person" when "black guy" will do the job just as well -- especially when the only benefit from that extra effort is avoidance of the microscopic possibility of offending someone, somewhere who might be overhearing the conversation.
__________________
It's not a matter of living life without mystery or wonder. It's a matter of living life without the approval of people who ignorantly assume that by rejecting the irrational, I experience no mystery or wonder. And frankly, I do just fine without that.

Last edited by Quinn; 19th February 2013 at 11:31 AM.
Quinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 11:25 AM   #4181
Nihilus
Thinker
 
Nihilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post
A reminder that doctors are treating people , not just a bundle of symptoms or syndromes etc .
I think doctors need neither that reminder or the clutter of verbal window-dressing when they are trying to prolong or save lives.
Nihilus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 11:29 AM   #4182
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 4,633
Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post
There was a similar issue among the medical profession where I used to work.
For example, say in a research slide , at a conference or internal meeting, instead of "acromegalics" it would say "patients with acromegaly", or in another field, you might replace "schizophrenics" with "patients with schizophrenia" etc , Still patients, but not completely identified with their condition.
A reminder that doctors are treating people , not just a bundle of symptoms or syndromes etc .
But doesn't that just compound the problem by identifying them as 'patients' who exist only in the context of symptoms, treatments, and billing, rather than as people with complete lives, relationships, etc? Shouldn't it be "client persons with acromegaly?"

I've always been very dubious about this kind of semantic play.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 11:31 AM   #4183
Nihilus
Thinker
 
Nihilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by Quinn View Post
They seem genuinely oblivious to the fact that most people, most of the time are simply not willing to go to the additional effort of saying "African-American cismale person" when "black guy" will do the job just as well -- especially when the only reward for that extra effort is avoidance of the microscopic possibility of offending someone, somewhere who might be overhearing the conversation.
I won't even grant them that. The underlying insult is theirs, in the presumption that I'm willfully or ignorantly (or both) choosing to be a secret douche because I've been preemptively painted into a category they presume is "privileged".

It's just a different flavor of the very type of brainless presumption they claim to rally against.
Nihilus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 11:34 AM   #4184
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,468
Originally Posted by H'ethetheth View Post
And what's more, every time you ban some perfectly cromulent word like homosexual or foreigner and supplant it with a non-offensive new word like same-sex or immigrant, the very same bigots that used the previous term as an insult will adopt the new word and use it as an insult or continue to use the old word.
Here's a pertinent example: When I was a child the word "spastic" would be employed frequently as an insult, based on the the fact that it was used by the Spastics Society to describe patients with cerebral palsy. It's a particularly horrible insult but children are evil.

The charity eventually changed its name from the Spastics Society to Scope. So the use of the term "spastic" has dropped out of playground parlance. Now they call each other "scoper" instead.
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 11:36 AM   #4185
Quinn
Breathtakingly blasphemous.
 
Quinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Shouldn't it be "client persons with acromegaly?"

Oh sure, if you want to identify them solely in terms of their symptoms and the fact that they're paying you. Just bundles of disease with checkbooks, that's all they are to you, isn't it?
__________________
It's not a matter of living life without mystery or wonder. It's a matter of living life without the approval of people who ignorantly assume that by rejecting the irrational, I experience no mystery or wonder. And frankly, I do just fine without that.
Quinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 11:51 AM   #4186
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 47,760
Originally Posted by Quinn View Post
They seem genuinely oblivious to the fact that most people, most of the time are simply not willing to go to the additional effort of saying "African-American cismale person" when "black guy" will do the job just as well -- especially when the only benefit from that extra effort is avoidance of the microscopic possibility of offending someone, somewhere who might be overhearing the conversation.
This reminded me of the gyrations a co-worker went through many years ago (before "African-American" was invented) to avoid referring to a black guy as a "black guy". We were at a conference somewhere, and he was trying to point out some guy he had met earlier to me. There was a group of 4 guys standing about 30 feet away, and the conversation went something like this:

Him: Joe's over there.
Me: Which one is he?
Him: He's the...ummmm..guy in the suit.
Me: They're all wearing suits.
Him: He has a red tie on.
Me: Three of them are wearing red ties. Four if you count maroon as red.
Him: He's the one in the middle.
Me: There are four guys. There is no middle.
Him: He's the tall one.
Me: The black guy?
Him: Shhhhhhhhh!!!!! They might hear you!

I am not making this up. Instead of immediately saying "Joe is the black guy", he had to go through 2 minutes of gyrations, just to avoid "black guy".
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

Last edited by The Central Scrutinizer; 19th February 2013 at 11:52 AM.
The Central Scrutinizer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 12:01 PM   #4187
Quinn
Breathtakingly blasphemous.
 
Quinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Nihilus View Post
Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post
A reminder that doctors are treating people , not just a bundle of symptoms or syndromes etc .
I think doctors need neither that reminder or the clutter of verbal window-dressing when they are trying to prolong or save lives.

This. Additionally, I would say say that in specific cases where doctors did need such a fundamental shift in outlook, a couple extra words on a slide at a conference would be a poor way of trying to bring it about. In fact, I suspect that if you were able to measure the long-term, cumulative effect of such wording, the negative results of the decreased clarity would outweigh the positive results of the increased personalization.
__________________
It's not a matter of living life without mystery or wonder. It's a matter of living life without the approval of people who ignorantly assume that by rejecting the irrational, I experience no mystery or wonder. And frankly, I do just fine without that.
Quinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 12:33 PM   #4188
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 699
Talking about how everyday language carries harmful implications or presumptions isn't saying that any given speaker is intending to convey those implications when they speak. Consider gender-neutral language as an example, people who tried to advocate the use of gender-neutral alternatives for common terms (e.g. fire fighter for fireman) weren't saying that every person using the gender neutral term was constantly saying that only men could be in that occupation. Rather the language was one part of a larger systemic problem - societal beliefs about the limited role women should play in society.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”

Last edited by qwints; 19th February 2013 at 02:16 PM. Reason: Fixed the typo Quinn pointed out below
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 12:34 PM   #4189
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,274
In the oppressive words thread, someone (ceepolk?) points out that someone who uses the word "homosexual" as a noun is probably a conservative.

I guess what rankles, for me, is the double standard. Of course we are all individual persons. We should keep that in mind, and try not to identify individuals by specific traits. I'm straight, but I'm more than just my sexual preferences. Etc.

Unless, of course, the person happens to be a conservative. Then it's perfectly alright to identify them by a single trait, stereotype them, discriminate against them, and to the maximum extent possible, "erase" them.

I know the A+ forums are supposed to be a safe space to advance the state of the art in social justice thinking... but I'm beginning to wonder if social justice, as a discipline practiced by the mainstream SJWs, is a poisonous idea.

Like the man said:

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 01:00 PM   #4190
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,566
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Like the man said:

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.
What a great quote from Nietzsche. Thanks!

Of course, he's an old white man, so we can disregard it.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 01:23 PM   #4191
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
 
Piscivore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Home is wherever I'm with you
Posts: 27,223
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
...but I'm beginning to wonder if social justice, as a discipline practiced by the mainstream SJWs, is a poisonous idea.
It is. Any general idea like that is poisonous, because it tends to halt thinking. Look at labor unions; in the 19th century, they were essential because they addressed very specific problems; debt slavery, poor safety, long hours. Even after those specific problems were adressed--elimination of "company towns", minimum wages and maximum hours laws, child labour laws, OSHA, etc.--the unions persisted, but were left looking for new "problems" to solve that many times became simply "get what we can for our own people".

The "Social Justice" people don't tend to address specific problems, they pay lip service to them because they want to get people to think like them and accept their values and the problems are the justification they use to do it. The worse thing in the world for a SJer is for progress to actually be made; that puts into question the need for their larger agenda; and hence, the legitimacy of their organisation and the power they have in and from it is in jeopardy.
__________________
Don't love someone to save yourself. Love someone to destroy who you used to be.

"...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen
Piscivore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 01:38 PM   #4192
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
the unions persisted, but were left looking for new "problems" to solve that many times became simply "get what we can for our own people".
Isn't trying to get members the best possible deal for their labor what a union is supposed to do?

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
they want to get people to think like them and accept their values
Are you saying this is people shouldn't want to try and persuade others they're correct? The problem seems to be with the way one arrives at one's beliefs about reality and not with whether one decides to talk about them or not.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
The worse thing in the world for a SJer is for progress to actually be made;
Have you seen any behavior or statements that support this assertion?
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 01:39 PM   #4193
Quinn
Breathtakingly blasphemous.
 
Quinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
Talking about how everyday language carries harmful implications or presumptions is saying that any given speaker is intending to convey those implications when they speak.
[Bolding mine.]

Before responding, I wanted to clarify: Was the bolded word a typo, by any chance?
__________________
It's not a matter of living life without mystery or wonder. It's a matter of living life without the approval of people who ignorantly assume that by rejecting the irrational, I experience no mystery or wonder. And frankly, I do just fine without that.
Quinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 02:00 PM   #4194
recursive prophet
Graduate Poster
 
recursive prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 1,273
WOW! I find I am increasingly grateful to A+ for stimulating so many incredibly insightful posts itt. As H'ethetheth-yo dude-can verify, just a few talented contrarians can really help us learn by virtue of explaining all the fundamentals in detail.

It occurred to me I might post some of these replies on the TR sister thread, but have decided to go with a link as there are so many that have really enhanced my understanding of wtf is going on at A+. Trying to reach such a comprehension has long been my goal in reading their comments.

Special kudos this round to Quinn and Nihilus, and I guess I should mention I'm using oldspeak here, and not implying special as in needs like we do in newspeak.

IMVHO the core issue in this latest segue is that nouns describe states of being while adjectives are purely descriptive attributes and leave lots of room for others. "My neighbor is a Jew," through years of cultural events, would more like be said by a bigot than those who would say "my neighbor is Jewish," but one of many aspects of his reality.
__________________
Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
recursive prophet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 02:17 PM   #4195
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 699
@Quinn, it is indeed a typo. I meant to say the opposite.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 02:29 PM   #4196
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
 
Piscivore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Home is wherever I'm with you
Posts: 27,223
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
Isn't trying to get members the best possible deal for their labor what a union is supposed to do?
Is "getting the best possible deal" for minorities what "social justice" is supposed to do? Even at the expense of others?

Quote:
Are you saying this is people shouldn't want to try and persuade others they're correct?
Replace "persuade" with "coerce" and answer for yourself.

Quote:
The problem seems to be with the way one arrives at one's beliefs about reality and not with whether one decides to talk about them or not.
How so?

Quote:
Have you seen any behavior or statements that support this assertion?
Yes. Look at the chaotic clusterhump third wave femisism has become because they don't have a specific problem like voting rights to organize around... so everything involving gender becomes a "problem" for them to solve, and the more problems there are, the more reason for them to be activists.
__________________
Don't love someone to save yourself. Love someone to destroy who you used to be.

"...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen
Piscivore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 04:21 PM   #4197
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,320
Originally Posted by Quinn View Post
This. Additionally, I would say say that in specific cases where doctors did need such a fundamental shift in outlook, a couple extra words on a slide at a conference would be a poor way of trying to bring it about. In fact, I suspect that if you were able to measure the long-term, cumulative effect of such wording, the negative results of the decreased clarity would outweigh the positive results of the increased personalization.
There's no decrease in clarity, it still describes the same. Patient is the catch all term. Also patients with one condition may well have other related (or not) condition. They could be under the care of several teams, eg surgical/endocrine etc
I think some of the pressure for this change of emphasis actually may have come from patient support groups that are sometimes involved in organising or promoting awareness of a particular condition and have had representatives, or even speakers, at conferences with academics too.
I'm not saying it has any profound effect on attitudes. What medics use as shorthand amongst their own may differ.
Oh and its' not about who to bill, this is the UK NHS I'm taking about.

Last edited by Rrose Selavy; 19th February 2013 at 04:23 PM.
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 04:30 PM   #4198
Nihilus
Thinker
 
Nihilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
Rather the language was one part of a larger systemic problem - societal beliefs about the limited role women should play in society.
It is only a "systematic problem" to the degree that actual oppressive/demeaning actions are taking place either tangibly or in the minds of (in this case) misogynists. Otherwise, it's just a linguistic quirk; like driving on a parkway and parking on a driveway.

The sad thing is, there are still a handful of issues that merit consideration and there are still psychotic over-testosteronic (yep; just made that word up) men who non-consensually speak and act that way towards women. Everyone with a competent brain thinks they're idiots, including the men A+ers are busy strawmanning into the same category because the word "fireman" was used.

"Privilege" is just the sad idea that indirect residuals from a previous era of bigotry or oppression should be highlighted with yellow marker, with anyone who could possibly play the victim getting their turn in line to ask for compensation...instead of letting the ending throes of niche stupidities die out on their own.

Last edited by Nihilus; 19th February 2013 at 04:34 PM.
Nihilus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 04:36 PM   #4199
jhunter1163
Beer-swilling semiliterate
Moderator
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott
Posts: 21,357
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Most of the community that I've dealt with (as in "gay community", not A+ community) use "gay", have repatriated "queer", and among friends will often use terms like "queens" and "homos", but I sincerely doubt that they'd take it well if, say, George Will used either of those.
Do those words have different meanings within the gay community? Does "queen" imply someone who prefers the feminine role, for example?
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 04:50 PM   #4200
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Moderator
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,015
Originally Posted by Quinn View Post
This. Additionally, I would say say that in specific cases where doctors did need such a fundamental shift in outlook, a couple extra words on a slide at a conference would be a poor way of trying to bring it about. In fact, I suspect that if you were able to measure the long-term, cumulative effect of such wording, the negative results of the decreased clarity would outweigh the positive results of the increased personalization.
Didn't Stephen Pinker write about how the idea of "change your language, change your thinking" is putting the cart before the horse? I'd have to go and reread his books, but I could swear that he did in deed say that...Blank Slate, I think.
__________________
-Aberhaten did it
- "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe
-Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping
- Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm
kmortis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.