Read this and give me your opinion.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 8, 2003, 12:09 pm

I love language. I helps what's stuck in my brain get transfered to you.

I bumped into this article and it makes me think about how much language, and then certain ideas have been restricted by social pressure.

Your thoughts?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91265,00.html

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 8, 2003, 12:43 pm

I'm pretty sure that "White Devil" is going to replace "Caucasian" on most job/school applications pretty soon.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » July 8, 2003, 1:46 pm

Personally I think that stories like this just serve to distract from the real problem. People are so adamant to get rid of affirmative action yet they offer no alternatives to solving the economic and educational chasm between affluent people (mostly caucasian) and the lower classes (mostly minority races in the U.S.). It's interesting that the author used the example of 1984 since the major theme of the story is of one class of people using the governmental system to permanently keep the other people in society in servitude.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 8, 2003, 1:47 pm

Wendy McElroy now ranks up there as one of the most brilliant women in the world IMHO.

If you look at the ifeminist site after reading the article her viewpoint makes even more sense, personally without too much deep thinking about this I couldn't agree with her more. I'm soooooooooo... tired people whining about things and political correctiness it makes me sick to even think about the subject. Her use comparison with 1984 is wonderful!

Marb

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 8, 2003, 2:13 pm

I'm not so focused on the affirmative action issue as I am the concept of demonizing people who choose to use politically incorrect language.

If you're able to disallow portions of the vocabulary that describe against your cause, are you able to suppress opposition to you cause?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 8, 2003, 2:31 pm

Psycholinguistics is too big a subject to get into here but:
1) It's the reason I'm so pernickety about using correct terms
2) I believe you are what you think, so language is vital
3) I like the buddhist idea of "right action, right mind" especially when applied to thought processes.
4) It's why I'm so cynical about politicians and advertising: they use psychologically powerful words that seep into your mind almost unconsciously yet when you closely examine the full text you see the real meaning was entirely different e.g. regarding Nutella I recall seeing an ad that said "Helps satisfy a HEALTHY appetite". WTF is the word "healthy" doing in the tagline for a jar of flavoured fat? There were a couple of REAL juicy examples of this shit in the run-up to GW2 from the politicians too; when paraphrased the comments sounded much worse than when closely examined. It's all designed to push our buttons and we must be wary.

Similarly I thought the article might have something interesting to say but it's just the usual fox right wing bullshit and as usual speaks in terms of absolutes when, in fact, everything is relative.

Have at it.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 8, 2003, 2:32 pm

The frightening similarities between George Orwell's 1984 and our current society certianly do not end at mere doublespeak.

It is interesting that doublespeak was chosen as a topic, and it does make one think. In 1984, it was not always huge, flashy events that helped control the masses, it was often very mundane things like doublespeak that had long term and equally controlling effects.

I don't feel that there is a single driving force behind controlling our speech, as was the case in 1984. I think the author was reaching a bit in order to prove a point.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 8, 2003, 2:33 pm

Hey Tanc, if you have more examples of what you describe I'd love to read them.

I know its on the spot but if you happen to remember some please share.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 8, 2003, 2:40 pm

I'll have a think about it tonight. I'm orf home now cos my brain has melted

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 8, 2003, 2:41 pm

Here's one I thought was interesting.

White people don't have a clear racial definition.

You never hear about White heritage, or white history. Some argue that the white culture assumes the label of normality.

Example: Why do black people talk so loud in public? Why can't they be "normal" and speak quietly. Are they trying to show off?

Translate: Why dont' black people talk quietly in public like white people do?

By lacking a clear label of white culture, does white culture avoid being stereotyped and identified as something outside of mainstream?

Does a lack of language keep a racial grouping in a dominate position?

I don't want to dive into that particular topic, but it rather I offer it as an example of how language or a lack of language might affects society.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » July 8, 2003, 5:08 pm

The thing is that "white culture" as you call it is just an amalgamation of the different Indo-European cultures. There are many differences, but most are not readily seen so it's all grouped together. Like say St. Patrick’s Day is an Irish cultural part of "white culture", not every white person has a connection to St. Patrick yet it is celebrated as a part of the culture. The key thing to remember is that most Indo-European influences are so similar that they are easier to group together, plus the fact that the people who encompass the sub cultures within "white culture" are similar in appearance to make the practices similar and friendly.

By lacking a clear label of white culture, does white culture avoid being stereotyped and identified as something outside of mainstream?

You can't really say that "white culture" does not have stereotypes, since all the sub cultural groups that make it up have their own stereotypes. Think of the stereotypes for Italians, Irish, English, German or any other major sub group that make up what is thought of "white culture". Mainstream culture is not just "white culture" it is made up of many different practices, which have influences from everyone. Now yes it is dominated elements found in "white culture", but this is mainly due to the amount of time and numbers of the members of this group. You can see how with the emergence of minority groups both in number and influence have changed what is thought of as mainstream within the last few decades.

In any case the article was very flawed because while affirmative action is a flawed practice and does have many conflicting objectives, the main reason for it is still very much true. Is affirmative action unfair? Yes it is, but you have to remember the reasons for it. It is meant to even the playing field and assist people who have been historically excluded from the opportunity to prosper within society. Can anyone honestly say that the playing field is even today? The system is very flawed and unfair, but much like our legal system it is the best we have at the moment. Would anyone in his or her right mind say that we would be better off if we just scraped our legal system? It is inherently unfair and flawed, but it serves a purpose in our society. If we fail to bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots in our country it will collapse in on itself. The under classes continue to grow faster than any other segment of our society and if they are not educated it will cause serious problem for the future of our country. So while I don't particular think that the language of affirmative action, which is what the article was about, is consistent or even fair to all, no one really wants to speak straight. The truth is there is a major divide between those with the means to succeed and those that do not, however, no one wants to say that because it points back to why this is. No one not the right or left want to speak truthfully an honestly about the situation so they both use the conflicting PC language.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 8, 2003, 5:18 pm

I feared that example would derail things.

I'm not arguing the white culture thing, I'm more interested in the idea of language limits and their effects on suppressing dissent.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 8, 2003, 5:22 pm

Lets say we demonize the word "corruption" and its synonyms.

Would this change how we view a corrupt leader? Would be we crippled in expressing a desire to oust the guy?

Crav · Post by **Crav** » July 8, 2003, 5:35 pm

Sorry didn't mean to derail, but that article wasn't really about what you are trying to discuss. However, I'll try to help you get it back on track.

Language is very important in every aspect of society especially if you are attempting to voice an opinion or make a change with in society. Take for example how anything that used anti-George Bush language was deemed anti-American and unpatriotic. When saying I don't agree with the President was translated to I hate America and I hope all the U.S. troops die it was very limiting in trying to effectively express one's opinion.

The use of limiting language or changing the meaning of language is used by everyone. So to answer your question, yes language is very important in limiting people’s ability to express dissent. It can be seen throughout history where education was kept to away from the mass so they could not express their dissent. It can be seen in religion by limiting the sides in an argument to two sides, good and evil. Who ever has control of a language has control of a society since society is made up of structure which is defined by language, why do you think we have so many lawyers.