Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

thoughtco.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 429 posts

Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

#71

Post by imgabe »

mrtksn wrote: post #17

>"Americans have trouble facing the truth," Carlin said. "So they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it" It is useful and not limited to Americans, that's why people do it. Much more people would have been vegans or they would be much more indifferent to violence if every pack of meat had a QR code to a video showing the life and processing of that particular animal. It's also not just soften…

For literally thousands of years humans personally slaughtered animals and had no problem with it. But you assume people wouldn’t do this without some fanciful words for it. Based on what? Wishful thinking?

Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

#72

Post by vladvasiliu »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #39
mrtksn wrote: post #17

>"Americans have trouble facing the truth," Carlin said. "So they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it" It is useful and not limited to Americans, that's why people do it. Much more people would have been vegans or they would be much more indifferent to violence if every pack of meat had a QR code to a video showing the life and processing of that particular animal. It's also not just soften…

> Much more people would have been vegans or they would be much more indifferent to violence if every pack of meat had a QR code to a video showing the life and processing of that particular animal. I think more people would be pushing for animal welfare and proper slaughtering/raising conditions if this was done, even if they still ate meat.

Indeed. Over here in France, companies try to advertise that animals are well taken care off, raised outside, etc. I suppose they think it is relevant for enough people to spend money advertising it.

And GP's example shows that seeing the animals being killed doesn't mean people will stop eating meat.

"the more devout muslims practice ceremonial animal sacrifice which often happens on the streets with kids around, so they tend to have different relationship with the animal killing(no, they are cruelty or anything like that, it's just different)"

In the same vein, my grandparents' village was still very rural when I spent my holidays there as a kid, and the other local children would grow up surrounded by cows, sheep, chickens, and other farm animals. They'd see them be slaughtered and cooked. I can't remember a single one of them turning vegetarian. And it should be noted that the adults wouldn't tolerate any kind of cruelty or abuse towards the animals. Hell, you could even get into trouble for being too loud at night next to a barn where cattle were sleeping.

Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

#73

Post by jdub »

hfuyf65 wrote: post #42
jdub wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not even in the same sport, let alone the same league.

Not yet, but if you watch early Carlin it is the same pattern: 1. initially safe,sanitized corporate friendly jokes 2. some commercial success 3. ? 4. jokes increasingly become a social commentary and are less and less 'friendly'

That's mostly the timeframe of his career. It doesn't put jerks at his level.

Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

#74

Post by bsza »

constantly wrote: post #9

What’s the effect here? I don’t think I like soft language, but can’t really pinpoint why I don’t like it. Is it bad that some company came up with toilet paper and now it’s bathroom tissue? Shell shock is now PTSD? Who cares?

I think Carlin summarizes the effect pretty well, though this quote is not included in the article:

"These poor people have been bullshitted by the system into believing that if you change the name of the condition, somehow you'll change the condition"

Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

#75

Post by GartzenDeHaes »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #62
EGG_CREAM wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: much of what he said was just total bs. Even in an example from this article, he goes on a tangent about phrases that were not used then and still are not used. "They're not used cars, they're 'previously owned automobiles.'" What? Nobody calls them that, even today, 30 some odd years later. In my opinion, George Carlin sometimes had some kernel of good observation at the heart of his bits, that he…

"Previously owned automobiles" just got shortened to "pre-owned" and that's all over the place today, and I daresay it's seeped into things other than cars.

Upcycled is the latest, including upcycled food https://www.upcycledfood.org/

Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

#76

Post by xphos »

dralley wrote: post #14
constantly wrote: post #9

What’s the effect here? I don’t think I like soft language, but can’t really pinpoint why I don’t like it. Is it bad that some company came up with toilet paper and now it’s bathroom tissue? Shell shock is now PTSD? Who cares?

A common theme with a lot of Carlin rants - they resonate well, but they're completely wrong. I don't think we want to describe sexual assault victims as having "shell shock". Even a soldier could get "shell shock" without encountering any shells. The language got softer not because we're all a bunch of softies but because we noticed a general pattern and generalized the name to match.

I think it sacrifices something from trying to be an inclusive term. It's nice that we have a general term but it lacks understanding that some soldiers just think it's a soft name for soft people. Not because it is but because the audience it's extremely relevant are strong hard assed people and the term makes it harder to retain the warrior identity that develop while being a soldier. Than you just a broken soldier, not a harden one who faces shell shock.

There are certainly times when shell shock makes no sense but I find PTSD dehumanizing especially since no one actually says post traumatic stress disorder.

Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

#77

Post by mrtksn »

imgabe wrote: post #71
mrtksn wrote: post #17

>"Americans have trouble facing the truth," Carlin said. "So they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it" It is useful and not limited to Americans, that's why people do it. Much more people would have been vegans or they would be much more indifferent to violence if every pack of meat had a QR code to a video showing the life and processing of that particular animal. It's also not just soften…

For literally thousands of years humans personally slaughtered animals and had no problem with it. But you assume people wouldn’t do this without some fanciful words for it. Based on what? Wishful thinking?

Based on the observation that most modern people have no idea where the meat or the vegetables come from. The packaged goods did the consumers from the o Production. Activist are using videos of production lines to promote their agenda.

Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

#78

Post by motohagiography »

Control the language and you control everything made from it. I can be civil and choose words, but it's why I won't have my language policed either. A lot of euphemisms aren't meaningful about the subject, but more about demonstrating alignment to others who are operating on the subject. It's the banality of people who think in clichés.

Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

#79

Post by imgabe »

mrtksn wrote: post #77
imgabe wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For literally thousands of years humans personally slaughtered animals and had no problem with it. But you assume people wouldn’t do this without some fanciful words for it. Based on what? Wishful thinking?

Based on the observation that most modern people have no idea where the meat or the vegetables come from. The packaged goods did the consumers from the o Production. Activist are using videos of production lines to promote their agenda.

The fact that activists are doing something does not mean that it’s effective or anyone cares.

People need food. If they don’t happen to know where it comes from they would figure it out with a quickness if it ever became necessary for them to learn.

Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)

#80

Post by mrtksn »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #72
selfhoster11 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Much more people would have been vegans or they would be much more indifferent to violence if every pack of meat had a QR code to a video showing the life and processing of that particular animal. I think more people would be pushing for animal welfare and proper slaughtering/raising conditions if this was done, even if they still ate meat.

Indeed. Over here in France, companies try to advertise that animals are well taken care off, raised outside, etc. I suppose they think it is relevant for enough people to spend money advertising it. And GP's example shows that seeing the animals being killed doesn't mean people will stop eating meat. "the more devout muslims practice ceremonial animal sacrifice which often happens on the streets with kids around, so…

I agree, mostly. However the vegetarianism aspect is more nuanced IMHO. In my experience, seeing animal being killed is not enough, it needs to be combined with some kind of affection to the animal by giving it a personality. For example I feel uneasy since I watched cows showing curiosity towards objects and be playful like dogs. Also a friend of mine who used to live in a farm says that the cows can tell that they are going to be slaughtered and start acting differently.

I’m not a vegan or vegetarian but I’m looking forward for lab produced meet where no cows are involved.

Post reply on HN