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

151–160 of 429 posts

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

#151

Post by Waterluvian »

lukeschlather wrote: post #143
zoogeny wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently saw several mentions of image alt text including a poll about alt text on social media. The question was something like "Would you ever post an image without alt text" and something like 99% of responses were "never". I mean, I've literally never even thought about it so it surprised me that such a high number of respondents would have chosen that. Which I guess is kind of the point. There is an idea that…

Style guides exist for good reason. Also a simple suggestion that people adhere to the style guide is often heard as harassment even when it's simply asking people to adhere to the style guide. Also, if 99% say "never" and that sounds too high, what about "Would you ever send an image without alt text to a blind person?" Does it make sense to post a message when you know a significant number of people are physically…

It reminds me of religious zealots. The law (or server rules) doesn’t reflect what they want it to be, so they’ll take matters into their own hands.

Of course there is a bit of every variety. There’s certainly polite people asking nicely and sensitive people seeing it as harassment. And there’s certainly people who see something they don’t agree with and just move along.

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

#152

Post by watwut »

softg wrote: post #15
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 didn't read all of the article but I've watched that bit multiple times, IIRC his point was all of these euphemisms sanitize the language and hide the meaning and emotions behind words. PTSD is a clinical word with less emotional connotations, it sounds more manageable and it's easier to forget. Maybe if we didn't change what it was, it would've been a bit more difficult to send people to wars where they can get 's…

Yeah, but he is not historical in it. He did not studied history of the word, wars nor social studies. He just makes historically sounding claims.

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

#153

Post by tekla »

lukeschlather wrote: post #143
zoogeny wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently saw several mentions of image alt text including a poll about alt text on social media. The question was something like "Would you ever post an image without alt text" and something like 99% of responses were "never". I mean, I've literally never even thought about it so it surprised me that such a high number of respondents would have chosen that. Which I guess is kind of the point. There is an idea that…

Style guides exist for good reason. Also a simple suggestion that people adhere to the style guide is often heard as harassment even when it's simply asking people to adhere to the style guide. Also, if 99% say "never" and that sounds too high, what about "Would you ever send an image without alt text to a blind person?" Does it make sense to post a message when you know a significant number of people are physically…

I think about it as much as I think about the image not being intelligible to people who dont read English, not at all.

Why dont you post everything in the top 10 most used languages if you want to be nice?

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

#154

Post by manxman »

johnnyworker wrote: post #109
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 documentaries like "Earthlings". Watch it and tell me everything is fine.

Have you considered the possibility that "Earthlings" is one data point among a very complex web of superficially opposing ideas/arguments that are actually all part of a coordinated agenda to try to fundamentally change your behaviour and psychology by messing with your emotions?

Go look up B.F. Skinner and Operant Conditioning (His book Walden 2 is a semi-fictional work that provides a pretty good approximation to the game that's afoot). I'm sure I'll get shot down for presenting a conspiracy, but once you open your eyes to Operant Conditioning, considering the possibility that power hungry groups haven't been using it is kind of like trying to imagine a world where people chose not to use the internet. The only difference is that applied behavioural psychology is more dangerous and powerful than the internet.

This game is happening quite pervasively and a lot of smart people have been coercively brainwashed into being passive if not active players in this process. There are of course a litany of justifications used by those that do the brainwashing.

It will seem farfetched until it's not.

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

#155

Post by klyrs »

> I'll bet if they had still been calling it 'shell shock,' some of those Vietnam veterans might have received the attention they needed.

History lesson: no, WWI veterans didn't get the attention they needed. This is wistful conservatism wrapped in a shroud of comedy. Don't mistake it for truth or wisdom. The treatment of Vietnam veterans was not a departure from the standard practice of wars predating it. The depth of their trauma was a departure, and that was the eye-opener that primed us to take PTSD seriously in the aftermath of the wars of the 21st century.

Now, PTSD (a four-syllable, jargon-free, hyphen-free term, if we're counting) has received greater attention than it did in the previous century of wars. It's recognized to effect more than just soldiers (which "shell shock" doesn't really cover), and progress is being made on a variety of treatments. George Carlin is funny, but that doesn't make him right.

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

#156

Post by lefstathiou »

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?

Anecdotal “proof”: In the heart of Manhattan’s ultra trendy Chelsea neighborhood is the Chelsea market which is now this super trendy food hall. In the basement is a delicious butcher named Dicksons where literally hundreds of New Yorkers and tourists eat and drink craft beers while they literally saw entire pigs and baby calfs in half and dangle their carcasses in clear eye sight of where you sit and eat. I take my family there all the time because of how tasty and fresh the meats are and my children love it.

Showing people where their meat comes isn’t going to reduce the demand in my opinion. I personally believe people should know where their food comes from as it reduces waste and garners introspection about our role in the planet and ecosystem.

I’m Greek American and lamb on the spit is a cultural tradition on Easter. As a kid, it was very weird for my American friends to pick food directly off of a carcass but so many told me over the years it was an unforgettable experience. My uncle once took me to the farm in Georgia where he got the lamb, handed me a large knife and asked me to slit its throat, I was 13 at the time. I couldn’t do it, I cried and watched him do it. I will never forget that. To this day I have a profound love and appreciation of animals, especially lambs. I still eat them. The two ideas for me are not conflicted to me. The only thing I abhor when it comes to meat is wastefulness.

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

#157

Post by beebeepka »

Waterluvian wrote: post #115
donatj wrote: post #100

I saw a conversation on Twitter a while ago back when it still was Twitter. The OP with many followers was laying out words and classes of words with negative connotations that shouldn't be used. Someone replied in good faith to OP and asked how we should express negative thoughts. OPs answer was basically that we shouldn't. I find that kind of thought very off putting and minorly disturbing. An important part of the…

Something I was rather ignorant to for the longest time was how fascism can exist at both ends of the spectrum. My last day on Mastodon was the day a few people ganged up on me quite aggressively for not putting Alt text in an image. Tolerance isn’t acceptance. It’s letting things you don’t like exist without making a big fuss over it. You can dislike certain speech patterns without having to go on a crusade against…

> Something I was rather ignorant to for the longest time was how fascism can exist at both ends of the spectrum.

Both extremes are the same. It's like love and hate. You shall not have freedoms is the point.

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

#158

Post by Jensson »

ethanbond wrote: post #144
Jensson wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I too would bet that most people (those of us not working in slaughterhouses) would find videos from factory farms disturbing. But why would they be more disturbing than watching a person slaughtering and cutting up an animal? You didn't answer the question, you just said that one was disturbing, not why one was more disturbing than the other.

Why is it relevant whether one can put a finger on the difference? The claim was that people use their economic distance from meat production to protect themselves from the negative feelings that would be created if they had to do it themselves, especially in the manner of factory farming. Anyway my theory for the distinction is 1) the scale of suffering is obviously far far greater than family-scale slaughter and 2)…

> Why is it relevant whether one can put a finger on the difference?

You brought this up, not me.

> 1) the scale of suffering is obviously far far greater than family-scale slaughter

Not if every family has to slaughter their own meat, the scale is the same just distributed so you don't see it.

> 2) the way in which we do factory farming reflects poorly on us as a species

This isn't inherent to factory farming though, just the ways it is done in some places. And this goes for family farming as well, some families would put animals in small cages and not take care of them to save money and because they are lazy. If you filmed them and their animals I don't think people would feel any different.

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

#159

Post by ethanbond »

lefstathiou wrote: post #156
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?

Anecdotal “proof”: In the heart of Manhattan’s ultra trendy Chelsea neighborhood is the Chelsea market which is now this super trendy food hall. In the basement is a delicious butcher named Dicksons where literally hundreds of New Yorkers and tourists eat and drink craft beers while they literally saw entire pigs and baby calfs in half and dangle their carcasses in clear eye sight of where you sit and eat. I take my…

Go show your kid a real factory farm instead of a high-end butcher in a trendy food hall and report back! Easy experiment to run and your kids’ reaction could settle this debate.

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

#160

Post by msla »

klyrs wrote: post #155

> I'll bet if they had still been calling it 'shell shock,' some of those Vietnam veterans might have received the attention they needed. History lesson: no, WWI veterans didn't get the attention they needed. This is wistful conservatism wrapped in a shroud of comedy. Don't mistake it for truth or wisdom. The treatment of Vietnam veterans was not a departure from the standard practice of wars predating it. The depth…

For example, in reference to the WWI experience in specific:

> Some men with shell shock were put on trial, and even executed, for military crimes including desertion and cowardice.[16] While it was recognised that the stresses of war could cause men to break down, a lasting episode was likely to be seen as symptomatic of an underlying lack of character.[17] For instance, in his testimony to the post-war Royal Commission examining shell shock, Lord Gort said that shell shock was a weakness and was not found in "good" units.[17] The continued pressure to avoid medical recognition of shell shock meant that it was not, in itself, considered an admissible defence. Although some doctors or medics did take procedure to try to cure soldiers' shell shock, it was first done in a brutal way. Doctors would provide electric shock to soldiers in hopes that it would shock them back to their normal, heroic, pre-war self. While illustrating cases of mutism in his book Hysterical Disorders of Warfare, therapist Lewis Yealland describes a patient who had, over the course of 9 months, been subjected unsuccessfully to numerous treatments for his mutism; these included strong application of electricity to his throat, lit cigarette ends applied to the tip of his tongue, and "hot plates" placed in the back of his mouth.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_shock

Post reply on HN