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

141–150 of 429 posts

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

#141

Post by tptacek »

JoshGG wrote: post #134
tptacek wrote: post #128

Just for fun, from the first example: * Toilet paper -> bathroom tissue --- sure, a softening of the language. * Sneakers -> running shoes --- not a softening; sneakers aren't the same as running shoes, and "sneaker" was a regionalism (it's "gym shoe" where I grew up). * False teeth -> dental appliance --- a softening, though a welcome one in this case. * Medicine -> medication --- a softening (a nominalization of a…

Thanks this is pretty interesting! Re: “car crash”, crash is the correct “real language”. The use of “accident” implies a lack of responsibility and that car crashes cannot be prevented or reduced. That isn’t true. Many studies show that crashes can be reduced via better engineering, road design, etc. Calling it an accident definitely seems like softening the language. https://dmv.vermont.gov/enforcement-and-safety/l…

I agree! It's a softening of the language. I just think it's interesting to note that in his bit, he often artificially further softens the term.

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

#142

Post by kaycebasques »

eesmith wrote: post #51

I don't think Carlin's observation holds much support. Take the classic "shell shock" bit. Carlin defines it at "a condition in combat that occurs when a soldier is completely stressed out and is on the verge of a nervous collapse." However, that is not the WWI definition. Quoting https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2... : "The term “shell shock” evolved in an attempt to describe cases that aro…

> So when Carlin say "I’ll bet if they had still been calling it 'shell shock,' some of those Vietnam veterans might have received the attention they needed.", I don't really think that's true.

I came here to say the same thing. The historical record does not support Carlin's claim that straightforward language would have resulted in better social support for traumatized veterans. WWI veterans were treated terribly. I guess the real test is to re-introduce "shell shock" into our vocabulary and see if there's a correlation in improved veteran support.

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

#143

Post by lukeschlather »

zoogeny wrote: post #132
Waterluvian wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 incapable of interpreting it?

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

#144

Post by ethanbond »

Jensson wrote: post #129
dpkirchner wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about relatively few people -- I too would bet that most people (those of us not working in slaughterhouses) would find videos from factory farms disturbing. There's a reason big-ag farmers are afraid people will see videos showing their operations. So afraid that they pay off politicians to ban such video recording.

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

If people had to see their livestock suffer, they would make a different calculation of how much meat to eat and how to handle that animal while it’s alive. As someone else mentioned, this isn’t some crazy avant garde hypothesis: this is exactly why mass meat producers don’t want people filming their operations.

The prior argument that “people always killed animals!” is irrelevant. They certainly did not kill animals the way we do today and again, this is evidenced in the belief systems that emerged during times where people couldn’t afford to be hundreds of miles removed from the production of their food.

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

#145

Post by rpmisms »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #88
mrtksn wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not convinced the personality thing is sufficient, or maybe I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Cows used to have names, like horses or dogs did. In contrast, house cats usually didn't. Plus, the children used to play with the goats and sheep while they were still small. I'm not very familiar with the cows (my grandparents didn't have any), but I know that goats also tend to be fairly smart, curious a…

There's also different breed of cow, goat, and sheep used for meat vs wool. The meat breeds are much stupider and less personable. I could never kill one of my milk goats for meat, but my meat rabbits are a rather easy task.

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

#146

Post by xyzelement »

One of the many places I see soft language hurt is in feedback. “Our project is late” and “xyzelement failed to prioritize well” might refer to the same event but one is more likely to “sting” me in a way that causes change.

In my value system change and improvement are worth the sting in the short term, but often that is prevented by soft language.

Eg I’ve seen developers/ managers / teams come out on the other side of a “blameless” postmortem without realizing they fucked something up.

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

#147

Post by dontlaugh »

JoshGG wrote: post #134
tptacek wrote: post #128

Just for fun, from the first example: * Toilet paper -> bathroom tissue --- sure, a softening of the language. * Sneakers -> running shoes --- not a softening; sneakers aren't the same as running shoes, and "sneaker" was a regionalism (it's "gym shoe" where I grew up). * False teeth -> dental appliance --- a softening, though a welcome one in this case. * Medicine -> medication --- a softening (a nominalization of a…

Thanks this is pretty interesting! Re: “car crash”, crash is the correct “real language”. The use of “accident” implies a lack of responsibility and that car crashes cannot be prevented or reduced. That isn’t true. Many studies show that crashes can be reduced via better engineering, road design, etc. Calling it an accident definitely seems like softening the language. https://dmv.vermont.gov/enforcement-and-safety/l…

They’re called some variant of “accident” in many languages. It’s the English speakers that use “crash” that are the unusual ones.

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

#148

Post by ethanbond »

Jensson wrote: post #138
frank_nitti wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly, we’re talking about videos where batches of animals are kept suffering in tiny cages and the slaughter is done by machines. Watching a bunch of live hatchlings get sucked into some grinder is not the same as watching a Halal killing or some tribal hunting ritual. Those videos turned my stomach, and almost everyone I know who has watched them admits the same. My friends and I all still eat meat, but…

> Watching a bunch of live hatchlings get sucked into some grinder is not the same as watching a Halal killing or some tribal hunting ritual. You aren't comparing like for like, most people who kill animals doesn't perform a ritual, they just kill it. Also you can't compare a video trying to show something in a positive light "ritual killing" vs a video trying to show something in a negative light. If they showed you…

The main difference is the scale of suffering that we are choosing to create because we simply prefer the flavor of meat over other sources of nutrients.

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

#149

Post by rpmisms »

Tao3300 wrote: post #43
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example Carlin provides is "cripple". It can be used as both an adjective and as a verb and concisely describes the situation. It's entirely neutral and free of euphemism. He also makes a similar argument for "retarded".

I think the problem with "retarded" was that it became a pejorative. It's also just a harsh sounding word.

Retarded means "slowed down". It's a very good word, and even better as an insult.

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

#150

Post by watwut »

Tao3300 wrote: post #33
baggy_trough wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely wrong?

Don't lose sight of the fact that a comedian is telling jokes and speaking in character.

His comedy gets to be quoted in arguments and is used as argument. His claims are treated as factual by people who like him. So, no, you can not just dismiss counterarguments like that.

It is sort of schrodinger stragety - you make claims and if someone strongly argues back, it was joke. If there is no strong pushback, we pretend it was serious.

Post reply on HN