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

411–420 of 429 posts

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

#411

Post by klyrs »

mvdtnz wrote: post #381
klyrs wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a well-constructed comedic narrative. I disagree with the facts as he presents them and the conclusions he reaches, but I have respect for his art. In my opinion, this is way better than, for example, Seinfeld lashing out because audiences don't find his work funny. edit: Oh, lol. Perhaps you meant "because he's dead." Whoosh!

> I think it's a well-constructed comedic narrative Why do you write like this? What's wrong with just saying "I think it's funny"?

> Why do you write like this?

I write how I talk: analytical to a fault.

> What's wrong with just saying "I think it's funny"?

Slapstick is "just" funny. Carlin's comedy isn't that simple. His style was to make a reasoned argument with a goal of making you laugh, making you think, and persuading you to adopt his worldview. He wasn't just funny, and sometimes he wasn't even funny. And that's the case here: a joke that wasn't funny, despite its well-constructed comedic narrative.

In the quote I highlighted at the top of the thread, I found myself unable to suspend my disbelief enough to laugh. I have a lot of respect for the construction of his joke, but having grown up around vietnam veterans who were raised by WWII veterans, the joke fails to be funny. It's actually sad, that he was fighting progress on mental health care, and convincing others to do the same.

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

#412

Post by svieira »

tsimionescu wrote: post #176
Aerbil313 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. Who said so? Your gut feelings? Human intuition? Nothing temporary ever matters. Human life can only matter if there's something permanent about it. If there isn't, nothing ever matters. None. Nil. Yes, I'm talking about religion. That pesky thing which folks on HN tend to look down in disgust. The idea of accountability with permanent, eternal consequences. Acts carrying on to another life which won't ev…

> (Not talking about the dumb Christian idea "You are already forgiven no matter what because someone is killed 2 millenia ago!" here.) Even though I'm an atheist, this is quite an ignorant take on Christian beliefs. In Christianity, Jesus' death only cleansed people of Original Sin. That is, people who died before Jesus were already doomed, regardless of how they lived their life, because they were all tainted by th…

Thanks for the well done clarifications!

Two more points of consideration:

> people who died before Jesus were already doomed, regardless of how they lived their life

This is actually not the Christian belief, but only that those who died before Jesus could not enter into heaven until Jesus' death and resurrection (because even they were saved by Jesus sanctifying passion). The term you're unaware of is "The Harrowing Of Hell".

> people are moral ... because that is the right thing to do

That's actually the point of Christian belief too - imperfect contrition (fear of punishment) is a _starting_ point. The goal is perfect contrition, desire to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do (for love of God).

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

#413

Post by watwut »

dijit wrote: post #202
paulluuk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that conservatives most often quote "Nineteen-eighty-four" as a comment on "politically correct" language. But when asked about "family values", "obamacare", "right to work" and other conservative double-speak, they often don't feel like those apply. My point is not that conservatives use more double-speak/newspeak then progressives, rather my point is that this is used and applied across the political spectru…

I think the more heinous "conservative" (as you put it) changes are related to physical conditions and the euphemism treadmill. George Carlins "soft language" specifically spells out an example; shell-shock, battle fatigue -> Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. I think making a term so long that it becomes an acronym is definitely part of this. The most up-to-the-minute example I can think of is "CSAM" which removes all…

> George Carlins "soft language" specifically spells out an example; shell-shock, battle fatigue -> Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Except that his account is ahistorical ... and the term post-traumatic stress disorder actually captures what the issue is. Neither shell-shock nor battle fatigue are good descriptors.

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

#414

Post by eesmith »

DangitBobby wrote: post #407
eesmith wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, you agree with the car industry propaganda push to use the term "accident" instead of, say, motor killing. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident "Crash" is a wider term. If someone deliberately drives into a building, that is not an accident. It is still a crash. Do you also say plane accident instead of plane crash?

I'm confused what conversation you think we're having. Someone said that car crashes are "not accidents." That's fucking crazy, so I'm pushing back on it. They are clearly mostly accidents. Not liking cars, people who make cars, people who sell cars, and people who drive cars doesn't make them not accidents.

This conversation has been going on since the 1990s.

There are innumerable articles on the topic. I pointed you to some. Here's a couple more:

BMJ bans “accidents” - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/

> For many years safety officials and public health authorities have discouraged use of the word “accident” when it refers to injuries or the events that produce them. An accident is often understood to be unpredictable—a chance occurrence or an “act of God”—and therefore unavoidable. However, most injuries and their precipitating events are predictable and preventable.1–3 That is why the BMJ has decided to ban the word accident.

Motor Vehicle Crash Versus Accident: A Change in Terminology is Necessary - https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:101626013022...

> We assert that motor vehicle crash should replace motor vehicle accident in the clinical and research lexicon of traumatologists. Crash encompasses a wider range of potential causes for vehicular crashes than does the term accident. A majority of fatal crashes are caused by intoxicated, speeding, distracted, or careless drivers and, therefore, are not accidents. Most importantly, characterizing crashes as accidents, when a driver was intoxicated or negligent, may impede the recovery of crash victims by preventing them from assigning blame and working through the emotions related to their trauma.

When a crash is really an accident: A concept analysis - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654670/

> The debate over using the word accident has encouraged some groups to adopt the word crash, while other groups retain using accident. This article addresses the inconsistent and interchangeable use of the terms accident and crash. ... Although there is evidence that the use of the word accident should be maintained when the event could not have reasonably been prevented, the theoretical framework highlights this will likely perpetuate the conceptual confusion. The recommendation is to: 1) identify the mechanism of injury, 2) identify event as intentional vs. non-intentional, and 3) identify event as preventable vs. non-preventable.

There is certainly disagreement, but to call it "fucking crazy" and attributing the viewpoint as limited to car haters suggests you haven't read any of the background, so are not participating in the conversation.

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

#415

Post by Supermancho »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #382
Supermancho wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only change that's of global concern is the spiking energy accumulation. It's global warming, as most people would understand it from reading the link. Climate change is soft language to lump in secondary effects, to make it acceptable for deniers and special interests.

I don't agree. The effects of humans dumping CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere is not just the increase in the average temperature. It is increased variability in temperatures. It is extreme droughts and extreme floods (which occurred in Pakistan last year). It is extreme tropical storms. It is historical levels of forest fires (such as what we saw in Canada this year). Etc etc. All of these things are cause for…

> It is increased variability in temperatures.

Again, this is splitting hairs by pointing to secondary effects and saying "it's more than one thing" when the root cause is singular.

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

#416

Post by klyrs »

mvdtnz wrote: post #380
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…

You certainly did an excellent job of refuting a claim Carlin never made.

You're welcome.

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

#417

Post by dijit »

lightedman wrote: post #373
dijit wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such language policing is double-plus-ungood. (For those that haven’t read the classic Nineteen-eighty-four book by Eric Arthur Blair (pen name: George Orwell) one of the core themes of the story is how the ruling party controlled language, calling it “newspeak”, in order to remove the ability to express certain thoughts or opinions, most notably those that could be used to incite revolution or allow you to express d…

"Such language policing is double-plus-ungood." And yet such behavior happens right here on this very site. Why do you tolerate it?

You should take a dive in my comment history. I very much do not tolerate it.

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

#418

Post by Angostura »

theodric wrote: post #398
Angostura wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have yet to find an actual vision-impaired person complaining about missing alt text. What was your sample size?

Spending 27 years on the Internet

... right, and how many visually impaired people did you talk to about this actual issue?

Next week: "Of course I can understand black folk's problems - there are quite a few living in my city.

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

#419

Post by Angostura »

tsimionescu wrote: post #342
Angostura wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Why was it important for you not to include it?

It wasn't important for them not to include it, it wasn't important for them to include it. There is a world of difference. And being aggressively ganged up on for something you don't believe is an important detail is an excellent reason to leave a group. It makes it abundantly clear that you have a fundamental difference of values with much of that group.

So when some people suggested that it might be important to include it - they decided not to, despite not including not being important to them.

Sounds like it was pretty important to not include it.

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

#420

Post by jabradoodle »

pauldenton wrote: post #401
jabradoodle wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has stigmatized engines, people are trying to reduce emissions because the greatest body of knowledge we have access to (science) suggests we should.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-... and outside of just gas powered engines https://apnews.com/article/berkeley-california-natural-gas-b...

It's an inanimate object, it's not being stigmatised, it's being phased out.
Post reply on HN