political correctness and communication

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

You seem to have missed the study in question discussed here...

 

 

I only argued that it seemed silly censoring profanity in this forum.

 

If you want to frame it in those terms -- I still think that it's the owners right to be silly.  It goes with paying the bills.  

[RevBogovac]

54 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

If you want to frame it in those terms -- I still think that it's the owners right to be silly.  It goes with paying the bills.  

 

Now that we have - more or less -  established what it is they "own", they certainly have that "right".

 

As people also have the "right" to express their feelings about those choices.

 

And the "owners" are then also responsible for the consequences of their choices... 

[cuchulain]

Freedom of speech is important.  Freedom of choice is important.  The terms of service were presented before anyone signed up to be on this forum.  A part of those terms of service were the profanity filter.  I know because I read them.  And like everyone else here I agreed to them.  

I think it silly that someone agreed to terms, then complains about those terms after the fact.  That's my personal opinion, though.  Take it or not.  

[Rev. Calli]

59 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Now that we have - more or less -  established what it is they "own", they certainly have that "right".

 

As people also have the "right" to express their feelings about those choices.

 

And the "owners" are then also responsible for the consequences of their choices... 

Greetings to you my brother,

 

Have you sent a message to brother Kevin or Amulet regarding your concerns about this issue?  IMHO that would be the proper thing to do.  

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

[kokigami]

On 6/28/2017 at 3:05 AM, mererdog said:

I think in words. You?

Honestly, I hadn't though about it. Probably, mostly. When I do, I think in terms of words with specific commonly known definitions. (if people are gonna get all chatty, I am going have to start logging in more often.)

 

On 7/1/2017 at 9:55 AM, Seeker said:

Interesting tangent. I'm mostly a conceptual thinker. There is a sort of conceptual "space" involved, and I can often sense where two ideas don't "fit", but I don't "see" it as such. I have to translate when I want words, or pictures or actions. Music is probably my most direct form of output, bu even there, there is some post-processing involved.

 

Back to PC.

 

Firstly I agree that there have been a variety of ideas referenced under the term. Some with quite good intentions, others less so. I hear it most often used as a set of rules for not referring to anything which causes dissent. As such, I am strongly opposed to political correctness.

 

An ex-forces friend of mine told a story about the Falklands war. An officer had overheard the men calling the locals "Bennies", a reference to a special needs (PC) character in a British soap opera. He considered this unacceptable, and issued an order to the effect that the term should not be used. A while later, he became aware that the locals were now called "stills". When the men were pressed for an explanation, they said "well sir, begging your pardon, but they're still Bennies."

 

The point I take from this is that it is the attitude, not the terminology which is the problem. Excessive zeal in the policing of language can be counter-productive, in that it makes it hard to even refer to a topic, let alone get to grips with the underlying problems.

 

I understand the need for courtesy and consideration, and I will try not to be gratuitously offensive. On the other hand, if a subject needs to be talked about and I have to use an occasional "bad" word or phrase to do so, then full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes!

This is the most common reason for words to be deemed unacceptable. People are jerks.

On 7/1/2017 at 0:21 PM, Brother Kaman said:

I remember when those who make the rules decided that crippled people (yes, shame on me for saying crippled) would here after be referred to as handicapped. Then that word seemed to have dark, demeaning connotations so the rule makers decided that handicapable was the new buzz word. That was all well and good, I suppose, but many of these "handicapable" folks still felt as though they were handicapped. Didn't seem like the various state governments had any desire to change their parking placards, either.

Handicapable was an attempt, I suspect, to create a term that would be difficult to use pejoratively. And to an extent, it worked, because it is too awkward a term to toss off as an insult, and makes little sense abbreviated. However, it is awkward all the time, so not really a solution.

On 7/3/2017 at 9:49 AM, mererdog said:

Most of the time, I don't believe it is really well meant, nor that it is really about protecting anyone. If it were about protecting people, basic "No harm? No foul" rules would apply. Instead, you just end up with a list of words that can never be said, regardless of context or impact. That tells me it is really about prejudice against people who are seen as prejudiced, and a desire to punish them. 

Brother Kaman used the word "crippled." I can use that as proof that he is prejudiced against the differently abled, and use that to justify treating him badly. I can impugn his character, his upbringing, his family, or even his entire culture, all while sitting on a throne built out of assumed moral superiority. Its intoxicating stuff...

I like to think that most often it is intended to protect, but it becomes the tool for classifying people as jerks, sometimes unjustly. This reminds me of the scene in Clerks II about the term Porch Monkey. The usage and meaning of words changes, unless we calcify them.

 

On 7/4/2017 at 8:56 AM, mererdog said:

It would be hypocritical in the extreme for me to complain about that. So I will probably do it eventually.

Anyway, the natural order has each individual fighting tooth and nail for his piece of the pie. Even where animals of the same pack or hive share with one another, they do not share with outsiders. To say that ownership causes strife ignores this.

What ownership actually does is create a moral obligation. That moral obligation, in turn,  provides motive to be less grasping and less violent. It is not a panacea, of course, so people still act on the instinct to simply take what they want and fight anyone who tries to stop them. But it does lessen the problem.

hmm.

On 7/4/2017 at 3:00 PM, RevBogovac said:

On a different, and more scientific, note; Gilad Feldman, Huiwen Lian, Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell. Frankly, we do give a damn: The relationship between profanity and honesty. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2017 

 

!Spoiler alert! [they] found a consistent positive relationship between profanity and honesty; profanity was associated with less lying and deception at the individual level and with higher integrity at the society level.

Others have addressed the weakness of a single study. I will point out that honesty does not always improve a situation.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Freedom of speech is important.  Freedom of choice is important.  The terms of service were presented before anyone signed up to be on this forum.  A part of those terms of service were the profanity filter.  I know because I read them.  And like everyone else here I agreed to them.  

I think it silly that someone agreed to terms, then complains about those terms after the fact.  That's my personal opinion, though.  Take it or not.  

 

Thinking back on it, I did sign the TOS without reading them.  Not an issue.  I think the filter is silly, but I have no problem dealing with it.  It just means I say bull crap instead of bull **.  No nuance is actually lost.  

Edited July 6, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, kokigami said:

(if people are gonna get all chatty, I am going have to start logging in more often.)

Only if you finish your homework first.

[RevBogovac]

16 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Freedom of speech is important.  Freedom of choice is important.  The terms of service were presented before anyone signed up to be on this forum.  A part of those terms of service were the profanity filter.  I know because I read them.  And like everyone else here I agreed to them.  

I think it silly that someone agreed to terms, then complains about those terms after the fact.  That's my personal opinion, though.  Take it or not.  

 

OK, I am happy that you belong to the 17% who actually read the TOS (someone should). I believe more in "good intent" of men and "universal law" (as courts do too...). If there's someting in there that really shouldn't be, it will be corrected. But thankfully TOS (or any kind of "written agreement") aren't "set in stone" so it would actually be silly not to discuss how one sees their interactions with one another... it's just a silly discussion, true... 

 

16 hours ago, Rev. Calli said:

[...] Have you sent a message to brother Kevin or Amulet regarding your concerns about this issue?  IMHO that would be the proper thing to do.  [...]

 

I personally, don't see it as that "important". I wish the "authorities" (on this forum) would see this topic (and do with it what they want). It's more of a "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"(Evelyn Beatrice Hall) kind of issue for me... I deal with it like Jonathan does:

 

11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Thinking back on it, I did sign the TOS without reading them.  Not an issue.  I think the filter is silly, but I have no problem dealing with it.  It just means I say bull crap instead of bull **.  No nuance is actually lost.  

 

And:

 

11 hours ago, kokigami said:

[...] I will point out that honesty does not always improve a situation.

 

is certainly true... but... 

 

 I personally don't see the harm in letting people express themselves the way they choose to. It actually provides us (the "listeners") with a lot of "free" information about the one "sending" the information....

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

OK, I am happy that you belong to the 17% who actually read the TOS (someone should). I believe more in "good intent" of men and "universal law" (as courts do too...). If there's someting in there that really shouldn't be, it will be corrected. But thankfully TOS (or any kind of "written agreement") aren't "set in stone" so it would actually be silly not to discuss how one sees their interactions with one another... it's just a silly discussion, true... 

 

 

I personally, don't see it as that "important". I wish the "authorities" (on this forum) would see this topic (and do with it what they want). It's more of a "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"(Evelyn Beatrice Hall) kind of issue for me... I deal with it like Jonathan does:

 

 

And:

 

 

is certainly true... but... 

 

 I personally don't see the harm in letting people express themselves the way they choose to. It actually provides us (the "listeners") with a lot of "free" information about the one "sending" the information....

 

 

Be patient.  The full picture does emerge:  The kind, mean, wise and foolish.  It all emerges., over time.  

 

[RevBogovac]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Be patient.  The full picture does emerge:  The kind, mean, wise and foolish.  It all emerges., over time.  

 

 

True, true... I must admit I'm a bit "impatient" (coming from "impulsive", so there's [still even more room for] improvement... )

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

True, true... I must admit I'm a bit "impatient" (coming from "impulsive", so there's [still even more room for] improvement... )

 

 

There is always room for improvement.  You, me and everybody else.  Gently does it.  

[kokigami]

On 7/6/2017 at 7:05 PM, mererdog said:

Only if you finish your homework first.

I am, for the summer, free of homework, officially. That isn't as I had planned, but my maths are deteriorated severely, so I didn't qualify for the class I had "hoped" to take. Doing some unofficial homeworks..

[mererdog]

13 hours ago, kokigami said:

but my maths are deteriorated severely, 

A few years back, I took a quiz that proved I have forgotten pretty much everything beyond pre-algebra. I was only slightly surprised.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

41 minutes ago, mererdog said:

A few years back, I took a quiz that proved I have forgotten pretty much everything beyond pre-algebra. I was only slightly surprised.

 

I know I passed the standard High School math courses.  I don't even remember what some of the terms mean.  

[AmberLF]

On 6/20/2017 at 1:09 PM, mererdog said:

I have to say, though, that I don't like the phrase "self important." No individual's importance can be overstated, as it is damn near infinite. 

You might think so but I've seen it at work. When it gets to a point of disregarding anyone else for any reason, I'd say that's overstated. Perhaps egotistical is a better word? Either way it comes down to recognition VS service and which the person cares about most or if they care about the other at all.

[AmberLF]

On 7/10/2017 at 8:27 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I know I passed the standard High School math courses.  I don't even remember what some of the terms mean.  

I was that way. I don't think I could remember them even then.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, AmberLF said:

I was that way. I don't think I could remember them even then.  

 

Searching my memory, I recall cosign, sign and valence.  I think those were the words.  I don't remember what they mean.  Yet, I passed the tests.  I was right about one thing.  I insisted that I was never going to need any of it.  I was right.  

[AmberLF]

On 6/17/2017 at 11:18 AM, cuchulain said:

Buddhism teaches the middle way.  I think that might apply here.  Be nice to people, but not fawning and the sort.  Be assertive of yourself, but not hateful or trampling of others in the process.  At least, that's how I think I will attempt to do it   

Yes, I think for me it does.  I'm generally not a fighter. My points might be important to me but I do value other people's opinions enough to at least listen and try to understand or the conversation is just not meaningful enough to bother with. Part of the human condition as I understand it is to at least try. You just can't have any real semblance of  a viable, working community without it. That doesn't mean always agreeing. I can be just as argumentative as anyone else. But listening and at least trying to understand is key.

[AmberLF]

On 7/11/2017 at 3:26 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Searching my memory, I recall cosign, sign and valence.  I think those were the words.  I don't remember what they mean.  Yet, I passed the tests.  I was right about one thing.  I insisted that I was never going to need any of it.  I was right.  

LOL Yes, that's about the size of it. I still remember how to work a problem up to basic algebra but do not ask me terms. That is the fastest way to confuse me to a level of mind-mush.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 minutes ago, AmberLF said:

LOL Yes, that's about the size of it. I still remember how to work a problem up to basic algebra but do not ask me terms. That is the fastest way to confuse me to a level of mind-mush.

 

I still don't know why I had to suffer through any of it.  Even then, nobody gave me a reason regarding real application to anything.