This is ... stoopid.
(A little out of context: Ironically, there aren't any equivalent words in my language. I have no idea how to call a geek "geek"in Greek without a whole sentence or two).
Makes no sense. None at all.
(A little out of context: Ironically, there aren't any equivalent words in my language. I have no idea how to call a geek "geek"in Greek without a whole sentence or two).
Polish has such word (kujon), though it only means someone who has good grades and all he does is learning. The English word "geek" is usually used by people proud of being ones and means something more (being internet and computer savvy, fantasy and/or sci-fi fan etc.).
So I don't see a reason to ban it.
[...] but as a whole I think the banning of words is silly.
Not to mention down-right un-American.
[...] but as a whole I think the banning of words is silly.
Not to mention down-right un-American.
Not only that, it's like telling you what you can and can't say (but i guess that was your point)
I think that society as a whole and by deliberate choice can choose itself what words are ok and what would be considered impolite or swear words. Geeks and Nerds are innofensive words really and even glorified terms!
I mean swearing in public and all, ok might be offensive to some but geek? Well, let's assume ourselves...
It's only of offensive if used as such. Also, you cannot ban words. Just doesn't work.
There's a different group to get pissed off at you for everything you're not supposed to say.
Can't say... (long list of words, most of which would be censored, most all racial/ethnic).
There's absolutely nothing wrong with any of those words in and of themselves. They're only words. It's the context that counts. It's the user. It's the intention behind the words that makes them good or bad. The words are completely neutral. The words are innocent. I get tired of people talking about bad words, and bad language. BS. It's the context that makes them good or bad - the context that makes them good or bad. For instance you take the word n------. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word n-----, in and of itself. It's the racist **** who's using it that you ought to be concerned about. We don't care when Richard Pryor or Eddie Murphy say it. Why? Because we know they're not racist - they're n-----s! Context - Context. We don't mind their context because we know they're black. Hey, I know I'm whitey, the blue-eyed devil, patty o'fey, grey-boy, honkey mother-f----, myself. Don't bother my ass. They're only words. You can't be afraid of words that speak the truth. - even if it's an unpleasant truth, like the fact that there's a bigot and a racist in every living room on every street corner in this country
Four or five papers from now, he'll convince enough of his buddies that he's right that it'll start spreading.
Here's what *I* want to do. Get a bunch of us together, all types, kinds, etc, Nerds and Geeks alike, and march on his freaking house until he cries uncle. Be proud!
-Sarena
I'm proud of being a Geek always have been.
Think about it. How many white people do you know that are bothered by the terms 'cracker' and 'honkey'? And how many times have you seen people up in arms demanding they be banned? A word is a word. Re-****in'-lax. If you're offended by a word it's because you've decided to be. Period. Let it go. Once you do, the word will no longer have any power. And that, my friend, is much better than 'banning' it.
Oh yeah, DS is likely correct with her shrink lookin' for cash theory. Funny how people that study the mind know exactly how to manipulate the willing.
And, as always, a Carlin quote provides fantastic, realistic comment on the situation in question. The man was an honest to god genius. Recognize, mutha****as.
EDIT: Part of the problem is that we live in a time that refuses to recognize personal responsibility. Go to a shrink and nothin's your fault. It's mommy and daddy and your boss and the chemicals in your head that they want to give you more chemicals to fix which then cause more chemical imbalances that need more chemicals to fix ... blah (not that there are not situations that require chemicals - calm down!). Why this is a problem is that once we decide to let our responsibility go, we forget that we have the power to control ourselves. And that makes us think crap like it's someone else's fault that we're bothered by a word they used. Which simply is not true. You control who you are. You control what makes you happy, sad, angry, etc. It really is on you. Take ownership of your being and take control of your happiness. It really does work. Aight, I'ma gettin' off mah soapbox nao. ;)
And as others have said, there are much worse words that are acceptable in our society. If we, the self-professed nerds and geeks, aren't offended by the words (well...I'm sure we all agree that in some contexts they could be offensive, but that's true for pretty much any word), then why should some shrink give a darn?
@Erato: Out of curiousity - what is your field of practice/study?
The point remains it is not the word, or the turns of expression that are bad. Even the example of cheap means little without the context and the attitude behind it. Removing or changing the word does little (and in some cases, makes the attitudes worse). Again - the words are just words. Don't like cheap? How about easy? So long as the attitude remains - other words will be found to convey the same idea. Again, back to your example (perfect for this particular argument) - that "label" is seldom assigned without some motivation. That is personal responsibility. Just as the "words" are a shorthand for others to convey their attitudes, blaming the "words" is a shorthand to attempt to deflect that personal responsibility.
Polish has such word (kujon), though it only means someone who has good grades and all he does is learning.
That's funny, in Danish, the word kujon means 'coward'. We use the word 'nørd', which is, or course, shamelessly stolen from English (considering how many Danish words are in the English language, it's only fair we take some back in return
), and means almost the same thing, though it's often used a little more positively, like geek in English.@Erato: Out of curiousity - what is your field of practice/study?
Psychology (with a few other subjects thrown into the mix), but I'm on a break right now.
The point remains it is not the word, or the turns of expression that are bad. Even the example of cheap means little without the context and the attitude behind it. Removing or changing the word does little (and in some cases, makes the attitudes worse).
Agreed. However, all the talk about words meaning nothing tend to easily slip into language meaning nothing, communication meaning nothing, everything short of physical coercion and written law (physically enforced) meaning nothing. And that's dangerous. What people say matters. It's naïve to the extreme to pretend it doesn't. Just as words tend to follow thought, thought (not to mention action), to some extent, also tends to follow words. Of course, context is, if not everything, then at least the biggest part of it. But that's no different than when using a knife. It's no reason to assume it can't have consequences.
Accepting a certain use of words against others will tend to be followed by accepting a certain type of actions against them. Those who see other people being treated contemptuously will be more likely to develop a contemptuous attitude towards these people themselves. As much as we don't want to admit it, we often adjust our thoughts and opinions after those of others, and sending a signal, through language, that a certain attitude is accepted, even applauded, can cause others to embrace, rather than suppress, this attitude in themselves.
Not to mention that the way you talk about other people can affect your own attitude. How often have anyone seen two people walk up to each other with no introduction, start to fight, and then, after having beaten the crap out of each other, starting to provoke each other verbally? It doesn't happen very often. But when done the other way around, people slamming each other verbally and then starting to fight, it's a perfectly normal occurrence. And it's not just to provoke each other that fighters do that, often, it's as much, or more, about convincing themselves of the other's inferiority and inhumanity, and getting themselves angry and exited enough, to overcome their inhibitions against violence.
You can't make a child spend its whole childhood hearing about how a certain group of people are stupid, and then expect the child to not treat these people as if they were stupid, because 'it was just words'. If a word is used to express contempt and hostility towards a certain group, and some people start opposing the use of that word, they're usually not opposing it for the word's sake, they're opposing the tendency to speak negatively about the group in question, and that's (usually) a good thing.
Of course, the dilemma is when to abandon a term and when to reclaim it, and in this aspect, I think geeks have done a great job reclaiming the term for themselves, and there's no need to speak out against the word. In fact, I think it's the geeks themselves that need to be told to mind their language, seeing as they're now often every bit as arrogant, elitist, and intolerant as they're busy accusing everybody else of being ;)
You must never ban a word, ever. It is a tool or resource for good or ill like all words. Most educated ppl make a pretty big stink about revisionism, whitewashing history, and all the child-like over reactions that are so popular today, and for good reason. Banning a word is w/in that regretable action, in poor form, and realistically, says more for the self-indulgent editing than it does for the word itself.
In short, it seems (IMO) an acknowledgement of personal weakness (you're letting a string of letters get the best of you, not the verbal assailant?), a big nod to letting hair triggers and premature/socially inept, overly emotive types take poll position over more critically thinking, logical, and diplomatic ones, and lastly, a large show of cowardice (burying your head in the sand under the pretext of "it's banned" will not make the world a better place, merely you a more ignorant one). It is in understanding of whatever enemy you subscribe to, a word or otherwise, that you remove its power to hurt you and you, in turn, gain power over it. If anything, banning it only gives it more venom.
Another big part of it is the how it is interpreted by the receiver. They may have a different meaning for the word and so even if a word is not meant to be interpreted as hurtful the receiver of the word. It was not the word that hurt them or the sender. It was the receiver and the meaning they have applied to the word.
I disagree, it's not one-sided. Even if you mean well, an action is an action, and you can't absolve yourself of all responsibility for your actions just because you meant well. People are not mind readers, and you shouldn't expect them to gauge your intentions if you aren't capable of (or worse, don't bother) making said intentions clear in the first place.
And I still miss the answer to where the professor says the words should be banned. A lot of other people seem to be saying it, but the only actual quote I could find was the words 'banishing “nerd” and “geek” to the linguistic dustbin', which doesn't seem to be about outright banning.
Hmm, I could really use my old post now, about not living in a vacuum. Anyway....
Another big part of it is the how it is interpreted by the receiver. They may have a different meaning for the word and so even if a word is not meant to be interpreted as hurtful the receiver of the word. It was not the word that hurt them or the sender. It was the receiver and the meaning they have applied to the word.
I disagree, it's not one-sided. Even if you mean well, an action is an action, and you can't absolve yourself of all responsibility for your actions just because you meant well. People are not mind readers, and you shouldn't expect them to gauge your intentions if you aren't capable of (or worse, don't bother) making said intentions clear in the first place.
I'm not saying such. What I'm saying is that it should not be the word that is targeted and looked down upon but rather the behavior that evokes the emotions that the word(s) evoke. The word has no inherent meaning and so should not be to blame. It is the user that has the meaning and that has conveyed the meaning with a purpose to hurt that should be held responsible.
But yes I have come across cases where people were hurt by none hurtful words and words that were not being used in a hurtful manner. A female friend tried to comfort me once when I described myself as a nerd. I was describing myself with it as something to be proud of. The way she interpreted it was that I was bashing myself and acting quite emo cuz there is no way in hell anybody would ever want to associate themselves with that word. To her the word nerd does have a very negative meaning and that's the way she did interpret it even though it was not even used anywhere close to that manner. So yeah, the hurtfulness of a word can be purely from one's own personal feelings of the word.
I disagree, it's not one-sided. Even if you mean well, an action is an action, and you can't absolve yourself of all responsibility for your actions just because you meant well. People are not mind readers, and you shouldn't expect them to gauge your intentions if you aren't capable of (or worse, don't bother) making said intentions clear in the first place.
Not all responsibility always, but in this particular case, you can. "Sticks and stones..." and all that. If someone reads something into my words that is unintended, it is ALL on them. In fact, in most cases - even if the intent IS negative, I'd say it's STILL all on them. Moreover, they need to grow some thicker skin. I have a personal issue dealing with people that can't handle words, or wallow in traumas past. As I have quite a bit of empathy (from personal experiences) with many of the situations they decry, I have no sympathy for the way they let such rule their emotions. Get over it - you'll be a much happier person in the long run. Again, to me, it's no more than a way for some people to avoid personal responsibility for their own well being, and cast blame on others.
edited to add: general rule of life - if your happiness is fully dependant on the actions or inactions of others, prepare to NOT be happy.
I'm not saying such. What I'm saying is that it should not be the word that is targeted and looked down upon but rather the behavior that evokes the emotions that the word(s) evoke. The word has no inherent meaning and so should not be to blame. It is the user that has the meaning and that has conveyed the meaning with a purpose to hurt that should be held responsible.
Of course there's a larger case than just one word, but that doesn't mean you can't be critical of the use of that word along with the others. In my school, we were told never to use the word 'perker' against others, because an immigrant could be walking by while we were saying it, and be hurt by it (the word is a variation of the word for Persian, and is used to refer condescendingly to people of middle eastern decent, occupying a space similar to the word '****' (also known as 'the n-word') in America).
Was that wrong to teach us? I don't think so. Of course there are bigger problems than a single word, but that doesn't mean the word is disconnected to the bigger problem. The lesson to not use the word 'perker' was part of a bigger lesson, to not callously belittle a whole culture, to not assume other ethnicities to be inferior, to not generalise and judge others on their ethnicity, to keep an open mind rather than falling back on stereotypes, and to not use other's ethnicity (as opposed to their personal qualities and choices) to dismiss or ridicule them. The word was just the symptom that showed up, and making children avoid it might be a little thing, but accepting 'perker' as a valid concept would go against the values the teachers were trying to communicate.
But yes I have come across cases where people were hurt by none hurtful words and words that were not being used in a hurtful manner. A female friend tried to comfort me once when I described myself as a nerd. I was describing myself with it as something to be proud of. The way she interpreted it was that I was bashing myself and acting quite emo cuz there is no way in hell anybody would ever want to associate themselves with that word. To her the word nerd does have a very negative meaning and that's the way she did interpret it even though it was not even used anywhere close to that manner. So yeah, the hurtfulness of a word can be purely from one's own personal feelings of the word.
To some extent, perhaps. But none of you were actually hurt in this situation, so it's not a good example. A better example would be if she perceived the word 'nerd' to be negative, and you called her a nerd without making it clear that you meant it as a praise, which made her sad. In this case, are you completely without blame? Unless you had no idea the word nerd was often perceived negatively, I'd say you have part of the responsibility. It might not be as bad as if you'd called her stupid, mean, ugly, or worthless, but it's nonetheless something that will often be said to communicate hostility and disregard, and you can't expect her to read your mind and know the meaning you attach to the word.
To take a better example, how about 'fat' or 'old'? There are cultures in which fat is considered a status symbol and (at least on women) a sign of beauty, and where old people are revered, but referring to someone as “that fat old nerd over there” is not likely to be perceived positively by people on this board. Now, it is possible for someone to say something that could not, reasonably, be expected to be perceived as negative, but still end up coming across that way because of some people's personal hangups, but that usually only happens in regard to less common description.
For instance, an old classmate of mine once told another student “Do you know what you are? You're a small, fat, pale zebra with big front teeth, who eat nuts all the time”, which was obviously meant to be humorous, but it just so happened that the other student was somewhat small, rather pale, a little chubby, and didn't recognise the quote as coming from a popular sitcom. That in itself might not be enough to cause her to miss the intended humour, but she also believed she had unusually large front teeth and she loved nuts (and was seriously freaking out about how he'd known), so she ended up being genuinely hurt. But cases like these seem to be a rarity.
Not all responsibility always, but in this particular case, you can. "Sticks and stones..." and all that. If someone reads something into my words that is unintended, it is ALL on them. In fact, in most cases - even if the intent IS negative, I'd say it's STILL all on them. Moreover, they need to grow some thicker skin. I have a personal issue dealing with people that can't handle words, or wallow in traumas past. As I have quite a bit of empathy (from personal experiences) with many of the situations they decry, I have no sympathy for the way they let such rule their emotions. Get over it - you'll be a much happier person in the long run. Again, to me, it's no more than a way for some people to avoid personal responsibility for their own well being, and cast blame on others.
edited to add: general rule of life - if your happiness is fully dependant on the actions or inactions of others, prepare to NOT be happy.
Thank you for your advice, here's one in return: If you have such big hangups about other people's linguistic preferences that you feel the need to spend more than one post dismissing them, even though they don't affect you at all, you seriously need to get over yourself.
Thank you for your advice,
You're welcome
let me give you one in return: If you have such big hangups about other people's linguistic preferences that you feel the need to spend more than one post dismissing them, even though they don't affect you at all, you seriously need to get over yourself.
Thanks - but a) I'm not sure how that is relevant, what I'm posting about is not a linguistic preference in this case. b) the issue itself, the control of language to the detriment of people's ability to cope with life, does indeed effect me (and us all), and c) should you not take your own advice (assuming you disagree with point a)?
Much as with your comment regarding intent not absolving one of responsibility. There are (I assume) good intentions behind what this particular posting is attempting. The end result, however, is not only futile - but, potentially, detrimental, as, yet again, it is one more avenue for people to escape responsibility for their own well-being.
In this particular instance, I doff my hat to Bill Cosby. In the show "Little Bill", they had an episode with... I forget the term used, but basically being mean via words. The advice given by his father - "So?". To his child's confusion, he illustrated - "well - are you are baby?" "No" "So?". "Are you a mush-head?" "No" "So?" In the end, Little Bill learned to treat the slams as the rubbish they truly are. You likened words to a knife - disarm your foe, take the edge off his blade. THAT is empowerment.
And I still miss the answer to where the professor says the words should be banned. A lot of other people seem to be saying it, but the only actual quote I could find was the words 'banishing “nerd” and “geek” to the linguistic dustbin', which doesn't seem to be about outright banning.
My guess is to remove it from places such as the dictionary and remove it from things like TV and radio. It would still be a word but would then just become unofficial slang once more. probably in hopes that it would fall out of use.
Of course there's a larger case than just one word, but that doesn't mean you can't be critical of the use of that word along with the others. In my school, we were told never to use the word 'perker' against others, because an immigrant could be walking by while we were saying it, and be hurt by it (the word is a variation of the word for Persian, and is used to refer condescendingly to people of middle eastern decent, occupying a space similar to the word '****' (also known as 'the n-word') in America).
Does the word 'perker' also have the meaning of dawg, homie, bro as in 'friend'? If it doesn't then I fail to see how it has the same meaning as the n-word. See african-americans will interpret the word as being friendly, if not being used in a hate manner, if used by another african-american or very close friend. It would have the meaning of friend or bro but usually in a more playful manner. Now the word can also be used to call someone ignorant. Now it only seems to become a racial slur, in the listener's ears, if it is used by a non-black person to describe a black person. Does perker have such a huge range of commonly accepted meanings or just the slur meaning? If not then how exactly is it similar to the n-word?
That word does not automatically have a racial slur meaning. It has others. The racial slur meaning only comes out if it is used in such a manner or if the one hearing the word believes that it is being used in such a manner.
I'm all for teaching kinds about respect for others and proper behavior but that is different than banning words in a country because it can or might have hurt feelings. Or rather been the messenger that delivered the message of hate and hurtfulness.
Thanks - but a) I'm not sure how that is relevant, what I'm posting about is not a linguistic preference in this case.
Yes it is. Until someone actually answers my request and shows how this is anything more than the preference of the professor (who dislikes the terms, and, like most people who dislike something, tries to convince others to do likewise), I don't see this as an issue over anything but words. And since words don't mean anything, including the professors words decrying geek/nerd as slurs, there's really not anything to care about here.
b) the issue itself, the control of language to the detriment of people's ability to cope with life, does indeed effect me (and us all),
Control? What control? The man has absolutely no power to control your words, so why are you caring about his words?
and c) should you not take your own advice (assuming you disagree with point a)?
No, because I believe that what people say matters, and as such, it is logical for me to have an interest in it, and devote time and attention to it. If you don't believe it matters, why waste time complaining about one man with a preference he's extremely unlikely to ever succeed forcing upon anyone else?
In this particular instance, I doff my hat to Bill Cosby. In the show "Little Bill", they had an episode with... I forget the term used, but basically being mean via words. The advice given by his father - "So?". To his child's confusion, he illustrated - "well - are you are baby?" "No" "So?". "Are you a mush-head?" "No" "So?" In the end, Little Bill learned to treat the slams as the rubbish they truly are. You likened words to a knife - disarm your foe, take the edge off his blade. THAT is empowerment.
But I'm not talking about me. Do you really think that all the posters who care about what the media says about the president, care because they believe it will hurt the president's feelings? My guess is they care because they know that the way people talk about the president will affect people's perception of him, which again will affect the amount of support he can get, in the senate as well as among the population.
Bush could laugh all he wanted about all those comments on his intelligence (or lack thereof), convince himself that they weren't true, and that he didn't care about the approval of the people who made them. But the perception of him being stupid affected him nonetheless. Chances are, he had more trouble being taken seriously, and getting people to trust his competence, because the prevailing view among many people was that he was an idiot. And that perception likely wouldn't have been as widespread as it was if the press hadn't made those comments.
Everything is not about you, even if you're the one the words are aimed at. You can't disarm an angry mob just by not caring that someone has called you a witch. You can't avoid negative reactions from being accused of something, just because you know the accusations aren't true. You can tell yourself it doesn't matter that your boss and co-workers are encouraging each other to sling racial slurs at you, but it wont change the discrimination that follows when your co-workers realise (through words) that their racism is shared and accepted by the others.
There was a study a while back, indicating that sexist men were more likely to act on their sexism after hearing sexist jokes, and more likely to believe their sexism was shared by others. Of course, there wouldn't a be a problem if these men weren't sexist in the first place, but it doesn't mean the jokes had no effect. And the effect wasn't on the target on the jokes, it was on the listener.
Words express attitudes. Accepting people's words without contestation, is accepting their attitude and opinions without contestation, at least publicly. Sometimes it's the wise thing to do, even if you privately disagree, but history is full of examples of what can happen if people don't speak up. It's not as simple as just ignoring what people say about each other.
My guess is to remove it from places such as the dictionary and remove it from things like TV and radio. It would still be a word but would then just become unofficial slang once more. probably in hopes that it would fall out of use.
Wow! So even though the guy compared geek/nerd to racial slurs, which are clearly in the dictionary (I looked up **** (the n-word), **** (slur for illegal Mexican labourer), ****, whitey, cracker, jig, dago, pikey, ginzo, and quite a few others before I became bored), along with other slurs, you still believe him to want to take the, in our modern age, unprecedented step of actually removing words from the dictionary just because he doesn't like them. Damn, that's some paranoid **** df, no offence.
Does the word 'perker' also have the meaning of dawg, homie, bro as in 'friend'? If it doesn't then I fail to see how it has the same meaning as the n-word.
I love how you ask a question, then immediately assume you know what the answer will be, and just continue to argue against it. The answer here is 'yes'. It is sometimes used by people of middle eastern decent to refer to each other. I never claimed it was just about words outside context, my argument has always been about the larger issue of what we communicate.
That word does not automatically have a racial slur meaning. It has others. The racial slur meaning only comes out if it is used in such a manner or if the one hearing the word believes that it is being used in such a manner.
It is a racial slur that has been taken up as a term of endearment (sometimes) by people whose ethnicity makes the use of it self-defeating. It doesn't mean it, or other normally derogatory terms, has no effect when used by others.
I'm all for teaching kinds about respect for others and proper behavior but that is different than banning words in a country because it can or might have hurt feelings. Or rather been the messenger that delivered the message of hate and hurtfulness.
Are there any banned words in the US? Obviously those racial slurs the professor in question wants to compare geek/nerd to are very much in the dictionary, and even if they weren't, I'm pretty sure no one would arrest you just for mentioning them (or else, urban dictionary, not pirate bay, would be the site of choice to close).
The exact same same conversation could happen in Denmark, only, we don't tend to censor words. That doesn't mean we can't talk about how people talk to and about each other, and how that affects us socially. It seems like the censorship in the US has done more than just causing some words to go 'beep' on TV and '****' on the WotC forum.
Yes it is. Until someone actually answers my request and shows how this is anything more than the preference of the professor (who dislikes the terms, and, like most people who dislike something, tries to convince others to do likewise), I don't see this as an issue over anything but words. And since words don't mean anything, including the professors words decrying geek/nerd as slurs, there's really not anything to care about here.
Ah - that is where the disconnect is, then. Many (myself included) are addressing the General issue, not what this particular professor has stated. My only reference to the OP was to point out that his/her intentions are probably good - albeit misguided.
Control? What control? The man has absolutely no power to control your words, so why are you caring about his words?
See above - my posts are in regard to the general attitude, not this particular case.
No, because I believe that what people say matters, and as such, it is logical for me to have an interest in it, and devote time and attention to it.
Just to review... (as I've already stated my interest to lie elsewhere, and not this one (wo)man's preference)
"If you have such big hangups about other people's linguistic preferences that you feel the need to spend more than one post dismissing them, even though they don't affect you at all, you seriously need to get over yourself. "
How does my "preference", as you would deem it, effect you? In my view, it effects you ONLY to the extent that YOU allow it. In such a case... well, it seems your advice would apply.
But I'm not talking about me.
Nor was I - except in the reference to your analogy - the rest is meant to the general "you". Moreover, it is for ALL.
Do you really think that all the posters who care about what the media says about the president, care because they believe it will hurt the president's feelings? My guess is they care because they know that the way people talk about the president will affect people's perception of him, which again will affect the amount of support he can get, in the senate as well as among the population.
Bush could laugh all he wanted about all those comments on his intelligence (or lack thereof), convince himself that they weren't true, and that he didn't care about the approval of the people who made them. But the perception of him being stupid affected him nonetheless. Chances are, he had more trouble being taken seriously, and getting people to trust his competence, because the prevailing view among many people was that he was an idiot. And that perception likely wouldn't have been as widespread as it was if the press hadn't made those comments.
And here's the dirty little secret that you should be aware of. His intelligence would STILL be questioned, without the flubs of speech. This, based on policy alone. (example, refer to Jimmy Carter) He would have the same issues - only from a different angle. He brought on the target (as is inevitable in politics) - the only question was what color the circles were to be painted.
Everything is not about you, even if you're the one the words are aimed at. You can't disarm an angry mob just by not caring that someone has called you a witch. You can't avoid negative reactions from being accused of something, just because you know the accusations aren't true. You can tell yourself it doesn't matter that your boss and co-workers are encouraging each other to sling racial slurs at you, but it wont change the discrimination that follows when your co-workers realise (through words) that their racism is shared and accepted by the others.
Again - it's the attitude, not the words. Changing the words DOES NOT change the attitudes (at least, it hasn't in the past ~6000 years). What inevitably happens is that the old words are given new meaning, or put into disuse, and if the prevailing notions still hold, or the general stereotype is still deemed acceptable, then new words are chosen to represent the EXACT same attitudes that the old ones did.
There was a study a while back, indicating that sexist men were more likely to act on their sexism after hearing sexist jokes, and more likely to believe their sexism was shared by others. Of course, there wouldn't a be a problem if these men weren't sexist in the first place, but it doesn't mean the jokes had no effect. And the effect wasn't on the target on the jokes, it was on the listener.
Again - it's in the attitude, and this is a more clear example, as there aren't ANY particular words or phrases that make a joke sexist or not.
Words express attitudes. Accepting people's words without contestation, is accepting their attitude and opinions without contestation, at least publicly. Sometimes it's the wise thing to do, even if you privately disagree, but history is full of examples of what can happen if people don't speak up. It's not as simple as just ignoring what people say about each other.
This we can agree on - words are the messengers only - not the message. Don't shoot the messenger. In this case, others are easily found (and ALWAYS are). As for speaking up - it's much more easily done when you don't allow them (the words) to have power over you.
Finally - you've done a good job of explaining where attitudes may lead to action that can result in injury (perhaps), and that words convey attitudes. However, you have NOT shown where words, themselves, cause harm. My point stands - if the words, themselves, harm you (general), it is because YOU (general) grant them that power. That is allowing yourself to be a victim. There are actually quite a number of articles as of late in your field regarding victimhood (and the perpetuation and reinforcement of such by the industry). NOTE: this is NOT to be confused with martyr complex (victim complex).
it's a valid descriptive, he needs to shut his pie-hole. He won't, though. Because that won't get him t3h monies so he can go back to spending his life looking at lolCats on the intarwebs.
-Sarena
Are there any banned words in the US?
Absolutely banned by law, no. Banned in practice, depending on context, yes. For instance, in any broadcast the FCC has juristiction over, there are many words that must be used sparingly, if at all, to avoid being fined - there's no concrete list of words, but, if anything, that only makes the regulation more onerous. If people 'take offense' or perceive 'obscenity' in a broadcast and complain, the FCC may take action.
Similarly, in the work place, many employers have positively draconian policies when it comes to using language or imagery that might conceivably offend someone, and you can very easily lose your job over such things.
Our institutions of higher learning are hotbeds of intellectual censorship, as well, in which specific words and specific ideas are unacceptable and will be subtlely (or as in the case of the OP's link, not so subtly) sanctioned.
Finally, while using a given word may not be illegal, by itself, using the wrong word while in comission of a crime (anything from murder on down to vadalism) will get you harsher sentencing.
So, all in all, Americans, while having a proud history of freedom, and still preaching freedom of speech, have to be pretty careful what they actually say.
So, all in all, Americans, while having a proud history of freedom, and still preaching freedom of speech, have to be pretty careful what they actually say.
This. In the push for "diversity," and "sensitivity" we somehow lost the fundamental freedoms that we were given in the Constitution.
Leastaways, we lost sight of them, trying to protect the ears (and feelings) of the monkey sitting next to us. Honestly, I had more freedom to speak in High School, than at any time since.
They actually had a list of things you could be suspended/expelled for saying. Banned words.
-Sarena
Ah - that is where the disconnect is, then. Many (myself included) are addressing the General issue, not what this particular professor has stated. My only reference to the OP was to point out that his/her intentions are probably good - albeit misguided.
And I'm still curious about how someone saying certain words should be banished to the linguistic dustbin (which just seems to be saying that these words and attitudes have overstayed their welcome, and that a change would be preferable), can inspire headlines about banning words.
How does my "preference", as you would deem it, effect you? In my view, it effects you ONLY to the extent that YOU allow it. In such a case... well, it seems your advice would apply.
Your expressed opinions (and especially how convincingly you communicate them) affect others' opinions, others' opinions affect my interaction with them. On a larger scale, the level of intolerance towards people speaking up affects all of us, it increases the effectiveness of propaganda, the amount of encouragement given to bigots, and it breeds acceptance towards verbal abuse, which, despite people's idealistic words about freedom and choice, will often have a deep and lasting effect on the receiver, which again further affects even the people who aren't subjected to it, because they'll be interacting with the receiver (and no amount of telling each other over the internet that the abused party could have chosen not to feel abused will change their actual behaviour afterwards).
And more importantly, I have an interest in words, which words are chosen, why they're chosen, and what they say about the speaker. In this case, I'm very interested in the effect of the words of the professor, namely how they have caused a great deal of people to assume he's out to ban words, and at least one poster to outright state he'd probably want them removed from the dictionary, even if such a thing was never said. It is a great example of the power of words, when coupled with cultural upbringing (which itself is largely shaped by language), and I hope to find some answers here – though as usual, the possibility of finding answers to people's reaction to words is proving to be difficult among people who keep insisting they're not affected at all, even though their reactions show the opposite.
And here's the dirty little secret that you should be aware of. His intelligence would STILL be questioned, without the flubs of speech. This, based on policy alone. (example, refer to Jimmy Carter) He would have the same issues - only from a different angle. He brought on the target (as is inevitable in politics) - the only question was what color the circles were to be painted.
I doubt most people would be aware of it. And even if most people in the US were, there'd still be foreigners. Believe me, few of us care about the specifics of US policies (any more than the US cares about anyone else's), but hearing about the stupid American president, that's something everyone is interested in. Bush didn't command a lot of respect in many non-US countries, and that meant leaders who wanted to cooperate with him often faced opposition from their own population, which again affected Bush's diplomatic prowess.
Show
On a related note, I recently read that 25 of my country's most respected economists had stated that the policies of our current government is the reason why Denmark has been hit harder by the recession than similar countries, and will take a longer time getting out of it. There's even a footage from a couple of years ago, of the leader of the opposition telling the minister of finance that the good times wont last, and that we need to slow things down and avoid overheating the economy, while the minister of finance dismissively told her she was just jealous of how well the government was doing. Time definitely showed her to be right, but has it affected the populace's opinion? Not much, the government is less popular than it used to be, but not overly so. People simply don't believe it.
The last prime minister have been incredibly skilled at telling people the right things at the right moment, and thereby affected their opinion of him. The current prime minister (leading the same government) enjoys the results. Even though the policy of the last government have been internationally applauded as sound economic decisions, lots of people still believe it was just luck, and that it only happened because the economy was doing well everywhere else (even though Denmark at the time went from (I believe) the 15th wealthiest nation in the world to the 5th wealthiest, which can't be explained by everyone doing well).
So despite objections from economists, and despite an obvious change in wealth (Denmark started doing well under the last government, and while that development continued for some time under the current government, we're now hit much harder by the financial crisis, and the prognosis for the future is looking bleak), people still believe the current government is best equipped to handle the economy.
That's propaganda at its finest, the ability to say the right things to ridicule your opponents and discredit them in the eyes of the population, even if reality works against you.
The last prime minister have been incredibly skilled at telling people the right things at the right moment, and thereby affected their opinion of him. The current prime minister (leading the same government) enjoys the results. Even though the policy of the last government have been internationally applauded as sound economic decisions, lots of people still believe it was just luck, and that it only happened because the economy was doing well everywhere else (even though Denmark at the time went from (I believe) the 15th wealthiest nation in the world to the 5th wealthiest, which can't be explained by everyone doing well).
So despite objections from economists, and despite an obvious change in wealth (Denmark started doing well under the last government, and while that development continued for some time under the current government, we're now hit much harder by the financial crisis, and the prognosis for the future is looking bleak), people still believe the current government is best equipped to handle the economy.
That's propaganda at its finest, the ability to say the right things to ridicule your opponents and discredit them in the eyes of the population, even if reality works against you.
he needs to shut his pie-hole.
Why? It's just words.
Absolutely banned by law, no. Banned in practice, depending on context, yes. For instance, in any broadcast the FCC has juristiction over, there are many words that must be used sparingly, if at all, to avoid being fined - there's no concrete list of words, but, if anything, that only makes the regulation more onerous. If people 'take offense' or perceive 'obscenity' in a broadcast and complain, the FCC may take action.
I don't know what the FCC is, but it sounds horrible. However, it doesn't seem like anything but democracy and consumerism taken to its logical extreme. We don't have any laws about censorship, and public service channels practically never use it, except perhaps in a few children's programs, and sometimes not even that. However, cable TV uses quite a bit of censorship (though exactly how much is difficult to say, since a lot of the American shows seem to just have been imported with the censorship on). And it's not because the level of nudity and swear words is higher on cable, quite the contrary.
Similarly, in the work place, many employers have positively draconian policies when it comes to using language or imagery that might conceivably offend someone, and you can very easily lose your job over such things.
This seems to be a cultural difference. From what I can remember of my lessons in political science, almost everything is legal here until the moment someone press charges. So rather than having rules for what people are allowed to say and not say from the beginning, people just decide as they go along, and if someone is found to have said something wrong, the punishment is usually rather mild.
Our institutions of higher learning are hotbeds of intellectual censorship, as well, in which specific words and specific ideas are unacceptable and will be subtlely (or as in the case of the OP's link, not so subtly) sanctioned.
I personally don't care what schools, and to some extent, companies, do to oppress freedom to speech, as long as it's done professionally. Maybe someone really deserve to feel like ****, and work/learn less effectively, as punishment for being weak enough to let themselves be affected by how they're treated, and spoken about, by others, but that doesn't really change the part of them learning or working less effectively, and if their effectiveness can be brought up by having people avoid upsetting them, and avoiding upsetting them is easily done, I have no issue with it.
A girl in one of my D&D groups once got upset because I changed my clothes while the group was present. I don't know exactly why, but I guess she felt I used to attract the attention of the guys or something (by turning my back, changing my bra inside my shirt, taking my pants on under my skirt, and being quick about it). So she told a guy who told a guy who told me that she'd like me to stop (actually, he was supposed to tell me it was the first guy who wanted me to stop, but he couldn't help revealing that she had been the one making the demand – oh how I love boys and their “we're not backstabbing gossips like girls are”-attitude ;)).
It was quite ridiculous, but nevertheless, I just stopped ever changing my clothes where people in the group could see me. It was illogical, it was unfair (especially considering the guys often showed even more skin), and 5 years ago I'd have probably made a big deal out of it, but all in all, it wasn't worth it. So she was being unreasonable, but I could make the whole thing go away simply by not changing my clothes in front of her. Why not do it? Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices to accommodate other people's unreasonable feelings in social situations, and if it can be done easily, I really don't see the big issue
The removal of a word from common usage accomplishes nothing. For example, I knew people that would frequently use the 'N' word when I was a child. However, they'd do their best to not use it around me. Does that mean that their racist beliefs vanished with the word? Nope. The simply started calling these people 'you know whos'. Yeah, real smooth. In other words (ha!), language will always have room for a feeling, perception, whatever. Always. People are industrious and hateful creatures and will find a suitable alternative until it too is phased out. The words are simply words and are totally harmless. They can reflect an attitude, however, and that's where the danger lies. The words can also be a tool. Like most tools, though, when one is lost, another is quickly found. To me, if it's the words you're lookin' at, you're lookin' at the wrong stuff.
I'm also in agreement with PBN about how important personal perception of a word used against you is. The person calling you stupid does not empower the word 'stupid'. When you decide that 'stupid' has power by taking offense, you make it true. If 'stupid' (or the n-word, a-hole, whatever) is offensive by itself, why then doesn't it bother everyone? If you call me 'stupid' and I laugh in your face or if you call me an 'a-hole' and I agree with you, what has that word accomplished? I'd say nothing, but that isn't true. What it did do was show the person using it that it, by itself, has no power and that their attitude/perception means nothing to me. That puts the ball in my court and makes me the one with the power. And this is exactly why it's my preferred method of dealing with 'insult'. I'll admit that I'm not always capable of doing it - I am still human. ;) What I can also tell you is that when I was a kid, I let this stuff matter. I'd reflect (ok, obsess) about words after they were used against me. And I was one miserable li'l ****. As I got older, I began to take ownership of my happiness, and, in the process, my life. It worked. It won't save me from any angry mobs, no. But I sure as hell won't be worried about what they're calling me if they do come.
I don't know what the FCC is, but it sounds horrible. However, it doesn't seem like anything but democracy and consumerism taken to its logical extreme. We don't have any laws about censorship, and public service channels practically never use it, except perhaps in a few children's programs, and sometimes not even that. However, cable TV uses quite a bit of censorship (though exactly how much is difficult to say, since a lot of the American shows seem to just have been imported with the censorship on). And it's not because the level of nudity and swear words is higher on cable, quite the contrary.
Sorry, Federal Communications Commission, it's just a beaurocracy that was meant to keep broadcasters from stepping on eachother's signals and the like, so it serves a useful purpose. It's also regulated content in varying ways (for a while, there was a rule that required broadcasters to provide equal time to an opposing viewpoint any time a political opinion was expressed, for another instance). Most TV shows made for American television adhere to a guideline known as the BS&P - Broadcasting Standards and Practices - which is not exactly draconian, but does encourage very tame content. There's technically no censorship by the government, rather, the producers self-censor because they know if they don't follow the guideline and enough people complain, they'll get fined. Compared to shows from other countries they may look 'censored,' but, actually, they were produced that way. Even if you hear a word 'beeped out,' it was probably written into the script that way.
And people /do/ complain, there are some up-tight religious and political nuts who watch TV in shifts looking for anything they don't aprove of, then get their organizations to lodge mass complaints. ... No, I'm not kidding.