Constantly evolving language.

[pope_of_larry]

I just hate when people toss around the word "fag" and "******".

Now, taking 21st century jargon into account, I'm neither (at least last time I checked), but it still bugs me how people just throw the term around like a Frisbee in the park, especially when they don't know what the terms really mean.

Alas... people are stupid.

you mean
British Informal . a younger pupil in a British public school required to perform certain menial tasks for, and submit to the hazing of, an older pupil.
words change the word fag has 11 meanings that have nothing to do with homosexuals

 

[Eldarion]

You have a point, but I still think it all boils down to peoples perception of words being the only thing that gives these words any power.

That's the only thing that gives any words any power. If certain words didn't have certain connotations, language would break down. By virtue of that fact alone, we should strive to understand what the words we use really mean in the ears of other human beings.

Case in point: I'm really not cool with people using the "n" word. Yeah, sure, Dave Chappelle is hilarious. Being darker than I am, and having lived a drastically different life than I have, I'm sure he understands how the word affects people better than I could. But irrespective of how he sees it, when he uses the word, other people start quoting him and using it, too. Being one out of, maybe, 12 black kids at my high school, it was just strange for me to see half the students running around, screaming, "Fuck yo' couch, nigga!" Even if they didn't mean it in a strictly negative sense, it still made me uncomfortable.

None of my friends are aware of this. As long as they're just quoting a show or something, I let them go on thinking it's okay, because I feel it would be hypocritical of me to laugh at Paul Mooney and not let anyone else do the same.

I guess my point is more or less the same as Matt_LRR's, just from a first-person perspective.

I got nothing to say against your argument cause its completely right, I still say the world would be a better place if we could just let go of the hateful meanings behind those kinds of words and just talk without any fear of offending someone.

 

[commasplice]

I got nothing to say against your argument cause its completely right, I still say the world would be a better place if we could just let go of the hateful meanings behind those kinds of words and just talk without any fear of offending someone.

 

[Daveman]

If, tomorrow, a linguistic trend took root in which people used the word "n*****" to mean "of poor quality" would that be ok?

"don't buy a ford, they're totally n*****s"

"The xbox 360 is n*****ed. I've replaced it 4 times, but it keeps breaking."

Is that a reasonable and inoffensive evolution of language?

-m

Well, if it doesn't carry the same meaning as what it originally intended then yes it is reasonable. In fact many black people refer to each other as niggers in a positive sense to show friendship (and even white people do similarly), so there has already been an evolution of language from that words original intent. Who knows where it could go next.

I would think that it doesn't matter whether somebody is insulted but whether there is the intention to insult surely. I mean, I'm from Brighton in the UK, famous for being the gay capital, and when my rugby friends at university found out they nicknamed me Big Gay Dave. Now gay has been an offensive term for ages so should I feel insulted by this jovial usage? Of course not, they're my friends. They don't mean to insult me even though they technically are, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Geez, George Carlin hasn't been dead that long has he? Have we forgotten everything he's taught us?

There is 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.

 

[Eldarion]

I got nothing to say against your argument cause its completely right, I still say the world would be a better place if we could just let go of the hateful meanings behind those kinds of words and just talk without any fear of offending someone.

Thats a piece of wisdom I have had some trouble grasping. The thought that good and evil are mutually dependent just isn't something I agree with. But that might be because I just don't understand the meaning. Or something.

Eh its something to think about.

 

[Sronpop]

Well if your gonna mention language evolution how can you not mention the masses of word which have become mainstream due to the internet. We live in an ages where kids use vulgar language to describe virtualy everything, peoples mothers use phrases like lol, and even grandmothers know that putting an i in front of anything instantly makes it more modern and advance, iPhone etc.

These are fast time that we live in my friend, the world is changing, and if you don't take the time to stop and look around every once in a while, you could miss it.

 

[zehydra]

The reason Gay people are offended (with good reason) when the word "gay" is used as meaning "rubbish" is because the reason the word MEANS rubbish in the first place is because it meant homosexual! People have also said "Homo" as rubbish and many other synonyms of homosexual. It's not part of the changing language... it's using someone's sexuality as an insult!

 

[commasplice]

Thats a piece of wisdom I have had some trouble grasping. The thought that good and evil are mutually dependent just isn't something I agree with. But that might be because I just don't understand the meaning. Or something.

Eh its something to think about.

Think of it this way: If, in your entire life, you never had a meal that was objectively "bad," then how can you tell what's good? I didn't realize just how great of a cook my mother was until I went to my grandfather's house and discovered he could make ANYTHING taste bland and flavorless. It's the whole "If everyone's super, no one is" thing. It's hard to really, truly appreciate the positive things in life if you haven't experienced anything negative.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

If, tomorrow, a linguistic trend took root in which people used the word "n*****" to mean "of poor quality" would that be ok?

"don't buy a ford, they're totally n*****s"

"The xbox 360 is n*****ed. I've replaced it 4 times, but it keeps breaking."

Is that a reasonable and inoffensive evolution of language?

-m

Funny, I've never heard anyone say that before...

 

[Eldarion]

Thats a piece of wisdom I have had some trouble grasping. The thought that good and evil are mutually dependent just isn't something I agree with. But that might be because I just don't understand the meaning. Or something.

Eh its something to think about.

Think of it this way: If, in your entire life, you never had a meal that was objectively "bad," then how can you tell what's good? I didn't realize just how great of a cook my mother was until I went to my grandfather's house and discovered he could make ANYTHING taste bland and flavorless. It's the whole "If everyone's super, no one is" thing. It's hard to really, truly appreciate the positive things in life if you haven't experienced anything negative.

But isn't that just a perspective thing? I mean if you look at it from a broader viewpoint encompassing morality as a whole then doesn't it kinda fall flat? I mean a person can do good things without needing a corresponding bad thing happening right? We don't need jerkwads even out all the nice people do we?

 

[commasplice]

But isn't that just a perspective thing? I mean if you look at it from a broader viewpoint encompassing morality as a whole then doesn't it kinda fall flat? I mean a person can do good things without needing a corresponding bad thing happening right? We don't need jerkwads even out all the nice people do we?

If we don't need jerkwads to even out the nice people, then why do we seem to think we need nice people to even out the jerkwads? But yeah, it is all about perspective. I know I said, "objectively bad," in my previous post, but I guess that was poor word choice on my part. "Good" and "bad" are values that human beings invented in order to help categorize and rationalize irrational things. And I guess that's part of my point. If there is no "bad," then everything is "good." How, then, do you explain to someone what "good" is? "Well, it's the opposite of bad?" "What's bad? I have no frame of reference for it because it doesn't exist."

My point isn't so much that "good" or "bad" things are necessary for the world to keep spinning. The world will exist either way. It's more that, without a solid definition for one, we have nothing to compare the other to. Because of that, even if everyone were "good" in the sense that we currently understand it, we probably wouldn't realize it, simply because there are no "bad" people. No one would be "good" or "bad" from that perspective; everyone would simply be.

I know that probably doesn't make a lot of sense, so I'll try to use another analogy. I think it's safe to assume you can see, right? Well, you know what that's like, and you know what darkness is like (since you can close your eyes and all), but imagine if you had been born with no eyes. The concept of light would be too abstract for you to grasp, because you have nothing to compare it to. Then, take that a step further and imagine that no one had eyes. On the planet. In that case, there wouldn't even be anyone around who could try to explain the difference between light and dark.

 

[Eldarion]

But isn't that just a perspective thing? I mean if you look at it from a broader viewpoint encompassing morality as a whole then doesn't it kinda fall flat? I mean a person can do good things without needing a corresponding bad thing happening right? We don't need jerkwads even out all the nice people do we?

If we don't need jerkwads to even out the nice people, then why do we seem to think we need nice people to even out the jerkwads? But yeah, it is all about perspective. I know I said, "objectively bad," in my previous post, but I guess that was poor word choice on my part. "Good" and "bad" are values that human beings invented in order to help categorize and rationalize irrational things. And I guess that's part of my point. If there is no "bad," then everything is "good." How, then, do you explain to someone what "good" is? "Well, it's the opposite of bad?" "What's bad? I have no frame of reference for it because it doesn't exist."

My point isn't so much that "good" or "bad" things are necessary for the world to keep spinning. The world will exist either way. It's more that, without a solid definition for one, we have nothing to compare the other to. Because of that, even if everyone were "good" in the sense that we currently understand it, we probably wouldn't realize it, simply because there are no "bad" people. No one would be "good" or "bad" from that perspective; everyone would simply be.

I know that probably doesn't make a lot of sense, so I'll try to use another analogy. I think it's safe to assume you can see, right? Well, you know what that's like, and you know what darkness is like (since you can close your eyes and all), but imagine if you had been born with no eyes. The concept of light would be too abstract for you to grasp, because you have nothing to compare it to. Then, take that a step further and imagine that no one had eyes. On the planet. In that case, there wouldn't even be anyone around who could try to explain the difference between light and dark.

It is just a perspective thing. The guy in the clip seemed to imply that human suffering is necessary for some stupid reason. If we need evil to have any sense of the word good, then yes that makes sense. But to justify human conflict and fighting as some kind of counterbalance to temple life seems backwards.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

If, tomorrow, a linguistic trend took root in which people used the word "n*****" to mean "of poor quality" would that be ok?

"don't buy a ford, they're totally n*****s"

"The xbox 360 is n*****ed. I've replaced it 4 times, but it keeps breaking."

Is that a reasonable and inoffensive evolution of language?

-m

Yes, actually, words really have no power till you put power behind the word, also the word gay is the perfect example of being able to use a word and make it mean something else

 

[commasplice]

It is just a perspective thing. The guy in the clip seemed to imply that human suffering is necessary for some stupid reason. If we need evil to have any sense of the word good, then yes that makes sense. But to justify human conflict and fighting as some kind of counterbalance to temple life seems backwards.

Hm, well, I should note that I'm no Taoist master or anything. I'm just some guy who read "The Tao of Pooh" a couple years ago. The way I see it, though, the meaning of that scene isn't so much that it's okay for people to be evil. I do agree with you; evil isn't necessary for good to exist. But it is necessary for our current perception of good to exist. Like with my example about being able to see. Even if everyone is blind, light still exists. We just can't properly appreciate it, because we can't see it.

To jump back to the original topic and what you said to begin with, if we had no words with negative connotations, the ones with positive connotations would lose their...connotations. I don't think we need the "n" word, or to use "gay" as a pejorative, but for the sake of perspective (which is the whole point behind language), we need negative words, as well as positive.

 

[darthzew]

Language isn't evolving, it's doing the exact opposite. People are getting stupider and the way they talk is reflecting that. As a writer, I'm appalled by this. Common language is slowly getting less and less complex with too words that have multiple meanings.

I feel like George Orwell was right about newspeak, except the government isn't imposing it on us. We're doing it to ourselves.

 

[Eldarion]

It is just a perspective thing. The guy in the clip seemed to imply that human suffering is necessary for some stupid reason. If we need evil to have any sense of the word good, then yes that makes sense. But to justify human conflict and fighting as some kind of counterbalance to temple life seems backwards.

Hm, well, I should note that I'm no Taoist master or anything. I'm just some guy who read "The Tao of Pooh" a couple years ago. The way I see it, though, the meaning of that scene isn't so much that it's okay for people to be evil. I do agree with you; evil isn't necessary for good to exist. But it is necessary for our current perception of good to exist. Like with my example about being able to see. Even if everyone is blind, light still exists. We just can't properly appreciate it, because we can't see it.

To jump back to the original topic and what you said to begin with, if we had no words with negative connotations, the ones with positive connotations would lose their...connotations. I don't think we need the "n" word, or to use "gay" as a pejorative, but for the sake of perspective (which is the whole point behind language), we need negative words, as well as positive.

I guess if it isn't the N word someone will invent something else. You see that episode of the Boondocks where Riley's teacher used the word in class? Uncle Ruckus (no relation)'s take on the matter was funny.

 

[hottsaucekid]

I just hate when people toss around the word "fag" and "******".

Now, taking 21st century jargon into account, I'm neither (at least last time I checked), but it still bugs me how people just throw the term around like a Frisbee in the park, especially when they don't know what the terms really mean.

Alas... people are stupid.

you would HATE 4chan

 

[MikailCaboose]

I blame slang. Isn't it something like every day a new slang word gets added to the dictionary? Ugh.

Humans are stupid. Why should any of us expect any different.