19 replies to this topic

[Egann]

The Associated Press--the news source for most of the newspapers, TV stations, etc. in the United States--has stricken "illegal immigrant and "islamist" from their style protocols.

Source.
Source.

I have no patience for people who change their vocabulary. If you need to change the word you use to describe something, it's because you were *wrong* about it. You've done someone wrong, you've misinformed people by implication, and you need to set the matter straight. In so many words, you owe people an apology and an explanation, and we never get that.

In fact, only about half the time is there a fair reason behind the vocabulary change. Consider some other vocabulary changes over the past decade:

"Gay" or "homosexual" to LBGTQ.

I hate the acronym LBGTQ and all it's permutations. It forces a collective label on everyone in a half-dozen distinct identities and makes them sound like a sandwich at the same time. That, and it's impossible to say. Still, I understand the need: there are a bunch of identities we need to describe and "gay" doesn't really cover them. I get the need. I just hate the "word."

"Global warming" to "climate change."

The instance of vernacular distortion I have the least patience for. Global warming at least pretends to be a scientific, despite the fact that every science class I have ever taken drilled the mantra "correlation does not prove causation" into my head. Global warming summarized a complex idea nicely. Climate change means almost nothing.

And the worst irony is that the model itself hasn't changed: Carbon Dioxide is still supposedly making the Earth warm (never mind growing seasons are almost two months late here in Georgia and livestock is starving.) Until I get an apology and a sensible description of how "global warming" was terribly misleading on factual grounds, I'm going to call a spade a spade and say this word "climate change" is naked intellectual cowardice.

"Marriage"

Rarely is a culture war so explicitly fought over a word. Not an idea: the word. Once upon a time marriage meant something. Then the sixties happened, and I'm left wondering why the word means anything to anyone anymore. That people give it the time of day is a monument to human stupidity.

"Islamist."

I can kind of see why you would want to remove this word. You don't want Islamofascists to sound like they are too deeply rooted into Islamic mainstream. It may or may not be whitewashing: I don't know Islam well enough to speak.

"Illegal immigrant"

Now that it's basically irrelevant we find out the descriptor is offensive. Yes, ladies and gentlemen: many Mexicans are going "home" because the economy here sucks that badly. If there was a problem here, it's that the word "immigrant" was misleading: many had no intention of staying or surrendering their culture, and implying that inflamed tempers. But what's the offensive part? Illegal. Apparently it implies shady dealings Latinos didn't like.

No offense, but I don't buy this word "undocumented." It implies the government made a mistake, which is not true.

But like I said, the issue is increasingly irrelevant.


I know the inevitable reference is 1984, where words are erased to fit political agendas, the idea being that if you control words, you control thought. I'm not frightened by that. The internet can make words faster than the AP can possibly erase them, but still, what is the intent here? Why are all these words consciously being manipulated and erased? AP editors are getting rid of some perfectly meaningful words, and for what?

I am more than a bit unsettled: efforts to control language and ideas are marks of a society in deep decline.

Thoughts?

[Elvenlord]

"Global warming" to "climate change."

The instance of vernacular distortion I have the least patience for. Global warming at least pretends to be a scientific, despite the fact that every science class I have ever taken drilled the mantra "correlation does not prove causation" into my head. Global warming summarized a complex idea nicely. Climate change means almost nothing.

And the worst irony is that the model itself hasn't changed: Carbon Dioxide is still supposedly making the Earth warm (never mind growing seasons are almost two months late here in Georgia and livestock is starving.) Until I get an apology and a sensible description of how "global warming" was terribly misleading on factual grounds, I'm going to call a spade a spade and say this word "climate change" is naked intellectual cowardice.

I'm going to go ahead and tackle this one. The reason they changed it from global warming was for the example you gave. It implies everywhere on earth will be warmer all the time, which is not true. Only the global average goes up, not necessarily each individual area. But climate everywhere IS changing, as in your example.

[Hana-Nezumi]

You have no patience for people who change their vocabulary? Why do YOU care? I'll change my vocabulary all I want, if you get upset about something as petty as that, that's your problem. And no, changing your vocabulary isn't something you do "because you were wrong about it" it's just something you do when you find a word that MORE ACCURATELY describes what you mean. And it's something any intellectual person should do OFTEN so that they can be sure they're communicating as clearly as possible.

[Selena]

It's language. Language is in a perpetual state of change. If it wasn't, we'd be still be speaking Anglo-Saxon. A language changes for many different reasons -- the invention of slang terms, scientific and technological revolutions, and - most importantly - culture clashes. English wouldn't be what it is today if it weren't for a bunch of Roman, Viking, and French invaders destroying native British societies. And, like it or not, American English will continue to be shaped by the cultural waves that sweep over our society.

I don't like being politically correct, either, but maybe some of the words were inadequate to begin with. Because such things weren't prevalent in society until very recently, and the language had not properly incorporated them. They're like the term "dark matter." A placeholder until we can properly describe the thing we're trying to... describe.


Gay/Homosexual --> BLTBBQLGBT

"Gay" itself is obviously an inappropriate way to describe it, because it just means "happy." It's a slang term. Homosexual is also insufficient when referring alternative lifestyles as a whole, as not everyone is strictly attracted to the same sex. Various other languages/cultures have traditionally included "third gender" terms. Because same-sex attraction has existed everywhere forever. English, being deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian culture, has rarely acknowledged that sort of thing, and thus lacks appropriate terminology.

LGBT* is also rarely used outside of text, in the same way that other acronyms are only rarely used in common speech. It's just a matter of convenience when writing, and it's hardly the only term to be used as a type of shorthand.

Global Warming --> Climate Change

Elven handled this one. Global warming was insufficient/inaccurate to start with. It was a term they used during the early days of research.

Marriage ("traditional") --> Marriage ("modern")

I know this has always bothered you, but marriage has never been uniform throughout human history. To deny that is to either ignore facts or to dismiss entire cultures because they never fit into the Judeo-Christian mold.

In a multicultural society, the archaic European definition is no longer applicable for all associated relationships. In a leading example, before western missionaries came through and utterly destroyed indigenous culture, "gay marriage" was so common that Natives considered it an integral part of their society. And it was referred to as "marriage" in their languages. Not "gay marriage," not "civil union," not "partnership." Just marriage. Hell, at one point the prairie states were dominated by two lesbian war chiefs -- one who had a single wife, and another who had four (that's just too much effort, really). And various important medicine men/leaders had husbands.

You might try to dismiss all that by saying that no tribal marriages were "real marriages" due to how primitive they were, but that's part of the reason why white people got scalped. Missionaries conveniently erased a lot of these things from history books -- both in Europe during the dark ages and in the new world later on, so it's no surprise that things "seem" uniform throughout history. It was a priviledge that came from missionaries being some of the only people who knew how to write.

My Victorian woman-book actually goes off on an interesting tirade about what traditional Christian marriage really was, at least in the eyes of people circa 1900, but that may be fuel for another thread.

Islamist

Insufficient term, because - as you already highlighted - it's a word that's only ever used to highlight specific rogue factions of a highly complex culture. It's simplistic to the point where it just makes things look like a black-and-white culture war between western and middle eastern society. Most Muslims hate the radicals just as much as we do. It is vague and unhelpful.

Illegal Immigrant

This is the only one that probably warrants an eyebrow raise. "Illegal immigrant" is about as clear a phrase as you can create when referring to people who cross the border illegally. It doesn't specify a race or sex or culture -- just the act of crossing into the country illegally. Which means the only sensible reason why it's no longer being used is because people have associated it with grumpy old rednecks who complain about "those damn wetbacks."

[arunma]

Straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual aren't the only sexual orientations that exist. Asexual and pansexual are two more I can name off the top of my head. I don't even feel like any of those labels are right for me. Some people prefer to call themselves "Queer" because they don't feel any of the current terms fit their orientations. Sexual orientation can be way, way more complicated than "I have a penis and also like penis, therefore gay".

The Q is there, like I said, as a sort of umbrella term for anyone that doesn't fit into LGBT, but you seem to be saying there aren't people that don't fit that. I disagree which is why it pisses me off that you say the Q is pointless. The T for Transgender doesn't even include everybody that doesn't fit the traditional man/woman roles, what about intersex people? What about people that feel NEITHER gender is right for them (I *think* this is where the term "genderqueer" comes into play, somebody can correct me if that's wrong).

If you omit the Q you omit a ton of people that are otherwise mostly invisible in the public eye and without raising awareness about them they will continue to be mistreated. Everybody knows about gay people by now, but I know for example asexual people are still extremely misunderstood and they will continue to be unless the rest of the world is educated about them. They may not have to worry about things like gay marriage, but they still struggle with acceptance of their orientation.

Sure, no argument on sexuality being a complex issue. Which makes it all the more important to be specific when talking about "gay rights" and "the gay community." I'm all for gay rights since I have friends who are gay and am well aware that these sorts of relationships are fairly analogous to straight ones. But, just to throw out a couple hypothetical examples here, I wouldn't be for three-way marriages (any combination of genders), or people who say they have a real relationship with their stuffed animal (oh yes, I actually know someone who says this). And I'm pretty sure I could come up with all sorts of other crazy scenarios that happen in real life. The problem with an umbrella term is that it includes all of this stuff too. Gay rights I can get behind. But Q-rights? If it's an umbrella term, then by definition I can't quite know what it even is, how can I decide if I'm for it or not? Therein lies the problem with being too inclusive. The group being represented becomes vague and ill-defined. So I'm actually not just saying that the Q is pointless; I think it's actually harmful to the cause.

But what about groups of people that we aren't aware of in general, like asexuals? By lumping them in as Qs, it doesn't help matters, because Q is an umbrella term and, again by definition, isn't going to make any specific reference to asexuals. Only way those guys are going to get recognition is if they do what the gay community did and raise awareness, and be specific about ways they can be helped by others. An umbrella term is the antithesis of specificity, and again isn't going to be of any help.

If there's one thing I can say to sum this up, it's that inclusivity isn't the end goal here. Acceptance is (at least for minority groups like gays). Inclusivity is often times a means to an end. But you don't see gays trying to form inclusive groups with other minority activists such as Latinos or blacks. It's not because those groups have any mutual animosity. It's just because the issues they face are different. When a term is intentionally vague, it's impossible to say that the corresponding minority group's goals are consistent with those of the gay community. Which is why I think that putting the Q in there is just an all around bad idea.

[arunma]

"Illegal immigrant"

Now that it's basically irrelevant we find out the descriptor is offensive. Yes, ladies and gentlemen: many Mexicans are going "home" because the economy here sucks that badly. If there was a problem here, it's that the word "immigrant" was misleading: many had no intention of staying or surrendering their culture, and implying that inflamed tempers. But what's the offensive part? Illegal. Apparently it implies shady dealings Latinos didn't like.

No offense, but I don't buy this word "undocumented." It implies the government made a mistake, which is not true.

But like I said, the issue is increasingly irrelevant.

I heard a report about this on NPR today. Specifically on the illegal immigrant issue, AP said they did not switch over to the term "undocumented immigrant." I have heard other news agencies doing this, but not AP I guess. The guy actually made a good point. He was saying that instead of calling someone an illegal immigrant, they'd call him "<name>, who immigrated illegally." It's not that they're trying to legitimize anything or to be political, they just want the focus to be more on actions than lables. I can sort of see the point.

The AP guy on NPR also said that they were specifically not trying to deny the illegality of these peoples' residency in the US. They considered the term "undocumented" and rejected it because the issue has nothing to do with documents. The people in question usually have birth certificates and other documents, they're just not in the US legally. Personally, I too would eschew the term "undocumented immigrant." It's one thing to say that we should give these guys amnesty or make a pathway to citizenship. But to outright deny what the law says about immigration? I think that's the sort of thing that gives liberals a bad name: when we try to be politically correct at the expense of denying things that are true.

[Egann]

I'm going to go ahead and tackle this one. The reason they changed it from global warming was for the example you gave. It implies everywhere on earth will be warmer all the time, which is not true. Only the global average goes up, not necessarily each individual area. But climate everywhere IS changing, as in your example.

And Global Warming has been the butt of jokes come every blizzard for twenty years on that regard. Didn't stop it from being useful.

The problem is that climate change technically should include things like deforestation, oceanic salinity, desertification, things which matter to Earth's ecology and our economy, but somehow whenever I discuss climate change with people they specifically mean man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions causing the greenhouse effect: exactly what global warming meant. It also left global warming's unspoken implication (by omission) intact. Talking about the matter, you still get the implication that Earth's climate was stable and static before humans started mucking around.

The new phrase's definition does not accurately reflect its use, and it's connotations are still misleading.

Also, response to your last sentence in spoiler because TANGENT:

Spoiler

We all know people are releasing more CO2 than has ever been released before, and by orders of magnitude, but it's not like releasing a greenhouse gass translates to warmer temperatures or even that that's a bad thing. Earth didn't exactly come with a user manual and factory defaults. You can't just draw a graph of the temperature over the last hundred years or so to correlate CO2 releases with warmer temperatures: the CO2 releases are unprecedented therefore so should the temperature increases. Earth's climate right now should be notably warmer than any other time since before the Mezozoic.

Any temperature increases within the bounds of Earth's past variations (in that same geological time sense) could be the background noise of other variables as easily as CO2-caused heat retention. Separating the variables is just about impossible: you're looking at a post hoc fallacy, not empirical evidence.

You have no patience for people who change their vocabulary? Why do YOU care? I'll change my vocabulary all I want, if you get upset about something as petty as that, that's your problem. And no, changing your vocabulary isn't something you do "because you were wrong about it" it's just something you do when you find a word that MORE ACCURATELY describes what you mean. And it's something any intellectual person should do OFTEN so that they can be sure they're communicating as clearly as possible.

The problem with consciously changing vocabulary is that it makes rational debate an exercise in nailing jello to the wall. It's the reverse of equivocation, where someone uses the same word in two similar contexts to mean two different things. Here, there's one idea with two words, often competing to be the preferred word. Unless the terminology switch is genuinely needed (like it was factually incorrect, hence the need to apologize) it just confuses things.

...And it was referred to as "marriage" in their languages. Not "gay marriage," not "civil union," not "partnership." Just marriage. Hell, at one point the prairie states were dominated by two lesbian war chiefs -- one who had a single wife, and another who had four (that's just too much effort, really). And various important medicine men/leaders had husbands.

I'm inclined to agree, but I also want to get your opinion on a related observation.

Those plains tribes were not the height of Native American civilizations compared to the Maya or Anasazi: captive narratives tell us Native American tribes often collectively starved during the winter and had unpleasant living conditions. In fact the same observation can be said of African tribes with a similar attitude toward homosexuality: in both cases the culture had to be colonized by a Western nation (for better or worse) for the civilization to develop (and in many cases it hasn't, anyway.) Historically, most developed civilizations, including the Greeks, have regard marriage as heterosexual, and most cultures which are open to homosexual marriage are poor hunter-gathering communities.

I don't know what to make of that.

If there's one thing I can say to sum this up, it's that inclusivity isn't the end goal here. Acceptance is (at least for minority groups like gays). Inclusivity is often times a means to an end.

The irony is that the LBGTQ label--and the moral crusade behind it--isn't particularly inclusive. You've mentioned asexuals, but what about pedophiles? If the measure of morality is "what doesn't cause harm" then why is "artwork" child porn, which presumably caused no harm during it's creation, still illegal in the extreme? Purely because it's associated with damaging things?

I'm not seriously defending pedophiles, but I do want to point out how the logic behind the LBGT and Q positions is being applied conveniently more than consistently. You can't have one rule simultaneously apply to everyone and be fair, so one label doesn't fit well, either.

[Jasi]

Regarding the LGBT label issue, the thing is that oftentimes we do need some kind of label for that group of people that are in some kind of minority related to sexuality and gender, because they face a lot of the same issues, so they do have those things in common. People in the LGBT(Q?A?etc.) group all have to face the issue of heteronormativity, "coming out", and similar kinds of discrimination and misunderstanding, though admittedly to different degrees. Yes, of course they are not all the same, but I don't think anyone needs to be told that. It's like "people of color" or "minorities"—we all know that Latinos aren't the same as Blacks or Asians, but sometimes we need a term to talk about all of them as a group, usually in reference to the common issues they face. I don't see a problem with this. I do not see it as being particularly reductive, or at least not in a way that is damaging, since asexuals (for example) can raise awareness in conjunction with raising awareness for LGBTQ people as a whole.

Edited by Jasi, 08 April 2013 - 01:31 PM.

[Selena]

I'm inclined to agree, but I also want to get your opinion on a related observation.

Those plains tribes were not the height of Native American civilizations compared to the Maya or Anasazi: captive narratives tell us Native American tribes often collectively starved during the winter and had unpleasant living conditions. In fact the same observation can be said of African tribes with a similar attitude toward homosexuality: in both cases the culture had to be colonized by a Western nation (for better or worse) for the civilization to develop (and in many cases it hasn't, anyway.) Historically, most developed civilizations, including the Greeks, have regard marriage as heterosexual, and most cultures which are open to homosexual marriage are poor hunter-gathering communities.

Warning: Random thought process resulted in blabbing a lot.

Well, this opens a fairly big historical and anthropological can of worms, but here we go.

To begin with, homosexuality and same-sex marriages were common throughout the continent - not just with the plains tribes. Even the more sedentary and developed tribes, such as the Cherokee, the Pueblo, and (arguably) the Iroquois Nation, were cool with it. These relationships were not thought of as "gay." They didn't have a two-gender system in place. Their culture and languages incorporated the notion of a "third gender," which included anyone who rested somewhere in between -- heterosexual cross-dressers, homosexuals, intersex people, bisexuals, so on. Because, obviously, gender identity can be really complex. Modern Natives have attempted to reclaim the third gender identity by using the term "Two-Spirit." Which is a fairly good all-encompassing term, I think.

So, when these people got married, it wasn't seen as a man marrying another man. It was seen as a man marrying a two-spirit. So when Europeans showed up and starting assimilating everything like the Borg in powdered wigs, the Native tribes were really really confused when the white folk starting carrying on about homosexuals. Because they'd simply never seen it that way. And, ironically, two-spirits had once been revered members of society because they had the ability to understand both men and women equally well -- they were natural mediators and leaders.



Concerning "traditional" marriage and civilization -- even then it's not so clear-cut. Simply looking at the practical purposes of traditional marriage, it was primarily to ensure the legitimacy of children. That sorted out all the legal issues when it came to inheriting property and establishing heirs. The modern notion of "every parent needs a mother and father in their life" was less of a factor back in the day, even up until the late 1800's. Most well-off children were just funded by their father, and were largely raised by unrelated governesses with the occasional intervention of a parent. Unless you were poor. Then you couldn't afford governesses.

It was also common and fashionable for the husband to have affairs on the side. In Japan and China, that included having male lovers. And, oh, those Greeks and their fooling around. Marriage was almost strictly for baby-making purposes, and more substantial personal relationships were usually had with men. Alexander the Great, anyone? Macedonian, technically, but whatevs.

Nobody really talks about the women or their love affairs in history, since historians gave minimal shits about the baby-makers of these great leaders. We do know that female hysteria was caused by lack of orgasm, and that it was traditionally "cured" by having midwives come around to perform "pelvic massages." And that friendships between women used to be suspiciously-affectionate by modern standards. They obviously couldn't be banging guys, since that would give them an awful case of the illegitimate-babies, and ain't nobody got time for hysteria.

So, basically, "civilized" marriage is: a legal arrangement between two people who are constantly cheating on each other.



Human civilization has a way of coming around full circle. We started out with marriages between two partners, and you were generally free to pack your shit and get out if you couldn't stand each other any more. Greater development comes around, and you form contractual bonds between breeding partners that can't be severed - but there's usually no emotion in it and everyone's screwing around on the side. Now, with legitimacy and inheritance being less of an issue, we're going back to the most (ahaha) traditional form of marriage - the kind you can enter and leave without much fuss.

If anything, marriage reflects the current status/setup of society, not the other way around. And the era of "traditional marriage" no longer exists. Social structures have been upended and reshaped, even before the thought of gay marriage came into the public mindset.

[Oberon Storm]

Native Americans were not the uncivilized savages they are being made out to be in this thread. I'm not even saying this from the standpoint of political correctness. In fact, they were just as civilized as the Mayans or Anasazi.

[Selena]

Er, I'm not referring to them as savages? Or wasn't meaning to? That'd be a little counterproductive on my part, since I've got enough blood in me to enroll.

Indeed, though. And prior to the mass arrival of Europeans, they were substantially more powerful -- enough to drive out the goddamn vikings, which is something the English couldn't do for a great number of years. They also thought Europeans were unhealthy to the point of being repulsive. And for a while there, the semi-nomadic Blackfoot were considered more powerful than many of the eastern confederacies, so the plains tribes weren't exactly barbarians.

They also didn't collectively starve in the winter, but I had ranted enough in my last post.

When I said certain tribes were more "civilized" than others, I meant that some had made more advanced breakthroughs -- systems of writing (like the Cherokee), federations and the government to manage them (like the Iroquois), metalworking (numerous), impressive cities and monuments that remain standing to this day (like the Aztecs/Inca/Maya), clear development of the sciences (same), and so forth. I didn't mean it in the sense that some were well-mannered and others were axe-throwing lunatics. Developed probably would have been a better word in retrospect.


Most tribes were on par with the Celts around the time of Rome, minus the more advanced metalworking (unless you're in central America).

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Sorry, why did you bring up paedophiles in a discussion about LGBT people?

P.S. Who even uses the phrase LBGTQ, anyway? Q for Queer? What kind of label is queer?

And as for global warming becoming climate change... God forbid that scientists should change the story when new facts come in. I mean, what do they think they're working on... a scientific theory?

Edited by Wolf O'Donnell, 09 April 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

Yeah. Sorry. I should have quoted Egann. My comments were really directed toward him. It really sounded as if he was saying they didn't know what civilization was until the white man came. I laughed for quite a while before I posted anything. I do admit I may have misunderstood what he was saying.

[Jasi]

Sorry, why did you bring up paedophiles in a discussion about LGBT people?

P.S. Who even uses the phrase LBGTQ, anyway? Q for Queer? What kind of label is queer?

From Rova's post on the other thread:

Straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual aren't the only sexual orientations that exist. Asexual and pansexual are two more I can name off the top of my head. I don't even feel like any of those labels are right for me. Some people prefer to call themselves "Queer" because they don't feel any of the current terms fit their orientations. Sexual orientation can be way, way more complicated than "I have a penis and also like penis, therefore gay".

The Q is there, like I said, as a sort of umbrella term for anyone that doesn't fit into LGBT, but you seem to be saying there aren't people that don't fit that. I disagree which is why it pisses me off that you say the Q is pointless. The T for Transgender doesn't even include everybody that doesn't fit the traditional man/woman roles, what about intersex people? What about people that feel NEITHER gender is right for them (I *think* this is where the term "genderqueer" comes into play, somebody can correct me if that's wrong).

If you omit the Q you omit a ton of people that are otherwise mostly invisible in the public eye and without raising awareness about them they will continue to be mistreated. Everybody knows about gay people by now, but I know for example asexual people are still extremely misunderstood and they will continue to be unless the rest of the world is educated about them. They may not have to worry about things like gay marriage, but they still struggle with acceptance of their orientation.

[arunma]

Sorry, why did you bring up paedophiles in a discussion about LGBT people?

P.S. Who even uses the phrase LBGTQ, anyway? Q for Queer? What kind of label is queer?

And as for global warming becoming climate change... God forbid that scientists should change the story when new facts come in. I mean, what do they think they're working on... a scientific theory?

Can't comment on the AP, but Bill Maher says he's started using the word "climate change" because a lot of people deny that global warming is a real phenomenon whenever their winters are colder than what they remember the average to be. He says global warming is a misnomer since climate change can also result in more extreme winters, and so he avoids the term altogether.

On a sidenote, as someone who is a scientist I've got to say that the strength of the climate change argument isn't, in my opinion, quite as strong as people make it out to be. Which is unfortunate, since I do agree with the policy changes these guys are proposing. How's that for opening a can of worms?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Sorry, why did you bring up paedophiles in a discussion about LGBT people?

P.S. Who even uses the phrase LBGTQ, anyway? Q for Queer? What kind of label is queer?

And as for global warming becoming climate change... God forbid that scientists should change the story when new facts come in. I mean, what do they think they're working on... a scientific theory?

Can't comment on the AP, but Bill Maher says he's started using the word "climate change" because a lot of people deny that global warming is a real phenomenon whenever their winters are colder than what they remember the average to be. He says global warming is a misnomer since climate change can also result in more extreme winters, and so he avoids the term altogether.

On a sidenote, as someone who is a scientist I've got to say that the strength of the climate change argument isn't, in my opinion, quite as strong as people make it out to be. Which is unfortunate, since I do agree with the policy changes these guys are proposing. How's that for opening a can of worms?

If you would like to expound, that would be fine.

[arunma]

If you would like to expound, that would be fine.

My department, in the interest of fairness I suppose, has had anti-global warming people come and give colloquia. Mind you these guys are PhD scientists involved in climate science research, not crazies. Most of the time, everyone heckles the speaker and refuses to hear him out. This plays into the whole idea that climate science is a "secular religion" (one speaker even made this accusation), whereby people are offended when the results are so much as questioned. I've also heard talks by pro-global warming climate scientists, and I don't appreciate the lack of rigor that goes into data taking. Average global temperatures in prehistoric times are usually determined from a small fragment of an ice core sample. Anyone who's worked in a biology lab knows that you can't measure chemical concentrations in a liquid sample without first establishing uniformity in the liquid (e.g. any ice present will vastly change the result). Also along the lines of global temperature measurements, I don't see any error bars or statistical significances quoted when citing temperature increases. If someone could plot the average global temperature over the last million years, measure the standard deviation of the temperature changes over some period when it was assumed to remain steady, and then state the current temperature in terms of the number of standard deviations above that mean, this would be very convincing to me. I never see that.

I don't say anything publically because I hate Republicans and want them to look stupid as frequently as possible. Also I think there's sufficient evidence to justify reducing carbon emissions. But over all, climate science seems to be very hand-wavey and lacks the rigor I'd normally expect from a professional scientific observation.

Crap, now that I've said this the conservatives are going to quote me as evidence that all scientists are wrong about everything.

[Egann]

The topic is officially gone and this post is obscenely late, but who cares?

@ CFS

What I meant by "civilization" was more than culture. All of the Native American tribes had a sophisticated culture, but most would fail Kenneth Clarke's "wig wham" test. Civilization is a notoriously tough word to define, but in my mind it means supporting permanent towns large enough to require creative solutions--rather than traditional ones--to social and architectural problems. We tend to take this for granted, but in terms of human history, it's relatively recent and uncommon.

In so many words, because not all cultures are open to growth, civilized =/= civilization.

Generally speaking, Native American cultures were communal, intellectually static, and with a few exceptions, relatively poor. They get romanticized in part because they lived close to the land...but mostly because they were dirt poor. The poverty made many tribes egalitarian in the extreme: there was very little difference in the way the chiefs and the slaves actually lived. Compare this to the European culture Americans had at the time, which actively sought out wealth and new ideas...and features extreme power distance between the rich and the destitute. I hope putting these descriptions side by side makes my point clear: both cultures had strengths and faults, but the European culture was the conqueror because it encouraged intellectual and economic growth.

Indeed, though. And prior to the mass arrival of Europeans, they were substantially more powerful -- enough to drive out the goddamn vikings, which is something the English couldn't do for a great number of years.

Kicked out? I was under the impression they died because a mini-ice age killed the growing seasons, not because of any fight.

Wikipedia

To investigate the possibility of climatic cooling, scientists drilled into the Greenland ice caps to obtain core samples. The oxygen isotopes from the ice caps suggested that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, lasting from roughly 800 to 1200. However from 1300 or so the climate began to cool. By 1420, we know that the "Little Ice Age" had reached intense levels in Greenland.[17] ...Midden heaps at these sites do show an increasingly impoverished diet for humans and livestock.

So, basically, "civilized" marriage is: a legal arrangement between two people who are constantly cheating on each other....If anything, marriage reflects the current status/setup of society, not the other way around. And the era of "traditional marriage" no longer exists. Social structures have been upended and reshaped, even before the thought of gay marriage came into the public mindset.

(Small excerpt from big post.)

You forget two rather important historical details: concubinage and dowries, both of which made "traditional" marriage incurably heteronormal by putting an assymetry between male and female. Also, in the middle ages "marriage" meant you literally couldn't deny your partner sex. I won't go into all the details about how all change things because this post is already gargantuan and my keyboard is dying.

But yes, there was a lot of cheating. Even in Judaism, which is the source for our modern idea of marriage, the "adulterers must be stoned" line was rarely enforced. If anything it made adultery a private affair. If your spouse was going to get stoned for it, would you make it public? Probably not.
The real problem, though, is that you treat sexual attraction and making babies as if they are the limits of romantic relationships. It's true those are the initial motivators, but long haul relationships are less about those and more about emotional well being. Romantic relationships are very much up or out: when the relationship is a good ways along, either your partner will switch from providing sexual satisfaction to emotional intimacy, or you will feel stagnant and you'll unconsciously look for a way out, be it in a break up, cheating...or in abuse.

Consider this: money issues are one of the major causes of divorce, and yet despite the economy being in the doldrums, divorce rates are declining and average marriages last longer now than they did in the booming 90's. That does suggest a change in the culture's attitude: marriage is less about sex or children and more about intimacy.

Sorry, why did you bring up paedophiles in a discussion about LGBT people?

Assuming the pedo does nothing directly to children or to support their abuse, I don't see a difference between a pedo and any of the LGBT labels. It all falls under the "if it's not hurting people, it's acceptable" morality. Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

I also seem to remember you posting something relevant, so the thought should hardly be new to you.

I don't say anything publically because I hate Republicans and want them to look stupid as frequently as possible. Also I think there's sufficient evidence to justify reducing carbon emissions. But over all, climate science seems to be very hand-wavey and lacks the rigor I'd normally expect from a professional scientific observation.

Crap, now that I've said this the conservatives are going to quote me as evidence that all scientists are wrong about everything.

Science makes poor policy unless it's turned into propaganda.

That said, think about how the sciences are organized socially. People in the same field spend years in college receiving nearly identical educations, then form a close-knit group within that department where ideas are "peer reviewed," or subjected to peer pressure. Usually, they get things right, but when the ideas at hand aren't so empirical, but are philosophical or political bombs, it becomes obvious this structure fosters groupthink, not creativity.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

If you would like to expound, that would be fine.

My department, in the interest of fairness I suppose, has had anti-global warming people come and give colloquia. Mind you these guys are PhD scientists involved in climate science research, not crazies. Most of the time, everyone heckles the speaker and refuses to hear him out. This plays into the whole idea that climate science is a "secular religion" (one speaker even made this accusation), whereby people are offended when the results are so much as questioned. I've also heard talks by pro-global warming climate scientists, and I don't appreciate the lack of rigor that goes into data taking. Average global temperatures in prehistoric times are usually determined from a small fragment of an ice core sample. Anyone who's worked in a biology lab knows that you can't measure chemical concentrations in a liquid sample without first establishing uniformity in the liquid (e.g. any ice present will vastly change the result). Also along the lines of global temperature measurements, I don't see any error bars or statistical significances quoted when citing temperature increases. If someone could plot the average global temperature over the last million years, measure the standard deviation of the temperature changes over some period when it was assumed to remain steady, and then state the current temperature in terms of the number of standard deviations above that mean, this would be very convincing to me. I never see that.

Huh... I'd better look into it again.

I don't say anything publically because I hate Republicans and want them to look stupid as frequently as possible. Also I think there's sufficient evidence to justify reducing carbon emissions. But over all, climate science seems to be very hand-wavey and lacks the rigor I'd normally expect from a professional scientific observation.

Crap, now that I've said this the conservatives are going to quote me as evidence that all scientists are wrong about everything.

And that they're anti-Republican.

Sorry, why did you bring up paedophiles in a discussion about LGBT people?

Assuming the pedo does nothing directly to children or to support their abuse, I don't see a difference between a pedo and any of the LGBT labels. It all falls under the "if it's not hurting people, it's acceptable" morality. Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

I also seem to remember you posting something relevant, so the thought should hardly be newto you.

No, the thought is pretty new to me. I don't remember much of what I post, especially not something I posted in 2009. It's part of the reason why I don't post in these forums anymore... by the time someone responds, I usually forget what my argument and positoin was.

[Khallos]

Sticking to the original post for now.

I have no patience for people who change their vocabulary. If you need to change the word you use to describe something, it's because you were *wrong* about it. You've done someone wrong, you've misinformed people by implication, and you need to set the matter straight. In so many words, you owe people an apology and an explanation, and we never get that.

I feel semantics is everything, even words with commonly agreed definitions have differing nuances of meaning to diffrent people. Sometimes meanings have to be updated or the word itself. Changing every day is silly, but sometimes words need to change as the years go by. I mean to them it was Roman Empoire, to us it's the Byzantine Empire. Did we have any right to warp the name of state just in case we some how confused with the prexisting Western Roman/united Empire? Of course not, but it's a simplification which helps our understanding, and if you can improve the understanding of an issue by changing a word then that's surely a goo thing.

"Gay" or "homosexual" to LBGTQ.

I hate the acronym LBGTQ and all it's permutations. It forces a collective label on everyone in a half-dozen distinct identities and makes them sound like a sandwich at the same time. That, and it's impossible to say. Still, I understand the need: there are a bunch of identities we need to describe and "gay" doesn't really cover them. I get the need. I just hate the "word."

I proudly refer to them BLTers but still heartily support their cause. Differing people with differing self identifications (or perhaps not even that), but all united under the banner of sexually marginalised folks. That's how I see it, LGBTQ typically has as its bedrock homosexuals but that does not mean it is unfair to lump them with all those who have chosen or not as the case may be the way they feel sexually - and are marginalised for it. Also I've only ever heard it as Queer and always too it to mean "and others", maybe it's a London thing.

"Global warming" to "climate change."

Covered above to death. Though I agree climate change gets away with pseudo science and scientific circle jerking more than most.

"Marriage"

Rarely is a culture war so explicitly fought over a word. Not an idea: the word. Once upon a time marriage meant something. Then the sixties happened, and I'm left wondering why the word means anything to anyone anymore. That people give it the time of day is a monument to human stupidity.

Marriage still means something, all around the world people still fix marriages for their children, arrange dowries, have sex not for love but for obligation. It's like the days of fucking chivalry and it's a damn shame it ain't happening here (though I do agree if you refer to the death of modern christian western marriage, relaxed divorce laws killed it, not gay people).

Lena's covered enough other cultures/ethnicities/civilizations/peoples varying form of marriage to show it's all relative. One day I hope marriage will be dead, but that's me and my crazy ideas of property ownership that aren't currently feasible.

"Islamist."

I can kind of see why you would want to remove this word. You don't want Islamofascists to sound like they are too deeply rooted into Islamic mainstream. It may or may not be whitewashing: I don't know Islam well enough to speak.

It sounds like an odd white man word to say like racialist? Nobody ever talks about the Christianists. As I find militant extreme religion essentially theocratic fascism, I rather prefer Islamofascist.

"Illegal immigrant"

Now that it's basically irrelevant we find out the descriptor is offensive. Yes, ladies and gentlemen: many Mexicans are going "home" because the economy here sucks that badly. If there was a problem here, it's that the word "immigrant" was misleading: many had no intention of staying or surrendering their culture, and implying that inflamed tempers. But what's the offensive part? Illegal. Apparently it implies shady dealings Latinos didn't like.

No change in the U of the K, but it seems to fit the bill though I feel it's important that the only crime many have knowingly broken in illegal entry and residence, they are not outright walking crimes. Also illegal immigration is joke only Nationalists seriously worry about in an island state.

I am more than a bit unsettled: efforts to control language and ideas are marks of a society in deep decline.

We are less censored than ever I'd say, and language has been shackled since the first dictionary was penned. I look forward to the day where our language has evolved beyond gender specific pronouns, we all natually speak in iambic pentameter* and we have 5 words for everything. Not that I think that would come about due to government or media control, though there may be some influence but because languages constanly adapt and change through time.





*This actually would get irritating fast.