|
All communication that I can fathom is symbolic. We don't speak the things we refer to - we refer to the things we are thinking of when we speak. So we say "cow" = (cow). We agree that this word means a specific thing. We agree 2 means two. But notice that politics aren't only in play where there is disagreement. We can have a consensus in politics.
The political nature of words really comes into play with so called "bad" words.
Also, people are always welcome to challenge the meaning of a word. Notice how outraged some people are with internet speak or text msg speak. Notice how outraged some people are with Ebonics. Some people speak of the English language being corrupted. Others say they are coopting the language to make up for past injustices, or whatever.
And yes, I meant this is all intellectual masturbation.
But even in my own statement about masturbation, there is the implication that masturbation is useless, as opposed to real sex, which is the prefered thing. But I would argue masturbation is not useless; it is life affirming and satisfying, and so I dislike when people (including myself) imply masturbation is something to be frowned upon, however lightly.
So I am masturbating, and I'm proud of it.
I'm thinking about you, Jibba. Sexy.
|
Well, you can quibble about almost any meaning except for an insult. Insults go through the language barrier as if it never existed, which makes it, unfortunately, the only universal language we have. Inky's definitely correct to say that semantics is essentially a branch of politics, insofar as we define politics in a broad sense as the field of all interpersonal actions. Meaning is created more between people and less by people, but in the case of (potential) insults based on some group identity, any possible negotiation/conversation is already precluded and the meaning flows to the lowest possible level. A slur is past malice that kills the chance of present dialogue.
Which is just the long way of saying that since it's easier to offend than to be offended, the burden of avoiding offense rests more with the potential offender than with the potential offendee. You can call it political correctness, but really it's just not being a douche. People who whine about political correctness (and it can be very obnoxious at times, PC) should remember that it's still better than the blanket insensitivity it replaced.
|
I reject the attachment of meanings to words or actions by the audience, that were not intended by the speaker.
As Inky said, words refer to meanings, but do not in themselves have intrinsic meanings. We use symbolic words to communicate. I don't see any inherent problem with this.
My argument is that communication is for the effective transfer of ideas. If communication is not for this purpose, we're no longer on the same page -.- (although I will concede that certain types of communication - often called performances - are for the purpose of entertainment).
Effective communication requires effort on the part of the audience as well as the speaker to avoid miscommunication. This includes reading the offending post a second time to make sure you didn't misinterpret it, and considering other possible interpretations, and requesting clarification if you're unsure.
|
Ideally, dialogue could take place in a vacuum, without any reference to the past usage of words and their meanings. But meaning's formed over time and takes place in time. Words are historical, and gain their "spin" or connotation through the way in which they were "spun" in the past. This doesn't mean people should automatically get offended by certain words, but it certainly doesn't mean that people should speak as if every word were being spoken for the first time either. Certain slurs are so loaded and have sunk so low that a neutral usage is impossible. Granted, the Spanish know little about China and are known for being bigoted, but in today's world that excuse carries less and less weight.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 13 2008 12:45 EvoChamber wrote:
Which is just the long way of saying that since it's easier to offend than to be offended, the burden of avoiding offense rests more with the potential offender than with the potential offendee. You can call it political correctness, but really it's just not being a douche. People who whine about political correctness (and it can be very obnoxious at times, PC) should remember that it's still better than the blanket insensitivity it replaced.
Whether it's better or not is completely relative imo. Being a passionate person, resistant to indifference, like that can be both good and bad, and whether it's more good is simply dependent on how it affects your life. The NYT article on trolling brings to light these issues. I wouldn't want to become entirely indifferent, but using the internet would constantly be painful if one takes a hardlined stance on what is and isn't offensive. If you reject the "offendee" stance, you can have a lot more fun with it and really that's why life should be about.
History should not be forgotten, but I don't think people should become defensive so quickly as they did in that thread when nothing about their actual character was criticized. If I call you a fucking idiot over the internet, your very first response should be to think "is this person actually qualified to classify me as a fucking idiot?" 99.999% of the time the answer will be no, and you should brush it off.
Inky, you better not break my heart. 
|
Wow, we're talking about that image again? Keep it in that thread please. And note that languages typically depend on an agreement on the definitions of words. And insults in a certain language take advantage of the fact that you already agree on the meaning.
Body language is more "universal" in that everyone can converse in it, but not all the "words" have the same meaning. If you wave "hi" to someone in certain parts of the world, they take it as an insult - and in Korea, it's common to point at things with the middle finger instead of the index finger. Getting all pissy because you understand something to mean some way, and refuse to consider that that was not the intended meaning is a good way to end up wasting time (statistically, not for every case).
Oh oh, a perfect example (except that it's not real unfortunately) - in the novel Dune, on a desert planet, the newly arrived House Atreides are forming a very good relationship with the native Fremen. During these proceedings, the Fremen "chief" walks up to the Atreides leader and deliberately spits on the ground in front of him. Everyone is shocked until they realize that on Dune, "giving water" in this fashion is the highest honor one can give to another.
Jibba, I'm waiting with open arms if Inky leaves you hanging.
|
United States22883 Posts
Body language is hardly universal. The way people converse with their arms in the Middle East would offend most people in the US.
It's simply a matter of accepting some degree of cultural relativity when interacting with people. I don't think it can be solved any other way.
EDIT: Unless we all accept the universal greeting. Bah Weep Granah Weep Ninni Bong
|
somehow I knew what this OP would reference, lol
|
Okay, so lumping it all under "body language" is erroneous. I was thinking that it's okay because everyone can see and interpret body language and perform body language, but then again everyone has vocal cords and ears too - it's the convention that's important.
The universal greeting is "빵상" Jibba you got it wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
