Jump to content
Yzarro

cultural things we'll be ashamed of in 50 years

Recommended Posts

I doubt that very much Artemis. The majority of us aren't even aware that there was a negative connotation at some point.

You doubt very much that the particular slang in question exists because of those reasons? You doubt very much that it continues to exist because of those reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
You doubt very much that the particular slang in question exists because of those reasons? You doubt very much that it continues to exist because of those reasons?

I believe it has derived from it's original meaning, considering hardly anyone over here is ever aware of the origins.

Share this post


Link to post

Dunno if anybody posted this yet but...

 

Making the saying "Merry Christmas" offensive.

 

It's just saying have a good holiday in another religion D8 How can that possibly be offensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Dunno if anybody posted this yet but...

 

Making the saying "Merry Christmas" offensive.

 

It's just saying have a good holiday in another religion D8 How can that possibly be offensive?

This. I remember when saying "Merry Christmas" in school wouldn't get you sued by angry parents. Now there is no such thing as a second grade Christmas play. It has become a "Happy Holidays" play because everyone makes a big deal over religion. They do because they can.

 

It's stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
This. I remember when saying "Merry Christmas" in school wouldn't get you sued by angry parents. Now there is no such thing as a second grade Christmas play. It has become a "Happy Holidays" play because everyone makes a big deal over religion. They do because they can.

 

It's stupid.

To be fair, I don't feel like Christmas plays have any business being in a school.

Share this post


Link to post

You know what would be nice? If people weren't so darned sensitive about everything. It seems like parents are so paranoid these days.

Share this post


Link to post
I believe it has derived from it's original meaning, considering hardly anyone over here is ever aware of the origins.

Er...yes, indeed, the meanings of lame, crazy, and spaz are indeed derived from their original meanings. That's a big problem. I don't think that's what you meant to say though.

 

I also don't think you meant to say hardly anyone on the DC forums is aware 'crazy' has something to do with mental illness. No one who has read this thread is unaware of the origins for the other two.

Share this post


Link to post
Er...yes, indeed, the meanings of lame, crazy, and spaz are indeed derived from their original meanings. That's a big problem. I don't think that's what you meant to say though.

 

I also don't think you meant to say hardly anyone on the DC forums is aware 'crazy' has something to do with mental illness. No one who has read this thread is unaware of the origins for the other two.

Sure, who has read this thread, which is a very small minority of the general public that uses the word.

 

When I say deviated from the original meaning, I mean that I don't know anyone who is even aware of the original meaning. It isn't like censorkip.gif**, people know what that refers to. At this point is is pretty much word evolution and I see no problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post

Dammit Lyth, I was drinking. Good thing it was cold tea and not hot tea.

 

We're probably arguing over slang since it's a more mundane thing that we actually have control over (as in, using it or not) as opposed to not being able to do much about trash in the oceans etc.

SUCCESS! 8D

 

But meh. Honestly if someone is choosing to twist their panties over slang and its origins they're making an effort to do so. It's not like my general pessimism, it's just... looking for excuses to be angry.

 

Anyone here ever called anything dumb? I call things dumb all the time. Is this going to cause someone to yell at me for implying that people who can't speak are stupid? Because that's where dumb comes from. It means you can't speak. People take it to mean stupid.

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post

Ahhhh, Deviated. I couldn't get that out of derived, so quite certainly misunderstood you.

 

I've explained the problem more than enough times, and you know what the words mean now and from where they came, so it's entirely up to you to keep using them or not, no longer ignorant.

 

I've explained what I was talking about enough times, that it isn't the words I'm so much concerned with but the attitude. (Still not seeing how word evolution or massive ignorance applies to 'crazy'--damn near everyone knows what that means and where it comes from.)

 

ETA

 

Anyone here ever called anything dumb? I call things dumb all the time. Is this going to cause someone to yell at me for implying that people who can't speak are stupid?

 

Not yell, but it is the same principle. That's a word I try not to use for the same reason. But I'm not exactly on a crusade throughout the forums and the whole wide world to tell people to stop using words. So no, I won't yell at you over it.

Edited by Princess Artemis

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still embarrassed to see that women aren't seen as equals in today's society. And our embarrassing history will be something to blush at in 50 years, if not now.

Share this post


Link to post

Still not seeing why you're so angry over the use of such words, PA. There are words with multiple meanings. The fact that a word meant one thing and a negative meaning arose through use doesn't mean that all instances of the word are suddenly derogatory simply because of how the new meaning came to be. A good example is the one I used earlier: fag is not derogatory in the UK because it refers to cigarettes. In the US it's derogatory because it's used as a slur for gay.

 

The word badger can refer to an animal, a person who lives in Wisconsin, or the act of being persistently annoying. When I'm talking about a honey badger I'm not simultaneously talking about a beekeeper from Wisconsin and I'm certainly not implying that all the people from Wisconsin are annoying. Etymology is nothing more than history.

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post
Still not seeing why you're so angry over the use of such words, PA. There are words with multiple meanings. The fact that a word meant one thing and a negative meaning arose through use doesn't mean that all instances of the word are suddenly derogatory simply because of how the new meaning came to be. A good example is the one I used earlier: fag is not derogatory in the UK because it refers to cigarettes. In the US it's derogatory because it's used as a slur for gay.

 

The word badger can refer to an animal, a person who lives in Wisconsin, or the act of being persistently annoying. When I'm talking about a honey badger I'm not simultaneously talking about a beekeeper from Wisconsin and I'm certainly not implying that all the people from Wisconsin are annoying. Etymology is nothing more than history.

I'm not angry. I'm saddened, perhaps. Not angry.

 

I am not talking about words with meanings that became negative. I'm talking about the attitude that caused it to be OK to make words that were harmful to begin with and use them widely in a continuing negative sense. Crazy was never a neutral word for an animal nor a positive word for a cigarette that just happens to refer to mental illness in another country. Spaz was never a neutral word that meant an animal. I think you know what words I'm talking about, and you know that the UK version of fag, that did not have a negative meaning, is not one of them. I think you know that badger isn't the kind of word I'm talking about. I think you're smarter than that.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, thought of another one.

 

Twilight/the (at least, in my eyes, I may just be stupid and have not noticed xd.png) sudden surge of 'any idiot can get published'.

 

Also, e-readers. But that may just be my own hatred of them talking xd.png

Share this post


Link to post

See, I was gonna say Twilight, but then I thought about it and figured that probably no one will really remember Twilight that much in 50 years...

Share this post


Link to post

What about war over land?Personally,I think it is kind of pathetic that hundreds have died for a strip of grass.

 

The term 'Blonde Moment'.I know heaps of people who find that very offensive.

 

And,like,how hundreds are going hungry for no apparent reason.Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Land wars and world hunger probably won't be anywhere close to resolved in the next fifty years. War and starvation have been going on since, like, ever.

 

And I don't think that the term 'blonde moment' is really that influential as to cause an entire culture to feel shame.

Share this post


Link to post

What about war over land?Personally,I think it is kind of pathetic that hundreds have died for a strip of grass.

Land is a very, very important thing. Resources, living space, "holy ground"... the people of the future may be ashamed, but I don't really see how it's "pathetic".

 

Stromboli, I read somewhere that with the creation of ebooks the sale of romance novels, etc. skyrocketed. Before, people were too embarrassed to buy them xd.png

Share this post


Link to post
I am not talking about words with meanings that became negative. I'm talking about the attitude that caused it to be OK to make words that were harmful to begin with and use them widely in a continuing negative sense. Crazy was never a neutral word for an animal nor a positive word for a cigarette that just happens to refer to mental illness in another country. Spaz was never a neutral word that meant an animal. I think you know what words I'm talking about, and you know that the UK version of fag, that did not have a negative meaning, is not one of them. I think you know that badger isn't the kind of word I'm talking about. I think you're smarter than that.

If words that used to be okay and have now taken a derogatory meaning are still fine to use the "good" meaning, then why can't it be the other way around? The word gay began to be applied to homosexual males that they're abnormally cheerful, camp, and "showy" (things REAL males shouldn't worry about). It was derived from the meaning of the original word and used as a way to show how homosexuals are different and odd. Even recently it's turned into a synonym for stupid. In this sense, is the original "gay" ("Gay old time") acceptable, but the more recent slang (that may or may not have even derived itself from the slur, which many people consider to have been largely reclaimed by the community) is unacceptable just because its appeared in the wake of the slur version of the word?

 

And going back to an earlier point that I didn't get to address:

 

I think I see what the issue is. You are placing some value on the existence of the word itself, as if it needs to continue to exist. I want the carpet to stop smoldering, as it were, as well. I know what you mean by that, and what you're getting at. I hate that phenomenon. It keeps happening to perfectly innocent words like colored and negro (well, in Spanish it's innocent), it's happening to black now. I want the attitudes to change so it stops corrupting perfectly usable words, and no, I don't think banishing the words will fix the attitude. That's why I don't want to banish the words. I want people to think about the attitude behind the words that are corrupted, and change that in themselves. In the case of 'spaz'...that is the attitude right on display: it exists because of the attitude that needs to change. When the attitude changes, the word will vanish on its own. It won't be swept under the carpet to smolder, because if the attitude behind its existence changes, the word will no longer be needed nor used, and will fall away. 'Spastic' will not vanish, but 'spaz' will, or at least, it will as used in a derogatory way to describe clumsy, stupid people.

 

So, no need for the word to evolve. Why does it need to evolve? There are such things as evolutionary dead ends in language. It will be like a leaf on a branch, once the attitude is gone, it will have outlived any use it ever had, and fall off the language.

 

The reason I prefer the word to evolve is because the words DON'T just disappear from the language. Just because a word is no longer commonly used in language (like thee or thou) doesn't mean it's no longer part of the language or that no one remembers it. Regardless of whether the r word, spaz, lame, crazy or any other word falls out of favor of being used, it will still be remembered, especially by the internet (unless something happens, these posts, the definitions on web dictionaries, the various studies and essays over the words, and anything else related to them on the internet will all remain there). Using your analogy, the leaf wouldn't fall off the tree of language, it would just shrivel up and be useless, but still a part of language that people know about.

 

Now, where and how the leaf "dies" marks how it is seen by society. People have a pretty much neutral opinion of thee and thou, since they were fairly rudimentary words to begin with. They held no positive or negative connotation on their own. However, let's say the r word died before the slang form took root and was largely accepted by society (whether because society actively killed it, or it just wasn't used). The word died at the time when it was a slur. All that word will be remembered for because of it is the fact that it was a slur, and anyone willing to go back and dig it up for use will use it as, you guessed it, a slur. The word is dead, it's useless to most of society, and when it is used, its purpose is only to hurt. However, what if the word lived? What if it lived to the day where people accepted it under a different meaning, one that's a minor insult rather than a full blown slur? In this sense, the word, even if it died at this point would have a second meaning, one that isn't a terrible slur, and if it lived, it will fill a niche in our language that people want to use it for (hence the reason why words evolve to begin with) so it won't be useless. Plus, when it's alive and being used in this sense, it has a much more positive meaning, it brings people closer together by means of being playful rather than biting.

 

This is why words shouldn't just die because they are ugly. If they have an ugly meaning, one with no benefit to society we should word to change them, to make them become useful to us. They are tools, and we are their makers and wielders.

 

-K-

Share this post


Link to post

War and how people with a ''different'' sexuality were treated.

Shame on it, I'm already embarrassed for the humanity.

Share this post


Link to post

If words that used to be okay and have now taken a derogatory meaning are still fine to use the "good" meaning, then why can't it be the other way around? The word gay began to be applied to homosexual males that they're abnormally cheerful, camp, and "showy" (things REAL males shouldn't worry about). It was derived from the meaning of the original word and used as a way to show how homosexuals are different and odd. Even recently it's turned into a synonym for stupid. In this sense, is the original "gay" ("Gay old time") acceptable, but the more recent slang (that may or may not have even derived itself from the slur, which many people consider to have been largely reclaimed by the community) is unacceptable just because its appeared in the wake of the slur version of the word?

 

That's somewhat how I view it. Where the attitude that it's OK to make fun of these people and use descriptors of them to mean 'stupid' and things like that, because how society does not care about these people affects the words they use, once the attitude is gone, the affected word ought to shift back. Gay would mean happy again, and homosexual still, but no longer stupid. The word would have kept its evolution beyond happy, but not beyond homosexual. I don't believe that gay shifted from happy to homosexual because of the disapproval. There was no negative connotation of gay old time, so it's hard to fathom how something positive would have been used as an insult. It may have been, but I think it's more likely that it was a descriptor of camp, flamboyant men without the disapproval. It is also entirely possible that the men themselves used the word a lot and that's how the association came to be. You can sort of see something similar happening to 'flamboyant' and 'fabulous' now.

 

I could be wrong and there was an insult deeply embedded in using 'happy' for 'homosexual' and for the current shift of 'flamboyant' and 'fabulous' into descriptors with homosexual connotations. If so, I'd like to see the evidence.

 

The reason I prefer the word to evolve is because the words DON'T just disappear from the language. Just because a word is no longer commonly used in language (like thee or thou) doesn't mean it's no longer part of the language or that no one remembers it. Regardless of whether the r word, spaz, lame, crazy or any other word falls out of favor of being used, it will still be remembered, especially by the internet (unless something happens, these posts, the definitions on web dictionaries, the various studies and essays over the words, and anything else related to them on the internet will all remain there). Using your analogy, the leaf wouldn't fall off the tree of language, it would just shrivel up and be useless, but still a part of language that people know about.

 

Now, where and how the leaf "dies" marks how it is seen by society. People have a pretty much neutral opinion of thee and thou, since they were fairly rudimentary words to begin with. They held no positive or negative connotation on their own. However, let's say the r word died before the slang form took root and was largely accepted by society (whether because society actively killed it, or it just wasn't used). The word died at the time when it was a slur. All that word will be remembered for because of it is the fact that it was a slur, and anyone willing to go back and dig it up for use will use it as, you guessed it, a slur. The word is dead, it's useless to most of society, and when it is used, its purpose is only to hurt. However, what if the word lived? What if it lived to the day where people accepted it under a different meaning, one that's a minor insult rather than a full blown slur? In this sense, the word, even if it died at this point would have a second meaning, one that isn't a terrible slur, and if it lived, it will fill a niche in our language that people want to use it for (hence the reason why words evolve to begin with) so it won't be useless. Plus, when it's alive and being used in this sense, it has a much more positive meaning, it brings people closer together by means of being playful rather than biting.

 

I see what you mean, but for certain classes of words, I don't see how another avenue would be a good one. The r word, for example, is a fully contained word with a medical meaning and also quite a lot of other meanings besides, including chemical meanings. Example: Fire retardant. Then there are words of the type I'm talking about, derived from proper words but made to be derogatory, like the n word. Most people who use it innocently don't actually use it, they use another shortened form, and it's one that no one but they can use anyhow without looking really bad. I do think that academics, etc., should not be forbidden from using it when needed, that people are too sensitive about it (getting up in arms about people using 'niggardly' correctly because they are ignorant of how it is a completely unrelated word), but in day to day life, I cannot see how it would be OK for everyone to use and hope it evolves into less racist meanings so the word itself will be useful in the future. That's disregarding the feelings and life experiences of a lot of people for a long time in hopes that a racist word will be used by racist people so much and in such a way that non-racist people pick it up for less-racist meanings, ignorant that it was a racist word to begin with. I'm having trouble figuring out why anyone should put up with that now so that we can leave a legacy of slang behind us with terrible roots.

 

For words like spaz and crazy and lame and dumb now--their purpose is always to hurt, but the hurt in most people's minds is very mild. Trace the words around, and find a common usage that isn't negative. Dumb is even a synonym for stupid now, and it became that way because a lot of people have a real rough time seeing that a person with a physical disability does not necessarily have a mental impairment. This kind of attitude affects me in my life. It's very hard to have any sort of conversation with someone who has defaulted to thinking I'm too stupid to live just because my muscles don't obey my commands. It's like the guy I met while working at McDonald's so long ago--he quite literally couldn't hear me speaking clear English to him for several moments because he was too busy politely smiling at me, the person he thought could speak only Spanish. After trying very hard to tell him he was handing me a $1 coin instead of a quarter, he finally snapped out of it and my English words entered his English head. It's pretty much the same, but a more subtle issue, trying to get coherent, intelligent English words to enter the English-fluent heads of people who have mentally labeled me 'stupid' or 'impaired' due to disability. That's an effect engendered by the attitude that disabled=stupid, the same attitude that makes it OK to use words like that and not even comprehend that they are spreading that attitude and settling that attitude into even more minds. When the attitude is gone, I hope people will look at the words, say, "Oh, I understand now." Better that the attitude leaves; the symptoms will follow.

 

This is why words shouldn't just die because they are ugly. If they have an ugly meaning, one with no benefit to society we should word to change them, to make them become useful to us. They are tools, and we are their makers and wielders.

 

Yeah, words are tools, tools of art, and we are the makers and users. Some tools reflect the ugliness inside the makers and are thus ugly tools, then used by people with less ugliness in them until people become inured to the ugliness, until people with little ugliness in them have trouble seeing what is so ugly about not only the tools but the people who made them. When the ugliness is exposed and changed, the ugliness of the tools will stand out in sharp contrast. We should work to change the makers and the users of the tools so that they will be better makers and users, and as an effect, will make and use better tools and put the ugly, base tools aside.

Edited by Princess Artemis

Share this post


Link to post

I hope we will be ashamed of revenge killing animals.

 

I just read about a shark attack and they're all out hunting sharks now.

 

I understand it's a really horrible situation where the person was killed. But killing the shark (and killing many more trying to find the shark) isn't going to help. It won't bring his life back.

 

I read about this with bear attacks too. People just go out and shoot as many bears as possible.

 

 

It's not fair to the animals. We are the ones who went into their homes and either threatened them or acted like prey.

You can't blame an animal for being an animal.

 

 

When a cow kills a farmer, do people go out shooting cows? More people are killed by cows each year than by sharks...

Share this post


Link to post
Stromboli, I read somewhere that with the creation of ebooks the sale of romance novels, etc. skyrocketed. Before, people were too embarrassed to buy them xd.png

Romance novels in general, sure. So much of that genre is cringe-worthy. I can see the shame in those. xd.png Twilight specifically? Maybe not so much, fifty years down the road.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.