Words are place markers - they are not the things themselves. Sometimes they can become the things themselves, but generally their meaning is confined within a culture. Thus Chris Rock can talk about niggers, but I cannot. We all have different cultural meanings and different cultural authority. And in a multicultural environment such as ET, there are going to be misunderstandings.
It is right to point out objections to cultural interpretations. It is right to say that cultural interpretations can colour and geneticize a society. But it is also a right to misuse cultural interpretations intellectually. To expose the substance of meaning in the cause of greater meaning.
Today's was not a good example of this 'greater meaning', but I will defend my intuitive understanding of intentions against a strict interpretation of lexiconic idioms any day.
All languages are in flux. They die if they are not. Let us accept that there are always multiple meanings and intentions - even if the historical record tends to narrowness. You can't be me, I'm taken
Thus Chris Rock can talk about niggers, but I cannot.
That's because he's a Northern Rock. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
You spend your days on risk analysis- as you say - and I do the same. The risk analysis of words.
A client in outdoor clothing contacted me today about a semiotic matter. They wanted to use the word 'Joy' as an attribute of what they bring to the consumer. I pointed out that a joy boy is a homosexual prostitute and joy can be interpreted as powdered drugs such as cocaine and heroin in gay slang. And there is a gay/lesbian radio station in Australia called 'JOY'.
Most of my client's target audience would know nothing of this slang. For them 'joy' would mean intense, innocent happiness. Happy innocence. But from a risk analysis POV, what if a gay culture really got into the 'joy' aspect and promoted it as an 'inside' thing ? Fitness, good-looking - what is there not to like?
As I told them, for their 90% hetero audience it could be a negative. It is not bound to happen, but if it did, it would be very destructive. That is risk analysis - of a different kind.
I deal in perceptions - facts of a different kind. What is human nature? You can't be me, I'm taken
And isn't every major word (or lexical field) mined for its power (in communications, advertising, politics) to the point it becomes dispersed, its currency debased?
Is there no more primary (unequivocal, innocent, naive) use of language (other than in minority, regional, often dying, languages, and in the speech of children?)
<serious questions>
The placemakers themselves can evolve or disappear - like the term Whig. The ideas themselves (eg Whigs and constitutional monarchism), need quite a bit of detail to understand and an awareness of the historical implications of them and the use of them in different cultural contexts.
Like the word 'architecture' it is easier to define that which it is not, than what it actually represents. But we use the word all the time - or at least I do.
Another tendency in the evolution of words and phrases is elision: The Tottenham Hotspur Football Club becomes Spurs. This elision, if it is used with sufficient frequency, is understood by all who are interested in the subject. Acronyms like jpeg become nouns, verbs, whatever you like - are also understood by all who are interested.
But the elision and evolution of words will also mean that there are people who do not understand them or misunderstand the particular cultural reference. I am not sure what you can do about that except to exercise considerable sensitivity to context which is sometimes difficult when you are passionate ;-)
My argument is not about a specific instance of a particular word, but about a principle concerning word definitions in general. As place-markers many words are continually evolving, eliding and shifting in meaning. Some recognition of that is incumbent upon both writer and reader imo. You can't be me, I'm taken
Argue that people should have the freedom to do what they like with words or whatever, but in my view, it is unnecessary to take the word gay and use it in place of crap or rubbish. And it is tedious to deliberately swear to try to shock, or to be all hard hitting and anarchic with language (I say this in a general sense - and also as a person who lets profanities slip in plenty often in conversation with friends).
Same thing applies to 'mad' 'insane' 'nuts' 'crazy' and so on... Here's a bit from a Scottish campaign that raises awareness of stigma and portrayal of mental health in the media etc. They are not trying to be linguistic fascists but to simply point out that it is unnecessary to reinforce negative associations wrt gender, sexuality etc when there are other phrases that can be used instead.
Media guidelines: a practical guide for Stigma Stop Watchers
Eliminating the stigma and discrimination that surrounds mental ill health is an essential part of improving the quality of life and social inclusion of people who experience mental health problems. The media often perpetuates the ignorance and fear surrounding mental health problems through embellished and incorrect reporting of mental health issues.At worst, headlines sometimes carry derogatory language, for example `nutter', `manic' or `schizo,' which would be unthinkable in relation to race or physical disability. The link between violence and mental illness is also exaggerated. Millions of people have mental health problems - very few are violent. This type of media reporting often has a negative affect on people with mental health problems.
Some of the stand-ups comics and comedians that I love - and it is a wide range historically from Lenny Bruce/Dan Hicks/George Carlin to the Larry David/Ricky Gervais/earlier Billy Connolly, are more precise, more underastandable and more influential social commentary than can be found anywhere else. You can't be me, I'm taken
If it applies to both genders and to the whole human race, it won't offend. If it applies only to a sector, it denotes the typical hatred, ignorance, xenophobia, misogyny, etc. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
I'm serious about this ;-)
Cultural collision, and how to deal with it, is an increasingly obsessive element of our W*stern society. And little wonder, after hundreds of years of distortion. But cultural collision imo will not be solved by lexicons, it will be solved by love.
Your cat knows this ;-)
more animals You can't be me, I'm taken
Besides I do not see how the use of 'gutter'-language (don't know if this is the right term) adds to the quality of the discussion here. I do not mind a crass word once in a while, but the use of this kind of language has increased lately, especially in the OT. I do not know if there is a connection, but it also seems that there are less and less women participating in discussions here on ET - this kind of language sure does not sound very inviting, if we want more women to participate.
you are the media you consume.
When I was 15 or 16, an English teacher had my class come up with a list of slurs for men and women. She broke us up into groups of four and gave use 10 minutes. Everyone's list had at least five times as many slurs for women as for men.
For the past 30 years "stay on message' has been the mantra. This ignores the fact that the message is always in flux. Because culture changes -it has to change.
I don't knew that the answer is - except my instinctive answer is that say whatever you want and take the consequences. That is what the erosion of cultural sensitivities is about. You can't be me, I'm taken
