Slashdot Mirror

See? Apologism and insults.

As if the rightness or wrongness of something depends upon how many people accept it. The majority can be wrong. Just because a use is accepted in everyday use, doesn't make it right. If you have to cite definition 3 to defend use of a word....

It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
- George Orwell

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

'But languages change'

There's evolution and there's corruption. By allowing the corruption of the word hacker, people who are hackers in the correct sense are lumped in with those in the incorrect sense. Now we have to come up with another word for those who are hackers in the original sense... when we already had words for both! By allowing copyright infringement to be called piracy, they are associating it with something far more sinister than kids swapping files. If some Germans were Nazis, it would be wrong to call all Germans Nazis, wouldn't it? Unless we water down what we originally meant by Nazi.

We think in language. Propagandists use this against us all the time. "It's not murder... it's execution."

Another clip from Orwell:

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

____

An Anonymous Coward saying something silly throwing in some childish ad hominem passes for insightful?

At least have the courage of your convictions. If you're you going to slam someone, don't hide behind anonymity where you can't be held accountable. You could try posting like an adult, and then you could make your point without cowering.

The fact that you are not using the metaphor right implies that you are using a dying metaphor. Please stop.

That's because Marx and Engels, although they are mostly full of shit their writings and translations of them are not full of bullshitting the language, and they said things with the objective of being understood, as opposed to not being understood, which is the point of much modern political writing.

It's interesting the way they phrased their comments.

You can say that again. Is that what passes for English these days? Here's a handy translation:

We have definitely not been communicating that

We didn't say that.

It's false speculation.

It's not true.

We don't have any further knowledge about this topic - either officially or unofficially, to be frank.

I don't know anything else.

It sounds like she needs to read Orwell's Politics and the English Language.

All MBA's should be forced to read "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell at least once a week. Orwell's talking about politics for the most part, but corpspeak is certainly the mewling child of Newspeak.

Orwell's essay:

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

Tolerance goes a lot further than playing grammar and spelling Nazi.

Do you see me doing that? Little typos that a reasonably literate individual can make by mistake -- no, I don't have a problem with those. Casually making errors substantial enough to impact understanding and then defending such sloppiness? That's an entirely different kettle of fish.

I'm not asking everyone to be an English major; I'm asking people to pay attention to what they write, reread what they wrote before posting it somewhere thousands of people will see it, and generally act in a manner which is respectful towards their readers. This isn't rocket science, and it doesn't require a four-year degree -- just paying attention to English classes in even an American public high school ought to be good enough. What I see all too frequently is not people who lack the education to write well; rather, it's those who simply don't care enough about their image or their audiance to put forth the effort despite having the ability.

By the way, if you haven't read Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language, I strongly recommend it.

"Foo is not ready for prime time" has been nominated as one of the most annoying, overused phrases currently used by English writers. Please do your part to save English from the horrors of recycled and unimaginative prose construction, by helping to stamp out this old, tired phrase.

George Orwell referred to misuse of words like this as "swindles and perversions":

Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive.

-- Politics and the English Language

Throwing words like "democracy" and "freedom" around as generic terms of praise is not just poor English, it actively clouds peoples thinking and is often deceitful.

My personal favorite are Chinese ghosts. They wear elaborate clothing, have long, sharp fingernails, and hop towards you instead of just floating or magically appearing. They're probably the least scary to westerners.

The problem is that "national security", "patriotism", ironically even "democracy", are also the first excuses someone reaches for when they want to take your freedom away. No, let me rephrase that: the problem is that the people tend to get stuck on some _words_ instead of their _meaning_.

The sad thing is that this isn't a new problem, but some people seem to be unable to learn from the past. I hope most people here have read Orwell's thoughts on the matter, but for those of you who haven't: Politics and the English Language. Written almost sixty years ago, and as true today as it ever was. Quote:

In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way.

You have a point...in a way. But could you rewrite your statement without superfluous language (i.e. "supercedes the facility of overexaggeration") or vague expressions (i.e. "improve development of wisdom")?
I consider that trying to sound intelligent via unclear prose is the first indicator that you might not be. Read this.

The fact is, it's arcane, and noticeably so. No one is going to spontaneously coin that phrase to mean 'raises the question' - it's far too awkward, it just doesn't parse, it doesn't make any sense. Because it doesn't parse, it's obviously a fixed phrase. This is an obvious clue that you shouldn't use it unless you're sure what you're saying. Ignoring that clue and charging ahead to use a phrase like that without bothering to understand it first is not behaviour which reflects well on a person, and not behaviour to be emulated. But some idiot back in the 80s did charge ahead with it, and far too many more have been happily emulating him or her since then. This is one little corner of a deeply disturbing phenomenon that deserves to be resisted at every turn.

Like it or not, language matters. Sloppy language both leads to and is a sign of sloppy thinking. No matter how popular a particular bit of sloppiness may be, it's still both possible and worthwhile to resist it.

"In my brain it always (raises the question as to|makes me wonder) whether the person heard the phrase used properly and is now repeating it in the improper way, or if they're just using the phrase because they think it sounds smart, in which case they sound twice as silly."

Somebody posted in a completely different story yesterday a link to this essay. George Orwell complains that vague language allows for euphamisms and the polite discussion of inhuman topics. If "secular humanistic" is just being used to mean "non-christian" then this is a perfect example.

Imagine someone saying that "non-christian" philosophies are destructive and unnatural. But saying "secular humanism" is destructive and unnatural is less offensive, because the phrase is extremely vague.

Didn't Orwell write this long ago:

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

Anyone who's read "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell:
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

or listened to all the military and political euphemism knows that non-obviousness is not enough.

There's a whole industry that engages in telling the truth in such a way that you don't have a clue what they're talking about. The patent office doesn't stand a chance.

A criteria for patenting should be that it should be explained so that a 5 year old can understand it. If it's that clear and it still makes people in various industries say "wow", then maybe it should be patented. Note the "various industries" is also important. There are some really cool things in one industry that are standard practice but don't exist in other industries. It's only a matter of time before someone else would have moved the idea over, so why restrict others by patenting it.

1984 isn't anti-communist propaganda. It's anti-totalitarian propaganda, in part derived from his experiences at the BBC during WWII.

In his writings, such as The Prevention of Literature or Revising History, Orwell is pretty clear about the difficulties freedom of speech and thought go through in an atmosphere of perpetual war, even in societies claiming the banner of liberalism. Sure, Ingsoc is "English Socialism", but that's just a convienience; it could just as well be Ingcap. In the essays above, Orwell points out press barons and film magnates as immediate enemys of truth.

See http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/ for a collection of his essays.

The relevance of all this to the present day, I shall leave as an exercise for the reader ...

[The English Language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.

Orwell wrote an interesting piece entitled Politics and the English Language which shows how much more concerned people are with how things are said than successfully delivering the actual content of the message. It's an interesting read, check it out.

You could rewrite George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" all over again regarding corporate-speak.

Man it really kills me how words with Germanic roots have gotten such a bad name. Why is 'feces' a more acceptable word than 'shit'? Because it come from the Latin 'faex' rather than the Old English 'scite'?

Why does 'intelligent' sound more sophisticated than 'smart'? Because it comes directly from french rather than Old English?

Just because our (as in english speakers') priests used to speak Latin while our kings used to speak French does not mean we should favor one part of our language over another. Orwell has a very interesting piece, Politics and the English Language, which deals with this issues.

It pisses me off so much when people try to limit my vocabulary. This is off-topic just a bit, but ...

I was in a class called 'Images of Africa in Film and Literature.' I read some good books and saw some interesting films. Generally, I was enjoying it. Then one day, someone (maybe me?) refered to native South Africans. The prof got upset. "We just don't use that word," he said. The jist of his argument against the word was that many ignorant people use it to refer to stereotypic, primitive people who live in the jungle, hunt heads and dance around cauldrons.

These stereotypes are, of course, not encouraged by the academic community which studies Africa. But Jesus H. Fucking Christ, native just means someone who was born in a particular place or apeople which has resided in a location for a long time.

After that, I just really lost interest in the class and respect for that prof. I just did enough to get by, and I still got an A.

So in conclusion, thought/word/language police, FUCK OFF!

This article, while written before most of us were born, is still relevant.

"Leetspeak" be damned!

"[...] use of the new software is covered by Yahoo's privacy policy, which is just a bit more Orwellian."

As everybody seems to know the name already, perhaps you'd be interested in reading some of his essays, newspaper columns, letters and editorials.

From the page: Orwell was 47 years old when he succumbed to tuberculosis in January 1950.

1984 has practically nothing to do with technology. The only technological innovation in 1984 is the two-way TV screen. But it's hardly used; it's just there as a symbol of omnipresent surveillance. Other than that, practically everything else is technology common to the 1940s. Hardly surprising in a book that was originally titled 1948.

The "technology" in use is a social technology. Winston Smith is caught by O'Brien recognising someone who wants to rebel -- and the Party having a channel for rebellion set up to catch thoughtcrime. Smith's neighbour is shopped by his own child for muttering in his sleep. Room 101 is there to ensure total surrender to the Party; you're willing to utterly betray your own friends and you know it. The perpetual war, the 2 miniutes hate, the rewriting of records are all designed to keep people aligned to a single goal.

Orwell obviously didn't think that Stalinism was inevitable. Either that, or he spent a lot of time whistling in the dark in his other books and essays. But he did think, in essays such as The Prevention of Literature or Politics and the English Language , that intellectual liberty and a commitment to the truth were essential in fighting totalitarianism.

One of the things I find interesting in 1984 is that the Party is more or less self-enforcing. The Party members themselves ensure adherence to the Party. This particular piece of psychology is hardly dead and gone and I think that there's very little evidence to suggest that technology ameliorates it. On the contrary, technology, such as discussion forums, often allows the enforcement of a closed world-view, since opposing views can be easily flamed out of conciousness. (Hell, you can easily come up with analogies for the Slashdot versions of "thoughtcrime", "the 2 minutes hate" and "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia".)

1984 has practically nothing to do with technology. The only technological innovation in 1984 is the two-way TV screen. But it's hardly used; it's just there as a symbol of omnipresent surveillance. Other than that, practically everything else is technology common to the 1940s. Hardly surprising in a book that was originally titled 1948.

The "technology" in use is a social technology. Winston Smith is caught by O'Brien recognising someone who wants to rebel -- and the Party having a channel for rebellion set up to catch thoughtcrime. Smith's neighbour is shopped by his own child for muttering in his sleep. Room 101 is there to ensure total surrender to the Party; you're willing to utterly betray your own friends and you know it. The perpetual war, the 2 miniutes hate, the rewriting of records are all designed to keep people aligned to a single goal.

Orwell obviously didn't think that Stalinism was inevitable. Either that, or he spent a lot of time whistling in the dark in his other books and essays. But he did think, in essays such as The Prevention of Literature or Politics and the English Language , that intellectual liberty and a commitment to the truth were essential in fighting totalitarianism.

One of the things I find interesting in 1984 is that the Party is more or less self-enforcing. The Party members themselves ensure adherence to the Party. This particular piece of psychology is hardly dead and gone and I think that there's very little evidence to suggest that technology ameliorates it. On the contrary, technology, such as discussion forums, often allows the enforcement of a closed world-view, since opposing views can be easily flamed out of conciousness. (Hell, you can easily come up with analogies for the Slashdot versions of "thoughtcrime", "the 2 minutes hate" and "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia".)

The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.

I highly recommend reading Homage To Catalonia if you want some better insight into Orwell.

To complete the thought, here is Orwell's essay, Politics and the English Language.

um, a little melodramatic, don't you think?

perhaps you could try posting that in afghanistan.. oh, no, they outlawed COMMUNICATING IN ENGLISH THERE.
the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but don't be dense. see Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism", 1942.

but as a preview, I leave you with this excerpt from it:
PACIFISM The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.

I never disputed that Orwell said those things during WWII. What I am saying is that his earlier statements about pacifism are taken out of context as they are "exactly the kind of standard-issue Stalinist polemic that Orwell ended up so vigorously rejecting" in his later writings.

You statements about the "starving people of Iraq" are exactly the types of statements that he warned against in later works:

"So far as it goes, the distinction between an atrocity and an act of war is valid. An atrocity means an act of terrorism which has no genuine military purpose. One must accept such distinctions if one accepts war at all, which in practice everyone does. Nevertheless, a world in which it is wrong to murder an individual civilian and right to drop a thousand tons of high explosive on a residential area does sometimes make me wonder whether this earth of ours is not a loony bin made use of by some other planet."
Source: George Orwell, "As I Please", Tribune, 31 December, 1943 http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/warguilt.html

Since KaiShin's posted e-mail address ends in .ca, I presume he's referring to the Canadian blank media tax (they call it a levy, but that's just standard political language).
/.

Nitrous is N20.

http://www.resort.com/~banshee/Inf o/N2O/N2O.html