I would think that the context does have a lot to do with it. If you say "The managers suck" and leave it at that, it's an opinion. If you say "the managers suck because they kill old ladies and sell their grandchildren into slavery", that could well be slander.
Kind of OT, but a scary thing about the Internet is how quickly and easily history can be rewritten. I don't know that CNN.com has done this, but it is so believable: anything can change and who could prove it? Even cached pages could be altered.
Try this link: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf. html
or this excerpt:
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (Sapir 1958 [1929], p. 69)
OK, it's been a long time since my anthropologist girlfriend introduced me to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but I'm pretty sure it's a lot like the nature/nurture argument: thought influences language and language influences thought.
Eskimoes are obsessed with snow because they live with a lot of the stuff. Naturally they have many words for it. But, OTOH, the way they experience snow is a lot more, well, granular and particular, than the way we do it here in Texas.
The Eskimo reality owns a much larger chunk of the Eskimo brain for dealing with snow than the Texan brain.
Which means that an Eskimo looking out at the snow falling has a much different perception of that reality than I do.
And the way in which my language has words which make it easy or hard to think about certain things, whatever, influences how I perceive reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that the context does have a lot to do with it. If you say "The managers suck" and leave it at that, it's an opinion. If you say "the managers suck because they kill old ladies and sell their grandchildren into slavery", that could well be slander.
Is that anything like a barroom brawl?
Freedom of speech is absolute -- as long as you don't actually say anything
Somalia On Line?
In my faulty recollection, this link has changed considerably since this afternoon. Obviously, the Ministry of Truth pays attention to /.
So, do you believe me or your own eyes?
Kind of OT, but a scary thing about the Internet is how quickly and easily history can be rewritten. I don't know that CNN.com has done this, but it is so believable: anything can change and who could prove it? Even cached pages could be altered.
Any openings at the Ministry of Truth?
Try this link: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf. html
or this excerpt:
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (Sapir 1958 [1929], p. 69)
OK, it's been a long time since my anthropologist girlfriend introduced me to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but I'm pretty sure it's a lot like the nature/nurture argument: thought influences language and language influences thought. Eskimoes are obsessed with snow because they live with a lot of the stuff. Naturally they have many words for it. But, OTOH, the way they experience snow is a lot more, well, granular and particular, than the way we do it here in Texas. The Eskimo reality owns a much larger chunk of the Eskimo brain for dealing with snow than the Texan brain. Which means that an Eskimo looking out at the snow falling has a much different perception of that reality than I do. And the way in which my language has words which make it easy or hard to think about certain things, whatever, influences how I perceive reality.