Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Banned Books Week: September 24-30, 2017
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
 RE: Banned Books Week: September 24... (in reply to kitarist)
|
|
|
quote:
What is there to misunderstand, though - it is an HOMONYM for "nigger" (a fact independent of interpretation or politics) - that's why it is easily interpreted(*) as an intended slur when suddenly starting to use that instead of a myriad of other adjectives when referring to a black person.
That the term "niggardly" is a homonym for "nigger" has nothing to do with its meaning. The meaning of a word has nothing to do with the fact that it may sound like another word. One of the problems we face today is the lack of precision in the use and understanding of language. In this case, the lack of precision is not in the use of "niggardly," it is in the lack of understanding of its meaning by those who take offense at it. Moreover, I have seen no evidence to support the statement above that "niggardly" has been used as an adjective "when referring to a black person." Please cite an instance as evidence that it has been used as a "slur" when referring to a black person (as opposed to Blacks who completely misinterpret it as a slur). The term has a precise meaning having nothing to do with racist language that apparently is ignored, even by those to whom it has been explained.
This reminds me of Lewis Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass."
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Are we to be at the mercy of anyone who wishes to attach a meaning to a word as he chooses, regardless of whether or not it is valid? Does Humpty Dumpty's linguistic anarchy reign supreme, where any word can mean anything anyone wants it to mean? Not if one cares for precision in the use and understanding of language. We should not be subject to the lowest common linguistic denominator. Standards still count, in language as in other aspects of life.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2017 2:37:05
 |
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Banned Books Week: September 24... (in reply to timoteo)
|
|
|
Yeah I agree people need whip out the dictionary more often. But some words are going to be 'loaded' in some cultures and contexts regardless of Webster's will.
This word is a rarity in how much it is burdened by complexity. I can be used straight ahead to mean someone or thing that is parsimonious in granting something full value or someone or something that is not up to full value, etc.
But there are people who are smart enough to say niggardly as a euphemism for the vulgar slur 'n' word, which is derived from another linguistic source. To tell the truth I'm a little careful about saying for example "this guitar is a 'negra' " outside Spanish guitar circles. And I don't feel self censorship, or that I'm impinging upon my own free use of vocabulary. I'm fitting an argot, or idiomatic type of speech to a culture that understands different values. I'm switching codes. Now some people can switch codes and use niggardly as a slur in their hearts, even though on the surface the word may be dictionary defended. Another word that can be code switched is 'sniggering'-
We never have as humans lived in times where language does not have opaque and serpentine windings through men's and women's hearts. The dictionary will give an accurate meaning for a word, but it can't prevent the meaning to be misused or turned inside out. And I'm not saying that means the word should be expunged from the language, it just means some words are through intent, burdened with usage not ascribed to them in the holy Oxford English book.
I was drawing an analogy with Duterte allowing extra-judicial killings. Some people perpetrate extra-dictionarial killings of words. Death squads stalking language. So there are those who may be afraid of language slaughters and hurt by them, and there may also be people who simply don't know the meaning of a word, and it looks like a rifle pointed at them.
If words are as powerful as bullets we might want to think about which caliber we load into our pens.
I really love how full of BS I am. I really am afraid I might injure myself gravely with a verb someday, or trip and break a leg over a slippery noun.
-
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2017 4:47:49
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Banned Books Week: September 24... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
One tiptoes through a linguistic minefield these days.
In my youth non-racist white people in Texas (there were some in my immediate family) used the "n-word" freely. They didn't know how offensive it was to black people. They had no black friends, as this was a near-impossibility in the South, and only a very brave or a very foolish black person would have brought it up to a white person. It could quite possibly have been physically dangerous.
Once I learned of the weight of the word among black people, I avoided it scrupulously, and given the fraught state of relations between the races, I would have automatically substituted a synonym for any word that could have been misconstrued, such as "niggardly."
But I still put my foot wrong from time to time these days, since sensitivities not only change, they seem to multiply.
During the past year I told of my Japanese girl friend suggesting in the 1980s that I should buy my clothes at a very expensive store and drive a Mercedes. I explained to my girlfriend that in my capacity as consultant to aerospace engineers, it would have been offensive to flout my income.
A young white woman asked, in a challenging tone, "Why is it important to mention the race of your girlfriend?"
I explained that there was a bit of background. My girlfriend and I had discussed the Asian concept of "face." I learned that there was more to it than just an outward show of status, and sensitivity to being slighted. It also included assuming the responsibilities attendant to one's social status, as shown by status symbols like clothes and cars. I further explained that my situation differed from that of most Japanese men with a comfortable income. I did not have a set of younger men dependent upon me for guidance and powerful backing.
The young white woman nodded, but still seemed to feel that she needed to take offense on behalf of Japanese women.
In another incident I had made the casual acquaintance of young couple. He is an assistant professor, but is better known for other intellectual accomplishments. His wife is a strikingly beautiful young woman, who works for a tech start-up. During the past year, amid a company of a half dozen or so, the topic of Halloween costumes came up.
I told of being at Norton Air Force base in California during the 1990s. People in California often wear fairly elaborate Halloween costumes to work. At Norton I was in line to be photographed for the badge that let me into secure areas. I noticed that almost all the civilians in the office were in costume, some pretty elaborate, but the service members were in their Air Force "Class A" blues.
The young airman who took care of me was a handsome African American. He typed up the form with his back pretty much turned to me, then swiveled around in his chair, and smiled broadly, exposing a flashy set of fake Dracula teeth. As I cracked up, he snapped my badge photo. I wore that goofy looking badge around Norton AFB for a year.
As I said, "African American" I noticed a look flash very briefly across the face of the young wife. She is fair skinned and wears her very curly dark hair tightly cropped. I met her a few times before it occurred to me that the strikingly beautiful cast of her delicate facial features might be seen to have a very slight African tinge. She speaks without any discernible accent, and is clearly very well educated and socially adept.
With a sinking feeling, I realized I had put my foot in it. As a southerner I was accustomed to the subtle, humorously accomplished and unanswerable one-up stroke of an African American toward a white person. In telling I made it clear I thought the airman's stunt was virtuosic, inoffensive and funny.
I had told the story to my African American boss at Kwajalein. He's a few years older than I am, from a small town in northern Alabama. He found it hilarious. Some of the older people in the group last year laughed at the story. They didn't notice the fleeting look it got from the young woman. She was decidedly cool toward me the next few times we met.
Of course it was impossible for me to refer to the story without almost certainly making matters worse.
Thinking it over I speculated that she might not even have been aware of the social context of the airman's subtle one-upmanship. I had admiringly recounted it. Maybe she simply took offense at what she saw as an un-called for mention of race.
A couple of months ago in San Francisco I was with a group of younger people. Most of them worked at tech start-ups in the city. They were talking about a trip to Seattle, where the engineers they worked with were all dressed as lumberjacks. Three or four of the Californians were dressed as Steve Jobs.
I said that when I lived in Palo Alto in the 1980s the standard fashion insult in the City was, "He looks like he orders his clothes from the L.L. Bean catalog." From their expressions, I wondered whether any of them knew what the L.L. Bean catalog was. (https://www.llbean.com) I went on to say that in the 1960s and early 1970s the standard men's fashion in Berkeley was boots, bell bottom Levis and embroidered Mexican shirts.
One of the young men said, "Do you mean Cuban shirts?" I paused, and probably looked puzzled. He continued, "Maybe you should just say 'Latin American shirts.' Covers a broader area, more likely to hit the target."
I had the presence of mind to pull out my iPhone and Google an image like this:
The young man said, "I'm Mexican, but I never saw anything like that."
I think he meant Mexican American, but I didn't say so. I answered, "I bought all of mine in the public market in Merida, Yucatan or in Oaxaca."
RNJ
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
 Attachment (1)
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2017 5:20:52
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Banned Books Week: September 24... (in reply to timoteo)
|
|
|
Engineers who dress like lumberjacks should still be teased, IMO. They would look better in embroidered Mexican shirts.
When was in Jr. High I made a dashiki in Home Economics class, I wore it to school. The guy who lived next door to me was a film producer who was pretty high up at Norton AFB Audio Visual Studios. It was the 1970's, lot's of guys wore dashiki, Mr. Vaughan often answered the door wearing his after work when he was relaxing listening to Beethoven, loudly, while drinking martinis. He was a Black guy. He was pretty cool with being known as a Black guy, but on the street we called Giant Guy, because he was mostly just tall.
I have no idea what his position on Dracula teeth would have been, although I suspect he would have been in on the joke. Maybe he even gave Dracula teeth to all his staff as Halloween presents.
All I remember is one day my mom had to go to the hospital and Giant Guy had to pick me up from baseball practice in his 240 Z sports car- and it was the most normal thing that ever happened to me, except I was very impressed by the Z.
I doubt I could wear a dashiki now without getting a whole lot of grief from just about everyone, except 80 year old guys who used to own and drive 240 Z's while wearing embroidered Mexican shirts.
True Story.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2017 6:05:59
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Banned Books Week: September 24... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Well, when everything is said and done I suppose the loons are running the asylum. "Niggardly" is probably on its way out and some day "literally" will mean "figuratively" and people will wonder how it ever meant anything different. That being said, "niggardly" is a perfectly good word and I find it unfair to sum up someone's attachment to words as only pedantry. After the DC incident, the head of the NAACP at the time, Julian Bond said that it was a shame to have to censor yourself to meet the lack of understanding of others. He said that the mayor should bring the employee who used "niggardly" back and order dictionnaries for all staff that need them. Interestly, those in this thread who are up in arms about the word "niggardly" didn't react at all to estebanana using the word "denigrate", which actually does have an etymological relationship with the word "nigger".
Perhaps Ricardo's observation that there's a time and place for everything is what it comes down to. This makes it difficult to talk about TV shows or any kind of broadcast or written work that is open to any audience, especially in a country where many people are just waiting for any opportunity to pounce and yell "racist". Richard's example about talking about his "Japanese girlfriend" is interesting to me. I would have never assumed the word "Japanese" referred to race. I understood it as a nationality, or at the very most as ethnicity, which has no real implication on the color a person happens to have. In fact, had he left out the word "Japanese", the story would have made no sense. I would have been left wondering, but where his girlfriend coming from when she said that? what was her reasoning behind that? And these same people who pounce at every opportunity to yell "racist" are the same that go around having DNA tests and telling everyone that they're 40% this or that, which strikes me as profoundly racist as it implies that somewhere down the line there was such a thing as a 100% this or that. The same who yell "racist" when a white European expat in Africa hires a black maid or gardner, without realizing that those who don't hire them are utterly despised by the locals for depriving them of perfectly good jobs (and they reveal on that occasion the real problem, that they think they're too good for these jobs, which makes you wonder how much condescension they secretly harbor towards those of us who do all sorts of menial jobs)
When Pierre Desproges had to deliver his weekly rant on radio and his guest happened to be Jean-Marie Le Pen, he dealt with it by ranting about the nature of humor and whether you could laugh about anything. He concluded that we could, should and must laugh about everything, but we shouldn't laugh with everybody. As he put it, it's hard to giggle when a practicing Stalinist is around. The same could probably be said about offensive language. There's nothing inherently offensive about any word but we should be aware of who our interlocutors are.
But words in themselves are not offensive in any true sense. Bad words serve a social purpose, a much needed one, but their actual meaning varies according to intent. The only thing truly offensive is what a speaker intends. And this is why these reactions of outrage to words, and not to intent, are doomed to fail. If someone saw the word "niggardly" used with a clear intent to create a racist slur, then they are of course quite right to denounce that intent. They'd be wrong to think it has anything to do with the word though. And when people fail to focus on intent and take the easy road towards prohibiting certain words that they deem offensive, then we jump on the treadmill. If the intent doesn't change, if black people are still looked down upon and if they feel looked down upon, then whatever word you use will become tainted with the same pejorative meaning and we'll just keep on moving from one word to another ad vitam aeternam. Which leads you to the situation where some people are just tired because they don't know how to keep up with the ever-rapidly changing vocabulary surrounding race. The title "NAACP" is fine, but apparently saying "colored people" is not. How does that work exactly?
The crux of it for me was summed up by an old-friend of mine, who happens to be black, african-american or whatever the hell you want to call him. He's well above any of those qualifiers. We were discussing race in America and at some point he told me that the demonym "American" didn't refer to him. He said: "That word means white people". Well there's the problem, I thought. If you have in your country people who can't even associate with the very word that is used to describe the inhabitants of that country, then that's what you should be dealing with. You all seem American to the rest of the world, no matter what your color, but for certain reasons, many in the US don't seem to feel that way. And it's going to take a whole lot more than words to make them feel like Americans and create an environment where identity can be constructed without necessarily having to be in opposition to something else.
On a somewhat similar topic, I've read that in preparation for the upcoming Olympics, Japan was planning to remove signs with swastikas and replace them with something that would be less of a shock for Western visitors. "Eastern" swastikas were not intended to offend anymore than the word "niggardly" was. It makes you wonder where the borders of sensitivity and (self-)censorship should be.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2017 9:19:46
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Banned Books Week: September 24... (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
On a somewhat similar topic, I've read that in preparation for the upcoming Olympics, Japan was planning to remove signs with swastikas and replace them with something that would be less of a shock for Western visitors. "Eastern" swastikas were not intended to offend anymore than the word "niggardly" was. It makes you wonder where the borders of sensitivity and (self-)censorship should be.
On Japanese maps for tourists in 2020 they are re-symboling them in several ways, one is to change the swastika. Richards use of 'Japanese was meant to denote culture. Japan is nationality, and Japanese is a culture. And a culture that is highly self referential, but itself based a lot on sensitivity to others. One one here seems to be getting steamed up over the Tokyo maps, and if you need swastikas on your map, you can still get them in Kyoto.
My old Chinese karate teacher in San Francisco is 70 now and he's an 8th dan - he's the third highest ranking Shorin-Ryu Shorinkan sensei in the US. I used to live in his downstairs apt. He's a plumber, remodeled the bathroom and when he put in the shower tiles he made a swastika pattern in the shower. He's a buddhist.
Anyway, denigrate, yes that begs another kind of conversation- that is the value of light vs. dark in word meanings. Denigrate is from the latin and is rooted in the same word 'niger' nee'zair - the root the 'n' word slur comes from, but along the development of denigrate was the concept of light and dark in terms of obscured by back of light, the turn of the earth occludes light from revealing objects, or metaphorically ideas or truths. That is a separate conversation of origins from from a word meant to racially slur. For that matter niggardly comes from the root and the same intent as denigrate, to describe that which is obscured in true meaning.
In literature there's a classic metaphor of light vs. dark- Joseph Conrad wrote about "the dark continent" Africa. He did it and it has multiple meanings, but there it is deal with it. Other light vs. dark scenarios are about the idea of light revealing and dark obscuring. Later the racial connotations were attached to the obscuring of light, but that did not completely ever change meaning or 'own' the meaning of light vs. dark as a racial construction. It has multivalent meaning, depending on the intent of the author.
Here's the deal if you want to teach Twain to say 6th or 7th graders you're going to have to have a conversation about light vs. dark and all its implication in literature in order to clarify what Twain meant. And to protect anyone, by giving them that light vs. dark knowledge, from others who would see Twains usage as a permission to take the word out of context an code switch it in a negative way. Authorship and Authority are related words and powerfully so. There is a kind of authority grated the printed word and we have to be able to mitigate and understand the boundaries of what that power means. And how authorship grants authority and the possibility the mower could be misused. Kids would need that extra time to digest the term niggardly formally and colloquially, not only in context of looking back at Twain' day, but in how that word operates now.
I've read the same word in writings by Carl Jung and others, and I would even say there is a subtle distinction in the authority and tension that word carries in European writing vs, American writing. And then there is the whole other connotations of Neil de Grasse Tyson getting into talking about the difference between light vs. dark when addressing 'dark matter' in outer space. He's gotten int the subject.
You find it in lot's of 19th century writing, and the words denigrate come from light vs. dark in the same way that a kind of literary chiaroscuro is used in a novel like 'The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket' wherein the light vs. dark is quite literally the difference between being under a ships deck stowing away in a dark hold, and being up in deck in full tropical brightness. But it's not even that simple, because it makes an oblique reference to the clotted air of the under decks of misery in slave ships, Jonah in the dark belly of the whale etc. - And these books are nt being revised, there's no politically correct war to change Poe. There are some skirmishes over loaded words, and a concerted effort from the far right to propagandize that Western culture is under attack. It's not, the real attack is the far right not supporting literature. music and the arts. They starve the very thing they cling to as cultural collateral to prove a twisted point. The amplification of the skirmishes over small word disagreements if a tactic. Western culture is robust and mighty, the weak mindedness is from the far Christian right.
I have to edit out the mistakes later, but I hope the meaning is there- I now have hot glue and braces that need attention
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2017 12:55:54
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Banned Books Week: September 24... (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
I doubt I could wear a dashiki now without getting a whole lot of grief from just about everyone, except 80 year old guys who used to own and drive 240 Z's while wearing embroidered Mexican shirts.
You would certainly get a lot of grief from certain elements on many university campuses today.
When I was in the U.S. Foreign Service, I always wore a suit and tie when working in the American Embassy and when attending official events sponsored by the host government or other nations' embassies. Nevertheless, I and other Embassy officers very often traded in our diplomatic gear for the more sartorially interesting local color provided by the Barong Tagolog shirt in the Philippines, the Guayabera (the Latin American shirt referred to in posts above) in Honduras, and beautiful batik shirts in Malaysia and Indonesia. We often wore them when attending informal parties and dinners, both among ourselves and with our host country friends and colleagues.
The little snowflakes on many university campuses today, with their "identity politics" and self-assured sense of moral superiority, would charge both of us with (drum roll....) "Cultural Appropriation!" were we to wear such gear today. I am beyond caring about such nonsense ("Dare I eat a taco in public?"), but there are those who would be intimidated by the thuggish behavior of the morally superior "Culture Police," and that is a shame.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2017 14:37:29
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Banned Books Week: September 24... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
Once I learned of the weight of the word among black people, I avoided it scrupulously, and given the fraught state of relations between the races, I would have automatically substituted a synonym for any word that could have been misconstrued, such as "niggardly."
Knowing the term "niggardly" is misconstrued and misunderstood by certain Blacks, I would not use it gratuitously just to point out their ignorance of its meaning. Nevertheless, I would not hesitate to use it when it is perfectly proper to do so, and especially if the context calls for it. My example above of the Black student taking umbrage at the professor using "niggardly" while teaching a class on Chaucer at the University of Wisconsin, Madison is a case in point. Chaucer wrote "The Canterbury Tales" in Middle English in the fourteenth century, the very tongue and time period that "nyggard," the Middle English antecedent to "niggardly" was being used to describe a miserly or stingy person. I remember studying "The Canterbury Tales" in high school English, and while I don't remember if "nyggard" was used in the text, I would not be surprised it it appeared in one of Chaucer's "Tales."
The Black student who complained about the professor's use of the term "niggardly" continued her tirade even after its meaning was explained to her. I'm sure she would have been just as obstinate in her inability to open her mind to "Huckleberry Finn" as well. If she, and others like her, cannot accept that the study of literature (and other fields as well, such as history) can make one uncomfortable if one does not understand both the terms used and the background they describe, she does not belong in a university environment. University study is supposed to open minds, not lead to their closure like overly sensitive mimosas.
As Piwin pointed out, in the case of the Washington, DC city employee who used the term "niggardly" that resulted in a Black colleague lodging a complaint, there were Blacks who defended the employee's use of the term and suggested that dictionaries be given out. And several objected to the transfer of the White employee, rather than the Black who complained (and in doing so revealed his lack of understanding, even after the term's definition was pointed out to him.). While I agree that there is a linguistic minefield out there these days, I would be cautious about allowing it to determine one's use of language when one is confident of correct usage. As I mentioned, I would never gratuitously use a term that is misconstrued by some within certain ethnic or racial groups just to point out their error, and certainly not if the term really does carry a racist meaning, but it would be folly to allow mob rule, especially when the mob is clearly wrong, to supplant the proper use of language.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2017 18:11:07
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Banned Books Week: September 24... (in reply to timoteo)
|
|
|
At NY, Columbia University we foreigners were given this book as a guide.
To me worldly reality and pragmatism make a guide line.
Whether the term discussed may stem from times when a vast majority of black just could not be generous with money and possession, or whether the linguistic root be positioned somewhere completely else, and be unrelated to what the word sounds like:
For the fact that black people´s majority is not being stingy, either it should not be used to omit misunderstanding or alternatively a language campaign initiated which explains the term.
A different case from the word "türken" in German language. Which is a verb driven from "Turkish", meaning "to deceive". In view of worldly conditions in Middle East, it can´t be claimed that this synonym was historically chosen arbitrarily, which again makes its use legit. And the media campaign in Turkey in early Erdokan times, when the boulevard there was complaining about use of this verb in German language countries, to my understanding only demonstrated stubbornness and the refusal to undergo a philosophical development towards integrity, in the ways it occurred elsewhere.
Generally, however I am not fond of most language policing in past decades, other than extreme examples like the light-hearted use of Nazi related terminology (most prominently used in the US. To my understanding any inflationary application of it has to be avoided) much of late attempts to restrict are simply silly before the actual misery in the world.
You know like when apparent politically correct fractions think it due to add female completion to terms that are originally and generally male. (Like if you completed the term "craftsmen" by saying "craftsmen and -women" to stress that you are not skipping female workers, even though this being long since understood in modern time anyway.)
Other than with terms that discriminate morphology, or with frivolity which may inflationary use terminology that concerns extreme of evil, a hair splitting over language is only anachronistic as long as on the other hand there is substantial misery around.
As long as there still vandalizes appropriation of labor value; as long as there die billions from poverty while some thousands reserve vast of the globe to either stash or squander; while there is extinction going of earth´s creature, and deserting ...
Finesse regarding secondary terms of priority, or even randomness like gender grammar, makes for a kind of inherent sarcasm and a cocooning before the concrete world. It is as if there was no more relevant issue left to be solved first.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Attachment (1)
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 30 2017 15:42:47
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.125 secs.
|
Printable Version
