5 ms·

> discharges a kinetic weapon ... Is that the same as shooting a gun? ; )

by adamsea 6y ago

a1369209993 6y ago
Guns are a specific type of kinetic weapon, yes. So are eg trebuchets or de-oribited asteroids.
- adamsea 6y ago
  For sure :). I understand that. I was gently teasing and pointing out that the language you used obscured (as there were no trebuchets, de orbiting asteroids, etc, involved) rather than clarifies. “Shooting a gun”, or “shooting guns or beanbag rounds, etc”, or whatever is specific and relevant to the topic clarifies thought and improves our thought. The opposite approach occluded and damages our thought. And since language is how we discuss politics, we need clear language in order to truthfully and honestly discuss politics. :-) To quote Orwell from Politics and the English Language: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... “ 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.” “ Operators, or verbal false limbs. These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are: render inoperative, militate against, prove unacceptable, make contact with, be subject to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc. etc. The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purposes verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render. In addition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining).”
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > pointing out that the language you used obscured (as there were no trebuchets, de orbiting asteroids, etc, involved) rather than clarifies. And I was pointing that dropping a large rock on someone is a attempt to kill them. I don't particularly care about it happening to be politically motivated.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      [EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT EF-IT: The other guy was technically correct. And there are lots of edits here. It’s the “Pale Fire” of HN comments.] [EDIT: All this because I lost the thread that we were talking about when striking miners in the UK dropped a concrete block from a footbridge onto David Wilkies taxi whilst he was driving a strike-breaking miner to work, killing David. Hopefully future HN readers will find some value and pleasure in this thread, however.] Ah. I didn’t realize a naturally occurring solid mass or aggregate of minerals was involved. :):):) And with regards to politics, part of Orwell’s point was that our language - how we choose to express things - is political, too. Regardless of our intent. I wasn’t saying anything about the politics of anyone throwing a rock. And I’m not saying anything about your political beliefs. I’m saying there’s a political power in how language is used, even if the subject under discussion isn’t expressly “political”. Finally, to be a complete pedant, although “discharge” is often used as a synonym for “shoot”, I’ve never heard it used as a synonym for “throw” before. So the correct way to use overly complex language to say “throwing a rock” would be “launching a kinetic energy weapon”. Or “releasing”. Because unlike a gun, or bow, or whatever, in this case the “weapons system”, if it wouldn’t be a dehumanizing offense to call it such, is a persons arm. Not a gun or bow or phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range or whatever. And when we throw things we don’t “discharge” them. Which is actually a perfect example of Orwell’s point. To try to call someone throwing something a “discharge” is to dehumanize them, because humans do not discharge things from their arms when they throw them. We do, however, discharge snot from our noses when we sneeze ;) We are talking about throwing a rock at a truck, right? [EDIT EDIT: We are not. We are talking about pushing a concrete block off a bridge onto a car below. Which I suppose, pedantically, is to “discharge” since the stored potential kinetic energy of the block is what makes it a weapon, although “pushing” is still a human thing, but it doesn’t feel as dehumanizing as the “throwing” case for some reason. You were, technically, correct, which is the best kind of correct. Ah well, at least we got a lesson in the relationship between language and politics out of the whole thing.] I didn’t just write a pedantic magnum opus on the wrong subject because I didn’t realize the other person was still discussing hypothetical asteroids being de-orbited to destroy planets, or hypothetical kinetical bombardment weapons aka “rods from god”, did I? ;) [EDIT EDIT EDIT: You did not, but what you did is almost as embarrassing.] Lord, I hope I’m not arguing with a 16-year old on the Internet. It’d be like arguing with my younger self :/ [EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT: If so, I think you lost.]

> discharges a kinetic weapon ... Is that the same as shooting a gun? ; )

a1369209993 6y ago

Guns are a specific type of kinetic weapon, yes. So are eg trebuchets or de-oribited asteroids.

adamsea 6y ago
For sure :). I understand that. I was gently teasing and pointing out that the language you used obscured (as there were no trebuchets, de orbiting asteroids, etc, involved) rather than clarifies. “Shooting a gun”, or “shooting guns or beanbag rounds, etc”, or whatever is specific and relevant to the topic clarifies thought and improves our thought. The opposite approach occluded and damages our thought. And since language is how we discuss politics, we need clear language in order to truthfully and honestly discuss politics. :-) To quote Orwell from Politics and the English Language: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... “ 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.” “ Operators, or verbal false limbs. These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are: render inoperative, militate against, prove unacceptable, make contact with, be subject to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc. etc. The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purposes verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render. In addition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining).”
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > pointing out that the language you used obscured (as there were no trebuchets, de orbiting asteroids, etc, involved) rather than clarifies. And I was pointing that dropping a large rock on someone is a attempt to kill them. I don't particularly care about it happening to be politically motivated.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    [EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT EF-IT: The other guy was technically correct. And there are lots of edits here. It’s the “Pale Fire” of HN comments.] [EDIT: All this because I lost the thread that we were talking about when striking miners in the UK dropped a concrete block from a footbridge onto David Wilkies taxi whilst he was driving a strike-breaking miner to work, killing David. Hopefully future HN readers will find some value and pleasure in this thread, however.] Ah. I didn’t realize a naturally occurring solid mass or aggregate of minerals was involved. :):):) And with regards to politics, part of Orwell’s point was that our language - how we choose to express things - is political, too. Regardless of our intent. I wasn’t saying anything about the politics of anyone throwing a rock. And I’m not saying anything about your political beliefs. I’m saying there’s a political power in how language is used, even if the subject under discussion isn’t expressly “political”. Finally, to be a complete pedant, although “discharge” is often used as a synonym for “shoot”, I’ve never heard it used as a synonym for “throw” before. So the correct way to use overly complex language to say “throwing a rock” would be “launching a kinetic energy weapon”. Or “releasing”. Because unlike a gun, or bow, or whatever, in this case the “weapons system”, if it wouldn’t be a dehumanizing offense to call it such, is a persons arm. Not a gun or bow or phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range or whatever. And when we throw things we don’t “discharge” them. Which is actually a perfect example of Orwell’s point. To try to call someone throwing something a “discharge” is to dehumanize them, because humans do not discharge things from their arms when they throw them. We do, however, discharge snot from our noses when we sneeze ;) We are talking about throwing a rock at a truck, right? [EDIT EDIT: We are not. We are talking about pushing a concrete block off a bridge onto a car below. Which I suppose, pedantically, is to “discharge” since the stored potential kinetic energy of the block is what makes it a weapon, although “pushing” is still a human thing, but it doesn’t feel as dehumanizing as the “throwing” case for some reason. You were, technically, correct, which is the best kind of correct. Ah well, at least we got a lesson in the relationship between language and politics out of the whole thing.] I didn’t just write a pedantic magnum opus on the wrong subject because I didn’t realize the other person was still discussing hypothetical asteroids being de-orbited to destroy planets, or hypothetical kinetical bombardment weapons aka “rods from god”, did I? ;) [EDIT EDIT EDIT: You did not, but what you did is almost as embarrassing.] Lord, I hope I’m not arguing with a 16-year old on the Internet. It’d be like arguing with my younger self :/ [EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT: If so, I think you lost.]