6 ms·

Having a word that you that literally can't say even in quotation or reference implies something almost akin to magical thinking. The only thing I can think of

Having a word that you that literally can't say even in quotation or reference implies something almost akin to magical thinking. The only thing I can think of that’s comparable is how Jews treat the divine name. I’d be uncomfortable to type it out in Hebrew even though I haven’t been religious for many years.

naringas 6y ago
do you mean "yaweh" ?? all this reminds me of the way they treat the evil wizard's name "voldemort" in harry potter
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  yeah but I think in the books he has a spell that allows him to see into your mind or something if you say his name so that would make sense.
  - labster 6y ago
    Except that was never true and it was all superstitious bullshit inside the Wizarding World. Dumbledore only refrained from saying Tom Riddle’s emo name because of social pressure — if there was any chance of remote legilimency he’d have never said “Voldemort” because he was fighting a damned war against him. So no, it’s just a normal taboo, probably initiated by Voldy himself to spread fear.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Spoiler alert: In one of the last books, the 3 main characters teleport to a London pub or something, and then the Deatheaters attack them. And I’m pretty sure the book says they were found because one of them said Voldemort’s name. Edit: It was in Deathly Hallows book. https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-voldemort-name-not-spoken-reason/ https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-voldemort-name-not-spoke...
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        Yes, and it’s the reason they were found later as well. Since the only people who would say the name were people who opposed him, it was an efficient way for him to locate these people.
  - frosted-flakes 6y ago
    In the last book, the name was Taboo-ed, so that the Death Eaters could find whoever said it. Not mind-reading
cafard 6y ago
Somebody in an earlier discussion mentioned Monty Python's "Life of Brian": "No throwing rocks until I say so, I don't care who says 'Jehovah'!"
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
I legitimately do not understand this line of thought. The stuff is old, going through many translations, and editing passes, and printings. So the divine name must have been destroyed in printings multiple times. Has god smote anyone yet for this?
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  Do you not understand any disgust / taboo reactions or is it just the more abstract ones you have trouble with? Like would you get it if someone told you he’d hesitate to reach into a toilet even if it has just been cleaned?
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    Many taboos are explainable: toilet = feces = disease. I would be fine reaching into a toilet. Many are also just dumb: No blood transfusion, no birth controls, etc
    - bradleyjg 6y ago
      So you do understand taboos, you just wanted to signal how rational and strong minded you are, unlike me for example, by claiming it’s so bizarre you don’t even get it. You sound like a really great person.
      - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
        I understand taboos that make sense. I have no idea why some of these taboos are a thing. I also don't have idea idea why im supposed to care about an attack on my person.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        wahern 6y ago
        Because the power to name something implies dominion over that thing. In Christianity you're supposed to "never use the Lord's name in vein" because even uttering an established name has implications--e.g. calling upon the power of that name. That basic cultural logic (which may even be partly innate) is as true today as it was 5000 years ago, though obviously the practical implications are different. More interestingly, the power in naming isn't something modern culture seems explicitly aware of even though modern identity politics is predicated on these cultural powers. Thus few people seem to make the connection between ancient taboo words and modern identity politics. This also helps explain the power of religious texts. If spoken words have power, then what happens when you commit words to a physical representation? And pass them down through time? Religious texts can be easily conceived of as the divine made incarnate. This all may seem superficially nuts, especially if you're atheist, until you really dig into all the debates we continually have over language, including in tech communities (e.g. why is naming a project or even just a variable so difficult?), and try to understand why people invest themselves in these debates. Names and labels have power because that's how we create categories; categories separate things with the implication of intrinsic differences; they're how we attach ideas to things, and create meaning out of thin air. That really is a form of dominion and control.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> The only thing I can think of that’s comparable is how Jews treat the divine name. There is a major US legal case which touched on precisely this situation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California , the "Fuck the draft" case. Cohen stood accused of using the word. But at the beginning of oral argument, the Chief Justice euphemistically directed his attorney, Melville Nimmer, not to quote it when going over the facts of the case: > I might suggest to you that as in most cases, the Court's thoroughly familiar with the factual setting of this case and it will not be necessary for you, I'm sure, to dwell on the facts. Nimmer explicitly recognized, and intentionally misinterpreted, Burger's instructions: > At the Chief Justice's suggestion I certainly will keep very brief this statement of facts [...] > [...] may it please the court what this young man did was to walk through a courthouse corridor in Los Angeles county on his way to a courtroom where he had some business. > [interruption] > While walking through that corridor he was wearing a jacket upon which were inscribed the words "Fuck the draft", also were inscribed the words "Stop war" and several peace symbols. Whether Nimmer could be allowed to quote the word "Fuck" in defending his client for expressing the message "Fuck the draft" was a major issue at the time. The Court attempted to forbid it but didn't quite have the power to do so. And this is often credited with getting Cohen acquitted. Nimmer's ability to quote the word inside the hallowed confines of the courtroom dealt significant damage to the idea that using it on the way to the courtroom was punishable.

naringas 6y ago

do you mean "yaweh" ?? all this reminds me of the way they treat the evil wizard's name "voldemort" in harry potter

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
yeah but I think in the books he has a spell that allows him to see into your mind or something if you say his name so that would make sense.
- labster 6y ago
  Except that was never true and it was all superstitious bullshit inside the Wizarding World. Dumbledore only refrained from saying Tom Riddle’s emo name because of social pressure — if there was any chance of remote legilimency he’d have never said “Voldemort” because he was fighting a damned war against him. So no, it’s just a normal taboo, probably initiated by Voldy himself to spread fear.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Spoiler alert: In one of the last books, the 3 main characters teleport to a London pub or something, and then the Deatheaters attack them. And I’m pretty sure the book says they were found because one of them said Voldemort’s name. Edit: It was in Deathly Hallows book. https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-voldemort-name-not-spoken-reason/ https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-voldemort-name-not-spoke...
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Yes, and it’s the reason they were found later as well. Since the only people who would say the name were people who opposed him, it was an efficient way for him to locate these people.
- frosted-flakes 6y ago
  In the last book, the name was Taboo-ed, so that the Death Eaters could find whoever said it. Not mind-reading

cafard 6y ago

Somebody in an earlier discussion mentioned Monty Python's "Life of Brian": "No throwing rocks until I say so, I don't care who says 'Jehovah'!"

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

I legitimately do not understand this line of thought. The stuff is old, going through many translations, and editing passes, and printings. So the divine name must have been destroyed in printings multiple times. Has god smote anyone yet for this?

bradleyjg 6y ago
Do you not understand any disgust / taboo reactions or is it just the more abstract ones you have trouble with? Like would you get it if someone told you he’d hesitate to reach into a toilet even if it has just been cleaned?
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  Many taboos are explainable: toilet = feces = disease. I would be fine reaching into a toilet. Many are also just dumb: No blood transfusion, no birth controls, etc
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    So you do understand taboos, you just wanted to signal how rational and strong minded you are, unlike me for example, by claiming it’s so bizarre you don’t even get it. You sound like a really great person.
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      I understand taboos that make sense. I have no idea why some of these taboos are a thing. I also don't have idea idea why im supposed to care about an attack on my person.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - wahern 6y ago
        Because the power to name something implies dominion over that thing. In Christianity you're supposed to "never use the Lord's name in vein" because even uttering an established name has implications--e.g. calling upon the power of that name. That basic cultural logic (which may even be partly innate) is as true today as it was 5000 years ago, though obviously the practical implications are different. More interestingly, the power in naming isn't something modern culture seems explicitly aware of even though modern identity politics is predicated on these cultural powers. Thus few people seem to make the connection between ancient taboo words and modern identity politics. This also helps explain the power of religious texts. If spoken words have power, then what happens when you commit words to a physical representation? And pass them down through time? Religious texts can be easily conceived of as the divine made incarnate. This all may seem superficially nuts, especially if you're atheist, until you really dig into all the debates we continually have over language, including in tech communities (e.g. why is naming a project or even just a variable so difficult?), and try to understand why people invest themselves in these debates. Names and labels have power because that's how we create categories; categories separate things with the implication of intrinsic differences; they're how we attach ideas to things, and create meaning out of thin air. That really is a form of dominion and control.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> The only thing I can think of that’s comparable is how Jews treat the divine name. There is a major US legal case which touched on precisely this situation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California , the "Fuck the draft" case. Cohen stood accused of using the word. But at the beginning of oral argument, the Chief Justice euphemistically directed his attorney, Melville Nimmer, not to quote it when going over the facts of the case: > I might suggest to you that as in most cases, the Court's thoroughly familiar with the factual setting of this case and it will not be necessary for you, I'm sure, to dwell on the facts. Nimmer explicitly recognized, and intentionally misinterpreted, Burger's instructions: > At the Chief Justice's suggestion I certainly will keep very brief this statement of facts [...] > [...] may it please the court what this young man did was to walk through a courthouse corridor in Los Angeles county on his way to a courtroom where he had some business. > [interruption] > While walking through that corridor he was wearing a jacket upon which were inscribed the words "Fuck the draft", also were inscribed the words "Stop war" and several peace symbols. Whether Nimmer could be allowed to quote the word "Fuck" in defending his client for expressing the message "Fuck the draft" was a major issue at the time. The Court attempted to forbid it but didn't quite have the power to do so. And this is often credited with getting Cohen acquitted. Nimmer's ability to quote the word inside the hallowed confines of the courtroom dealt significant damage to the idea that using it on the way to the courtroom was punishable.