5 ms·

Newspeak?

nyxaiur 5y ago
yay... let's quote a book without understanding it. There should be a school of thought for this, I will sponsor it. Let's call it the Pseudo intellectual Institute of Shitty Quotes.
- Jamustico 5y ago
  I have read the book. In the case of 1984, they remove words. In this case they add words in order to fit an ideology. Go back to reddit Mr. Not Pseudo Intellectual
  - nyxaiur 5y ago
    In 1984 the usage of works gets restricted by a totalitarian government, now in the real world written and spoken language evolves trough discourse even with people like yourself. I know you read the book... I said you didn't understand it.
    - Jamustico 5y ago
      Sorry, didn't know you were a 1984 connoisseur. You didn't even refute my argument "In this case they add words in order to fit an ideology". All you added was that you knew the book and understood it more than me.
      - nyxaiur 5y ago
        You can gender whom ever you want as whatever you want without repercussions from your government. You can add words you can retract words in German and the government will not care, will not incarcerate you or will do you physical or financial harm. There is no argument except that you mistook math class with language study. There also is only one exception the denying of the Holocaust I hope we are at least on the same page about this one.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  This is literally about bending reality by amending language. So a newspeak comparison is exactly right.
VyperCard 5y ago
Quite the opposite. It allows you to express more, not less.
- Jamustico 5y ago
  Yes, but part of the idea still stands. Changing the language in order to fit an ideology. In case of 1984, words were removed, in this case words are being added, but I bet that they plan to remove gendered words if this gets through.
  - igetspam 5y ago
    As a native English speaker who took German as a kid, I was always perplexed by gendered nouns. Why are fruit feminine and pencils and pens masculine? Is it because writing instruments were the tools of men or because they're phallic? Why is lawyer feminine? Is it a form or derision? Best I recall (and can find), it's arbitrary and I would assume, like many things in our world, they were chosen based on some gender association that often boils down to misogyny. German has neutral articles as well. While I wouldn't spend my life chasing this debate, as an outside observer, I can't understand why normalizing on "das" would be a problem for 99% of the things and moving forward from there. Language evolves and if we can evolve it to be more inclusive, why not?
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      Imagine someone comes along and insists that your native language is discriminative on something totally innocuous. Like, say, “a” vs “the”. Dunno, because you can make some nouns special this way. It lets you say “the man” and “a woman” which shows, allegedly, disrespect to one of the genders. You must integrate them into one “tha”. Never mind you lose a key mechanism for expression: surely, you’re not sexist, are you? You may find it a bit silly or ridiculous, but perhaps, like other people, you may find the very suggestion offensive: that unless you put an axe to the language you speak, according to someone’s half-baked ideas, you’re a bigoted misogynist. Languages evolve, we change bits to better fit the zeitgeist and that’s normal. But these “though shalt change your language because I say so and I know better” wars are ridiculous.

Newspeak?

yay... let's quote a book without understanding it. There should be a school of thought for this, I will sponsor it. Let's call it the Pseudo intellectual Institute of Shitty Quotes.

Jamustico 5y ago
I have read the book. In the case of 1984, they remove words. In this case they add words in order to fit an ideology. Go back to reddit Mr. Not Pseudo Intellectual
- nyxaiur 5y ago
  In 1984 the usage of works gets restricted by a totalitarian government, now in the real world written and spoken language evolves trough discourse even with people like yourself. I know you read the book... I said you didn't understand it.
  - Jamustico 5y ago
    Sorry, didn't know you were a 1984 connoisseur. You didn't even refute my argument "In this case they add words in order to fit an ideology". All you added was that you knew the book and understood it more than me.
    - nyxaiur 5y ago
      You can gender whom ever you want as whatever you want without repercussions from your government. You can add words you can retract words in German and the government will not care, will not incarcerate you or will do you physical or financial harm. There is no argument except that you mistook math class with language study. There also is only one exception the denying of the Holocaust I hope we are at least on the same page about this one.
rich_sasha 5y ago
This is literally about bending reality by amending language. So a newspeak comparison is exactly right.

VyperCard 5y ago

Quite the opposite. It allows you to express more, not less.

Jamustico 5y ago
Yes, but part of the idea still stands. Changing the language in order to fit an ideology. In case of 1984, words were removed, in this case words are being added, but I bet that they plan to remove gendered words if this gets through.
- igetspam 5y ago
  As a native English speaker who took German as a kid, I was always perplexed by gendered nouns. Why are fruit feminine and pencils and pens masculine? Is it because writing instruments were the tools of men or because they're phallic? Why is lawyer feminine? Is it a form or derision? Best I recall (and can find), it's arbitrary and I would assume, like many things in our world, they were chosen based on some gender association that often boils down to misogyny. German has neutral articles as well. While I wouldn't spend my life chasing this debate, as an outside observer, I can't understand why normalizing on "das" would be a problem for 99% of the things and moving forward from there. Language evolves and if we can evolve it to be more inclusive, why not?
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    Imagine someone comes along and insists that your native language is discriminative on something totally innocuous. Like, say, “a” vs “the”. Dunno, because you can make some nouns special this way. It lets you say “the man” and “a woman” which shows, allegedly, disrespect to one of the genders. You must integrate them into one “tha”. Never mind you lose a key mechanism for expression: surely, you’re not sexist, are you? You may find it a bit silly or ridiculous, but perhaps, like other people, you may find the very suggestion offensive: that unless you put an axe to the language you speak, according to someone’s half-baked ideas, you’re a bigoted misogynist. Languages evolve, we change bits to better fit the zeitgeist and that’s normal. But these “though shalt change your language because I say so and I know better” wars are ridiculous.