3 ms·

A common theme with a lot of Carlin rants - they resonate well, but they're completely wrong. I don't think we want to describe sexual assault victims as havin

A common theme with a lot of Carlin rants - they resonate well, but they're completely wrong. I don't think we want to describe sexual assault victims as having "shell shock". Even a soldier could get "shell shock" without encountering any shells. The language got softer not because we're all a bunch of softies but because we noticed a general pattern and generalized the name to match.

hfuyf65 3y ago
If they resonate well, it either means the population as whole thinks it is accurate or that the population as a wholr is wrong. Either is possible, but I think you are wrong about Carlin being wrong. Language defines the quality of our conversations. If we can't be honest with it, some nuance will be lost.
- constantly 3y ago
  There are many things in the middle of the false dichotomy you’ve presented. Such as “people don’t really think about it deeply and it sounds superficially good so they like it” or “people laugh because he’s a comedian but don’t take it seriously because of same.”
  - hfuyf65 3y ago
    Sure. We are not threading new ground here; this has been covered better by people much smarter than me. I am simplifying for the sake of brevity. It may help to think of it as a range.
baggy_trough 3y ago
Completely wrong?
- Tao3300 3y ago
  Don't lose sight of the fact that a comedian is telling jokes and speaking in character.
  - watwut 3y ago
    His comedy gets to be quoted in arguments and is used as argument. His claims are treated as factual by people who like him. So, no, you can not just dismiss counterarguments like that. It is sort of schrodinger stragety - you make claims and if someone strongly argues back, it was joke. If there is no strong pushback, we pretend it was serious.
Tao3300 3y ago
Partly cloudy and partly sunny are different too. Are we sure he didn't revert back into the Hippy Dippy Weatherman when he said that?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zug_zug 3y ago
I think you picked an example where he's wrong, but not completely wrong. I agree "shell shock" wouldn't suffice but you could just change his word to "past-shock" or something, and notice how different that feels than an 8-syllable medical phrase. I do think putting big fancy words on things implies a fake level of understanding, takes the word away from everyday users, and has other real effects.
xphos 3y ago
I think it sacrifices something from trying to be an inclusive term. It's nice that we have a general term but it lacks understanding that some soldiers just think it's a soft name for soft people. Not because it is but because the audience it's extremely relevant are strong hard assed people and the term makes it harder to retain the warrior identity that develop while being a soldier. Than you just a broken soldier, not a harden one who faces shell shock. There are certainly times when shell shock makes no sense but I find PTSD dehumanizing especially since no one actually says post traumatic stress disorder.

hfuyf65 3y ago

If they resonate well, it either means the population as whole thinks it is accurate or that the population as a wholr is wrong. Either is possible, but I think you are wrong about Carlin being wrong. Language defines the quality of our conversations. If we can't be honest with it, some nuance will be lost.

constantly 3y ago
There are many things in the middle of the false dichotomy you’ve presented. Such as “people don’t really think about it deeply and it sounds superficially good so they like it” or “people laugh because he’s a comedian but don’t take it seriously because of same.”
- hfuyf65 3y ago
  Sure. We are not threading new ground here; this has been covered better by people much smarter than me. I am simplifying for the sake of brevity. It may help to think of it as a range.

baggy_trough 3y ago

Completely wrong?

Tao3300 3y ago
Don't lose sight of the fact that a comedian is telling jokes and speaking in character.
- watwut 3y ago
  His comedy gets to be quoted in arguments and is used as argument. His claims are treated as factual by people who like him. So, no, you can not just dismiss counterarguments like that. It is sort of schrodinger stragety - you make claims and if someone strongly argues back, it was joke. If there is no strong pushback, we pretend it was serious.

Tao3300 3y ago

Partly cloudy and partly sunny are different too. Are we sure he didn't revert back into the Hippy Dippy Weatherman when he said that?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

zug_zug 3y ago

I think you picked an example where he's wrong, but not completely wrong. I agree "shell shock" wouldn't suffice but you could just change his word to "past-shock" or something, and notice how different that feels than an 8-syllable medical phrase. I do think putting big fancy words on things implies a fake level of understanding, takes the word away from everyday users, and has other real effects.

xphos 3y ago

I think it sacrifices something from trying to be an inclusive term. It's nice that we have a general term but it lacks understanding that some soldiers just think it's a soft name for soft people. Not because it is but because the audience it's extremely relevant are strong hard assed people and the term makes it harder to retain the warrior identity that develop while being a soldier. Than you just a broken soldier, not a harden one who faces shell shock. There are certainly times when shell shock makes no sense but I find PTSD dehumanizing especially since no one actually says post traumatic stress disorder.