[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / fast / games / hikki / ita / orthodox ]

/8diamonds/ - 8chan Intelligence Agency

Ordos Imagos Affinis
Winner of the 81rd Attention-Hungry Games
/y2k/ - 2000s Nostalgia

Entries for the 2019 Summer Infinity Cup are now open!
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 23d6a44d862e687⋯.jpg (51.99 KB, 500x581, 500:581, aaec52075bec99a6660f89a0a3….jpg)

ee0d0e  No.2892

The destruction of languages and the concepts words are supposed to represent is an issue that is in sore need of better understanding and awareness. The issues we face in the realm of localization or the introduction of PC language are examples of languages being altered or destroyed to influence the range of thought.

Though I hate to be the guy who quotes 1984, the book tackled this subject as well.

>"It's a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not."

>"In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? "

Words are the expression of intentions, feelings, abstract concepts, and tangible, existing things. Though one could argue that a concept comes before the language, it is the language that expresses the concept, and it is the definition that influences how others acquire that concept. Even when we think, we think in a language. It's because of that that the Party desired to cut out the words they found unnecessary, words that express different levels of good. An important part of that quote was the fact that they desired to rid the language of the word "bad" while replacing it with "ungood".

The concept of something being bad doesn't necessarily go away, but its expression has changed, along with the concept of what "good" is. Forced to refer to something as "ungood", the word "good" becomes an infallible standard. Anything labeled as ungood becomes the outlying mistake that must be made good again. The language now suggests a justification for which things labeled as ungood must be made good again. All one had to do was erase the word "bad" and make everything a sheer difference of good and ungood.

A similar destruction of words has been happening for a long time across college campuses, as you all know. Trigger warning, microaggression, rape culture, wage gap, are all mostly inventions in the social justice lexicon. However, we're also dealing with the altering of established words and their concepts. Racism, misogyny, harassment, equality, diversity, are all words used very differently than how their definitions would suggest we should use them.

Another issue I hope to get to in this thread is the destruction of translation between two languages, particularly English and Japanese, done largely by localizers for gaming publishers and dubbers for anime

ee0d0e  No.2893

File: 6203b47b18b6c19⋯.png (173.62 KB, 623x349, 623:349, spatial mapping.png)

File: 458e1998919c997⋯.png (182.8 KB, 552x397, 552:397, children 1.png)

File: c4554a25409bc18⋯.png (187.99 KB, 529x385, 529:385, numerosities.png)

Language and Thought

In general, concepts come before language, with language being our ability to communicate and express that concept. However, there are things that cannot be expressed in the absence of language. Furthermore, if a language lacks the word for a particular concept, it can affect one's cognitive ability to comprehend and express it, to an extent.

A few examples

Quoting this paper on linguistic relativity, pics 1-3


Regarding the difference in strength in spatial mapping, most human infants possess the ability to perform spatial mapping in different representations. As they start learning, their language determines which representation takes dominance. For instance, when describing the differences in the pitch of sounds, we use High or Low in English. In Farsi, however, they use their word for Thin to describe a High pitch, and Thick to describe a Low pitch. Where we mentally measure pitch in terms of length, Farsi measures them in volume.

A difference in language expression is responsible for how people who speak these languages think differently.

A more radical example of this difference lies between English and the Pirahã language. The third image briefly goes over an experiment involving a can full of nuts being emptied out one at a time. In English, we're able to verbally express an exact amount of a large quantity. 77. 96. 1,249. In the Pirahã language, only 1 and 2 are verbally expressed as exact quantities. Anything we would measure as 3 or >3 is referred to as "Many" in their language. The experiment showed that the Pirahã were unable to mentally represent exact quantities greater than three, as in, they were unable to determine the numerical difference between having four of something or five of something. It was believed that this occurred because their langue's counting system was nonexistent past the count of three. Their lack of vocabulary to express exact number quantities is responsible for their failure to complete tasks requiring that skill, challenging the notion that the ability to do so is a universal trait among humans. (Which was explained away via cultural relativism. 'The Pirahã don't NEED an exact numerical system to function in their society' etc)

Differences in mental representation of numbers, motion, speed, shapes, and various abstract concepts, both slight and radical exist between languages that express them differently, or not at all.

It is on this basis that I will try to highlight the importance of issues regarding the manipulation of language, changing words, changing their definition, ridding a language of words, inventing new ones, and manipulating intend of language through translation

ee0d0e  No.2894

File: 4d123b29ae625fe⋯.jpg (406 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, smug.jpg)

Manipulation of Language: Changing and Inventing Words and/or Definitions

I must refer to the 1984 Good and Ungood example again to illustrate the importance of the Party keeping the word good and using Ungood to replace the word Bad. It's simple.


>Discard antonym

>(Negative prefix)+Word

A very easy formula that establishes Good and all things thought of as Good as a sort of political orthodox, with everything thought of as Ungood unorthodox. It's an interesting example of how one could manipulate language to influence the range of thought, and even how people may perceive the world around them.

Let's take the word Racist. We'll even to a Goygle search of the definition to make it easy. A Racist is defined as

>(noun) "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."

>(adjective) "showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another."

With the emergence of the sociology definition of the word Racism, a new definition is festering its way to the forefront. Let's take a look at one from here.


>Racism refers to a variety of practices, beliefs, social relations, and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yield superiority, power, and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others. Racism takes representational, ideological, discursive, interactional, institutional, structural, and systemic forms. But despite its form, at its core, racism exists when ideas and assumptions about racial categories are used to justify and reproduce a racial hierarchy and racially structured society that unjustly limits access to resources, rights, and privileges on the basis of race.

This definition, by intent, cannot exist on an interpersonal scale. It can only exist on a large scale, within a society. Also by intent, those who are seen to be on the side of the social hierarchy that possesses the most institutional power cannot experience racism, as you've heard time and time again. I compared the words Racist and Racism to express this exact detail. Certain people cannot be racist within this definition, even if their actions are what we'd explicitly call racist.

In sociology, the interpersonal expression of racial superiority or hatred is just prejudice. Whereas a Racist is commonly understood and defined by his beliefs and behavior, which we would deem as racism, Racism in sociology is a system, not a behavior or set of beliefs alone. We've already seen how this is used to justify what would otherwise be called Racism towards Whites, or even anyone seen to possess privilege. One could find this and other examples of radically shifting definitions to be similar to how the Party handled the destruction of words in 1984.

Have a list of Social Justice Terminology for reference. Some of these words I wouldn't really think are really Social Justice words, but most of them are right.


Prefixes, suffixes, base words to attach them to, invented words like Cis to replace the other words to describe normal, everyday people. The Social Justice lexicon makes and plays by its own rules, sometimes even breaking them, while running in opposition to the beliefs and words of everyday language.

As I said before, words influence our thoughts and view of the world. In this case, I believe it's more important what concepts cannot be thought of under this lexicon rather than what is. To me, it's far more worrying that a child taught the sociology definition of Racism will grow up unable to conclude that an individual expressing racist beliefs to another cannot be a racist because of their skin color, because that person is not part of the system they were taught that racism is reliant on. I'm more worried that they cannot fathom the existence of only two genders, and see the phantoms of more everywhere.

Unlike in 1984, I think the problem here is not the erasure of 'shades of definition', of ambiguity and complexity in place of simplicity and rigid linguistic structure. The problem is the erasure of concise, exact simplicity in exchange for ambiguous, context-dependent complexity where it is and has not been traditionally needed. Judgement of interpersonal behavior turns into an analysis of society, racial demographics, and institutions. Sexual aversion to fat people becomes a phobia of those overweight.

The Social Justice lexicon created fear of the unorthodox where it does not and should not exist, all made possible by the complex manipulation of simple words.

08ffae  No.2895

File: ddc6ef7b33f760b⋯.pdf (571.27 KB, PalestiniansKahn.pdf)

An obvious one: "Palestinian" meant "Jew" until the early 1970s when the Soviets and the NYT used the word to refer to an anti-jewish terrorist org.

At about the same time, what is now Middle Eastern studies used to be called Orientalism. Universities purged the term and the professors who taught it.

b29926  No.2896

File: b5835e084a4ed72⋯.jpg (11.84 KB, 210x230, 21:23, 1324447383154.jpg)


Literally Zionist propaganda.

08ffae  No.2897


Yeah, so? It's not wrong.

99c642  No.2898

>The meaning of "pacifism" was altered in Anglo-American usage during World War I. Before 1914 the word was associated with the general advocacy of peace, a cause that had enlisted leaders among the Western economic and intellectual elite and socialist leadership. In wartime, "pacifism" was used to denote the principled refusal to sanction or participate in war at all. This doctrine was associated with the nonresistance of the early Christian church or the traditional "peace" churches, such as the Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren. During and after World War I, absolute opposition to war was joined with support for peace and reform programs to produce modern, liberal pacifism.



8c733d  No.2899

File: 11c098b88b4899c⋯.jpg (130.06 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 03.jpg)

>Niggardly: Adjective - - not generous, stingy

>Adverb - - In a stingy way

>Synonyms: Parsimonius, cheap, tightfisted

>In the United States, there have been several controversies concerning the word "niggardly", an adjective meaning "stingy" or "miserly", because of its phonetic similarity to the racial slur "nigger". Etymologically the two words are unrelated.

>In 1995, years before the incidents in Washington, Wilmington and Madison, The Economist magazine used the word "niggardly" in an article about the impact of computers and productivity: "During the 1980s, when service industries consumed about 85% of the $1 trillion invested in I.T. in the United States, productivity growth averaged a niggardly 0.8% a year." The Economist later pointed out with amusement that it received a letter from a reader in Boston who thought the word "niggardly" was inappropriate. "Why do we get such letters only from America?" the British magazine commented

>At some point before the Washington, D.C., incident (of early 1999), The Dallas Morning News had banned the use of the word after its use in a restaurant review had raised complaints

>In November 2011, a Broward County drug counsellor was fired and another suspended for an incident in which the word "niggardly" was used. A substance-abuse client filed a complaint saying a counsellor called him "niggardly dumb" in a June meeting with two workers at a county rehab center. In an investigative report, the county's professional standards office found the workers, who are both white, engaged in "unprofessional, unethical and discriminatory" behavior

8c733d  No.2900

File: b419f1b76ccc3dc⋯.png (191.61 KB, 556x600, 139:150, LinguisticSituationSchlesw….png)

File: eec00b01a978bd8⋯.png (252.6 KB, 800x522, 400:261, FlemishinDunkirkdistrict.PNG)

File: cf48fb492f56119⋯.png (47.81 KB, 800x426, 400:213, Proportion_of_Taiwanese_La….png)

Then I just have smaller, more general examples of languages being superseded, changed, or revived in some way.

>Commercials, though short lived, decrying the usage of "Gay" to describe things that are lame or stupid, fearing it may hurt the sensibilities of homosexuals(Establishing linguistic orthodoxy, Political Agenda)

>"Terrorists" to refer to a conglomeration of Islamic extremist organizations instead of simply calling them Islamic extremists. Obama did this every single time (Indirect Linguistic Orthodoxy, Political Agenda. Unlike 1st example, I don't recall him suggesting the term be used in place of the other, but those words were repeated by the public and media at large, thus indirectly forming a linguistic orthodoxy)

>Chinese occupation of Taiwan resulted in local Taiwanese languages effectively dying out, first replaced by Japanese, and then replaced to a more authoritarian extent by Mandarin. Most of Taiwan now speaks Mandarin, with the original local languages either dead or on the verge of dying (Superseding language, Destruction of collective Taiwanese identity and culture to be superseded by Chinese authority and language)

>Muslim conquests establish Arabic as the lingua franca of much of the Middle East, nearly destroying the Persian language in the process. Ferdowsi, a great Persian poet, wrote epics in the Persian language in the face of Arabic linguistic dominance. Hailed as the Savior of the Persian Language(Revitalization, refusal to let the traditional language and culture of Persia die, making assimilation into the Muslim world much more difficult for a time)

>Israel. After finally being able to have a country of their own, the Jews revived the Hebrew language. They know that the heart of a nation consists of a shared memory, shared ethnicity, shared land, and a shared language(Revitalization, vital to the creation and cohesion of the country)

>A recent a funny example, someone at CoxCon asked "Are traps gay", a question that has set the SJW side of the internet ablaze as they and their white knights claim that Traps are an offensive, derogatory term for trannies. Apparently, Trap is now a dirty word. (Political orthodoxy, reimagining of definition to cause outrage in the guise of protecting sensibilities, trannies are just fucking crazy I can't explain this shit)

8c733d  No.2901

File: 37e056dc2817e96⋯.jpg (118.37 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, living.jpg)

Fighting Words With Words: Identifying Word Manipulation

In a war of language, the common arsenal among the opposing sides are words themselves. It's exactly as I explained. Words with altered definitions, words with negative prefixes to establish the base word as an orthodox, made up words to create social pressure against verbal expressions, thought patterns, or behaviors. In this war of words, you need words to fight back. You need words that identify each phase of the attempted linguicide of your language. I can only give you a few, but I hope this helps you call out these evils as they arise, for I find this topic to be increasingly more relevant just in the past few weeks.

Terms for Restriction of Words and Speech

>Speech Code (A topic I'll get into later)

A speech code is any rule or regulation that limits, restricts, or bans speech beyond the strict legal limitations upon freedom of speech or press found in the legal definitions of harassment, slander, libel, and fighting words. Such codes are common in the workplace, in universities, and in private organizations. The term may be applied to regulations that do not explicitly prohibit particular words or sentences. Speech codes are often applied for the purpose of suppressing hate speech or forms of social discourse thought to be disagreeable to the implementers.

Use of the term is in many cases valuative; those opposing a particular regulation may refer to it as a speech code, while supporters will prefer to describe it as, for example and depending on the circumstances, a harassment policy. This is particularly the case in academic contexts. The difference may be ascertained by determining if the harassment policy bans more than what is legally defined as harassment; one that does is almost certainly a speech code.

>Word Taboo

A restricted use of words induced by social constraint. This can occur very naturally and in a very top-down fashion. A natural example is the term "pass away" in English. We say someone has passed away, often to avoid directly naming the deceased and their cause of death. It's a respectful restriction of speech. In the top-down fashion, a word taboo would be the erasure of a word from the social discourse in any group or institution as part of the speech code, as well as its replacement with a more respectful term. (See how this creates a linguistic orthodox?)

>Controlled Language

Controlled languages (sometimes called controlled natural languages or CNLs) are subsets of human languages, such as English or Chinese. Controlled languages use restricted grammar rules and vocabularies (typically between 800 and 1,000 words) to reduce or eliminate ambiguity and complexity. They are often used to simplify technical communication, especially for the benefit of non-native readers. They are also used to improve machine translation of source content, which typically results in reduced translation costs.

Traditionally, controlled languages fall into two major categories, simplified controlled languages and logic-based controlled languages. CL's have genuine, practical value for people learning the language in question who can't quite understand it that well. In more authoritarian fashion, a controlled language can be engineered through speech codes and word taboos. The resulting lexical body as a whole is the controlled language. Erasing lexical ambiguity and complexity is not in itself a sort of evil, but like many things, its implementation is how we would define it as something good or bad.


Expurgation doesn't exclusively deal with words, but any sort of content deemed inappropriate or offensive from an artistic work. A good modern example of this would be Nintendo removing head patting/face caressing from the American release of Fire Emblem Fates. Expurgation isn't a very new practice. It's been around for centuries. Huckleberry Finn had to replace the word nigger with other words such as slave and Upton Sinclair's Oil! had to black out several pages depicting a motel sex scene.

The work that is published following the expurgation of questionable content is what you'd call a Fig-Leaf Copy. The name was chosen because of how artists would cover the genitals of their subjects with fig leaves in the final work. The localization scene is a a festering pool of expurgationists, or just simple incompetence to bring over the same experience in a different language. When actual content is being taken out like that because it was deemed offensive, it's expurgation, which can be induced by social pressure or self-induced.

8c733d  No.2902

File: 6f164d0c4e772f0⋯.png (367.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, oU5Wu95.png)

>Linguistic Orthodox

As far as I know, only I've coined a term for this phenomenon. If anyone can find an actual term for this, please let me know.

I define a Linguistic Orthodox as a sociolinguistic phenomenon where, in relation to moral, social, cultural, or political beliefs, a word, along with its implication, is considered to be an acceptable implication by default, with its opposite being a socially pejorative implication by default. It's the social attitudes behind certain words or phrases.

An example would be the word anti-semite. Without the need for any context, people process anti-semite as a pejorative implication, lessening their view of the person who is burdened by the term. There's no need to explain why being an anti-semite is bad or even if it's true. The word itself carries the weight of disgrace. Other examples are transphobic, islamophobic, and xenophobic. These words imply that the opposite of their implication is the orthodox view, the acceptable position to hold. One should support semites, support transgender communities, Muslims, and foreigners. Holding the opposite view gets you tagged with these terms.

This is an example of words corrupting thought before thought corrupts words. As we know words and language do influence thought, bringing words like this, in simple terms, is like hard wiring a single greentext post with a smug anime girl face saying

>Being an anti-semite

>Current Year

Be wary of how words are used and broadcasted in social interactions. Some words leave no room for the acceptance of deviated thought.

8c733d  No.2903

File: bf897bd3160a32f⋯.jpg (65.7 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 13.jpg)

University Campus Speech Codes

"FIRE defines a “speech code” as any university regulation or policy that prohibits expression that would be protected by the First Amendment in society at large. Any policy—such as a harassment policy, a protest and demonstration policy, or an IT acceptable use policy—can be a speech code if it prohibits protected speech or expression.

Many speech codes impermissibly prohibit speech on the basis of content and/or viewpoint. An example of this type of policy would be a ban on “offensive language” or “disparaging remarks.” Other speech codes are content-neutral but excessively regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. A policy of this type might limit protests and demonstrations to one or two “free speech zones” on campus and/or require students to obtain permission in advance in order to demonstrate on campus."

Source: "What Are Speech Codes?" https://archive.is/XHsR3

FIRE does some pretty bitchin' work on analyzing the speech codes used on hundreds of college campuses across the US to see if they prohibit speech that would otherwise be protected under the first amendment. For the past nine years, restrictive speech codes have been disappearing from college campuses, so have some joy in that fact (Alot of this started, or at least became noticeable to them in 2007, go figure). The history of the trend however, was and still is very frightening.

Over the past decade, FIRE's red light ratings (schools that have speech codes that severely limit free speech), has dropped down to 39.6%, which is still an unacceptably high number, of course. A decade ago, 79% all schools surveyed garnered the red light rating. 52.8% of the schools surveyed received yellow light ratings. Yellow light is given to schools with policies that can be interpreted to enable the suppression of free speech. Basically, their policies are vulnerable to falling into censorial territory. Only 6% of the schools surveyed received green light ratings for their policies, which do not seriously threaten free expression on campus.

Last year alone, 49.3% of the schools surveyed had red light ratings, so a near 10% drop in a single year is extremely good news. The censorial nature of speech codes has been consistently falling, though our schools still remain vulnerable to speech suppression. At the very least, this indicates a radical shift of the social climate on campuses. People are moving away from speech codes that impede on their first amendment rights and transitioning to something that at least makes a modicum of sense. However, we need more of these schools to be in the green. The fight isn't over until that happens.

Private universities are still in trouble. 60% of them were given the red light last year, with only a small drop to 58.7% this year. As things are going, censorial speech codes will be greatly contained to private universities, which I suppose is good for the public at large. Private universities aren't necessarily bound by the first amendment to the degree of public universities, so these things are bound to happen.

Take a good look at the speech code report for 2017 if you haven't seen it, along with the other reports for the previous years down to 2006


8c733d  No.2904

File: fd07a2295fe675e⋯.png (607.66 KB, 1136x547, 1136:547, come bowling with me anon.png)

The Emergence of Speech Codes

>Speech codes—university regulations prohibiting expression that would be constitutionally protected in society at large—gained popularity with college administrators in the 1980s and 1990s. As discriminatory barriers to education declined, female and minority enrollment increased. Concerned that these changes would cause tension and that students who finally had full educational access would arrive at institutions only to be offended by other students, college administrators enacted speech codes.

>In the mid-1990s, the phenomenon of campus speech codes converged with the expansion of Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal funds.[8] In 1994, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR)—the federal agency that oversees the implementation and enforcement of Title IX—investigated Santa Rosa Junior College after two women complained about comments made about them on an online college bulletin board that included “anatomically explicit and sexually derogatory terms.”[9]

>In a letter to the college, OCR concluded that the offensive speech had created a “hostile educational environment” for the complainants and directed the college to adopt a policy banning, among other things, online speech that “has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile, intimidating or offensive educational environment.”[10] Soon thereafter, when the University of Massachusetts faced criticism over a broad new proposed harassment policy in 1995, then-chancellor David K. Scott “responded to criticism by suggesting that a code was required by Federal Department of Education regulations.”[11]

>In enacting speech codes, administrators ignored or did not fully consider the philosophical, social, and legal ramifications of placing restrictions on speech, particularly at public universities. As a result, federal courts have overturned speech codes at numerous colleges and universities over the past two decades.[12]

>Despite the overwhelming weight of legal authority against speech codes, a large number of institutions—including some of those that have been successfully sued on First Amendment grounds—still maintain unconstitutional speech codes.[13] It is with this unfortunate fact in mind that we turn to a more detailed discussion of the ways in which campus speech codes violate individual rights and what can be done to challenge them.

In the period where more women and minorities were entering college campuses, reports of harassment increased 400% between 1985 and 1990 alone. As a result, there were 75 speech codes enacted across college campuses in the US by 1990.

78038c  No.2905

Jesus what the actual fuck!?

8c733d  No.2906

File: fdd0051718ceba3⋯.png (429.76 KB, 1127x563, 1127:563, color.png)

Linguistic Priming: The Predisposition of Words Pt. 1

hope to further explain the heart of "linguistic orthodoxy". Different words naturally carry a positive or negative implication. Say some guy is going to introduce you to someone, and before they do, they say "She's really untrustworthy." The word Untrustworthy primes your expectations of the person's ability to be trusted, regardless of how trustworthy the person actually is. Though you may not bring up what you heard when you do meet her, that word Untrustworthy will remain in the back of your head.

Words control the brain in a more subtle way than languages as a whole do. Certain words that express anger or fear of some sort initiate reactions in the amygdala. When you're being insulted, the words being directed to you cause a chain reaction in the amygdala, which interprets audio and visual cues and the appropriate response. Fight, flight, or freeze are the usual modes of response when the amygdala detects danger. Negative words can trigger this kind of reaction, and one's emotional responses ends up trumping their reasonable response. (Hence why screaming at a man will often get him to scream back at you or knock you the fuck out)

And thus we return to the diabolical nature of word structure, and how some words can be intentionally crafted to utilize this emotional response on a more subtle level.

There is a reason why in 1984, there was only Good and Ungood, Good being the orthodox, and Ungood, weighted by the negative prefix "un", stood outside of that orthodox. Because the concept of what was good or what could be good was reduced to the duality of these words, a base and a negative augmentation, the good goyim living beneath the Party could not, and did not need to use logic or reason to know why Ungood was a bad thing. The word itself, existing in a duality of orthodox and unorthodox, enacted the necessary emotional responses in people to serve the Party's agenda, to maintain a their social order.

8c733d  No.2907

File: 289d9b43fb7964c⋯.png (1.08 MB, 1134x605, 1134:605, windows.png)

Linguistic Priming: The Predisposition of Words Pt. 2

The word Anti-semite operates in a similar fashion. The funny thing about Anti-semite is that it has no real antonym. There isn't really an opposite of anti-semite, but that's really how it should be. Discarding the negative prefix for a bit, the definition of Semitic is "relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family." The word Semite would refer to any person who speaks those languages, but it doesn't necessarily mean that person is an ethnic Jew, nor an ethnic Arab. Semites are classified as an ethnic, cultural, OR racial group, meaning it can one, two, or all of the three. A cultural group isn't always an ethnic group.

And yet, the label of "Anti-Semite" invokes images of a person who despises Jews, someone who's either entirely sympathetic to the Holocaust or denies it ever happened. By all logic, even with the prefix of "anti", if we merely attach the negative weight of that prefix with what it actually means to be a Semite, the resulting, logical definition would be someone who, for some reason, is opposed to the Hebrew or Arabic languages, and by extension, languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian. Though one could see the term meaning the hatred of the ethnic people who speak these languages, the word Semite refers mainly to the languages, and contains too much ambiguity to be primarily considered a direct reference to the ethnic, racial, or cultural groups, the actual people who speak these languages. Why not say someone is Anti-Arab, Anti-Jewish, or Anti-Akkadian? Why not use a word that actually and primarily refers to the actual ethnic peoples concerned.

That is how the actual nature of the word, by the logic of the definition of the base word, should be. The image of the Gingerjew Man cranking up his oven that is so often created in the minds of people who hear the word Anti-Semitic or inflict it upon someone, is a both a response and an emotional fabrication. It is a lie. It is the amygdala's response to the weight of the negative prefix attached to their own warped interpretation of the word Semitic, thanks to the word's own ambiguity between the languages it directly denotes, and the people it indirectly denotes.

Though reducing language to simple dualities can create this same effect, social and cultural attitudes can, often incorrectly, shape the ambiguity of a word to mean something that it necessarily doesn't. It creates a shadow, a misconception preyed upon by cultural attitudes around the person, as well as the person's own emotional response shaped by those attitudes.

This priming effect is the main mechanism of what I've been calling linguistic orthodoxy (please help me find a better name oh god). You must be wary of the subtle devilry of words turned against you, the power of modified and wrongfully influenced language to control you and those around you. Many people have lost their kings, their lords, their ancestral soil. But no people can survive losing their language, losing their ancestral and common understanding of words and the concepts around them, for they shape the common understanding that a people must share in order for there to be social cohesion within a nation and any group of people.

8dc070  No.2909


The antidote is a shrug and either pointing to Google redefinition or reminder that with this crowd it's not even clear when they say "woman" whether they mean a drugged castrate instead.

22818c  No.2910

Probably fits under this banner, have we considered the bastardization of professional vs amateur? Professional, or a pro, used to mean someone who simply made a living off of an activity, an amateur was the opposite, someone who did not make a living off an activity they do. Now, professional is used to denote skill. It lends credibility to a person when they're called a "professional __" but in reality, an amateur __ could be just as skilled or better as said professional. Good luck getting people to accept that though. The shift has been made, pro means skilled, amateur means a lack of skill.

6c0ccc  No.2915

File: 7505b1871d3c19d⋯.png (1.55 MB, 1236x742, 618:371, ld.png)

File: f5e0e345e1394d1⋯.png (106.3 KB, 1017x502, 1017:502, NEGROS VS BLACKS GRAPH (2).png)

File: 05ff5019f666112⋯.png (111.08 KB, 1064x520, 133:65, BLACK WHITE PEOPLE OF COLO….png)

File: 2fa6445319cf743⋯.png (127.54 KB, 1244x646, 622:323, BLACKS WHITES EUROPEANS AF….png)


Linguistic Change in an Environment of Censorship

Consider the original word used to refer to blacks, 'negro'. back in the day this word didnt carry any explicitly negative connotations any more than saying 'african' does today, but somewhere down the line between then and now that all changed. america has gone through multiple different words to refer to africans, it started with negro, but eventually (around the 60s) this was deemed 'too offensive' and was replaced with the words 'black' and 'white'. This is interesting because it places africans as opposite to europeans, and while it was created to be less offensive than negro it actually creates more of a psychological separation between the ethnicities compared with using 'negro' and 'european'. The use of 'black' is also to some degree a euphemism, but it has been used so much that the word's definition became the euphemism. regardless, that is not the main point of this text, here i will discuss how the language is moving forward from black/white, and what direction it should take.

'Black' is now beginning to be considered offensive, and much like with 'negro', it is being slowly replaced by another, less offensive term, 'person of color'. I see this as an extremely negative development, here i will explain why. The term 'people/person of color' disregards all ethnic or racial roots and supplements the meaning of the term 'african/black' with just being a minority by skin color, in other words it reduces ethnicity to nothing but whether you are a minority or not. This is in a way scrubbing all identity from every minority ethnicity. Secondly, there is no alternate or inverse term of 'people of color' to refer to europeans, like there was with black/white. this completely cuts european ethnicity out of the picture, in fact it brings to mind the 1984 language >>2892 with the words 'good' and 'ungood', there is no opposite to 'good' but 'ungood', it becomes a binary choice, much like you are either a 'person of color' or not, it scrubs the european race completely from the language much like 'ungood' erases 'bad' from the language. and lastly, it ascribes the value of vibrancy or color to non-whites, and therefore positions white ethnicity as being opposite to vibrancy and color, instead implying blandness and dullness. This is almost definitely intentional, and considering where the term 'people of color' seemed to have originated (universities) it was likely crafted directly by a team of linguists.

All this being said, 'white' is still used to refer to europeans, but in the absence of the use of 'black' the term 'white' does not have the potency of being the opposite. In this way, 'white' is now pure euphemism for european, it does not relate to any other word in and of itself in relation to ethnicity, in other words the term 'white' is linguistically rooted together with 'black', and given that the use of 'black' is being phased out, the term 'white' will have very weak roots and therefore will be ill-defined and somewhat vague in meaning and context.


6c0ccc  No.2916

File: 079b45388d33710⋯.png (5.07 MB, 2100x1181, 2100:1181, sunset.png)

Forging a Path to Clarity: Quietly Shaking Up the Linguistic Orthodox

One of the alternatives to 'white' is using 'european', as well as using the smaller european ethnic groups such as 'german', 'french' or 'british'. These words carry a number of benefits to them. Firstly they reconnect race to a greater ethnic group, including culture, land and traditions. speaking about 'european people' brings ideas of history, culture and the european continent to the mind, inversely 'white people' carries none of these connotations, and only describes skin color. In addition, the root of the word is much much stronger, being direct and relative to other terms like 'african', 'asian', 'indian' and 'arabic', which gives 'european' a greater context and stronger integration in the english language. the term also does not carry any connotations about other racial groups within it, such as black/white does with the two being opposite. the term 'european' exists in harmony with other similar words describing ethnic groups. And overall, the term is simply more direct and accurate.

Much the same with 'black' and 'person of color', the alternative is simply 'african' or 'african american' as which is already used. This applies the same benefits as described in the above paragraph, and in addition it no longer groups ethnic minorities into one descriptor. It is actually quite telling that the word that was crafted to be used as less offensive or racist than 'african' is in fact more divisive of ethnic groups on a psycholinguistic level than any other term. the term 'people of color' is hostile towards europeans by indirectly describing them as 'people of no color', it pits minorities as separate and apart from europeans and also includes an implied superiority of ethnic minorities. The alternative term 'african' does not have any implied superiority or inferiority, it is non-biased and carries no connotations either way, much more suitable for today's supposedly 'non-racist' left than 'people of color'.

Eventually 'white' will fall out of use much like 'black' is beginning to, it is up to us to help speed up this process, and direct linguistic change towards using better descriptive terms. The linguistic elites have decided to unleash 'people of color' into the language, a potentially extremely destructive change, however they have also unwittingly accelerated the usage of 'european' by weakening the term 'white'. No doubt, this still leaves a lot of work to do however, It will take time, but we must all direct our linguistic capital towards saying 'europeans' over 'whites' and 'african/asian/indian/arabic people' over 'people of color' or 'black'. Don't let the linguistic elites scrub european culture (or any culture for that matter) from the dictionary, to take back the minds of the people it is required that we take back our language.

6c0ccc  No.2917


Perhaps to look at it from a different angle, we could push 'person of color' for the elites. Consider it 'giving our enemies a defused bomb'. If the term becomes prevalent, we can call them out for their 'racist' linguistic techniques and the implied insults in their own words. This could be a way to expose hypocrisy within the nu-left and SJW circles, and the push for 'PoC' will fall on its head. The faster it goes the harder it hits the wall, perhaps it would make sense for us to speed up the spread of the term and when the time is right, destroy it. Currently it would seem that the university 'ethnic' courses are doing a good job getting the term in circulation, this could be a case of 'never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake', but honestly im unsure.

anyway, to summarize the current situation, we should all be saying 'european' instead of 'white' and 'african' instead of 'black', whether we should push 'PoC' is another question, to which i don't really know the answer.

4d4424  No.2932


Good fucking post OP

It's funny that even people like (((Chomsky))) understand this. I remember him saying something like "How can we discuss things if the very words we use have different meanings to different people?"

We can't you racist

f83769  No.2950

File: e759b49235ebed0⋯.jpg (329.46 KB, 950x1200, 19:24, DMsPVg2XUAIORts.jpg)

Gradation and Shades of Meaning

We all learned in Kindergarten that words have shades of meaning, with other words used to express the more severe definitions. English is constructed this way so we can differentiate between these shades and apply them where appropriate. Gradation is the difference between Sad and Dejected, Annoyed and Furious, and Linguistic Relativity vs Linguistic Determinism. As you can see and already know from that last pair of terms, gradation applies to philosophical and political concepts.

There are generally two ways you can subvert language. First, you can overload a language with frivolous complexity where it doesn't belong. The Social Justice lexicon achieves just that by creating words and terms that represent concepts key to their ideology. Just like any other word, these new words are vehicles to communicate their concepts (which are often wrong, of course), and they end up clashing with the rest of the language and its interpretation of related concepts.

The other method is the opposite. Instead of overloading a language with complexity, you strip it away. In this method, gradation between words is the target. Altering gradation concomitantly alters the range of expression made possible by any language, especially when the words affected relate to philosophical or political concepts. In recent happenings, I think it's become more apparent than it already was that the MSM and leftist public are most guilty of killing the shades of meaning in words. Just how the words Sad and Dejected share a core meaning, but have functional differences, the terms White Nationalist and Nazi have the same thing. A true Nazi is more than likely to be a White Nationalist, but a White Nationalist may not fulfill the criteria to be what we would call a Nazi, since White Nationalism is but a proponent of Nationalist Socialism, not a completely synonymous term.

Conflating terms with one another is what kills gradation. All of the other terms that express a similar, yet functionally different concept all get swept under one umbrella term. This forms a serious breakdown in the ability to have some sort of discourse around the subject if it's a particularly sensitive subject, such as that of Nazism. So, if you're a White Nationalist, you're most likely going to called a Nazi by some retard who doesn't know any better.

Points become impossible to argue within a language that has been stripped of its complexity and ambiguity, because the resulting simplicity is what allows people to form Black and White narratives about any issue they want.

If a bunch of White Nationalists show up to protest a the planned removal of a Confederate monument, the news will report the gathering as a Nazi gathering, then anyone who shows up to oppose the Nazis are "Counter Protesters" who couldn't have been in the wrong about anything because they were the Not Nazis, the Not Racists, and the Not Supremacists. I'm sure some of you have seen the leftist memes following Trump's press conference when he called out the Alt-Left. All of the verified cucks came out of the woodworks, all sharing the same opinion

>The other side isn't at fault! One side were racists, and the other side opposed racism!

It's a mirror version of 1984's Good/Ungood dichotomy. If you fought against the Ungood, you were automatically good, because what else could you be? There were only two things you could've possibly been. No shades, no complex differences, no ambiguity, just good and ungood, Nazi and Not Nazi.

f83769  No.2951

File: 10ae90f2c839a58⋯.jpg (427.8 KB, 689x1024, 689:1024, eb7e1c06a7921844d3779f84a0….jpg)

Language and Moral Shock

There's an interesting concept called Moral Shock, originally coined by James M. Jasper, that explains how cognitive and emotional reactions within people, in response to particular pieces of information, may spur such an outrage in them that they recruit themselves into certain social or political movements, without having any preexisting ties to members or any information that would've led them to the movement in question. I suppose you can say it's the emotional and cognitive process that helps form spontaneous, grassroots movements, without the individual having the preexisting social connections that would've traditionally led them towards a particular movement.

Say you're sitting down watching a documentary on disproportionate amounts of animal abuse in a certain city, and you love animals. Seeing that documentary then encourages you to take some sort of action, to march on the streets along with thousands of others who felt the same way, or send an email to whoever is responsible or can punish the people who are responsible. Through moral shock, people actively recruit themselves and take actions by themselves, even in complete isolation from any other part of the movement.

Of course, the concept of Moral Shock, in itself, is not an inherently evil concept. Sometimes it's a really good thing that people can come together on a certain issue and make a uniform, yet completely unorganized push back. Like any other concept, however, it can be flipped around, with language (and by extension, imagery) being used as the vector for subversion.

If I had to think up an example, I'd pull out the Mattress Girl shitstorm, particularly the part where after Mattress Girl started carrying around her mattress and was given the aura of Joan of Arc by the media, others started to carry around mattresses in their own campuses. Those who went to the same campus as her even helped her carry the mattress. All of those naive, young people came out in support of Mattress Girl because they heard all about her plight of being viciously raped by her lover, and her school throwing out her case, with neither of these things being remotely true. But it's the exposure of that information to those people that drove them, emotionally, to respond with support, and to recruit themselves in a loose sort of movement.

All of this occurs with words like "Rape" acting as bulwarks for the narrative in the face of factual evidence. People know rape is a terrible thing, and so it's easy to illicit an emotional reaction from them with an issue surrounding the issue of rape, hence why the mere accusation can destroy a person's life, even if he's found innocent.

Or you can take the recent witch hunt for George Hook and his comments on a particular UK rape case. The media and his own staff all called for his resignation for what they perceived as "victim blaming". He merely said that there is a certain amount of personal responsibility people have to take to ensure their own safety, and that includes not returning to random hotels with random strangers they met at a bar and barely know. Her rapist didn't physically overpower her or drug her, he simply convinced the gullible girl to come back with him, and she agreed. Any parent would tell their daughter not to do things like that, not to be trusting of strangers, not to inebriate themselves so severely that they can't function on their own.

The emotional weight behind an issue surrounding rape often drives the dialogue around said issue to be driven overwhelmingly by pathos, with little room for logic. The question of personal responsibility has no room to make its entrance because it's always interpreted as victim blaming. One's own sense of emotional morality often renders them unable to separate their strong feelings towards a subject from the critical, logical questions they should be asking themselves. The feelings behind an issue take precedence over the facts, the numbers, the statistics, or even the completely sensible questions and propositions. See any issue regarding Rape, Immigration, Race, or the Holocaust.

cf722d  No.2961

HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.

<David Irving - Churchill's War (complete)

f21738  No.3007

File: de91677da4678ee⋯.webm (2.74 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1505837887344.webm)

Obligatory links to the continued (now 404'd) thread



f72119  No.3017


>Words are the expression of intentions, feelings, abstract concepts, and tangible, existing things.

Only premitive species as we are, think the words are the only way to communicate and share life experience.

They are many ways to communicate.

>>Even when we think, we think in a language.

Not all the time.

When you build something in your imagination, you think mostly with pictures.

Sometimes you can have thoughts that can be explain by words.

The only thing to say about words, they confuse our society.

As human, we have better ways to communicate other than words.

Just study biology, and electronics, you will find out what i'm talking about.

963b19  No.3019

File: 5d086924f7c18ef⋯.jpg (382.44 KB, 2709x1844, 2709:1844, Sanic speaks.jpg)


Haven't studied biology past A levels but have studied electronics at university, the fuck are you talking about. The only thing that comes to mind is body language and that shit is incredibly lacking. And electronics doesn't have anything that makes it special from all other types, all of it is the exact same thing but through an intermediary.

>you still write messages, only through a wire instead of on a piece of paper

>you still send images, except that you can make infinite numbers of copies

>you still communicate verbally, except that you can listen to the message as many times as you want and whenever you want

>you still communicate using body-language, you simply need a camera that can record video

To me it seems like you don't actually know what you are talking about and simply had an idea that sounded neat in your head but you couldn't really explain so you resorted to the classic line of "educate yourself, shitlord". I mean, YOU are the one telling us the idea, why all of a sudden shift the responsibility to the listener to explain it?

This better not fucking be some retarded transhumanist garbage about how people will in 20 years all communicate telepathically through Wi-fi.

d8df49  No.3023

File: 0566a20b12df31b⋯.jpg (67.9 KB, 1000x750, 4:3, 1b77972e8ac7b76eeb7b459dbc….jpg)

File: ba5ffa83e470776⋯.jpeg (12.65 KB, 263x192, 263:192, images.jpeg)


>When you build something in your imagination, you think mostly with pictures.

I think I know what are you are trying to explain. The evolution of written language began from a shared image that could be easily deciphered. From Chinese to old European runes, characters mirrored observed phenomena; later becoming more abstracted with rules as expression and social functions increased in complexity. However I don't understand what you mean by primitive. Communication via symbols is almost undoubtedly one of our oldest forms of communication. Appearing in caves as handprints. The advent of computer technology doesn't change that (ex "=!".) If you're trying to get at how dolphins communicate in frequencies or clicks with your biology bit, we have already have achieved that since the telegraph. It's simply codified expression.

f05af3  No.3028

File: 788225129751ec3⋯.jpg (75.74 KB, 436x617, 436:617, dys04.jpg)

I speak the english really goodly.

dff583  No.3029

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.


What you are getting at is known as linguistic determinism which [vid related] argues against. Too put it as one of the comments sections quotes; ''Of course you can think thoughts with no language to describe it, how did any word come into existence if this wasn’t the case?"

9bf19e  No.3032

File: 5a9b30af2a1a0a0⋯.jpg (28.37 KB, 300x400, 3:4, dys02.jpg)

Poo Poo Pee Pee

05d576  No.3033


Of course it's not impossible to think of concepts for which there are no words. It's just much slower, and that can be the difference between an idea propagating, and remaining just someone's idea. Also, the video you linked provided no reason that language cannot be used to frame moral issues. Take for example "homophobic." It does not make it impossible to conceive of a person who dislikes faggots for a reason other than fear. But it makes it so that is the default state. The power of having a word like that circulated through the media, is it provides a one-word "gotcha" for anyone who opposes the narrative: "You don't like gays? You must be scared of them, stupid redneck." It's like a catalyst, reducing the energy cost of the liberal argument. And if that word becomes the normal, accepted word to use, the liberal worldview becomes the default mindset, because if you accept the word and try to oppose the concept, it's like you've already lost.

More importantly, you're a faggot for letting an eceleb do your arguing for you.

c87775  No.3041

I just came here to say I loved your post, and I'm glad to see there's still intelligent life on the planet.

740b5c  No.3050

10/10 thread

913baa  No.3056

this thread is based. I, too, have noticed how authoritarians manipulate language in order to impose their ideological framework onto others. I see this all the time from Social Justice: anyone who disagrees is labelled a nazi/bigot/white supremacist, grassroots campaigns that work against them are 'harassment campaigns', they're in favor of 'diversity and inclusion' which can only be good and never bad, they conflate 'white nationalism' with 'white supremacy', and so on. Of particular interest is the SocJus focus on pronouns, demanding the use of 'they' rather than 'he or she', and inventing new pronouns (xhe/xher). This is essentially seeding the basic structure of language with the implicit assumptions of their ideology, thus compelling you to subconsciously agree.

17e16f  No.3067


The thing I've never understood about SJWs is that, given how much shit they spew and all the lies, if they don't actually want what they claim to want, what do they actually want?

963b19  No.3070

File: 18d387a50eb77ce⋯.webm (7.92 MB, 300x300, 1:1, Knock knock - Thotline Ca….webm)


Language manipulation is done by pretty much everyone, the only difference is that they do it actively with the purpose of exerting control instead of passively exerting control. The way you fight it is either

>refuse to speak in the language of the enemy (ie. racist, sexist, X-phobic, etc)


>manipulate language yourself to counter-balance their manipulation


>The thing I've never understood about SJWs is that, given how much shit they spew and all the lies, if they don't actually want what they claim to want, what do they actually want?

Well if you haven't understood then you are a gullible retard whose sole purpose in life is to be manipulated and puppeteered by pretty much anyone that chooses, what else can I say? They want control and they will do pretty much anything to get it. But on what they want: they are Communists that see themselves as the rightful soon-to-be party leader.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / fast / games / hikki / ita / orthodox ]