The Normalisation of Deviance

[Zamo]

Or, do you deny the existence of racism at all?

 

I do not deny racism exists. I point out that the left's fixation with it is why we are seeing public opinion across the western world becoming increasingly right wing and nationalist. I tell you that the more leftists like you bang on about racism and ignoring the concerns of the majority the more you push the majority away and into the arms of far right and nationalist groups. But you just can't override the self destruct mode can you? You keep banging on about racism.

 

Yes I know, I understand all of that perfectly, but we live now, not 50 years ago. So, therefore, the definitions are currently accurate.

 

Another example could be that gay no longer means just happy. Do you accept the evolution of that term into its modern meaning?

 

No, I don't accept there has been such an evolution. A phobia still means an irrational fear of something. The word is currently being deliberately misused by those that are (ironically) irrationally fearful of criticism of Islam.

[mikem8634]

I do not deny racism exists. I point out that the left's fixation with it is why we are seeing public opinion across the western world becoming increasingly right wing and nationalist. I tell you that the more leftists like you bang on about racism and ignoring the concerns of the majority the more you push the majority away and into the arms of far right and nationalist groups. But you just can't override the self destruct mode can you? You keep banging on about racism.

 

Great, thanks for answering, that's all I was after. And regarding the rest, as I assumed, I largely agree with you. Did you miss the very first post when I said that racism should only be challenged when it is accurate and necessary to do so?

 

I assume you also, like me, would not want to see a world based upon white supremacist and neo-nazi ideology.

 

I have said many times that the concerns of the majority are legitimate and that they must be addressed and rectified, we probably disagree with the cause of those concerns, and precisely how to address them, but that is a different discussion. I share those concerns, I hate the way vast swathes of poorer people have been cut adrift from economic and political systems since the 1980s. I have no love for the conduct of any of the major political parties and think, in particular, that the Labour Party abandoned its post a long time ago. I desperately want the world to change, to become more representative of those it has marginalised.

 

And in that world, the one that you want, where those concerns are being addressed and rectified (which I sincerely hope will happen) genuine, real racism will still exist and must also be addressed. Not at the expense of improving the quality of life of those that need it, but alongside it, because racism also negatively impacts the quality of life of many of the same people you care about.

 

I have no interest in pretending people are racist as a way of marginalising and ignoring their concerns. That is self-destruct mode and that is just plain wrong. I am simply interested in, amongst many other things, working against actual racism collectively, no matter it's political stripe, no matter where it comes from or where it is directed.

 

My only concern is that we may be less inclined to do that now and that racism may get a foot hold. That is the deviance I do not want normalised. I have never actually been saying the things you have assumed I have. I disagree with a lot of right-wing political ideology, but I have no interest in silencing or marginalising it. It is as valid as my own, and deserves as much airing. I will, however, always oppose extremism of all kinds.

 

 

 

Now you have accepted that racism exists, what do you propose we do about it?

 

 

 

 

No, I don't accept there has been such an evolution. A phobia still means an irrational fear of something. The word is currently being deliberately misused by those that are (ironically) irrationally fearful of criticism of Islam.

 

Unfortunately, whether you accept it or not, the definition of xenophobia is a fact. It may evolve again in the future, who knows? I agree that there could be a more precise word that avoids the disagreement, but we are where we are in that case. Language evolves and that is undeniable.

 

Do you accept the evolution of the meaning of gay?

Edited November 27, 2016 by mikem8634

[Margarita Ma]

Great, thanks for answering, that's all I was after. And regarding the rest, as I assumed, I largely agree with you. Did you miss the very first post when I said that it should only be challenged when it is accurate and necessary to do so?

 

I assume you also, like me, would not want to see a world based upon white supremacist and neo-nazi ideology.

 

I have said many times that the concerns of the majority are legitimate and that they must be addressed and rectified, we probably disagree with the cause of those concerns but that is a different discussion. I share those concerns, I hate the way vast swathes of poorer people have been cut adrift from economic and political systems since the 1980s. I have no love for the conduct of any of the major political parties and think, in particular, that the Labour Party abandoned its post a long time ago. I desperately want the world to change, to become more representative of those it has marginalised.

 

And in that world, the one that you want, where those concerns are being addressed and rectified (which I sincerely hope will happen) genuine, real racism will still exist and must also be addressed. Not at the expense of improving the quality of life for those that need it, but alongside it, because racism also negatively impacts the quality of life of many of the same people you care about.

 

I have no interest in pretending people are racist as a way of marginalising and ignoring their concerns. That is self-destruct mode and that is just plain wrong. I am simply interested in, amongst many other things, working against actual racism collectively , no matter it's political stripe, no matter where it comes from or where it is directed.

 

My only concern is that we may be less inclined to do that now and that racism may get a foot hold. That is the deviance I do not want normalised. I have never actually been saying the things you have assumed I have. I disagree with a lot of right-wing political ideology, but it is as valid as my own, and deserves as much airing.

 

 

 

Now you have accepted that racism exists, what do you propose we do about it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, whether you accept it or not, the definition of xenophobia is a fact. It may evolve again in the future, who knows? I agree that there could be a more precise word that avoids the disagreement, but we are where we are in that case. Language evolves and that is undeniable.

 

Do you accept the evolution of the meaning of gay?

 

I wrote an extensive reply to your earlier posts but unfortunately lost it. I may find time to write again in a different program and copy in.

Basically language is being lazily and wrongly used to label people. Also you are perpetrating the same by accepting and reusing this modified language thereby helping to normalise a new but wrong use of a word, such as evolve.

[mikem8634]

I wrote an extensive reply to your earlier posts but unfortunately lost it. I may find time to write again in a different program and copy in.

Basically language is being lazily and wrongly used to label people. Also you are perpetrating the same by accepting and reusing this modified language thereby helping to normalise a new but wrong use of a word, such as evolve.

 

Are you suggesting that the term evolution cannot be applied to language?

 

 

 

 

Definition of evolution in English:

 

evolution

Pronunciation: /ˈɛvəluːʃ(ə)n//ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n/

noun

 

1The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

 

2The gradual development of something:

‘the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution’

 

3Chemistry

The giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat:

‘the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process’

 

4[count noun] A pattern of movements or manoeuvres:

‘flocks of waders often perform aerial evolutions’

 

5Mathematics

dated The extraction of a root from a given quantity.

 

Origin

 

Early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n-) unrolling, from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ manoeuvre in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.

 

Even the term evolution has evolved as you can see in the Origin section above.

 

Are you claiming that there is some ultimate authority that defines the fixed meaning of a term and that it can never change? Who or what is the arbiter of whether language is being used lazily or wrongly?

 

What does gay mean?

Edited November 27, 2016 by mikem8634

[Margarita Ma]

***

 

*Today, 16:57

* #84

mikem8634

Registered User

*

Join Date: Dec 2009

Total Posts: 2,789

Quote:

Yes I know, I understand all of that perfectly, but we live now, not 50 years ago. So, therefore, the definitions are currently accurate.

 

Another example could be that gay no longer means just happy. Do you accept the evolution of that term into its modern meaning?

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by*Margarita Ma*

I wrote an extensive reply to your earlier posts but unfortunately lost it. I may find time to write again in a different program and copy in.*

Basically language is being lazily and wrongly used to label people. Also you are perpetrating the same by accepting and reusing this modified language thereby helping to normalise a new but wrong use of a word, such as evolve.

Are you suggesting that the term*evolution*cannot be applied to language?

 

 

 

 

 

Definition of evolution in English:

 

evolution

Pronunciation: /ˈɛvəluːʃ(ə)n//ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n/

noun

 

1The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

 

2The gradual development of something:

‘the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution’

 

3Chemistry

The giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat:

‘the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process’

 

4[count noun] A pattern of movements or manoeuvres:

‘flocks of waders often perform aerial evolutions’

 

5Mathematics

dated The extraction of a root from a given quantity.

 

Origin

 

Early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n-) unrolling, from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ manoeuvre in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.

 

 

Even the term evolution has evolved as you can see in the Origin section above.

 

Are you claiming that there is some ultimate authority that defines the fixed meaning of a term and that it can never change? Who or what is the arbiter of whether language is being used lazily or wrongly?*

 

What does*gay*mean?

 

 

 

__________________

I respect your right to have an opinion but your opinion has to earn the right to my respect

 

I am attempting to rewrite what I wrote earlier.

But to answer your last question first: gay means colourful, festive, celebratory whereas “Gay” pertains to homosexuality. As the term gay was introduced into use by people who are/were homosexual to counter the insults some people used that is acceptable as a change of use in language, it was and is not used generally as a term of abuse

 

The use of ****** has become unacceptable for the opposite reason even to use the term as a description of a colour of cloth is no longer acceptable. Even to the point that this program will not accept the word.

 

With regard to the term evolve

To evolve is a gradual process of change over time, by the survival of distinct advantages in the mutation of genes in any species in a given environment.

Normalisation on the other hand is a faster process of change involving acceptance of a change. This can apply to many things including language.

EG. Between 1948 when I and the NHS was born and the late 1960s it became usual for women to give birth in hospital rather than at home, Moving women into hospital and from room to room within the hospital resulted in longer labour for Prima and Multigravida women. This in turn resulted in anxiety among the midwives and staff as a prolonged labour adds to the danger through stress for mother and baby. This then made it seem logical to monitor mother and baby constantly, when electronics made it possible.

However there was not enough staff to monitor the machine doing the monitoring and women became tied to a machine and a bed, very often without a member of staff to reassure that everything was going normally women became anxious, further slowing labour, making it more difficult to cope with contractions of the uterus and adding further stress to the baby and mother.

In turn this situation led to a demand for painkillers and the advent of epidural anaesthesia. The anaesthesia numbed the region below the entry point on the spine but also often interfered with the working uterus, slowing labour further and adding to the stress on mother and baby, resulting in exhaustion. Thus more Caesarian sections were necessary. We now faced a situation where in some parts of the world there was complete medicalisation of birth. A belief grew in some circles that women could no longer give birth safely without intervention. However in the then “Third World” now known as the developing world the population was burgeoning. So this was patently not true of all women. So the theory was modified to define western civilised women.

Women began to hear the stories of what happened in hospitals and supported by midwives they began to chose home births, very few of them had problems giving birth.

 

The women were no different in their ability to give birth, in fact they were probably healthier than previous generations of women who had done so, their pelvi were not more narrow than previous generations and their babies no less robust. In other words they had not evolved to be unable to give birth, it would have been a contradiction in terms. What had happened was a normalisation of intervention brought about by a change in what was current practice.

 

This is the difference between Evolution and Normalisation. It also illustrates how perceptions can be changed over a very short space of time.

 

 

Don't believe everything you read is a wise caution.

 

Academics tend to look toward other academics for their material. Unless students are corrected in their use of terminology language becomes corrupted and once accepted leads to confusion.

 

In dictionaries because of tight deadlines, space and use of words over time and in certain communities of people, these words and meanings will change. When they are rejected or neglected for lack of need they will be left out of future editions. Always look for the origin or stem for the true meaning and not the meaning that has been currently assigned to it.

 

Imagine if a doctor about to do an operation was told

"This person needs an amputation procedure" and instead of writing leg the person making the notes wrote legs and instead of writing below the knee writes above the knee.

What a disaster that would be for the Patient or should I say amputee because I doubt that they would be very patient. There is room for confusion here too because with out capitalisation a person becomes an adjective (I think that is the correct term)

English has the potential to be a precise language obviating misunderstandings to be so we need to guard its meanings and make sure that students of the language are educated in their use.

 

Phobia is and means fear, its origin, Latin and Greek. Phobia is not dislike or hate, attached to other words such as Agora (marketplace) Arrachna (from arrachnid, spider) it describes an irrational fear. We should keep and use words that are appropriate for a given situation. Words that are invented to describe new technology such as railway and solar photovoltaic panels are appropriate. They are descriptive of what exists. Sliding a meaning sideways and saying this means that is not acceptable use of language. Its like painting a house red and saying it is pink. The description is not accurate because the primary colour has been turned by name into a tint by the addition of white. And just for even handedness neither can you call it burgundy or maroon as that adds black. The same applies to racism. Lets call it what it is. Someone calling for the registration of all from a certain race or religion,especially in a country which was founded on immigration and still persecutes its original population is a racist.

 

Monitoring movement of people and refusing entry or departure based on Police, Military and or criminal records is not racism. A dislike of the smell of garlic or curry does not make one a racist (I happen to like it) neither does criticism of cultural practice. Some practices can affect health and well being in a good or bad way.

 

The way we use language is important do not underestimate its power or undermine it at your peril. Learn to use it properly do not blindly trust the appendages added to the origin or stem of a word when they move its meaning sideways. A parasol is not an umbrella there are distinct differences in purpose.

This is not particularly aimed at you because I see you are aware already this is for general consumption. The English language is a fascinating subject well worth study. And you can do it here, either free or for very little outlay of cash.

http://www.northern.ac.uk/

Edited November 27, 2016 by Margarita Ma

[mikem8634]

***

 

*Today, 16:57

* #84

mikem8634

Registered User

*

Join Date: Dec 2009

Total Posts: 2,789

Quote:

Yes I know, I understand all of that perfectly, but we live now, not 50 years ago. So, therefore, the definitions are currently accurate.

 

Another example could be that gay no longer means just happy. Do you accept the evolution of that term into its modern meaning?

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by*Margarita Ma*

I wrote an extensive reply to your earlier posts but unfortunately lost it. I may find time to write again in a different program and copy in.*

Basically language is being lazily and wrongly used to label people. Also you are perpetrating the same by accepting and reusing this modified language thereby helping to normalise a new but wrong use of a word, such as evolve.

Are you suggesting that the term*evolution*cannot be applied to language?

 

 

 

 

 

Definition of evolution in English:

 

evolution

Pronunciation: /ˈɛvəluːʃ(ə)n//ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n/

noun

 

1The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

 

2The gradual development of something:

‘the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution’

 

3Chemistry

The giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat:

‘the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process’

 

4[count noun] A pattern of movements or manoeuvres:

‘flocks of waders often perform aerial evolutions’

 

5Mathematics

dated The extraction of a root from a given quantity.

 

Origin

 

Early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n-) unrolling, from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ manoeuvre in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.

 

 

Even the term evolution has evolved as you can see in the Origin section above.

 

Are you claiming that there is some ultimate authority that defines the fixed meaning of a term and that it can never change? Who or what is the arbiter of whether language is being used lazily or wrongly?*

 

What does*gay*mean?

 

 

 

__________________

I respect your right to have an opinion but your opinion has to earn the right to my respect

 

I am attempting to rewrite what I wrote earlier.

But to answer your last question first: gay means colourful, festive, celebratory whereas “Gay” pertains to homosexuality. As the term gay was introduced into use by people who are/were homosexual to counter the insults some people used that is acceptable as a change of use in language, it was and is not used generally as a term of abuse

 

The use of ****** has become unacceptable for the opposite reason even to use the term as a description of a colour of cloth is no longer acceptable. Even to the point that this program will not accept the word.

 

With regard to the term evolve

To evolve is a gradual process of change over time, by the survival of distinct advantages in the mutation of genes in any species in a given environment.

Normalisation on the other hand is a faster process of change involving acceptance of a change. This can apply to many things including language.

EG. Between 1948 when I and the NHS was born and the late 1960s it became usual for women to give birth in hospital rather than at home, Moving women into hospital and from room to room within the hospital resulted in longer labour for Prima and Multigravida women. This in turn resulted in anxiety among the midwives and staff as a prolonged labour adds to the danger through stress for mother and baby. This then made it seem logical to monitor mother and baby constantly, when electronics made it possible.

However there was not enough staff to monitor the machine doing the monitoring and women became tied to a machine and a bed, very often without a member of staff to reassure that everything was going normally women became anxious, further slowing labour, making it more difficult to cope with contractions of the uterus and adding further stress to the baby and mother.

In turn this situation led to a demand for painkillers and the advent of epidural anaesthesia. The anaesthesia numbed the region below the entry point on the spine but also often interfered with the working uterus, slowing labour further and adding to the stress on mother and baby, resulting in exhaustion. Thus more Caesarian sections were necessary. We now faced a situation where in some parts of the world there was complete medicalisation of birth. A belief grew in some circles that women could no longer give birth safely without intervention. However in the then “Third World” now known as the developing world the population was burgeoning. So this was patently not true of all women. So the theory was modified to define western civilised women.

Women began to hear the stories of what happened in hospitals and supported by midwives they began to chose home births, very few of them had problems giving birth.

 

The women were no different in their ability to give birth, in fact they were probably healthier than previous generations of women who had done so, their pelvi were not more narrow than previous generations and their babies no less robust. In other words they had not evolved to be unable to give birth, it would have been a contradiction in terms. What had happened was a normalisation of intervention brought about by a change in what was current practice.

 

This is the difference between Evolution and Normalisation. It also illustrates how perceptions can be changed over a very short space of time.

 

 

Don't believe everything you read is a wise caution.

 

Academics tend to look toward other academics for their material. Unless students are corrected in their use of terminology language becomes corrupted and once accepted leads to confusion.

 

In dictionaries because of tight deadlines, space and use of words over time and in certain communities of people, these words and meanings will change. When they are rejected or neglected for lack of need they will be left out of future editions. Always look for the origin or stem for the true meaning and not the meaning that has been currently assigned to it.

 

Imagine if a doctor about to do an operation was told

"This person needs an amputation procedure" and instead of writing leg the person making the notes wrote legs and instead of writing below the knee writes above the knee.

What a disaster that would be for the Patient or should I say amputee because I doubt that they would be very patient. There is room for confusion here too because with out capitalisation a person becomes an adjective (I think that is the correct term)

English has the potential to be a precise language obviating misunderstandings to be so we need to guard its meanings and make sure that students of the language are educated in their use.

 

Phobia is and means fear, its origin, Latin and Greek. Phobia is not dislike or hate, attached to other words such as Agora (marketplace) Arrachna (from arrachnid, spider) it describes an irrational fear. We should keep and use words that are appropriate for a given situation. Words that are invented to describe new technology such as railway and solar photovoltaic panels are appropriate. They are descriptive of what exists. Sliding a meaning sideways and saying this means that is not acceptable use of language. Its like painting a house red and saying it is pink. The description is not accurate because the primary colour has been turned by name into a tint by the addition of white. And just for even handedness neither can you call it burgundy or maroon as that adds black. The same applies to racism. Lets call it what it is. Someone calling for the registration of all from a certain race or religion,especially in a country which was founded on immigration and still persecutes its original population is a racist.

 

Monitoring movement of people and refusing entry or departure based on Police, Military and or criminal records is not racism. A dislike of the smell of garlic or curry does not make one a racist (I happen to like it) neither does criticism of cultural practice. Some practices can affect health and well being in a good or bad way.

 

The way we use language is important do not underestimate its power or undermine it at your peril. Learn to use it properly do not blindly trust the appendages added to the origin or stem of a word when they move its meaning sideways. A parasol is not an umbrella there are distinct differences in purpose.

This is not particularly aimed at you because I see you are aware already this is for general consumption. The English language is a fascinating subject well worth study. And you can do it here, either free or for very little outlay of cash.

http://www.northern.ac.uk/

 

I have thought long and hard about where to begin with this Margarita as there are so many issues with it. I struggle to see the relevance of vast portions of it but I'll address it nonetheless.

 

Firstly, are you suggesting that gay only means homosexual when it is capitalised? If so then please provide your evidence. Either way, it is simply a fact that it has evolved beyond its original meaning.

 

Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that I think evolution and normalisation are interchangeable terms. They are not and I don't, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain the difference between them.

 

Evolution/to evolve has many more meanings than you suggest, as shown by the dictionary reference I provided. My application of it to the process of language changing over time is perfectly in keeping with definition 2.

 

As I have already asked you, who or what is the arbiter of a word's true meaning? Are you seriously suggesting that the dictionary is wrong or untrustworthy?

 

Why do you offer a meaning of evolution that differs from its origin if, as you insist, we should always look for the origin or stem for the true meaning and not the meaning that has been currently assigned to it? By your assessment evolution can only ever mean unrolling.

 

No matter how much you may want to resist it, language evolves. The evidence of that is all around you. Have you read any Shakespeare for example? English now is markedly different from English then. I am afraid that you are not its gatekeeper. It is a dynamic and responsive resource that is moulded purposefully and democratically to serve pragmatic communication requirements and more.

 

Regarding your point about racism, you say let's call racism what it is and then fail to define it. So what do you think it is? You then give examples of things that are not racism, none of which I have claimed are racism.

 

Finally, you suggest that this isn't directed at me despite claiming that I have used language incorrectly. Yet you have failed to provide a single example of me using language incorrectly and appear to be applying some peculiarly individual and idiosyncratic reasoning to the subject.

 

However, having said all of that, if you feel I have misunderstood or that I am still wrong then, by all means, make your case, but please provide some evidence this time rather than making unsubstantiated claims. I will always admit I am wrong if somebody can show me how, it's all part of never-ending learning.

Edited November 28, 2016 by mikem8634

[Zamo]

Great, thanks for answering, that's all I was after. And regarding the rest, as I assumed, I largely agree with you. Did you miss the very first post when I said that racism should only be challenged when it is accurate and necessary to do so?

 

I assume you also, like me, would not want to see a world based upon white supremacist and neo-nazi ideology.

 

I have said many times that the concerns of the majority are legitimate and that they must be addressed and rectified, we probably disagree with the cause of those concerns, and precisely how to address them, but that is a different discussion. I share those concerns, I hate the way vast swathes of poorer people have been cut adrift from economic and political systems since the 1980s. I have no love for the conduct of any of the major political parties and think, in particular, that the Labour Party abandoned its post a long time ago. I desperately want the world to change, to become more representative of those it has marginalised.

 

And in that world, the one that you want, where those concerns are being addressed and rectified (which I sincerely hope will happen) genuine, real racism will still exist and must also be addressed. Not at the expense of improving the quality of life of those that need it, but alongside it, because racism also negatively impacts the quality of life of many of the same people you care about.

 

I have no interest in pretending people are racist as a way of marginalising and ignoring their concerns. That is self-destruct mode and that is just plain wrong. I am simply interested in, amongst many other things, working against actual racism collectively, no matter it's political stripe, no matter where it comes from or where it is directed.

 

My only concern is that we may be less inclined to do that now and that racism may get a foot hold. That is the deviance I do not want normalised. I have never actually been saying the things you have assumed I have. I disagree with a lot of right-wing political ideology, but I have no interest in silencing or marginalising it. It is as valid as my own, and deserves as much airing. I will, however, always oppose extremism of all kinds.

 

 

Now you have accepted that racism exists, what do you propose we do about it?

 

I think I was pretty clear but I'll try once more... nothing.

 

We have more than enough laws and state interference to ensure the vast majority of racism that does exist is suppressed. Enough now. Worry about racism in silence because every time the left opens it's whiny mouth people recoil and shift further to the right... making the normalisation of deviance more likely.

 

Unfortunately, whether you accept it or not, the definition of xenophobia is a fact. It may evolve again in the future, who knows? I agree that there could be a more precise word that avoids the disagreement, but we are where we are in that case. Language evolves and that is undeniable.

 

Do you accept the evolution of the meaning of gay?

 

You people are unbelievable. Banging on and on about things people are begging you to just shut up about. I'll leave you now to carry on with your far right radicalisation tactic because I can't take any more.

[mikem8634]

I think I was pretty clear but I'll try once more... nothing.

 

We have more than enough laws and state interference to ensure the vast majority of racism that does exist is suppressed. Enough now. Worry about racism in silence because every time the left opens it's whiny mouth people recoil and shift further to the right... making the normalisation of deviance more likely.

 

 

 

You people are unbelievable. Banging on and on about things people are begging you to just shut up about. I'll leave you now to carry on with your far right radicalisation tactic because I can't take any more.

 

It's a real shame you chose to respond like that because I think the common ground is clear. Shame.

 

I had waited, in the hope of you being willing to have a reasoned discussion, but it's time now to thank you for proving me correct. I wasn't actually sure it was happening, but I really couldn't have hoped for a more perfect example of trying to discourage action on racism than your repeated cries of shut up, be quiet, enough!

 

You even suggest that highlighting racism actually causes more racism, which is quite unhinged in its logic I'm sad to say. Discrimination of any stripe flourishes in silence and always has. I wonder if you apply the same logic to criticising Islam?

 

You sound positively desperate for silence on the subject of racism. And that is precisely what creates a reluctance to challenge it followed by welcoming it back into the mainstream.

 

 

...and I haven't even asked you to justify the wilful ignorance/denial of a line like 'we have more than enough laws and state interference to ensure the vast majority of racism that does exist is suppressed' when neo-nazi/white supremacists have direct links to the heart of stragegy in the White House for the next four years... at least.

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2016 at 14:59 ----------

 

Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37997864

 

Got to admit, this seems like a bad idea.

Edited November 29, 2016 by mikem8634

[Margarita Ma]

Mike you obviously missed the example of racism that I gave. My time is limited and so are my resources. For brevity I will give what I think is an adequate definition Though it will not be referenced. Treating someone of a different race to the dominant race(can be numbers but not always) in a different way which disadvantages them is racism. EG setting a higher pass mark for example. this was done with the eleven plus but applied to girls and was sexism.

We obviously disagree widely on the use of language and I don't see us coming closer together on it.

Suffice to say that anything which changes cannot be trusted,Language does change over a long period of time and dictionaries change their listed words according to popularity of use over shorter times, as I said before sliding a meaning sideways because of the group of people used happens through uncorrected misuse. You obviously view this in an entirely different manner.

Evolution and rolling out:

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2015/05/evolution-etymology/

Several meanings and two languages as early sources.

Evolution has been accepted and absorbed into the language as pertaining to live beings changing as a long process of adaptation.

We do not have to automatically accept all changes of use in language. It only makes sense to change something if there is a benefit to that change.

By the way I am entitled to form an opinion just as much as the next person. You seem to need the back up of reference material to be of what you are forming an opinion on. are you by any chance an undergraduate student?

[mikem8634]

Mike you obviously missed the example of racism that I gave. My time is limited and so are my resources. For brevity I will give what I think is an adequate definition Though it will not be referenced. Treating someone of a different race to the dominant race(can be numbers but not always) in a different way which disadvantages them is racism. EG setting a higher pass mark for example. this was done with the eleven plus but applied to girls and was sexism.

We obviously disagree widely on the use of language and I don't see us coming closer together on it.

Suffice to say that anything which changes cannot be trusted,Language does change over a long period of time and dictionaries change their listed words according to popularity of use over shorter times, as I said before sliding a meaning sideways because of the group of people used happens through uncorrected misuse. You obviously view this in an entirely different manner.

Evolution and rolling out:

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2015/05/evolution-etymology/

Several meanings and two languages as early sources.

Evolution has been accepted and absorbed into the language as pertaining to live beings changing as a long process of adaptation.

We do not have to automatically accept all changes of use in language. It only makes sense to change something if there is a benefit to that change.

By the way I am entitled to form an opinion just as much as the next person. You seem to need the back up of reference material to be of what you are forming an opinion on. are you by any chance an undergraduate student?

 

No, I left academia a long time ago.

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However, without substantiation an opinion can be easily dismissed if its content does not ring true. Credible evidence is a bulwark against such dismissal. I don't want you to reference your reply like an essay, I want you to provide evidence that you are not just making things up, such as capitalising of Gay to suggest it is a distinct term (in exactly the same way as you have just asked for evidence on the Castro thread). Unfortunately, without it all I can see in your opinion is inconsistency and arbitrariness.

 

You are perfectly at liberty to use and to not use whatever terms you decide are not beneficial or correct, but you do not get to make that judgement for others. With words that have evolved into new meanings you seem to be trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

 

I am well aware that when words are initially stretched beyond their original meanings that it is, strictly speaking, wrong. However, there comes a time when that wrong becomes right due to the widespread adoption of the new meaning. At this point the word has evolved and the new meaning is as correct as the old one. The inclusion of the new meaning in the dictionary is the expression that it has been deemed collectively useful. Evolve, gay and xenophobia are examples of this process in action.

 

This disagreement began when you suggested I had misused words lazily and wrongly in order to label people. For some reason you do not accept dictionary definitions of those words as a high enough standard and prefer to insist that only the original meaning can be correct despite all evidence to the contrary. That is your choice, but I think you will have to admit that it is pretty idiosyncratic given that language relies on collective agreement of definitions for its efficacy and dictionaries serve as the current and ongoing authoritative repository of those accepted definitions.

 

Given that you are time limited, I understand perfectly if you do not feel the need to reply. I am happy to agree to differ.

Edited November 29, 2016 by mikem8634