Log In
Sign Up
Home
10:53 am
Moderators
February 15, 2014
Offline
Pigg said
Psyral Infection said
RobTidwell said
...
I hate that the word "normal" was used to describe heterosexual relationships and that gay relationships are considered "abnormal". They're atypical, not abnormal. ...I think the issue is not the word "normal" but that people have lost touch with the true definition of the word. It's usage has drifted from the statistical definition to the point where "abnormal" is taken as a derogatory term. Abnormal refers to any subset of the query group that deviates from statistical norm. The term deviant also falls into this category. In statistics, deviant and abnormal are not judgments, but are terms designating their position on a distribution curve.
Just wondering, what word(s) should be used to designate something that falls outside of the standard distribution curve? "Atypical" does not quite work since the definition of that is something that does not conform to the type. Atypical in terms of homosexual in this context would be an incorrect use of the word. The reference is to sexuality and homosexual/heterosexual fall into the same "type" of query and therefore not an atypical set.
I just don't see the issue with the words "abnormal" and "deviant". They have very mathematically defined meanings and accurately describe the subset of the data on the issue, whereas the word "atypical" does not describe the subset. Abnormal and deviant are not just arbitrary judgments but are precisely defined by the data itself so there is no confusion of what falls into the abnormal part of the distribution:
The words "abnormal" and "deviant" become problematic when we redefine what they really are. In that sense, what stops me from redefining the word "equal" to mean something else. When definitions are not adhered to, then any word can be taken as a derogatory word. Somewhere a line needs to be drawn and my line is the strict mathematical definition since it does not lend itself to interpretation. It is an absolute specification that accurately tells us what the information represents. No judgment. No grey area. The data either falls within the statistical norm, or it doesn't.
Impact is always more important than intent. Remember, definitions of words are ALWAYS changing, that's how language works. If language did not change, we would still be speaking like actors in a Shakespeare play. There is not a single word that has a strict definition because language is fluid, and usage trumps rules. Now, obviously I need to remember this sometimes, but at the same time, there is a fine line by trying to educate and being prescriptivist.
So how do I know when a definition has changed? Is there some reference table I can look up to determine when a word that has a perfectly acceptable mathematical definition has been changed to mean something else?
Cheshyr said
All of that is resolved by using the same terminology as what "little people" (ie midgets) prefer: Average...In place of using words like "normal", "average" acknowledges what we all know while not diminishing anyone else, turning things to a statistical and mathematical terminology: average....
I have always disliked the word average. Average is a categorical word that can represent very different things. Are we talking about Median, Mean, Mode, Quadratic Mean, Arithmetic Mean, Geometric Mean, Pythagorean Mean, Harmonic Mean, etc.? They are all averages. In a range of data, this can represent very different things.
For a simple example:
1,2,2,13,50,100,1000 - Median = 13, Mean = ~167, Mode = 2. They are all mathematical averages but give very different representations of the data.
I just don't know anymore. Why can't I just use terms that scientists and mathematicians use? They are properly defined and represent exactly what I am trying to convey. Do I really need to change the way I talk because someone who chooses not to use the real accepted scientific definition gets offended due to their re-definition of a word? I would think by going with the true definition is better since the variable arbitrary definitions mean different things at different times to different peoples but the scientific definition is always the same.
10:56 am
Moderators
February 15, 2014
Offline
krunkazphuk said
...
People who take their cues about 'acceptable' language from the PC bible are just as short-sighted as those who take it from any other bible. Bring on the words. I see language as a tool that evolves every second to fit the human condition. Vince Vaughn equated blaming guns for violence to blaming forks for obesity. Blaming words for a problem seems just as useless. #freespeechmotherfucker
I agree completely!
11:05 am
Members
August 6, 2013
Offline
Psyral Infection said
Pigg said
Psyral Infection said
RobTidwell said
...
I hate that the word "normal" was used to describe heterosexual relationships and that gay relationships are considered "abnormal". They're atypical, not abnormal. ...I think the issue is not the word "normal" but that people have lost touch with the true definition of the word. It's usage has drifted from the statistical definition to the point where "abnormal" is taken as a derogatory term. Abnormal refers to any subset of the query group that deviates from statistical norm. The term deviant also falls into this category. In statistics, deviant and abnormal are not judgments, but are terms designating their position on a distribution curve.
Just wondering, what word(s) should be used to designate something that falls outside of the standard distribution curve? "Atypical" does not quite work since the definition of that is something that does not conform to the type. Atypical in terms of homosexual in this context would be an incorrect use of the word. The reference is to sexuality and homosexual/heterosexual fall into the same "type" of query and therefore not an atypical set.
I just don't see the issue with the words "abnormal" and "deviant". They have very mathematically defined meanings and accurately describe the subset of the data on the issue, whereas the word "atypical" does not describe the subset. Abnormal and deviant are not just arbitrary judgments but are precisely defined by the data itself so there is no confusion of what falls into the abnormal part of the distribution:
The words "abnormal" and "deviant" become problematic when we redefine what they really are. In that sense, what stops me from redefining the word "equal" to mean something else. When definitions are not adhered to, then any word can be taken as a derogatory word. Somewhere a line needs to be drawn and my line is the strict mathematical definition since it does not lend itself to interpretation. It is an absolute specification that accurately tells us what the information represents. No judgment. No grey area. The data either falls within the statistical norm, or it doesn't.
Impact is always more important than intent. Remember, definitions of words are ALWAYS changing, that's how language works. If language did not change, we would still be speaking like actors in a Shakespeare play. There is not a single word that has a strict definition because language is fluid, and usage trumps rules. Now, obviously I need to remember this sometimes, but at the same time, there is a fine line by trying to educate and being prescriptivist.
So how do I know when a definition has changed? Is there some reference table I can look up to determine when a word that has a perfectly acceptable mathematical definition has been changed to mean something else?
Cheshyr said
All of that is resolved by using the same terminology as what "little people" (ie midgets) prefer: Average...In place of using words like "normal", "average" acknowledges what we all know while not diminishing anyone else, turning things to a statistical and mathematical terminology: average....
I have always disliked the word average. Average is a categorical word that can represent very different things. Are we talking about Median, Mean, Mode, Quadratic Mean, Arithmetic Mean, Geometric Mean, Pythagorean Mean, Harmonic Mean, etc.? They are all averages. In a range of data, this can represent very different things.
For a simple example:
1,2,2,13,50,100,1000 - Median = 13, Mean = ~167, Mode = 2. They are all mathematical averages but give very different representations of the data.
I just don't know anymore. Why can't I just use terms that scientists and mathematicians use? They are properly defined and represent exactly what I am trying to convey. Do I really need to change the way I talk because someone who chooses not to use the real accepted scientific definition gets offended due to their re-definition of a word? I would think by going with the true definition is better since the variable arbitrary definitions mean different things at different times to different peoples but the scientific definition is always the same.
No, there's not. The change of language is an organic one, not a planned one. One interesting thing I've noticed, is that many people are taking the definition of institutional racism and basically making it the standard definition of racism hence the "white people cant be racist" (which is very egocentric, btw) phenomenon. The majority of English speakers think of the word "normal" meaning closer to "natural" than any mathematical definition of the word.
As far as words and political correctness is concerned, I agree with what Carlin said. It's all about the context.
11:12 am
Moderators
May 22, 2012
Offline
Psyral Infection said
Why can't I just use terms that scientists and mathematicians use?
because you live in the world.
im no fan of pc silliness...
but im far less of a fan of 'im an asswipe, but i hide behind this free speech thing as a thin excuse for being an asswipe.'
and, like it or not, people are way too prone to that kind of cover story. id rather people just own their assholishness.
it aint a one-way proposition, either; bitches use pc speech to say insulting shit almost as often.
Pigg said
As far as words and political correctness is concerned, I agree with what Carlin said. It's all about the context.
more this, than anything else.
paired with the idea that we should be aware of what we are saying, both in terms of context, and reception... which many of us are not.
awfully paranoid, arent you?
11:26 am
May 4, 2014
Offline
scruffy said
but im far less of a fan of 'im an asswipe, but i hide behind this free speech thing as a thin excuse for being an asswipe.'
Who's hiding? Play into word police and not only do you limit your options, but you can be manipulated. Circular logic and all (this word is bad because I said this word is bad.) Cults have been doing it forever. And congratulations for posting in a free enough platform to use words like 'asswipe.' AOL woulda banned your ass.
 |
 |
 |
11:36 am
Members
August 6, 2013
Offline
Example, dude from duck dynasty says something derogatory about gays, gets pulled off the show, he and others claim freedom of speech. It's stupid. Yeah, you have freedom of speech, but your show is still being shown by that television company, who can pull you if they want, especially if there's something in the contract about it.
Another example: racists and the confederate flag.
Maybe. I'm not sure exactly what he means.
11:51 am
Moderators
May 22, 2012
Offline
krunkazphuk said
scruffy said
but im far less of a fan of 'im an asswipe, but i hide behind this free speech thing as a thin excuse for being an asswipe.'
Who's hiding? Play into word police and not only do you limit your options, but you can be manipulated. Circular logic and all (this word is bad because I said this word is bad.) Cults have been doing it forever. And congratulations for posting in a free enough platform to use words like 'asswipe.' AOL woulda banned your ass.
plenty hide. im not talkin bout yall. figured youd get that.
krunk, you and psyral are exceptions to the general rule. id be happier if the public followed your examples.
but they dont, and we all know they dont.
the whole issue is a double-edged sword with no hilt.
awfully paranoid, arent you?
11:59 am
March 20, 2013
Offline
god, what a fucking wall of words.
fuck all that noise about most of what was written. id rather just be considered offensive.
I consider myself normal. i consider gay people to be normal. gay men are just like except they prefer to stick winky in a different place. its not my place so its doesnt both me.
hetero/homo households, cool with me. don't like my lack of caring about your feelings, also cool with me.
12:01 pm
March 20, 2013
Offline
and lets just be clear here, the LGBT movement is getting alot of flak, yeah so what? ethnic groups have faced it for hundreds of years. fat people have head to deal with it for the last 50 or so years.
jump on the bus, life sucks if your not a skinny attractive(Edit** heterosexual) white person.
You guys are doing alot better than some groups.
12:14 pm
Members
August 6, 2013
Offline
Are you saying we should... Check our privilege? Lololol
12:35 pm
May 4, 2014
Offline
scruffy said
...krunk, you and psyral are exceptions to the general rule. id be happier if the public followed your examples.but they dont, and we all know they dont.
the whole issue is a double-edged sword with no hilt.
I'm only responsible for my own words. People can hide hate behind PC terms as well (I'm sure Klan lawyers get paid extra for that bullshit.) My preference is realizing bigotry isn't always wrapped in a pretty (or ugly) linguistic bow. Regarding the original topic, anyone else waiting for the LGBTQ community to start demanding church weddings, making it a freedom of religion case?
|
|
|
1:02 pm
Members
August 6, 2013
Offline
Idk if that will happen. TECHNICALLY it's legal for a church to refuse an interracial wedding if they want. IIRC there was a recent news story about it.
1:16 pm
Moderators
May 22, 2012
Offline
they can refuse for damn near any reason.
my homie was denied by every church within forty miles for his wedding. because he was having a greek orthodox wedding service, conducted by his father. christians cant tolerate each other, you see.
he ended up havin to rent an otherwise empty chapel from the feds.
awfully paranoid, arent you?
2:48 pm
Moderators
February 15, 2014
Offline
If a particular church does not want to marry you cause you are gay, then go to a different church or a justice of the peace. The church does not have to do it but the federal route should.
3:45 pm
Members
August 6, 2013
Offline
I don't want to get married in a church at all, gay hating or otherwise. Hell, anyone can be ordained on the Internet now. I'd rather a friend or family member do it than a pastor.
5:40 pm
January 5, 2015
Offline
Psyral Infection said
Pigg said
Psyral Infection said
RobTidwell said
...
I hate that the word "normal" was used to describe heterosexual relationships and that gay relationships are considered "abnormal". They're atypical, not abnormal. ...I think the issue is not the word "normal" but that people have lost touch with the true definition of the word. It's usage has drifted from the statistical definition to the point where "abnormal" is taken as a derogatory term. Abnormal refers to any subset of the query group that deviates from statistical norm. The term deviant also falls into this category. In statistics, deviant and abnormal are not judgments, but are terms designating their position on a distribution curve.
Just wondering, what word(s) should be used to designate something that falls outside of the standard distribution curve? "Atypical" does not quite work since the definition of that is something that does not conform to the type. Atypical in terms of homosexual in this context would be an incorrect use of the word. The reference is to sexuality and homosexual/heterosexual fall into the same "type" of query and therefore not an atypical set.
I just don't see the issue with the words "abnormal" and "deviant". They have very mathematically defined meanings and accurately describe the subset of the data on the issue, whereas the word "atypical" does not describe the subset. Abnormal and deviant are not just arbitrary judgments but are precisely defined by the data itself so there is no confusion of what falls into the abnormal part of the distribution:
The words "abnormal" and "deviant" become problematic when we redefine what they really are. In that sense, what stops me from redefining the word "equal" to mean something else. When definitions are not adhered to, then any word can be taken as a derogatory word. Somewhere a line needs to be drawn and my line is the strict mathematical definition since it does not lend itself to interpretation. It is an absolute specification that accurately tells us what the information represents. No judgment. No grey area. The data either falls within the statistical norm, or it doesn't.
Impact is always more important than intent. Remember, definitions of words are ALWAYS changing, that's how language works. If language did not change, we would still be speaking like actors in a Shakespeare play. There is not a single word that has a strict definition because language is fluid, and usage trumps rules. Now, obviously I need to remember this sometimes, but at the same time, there is a fine line by trying to educate and being prescriptivist.
So how do I know when a definition has changed? Is there some reference table I can look up to determine when a word that has a perfectly acceptable mathematical definition has been changed to mean something else?
Cheshyr said
All of that is resolved by using the same terminology as what "little people" (ie midgets) prefer: Average...In place of using words like "normal", "average" acknowledges what we all know while not diminishing anyone else, turning things to a statistical and mathematical terminology: average....
I have always disliked the word average. Average is a categorical word that can represent very different things. Are we talking about Median, Mean, Mode, Quadratic Mean, Arithmetic Mean, Geometric Mean, Pythagorean Mean, Harmonic Mean, etc.? They are all averages. In a range of data, this can represent very different things.
For a simple example:
1,2,2,13,50,100,1000 - Median = 13, Mean = ~167, Mode = 2. They are all mathematical averages but give very different representations of the data.
I just don't know anymore. Why can't I just use terms that scientists and mathematicians use? They are properly defined and represent exactly what I am trying to convey. Do I really need to change the way I talk because someone who chooses not to use the real accepted scientific definition gets offended due to their re-definition of a word? I would think by going with the true definition is better since the variable arbitrary definitions mean different things at different times to different peoples but the scientific definition is always the same.
That's all good and well if we're talking about math but in common discourse we're talking about what's most common verses what's less common. Homosexuality is less common but isn't unnatural or abnormal. In biological terms, abnormal means deformed and irregular. Homosexuality isn't a disease but a lot of homophobic people see it as such because of misinformation so the rejection of the word normal is a very real one.
How do you know when a word has changed meaning? by the way people use it. By the way people understand it. It isn't that difficult. Language is a form of art that is constantly being reinterpreted. It isn't fixed. Words we use are redefined by the context with which they are used. Every single time a word gets used, it's definition changes slightly.
5:42 pm
January 5, 2015
Offline
krunkazphuk said
scruffy said
...ill grant that the political correctness phenomenon has ultimately muddied the waters a bit, for this sorta thing... but i find that most of the time, when people get hung up on the problems they have with pc, its because they want to be hurtful, and are lookin for excuses to do it. as opposed to the 'its just a forthright way of talking' line they tend to hide behind.no, not every time... but most of the time...
People who take their cues about 'acceptable' language from the PC bible are just as short-sighted as those who take it from any other bible. Bring on the words. I see language as a tool that evolves every second to fit the human condition. Vince Vaughn equated blaming guns for violence to blaming forks for obesity. Blaming words for a problem seems just as useless. #freespeechmotherfucker
it's not the words fault, it's the person wielding the words who is choosing to be hurtful. All PC means is don't be an asshole.
5:48 pm
January 5, 2015
Offline
Cheshyr said
All of that is resolved by using the same terminology as what "little people" (ie midgets) prefer: Average...In place of using words like "normal", "average" acknowledges what we all know while not diminishing anyone else, turning things to a statistical and mathematical terminology: average.
Which is much more accepting of the fact that as majorities change, so must the lexicon.
But I'm still not down with PC eradication of certain words that mean what they say.
I'm FAT. Don't call me "heavy". A bag of rocks is "heavy"... The Rock may be heavy but he ain't fat. Fat is fat. A transvestite is a tranny... Cry the same tears for the "fat" as you might the "trannies". You don't get to choose.
Tranny is a slur, you should not use it. It is a word used to degrade, humiliate, harass, and assault trans women. Transvestite is a word that describes cross dressers, not transgender women. Some people are trying to reclaim it but it is a very hurtful word in most conversations. it isn't like fat, it's like the n slur or the f slur.
5:55 pm
Members
August 6, 2013
Offline
Can we at least USE the words we are talking about? When you are talking about the consequences of the word "nigger" I don't see anything wrong with using the actual word. We're all thinking of it anyway.
All RSSMost Users Ever Online: 591
Currently Online:
65 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
2 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
The Warlock: 11663
King Lucem Ferre: 9098
Old Mr Dangerous: 8974
krunk: 8060
OCJ_Brendan: 6148
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 755
Members: 3743
Moderators: 6
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 5
Forums: 28
Topics: 12299
Posts: 245363
Newest Members:
issuesthycloon, MatthewMut, PureHateToTheFullest, Indica cart, sickjuggalo666Moderators: GanjaGoblin: 2873, Psyral: 4297, bozodklown: 394, scruffy: 11447, PunkRockJuggalo: 6559, Pigg: 6492
Administrators: admin: 1, ScottieD: 845
