It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exclusive Language & Division

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Please consider the following statements:



1) "Violence against women will not be tolerated."

2) "Male depression is a serious issue. Let's help men beat the blues!"

3) "Women should be treated with respect and dignity by men at all times."

4) "Racism is wrong. Minorities deserve the same rights and freedoms as the majority enjoy."

5) "Anti-Semitism is awful. Hatred of Jews should not be tolerated in any civilised society."

6) "Islamophobia is a disease that corrupts the mind. Irrational fear toward Muslims will not be tolerated."


Notice anything odd about these above statements? On the surface they appear to be noble ideals that any civilised person would strive to uphold. But in reality, they are examples of exclusive language, which in turn, leads to division. It's true that sometimes language needs to be exclusive in order to differentiate between certain groups of people, but most of the time exclusive language is utilised by the media for sinister reasons.


What they should be:


1) Violence will not be tolerated.

2) Depression is a serious issue that society should acknowledge and address.

3) Everyone should be treated with respect and dignity by others at all times.

4) Racism is wrong.

5) & 6) Fear and Hatred towards others based on their religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs) is wrong.


* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Conclusion: exclusive language serves as a subtle (yet effective) way to divide us.


edit on 16/8/2014 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I've been pointing this out for a while. Remember when we were all talking about bullying, but it started out as specifically gay bullying - how it was horrible that gays were bullied. I think enough people stood up at that time to point out how bullying as something that happened to everyone that they backed off that original position. Now they talk more about general bullying, but with a lot of the other things like the ones you list, the topics are still couched in exclusive language. Women are the only ones to suffer violence. No they aren't. Anyone can get depressed. And so on and so forth.

The thing is that it serves better to pander if exclusive divisions create special interest groups who then have special concerns that need to be addressed.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
If we take the time to really look at what someone is saying ,it really isn't much of a problem .A lot of times when you hold the person to what they may have just said they will inevitably admit to improper phrasing .Politicians on the other hand use double speak all the time and in most cases may be using it as a tool to help create laws that are really not necessary . I guess the Hegelian dialectic principal comes into play in the strongest cases .The Natives called it speaking with forked tongue . Even today when considering things like treaties we are given the impression that they are some kind of a contract when that is not what they are but use a language that needs to be taken in context of the day and the sprite in which they were written .



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Words have power. Just because your subconscious is what's asorbing the intent makes words no less powerful.

How many people wouldn't have known others had hatred in their heart for a specific minority if the first set hadn't brought it to the attention?

Inclusion and inclusive words will bring the most equity.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

But the thing is that we are all individuals. You and I are different and unique. It does no one a service to try to quantify us by how many groups they can sort and subdivide us into based on appearance or behavior because there are always going to be those individuals who still will not neatly fit into those nice little boxes. And when you allow yourself to start putting people into nice little boxes ... you start making assumptions about them, preconceived notions which is where the misunderstandings and division come from.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


I agree. Most people fall into multiple catagories anyway.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Iamthatbish

But the thing is that we are all individuals. You and I are different and unique. It does no one a service to try to quantify us by how many groups they can sort and subdivide us into based on appearance or behavior because there are always going to be those individuals who still will not neatly fit into those nice little boxes. And when you allow yourself to start putting people into nice little boxes ... you start making assumptions about them, preconceived notions which is where the misunderstandings and division come from.



The thing is though that we're not all that unique. By classifying all of a persons varying attributes we not only get a picture of that person, but can discover patterns based on specific subsections. For example look at the Myers-Briggs type indicator. It breaks us down into one of two categories along specific subsections and divides people into 1 of 16 types though you could make an argument that it's actually 81 types as some people fall into both categories (for example I'm split between INTP and INTJ fitting into either of them).

Another way you can see this is in our facial features, our head is 5 eyes wide, our nose is 1 eye wide, the bottom of the nose to the chin is the same as the pupil to the hairline, the mouth goes from pupil to pupil, and so on. These are the averages. What makes each of us different is the minute variations from that template, one persons head may be 5.1 eyes wide while anothers is 4.9, a nose could be 1.2 eyes wide, and so on. By categorizing and measuring we can not only find similarities between people but we can also get some idea of how unique each of us are. If there are only 5 possible sizes in each of say 10 categories on our face, then we know our face is unique to 1 in 9,765,625 which would mean there's about 15 people in just the US with the same face as you.

When categorizing people, or anything else for that matter all those little check boxes become hugely important.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
That mathematics and other measuring just makes me nervous. Color outside the lines!

a reply to: Aazadan



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
That mathematics and other measuring just makes me nervous. Color outside the lines!

a reply to: Aazadan



It might make you nervous but it actually does a lot of good. In my field for example which is game design being able to gather various metrics on my audience and figure out their motivations for playing or reactions to an event are important because I can make something for everyone.

The idea of box checking like this is strongly rooted in psychology, which I keep up with a bit (I'm somewhat obsessed with the idea of creating fun and a desire to play without also causing addiction... unlike most in the industry).

It's also the basis of object oriented programming which is something I do a decent amount of, and when doing that you start to see objects not as a whole but as a collection of parts. The practice has many useful applications although it does shatter the idea that each of us are unique, each person still ends up being relatively rare but none of us are really any rarer than 1 in a few million. Some people are considerably less than that.
edit on 17-8-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join