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.

 

A thought about language on ATS

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 



And I hear you...
Broadbrushing is something that is difficult enough to stand live, in "real" life; on paper or on a screen it's all the more exasperating.




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
The term, or connotation in sheeple is interesting.

It's paradoxic in a similar way to the behavior of 'people' when they get behind the wheel of a car.

In certain situations, humans, who are usually good as individuals, have a personality change.

One place, as I said, is when driving a car. The other place is in crowds.

Even normally good, clear thinking people can go all wrong in crowds, frequently exhibiting all of the bad characteristics of humans. Most frequently it depends on the crowd's actions, though one might be predisposed (say, unresolved anger mgmt issues?).

At the same time we seem to externalize this. We see the bad in others but not in ourselves. We know people get psychotic behind the wheel, yet we can't see it in ourselves. We see the bad behavior of crowds, but we fail to act as responsible indivuduals when in certain situations.

If someone is driven to using pejoratives like this on ATS, it might be prudent to look inwardly, also.

Otherwise, it's rarely a positive contribution. If it's not a contribution, who wants to read it? Post it in rants, or don't post it at all, I say.

2 cents.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Thanks for posting this....it's a valid question and one I feel strongly about...I am a rebellious soul at heart, but I realize that a site like this needs a small modicum of decorum/rules to be able to excel in the arena it was designed to excel in.

The less rules the better IMO. I find that the more rules, the more it dilutes the message.

I can post a thread on here, titled "I am a Grey, You All Are Sheeple, Following My Puppet Earth Government."

Did I break the T and C? No. Unless it was in the breaking news section. If I posted it in the proper section, why should I not have my say even if the title is admittedly ridiculous?

You don't have to read my thread if it was titled that. Just like I don't have to read the other titles much like that. But if I want to read it? Why should the topic be censored?

We all have a brain, and different tastes and interests. I suggest that instead of calling for more censorship and rules, we all just use our common sense about what we choose to read.

Isn't that much easier?



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Great thread, star from me.Since this type of wordage has already been identified as intellectually deficient by the other astute responders in this thread, I'll make a suggestion. I don't think we need more rules or regulations, I think we need more members to expose this kind of flimsy rhetoric when we see it. It seems to me that broad generalizations is a sign of weakness in their argument.Exploit this flaw and the rest of their argument tends to crumble.

I have issues myself with the new language that's emerging. Aside from the obvious text/l33t speak, we have this naseating trend of bAd SpeLLinG uppercase,lower case alternating crap...

I play video games a lot, and the derogatory term in that culture is n00b or nub. It carries the same emotional charge that somethiing like sheeple does. PLus all the language,ignorance,racism,homophobia that you're subject to if you play online, but don't get me started on that...

Then you have this fun thing where you take insults or epithets and hurl them at people that the insults don't apply too. If you're a white person and you've been called a N'er, you know what I'm talking about. Or calling everything gay and making all these graphic gay sex insuations to straight people. I don't get that, it's stupid.

So yeah OP I'm with you. but not about more rules and regulations though, as with many other things in this world, we need to depend more on each other to keep the balance in check, and less on a 3rd party beauracracy.

Edit:Since I couldn't give you a star, I gave you a flag instead!

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Gigatronix]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 



Thanks, Gigatronix.

I really appreciate your thoughts!
I am glad to see that some people at least do care.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Tuebor
 


I am not sure I understand, Tuebor.

This thread is about language (and, by implication, about the double standards in verbal "censorship").

It's not about "judging" anyone.

And yes, of course I can - and do - choose not to participate in threads written by educationally and grammatically challenged people.

But it's not about my participation in them; it's not about me at all.
It was supposed to be - at least I hoped so - a discussion about a very vital aspect of communication (and the lack thereof).



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
As a senior citizen, it is my contention that the vast majority of the overall population has lost much of it's ability to effectively communicate.

Much of this stems, IMO, from the early days of broadcasting, and has become more prevailant as time passes. Sound bites, like Readers Digest condensed books, lose much of the "meat" in an effort to suit them to an audience with an ever shorter attention span.

Understandably, these condensed versions of what is being expressed, become ever more open to individual interpretation. Therefore, we have some here thinking the term "sheeple" is a good thing, and others not. Obviously if such a wide rang of opinion can be found in this one word, the person using it failed to communicate effectively.

I have often been tempted to tell people that I refuse to debate the merits of their position due to their inability to define their position in a reasonably intelligent manner.

This post will likely be only skimmed by fully two-thirds of the people here because it's "too long".



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas
If four-letter words are deemed inappropriate (and rightly so), then I see no reason why expressions like the (increasingly popular) »sheeple« shouldn't be strongly acted against, too.


the difference is, there are web filters that actively seek out "four letter" words, and when finding them, give websites ratings, sort of like a movie may be R instead of PG-13 for the language.

There are no such filters for "sheeple," since its not a bad word. From what I understand the censorship on ATS has more to do with web filters and web spiders than it has to do with etiquette (although I imagine that plays a large part as well).



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I think if we banned all language on ATS, we would have no further problems.

There could be no claims of discrimination, as all users of language would be affected equally.

It would create an open and welcoming environment on the boards. (Very open, as there would be no posts)

There is little possibility that anyone could feel threatened or offended by any posts made in a language free manner. I suppose we could also ban the non-smiley smiley's as well though, some of those mean looking red faced ones could be intimidating to some gentle souls. Example;


In all seriousness, I understand the sentiment, but some people use the four letter words for emphasis, or as part of a quote, and it seems like it would be unnecessarily restrictive to continue to ban words or phrases, when all a mod has to do is look at the overall post and see if the person is attacking someone, regardless what word choices they make.

One of the difficult things about managing freedoms, such as free speech, is that you have to defend the freedom itself, even though that often means you personally may have to tolerate speech that is hateful, uncouth, rude, or just plain ugly in your estimation. I say let freedom ring, and just ignore the offenders. We already have a lot of speech limitations on ATS, (no leet or text speak, no foreign language, etc.) We really dont need more.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 

I don't think sheeple is being used in a mean way. Sheeple in my experience is used to describe people who are well meaning but blinded to a tyrants evil. There are words which are more hateful which could be used to describe such people. Sadly the word is a good one to describe the people in my society who think that government tyrranny can't happen to them. Most of the people on ATS even when I don't agree with them don't fall into the category of sheeple.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuebor
Well, you can choose to not participate by judging members based on their choice of thread titles and I can judge you based on your sig.



I think Tuebor said what I was thinking.


So, Vanitas, what you're saying, is you want more censorship that is already in place on this site? The term "sheeple" is not derogatory in any sense in the manner I use it. I posted something on that, when someone referenced it being a negative connotation in one of the threads I wrote.




Well, thanks for posting your opinion, on the one word choice in the title. While I understand what you and Maxmars are referencing, with the word "sheeple", I have to wholeheartedly disagree with it. The reference to "sheeple" is important because it is organizations like the Bilderberger's mentality as well as other Secret Societies see their prey being the whole human race.

As "sheeple" or even cattle, in that they do not care one iota as to your welfare or anyone else's except in the fact that they can milk you or sheer you of your money in all ways that they see, making it more and more "cost-effective" for them to rule from on high in their Ivory Towers. Herding a flock they tend to fleece in all ways, pun intended there, they want to make the people who not aware of their evil intentions easier, more efficient, and stupider in the long-run, so that they have less trouble herding the "flock" that is society.

The organizations like the Bilderberger's would if they could get away with it, microchip all babies in the womb, with the analogy of "Neo" in the "The Matrix" being that they see us "lower humans" as their ready made slaves.

If you so choose not to read the threads I create, well I feel empathy for you in that you would let one word stop you from learning from something, but then again, that is your choice, your free will to disagree and I will defend your right to disagree. It wasn't in reference to anyone intelligent enough to question authority or question the system, it was in reference to those people who blindly follow the "Wolves in Shepherd's Clothing" being those who are the power-brokers, oil-barrons, as well as the movers and shakers who influence politics through Lobbying as well as offers of jobs after they get out of politics.

I am more curious as to what you thought of the rest of the thread though, being that it is about the Bilderberger's and the enslavement of mankind.

What did you think?


Quote from this thread I made.

Bilderberger : The Global Agenda, Eugenics, Global Warming, And Biochiping Sheeple

Some people use it not to make others sound dumb, but to show how the power brokers, oil-barrons, and politicians thinks of us as well as those we love.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio

the current negative term is 'Islamo-Fascist' lumping all Muslims as Outlaws...i haven't seen/heard any backlash on that, yet...



Then you are the one using it that way. That term applies only to a certain segment of the Islamic community, hence the reason for the term. It is not a catch all phrase to denigrate all Muslims.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
As a senior citizen, it is my contention that the vast majority of the overall population has lost much of it's ability to effectively communicate.

Much of this stems, IMO, from the early days of broadcasting, and has become more prevailant as time passes. Sound bites, like Readers Digest condensed books, lose much of the "meat" in an effort to suit them to an audience with an ever shorter attention span.


Good points, but "IMO" is a condensed way of communicating too.
The age of condensed communication is upon us, and even the resisters partake.

I am a detailed and verbose writer, and I empathize with your points about long posts being skimmed rather than read, and I agree completely that sometimes, (not always) condensing speech or writing hinders its ability to convey the nuance and detail required to ensure a real meeting of minds.

BUT; speech and language evolves. As does humanity. This has always been true. I have a good friend who is a purist, who thinks slang is Satanic and all new innovations in language, speech and writing should be resisted with vigor. It is futile, and not even desirable in the natural world to try to maintain a fixed state. Evolution is the law. Attention spans may be getting shorter, but brains are also getting quicker, and able to process many sources of input at a time. Who knows where it will lead or what will prove to be more adaptive in the future?

My writing style is admittedly on the verge of extinction, (and I am not even a senior citizen yet, lol) however the change may be good. Only time will tell.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


Great commentary there. I tend to think that all sides uses the term "sheeple" in a manner to turn the opposing side into something inferior to their own beliefs. I mean who can take anything a "sheep" has to say seriously. I have heard both sides of the fence use it to describe eachother, so either you all are "sheeple" (quite ironic given the tone used by each side) or perhaps you should choose other words that are more descriptive of your views on the matter.

I think the OP is just commenting that such terminology does not invite discussion. Feel free to use the term, it's a free country. I however tend to tune out people who speak in such manner.

And I did skim down to the bottom of your post, Curse you!!!!



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
As a long term fan of Carlin I think something he said applies here, "They are just words, it's the intent of the word that makes it offensive."

I agree 100% and I can prove it. Take a perfectly good word and use it to offend someone. "Why are you being such a woman?" Now "woman" is a perfectly good word, I loves dem. Used in this context it is offensive, or most would think so. It's not the words, except those that are censored, that's the problem, it's the intent of the poster that is the problem.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 



Well, call me old-fashioned, but I certainly read all of it, from the beginning to the end - and I enjoyed every word of it. :-)

I am worried, though, that the humorous equating of articulate writing and expression with the "old times" (whatever those are) in general might be harnessed as a never-ending source of excuses for those who refuse to express themselves with actual words (even misspelled) - not monosyllabic interjections or worse.

But that's too long a story...



P.S. Why can't I give people the stars they deserve (in this thread) if that's the "currency" on ATS?







[edit on 6-6-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


That's precisely what I am talking about, Intrepid: about intent.
And there are certain words - usually coinage - the intent of which leaves no doubt: they are meant to be offensive. Not informative, not admonishing in a fair and respectful way, but simply offensive.
And I don't think that makes for intelligent and informative conversation - a conversation worthy of people.
Maybe of sheeple.





[edit on 6-6-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   


I don't think sheeple is being used in a mean way. Sheeple in my experience is used to describe people who are well meaning but blinded to a tyrants evil.



Why not call them "well meaning people who are blinded to a tyrant's evil", then?


Personally, I find it a very articulate and informative expression.
Thank you.





[edit on 6-6-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I think that you cannot truly ask for more than the application of reason the the choice of words you use. Any phrase or word can be used in a manner another might deem offensive.

However, as we can see in the normal discourse of the day at ATS, sometime, offense, is an expression yo wish to convey, and doing so with the BIG naughty words WILL get you in trouble. SO people, ingenious as they are contrive new phrases and terms to express their emotion in the messages they write.

Shall we begin to regulate that as well?

At some point you must accept that not every sentiment expressed will be poetically melodious and universally acceptable. People will always find NEW ways to offend.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Common abbreviations are, IMO, so structured that even a Phd. cannot impute an incorrect reconstitionalization.I would assume that CIA, FBI, DEA, DHS, INS, and other such well known agencies and even groups like the NRA and KKK are easily understandable to the normally erudite. The meaning of such are not diminshed by simple replacement of the full name with initials, no more than "Mr." need be always shown as "Mister".

The difference between abbreviations and street slang is much like that between Chateau Petrus 1961 and a left over bottle of Boone's Farm Strawberry Fields from Woodstock. Some people can actually taste the difference.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join