Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Or Kill Me => Topic started by: Oysters Rockefeller on March 08, 2012, 09:32:26 pm

Title: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Oysters Rockefeller on March 08, 2012, 09:32:26 pm
How we label ourselves and others is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. But especially labels where some slant or spin is involved.
For instance, anti-abortion is "pro-life", implying that pro-abortion is "pro-death." Similarly, pro-abortion is "pro-choice", implying the opposite viewpoint is "anti-choice."
Despite belonging in a grey area, I've taken to telling people I'm pro-death.
A lot of these kinds of things have such an obvious slant it's hard to believe people take them seriously. And the weirdest part is that the presence of that slant implies, to me, the willingess to decieve people on some level or another.

There have been studies (sorry, no link) that show peoples opinion on gay marriage changes drastically based on if it is called "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage."

Yeeanywho. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 08, 2012, 10:13:01 pm
Governments and Corporations and cults do this all the time. It is the very heart of propaganda. The military becomes "Ministry of Peace." An unprecedented, sweeping attack on the U.S. Constitution becomes the "USA PATRIOT act." Legislation designed to throw people in prison for how they dress is called the "R.A.V.E (Reducing America's Vulnerability to Ecstasy) Act.

Language, its censure, it's nuances...the myriad connotations of words, synonyms...it is both a tool and a weapon over the cognitive process.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 10:18:07 pm
Of course labels imply products.  Sometimes it's a can of beans.  Sometimes, it's a car.  Sometimes, it's you.  Just listen to anyone sleepy enough to believe in politics, but listen to what they SAY, not what you've been conditioned to hear.

You get to choose, you see.  "You can be a liberal", or a "conservative".  Neither of those words mean what they used to mean, so you just as easily say "Purple" or "Green", but you have to be one or the other, or the choice will be made for you by the person you're speaking with.

EVERY other label refers back to that dichotomy. 

Progressive = Liberal
Socialist = Liberal
Moderate = Liberal
Pro-choice = Liberal
Atheist = Liberal
Independent = Conservative
Pro-Life = Conservative
Constitutionalist = Conservative, with extra religious nutbaggery.

99% of people cannot discuss politics unless they have first put you in a box, so that they can deliver the ingrained memes that they have accumulated since they chose purple or green.  If you refuse to be catagorized, they cannot form an argument.  I mean, that should be obvious.  They have nothing to argue AGAINST.

And that's when the fun part begins...Because at that point, you can make them argue against themselves.  Hell, they'll do it on their own, if you can keep them from going into a canned recital of what's good & right for everyone.

Equally obviously, this works on both sides equally.  Liberals TEND to be funnier in general when this happens, but when a conservative gets on a roll, it can be pants-shittingly hilarious.

Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 08, 2012, 10:36:45 pm
And I can't figure out if that's a nature or nurture thing. I mean, we're all guilty of succumbing to black or white thinking from time to time. Even the brightest and most enlightened of us can get stuck in true/false, with/against, ones and zeroes.

Is it because our minds are designed to see half full/half empty instead of 4 oz.? Is this a primate thing? Friend or foe? Or is this a coincidental product of the process itself becoming ingrained and compounded? Or both?

There's a Richard Dawkins quote that "militant atheists" (there's a label for ya!) like to throw at me a lot when we get into the "agnostic" argument: "There's such a thing as being so open-minded, your brains fall out."

What?

What does that even mean? It's meaningless. Just a neat, cute, pat, little thing to say that sounds profoundly clever to those who have already decided that open-mindedness is "fence-sitting." It wraps up their turd of an argument with a giant length of primary-red grosgrain ribbon. There is no such thing as being so open-minded, your brains fall out!

Please help me stop screaming.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 10:38:09 pm
And I can't figure out if that's a nature or nurture thing. I mean, we're all guilty of succumbing to black or white thinking from time to time. Even the brightest and most enlightened of us can get stuck in true/false, with/against, ones and zeroes.

Is it because our minds are designed to see half full/half empty instead of 4 oz.? Is this a primate thing? Friend or foe? Or is this a coincidental product of the process itself becoming ingrained and compounded? Or both?

There's a Richard Dawkins quote that "militant atheists" (there's a label for ya!) like to throw at me a lot when we get into the "agnostic" argument: "There's such a thing as being so open-minded, your brains fall out."

What?

What does that even mean? It's meaningless. Just a neat, cute, pat, little thing to say that sounds profoundly clever to those who have already decided that open-mindedness is "fence-sitting." It wraps up their turd of an argument with a giant length of primary-red grosgrain ribbon. There is no such thing as being so open-minded, your brains fall out!

Please help me stop screaming.

1.  Pretty sure it's a primate thing.

2.  If you stop screaming, everyone else's voice will count and yours won't.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 08, 2012, 10:59:23 pm
 :lulz: <3
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Rumckle on March 08, 2012, 11:38:23 pm
Hmm, I don't think it's always a product thing. I mean in all those examples you gave, yeah it is full of spin, but those are political examples, everything to do with politics involves heaps of spin, and therefore comes off like a product.

But if you have a label that doesn't involve spin, it doesn't have to come back to a product thing. Labels have been used for ages, because humans are designed to see patterns, and then categorise things, ie put labels on things. Also, labels can sometimes be useful shorthand for conversations, so long as you are aware of the underlying subtext that may go along with a label.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Oysters Rockefeller on March 09, 2012, 03:56:13 am
Yeah, that's a good point. I'm not argueing that labels are inherently bad. I mean, I'm a guy. Calling me a guy has no spin, it's just accurate. So you're right there, for sure.
Actually, I don't know that I'm argueing anything. Argueing about labels on PD is about as close to preaching to the choir as a guy can get.
But the way people use language to manipulate, sometimes without intending to, is incredibly interesting.
It can be done outside of politics, in a way. Say you're friend tells you this 2nd person (let's call him Megaguirus) is cool, but you're friend is an asshole. Even if Megaguirus turns out, predictably, to be an asshole as well...you might be inclined to give him a little leeway.

Also, directed at Dok, I consider myself a liberal leaning independent. Most independents I know do, too. But that could just be a geographical difference, I reckon.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Oysters Rockefeller on March 09, 2012, 04:03:29 am
An unprecedented, sweeping attack on the U.S. Constitution becomes the "USA PATRIOT act."

Woah, there. I bought too many tiny American flags to stop supporting crazy shit now.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Elder Iptuous on March 09, 2012, 04:58:15 am
...
But the way people use language to manipulate, sometimes without intending to, is incredibly interesting.
...
as opposed to what, exactly?
is there another use for language?
perhaps you mean deceive?
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Oysters Rockefeller on March 09, 2012, 05:45:24 am
I feel like, although there is a bit of wiggle room, manipulation and deception are near synonymous. They both involve a willfull attempt to coerce somebody into a personally advantageous situation through false means.

I mean, I didn't type this up to argue about words.

Ah....wait...that's exactly what I did.

Well, we can say deceive if you like. But I would argue there is a multitidue of uses for language. Description, legitimate persuasion, entertainment, gaining knowledge, etc.


ETA: I said "without intending to" above, and "willfull" afterwards. I hope you can understand my general meaning nonetheless.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on March 09, 2012, 11:26:43 am
Or when asking for advice (read: looking for approval) people ask questions like, "Am I just some evil Nazi bastard for thinking this?" Instead of "Am I overstepping my bounds?" "Are my expectations unreasonable?" or any of a number of questions that may get more to the heart of the matter. If it's just "total bitch" or "not total bitch" they can get the answer they want without really having to examine their actions meaningfully.

...come to think of it "product" as a label is a great example of what you're talking about. It's not "faux cheese," "imitation cheese," "cheese substitute," it's "cheese product." Buy it in a can and you might even get lots of "flavor enhancers" included.

 
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 09, 2012, 12:26:16 pm
Or when asking for advice (read: looking for approval) people ask questions like, "Am I just some evil Nazi bastard for thinking this?" Instead of "Am I overstepping my bounds?" "Are my expectations unreasonable?" or any of a number of questions that may get more to the heart of the matter. If it's just "total bitch" or "not total bitch" they can get the answer they want without really having to examine their actions meaningfully.

...come to think of it "product" as a label is a great example of what you're talking about. It's not "faux cheese," "imitation cheese," "cheese substitute," it's "cheese product." Buy it in a can and you might even get lots of "flavor enhancers" included.

I think those mostly come from a genuine desire to use critical-thinking skills even on ones self. I say things like that. Sometimes it's difficult to get to the "heart" of what you mean because opinions are such internal things, their creation an organic process, wrought with flaws and just the act of opening the closet door and attempting to examine them--allowing others an opportunity to call them crap--is a positive first step. Meaningful self-examination isn't a public process. Letting people debate you and then mulling it over later is.

I tend to assume people aren't ill-willed but rather, somewhat myopic and a little hard-of-hearing due to the constant wail of inner-dialogue. The very act of debating someone implies that you are trying to get them to see your view...not necessarily to change their minds but to get them to make some room at the table for you. Sometimes it's actually difficult to see that the things you are saying are biased and therefore, your argument flawed or unintentionally coercive through omission of the things you simply haven't even considered yet. That's why welcoming dissent is so healthy: you never know what you don't know.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: LMNO on March 09, 2012, 02:52:48 pm
Search is borked, but I recall a BIP thread on compartamentalizing, and why we do it.  I usually start with Korzybski's riff about how "leaf" is actually a meta-generalization that's composed of leaf1, leaf2, leaf3, and so on.  When you're referring to a leaf in general it doesn't actually exist; it's a semantic box that holds many many different things that can be called "leaf".

Ok, that's pretty obvious when you think about it, because if we couldn't meta-generalize, the experiential world would be an infinite amount of individual things that have no relation to each other.  Language couldn't really exist, because every experience would need a different word to describe it.  Btw, this may also be related to Hofstadter's "high-level chunking".

Where I think the problem the OP describes arises when this sort of labelling goes beyond the physical and into the mental and ideological.  Because there's no direct physical experience to connect to, we can make that box as big as we want to -- and sometimes it becomes bigger than we realize.  And due to the "is of identity" problem that RAW and others are always so keen to point out, when we label the idological box, we naturally start wanting to be that box.  This leads to echo chambers, cookie-cutter arguments, and self-deception.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 09, 2012, 02:58:26 pm
Search is borked, but I recall a BIP thread on compartamentalizing, and why we do it.  I usually start with Korzybski's riff about how "leaf" is actually a meta-generalization that's composed of leaf1, leaf2, leaf3, and so on.  When you're referring to a leaf in general it doesn't actually exist; it's a semantic box that holds many many different things that can be called "leaf".

Ok, that's pretty obvious when you think about it, because if we couldn't meta-generalize, the experiential world would be an infinite amount of individual things that have no relation to each other.  Language couldn't really exist, because every experience would need a different word to describe it.  Btw, this may also be related to Hofstadter's "high-level chunking".

Where I think the problem the OP describes arises when this sort of labelling goes beyond the physical and into the mental and ideological.  Because there's no direct physical experience to connect to, we can make that box as big as we want to -- and sometimes it becomes bigger than we realize.  And due to the "is of identity" problem that RAW and others are always so keen to point out, when we label the idological box, we naturally start wanting to be that box.  This leads to echo chambers, cookie-cutter arguments, and self-deception.

I think I need a mini-LMNO inside my mouf to say what I mean because you're better at saying what I mean than I am.

-navKat
("yes, I do mean a syncopated rhythm pattern.")
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 09, 2012, 02:59:45 pm
Search is borked, but I recall a BIP thread on compartamentalizing, and why we do it.  I usually start with Korzybski's riff about how "leaf" is actually a meta-generalization that's composed of leaf1, leaf2, leaf3, and so on.  When you're referring to a leaf in general it doesn't actually exist; it's a semantic box that holds many many different things that can be called "leaf".

Ok, that's pretty obvious when you think about it, because if we couldn't meta-generalize, the experiential world would be an infinite amount of individual things that have no relation to each other.  Language couldn't really exist, because every experience would need a different word to describe it.  Btw, this may also be related to Hofstadter's "high-level chunking".

Where I think the problem the OP describes arises when this sort of labelling goes beyond the physical and into the mental and ideological.  Because there's no direct physical experience to connect to, we can make that box as big as we want to -- and sometimes it becomes bigger than we realize.  And due to the "is of identity" problem that RAW and others are always so keen to point out, when we label the idological box, we naturally start wanting to be that box.  This leads to echo chambers, cookie-cutter arguments, and self-deception.

I think I need a mini-LMNO inside my mouf to say what I mean because you're better at saying what I mean than I am.

-navKat
("yes, I do mean a syncopated rhythm pattern.")

Jesus. No one's ever going to believe that was unintentional.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: LMNO on March 09, 2012, 03:06:59 pm
Congrats.  You just got a
:lmnuendo:
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Oysters Rockefeller on March 09, 2012, 04:20:09 pm
Or when asking for advice (read: looking for approval) people ask questions like, "Am I just some evil Nazi bastard for thinking this?" Instead of "Am I overstepping my bounds?" "Are my expectations unreasonable?"

This is a really good example I wouldn't have thought of. Because saying things like "Am I being a bitch?" almost assures that your friend is going to say "no." Because being a bitch sounds so much words than having unreasonable expectations. But on the other hand, it is probably what the speaker wants to be least, so it makes since that the question would be phrased that way.

From what I understood out of LMNOs post, he hit the nail on the head. We aren't being accurate or unbiased when we say things like "pro-life" or "pro-choice." And not only is it self-deception, but it's deceiving others by applying a negative or unwanted moral code to the opposition. Gun owners are psychopaths and gun control types hate freedom.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Elder Iptuous on March 09, 2012, 04:38:05 pm
we choose labels that we feel highlight the most important aspects of the argument.  why would we do any differently?

the pro-choice people feel that the crux of the matter is one of personal freedom and liberty to determine your own fate.  the fact that killing a baby terminating an embryo is involved is subordinate in the argument.  when a label is needed to identify their stand, why would they choose anything other than what highlights their point?

the pro-life people, likewise, feel that the crux of the matter is the fetus baby.  why would they choose a label to identify their position as anything other than concern for the death of the babies.

the fact that these labels are frustrating due to them talking past each other is unavoidable since they represent separate but mutually exclusive arguments.  the pro-lifers aren't pro-oppression, and the pro-choicers aren't pro-murder.  they simply weight the values differently and use terminology to justify/highlight their positions.

it all seems perfectly natural, intractable, and, from a disinterested perspective, beautiful.

that last bit is key though.  gun control advocates are quite clearly freedom hating milquetoasts that somehow weaseled their way to influence, and we should kill them all for claiming that we are psychopaths.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 09, 2012, 04:42:11 pm
I feel like, although there is a bit of wiggle room, manipulation and deception are near synonymous. They both involve a willfull attempt to coerce somebody into a personally advantageous situation through false means.

I mean, I didn't type this up to argue about words.

Ah....wait...that's exactly what I did.

Well, we can say deceive if you like. But I would argue there is a multitidue of uses for language. Description, legitimate persuasion, entertainment, gaining knowledge, etc.


ETA: I said "without intending to" above, and "willfull" afterwards. I hope you can understand my general meaning nonetheless.

This is an issue of semantics, really, but from the very beginning, we attempt to manipulate our environment and the people around us. Language is a tool for communication, so we use it to manipulate the people around us.

Quote
ma·nip·u·late/məˈnipyəˌlāt/
Verb:   

    Handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner: "he manipulated the dials".
    Alter, edit, or move (text or data) on a computer.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 09, 2012, 04:48:07 pm
we choose labels that we feel highlight the most important aspects of the argument.  why would we do any differently?

the pro-choice people feel that the crux of the matter is one of personal freedom and liberty to determine your own fate.  the fact that killing a baby terminating an embryo is involved is subordinate in the argument.  when a label is needed to identify their stand, why would they choose anything other than what highlights their point?

the pro-life people, likewise, feel that the crux of the matter is the fetus baby.  why would they choose a label to identify their position as anything other than concern for the death of the babies.

the fact that these labels are frustrating due to them talking past each other is unavoidable since they represent separate but mutually exclusive arguments.  the pro-lifers aren't pro-oppression, and the pro-choicers aren't pro-murder.  they simply weight the values differently and use terminology to justify/highlight their positions.

it all seems perfectly natural, intractable, and, from a disinterested perspective, beautiful.



Love this. Well fucking put.

Quote
that last bit is key though.  gun control advocates are quite clearly freedom hating milquetoasts that somehow weaseled their way to influence,

True.

Quote
and we should kill them all for claiming that we are psychopaths.

I don't think they really want to kill...wai...I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.

Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Elder Iptuous on March 09, 2012, 04:50:29 pm
ya.  that was my point.
i guess 'manipulate' has deceptive subtext in a given context, though.
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.
but when given the lofty context of language in general, i tend to think of the technical definition you present.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 09, 2012, 05:01:03 pm


Quote
ma·nip·u·late/məˈnipyəˌlāt/
Verb:   

    Handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner: "he manipulated the dials".
    Alter, edit, or move (text or data) on a computer.

To be fair:
Quote
transitive verb
1
: to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
2
a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
3
: to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose

Yes, there is another connotation of the word for a reason...because sometimes people cross the line into being deliberately devious and obfuscatory about it.

and THIS wraps up your point in itself. THIS is why not censoring the language and letting people make their point in the way that suits them, even if the connotations of the language they choose seems biased to you is so fucking important. It's one of the most beloved points about Orwell's "newspeak" concept: without a mutually understood word to validate and symbolize a concept, you may as well delete the concept from people's minds.

"I don't want the government telling me NOT to take drugs because I have the right to have fun!" says little.
"Cognitive Liberty" says volumes. It makes your opponents have to take a moment to phrase their argument in a way that addresses the concept of having the right to control the thoughts in your head through the use of (or refusal to use) chemicals.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Oysters Rockefeller on March 09, 2012, 05:49:39 pm
we choose labels that we feel highlight the most important aspects of the argument.  why would we do any differently?

the pro-choice people feel that the crux of the matter is one of personal freedom and liberty to determine your own fate.  the fact that killing a baby terminating an embryo is involved is subordinate in the argument.  when a label is needed to identify their stand, why would they choose anything other than what highlights their point?

Actually, that's a really good point that I didn't consider. But, at the same time, I don't think that "pro-life" doesn't imply "pro-death." And the fact that pro-life types called pro-choice types baby-killers is fairly self-explanatory. But I suppose what I'd take away from this is that calling that kind of language just deceitful is actually incorrect. It also puts forth a legitimate arguement. Learn somethin' new every day.

and THIS wraps up your point in itself. THIS is why not censoring the language and letting people make their point in the way that suits them, even if the connotations of the language they choose seems biased to you is so fucking important.


Woah, I hope that's not what you thought I was argueing. I find the whole labels topic more funny than I do offensive. But I like your point.

"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.

If only...
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2012, 05:51:05 pm
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.

In my experience, 90% of the time, that's exactly what the person saying it means.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Elder Iptuous on March 09, 2012, 05:57:30 pm
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.

In my experience, 90% of the time, that's exactly what the person saying it means.
hehe. point.
they usually have the view that the woman is deceptive in pretending to be a lady, when in fact, she is acting the part of a man, what with all that uppity self determination and opinion holding and all...
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2012, 06:01:38 pm
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.

In my experience, 90% of the time, that's exactly what the person saying it means.
hehe. point.
they usually have the view that the woman is deceptive in pretending to be a lady, when in fact, she is acting the part of a man, what with all that uppity self determination and opinion holding and all...

Pretty much.

I was at a party back in Chicago, probably around 1986, and two aquatences of mine were having a conversation.

Mike:  Let's do such-and-such this way.

Krista:  No, I think we should probably do it THIS way, because that way will cost more than I can afford.

Mike:  But I have it all planned out.

Krista:  Well, you probably should have asked me before you planned how I was going to participate.

Mike then walks up to me, and says "What a domineering bitch".
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 09, 2012, 06:18:52 pm
 :argh!:

I have a general problem in my hetero relationships where in all things, the assumed default is he's right and we're doing it that way unless I can pose a good, logical set of reasons why we shouldn't or that my way is better.

Most of them are amiable about it, even encouraging me to come up with a good reason and willing to change course but the assumption is that this is the way we do things unless. I tend to be very passive in my relationships so I know my personality type sort of reinforces (and having an asymmetrical dynamic is not necessarily a bad thing) this but it does become annoying from time to time and can be outright frustrating during an argument because I'm already starting out with the "burden of proof" from the start.

Conversely, in an arrangement where the woman is the "leader" in many areas of the hetero relationship, it is commonly viewed as "she's got him by the balls."
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2012, 06:21:16 pm
Conversely, in an arrangement where the woman is the "leader" in many areas of the hetero relationship, it is commonly viewed as "she's got him by the balls."

For some reason, this is considered a bad thing.

 :fap:

Yowza!

Dok,
Likes his woman like he likes his...um...woman.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Oysters Rockefeller on March 09, 2012, 06:30:04 pm
Ah, it's even worse than that. At least in the south. If a man ever does anything for a woman just out of kindness or blackmail or whatever, then it's automatically a she has him by the balls type thing.

People can preach about equality in one breath and say that women who wear pants go to hell in the next (that was a real conversation I had. For real real).

Although, where I live, many women are just as bad about holding back gender equality as a lot of men are. You'd think they were trying to become the subject of a snoop dogg song.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Elder Iptuous on March 09, 2012, 06:38:17 pm
i don't think its a regionally heterogeneous thing, oysters.
i've seen true chivalry down here, and misogyny aplenty up north.  we're all apes.
if you're seeing a lot of it among the people around you, then it's time to replace the people around you?

wait... "kindness or blackmail or whatever"?  seems an odd turn of phrase thar...  :lol:
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 09, 2012, 06:43:47 pm
Ah, it's even worse than that. At least in the south. If a man ever does anything for a woman just out of kindness or blackmail or whatever, then it's automatically a she has him by the balls type thing.

People can preach about equality in one breath and say that women who wear pants go to hell in the next (that was a real conversation I had. For real real).

Although, where I live, many women are just as bad about holding back gender equality as a lot of men are. You'd think they were trying to become the subject of a snoop dogg song.

Actually, I find the opposite to be true in upper-middle class Mobile, AL society.

Here, the woman is the Matriarch. She makes the "Honey-do" lists, tells the man where he can put down the toolbelt when he gets home, what to wear for church, what school the children will attend, what Mardis Gras societies they will belong to and when to show up for dinner.

He, in turn, is allowed to disappear for the afternoon to go fishing, drink a six of Miller Lite in front of the TV, pick out the color of his truck and act like a college Fraternity kid...as long as he holds down a job, is good to the children and toes the line. A good ol' "country boy," drinking beer out of an Auburn Tigers Tervis tumbler.

It's weird. Most people think the opposite but the trailer park, domineering male/oppressed female model of the southern marriage is the minority here.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Oysters Rockefeller on March 09, 2012, 06:52:40 pm
i don't think its a regionally heterogeneous thing, oysters.
i've seen true chivalry down here, and misogyny aplenty up north.  we're all apes.
if you're seeing a lot of it among the people around you, then it's time to replace the people around you?

wait... "kindness or blackmail or whatever"?  seems an odd turn of phrase thar...  :lol:

You, good sir, make a brilliant point. I'm blinded by my hatred of the south.

Also, don't act like you've never been coerced into a romantic, candle lit knife fight by a woman with incriminating documents.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Oysters Rockefeller on March 09, 2012, 06:56:46 pm
Actually, I find the opposite to be true in upper-middle class Mobile, AL society.

Here, the woman is the Matriarch. She makes the "Honey-do" lists, tells the man where he can put down the toolbelt when he gets home, what to wear for church, what school the children will attend, what Mardis Gras societies they will belong to and when to show up for dinner.

He, in turn, is allowed to disappear for the afternoon to go fishing, drink a six of Miller Lite in front of the TV, pick out the color of his truck and act like a college Fraternity kid...as long as he holds down a job, is good to the children and toes the line. A good ol' "country boy," drinking beer out of an Auburn Tigers Tervis tumbler.

It's weird. Most people think the opposite but the trailer park, domineering male/oppressed female model of the southern marriage is the minority here.

That's incredibly interesting.
Maybe it has something to do with those horrible roads downtown?
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2012, 06:59:35 pm
Actually, I find the opposite to be true in upper-middle class Mobile, AL society.

Here, the woman is the Matriarch. She makes the "Honey-do" lists, tells the man where he can put down the toolbelt when he gets home, what to wear for church, what school the children will attend, what Mardis Gras societies they will belong to and when to show up for dinner.

He, in turn, is allowed to disappear for the afternoon to go fishing, drink a six of Miller Lite in front of the TV, pick out the color of his truck and act like a college Fraternity kid...as long as he holds down a job, is good to the children and toes the line. A good ol' "country boy," drinking beer out of an Auburn Tigers Tervis tumbler.

It's weird. Most people think the opposite but the trailer park, domineering male/oppressed female model of the southern marriage is the minority here.

That's incredibly interesting.
Maybe it has something to do with those horrible roads downtown?

Non sequitors are the new Black.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 09, 2012, 07:03:47 pm
ya.  that was my point.
i guess 'manipulate' has deceptive subtext in a given context, though.
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.
but when given the lofty context of language in general, i tend to think of the technical definition you present.

Which also brings up the gender bias that alters how the word is perceived when applied to a female vs. a male.

People call women manipulative bitches, but most commonly when it's used to describe a man it's used in a context of admiration, ie. media manipulation or manipulation of popular perception.

When used to describe women it is typically used with the connotation that a person who lacks overt power or control over her environment is using subversive means to get what she wants, whereas when used to describe men it usually has connotations of a person with power using his charisma or skills as a spin doctor to alter public perception in a way that is favorable to him.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 09, 2012, 07:07:37 pm
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.

In my experience, 90% of the time, that's exactly what the person saying it means.

Or this.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: navkat on March 09, 2012, 07:30:07 pm
Actually, I find the opposite to be true in upper-middle class Mobile, AL society.

Here, the woman is the Matriarch. She makes the "Honey-do" lists, tells the man where he can put down the toolbelt when he gets home, what to wear for church, what school the children will attend, what Mardis Gras societies they will belong to and when to show up for dinner.

He, in turn, is allowed to disappear for the afternoon to go fishing, drink a six of Miller Lite in front of the TV, pick out the color of his truck and act like a college Fraternity kid...as long as he holds down a job, is good to the children and toes the line. A good ol' "country boy," drinking beer out of an Auburn Tigers Tervis tumbler.

It's weird. Most people think the opposite but the trailer park, domineering male/oppressed female model of the southern marriage is the minority here.

That's incredibly interesting.
Maybe it has something to do with those horrible roads downtown?

Non sequitors are the new Black.

I don't even know what the intended point was here. The roads are horrible everywhere...just like the water and the government.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Elder Iptuous on March 09, 2012, 07:38:34 pm
ya.  that was my point.
i guess 'manipulate' has deceptive subtext in a given context, though.
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.
but when given the lofty context of language in general, i tend to think of the technical definition you present.

Which also brings up the gender bias that alters how the word is perceived when applied to a female vs. a male.

People call women manipulative bitches, but most commonly when it's used to describe a man it's used in a context of admiration, ie. media manipulation or manipulation of popular perception.

When used to describe women it is typically used with the connotation that a person who lacks overt power or control over her environment is using subversive means to get what she wants, whereas when used to describe men it usually has connotations of a person with power using his charisma or skills as a spin doctor to alter public perception in a way that is favorable to him.

although i don't know that i've commonly heard the term 'manipulative' applied to men with admiration, i would say that it is definitely used with a context of ... um...  fearful respect? maybe?  whereas with women it is mostly scorn.
good observation.
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Elder Iptuous on March 09, 2012, 08:34:43 pm
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.

In my experience, 90% of the time, that's exactly what the person saying it means.

hehe....
i just noticed that you referred to a woman as 'manipulative' today...   :p
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2012, 08:36:13 pm
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.

In my experience, 90% of the time, that's exactly what the person saying it means.

hehe....
i just noticed that you referred to a woman as 'manipulative' today...   :p

An individual woman, or all women in general?

I mean, are you trying to say women are incapable of being manipulative, or incapable of being individuals
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Elder Iptuous on March 09, 2012, 08:40:52 pm
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.

In my experience, 90% of the time, that's exactly what the person saying it means.

hehe....
i just noticed that you referred to a woman as 'manipulative' today...   :p

An individual woman, or all women in general?

I mean, are you trying to say women are incapable of being manipulative, or incapable of being individuals?

oh, no no... in a specific post about a specific woman, who, although i haven't really followed the drama, has, from your perspective, as i understand it, acted deceptively...
It doesn't really mean anything, i just thought it was funny thinking of the two posts juxtaposed on the same day...
 :)
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2012, 08:41:43 pm
"that manipulative bitch!" generally doesn't mean a young woman of exceptional ability to handle or control the environment around her.

In my experience, 90% of the time, that's exactly what the person saying it means.

hehe....
i just noticed that you referred to a woman as 'manipulative' today...   :p

An individual woman, or all women in general?

I mean, are you trying to say women are incapable of being manipulative, or incapable of being individuals?

oh, no no... in a specific post about a specific woman, who, although i haven't really followed the drama, has, from your perspective, as i understand it, acted deceptively...
It doesn't really mean anything, i just thought it was funny thinking of the two posts juxtaposed on the same day...
 :)

That's okay, I was just running it back at you.  :lol:
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Elder Iptuous on March 09, 2012, 08:44:46 pm
shit, man. dont do that!
you make me nervous.
 :lol:
Title: Re: Labels imply products, right...?
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on March 09, 2012, 09:06:46 pm


Quote
ma·nip·u·late/məˈnipyəˌlāt/
Verb:   

    Handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner: "he manipulated the dials".
    Alter, edit, or move (text or data) on a computer.

To be fair:
Quote
transitive verb
1
: to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
2
a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
3
: to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose

Yes, there is another connotation of the word for a reason...because sometimes people cross the line into being deliberately devious and obfuscatory about it.

and THIS wraps up your point in itself. THIS is why not censoring the language and letting people make their point in the way that suits them, even if the connotations of the language they choose seems biased to you is so fucking important. It's one of the most beloved points about Orwell's "newspeak" concept: without a mutually understood word to validate and symbolize a concept, you may as well delete the concept from people's minds.

"I don't want the government telling me NOT to take drugs because I have the right to have fun!" says little.
"Cognitive Liberty" says volumes. It makes your opponents have to take a moment to phrase their argument in a way that addresses the concept of having the right to control the thoughts in your head through the use of (or refusal to use) chemicals.

Excellent point. Similarly, instead of "legalize it" I try to use the phrase "repeal prohibition of it". In that instance it's a matter of precedence. "Legalization" implies that "criminalization" is the status quo and the problems with criminalization and/or the benefits of legalization need to be proven. "Repealing the prohibition," rightly (to my mind) illustrates that a substance being prohibited is the change itself and needs to be justified to be continued. The gateway drug, reduced motivation, etc, arguments may be sufficient as reasons against making a change to the state of things, but are they sufficient to justify a law that changes the way things otherwise naturally exist?