Excessively Used Terms

Today I experienced a curious feeling Lain. This feeling isn't new to me, and it is not unlike the feeling of experiencing deja vu. I have started to notice more and more lately when a word or term begins to be used excessively. Now these words, terms, and ideas are not new, and have typically existed for years before they people at large start using them. Often these terms become increasingly devoid of meaning every time they are used. Lately I have noticed that I often have to stop and think about the words I am using before saying them lest I be misinterpreted. Normally this would not be a major issue as thoughtful conversation tends to be much more enjoyable, recently however an increasing proportion of the population has neither the attention span nor the mental capacity required for such conversation. It makes me extremely nervous about future since more and more of these same people are moving into positions of power, whether that be in the government or at a corporation. I will give this link[1] as an example though these are certainly not the only words abused in such a manner and are not words from which I decided to make this thread. If you read this list and find that these are words that you use a lot(wrongly) I request that you do not take offense, rather use them to reflect on the way you approach conversations in the future. What are your thoughts on this topic Lain? Is this entirely a product of current society? Pic unrelated but required. [1] http://harmful.cat-v.org/words/

Such words serve as referential terms to more complex ideas; they allow us in our conversations to discuss complicated issues without the constant burden of explanation of every last idea we mention. The problem this causes eventually, which you've pointed out here, is twofold: the terms become commonplace and therefore quoted detached from any significance they may hold, and the frequent use of these terms without assessment of their use eventually degrades all aspects of their meaning besides the tautological. Especially in our postmodern political climate, it's easy to use such words to scare constituents or rally them behind a cause. The common man is too easily affected by such factors, and as such, the problem continues to snowball out of control. In my humble opinion, the solution to the problem lies in education reform such that these complicated ideas are given their proper definition without any bias regarding their value; it's only this way that we can properly equip the common man with the intellectual power to morally determine what truly is just, and only in doing so can we expect a real change in the functioning of our societies. After all, we can't and shouldn't expect change to occur from the top down, since the current logical faculties utilized by the common man coincidentally happen to serve those in power, giving them a means to easily rally people behind a cause. Not sure if this is the kind of answer or discussion you were looking for, but I hope it helps.

This is something I think about, but I interpret it not as "overuse" but as metacontextual baggage that words tend to pick up as they worm their way into the zeitgeist. This is especially common with words that originate from academia, for whatever reason. A good example is the word "objectify". The formal definition (to treat as an "object" rather than an "agent") is really useful, but you have to be careful with it because most people who you talk to won't have that definition and will make their own inferences based on the context that they most often hear it used. I'd suspect that most people think that " objectification" roughly means "misogeny".

Interesting and poignant concept for a thread. I thought I'd help it along by making a brief list of these terms. The Official Guide to Commonly Misdefined Words and Phrases >Assault weapons Used by liberal morons who know nothing about guns (or anything else) to denote any gun more technologically advanced than a flintlock pistol. >Socialism Used commonly in American politics by retards all over the political spectrum to mean "anytime the government does anything." >Freedom Used by Americans to mean enslavement to the will of their tyrannical corporate government and its ridiculous, overbearing laws, just as Orwell predicted. >Insanity Used by many all over the world to describe any belief they disagree with, but America does this the most. Frequently echoed by the American psychology community because it's run entirely by political interests. >Racism Used by liberals to denote anyone who criticizes a racial minority for anything, including war crimes, unconstitutional acts and outright treason, unless said individual is either conservative or further left than liberals. >Sexism Used by liberals to denote anyone who criticizes a woman for anything, including war crimes, collusion with corporate powers to screw over the public, and rigging a primary election, unless said individual is either conservative or further left than liberals. Also applies to any man who's been put through the ringer by unfair divorce laws. >Homophobia See above two entries and replace all instances of anything having to do with race or gender with sexual orientation. >Objectification Finding anyone more attractive than fat, ugly feminists. >Consent Something which does not exist in any circumstance, ever. If it ever did exist, it can be revoked even after the act to which consent applies has occurred, or if the person is baselessly declaring themselves qualified to determine that someone else's legitimately given, fully informed consent wasn't legitimate. For an example of this, read the next entry. >Pedophilia Used by aging, constantly offended American feminist whores out of sheer jealousy of the harmless, healthy sexual attention given by adult males to teenage girls in their prime. Not doing so would result in every adult male who isn't a total soyboy pursuing teenage girls instead of used up adult hags. >Science Whatever the pseudointellectual, politicized hacks in American academia's humanities departments agree with, even if their conclusions follow from defective methodology that would get any researcher in a STEM field laughed out of their discipline. >Pseudoscience Legitimate science that liberals don't like. >Morality Used by many to posture. Frequently invoked as a justification to take away someone else's rights on the basis of it being "what's best for them", or preventing "degeneracy." Asking the user to produce details of how they arrived at their moral beliefs will usually result in a hostile response because no such details exist. >Terrorism Anything that causes major American corporations to make less money. >Undemocratic Used by the American press to denote any instance in which a democratic country votes for political leaders who refuse to sell their entire country to American corporations. >Political incorrectness Pro-establishment political beliefs dressed up with edgier marketing. >Censorship One of the few words on this list that's had its definition narrowed instead of expanded. This is entirely purposeful, because it commonly involves excluding politically powerful groups' favorite methods of silencing dissent, such as having all media owned by private corporations who collude to present a certain narrative.

>>5954 This is hauntingly accurate

>>5955 Its funny you say that because his post and the ones he makes after once somebody disagrees with him are going to be, pardon my language, insane.

>>5954 Absolute spookbuster, I applaud you. But... >Political incorrectness >Pro-establishment political beliefs dressed up with edgier marketing. Care to elaborate on this? I don't think race realism, ethno-nationalism, and "diversity + proximity = conflict" are establishment positions, since those thoughts reject the notion that all people are equal blank slates ready to be formed into perfect materialist consumers by the megacapitalists.

>>5960 you have entirely misunderstood stirner if you think that post is anything but spooks in a different set of clothing

>>5960 Racial strife does nothing to fix any of the system's problems. It's a divide-and-conquer tactic designed by the elites to get you to expend time and effort on a distraction. It's true that stereotypes exist for a reason, but if you write off an entire group of people based only on race, you may be depriving yourself of good friends and vital assistance.

>>5964 You're right, and I was once that way when I was younger, but I grew out of plain supremacy a long time ago. Ethnostates are essential but that doesn't mean different ethnic groups shouldn't work together to demolish this wicked consumerist system once and for all, so that we could preserve an ethnopluralist Earth. But ethnopluralism is considered politically incorrect by the establishment as well. So that's why I was baffled by your first post.

>>5954 >>Pseudoscience >Legitimate science that liberals don't like. What pseudoscience do you have in mind specifically? I've always though of most pseudoscience as "hippy soykaf", and therefore generally liberal.

>>5967 Almost everything in American economics, psychology and political science. American economics departments put out nothing but corporate propaganda, American psychology departments use highly suspect methods which result in a slew of irreplicable studies overwhelmingly aimed at providing political support for government initiatives to ban anything they find offensive or inconvenient to their goal of total domination, and political science pretty much speaks for itself. All of the above fields are controlled by liberals, and all of them have extensively employed censorship to silence those who prove their garbage wrong. Other ideologies besides liberalism have also been guilty of censorship, but America academia and American media are entirely owned by them, so they're the main source of censorship at present.

>>5959 Mind giving some specifics as to this? I always hear people call other people stupid, insane or both and then refuse to provide any sort of detail as to why this might be the case, only saying that anyone who isn't stupid or insane would already know. This is of course because they have no details or actual reasons.

>>5979 insane to me is somebody who has fundamentally lost touch with reality and other humans, and the only things they think about are thoughts and abstractions. a lack of self awareness about how other people might perceive them, not because of their ideas themselves but in the way they present them. Tends to think they are right not on the basis of experience but simply because they have thought more about it. A mental masturbation of sorts is how I like to think of it. No questioning beyond self questioning which will always still be done with your own fundamental beliefs as the foundation. But then again, these are all things that would happen too if you fundamentally see the internet as more real then society. I strongly disagree with this view but a friend who I think is very wise sees them as just two different realities. I think they are completely incompatible, I think you should change how you think and that you probably are too stuck in your head, making and seeing problems and judgements that are all just indicative of your problem in how you see the world, not a problem with the world. But same could be said for anyone. this is a stupid post because im trying to somehow change or control how you think even though I know full well I cant do that and its also not my place. Thankfully ive never managed to change anyones mind online. Im making a fuarrrk ton of assumptions about you primarily because this is a small board, i apparently have a good memory for inane soykaf, and im so positive that ive seen other posts by you just because of how you type and your beliefs that I feel 100% justified in assuming these other posts were also yours.

>>5981 Well, there aren't that many people on this board, so it's possible that whoever you saw was me, but I'm not the only one here or elsewhere who's tired of words' meaning being changed whenever it's politically convenient for the ruling powers, or for retards in the general public bent on enforcing their personal views on everyone else. If people like that perceive me negatively, that's perfectly fine, because they're retarded and their opinions don't matter. I've had enough experience with the world to be able to tell when certain people aren't worth interacting with, and to have subjected my beliefs to rigorous empirical testing and retesting to ensure consistency both with each other and with reality as science sees it. Meanwhile, the rest of the society that you're claiming doesn't have a problem relies exclusively on hysteria to support all their retardation. What is there to be gained by being more considerate of those people, or by seeing them as more "real" as you put it?

>>5954 >Censorship Excellent example. How many times have you seen this rebuttal: >That isn't censorship! Your first amendment right to free speech only applies if the state literally writes a law preventing you from speaking. This convenient strawman person would have falsely equated "censorship" with "state censorship". I actually see this confusion much more often than the confusion it ostensibly tries to correct (by pointing out that the first amendment only protects you from state censorship, not censorship by private individuals or groups). Lost in the argument is the fact that you can be a "free speech fundamentalist" who believes that we as a culture should resist any attempts to stifle open communication.

>>5986 >How many times have you seen this rebuttal: So, so, so many. Like Jesus, you don't even know, man. And it's always used by people who support mainstream beliefs and are trying to stop anyone from challenging them. They know that public discussion goes through privately owned media, so if they can have a monopoly (or an oligopoly) on the media, they can stifle all dissent without getting the government to write any laws, so it's the same situation as if they did just that. I've been hearing this soykaf since 2004 or so and holy fuarrrk I'm tired of it. This is probably the number one thing that convinced me to hate liberals, because almost every single person I've ever seen saying that has been a liberal. At least when Twitter tankies and far-right ultra-fascists want to censor you they just do it outright instead of pretending not to be censoring you. Only liberals are twisted enough to actually try to change the definition of censorship. It's sickening.

>>5985 Well il just say that nobody who says things like "Ive never seen a good argument against me" or assumes people who disagree are sheep has ever changed their mind about anything. I dont know what you mean by to be gained, Theres nothing to be gained by your view either really besides a feeling of superiority. Like anything I would tell you to be gained you would extrapolate to some brainwashing thing.

>>5985 Words do not have set, unchanging meanings. Language is an invented thing that is shaped by the world around it and as the world changes faster so too language. Getting mad at this fact of life is like getting mad at the tide.

>>5999 I've changed my mind about many things, but there are a few that I never have, because I've never heard a good argument against those positions. Of course, the morons who try to sway me don't even know how dumb their arguments are. They spend a few semesters doing gender studies crap and suddenly think they're God's gift to academia, and these are the people in charge of the fields mentioned in >>5978, as well as the media.

>>6010 its my opinion people don't often argue to test the other person but to test their own ideas and reaffirm they are right. Its more to change others minds watching if anything. If they "lose" which is something il get to in a second they simply can now better argue that idea the next time. The thing is though I personally can't remember ever having a time where I lost an internet argument, nor where the other person lost either with regards to societal or philosophical issues. It just gets to a point where someone has to give up. The amount of arguments you win on an imageboard isn't based on how right you are rather how much time and energy you are willing to spend and how invested you are. This isn't some kind of attack at you I just think its true. I usually visit this board now for an hour every other day and sometimes I leave for a few weeks so I don't have the ability to argue with you, but I used to. Say we did argue it would come down to some statistic for example and id say you are interpreting it wrong and not taking other factors into consideration or over simplifying the world to numbers and you would say how can you interpret it wrong it is a statistic its a fact that this is true and I would think you are an overly analytical person who cant get big pictures and youd think im grasping at straws to try and change facts and wed both hate eachother and walk away. Just an example maybe you dont see it that way. Or it might come down to some core philosophy where we both think we understand why the other person thinks what they think. I originally saw you as an earlier version of me and thought how stupid cause maybe 4 years ago I was getting into the alt right stuff hard but it wasn't alt right yet just fringe right, conspiracy theories, etc. So i'm not calling you alt right im just saying thats what society would call it. But obviously thats false, you arent an earlier version of me and even if you were I didn't evolve or something I just changed. My beliefs arent more valid now. Some of my friends who were still very much in this "alt right" kind of community didn't change and just thought I had become "brainwashed". So it obviously comes down to who you are as a person, not how much you think or how right you are. This is something I am trying to pitch to you. I think I cant change what you think about societies problems, thats just your truth. But if I can id change how you see other people. These problems are impossibly complex, its like one neuron trying to understand the whole brain. An individual trying to understand societal constructs, whats good for society, whats bad. So the fact that I can look at you and think god what an idiot, and you can look at me and think that exact same thing, in my opinion that means something. The difference in our brains isnt big enough in the grand scheme of things for you to just be right on some merit of having better processing. And this isnt just you and me obviously so many people would say "your wrong im right" to either of us. So many people who have looked into this information just as much, and still in the end wont come to an agreement and think the other side clearly lost. To me this is proof there isnt a correct way to think, and rather its just such a difficult problem (or in my opinion isnt a problem at all but we are bored) that no right answer can be found. Maybe that seems obvious, but if it was I dont think you would see say a group such as "liberals" as all idiots and sheep. You might understand you arent very compatible, that something fundamental to their nature brought them to their life perspective, but there wouldnt be all this aggression I guess and putting down. hopefully this doesnt sound too preachy. Possibly the most fundamental thing I disagree with you on is your view of women, and I can provide you reasons but I could also say its because I had a single mother and always made better friends with girls then guys. Most of our beliefs I think are just abstractions built off things fundamental to our nature or how we were raised.

>>6025 >Say we did argue it would come down to some statistic for example and id say you are interpreting it wrong and not taking other factors into consideration I've told other people exactly this on many issues before, usually when they're blaming something I approve of for some imagined crisis and using statistics that don't take the principle of "correlation doesn't equal causation" into account. It never seems to get through to them. >So i'm not calling you alt right im just saying thats what society would call it. Society is full of total fuarrrking retards. Many of my beliefs would be considered left-wing by most, but the feminist soykaf has got to go, and I'm not giving up my guns for them or anyone else. >that something fundamental to their nature brought them to their life perspective You mean stupidity and/or self-interest?

>>6028 No I do not mean stupidity, possibly self interest but I don't see how anything you'd argue wouldn't be self interested either. You present as somebody that hates society and thinks most people are stupid (At least half probably right, at least) but are arguing for what these people should do. Its not much different fron say a rich person, assuming they genuinelly care, trying to argue what the poor should do to elevate their condition. You can't seperate yourself as different from most people but then pretend to know what these people need, you don't because you dob't share their values. You said right there "I'm not giving up my guns". Not "People shouldn't have to give up their guns". Call it semantics but I think it shows an underlying self interest. As we all do.

it's not a product of modern society. you're just aging op and you're seeing things change more. other political terms were fissile centuries ago.

>>6031 >but are arguing for what these people should do. They should just get out of the way and stop trying to control everyone else.

>>6040 >They should just get out of the way and stop trying to control everyone else. This statement attempts to control everyone else's ability to do something.

>>6042 >stopping retards from exercising totalitarian power over people's personal lives is the same as exercising totalitarian power over people's personal lives

>>6055 How do you plan on stopping them?

>>6055 >>6040 Im only first person you responded to but I dont disagree however that was an example and not my main point but im sure you know that and im going to just assume you think im wrong about everything I said.