Short Youtube.


From the opening...

'Undermining independent thought and creative approaches to the world...'

The purpose of this thread is to explore, investigate, discuss, and provide examples of such and similar processes.

War is Peace when a Democrat is President.
Freedom is Slavery when a Republican is President.
Ignorance is Strength when a Libertarian isn't a President. So, always.

You may also enjoy

That's a start, but a vague start as generalization are vague.


Freedom is slavery sounds like a state of believing and telling 'we are free', while believing and telling 'we have no choice but to compete for dominance to survive'.

Actually ignorance is still strength regardless of who is president.

Specifics. Words start to lose their meaning when you get to use phrases that make no sense like "We the People". That phrase makes no sense to me. There is no "we".

You are free to exclude yourself from you and me, but I can still see you.

Ignorance is 'unintentionally not knowing', which is slightly different from ignore-ance which is 'willfully not knowing'. Strength is knowing this.

I think this is an example of when language loses meaning:



This overlooks the simple link between language and context.

So let us pretend a raging homophobe stuck to these rules but launched a tirade in which he substituted "LGBT+" for every time he would have said "queer", does it do a single thing to lesson the effect of the tirade?

The fact is, the problem is with his intentions not his langage.

Likewise if your granny says something like

"You know, that nice queer boy from number 2 down the street", clearly this was innocuous and not an instance of hateful language.

When it comes to meaning context matters.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

You said it yourself. You see you, as in me as an individual. You don't see "we".

You can't erase my self-awareness which remains while seeing you. We remain.

One significant word which I have seen it's meaning decay over time is "safe" "safety" and synonyms of the concept.

You can find this in oil company literature about pipelines. 'The pipelines are the safest...' does not mean at all "the pipelines are actually safe". On the contrary, pipelines are an unpredictable danger.

Anywhere one finds the word 'safe' or 'safety' these days is an opportunity for skepticism. The word safe is often used to imply 'be afraid' when, in actual practice, it is states like being honest, cautious, and prepared which lead to legitimate safety. Else, one wastes energy worrying about dangers which do not exist or ignoring dangers which do exist.

What's a safe word when safe is not a safe word? Danger, be cautious.

Meant to get back to this.

That's true in small groups. The idea of citizenship came from social contracts people going on board ships had with their captain, and the rest of the people on board. This idea became an expedient justification for social contracts to exist between millions of people, which you know, we can say that we're all aware of 300+ million people all the time, but this isn't really true.

Sure it is. As true as we are all connected by the environment below our feet and above our head. It takes an act of will to knowingly take yourself out of this as far as I have been able to see.

Paul Ryan is trying to peddle artificial freedom in broad day light. Freedom isn't working because some republican-type demands it.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm getting is that "we the 300M+ people in a very precise and distinct geographical area" means about the same as "we at the dinner table during Thanksgiving". We're all aware of each other.

Well that's not right or wrong from my view now, it is yours.

It is correct I have suggested that we have a connection through the same ground beneath our feet and water in the clouds whether we are aware of it specifically or not. Before and after we can count how many are in numbers where. That's known as- co-existing. It's happening.

You seem to be asking how that works in a nation of 300 million. It's reality, it works. Here we are now with that condition as sure as we can both see a sky and stomp on the ground.

Haha, funnily it's pretty simple.

Colored People - Extremely racist and offensive
People of Color - Extremely modern and progressive

BRILLIANT

If it's no big deal, then why not just use the phrasing that doesn't offend?

Suppose a problem occurs when the word "people" is left-off or erased from the phrase colored people. Which problem is that? Not treating colored people like people.

Suppose the "ed" at the end of colored implies it is like something "given"- like a product is brand"ed".

It looks like people redefined their own identifier. Brilliantly disrupting old language grasps on their identities by supremacists.

And do note that the NAACP still uses the colored people nomenclature. Which can be wise for sake of remembering what people have made "colored people" out to mean before, to avoid doing it again and recognize it when, if, it comes around again.

From here it looks rather intelligent to keep and use both identifiers as suited for the situation, at least for sake of inspiring thinking and understanding people.

Great, next time I use the cloud filter on GIMP, I'll remember that we're all in the same ark called PLANET EARTH. All 7.5 billion of us!

ldo

Unless obvious has lost it's meaning.