Oh, what lovely sentiments -- who could possibly disagree?! Well nobody -- thirty years ago. But language is always evolving, isn't it. For example, the word "gay" used to mean mindlessly happy and bright. Now it doesn't even IMPLY anything about behaviour or state of mind -- it simply means homosexual.
George Orwell didn't exactly introduce the concept that language can be deliberately altered to confuse or control the listener, but never mind that he pinched the plot of "Nineteen Eighty Four" from Yevgeny Zamyatin's "We" (https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2009/jun/08/george-orwell-1984-zamyatin-we) -- Orwell's book is still a terrifyingly prescient masterpiece. In it, a behind-the-scenes totalitarian leader known as Big Brother invents a new official language called Newspeak, which is intended to completely replace Oldspeak (Standard English). And the present situation in real life recalls "Nineteen Eighty Four" (& "We") in that, as in too many other ways.
For example, in the real life version of Oldspeak, "kindness" meant exactly what is described in the halfling's post. Kindness was unreservedly good. But in our current version of Newspeak, 'kindness' has a quite different meaning.
* In Newspeak, 'kindness' means repeatedly locking down entire countries on the basis of a test producing mostly false positives, which shows that apparently healthy people are actually infected with a supposedly terribly dangerous virus (which was actually never any worse than a bad flu).
* In Newspeak, 'kindness' means enjoining people not to speak to their neighbours during these lockdowns -- and indeed to dob in said neighbours to the police if you see them disobeying orders not to congregate.
* In Newspeak, 'kindness' means wearing a surgical mask, which was always known to have zero effect on transmission of viruses and to enforce the rebreathing of so much carbon dioxide that prolonged use causes cognitive dysfunction.
*In Newspeak, 'kindness' means forcing people, on pain of losing their livelihood, to accept repeated injections an untested "vaccine" (another Oldspeak word that has been morphed by the WHO in repeated tiny steps to a Newspeak meaning which has almost nothing in common with the Oldspeak one).
*In Newspeak, 'kindness' means repeatedly assuring everyone that this 'vaccine' [or in Oldspeak, "untested gene therapy inoculation"] is 'safe and effective', when actually the stuff observably kills or maims just enough of its recipients so that some people still refuse to believe it was the cause of their loved one's ill health or death.
We know that this is what 'kindness' means in our current version of Newspeak, because our ex Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern repeatedly used the word to justify actions which in Oldspeak could only be described as draconian, totalitarian and (I don't use this word lightly) evil.
In short, I totally agree with the essence of what you say in your post, Halfling -- except that I think it's important these days to completely avoid the word "kind". That word now means something so different that it might make people wonder if you're actually on Big Sister's side ....
This got me thinking, and questioning. In the matter of respect, my position is to respect the potential for humanity in any individual, but if they harm others, to abhor that and reject their choices. What does respect for someone's existence really mean? How does that apply to well-known figures who behaved in very evil ways..... the usual suspects, Hitler, Stalin...... here in NZ the Christchurch terrorist? Hard to summon any kind of respect for their existence.
And "be kind"! Surely this has taken on a very vexed status, given its recent elevation to a more-or-less diktat in the Ardern government, and on into the Hipkins era? Jacinda's mantra "Be kind" came to mean "dont say or do anything not officially sanctioned, and if you do so you are hateful and should be punished". I'd say that the desire to impose hate speech laws, and things like the Disinformation Project grew directly out this position.
As I said to Mike - the article appeared originally in 2013 and some of the language may be differently nuanced 11 years later.
On the matter of ‘hate speech’ a well known emeritus professor and regular media go to guy once said at a Conference I attended “hate speech is speech I hate to hear”.
I was aware that the article was written in 2013, and that was all I could respond to. I'd be interested to hear your differently nuanced take on it now. Another article perhaps?
Sadly in NZ the "Be kind to one another" exhortation of the covid years will forever be tainted by how unkind subsequent actions showed the hollowness at the core of the "diktat". I almost don't dare to say to anyone "Try a little kindness" a la Glen Campbell for fear of being tarred by the Ardern brush.
Problem of course is what is 'kindness'? Jacinda Ardern had her version of it, and that's not mine. Possibly the worst mistake we can make is to patronise and worsen the condition of someone else by being 'kind'. But of course we mustn't be 'judgemental' ....
Hi Mike - thanks for the comment. The article and the episode that inspired it happened in 2013 before Jacinda made the word a “thing”. Respect may be another word, perhaps.
This article certainly resonated with me...I see it all the time. People being intolerant of how others think and criticizing them. Insecure in themselves? I try to put myself in the other person's position and although I may not agree with their opinion I often can understand where they are coming from. We are all here on this earth together so try to make it work; no one listens to an angry man and with what is facing mankind today we need to march forward together and not be divided. It doesn't cost anything to smile at someone or show some understanding, kindness or just listen. It is free.
If Covid taught us anything, it is that nobody owes anybody any respect. People are still free to show respect if they want to, but to add certainty, people need to earn respect, the old-fashioned way.
I recall at a sentencing over which I presided where not much could be said for the prisoner, counsel, her back to the wall, advanced the argument that there is good in all of us and that we are all of some worth. Something worth recalling when the chips are down and which gave me cause for pause.
But I agree that trust - rather than respect - has to be earned
Oh, what lovely sentiments -- who could possibly disagree?! Well nobody -- thirty years ago. But language is always evolving, isn't it. For example, the word "gay" used to mean mindlessly happy and bright. Now it doesn't even IMPLY anything about behaviour or state of mind -- it simply means homosexual.
George Orwell didn't exactly introduce the concept that language can be deliberately altered to confuse or control the listener, but never mind that he pinched the plot of "Nineteen Eighty Four" from Yevgeny Zamyatin's "We" (https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2009/jun/08/george-orwell-1984-zamyatin-we) -- Orwell's book is still a terrifyingly prescient masterpiece. In it, a behind-the-scenes totalitarian leader known as Big Brother invents a new official language called Newspeak, which is intended to completely replace Oldspeak (Standard English). And the present situation in real life recalls "Nineteen Eighty Four" (& "We") in that, as in too many other ways.
For example, in the real life version of Oldspeak, "kindness" meant exactly what is described in the halfling's post. Kindness was unreservedly good. But in our current version of Newspeak, 'kindness' has a quite different meaning.
* In Newspeak, 'kindness' means repeatedly locking down entire countries on the basis of a test producing mostly false positives, which shows that apparently healthy people are actually infected with a supposedly terribly dangerous virus (which was actually never any worse than a bad flu).
* In Newspeak, 'kindness' means enjoining people not to speak to their neighbours during these lockdowns -- and indeed to dob in said neighbours to the police if you see them disobeying orders not to congregate.
* In Newspeak, 'kindness' means wearing a surgical mask, which was always known to have zero effect on transmission of viruses and to enforce the rebreathing of so much carbon dioxide that prolonged use causes cognitive dysfunction.
*In Newspeak, 'kindness' means forcing people, on pain of losing their livelihood, to accept repeated injections an untested "vaccine" (another Oldspeak word that has been morphed by the WHO in repeated tiny steps to a Newspeak meaning which has almost nothing in common with the Oldspeak one).
*In Newspeak, 'kindness' means repeatedly assuring everyone that this 'vaccine' [or in Oldspeak, "untested gene therapy inoculation"] is 'safe and effective', when actually the stuff observably kills or maims just enough of its recipients so that some people still refuse to believe it was the cause of their loved one's ill health or death.
We know that this is what 'kindness' means in our current version of Newspeak, because our ex Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern repeatedly used the word to justify actions which in Oldspeak could only be described as draconian, totalitarian and (I don't use this word lightly) evil.
In short, I totally agree with the essence of what you say in your post, Halfling -- except that I think it's important these days to completely avoid the word "kind". That word now means something so different that it might make people wonder if you're actually on Big Sister's side ....
This got me thinking, and questioning. In the matter of respect, my position is to respect the potential for humanity in any individual, but if they harm others, to abhor that and reject their choices. What does respect for someone's existence really mean? How does that apply to well-known figures who behaved in very evil ways..... the usual suspects, Hitler, Stalin...... here in NZ the Christchurch terrorist? Hard to summon any kind of respect for their existence.
And "be kind"! Surely this has taken on a very vexed status, given its recent elevation to a more-or-less diktat in the Ardern government, and on into the Hipkins era? Jacinda's mantra "Be kind" came to mean "dont say or do anything not officially sanctioned, and if you do so you are hateful and should be punished". I'd say that the desire to impose hate speech laws, and things like the Disinformation Project grew directly out this position.
As I said to Mike - the article appeared originally in 2013 and some of the language may be differently nuanced 11 years later.
On the matter of ‘hate speech’ a well known emeritus professor and regular media go to guy once said at a Conference I attended “hate speech is speech I hate to hear”.
Spot on about the hate speech comment.
I was aware that the article was written in 2013, and that was all I could respond to. I'd be interested to hear your differently nuanced take on it now. Another article perhaps?
Apart from changing a few words here and there I hold to what I wrote earlier, despite the linguistic analysis from another commentator.
Sadly in NZ the "Be kind to one another" exhortation of the covid years will forever be tainted by how unkind subsequent actions showed the hollowness at the core of the "diktat". I almost don't dare to say to anyone "Try a little kindness" a la Glen Campbell for fear of being tarred by the Ardern brush.
I know and it is a great shame that she managed to taint language along with so much else.
Problem of course is what is 'kindness'? Jacinda Ardern had her version of it, and that's not mine. Possibly the worst mistake we can make is to patronise and worsen the condition of someone else by being 'kind'. But of course we mustn't be 'judgemental' ....
Hi Mike - thanks for the comment. The article and the episode that inspired it happened in 2013 before Jacinda made the word a “thing”. Respect may be another word, perhaps.
This article certainly resonated with me...I see it all the time. People being intolerant of how others think and criticizing them. Insecure in themselves? I try to put myself in the other person's position and although I may not agree with their opinion I often can understand where they are coming from. We are all here on this earth together so try to make it work; no one listens to an angry man and with what is facing mankind today we need to march forward together and not be divided. It doesn't cost anything to smile at someone or show some understanding, kindness or just listen. It is free.
If Covid taught us anything, it is that nobody owes anybody any respect. People are still free to show respect if they want to, but to add certainty, people need to earn respect, the old-fashioned way.
I recall at a sentencing over which I presided where not much could be said for the prisoner, counsel, her back to the wall, advanced the argument that there is good in all of us and that we are all of some worth. Something worth recalling when the chips are down and which gave me cause for pause.
But I agree that trust - rather than respect - has to be earned