Should the terms squatter, striker and deserter be banned?

[marieltrokan]

To clarify on striker: I'm not being anti-the rights of people to strike, I'm anti the need of anyone to strike - which is to say that civilisation is wrong to exist such that people need to form unions.

Housing, healthcare, education and food and beverages should all be free, able to be free because people make the effort to build the correct foundation.

[Delta1212]

The world should be different, but it isn't, and I'm not sure how banning words is going to improve it any.

[marieltrokan]

Thanks for replying. Why do you feel that way?

[Delta1212]

What exactly would banning those words accomplish?

[marieltrokan]

The reality isn't to ban, but just if some political leader said in public that the world should exist without such words - and then the world makes the effort to exist without needing such words.

[Velocity_Boy]

To clarify on striker: I'm not being anti-the rights of people to strike, I'm anti the need of anyone to strike - which is to say that civilisation is wrong to exist such that people need to form unions.

Housing, healthcare, education and food and beverages should all be free, able to be free because people make the effort to build the correct foundation.

Basically it sounds like you are an Uber socialist.

 

And a very naive one.

 

And also not very well educated in the areas of economics. Or politics, for that matter.

 

If you were the tiny bit savvy in either of those areas you would not the world you propose, with free everything, is basically impossible. A utopian fairy tale.

 

You even make Bernie Sanders look conservative! And that's no mean feat.

 

Congrats on that I guess.

[marieltrokan]

I don't believe in either economics or politics. And why should a belief in free housing, free healthcare and food and beverage and education mean not being educated in politics or economics?

 

I believe that all life forms on Earth should be individually known as the Universe.

Edited June 12, 2016 by marieltrokan

[Raider5678]

I don't believe in either economics or politics. And why should a belief in free housing, free healthcare and food and beverage and education mean not being educated in politics or economics?

 

I believe that all life forms on Earth should be individually known as the Universe.

Ok..... Now think about this. If everything was free would you still work? Or would you just provided for your family and live life happy go lucky?

[CharonY]

Actually, limited studies on universal income (including a Canadian in the 70s,) have shown only a small drop in work effort. Apparently people actually do like to work. However, it is likely that people are less interested in boring work. For example, some opted to go to school, instead of keeping low-wage jobs. But this is the area where automation could be a boon.

[Delta1212]

I was unemployed for about a year. Even aside from the money issue, I'm much happier when I'm working. I'd probably make a few adjustments to what exactly I was doing if financial considerations for covering basic necessities was no longer a concern, but I'm fairly confident I'd keep working even if I didn't need to in order to survive.

 

I know some people who wouldn't, of course, and while I like a good vacation where I can lounge the whole time as a nice break, the thought of doing that 24/7 is profoundly unappealing, even if I had the option to do so.

[iNow]

Now think about this. If everything was free would you still work?

Yes, as would most people. When tested in real-life:

the data seem to show that the biggest concern — that everyone would just quit their jobs — did not happen

(snip)

In general, the finding was that primary earners really don’t reduce the number of hours they work very much when you offer a guaranteed annual income. It’s secondary earners and tertiary earners — that is, second adult incomes and the incomes of adolescents that fall a little bit.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/

[marieltrokan]

Thanks to all who have so far commented. Naturally, ending the use of such words would mean ending nations too, and the economy insofar as being about status - so no more grading and downgrading from the IMF.

 

Remember: people who lived 1,000 years ago would've had these exact sorts of discussion, so the world should exist so that no one 1,000 years from now has to think that what they're currently talking about was mirrored today.

Edited June 13, 2016 by marieltrokan

[iNow]

Replace the word "banned" with words like "shunned" or "ostracized" or even "rejected" and I can get onboard, but as currently formulated in the OP I'm a firm no. It's too fascist and unattainable for my taste.

[marieltrokan]

I agree. Political leaders should say in public that people shouldn't use the words - but more importantly exist so that the words aren't needed.

[iNow]

Yes, as would most people. When tested in real-life:

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/

More here:

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/20/why-dont-we-have-universal-basic-income?mbid=rss

The goal of the project, called Mincome, was to see what happened. Did people stop working? Did poor people spend foolishly and stay in poverty? But, after a Conservative government ended the project, in 1979, Mincome was buried. Decades later, Evelyn Forget, an economist at the University of Manitoba, dug up the numbers. And what she found was that life in Dauphin improved markedly. Hospitalization rates fell. More teen-agers stayed in school. And researchers who looked at Mincome’s impact on work rates discovered that they had barely dropped at all. The program had worked about as well as anyone could have hoped.

(snip)

Critics of the U.B.I. argue that handing people cash, instead of targeted aid (like food stamps), means that much of the money will be wasted, and that a basic income will take away the incentive to work, lowering G.D.P. and giving us a nation of lazy, demoralized people. But the example of the many direct-cash-grant programs in the developing world suggests that, as the Columbia economist Chris Blattman puts it, “the poor do not waste grants.” As for the work question, most of the basic-income experiments suggest that the disincentive effect wouldn’t be large; in Manitoba, working hours for men dropped by just one per cent. It’s certainly true that the U.B.I. would make it easier for people to think twice about taking unrewarding jobs. But that’s a good consequence, not a bad one.

[Sensei]

The reality isn't to ban, but just if some political leader said in public that the world should exist without such words - and then the world makes the effort to exist without needing such words.

You're seriously overestimating the power of "politician leaders"...

Edited June 13, 2016 by Sensei

[Greg H.]

These words have no power. We give them this power by refusing to be free and easy with them. We give them great power over us. They really, in themselves, have no power. It's the thrust of the sentence that makes them either good or bad. -- George Carlin

 

Words are just that - words. Many have very precise meanings that have become blurred over time and are thus rejected because of the new, more fuzzy meaning (e.g. retard/moron), Similarly, there are words that have fallen into disuse just because they sound like another word people don't like (e.g. niggardly). But these words only have the power to offend us because we allow them to have that power. And by grating them this power, we allow them to steal our language.

 

On the subject of the word retard, for exmample,

 

The terms used for this condition are subject to a process called the euphemism treadmill. This means that whatever term is chosen for this condition, it eventually becomes perceived as an insult. The terms mental retardation and mentally retarded were invented in the middle of the 20th century to replace the previous set of terms, which were deemed to have become offensive. By the end of the 20th century, these terms themselves have come to be widely seen as disparaging, politically incorrect, and in need of replacement.^%5B7%5D The term intellectual disability is now preferred by most advocates and researchers in most English-speaking countries.^{%5B3%5D%5B4%5D} As of 2015, the term "mental retardation" is still used by the World Health Organization in the ICD-10 codes, which have a section titled "Mental Retardation" (codes F70–F79). In the next revision, the ICD-11 is expected to replace the term mental retardation with either intellectual disability or intellectual developmental disorder, which the DSM-5 already uses.^{%5B8%5D%5B9%5D} Because of its specificity and lack of confusion with other conditions, the term "mental retardation" is still sometimes used in professional medical settings around the world, such as formal scientific research and health insurance paperwork.

 

Where does it end?

Edited June 13, 2016 by Greg H.

[imatfaal]

 

...

 

Where does it end?

 

Why does it need to end? I have no problem with choosing new words when the use of old words has - completely naturally - become offensive. Would we really prefer to risk offence and demeaning others purely to preserve a language which we know changes fluidly and without pause anyway - it does not matter if my use of a term has no intention whatsoever to hurt someone, if it does hurt them then I am happy to paraphrase and reparaphrase

[Velocity_Boy]

I don't believe in either economics or politics. And why should a belief in free housing, free healthcare and food and beverage and education mean not being educated in politics or economics?

 

I believe that all life forms on Earth should be individually known as the Universe.

 

 

Whether or not you believe in economics or politics matters little in the real world. They are inescapable, unless you go totally off the grid and live in a commune or a cave or some other sort of existence totally removed from society.

 

And you would have to be self-supporting, self-sustaining out there as well if you wish to be truly free of politics and the economy, since, even if you lived out in the boonies and had to go into town once a month for supplies, well, the prices and availability of those commodities ARE determined by economics, which in turn can be influenced--and often is--by politics and the legislation that is passed or is not passed as part of that discipline.

 

And anyway, you DO believe in economics and politics anyway! LOL. Socialism IS a form of both, and the sort of world you are envisioning, or say you prefer, IS an ethos in both those areas.

 

A usually non-viable ethos, but still an ethos.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks.

 

VB

[Delta1212]

 

 

Whether or not you believe in economics or politics matters little in the real world. They are inescapable, unless you go totally off the grid and live in a commune or a cave or some other sort of existence totally removed from society.

 

And you would have to be self-supporting, self-sustaining out there as well if you wish to be truly free of politics and the economy, since, even if you lived out in the boonies and had to go into town once a month for supplies, well, the prices and availability of those commodities ARE determined by economics, which in turn can be influenced--and often is--by politics and the legislation that is passed or is not passed as part of that discipline.

 

And anyway, you DO believe in economics and politics anyway! LOL. Socialism IS a form of both, and the sort of world you are envisioning, or say you prefer, IS an ethos in both those areas.

 

A usually non-viable ethos, but still an ethos.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks.

 

VB

A commune is not an escape from politics. As soon as you have more than one person, politics come into play.

 

Unless your goals happen to be perfectly matched, but most people don't even have perfectly matched goals with the person they were yesterday let alone anyone else, especially over time.

[John Cuthber]

To clarify on striker: I'm not being anti-the rights of people to strike, I'm anti the need of anyone to strike - which is to say that civilisation is wrong to exist such that people need to form unions.

Housing, healthcare, education and food and beverages should all be free, able to be free because people make the effort to build the correct foundation.

Have you read Orwell's 1984?

Their dystopian society suppresses opposition by removing the words needed to express that dissatisfaction.

As a result I think your suggestion is double plus crimethink.

[marieltrokan]

I'm expressing dissatisfaction. How can I express dissatisfaction without communicating? I'm against the Brexit campaign, but if they didn't communicate they'd have no referendum.

Speaking of referendums, I have one of my own:

 

World referendum - should nations exist?

 

I believe in the principle of treating others the way I want to be treated - because I would never want others to refer to me as a squatter, I'll never use the word.

Edited June 13, 2016 by marieltrokan

[Strange]

I believe in the principle of treating others the way I want to be treated - because I would never want others to refer to me as a squatter, I'll never use the word.

 

 

A more practical response would be not to be a squatter and encourage others not to. Avoiding the word won't stop people doing it. And then, because people do it, a new word will have to be invented.

 

No one controls language, it arises out of use to describe the world.

[marieltrokan]

My response is to just not use the word at all. And that political leaders should say in public that the world should exist so that the word isn't needed.

[Strange]

On the other hand, someone could come up with some practical solutions to the problems of homelessness. (Or maybe that is too much like hard work.)