Comments

  • All things Cannabis
    ↪0 thru 9
    There are important groups here who want to legalize - or at least make more flexible rules - related to Cannabis. But Spain is in a big dilemma, for the good and for the worst: the European Market. When Spain joined the EU, we accepted a lot of regulations and laws, but one of the main characteristics is the common market. We are not that "free" to regularize the market or products. It is a shame, but I am not eurosceptical. I mean, thanks to the EU, Spain entered to modernity and progress. Maybe, one day, the EU members will agree on the regulation of Cannabis. Who knows...

    A similar issue happens regarding Melatonin. I take them every night to sleep. I see it as a simple medication or dietary supplement. Yet, the European Commission only allows 1.9 milligrams for each tab/gummies. I think it is stupid and a shame...
    I am aware that in the U.S. the milligrams of Melatonin can be high on the tabs, and I know some people who buy them in the American market. It is expensive because of the shipment and all... but at least they have more milligrams in their pills/gummies!

    I think this would be another problem that will be discussed: how many milligrams are allowed for each Cannabis pill or tab? :chin:
  • All things Cannabis
    ↪Jack Cummins
    I understand that CBD or medicaments prescribed to combat MDD, takes time. I remember starting with "natural" pills made of plants. At the first time, they were effective, but later on my brain demanded more mg or just more hard pills. This is why I attended to the psychiatrist and she prescribed me "chemical" stuff, such as Bromazepam. It is effective, and I honestly think that I am, somehow, dependent on it. I have been taking those pills for the last two years and I am aware that I cannot live without them. I guess they are addictive.

    There are others that can be OK, such as "ashwagandha" or winter cherry. They help me, yes. But, it is just an accessory for Bromazepam. The latter is the one that really helps me to control my anxiety.

    I never smoked because I have a lung disease. So, this is why (furthermore, more other fundamental facts) I demand pills of Cannabis. If I already take chemical stuff, why is it a problem to take Cannabis tabs?
  • On love and madness. Losing ones mind, to find ones heart.
    ↪Jamal
    I don't want to get involved in a discussion with you. I just wanted to say that I perceive that the effort and quality we all should put in the OPs is, somehow, relative.

    Which Lounge discussion do you think should not be in the Lounge? — Jamal

    It is not up to me and my opinion will not be taken seriously by you...
  • On love and madness. Losing ones mind, to find ones heart.
    I don't understand why low-effort OPs like this one are on the main page, while others - with more substantial research - go to "The Lounge" or are deleted by the mods directly.
  • All things Cannabis
    ↪0 thru 9
    I am from Spain and I live in Madrid. I never lived in Japan haha. It is just that I love Japanese literature and stuff, but I have never been there... :sweat:

    The situation of my country is this: You can hold basic grams of Cannabis in your home. I think less than 10 Gr per bag is permitted and you can harvesting it by yourself if it is just for personal purposes. You only go to jail if it is explicit used for sale.

    Well, in overall terms, Cannabis is not allowed in Spain and police officers tend to be restrictive with all of them who possess marijuana. Again, this is when I see my state as a complete fool and hypocrite. Our public administration collect a lot of taxes thanks to alcohol and tobacco. These "products" kill a lot of people because of cancer and cirrhosis per year. Yet, the state collects a large amount of money through the taxes applied on the prices on them. If I were responsible for the management of the system, I'd legalize Cannabis by applying the same criteria to cigarettes, but for some reasons, Cannabis is still illegal in this century... Maybe the state doesn't see such plant as profitable as it should be!
  • All things Cannabis
    Cannabis-related news, personal experiences, therapies, science, speculation, laws, markets, etc. — 0 thru 9

    I'd legalize marijuana and its distribution. Two important benefits of the legalisation:

    1. The reduction of criminality. The supply of this soft drug is controlled by crime organisations, and this is why the prices tend to be high and the places where the people sell it are hidden. I personally think that everything would be easier if Cannabis would under the control of legal markets/authorities.

    2. Collection of taxes. I think the state acts as a hypocrite here. It is legal to purchase alcohol and tobacco, when these are "drugs" that kill people oftentimes. Yet, it seems that for the State or Bureaus do not care about those deaths because they win a lot of money with the supply of both alcohol and cigarettes. Why don't they manage Cannabis in the same way? I think this issue also applies to prostitution. I just do not understand why this job is forbidden...

    I tried some CBD capsules and didn't notice any effects at all. However, mine came from a health shop. It is possible that some have practically no CBD at all. That is what makes it a potential hype.

    I have read that there is current research on microdosing on cannabis and other psychedelics for depression.     — Jack Cummins

    A good point on how to manage Cannabis: struggling against depression. I also took one of those pills and I haven't perceived anything either. I guess this happens because of the low gram proportion of Cannabis.
  • Mythopoeic Thought: The root of Greek philosophy.
    Myths are almost certainly educational devices used in prehistory. Knowledge needs to be passed on somehow and narratives are a great way to do so. — I like sushi

    I agree. Good point. :up:

    Lynne Kelly will probably interest you. — I like sushi

    Thanks for commenting and your recommendation. Appreciated it.
  • Brexit
    What do you think about Gibraltar?

    Spain and the UK agreed that it is necessary to reach an agreement on this point and establish a pacific relationship in Gibraltar's post-Brexit era.

    Spain aspires to create a zone of shared prosperity with neighboring "Campo de Gibraltar". According to London, the two have agreed on the need to reach an agreement "as soon as possible."

    I do not know what your thoughts are on Gibraltar, or if you folks care at all. Yet, it is important to highlight how both democracies want to resolve this issue diplomatically. 
    That's how discrepancies should always be resolved.

    I thought Brexit would cause a strained relationship between both. But no, this didn't happen and I guess it is due to the fact that our democracies are mature.
  • Mythopoeic Thought: The root of Greek philosophy.
    ↪180 Proof
    :up:

    Kazantzakis's works can be considered as pure philosophical content, not only his amazing talent for writing novels and personalising characters! Thanks to Alkis, I discovered this author and, yes, what a good discovery. It reminds me of when I read Mishima the first time. :100:
  • Mythopoeic Thought: The root of Greek philosophy.
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    :up:

    It is okay, friend. I appreciate your effort and consideration to at least have a look into the paper. I think my enthusiasm was out of control whenever I ended my reading because I am interested in Greece as much as I am in Japan. You are right that the paper contains more aspects of literature or history than philosophy itself.  Yet, I will be reading more stuff related to this topic: Greece, Cyprus, Macedonia and the origin of the Greek lexicon. Thus, I think my knowledge will be more extensive regarding to Ancient Literature. :smile:


    In the same way, I read Kazantzakis. What a good discovery! :cool:

    Cheers!
  • Mythopoeic Thought: The root of Greek philosophy.
    @Alkis Piskas

    Hello Alkis, I have been reading interesting information on Greek philosophy and culture. I remember debating with you in this thread (and another one) the importance of Greek lexicon and different dialects.
    Whenever you want or have free time, I recommend you to read this paper: The Eponymous Archons of Athens

    Anyway, I think it is important to reopen this thread because I perceived two interesting facts on Greek philosophy: "Epic Greek dialect" and "Arcadian Greek dialect" . The author says: The Greeks believed that the Ionians had long lived where they did but that the Dorians had arrived rather late. Indeed, another Greek dialect, not shown on the map, is "Epic" Greek, the language of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Epic Greek is more like Ionic and Aeolic than the other dialects. Classical Greek culture, including philosophy, began in Ionia, whose name became the word for "Greek" in all the languages to the East,...

    Interesting! Do you agree with his opinion?

    He continues with another fact he says is important to consider regarding the root of philosophy: Even more intriguing is a dialect isolated in the heart of the Peloponnesus, Arcadian. Surrounded by Doric and Northwestern, Arcadian is nevertheless similar to Cypriot, the dialect of Greek spoken in Cyprus. This suggests that Arcadian was the original language of the south of Greece, overrun and isolated by the Doric invasion, with the Cypriots either as a now isolated outlier or as actual refugees from the West. On Cyprus the Greeks also used a unique syllabary to write their language. The Cypriots apparently have therefore preserved, uniquely, the writing system of their Mycenaean ancestors.

    When I read this paper, I thought: Were the original philosophical works written in Epic Greek or Arcadian Greek? It is sooooo interesting.

    The map of Greece that the author referred to in his paper is this:

    3w1u35y1zw8wcumg.gif
  • The Accursed Share by Georges Bataille
    Is it really possible to keep them in separate arenas? — Vera Mont

    Absolutely.

    The economy is science and politics aren't. The latter is full-filled by theories of what "should" a society works correctly. Furthermore, I guess that theorists of politics are always debating each other about the classic fight of "social classes". It is true that politics are influenced by Economics, but this is the one that goes separated and cannot be influenced by politics.

    For example: inflation or bankruptcy. These concepts that are more common that we used to think, can be fixed or analysed thanks to economists, experts of market and money fluctuations. A politician cannot make anything here. Maybe spreading some lies to collect votes, but his/her discourse will be empty. The markets work themselves, without political theories.

    Unemployment is one of the main examples too. The increase or decrease in the rate of working people depends on a lot of factors. Most of them come from economics. But, however, politicians tend to think it is due to their "political theories" when this is a terrible mistake. If your economy depends on tourism and we are in a scenario like a pandemic where all airports are locked down, your unemployment rate will experience a high ratio because of the lack of tourists. Politics has nothing to do with these facts.
  • Will Science Eventually Replace Religion?
    Again, as i said earlier, not all religions have a God. Buddhism, taoism, jainism and many more do not have a Godhead. We must not assume that religion automatically means there is a blindly followed/obeyed God. — Benj96

    Buddhism does have a God: Brahmâ

    If you do not want to call it as "God" is ok. But I disagree with the fact that they do not follow a divine deity blindly. This is the key of each religion: They understand and follow the morals and ethics of religion as a given. There is not critical thinking among them. Could you imagine a Buddhist questioning the four principles of Siddhartha?
  • Will Science Eventually Replace Religion?
    They both have different objectives and questions. Science is there to proof the evidences how the nature works, and how we interact with it. But religion interprets this as granted. I mean, religion is a seek of faith, not evidences. If the ocean is blue is due to God's aesthetics despite that science will show you otherwise with facts. Will a religious believer care of what science can or cannot say? No.
    On the other hand, both disciplines tend to confront usually. A scientific is always in continuous skepticism, but a believer believes in God blindly. It is not about replace one or another but how they repel each other. Don't expect an absorb because humans always have questions, so religion and science will be there as a candle, illuminating our uncertainty
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    “Have you ever had that feeling—that you'd like to go to a whole different place and become a whole different self?”, Haruki Murakami.
  • What is neoliberalism?
    On the other hand there’s a difference between neoliberals, who want to reduce taxes, and libertarians, who might be against tax in principle. — Jamal

    True! This is another interesting point in the debate
  • What is neoliberalism?
    ↪Jamal
    Good OP and definitions.

    What have I missed? — Jamal

    If you don't mind, I would like to include in your characteristics of neoliberalism, taxation. I think this is another important fact of "late capitalism" or nostalgic 1980's and 1990's capitalists.
    According to neoliberals, the interventionism of State through taxation should be the less possible. They stand for the fact that reducing income or firm's taxes will create more employment and then the economy will progress. So, the unemployment ratio depends on enterprises, not the state itself. If the firms assume a lot of tax pressure, it will be difficult to make money.

    Neoliberals are against taxation (or at least big proportions of) because they see them as confiscation. The current governor of Madrid is a big neoliberal and she has made what a good neoliberal will always do: reducing the taxes and spending cuts. She even once said: "Erasing the wealth tax is one the best decisions made. There are not social classes here in Madrid, and that tax is irrelevant"

    Only a good neoliberal would refuse the existence of social classes in a big city like Madrid.
  • Currently Reading
    South of the Border, West of the Sun, Haruki Murakami.

    Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and Some Contemporary Moral Problems, Victor Grassian.

    Grassian's book is interesting. He discusses moral and ethics using a variety of dilemmas where it can be analyzed different philosophical arguments.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Washington state has now banned selling assault weapons
    — KING 5 Seattle · Apr 25, 2023     — jorndoe

    Good news! Yet... I am wondering if the Supreme Court would declare that law as "unconstitutional", when the judges will experience the pressure by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE),
  • Uploading images
    ↪invicta
    You have all my respect, sir. :up:
  • Uploading images
    ↪Jamal


    @invicta is just using excuses to avoid TPF's tax. :joke:
  • Grammatical analysis help
    This is not my choice.

    It's absolutely incredible that this document is in English to begin with.     — boethius

    It is a bad praxis of public administration, indeed. Every public worker must act and communicate in the official languages of the country they are working in. This is why I thought you were the one asking for this procedure in English at first glance. It is very strange. I don't know the law of your country because I don't know where you are from, but in my country (Spain) it is illegal to make official requirements or communications in a language that the interlocutor cannot understand.
    It is true that you have English skills, BUT I personally think that the prosecutor acted with bad faith or at least with bad praxis. Can you ask your lawyer ask or inquire something related to this issue?

    So, the only explanation I can find is that it's in English for the benefit of other prosecutors, that writing in the official language with reference to the official law wouldn't make sense to people legally trained in that language — boethius

    Does the law of your country allow this kind of procedure?
  • Grammatical analysis help
    but my reading is that the statements in the middle are clearly written, at least in English, to heavily imply it is the author making the statement, and not the author reporting what I'm reporting. — boethius

    I am not a native speaker, but at least I understood the same and I guess I am following your point. The fact that a specific police department is conspiring against you.

    On the other hand, I can't understand why you want to use English in your procedure, or I am not seeing your strategy clearly. Yes, I read in one of your paragraphs that you use this language because it avoids ambiguity but it seems that it has ended up in the opposite. In addition, it is not clear to me if you are (or not) from a non-English speaker country. I am lost at this point: I mean, why you had started this procedure in English?

    On the main point of the issue: reporting crimes such as corruption or money laundering is a very serious issue. Keep in mind that in these crimes will be involved police departments, politicians, judges, prosecutors, etc... It is like opening up the Pandora box. Prepare yourself with the consequences, because all the dirty public workers will go against you.
    If I were you, I'd ask my lawyer for the possibility of getting protection because it seems (according to your OP) that they already know your name. Maybe a procedure similar to the Witness Security Program. Even your attorney has expressed not to reporting those crimes because of the dirty cops... I can only say: be careful, your life could be in danger. It is true that we all should report crimes, but... when is against the "system", the situation is complicated.
  • Uploading images
    ↪Mark Nyquist
    Pay your fees as a good contributor.
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    Whoever is called a great minister,
    when he finds that he cannot morally serve his prince, he resigns.     — Confucius, Analects: 9817
  • Right-sized Government
    How would you determine the right size? By population? — Vera Mont

    I think every state in the world uses this method. This is due to the main cause of a "democratic representative", thus the fact that we all are "represented" in the number of seats. I guess it is the fairest system. A government is big or small depending in the number of the population, because that's how the seats will be represented in the institutions.

    What is the optimal scope and power and responsibility for an effective government? — Vera Mont

    It is not about power but authority. Power can lead to corruption and breaking the law. A government with solid authorities has effectiveness. There are tons of examples regarding this issue, but where we can see it clearly is the way each state faced the Covid pandemic. In my humble opinion, Australia and the Aussie government were the most effective in this problem. They did not hesitate to block the frontiers and protect the citizens. The decisions were taken uniformly by all the governors, so here is a good example of effectiveness in a state. They are far away from bureaucracy.
  • Unjustified Skepticism
    I think I'm trying to say that language is not just for communicating data, but is critical to nearly everything about the way we live, because we are social animals. That brings a weakness, that it is possible to deceive us. But, in my book at least, that doesn't justify radical scepticism. — Ludwig V

    I agree. :up:

    Neutral data is very rare. — Ludwig V

    Maybe we can consider "neutral data" the International System of Units, for example. I guess using the metric system in communication cannot be affected by subjective thoughts or connotations. They are objective. For example, if I say: 1 metre equals 1000 mm. This is pure neutral data, because it is proven by maths.
  • Unjustified Skepticism
    Lies do not undermine the system because they can be detected. — Andrew4Handel

    How? Lies tend to be detected when the receiver already received the message, so an empirical analysis cannot be applied ex ante.

    When someone tells the truth and gives us information they prove that language transmits facts somehow. — Andrew4Handel

    I see the opposite. Words transmit facts, it is a given. But these facts are separated from "truth" or "false" because this is a subjective bias as I said previously. Our language has intrinsic information, but we manipulate it, to convince others with "truths" or "lies".
  • Unjustified Skepticism
    It is clear to me that language works. — Andrew4Handel
    I think once we accept that language transmits facts we have a basis for knowledge, a foundation for theorising etc and for some self confidence. — Andrew4Handel

    I agree.

    I do think this relies on empirical evidence so we don't need to believe everything a person says. — Andrew4Handel

    I do not agree.

    It is not possible to establish a communication with objective facts. From your OP, I highlight the importance of understanding the rules of a language: syntaxes, grammar, lexicon, etc...
    If I read a sign that says: "I live in the house with red door, a cherry tree in the garden and worn sign with a 12 on the door," I am receiving a pure objective information.

    But, If I am receiving that data from someone, there can be a lot of subjectivity and connotation bias. I mean, the words do exist themselves, yes. Yet, we can make a twisted use of them and lie to others. So, I see the opposite of your point: we have to believe others to make decisions and keep up the communication.
  • Where Philosophy Went Wrong
    "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." ~Beckett — 180 Proof

    :up:
  • Philosophy of Law; Legislation, Access to Just Remedy, Application of Rights, Legal deliberation.
    I'm not aware of a philosophy of law (e.g. property) that does not presuppose a political philosophy (e.g. republicanism). Are you? — 180 Proof

    Good point.

    I have two examples where philosophy of law does not presuppose a political philosophy:

    Nationality. Everyone, since we born, have a nationality. This right is respected and guaranteed worldwide because it is attached to human's existence. It doesn't depend on the fluctuations of political conflicts or changes. For example: I am Spanish and I will be until my death, unless I decide to switch it for other different. Even if a dictatorship decides to "remove" my nationality (I think this is impossible since I was born in Spanish territory...), I will be stateless, a special condition, similar to the nationality itself.

    Lex rei sitae. Thus, every real estate is ruled by the law of the place where it is located. None government can change this. 
  • Philosophy of Law; Legislation, Access to Just Remedy, Application of Rights, Legal deliberation.
    ↪180 Proof
    I see your point, 180 proof.

    But here is where I disagree:
    just as legal theory (or law-making) is subordinate to – dependent upon – political science (or politics). — 180 Proof

    It is true that the law's approval depends on Congress and Senate. But this fact doesn't mean that "political science" is above the interpretation of law.
    I see Philosophy of Law as sui generis. The unique organ responsible for the interpretation of laws is the Supreme Court, not the politicians. The judges interpret both natural and positive law, not politics. Maybe inside public laws is hardly to see, but in private laws or regulations is more clear. If you and I celebrate an agreement of the leasing (for example), the interpretation of duties, payments, obligations, etc... depends on the Philosophy of Law.

    We can use a lot of examples which come from Roman law, such as "Quod Nullum est, nullum effectum producit"; "Salva rerum substantia"; "Cessio pro solvendo" etc... all of those, at least, I see them as clear examples of Philosophy of Law.
  • Philosophy of Law; Legislation, Access to Just Remedy, Application of Rights, Legal deliberation.
    No. Tne philosophy of law is just plumbing in the fortress of political philosophy. — 180 Proof

    I disagree.

    Philosophy of law is the principal cause that regulates the relationship between the citizens of a state. Both privately (mortgages, agreements, wills, "pacta sunt servanda", etc ...) and publicly (the regulation of taxes, nationality, rights of immigrants and refugees,  constitution...)

    The real issue in this context is how politicians use the law just for personal ambitions. It is a degradation of regulation and positive law. But this premise doesn't mean that law reinforces the fortress of politics because the real nature of law should be the opposite: limiting the government.
  • Guest Speaker: Noam Chomsky
    Since Noam Chomsky is an expert on the philosophy of language, my question is related to that topic.

    Professor Chomsky, Does language exclude specific groups of people? 
    There is a big debate in some countries about changing the vocabulary and grammar with the aim of making it more inclusive. 
    For example: In Spanish, we have gender endings like "niña" and "niño", but some want to switch them to "niñe" because the ending in "e" is more inclusive and neutral.

    What is your opinion regarding this issue?
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    I asked to chat GPT the same topic. It is interesting because it seems that the AI defends the fact that words are neutral.

    I thought it would be interesting to read, so I copy and paste the conversation in this thread:

    Me: Does vocabulary have negative connotations?

    GPT: No, vocabulary itself does not have negative connotations. Vocabulary refers to the set of words known and used by a person or in a language, and it is a neutral term.

    However, the way in which someone uses their vocabulary, or the connotations of specific words within a language, can have negative connotations. For example, if someone uses their vocabulary to belittle or insult others, or if certain words in a language are associated with negative stereotypes or discrimination, then those specific uses or connotations may have negative connotations.

    Overall, it is important to remember that words themselvesare not inherently good or bad, but rather the way in which they are used and the context in which they are used can give them positive or negative connotations.

    Me: How can a word be neutral?

    GPT: A word can be neutral if it does not inherently carry a positive or negative connotation or meaning. Some words are simply descriptive and do not carry any emotional or evaluative content. For example, words like "table," "chair," "book," "tree," and "cloud" are neutral because they describe objects without expressing any positive or negative sentiment.

    In addition, some words can have multiple meanings, and their connotation or meaning can depend on the context in which they are used. For example, the word "hard" can be used to describe something that is difficult or firm, but it does not inherently carry a positive or negative connotation.

    Overall, whether a word is neutral or not depends on the context and the way in which it is used. Words themselves do not have inherent positive or negative meanings, but their connotations and meanings can be influenced by factors such as culture, personal experience, and societal norms.

    But then I asked the tricky word: buffoon. :snicker:

    Me: Why does the word "buffoon" have a negative connotation?

    GPT: The word "buffoon" has a negative connotation because it is typically used to describe someone who behaves in a ridiculous or foolish manner, often for the amusement of others. The term is often associated with someone who is clumsy, inept, or lacking in intelligence or social skills. The term can also be used to describe someone who intentionally behaves in an absurd or foolish way, in order to gain attention or to make others laugh at them.

    The negative connotation of the word "buffoon" comes from the fact that such behavior is often seen as unbecoming or inappropriate in certain situations, such as in a formal setting or when dealing with serious issues. Furthermore, the term can be used in a derogatory manner to insult or belittle someone, particularly if they are seen as lacking in dignity or self-respect.

    It's important to note that while the word "buffoon" does have a negative connotation, it is still a neutral term in the sense that it is simply a descriptive word used to characterize certain types of behavior. The negativity associated with the term comes from the way it is used and the context in which it is used, rather than any inherent negativity in the word itself.
  • English Words mixing Contexts
    ↪Judaka
    Good and substantial OP. My bad that I discovered it eleven days later.

    I think the problem of mixing up the meaning of words and context happens in every language. At least, our languages come from Latin, so it is easier to get rid of confusion. There is an important "wave" of people who want to change the lexicon of words because of this.  I was even using Google Translate for a second to write this post, and Google said: This translation contains gender meanings, use the correct form to avoid confusions. Interesting, indeed.

    On the other hand, the chance of mixing contexts is more possible in languages based on ideogram, such as Japanese and Chinese. Both languages have the same script. For example: "moon" is written "月" but in Chinese is said "yuè", and in Japanese "Tsuki". Furthermore of the meaning of the word, the context plays a big role here because "月" also means month, classifier of the month.

    Is there any language that is universally accepted so doesn't depend on context at all? Maybe the metrical system is free of context. International System of Units, establishes universal names and symbols to avoid mixing contexts. For example: Second (s); metre (m); kilogram (k); etc... I think these words really represent a "concept" in science. What do you think?
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    ↪Jamal
    I know it and I have read it. Osamu Dazai was one of the top Japanese writers, and I always recommend his novels and short stories. More than a novel, The Flowers of Buffoonery, is a short story included in another novel called: "No Longer Human."
    It is interesting because the novel you referred to has the most approximate translation in both English and Spanish because in my edition it says:"flores de bufonería." :flower:

    A top writer! I recommend you his works! :up:

    07sk60q27ktc7652.jpg
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    The idea of having formal and informal words is a core part of that language, and there are many ways of saying the same thing which have very different meanings due to the level of formality. — Judaka

    I agree.

    But it is important to highlight that the meaning of a word changes among different generations. This is why Ishihara referred to Koreans as "sangokujin", He explained that is how they described Korean people living in Japan in his time. I am not pretending to defend him, because it is clear that he is a racist politician. I have read a lot of him, and he was a proud nationalist. Yet, my point goes beyond.

    "Sangokujin" is a normal word in Japanese, but some use it in a twisted manner. Shintaro Ishihara used it in this way, no doubts on that. But, if a Korean or foreigner goes to a public institution in Japan and reads the word "Sangokujin", it will be weird to get offended because they are literally foreigners.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    A whole series of words have been applied to Americans who originated in Africa : niggers, negroes, colored(s), — BC

    As I explained to Jamal, this word comes from Spanish, actually. It was used by Spanish sailors to refer to African people. The word is "negro," and some sailors mispronounced it when they said "negroe." Nowadays, it is considered offensive in Spanish, so we just say "African."

    On the other hand, I agree with your points. Stupidity takes place when some persons are obsessed with changing all the vocabulary of a language because they think everything is offensive. I am against those arguments, and I already pointed out why in another thread. Nonetheless, I think that the real problem here is how some people use words in a twisted manner.
    It will only be"offensive" if the interlocutor is acting in bad faith. Thus, when it is clear that the word was used with the aim of hurting someone, attending to the context.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    and the N-word (not against the rules to mention this word explicitly in quotes but I find myself unable to do it) — Jamal

    To be honest, I wanted to use the N-word as an example in my thread. But I am completely aware that is very negative and racist. The etymology of the word comes from Spanish in the colonial era, and it was copied by British sailors and pirates. Nowadays, this word is no longer in use, except for racist people. We only say "africano" = African.

    But it seems to me that “buffoon” has an essential double character and that we’d lose something if it became entirely positive. — Jamal

    Agree!  I cannot add more to your argument.
Home » javi2541997