Comments

  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    So, the interesting question for me is: can a word find positive connotations through its negative connotations? — Jamal

    Wow, good question Jamal.

    I think yes, it is possible to do so. But it will depend a lot on the context and how the word is socially accepted nowadays. @Judaka set a good example towards the word "nerd." Back in the day, it had negative connotations, but it seems that the modern use is positive. This word shows the fact that the meaning has switched over the past few years, and if this happens, it is something that depends on us.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    . It may also be due to human's natural tendency to be interested in the negatives over the positives, not sure. — Judaka

    :up:

    I don't think there's a problem with words being mostly negative either, why do you think so? — Judaka

    More than a problem, I see it as a bad interpretation of the words. What I intended to do is make a research into the etymology of some words such as "buffoon", "blackmail", or the Japanese word "sankokujin" as appears in the OP. Most of them are old words and if we study the "real" or "neutral" meaning, it seems to don't have any problems.

    The problem begins (in my humble opinion) when people make a twisted use of such words because "buffoon" is just a mediaeval clown, but we interpret someone who is a fool.
    The same happens with "sankokujin". It just refers to people from Korea but somehow it is discriminatory towards them, etc...
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    At the same time this is also self-mockery, implying that I and others are fools, and in our foolishness we want to be known as buffoons. It’s dialectical. — Jamal

    I agree with your point. But that's how we interpret "buffoon" or "jester" in modern times, as Baden already posted previously. Yet, this is the main problem I wanted to explain in this thread. Why did these words end up in such a negative feeling?
    Nowadays, calling someone a buffoon is an insult.

    I did a research and a buffoon (also known as a court jester) was considered as a "member of the household of a nobleman or a monarch employed to entertain guests during the medieval and Renaissance eras". Nonetheless, you are right in the fact that modern use has negative connotations, because the paper says: The term is now frequently used in a derogatory sense to describe someone considered foolish, or someone displaying inappropriately vulgar, bumbling or ridiculous behavior which is a source of general amusement.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    Dearest Javi, please don't go there! Blackmail doesn't have racist denotations or connotations any more than "black hole", "black board", "black top", or "black beans" have. — BC

    BC! I think my misinterpretation of the word "blackmail" comes from an article I had read a few months ago: Words and phrases you may want to think twice about using.
    Blackmail, blacklist and black sheep
    "The issue here is that these are all negative terms," said Joseph Smith, an anti-racism trainer and educator. "[It] connotes evil, distrust, lack of intelligence, ignorance, a lack beauty — the absence of white." "[Black] became associated with a particular group of people, and that group of people received all that negative connotation. That's why we try to move away from these kinds of terms."
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    ↪Judaka
    Good points.

    I noted that most of the time the words tend to have more negative connotations than positive ones. Buffoon and nerd are good examples, as you explained, even if the latter has been changing during the years and now has another significance. What I tried to understand is why some basic words like those, are used to hurt the feelings of someone. Vocabulary is supposed to be neutral, but it seems that we use it in a twisted way.

    On the other hand, I agree with the fact that some words are just negative by nature. It is impossible to make neutral use of it. There is a big debate on the word "blackmail", because apart from being a negative action, it has racist connotations.
    It is clear that with words like blackmail, there is no possibility to argue, but the real problem is that most of the words have more negative feelings than positive ones.

    For these kinds of words, people may instead try to argue against the application of the word instead. — Judaka

    I guess this is not the solution either. Skipping the use of a word needs a lot of tasks to do. It is necessary to change all the culture of society. I think it would be easier to be cautious of using them.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    ↪Jamal
    That's exactly the most interesting aspect of vocabulary. Each word has a meaning in our dictionary. Yet, it seems that we interpret the words differently and depend more on the context. My guess goes to that the definition of a word in a dictionary is just a neutral concept, but the philosophical or spiritual meaning of such words depends on the communication between us.
    Most of the words have both positive and negative connotations then.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    whereas "buffoon" (sense is usually something like "stupid clown") is generally derogatory and "jester" (sense is usually something like "amusing / clever clown") is generally complimentary. — Baden

    I just learned this important difference. Interesting how different words have varied meanings while they come from the same root, the etymology of the word "buffoon".

    But anyhow, cautiousness and nuance are your friends here. — Baden

    I agree! Choosing the correct words is key to maintaining a good conversation or writing, because some persons can get offended even we are not acting in bad faith using whatever words. :up:
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    There's no "pure meaning", it's just that we have to interpret words in the context they're used. — Baden

    I agree with you. Context is important for interpreting words and some as "buffoon" may have a lot of meanings. Then, in this case, it depends on how we interpret it. Yet, I am perceiving that, words are usually interpreted in a negative way. I think (just guessing because I do not have statistics to prove it) that words as buffoon are used to disrespect someone, even when it is clear that it is separated from its real significance.
    Is not possible to use words in a neutral point?
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    Yes. — Fooloso4

    Why? Does apply to every single word?

    The careful use of language does not result in a language free of connotations. — Fooloso4

    Well, my aim in this thread is not to avoid connotations, but see language in the most objective way possible. There are a lot of words in our language, and it seems that some of them are offensive or have negative connotations. Nonetheless, this is my concern. Why do they have negative feelings? I think it is just our interpretation rather than the pure meaning of the word.
  • Philosophical implications of contacting higher intelligences through AI-powered communication tools
    Why in the name of Beetlejuice would a higher intelligence want to conquer us? (Because it's what we do?) — Vera Mont

    Whether you like it or not, that's how most of the interactions tend to be. As I said previously, the human race has always acted aggressively, not using diplomacy. Why would those higher intelligences do otherwise?
    By the way, if they are not the first in attacking, our military forces would do the job for them. This is a given.
  • Philosophical implications of contacting higher intelligences through AI-powered communication tools
    ↪Vera Mont
    I wore a mask during the pandemic too (as much as most of the citizens in this world). Yet, I think this example is different from the point I want to make because Covid is a virus that we have in control. We wore masks because of the fear of being infected. This fear was created - in part - by the mass media.
    It is not the same when we talk about military strategies. If higher intelligences do not want to conquer us because of our unknown behavior, it means that they are not powerful enough.
  • Philosophical implications of contacting higher intelligences through AI-powered communication tools
    ↪Vera Mont
    Interesting reasons.

    I think being cautious could be the main reason. It is a proven fact that humanity (at least the political organization) of our world is violent, not diplomatic. Maybe they see us as someone who is dangerous and they do not want to get closer. Yet, this theory considers "higher intelligences" as cowards.

    the decision to terminate us is not yet final; — Vera Mont

    I agree with this futuristic probability. Only if we weren't destroyed ourselves first because of climate change and wars...
  • Philosophical implications of contacting higher intelligences through AI-powered communication tools
    If humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence, through the use of AI-powered communication tools, what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft

    Why don't they contact us too? It will be a difficult task. I think it not only depends on having the ability to contact a higher intelligence, but the clue if they would or would not understand us. Philosophy of language could have a big implication here.
    The interaction with other intelligent lives through AI chats will be frustrating if we do not achieve a common language for such cause previously.
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    At your age, if you are single and do not have an address, it is understandable that you lack confidence in society... right? — Yukio Mishima.
  • A life without wants
    What would a life without any wants look like? — schopenhauer1

    A life without fear of dying. If you don't want anything and you don't have any purpose in life, why would you keep living?
  • Currently Reading
    I don't know if you saw this: — T Clark

    Very interesting. Thank you for sharing the link with me. :up:
  • Taxes
    So, in low capacity states part of the problem is that resource revenues aren't even fully realized because they cannot regulate extraction and armed groups take control of resources. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    So, here it is states having poor public management because of their high revenues, rather than the other way around. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Good points and clear argument. That's why I think the only way to solve the problems of those countries is to look into ethics, rather than just taxation. Collecting money from the richest is important and it causes positive effects. Yet, there are a lot of factors which we have to consider. You put the Democratic Republic of the Congo as an example. Well, this Central African country is a failed state, so we cannot expect that much from their public management. Their GDP is $128 billion, but the Human Development Index is low, 0.479.
    Mobutu institutionalized corruption to prevent political rivals from challenging his control, leading to an economic collapse in 1996. Mobutu allegedly stole up to US$4 billion while in office (War, Hunger, and Displacement: The Origins of Humanitarian Emergencies. Nafziger, E. Wayne; Raimo Frances Stewart, 2000)
    ...
    Imagine how much development could be accomplished with US$4 billion, right?
  • Taxes
    like the DRC due to bad corruption enforcement, sure, but also because government employees don't get paid for long periods and so bribes are their only means of supporting themselves. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Exactly. This is the point I wanted to share in this thread. If the accounts of the state are in deficit and they even collect low taxes... how do they maintain literally everything? Well, the paper I have read explains that in some countries like Moldova they are just used to such living. Between 1999 and 2002, this country did ambitious tax reform. Yes, it had positive effects, but the problem is still there. There is empirical evidence that rich firms and lobbies can pay bribes in other circumstances, making an imbalance in the effort of collecting to taxes. Then, it creates a vicious circle that seems to not have an ending. How can we help those citizens? Do their institutions need to be managed by others?

    And of course you can actually pay your employees easier if you collect more taxes. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    I disagree and there is empirical evidence that proves exactly the contrary. Paying public employees depends more on the management of public spending, not on collecting more or less taxes. We can perceive millions or even trillions thanks to taxation, but if we live in a dictatorship, what is the "real" value of those digits? I guess this is the problem that exists in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, etc...

    I personally think the OECD needs some sort of tax alliance for individuals and organizations that can help enforce taxation across wealthy nations and small tax havens. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Good purpose, but I see more chances not to achieve it. In the European Union, there is supposedly a "common" law and market. But, in practice and real life, each country holds its own competence and some countries are soft in taxation and others heavy. For example: the Spanish company "Ferrovial" just changed their headquarters to the Netherlands because of taxation. Are they evil? Should the Spanish government do something in this matter? What about the freedom to choose whatever country for your headquarters?
    There is a lot of complexity regarding this issue, and many authors and experts have debated about it since 1648 when the "modern" state was born.
  • Are you receiving email notifications for private messages?
    @Jamal The problem has been fixed. I followed the path to setting up bookmarked conversations, and yes, I got notified in the email that Alkis Piskas wrote me a private message. :up:
  • Are you receiving email notifications for private messages?
    So if you haven't bookmarked a conversation, you won't receive notifications of new replies. This dissolves the problem, I think — Jamal

    Ok, clear and understood. I bookmarked our conversation and clicked on getting notified when a bookmarked conversation is updated. I guess it will work out now.
  • Are you receiving email notifications for private messages?
    ↪Jamal
    Thank you so much for your effort to work this out. I like the message, now it is time to wait for PlushForums support's answer.
    For the moment, you have won a bottle of Andalusian olive oil. :blush:
  • Taxes
    ↪ssu
    I agree. Estonia is a good example and it is amazing the recovery they have experienced after the fall of Soviet Union. A while ago, I read some papers and opinions about Estonian recovery. Some "experts" (Keynesian hehe :snicker: ) stated that Estonian recovery is weak/soft or even "incomplete" because of the low collection and let's see what happens with the role of the State in difficult times (some economists are obsessed with public intervetion, for Christ's sake...)
    Then, the PM of Estonia replied: Let's write about something we know nothing about & be smug, overbearing & patronizing: after all, they're just wogs... Guess a Nobel [i.e. Paul Krugman's] in trade means you can pontificate on fiscal matters & declare my country a "wasteland." Must be a Princeton vs Columbia thing. :lol:
  • Taxes
    The State? You mean that thing that educates and feeds your children, maintains your roads, public infrastructure and media, provides you clean water and sanitation services, provides you a safe (enough-usually) society to walk — Outlander

    Understandable. Yet to see if each state really provides the goods you are talking about. High taxation doesn't lead to effectiveness. There are other parameters that we should take into account. High income taxation countries such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc... are, at the same time, countries with high democratic and cultural values. It goes further than just collecting a lot of amounts just to taxation.

    The paper that I shared previously shows such a fact. They agree with the principle that a good tax reform has positive effects, but this is not the only solution. Moldova shows that, despite the effort to implement high taxation on firms, these enterprises tend to pay bribes in other sectors of the society. What is wrong with Moldova then? Why aren't they becoming a welfare state like Denmark?

    Well, it is obvious that democracy is pretty recent in Moldova and there are a lot of things to do... not just taxation.
    Does the "state" - as you imagine - exist in Moldova? Because they are increasing taxes but the state doesn't work well yet...
  • Taxes
    Obviously, high taxes don't necessarily lead to high quality of life, but they are more common in the happiest/most well off countries.

    That all said, part of the issue is that people only support high taxes if there is a competent state. At the same time, competent states are expensive     — Count Timothy von Icarus

    It is close to universal empirical evidence that the countries with high income tax are, at the same time, the ones which work better and society is more advanced. Having these premises... should we implement tax reforms in transition countries? Does this help them to become more democratic?

    Well, some countries have experienced good results, such as the Czech Republic or Slovakia, but others don't, like Moldova or Romania. The essays prove that controlling the taxation of enterprises in those countries, don't prevent them from paying other types of bribes and "unofficial" payments.

    What is wrong then? They are making the effort of raising taxes to become a more developed country.
  • Taxes
    I am currently reading papers and essays on taxation. There is an interesting study that I want to share in this thread. The article starts basically saying that: "This paper reports the first empirical evidence that fiscal reform efforts in transition countries have positive effects"
    The study analyses different East European countries. The economists and law experts agree on the big problem of corruption inside public entities: Hellman et al analyzed the BEEPS I data on both the frequency of firms admitting to paying bribes and, conditional on that admission, the percentage of revenues paid in bribes. They report summary statistics for each country in the survey. The percentage of firms admitting to ever paying bribes spans the range from approximately 45% in Slovenia and Belarus

    One of the most interesting analysis is the situation and social context of Moldova. The paper warns: Furthermore, the complexity of fiscal reform has involved a limited ability to quickly implement a broad-based low-rate tax structure that is effectively administered. The challenge has been that of instituting a new tax system that fosters compliance among new and restructured enterprises, before they are driven
    underground.     In one study of tax evasion Anderson and Carasciuc examined evidence from the Republic of Moldova and found quite predictable effects, with greater measured tax evasion in sectors of the economy where audit frequencies were lower and/or where the real value of fines and penalties were lower.

    How this situation can end up?

    There is an empirical evidence that fiscal reforms are effective in reducing the amount of tax bribes paid by firms. Nonetheless, those firms do not hesitate to keep corrupt behaviours, because the study proofs: Of course, the fact that firms pay less in tax bribes in countries where fiscal reforms have been more extensive does not mean that the firms pay less in overall bribes. Further research is needed to consider whether the reduction in tax bribes is accompanied by a change in other types of bribes and unofficial payments. It could be that a reduction in tax bribes is accompanied by an increase in other types of bribes.

    So, we can conclude that fiscal reforms are not the solution if the enterprises and communities are already corrupt. Even, there is evidence that in some countries with soft taxation have better and transparent public administration such as Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, etc...
    Maybe the solution is on ethics and not only in taxation of the richest.
  • Are you receiving email notifications for private messages?
    I have received one private message from @unenlightened and it doesn't pop up in the email either.

    It seems like it only appears when it is your the one who writes us, @Jamal
  • Feature requests
    What I'm doing right now is determining what I need to put in an email to PlushForums support, if indeed there is something wrong. — Jamal

    Thank you for your effort of fixing this bug. I am sure that the problem will be solved soon. :up:
  • Feature requests
    1. You do not receive email notifications for private messages, but you do receive them for other things (mentions etc.) — Jamal

    Exactly. I receive the notification in mentions, when it pops up a number 1 at "inbox", but it doesn't notify me on my email.

    2. You have checked the box in your preferences for "Email when I receive private messages" — Jamal

    Yes and I clicked accepting the preference of accepting notifications via email.
  • Brexit
    ↪unenlightened
    Thank you for sharing your view. It is palpable. To be honest, I wish for a friendly relationship between the UK and all European countries because we share the same problems or crises: inflation, stock out, Russian threat, young generations, etc...
    I mean, it is not the time to put borders on or increase rivalry among us.
    On the other hand, I am aware that it is not only on the UK's side, but Brussels's too. Both sides need to understand each other.
  • Brexit
    Anyone knows if this poll is real? Because I tried to find it at: Poll Results | Omnisis and it doesn't appear.

    5lol49wquvsa1.jpg
  • Feature requests
    Adhering me to @Alkis Piskas’s inquiry.

    It seems that when someone writes you a private message, it doesn't pop up in e-mail notifications. I do not want to sound tiresome, but please whenever you (I guess @Jamal can fix this) have free time or are not busy, could you check this out and see why it happens?
  • Currently Reading
    Sometimes it’s obvious. For example, javi2541997 hardly needs to mention that he’s reading Fiscal Reform and its Firm-Level Effects in Eastern Europe and Central Asia for sheer pleasure. — Jamal

    :up:

    I will experience more pleasure leafing through that essay than reading Japanese literature, that’s a given.
  • Currently Reading
    Fiscal Reform and its Firm-Level Effects in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, J.E. Anderson.

    Tax by design, Sir James Mirrlees.
  • What is Conservatism?
    Yes indeed, and this is an example of the relativism of conservatism. You cannot, qua representative of conservatism, uphold values as absolute if conservatism in different times and places has defended different, opposing values — Jamal

    :up:
  • What is Conservatism?
    Adding to Christian democracy:

    Christian democrats are usually socially conservative and generally have a relatively skeptical stance towards abortion and same-sex marriage, although some Christian democratic parties have accepted the limited legalization of both. They advocate for a consistent life ethic concerning their opposition to capital punishment and assisted suicide. Christian Democrats have also supported the prohibition of drugs... Most European Christian Democrats reject the concept of class struggle and instead prefer co-determination. Christian democrats maintain that civil issues should first be addressed at the lowest level of government before being examined at a higher level, a doctrine known as subsidiarity. These concepts of sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity are considered cornerstones of Christian Democracy political ideology. — Lamberts, Emiel (1997). Christian Democracy in the European Union, 1945/1995:

    Those are key notes on "What is conservatism?"
  • What is Conservatism?
    ↪Jamal
    I thank you for explaining a clear version of this topic. It is true that I only focused on economic analysis. Margaret Thatcher was a radical, no doubt. But, somehow, she represents a big reference to modern conservatives. Most of the conservatives of my country see her as a guide for freedom and development.
    I think it depends on each state we are talking about. Despite I understand that conservatism goes beyond than just reduce taxes and support powerful groups/lobbies, the main subject for modern democracies (as mine) is among those. Countries with a solid middle class such as UK, USA, Sweden, Germany, Japan, etc... Doesn't seem to be a big issue the matter of collecting money from the rich or raising the salaries up. But here is different. IBEX 35 says that it will be impossible for the companies to raise the incomes up if they pay a lot of taxes. This view is a 1980's/1990's model of neo-liberalism supported by conservative/Christian democracy politicians.
    Some countries surpassed this conservatism of their enterprise sector, others don't. There is a clear fight on social democracy (those who defend working class) and enterprises (conservative by nature). So, it is more a struggle of a group of persons against a group of enterprises. I am aware that this already happened in the UK in Thatcher's era, but here, this issue is recent.
  • What is Conservatism?
    ↪Vera Mont


    As I previously explained, I only see conservatism in an economic model. Reducing taxes + allowing the rich to expand their wealth + not intervention from the state = more employment.
    At least, that was the formula used by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
    On the other hand, we have interventionism or social democracy where the rich must to pay the most to redistribute the wealth among the citizens.
    As we can see both models crash because of monetary interests, not because of moral/familiar values.
  • Feature requests
    ↪Jamal
    ↪Alkis Piskas


    As Alkis expressed, it seems that TPF does not notify when someone replies to a private message in the email notifications. The other notifications work good and I do not have problems in overall. :up:
  • What is Conservatism?
    ↪Vera Mont
    In addition to @universeness AI answer.
    Overall, the conservative vision of society emphasizes individual liberty, limited government, traditional values, and strong communities. They believe that these values are the key to creating a prosperous, stable, and free society. — universeness

    This is the key to understanding conservatism. A conservative government is against public intervention, but they agree with the free market, the agglomeration of companies, and the reduction of taxes. One of the main aspects of a conservative culture is the financial idea that, if you reduce taxes, you will allow the rich companies to create more employment. Another characteristic is the promotion and defense of private property.
    To be honest, I think that modern conservatism is more focused on economic modes than on traditional familiar values or strong communities when these have already disappeared due to globalization.
  • Politics fuels hatred. We can do better.
    Critical thinking is a survival skill nowadays. — Ying

    It is... but most people lack these skills. I know I am going to sound pessimistic, but I feel that the youngest generation lacks critical knowledge and does not even make a basic effort. I am part of the "Millennial" generation, and I must admit that we are losing both time and hope. The people of my age live permanently connected to social media, and they are so easy to manipulate.
Home » javi2541997