I find it even more shocking because it was created a quarter century later, and it seems even more ridiculous. Hays covers the content of movies, but the CCA dictates even the title: "No comic magazine shall use the word horror or terror in its title".
I'm sure my grandchildren will say exactly the same thing about my generation, but I cannot imagine how that one word would cause anybody to even blink.
Other awesome things the CCA prohibits: gruesome, gory, unsavory, evil.
I find that less shocking, since while films were aimed at a general audience, comic books were aimed at children. If you read it as a list of things that are unsuitable for small children then a lot of it still sounds fairly reasonable (with certain obvious exceptions).
The contents of this post are unconscionable and must be taken down immediately! Although he claims to condemn the suppression of ideas, Paul Graham merely provides this community with the most effective tools for such behavior. Perhaps this is nothing more than a calculated way to profit from the censure of others all the while claiming to disapprove of such censorious acts.
How true... I've actually typed out a few comments before and decided not to post them because I figured they would just result in a bunch of down-voting without any response.
These weren't trolling comments either, but legitimate arguments that popular opinion would probably disagree with.
If pg is really concerned about suppressed ideas, he should require that people give a response when they downvote and have a separate flag for "trolling" or "spam"-like comments.
My understanding is that downvoting is only for trolling or spam-like comments. Disagreement is good, disagreement can be healthy. A well-spoken (or even not-poorly-spoken) argument that is contrary to popular opinion should be upvoted.
If we don't allow, or punish, unpopular ideas we'll become a homogeneous mass with no new ideas.
Should orientalist be orientalism? An orientalist is a person who studies oriental culture, whereas orientalism is the fallacy of constructing ideal types and then going out into the world to look for confirmatory examples. Unless orientalist can also mean anti-oriental; that definition isn't in Merriam-Webster and I don't have web access to the OED right now to check.
I took "orientalist" to be a pejorative in line with Edward Said's Orientalism -- i.e., accusing its target of attitudes shaped by Western imperialism. It's not really correct to use it this way, since "Orientalist" already has the meaning you describe, but I've seen it a handful of times in an idea-suppressing context.
Being unscientific isn't always bad or wrong. Science isn't the One True Path to Everything Meaningful. Calling something unscientific can be entirely correct, meaningful, and not derogatory. Using the label 'unscientific' to demean something that is scientific-but-worthless-or-wrong does a disservice to everything of value that isn't scientific.
This post wasn't created scientifically, that doesn't mean it's worthless. Ok, bad example (this post is probably worthless). All art gains it's value from something outside of science. That doesn't make all art worthless.
Science is an incredibly powerful tool, but it isn't the only one. When all you have is science, you start to see everything as a nail. Or something like that...
Not one of the better essays. Reminds me of somebody poorly channeling Chomsky.
Labels are nouns. That's all. Nouns have meaning based on how we use them. Guess what? Nouns are always imprecise. Language is slippery, my dear friends, as those of you who ever tried to write a system based on somebody else's input know.
So we're stuck debating and talking about things with words that flex a lot. That's why the #1 thing to do in a discussion, debate, or whatever is talk about terms. It sounds silly, but you have to say things like "when you say 'cat', what exactly do you mean?"
As a political junkie, let me offer an example. Reagan rallied against "tax and spend liberals" -- folks who thought of solving problems from the top-down using government funds and power, instead of from the bottom-up. He was so successful, he inspired a lot of radio commentators who beat the "liberal" phrase to death. As of today, the best word that describes what "liberal" used to describe is "progressive", although there are many who are proud to still be called "liberal"
The kicker is that "liberal" doesn't _really_ mean what Reagan used it for at all. It originally meant somebody supportive of free speech and action. Heck, as a libertarian, I am a classic liberal. We all probably are.
But most of us real people who live in the real world are stuck with messy words like these because humans are not machines. So we say wonderfully obscenely mushy things like "as a liberal I'm not at all supportive of the current progressive agenda"
There's a reason the Lincoln-Douglas debates went on for four hours or more. Language is tough to do. It does not reduce to something like p or ~ q. Labels only shut you down if you're damn fool enough not to qualify the label as soon as its used. I'm just glad I'm not writing AI to figure all of this out.
Funny, the two most common labels I am hearing these days are not on the list: 'liberal' and 'conservative'. In political discussions a lot of ideas are suppressed - or at least verbally dismissed - using these labels.
Don't forget "moderate." Nobody liked Giuliani's being moderate, no no no. You're not safe ANYWHERE in the scale. Avoid it and you're "apathetic." Get too complex and you're "elitist" or "flip-flopping" or "hostile" (if the right crowd catches you trying to explain things).
While he was too moderate for some (as was, for instance, Clinton on the other side), can you find me an example where "moderate" was used as a term of abuse against Giuliani?
"Moderate" really doesn't seem to belong on the list. I can't imagine anyone ever looking shocked and saying "That's such a X thing to say" when X is "moderate", but it seems to fit for most of the other examples.
Even deeper: The American free-market libertarians pulled a coup when they were able to redefine, in public discourse, what it means to have 'liberty' (compare the definition of 'libertarian' ca. 1900 Europe and ca. 2000's USA).
In what sense? The progressive movement as currently constructed is not enamored with neither Leninism nor Stalinism, though there is sometimes a smidge of respect for Trotsky.
I'd like to offer a few "extensions"; that is, words that appear to mean one thing, but really mean something else altogether. Probably fit neatly into the idea suppression category...
side effects
2 party system
best of breed
Department of Defense
early detection
diversity
Patriot Act
war on drugs
98% fat free
politically correct
national pasttime
news
right to life
choice
road rage
baby boomer
SUV
write your congressman
fast food
HMO
insurance
alternative music
higher education
affirmative action
moral majority
side dish
soft drink
cure
cofactor
cause
leading indicators
inalienable rights
with liberty and justice for all
sitcom
expert
talking head
preferred provider
copay
deductible
IRS
legal right of way
public servant
impartial
defense of marriage
