The fact that they’re advertising to consumers that they’re BPA free is itself not enough to conclude that there is definite harm. It may just be that consumers prefer to buy BPA free versions, science be damned. My understanding is that vaccines often don’t contain thiomersal anymore because of unsubstantiated consumer fears, not any demonstrated health risk.
He also thumbed his nose at PTSD. Basically mocking any advancements in understanding it and it's treatment, because "back in WWI they called it shell shock"
That is so far from the point that joke was making. I recommend you listen again. Not only does he not "thumb his nose" at PTSD, he says if we used language that better communicates meaning, such as shell shock instead of 4 letters, people would actually care for vets.
He was a smart man. The world could use another Carlin.
I know I sounded glib in GGP, but that bit about global warming is pretty close to the only thing Carlin said that ever really pissed me off. For a comedian that’s as close to perfect as you can expect.
I think you need to listen to those bits again, because he was clearly saying we were going to be screwed by our own actions. ie, yes, we're potentially causing our own demise with global warming. Same with the PTSD one- his point was that adding more euphemisms was not helping those who were/are suffering.
That's not far from "dumb it down". If science has proven a link between all forms of trauma such as accidents or rape, then its worth reflecting that in the name. His skit was a slap in the face to psychology that is actively researching how to help vets and other PTSD sufferers. Hes redirecting the frustrations caused by the disease back at the very community trying to fight it
Words don’t just have textual meaning (where a term can be “inaccurate” or “imprecise”); they also have emotive force.
Carlin’s point was that “shell shock” is more visceral and evocative than “PTSD”, in a way that would be helpful as a rhetorical shield in the hands of its sufferers.
Saying that a rape or accident survivor has “shell shock” communicates by analogy the problem they’re facing, even to laymen who have never experienced such trauma—everyone has seen a war movie where artillery shells are landing all around someone, and most can (if prompted) easily picture what chronic exposure to such a traumatic stressor would do to them. This creates empathy in the minds of laymen who may not understand what was so traumatic about the particular trauma the PTSD suffered encountered.
Whereas saying “they have PTSD” does the opposite—it communicates the symptom without painting a picture of the cause, inviting a layman to minimize the imagined cause.
It’s like saying that someone is a “battered spouse”, vs. “a victim of domestic violence.” The former could have been taken to just mean the latter—non-physical forms of violence and all—but instead, in pursuit of accuracy and precision, an umbrella term that does not evoke a central example is used, and has settled into, more often than not, being mentally interpreted by the listener as implying the least-bad thing that still merits the name.
To put this another way: this is the reason that security vulnerabilities have started getting names like “Heartbleed.” That is an evocative name. CVE-2014-0160? Not so much. More useful to researchers! But less useful as a rhetorical device to communicate the impact of the problem. It’s a PR campaign in support of solving the problem!
Going from “shell shock” to “PTSD” is like going from the named vulnerability to the numerical designation. You’re doing anti-PR, making a buzzword on the tongues of the public into something that’s too much effort to buzz about at all.
Sure, the term might have more diagnostic “clarity.” When in medicine has that ever mattered? Do we name bones or tendons for what they do? No, we just give them ridiculous “legacy” names inherited from some conversation someone had once in 400BCE. Because those names are catchy, in a way that systematic names wouldn’t be.
I completely agree, but I would also point out that being manipulative by using an evocative name isn't always great by default. Personally, I think it would be beneficial in those cases (shell shock, battered spouse), since dehumanizing suffering is awful at best.
But then names like the "patriot act" also come to mind. Or for something a little closer to home, "anemic domain models".
I suppose appreciating emotive language would depend on whether or not you agree with the purpose behind it.
In this case, I imagine that psychiatrists, as a kind of medical doctors, would generally want to do whatever gets their patients the help and consideration they need. Thus, when they consider naming (or re-naming) a diagnosis, they should probably have that purpose in mind.
PR in general is neither good nor evil. But when people are seeking to do good, they should really make sure that their usage of PR (accidental or otherwise) aligns with their goals.
Carlin's routine is meant to draw attention to the ways that authorities and systems fuck around with words and how, even with the best intentions, these changes gradually benefit the institutions instead of the downtrodden.
Most of Carlin's routines involve ironic hyperbole. He had a bit about how everybody on the road driving faster than you is a maniac and everybody driving slower than you is an idiot.
It's an extremely important bit for understanding his work. Carlin believed that everybody should express their opinion loudly from their own point of view, be aware that a lot of the time those opinions will be wrong, but know that when we do not express those opinions the fuckers always win.
When he shouts that the transition from "shellshock" to "PTSD" has been a tool used for government control he's absolutely right. It was. By making a disease name for it and creating PTSD treatment programs the military could look like it was addressing the problem, where the actual problem was the military using human suffering as a tool to reinforce American political power for economic reasons.
If you told George Carlin "yeah, but rape victims have the same experience, don't we need to include them" he'd probably have told you to call that cock-shock. You'd say "that's gross" and he'd say "rape is gross, the name for what happens after it should be horrible, not clinical".
By saying things like this, Carlin highlights hypocrisies and illusions in our lives and thought processes. Carlin wants to make sure you see what you've forgotten by moving to the new words.
I'm reminded of when Vonnegut pointed out how dangerous it was to move from Armistice Day to Veteran's Day.
"It was during that minute in nineteen hundred and eighteen, that millions upon millions of human beings stopped butchering one another. I have talked to old men who were on battlefields during that minute. They have told me in one way or another that the sudden silence was the Voice of God. So we still have among us some men who can remember when God spoke clearly to mankind.
Armistice Day has become Veterans’ Day. Armistice Day was sacred. Veterans’ Day is not."
Vonnegut doesn't mean that later veterans didn't suffer, that their service is worthless or that their pain shouldn't be noted. He's saying that by including new individuals, the message of the day - that it is horrific to murder millions of people for any reason - has been erased for the good of the military system.
People like Vonnegut and Carlin aren't trying to say things that are correct. They're trying to say things that expose truth. It's very different.
Thank you for this reply. I do agree that euphemism creep is a thing. My position is just that his skit on this particular topic seemed very anti-intellectual. It's the same kind of bogus logic used when people who say "just get over it" to someone with serious depression: "back in my day, we just kept a stiff upper lip (meanwhile ignoring all those between now and then who blew their brains out because their lip strategy failed) ".
I do agree that in most cases the language can be contorted to conceal or smooth the direct adjective. I.e African American, minority, margininalized, etc
>My position is just that his skit on this particular topic seemed very anti-intellectual. It's the same kind of bogus logic ...
It really is not; just like others here, I would urge you to go back and re-watch that skit, having in mind that others do not perceive it the way you do. There's nothing more to add to the parent post.
Could you please not post uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We ban accounts that do that, because we're trying to keep this site a bit better than default level.
Not all war PTSD is caused from "shells". So to use his logic, unless your flashbacks and hyper awareness (oops those are newfangled psychological terms, guess they have to be dumbed down right?) are caused by the use of mortar shells, then any other use of that term is disingenuous, right?
His argument was that the term PTSD is euphemistic. Not that terms should be hyperaccurate. Shell shock recalls weapons amd war while PTSD calls to mind vague "trauma". It's a term that is a step away from what it actually is.
It's not really a sexist construct since an attractive man easily makes more in tips than an unattractive woman... It's more the societal construct that attractive = good, which is pernicious but quite deeply ingrained in human society.
ACH and CC networks shoulder the burden of maintaining the system, fraud checks, chargebacks, etc. They provide a convenience function that lets me avoid having to carry cash around everyone, and lets the vendor minimize their cash-related costs. It's all worth the 2-5% they charge (and if you're paying more than that you've got bad negotiating skills). Cash isn't cheap--after security-related expenses, it costs just as much if not more than accepting credit cards, but the expenses aren't as easily traced back to individual transactions.
A guy bringing me a plate someone else cooked has not earned 20% of the bill.
The merchant doesn't need "the system or fraud checks" to sell lattes. Furthermore they get hit with chargebacks, which are a feature offered by the CC, not the coffee shop. You're justying why business A shoulders business B's expense. That's like saying Visa should wipe down the espresso machine.
That was the first thing I asked the barista once I became a regular and tipped Them: do you actually get these tips? She reassured me they did.
What bothers me is the ACH networks still get their cut of the tip (assuming they get a percentage of sale and not a flat rate). No visa, you don't need 5% of the waitress hard work.
You could choose to ditch the credit cards and just go cash only. Of course, you'd have to deal with your customers spending significantly less money. Plus you'd have to deal with the extra security costs of collecting, storing, and moving that money to the bank.
The reason that vendors accept credit cards is because it's usually worth the additional costs. If you don't think your credit card processor is worth the cost, try dropping them and seeing how it affects your sales. In some instances, vendors have dropped processors entirely (like Amex and Discover) without noticeably impacting their bottom line.
All colleges are "for profit" when their athletic coach and mid-level bureaucrat salaries start at several hundred thousand dollars but most classes are taught by grad students earning < 20/hr. Where do you think that money comes from?
What's silly is to ever allow an institution to take 10% or more of your earnings. Unless they're doing 10% of the work for you, they're not entitled to any claim to the earnings. All that does is perpetuate the gatekeeper fallacy that somehow you need to "pay your dues (to the institution)"
I'm skeptical that that many of them are getting into the ocean. I wonder if it would be more effective to put a UUID on them and tell the public that if one of these is found in the ocean a full investigation will be launched. Not just for reprisal, but to develop "user stories" about how this shit gets into the ocean. If they determine that you dumped it , then you get fined to pay for 10^5 lbs of trash to be removed from the sea. If there's even a little FUD of getting caught (via UUID) I think it would result in a huge reduction in littering.
Living in Vietnam, I concur. It is literally the culture to throw stuff everywhere and not care about it. Someone else will pick it up. Except someone else doesn't and there is no way deal with that since there is so much trash.
Outside my apartment, there is a river. It used to be more of an open sewer. Eventually the government started sending a barge with two guys on it down the river multiple times a day to pick up the trash. The barge gets maybe about 5% of the trash it passes since the river is much wider than the barge. Because there is a daily tide, all the water in the river flows out to the larger Saigon river... which heads to the oceans.
I wish I could post pictures here easily... I have lots of them. It is everywhere in this country. It is sad.
Not sure which Asians you're taking about. Certainly not Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, for example, whose cities are generally cleaner than Western counterparts. Asia is big...
> China is at the top of list of ocean plastic polluters, accounting for 28 percent the total amount of plastics thrown into the oceans each year. About 60 percent of plastics in the oceans are discarded by the fast growing East Asian economies of China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.
Well, I imagine a significant portion of how you get to be a 1% contributor" is via things like that. If people don't care, you end up like Vietnam (as mentioned in a sibling comment, I don't have any personal experience in that country.) You may as well ask "why are we constantly running media blitzes to get more money for breast cancer care and research? They already have plenty!"
That would require government regulation and unfortunately the current political climate appears to be very much against that. (apologies for bringing up politics)
Why apologize? Politics is inextricably intertwined in how we address problems in our world and our communities. The admonishment to avoid talking about politics is silly, in my opinion. It only serves to keep people from solving problems.
