Author Topic: Politically Correct, Softly-Softly Language & an "offensive" Lamb Commercial  (Read 10942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Halcyon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3666
  • Country: au
Something I don't understand these days...

After reading a news article today about a tragic accident that happened in Australia, it got me thinking how weird some of the language used by Professionals and Emergency Services is today.

Examples:

"... injuries were so severe they were incompatible with life." = Their injuries were so severe that the patient died.
"... is assisting Police with their enquiries." = ...is a suspect and is being questioned by Police.
"Child sex offender" = Paedophile

It reminds me of the "bullshit bingo" game in the private sector. And apparently some people were offended by this Lamb commercial because it was "racist towards white Australians"... I'll let you try to work out why that may be.



 :palm: |O

« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 08:30:11 am by Halcyon »
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12403
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
 
The following users thanked this post: Halcyon

Offline NottheDan

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Country: gb
The first one is just nonsense. I'll pay that one.
No, it is not. It is a liability issue. They are careful about avoiding pronouncing a cause-effect relationship between the injuries and the patient's death.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Very simple: if it is politically correct, it is incorrect.

Political correctness fundamentally is suppression of free expression. Nazis did that.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline AntiProtonBoy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 770
  • Country: au
    • Youtube Channel
Examples:

"... injuries were so severe they were incompatible with life." = Their injuries were so severe that the patient died.
"... is assisting Police with their enquiries." = ...is a suspect and is being questioned by Police.
"Child sex offender" = Paedophile

The first one is just plain silly, but I never heard anyone say it that way?

The third example is not exactly synonymous. One can be charged with offences of that nature without being a paedophile.

edit: grammar fix
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 01:46:51 pm by AntiProtonBoy »
 

Offline BradC

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1634
  • Country: au
And apparently some people were offended by this Lamb commercial because it was "racist towards white Australians".

I reckon it's gold! I hadn't seen that before. Thanks.
 

Offline R005T3r

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 387
  • Country: it
politics = "the way of doing everything by simply doing nothing at all, in order to make your supporter believe in a better future, while you steal money from them"

I think that is the real essence of politics. Politics speaks and do nothing while making you believe they really want to change things, while the only change they want resides in their bank accounts.

Don't even waste time on politics: it's hard to stay away from it because there's a lot of psychology involved, but be smarter than them: do not waste your time on stupid things like debates, it's not worth it.
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3437
  • Country: gb
Examples:

"... injuries were so severe they were incompatible with life." = Their injuries were so severe that the patient died.
"... is assisting Police with their enquiries." = ...is a suspect and is being questioned by Police.
"Child sex offender" = Paedophile

The first one is just plain silly, but I never anyone say it that way?

The third example is not exactly synonymous. One can be charged with offences of that nature without being a paedophile.

edit: grammar fix

I think that's one of those where peculiar patterns of "official speech" than just develops and then gets copied over time.

The classic style once (and possibly still) used by the British police is "I was undertaking my duties while proceeding along Veryordinary Road when I observed the suspect who is now know to me as Mr Jones" instead of saying "I was walking along Veryordinary Road and I saw Mr. Jones".

I think it happened with the British police because they have traditionally been ordinary working class people who found themselves thrust into the very formal and highly educated courts system and they felt they were letting the side down if they spoke plain "rough" English when everybody else sounded so posh. Basically they were doing a serious job, wanted to be taken seriously, so copied the speech patterns, as they saw them, of their "betters" who were also doing the job. The Superintendent would copy the lawyers, the Inspector would copy the Superintendent,  the Sergeant would copy the Inspector and the Constables would copy the Sergeant, everything changing a little at each step in that game of Chinese whispers until it developed into the style that it did.

As far as "assisting Police with their enquiries" is concerned: I was sitting in an interview room in an East London police station giving a statement as a witness, when a policeman came in and wanted to discuss something with the policeman who was interviewing me. He obviously wanted to talk about something that he didn't want to discuss in front of a suspect. The copper who was interviewing me said to him "It's OK, this gentleman is just helping us with our inquiries." So, the British police at least, do use that formulation to mean literally "helping" as well as "We don't have enough on him to nick him yet".
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline NottheDan

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Country: gb
Very simple: if it is politically correct, it is incorrect.

Political correctness fundamentally is suppression of free expression. Nazis did that.
The Nazis also collected taxes, built roads, made the trains run and delivered the milk.
 

Offline richard.cs

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 679
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics engineer from Southampton, UK.
    • Random stuff I've built (mostly non-electronic and fairly dated).
Examples:

"... injuries were so severe they were incompatible with life." = Their injuries were so severe that the patient died.
"... is assisting Police with their enquiries." = ...is a suspect and is being questioned by Police.
"Child sex offender" = Paedophile
The third example is not exactly synonymous. One can be charged with offences of that nature without being a paedophile.

And in reverse, someone can have the psychological characteristic and not act on it, thus not committing any criminal offence.
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3437
  • Country: gb
Very simple: if it is politically correct, it is incorrect.

Political correctness fundamentally is suppression of free expression. Nazis did that.
The Nazis also collected taxes, built roads, made the trains run and delivered the milk.

I think you're being a little unfair to dannyf here. God knows, dannyf baiting could be made into a a national sport and I can confess to the occasional temptation to push his buttons and see which direction he shoots off in; but I resist, and so should you.

The Nazis were very very bad people. For the most part the "politically correct" are merely naughty little girls and boys but that doesn't mean we should indulge or pamper them. The PC movement are exactly the people who seem to be behind the insane proposals in Canada and other places that go beyond mere ugly mangling of language and move firmly into the territory of genuinely dangerous suppression of what is permitted to be said or discussed. If someone wants to get offended with me because I don't use the right precise word that suits their sensibilities this month, that's fine. To propose making me a criminal because I don't use the right precise word that suits their sensibilities this month is wrong, rapidly shading toward downright evil.

From what I've read dannyf and I disagree on a whole raft of subjects and it's perhaps injudicious of him to use the word "Nazi" as part of this discussion. But I agree with him wholeheartedly that the whole "PC" business becomes very worrying when taken to extremes and at its logical conclusion moves toward the kind of totalitarianism that would justify comparisons with the political bogeymen of history. It's not insignificant that in Orwell's dystopian 1984, that language was one of the primary weapons of totalitarianism. So, while dannyf's choice of words might be ungood, his intent appears to be doubleplus good.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 
The following users thanked this post: helius, Cubdriver

Offline rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2671
  • Country: us
Dr. Benjamin Carson on Political Correctness: "PC is a Bad Thing"

 

Offline Halcyon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3666
  • Country: au
The first one is just nonsense. I'll pay that one.
No, it is not. It is a liability issue. They are careful about avoiding pronouncing a cause-effect relationship between the injuries and the patient's death.

No, Wilfred was correct. Of course if you want to get technical the actual cause of death lies with the coroner to determine but for the purposes of a news article and everyday speak, it's nonsense. This whole liability thing with people being too scared to say things for what they are is utter bollocks!

As for the lamb commercial, racism didn't even enter into my thoughts. It just really made me want to have a BBQ!
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 06:50:08 pm by Halcyon »
 

Offline Nozzer

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: gb
The police have to precise language in court not to sound professional but because legal discourse is very precise and a small error can affect the credibility of the evidence. If PC Dixon did not know that the defendant was called Mr Jones before he apprehended him, then he needs to state this. In Britain the trial process is a contest between the defence team and prosecution. Misplaced words can lose a case as they be used to discredit or make the jury (in indictable offences) question the veracity of the witness. They may also lead the judge to instruct the jury to disregard that witnesses evidence. Careless wording can and does lead to offenders eluding justice.

Now suppose that Mr Jones was known to the police and suspected of committing one or more similar offences, as might be suggested by his modus operandi. Jones could challenge the evidence given by PC Dixon. His council could ask how could Dixon know the name of the defendant? Might this be a police set up? By Dixon stating that he only learned the identity of the defendant after he was arrested, whether that was before or after he was charged in the police station, he can close that loophole.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 07:22:11 pm by Nozzer »
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3529
  • Country: ca
Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly is the winner (Musk referring to the rocket explosion)
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3437
  • Country: gb
The police have to precise language in court not to sound professional but because legal discourse is very precise and a small error can affect the credibility of the evidence. If PC Dixon did not know that the defendant was called Mr Jones before he apprehended him, then he needs to state this. In Britain the trial process is a contest between the defence team and prosecution. Misplaced words can lose a case as they be used to discredit or make the jury (in indictable offences) question the veracity of the witness. They may also lead the judge to instruct the jury to disregard that witnesses evidence. Careless wording can and does lead to offenders eluding justice.

Now suppose that Mr Jones was known to the police and suspected of committing one or more similar offences, as might be suggested by his modus operandi. Jones could challenge the evidence given by PC Dixon. His council could ask how could Dixon know the name of the defendant? Might this be a police set up? By Dixon stating that he only learned the identity of the defendant after he was arrested, whether that was before or after he was charged in the police station, he can close that loophole.

All that is true, but there was (and may still be) a peculiar, often almost pompous sounding, choice of words that the British police used in all communications, not just in court where precision might be called for or press communication where there might be issues of privilege or defamation. As I cited, the use of "proceeding" instead of "walking" was quite common and proceeding is less precise than walking and conveys less information in more letters. I just offered rubbing shoulders with the legal system as a plausible excuse for this wholesale barbarian assault on the English language. 
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline Cyberdragon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2117
  • Country: us
Two words about PC and what it leads to...

"Demolition Man"

:clap:
*BZZZZZZAAAAAP*
Voltamort strikes again!
Explodingus - someone who frequently causes accidental explosions
 

Offline magetoo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Country: se
"... injuries were so severe they were incompatible with life." = Their injuries were so severe that the patient died.

This reads to me more like "the person died, and there was nothing we could have done" but spelled out more clearly.
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12403
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
"... injuries were so severe they were incompatible with life." = Their injuries were so severe that the patient died.

This reads to me more like "the person died, and there was nothing we could have done (I would add "wrong" here)." but spelled out more clearly.

Same here. "Dead" does not indicate a reason, which points the focus to the facility, but "being not compatible with life" implies the reason to be the deceased themselves.
 

Offline NottheDan

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Country: gb
Then they should say that. Or they could have simply said "The injuries were fatal".
And what if they were not? What if he died of some other cause just before they turned fatal?
 

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5942
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
And what if they were not? What if he died of some other cause just before they turned fatal?
Yep. He could have been poisoned. But the only thing that is obvious at the moment is external wounds that are normally considered incompatible with life.

Police are very  careful with words. I once was asked to be a witness during the arrest of some robber. And they listed all the things he had on him at the time of the arrest. And none of the items were described as what they actually were. Not  "a video camera", but "an object that looks like a video camera". It makes it easier later at the trial, since police are not experts on all things.
Alex
 

Offline SL4P

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2071
  • Country: au
  • There's more value if you figure it out yourself!
The first one is just nonsense. I'll pay that one.
No, it is not. It is a liability issue. They are careful about avoiding pronouncing a cause-effect relationship between the injuries and the patient's death.
It's also a case of not saying 'what appears' to have happened - because it may upset some people if the statement says "the riders were flipped over and trapped in the mechanical conveyor system, causing amputations and horrific injuries"  (apologies to those offended) but it's necessary to 'tone it down' in the wider media, because many people are shocked by lambs, teddy bears and golliwogs nowadays, and would rather not know the details.

(But we have a choice of Trump -or- Clinton in the USA)
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 06:46:45 am by SL4P »
Don't ask a question if you aren't willing to listen to the answer.
 

Offline Moshly

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Country: au
  • What's wrong with this thing
Chaser has done a few relevant piss takes ->

:-DD

 

Offline steve30

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 650
  • Country: england
    • Stephen Coates' Homepage
Regarding the offensive lamb video... What does all that stuff have to do with lamb anyway?  ???
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13108
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
"... is assisting Police with their enquiries." = ...is a suspect and is being questioned by Police.
Or a an innocent witness.
Quote
"Child sex offender"
That could easily be interpreted to be a child who has committed a sexual offence.

And as far as the original video is concerned: the meat which doesn't discriminate: well except for vegetarians.  ::)
 

Offline BradC

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1634
  • Country: au
"... injuries were so severe they were incompatible with life." = Their injuries were so severe that the patient died.

This reads to me more like "the person died, and there was nothing we could have done" but spelled out more clearly.

It was actually explained fairly well in an associated news piece. It specifically means the injuries were such that there was no chance of any form of resuscitation succeeding, therefore no further medical treatment was attempted. Different to attempting CPR for half an hour while they were transported to hospital and pronounced DOA.

Basically what SL4P said.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 12:06:09 pm by BradC »
 

Offline steve30

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 650
  • Country: england
    • Stephen Coates' Homepage
On the subject of odd words, I've recently noticed a lot of use of the word survivor, when they actually mean victim. In my opinion, surviving something implies that others didn't survive.
 

Offline vodka

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 456
  • Country: es
On the subject of odd words, I've recently noticed a lot of use of the word survivor, when they actually mean victim. In my opinion, surviving something implies that others didn't survive.

Althought the survivor sounds very bad , certain it is clarifier , we always know that he or she is lived.  On change , when the journalists use the word "victim" we never can know the true victim's states.
The victim may be dead, injured, raped, lived,dismembered, even the victim might be on various states on both same time. Such as the Schrödinger's paradox.
 

Offline Richard Crowley

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4310
  • Country: us
  • KE7GKP
The victim may be dead, injured, raped, lived,dismembered, even the victim might be on various states on both same time. Such as the Schrödinger's paradox.
Or the "victim" may simply "offended" because they are too stupid to understand their own language.
For example:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22#David_Howard_incident

I just watched a few of his interviews, he seems to be an intellegent man. Wonder why I haven't heard of him?
Too good for politics.
Quote
It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected. The best men do not want to govern their fellowmen.
 ~George E. MacDonald
http://www.quotegarden.com/politics.html
 

Offline nessatse

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 98
  • Country: za


Quote from: AcHmed99 on Today at 13:18:20


>Quote from: rdl on Yesterday at 20:15:58
Dr. Benjamin Carson on Political Correctness: "PC is a Bad Thing"



I just watched a few of his interviews, he seems to be an intellegent man. Wonder why I haven't heard of him?



He also happens to be a young earth creationist, anti abortion, climate change denier, to name just a few of his other qualities.  Sort of puts a damper on his anti PC qualities, for me at least  :)
 

Offline Cyberdragon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2117
  • Country: us
The first one is just nonsense. I'll pay that one.
No, it is not. It is a liability issue. They are careful about avoiding pronouncing a cause-effect relationship between the injuries and the patient's death.
It's also a case of not saying 'what appears' to have happened - because it may upset some people if the statement says "the riders were flipped over and trapped in the mechanical conveyor system, causing amputations and horrific injuries"  (apologies to those offended) but it's necessary to 'tone it down' in the wider media, because many people are shocked by lambs, teddy bears and golliwogs nowadays, and would rather not know the details.

(But we have a choice of Trump -or- Clinton in the USA)
Oh noes! You have combined threads! Don't cross the streams! :-DD



Quote from: AcHmed99 on Today at 13:18:20


>Quote from: rdl on Yesterday at 20:15:58
Dr. Benjamin Carson on Political Correctness: "PC is a Bad Thing"



I just watched a few of his interviews, he seems to be an intellegent man. Wonder why I haven't heard of him?



He also happens to be a young earth creationist, anti abortion, climate change denier, to name just a few of his other qualities.  Sort of puts a damper on his anti PC qualities, for me at least  :)

You mean a hipocrit then?
*BZZZZZZAAAAAP*
Voltamort strikes again!
Explodingus - someone who frequently causes accidental explosions
 

Offline AntiProtonBoy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 770
  • Country: au
    • Youtube Channel
That could easily be interpreted to be a child who has committed a sexual offence.
But practically never is interpreted that way.
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3437
  • Country: gb
That could easily be interpreted to be a child who has committed a sexual offence.
But practically never is interpreted that way.

Sadly not true. I'm aware of some quite well known cases in the UK and the US. So, hardly ever, but sometimes.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf