Re: Sapir-Whorf on its head

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Cal Eastman: "Re: R. Rohrlich and "human rights""
• Previous message: Matthew Hill: "Re: anthro-l archives available (finally!)"

i do hold with teh soft form of sapir-whorf ( though how a klingon got in
there ill never know)

I think the language we use is important, because words do have many
shades of meaning.
However when we start to banish words from usage, we are practicing the
most insidious form of ideological fascism. The free flow of ideas is teh
goal of a free society,a nd certainly of academia. We cannot afford to
lose the potential for informed debate by banning the participents outright.

so for example, i try to use gender inclusive terms most of the trime,
but am not offended when i others do not. The same goes when i ehar (or
use) the (to me)nonsense words like soul, god, etc.
The metaphors we use shape the way we see the world. Lets not legislate
on point of view as correct, through vocabulary
peace

Boom shiva
mahalinga nataraj
:)
(puffiness 4evah)

• Next message: Cal Eastman: "Re: R. Rohrlich and "human rights""
• Previous message: Matthew Hill: "Re: anthro-l archives available (finally!)"