If my rudimentary knowledge of English and history is correct the actual English language is a curious mix of old Gaelic, Latin and various German tribal vernaculars. In this mish mash of words of the English language, various individual words come along that sound, when spoken, just like another word in English from having such a large base of languages to draw from.
Whether it be two, to and too or the ever tricky they're, their and there. One could sit here and probably list hundreds of such words that, in themselves have different meanings and yet when committed to paper, represent a challenge to the author to determine which one to use and/or to make sure a typo doesn't become an embarrassment when they submit their work.
My own little hic-up in this regard comes with the two words; bare and bear. Sure, it's a rather laughable little problem that one can mix these two words up but we all have our weaknesses. On an intellectual level, it is obvious that the bear is the big, hairy animal that lumbers through our forests while the other word can be a substitute for being naked. On that basic level, that fundamental usage, I am good between the two.
It's when the usage goes past that and into the realm of turns of phrase or change noun to verb, adjective to adverb. Perhaps the most common mistake with regards to these words that I make is when using them to convey the idea of carrying something. Do you bare a load? The unbridled, naked truth that you are carrying something heavy? Stripped away from any sense of self delusion that what you are lugging along is not light? Or is it that you have tossed your saddlebags across the back of your rather hairy and large pet to take the load off of your now naked shoulders?
Do you bare your thoughts? Taking off the coverings people build up as a defense against all the negative interactions we unfortunately have with others, or perhaps we bear our thoughts. Make them big and gruff, perhaps letting them hibernate for long periods of time within our subconscious.
It is in this that my mind, as well as my typing fingers, go insane and fumble to find the right answer to which to use. It takes an actual effort to produce the correct usage, and spell check is not always a help, due to the fact I can spell both words correctly. So it would seem that this is my cross to bear and so to deal with burden, I come to you to bare my thoughts in hope that laughing at me might make others with similar problems feel a little better about themselves.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Do I hate family values?
I hate buzzwords. What are buzzwords? Some in the media call them codewords, but if you've not heard that explanation before; a buzzword is a word or phrase that groups certain ideas together under one label. By itself, the label isn't that bad and I don't mind their use, past the stereotypical nature of them.
What I hate about buzzwords is not the label, rather the overuse of them until the original meaning or ideals behind the word or phrase is gone missing and it is the label itself that becomes the prevailing ideal being touted.
Case in point; Family Values. Have you heard this phrase? Those that pay attention to politics or perhaps religion may have come across the term. Perhaps it was used to help sell you an item such as a car or perhaps computer software for your personal family situation. But did anyone, when they mentioned these values, explain what exactly these family values are? What are these morals and ethics that are grouped together to form a family value? Is there just one set of family values, set in stone and eternal? Or are there multiple sets of family values that people of different strokes employ and if so, could we compare one set to another?
Personally, I tend to hear the buzzword family values in strictly a political sense. Even if those politics are religiously based. 'Vote for this candidate because he stands for family values'. Or a church leader orating about religious rules to strengthen your family values, or even denouncing others outside of their belief system for lack of their obviously better value system.
However, in none of those tv shows or media soundbites were a list of actual family values one could see and analyse or compare with others. I have yet to see a political candidate or religious figure define these values so at the very least I can see if those people live by their supposed values.
Not having a theology myself, the religious side of these buzzwords when introduced into politics tends to really frustrate me. Those pointing to people of my lack of theology and saying I don't have their family values, if any at all, to incite their followers to stand behind them on what ever issue they are talking about have not engaged in any sort of meaningful discussion. How would they know my family values? Are they listed on google and I just didn't know? I have actually sat down with people before on a casual basis and talked about my family values as opposed to theirs. Most people, especially those of a more religious ilk, are surprised to find out that my values in relation to my family are strikingly consistent with theirs.
I want my kids to succeed. I don't want them stealing, fibbing or other wise treating others with contempt. I believe in treating my neighbors with respect and helping when I can. I don't want politics which would hurt my family nor do I wanted media for my kids that would do the same. All and all I'm a normal person when it comes to being compared with what the more religious type describes themselves. So why would a politician describe my family values being different than his or hers?
In my opinion, these people don't want to list their values and would rather use buzzwords. They want a broad definition to grab as many people under their banner as they can so when their political game of 'us versus them' is played they can point to their vast numbers united under their cause. Forgetting of course that that in itself is a logical fallacy.
So, I hate buzzwords. Be it family values, freedom fries, soccer moms or even support the troops. What ever cause they seem to back, they are really just a cheap trick by slick salesmen to get you on their side no matter the cost. They destroy the ability to debate rationally and instead turn the field of discussion into five second sound bites of slogans and vague descriptions.
What I hate about buzzwords is not the label, rather the overuse of them until the original meaning or ideals behind the word or phrase is gone missing and it is the label itself that becomes the prevailing ideal being touted.
Case in point; Family Values. Have you heard this phrase? Those that pay attention to politics or perhaps religion may have come across the term. Perhaps it was used to help sell you an item such as a car or perhaps computer software for your personal family situation. But did anyone, when they mentioned these values, explain what exactly these family values are? What are these morals and ethics that are grouped together to form a family value? Is there just one set of family values, set in stone and eternal? Or are there multiple sets of family values that people of different strokes employ and if so, could we compare one set to another?
Personally, I tend to hear the buzzword family values in strictly a political sense. Even if those politics are religiously based. 'Vote for this candidate because he stands for family values'. Or a church leader orating about religious rules to strengthen your family values, or even denouncing others outside of their belief system for lack of their obviously better value system.
However, in none of those tv shows or media soundbites were a list of actual family values one could see and analyse or compare with others. I have yet to see a political candidate or religious figure define these values so at the very least I can see if those people live by their supposed values.
Not having a theology myself, the religious side of these buzzwords when introduced into politics tends to really frustrate me. Those pointing to people of my lack of theology and saying I don't have their family values, if any at all, to incite their followers to stand behind them on what ever issue they are talking about have not engaged in any sort of meaningful discussion. How would they know my family values? Are they listed on google and I just didn't know? I have actually sat down with people before on a casual basis and talked about my family values as opposed to theirs. Most people, especially those of a more religious ilk, are surprised to find out that my values in relation to my family are strikingly consistent with theirs.
I want my kids to succeed. I don't want them stealing, fibbing or other wise treating others with contempt. I believe in treating my neighbors with respect and helping when I can. I don't want politics which would hurt my family nor do I wanted media for my kids that would do the same. All and all I'm a normal person when it comes to being compared with what the more religious type describes themselves. So why would a politician describe my family values being different than his or hers?
In my opinion, these people don't want to list their values and would rather use buzzwords. They want a broad definition to grab as many people under their banner as they can so when their political game of 'us versus them' is played they can point to their vast numbers united under their cause. Forgetting of course that that in itself is a logical fallacy.
So, I hate buzzwords. Be it family values, freedom fries, soccer moms or even support the troops. What ever cause they seem to back, they are really just a cheap trick by slick salesmen to get you on their side no matter the cost. They destroy the ability to debate rationally and instead turn the field of discussion into five second sound bites of slogans and vague descriptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)