Carroll81 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 10:05 pm
OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 5:52 am
This is off topic within the topic but I don't know where else to put it.
I'm watching the local news this morning:
"Asked how Biden planned to follow up on his vow for retribution for Thursday's attack. White House press secretary Psaki responded, 'I think he made clear yesterday that he does not want them to live on the earth anymore.'"
This answer irritates me--not the gist of it but the construct. "he does not want them to live on the earth anymore". What a pretentious, contrived, stupid f*cking way to say it. The late George Carlin often talked about the silly, puffed-up trend toward soft language in this country--like "toilet paper" becoming "bathroom tissue". Finding ways to get away from simple, honest, direct language because the elitist intelligentsia found a "better" or "more enlightened" way to communicate it. Some of the motivation behind this trend is to avoid offense. Another motivation is certainly intellectual arrogance. Still another might be akin to why websites and computer operating software are constantly being "upgraded" or "redesigned" when in reality there was nothing wrong with them, only that perhaps companies need to give their creative team something to do to justify a paycheck or marketing came out with a new analytical report showing how these demographics are more likely to do this or that based on this color or this wording--whatever. That's what this construct smacks of. "does not want them to live on the earth anymore". So what, he'll put them in holding until science proves life is viable on Mars and they can live there? What a ridiculous way to say, "he's going to have them killed" or even a more colorful way to say it like, "he's going to vanish them from the planet". Anyway--just some simple, honest, direct language on some wording that irritated me this morning. And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Might be off-topic, while the usual suspects are measuring belt sizes again, but I appreciate your point.
For some crazy reason your website/software comment made me think of Warren Buffets website. It's like a flashback to 1990s. The way a website is supposed to work:
https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ Well, except for the new link to the Berkshire Activewear site.
From a great book by Nietzsche (Genealogy of the Morals) via a website except from book with some interpretation (first decent one in Google to rip from quick)
(
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mcardwell0 ... ities/amp/)
Nietzsche begins by setting stating to find the origin of morality and he sets out by first looking for the origin of the word good. In the second section he chastises philosophers for “bungling” the origin of Good. He appears to quote someone when he voices the opinion of these philosophers.
Originally—so they decree—one approved unegoistic actions and called them good from the point of view of those to whom they were done, that is to say, those to whom they were useful; later one forgot how this approval originated and, simply because unegoistic actions were always habitually praised as good, one also felt them to be good—as if they were something good in themselves. (Nietzsche, 25)
Nietzsche reverses this theory by saying the “source of the concept “good” has been sought and established in the wrong place” (Nietzsche, 25). Nietzshce maintains it was a type of people, “the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good, that is, of the first rain, in contradistinction to all the low” (Nietzshce, 26). This, according to Nietzshce, is called the “pathos of distance” (Nietzsche, 26). Where these people “seized the right to create values and to coin names for values” (Nietzsche, 26). This is the origin of Good in the “noble-caste” affirming itself and values that distinguishing it as the “good”. The Bad is understood as everything that is not affirmed by the “noble caste” “in contradistinction” that is everything associated with the “low, low-minded, common and plebian”. (Nietzsche, 26)
The way Nietzsche establishes what these values are for the good is a theory of etymology, which traces the word good in various languages. Nietzsche traces good “to the same conceptual transformation that everywhere
noble,” “aristocratic” in the social sense, is the basic concept from which “good” in the sense of “with aristocratic soul,” “noble,” “with a soul of a high order,” “with a privileged soul” necessarily developed: a development which always runs parallel with that other in which “common,” “Plebeian,” “low” are finally transformed into the concept “bad.”(Nietzsche, 28)
This is how Nietzsche justifies terming this morality in a social class context. The words he claims that are associated with good are a “noble” and “aristocratic” class and “bad” is found to be what is distinctly different and that is the “plebian” and lower classes.
The next development within this morality of “good and bad” comes in the priestly caste, which essentially makes distinctions like the nobles, but only different distinctions. They make distinctions of “pure” and “impure”, which comes from an “unsymbolic” meaning. That is a “pure one’ is from beginning merely a man who washes himself, who forbids himself certain foods that produce skin ailments, who does not sleep with the dirty women of the lower strata” (Nietzsche, 32). Nietzsche criticizes this as something unhealthy.
