For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Why? Why would we even want to?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:54 pm Can the words "poor" and "homeless" be eradicated from the dictionary, and from all public speech?
it's double plus goodImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:59 pmWhy? Why would we even want to?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:54 pm Can the words "poor" and "homeless" be eradicated from the dictionary, and from all public speech?
So long as those realiies exist, don't you think it's worth being able to name them so as to do something about them?
If we redefine "poor" as something like "temporary pecuniary shortage," and "homeless" as "presently unsheltered," we actually depatholgize them and thus institutionalize them as permanent and acceptable realities. We stop identifying them as problems and start making them normal.
Why would you want to do that?
To depathologize them could force the radical change necessary, like force the institution of universally free housing and the complete absence of any moneyImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:59 pmWhy? Why would we even want to?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:54 pm Can the words "poor" and "homeless" be eradicated from the dictionary, and from all public speech?
So long as those realiies exist, don't you think it's worth being able to name them so as to do something about them?
If we redefine "poor" as something like "temporary pecuniary shortage," and "homeless" as "presently unsheltered," we actually depatholgize them and thus institutionalize them as permanent and acceptable realities. We stop identifying them as problems and start making them normal.
Why would you want to do that?
How?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:09 amTo depathologize them could force the radical change necessary,Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:59 pmWhy? Why would we even want to?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:54 pm Can the words "poor" and "homeless" be eradicated from the dictionary, and from all public speech?
So long as those realiies exist, don't you think it's worth being able to name them so as to do something about them?
If we redefine "poor" as something like "temporary pecuniary shortage," and "homeless" as "presently unsheltered," we actually depatholgize them and thus institutionalize them as permanent and acceptable realities. We stop identifying them as problems and start making them normal.
Why would you want to do that?
If you no longer recognize them as pathologies at all, what's the urgency of fixing them?Well, how not even being able to recognize "poverty" or "homelessness" as problems isn't going to "force" anything at all. It's going to mean those problems go merrily along, and aren't even addressed anymore.like force the institution of universally free housing and the complete absence of any money
Perhaps the elimination of the term strike is the better avenue to take, since it is the more derivative institution.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:18 amHow?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:09 amTo depathologize them could force the radical change necessary,Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:59 pm
Why? Why would we even want to?
So long as those realiies exist, don't you think it's worth being able to name them so as to do something about them?
If we redefine "poor" as something like "temporary pecuniary shortage," and "homeless" as "presently unsheltered," we actually depatholgize them and thus institutionalize them as permanent and acceptable realities. We stop identifying them as problems and start making them normal.
Why would you want to do that?
Well, how not even being able to recognize "poverty" or "homelessness" as problems isn't going to "force" anything at all. It's going to mean those problems go merrily along, and aren't even addressed anymore.like force the institution of universally free housing and the complete absence of any money
As for "the absence of money," there isn't any sane person who thinks that's even doable, let alone that it would be a good idea in any way. How does one get rid of the basic medium of exchange without eliminating exchange itself?
I can't follow your supposition: is it that if we don't recognize poverty and homelessness anymore, then somehow they will magically stop being problems, homes will pop up like mushrooms, and money itself will disappear...leaving everybody mysteriously rich on nothing?
I can't make sense of that at all.
Well for those of 'us' who do, then we MUST BE 'insane', correct?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:18 amHow?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:09 amTo depathologize them could force the radical change necessary,Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:59 pm
Why? Why would we even want to?
So long as those realiies exist, don't you think it's worth being able to name them so as to do something about them?
If we redefine "poor" as something like "temporary pecuniary shortage," and "homeless" as "presently unsheltered," we actually depatholgize them and thus institutionalize them as permanent and acceptable realities. We stop identifying them as problems and start making them normal.
Why would you want to do that?
Well, how not even being able to recognize "poverty" or "homelessness" as problems isn't going to "force" anything at all. It's going to mean those problems go merrily along, and aren't even addressed anymore.like force the institution of universally free housing and the complete absence of any money
As for "the absence of money," there isn't any sane person who thinks that's even doable, let alone that it would be a good idea in any way.
Why would ANY one want to get rid of the basic medium of exchange?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:18 am
How does one get rid of the basic medium of exchange without eliminating exchange itself?
To me, that nonsensical ASSUMPTION of yours, which you just made here, was NOT the supposition being made anyway. So, no wonder you can not make sense of your own presumptions and writings here.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:18 am I can't follow your supposition: is it that if we don't recognize poverty and homelessness anymore, then somehow they will magically stop being problems, homes will pop up like mushrooms, and money itself will disappear...leaving everybody mysteriously rich on nothing?
I can't make sense of that at all.
Could that one just being 'trying to' express an idea, but has not yet worked how to do it in a way in which EVERY one can understand it?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:56 am Very telling the way this trolling fuckwit gets continuous repsonses from all the 'philosophers' on here who think he's serious
He's taking the piss
Whatever.Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:46 amCould that one just being 'trying to' express an idea, but has not yet worked how to do it in a way in which EVERY one can understand it?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:56 am Very telling the way this trolling fuckwit gets continuous repsonses from all the 'philosophers' on here who think he's serious
He's taking the piss
Or, do you just JUMP to conclusions before you put ANY effort into working out what 'it' IS that "others" are 'trying to' express?
I see your point; in regards of politicians, one solution could be to eradicate the concept of central government - representative democracy could be the lethal weapon, which needs to be avoidedDubious wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:13 pm If something exists, there's usually a term for it and more of the "poor" and "homeless" are existing now in the so-called rich West than ever before. Eliminating it from public speech makes it very easy for politicians to ignore which I'm sure they would love to do but unfortunately for them and for the poor and homeless, it keeps getting worse.
Absolutely, and rather easily. In fact I get asked this a lot, I think I might make a U-Tube video to get into the details..trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:54 pm Can the words "poor" and "homeless" be eradicated from the dictionary, and from all public speech?
