On the attribution & ascription of names, values, causes, & characteristics

From Eponyms & Anonyms, to Pseudonyms, Synonyms, & Antonyms

I may think I think this, or think I think I think that.

And thinking I thought another thing . . . I Taut I Tauw a Putty Tat.

Strictly for the Birds

But surely, that sort of thing could never happen here . . .

When it comes to policing debate in a digital democracy, certain ideas win the early PR war.

Such as that if we are completely transparent about our identities then we are far less likely to become abusive bullies. We’ll end up policing ourselves.

The Social Media Platform Twitter has just come back with data about the racist abuse that appeared after England lost the final of the UEFA European Cup last month.

Now it appears that most of the abusive Tweets came from accounts that were not anonymous – they could, many of them, be identified.

Lots of politicians, Margaret Hodge in particular, say they believe that racism and other forms of abuse will fall if people are forced to reveal who they are whenever they comment online.

So the question is, which identification model is best for society?

Losing anonymity theoretically discourages bad behaviour – but ironically means fewer people feel truly free to express themselves.

Just as the so-called Delta variant is more virulent but less harmful, the internet allows our throwaway as well as our heartfelt opinions to be far more easily shared – whether deep or superficial.

But with that has come authoritarianism and the establishment’s fear of the mob.

So we have externally moderated speech.

Just as broadcasters have historically had to follow strict guidelines – so too, now, do any Haris, Sitas or Rams.

From Gate-kept to Bereft >>> From Bereft to Tone Deaf

So what ever happened to Free Speech and Democracy? That great listening activity.

To paraphrase the mighty MK, (not) it was a nice idea (at the time).

Anonymous / Incognito

That Isadora, she could dance

The Greeks liked their masks

Lastman’s Juno discovering Jupiter with Io. The mask depicts deceipt.

But now with pseudonymisation . . .

Further propaganda (2017)

Joe Green / Giuseppe Verdi’s Un giorno di regno King for a Day:

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/94863b7c-f6c1-4cdb-8fd6-56df9214e729

They say Video killed the Radio Star

Speaking of Chicken and Egg, Wittgenstein got quite caught up in the Language Reality continuum.

As did Aristotle and Zeno, but on a more meta, mathy level.

More meta than language / reality? Truthiness?

Ok, fair point.

The Sapir Wharf thing matters.

Mono can be boring. What happened to cognitive diversity?

Does the mere mention make you a fascist?

Taken from wiki:

Linguistic relativity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to search

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis /səˌpɪər ˈwɔːrf/, the Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, is a principle suggesting that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ worldview or cognition, and thus people’s perceptions are relative to their spoken language.

Linguistic relativity has been understood in many different, often contradictory ways throughout its history.^[1] The idea is often stated in two forms: the strong hypothesis, now referred to as linguistic determinism, was held by some of the early linguists before World War II,^[2] while the weak hypothesis is mostly held by some of the modern linguists.^[2]

• The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. This version is generally agreed to be false by modern linguists.^[3]
• The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.^[4] Research on weaker forms has produced positive empirical evidence for a relationship.^[3]

The term “Sapir–Whorf hypothesis” is considered a misnomer by linguists for several reasons: Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf never co-authored any works, and never stated their ideas in terms of a hypothesis. The distinction between a weak and a strong version of this hypothesis is also a later invention; Sapir and Whorf never set up such a dichotomy, although often their writings and their views of this relativity principle are phrased in stronger or weaker terms.^[5][6]

The principle of linguistic relativity and the relation between language and thought has also received attention in varying academic fields from philosophy to psychology and anthropology, and it has also inspired and colored works of fiction and the invention of constructed languages.

Private Eye’s Pseuds Corner[edit]

Listing pretentious, pseudo-intellectual quotations from the media. At various times different columnists have been frequent entrants, with varied reactions. In the 1970s, Pamela Vandyke Price, a Sunday Times wine columnist, wrote to the magazine complaining that “every time I describe a wine as anything other than red or white, dry or wet, I wind up in Pseud’s Corner“.^[2] Around 1970, editor of the Radio Times Geoffrey Cannon regularly appeared because of his habit of using “hippie” terminology out of context. Simon Barnes, a sports writer on The Times, has been frequently quoted in the column for many years.

The column now often includes a sub-section called Pseuds Corporate, which prints unnecessarily prolix extracts from corporate press releases and statements.

FT’s Gillian Tett on Engagement, the new form of shareholder governance

I used to look to Gillian Tett’s work to understand the world I lived in. She published articles that resonated with me because she looked at the world differently to other journalists. She’s a trained anthropologist. Once, when I referred to her whilst speaking to a younger FT journo, I was told (ten years ago) that some of her colleagues felt she had “Gone Native”. I don’t think that was a colonial dig at her having mixed race kids. It was because she was perceived as having got too close to the people she was supposed to be reporting on.

I believe Gillian now lives in the US and is very high up in the paper. Maybe one day she’ll become the editor. Who knows?

One thing is sure – her work has become somewhat tame since she started the Moral Money section in which she talks about Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) issues.

I’ve had trouble reading it because I find her far too deferential. And the video above shows that. I appreciate that making explainer videos must involve tough decisions. What do you include? What do you leave out? And most of all in the case of ESG, who do you portray as the baddies when the worst of the worst already pay you to scribble behind their ads?

Equinor (Norwegian state-owned Oil firm formerly known as Statoil) partner with the FT.

Check out this Equinor / FT / EU Green Deal hydrogen video

All very good talking about Hydrogen in the UK and Europe, but in Brazil Equinor are about to invest 8 Billion USD in an offshore oil drilling project with . . . Exxon Mobil.

All this talk of sustainability is nice – but the only type of protest corporate power likes is its own.