warspeak [LWN.net]

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 11:50 UTC (Fri) by sinister (guest, #10221) [Link]

The problem is that many of these old cliches take on entirely different meanings as time passes. Take the saying "close, but no cigar" for example. Once upon a time it meant exactly as it reads. It was based on the old "strongman" game wherein someone hit a lever with a sledgehammer that then knocked a slider up to ring a bell. If the bell rang, a cigar was awarded to the person ringing it. Now, however, it means anything that closely approximates something without ever reaching that stage. Such is the intent of the phrasing used in Open Group's writings. They used wording that carried certain connotations a one time, but which now are generally accepted to mean something else entirely. To suggest otherwise suggests more that the complainant is just seeking, and finding, reasons to be offended at something.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 12:21 UTC (Fri) by fpahl (guest, #11409) [Link]

Hey, I thought it said "Please try to be polite and respectful"
somewhere. So I'm a hysterical pacifist with an inflamed mind and
a delicately balanced chip on my shoulder who would be most at home
listening to radio signals from outer space through the fillings in
my teeth and am just seeking and finding reasons to be offended
at something.

Doesn't anyone here share my view? Isn't anyone else disturbed?

Four brief points:
a) I'm not a pacifist. I would have loved to see the US Army
stop the genocide in Rwanda.
b) I believe that this view that language becomes "neutral"
by use over time is incorrect. Language helps to shape our
thoughts. Some Eskimos have thirty words for different types
of snow; for us, it's just snow. It makes a difference whether
things are put "in harm's way" or "at risk". The more military
language becomes accepted and normal, the easier it is to wage
wars of aggression.
c) I may be wrong, but I can't remember ever reading an article
on open software with such a density of military references
before the invasion of Iraq. But maybe that's just what the
fillings in my teeth tell me.
d) I didn't take issue only with the metaphorical references,
which might conceivably be viewed as neutral, but more
specifically with the fact that the use on a battlefield was
portrayed as a normal and important, perhaps even a typical
use of UNIX. I personally would hope that UNIX gets used to
run servers in hospitals and universities, and people who
want to invade other countries under the flimsiest of pretexts
can go and use an abacus.

felix.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 13:54 UTC (Fri) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

I think the military analogy for business is longstanding. CEOs reading The Art of War and all that. I agree that it'd be nice to see less pervasive violence in our culture, but I don't think recent events are particularly to blame.

As for snow: snow, flakes, blizzard, flurry, slush, powder, drift, sleet...

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 14:43 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

Doesn't anyone here share my view? Isn't anyone else disturbed?

No, frankly I'm a bit annoyed. I saw 11 postings on this article, and I thought "oh good, there's a discussion going on the UNIX trademark." So I click through and get this nonsense instead. You'll have to forgive me, but having spent a large part of my adult life on a college campus I have a very low tolerance for political correctness and the hysteria that accompanies it.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 22:35 UTC (Fri) by melauer (guest, #2438) [Link]

> No, frankly I'm a bit annoyed. I saw 11 postings on this article, and I
> thought "oh good, there's a discussion going on the UNIX trademark." So I
> click through and get this nonsense instead. You'll have to forgive me,
> but having spent a large part of my adult life on a college campus I have
> a very low tolerance for political correctness and the hysteria that
> accompanies it.

So then why are you contributing to this nonsense with comments like that last sentence there? Get rid of it and you have a legitimate complaint. But put it in and... you become one of them.

Too bad there's no "Offtopic" filter here, like on Linux Today.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 15:14 UTC (Fri) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link]

> c) I may be wrong, but I can't remember ever reading an article
> on open software with such a density of military references
> before the invasion of Iraq.

Well, read the man page of kill(1) - you'll be astonished by a density of military terms there ;-)

> d) I didn't take issue only with the metaphorical references,
> which might conceivably be viewed as neutral, but more
> specifically with the fact that the use on a battlefield was
> portrayed as a normal and important, perhaps even a typical
> use of UNIX.

I really don't see how you managed to interpret the example in the original article as a "typical" use. When one wants to make a point, an _important_ example is selected, not necessarily the most probable one. And as to "normal and important" - yes, it's normal and important. Just as army and army service are. Or do you prefer _your_ army using Windows servers instead of Unix?

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 17:41 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

Yes, felix, I share your view.

It's widely acknowledged (in the Jargon File, for instance)
that public pronouncements in the USA tend to be far to the
political right of most of the rest of the world, and that
the news media are less critical of the biggest policy
decisions in the USA than in other countries.

It's also widely acknowledged (throughout the non-Murdoch
press in Britain for example) that British public discourse
has been heading the way of the USA for 25 years or so.

It is not coincidental that these two countries are the
unprovoked agressors in the recent war, and responsible
for the grossest flouting of international law, to the
extent that the strongest peace treaty of all time is now
unenforceable. It's very, very valid to point out how
the use of language of one kind or another in a pervasive
way makes it easier to pull the wool over peoples' eyes.

When the public practise of religion, for instance, involves
regular readings of ancient texts which proclaim that a
particular race of people is responsible for the death of
one of God's relatives, it's quite easy to whip the public
into a frenzy of hatred against that race and to close their
eyes when millions are enslaved, deported and murdered.

On the other hand, suppose that in another country the public
practice of religion prefers to read ancient texts which
proclaim that a particular race is the chosen of God and the
rightful inheritors of a particular piece of ground. It's then
very easy for public figures to justify to the public massive
military funding and consistent diplomatic support against all
other countries of a state which promotes itself as embodying
that race.

In my experience religious people are a bit funny about this
sort of thing, as are people who are exposed to the same kind
of talk in a less worshipful but equally pervasive setting,
like a paper or TV programme they watch semi-religiously.
They're quite liable to accuse anyone who challenges their
assumptions of 'political correctness' and the like. Where
did I put my asbestos suit?....

Jonathan

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 21:58 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

On the other hand, suppose that in another country the public practice of religion prefers to read ancient texts which proclaim that a particular race is the chosen of God and the rightful inheritors of a particular piece of ground. It's then very easy for public figures to justify to the public massive military funding and consistent diplomatic support against all other countries of a state which promotes itself as embodying that race.

I assume that you are referring to the nation of Israel, although what this has to do with the UNIX trademark I've absolutley no idea. What's even less clear is who the public figures who are providing "consistent diplomatic support against all other countries..." are. Certainly not George Bush; he's the first U.S. president to openly support a two state "solution." This seems doomed to failure -- Jews and Arabs have been enemies for 4000 years, and I don't think a U.S. president has much chance of changing this. The Israeli/Arab conflict is a graveyard of political careers.

Where did I put my asbestos suit?...

If you're looking to start a flamewar, you'd be better of trolling at slashdot. The only out-and-out flamewar at LWN was that Mozilla thing about a week ago.