Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX SZALON 207
Copyright (C) HIX
1992-10-12
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Defini allni (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
2 Beszedcslekvesek es a tobbi... (mind)  57 sor     (cikkei)
3 nevezzuk meg a boldogsagunk (mind)  37 sor     (cikkei)
4 ??? (mind)  196 sor     (cikkei)
5 szegenyseg (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
6 Meghalt Bay Zoltan =92=, vilaghiru fizikus. (mind)  19 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Defini allni (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves (Szabo') Zolta'n!

Kicsit megva'ltoztatom (szerintem: pontosi'tom) (2)-t, e's akkor mege'rted, mi
ketto"nk ve'leme'nye ko~zt a ku~lo~nbse'g.

(2) Egy demokratikus pa'rt alelno~ke'nek nem szabad(na) ilyen programot i'rnia.

Na most ebbo"l ma'r ko~vetkezik, hogy nincs (3), csak (3a) e's (3b).

(3a) Ha egy demokratikus pa'rt alelno~ke me'gis i'r ilyen programot, e's azt
     ke'so"bb sem mino"si'ti pillanatnyi elmezavar terme'ke'nek (Medgyesi
     Guszta'vnak volt egy zsenia'lis cikke ne'ha'ny hete, azt hiszem, a 168
     o'ra'ban, sajnos szoka's szerint tova'bbadtam), akkor pa'rtja'nak meg kell
     szabadulnia to"le.

(3b) Ha az MDF ezt haszna'lhato' programnak, vitaalapnak tartja, akkor
     megtanultuk, hogy a demokra'cia elo"tt a magyar a szocialista
     szinoni'majake'nt, vagyis foszto'ke'pzo" gyana'nt haszna'lando'.
     Ezt a politikai nyelvtani szaba'lt jo' tudni.

Teha't fenntartom, itt nem Csurka'ro'l van szo', hanem az MDF-ro"l. Nekik kell
eldo~nteni, (3a) vagy (3b) az igaz. (3a) esete'ben nem ke'rde's, (3b) esete'ben
viszont mindegy, mije Csurka az MDF-nek. E's abban persze egyete'rtu~nk, hogy
az MDF az elko~vetkezo" ma'sfe'l e'vben me'g nem 2,34%-kal rendelkezik, e's
eze'rt lenne fontos mielo"bb megtudnunk, mire sza'mi'tsunk.

Ko"ro~si Ga'bor
+ - Beszedcslekvesek es a tobbi... (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves  Kata!

Keves ketsegem van affelol, hogy a nyelvi vitak (pl. a "man", az
"African-American" szavak hasznalatarol vagy a "he, she, he or she, she or he,
he/she, she/he" kifejezesek helyes aranyarol) masodlagosak politikai
szempontbol. Abban is egyetertunk, hogy gyakran fontosabb vitak elkerulese
vegett kerulnek elo Amerikaban az akademiai korokben. Meg az is igaz, hogy egy
uj szo hasznalata (vagy egyszeruen egy regi elkerulese) onmagaban nem
valtoztatja meg az eloiteleteket.

Ezzel szemben tagadom, hogy ne lennenek kulturalis es politikai eloiteletek,
amelyek nyelvileg rorzulnek. Az ilyen konnotaciot hordozo kifejezesek
hasznalata egy ido utan az eloitelet melleti elkotelezettseget fogja
szimbolizalni. Amerikaban azt a szot hasznalni, hogy "nigger" korulbelul
annyira durva, mint egy etteremben a szomszed levesebe kopni. Manapsag a
"negro" hasznalata sem tanacsos, leven ez utobbi igencsak hasonalatos a fent
emlitetthez. Ez nem volt mindig igy (lasd. pl. Martin Luther King, Letter from
Birmingham Jail, mely 1965-ben irodott es meg konzisztensen a "negro"
kifejezest hasznalja). Es ha ot ev mulva  az "African-American" kifejezes
fogja serteni a feketek egy jelentos reszet, akkor ezt a kifejezest is el kell
felejtened, ha nem akarod, hogy felreertsek a szandekaidat.

Termeszetesen jogod van arra, hogy oktalannak tartsd a nyelvi erzekenyseget.
Vedd azonban figyelembe, hogy Amerikaban a rabszolgafelszabaditas utani szaz
evben a feketek diszkriminaciojanak egyik legfobb eszkoze a nyelv volt.
(Martin Luther King irja a fenti levelben, hogy a feketek megszolitasa gyakran
akkor is "boy" volt, ha az illeto 30 evvel idosebb volt partnerenel.) Ahogy
a diszkriminacio elhalvanyul, ugy szunik majd meg lassan az erzekenyseg is
a megnevezessel kapcsolatban. (Az amerikaiak nem igazan kapjak fel a vizet
a "gringo"-ra, de az olaszok meg erzekenyek arra, hogy valaki "ledigozza"-e
oket. A biztonsagerzeten mulik az egesz.) En a magam reszerol szivesen
valtoztatom akar evente az elfogadott megnevezest, ha ezzel elkerulhetem,
hogy akarcsak felmeruljon a gyanu, hogy a szivem titkon David Duke-ert dobog.

Elkepzelheto, hogy a noi emancipacionak semmi koze nincsen a feketek
emancipaciohoz. Vitathatatlan, hogy szamos vonatkozasban mas a ket problema.
Ennek ellenere en latok nemi hasonlosagot. A noknek sem volt hosszu ideig
valasztojoguk, nem rendelkezhettek (vagy  csak nagy  nehezsegek aran) onallo
exisztenciaval, ki voltak rekesztve a tarsadalom es a gazdasag legfontosabb
teruleteirol. Akarcsak a feketek eseteben, a diszkriminaciot immoralisnak
es a demokracia jelenlegi idealjaval osszeegyeztethetetlennek tartom. Az
vitathatatlannak tunik, hogy a diszkriminacio nyelvileg is rorzult. Ezert
megertem a nok egy  reszenek erzekenyseget es hajlamos vagyok a felreertesek
elkerulese vegett alkalmazkodni az uj nyelvi elvarasokhoz.

Annal is inkabb hasznos a nyelvi engedekenyseg, mert valoban vannak
radikalis fekete nacionalistak, illetve radikalis feministak, akikkel jo,
ha az ember vitaba tud szallni oly modon, hogy csokkentse a szandekos
felremagyarazasok eselyeit. Magyaran: ha nem hasznalod a megfelelo
kifejezeseket, semmi eselyed nem lesz azokkal a buta fanatikusokkal
szemben, akik azt allitjak, hogy a rasszista es szexista Arisztotelesz,
Descartes es Kant helyett afrikai es noi filozofiat kell tanitani az
egyetemeken. (A javaslat elhangzott az APA tavaly decemberi kongresszusan.)

A legjobbakat,

                                                        Szabo Zoltan
+ - nevezzuk meg a boldogsagunk (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves Zoltan (Szabo):

A "We, The Persons" levelet nem egyetertesemul kozoltem, hanem azert,
mert a tema nagyon izgat, es a levelet igen erdekesnek talaltam.
Valaszod es Katalin (Bimbo1) valaszat elkuldtem szerzojenek, akinek
ujabb levelet valahol alabb olvashatjatok. (Azoknak, akik mar az
elsot is nehezen birtak, javaslom, hogy elore lazitsanak egy kicsit... :-))
Ha valaki neki valaszol, azt kerem a jovoben is angolul tegye,
merthogy megigertem neki, hogy tovabbitom a reakciokat, hamar
kitettem a cikket, es nincs kedvem sokat forditani.
Velem viszont lehet magyarul is beszelgetni.

Ahogy en latom, az szotar-valtozas alapvetoen arra az elvre epul, hogy
"ha nem tudod legyozni, nevezd el".
Vannak esetek persze, amikor mast nehezen lehet tenni, de altalaban
ha ehhez folyamodik az ember, akkor egy kicsit beismerte, hogy
veszitett. Amerikaban egesz tarsadalmi retegek "emelkednek" azaltal,
hogy az egyszeru eladokat (azt hiszem, a JC Penney-ben)
"sales counselor"-nek hivnak, a Taco Bellben mindenki "manager",
a repulon pedig "flight attendant".
Neha az az erzesem, hogy mindenki lila szemuvegben eli le az eletuket,
es ez a hamis feny teszi oket boldogga.

Ami szamomra izgalmas ebbol, az az, hogy valojaban mekkora a visszahatas
a nyelvbol a valosagra, azaz a "sales counselor" valoban jobban banik-e
a vasarlokkal, mint az "elado", valoban kevesbe idegenedik-e el a
munkajatol a Taco Bell "manager"-e, mint ugyano "kiszolgalo"-kent.
Vagy maskent, valoban egyenrangubbaknak lesznek elfogadva a feketek
_attol_, hogy nem negernek hivjak oket.

Ha arra gondolok, hogy a gondolkodas szavakban tortenik, akkor hajlok
arra, hogy igy van. Ha viszont arra, hogy ugyis tudja mindenki, hogy
csak szocsere tortent... Vagy a gondolkodas lustasaga ezt feledteti?

Errol mit gondoltok? Ha "megfogalmazzuk" a jot, akkor "megjelenik?

Jozsi.
+ - ??? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Dear Larry Landwehr,
>
>I found your letter extremely interesting and stimulating. Still, I would
>like to point out that I cannot fully agree with your evaluation of
>political correctness.
>
>> Now many people use the words "sensitivity", "empowerment", and
>> "disadvantaged" without bothering to explain what they mean.
>
>No doubt. Even more people use the words "democracy", "rights", "freedom
>of expression" or "civil disobedience" without explanations. These words
>do not seem to be less problematic than the ones quoted by you.

My point was that the words "sensitivity" etc now have meanings that they
did not have just a few years ago. The words "democracy" etc are far older
and their meanings are still mostly the traditional ones. What people should
be aware of is that the English language is changing. Old words have new
meanings, new words are invented, and some words can no longer be freely
used in public discourse. Many people are not fully aware of this.


>> At the same time many words that used to be perfectly acceptable
>> have fallen into disfavor or have been banned from public speech.
>> Such words and phrases as "divorcee", "indian", "unwed mother",
>> "lesbian", "Negro", "stewardess", "meter maid", and "waitress" are
>> no longer used in public speech.
>
>Well, we have a factual disagreement here. I think the words "lesbian",
>"stewardess" and "waitress" are used very frequently even in liberal
>environments like Cambridge. It is also interesting that the word
>"nigger" is missing from your list. That word has virtually disappeared
>from public speech too. Do you consider this a great loss?

The words "lesbian" etc are still used in colloquial speech (slang) by
many people, but not by the national media. These words all have
politically correct equivalents. Neutered words such as "server" and
"flight attendant" were not widely used in the past.

The word "nigger" is a very negative word. So are the words "wop",
"spade", and "wetback". The word "Negro" is not negative, but it has
fallen out of public use. My article dealt with how English is being
shaped to be politically correct, not about prejudice and prejudicial
words.


>> Many of the old words had negative connotations.  The new words do
>> not.  The reason many of the old words had negative connotations
>> was because the behavior associated with them was behavior that the
>> majority of the public did not like.  People did not like divorce,
>> homosexuality, unwed mothers, and people who would not work.  These
>> activities and conditions were not looked upon favorably.
>> ...
>> Now days, we have to keep such opinions to ourselves.  We cannot
>> utter such opinions because the words used to express them have
>> been banned.
>
>If I am not mistaken you have succeeded to express such views right now.
>I remember hearing Rush Limbaugh in the other day expressing very similar
>views too. I vaguely remember a political speech of vice-president Dan
>Quayle who was also able to phrase such thoughts. I think if his intellectual
>capacity was sufficient for this, there is no real problem for Americans to
>formulate the same ideas.

I succeeded in expressing my views, but the net is just about the only
place where I can do so. Other media are overwhelmingly liberally biased.
I have written letters to newspapers, but they have accepted nothing.

When someone does manage to express a conservative viewpoint in other
media, they experience far more attackers than defenders. When this
happens people are silenced.  What is striking about these attacks is
that they are often targeted personally at the other speaker and not at
the ideas expressed. The above attack on Dan Quayle is such an attack.

The other way people are silenced is by passing laws making certain kinds
of speech illegal. The University of Wisconsin has just repealed such a
law that they passed about a year ago. For the past year, a student
could be booted out of school if someone took offense to a joke!

We also have "hate crimes" where the penalty is increased if the victim
belongs to certain groups. Ten years ago the term "hate crime" hadn't
even been invented.


>> We call people "the homeless" instead of "bums" and "hobos" even if it is a
>> voluntary "lifestyle".
>
>I thought homeless people had no place to live. I do not want to exclude the
>possibility that there might be people who would, even if they had the money,
>choose to sleep in shelters or on the streets. OK, let us call them hobos.
>But please, try to keep the distinction between them and the people who
>sleep on Central square. They told me (strangely enough) that they would be
>quite happy if they had a home.

You should have asked them if they would be quite happy to *work* to have
a home. Some people just plain do not want to work for a living. They
find it too boring. They'd like to have a home, but they are not willing
to pay the price and I don't want to pay it for them.


>> This vocabulary revolution has had far ranging effects on people's
>> lives.  It has placed limits what we can say in public.  It affects
>> how we think about things.  We no longer think about ourselves as
>> a "people".
>
>There was a time in American history when people thought about themselves
>as citizens of a democratic country, but slavery was accepted. Then there was
>a time when they still thought about themselves as citizens of a democratic
>country, slavery was banned, but blacks could not sit on the front seats in
>buses. And there was a time in American history when the people thought
>about themselves as citizens of a democratic country, slavery was banned,
>blacks could sit on the front seats in buses, but it was yet a considerable
>disadvantage to be born black in America. It is not that all these thoughts
>are mistaken, it is just that the ideal of democracy changes. I do not
>think that it is advisable to silence opinions that do not correspond to
>the current (or desired) standard of democracy, hence I oppose the views
>of some radical liberals in America. I am happy that you have the
>opportunity to say what you have said, but I am sad that you have these
>views.

It's funny how you and many others only speak about the bad in the past.
And it's funny how you only use blacks for your examples. What about Asians
and Mexicans? Someone has wrapped the liberal philosophy up with a pretty
ribbon and you have bought it all.

I started out as a completely liberal person when I was young and have
seen what some of the logical consequences of that philosophy are for
this country. I don't like what I see.

I see minority criminals get special treatment because they are minorities.
Here in Milwaukee, we had a case where four or five blacks beat up a
white guy and chased him into Lake Michigan where he drowned. There was
almost a total blackout on this crime. I heard about it on the radio.
The local TV stations carried virtually nothing on it. A year later the
defendants were sentenced. They got one year of probation. The local
newspaper reported the sentences on page 27 in the sporting section.

I see "affirmative action" where the local paper runs ads for the police
department. The ads clearly state that white males cannot apply (including
the men who fought in the war against Iraq).

I see "minority owned businesses" favored over other companies. Just recently,
a car towing company that existed only on paper (the company actually was in
the laundry business) ripped off the city of Milwaukee for $500,000 in
fraudulent claims. They then filed bankruptcy.

I see where women who shoot their husbands while he is asleep get out of jail
because they claim abuse.

I see fathers who can't see their kids on visitation day, but who had
better send in the child support check or the state will put them in jail.

I have seen what liberalism is doing to this country and I am sick to death
of it.

This country had problems in the past, but it had a lot of goodness too.
People have forgotten that goodness. They mock it. They invent new words
and meanings so that meanings inherent in the old vocabulary are no
longer expressible. To use those words immediately marks you as old
fashioned and intolerant. Liberals have managed to convince many people
that:

    liberal             = good  |  conservative    = bad
    women               = good  |  men             = bad
    minority            = good  |  white           = bad
    homeless            = good  |  government      = bad
    environmentalist    = good  |  business        = bad
    non western culture = good  |  western culture = bad

It is surprising that more people aren't half liberal and half conservative.
Few people take whatever is good from each side and fashion their own
philosophy. They either buy into one or the other. The result is total
polarization.

Liberalism is much less tolerant of conservative viewpoints than
conservativism is of liberal views - this from a philosophy that prides
itself on its tolerance. Actually liberalism is very intolerant of
competing philosophies. That alone probably explains its present
dominance.

Liberalism is also very hateful and devisive. It discriminates against
certain groups of people. It labels them as bad. It pits people against
each other. It turns a people into a collection of persons. I wish
people would just think for themselves instead of buying whatever
package the media favors.

Christianity has been called a slave religion. I think Liberalism is a
have-nots philosophy and conservatism is a haves philosophy. A tyranny
of the have-nots is just as odious as a tyranny of the haves. It is
especially bad when people are so caught up in their environment that
they don't even realize that a tyranny exists.

Have you read the book "Animal Farm"? Remember how the word "equal"
got bent - All animals are "equal", but some animals are more "equal"
than others? Welcome to "affirmative action" folks.

Larry Landwehr
+ - szegenyseg (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves Peter!

Teljesen igazad van. Valoban osszemostam az abszolut szegenyseg fogal-
mat a hivatalos letminimumeval. Az elobbi azt a hatart jelenti, amely
alatt nehez eletben es embernek maradni. Hogy hol van ez a hatar, azt
nagyjabol lehetetlen megmondani. Aki ehezik, az biztosan abszolut sze-
geny, aki csak felevente egyszer tud hust enni, az talan nem. Minden
orszag megbecsuli, hogy hol van ez a hatar, es ezt nevezik hivatalos
letminimumnak. Mivel a becslesek orszagonkent kulonbozoek, a hivata-
los letminimum orszagrol orszagra valtozik. Mindazonaltal a hivata-
los letminimumok ugyanazt az intuitiv es homalyos fogalmat probaljak
operacionalizalni, es ezert azt hiszem nem ternek el egymastol olyan
borzasztoan. (Persze ebben is tevedhetek.) Ezert azt gondolom, hogy
e fogalomcsusztatas talan nem fosztja meg az altalam kozolt statisz-
tikat es a hozzakapcsolodo ervelest minden meggyozo erotol.

                                Forrai Gabor
+ - Meghalt Bay Zoltan =92=, vilaghiru fizikus. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

A The  Washington Post 1992.   oktober 11-i (vasarnapi)  szama egy
    teljes hasabon  allit emleket a  magyar tudomany egyik  nagy alakjanak:
    Bay Zoltan, fizikusnak.

         Vilaghiru  kiserlete't, amelyben  mikrohullamu sugarakkal  (radar)
    celozta meg a  Holdat, s a visszaverodo sugarakat  detektalva az akkori
    legpontosabb  adatot  szolgaltatta  a  Fold-Hold  tavolsagra,  1946-ban
    vegezte  a   Budapesti  Muszaki  Egyetemen.   1948-ban,   a  kommunista
    hatalomatvetelt   kovetoen,  elhagyta   Magyarorszagot.   Az   Egyesult
    Allamokban  telepedett   le,  ahol  a  National   Bureau  of  Standards
    munkatarsakent   folytatta   kutatasait   az  atom-   es   molekularis-
    spektroszkopia   teruleten.    Ket,  altala   kifejlesztett   elektron-
    sokszorozo  a   Smithsoniain  Intezet  gyujtemenyenek  resze.    A  II.
    vilaghaborut  koveto   zavaros  magyarorszagi  esemenyekrol   "Life  is
    Stronger"  cimu  konyveben  szamol   be.   1990-ben  a  magyar  kormany
    kituntetesben reszesitette (Order of the Flag).

         Bay Zoltan  92 eves  koraban, 1992.  oktober  4-en hunyt  el Chavy
    Chase-i otthonaban.

AGYKONTROLL ALLAT AUTO AZSIA BUDAPEST CODER DOSZ FELVIDEK FILM FILOZOFIA FORUM GURU HANG HIPHOP HIRDETES HIRMONDO HIXDVD HUDOM HUNGARY JATEK KEP KONYHA KONYV KORNYESZ KUKKER KULTURA LINUX MAGELLAN MAHAL MOBIL MOKA MOZAIK NARANCS NARANCS1 NY NYELV OTTHON OTTHONKA PARA RANDI REJTVENY SCM SPORT SZABAD SZALON TANC TIPP TUDOMANY UK UTAZAS UTLEVEL VITA WEBMESTER WINDOWS