This goddamn forum: stereotypes abound!

I've been here since before most of today active orderites, hell, probably than most orderites as a whole, I really don't think they are special, I did however always thought they were *special*, you know, like the olimpics...
 
I was thinking more like Special Olimpics or...

67582893.jpg
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they have mental disabilities, at least those people have a legit disabilities to justify what they do. It's not as noticeable today, but back in the day... oh boy...
 
Dr Fallout said:
Ah I see... they're special because they have 'special' interests.
Click to expand...

Hmm? They are mentally disabled. Maybe you're joking and I don't get it

I also find it a fun case of archaic naming, like how "mongoloid" has completely fallen out of professional use, because of its recent use as an insult. Like the way Gonzales used the word *special*, the organization sounds like it's mocking the participants :D
"Special Olympics ;D"
 
zegh8578 said:
Hmm? They are mentally disabled. Maybe you're joking and I don't get it

I also find it a fun case of archaic naming, like how "mongoloid" has completely fallen out of professional use, because of its recent use as an insult. Like the way Gonzales used the word *special*, the organization sounds like it's mocking the participants :D
"Special Olympics ;D"
Click to expand...
I hate euphemisms.
 
zegh8578 said:
Hmm? They are mentally disabled. Maybe you're joking and I don't get it
Click to expand...

Already answered this.

They are *special*, I'll leave it to your imagination whatever that *special* with asterisks means as opposed to special without them. I bet they themselves would have came up with a thousand more imaginative interpretrations by now.
 
Last edited:
Gonzales, I was replying to Dr Fallout, maybe you mis-quoted

R. Graves, euphemisms are a natural part of human language, and you and Carlin can dislike it all you want, but it is part of the process of language evolution. For one word to split up into two - or to change meaning, or to change at all, becoming a euphemism is a step it takes
I really like linguistics, because it is as organic as any other evolution, but it also is political and personal, and therefore people often take offense to languages changing
It is often youth who bring changes to language, in order to differ themselves from their parents, usually in their teens. By the time of their own adulthood, they will try to revert many of the more drastic changes they did, for then to keep a few. These changes become part of the language, and the next generation then do their own tweaks - and so on

The most "vital" words stay the same, words like "one, two, three" or "sun" or "you, me"
This can be observed by comparing language branches that split thousands of years ago, but still retain very similar "vital words"
Norwegian (germanic): En to tre
Spanish (latin): Un dos tres
Norwegian: Sol
Spanish: Sol
Norwegian: Du
Spanish: Tu
 
R.Graves said:
@zegh8578 I refer to the sun almost exclusively as "That big carcinogenic bastard".
Click to expand...

That reminds me of another linguistic conundrum - the syllables

Logically, "that big carcinogenic bastard" would be a bad word for something SO common, because we refer to it often, and it therefore needs few syllables.
Languages tend to gravitate towards shortening, they "cut off", they become "lazier" if you will, but around the world, many languages are very different when it comes to average syllable-count

Again, Spanish is a good example of a language where a LOT of words have ONE more syllable than they do in Germanic languages
House / Casa
Horse / Caballo
Cat / Gato
Dog / Perro

Finnish is on the syllable extreme, having very long words, even for every day concepts
Chinese is on the opposite extreme, having not only just a syllable for a lot of words, but words that are as good as identical in phonetics - even accent - and only differing in pitch - as in, wether you have a high or dark voice when saying the word.
Some Scandinavian words are also pitch-based, but they are rather few
 
zegh8578 said:
That reminds me of another linguistic conundrum - the syllables

Logically, "that big carcinogenic bastard" would be a bad word for something SO common, because we refer to it often, and it therefore needs few syllables.
Languages tend to gravitate towards shortening, they "cut off", they become "lazier" if you will, but around the world, many languages are very different when it comes to average syllable-count

Again, Spanish is a good example of a language where a LOT of words have ONE more syllable than they do in Germanic languages
House / Casa
Horse / Caballo
Cat / Gato
Dog / Perro

Finnish is on the syllable extreme, having very long words, even for every day concepts
Chinese is on the opposite extreme, having not only just a syllable for a lot of words, but words that are as good as identical in phonetics - even accent - and only differing in pitch - as in, wether you have a high or dark voice when saying the word.
Some Scandinavian words are also pitch-based, but they are rather few
Click to expand...
...
I Actually found that interesting.
 
zegh8578 said:
Hmm? They are mentally disabled. Maybe you're joking and I don't get it

I also find it a fun case of archaic naming, like how "mongoloid" has completely fallen out of professional use, because of its recent use as an insult. Like the way Gonzales used the word *special*, the organization sounds like it's mocking the participants :D
"Special Olympics ;D"
Click to expand...
I was referring to the Orderites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top