|
|
|
|
|
|
by TeMPOraL
520 days ago
|
|
|
> The trick is simple to explain, isn’t it? We can perfectly be healthy carrier, and yet people will die from this virus we contributed to spread. Except words aren't pathogens. They aren't complex molecular nanomachines that actively avoid our bodies' defenses while incidentally doing damage to it. The only effect they have is in what connotations they trigger in people. In this case, even if the word has troublesome origin, if approximately no one knows about it, then the person bringing up that connotation is the pathogen causing harm to people by convincing them to get worked up over a word, where they wouldn't before. |
|
|
We can’t know what words will actually have on people until we release them. But we know that words we use can make a significant and measurable difference:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-minute-therapist...
https://brm.institute/neuroscience-behind-words/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...
>if approximately no one knows about it
How close to "approximately no one knows about" are we in an antonym association like master/slave?
>the person bringing up that connotation is the pathogen
Well, that is what we can call focusing on the person rather than the social mechanism at stake, isn’t it? Kind of an equivalent to the mechanism through which we produce reactions like "look this bird of ill omen that pretends that there is an invisible entity passing from one person to an other but whose malign effect only reveal randomly, clearly this person is the actual cause of the issue".