"The Sixties"...

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

"The Sixties"...

Post by Lord Jim »

I have long felt that the "Sixties Generation" were a self absorbed, self important, bunch of brats who considered their value to be much higher in the course of history, than was truly merited...

Nothing has happened to change my view on that...

Nevertheless, as a lover of history, I have to say that CNN's "The Sixties" is a really well done documentary...

We just watched "1968"....

I had no idea that George Wallace was so non-plussed, and such an easy going comedian when dealing with hecklers:

When being attacked, George said:

"There's nothing wrong with you that a haircut wouldn't solve;

And then showing real humor...

"why don't you bring your sandals up here and I'll autograph them for you..."

Image

Now say what you want about him; that's funny.... 8-)
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sat Aug 02, 2014 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

That brings up an amusing contradiction between the English language and whatever it is that USians speak:

non·plussed /nänˈpləst/

adjective: nonplussed; adjective: non-plussed; adjective: nonplused

1. (of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react. "he would be completely nonplussed and embarrassed at the idea"

2. North American (informal)(of a person): not disconcerted; unperturbed

yrs
Child of the Sixties (late)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Lord Jim »

OCD...

What is the difference between Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and grammar Nazism...

If one were to ask...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Ah Jim lad.... that wasn't criticism of your usage. I find it interesting that the same word has two entirely different (and almost perfectly opposite) meanings.

Don't you find it mildly amusing that the entire English speaking world defines nonplussed to mean (in essence) "baffled and befuddled" while informal Norte Americanos use it to mean "unbaffled and unbefuddled"? :geek:
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20047
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by BoSoxGal »

Only Americans who don't adhere to the widely accepted norms of the language, Meade:
non·plus (nŏn-plŭs)
tr.v. non·plussed, non·plus·sing, non·plus·ses also non·plused or non·plus·ing or non·plus·es
1. To put at a loss as to what to think, say, or do; bewilder.
2. Usage Problem To cause to feel indifferent or bored.
n.
A state of bewilderment or perplexity.
[From Latin nōn plūs, no more : nōn, not; see NON- + plūs, more; see pelə-1 in Indo-European roots.]

Usage Note: The verb nonplus, from the Latin phrase nōn plūs, "not more," is well established with the meaning "to surprise and bewilder." The verb and its participial adjective nonplussed often imply that the affected person is at a loss for words. This use of the word was acceptable to 90 percent of the Usage Panel in our 2013 survey in the sentence 'The scientists were completely nonplussed—the apparatus had not acted at all as they had expected'. However, the word is frequently used to mean "to make indifferent, bore," as if the plus part of the word meant "to overcome with excitement." This usage is still controversial and should probably be avoided, since it may well be viewed as a mistake. In our 2013 survey, 57 percent of the Panel rejected the sentence 'The nine panelists showed little emotion during the broadcast and were generally nonplussed by the outcome'. This percentage is almost unchanged from the 61 percent of the Panel who rejected the same sentence in 2001.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2014 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Just because many Americans say 'irregardless' to mean 'regardless', doesn't make it one bit proper.*

Yrs,
Proud Protector of the English Language

*Yes, it's 'accepted' as an irregular use of 'regardless' - but to my way of thinking, it sounds ignorant and uneducated 'ir' added to 'regard' is a redundancy, since 'less' already negates the primary verb 'to regard'.

PS: I don't think it's comical or neurotic to care about language; language is what defines the human experience. I think it's shameful that entire generations of Americans are now being raised without the ability to read the founding documents of our nation in the original script, because teaching cursive writing is not worth the time it takes? Knowing how to use the language well, to write and speak well, is enormously advantageous in every area of life.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by rubato »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:That brings up an amusing contradiction between the English language and whatever it is that USians speak:

non·plussed /nänˈpləst/

adjective: nonplussed; adjective: non-plussed; adjective: nonplused

1. (of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react. "he would be completely nonplussed and embarrassed at the idea"

2. North American (informal)(of a person): not disconcerted; unperturbed

yrs
Child of the Sixties (late)

The second usage is just wrong. But then I heard Robert Sinsheimer* describe an introduction as "fulsome" when he could not have intended the actual meaning. So even educated, intelligent and highly accomplished people make mistakes.


yrs,
rubato

* Famous for early genetics research. Showed that DNA strands which had been split into their two halves would spontaneously re-assemble in the right chemical environment and helped introduce PHI X 174 as one of the 3 most important organisms for early genetic research (along with e coli and the fruit fly).

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Lord Jim »

Anyway, back to "1968"....

Watching that really brought back memories; I was only eight years old but even at that age I was very plugged into what was going on politically; I was already reading The Washington Post and The NY Times; I may be the only eight year old kid who watched the Democratic National Convention...(yeah, I was a weird kid)

It was a very scary time...

I remember the riots in DC after Martin Luther King was assassinated; living in Northern Virginia there was a lot of fear among "the grown ups" that the rioters might start coming across the bridges...

There was a retired naval commander in our neighborhood who held a meeting at his house, and offered to provide rifles and pistols to any "head of the household" in the neighborhood who wanted them for defense against this looming "invasion"...

My father thought this was insane; a bunch of upper middle class unmilitarily trained lawyers, CPA's, architects, government bureaucrats,and college professors armed to the teeth to hold off an "invasion"...What could go wrong?

(My father actually helped tamp down the hysteria somewhat because he was plugged into what was going on and he assured everybody that the National Guard was fully deployed on all the bridges, and that there was no way that the rioters would make it into Virgina...)

Another thing that documentary did for me was to serve as a timely reminder, especially at a time (like, well, now) when the world seems to be unraveling and going into hell in a hand basket...

That things have been worse, and we've survived....

1968 was arguably the worst year in modern American history;(possibly the worst year since 1863) two major political assassinations, race riots burning cities all over the country, a police riot at the site of the Presidential nominating convention of a major political party, more riots on college campuses as 200-300 body bags a week were coming back from a war with no end in sight...(The Tet Offensive that year, even though it ultimately failed, demonstrated that despite the presence of over 500,000 US troops and an enormous sacrifice in blood and treasure, we were no closer to "victory" then we had been five years earlier...)

And yet, just one year later, our country was celebrating the greatest scientific achievement in the history of Mankind; the Apollo 11 Moon Landing...

We've seen dark days before; this too shall pass...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:57 am, edited 3 times in total.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11657
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Crackpot »

which just proves the Apollo 11 moon landing was a false flag...
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Lord Jim »

Okay CP, put on your tinfoil hat and go sit in the corner...

Image
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11657
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Crackpot »

see tat's another con-spiracy you do a helmet like that you're just building an antennae designed to beam the thoughts right in.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

Big RR
Posts: 14907
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Big RR »

Jim--while I understand (and disagree to a large extent) with your assessment of the 60s generation, I do think that some definite improvements emerged from their actions, the chief one being forcing the government's hand to dismantle Jim Crow in accordance with the law. From the freedom riders to Dr. King and others, they kept that issue front and center and wouldn't allow the federal government any cover to say "we're working on it" and just ignore the issue. Far more was accomplished in this decade because people cared enough to stand up and be heard.

And, FWIW, I think that's probably the best legacy the 60s gave us; to show us that the people still had a voice. I think we needed to be reminded of that after the all-consuming war in the 40s and the less passionate 50s. Sure the excesses were easy to criticize (and rightfully so (I lost my commitment to the anti-war movement in the early 70s because of some of the radical fringe, but taking to the streets and demanding to be heard can work. From the 18 year old vote, to real progress in civil and gender rights, to the end of the Vietnam war, the people showed they could stand up and achieve change.

And that's something I think we could stand to learn from now; we can demand the government serve us, not the other way around.

Big RR
Posts: 14907
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Big RR »

As for the discussion of language, there are a number of words in American and British English that have opposite meanings; one I learned (to my chagrin) when I worked for a British company was use of the verb "to table"; in England this apparently means to bring up for consideration, while in the US it means to remove from consideration (as in "tabling a motion"); I once thought something was being withdrawn from consideration when it was agreed it would be "tabled" at a meeting, and had to do some fancy footwork when it was brought up for final disposition at the next meeting. It's not like one usage is any more correct than the other; you just have to understand who is saying it.

Language is a living thing that moves and progresses (otherwise we would still be writing and speaking like Chaucer)and exists so we can better understand each other, and while I am not a fan of "irregardless", I am happy a dictionary would tell me what it means rather than try and demean the user (perhaps as being a member of a lesser social class?) and usage. Ditto for the fact that even though "inconsistent" means "Not consistent", the adjective "inflammable" means flammable (and not unable to ignite or burn). Separated by a common language? Of course.

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by dales »

if you remember the '60's....you really weren't there............ :lol:

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20047
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by BoSoxGal »

Big RR wrote:It's not like one usage is any more correct than the other; you just have to understand who is saying it.
That's not entirely true; as the information I provided indicates, in this particular example the incorrect usage of nonplussed is rejected by 90% of linguists responding to the American Heritage Dictionary's usage survey. Surely professional linguists' opinion on an issue of American language usage should be every bit as compelling as professional climate scientists' opinion on man-made global warming - just because many Americans may not 'believe in' the science, doesn't mean it isn't correct.

In the example you provide, the usage is widely accepted - so again, not exactly the same as the one discussed prior in the thread.

Yrs,
Annoying Linguist w/OCD ;)
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Big RR
Posts: 14907
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Big RR »

Science is based on theory and experimentation; linguistics is based on previous usage and trends. Thus, I do not give a linguist's opinion the same deference that I give a climate scientists. It's kind of like asking a professional musician which type of music is better, classical or jazz. Its more a matter of opinion.

I have no problem with a reporting of the usage and how common/uncommon (or standard/non-standard) it is. But I do object to someone imposing cultural biases on a language; the biggest determinant of a language's acceptability whosul be how unambiguously it communicates what ideas are desired to be conveyed.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20047
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by BoSoxGal »

That's like saying if 10% of the people want something, it should be the law. I don't see the difference, truly. If 90% of linguists - who study language history, usage, common practice and change over time for a living, professionally - have an opinion about what is proper usage at this point in time, that's what I'm going to rely on; not the ignorant usage of the few who haven't been properly educated and/or ignore the education they received.

We agree to disagree.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Big RR
Posts: 14907
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Big RR »

not the ignorant usage of the few who haven't been properly educated and/or ignore the education they received.
That is the elitist attitude that I reject; we can agree to disagree.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Lord Jim »

Not surprisingly, you can count me as a vote for Big RR's position on this one...

Seems to me that linguists fall into a category that equates a lot more closely with film or fashion critics than practitioners of a hard science...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15385
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by Joe Guy »

Lord Jim wrote:
Seems to me that linguists fall into a category that equates a lot more closely with film or fashion critics than practitioners of a hard science...
Right on brother. We need to conversate irregardless of our predilected differences.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: "The Sixties"...

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR wrote: That is the elitist attitude that I reject; we can agree to disagree.
Oh well since I think that disagree and agree mean exactly the same thing and elitist means 'low-class' and attitude means 'the twelfth of never', and reject means 'endorse', I translate your sentence to mean
That is the low-class twelfth of never that I endorse; we cannot disagree to disagree
That's cleared that up twice and for a select few
Last edited by MajGenl.Meade on Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Post Reply