Craig Chilton <

C. Pangus <craigpangus@sprintmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <

In actuality, issues are TOPICS -- not problems.

Who in the world STARTED all the nonsensical psycho-
babble that we keep hearing these days. How ABSURD!!

Another equally silly example:

Saying: "Are you okay with that?"

Instead of: "Is that okay with you?"

What the hell???!!?

This little phrase may intentionally diminish the individual in
relation to surrounding events. Asking "Are you okay with that?"
indicates "that" is "that" and there is nothing to be done about it.
The individual who isn't okay with "that" is the problem, not "that."
Whether this little psychological sleight of language is intentional
or just symptomatic is debatable.

Very good point. And clearly, since this phrase has been SO foisted
upon socity in recent years that many people have actually fallen for
USING it, one must wonder:

(1) What possible PURPOSE can be served by creating it, and
using it widely?

(2) WHAT is the agenda?

(3) What is the GOAL of the agenda?

(4) And WHO is responsible for the creation and promotion of
the agenda of psychobabble? And its subsequent
confusion and reduction in quality of the English language?

I have coined the term/phrase Holly-Mad Ave. (I suppose a sin against
the language of my own.) I use it to refer to the Hollywood 'Star' image
being used by corporations through their Madison Avenue advertising
agencies to 'persuade' people to follow their lead. Of course the lead is
directly into the corporate profit pocket.

The specific phrase "Are you okay with that?" would seem to be a
diminishment of the individual in favor of the group. Group psychology is
often easier to manipulate than individuals. It is largely an outgrowth of
TV which corporations recognized and captured early on as their means to
rich ends. The quality of a product cannot be tested over TV, only the
slick packaging. Employing expert psychologists and focus groups they
tighten their psychological noose on us constantly.

If you read the comics I have been following "Zits" particularly this
week: The teenage son is forced to accompany his parents on vacation: as
they drive amoung the natural wonders of redwood forests, fantastic rock
formations, and wildlife the son sits oblivious to it all in the back of the
car with his attention completely focused on his gameboy. We are raising
generations for whom electronic non-reality has become more real and
interesting than actual life.

Essentially, we are in an age of wizardry with little compass of what to
do with our own discoveries and accomplishments.

And there are several more equally stupid psychobabblish words
and phrases that were NEVER heard of until around 10 years or so
ago.

I'd LOVE to know WHO was responsible for starting all that -- and
why -- and just HOW in the hell so many people in society suddenly
started *using* such terminology and phrases?

Anyone have any ideas?

I think it is Holly-Mad Ave and the artificial coolness they create
in order to make money. Free speech should not extend to commercial
gain. Lying for money as protected by the Constitution would make the
Founding Fathers spin.

Remember when T-shirts with company logos were given away? Now
they charge extra, much extra for completely irrelevant coolness factors.
Signs of a decadent, richer than they know what to do with, society?

I always thought that was weird. Not the giving away of such
T-shirts, but the fact that ANYONE would be so stupid as to give FREE
advertising to ANY commercial entity (other than one they happened to
own) -- **especially** if the person were to actually PAY something for
the T-shirt.

I love Coca-Cola. But would I PAY anything for such a T-shirt...
and then give them FREE advertising, to boot, by wearing it? Not
in a million years!! They want me to advertise for them, they can pay
ME to take the shirt off their hands, and then wear it.

It seems we two Craigs can agree at least some of the time.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:16:09 GMT,
A.D.2003 <asw@ro.org> wrote:

Craig Chilton <

In actuality, issues are TOPICS -- not problems.

Who in the world STARTED all the nonsensical psychobabble
that we keep hearing these days. How ABSURD!!

Another equally silly example:

Saying: "Are you okay with that?"

Instead of: "Is that okay with you?"

What the hell???!!?

And there are several more equally stupid psychobabblish words
and phrases that were NEVER heard of until around 10 years or so
ago.

I'd LOVE to know WHO was responsible for starting all that -- and
why -- and just HOW in the hell so many people in society suddenly
started *using* such terminology and phrases?

Anyone have any ideas?

I don't know, but English is a living language, and it changes,
sometimes in an irrational fashion.

...as we most assuredly have seen drmatically illustrated with the
advent of psychobabble.

Tell me, do you say "I used to"? What the hell does that mean?

Why does a bomb "blow up" and a tire "blow out", or an issue "blow
over"?

These things make sense to us, but try teaching them to a non-English
speaker. I've done that, and believe me, "mixing-up" the meaning of
"issues" vs "problems" "turns out" to be relatively not "that big a
deal".

All good and valid points. However, you are citing quirks of
English. And we're not alone in some of those. I went to college in
mexico City in 1964 and almost 40 years later, I **still** am puzzling
over the actual meaning of a Coke billboard that read:

"Coca-Cola de la nada mas."

I can GUESS at it's intended meaning (something like "Coca-Cola
stands above all others," or the like, perhaps) -- but a LITERAL
translation of that billboard is nonsensical.

And beyond the quirks (as in the, "I used to" example), the other ones

you cited are fairly descriptive and sensible. (More so, perhaps, than
the driveways we park on, and the parkways we drive on!)

But psychobabble is a very INTENTIONAL substitution of terms and
phrases that are utterly silly, for ones that have been COMMONLY employed
throughout our lifetimes. All of a sudden!! Virtually overnight! Which
leaves me shaking my head in amazement, asking 3 questions:

(1) WHY would anyone or any group attempt to make such
absurd changes to our everyday language?

(2) HOW did these terms become incorporated, society-wide,
so quickly?

(2) WHY would society WANT to say things any differently...
particularly since the FORMER terms and phrases were
far more SENSIBLE?