Little-Acorn
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 216
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Why did "gambling" become "gaming"? or "homosexual" become "gay"?
Why did "gambling" become "gaming"? or "homosexual" become "gay"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither of those things has actually changed in the last few hundred (or thousand) years, has it? If not, then why did the name change?
There are bunches of other examples, of course. "Socialist" became "liberal", which later beame "progressive". (Note that "conservative" has not changed). Wal-mart no longer has "clerks" and "checkers" and "stockboys"... they have all become simply "associates". "Indians" are no longer "Indians", but now "Native Americans".
That last one might have an actual reason: American Indians aren't from India, contrary to what Columbus thought before he found out just how far off his navigation was in 1492. But, "Native Americans"? Last time I checked, that meant someone born in America. That includes me, and probably many of you, and a lot of the people you know, regardless of whether any of us has a drop of AmIndian blood. Getting away from the name "Indians" may be understandable, but why go to the almost-as-inaccurate "Native Americans"?
But what about the first two I mentioned? Name changes don't just happen without purpose - something impels them.
In the case of "gambling", it's not hard to discern. "Gambling" has had bad connotations, literally for centuries. While some regard it as a casual game at which they never bet much, and so never win or lose much, for others it has been a bane of their existence. Some people can develop a "gambling addiction" that can compel them to keep gambling ad infinitum, losing more and more on sometimes the most trivial bets, just for the rush that comes from taking a chance. Many lives have been ruined by gambling.
So, it was time to change "gambling" to the all-new sport of "gaming". Never mind that the activity itself has not changed a bit, nor have its potential bad effects. Never mind that "game" isn't even a verb, so there can be no such participle as "gaming". If we have a new name such as "gaming", it sheds all the bad vibes that have long been associated with "gambling".
But... SHOULD it lose those bad vibes?
Gambling, again, hasn't changed a bit. It's still the same activity, which doesn't affect some but terribly degrades others. It can bring out the worst in some people. "Gaming" is no better than gambling... so does it deserve a "better" name... and thus, ready-made, a better reputation?
In California, you won't find the word "gambling" anywhere near the plush new Indian (oops, native American... oops... oh, never mind) casinos that have sprung up all over the state in the last dozen years... nor will you find that word anywhere in the massive advertising campaigns they are mounting to try to draw in more customers. And why not? Because, if it's rightly called "gambling", some people will think twice before going... and other people's spouses will only think once before flatly forbidding any such expeditions.
In other words, if you tell the truth about what it really is, you will probably turn some people off to it... and that goes against everything the gambling institutions want to do. Basically, they need to lie to their customers in order to keep so many interested in coming. Or is it really a lie? Perhaps a mere "failure to tell the whole truth" cannot really be considered a lie... pretty please?
The same motivation lies behind the change of "homosexual" to the more docile (and far less accurate) "gay". "Homosexual" brings up visions of the entire lifestyle of those so afflicted: Men kissing men, women with women, bathhouse promiscuity, and all the other activities that the much large majority finds unpleasant or repellent... just as they find heterosexual relations attractive. But "gay" seems to isolate only the mental feelings one homosexual might have for another, while shedding the less-attractive (to most) images of the lifestyle that invariably springs from those feelings.
Just as "gaming" sounds nicer than "gambling", "gay" sounds nicer than "homosexual". Never mind that you have to lie to achieve such "nice sounding" names... or at least "fail to tell the whole truth". Telling the truth about the activity, is not in the interests of those pushing the change.
Well, why should we tell the truth every time? Isn't there such a thing as "too much information"?
Sometimes, yes. But these instances are not among those times. A word like "gambling" is no harder to pronounce than "gaming"... but it carries a warning with it that "gaming" does not, that the activity might be harmful. The same might be said about "homosexual", and the connotations of the entire range of activities it might carry with it... some of which plainly can be harmful, and most of which are simply repellent to most of the humans for whom the language was developed. Throughout the history of the modern "gay" movement, promiscuity of openly homosexual members of society has been far more widespread and incautious than the promiscuity of even the more "swinging" of the heterosexual members. The effects of this on egos and self-respect is not good... to say nothing of the potential and actual spread of disease.
The feelings of repulsion that most heterosexuals have toward some of the activities of homosexuals, are no more "logical" than the feelings of attractions the heteros have toward the equivalent opposite-sex characteristics and activites... but the feelings are there nonetheless, and are very strong, regardless of the distress they may cause some homosexual member os the society.
As a species composes of two sexes, it appears we are stuck with both sets of feelings: Most heteros are naturally attracted toward relations with the opposite sex, and are just as naturally repelled by the thought of relations with the same sex.
Homosexual advocates who want heteros to ignore, change, or stifle their feelings of revulsion for homosexual activites, are trying to sweep back a tide that will never stop coming. They are demanding a huge and wrenching effort, to alter feelings that have been around since the dawn of mankind... and they will have to do it all over again every time a new (heterosexual, as most are) member of the species is born.
The advocates have tried to get around this conundrum by a simple change of name. Voila! "Homosexual" is no longer heard, but has been replaced by the more innocuous "gay". As with "gambling", the activity has not changed a bit, nor have any of its consequences. But the nomenclature of "gay" serves to cover up some of the awareness of those activities and their consequences.
Is this a good thing for society? Or a bad thing?
Should we use terms like "gay"? Or "gaming"? Or should we stick with the less idyllic, but more ominously accurate, "homosexual" and "gambling"? Is it a case of "too much information"? Or, perhaps, merely a case of more-accurate information that some don't want us to remember?
Why did "gambling" become "gaming"? or "homosexual" become "gay"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither of those things has actually changed in the last few hundred (or thousand) years, has it? If not, then why did the name change?
There are bunches of other examples, of course. "Socialist" became "liberal", which later beame "progressive". (Note that "conservative" has not changed). Wal-mart no longer has "clerks" and "checkers" and "stockboys"... they have all become simply "associates". "Indians" are no longer "Indians", but now "Native Americans".
That last one might have an actual reason: American Indians aren't from India, contrary to what Columbus thought before he found out just how far off his navigation was in 1492. But, "Native Americans"? Last time I checked, that meant someone born in America. That includes me, and probably many of you, and a lot of the people you know, regardless of whether any of us has a drop of AmIndian blood. Getting away from the name "Indians" may be understandable, but why go to the almost-as-inaccurate "Native Americans"?
But what about the first two I mentioned? Name changes don't just happen without purpose - something impels them.
In the case of "gambling", it's not hard to discern. "Gambling" has had bad connotations, literally for centuries. While some regard it as a casual game at which they never bet much, and so never win or lose much, for others it has been a bane of their existence. Some people can develop a "gambling addiction" that can compel them to keep gambling ad infinitum, losing more and more on sometimes the most trivial bets, just for the rush that comes from taking a chance. Many lives have been ruined by gambling.
So, it was time to change "gambling" to the all-new sport of "gaming". Never mind that the activity itself has not changed a bit, nor have its potential bad effects. Never mind that "game" isn't even a verb, so there can be no such participle as "gaming". If we have a new name such as "gaming", it sheds all the bad vibes that have long been associated with "gambling".
But... SHOULD it lose those bad vibes?
Gambling, again, hasn't changed a bit. It's still the same activity, which doesn't affect some but terribly degrades others. It can bring out the worst in some people. "Gaming" is no better than gambling... so does it deserve a "better" name... and thus, ready-made, a better reputation?
In California, you won't find the word "gambling" anywhere near the plush new Indian (oops, native American... oops... oh, never mind) casinos that have sprung up all over the state in the last dozen years... nor will you find that word anywhere in the massive advertising campaigns they are mounting to try to draw in more customers. And why not? Because, if it's rightly called "gambling", some people will think twice before going... and other people's spouses will only think once before flatly forbidding any such expeditions.
In other words, if you tell the truth about what it really is, you will probably turn some people off to it... and that goes against everything the gambling institutions want to do. Basically, they need to lie to their customers in order to keep so many interested in coming. Or is it really a lie? Perhaps a mere "failure to tell the whole truth" cannot really be considered a lie... pretty please?
The same motivation lies behind the change of "homosexual" to the more docile (and far less accurate) "gay". "Homosexual" brings up visions of the entire lifestyle of those so afflicted: Men kissing men, women with women, bathhouse promiscuity, and all the other activities that the much large majority finds unpleasant or repellent... just as they find heterosexual relations attractive. But "gay" seems to isolate only the mental feelings one homosexual might have for another, while shedding the less-attractive (to most) images of the lifestyle that invariably springs from those feelings.
Just as "gaming" sounds nicer than "gambling", "gay" sounds nicer than "homosexual". Never mind that you have to lie to achieve such "nice sounding" names... or at least "fail to tell the whole truth". Telling the truth about the activity, is not in the interests of those pushing the change.
Well, why should we tell the truth every time? Isn't there such a thing as "too much information"?
Sometimes, yes. But these instances are not among those times. A word like "gambling" is no harder to pronounce than "gaming"... but it carries a warning with it that "gaming" does not, that the activity might be harmful. The same might be said about "homosexual", and the connotations of the entire range of activities it might carry with it... some of which plainly can be harmful, and most of which are simply repellent to most of the humans for whom the language was developed. Throughout the history of the modern "gay" movement, promiscuity of openly homosexual members of society has been far more widespread and incautious than the promiscuity of even the more "swinging" of the heterosexual members. The effects of this on egos and self-respect is not good... to say nothing of the potential and actual spread of disease.
The feelings of repulsion that most heterosexuals have toward some of the activities of homosexuals, are no more "logical" than the feelings of attractions the heteros have toward the equivalent opposite-sex characteristics and activites... but the feelings are there nonetheless, and are very strong, regardless of the distress they may cause some homosexual member os the society.
As a species composes of two sexes, it appears we are stuck with both sets of feelings: Most heteros are naturally attracted toward relations with the opposite sex, and are just as naturally repelled by the thought of relations with the same sex.
Homosexual advocates who want heteros to ignore, change, or stifle their feelings of revulsion for homosexual activites, are trying to sweep back a tide that will never stop coming. They are demanding a huge and wrenching effort, to alter feelings that have been around since the dawn of mankind... and they will have to do it all over again every time a new (heterosexual, as most are) member of the species is born.
The advocates have tried to get around this conundrum by a simple change of name. Voila! "Homosexual" is no longer heard, but has been replaced by the more innocuous "gay". As with "gambling", the activity has not changed a bit, nor have any of its consequences. But the nomenclature of "gay" serves to cover up some of the awareness of those activities and their consequences.
Is this a good thing for society? Or a bad thing?
Should we use terms like "gay"? Or "gaming"? Or should we stick with the less idyllic, but more ominously accurate, "homosexual" and "gambling"? Is it a case of "too much information"? Or, perhaps, merely a case of more-accurate information that some don't want us to remember?
