English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room - 2017-06-23 (page 3 of 3)

« first day (2416 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2503 days later) »

11:13 PM

@Mitch A quotation from the New York Times:

> From lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas.

@tchrist Maybe it was a better approximation in the past. The word used to be generally pronounced with a long vowel in French (less so nowadays in most accents), and in English long [ɛː] has developed into /eɪ/ in a few cases, such as "great", "break", "steak". I found it interesting that when I checked the OED a few days ago, the only pronunciation listed was /krɛp/, although it gives /eɪ/ in "crêpeline" and as one option for "crêperie"

It may be that rhyming it with step is more of a UK thing than a US thing.

> The fact that both President Obama and Mitt Romney are calling for increases to the defense budget (in the latter case, above what the military has asked for) is further proof that the military is the true “third rail” of American politics.

The OED's earliest citation for "crepe" is from 1797, and the Anglicized spelling "crape" (which it treats as a different word) has a citation from 1633 (spelled "Crespe") before one from 1685 (spelled "crape")

Fair point.

@Cerberus Aren't you about five years late?

11:17 PM

Yes, the article is from 2012.

> Were Eisenhower alive, he’d be aghast at our debt, deficits and still expanding military-industrial complex. And he would certainly be critical of the “insidious penetration of our minds” by video game companies and television networks, the news media and the partisan pundits.
With so little knowledge of what Eisenhower called the “lingering sadness of war” and the “certain agony of the battlefield,” they have done as much as anyone to turn the hard work of national security into the crass business of politics and entertainment.

nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/…

@Cerberus I think the military is important in US politics, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is especially prominent in US culture. The US has a big military, so military spending and policy is an important area of government.

@sumelic Well, how is that different?

And why do you say it's not prominent?

Militarization of police

Militarization of police refers to the use of military equipment and tactics by law enforcement officers. This includes the use of armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The militarization of law enforcement is also associated with intelligence agency-style information gathering aimed at the public and political activists, and a more aggressive style of law enforcement. Criminal justice professor Peter Kraska has defined militarization of police as "the process whereby civilian...

This is also a big issue in America, I believe.

@Cerberus People with political power in the US have to take the military seriously. But that doesn't mean the average American thinks a lot about our military.

Why not?

What does it mean for something to be "prominent in culture"?

11:20 PM

It is very prominent in their popular culture.

How would one know it was, or wasn't?

The army even has a special liaisons office for Hollywood films.

To sponsor the use of military matériel and scenarios.

Perhaps I'm thinking of culture in a different way.

@Cerberus It may be more prominent. I'm not sure. I'm just saying that I think we should distinguish different ways in which the military can have influence (since it seems the original discussion was about portrayals of the military in fiction, which isn't necessarily the same as military political influence in real life).

They even look at scripts and advise directors.

11:21 PM

I don't think that has anything to do with American culture.

@sumelic Yes, those are two different aspects, but I think they're both real, and related, too.

There are a large number of military organisations and agencies that are important in society, and those same organisations are non-military in other countries.

I mentioned hospitals, academic organisations, etc.

The NSA.

@Cerberus Yes, probably they are related.

So the fact that Starfleet is important in society in what I would call non-military occupations is American to us.

11:24 PM

When foreigners think of America, they think of the American military; when Americans think of America, they never do: it is not part of our culture.

Only if you are a veteran or have a close family member who is do you ever think of it here.

For example, a scientific exploration. Why is it carried out by the army?

Space battles, I understand, of course.

Are we living Starship Troopers here, or what?

The discussion is about Star Trek.

sheesh

About how well it represents a possible future global society.

11:26 PM

Because merchant ships wouldn't have torpedoes.

I think Mitch said the fact that it was mostly white people was probably not realistic.

Merchant ships have often had heavy weaponry in the past.

Privateers notwithstanding.

And certainly explorers did.

Like Da Gama.

But it would seem odd to us if the Beagle had been a military ship on a scientific expedition.

Although I suppose we shouldn't compare the past with today too much.

Minorities comprise 40% of the U.S. military.

Perhaps that's what he meant.

Minorities comprise 80% of the global population.

Also known as the majority.

11:29 PM

So?

And most people are girls.

...and yet, in the Star Trek future, most people are white.

Of course.

So that's either a bit...dystopian, or unrealistic.

So I agreed with him.

No, it's positing that the Lone Ranger won, Tonto.

What's also strange is how the army makes the most important decisions about foreign policy.

Even declares war.

11:32 PM

This is a silly TELEVISION program from 1960s America: what on earth are you expecting here?

How did America create and sell TV programs during that time? Think about it.

2 hours ago, by Cerberus

It is a series aimed at American middle classes, after all.

I don't think anybody contended that it should be surprising.

But not everyone might notice all of these little things.

It was mostly representatives from the patriarchal hegemony of "straight white men" on Get Smart and The Man from Uncle, too, and everything else from that time.

Don't you remember how incredibly controversial and edgy it was when Kirk kissed Uhura? That had never been on TV before.

Oh wait, you don't remember. :)

I do.

I have never watched the first series.

But I know American culture is also religious.

Hey everyone :)

Star Trek conversation?

Hello!

Yup!

11:40 PM

Never seen Star Trek

Easy: it’s Wagon Train to the stars.

Space Western.

Frontier tales of heroism.

It's hard to find a Western where the white guys aren't the good guys. Especially during the 60s.

« first day (2416 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2503 days later) »

Transcript for

Jun '1723

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…

Not for the faint of heart or those easily triggered by Englis...

phrase-requests pronunciation single-word-requests synonyms

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile