Passive language: Some ideas are harmful and should be censored.

Active language : Person A gets to censor person B.

It’s common for me to get chipped for using a passive voice and I can see that this directly influences my thought form. I’ve been trying really hard to think more in the active voice and it has deeply reinforced my ideas about censorship.

Who is person A? What powers do they have over person B? Who gets to decide what content should be managed by person A? Is there a democratic process to elect person A? Can person B speak out safely against person A? nostr:note186qcvsyzp5sq4gw8r4akdvj4pe0vsz6pz6qsw5fatc4n9yu74w3q4tnemm

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

A field of study around the idea of removing all forms of "to be" from the English language fascinates me. This eliminates the passive voice and requires a subject acting on an object for everything. It ends up improving several forms communication and makes certain rhetorical "tricks" impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

At just a glance, that seems entirely messed up to remove present tense, no?

Actually worse, the notion of being from the language. This seems evil lol

*removed