Re:Read the column The New York Times didn’t want you to read
by names_are_hard on Friday February 12, 2021 @10:38AM
(#26114818)
> "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" in Harry Potter is another example of a rhetorical device used to instill bloodcurdling fear and larger-than-life authority of a a Wizard-of-Oz-style villain. Note that this is a children's book. Every adult person should be able to see through that.
Moreover, that's a theme in the books. From the outset,Harry is one of the few (along with Dumbledore, the wise old sage) who are not afraid to say the name and consider such fear silly. He's also the only person who can stand up to Voldemort, and presumably those things are related. To him Voldemort is just a guy, not some kind of superhuman Satan, perhaps because he doesn't let himself get caught up the hysteria.
Re:Read the column The New York Times didn’t want you to read
by bluefirebrand on Friday February 12, 2021 @12:16PM
(#26115946)
Beyond that, it's a common theme in mythology and stories that names have power, and uttering the name of a powerful fae or wizard might actually attract the notice of said powerful being. Which of course might bring ruin to you if they decide they don't like you using their name and decide to deal with you in person.
Re:Read the column The New York Times didn’t want you to read
by machello13 on Friday February 12, 2021 @10:26AM
(#26114637)
I think you're way off the mark with the bizarre pseudopsychology in the last paragraph. "Mob mentality" is a well-known phemonenon. People behave very differently when part of a group — especially when you feel like you have right on your side.
Re:Read the column The New York Times didn’t want you to read
by Mediterraneo10 on Friday February 12, 2021 @12:14PM
(#26115928)
There are equivalents of North American word prohibition in Europe, as well. For example, many academics and NGOs would be uncomfortable with someone using the term "Gypsy" in some nuanced historical context, instead they would insist that "Roma" or "Roma and Sinti" be used at all times.
"He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" in Harry Potter is another example of a rhetorical device used to instill bloodcurdling fear and larger-than-life authority of a a Wizard-of-Oz-style villain. Note that this is a children's book. Every adult person should be able to see through that.
And so - I am sure, there are many other examples - I ask again: Why do such things keep happening? Why, when individuals are clearly able of rational thought, as the editor's initial reaction shows, does there seem to be a hive-mind or "invisible hand of the market", or whatever you call it, that seems to get large groups of people to come together and stone someone for saying "Jehova" because his wife's cooking was so excellent.
I ask this sincerely, even though I use comedic examples. For me, this is an existential question of one's own sanity, that I struggle to comprehend what really is going on here, and I would love to hear what others think about this.
Could a possible answer be, and I realize I might be getting controversial here, could it be that modern American society, lacking a nuanced way of looking at difficult historic matters - because it always seems to be either "Free Speech" or "Death" with no middle way - has chosen this visceral reaction because it never learned to deal with or discuss its history in a non-confrontational, level-headed manner? Clearly, using $badword in normal everyday conversation is unacceptable. So it follows from there - using this logic framework - that any use whatsoever is unacceptable? Just spitballing here, looking for answers. Could very well be that I am wrong. If so, please don't downvote me but instead explain. Thank you.