The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
You Say "Unalive," He Says "Vixerunt": Everything Old Is New Again
For thus the TikTokers who wish to avoid words of ill omen indicate death.
AP, July 13, 2023, "unalive":
"Unalive" refers to death by suicide or homicide. It can function as adjective or verb and joins similar phrasing — like "mascara," to mean sexual assault — coined by social media users [especially on TikTok -EV] as a workaround to fool algorithms on sites and apps that censor posts containing discussion of explicit or violent content.
Plutarch, Life of Cicero, written circa AD 100; the Latin word for "they have lived" is apparently "vixerunt" ("third-person plural perfect active indicative of vīvō"):
And seeing that many members of [Catiline's] conspiracy were still assembled in the forum in ignorance of what had been done and waiting for night to come, with the idea that the men were still living and might be rescued, he cried to them with a loud voice and said: "They have lived." For thus the Romans who wish to avoid words of ill omen indicate death.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ah yes, the joy of Latin conjugation:
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
https://youtu.be/IIAdHEwiAy8
I like the Iliad's metaphor - the sleep of bronze.
Would this make us all "undead"? Could cause some confusing with vampires.
"Undeceased", surely?
Would this make us all "undead"?
The English version of "they have lived" is a little unclear, and for me, lessons on obscure grammar rules were a very long time ago ....
Does he mean "They were previously alive" or does he mean "They have quite recently defeated death" ?
The former. A perfect tense is used for an action that was completed before the main time of the verb. (Depending on the language, there can be present, past and future perfect tenses: they have lived, they had lived, they will have lived.)
I've seen that on YouTube and also variations of "sewer cider." It's aomewhat ironic that, in an effort to discourage discussion of these topics, they instead incentivize using cutesy terms and a flippant approach.
Personally I think the remedy is for content creators to form a professional association and push back on platforms that want to place excessive or unreasonable restrictions on their work. It might even make sense for them to unionize in some places, although I say that with only the vaguest idea of how professional unions work.
>Personally I think the remedy is for content creators to form a professional association and push back on platforms that want to place excessive or unreasonable restrictions on their work.
That’s a great idea.
edit:
turns out there are:
https://webcontentcreatorsassociation.org/
https://teachable.com/blog/what-is-the-creators-guild-of-america
Tiktok:
https://www.theonlinecreatorsassociation.com/
They must not be that great if not many have heard of them. But maybe it takes a lot of momentum to get the recognition of say something like the Screenwriters Guild
It’s too bad she won’t have lived. But then again, who has?
I'd never heard of any of this, or for the underlying reason for doing it. But now I understand why, when watching a FB video, the weirdest words are bleeped out...generally innocuous words like death, alcohol, etc.. I guess it's much easier and cheaper to just censor all uses, rather than to require a human or AI filter, to censor out the offensive or inappropriate (by whatever criterion or criteria you're using), while still allowing use in the vast majority of situations.
It strikes me as a bit silly. But it doesn't bother me on other grounds, as it does seem to be applied across-the-board.
It bothers me, because of what it indicates.
It's not natural evolution of our language; If it were, you'd likely think it was sensible. But people don't find it sensible, they find this sort of thing silly. But it happens anyway.
It's a sign that the general population has lost control of the language, that it's now being subject to externally imposed change, outlier views are being enforced.
As an example, I visit Glen Reynold's Instapundit frequently. A discussion of immigration enforcement comes up, and I mention Operation Wetback in a comment.
The comment gets automatically blocked!
Now, Reynolds is a chill guy, he's not into mincing words, and he's fairly conservative. I can be very confident HE didn't chose to make "wetback" a forbidden word at his site. But he does have an anti-obscenity plugin running on his site.
And it's blocking referring to a former government program by name. Because somebody somewhere didn't like a word, and decided nobody should be allowed to use it.
People celebrated the internet because it allowed us to bypass a lot of chokepoints that had been constraining and warping our political discourse. But now new chokepoints are being introduced, and they're a lot sneakier chokepoints, run by people much further from the mainstream than the former ones were. And they're becoming very entrenched, as you can see from, for instance, the behavior of these new "AI"s.
And I do find that pretty scary.
The hypersensitivity is getting ridiculous. Something tells me there is money to be made investing in Fainting Couches and Smelling Salts.
This practice -- making discussion of (in fact, thinking about) certain ideas impossible by constricting the language (by removing certain words) -- comes straight out of Orwell's 1984.
I think the Ministry Of Truth would have encouraged the porn-bots, actually, to keep the proles occupied.
I mean, you seem blithely unaware of the problem of comment sections getting swamped with racists, freaks, Nazis and bots. Filtering out those words is an effort to keep that shit down to a quiet roar where possible. It's not that people don't like the words, per se, they don't like the people who throw them around and swarm comment sections driving people who actually want to have conversations away. With them come bots and spam by the gallon, the way they're all over twitter after the Nazis were let back on. You can complain about this and the purity of language all you like, but you don't have to put up with that shit if you take your eye off the ball.
See, you're horrified at the idea of people who really disagree with you actually getting to speak. But the only reason you can blithely take this attitude towards internet censorship is that you know the censors are your allies; If they weren't, the censorship would be pointed towards YOU, and you'd be horrified at the censorship, not the prospect of it being lacking.
Nazis and bots
Listen to what the man is saying before you launch into your canned screed.
I have seldom met the leftist who, saying "Nazis and bots" literally meant just actual Nazis and actual bots. And Nige is about the last man I'd expect to be that precise.
Operation DorsallyDamp...?
If Cormac McCarthy was alive today, I'd expect to see it in his prose
one of the more creative metaphors for 'unalive' is pepsi - or inverted 'is ded' - made popular by the Ukraine war in reference to orcs (another Ukraine slang.)
I prefer "metabolically different."
I always considered “he has lived” to relate to someone who had done great or daring things.
Hey-Zeuss Unalives!!!!!
American censorship evasion is still inferior to Chinese censorship evasion.
Grammarians say "aspect" when talking about the semantic difference between "they were alive" and "they lived". It may be obligatory in a language to distinguish between "was living and may still be alive" and "was living and is now an ex-parrot."
Pining for the fjords?
"American censorship evasion is still inferior to Chinese censorship evasion."
grass-mud-horse.jpg
As a reader of the Discworld, I prefer the verb "Inhume"