May 15, 2002

11:18 AM

Three propositions:

1. Like everything else cultural, language goes through phases and fads, and what seemed one week like a fresh, inventive phrase quickly becomes debased through misuse and overuse.
2. Tracking such things, and commenting on them, is fun, and it's nice to have a corpus of examples to draw on to make your point. It might be fun to take Metafilter as a starting place. You could even build a site around it.
3. Those smaller fish that swim around with sharks are called remoras.

posted by rodii (94 comments total)

Interesting, I left my two cents in the 'elitism' FPP.*

D'oh! Two cliche's in one sentence. Dammit, I'm doomed.
posted by jonmc at 11:29 AM on May 15, 2002

Three more propositions:

1. What
2. The
3. Hell?

I need more coffee.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:30 AM on May 15, 2002

eeksy peeksy does it again. very cool.

[ expect trolls.]
posted by eyeballkid at 11:31 AM on May 15, 2002

Under cover of darkness, eeksy peeksy examines the elitist death toll of our organized religion-bashing corpus. I mean, I couldn't have said it much better.
posted by Skot at 11:35 AM on May 15, 2002

Heavens. I hope he starts posting in threads to correct our spelling.
posted by darukaru at 11:47 AM on May 15, 2002

I don't think this site is being snarky about MeFi--these are language trends we all can recognize, though we may not agree that they're bad. What's interesting (to me) about this is the fact that someone is using MeFi as a corpus for this kind of thing--face it, it's an enormous searchable archive of relatively clean, mostly grammatical and even fairly intelligent text. It's a natural data source.

In various places lately, the idea of "MetafilterFilters" has been tossed around. Well, here's one, although it filters in a very selective and specific way. It's not unlike Jorn Barger's occasion "cliche watch" things he used to do with google. Good or bad from a MeFi perspective, it's an interesting thing to do.
posted by rodii at 11:55 AM on May 15, 2002

Brilliant!

Even if he (or she) doesn't always get it right, and he won't, he makes us THINK, and that is always right.
posted by rushmc at 11:56 AM on May 15, 2002

a blog by a guy who likes to copy edit and thus uses his talents to show that he is at least in one tiny area of life--an elitist. Bet he reads the OED while the rest of us read the Bible or comics.
posted by Postroad at 11:59 AM on May 15, 2002

a blog by a guy who likes to copy edit and thus uses his talents to show that he is at least in one tiny area of life--an elitist.

Or maybe he or she is simply interested in language and written communication. I agree with rodii -- it seems much more like eeksy peeksy is using MetaFilter as a data source than targeting it for criticism.
posted by mattpfeff at 12:04 PM on May 15, 2002

On the one hand, it's a pretty funny concept, a more organized version of that dickhead who will correct you when you say "you and me" and really mean "you and I", even though both phrases express the same thought clearly and being tight assed about an organic and ever changing language that is an illogical hodge podge of roots and rules is futile at best and hence so absurd as to be it's own kind of comedy.

On the other hand, this kind of free time rivals that of even the most elastic waist banded, gaudy tee-shirt wearing, dandruff ridden, waiting on line for weeks dressed up like a Jedi, thirtysomething Star Wars geek I can think of.
posted by dong_resin at 12:05 PM on May 15, 2002

Since I often have to type these things a bit on the run, I'm sure I'll be a big star over there.
posted by dong_resin at 12:08 PM on May 15, 2002

Eeksy Peeksy - Include our names. How else am I supposed to find my stuff and get huffy?
posted by NortonDC at 12:08 PM on May 15, 2002

Well, I'll be a crocodile's toothpick.
posted by y2karl at 12:09 PM on May 15, 2002

Or it's simply interesting observations, like any other blog. I thought this, for exanmple, was spot on:

Because "bashing" is now frequently collocated with offenses against minorities (for example, "gay-bashing"), it is becoming a popular device for painting as morally corrupt someone who doesn't share the misuser's views. Harsh but honest criticism is what you offer; "bashing" is what your enemies inflict. The word is a stink bomb tossed into the enemy camp.

Dong, is anything besides...whatever it is you do...worth doing?
posted by rodii at 12:09 PM on May 15, 2002

I'd like to see the author chart the rise and fall of cliches on Metafilter over time. I propose September 11th phrases as a good starting point.

It might also be interesting to see whether there are differences in usage and fequency across different community sites, and how these changes compare to, oh say, the E-vil Media Empire.
posted by iceberg273 at 12:11 PM on May 15, 2002

fequency

fequency: n. A special kind of mispelled frequency.
posted by iceberg273 at 12:12 PM on May 15, 2002

I think that's unnecessarily harsh dong_resin. I like this sort of thing - it makes you think about how cliches are a excuse to not think, or how words can do the thinking for you. For a minute I thought it was a collaborative effort rather than one person. That would have been great, a bit like this sort of related thread from Fametracker.
posted by Summer at 12:21 PM on May 15, 2002

I propose September 11th phrases as a good starting point.

ground zero
axis of evil
infinite justice
smart bomb
terror network
enduring freedom
let's roll
war on terror
then the terrorists win
united we stand

... for starters.
posted by sacre_bleu at 12:23 PM on May 15, 2002

Actually, rodii, "bashing" is the only one on that page that I disagreed with. I said as much in the comments. Bring it!
posted by lbergstr at 12:33 PM on May 15, 2002

eeksypeeksy is (username) at mefi...?
where are all the sleuths out there...?

Just curious...
posted by bittennails at 12:39 PM on May 15, 2002

At the end of the day, this link and the old stuff will be added to my Favorites. Thanks rodii :-)
posted by dack at 12:42 PM on May 15, 2002

where are all the sleuths out there

pracowity. its in iceberg's post above.

I love pracowity's writing. I hope that he(she?) continues.
posted by vacapinta at 12:43 PM on May 15, 2002

Dong, is anything besides...whatever it is you do...worth doing?

Not really, no.

Thank you for playing yet another fine round of OFFEND RODII'S INCREASINGLY DELICATE SENSIBILITIES.
I'm this close to the year of free Rice-A-Roni!
posted by dong_resin at 12:44 PM on May 15, 2002

The old stuff reads like the confrontational version of The Elements of Style. I don't recall Strunk or White telling anyone to 'Fuck.Right.Off.'
posted by darukaru at 12:46 PM on May 15, 2002

I like the page and have for a while. It's full of rants, specific to language.

Pracowity is one of my favorite online writers. His writing is intelligent and thought-provoking.
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:54 PM on May 15, 2002

Maybe sharksucker can be the new insult around here.

But I'm loving remora the blog.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 12:58 PM on May 15, 2002

This is fucking brilliant.
posted by mathowie at 12:58 PM on May 15, 2002

The "organized religion" bit isn't new or a trendy phrase. It's been around a long time, even in its "I'm a spirtual person, but don't get into organized religion" sense. It's older than "secular humanism."
posted by raysmj at 12:58 PM on May 15, 2002

I like it. I mean, I think I like it...I guess. :)
posted by dejah420 at 12:59 PM on May 15, 2002

Thank you for playing yet another fine round of OFFEND RODII'S INCREASINGLY DELICATE SENSIBILITIES

Uh-huh. Dong, I've flicked boogers more troubling than you, seriously. Get over yourself.
posted by rodii at 1:01 PM on May 15, 2002

I'm plenty past myself.
I'd extend the advice to you, my friend. You seem to comment on me more than I do.
posted by dong_resin at 1:07 PM on May 15, 2002

Why don't you lads take the fisticuffs to email?

Or perhaps some civilized Rochambeau?
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:11 PM on May 15, 2002

If only I could.
posted by dong_resin at 1:15 PM on May 15, 2002

Rod Johnson versus Dong Resin... hee hee
posted by machaus at 1:18 PM on May 15, 2002

This went over my head so fast you could see the roof of my mouth. But I finally did use the scroll button after a few cups of coffee and get the gist. Thanks Rodii.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:18 PM on May 15, 2002

Yay, he commented on one of my comments. I woder if he'd come over to my apartment and run though some of my old college writing essays, and history papers.

I don't see why not; it seems like he has plenty of spare time, and needs a new hobby.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:25 PM on May 15, 2002

Uh-huh. Dong, I've flicked boogers more troubling than you, seriously. Get over yourself.

Rodii: now that really is cliché-ridden. And cheap. You're your own worst enemy.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:26 PM on May 15, 2002

Thanks, vacapinta, missed that...very interesting.
posted by bittennails at 1:33 PM on May 15, 2002

I think that the knee-jerk reaction is to be expected. Some people have a problem with criticism, hence my troll warning at the top of the page. [Though I don't see are any flat-out trolls in this thread.] I can't say that pracowity's choice of MeFi as corpus is ill-aimed. What would be the use of taking something like the L.A. Times, who have professional copyeditors on staff, and using it as a wellspring for comment? Metafilter is a perfect candidate for explorations of language. This site is filled with comments that range from well thought out, to typed in full anger, to, as dong_resin puts it, "on the run," and still, the majority of them are cohesive, coherant and contributory to the leading thread. (cladivs' personal posting style excepting, of course.) Plus, when you hit that post button, you're finished. No take-backs. He can take me to task for language anyday.


now can i get back to not useing caps, mispelling shit and calling things absoluetly-fucking-cool already?
posted by eyeballkid at 1:33 PM on May 15, 2002

So they're putting 'n's in 'wonder' now, eh? My bad.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:33 PM on May 15, 2002

I am here to deflea thee.

Word! Best tagline all week.
posted by adampsyche at 1:35 PM on May 15, 2002

And I was this close to being done with my last exam for the semester and taking off for the next week. This is great stuff and pracowity has an amazing style. Best thing I've seen in a while.
posted by anathema at 1:43 PM on May 15, 2002

That was inspired. Thanks rodii and pracowity.
posted by perplexed at 1:53 PM on May 15, 2002

The "organized religion" bit isn't new or a trendy phrase. It's been around a long time, even in its "I'm a spirtual person, but don't get into organized religion" sense. It's older than "secular humanism."
"secular humanism" predates the reformation. Now, I'm not sure how old the term "organized religion" is, but don't think that the former is a construct of 20th century Christian Fundamentalists.
posted by gnz2001 at 2:00 PM on May 15, 2002

Man, I read that whole thing and I don't seem to raised this guy's hackles even once. I must be losing my touch.
posted by jonmc at 2:05 PM on May 15, 2002

wow. you guys need some meds. lighten up. In the end we all die. But here is Ramora, often sucking off more than mere sharks"remora [rem'uru]
Pronunciation Key

remora , any of the several species of warmwater fishes of the family Echeneidae, characterized by an oval sucking disk on the top of the head. With this apparatus (a modification of the dorsal fin) the remora, or suckerfish, attaches itself to sharks, swordfishes, drums, marlins, and sea turtles. In this way it travels without effort, feeding on scraps from the prey of these larger creatures and in some cases on their crustacean parasites. Remoras sometimes attach themselves to small boats, but they can also swim well on their own. The adhesive power of their sucking disks is so great that the natives of some tropical regions use remoras to catch sea turtles by attaching lines to their tails. Different species prefer different hosts. The whalesucker, Remilegia australis, is usually found attached to whales. The smallest remora, the 7 in. (18 cm) Remoropsis pallidus, prefers swordfishes and tuna. Largest and most common is the shark remora, or sharksucker, which reaches 3 ft (90 cm) in length and attaches itself to sharks; it is found along the Atlantic coast N of Long Island in the summer. Remoras are classified in the phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, class Osteichthyes, order Echeniformes, family Echeneidae."
And I thought I was a suck up at work!
posted by Postroad at 2:05 PM on May 15, 2002

I just hope he never comments on the word "feeling". I'd have to take duck and cover ...
posted by feelinglistless at 2:11 PM on May 15, 2002

This is mostly just rehashed semoitics. Something for the clove-cigarette-smoking, beret-wearing, Immanuel Kant-reading autodidacts among us.
posted by mrmanley at 2:16 PM on May 15, 2002

That was inspired. Thanks rodii and pracowity.

I agree. I watched it unfold as if it were some sort of passion play, decrying the evils of huffing Scotch Gard.
posted by Danelope at 2:40 PM on May 15, 2002

Mmmm.... metametafilterfilter. I admire the aim of eradicating (or at least identifying) clichés, especially since they're so damn tempting in moments of intellectual laziness. (Is "intellectual laziness" a cliché?)

some sort of passion play, decrying the evils of huffing Scotch Gard.

That would be a very unusual sort of passion play.
posted by gohlkus at 2:50 PM on May 15, 2002

I'm not really a fan of rah-rah comments, but day-yam! This is about the sweetest post I've read in a piece.

(Seriously, thanks rodii and pracowity.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:54 PM on May 15, 2002

Moral of the story: if you think someone's acting like a condescending asshole, say so, instead of resorting to the nicey-nice word 'elitism'.
posted by darukaru at 3:03 PM on May 15, 2002

I vote "jingoism" the most annoying and misused word in the last 12 months on Metafilter.

That site is a little too "meta" for me...
posted by owillis at 3:09 PM on May 15, 2002

That site is a little too "meta" for me...

For now, by dissecting his site, we have out-meta'd him.

Perhaps he will post his opinions about our opinions about his opinions about our opinions.
posted by vacapinta at 3:43 PM on May 15, 2002

gnz2001: A citation, please? "Humanism" is an old word, as is "secularism." "Secular humanism" is a phrase whose use took off in the late 1970s and '80s and was first popularized in conservative evangelical circles by Francis Schaeffer. "Organized religion" is similar in that, I think, it sounds more sinister or something to have a totally extraneous adjective beforehand.
posted by raysmj at 4:42 PM on May 15, 2002

More on the origins of the term "secularism humanism" here.
posted by raysmj at 4:46 PM on May 15, 2002

a blog by a guy who likes to copy edit and thus uses his talents to show that he is at least in one tiny area of life--an elitist.

My least favorite definition of "elitism," implying as it does that anyone who dares master and use a skill is, necessarily, by being "better" at something than others, an "elitist."

Poppycock. There's not a damned thing wrong with being among the most skilled, most talented, most learned, most capable. In fact, it is strongly to be desired and aspired to. And if all the lazy slackjaws want to look up from the tv long enough to bitch about it, we should all do well to consider the source.

(That last comment was not directed toward Postroad but was a general response to the pet peeve that he, no doubt inadvertently, triggered.)
posted by rushmc at 5:04 PM on May 15, 2002

Some people have a problem with criticism

You've noticed that too, huh?
posted by rushmc at 5:05 PM on May 15, 2002

I hate cliche as much as anyone, but it can't be avoided, and it shouldn't be a source of embarassment when the offense is as minor as the ones on Remora. I agree that certain phrases are overused to the point of losing potency, but with all due respect, phrases like "organized religion" are designations, not cliches, and they refer to very specific ideas that can't be easily described in another way, nor should they have to be, because we've already got a perfectly good way of doing it that everybody understands.

Yeah, go ahead and decry the death of language, and try to get people to turn an original phrase when necessary. I'm all for that. But this had too much of a snarky, finger-pointing, "ha ha, look at those idiots over there" quality for my taste.
posted by Hildago at 5:36 PM on May 15, 2002

pracowity aka eeksy-peeksy is also one of my favorite writers on the web. I highly recommend his other blogs. Remora is the one thing he writes that I actually don't read very much.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:17 PM on May 15, 2002

I suggest he do a post on this catchy phrase, which is uttered here at least once a day:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again"....... usually followed by something that I never heard that person say before.
posted by iconomy at 8:18 PM on May 15, 2002

Neat idea, but I don't necessarily agree with the tone, in some places(ie: Fuck.Right.Off). Just unnecessary, and frankly reminds me of a certain person I've just recently had a heated...discussion with.

While arguing for certain standards in language is fine, this is bordering on zealotry. I've previously challenged someone here, if anybody would like to provide some sort of concrete evidence for lack of intelligence and/or(oh, fuck off) writing skills in regards to not capitalizing writing, then I'd like to sit that person down with at least two obvious morons I know who engage in the practice.
And lets talk about the many many languages in the world that don't even have a concept of capitalization, too. Or the other ones that capitalize much more than just the initial word of a sentence. It's pure convention, and subject to change just as much as the rest of the language. Get over it.
posted by Su at 8:21 PM on May 15, 2002

Let me not beat around the bush, this thread is full of half-baked ideas. I know, because I've been there, done that myself. Now, I don't want to pour the baby out with the bathwater, I know there are different strokes for different folks, and it has to get worse before it gets better, but if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Too many here at MeFi have the attitude that it's better to lie down if you don't have to sit down, and rather cut off his right arm, or bite the dust before admitting that his/her mother was a thief - she stole the stars in heaven and put´em into his/her eyes. Well, I believe with all my heart that a stitch in time saves nine, so let's sleep on it and talk about it in the morning. I love ya'll.
posted by semmi at 8:54 PM on May 15, 2002

semmi, you just rolled over his counter.

Whoa! Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!
posted by yhbc at 9:02 PM on May 15, 2002

Y'all have buttered your bread; now lie in it.
posted by kindall at 9:18 PM on May 15, 2002

Yikes! All you rich-enough-to-afford-a-domain folk slumming at my crappy and rarely updated little geocities and blogspot sites?
posted by pracowity at 10:42 PM on May 15, 2002

1. Words strung together with hyphens.
2. Missing capitalization.
3. Sentence fragment.
posted by Su at 12:22 AM on May 16, 2002

And on to the meta-meta... commentary:

> but with all due respect, phrases like "organized
> religion" are designations, not cliches, and they
> refer to very specific ideas that can't be easily
> described in another way, nor should they have
> to be, because we've already got a perfectly good
> way of doing it that everybody understands.

But the phrase has become so popular lately because the idea (?) behind the phrase has become a cliche. It is not even an idea in most heads; it is a chunk of unthought, a safe package that most users don't think about. They don't like going to church, so they don't like organized religion? They don't like the pope? They don't like Mormons? They don't like Jimmy Swaggart? Buddhism is an organized religion. They don't like Buddhism? What is better about unorganized religion? Would they like to reorganize Catholicism, for example, or is all organizing of religious thought somehow bad? What is an unorganized religion? Is there such a thing? If it's systematic enough to be a religion and not just half a notion, isn't it organized?

I suspect that most people don't think about what they're saying when they say "organized religion." That's what's bad about cliches.

> in regards to not capitalizing writing... It's pure convention

All language is pure convention. People who speak Tuscarora have a certain accepted way of conveying ideas in the language, and people who can't or won't convey them in that way are in error unless and until the language changes to accept their errors as correct.

Capitalization makes English easier to read. People who don't capitalize are purposely and pointlessly being a little more obscure than they need to be. No one said they were stupid. Perhaps pretentious in a silly, backward sort of way -- look at me, I'm disobeying the orders of the evil shift-key people -- but not necessarily stupid.

> On the other hand, this kind of free time rivals...

Not really. I made just nine postings this year. I spend much, much less time writing that page than, for example, you spend sitting in your underwear playing about on Metafilter.

> Bet he reads the OED while the rest of us read the
> Bible or comics.

I don't believe in comics or the Bible. I do read the OED. For pleasure. You win.

> 1. Words strung together with hyphens.
> 2. Missing capitalization.
> 3. Sentence fragment.

Yeah, yeah, su, I know. I was trying to be Mr Relaxed Guy for the few people above who, perhaps like you, seemed to take offense at the idea of languages having rules. Hence the "Yikes" and so on. Don't feel threatened. No grammar police will come to your door. No one is demanding to see your old report cards. Even English teachers say "fuck" and "um" now and then. My page is simple commentary, just like you might make on something that matters to you. And (starting a sentence with 'and'!) I make mistakes, just as you do. We both, I daresay, fart.

By the way, you misspelled "supposed" and "maintenance" on your lovely web page.
posted by pracowity at 1:28 AM on May 16, 2002

Capitalization is not necessary. It's the punctuation that defines separation between sentences, not a big letter. To me, anyway. Without a compelling reason for non-capitalization to be out and out wrong, I'd rather be on the allowing side of the argument.
But then again, I've got so many quirks in my writing, I would have to be. The hanging indents are just the beginning. I really do write—when I bother picking up a pen—that way. I actually am on the side of rules for language. That was beaten into me by some incredible English teachers in school. But I also accept a pretty good amount of leeway for interpretation and personal use. It's just more interesting to me. This all depends on context, of course. Unless there's a damn good reason for it not to, a research paper had better have perfect grammar, punctuation, etc. Personal sites and relatively informal "conversation," like here? Pretty much anything goes.

My list of complaints was a stupid joke, though. I saw an easy opening and went for it. I would seriously never do that, other than to be a pain in the ass. Or maybe when proofing a certain someone's portfolio *glares across the room*

I don't have a problem with the project itself. I actually think it could be a really useful, or even just fun, resource. And if it's just a diversion for you, then great, but I think that with minor changes in tone, it could go much further.

By the way, you misspelled "supposed" and "maintenance" on your lovely web page.

Oh, shut up! *grin*
Damnit. Now, I'm going to have to find the stupid things. They're not on the front page, that I can tell. I hate you.
posted by Su at 2:03 AM on May 16, 2002

> but I think that with minor changes in tone, it could go
> much further.

Yes, I have a bad mouth sometimes. It comes of frustration with seeing or hearing the same crappy thing over and over and finally pouring my bile into one instance of the stupid thing. I know I'm not converting anyone by calling him a pinhead and then correcting his grammar, but sometimes I can't help it. And it really is meant more as a vent for my bile than as an instructional tool. How the hell did rodii find it?

[Front page: "Yes, it's suposed to look like shit"]
posted by pracowity at 2:52 AM on May 16, 2002

Yes, "organized religion" includes just about any worship that happens in groups, including Buddhism.

It's accurate, clear and well understood. One might even say it communicates effectively.
posted by NortonDC at 5:12 AM on May 16, 2002

> just about any worship that happens in groups

So if it includes "just about" all of them, what sort doesn't it include, and why?

> It's accurate, clear and well understood. One might
> even say it communicates effectively.

We'll see.

A lot of people I hear using it seem like the same sort who would not come down against, for example, Buddhism or Wicca. Next time you hear someone say something against organized religion, ask -- "What do you have against Buddhism? Do you dislike the Dalai Lama? What's up with Wicca? What's wrong with Rastafarianism? And what are these unorganized religions of which you approve?" -- and see.
posted by pracowity at 5:38 AM on May 16, 2002

Being against organized religion is not the same as disliking the Pope or the Lama (big hitter, the Lama).

"Just about" was included as a qualifier because I have not proven to myself that it is an absolute. You are welcome to share any proof you have that it is absolute.
posted by NortonDC at 6:06 AM on May 16, 2002

NortonDC
Was he (or is he ) a big hitter or just "LONG"?
posted by johnny7 at 6:43 AM on May 16, 2002

Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga.
posted by NortonDC at 6:49 AM on May 16, 2002

> Being against organized religion is not the same as
> disliking the Pope or the Lama

I'm speaking of them as their offices, just as I would speak of a priest as a priest, not as a man whose job happens to be preaching when he's not home watching TV. These guys (no women allowed) are the CEOs of their religious corporations. They were voted in by the board. To honor the office is to honor the hierarchy. Without the office, they're just a couple of old confirmed bachelors, no better or worse than the old man down the street.
posted by pracowity at 7:09 AM on May 16, 2002

pracowity - I'm speaking of them as their offices

I don't think that's a proper synecdoche since many, including myself, would argue that the man is greater than the office.

"Do you dislike the President?"
No, he seems like a friendly guy.

"Do you dislike the President?"
Yes, his fiscal policy is very dangerous.


Only the first one is answering the question. The second is answering a different question, specifically "Do you dislike this Presidency?"

The Lama is always a person, and one's opinion of the that person is not bound by one's opinion of his functioning within the role that gives him his title.
posted by NortonDC at 7:38 AM on May 16, 2002

Actually, now that I've looked it up, I've learned that the synecdoche part of my analysis is wrong. It is valid, though less common, to refer to the part by the whole.
posted by NortonDC at 7:44 AM on May 16, 2002

> The Lama is always a person...

Sure. So is a soldier. But people shoot soldiers as soldiers, not as fathers and husbands, and people tend to follow, or not follow, the office of pope, not the guy who happens to be pope. Catholics who follow pope A don't switch religions when pope B is elected. He's a part of the hierarchy they follow.

But that is a sidetrack from the point, which is whether "organized religion" is a cliche. I say it is. I'm right, you're wrong, neener-neener. It's a canned chunk of language that people throw around without first thinking what they mean. Religion without rules? Religion without god? Religion without religion?

And the only important thing to know about "synecdoche" is that it rhymes with Schenectady. If you say it properly and with confidence, you can be sure that no one will call you on it.
posted by pracowity at 7:56 AM on May 16, 2002

Using a phrase that has become a cliché may still be the clearest and most compact means of expressing an idea.

You point accusingly at "organized religion" and say it's a cliché.

I say "So what?"

If you had evidence that people saying or writing "organized religion" were consistently excluding things within the boundaries of the phrase, then I might share your concern. Until then, I don't.
posted by NortonDC at 8:32 AM on May 16, 2002

Next time you hear someone say something against organized religion, ask -- "What do you have against Buddhism? Do you dislike the Dalai Lama? What's up with Wicca? What's wrong with Rastafarianism? And what are these unorganized religions of which you approve?" -- and see.

Nothing against Buddhism, or the rest, some nice ideas to pick from for one's spiritual identity, but insofar as organized Buddhism, or any of the others are concerned, they are exclusionary mutual benefit societies only for due paying members, in line with the concept of the Maffia; all knowing, all encompassing rules, dogma in lieu of individually developed values of behavior, ie. organizational thinking.

"Even hackers who identify with a religious affiliation tend to be relaxed about it, hostile to organized religion in general and all forms of religious bigotry in particular. Many enjoy `parody' religions such as Discordianism and the Church of the SubGenius.

Also, many hackers are influenced to varying degrees by Zen Buddhism or (less commonly) Taoism, and blend them easily with their `native' religions.

There is a definite strain of mystical, almost Gnostic sensibility that shows up even among those hackers not actively involved with neo-paganism, Discordianism, or Zen. Hacker folklore that pays homage to `wizards' and speaks of incantations and demons has too much psychological truthfulness about it to be entirely a joke."
posted by semmi at 8:38 AM on May 16, 2002

> If you had evidence that people saying or writing
> "organized religion" were consistently excluding things
> within the boundaries of the phrase...

No, of course I have no statistics -- though I will contact my vast team of pollsters immediately -- just a strong suspicion, as described above, that the real constellation of ideas involved in religions, their organization, and the various possible ways to reject them as a class, is lost, or left unexplained, or is never even considered, by a growing number of people who simply parrot the trite expression every time the subject of religion arises.
posted by pracowity at 8:55 AM on May 16, 2002

Boy, talk about overused.

And I'm going to continue to make my unorganized religion joke until someone appreciates it. Neener-neener.
posted by yhbc at 8:55 AM on May 16, 2002

raysmj:
Here's a source showing that "secular humanism" dates back to the renaissance. There were two factions of humanism at the time, secular, and religious. Religious humanists contended that it was logical to assume that God wanted man to reach his full potential, and that goal could be achieved through religion. Secular humanism reasoned that man's potential could be achieved through logic, reason, and discovery of the natural world. In this regard, secular humanists more closely emulated the behavior of the classical age thinkers such as Aristotle.
posted by gnz2001 at 9:04 AM on May 16, 2002

pracowity, your suspicions don't define a linguistic failing on somebody else's part.

yhbc: I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!
(beware: pop-up extravaganza)
posted by NortonDC at 9:24 AM on May 16, 2002

"Organized religion" is different from "religion" in the same way that "organized crime" is different from "crime," or "organized labor" is different from "labor." Adding the word "organized" moves it from being an individual preference to being a force for social change. There is power in the simple fact of organization, and the more organization, the more power. There is a hierarchy of authority that members are expected to respect. This means that a small number of people (sometimes as few as one) have significant influence on the behavior of thousands or even millions of others.

The term is valid, descriptive, and useful. It's really a matter of degree; some religions are organized a little (for instance, the church I grew up in was organized to the level of a local congregation, but had no national council or other such organization); some are organized a lot (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church). The political and social influence of an organized religion is magnified by the very fact of its organization, so it is useful to have a term to distinguish it from other types of religions.
posted by kindall at 9:47 AM on May 16, 2002

gnz2001: Nothing you like tells me about the origins of the phrase. Sheesh.
posted by raysmj at 10:39 AM on May 16, 2002

raysmj:
Sheesh indeed. This is basic stuff from any Western Civ class. I'm done.
posted by gnz2001 at 11:07 AM on May 16, 2002

But people shoot soldiers as soldiers, not as fathers and husbands

What a convenient moral dodge for them! (I hope the soldier father/husbands dodge half so well.)
posted by rushmc at 4:18 PM on May 16, 2002

The term is valid, descriptive, and useful.

Finally, an analysis that I agree with. I am as anti-cliche-use as anyone, but this was the one example on the site that I had a problem categorizing as a cliche. Not every commonly-used phrase automatically becomes a cliche.
posted by rushmc at 4:20 PM on May 16, 2002

> this was the one example on the site that I had a
> problem categorizing as a cliche.

That's because the site is not particularly about cliches. It's about words and phrases, mainly those that I have had enough of. It has "and/or", for example, not as a cliche but as an unnecessary and inelegant construction. It has "organized religion" because people use it too much (especially here on Metafilter and in other places online) without thinking about what it means and what they are left with if they reject it. Hildago, in a post above, mistakenly assumed otherwise and then disagreed with what I hadn't claimed.
posted by pracowity at 10:25 PM on May 16, 2002

And the only important thing to know about "synecdoche" is that it rhymes with Schenectady

I always pronounced it si-neck-doshe as a child, having only encountered it in written form. Now, thanks to you, I also know how to pronounce Schenectady, which I pronounced in my head as shen-ek-tay-dee.

I am, obviously, a west-coaster.
posted by vacapinta at 11:01 PM on May 16, 2002

gnz2001: You may be done, but the term wasn't created during the Renaissance, even though the basic ideas were. The basic ideas form the basis of what's been called "humanism," a word which needs no "secular" modification.
posted by raysmj at 11:12 PM on May 16, 2002

That's because the site is not particularly about cliches.

Ah, that would explain it. :)
posted by rushmc at 1:35 AM on May 17, 2002