Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by trokanmariel »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 4:17 pm
trokanmariel wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 3:43 pm I'm curious, as to whether the term in its current context derives from employer, government or union.
That's an interesting question.

I've never checked.

Wiki claims, "The use of the English word "strike" to describe a work protest was first seen in 1768, when sailors, in support of demonstrations in London, "struck" or removed the topgallant sails of merchant ships at port, thus crippling the ships."

The footnote is from Oxford, and reads,

"A body of sailors..proceeded..to Sunderland.., and at the cross there read a paper, setting forth their grievances... After this they went on board the several ships in that harbour, and struck (lowered down) their yards, in order to prevent them from proceeding to sea."
(Ann. Reg. 92, 1768), quoted in Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.

If that's right, it was the people reporting on the protesting workers who coined the term, by way of noting their "striking" the rigging.

But I doubt anybody today thinks of yardarms when they hear "The union's going on strike."
I wonder if Sky News or if CNN would air the topic; the ownership, of the term strike, and the question as to its "possible" offensiveness.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by Immanuel Can »

trokanmariel wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:19 pm I wonder if Sky News or if CNN would air the topic; the ownership, of the term strike, and the question as to its "possible" offensiveness.
I don't think they'd care.

I think that for most people, "strike" may have emotive power as a word, but "labour strike" is not exactly something that people have a visceral reaction against. Strikes are pretty much part of the way the Western world has done business for more than a century. In some contexts, they're almost a civilized way of resolving a labour dispute -- an alternative to, say, machine-breaking or bloody revolution. They're now part of the status quo.
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by trokanmariel »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:49 pm
trokanmariel wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:19 pm I wonder if Sky News or if CNN would air the topic; the ownership, of the term strike, and the question as to its "possible" offensiveness.
I don't think they'd care.

I think that for most people, "strike" may have emotive power as a word, but "labour strike" is not exactly something that people have a visceral reaction against. Strikes are pretty much part of the way the Western world has done business for more than a century. In some contexts, they're almost a civilized way of resolving a labour dispute -- an alternative to, say, machine-breaking or bloody revolution. They're now part of the status quo.
I think that that's a reasonable point of view, as in what you've said overall. My own angle, of the issue - or one of them, I should say - is the inevitability of downtrodden. Essentially, the concept that not everyone can be successful, like Tyler Durden says in Fight Club - "Except that you won't" to quote him.

Also, I hate the routine of people not enjoying their routine. So that would be another angle, of why Sky News or CNN should feature a public discussion, to offer people the chance to work their way out of an impossible situation.

Practically, I agree with you; news anchors and producers of news media would likely not want to air the topic, as they would perhaps at the very least suspect that addressing the topic of "strike" being a misappropriation of language would be a secret conflict of interest with their own livelihoods and careers
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by commonsense »

trokanmariel wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:29 am If the term strike weren't used, by the government, and thus by no one, do you think that daylight would react?
What do you mean when you imply that when the government doesn’t use the term “strike”, then no one will use it?

What does daylight have to do with a strike or a government?

What would daylight react to, if it could form a reaction?

Please answer these clarifying questions for me. Thanks.
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by commonsense »

Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 5:34 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 4:17 pm
trokanmariel wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 3:43 pm I'm curious, as to whether the term in its current context derives from employer, government or union.
That's an interesting question.

I've never checked.

Wiki claims, "The use of the English word "strike" to describe a work protest was first seen in 1768, when sailors, in support of demonstrations in London, "struck" or removed the topgallant sails of merchant ships at port, thus crippling the ships."

The footnote is from Oxford, and reads,

"A body of sailors..proceeded..to Sunderland.., and at the cross there read a paper, setting forth their grievances... After this they went on board the several ships in that harbour, and struck (lowered down) their yards, in order to prevent them from proceeding to sea."
(Ann. Reg. 92, 1768), quoted in Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.

If that's right, it was the people reporting on the protesting workers who coined the term, by way of noting their "striking" the rigging.

But I doubt anybody today thinks of yardarms when they hear "The union's going on strike."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strike

Please look within the above to view examples of sentences that contain the word 'strike'.
trok,

M-W is a well established authority as a dictionary of the English language. If you follow the link provided by Belinda, I think you can see that the term “strike” is not being misappropriated in any way when any of the multiple usages is employed.

“Strike” is an example of an homonym, as I believe Belinda has already pointed out to you.
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by trokanmariel »

commonsense wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:10 pm
trokanmariel wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:29 am If the term strike weren't used, by the government, and thus by no one, do you think that daylight would react?
What do you mean when you imply that when the government doesn’t use the term “strike”, then no one will use it?

What does daylight have to do with a strike or a government?

What would daylight react to, if it could form a reaction?

Please answer these clarifying questions for me. Thanks.
There's the question of ownership, of the term strike - is it the governments or unions term?

I looked at the M-W list, and there's the usage of "engage in a strike against an employer", which I interpret as a misappropriation, since not doing work isn't the same as committing a physical assault, which the word strike implies.

With daylight, the reference involves the imagination, that if capitalism weren't reality, since the industry of people doing manual labour jobs aren't in action, since the term strike isn't being used, eventually daylight could become an obstacle of humanity or life in general.
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by commonsense »

commonsense wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:10 pm
trokanmariel wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:29 am If the term strike weren't used, by the government, and thus by no one, do you think that daylight would react?
What do you mean when you imply that when the government doesn’t use the term “strike”, then no one will use it?

What does daylight have to do with a strike or a government?

What would daylight react to, if it could form a reaction?

Please answer these clarifying questions for me. Thanks.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm There's the question of ownership, of the term strike - is it the governments or unions term?
No matter who ‘owns’ a word, it is free to be used by anyone. Ownership makes no sense here unless you are trying to make the case that use of a word is taboo to every group save one.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm I looked at the M-W list, and there's the usage of "engage in a strike against an employer", which I interpret as a misappropriation, since not doing work isn't the same as committing a physical assault, which the word strike implies.
One definition of a word with multiple definitions is completely separate from another of its definitions. One definition does not appropriate another either correctly or not. This is how homonyms work.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm With daylight, the reference involves the imagination, that if capitalism weren't reality, since the industry of people doing manual labour jobs aren't in action, since the term strike isn't being used, eventually daylight could become an obstacle of humanity or life in general.
Daylight, imagination, capitalism, reality, jobs, strikes, humanity—try again (to put these words in a cogent sentence).
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by trokanmariel »

commonsense wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:28 pm
commonsense wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:10 pm
trokanmariel wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:29 am If the term strike weren't used, by the government, and thus by no one, do you think that daylight would react?
What do you mean when you imply that when the government doesn’t use the term “strike”, then no one will use it?

What does daylight have to do with a strike or a government?

What would daylight react to, if it could form a reaction?

Please answer these clarifying questions for me. Thanks.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm There's the question of ownership, of the term strike - is it the governments or unions term?
No matter who ‘owns’ a word, it is free to be used by anyone. Ownership makes no sense here unless you are trying to make the case that use of a word is taboo to every group save one.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm I looked at the M-W list, and there's the usage of "engage in a strike against an employer", which I interpret as a misappropriation, since not doing work isn't the same as committing a physical assault, which the word strike implies.
One definition of a word with multiple definitions is completely separate from another of its definitions. One definition does not appropriate another either correctly or not. This is how homonyms work.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm With daylight, the reference involves the imagination, that if capitalism weren't reality, since the industry of people doing manual labour jobs aren't in action, since the term strike isn't being used, eventually daylight could become an obstacle of humanity or life in general.
Daylight, imagination, capitalism, reality, jobs, strikes, humanity—try again (to put these words in a cogent sentence).
In regards to the definition, of engaging in a strike against an employer, I interpret a misappropriation, which I must admit is possibly just my own behaviour and no one elses, as logical as the behaviour to me seems, since to not do work isn't the reality of physically attacking someone - it's just my opinion, but governments should be advised to abandon the use of the term, and use a term that doesn't denote physically attacking someone
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:03 pm
trokanmariel wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:20 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:53 pm
Just call it "Socialism."

When they do go, because they're forced to work in a salt mine, call it "Communism."
Can you clarify, by socialism meaning to not go to work?
I was being a bit facetious, obviously; but not much.

You see the dynamic being played out in the US today. If you pay people not to work, they will choose not to work. It's pretty simple, really.
Are you suggesting here "immanuel can" that you go to 'work' because you 'love to'?

What do you go to 'work' for, "immanuel can"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:03 pm Socialism pays people for not working, or for being "employed" only in a dilatory way. There's no incentive to innovate, to work hard, to expand business, to generate capital, or to improve the world, because you're going to get paid badly for a good job, and badly for a bad job.
Expand business and generate capital has NEVER improved the 'world', itself. Earth has NEVER needed improving anyway. Also, the only thing expanding business and generating capital does is expands the amount of money for some people.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:03 pm Bad jobs are easier to do.

Go to any socialist country, and try to get service. You'll see what I mean.
And what can be clearly seen here is just how narrowed, short sighted, and judgmental some people REALLY ARE.

'you', "immanuel can", are a SLAVE to money, and to greed, and will do at least as you can, for as much profit/gain as you can. Just like EVERY "other" adult.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:12 am Are you suggesting here...
Still not bothering, Age.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by Age »

commonsense wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:28 pm
commonsense wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:10 pm
trokanmariel wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:29 am If the term strike weren't used, by the government, and thus by no one, do you think that daylight would react?
What do you mean when you imply that when the government doesn’t use the term “strike”, then no one will use it?

What does daylight have to do with a strike or a government?

What would daylight react to, if it could form a reaction?

Please answer these clarifying questions for me. Thanks.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm There's the question of ownership, of the term strike - is it the governments or unions term?
No matter who ‘owns’ a word, it is free to be used by anyone. Ownership makes no sense here unless you are trying to make the case that use of a word is taboo to every group save one.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm I looked at the M-W list, and there's the usage of "engage in a strike against an employer", which I interpret as a misappropriation, since not doing work isn't the same as committing a physical assault, which the word strike implies.
One definition of a word with multiple definitions is completely separate from another of its definitions. One definition does not appropriate another either correctly or not. This is how homonyms work.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm With daylight, the reference involves the imagination, that if capitalism weren't reality, since the industry of people doing manual labour jobs aren't in action, since the term strike isn't being used, eventually daylight could become an obstacle of humanity or life in general.
Daylight, imagination, capitalism, reality, jobs, strikes, humanity—try again (to put these words in a cogent sentence).
The word 'strike' can be, and is, subconsciously or unconsciously, used to influence a hatred of, or for, those who have just taken unpaid time off from work, in order to obtain better pay and/or conditions, for "themselves or others".

If this never occurred, then the difference between the, so called, "wealthy" and "the poor" would be so much wider than it is, in the days when this is being written.

The very reason WHY particular words are used in some circumstances is to influence a reaction, or evoke a behavior. But the subtleties and nuances of these words and the way they are used, and/or when they are used are not always consciously picked up on nor noticed.

Particular words are chosen VERY CAREFULLY, even though just how much may not yet be recognized, in order to control a state or society in a way that is wanted.

WHY do you think so many adult human beings actually BELIEVE: "Life is hard (and/or complex)", "We need money to live", "We need to go to work to make a living", and/or "We have to pay taxes"?

These things are OBVIOUSLY NOT true AT ALL. But because 'you', human beings, have been continually 'fed' such controlling and influencing words, with such an influential, but unconscious, BELIEF behind them, that is WHY 'you', adult human beings, grow up BELIEVING things that are OBVIOUSLY NOT true AT ALL.

The "controllers" (the kings and queens) and 'leaders", (the presidents, prime ministers, and preachers), influence 'you' ALL to BELIEVE that you ALL HAVE TO "go out and make as much money", and that you HAVE TO "pay taxes", so that you can give them your money so that they get as much of it as they can for doing as least as possible.

WHY else would you, and do you, hand over YOUR hard earned money to "them"?

Name ONE THING that a, so called, "king", "queen", "preacher", or "leader" has actually 'done for you' that 'you', "yourself", or a group of people', could not have done by "yourself/selves", for FAR LESS money.

Does going on 'strike', against those who HAVE and HOLD completely unnecessary and absolutely exorbitant amounts of money, and who ACTUALLY do absolutely NOTHING 'for you', really seem like a bad or wrong thing?

MAYBE if the ones with the absolutely excessive amounts of money, which the ones who spread the media, news, and 'information', to the masses, usually are, did NOT 'try to' portray those people who go on 'strike', just for better, or more equal, pay and working conditions, as being bad or wrong people, then the word 'strike' might get changed to, something like just; 'stopped working'.

OBVIOUSLY, only the ones with the unnecessary amounts of money WANT "others" to keep working 'for them', so that that they can just keep getting more and more of that unnecessary amounts of money. Those ones obviously do NOT work 'hard' for their money, and if they do, then they are the MOST STUPIDEST people of ALL, because they do NOT 'have to' work, at all, let alone 'work hard'.

The media uses the word 'strike' because they feel that "others" are 'striking' against them and their wants, that is; striking against them obtaining more money.

Sometimes, gaining a perspective from a 'non native speaker', or in other words, from 'an outside perspective', shines a far GREATER and BRIGHTER light on what is ACTUALLY really happening, and occurring.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by Age »

trokanmariel wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:48 am
commonsense wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:28 pm
commonsense wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:10 pm

What do you mean when you imply that when the government doesn’t use the term “strike”, then no one will use it?

What does daylight have to do with a strike or a government?

What would daylight react to, if it could form a reaction?

Please answer these clarifying questions for me. Thanks.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm There's the question of ownership, of the term strike - is it the governments or unions term?
No matter who ‘owns’ a word, it is free to be used by anyone. Ownership makes no sense here unless you are trying to make the case that use of a word is taboo to every group save one.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm I looked at the M-W list, and there's the usage of "engage in a strike against an employer", which I interpret as a misappropriation, since not doing work isn't the same as committing a physical assault, which the word strike implies.
One definition of a word with multiple definitions is completely separate from another of its definitions. One definition does not appropriate another either correctly or not. This is how homonyms work.
trokanmariel wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm With daylight, the reference involves the imagination, that if capitalism weren't reality, since the industry of people doing manual labour jobs aren't in action, since the term strike isn't being used, eventually daylight could become an obstacle of humanity or life in general.
Daylight, imagination, capitalism, reality, jobs, strikes, humanity—try again (to put these words in a cogent sentence).
In regards to the definition, of engaging in a strike against an employer, I interpret a misappropriation, which I must admit is possibly just my own behaviour and no one elses, as logical as the behaviour to me seems, since to not do work isn't the reality of physically attacking someone - it's just my opinion, but governments should be advised to abandon the use of the term, and use a term that doesn't denote physically attacking someone
One does NOT have to be 'physical' to 'attack' "another".

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN throughout human being's writings, and words, when used in a 'attempt' AGAINST "others".

And, the people in government, and the owners of companies, HATE IT when people STOP working 'for them'. So, these people will continue to use the word 'strike' because;

1. They BELIEVE that they are actually being 'striked against'.

2. They will say and do whatever it takes to keep the masses 'in control', in order to keep handing over 'their money'.

3. These people do NOT want to lose the control they HAVE OVER "others", which they have obtained, and which is really the only 'thing' that they have REALLY worked 'hard' AT and 'hard' FOR.

4. The separation they can create among the ones they NEED, in order to keep getting the money that they WANT, helps in them being able to control the masses. The word 'strike', as you so rightly pointed out, conjures up 'against' some thing, which can then VERY QUICKLY be turned into a " 'us' verse 'them' " situation or scenario. So, the money "rich" can then quickly turn people into questioning, "Am I with "us" (the rich), or am I with "them" (the poor)? And, who would WANT to not be on one of those sides?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:14 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:12 am Are you suggesting here...
Still not bothering, Age.
And this is because, as I have SHOWN previously already, you will not, so call, "bother" because you are completely INCAPABLE to do without CONTRADICTION what you have said previously.

Also, did you or did you not, supposedly, put me on your ignore list?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:10 am Also, did you or did you not, supposedly, put me on your ignore list?
No.

I just ignore you. You're not saying anything important enough to get you on a real "ignore" list. You're no threat to yourself, to me, or to anything. You don't say anything important yourself, and just cavil and carp about details of everybody else's messages. So strong measures aren't warranted...you're just being boring, and that's not a crime.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is it incorrect, to say the word strike when people refuse to work?

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:16 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:10 am Also, did you or did you not, supposedly, put me on your ignore list?
No.
Okay.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:16 am I just ignore you.
Okay.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:16 am You're not saying anything important enough to get you on a real "ignore" list.
Does this mean than you only put those who say 'anything important enough' on your ignore list?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:16 am You just prattle, and can be brushed off like a gnat.
Okay.

But you could NOT contradict "yourself" if you EVER answered a lot of the clarifying questions posed to you.
Post Reply