Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulluuk | Hacker News Reader

> just a contamination during the autopsy.

How does sperm end up on her body during the autopsy? Are we talking necrophilia or are there multiple murdered bodies laying next to each other and the tools are re-used or something?

View on HN

IRRC The official explanation is that there were a few autopsies going on at the same time in that facility and it came from the body next to hers. The public opinion was that they bribed the technician to contaminate her body.

The whole case is a huge mess with attempts of cover ups, months long manhunts and all kinds of conspiracy theories. The killer was sentenced to 24 years of prison but unalived himself in prison and there're still conspiracy theories saying that he actually escaped to China because he was studying Chinese in prison prior that. This happened more than 10 years ago and last year they opened his grave to check the remains and again it was confirmed that that's him. Yet, this is still not enough to end the public discussion and conspiracy theories.

Anyway, if anyone is curious this is the case in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Münevver_Karabulut

Unfortunately, the juicy literature around that is mostly in Turkish.

You can say he killed himself it’s not kitkots

Tiktots?

> unalived himself

In English the phrase is “killed himself”.

Feel free to use your choice of synonym when you are writing something.

Normally I'm more than happy to roll with someone's choice of words - if you want to use "literally" to describe things that are not literal, please, fill your skibidi or whatever, but I'm hostile towards it when it's an attempt to appease a corporation's filters. I get it, you gotta use it where you gotta use it, but I hate the indicators that our language is being filtered everywhere by certain social media's moderation rules.

That's not language changing because of fresh eyes, it's because of tired eyes looking towards the bottom dollar.

It's not about filters, I like using unalive in the context of suicide when I have no sympathy to the person who dies. It's such a nice dehumanizing word.

But it's entered the vernacular because of the filters.

That's true, some day in the future somebody will make 5 seconds long, long format documentary about the fascinating origins of the word :)

It has a passive aggressive character, I like that word a lot.

I get the opposite out of it. Using the negative prefix weakens the word, emphasizing what it is not instead of what it is, when act like suicide is not just the state of being not alive. The phrasing isn't committed enough to be oxymoronic and it ends up feeling impersonal and indirect.

But maybe I'm just an old man yelling at a cloud.

Pick any sentence and trace the words back to their origin and you'll find some sort of story about where it was borrowed from. That's just how language works. It isn't anything new -- we're all just older than we've ever been. Every generation coins new terms.

I'm not against language growth, but the reason this is happening is upsetting to me.

If you're taking the time to write one or more posts about this, you are implicitly against language growth, you've just found a justification for being against it that you find acceptable to your worldview.

Yes, there are occasions where I would take exception to language evolution. If we entered a pattern of 1984-era newspeak I'd take exception there as well. I think it is usually the product of a poorly considered stance for one to be an absolutist about the vast majority things.

Euphemism is already common, particularly when discussing sensitive topics like the cycle of life, bodily functions, etc. You are probably okay with many existing euphemisms because they are familiar. This really isn't a social media thing, newspaper obituaries also use euphemisms for death. e.g. "passed away", "departed", "eternal rest", etc.

Yes, because that euphemistic language is there to lighten the blow. "unalive" is an attempt to bypass a social media filter and speaks to the shift in how and why words enter our lexicon.

Are you against profanity filters? What's the difference?

Well, because "suicide" isn't profane. It might be considered a pseudo-profanity, but people don't stop saying swearing because of profanity filters. This is an instance where the filter is feeding back into the zeitgeist.

It sounds kinder and gentler, to me, more like a word you’d use in polite company to avoid speaking crassly about someone respected.

Suicide is a statement, it is the last act of somebody against the society. It is something serious that puts the burden on the shoulders of the remaining. It has long, deep history attached to it.

Unalive on the other hand is a simplistic word that has neither of those, it is originally derived as an attempt to bypass automatic filter. IMHO using it for someone without the practical need to bypass censorship takes away the heft of their act. Makes it insignificant.

I would be very surprised if anyone other than you sees it that way. The fact you had to explain that distinction shows the uselessness of the word. In fact all you’ve done is draw attention to this guy’s suicide and give it significance.

Given the upvotes, obviously there are more people that are on the same page with me on this than not.

HN doesn't filter "suicide" though. This is organic language. Free-range, grass-fed, and GMO-free.

Yeah, my argument is we shouldn't use "unalive" when we don't have to.

you just did tho

(I am currently reading and infected by Hofstadter's "Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking" which I think would side with using unalive, which might also construe a set larger than that of "dead.")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinctio...

I quoted it for specificity. I suppose I could have said "the word formerly known as suicide" but that is probably a phrasing that anyone young enough to unironically use the word formerly known as suicide wouldn't understand.

> I'm hostile towards it when it's an attempt to appease a corporation's filters

Maybe you should be hostile towards the corporations that create those filters instead.

Why not both?

Yes. I am more upset by the one responsible for the filtering than the effect it's having on the zeitgeist.

I only mentioned it because it took me a few moments to figure out what you had actually written since I assumed it was a typo or mistranslation. It distracts from what you’ve written.

TIL that the kids actually use it [1], and it's in dictionaries [2] etc so arguably it's actually English.

[1]: https://medium.com/new-writers-welcome/unalive-the-birth-of-...

[2]: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/unalive

Edit: typo.

They only say it to avoid word filters on certain algorithm-driven sites. Your comment won't be automatically flagged, demoted, or shadow banned here for using naughty words that corporate advertisers don't like.

Surely you can understand that when certain behaviours or phrases become fashionable, they can become detached from the culture that generated them.

I'm in agreement, but one thought that crossed my mind is how the population in China self-censors and I wonder if this is kind of like that. Rather than tailor the terminology to different environments, the person just chooses the "safe" term all the time.

When was the last time you were in China? I'm curious about this self-censoring you're talking about. Did you observe it personally?

There are 10s if not 100s of articles on it, and even a paper written about it: https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/politics/documents/The.... One does not have to be in China or observe it personally to know of its existence.

Okay, so from the one you linked:

>Respondents who are the most highly educated, have the highest number of daily posts on social media, and spend the most time on social media, appear to self censor criticisms of the government on social media more than they self censor praise of the government on social media. Other respondents do not appear to self-censor criticism of the government on social media. However, my findings are severely limited by my small sample size.

I was actually asking for accounts of firsthand experience, not ideological slop.

That is the origin of the phrase, but it has since entered colloquial vernacular... as pretty much all terms used on social media do.

I haven't seen that, I find it strange.

You're wouldn't be the first adult to be unfamiliar with slang. Language spreads socially.

The word filters must adapt pretty soon. So we'll get new terms.

The next gen is semantic and sentiment filters, the age of wordlists is over.

And early Europeans avoided saying the name of the terrifying land mammal out of taboo / fear it would summon it, and instead referred to it as either "the brown one" or "wild animal" (exact etymology is unclear which it was), giving us the word "bear", to the point where the "arktos" based word has been lost. Often times euphemisms stick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear#Etymology

Reply on news.ycombinator.com