Should Al Franken Resign?

[Sparko]

I agree - a child is not a label. My son is not a label. He is far more than that. And I am not easily stressed or offended. But I do recognize that words have an impact. It's why we use them. Words matter. If they didn't, then the Estate Tax would just be an Estate Tax - it wouldn't be a "Death Tax." And liberals wouldn't be screaming "Armageddon" over a freaking tax bill. We would not be using derogatory terms to refer to the people how have different political views than us. Words can be used to cut - or they can be used to heal. They can be used to foster understanding - or to beat down an opponent.

Our language not only expresses what we think - but it also informs us and molds our thinking - and it reveals us. If I preface "conservative" or "liberal" with "stupid" or "evil" or "degenerate" every time I say it, then I will reinforce my tendency to think of them as stupid, evil, and degenerate. As for revealing... when I went through the "pluralism training" (talk about PC! The stories I could tell...) that one of my clients required before I could teach there, the facilitator picked up on my habit of using masculine and feminine pronouns when referring to computer equipment. He also noted a pattern in my use of them I was not aware of. I pretty regularly used masculine pronounces (e.g., be careful as you lift that router into the rack - he's a heavy sucker!), until the equipment in question was malfunctioning. Then I pretty consistently shifted to the feminine pronoun (e.g., If the server crashes, she's going to be very hard to get back online!). It was almost 100% repeatable. At the time, my wife and I were going through a fairly turbulent part of our marriage, and a lot of blame was flying all over the place. I could not refute the video evidence of this pattern in my speech - so I took it back with me to our next marriage counseling session - and it started an amazing discussion about my underlying anger, frustration, and disappointment with my marriage and my wife - and my tendency to displace blame to her.

Words matter. I do not think we need to obsesses over them, and I'm not spending hours petitioning our legislature to omit this or that word from the lexicon. But I do take advantage of moments like this to raise awareness, and voice an opinion. I do so for my son - and for those like him. And I do so because I am desparately tired of the negativity in our country and our world. We do not need to be like this. We can disagree - we can have opposing opinions - and still recognize that we are pretty much all good people trying to move this country (and out language) in a direction we think is best for all of us. We may disagree on what that is...we may fear that if the other side succeeds, the country will NOT be better...but both sides have that fear...and neither side is acting, as far as I can see, out of malice.

Wow...I am going to need to get a new soapbox...I think that one is caving in...

words matter because of the intention behind them.

If someone is using 'liberal' as a curse word, then it is offensive. If someone uses that same word as a badge of honor, then it is not.

IF someone wants to use "disabled" on a government form to categorize your kid so he can get some benefits then it is not an attack on your son or his condition, it is just a label to help them get him benefits. If someone mocks him and uses disabled as an insult then it is an offensive word, but so could any other label you come up with.

[One Bad Pig]

mossy has a big mouth.

Mossy doesn't tattle. I did wonder what earned you those recent PIN^TM marks, though.

In any case, I'm happy to claim any label which implies I'm not really bacon.

[Sparko]

Mossy doesn't tattle. I did wonder what earned you those recent PIN^TM marks, though.

In any case, I'm happy to claim any label which implies I'm not really bacon.

well not until you visit Bob's butcher shop anyway.

[One Bad Pig]

well not until you visit Bob's butcher shop anyway.

I suspect Bob's just not that into alt-bacon.

[Zymologist]

I suspect Bob's just not that into alt-bacon.

Is alt-bacon turkey bacon? Or "vegetarian bacon?"

[Sparko]

Is alt-bacon turkey bacon? Or "vegetarian bacon?"

That is "not-bacon"

[carpedm9587]

words matter because of the intention behind them.

If someone is using 'liberal' as a curse word, then it is offensive. If someone uses that same word as a badge of honor, then it is not.

IF someone wants to use "disabled" on a government form to categorize your kid so he can get some benefits then it is not an attack on your son or his condition, it is just a label to help them get him benefits. If someone mocks him and uses disabled as an insult then it is an offensive word, but so could any other label you come up with.

Unfortunately, Sparko - it's not really that simple. In any communication, there is both a transmitter and a receiver (or receivers). Words that have one intention by a transmitter may be received entirely differently by a receiver.

I have long held the position that, that if someone wishes to communicate something, it is the their responsibility to ensure the message is properly received (which is actually consistent with basic communication and telecommunication theory). After all - they are the one trying to send the message. If the receiver is unable or unwilling to receive the message, and there is little the transmitter can do about it and they might as well give up. It's one of the reasons I step away from discussions after a while (usually too LONG a while). But if the receiver is willing and able, then the communicator needs to do everything in their power to use language the receiver will understand and parse correctly, and then check in that the message has been properly understood.

My wife and I STILL go around on this occasionally. She sends me a text about X, Y, or Z and thinks the very fact of sending it has "communicated her message." I sometimes don't check texts for hours, after which the text may have been buried in a long chain of texts and I simply miss it. She gets angry that I am "ignoring her." Or she'll shoult a message up the stairs while I have my noise-canceling headphones on and I'm working (reviewing audio for this or that course). She assumes she has "communicated" but I never got the message. I keep telling her, it's not my job to have my antenna perpetually in the air in case you want to communicate with me - it's YOUR job, if you want a message received, to make sure you have my attention before you transmit.

The same applies with language. If you want a message received, be aware of how language is being received on the other side. I failed abysmally at that in the recent abortion discussion. In an attempt to show that the two sides were both being insistent from the starting point of their own presuppositions, and each side was trying to protect a right they felt was precious an under attack, I used the word "slavery." That was a very provocative word, and started a back and forth in which I continued to use the word, only making this worse. If I had stepped back and said, "this word is getting in the way of my message - what other word can I use instead," I might have had better luck communicating what I was trying to say. That's not to say I would have been agreed with - just that the core message might have been received correctly. As it was, I'm fairly sure it wasn't.

[Cow Poke]

I have long held the position that, that if someone wishes to communicate something, it is the their responsibility to ensure the message is properly received (which is actually consistent with basic communication and telecommunication theory).

And in that, brevity is often the friend of clarity.

At least you use paragraphs in your walls of text!

[carpedm9587]

And in that, brevity is often the friend of clarity.

At least you use paragraphs in your walls of text!

I stand justly chastened...




But I'm just so damned erudite and literarily astute - I cannot help but bless my readers with the depth of my wisdom in copious prose...

[Sparko]

Unfortunately, Sparko - it's not really that simple. In any communication, there is both a transmitter and a receiver (or receivers). Words that have one intention by a transmitter may be received entirely differently by a receiver.

I have long held the position that, that if someone wishes to communicate something, it is the their responsibility to ensure the message is properly received (which is actually consistent with basic communication and telecommunication theory). After all - they are the one trying to send the message. If the receiver is unable or unwilling to receive the message, and there is little the transmitter can do about it and they might as well give up. It's one of the reasons I step away from discussions after a while (usually too LONG a while). But if the receiver is willing and able, then the communicator needs to do everything in their power to use language the receiver will understand and parse correctly, and then check in that the message has been properly understood.

My wife and I STILL go around on this occasionally. She sends me a text about X, Y, or Z and thinks the very fact of sending it has "communicated her message." I sometimes don't check texts for hours, after which the text may have been buried in a long chain of texts and I simply miss it. She gets angry that I am "ignoring her." Or she'll shoult a message up the stairs while I have my noise-canceling headphones on and I'm working (reviewing audio for this or that course). She assumes she has "communicated" but I never got the message. I keep telling her, it's not my job to have my antenna perpetually in the air in case you want to communicate with me - it's YOUR job, if you want a message received, to make sure you have my attention before you transmit.

The same applies with language. If you want a message received, be aware of how language is being received on the other side. I failed abysmally at that in the recent abortion discussion. In an attempt to show that the two sides were both being insistent from the starting point of their own presuppositions, and each side was trying to protect a right they felt was precious an under attack, I used the word "slavery." That was a very provocative word, and started a back and forth in which I continued to use the word, only making this worse. If I had stepped back and said, "this word is getting in the way of my message - what other word can I use instead," I might have had better luck communicating what I was trying to say. That's not to say I would have been agreed with - just that the core message might have been received correctly. As it was, I'm fairly sure it wasn't.

What CP said.

But we are talking about going overboard to either accommodate every perceived slight, bending over backwards not to offend, or people on the other side who actually look for things to take offense at and demand you accommodate them. Using words as weapons.

In those cases I can't control what you are going to take offense at. I can explain to you that I did not mean to offend you, but only you can control what you take offense at. If a person is not trying to offend and yet the other person is offended, it is not the problem of the first person to have to accommodate the second. He can if he wishes, but it is not his responsibility if the receiver is actually seeking ways of being offended.

Nobody here was offended by your use of the word "slavery" in discussing pregnancy. We simply thought you were being ridiculous in making such an analogy. We knew what you meant. You didn't need to spend pages and pages explaining and apologizing for using the word. We got it. We just did not AGREE with you. And that is fine. You meant no offense and none was taken. You were just wrong. happens all the time to most people. I even thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

[Cow Poke]

I stand justly chastened...

Seriously, I enjoy interacting with you, but sometimes, I think, your message gets lost in verbosity.

It's like one of us (I'm guilty, too) writes a big long post, then somebody else does the copypasta, breaking it up into phrases and dissecting each one, providing more launching points for the other guy to do the same, and before you know it, we've got these long long mixed up posts.

We don't talk like that in real life. I say something - you respond - I reply, etc. But, yeah - this isn't real life.

Carry on!

[carpedm9587]

What CP said.

But we are talking about going overboard to either accommodate every perceived slight, bending over backwards not to offend, or people on the other side who actually look for things to take offense at and demand you accommodate them. Using words as weapons.

In those cases I can't control what you are going to take offense at. I can explain to you that I did not mean to offend you, but only you can control what you take offense at. If a person is not trying to offend and yet the other person is offended, it is not the problem of the first person to have to accommodate the second. He can if he wishes, but it is not his responsibility if the receiver is actually seeking ways of being offended.

Nobody here was offended by your use of the word "slavery" in discussing pregnancy. We simply thought you were being ridiculous in making such an analogy. We knew what you meant. You didn't need to spend pages and pages explaining and apologizing for using the word. We got it. We just did not AGREE with you. And that is fine. You meant no offense and none was taken. You were just wrong. happens all the time to most people. I even thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

That is a place where we differ. While I am not going to take responsibility for someone who has decided they are going to be offended at anything/everything I say, if it is important enough to me to communicate the message, I will work reasonably hard to make sure I am not using words I know will trigger a reaction and obscure the message. If the message is less important, I will work less hard. My effort is matched to the degree to which I wish to be understood. Agreement, as you note, is a separate thing. I am actually less concerned with agreement. If someone disagrees with me after understanding my message, so be it. If they disagree with me because they have not properly understood what I am saying, I usually work to resolve that.

I am sorry for you that you had that experience of being mistaken. It has yet to happen to me.

[Cow Poke]

By the way, anybody think Al Franken will renege on his kinda-sorta resignation?

[carpedm9587]

Seriously, I enjoy interacting with you, but sometimes, I think, your message gets lost in verbosity.

It's like one of us (I'm guilty, too) writes a big long post, then somebody else does the copypasta, breaking it up into phrases and dissecting each one, providing more launching points for the other guy to do the same, and before you know it, we've got these long long mixed up posts.

We don't talk like that in real life. I say something - you respond - I reply, etc. But, yeah - this isn't real life.

Carry on!

You're wrong!

(was that short enough? )

[Cow Poke]

You're wrong!

(was that short enough? )

Truth and brevity!