Of course, OUTLAWS don’t follow rules, so I expect that if you want to talk, you’ll talk.
|
Return to Protein Wisdom homepage
« This way lies fascism: an OUTLAW’s lament (cont.) [UPDATED] | Home | Sometimes you gotta laugh … [Darleen Click] »
March 16, 2009
closed for (mental) renovations
133 Comments ::: Post a comment »RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI: http://proteinwisdom.com/wp-trackback.php?p=14542 Leave a commentIf you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below. |
||
|
|
Comment by blowhard on 3/16 @ 2:46 am #
Ehhh, I left a comment. Probably deleted when they wake up tomorrow.
As there is not topic on this thread (OUTLAW!), I feel free to mention that apparently I only need about 4 or 5 hours of sleep now. If it keeps decreasing at this rate, I will stop sleeping entirely around 42.
Comment by blowhard on 3/16 @ 2:48 am #
Yep, my comment is already deleted. I was quite tame actually.
Comment by rt on 3/16 @ 3:37 am #
outlaw, y’all!
Comment by Carin on 3/16 @ 5:54 am #
Well, crap. That was the hollowest criticism I’ve ever read. Weak- I could deconstruct how horrible it is, but just go read for yourself (or pretend to read) and then come back here and let’s nod in agreement.
Look honey, if you don’t understand what’s written, its best just to step away.
Comment by Carin on 3/16 @ 5:57 am #
I hope I’ve upped my outlaw cred – I started a bunch of veggie seeds this weekend. I have about … 42 tomato plants started, and if I have extra my kids are going to sell them at the road.
Comment by Dan Collins on 3/16 @ 6:25 am #
Does this mean my mental reservations have been cancelled?
Comment by alppuccino on 3/16 @ 7:33 am #
Things always look whitest before the dawn.
Comment by Phil on 3/16 @ 7:56 am #
Carin, will your kids be paying taxes on the profits from those veggies?
Cause OUTLAW! kidZ certainly would not!
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/16 @ 7:57 am #
I started a bunch of veggie seeds this weekend.
For those who haven’t ordered their seeds yet: better do it now. They seem to be selling out about as fast as guns and ammo.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/16 @ 8:16 am #
Speaking of the mental renovations. I really am sort of anticipating economic and societal collapse I think especially here in the California but I’m still pretty cheerful mostly so what does that mean? Not sure. Got my flashlight what you put on your head though. So there’s that.
Comment by JimK on 3/16 @ 8:17 am #
Evan Sayet is going OUTLAW, too! http://tinyurl.com/d5f3kz
Comment by mojo on 3/16 @ 8:21 am #
Hey! Where ya want this scaffolding set up?
Comment by phreshone on 3/16 @ 8:26 am #
Damn. I come for the prose, but I stay because of the smell of stale beer…
And it can’t be a real OUTLAW hang-out without the smell of stale beer… and meth…
At least authorities in Oregon are locking-up the crazy lady who pees in the corner…
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/16 @ 8:33 am #
Hey, Teleprompter Jesus is now sitting at +4. Lowest. Rating. Ever.
I was figuring on him going negative around tax day, but now I don’t think he’s going to make it that long.
Si, si puedo!
Comment by Cowboy on 3/16 @ 8:39 am #
I’ll comment when I’m good and ready.
That’s how cow-boys roll.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 8:39 am #
I have an LED headlamp, too, but no solar battery charger yet.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 8:40 am #
Also the emergency pantry is looking rather thin. I still have some cases of niblet corn.
Comment by louchette on 3/16 @ 8:43 am #
every time i go to bed early i miss all the good wanky dorama. =/
and me, i’m looking forward to the whole societal collapse thingy. if it happens you can find me decked out in a bustier made of poodle skins, cooking an heirloom veggie souffle over a flaming trash can in some mad max style OUTLAW camp somewhere deep in wilds of central park.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 8:52 am #
That is a striking image. I never heard of a poodle bustier before.
Comment by Joe on 3/16 @ 8:53 am #
Closing for mental renovations is when you doing something significantly physical in the yard that needs doin, followed by glasses of adult beverage when the job is done.
Kinda like Shane with the tree stump.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 8:53 am #
I feel sorry for all the future peanut Pomeranians turned to spicy chicken wings.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 8:57 am #
I tried some lopping and put my shoulder out.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 8:58 am #
Mental renovations for me I think will be limited to changing the cats box to lavender crystals.
Comment by solitary knight on 3/16 @ 9:09 am #
So, how are you enjoying Re-education Camp?
Are there T-shirts, arts and crafts, what flavor juice boxes?
Is it co-ed?
Comment by Veeshir on 3/16 @ 9:13 am #
I was thinking last night (I know, my first boss told me to never think), and my thoughts turned to the gay cock of porno.
If having Gannon ask questions of the WH press secretary was a sign of the coming dictatorial reign of Chimpy McBusHitler, why wasn’t someone from Huffington Post asking questions at a Presidential press conference not viewed with equal horror?
I figured, it must be because of the gay cock of porno.
And then, I started wondering why I was thinking of a gay cock of porno and started questioning my manhood.
Then, I had pie.
Comment by USS Ben USN (Ret) on 3/16 @ 9:23 am #
“This is the worst apocalypse evah.”
I saw that comment somewhere, awhile back. It is so funny I can’t get it outta my head. There is some truth to it though, which ain’t so funny, but that only makes it more funny, in a sense. :^)
Comment by apotheosis on 3/16 @ 9:25 am #
I hope that title doesn’t suggest you’re going on yet another damned hiatus.
I mean yeah, the blogosphere will make it without you, but it’s never quite as interesting.
Comment by louchette on 3/16 @ 9:32 am #
sarah w. –
i’mma make it myself. i’m good with the sewing like that. and the cooking. always got an A in home ec. shop too. even tho the skateboard i made was never balanced quite right.
Comment by Darleen on 3/16 @ 9:34 am #
Are there T-shirts, arts and crafts, what flavor juice boxes?
Only if they conform to CPSIA standards.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 3/16 @ 9:35 am #
400+ comments below. I haven’t read one as I just stopped by this AM to see what’s up.
All I can say is holy shit. I skimmed the post and block quotes and I’m honestly a little freaked out. What the fuck could give someone the idea that they could decide what I was thinking regardless of my intent? That’s “Thoughtcrime” isn’t it? And it’s supposed to be fictional. Do those people realize how totalitarian that idea is? How dangerous?
Should I bother with the comments? Does it devolve into a thor-style flamewar? Is every other comment bad ee cummings? Any good dick jokes?
Comment by geoffb on 3/16 @ 9:52 am #
Actually only one comment by thor and it was good and on topic. You should read the comments if time allows.
I went to bed at 3:30am Easten and it was still going strong. Arguing with Westcoasters is a very late night thing.
Comment by Salt Lick on 3/16 @ 9:52 am #
What the fuck could give someone the idea that they could decide what I was thinking regardless of my intent?
LMC — there is no longer a presumption of innocence in speech. Which, finding a lawyer shifting the burden of proof to the speaker in such situations may be evidence of TEOTWAWKI.
Comment by dicentra on 3/16 @ 10:02 am #
I wasn’t following closely yesterday. What are y’all talking about? Deleted comments where?
Comment by B Moe on 3/16 @ 10:02 am #
Should I bother with the comments?
Probably not, it is mostly folks saying some variation of this:
What the fuck could give someone the idea that they could decide what I was thinking regardless of my intent? That’s “Thoughtcrime†isn’t it? And it’s supposed to be fictional. Do those people realize how totalitarian that idea is? How dangerous?
And other people saying some variation of “I/You don’t understand”
With some mostly boring side arguments going on.
Comment by dicentra on 3/16 @ 10:03 am #
Hey Veeshir. Long time no see.
I think. Maybe it’s just my bad short-term memory.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 10:06 am #
Poodle bustier controversies up next. Princess seaming or darts? Lined or unlined? And boning or stiff buckram?
Comment by blowhard on 3/16 @ 10:08 am #
Dicentra, in a comment here (since moved to the long thread below), Jeff originally had a link to blog taking a dumb shot at him. I went over and commented on that other blog and assumed it would be deleted.
No comments were being deleted on this blog.
Comment by Patrick on 3/16 @ 10:12 am #
Too much OUTLAW, not enough pie. What would be in an OUTLAW pie!!!!?!!???!
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 10:12 am #
Savory or sweet outlaw pie?
Comment by Patrick on 3/16 @ 10:13 am #
Oh, and SarahW said STIFF! And BONING! Hehh hehh, hehh hehh…
Comment by Veeshir on 3/16 @ 10:14 am #
Hey Dicentra, I’ve been around, I just don’t comment too much.
Too much alfie and thor, not enough Jeff.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/16 @ 10:19 am #
solar battery charger? I saw a solar flashlight but I put it back cause I thought no way. But now I wonder. Jeez. The survivey bar keeps getting raised. What’s next on my list is those motorola walkie-talkie thingies for me and my friend P down the street.
I don’t think you’re supposed to have fun with this. I’m doing it wrong.
Comment by dicentra on 3/16 @ 10:19 am #
Ah. Thanks, blowhard.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 10:22 am #
Patrick has stolen my authorial agency, No doubt for some mischievous reason of his own. He’s trying to throw me off my game and take my place at Fashion Week.
Comment by dicentra on 3/16 @ 10:23 am #
Oh, that’s right. Jeff’s the worst writer EVAR.
Well, we knew THAT. We just pretend we understand what he’s saying for the pie.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/16 @ 10:28 am #
In this formulation, I’m a nominalist who believes that meaning is tied to things.
I’m further informed that my understanding of meaning is nonsensical, with the commenter haughtily concluding: “Meaning something is closely related to intending something. If you don’t want your intentions misunderstood, you should try and make your meaning as clear as you can (even with the knowledge that you will fail on occassion). Which is JJ’s final point.”
Meaning is tied to intent? Really?
Why, how did I not think of that…?
Comment by Carin on 3/16 @ 10:29 am #
Honestly, Jeff throwing out that link is proof that he loves us.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/16 @ 10:32 am #
So now you see why I must step away.
I am no longer an intentionalist. I’ve evidently argued for the state of language before the fall, or at least, pre-Babel.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/16 @ 10:33 am #
Oh. And I’m dodging Patterico, according to Patterico.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
Comment by dicentra on 3/16 @ 10:34 am #
Well, Jeff, you DID want to light the blogs on fire with intentionalism. :D
Be careful what you wish for.
Comment by TheGeezer on 3/16 @ 10:37 am #
He’ll revive his ratings with this, the Obama version of the fireside chat. And with flip-flops like this.
At least until the higher taxes and spending destroy the fundamentals. And we get tired of seeing the lying smiler.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/16 @ 10:39 am #
I’m thinking maybe we ought to have a long talk about the uses of deliberately giving offense.
Or maybe instead, whether the black man was actually John McWhorter or McWhorter’s tax accountant, cause, y’know those white collar professionals all look alike to me.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 10:43 am #
Re: quote at #52.
I reject that idea. Sometimes you ought to choose the the stabby version of an idea. On purpose. Giving offense has it’s place. To everything there is a season. Impropriety is the soul of wit, and wit has truth in it.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/16 @ 10:44 am #
I don’t know any reasonable people, other than myself.
Comment by Abe Froman on 3/16 @ 10:45 am #
Apparently Jackie Mason is getting heat for calling Teleprompter Jesus a scwartza.
http://www.popeater.com/movies/article/jackie-mason-racism-charges/383621
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/16 @ 10:45 am #
[pedant]its place[/pedant]
Pet peeve. Sorry.
Comment by Carin on 3/16 @ 10:46 am #
Slart, I think you need to reconsider the idea that you are “reasonable.”
I will never forget your “Stinkfist” comment. Reasonable my ass.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/16 @ 10:48 am #
Hey, I have my own standards of reasonability, and hardly anyone meets them.
Except me. I’m cool, that way.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 10:48 am #
Sorry Slart. I can’t even see what I’m writing really.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 10:48 am #
Is that an apostrophe or a floater? Your guess is as good as mine.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/16 @ 10:49 am #
Oh, sorry. Eye problems?
Comment by Scared Straight on 3/16 @ 10:49 am #
This whole debate has just become surreal, and not because of Jeff, either.
Comment by scooter (still not libby) on 3/16 @ 10:50 am #
Bingo, Slart. That statement (“you know one is likely to offend a reasonable person…”) assumes too much good faith on the part of the listener, and way to much for specific listeners. Reason is too much to assume of the perpetually aggrieved.
To Jeff’s credit, he’s been saying exactly this over and over, only better than I just said it. But that goes without saying.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 3/16 @ 10:50 am #
Well shit.
Comment by scooter (still not libby) on 3/16 @ 10:51 am #
“To” and “too” is a pet peeve of mine (“way to[sic] much…). It offered me no protection, though.
Comment by louchette on 3/16 @ 10:53 am #
sarah — princess, lined because sweaty fur is just gross, and boned (of course.)
also, ya know the intentionalism threads are great and educational and a discussion that desperately needs having. but i still think it’s the wrong argument to have been pressing in the case (rush) that started this hoopla. the crux to me is still in the accepting of false foundational assumptions. my dishonest and uncharitable political enemies do NOT have my permission to define me, to define my party, or to choose my party’s de facto leader. and i think it’s a waste of time, stupid, and dangerous to legitimize their narrative about me and all those things by defensively defending what the leader they chose for me (and act like i chose for myself) may or may not have meant.
of course, that’s an argument about intentionalism too. but a different one. nuance.
and OUTLAW! =P
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 10:54 am #
Yep Slart. Anterior chamber is having a ticker tape parade.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 3/16 @ 10:55 am #
Jeff, is that your “fundamental error”?
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/16 @ 10:55 am #
I suppose the reason sam so misunderstood me, over at Joyner’s place, is because I’m the worstest writer and thinker EVAH!
Leftists and haughty folks on the right concerned with propriety can each “deconstruct” my argument with ease!
I’m so popular!
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/16 @ 10:55 am #
More to the point, it assumes that the listener has the same notion of reasonableness that you do.
Which has sort of been my point to Patterico: “reasonable person” is just a stand-in for you, and allows you to argue from authority out from behind the Romulan cloaking device of some mythical, reasonable other.
I don’t take any credit for this idea, nor do I assign Jeff any blame for it.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/16 @ 10:57 am #
Y’know, Pat is a bossy son of a gun sometimes. Answer the question! Take the test! Pass through the needle! Fit yourself into my rhetorical devices! Pay attentions! Do it now!
I don’t know how come that is and don’t really want to provoke needless speculations on it but just to note it, is all.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/16 @ 10:57 am #
I’m sorry to hear that, Sarah. I’ll try to refrain from any further corrections.
Is there any remedy for the situation, or do you just have to grit your teeth and put up with it?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/16 @ 11:00 am #
Hey: how come no one ever is offended that you could have said something another way, but didn’t, because you thought they’d be sensitive?
I mean, that’s patronizing.
Comment by Darleen on 3/16 @ 11:00 am #
JeffG
You’re the “worst writer” because those saying that do not want to address your arguments. Rather than engaging in good faith discourse where people can even end up agreeing not to agree, they would rather just dismiss you out of hand because they have no counter-argument to mount.
That could not be clearer, even to layperson like me who gets a little lost in the jargon.
Comment by B Moe on 3/16 @ 11:00 am #
I suppose the reason sam so misunderstood me, over at Joyner’s place, is because I’m the worstest writer and thinker EVAH!
Well it can’t be because they are illiterate, hell, they have been to school and shit.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/16 @ 11:01 am #
I have no idea what my “fundamental error” is. I think it’s been trying to discuss this with people who have no desire to grasp it, preferring instead to tell me why I’m wrong without understanding what it is I’m arguing.
Comment by Just Noticed on 3/16 @ 11:05 am #
The people who have appointed themselves the arbiters of all meanings (on the right and the left) really don’t want to give up the throne do they?
Comment by Carin on 3/16 @ 11:05 am #
Some lack desire, Jeff. Others lack ability.
Comment by dicentra on 3/16 @ 11:06 am #
You’re the “worst writer” because those saying that do not want to address your arguments.
From what I’ve seen, they don’t even comprehend the arguments. In all my years frequenting PW, I’ve never seen someone who could debate Jeff on his own terms, using the same terminology and assumptions, take him on head-to-head, and present a plausible argument that can stand next to his.
Instead, the arguments are either from ignorance (I can’t read long sentences! Jeff is a moron!) or they argue about something tangential, without understanding the boundaries of the argument he’s making.
That was a compliment, BTW. Good foils are SO hard to find on the intartubez.
Comment by Just Noticed on 3/16 @ 11:08 am #
Jeff,
You’re asking people to give up the power to control the entire conversation by whining and stamping their feet and crying. After years of whining and stamping their feet and crying they’re not so sure they can do any thing else. It’s not about having a conversation, it’s about controlling it.
Comment by dicentra on 3/16 @ 11:08 am #
I have no idea what my “fundamental error” is.
Yer smarter than them. And they hates it.
Comment by B Moe on 3/16 @ 11:12 am #
In all my years frequenting PW, I’ve never seen someone who could debate Jeff on his own terms, using the same terminology and assumptions, take him on head-to-head, and present a plausible argument that can stand next to his.
Because there is no rational argument to his point, to prove it wrong is to invalidate the whole notion of a rational argument. How can you have a rational argument if each participant gets to constatntly restate the other sides case?
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 3/16 @ 11:13 am #
I was going to say that while I was reading that I was “turning purple with rage”, but I realized the word “purple” could, in fact, be offensive. So could he word “rage”. In any number of ways to any number of people. Most of whom would be considered “reasonable” by an observer.
Comment by B Moe on 3/16 @ 11:13 am #
That is probably the fundamental error, now that I think about it.
Comment by dicentra on 3/16 @ 11:16 am #
That is probably the fundamental error, now that I think about it.
What, that Jeff’s right? And he expresses it such that lesser mortals know they can’t BS him with facile arguments?
Yup. I think you’ve got it right there. That’s Jeff’s fundamental error.
They can forgive you for being wrong, Jeff, but they’ll never forgive you for being right.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 3/16 @ 11:17 am #
I’m not really angry, though. I jut wanted to use “purple” as an example, but no one will gt it anyway.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/16 @ 11:18 am #
I had thought it was some pet Sam has in his possession, the which he wants you to take ownership of.
Haz shots! Free to new owner! (Parasite-free guarantees neither intended nor implied.)
Comment by cranky-d on 3/16 @ 11:18 am #
You’re a bad writer and thinker because they cannot understand what you’re saying, and it is totally on you to make them understand. G-d forbid they delve into the archives or something. They need bite-sized explanations and they need them right now, dammit.
Bad outlaw! BAD!
Comment by B Moe on 3/16 @ 11:19 am #
What, that Jeff’s right?
That and the whole paradox of trying to disprove it by rational argument.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 3/16 @ 11:22 am #
Maybe it’s a subtraction error? Decimal in the wrong place?
Comment by Danger on 3/16 @ 11:24 am #
Jeff,
You should not be discouraged you just had a 500 (mostly on topic) comment post.
It is my sense that we are not too far away from a tipping point.
Just wait until Patterico and some of the others aligned to the right have their Bennett/Snow moment,
eventually we will have a McCarthy style pushback.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/16 @ 11:25 am #
I’ve evidently argued for the state of language before the fall, or at least, pre-Babel.
You’ve shown them the Nam-Shub of Enki, and it burns them, precious, yes it does.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/16 @ 11:28 am #
Kathy can’t even begin to give examples of the horrors of my prose and thought. They are just too legion! Why, the vapors are upon her.
SOMEONE PLEASE SAVE HER FROM THE AGONY!
A note about “tas.” I’ve spanked that guy so many times in little mini blog “debates” that he’s got my fingerprints permanently branded in his ass.
I did, however, like the bit about how I was scared of a woman so I called the police. Rather than killing her myself — which I’m sure they would have supported.
That she went on to go after a host of others until she eventually wound up in rehab and under psychiatric care is to be dismissed. And naturally, I’ve noticed that not one of these people ever offers to say these things to me directly. They miss the irony of calling me the wannabe tough guy, I guess.
As my coach might say, they wouldn’t have any idea what’s coming.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/16 @ 11:30 am #
Just wait until Patterico and some of the others aligned to the right have their Bennett/Snow moment
Well, yeah, that’s the fundamental problem. Patterico and his coreligionists are still convinced, deep down, that their opponents are “reasonable” and “decent”. Just like them, only a little misguided.
In fact, the opposition is running on a philosophy so alien to that of Western rationalism that it has virtually no points in common. They don’t simply believe in logic, history, or civil behavior. At most, they may simulate such a belief when it furthers their only goal: to get their hands on the whip.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/16 @ 11:31 am #
You are dangerous to their world view. I think that encompasses all of their problems with you. It also means that, as tiring as it is, you are doing something very right, and they want to shout it down.
Comment by scooter (still not libby) on 3/16 @ 11:32 am #
“You’re a bad writer and thinker because they cannot understand what you’re saying, and it is totally on you to make them understand.”
I agree, and it seems consistent with the discourse so far – whether or not the speaker must consider the “reasonable” meaning on behalf of the observer, and choose his words accordingly so that the listener constructs the proper meaning (“proper” in this case referring to what the speaker intended).
Basically, if they can’t understand what you’re saying, it’s YOUR fault.
Comment by Carin on 3/16 @ 11:35 am #
I almost feel bad calling her out for something that she evidently is so unprepared to do.
Almost.
Comment by B Moe on 3/16 @ 11:38 am #
Really quite lame, aren’t they?
Comment by cranky-d on 3/16 @ 11:41 am #
@96
Whoa, that quote from me looks bad because it could be taken more than one way. I hope my intent is understood.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/16 @ 11:43 am #
Likely the most comments they’ve ever gotten. And they already want it to STOP!
WHY CAN’T YOU JUST LET US GROUNDLESSLY ATTACK YOU IN PEACE…?
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 11:43 am #
n the simplest terms, taking someone else’s signs, ignoring their meaning, and then adding your own meaning in place of the original meaning, is NOT interpretation.
For clarity’s sake, do mean the SIGNS meanings (as opposed to the “someones” meaning).
I assume you do.
Attempt to figure out how the “someone” meant to use the “signs” is part of interpretation, that is a given.
But language is something larger that the selection and meaning given by any given author. Words have a freight all their own. THis meaning is used in interpretation, which is a guessing game always. You would not expect that lexicon to be ignored and abandoned either, would you?
Comment by cranky-d on 3/16 @ 11:43 am #
BTW, the next meme will be that Jeff has sent out his minions to defend him. Because we are all in lockstep agreement.
OUTLAW!!
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/16 @ 11:44 am #
Am I just not seeing the link to the place where this conversation is going on?
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 11:45 am #
I think it’s lavender cat box time.
Comment by Darleen on 3/16 @ 11:45 am #
“You’re a bad writer and thinker because they cannot understand what you’re saying, and it is totally on you to make them understand.â€
Said by the same people who will rend their garments and gnash their teeth if you look at Leftist-performance-art and deem it crap.
Comment by Carin on 3/16 @ 11:45 am #
Spies, I don’t want to give them more traffic, but from last night’s threat … around 2:45 this am Jeff linked ‘em.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/16 @ 11:46 am #
Sure. And who gets to assign that freight? When does it apply? To whom does it apply?
Freight is now being assigned by those who want to control the discourse. I think it is right to push back against that as much as you can stand to.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/16 @ 11:48 am #
SBP, on 14, what happens when the
linesstreams cross? Total protonic reversal?Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 11:48 am #
Oh, thanks for asking Slartibartfast.
I have drops which help. Mainly I have to keep the iris from sticking down permanently, else my eye will asplode. I hope its a short episode, and doesn’t ping pong from eye to eye like it did when I was young.
Comment by Danger on 3/16 @ 11:49 am #
cranky-d,
I think Sooter provided a perfect illustration of cherry picking a quote thus stripping it of its context; which correct me if I am wrong, was sarcasm
This creates the opportunity to completely undermine a person’s message.
Comment by SarahW on 3/16 @ 11:49 am #
“Freight is now being assigned by those who want to control the discourse. I think it is right to push back against that as much as you can stand to.”
No argument there.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/16 @ 11:53 am #
BTW, SarahW, I hope the eyes get better. The idea of not being able to see is scary.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/16 @ 11:56 am #
Thanks, Carin.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/16 @ 11:58 am #
Danger,
Yes, it was supposed to be sarcastic, and when I wrote it I didn’t even see the other way it could be taken. Even in context it was not clear. So, I failed to communicate to some extent, but since I’m a regular around here I figure that most people would get what I meant.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/16 @ 12:01 pm #
It doesn’t matter. You need the someone to have the signs.
Words have a history of conventional meanings that can be used to help us interpret. But convention only gives us clues to intent.
I’ve answered this question so many times I don’t know how else to put it.
Maybe this will help: signifiers don’t carry freight. Only words do. And words are intended — created by some agency. Most times, the agency will use some conventional iteration of a sign to signify; but not always.
Convention is useful; but it does not govern meaning. Intent does. Assigning freight to a signifier that an author hasn’t, when he signified, is to attach your intent, based on your desire to explore all conventional possibilities that may have informed the signification.
Such might be a good way to start the interpretive process, where you are trying to decide what the author meant, but you have to leave open the possibility that the author hasn’t used any conventional signification — and you need to understand that it’s likely he didn’t use all potential conventional iterations.
So you’re left with, what did he intend, and how do I go about finding out?
Comment by Darleen on 3/16 @ 12:02 pm #
SarahW
This is why I used the real world example on Jeff’s thread yesterday of a black worker overhearing a Hispanic co-worker talking to her niece in Spanish, hearing the word “negro”, taking “offense” and claiming a “hostile work force”. Certainly words have their own basic meaning based on culture (English v Spanish) and people of good faith use those signs (ok, I’m stepping here out on my own, hoping I’m using the jargon correctly as I believe I understand from reading Jeff’s posts… I am but a student here) they already understand and believe their listeners understand. In my example, the black worker ignores the fact that the person was speaking in Spanish where even the signs are different and projects her own meaning onto the word, never once even attempting to discern the utterers meaning.
I’m a visual person … draw, paint, chart, photoshop … and I see this as cartoon strip —
Frame 1: person A with a text balloon over his head with a declarative sentence in it.
Frame 2: person B comes up and grabs hold of the tail of the balloon.
Frame 3: person B shakes all the words out of the balloon onto a pile on the floor and starts to rummage in the pile.
Frame 4: person B puts a few of the original words (black ink) in the balloon but not in the order of person A, indeed fills in places with person B’s own words (red ink).
Frame 5: Person B hauls this new balloon over to person C and pointing at the balloon and rants “See what he (person A) said? I AM OFFENDED! He should have known better! Eleventy!!1!1!.
Comment by Danger on 3/16 @ 12:06 pm #
cranky-d,
That is where historical data comes into play with interpreting intent. Having said that I was pretty sure that sarcasm was your intent. I sometimes use the /s after a post because sarcasm can be misinterpreted.
The charitable side of me also would like to believe that scooter was being sarcastic as well but I dont know his history that well and if he was being sarcastic it was very subtle.
Comment by ExDemocrat on 3/16 @ 12:06 pm #
Gee, I haven’t visited in awhile. I see the place hasn’t changed. (good) Things have gotten so nuts (out there), I need the mental floss I get here. But, what happened to the armadillo?
Comment by Danger on 3/16 @ 12:16 pm #
SarahW,
Here is my response from the previous thread in reference to the example Darleen commented on above:
SarahW,
“Once informed that it bothered and confused someone, the innocent usage in the future can’t be so generously assumed. People are brats and use excuses to get under one another’s skin, but lets assume the aunt has no desire to deliberately poke anyone, but wishes to go ahead and use her preferred niece-nickname in spite of the confusion and alarm it causes mis-understanders. She might choose to disreguard the feelings of others and go right on as before. Fark them if they can’t take a joke.
Well, you know that’s appropriate in some situations, especially on ones own dime. However an employer has broader concerns, not just of keeping a work environment free of blatant racial discrimination or intimidation, but also in minimizing conflict between workers in the work place. Keeping the peace, if you will. Within the limits of the law, and contract employers can restrict workplace speech. They have a right to say, act as demanded, or get out. They have a right to be arbitrary based on who butters their bread, at least in employment-at-will situations.â€
- Granted an employer has an interest and right to intervene; however, why not respond by counseling the nosy/offended worker about the real interpretation of the word she heard and the inappropriateness of snooping on someone elses phone conversation. How is someone offended by a phone conversation not involving themselves by someone speaking spanish in the first place?
“Not A reasonable interpretation. The reasonable interpretation.
I that means the test of reasonableness exquisitely and specifically applied to a specific situation, rather than a test of mere plausibility applied to some general happenstanceâ€.
Going back a few comments I asked Patterico about his original assertion in another post:
“I believe your original arguement from the Rush Limbaugh discussion was that we (the sender of a message) had to guard against someone using any possible interpretation of our intent. Later you conceded that it might not be a good idea to guard against unreasonable interpretations. I don’t remember you ever saying a “most†reasonable standard should applyâ€.
In other words, neglecting context (which is easy to do if a quote is selectively pulled from an article) could lead to more than one “reasonable†interpretation.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/16 @ 12:18 pm #
I did some minion duty “over there.” I tried to be cordial. I doubt anything I wrote will make a damn bit of difference to them.
Comment by dicentra on 3/16 @ 12:21 pm #
Shorter Jeff @ Hot Air:
When someone asks you if you’ve stopped beating your wife, you don’t answer the question. You challenge the assumptions of the question.
The MSM has no qualms about taking whatever you’ve said and transforming it into a loaded question such as the above.
And the GOP is so whipped that they step right into the trap, saying, “Yes! I mean, no! I mean, I love my wife.”
When what they should do is say, “That meme about Rush being the de facto head of the GOP is White-House propaganda. Why are you giving it the weight of fact instead of naming the source? Now get off my lawn!”
Comment by Danger on 3/16 @ 12:25 pm #
My apologies for the last post,
Having reread it is difficult to follow which comments were mine which ones were SarahW’s and which one was Patterico’s
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/16 @ 1:44 pm #
Well, it’s hard times, my friend, and what with the economic downturn and all…well…we et ‘im.
Comment by Squid on 3/16 @ 2:09 pm #
Speaking of signifiers and received meanings and whatnot, has anyone seen Friday’s bit from Rachel Lucas? Our friends the Germans have introduced a new fried chicken product called Obama Fingers.
I shit thee not:
A German frozen food company hopes to raise sales with a new product: Obama fingers. The tender, fried chicken bits come with a tasty curry sauce. The company says it was unaware of the possible racist overtones of the product.
I’m tempted to sign up as a Stateside distributor, just so I can preach intentionalism in the inevitable media kerfuffle.
Comment by ExDemocrat on 3/16 @ 2:33 pm #
Well, it’s hard times, my friend, and what with the economic downturn and all…well…we et ‘im.
*sniff* So the dillo made the ultimate sacrifice? May his crazy lil heart rest in armadillo heaven. Nah, he went to guy’s heaven, hanging with the chicks. :)
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/16 @ 2:39 pm #
Uh…sorry, but I think I made some pate out of his heart. His liver…oh, you wouldn’t want to eat that thing. Do you realize how much tequila the little fellow put away on a daily basis?
Comment by Lesley on 3/16 @ 2:46 pm #
Re: “the most impressive drivel evah”
Neat trick on her part, channeling Lewis Carroll. “My words meant that I admire self-important and appallingly awful writing. It takes talent to write that way. So you are absolutely correct that my words mean whatever I intend them to mean, and I will be happy to accept your apology for assuming you know what my intended meaning was.”
“When I use a word,” “Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
Comment by ExDemocrat on 3/16 @ 2:56 pm #
Oh yes, I do know how much Tequila he put away. Some people err, armadillos are more fun when they’ve had a few. Ok, so he had more than a few. He had a *high* metabolism.
So, any plans to adopt a new pet/little pal? Or have things turned serious around here?
Comment by Jeff G on 3/16 @ 3:06 pm #
She can make that claim. And I can make a pretty good argument that what she claims to be her intent wasn’t her intent at all.
And once I do that, her credibility will be good only to those whose are invested in lying and dissembling. Which makes them easy to identify.
I’ve mentioned this before, but this crusade to take back language will appeal to many Democrats, as well. So let Kathy play her games. It’s about time that THEY begin to feel what it’s like to win little battles at the expense of losing the war.
Comment by mojo on 3/16 @ 3:40 pm #
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
– Wm. Butler Yeats
Comment by John Hitchcock on 3/16 @ 4:20 pm #
I suppose this is where I can shamelessly plug my new blog post briefly comparing the polling data between BHO and GWB. Hopefully you folks enjoyed my remarks about my journey through the valley of the shadow of death I linked a couple days ago. ;)
Comment by happyfeet on 3/16 @ 10:01 pm #
I will read it Mr. Hitchcock. brb.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/16 @ 10:11 pm #
I think the conclusion is that the media coverage was such that a great deal of the dipshit’s support was the anti-Bush support the dirty socialist media like NPR and Newsweek ginned up. Bush is gone and little Baracky is walking into windows and trying to keep up with his Teleprompter and people are waiting to see what his “stimulus” is gonna do except it’s not designed to actually stimulate anything so they’re waiting and waiting and sending the children out of the room as economic prostitute Mark Zandi does an obscene stimulus 2 lapdance and it’s becoming more and more clear that this dirty socialism shit isn’t as hopey or changey as it looked in the brochure.