boy: “Hiya, boy.”
dog: …
boy: “Good boy.”
dog: …
dog: …
boy: “You’re not wagging your tail. Anything wrong, boy?”
dog: “Yeah. Bring me a fucking bone. Then sod off, racist.”*
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
I think you mean to call Petey an “African-American Lab” in the title, Jeff. I won’t take offense, but others might.
Obviously a black lab.
Rough.
And ‘Black’ is lowercase!! Racist and Propernounist!!!!
Obviously that kid didn’t get anything out of his social justice indoctrinations at public school…
Sign him up for re-education camp…
Yes, that should definitely be African-American Lab.
GODDAM OMAHA STEAKS!
Don’t call him a dog, either.
He’s a Canine-American.
Well, my male dog, who has quite the vocabulary, would never tell me to “sod off, racist.” But then he’s an all white American Eskimo who doesn’t take umbrage at the sobriquet, “boy.”
Right away with that sod off stuff. I see how you are.
Did Petey force you to invest in Bonz? Huh? DID HE?
Freakin’ little Labbie Commie if you ask me.
FIDO?!! Who you callin’ Fido, Irish?
“Sod off?” Damn Eurotrash.
Petey better watch it, or he’s going to take a little trip to the vet for some “tutoring”.
KItty: ::cough:: Mau Mau ::cough::
::Dog eats kitty very quickly::
KItty: ::cough:: Mau Mau ::cough::
::Dog eats kitty very quickly::
Woo. two cat eaten.
that’s not the way it works at my house.
Petey can haz kitteh?
Wait a minute!
I thought Petey was the dead/reanimated Turkey from SNL’s Tarzan, Tonto, and Frankenstein Thanksgiving skit…
Goldstein: A racist and plagiarist!
So, like, ya know, has anybody ever actually seen Jeff Goldstein and Joe Biden in the same room?
That’s my favorite line in Notting Hill though. Which ,shoot me, I like.
Hugh Grant announces politely to his assembled friends, “Sod a Dog, I’ve made the wrong decision haven’t I”
I saw a black dog
that walked a white man.
It’s a hard,
it’s a hard,
it’s hard,
it’s a HAAA-aaaard,
it’s a hard stainnnnn
to get off.
Twocat Shapurr, that is. You know all about that identity group infighting.
I’m sorry. that is a very bad pun indeed.
It’s funny, because it’s imaginary.
But the real issue Jeff is it this kind of dog, or this kind of dog?
And when is the last time a dog spoke back you Jeff? Cause that makes you kind of like this guy!
What if you offer your imaginary dog some of these delicious German treats? He might tolerate the “boy” part then.
That dog is a bitch and too high strung. Sensitive too. He should shoot that dog before he bites someone.
Petey is just pining for the straits
“That’s my favorite line in Notting Hill though. Which ,shoot me, I like.”
Speaking of Notting Hill, here’s Rob Long in last Friday’s WSJ:
Weighing in late. I think it’s a deal between intent and manners versus forced political interpretation with legal ramifications as decided by a one-party regime. I choose to be polite for sure, but I don’t want jail if I fail to meet someone’s arbitrary definition of meaning.
That said, the dog’s opinion might be found somewhere in Family Circus. Or Marmaduke..
Dammit, Jeff! THAT DOG STOLE THAT BOY’S MEANING.
Better get Erick Dyson on the phone right quick and order up a right heapin’ helpin’ o’ code words!
Wait…..
Did I say “boy”?
Sod off….
Aww, that’s nice Jeff, You remembered St. Patrick’s day.
By the way, Jeff, have the Nomenklatura invited you into their treehouse yet? I mean, obviously, someone as fair-minded and rational as you would have been invited to be on their private list server by now! I mean, it’s only a matter of time!
Right?
How’s Allahpundit and Michelle taking not being among the chosen? I’m sure it’s only an oversight.
Speaking of Rob Long. I’m all hopey about what clip O. will show on Jay Leno tomorrow night. Maybe his masterful race speech after the Rev. Wright debacle? How bout going back to ’04 and good times at the Dem convention. His inauguration day speech was humble fo shizzle, with just the slightest of errors to show he’s human.
I can’t wait to buy the box set.
Oh, and FIDOIST!
Next up on the EU word hit-list … we shall no longer refer to children as either children nor “boy” or “girl” but as State Wards.
And adults hereafter as “Soylent Green”.
My wife debates her friend quite regularly. Said friend is into deconstructionism, which makes the debates somewhat entertaining.
Incidentally, Ace has a post up about the Patterico / Jeff dog boy debate. He incorrectly says that my post was in response to Patterico’s “Socratic” post on the topic (in wasn’t), and though I’ve asked him to make the correction he thus far has not.
Too, he has ignored every one of my comments. Dan’s comment he responded to immediately. Me, I’m being frozen out.
Thank goodness Michelle runs Hot Air and not Allah, I guess.
I am a pariah. And — as yesterday showed — I am a pariah now on both sides of the blogosphere. There is only so much I can do. What many people outside the academy or the field of hermeneutics don’t understand is that intentionalism is CONSTANTLY under assault, and that it is the job of 99% of “theorists” to find ways to pretend the author doesn’t much matter.
This is, on the local level, no more than a way to keep themselves in specialty fields; but they realized how to make this play on the level of public policy, and they’ve spent forty years now breaking down speech safeguards and corrupting the idea of interpretation.
Ace continues to say the whole thing is “trivial,” even as he launches yet another thread on the topic, and even as he continues to freeze me out while pushing (along with Hot Air) this lawyerly idea of language that does nothing but weaken our ability to communicate.
I am trying to keep this site alive, but it will become increasingly difficult as people decide it’s easier to ignore me than to debate me (or, in some other cases, change the grounds of the debate entirely and then try to wear me down, forcing me to say the same things over and over and over again).
I am tired. But fuck it if I’m not gonna go down swinging.
“You know how to dog-whistle, don’t you?
“You just put your lips together and blow”
JeffG
My very humble suggestion … you’ve written so much on this over the past several years, how about assembling all that vast material, have someone edit it and publishing it? And title it provocatively such as “Taking Back Your Words: Handbook to counter the Liberal Language Fascists”.
It would be a well-thumbed and highlighted book on my shelf!
In the works, Darleen.
Least, last I heard.
I’ll ask Ace, Allah, and Patterico for a blurb. Along with tas.
I walked into a TENTH AVENUE FREEZE OUT!
pup up dog boy pop out black man
Well, I hope you have your outlaw boots on ’cause there is stray voltage in metal plates and objects on the sidewalks….
JeffG
I look forward to handing over filthy lucre to get it!
Or OUTLAW homegrown produce, depending on how far we fall into bartering to keep cash from The One.
BTW, I’m going through that hotair thread now and it appears a lot of people get your argument and support it.
There yet may be hope.
Ace put the correction up.
Buck up, Jeff.
Yes, buck may have some latent connotations.
At least you’re not a Suck Up, or a Fuck Up.
Luck o’ thee Irish to ye, boy.
whoops, I mean Ace’s thread.
And, really, if they were totally freezing you out, I doubt very much any of them would bother responding to you or linking your responses/entries into the debate.
I tried to comment at the end but evidently they closed the thread.
This is the first one ace linked. And the correction was added after I agitated a bit more for it. Rather pointedly, too. And if you weren’t around during the first Patterico “debate,” Patrick visited and refused to answer any of my responses until eventually enough people made note.
Ace ignored every one of my comments today. Which I also hinted at.
If he responds now when he wouldn’t before, I’ll chalk that up to a little prodding in front of his audience.
Still, I’m glad he put up the correction. And I hate to be “divisive,” but to me this is not a trivial issue.
Tenth avenue freeze out – East Berlin 1988
Jeff –
I have heard it said, by some, that “My Struggle against Liberal Language Fascists, Deconstructionists, Offensitivitists, Unelected EU dictionary editors, (Erick) Dysonists, Dog Whispers, McCain-Feingoldians, UofA Teaching Staff, and Both Sides of the Blogosphere” or simply, “My Struggle” would be a better selling title.
Especially if you want it read by Progressives and Liberals and prominently displayed at Borders and such.
I’d buy it for the picture of the Armadillo in a wet tee-shirt on the back, but hey I bet I’m not the only one.
Or I could just publish it under Frum’s name.
I don’t think you’re being divisive at all. I think more than a little prodding (euphemism?) is sometimes necessary and, frankly, I’m glad to see you doing it. Shows you’ve still got the spunk (okay, now this is just getting obscene) inside you.
What are the tags on this site for commenting? Because I’m clearly messing them up.
Ok, here’s another hypothetical. There are two train tracks, the track on the left goes between a young boy and his dog on one side and a black man on the other. The the track on the right goes between a young boy and a black man on one side and the boy’s dog on the other. There’s a brain in a jar that controls the track switch, and the brain knows that both boys are going to say “Come here, boy!” at the same time. The brain also knows that when the train passes between everyone/thing on one side of the track will be unable to see or hear anything on the other side. Also, there’s a fat KKK member on the track on the right who will be killed by the train, and 5 orphans on the leftward track who will be killed. One of the orphans will eventually have a son who becomes a serial killer.
My question is: exactly how racist is the brain in the jar?
You just didn’t close the blockquote tag, so you essentially blockquoted inside the blockquote. I fixed it. Before it became like one of them Russian dolls.
Off to strap on the 50 lb weight vest and do some Thai boxing. Then I have to work on bending steel. Back later.
Oh, and hi, tas!
have you ask tom lifson @ american thinker if he’d be interested in your writings? they seem to cover the machinations of the left.
Just to make things clear, I don’t ask about what the brain in the jar decides to do, because who the fuck cares what the brain thinks?
It’s interesting that Ace and Gabriel seem to be misreading your position in precisely the same way that Patterico did.
It must be a law school thing.
Hey, guys: did you ever wonder why the “reasonable man”/”objective standard” you keep appealing to is called a legal fiction?
I’ll ask Ace, Allah, and Patterico for a blurb.
Aren’t all three of those guys lawyers? Ace’s commenter might be correct:
Patterico is a lawyer.
Hell man, perverting meaning and twisting words is his job.
Posted by: Entropy at March 17, 2009 11:28 AM
Hey, I just finished law school, and I understand Jeff just fine.
Going off of what you said, B Moe, I found Ace’s description of deducing “objective” meaning interesting. He’s basically saying that interpretation of meaning is based on approaching the question from an “OK, what the hell does thing mean” position, without considering “what the hell were they trying to say”. As a lawyer, you’re trained to do either (actually, there are other ways too). I’ve found that the method of interpretation shifts according to the results desired.
I don’t know what they’re talking about over there but it only occasionally touches on intentionalism.
A commenter on Ace’s site had this to say about me:
When your ostensible “allies” begin to attack you in the same way your enemies do, how to tell the difference?
Not that I should have to say this, but my teaching salary minus full-time daycare would have yielded me only a little more than I’ve been able to bring in blogging. Plus, I get to stay home with my son — something that my wife and I wanted, rather than a latchkey kid.
When you get attacked for doing what’s in the best interests of your family — on a conservative site by someone who wants you out of “his” party — you have to wonder if it’s even worth it anymore.
On the chance this dude is a moby, whose position does he fear more, mine or that of the “realists'”? Why do you think that is?
Jeff, the assholes we always have with us. And there’s a reason the AoS crowd are referred to as morons.
Well, crap, but #66 might make me go searching at Ace’s. Honestly, the asshats on “our” side can be just as bad as those on the other.
Can I just register my outrage here, though? I work tuesdays, and my day started at 6 am. It’s 8 now, and a beer is calling me but I’m too tired to go get it.
I just found that thread confusing. Disagreement about intentionalism at first. Then a Rush reference. Then Patterico came in and said Jeff and he basically agreed. Why was that ignored? Because they thought Patterico would give them the perfect strong form “Rush is a net negative” to build upon.
Yeah, and fuck that trolling Moby, Jeff.
Too many have confused the best interests of the party with their own (and everyone else’s) best interests. Or maybe not confused. Probably not. Really, tThose kinds of folks only want political power. That’s not what it’s about for you (and Rush, or me). Ideas don’t matter, liberty doesn’t matter. Just that they win and get to do whatever it is they want to do.
I really believe there’s space being created here for a strong third party challenge. Neither party is doing what we really want, and the only thing either of them is good at is taking away more and more of our freedom.
Whatever.
Oh, yea. I’d say that guy was a moby.
@ 67
Yours, for the reasons stated above. Neither party is really doing what the people would rather they do. You advocate for that very lucidly to the folks who would make up the tip of the wedge that would break through the lines of the old order.
#72 for the tail end of #70. Not for Patrick.
I’ve never noticed that “andros” character commenting on there before, and I read AoSHQ pretty regularly.
Thx, Jeff. Though my comment does seem a touch overwrought…
As Dan pointed out over there Andros isn’t an ανηÏ. Like more unto a sniveling twit.
Yeah, it’s a progg troll.
that allah dude may be not the sharpest knife in the drawer:
?
Jeff, seriously, if your writings are being condensed into a book, I’d actually wait in line to get one. Your blog has been very influential to my thinking over the years.
For a title, how about just “Protein Wisdom”. Simple, and eye catching enough to make a casual browser want to look twice.
I can just see the early Amazon reviews now: “Goldstein once told me to chug a cock!”
Totally OT but hey
It’s St Pat’s day so Clancy Bros and Tommy Makem
“Goldstein once told me to chug a cock!â€
That’ll bring in the LGBT demographic.
Amazon review: “One brutal cock slap after another.”
Jeff – I stop by to get a giggle once in a while but usually just lurk. Cute story this one – it touched a racist bone, I guess. Funny to see how the commenters all danced around that issue and even encourage it. They say racism is a learned behavior. I wonder if maybe it is just a human behavior.
Funny to see how the commenters all danced around that issue and even encourage it
?
Step 1:
Download LyX and Zotero, and learn how to use them.
Step 2:
Put the result in Amazon’s CreateSpace (print) and Kindle (electronic, which also gets you on iPhone and iPod nowadays).
Step 3: Profit? Fame? Who knows?
SBP,
think you could make money that way?
What’s the difference between st. patrick’s day and martin luther king jr. day?
Some people are making money that way, for sure, others not so much.
As with any such endeavor, publicity has a lot to do with it (in fact, that’s pretty much the only thing that a traditional publisher brings to the table these days).
Jeff has a large audience to spread the word.
It’d be a flyer, for sure… but there shouldn’t be too much risk involved if he were just packaging material that he already had written.
Oh, I’m sure that the leftoid trolls would sneer about “vanity publishing” (as if blogs are anything else), but every sneer would equal more publicity.
on martin luther king jr. day every body tries to be a guilty white liberal.
What’s the difference between st. patrick’s day and martin luther king jr. day?
on martin luther king jr. day every body tries to be a guilty white liberal.
Drunk off my ass one St. Patty’s day I spent a good hour or so trying to convince a black guy that Irish people and Black people were the same.
For the life of me, I don’t know if this is on topic or not.
Why was Ace a prissy asshole to Jeff on that thread? It speaks very well of Patterico that he keeps a collegial attitude during arguments.
Ace though? What is up with that? Has he always been an asshole? Am I stupid that it took me so long to figure this out? Are you tired of my endless questions? What’s going on with Lost?
On that thread? Ha!
Sdferr, could you help me out? I’m missing the backstory.
Once upon a time Ace was a big fan of Jeff’s.
LOL at the post.
Ace had a post last week in which he took pretty much the same stance he’s held today, right at the time Pat and Jeff were exchanging posts on the Limbaugerrf, Ace’s commentariat hammered him (it seemed to me anyway) with a comment section that ultimately ended up in the 900+ post range. Ace simply refuses to address Jeff’s argument, not then, not now. He’s dug in his heels for some undefined practical politics approach, without considering the strategic rhetorical advantage he cedes to the left. At least that’s how I see it (and so, it seems, how a goodly number of his longtime commenters do as well.) He’s been pretty pissy throughout, I’d say.
Okay, sdferr, yeah, I caught that. I somewhat assumed that his reaction was emotional. He had his whole readership call him an idiot. So he was hurt and angry. Not a time when he’d want to address Jeff, knowing he’s bringing some intellectual firepower.
This thread seemed to be a more intentional slight and I don’t get it.
As a reader (of Jeff’s since the beginning, Ace’s from the beginning), I’m not impressed with Ace’s dis of an original gangsta.
Even some on our side don’t have principles.
Some still do and you Baldi are one, doing the heavy lifting over there today with some help from your pals. I thanks you.
Yeah, baldi (another blogosphere OG, btw), Ace has been disappointing lately.
Jeff, okay Allah is generally pussified, but Ace? Come on, stop being paranoid.
oh my:
Obama to appear on Leno – will he bring a teleprompter? By Jimmy Orr | 03.17.09
Juliette is the real deal. I always have the bestest times when I get a chance to get together with her (way too few and far between).
So many people have turned on me lately it’s become dizzying. Glad people like Baldilocks aren’t among them. Because that would have truly broken my heart, I think.
I am not completely defending Ace, he is borderline pussy lately too, just give it a day before you declare everyone is against you.
router
Obama is here in So Cal for “town meetings” tomorrow.
Is there anyone tracking how many days he actually puts in at the office? I mean, he’s keeping a campaign schedule here.
Stop telling me how to react, Joe.
And check out some of the other commenters here who’ve picked up on the same vibe.
Believe what you want. It is what it is.
Jesus, Patterico is now over on the thread talking about my “conspicuous” failure to address his hypotheticals, which have nothing whatever to do with the argument I’m making.
Is he really going to argue that he’s been right all along — he’s just now learned to word it more accurately — forever and ever? Because I don’t think I can take much more.
Okay. I responded once. Must not keep it going.
Jillian —
There’s a rather large and significant back story to this.
Heh.
let’s beat up on the straw(gender neutral)it.
@115
For Obama, a Shamrock-Sprinkled Schedule
Irish Ties Are Order of the Day
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 18, 2009; Page A07
For the first time, the fountain in front of the White House spouted green on St. Patrick’s Day, just like the Chicago River. And, yes, the president dressed to match.
geez.
I conspicuously agree, sdferr.
Best part of that thread? Patterico marshaling Gabe misunderstanding to prove something or another.
Gabe? You mean the guy who doesn’t understand either position?
I’m sure it’s obvious, I’ve been posting in that other thread since the beginning.
Fwiw, I just read a lot of the comments at Ace’s, as referred to by Jeff’s link above @39. Imo Ace has clearly reached his top level of competence and has then apparently jumped into the realm of incompetence chacteristic of the Peters Principle. He sound’s PC to the hilt, and was largely suffering at the hands of the commenters there, rightly so.
– It’s fairly definitive when he finally has to resort to his very own demonizing/belittling of those who are trying to set him straight by alleging that they are simply
`”demonizing anyone who disagrees with Rush Limbaugh”, an allegation about the commenters totally unsupported by what I read there – conveniently making Ace a victim in his own mind. Boo hoo, and haha.
I didn’t know that, bh. Under what name?
And yeah, I don’t know why ace has decided to play the “let’s ignore Jeff” game. Maybe it’s because I’m toxic and the guy wants to make a living. Can’t rightly blame him for that, honestly.
counter, it’s a bit of a character, mainly built around my Uncle Tim.
Hey, Patterico did agree with “counter” that our first and primary goal of interpretation is to figure out the speaker’s intent.
It’s like my own little set of hypotheticals, posed as a avatar.
“Can’t rightly blame him for that, honestly.”
Good for you, you overly gracious asshole.
I can.
y’all saw where the Ace person made that correction thingy yes? That was nice I think.
oh. back at #47.
Jeff you can react anyway you want. But aren’t you making assumptions about their intentionalism? I am not sure all of it is intentional. I am not sure Ace and Allah really get or understand what you are talking about.
Hey ‘feets, Joe won’t let me talk to him, so could you please ask him what’s up with his #25?
Well, I’m not them, Joe, so yes, I have to guess what their intent was. I responded to a number of ace’s comments. He ignored me. Dan came on and addressed him. He immediately answered.
Maybe you should read the thread.
Like I said, maybe he’s doing what he feels he has to do, or maybe he just doesn’t much like me. I’m not sure why. But I don’t think it’s accidental.
Pretty soon I’ll give up caring, though.
“Good for you, you overly gracious asshole.
I can.”
I hope that’s clear. As in, you’re more collegial than I can be.
And, frankly, I’m pissed. I’m not sure why Ace feels this is cool, appropriate or does anything but show a certain dickheadedness.
Jeff, maybe you are right. I have also not gone through the entire thread or the other threads today. You have been busy. As Patterico noted the other day, persuasion requires credibility and an audience that allows itself to be persuaded. I think you have the credibility part down, but you are running up against some who are not open to what you are saying.
guinsPen, I will talk to you. Your channelling of Pesci’s Goodfellas character the other day was brilliant. Why don’t you tell me my intentionalism in #25.
Okay, I’m drinking (happy St. Pats!). Jeff, I don’t think you’re “an overly gracious asshole”. I think you show a forbearance I simply don’t have a capacity for. So I get a bit pissed on your behalf.
Joe has his own agenda I think, guins. brb.
Hey ‘feets, could you please ask Joe where I can subscribe to intentionalism? It sounds like a fine magazine.
Ehhh, never post a comment after listening to Flogging Molly and drinking a few black and tans. That’s what I’ve learned.
A sad day indeed. My favorite two sites are at odds. I go to Ace’s to vent and also to see the latest creative use of the word fuck. I come here to learn. That is in no way a shot at Ace. You both have your place on the net.
So, they shut you out. So what? You have a following that is very interested in what you have to say.
Why don’t you tell me my intentionalism in #25.
Too early to tell. Let’s call it Strike Two.
I need a few Guinnesses. Have to lift first. Ate some cookies today. Guilt has set in.
And of course I knew what you were saying bh.
Big D —
It helps to get your message out if people link to what it is, rather than reference it in passing and then attempt to run it down. I’ve found that happening a bit lately. But like I said, it is what it is. When I need to I’ll press the issue.
To be honest, many (most?) of us weren’t taught principles or we repudiated our parents’ principles. Getting punched in the nose (9/11) brought some of them back…for a while.
JeffG
If I may offer — IMHO what you are talking about is hard for some to grasp because it has been educated out of them.
See, I haven’t gone to law school, even though I might just to get a JD so the idiots who DO have JD’s can’t tell me to “shut up”. But I do believe, after working alongside DDA’s for ten years, that the education burns out, or at least cripples, that portion of their brain that is for dealing with people at face value. That’s why Pat is so enamored of his hypo’s..that’s a dda’s dining table – working with all sort of intent and motive and extenuating circumstance and assigning percentages of blame.
All the while you are explaining the basic HOW of communication between human beings.
Because I have never studied that structural foundation, I find it fascinating and instructive and I’m open to the new of it (even as some of it is so ‘common sense’ that it is familiar on an almost organic level even as I grapple with the jargon). But you’re presenting to attorney’s something they feel they are “beyond” … they are interior designers quibbling over silk drapes v linen and you telling them they can’t get there without building the house FIRST and you telling them HOW that house, from foundation to drywall, is constructed.
/my 2cents
I haz an opinion. JeffG is most effective with time pressure on vid or audio. He is quite charming, you know, quick. Not everyone has that knack.
Contraints of the medium seem to improve his persuasive powers and really maximize them. It’s a little magical and I hate to see it wasted.
Hey Darleen! Too bad we can’t go over to NBC together and heckle teh One. Heck they can audit me. I keep good records.
I don’t spend much time at Ace’s (I read the headlines mostly, never the comments) but I think he’s not liking so much being in the minority. It’s a new thing: R’s have been around pretty much in power since 2000. Was Ace blogging then? Was anybody? Dunno, really; I wasn’t anywhere near a PC. But I do get the feeling that a lot of the old stalwarts aren’t liking so much the role of underdog, and would do anything to get back that lost advantage. Even and including selling one’s soul.
Are you saying I have a pen made for radio, Sarah?
“It helps to get your message out if people link to what it is, rather than reference it in passing and then attempt to run it down.”
Very true. It seems to me though that the worst would be to be ignored. They may not link, but you have gained readership. I’m not the only person that hits refresh several times per day.
As an aside, I didn’t know I needed to work off the Guinnes. Next week maybe…
We were wondering how he gets from Burbank back to LAX. No one tells me anything.
Actually I think he flew into Long Beach. I don’t get that.
“We were wondering how he gets from Burbank back to LAX. No one tells me anything”
Magic Unicorns.
Your channelling of Pesci’s Goodfellas character the other day was brilliant
No channelling, Joe, you brought up Tommy DeVito for humorous comparison purposes.
Better than that Jeff. Video. :)
If this be treason, make the most of it, but you’ve got something natural there no mohawk or fedora could ever confer.
“If I may offer — IMHO what you are talking about is hard for some to grasp because it has been educated out of them.”
I’ve been thinking that also.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Hey Juliette
Next time The One comes to do Leno, if we know early enough, we need to snag Joy and go do a little performance street theater to welcome The One. Maybe dress up in frilly dresses, pearls and serve the syphocants in line tea. Earl Grey.
I want to see the pics of that.
I think you should dress up like Indians and toss their cargo into the bay.
Have you all not noticed Jeff’s strange power to be a blogger and yet still have some appeal in a audio/visual medium?
You’re beginning to make me think Kathy was right, Sarah.
It’s on, once again, in the Ace thread. Related note, I fucking love If I Ever Leave This World Alive by Flogging Molly.
“Ace continues to say the whole thing is “trivial,†even as he launches yet another thread on the topic, and even as he continues to freeze me out while pushing (along with Hot Air) this lawyerly idea of language that does nothing but weaken our ability to communicate.”
I have been trying to debate this with you, and oddly, I am being ignored. I posed a series of hypos, Jeff, and I was more interested in your answers than anyone else’s. Yet you peristently refuse to answer them as written.
You answered the parts you wanted to answer and then wrote a post mocking the questions.
Why not answer them? I think they would crystallize what our differences are. Pretend the boy is a man if it makes a difference.
Pat, we’re not cool with jumping through hoops. Distill your argument into a declarative theory in neutral language. Propose it. We’ll debate it. That’s fairly standard, no?
I’ve explained why, Patterico. Did you not read my answer in the other thread?
I can’t make myself any more clear on all this than I have already. We’ve reached the point of diminishing returns, I think. That is, you and I have. Others are still interested in learning.
I asked you the other night to articulate for me why you believed your hypotheticals had anything to do with my argument concerning meaning making and intentionalism. You, well, conspicuously ignored that question.
Why, then, would you expect me to jump to answer yours?
Besides, it’s St Patrick’s Day and I’m enjoying my pints right now.
I’ll raise a pint to Brian O’Nolan.
And another to Flann O’Brien.
And yet a third to Myles na gCopaleen.
And here’s to Petey. good boy
Are you saying I have a pen made for radio, Sarah?
No, she’s saying that some people have reading skills made for radio or video.
‘I’ve explained why, Patterico. Did you not read my answer in the other thread?”
No. Can anyone direct me to it?
“I can’t make myself any more clear on all this than I have already. We’ve reached the point of diminishing returns, I think. That is, you and I have. Others are still interested in learning.”
I reject any implication that I’m not interested in “learning” if there is anything to be learned.
I thought I answered the question about the hypotheticals. Let me go see if I conspicuously ignored the question or if I dreamed responding to it.
I have been trying to debate this with you, and oddly, I am being ignored. I posed a series of hypos, Jeff, and I was more interested in your answers than anyone else’s. Yet you peristently refuse to answer them as written.
You answered the parts you wanted to answer and then wrote a post mocking the questions.
Patt, your hypos are tangential to the point that Jeff has been making. Although your hypos deal with intent, they’re trying to assign degrees of blame. AS A LAWYER WOULD DO, as Darleen’s #140 would do.
And in fact you’re doing what the LLLs do in a sense: trying to decide how guilty of racism someone is. Jeff is arguing that if someone asks if you have stopped beating your wife, you don’t answer the question, you challenge the premise.
Perhaps you should watch <a href=”http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abreitbart/2009/03/15/my-real-time-with-bill-maher/”Breitbart on Maher and then tell me how that “code words” thing is supposed to work.
And how vile it is. And how it’s designed to rob your words of their meaning.
Argh. Better linky.
Saint Patrick was a gentleman,
Who through strategy and stealth,
Drove all the snakes from Ireland,
Here’s a toasting to his health.
But not too many toastings
Lest you lose yourself and then
Forget the good Saint Patrick
And see all those snakes again.
‘Beannachtam na Feile Padraig!’
Happy St. Patrick’s Day!
Time out. I see a thesis. Where’s the antithesis? Is that to be determined based on quiz answers?
Pose a competing theory. This is like someone saying they like muscle cars from the 70’s and another person saying they’d like you answer a questionnaire about the Ford Pinto.
Declarative theory! Change gears. Go scientific. Formulate a competing theory!
Geebus everyone’s so pissy.
The response was in Ace’s thread. You responded to it.
I’m not saying you don’t want to learn. I’m saying I can’t teach you anything else. You’ve reached a certain point where you claim to know what I’m arguing. You’ve further claimed that you find the failure of our ability to ever know if we’ve interpreted properly a “limitation” of “my theory of intentionalism.”
This isn’t the case, and it doesn’t make much sense to me to hear it put that way.
So rather than go round and round, I’ve decided to drink, instead.
Others here still want to learn more. I’ll write for them. You already know it all you say, so why are we still talking about this?
That was rhetorical by the way.
I can’t even talk my liver into agreeing to a shot of whiskey on St. Paddy’s day. My sore throat is certain that would be best. Can’t we all just get a lung?
I know the argument I tend to support. No one will offer the alternative argument.
Conspicuous.
Ace is a lawyer?
He is so off my blog crush list.
SarahW
As Ricky Ricardo would say “yoo’d betteh a’spleen yourself”
In a 549-comment thread, I see where you half-answered by saying that the black man was just reacting, not interpreting. I pointed out (repeatedly) that this was an unwarranted assumption on your part; you returned to the thread but I don’t see where you responded to that argument.
I can’t find the part where you asked me my point and I responded. But I believe I did.
Why do you have to know the point anyway? You think this is a trap? I’m illustrating points with the hypotheticals, but they’re not traps. They’re designed to get at how you analyze these issues.
If you want to refuse to annswer them, that’s your right. I thought it would make an interesting discussion.
Believe it or not, I know something about divining intent. I do it in my profession too — and there are real parallels, as I argued on Ace’s thread: the fixing of intent at the time of the act (utterance), and the need to interpret it afterwards without necessarily relying on the actor (speaker). My examples illustrate some things I have learned about intent over the years, and echo (some of them) arguments made by SarahW.
Again, it would be an interesting discussion.
Another way to illustrate points? State them.
Blowhard, what argument is that, and can you anticipate the alternative argument?
“Others here still want to learn more. I’ll write for them. You already know it all you say, so why are we still talking about this?”
Indeed we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns on the theory: intent, interpretation, the limitations, etc.
What I wanted to explore with the hypos was what you have labeled a related issue: the idea that taking into account others’ likely reactions enables those who seek to interpret intent without reference to the intent of the speaker.
My examples go to that question.
Éirinn go brách
Hoist the Guiness, ladies and gentlemen.
I just got off the phone with a friend what called from Texas to say she was so sorry for what she did. She said she fell for the charisma she thinks, but that if she could change her vote she would and she’s scared. Terrified, really. I feel better even if when someone calls you and says I’m terrified it does make it kind of more real than you want to deal with on any given evening I guess. I just thought I’d share that cause I never did figure out exactly what’s going on here except the Ace person is involved and also our friend Mr. Patterico.
“Refuse to answer”? What, you mean like claim the fifth?
Really. Give us a break.
I have no idea what that means.
“Believe it or not, I know something about divining intent.”
And therein lies the problem.
Would that we had a transcript of Breitbart’s appearance with Maher and Dyson. That would be tear-into-able for intent, I’d betcha.
SarahW, I see Jeff’s argument, within my powers of reasoning, I agree. I’d like to know Pat’s argument. From the other thread, I go from substantial agreement to “what is the point of disagreement?”. If he’d illuminate us thusly, that’d be great.
C’mon, even drunk, I read at a 111th grade level. So does Jeff. So does Pat. Let’s put aside our rhetorical techniques, make declarative statements and then discuss them.
“111th grade level” = possible exaggeration.
The short version on the meaning of the hypos: many of them are an exploration of how and whether the knowledge of others’ reaction affects intent.
You say it doesn’t; great. I want to see how it works in an example.
I believe I re-explained the hypos in Ace’s thread, as well, in one of those horrid block-text comments that nobody read because the carriage returns were all lost because I posted from a phone.
To save work, I’ll recover one and make it legible. Here we are:
The best example in my post is the last one, because I don’t tell you the speaker’s true intent. You divine it with clues. But the other ones, I think, also go to an interesting issue: when you know something will happen, to what extent can you be said to intend it to happen?
What if Obama said: it sure would be nice if someone was to rub out Rush Limbaugh.
If he says that to his wife, that’s one thing.
If he says it to a Mafia killer, it might make it more likely that it would actually happen.
And if he said it to Rahm Emanuel, he might as well be explicitly giving the order.
Same phrasing: but the likely reaction of the listener can actually change the way we perceive his intent.
In my examples, you have someone say what he was going to say anyway, knowing it will likely offend someone. You have another in which he actually chooses the more offensive phrasing, but purports not to be trying to offend. In others, he behaves in ways consistent with a desire to offend.
Does any of this change the way we perceive his intent?
These concepts interest me because 1) we never truly know someone’s intent in real life, and 2) in my line of work, we look to external cues to make judgments about people’s intent. If the guy pointed the gun and pulled the trigger, screaming “Die!” . . . it tends to suggest an intent to kill. And while we strive to know what he REALLY intended, we can only make our best, most reasonable judgment based on everything we know. And we can’t just take the dude’s word for it that he didn’t intend to kill, if all available evidence points to the conclusion that he did. Again, I bet Jeff disagrees with this less than many realize.
That’s what I said at Ace’s, dozens of comments before you said I conspicuously refused to answer what the point of the hypos is.
So there. You can rest assured it’s not a trap. If it is, I gave away the secret so you won’t get caught.
What I wanted to explore with the hypos was what you have labeled a related issue: the idea that taking into account others’ likely reactions enables those who seek to interpret intent without reference to the intent of the speaker.
Why? Jeff is saying that the MSM and the Left (but I repeat myself) don’t get to tell us what we mean. That link I provided at #166 features a dood what says that he knows that conservatives and republicans are racist because they use “code words” to express their racism rather than actual slurs.
And as far as Jeff not answering your hypos, maybe the issue you’re posing doesn’t interest him enough to sort through it.
Me, I don’t think it’s relevant. I know enough not to nombrar la soga en casa de ahogado (mention a rope in the house of the hanged); further than that, if someone takes offense at what I say, they can jolly well talk to me about it, and if I didn’t mean to offend, then they’re morally responsible to let the offense go.
Jeff,
At Ace’s you said;
My hypos talk about the second case. Specifically: can “intent” be completely separated from one’s knowledge of the likely consequences of one’s actions or words?
Another question raised by the hypos:
Are political correctness and good manners two ways of saying the same thing? Or are they different?
I think they’re different. But the hypos raise both issues.
Friends shouldn’t let friends drink and blog.
Night all. I’m off tomorrow to swat a little white ball around a field. That and swear at my clubs.
So Patt, if we know
1) that Rush intended to provoke by saying “I hope he fails” (and we know because he said so)
2) that some of those he hoped to provoke where those in the GOP saying “I hope he succeeds”
3) that some of those he hoped to provoke were members of the MSM who are certain that Obama Is Our Savior
then what does that have to do with whether Rush wants the country to go down in flames? The only way to interpret “I hope he fails,” is to know what Rush thinks Obama is up to.
Because we also know
5) that according to Rush, if Obama succeeds at pushing the country left, the country loses.
Ugly statement? No. Ambiguous? Again, no. Not if you get Rush.
Are political correctness and good manners two ways of saying the same thing? Or are they different?
Political correctness is a war against the truth, wherein you’re not allowed to say something true about the wrong people, even if you’re saying it to address the problem honestly.
Manners is a way of maintaining good relationships between friends and potential friends (strangers).
I don’t remember, Patt but did your hypos include a black man with a huge chip on his shoulder, wherein he’d look for any excuse possible to lash out at whitey’s bigotry?
Because that would be the situation that Jeff is talking about.
I don’t want to talk about Rush, dicentra. I am on record as saying that his statement was not ugly but it was ambiguous. You agree with the former point and disagree with the latter. Let’s leave it at that. At this point it’s like religion: ain’t nothing gonna change anyone’s mind. So forget Rush. This discussion is bigger than his statement.
“I don’t remember, Patt but did your hypos include a black man with a huge chip on his shoulder, wherein he’d look for any excuse possible to lash out at whitey’s bigotry?’
No, as a matter of fact, they didn’t. Did you read them? Or are you interpreting them without reading them? You’re an intentionalist, right? Does the process of seeking my intent include reading what you’re seeking to interpret?
That and swear at my clubs.
That’s why they call it “golf”…they ran out of four-letter words.
good lord, maybe she just thought you’d have the link handy.
“SarahW, I see Jeff’s argument, within my powers of reasoning, I agree. I’d like to know Pat’s argument. From the other thread, I go from substantial agreement to “what is the point of disagreement?â€. If he’d illuminate us thusly, that’d be great.”
blowhard, I explained the point of my hypos. I’m still feeling my way through how I feel about the specific issues. It would be something if one person here would confront them head on and talk with me about them.
If anyone will, I’ll go pour a glass of wine and spend an hour talking about it.
she even said, “I don’t remember” maybe you could help her out instead of being argumentative.
“good lord, maybe she just thought you’d have the link handy.”
Sorry, dicentra’s comment sounded sarcastic and I was reacting. Maybe I was wrong to; sorry if I was. Lemme get the link.
Here.
You know what, I just remembered something I gotta do. May not be able to hang around here.
Pat
The whole point that Rush’s statement was not “ambiguous” at all if taken in totality of his full statement. What happened … as did to Bill Bennett who made specific disclaimers and to Tony Snow is that regardless of their statements and intents which was clear to people of good faith involved in careful interpreting, there are those of bad faith who want to (and do/and did) hijack Rush/Bennett/Snow, et al, signs and impose their OWN MEANING on those signs WITH ABSOLUTELY NO effort to discover the intent of Rush/Bennett/Snow.
That’s the kernal, the foundation, the absolute starting place before anything else. The honest, good faith listener will NOT engage in creative writing.
In your hypos you’re asking “who is wrong” according to MANNERs not according to interpretation.
Who is the “we” here? Interpreters?
If so, who we believe the intended audience to be could (and likely would) almost certainly affect the way we try to re-encode intent. Context gives us clues to intent.
But none of that affects the meaning. The fact that you can go to jail because what you meant was misinterpreted, or the fact that you don’t because what you meant was uttered in a context that gives you plausible deniability, speaks not at all to what I’m interested in from a theoretical standpoint — though I would hate to see someone jailed because they weren’t clear about what they meant, and someone else decided to write their own text and act on it.
Ironically, you best argument in that case would be an argument that goes to intent.
You’re a good egg, Pat.
“Specifically: can “intent†be completely separated from one’s knowledge of the likely consequences of one’s actions or words?”
No. Never thought otherwise. A rational speaker is informed by conventional meaning before speaking.
“Are political correctness and good manners two ways of saying the same thing? Or are they different?”
Totally different. Manners are the social lubricant. Political correctness is being obtuse for political gain.
This I can do. Did I miss any questions? Posed like this I’ll answer them all day.
I’ll hang until I get an e-mail I’m expecting. Then I gotta boogie.
oh heck… grammar police are gonna get me…
from Guinness during dinner to Bailey’s as dessert……
wheeeeeeee!
I got the e-mail. Sorry. If anyone wants to answer the hypos I promise to return and discuss them sometime hopefully soon.
Good. You guys answer. If I spend the rest of the night on this, I’ll have to admit I’ve become a dork.
And people who know me would be heartbroken.
I have a reputation to uphold.
Likely consequences as defined by whom?
dork
Hey Boss
If I get off track, rap my knuckles with a ruler, ok?
Just don’t wear a wimple when you do it.
In the interest of science, I do still prefer declarative theories.
And in the interest of rap, I prefer science of the B-Boy variety.
I don’t remember, Patt
The term “remember” indicates that I did in fact read them but could not recall the particulars. And I didn’t leave off the sarc tags because there were none intended.
I still think it’s a first they came for Mr. Limbaugh conversation. It’s not about the dipshit president and his lackeys anymore though it’s about how his dirty socialist media picked up the ball and obediently ran with the propaganda campaign. This is a dirty socialist Soros campaign designed to reframe attitudes about freedom of speech. What the Newsweek cover is not is ambiguous.
That’s an interesting presumption, that the black man must necessarily be reacting and not interpreting, merely because
of some axiomatic assumption of the intention of the communicator ( the dog caller).
In any and all cases, including all those cases where Mr. Black man reacts WRONGLY, in fact, hears words the boy didn’t even say – there can be no presumption that there was no interpretation of the language.
Processing of language is very complex in humans and it includes processes that are lower-order and fast track as well as higher order. But by it’s very nature human understanding of outside stimuli ,including language, is an “interpretation” of a kind, whether it be reflexive or the product of extensive conscious rumination.
So you must therefore be distinguishing “reaction” and “interpretation” in some specific way, left ambiguous by your phrasing. Otherwise the statement can be construed as completely illogical.
I think some considerable confusion may result from this point.
Attempting to process the stimuli, the black man’s brain hears “boy” and he feels angry…..
Because why? Because that word has powerful associations. All he has ever learned about the uses of that word include a very negative one about the denigration of black males like himself. The information he has about that word is part of “language”, a currency that is above and apart from the specific communication of the boy. The boy’s intent is all his own, but his language is not his denovo creation.
The Black man used what he knows of language to understand the message sent.
Now as far as I can tell, you argue only that the intention of the speaker matters and an attempt to divine that intention is the goal of the reasonable man. That the language used, isn’t all there is to a message.
Is that correct, and do you go further than that?
Because I see Patterico’s argument that of course that divining intention is a process informed by the language used, and many other factors, and is art.
There is no mind reading. There is no perfect divining of intention, but we guess pretty well at it much of the time, though with ample room for misunderstandings. On top of this there are social conventions about being polited, hurting feelings, and an incumbency on users of language to choose language the way we pick our battles – carefully.
Reacting with anger to “boy” might be based on the affront to convention as much as an blatant insult- because ignoring convention can be a constructive insult, because it implies a disreguard or carelessness of other’s feelings. Because saying boy around a black man reminds.
I see Jeff arguing that propriety is being used as a weapon to cow others in a dangerous way….identity groups seek to undermine the political order by shaming and shouting down language in a cynical way. And that’s just flat true, it is being used to undermine or leverage political power.
I see Patterico arguing that there are practical limitations to intentionalism, insofar is divining intention is an imperfect art, and persons are in fact obligated by many forces to acknowlege the tender sensibilities of others. Shaming and provoking others or risking misunderstanding, has practical implications, and one had better be prepared to pay a price for mistakes, because lordy there will be one.
I agree with Jeff that thicker skins should be demanded of grown people, the culture should not be cowed by language bullies. That what a person meant to say can’t be honestly excluded from interpretation of a speech or text.
But it isn’t true that reaction isn’t a form of interpretation. An angry feeling is all about ” WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT WORD THAT INSULTS I ASSUME THE WORST”. It doesnt define what the speaker intended, that anger. But it IS an interpretation of a speaker/writers willingness to use the language employed.
Patt, I cited the black man with a chip on his shoulder (especially if he makes a living being perpetually outraged) as a way of making your hypos parallel with the Rush situation. Or any of the situations that Jeff might posit.
What Jeff is saying is that when we know that our words are going to be hijacked by dishonest and power-hungry people, we should say what we mean. And if someone else is asked to answer for what we’ve said, they shouldn’t accept the framework of the perpetually outraged. That’s all.
I mean, to use Ace’s hypo — no, I’m not going to say, “Boy, I could sure use a fag,” in the company of homosexuals. Unless I’m in London, where the term actually means cigarette, and they use “poofter” instead of “fag.”
But it isn’t true that reaction isn’t a form of interpretation. An angry feeling is all about †WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT WORD THAT INSULTS I ASSUME THE WORSTâ€.
Ah, but Sarah, a dda would say that reaction and interpretation ARE different because one is visceral and one involves thinking…. see the different between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree …. which involves intent. Premeditation v “in the heat of the moment” ie unthinking reaction. Understand, premeditation could take place in mere moments, all it requires is thought …”fucking bastard, I’m going to pull this trigger and kill him” vs “ARGHHHGRRRRRR!”
But it isn’t true that reaction isn’t a form of interpretation.
Jeff isn’t talking about someone’s gut reaction to something. He’s talking about cold, calculating, power-hungry people who feign outrage thus to shut you up.
But you knew that. I was responding for the benefit of the peanut gallery, whoever they are.
I’m sure I’ve explained what interpretation is and what it isn’t.
Why is this always presented as if it’s new?
This is why I need to remove myself. I can’t think of any new ways to argue the same thing that are unambiguous enough. You aren’t interpreting if you aren’t appealing to the intent of the utterer.
It can only be language when intent is attached. If the black man attaches his intent, he is creating his own meaning.
Plus, you used “include.” Suggesting that convention allows for other signifieds to be attached to the signifier he heard. Why did he chose one over the other? Whose intent was he privileging? Was he trying to communicate, or was he talking to himself?
Manners are a matter of graciousness.
Political correctness is about political premise smuggling.
They’re pretty different.
Ever feel like we’ll only get one last solid collaboration before we all go our separate ways?
Me too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea6ZcfJspcI
Jeff is the Walrus.
Ace is Yoko.
That creepy national socialist service bill explicitly mentions “the Baby Boomer generation” over and over and over again… They couldn’t just say people 54+ or wherever they wanted to set the bar. That means something. They’re buying off these fucks but they want to be able to turn off the tap once the demographic tide crests I think. The Beatles are obscene, or at least we better hope they are someday.
Hi, Carin. Sometimes I just sort of end up places I didn’t start off to go.
“Manners are a matter of graciousness.
Political correctness is about political premise smuggling.
They’re pretty different.”
Put the vague statements into play by answering my hypos as written.
I think you’d be the first here to do so.
I wish wish wish our benighted dirty socialist little country was just a hypothetical but it’s not it’s here for real and it’s only getting worser. More and more I think this argument is a think globally act locally sort of thing and I will make a vow to you that I will try really really hard not to say anything what can be read as anything other than exactly what I mean.
“All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest, hmmmm”
– Simon & Garfunkel, The Boxer.
Okay, it’s now officially weird.
Answer the questions!
Ummm, no. That Socrates guy? Less insistent. And he threw in a geometry lesson from time to time. Gratis. That’s a crowd pleaser, Pat. Try to draw us in with some free geometry. It works. Just a tip.
The sum of the squares of the hypotenuse . . . ah, hell. I’m an English and music major. Just answer the fucking questions.
Kidding! It’s clear no-one here will.
For a buncha people supposedly interested in intent, y’all are surprisingly uninterested in any arguments about intent that might contradict your comfortable assumptions.
OUTLAW!
“It can only be language when intent is attached. If the black man attaches his intent, he is creating his own meaning.”
You are importing assumptions not included in the hypos you are scared to answer.
THERE, I SAID IT!!!!!!!!
Oh, come on. Lighten up, outlaws.
I SAID LIGHTEN UP!!!!
“Gertrude, Gertrude, what is the answer?”
“My dear Alice, what was the question?”
“Likely consequences as defined by whom?”
Are we now demanding an Authority?
How about the same guy who comes up with the “best” interpretation of True Intent?
We’ll call him the “reasonable man.” Work for you?
I’ll answer your hypotheticals. In all six cases, it is reasonable to use the express “Come here, boy.”. In all of the cases where the black man is offended, he’s being unreasonable.
In all of your hypos, the intent of the boy is to call his dog in a way that he regularly does. In some of your hypos, the boy knows he may be misinterpreted. In others, he hopes he is misinterpreted. So what? His intent is always to call his dog.
Now, I may not have acted the same in all of the hypos. But that doesn’t change the fact the the boys actions were reasonable. Or that the black man was unreasonable.
“Reacting with anger to ‘boy’ might be based on the affront to convention as much as an blatant insult- because ignoring convention can be a constructive insult, because it implies a disreguard or carelessness of other’s feelings.”
I think SarahW is the only person here who is listening to me. And she’s not slavishly repeating what I’m saying by any means. She’s just taking notice of a few obvious points that many here seem to studiously ignore.
It’s well accepted in criminal law that deliberately blinding oneself to known consequences does not undo obvious signs of intent. “Will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest?” Y’all are content to assume that the likely reaction of the person hearing that phrase tells us nothing about the speaker??? Really?????
Engage, or hurl insults from your cocoon. Your choice. Just don’t choose the latter and boast of your willingness to debate. Please.
Haven’t seen any of those. I’ll let you know if I do, though.
Also, I think you skipped my answering your Obama hypothetical, probably in your rush to declare yourself … hell, I don’t even know what anymore.
It’s like you wait until nearly everyone is asleep and then you go manic.
If you need the last word so desperately, have at it. But citing Sarah’s argument, which I’ve dealt with I don’t know how many times already, won’t change things — and in fact only reinforces what I already know: you don’t know what I’m arguing.
And Fred C. keeps me from going to bed!!!
Thank you!
Tell me how you know the boy was acting innocently in the last hypo.
You seem pretty confident about that.
Is another conclusion unreasonable?
At least you’re talking about this.
Are you saying it’s convention not to use the word ‘boy’ when a black man is within hearing distance? Even if your not addressing the black man and using ‘boy’ in it’s normal usage?
“Haven’t seen any of those. I’ll let you know if I do, though.”
The fearless debater ducks yet again. Noted.
Are you saying he’s wasn’t calling his dog in the last hypo?
I don’t think you meant this in your hypo, but this is a plausible reason, I beleive. The boy may have said ‘Watch this!’ to mean watch how well trained my dog is, the dog will come as soon as I call him. The boys laughing shows they didn’t interpret his statement that way. But they may have misinterpreted the boy.
Ducks, yes. That’s me. You missed 203, I guess. But fine. Make a note of how I feared your hypotheticals and refused to debate you on them. Out of like, fear and stuff.
Use pen when you’re noting. More permanent. For when they collect the scorecards.
Take it easy on him, Fred. He worked hard on those. You can’t just dismiss them with easy answers. Try pie charts.
SarahW is a good listener and not at all slavish. What are slavish are George Soros puppets and production assistants.
I’m actually a little embarrassed for you right now, Patterico. Don’t you have anything else to do?
Maybe you need turtles. Happyfeet? Can you help a lonely and fearless master debater out with some turtles?
I should say, I think your hypotheticals are flawed. How common is it, in 2009, for a black man to be addressed as ‘boy’ by a stranger for no appearant reason? I would say not very. If that’s the case, isn’t it unreasonable for the black man to be offended? Shouldn’t his first reaction be to look to see if there is a boy or pet near by? And, in not seeing a boy or pet, only then wonder if he was being addressed as boy? And, even then, shouldn’t he see whom said ‘boy’ before determining if he has cause to be offended?
Petey makes me think of scotch. I don’t really like scotch. There’ll be some in the liquor cabinet when I get home tomorrow. Good stuff. My little brother will probably throw some of the liquor into his trailer what he’s bringing since I can’t take it back on the plane unless I check bags and I didn’t feel much like a road trip just now and my sister stopped drinking almost two years ago cause of people were talking. But I’m gonna give the scotch thing another try before I go to bed which will be early cause I’m not sleeping tonight cause of the shuttle gets here at 3:30 but they usually call and change it. I turned the internet off at the house already cause it’s just another thing to keep up with. Liar. I turned the internet off at the house already cause I like canceling subscriptions to cable tv cause of dirty socialists get carriage fees.
Did I mention 203? In answer to 188?
Good. Bed time for me, then.
I have TWO turtles so you could definitely have one, Mr. Patterico. They’re not social creatures and they wouldn’t miss each other. I like to think they would but that’s just anthromoto… anthromopho… silly.
Another thing. If someone was going to address a black man as boy, wouldn’t they emphasize the word boy? And, what sort of voice would a boy use when calling his dog, using the phrase ‘come here, boy’? Wouldn’t his voice be more happy-go-lightly instead of commanding or authoritative?
Again, I just think your hypotheticals are flawed. I don’t think it is ever reasonable, in your hypos, for the black man to be offended, as long as the boy is calling his dog. I just don’t see how the black man could reasonably believe that he is being addressed as ‘boy’.
Oh Danny male-child,
The pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen
And dine the mine-tin sah-ide,
The summer’s gone, and all the roses falling
It’s you, it’s you must go and I must bide.
But come ye back when summer’s in the meadow
Or when the valley’s hushed and neutral with snow
It’s I’ll be here in sunshine or in blocked-sunshine
Oh Danny male-child, oh Danny male-child
I love you so.
“Attempting to process the stimuli, the black man’s brain hears “boy†and he feels angry…..
Because why?
Because he has been taught to. Unfortunately, we can’t really talk about that either.
I’d still like to know what color the kid is, because if he’s black, there’s no offense to be taken. Which tells us just what we needed to be told about intent: It depends on the color of your skin.
Did you get that, racists? If not, don’t worry. You’re going to hear it again.
I try to avoid using the word slave, on the off chance that Rod Blagojevich might be somewhere within earshot.
This ‘boy’ calling for his dog, Patterico’s thought experiment, is intellectually flawed. There’s far too many possible unspoken (!) variables (the color of the boy, the timbre and cadence of his speech (does he use a mocking tone?), is he from a RACIST! family, was the black man drinking, on and on ad intotheniteum) for a rational person to respond positively. I suggest reviewing the classics (Schrödinger’s Cat or Maxwell’s Demon), and repositing.
But, if I were the black man, I’d just slap the boy on general principles. You see a boy, you slap him; that’s old-school-gangsta thinking. Surprisingly, it’s not too far removed from our civilization, now. I heard it frequently from old gangstas back in the ‘hood.
“For a buncha people supposedly interested in intent, y’all are surprisingly uninterested in any arguments about intent that might contradict your comfortable assumptions.”
If you meant me – piss on you then. Jebus, but you don’t ever come out and simply answer Jeff’s rather direct questions. If you were trying to alienate a reader of yours, you sure have managed to here.
I say GOOD DAY to you, sir!!
You are “subscribed” to it right here guinsPen.
Who is the “we†here? Interpreters?
If so, who we believe the intended audience to be could (and likely would) almost certainly affect the way we try to re-encode intent. Context gives us clues to intent.
But none of that affects the meaning. The fact that you can go to jail because what you meant was misinterpreted, or the fact that you don’t because what you meant was uttered in a context that gives you plausible deniability, speaks not at all to what I’m interested in from a theoretical standpoint — though I would hate to see someone jailed because they weren’t clear about what they meant, and someone else decided to write their own text and act on it.
Ironically, you best argument in that case would be an argument that goes to intent.
I don’t know what you’re talking about when you talk about people going to jail for being misinterpreted, which is why I didn’t respond to it. This sounds like you “writing your own text” of what I’m saying.
The “re-encoding” is the part everyone is always arguing about.
Since you folks don’t like hypos, how about straightforward questions? Some of those here.
“There’s far too many possible unspoken (!) variables . . .”
This objection can be made in any hypothetical. It’s basically a way of saying “I don’t respond to hypotheticals.” You didn’t tell me whether the earth exploded in the middle of your hypothetical!
So the post I just linked merely asks general questions.
guinsPen, is it okay to say boy to this dog but not this dog? Or does it depend on the person walking the dog and the context of the comment? Even then intent often gets all messed up.
Most of this irrational anger over race is driven by insecurity. Most of that is subjective and not due to anything anyone else “intended.” The classic example is West Indian Blacks immigrate to the United States, work hard, and succeed and some the black community wallow in worrying who is calling them “boy” and the man trying to keep them down. Even if these slights are completely imaginary. And the MSM loves to wallow in it.
Patterico,
I responded to your hypotheticals. I answered your question. I offered other commments. But, since I didn’t give the answers you expected, you ignore me. How is it that you accuse us of not wanting to debate?
Huh?
No, that’s me answering the hypothetical. And the language was all mine and fully intended. Little attempted digs using phrases you’ve picked up only work when you have an idea about how to use them.
Let me explain what I was talking about. In your hypothetical, Obama says the same thing to 3 different people. You note “Same phrasing: but the likely reaction of the listener can actually change the way we perceive his intent.”
Aside from the fact that it is unclear who exactly “we” and “his” refer to here, I took a stab at explaining how this works from the standpoint of intentionalism, thinking that’s what we were discussing all these days.
So, again: in each instance, Obama means what he means. Who his audience is may affect how they determine what they believe his meaning to be, using all available tools of interpetation at their disposal, from biography to tone of voice to intertext (has he asked this of them before with respect to someone else? Did they carry it out? Was he pleased, horrified, silent…?) to the asking for clarification. In each case, they will be appealing to what they believe is Obama’s intent. Because if they aren’t, they aren’t interpreting him — they are merely adding their own intent to his signifiers / auditory signals.
If each then proceed to act on what s/he believed was Obama’s intent — and all three of them, let’s say, go rub out Rush Limbaugh, and they were caught — then in a court of law, what would happen?
Obama being Obama would likely argue that he never meant for anyone to rub out Rush Limbaugh. I was joking, he’d say. I’m the President; I don’t order hits! He would say that he never meant, in each instance, to be taken at face value. Did he? Well, that depends on what he meant. But an argument could be made that he didn’t mean to be taken at face value — in which case, if a jury bought that argument, the killer would go to jail either for interpreting Obama correctly (if he intended the initial utterance as an order), something he subsequently denies they did; or else Obama will go to jail for not properly signaling his intent (if he, eg., was only joking and never intended to be taken seriously, but the jury doesn’t believe him).
Other permutations follow along these same lines.
In every case, what Obama meant hasn’t changed; the way his audience interprets him is based on a number of factors; and the ramifications of his utterance in a court (if his lawyer is good) of law will turn on whether the argument can be made that he never intended his utterance be interpreted as an order.
If a prosecutor were to try to convict him on what a “reasonable person” might believe his words signaled — regardless of his intent — he should counter that those same words, conceived of as delivered ironically, completely changes the meaning of the “plain words.” And so we’re back to determining what it is Obama meant.
From this example, I extrapolated out the following with respect to all such cases:
Meaning, quite simply, that in this particular hypothetical, had Obama not intended for Rush Limbaugh to be rubbed out (he was joking, and never intended to be taken seriously), he might still go to jail for it — all because he wasn’t clear about his meaning, signaling his intent poorly — and a jury concludes that they don’t believe he didn’t intend for a hit to take place. His meaning hasn’t changed, but he is being punished for not expressing it clearly enough. Or worse, he could be convicted on the grounds that, even if he didn’t mean it, a “reasonable person” could believe he did, and so act on what they heard as a command. Or put another way, acting on their own intentions, which they have then turned around and attributed to Obama.
Conversely, had he intended to have Rush wiped out, but he later argues successfully that that formulation is clearly not what he meant (authorial fallacy), perhaps the jury buys it, citing the casual context in which he “joked” with his wife or Mr Emmanuel, which created plausible deniability for Obama and reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. With the mafia guy, he’s likely fucked.
Again. None of this has changed what he meant.
That is your hypothetical, addressed from the perspective of intention and what constitutes interpretation — and also from the perspective of how context, which gives clues to interpretation, can potentially effect how people divine intent.
What more is there? Or is that, unhappy that I addressed this hypothetical, you now are demanding I address your new set of questions?
Sorry. I used to get paid for this. You want more answers, pony up a semester’s worth of tuition.
Fred has got onto something important about the paucity of imagination in the particular hypotheticals Pat has issued. No offense intended Pat, but they are both weak, on detail, and strong, on presumption.
But this here is the internet, chock-a-block with all sorts of imaginative goodness. So for instance, you could have used clips from “In the Heat of the Night” available on YouTube that deal quite directly with the use of “boy” in both a denigrating, disrespectful sense [C1] and a more ordinary, inoffensive [C2] sense. C1 has three uses of “boy” by my count, 2 dissing and 1 – addressed to white men — ambiguous. C2 has one use at approx. 2:30mins in, a black women addressing a black man as boy. There are no dogs in those clips, however.
For a dog and boy scenario, see “Fetch boy, fetch, Good boy”. (Unfortunately in this example, the dog is female.) I have no doubt that many such other resources are at hand. All it would take is the time to look for them.
“So many people have turned on me lately it’s become dizzying. Glad people like Baldilocks aren’t among them. Because that would have truly broken my heart, I think.”
I didn’t see this last night, Jeff.
It makes me sad.
Why is that, Juliette?
Incidentally, do I need to bookmark my two responses to the hypotheticals I was essentially bullied into answering, even though what I’ve been saying about intent and meaning and interpretation had already answered those hypotheticals for those who understood what my argument was?
Because I have a feeling I’m going to have to track down all the places where Patterico accuses me of ducking him. As if.
You’ve [Pat] further claimed that you find the failure of our ability to ever know if we’ve interpreted properly a “limitation†of “my theory of intentionalism.”
Pat affirms above with something to the effect that ~ “we can never know a person’s intent in real life”.
False. What is true is that the statement “we can never know a person’s intent in real life” is the equivalent of “he has no intent”. The two conditions are functionally equal. Thus, the first is meaningless – because you can’t distinguish it from the second.
It’s like [the meaningless mantra] “we can never know reality”. Well, if we can’t, then how do we know the “reality” we think we are referring to – simply by saying the word – even exists, and why would we care or even talk about it as though it does? Functionally, this “reality” we can never know does not exist, just as the “intent” we can never know does not exist.
So to use these meaningless mantras as license to do something we want to do [less reponsibly], such as making “reality” or “intent” depend upon our whim or “more “creative”, subjective interpretation” is a big mistake.
Actually, this isn’t the case. You are asking for an interpretation that relies on contextual clues, but in the kinds of situations you posit — namely, auditory and face to face — the very cues we might use to divine intent are carefully bracketed from the examples.
You may as well make your character blind or deaf.
I’ve given examples wherein in real life we can know a person’s intent to near surety. Someone says, “Please pass the butter.” You pass them the butter. They say thank you and proceed using the butter.
It’s possible, still, that they meant salt, and that they were ashamed of their error and so decided to use the butter as a nod to your having taken their meaning as conventional, a tacit acknowledgment that they screwed up getting their actual meaning across. But it’s far more likely that the communication was completed without any problems.
In most cases, convention handles the needs of interpreters well. But it isn’t dispositive. Believing it is is where we can get into wrong notions of from where meaning is derived. It comes from intent — either that of the utterer or that of the receiver. If it is that of the receiver — the receiver hasn’t appealed to the utterer’s intent, and so is not interpreting at all.
Because all you are doing is articulating everyday common sense. It’s not something for which to turn on someone.
Members of my family who, when presented with an alternative way of thinking–with the way I think–will exclaim something like “you’re trying to make think the way you think!” No, I’m just explaining the basis for my decisions, explaining how I think. After all, how else are they going to know unless I explain it? (They certainly can’t read my mind.)
But said family members often imbue sinister or other erroneous intent into my words, in spite of what I say. Then they wonder why I don’t talk to them.
And it’s getting like that here on the right.
Jeff @ 264
Could you please set up an online class on semiotics? For beginners? I’d pay and I’m sure others would too.
I would have loved to take Dan’s Shakespeare class, but I’m SO rusty …haven’t read the plays in years [shamefaced] I would have been hopelessly behind.
I pick up classes in things from time to time online and it is such a great learning tool.
What ever happened to, I dunno, asking the person to explain further?!
But said family members often imbue sinister or other erroneous intent into my words, in spite of what I say. Then they wonder why I don’t talk to them.
And it’s getting like that here on the right.
Juliette,
IMO, it is the result of years of Left-centered education. Common sense is educated right out of people. I’m sure I’m not the only one that finds people with advanced non-math/business degrees some of the silliest people around.
What ever happened to, I dunno, asking the person to explain further?!
Since “we can never know”, why bother? Why not just make it up or take a vote of “reasonable” people, who have likewise been voted “reasonable”?/sarc
Clearly you can’t always ask a the person, and even then he may be lying to you. So clarification is one way we use to divine intent, and if we trust the person and have access to a clarification, that generally suffices, though theoretically it isn’t dispositive.
Something to effect of “I’m satisfied with that explanation.”
IMO, it is the result of years of Left-centered education.
It can also be the result of either being really lazy or really afraid of getting to the bottom of things, especially one’s own oso comfortable “world views”/infantile modes of thinking as self – such as simple name-calling.
A just for shits and giggles, preliminary, tentative, rough intentionalist’s hypothetical (please feel free to sharpen and improve Ad libitum):
A cryptographer’s boss, Meaner, walks in and hands him an encoded message and says, “Here, X-man, decipher this message which is titled “miney” in order to distinguish it from other messages not marked “miney”. Please get back to me with your decoding when you’re finished. Thanks.”
X-man lays message “miney” on his desk and picks up another similarly sized message, marked as it happens, “not-miney” and proceeds to decode it. When he finishes a day later, he takes his “not-miney” work product to Meaner and says, “Here you go boss. All done with your “miney” message. Hope that helps.”
Something to effect of “I’m satisfied with that explanation.â€
Yes, [but] it should be the result of one’s own best attempts to consider all things, which I think is the heart fo Classical Liberalism – an individual’s best attempt, acknowledging defects.
I answered the hypothetical. Twice.
What do I win? WHERE IS MY PRIZE FOR NON-DUCKING?
It’s been a few seconds. I still haven’t gotten credit for my bravery.
WHY ARE YOU DUCKING ME?
Clearly and conspicuously, Patterico is avoiding my responses.
GOOD DAY, sir!
What, still no response? What, did my argument upset your comfortable assumptions? Expose the “limitations” of your “interpretation theory”?
Fine. Duck me, Mr Fearless debater.
Let it be known that I’ve asked Patterico to respond to my response and he has conspicuously refused to do so.
Not very ironic use of “OUTLAW.”
OUTLAW!
I thinks it is safe to assume at this point that I have won the debate, because Patterico is clearly terrified to respond.
Clearly.
Still no response? I expected no less. I claim victory. I have exposed your FEAR!
I will make a note that Patterico’s conspicuous failure to respond marks him as a “ducker.”
I shall use pen.
WON’T ANYBODY LISTEN TO ME! MEEEEEEEEEEEE!
You scared him away.
Dicentra has performed a splendid service by transcribing the first segment of the Maher/Breitbart/Dyson brawl over on the pub.
You’re killing me here, Jeff. Hilarious.
Hey, at least give Pat time to select the Jury of “reasonable”, progressive people. [Once I take the Progressive oath, I just can’t wait to be on permanent, Nat. Service jury duty in order to decide what everyone and their mother really means by all that suspicious talking they do. Hey, you never know when you might-could even uncover a Capitalist!]
Petey’s a girl.
I DECLARE THIS CASE CLOSED AND VICTORY MINE!
Capitalist Pig!
[…] this piece dovetails nicely with my responses to Patterico’s hypothetical, which he claims I’m too scared to address. (h/t […]
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
Philip K. Dick, author
BUT THERE ARE LIMITATIONS! LIMITATIONS! EPIC FAIL EPIC FAIL EPIC FAIL!
Maybe Pat can write a handbook for all us guilty whiteys out there. He can list all the bad words and the specific situations where they can and can’t be used.
Think of all the useless “Come here, boy!” examples.
The Dummy’s Guide to Manners (which is not PC! It’s not! I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT JEFF GOLDSTEIN SAYS! IT. JUST. ISN’T!)
One thing about Pat’s Obama/hit man example is that Obama is in complete control of his audience; in a sense, he is fully aware of both his (real) intent and any interpretation in the audience because he has self-selected the audience.
That falls apart with the boy/dog analogy, because the boy (offensive!) is just calling his dog. There could be 80 people on the street, one white woman, or a young black man who doesn’t have any emotional baggage associated with “boy” and none of those people would take offense. Or he could have an older black man with a chip on his shoulder. More importantly, the boy may have no way of knowing that “boy” was ever offensive to blacks; I was an adult before I ever heard it used as a pejorative, and then only because I saw it in a movie. So, the boy could call his dog 10 times, and have absolutely no idea why some crazy black guy flipped out on call #10.
Rush is knowingly in that situation. He can say anything, and it can be manipulated to be called offensive. He has no way, in advance, of knowing who in his audience will be offended or by what, because he’s not saying anything that is, in reality or in intent, offensive. So why guard his words?
Why should any of us guard our words in that scenario? The whole point of Jeff’s argument is that the left is using language as a weapon, and they are always changing targets and tactics. Any argument that they are right to do so is, prima facie, wrongheaded.
guinsPen, is it okay to say boy to this dog but not this dog?
No, Joe.
Or so they told me.
On like Donkey Kong: http://patterico.com/2009/03/19/points-of-agreement-on-interpretation/
[…] way they were written” doesn’t change that I replied, and in at least one case I replied at great length. Given that Patterico himself said that new hypothetical addressed the same questions as the […]
I read both sites religiously, every day, repeatedly. After reading all pertaining posts and responses from BOTH bloggers, I have come to the conclusion that Patterico is a jackass. Strong words coming from me but his method of trying to ram his point home smacks of language that I recognize from lawyers (was married to one) and bureaucracy. I am sure if he catches this comment he will be irritated and throw the Socratic method of questioning at me, but I won’t respond. I can’t. I am not a lawyer, nor trained in methods of politic-speak. All I know is that when I read Jeff then Patterico, Jeff makes a hell of alot more sense to me. I think Jeff is awesome and I realize that I probably shouldn’t bother over at Patterico’s anymore.
[…] I think, starts when people try to apply these principles. You can mock hypotheticals, as Jeff repeatedly does, but I happen to think they are valuable for crystallizing the differences between people in […]