From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 17:52:57 MDT
Damien writes
> At 08:51 PM 5/7/03 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> >I don't really grok
> >Damien's "assessment" analysis or its relevance, but I do
> >think that he's right to question the *role* that the
> >terms are playing here. I liken the use of "idiot" to that
> >of "shit!". It seems to be like an expletive, having little
> >or no objective meaning, but instead useful as indicating the
> >speaker's judgment (or assessment), or emotional disposition.
>
> All speech is likely to be multivalent or polysemic, but in this case I
> think you're missing the deeper social implications. Why would anyone in
> dispute with another seek to convey their emotional disposition?
Oh, I was speaking in the context of John Clark's words, viz.,
> > > Do you really disagree, do you really think the person was
> > > not an idiot? The word has a meaning, there must be times
> > > when it is appropriate to use it and if not then when?
> > > Or perhaps you think the word "idiot" should be expunged
> > > from the English Language.
> > This is an extremely interesting point. I don't really grok
> > Damien's "assessment" analysis or its relevance, but I do
> > think that he's right to question the *role* that the
> > terms are playing here.
So, no, I don't think that terms like "idiot" should be expunged
from the English language, and I gave my reasons.
> To `let
> off steam', perhaps; that is, the verbal outburst substitutes for a punch
> in the mouth, costly behavior liable to get out of control. But for social
> animals like us, it looks to me primarily like a control mechanism. Nobody
> wants to be despised, especially as an *idiot* (a term of abuse and
> disparagement that children bandy about to great effect). If I call you a
> fuckwit, it's not to inform you of my provisional scientific opinion; it's
> to give you pause, to wound you, to make you modify your behavior so that
> in future you'll be less like to act that way.
Actually, I agree instead with Gordon and others who suggest
that in face to face (or post to post) arguments, it's almost
NEVER a good idea to call someone a name. In particular, IMO
you shouldn't *ever* call anyone a fuckwit directly. I don't
buy your idea of "giving them pause". You'll rarely succeed
in doing more than increasing hostility.
But the term does nonetheless have value for the reasons I gave,
e.g., to offer a challenge to your listener's evaluations, to
connote your own emotional calculations. So if I were to say
that Jeremy Rifkin is a screwball, then I'm (1) challenging you
to reorder your semantic links so that maybe you approve of
him less, and (2) telling you unambiguously what I think of
him. But it would be counterproductive (not to say rude) to
make such a statement were he reading this list.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 08 2003 - 18:03:39 MDT