# A rant about language



## Yikes (Jan 19, 2011)

NOTE: This rant is NOT about advocating for a political party or politician; it is about language.

I read in the news today that a CNN anchor apologized on-air because a guest used the term “crosshairs” in a political discussion.  I know we are all responsible for discretion and propriety in our choice of words, and I completely understand the initial shock and reaction to what happened in Arizona, but this is getting ridiculous.  Metaphor, simile and analogy are the basic building blocks of our language and epistemology.  We can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater (there I go, another analogy!).

I’m a suburban guy who owns no guns or other significant weaponry, so I have no "axe to grind".  But all of our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, and the language of such tools and weaponry is deeply embedded in our human culture.  I don’t think we ought to adopt an outright 100% ban on all use of such metaphors because 0.000000001% of the population might not understand their application… that’s just dumbing down society, no matter which side of the political aisle you’re on.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to Target and buy Elvis Costello’s “My Aim Is True” for Valentine’s Day for my wife, before both the store and the song are considered too inflammatory for public consumption.

I welcome contrary opinions… or as another old song says, “Hit Me With Your Best Shot”.


----------



## Bootleg (Jan 19, 2011)

Well said.


----------



## Dr. J (Jan 19, 2011)

I do not have a contrary opinion, I think Allisonon "My Aim Is True" has one of the best lines in rock and roll - "_'cause I don't know if you've been loving somebody._

_I only know it isn't mine._"


----------



## texasbo (Jan 19, 2011)

You're all right, Yikes. No contrary opinion here, although I do own significant weaponry.

In fact, I like this topic so much, I just changed my signature.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 19, 2011)

When something scary and random happens such as the Tucson incident, it makes us feel like life is out-of-control.  It is a natural part of the grieving process (through the stages of denial and anger, etc.) to want to find a way to make the situation controllable, so that we can have a (IMO false) assurance that such things could never happen again.  However, at some point such attempts to make us _feel_ safer have a diminishing return and begin to impede on other aspects of our lives, and the cage we made to keep out the effects of variables becomes the cage that closes us in.


----------



## Alias (Jan 19, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> When something scary and random happens such as the Tucson incident, it makes us feel like life is out-of-control. It is a natural part of the grieving process (through the stages of denial and anger, etc.) to want to find a way to make the situation controllable, so that we can have a (IMO false) assurance that such things could never happen again. However, at some point such attempts to make us _feel_ safer have a diminishing return and begin to impede on other aspects of our lives, and the cage we made to keep out the effects of variables becomes the cage that closes us in.


Yikes,

You have hit the nail on the head!

I don't currently own a gun but that doesn't mean that I don't support the 2nd amandment.

Sue, where the west still lives.................


----------



## fatboy (Jan 19, 2011)

Sorry, no contrary opinion here, and as TXBO, I do own weaponry. And, I have no intention of guarding my speech so as to not upset someone with my comparative speaking.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 19, 2011)

Sorry, no contrary opinion here, and as TXBO, I do own weaponry. And, I have no intention of guarding my speech so as to not upset someone with my comparative speaking.


----------



## Alias (Jan 19, 2011)

delete double post..........


----------



## brudgers (Jan 19, 2011)

The anchor apologized because the media have been letting the rhetoric of assassination go for the past several years. Suddenly, they realized that not acting like journalists and calling people out on their inflammatory advocacy of violence had consequences (crazy people really were listening).

It's not political correctness. They are feeling guilty for giving stupidity equal time with facts and reason.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 19, 2011)

Yikes. You are right on target! No need in blowing things up, out of proportion.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 19, 2011)

Brudgers,  I knew and that confirms why I like you!



Fatboy, that was so nice I won't delete the duplicate since it was worth saying twice.



Yikes,  I own a gun or two and the difference is I don't tout anyone and if it gets unholstered it's because it is going to do something to protect myself or someone in grave danger.  I'll face the consequences’ for that and willing to do so.  If I were there the dumb *** would have been subdued differently.  

The media is 44.7% part of our society’s problems.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 19, 2011)

The use of metaphor is not tantamount to yelling "fire" in a movie theatre. Crazy people will be crazy regardless of what you, I, or the media says.

I refuse to buy the convenient excuse that crazy people are listening. That's just a sneaky way to try to control people. The only blame for crazy actions is planted squarely on the shoulders of the crazy person.


----------



## steveray (Jan 19, 2011)

Sorry folks...but your feelings are not protected by the Constitution, nor are the mentioned in the Bill of Rights...

Be a grown up or live in a vaccuum...the choice is yours!


----------



## ewenme (Jan 19, 2011)

Thank you FMWB, except that I'd put the percentage much higher. People believe everything they hear and read when it comes from the 'media.' I have a particular pet peeve with the media, radio, newpapers, TV, etc, and the use of the the troop. Where is the respect for the individual millitary personnel or soldier when they say: 'five troops were killed in....'?  It all harks back to education from an early age to 'get it right'.  I'm one of those opposed to political correctness, especially when it comes to telling it like it is or getting it straight. I am a gun owner.  It's the person using the tool who does the act, whether it's hoeing the corn or shooting an animal or a human. Let's get it straight.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 19, 2011)

@brudgers - regarding the rhetoric of asassination -

Many of our news / political shows (Frontline, Crossfire) have militaristic language embedded in their names, but they are not a call for violence.  As far as I know the shooter in Tucson was not politically motivated enough to even vote last year, so it's hard for me to believe that a politician's rhetoric was enough to incite him to "pull the trigger" but not enough to incite him to "pull the lever" last November.

That said, I would probably agree that some of the recent use of such rhetoric by politicians, while in and of itself not a call to violence, may demonstrate a lack of political wisdom.  So, I won't censor them, but I will keep it in mind if they run for office.

@alias - I could really stir up a hornet's nest and say that my same comment about safety vs. liberty could apply to the evolution of building codes.  But at least in that case, there is a more direct connection between the code and loss prevention.

@jobsaver - you said "No need in blowing things up...".  I would like to officially clarify that I was never advocating for explosive munitions ; )

FYI, here was the article/blog post that brought this up: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/banning-crosshairs-cnn-used-it-refer-palin-bachmann

I didn't intend for my aside to to become a discussion about gun control, other than to state I have no ulterior motives when it comes to defending battle metaphors.  It is a discussion about the cultural cost/benefit of speech control and thought control.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 19, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> I didn't intend for my aside to to become a discussion about gun control, other than to state I have no ulterior motives when it comes to defending battle metaphors.  It is a discussion about the cultural cost/benefit of speech control and thought control.


We know, but a lot of us like to talk about guns.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 19, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> We know, but a lot of us like to talk about guns.


In that case, this is the Off-Topic forum, so... lock and load!


----------



## fatboy (Jan 19, 2011)

Oh.....I think he already fired the first shot...............


----------



## Yikes (Jan 19, 2011)

Alias said:
			
		

> Yikes, You have hit the nail on the head!
> 
> I don't currently own a gun but that doesn't mean that I don't support the 2nd amandment.
> 
> Sue, where the west still lives.................


Speaking of effective use of language, an english professor once told his class that a double-negative ["doesn't mean I don't support"] can mean a positive, but a double-positive cannot mean a negative.  From the back of the class, a cynical student replied, "yeah, yeah".


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 19, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> It is a discussion about the cultural cost/benefit of speech control and thought control.


Those using gun-related metaphors should be shot. Only then, will we increase the caliber of our society.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 19, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Those using gun-related metaphors should be shot. Only then, will we increase the caliber of our society.


Muzzle it, Jobsaver... you are going off half-****ed.  Time to set your sights elsewhere.


----------



## permitguy (Jan 19, 2011)

> They are feeling guilty for giving stupidity equal time with facts and reason.


I doubt they feel guilty.  After all, facts and reason don't sell advertising anymore (if they ever did).

We're a long way from knowing what motivated this guy.  Regardless of his motivation, I am quite sure that limiting my 2nd amendment rights won't stop the next one.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 19, 2011)

(PS. I think that term that was **** moderated above is not a sexual term, but a gun term relating to a rifle hammer.

Sigh.


----------



## Bootleg (Jan 19, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Those using gun-related metaphors should be shot. Only then, will we increase the caliber of our society.


I was born in the USA and own a gun for self defense and would like to keep it that way.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jan 19, 2011)

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."


----------



## KZQuixote (Jan 19, 2011)

I've located the newest transgressor. We've got to stop him before he incites a whole generation of arsonists. Who couldn't ever be held responsible for their actions, cause we didn't get the aluminum foil helmets out in time.

[video=youtube;vyk2-ezzE4U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyk2-ezzE4U&feature=player_embedded

Bill


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 19, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> (PS. I think that term that was **** moderated above is not a sexual term, but a gun term relating to a rifle hammer.Sigh.





			
				Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> to pick up a turd by the clean end."


LOL..........................


----------



## brudgers (Jan 20, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> @brudgers - regarding the rhetoric of asassination -  Many of our news / political shows (Frontline, Crossfire) have militaristic language embedded in their names, but they are not a call for violence.  As far as I know the shooter in Tucson was not politically motivated enough to even vote last year, so it's hard for me to believe that a politician's rhetoric was enough to incite him to "pull the trigger" but not enough to incite him to "pull the lever" last November.


Jon on Crossfire


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 20, 2011)

> I've located the newest transgressor. We've got to stop him before he incites a whole generation of arsonists.


No worries.............he's in my sights


----------



## jar546 (Jan 20, 2011)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> I've located the newest transgressor. We've got to stop him before he incites a whole generation of arsonists. Who couldn't ever be held responsible for their actions, cause we didn't get the aluminum foil helmets out in time.[video=youtube;vyk2-ezzE4U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyk2-ezzE4U&feature=player_embedded
> 
> Bill


Or do you mean a whole generation of pot smokers?


----------



## KZQuixote (Jan 20, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Or do you mean a whole generation of pot smokers?


Pot smokers or arsonists? Harper's words are plain enough. Do we really have enough energy to extrapolate, identify and protect every class of wackos who might find some unintended resonance in everyday speech?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jan 20, 2011)

On the serious side, limiting the freedom of speech exists since we can't yell "Fire" in a theater (unless of course there IS one).  Nor can you have images of naked toddlers on billboards since it can excite pedophiles.  That isn't political correctness, it's common sense.  On the other hand we allow billboards to advertise alcohol and all the alcoholics out there know it.  We live in a world of double standards.

It's also known that violence incites violence so whipping up a crowd into a frenzy so they can trash the city is also a crime.  Who gets the flag at the football gamed, the guy who shoved or the guy who shoved back?  For that matter which of your kids got in trouble, the one who poked or the one who poked back?  (of course the first one was the angel child!).  Stop the first shove and then things don't escalate.  That's called manners and decorum.  We could do with some of that in this country.

To the point, I think your dead on with the fact that military analogies should be able to be used.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 20, 2011)

Well said, Gene.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 21, 2011)

Liberalism is a mental disorder - Michael Savage.


----------



## steveray (Jan 21, 2011)

lib·er·al·ism   /ˈlɪbərəˌlɪzəm, ˈlɪbrə-/  Show Spelled

[lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-]  Show IPA

–noun

1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.

2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

Sounds like a horrible thing to me!!!

I wish people would get off this whole liberal vs. conservative, dem vs. rep. crap...we should all be working together for the betterment of mankind....NOONE IS CORRECT ALL OF THE TIME!

Stepping off the soapbox now!


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jan 21, 2011)

Good topic,

Political correctness; using biased ideals is more powerful and distructive than guns. You can limit knowledge; punish people for expressing their beliefs and ideals; and, force people to submit themselves and their children to turn from their long held principals and morals. It can destroy religious freedom and undermine religious beliefs; without firing a shot.

The right to carry a concealed hand gun law; was a ruse; to locate and prepare a list of as many gun owners as possible; especially those that believe in a free republic. It was not to assure you of your right to own a gun and protect yourself, your family and your property.

Instead of reading, writing and arithmatic; public schools are teaching your children to conform to politically biased ideas; and this includes your Universities and colleges. The most powerful country in the world; has the fastest decline of literacy.

Every time a poor youth is killed, a mother cries; but, when a public figure is shot, a part of your freedom dies.

Hope for the best and be prepared for the worst,

Uncle Bob


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 21, 2011)

> and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.


That does not describe the politicians identified as "liberal" in today's news

America was founded on

*Classical liberalism* is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]

and somewhere we have become

*Social Liberalism* is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a legitimate role for the state in addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[

I prefer to go back to classical liberalism philosophy


----------



## brudgers (Jan 21, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I prefer to go back to classical liberalism philosophy


That's what they call being a reactionary.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 21, 2011)

I'm with MT.............


----------



## DRP (Jan 21, 2011)

Oz never gave nothing to the tin man that he didn't already have.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 21, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[I prefer to go back to classical liberalism philosophy


Even the definition has a bias. It may be viewed by some that way, but I'll fix it for them: "The *perceived* good of the community is at the *expense* of the freedom of the individual".

Ya, I'm with MTLC as well.


----------

