• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

A rant about language

Y

Yikes

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
4,105
Location
Southern California
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”.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...
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.................
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
@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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
We know, but a lot of us like to talk about guns.
 
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.................
Click to expand...
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 said:
Those using gun-related metaphors should be shot. Only then, will we increase the caliber of our society.
Click to expand...
Muzzle it, Jobsaver... you are going off half-****ed. Time to set your sights elsewhere.
 
They are feeling guilty for giving stupidity equal time with facts and reason.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top