Why the Reasonable Reaction of the Audience Matters to Interpreting “Intent”
I have often advocated on this site the concept that communication is a two-way street. I agree with the intentionalists that listeners are responsible for trying to figure out what a speaker meant. But I also believe in the responsibility of a speaker to be aware of how his words might be misinterpreted by a reasonable audience. What’s more, if a speaker is aware of that potential for misinterpretation, his “intent” cannot be artificially separated from that awareness.
Let me try to make this point more concretely.
Pretend that a devout Buddhist, who has somehow never heard of Nazis or the Holocaust, visits America and walks down a street with a swastika on his jacket. He intends the symbol to signify good fortune, which is what a swastika symbolizes for a Buddhist.
If he runs across a Jewish man descended from Holocaust survivors, there might be an unpleasant confrontation. This would be a misunderstanding, and nobody would be to blame. It’s reasonable for the Buddhist to wear the swastika, and it’s reasonable for the Jewish man to be offended.
If the Jewish man knows (or should know) that the man wearing the swastika intends it merely as a symbol of good fortune, the Jewish man has no business taking offense. That would be unreasonable. If the Jewish man takes offense, he is substituting his own intent for that of the man wearing the jacket. This is the lesson that intentionalists teach: that you should not knowingly seize someone else’s intent and substitute your own. (The Jewish man might want to politely warn the Buddhist that wearing this jacket could get him beat up, however.)
The fellow in this video is a different animal entirely:
Now, this fellow has a swastika on his jacket. (It’s inside the Iron Cross. Blow up the video full screen and freeze it at :16 if you don’t believe me). He says that he is not a Nazi, but rather a “proud racist.” Why is he wearing a swastika? He denies that he is using it as a Nazi symbol. He tells the cameraman that it is a symbol of love.
I’m guessing that, like me, you find it kind of hard to believe that this man intends the swastika to be taken simply as a symbol of love.
Why is that? Because he’s obviously familiar with Nazism. When called a Nazi, he doesn’t say: “What’s a Nazi?” (Call him a Nazi, he won’t even frown!) He knows that people are going to take it as a symbol of Nazism — and it’s difficult to envision another legitimate reason for him to wear the symbol.
So he can claim he’s not wearing the symbol to promote Nazism — but we are unlikely to take his word for it. It’s unreasonable for him to wear the swastika, and it’s reasonable for men of good will to take offense.
Symbol of good fortune, or Nazism?
What if you choose an example in between the innocent swastika-wearing Buddhist, and the proud swastika-wearing racist?
For example, say the Buddhist is shown a two-hour documentary on the Holocaust, with a special emphasis on the significance of the swastika to Jews. He now understands that a Jew might reasonably take offense at what he had previously considered to be a mere symbol of good fortune.
Does his knowledge of the reasonable reaction of his audience change your view of what his intent is when he wears the swastika?
It makes a difference if you know the history
Consider these two examples: 1) the innocent Buddhist walks into the Holocaust Museum wearing his swastika, having no idea that he will offend anyone; versus 2) the Buddhist who has seen the documentary about Nazism walks into the Holocaust Museum, knowing full well that his wearing the swastika will reasonably be taken by some people to be a deliberate affront.
In each case, he may “intend” for the swastika to be interpreted as a symbol of good fortune. But isn’t it obvious that these two examples are not the same?
And if so, then isn’t it obvious that, in the second example, his knowledge of the likely reasonable reaction of the audience must be factored in to an interpretation of his “intent”?
The “intentionalist” will tell you that the swastika has no inherent meaning aside from that assigned to it by its wearer (just as the intentionalist claims that words have no inherent meaning apart from that assigned to them by their utterers). The intentionalist will tell you that you can’t allow the baggage associated with certain words or concepts to restrict your use of those words or concepts, if your intent is different from the baggage that society has attached to them.
How far are we going to take that logic?
What if the Buddhist has two jackets with symbols that represent good fortune: one with a swastika, and one with a pair of golden fishes? If he is otherwise indifferent to which jacket he is going to wear today, should he forego the swastika jacket while visiting the Holocaust museum?
Or should be proudly don the swastika jacket, to show that he is not going to give in to a view of language and intent that would cause him to restrict his full freedom of expression?
Would you wear a swastika jacket to the Holocaust Museum?
You might say that’s what he should do. But I say that if that’s what he does, he should prepare to get his ass kicked. And I can’t say I’ll feel sorry for him.
P.S. As with any post about intentionalism, I’m going to go ahead and apply my strict no-personal-attacks rule in this thread. Comments must be strictly about ideas, with absolutely no personal comments whatsoever. Comments that do not follow this rule will be summarily deleted. Comments that blatantly violate the rule may earn the offending commenter a time-out or a ban.
Given my restrictive rules, I will accept comments from banned commenters, as long as they follow the rules I have set forth. No personal digs are allowed, no matter how small — but any articulation that hews strictly to the expression of ideas will be allowed.
I will not respond to any argument — whether made here or at any other site — that misstates my argument, or belittles it, or attempts to turn this into a discussion of personalities rather than ideas.
So much of this is situational. I do agree the intentionalists have a harder row to hoe in justifying their philosophy.
However, if I decide to go to a charged public rally where politics and ideas are sure to fly, it is on me to be tolerant of symbols and words. I should not have an expectation of Robert’s Rules of Order at the Queen’s Court. I sure as hell shouldn’t be offended by a white hood and/or a burning cross if I knowingly go to a KKK rally.
Ed from SFV (f0e1cb) — 4/20/2010 @ 10:15 pmAll I’m really getting at is: as a speaker, your knowledge that your words may be reasonably interpreted in a particular way has to be factored into your intent.
I may enjoy ordering two beers by holding up two fingers, nail side out. But what if I go to Britain, and I am told that this is the symbol for “fuck you”?
And what if I go to Britain, armed with this knowledge — but I choose to stand on my intentionalist principles, and order my beers the way I want to order them — by holding up two fingers?
I can always take the position that I “intended” to order two beers — and if someone misinterprets that, by God, that’s THEIR problem.
But I may get my ass beat by some thugs with bad teeth who don’t care about my intentionalist philosophy.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/20/2010 @ 10:23 pmWhere all of this runs into problems is when you are dealing with specific members of an audience that do not engage the speaker’s intent, substitute their own interpretation of same, and then argue against that. We see that nearly daily in the dishonest and bad-faithed efforts of commenters and people in the media trying to smear opposition as racists, violent, dangerous, etc … when it is they who are inserting their narrative over the top of someone else’s message.
JD (9f2abc) — 4/20/2010 @ 10:26 pmGoodnight, all.
JD (9f2abc) — 4/20/2010 @ 10:28 pmI dealt with that problem in the post, JD, and said I agreed.
The post deals with a different issue: does knowledge of a likely reasonable reaction affect your intent?
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/20/2010 @ 10:29 pmSpecifically:
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/20/2010 @ 10:32 pm“Where all of this runs into problems is when you are dealing with specific members of an audience that do not engage the speaker’s intent, substitute their own interpretation of same, and then argue against that.”
JD – I agree we’ve seen many bad faith examples of what you describe. I think the example Patterico puts forward of knowingly asking for an ass kicking is a good one though. If the Buddhist changed his jacket to avoid the ass kicking, an intentionalist might argue that is giving in to the other side, letting others privelege your intent, creating a slippery slope of weakness rather than acknowledging that communication is a two way street.
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/20/2010 @ 10:36 pmI know this is going to be perceived as a little strange, but here it goes anyway:
Although humans, homo sapiens, are indeed intellectual animals, we are attuned to environmental clues as to the actions of others.
We would not have come this far, otherwise.
Our intellectual capacity has provided us with the knowledge to reason within a society what is right or wrong, based on norms.
But, we also have the capacity, in completely foreign environments, to recognize threats. Not always, certainly, but enough to assure the survival of the species.
In a normal environment, we all have the capacity to recognize symbolic threats to our well-being, while discerning clues to the symbol-wearer’s intent.
When someone outside our society’s norm pretends to be a part of our society and executes an action against our norm, we really have no defense.
But, to the question, under our Constitution, have at it. We can’t discern a single person’s actions or symbols based on the of intent his or her’s symbols. We can’t know that person’s mind.
Our society, in simple terms, that wearing a swastika to a bar mitzvah is not a good idea. (Please forgive my generalization, but I hope you get the point).
I’m sure a lot of dissertations have examined this far better than me.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/20/2010 @ 10:55 pmJD,
I’m afraid my comment sounded dismissive and I didn’t mean for it to.
I agree that the situation you described is a problem, and it’s a recurring one. When people are operating in bad faith, there is no question that their interpretation cannot trump the speaker’s intent.
I just think that’s an easy case, where the intentionalist argument is clearly right — and it’s the sort of case where the intentionalist argument gains its appeal. I meant to clearly express my agreement with that concept in the post.
But daleyrocks gets the point of my post. As I read the intentionalists, they would counsel you not to avoid wearing a swastika jacket just because its message might be reasonably misinterpreted. Limiting your means of expression because you fear a reasonable person would take offense, despite your intent, is ceding the power of language to the other side, losing more slowly, etc.
My point is that your knowledge of a likely reasonable response informs your intent.
Put simply: if you wear the swastika to the Holocaust Museum, you’re inviting an ass kicking.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/20/2010 @ 10:57 pmPP…
You do realize that the swastika artwork you’ve posted is an “American Indian or Oriental” swastika, and not a Nazi swastika – compare the direction of the arms of your artwork to the ones on the German flags: Counter-clockwise v Clockwise, respectively.
Or, was this a test?
AD - RtR/OS! (5a3560) — 4/20/2010 @ 11:00 pmAs a non-racist, pro-liberty america, I think your video is a bit inaccurate. That video gives me the creeps for a couple reasons 1) The Tea Party movement is not just an anti-tax group sick of government corruption…the Tea Party movement (while clearly not falling under a unified organization) promotes the messages of our constitution and fundamental negative and positive liberties. In the video, the taper is telling the swastika-wearer to take off his shirt, that he is not welcome, etc. I find this extremely hypocritical in that of all people, tea partiers know that freedom of speech is an important part of America. There is a difference between legally defined ‘fighting words’ and wearing a swastika. Just as the quote goes “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” we must defend this.
secondly, i think very few people will disagree that the man wore the swastika with the intent to cause controversy, especially at a politically oriented gathering. regardless, the man made a very valid point (among his other stupid points: most notably that those who came over from England were white and every person who signed the declaration of independence was white): you automatically assume the swastika is bad. rather than yell about taking it off, why not explain to him why it is bad? furthermore, the tea party movement IS about educating people about its ideology. why not educate him? socialists also would also cheer in favor of that “which the tea party doesn’t represent” yet if one came to learn about the tea party and possibly “switch sides” it would be completely rational. you attacked the guy for the wrong reasons and in the process, accidentally came off as ignorant yourselves.
bg (8d278e) — 4/20/2010 @ 11:02 pmI think you touch on an important point here. In that, I may fully understand the potential import of my actions, I may understand the potential for offense, but I make a conscious decision to do it anyway in order to defend my own particular bent on things. Which is fine, as long as I also understand that such principalism can come with a price.
If I go to a military funeral with a sign saying “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” it’s pretty clear that I am there to offend.
I think that there are certain symbols, such as the swastika, which are so completely a part of our collective social consciousness that to claim ignorance, or some milquetoast “intent” is ridiculous. If you were a swastika openly ANYWHERE, you are clearly going for a reaction.
Wear it to the Holocaust Museum, and you are looking to start of fight. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences OF that speech.
Steve B (5eacf6) — 4/20/2010 @ 11:04 pmAD, I think that’s specifically the point of that swastika. That it’s the ‘good’ one.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/20/2010 @ 11:09 pm“you attacked the guy for the wrong reasons and in the process, accidentally came off as ignorant yourselves”
bg – You might have a point if you assume the individual was at the rally to actually learn something instead of disrupt the proceedings.
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/20/2010 @ 11:13 pmPatterico – I don’t know why, but your Buddhist example reminds me of something Harley Davidson did during its 100th birthday celebration several years ago in Milwaukee. Picture the city full of bikers who came in from all over the country to party for a week. The headline entertainer for the big final night is kept a secret. Beer is flowing all week. Drunk bikers and biker babes are all over town. Anticipation is building.
The final night – at the lakefront bandshell – for HARLEY F’NG DAVIDSON’S 100TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION – The headline entertainer is finally introduced – ELTON JOHN!!!!!!!!
Beer cans and cups fill the air!
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/20/2010 @ 11:23 pmAD – RtR/OS!:
I think the important thing is, the orientation of the symbol meant something to you — but may not mean anything to someone else. And what does that say about intentionalism?
Food for thought.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/20/2010 @ 11:36 pmdaley,
That’s pretty funny. I’d love to see a video of that.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/20/2010 @ 11:44 pmAs someone who appreciates semantics, I am aware that there are two swatikas, each with a vastly different meaning from the other, which reinforces the importance of the usage of language – which is nothing if not a symbol – in conversation.
AD - RtR/OS! (5a3560) — 4/20/2010 @ 11:58 pmThe proper usage of words imparts the message the speaker intends. If the listener is too ignorant to know what those words mean, it is not the fault of the speaker.
After all, we can’t go through life dealing with everything as if all around us are kindergartners, not when they are ostensibly adults.
So after our guy gets his ass kicked for wearing a swastika in the Holocaust Museum, he can take comfort in the knowledge that his swastika was not facing the same direction as the Nazi one.
Patterico (f5343f) — 4/21/2010 @ 12:08 amPay a visit to the Shaffer Hotel in Mountainair, NM…
Blacque Jacques Shellacque (5ef35b) — 4/21/2010 @ 12:17 am“The proper usage of words imparts the message the speaker intends”
We have to quibble about what proper usage is.
It’s not always ‘what’s in the grammar book’.
If I was in a group of black people and started shouting, ‘you’re not niggardly’, I would have an argument for why they should not be displeased.
And yet, we’re kinda in some kind of contract with one another when we communicate. We’ll try to make as much as sense as we can and they will try to make as much sense of what we say as they can.
There’s this line AD is pointing to, where we shouldn’t treat people like kids, and we should assume they know enough to get our gist as adults. That’s true. But it’s some kind of gray area assumption we are forced to make because we have no objective means of getting into eachother’s head and learning true intent.
So we also make a double reverse assumption. I assume you were speaking to the assumptions you would assume I’d make. More simply: you know people are going to think the ‘good’ swastika evokes nazis at the holocaust. That’s just obvious.
Even if you (not YOU, but one) went out of your way to use the good swastika there, we have to draw some assumptions about what you knew people would see. And I really mean we have no choice but to draw these assumptions.
We can’t function in communication without constantly making little guesses about intent. Since we all know this, we also act as though those assumptions will be made and either abandon any effort to play to them or try to meet half way, or even spoon feed our intention to the listener.
I think the reverse ‘good’ swastika is a dumb thing to display at the holocaust museum, just as it would be dumb to display a sign saying “I dislike the niggardly” in Baltimore even if you really do just mean to dislike cheapskates.
Life isn’t fair enough to where we can expect the gears of communication to carry out our intentions. We have to deal with it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 12:23 amThe point is clearly correct to me. A man who has never heard of Nazis does no moral wrong by wearing a swastika to the Holocaust museum, whereas a man who knows the details of WWII would do a grave moral wrong by such actions.
The distinction is similar to a man who backs up an SUV on his own driveway and kills a child. If he knew the child was there, he is a murderer. If he had no way of knowing, he committed no moral wrong.
If the argument of intentionalism is that “intent” should be engaged rather than language, it means nothing to me as “language” is the only objective manifestation of “intent”. Once we can read minds, we can all become intentionalists. Until then, we are stuck with language in all its forms.
oneisnotprime (e25cc0) — 4/21/2010 @ 12:37 amAs someone who self identifies as a race realist the thing that drives me nuts about these guys is that y’all think I’m with him, he thinks I’m with him but nothing could be further from the truth.
I think this nation needs a robust conversation on the subject of race, in fact the very conversation our current AG Eric Holder called for, but clowns like this guy in the video make it impossible to have that conversation.
The fact that I think there are racial differences does not equal Nazism, and I just wish folks like this would FOAD, but that’s just me, ymmv.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
The Man (2572ee) — 4/21/2010 @ 1:01 amIf it were easy to tell who were the “insert term here” it would be one thing.
The problem is they are not racist or nazi’s or neonazi’s. Think in marketing terms, they are just opportunists.
I don’t know how to put it otherwise. They have been the bane of my existence for a longer time than I wished. Think of Dave Chappelle’s, who I used to hang out with many Summers, blind black Klan leader.
I wish I could get lefties to understand that they are not racist, as in the old racist way, but the equivalent of new coke trying to make money off of a brand rather than trying to return to an old way of thinking.
Instead of seeing the Ponzi schemish potential that these people are doing it for aka the money, the lefties use it for their ponzi schemish ways of making money and all the normal people are left with a polarizing situation forcing them to take sides thus reinforcing the brands.
Pisses me off because that’s how everything shook out in Algeria and no one reads history. That the easiest way to take power is to get the extremes to take out or scare away the middle. And the victor takes the spoils.
Way too many ways to steal money while letting others die for “the cause” when the cause is making money.
Gah!
Jeff Barea (eff5e1) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:45 amIn other words. Someone is getting rich on both sides of the debate. And because they are getting rich, they both (easily more than one person on each side) have vested interests in keeping the conflict alive.
Jeff Barea (eff5e1) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:49 amObviously, the Buddhist who knows nothing of the Nazis actions committed no wrong. Hopefully a ticket taker would be kind enough to mention that this might not be the place for the jacket and take a moment to explain why.
The other, the one who knows the history and does it anyway, the intentionalist (if I’m reading this correctly) is the one expecting, really more insisting, to be understood on HIS terms in a heavily weighted place. I think it’s a sign of cruel intentions.
Like anything else, there is a time and place to explain and introduce more information. The intentionalist who insists on an action like wearing a swastika, even the good one, to the Holocaust Museum, is unreasonable and arrogant, also inhuman. Expecting a person to be able to maintain a Vulcan like unemotional response to seeing a swastika worn proudly when you’ve just walked by the wall of hair or viewed the torture videos is quite the bridge too far. To expect a descendant of the victims to maintain that stoic demeanor is bordering on crazy.
Vivian Louise (643333) — 4/21/2010 @ 4:33 amThe same answer I would give regarding the Confederate flag which, I assume, is your next question.
John Henry Eden (9284aa) — 4/21/2010 @ 4:57 amYou’re too damn predictable, Patterico.
John Henry Eden (9284aa) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:00 amThe difficulty with the listener/watcher is not knowing if the speaker/doer does know what they are saying/doing would be offensive in a different context. How would one know if the Monk knows other meanings of the symbol? And aside from the obvious Holocaust Museum example, would the speaker/doer know the listener/watcher knows other meanings?
I remember working in our yard with my brother and father; I was probably pre-teen. After a long day my father remarked he ‘was all fagged out’. My brother and I glanced at eachother. But, of course, we only had one concept of the word ‘fag’ and knew no other definition.
Corwin (ea9428) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:09 amYour point, Patterico, is well-thought out and I do agree with it. But how on earth does it explain the folks who go to the Westboro Baptist Church? Those folks knowingly go into hornets’ nests with intent to rile up the hornets. Yet, at least physically, they leave every protest unscratched.
I’d say it’s fear of lawsuits, since a LOT of those church members have law degrees. But that’s not common knowledge among most folks.
Brad S (9f6740) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:29 amI’m trying to wrap my head around the notion that being offended gives licence to beat people up.
Otherwise the answer to Patterico’s question is: It’s called free speech buddy. We do that here in America.
SGT Ted (c47cc2) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:45 amThere are a million analogies if this one doesn’t grab you.
You walk into a gay biker bar and and ask for a “fag.” Later, at the hospital, where you are being treated for the ass-kicking you received, you explain that you were just asking for a cigarette. Assume that’s honestly true. Does it matter whether you knew that gay people were likely to understand “fag” as a slur?
Of course it does.
If you knew that, should you have simply asked for a cigarette?
If you didn’t want to get beaten, yes.
This is where I part company with the “intentionalists.”
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:49 am“I’m trying to wrap my head around the notion that being offended gives licence to beat people up.”
Oh, under the law it clearly doesn’t.
And if the guy in this video went to the Holocaust Museum with that jacket, he would have the right not to be assaulted.
If he was assaulted by the desendant of Holocaust survivors, the assailant would likely be prosecuted.
(Woukd the assailant be convicted? I wonder.)
But can we really say the swastika guy should be surprised by such a reaction?
I’m not saying it’s reasonable to beat him, but I am saying it’s reasonable to be offended.
And, getting to the point of the post: does his knowledge of the symbolism of the swastika (and thus the likely reasonable audience reaction to it — i.e. seeing it as offensive) have any bearing on his intent?
I say: how could it not?
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:59 amThe swastika by itself is not officially a symbol of Nazism. Put a black swastika in a white circle on a red background, then that it is a symbol of Nazism.
The swastika has been around for thousands of years. Considering the swastika by itself as a symbol of Nazism is a problem for the person making the connection, regardless of intent. If someone wearing an isolated swastika thinks this indicates some affection for Nazism he should be treated for the fool he is. To get the vapors on seeing an isolated swastika is frenkly an overreaction. If the presenter is looking for a reaction you are simply playing into his hand.
jeff (31e059) — 4/21/2010 @ 7:09 amAssume that in Micronesia, the universal hand signal for “sorry I cut you off” is an extended middle finger.
Here in the USA, a Micronesian cuts you off and extends his middle finger. You have no idea of Micronesian customs.
Scenario #1: the Micronesian has no idea of American customs. He extends his middle finger, intending to express the concept: sorry I cut you off.
Scenario #2: the Micronesian has been taught about American customs — specifically, that a wave means “I’m sorry” and that an extended middle finger means “fuck you.” When he cuts you off, he considers waving — but then decides to stand on intentionalism. He knows that an extended middle finger means the same thing TO HIM and decides that it is only HIS intent that matters. He extends his middle finger, intending to express the concept: sorry I cut you off.
Are the two scenarios different?
Of course they are.
In each case, it could be argued that his “intent” is the same. He extends his middle finger, intending to express the concept: sorry I cut you off.
But his knowledge of your likely reasonable reaction can’t be ignored in assessing his intent.
That knowledge factors in to the proper analysis of his intent.
Knowing your likely reaction, should he choose the hand signal that YOU are likely to understand?
The intentionalist would see that as a surrender. I don’t.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/21/2010 @ 7:12 amJeff says:
So the guy in the video, to you, is not advocating Nazism because the swastika is not in a white circle on a red background?
Or would you concede that he is advocating Nazism, given the additional information — the Iron Cross and his self-description as a “proud racist”?
And, given your comments, do you believe there is nothing provocative about wearing a swastika into the Holocaust Museum, because the swastika has been around for thousands of years?
Just want to make sure of your position and how far you want to take it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/21/2010 @ 7:17 amThe Iron Cross was also around before Nazism. The Nazi Iron Cross Second Class hung from a red, black and white ribbon, or just the ribbon was worn. A Nazi Iron Cross First Class was a pin on a red background. To display an isolated Iron Cross with a swastika, while approaching the real thing, would seem to demonstrate a lack of knowledge.
“Proud racist” could be seen to imply a modern “Nazi” skinhead philosophy. But that is an extrapolation.
Lots of things are “provocative.” If someone wears an isolated swastika to get a reaction and you react then you are allowing yourself to be provoked.
Does the person’s intelligence, or lack there of, figure into the discussion?
I think the reasonable response is this that this guy is a fool and should be treated as such.
jeff (31e059) — 4/21/2010 @ 7:58 amThe first swastika is the “good luck” one, these days, but that’s a very modern and artificial distinction and usage code of a pair of very old glyphs. The Nazi naval ensign was “through”, by the way, and so presented both left and right swastikas depending on which side of the ensign you observed.
Communication is -so- hard. Idea –> concepts –> message –> language –> encoding –> utterance –> channel –> detection –> decoding –> language –> message –> concepts –> idea. (or some such.) And that’s just simple “Please pass the salt” things.
If you are going to attempt to parse “intent” into messages, in some ways you are already beginning to have a meta-conversation. You’re assuming that there are multiple meanings for utterances, and assigning meanings for them. Knowing that your fellow conversationalist is doing the same thing can help, but if your table of meanings is not precisely aligned with theirs, you’re going to have minor, and then major, collisions, without either of you really being “at fault” (perhaps more strictly both of you are at fault, but it’s very difficult to get all of those symbol chains correctly aligned.)
The speaker has an obligation to be clear (in some contexts) and the listener has an obligation to parse for alternatives meanings. The listener has no right to project his meaning map through the utterance and proclaim the speaker’s intent.
When you hear someone saying that someone else is “speaking in code” you know you’re hearing this kind of projection, regardless of whether or not the speaker is “speaking in code”. All speaking is in code. That’s what speaking (and writing) is.
htom (412a17) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:04 amWearing either to the Holocaust Museum is either ignorance or provocation; questioning can determine which, and then proper response can be made.
The idiot in the video is trying to be provocative and succeeds.
htom (412a17) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:08 amI did not think you were being dismissive, I was going to bed, hence the goodnight.
I would not wear a swastika to the Holocaust museum, or any other time, for that matter. Though this can be illustrative in using such an extreme example, it is no more so that the bad-faithed listener. The problems with modern communication are note premised on whether Nazis are bad.
JD (5375e6) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:10 amJeff says:
The swastika by itself is not officially a symbol of Nazism. Put a black swastika in a white circle on a red background, then that it is a symbol of Nazism.
Man, I bet there are a lot of tattooed skinheads who feel pretty silly right now. 😉
I don’t know whether the original Nazis ever identified with the swastika by itself. I do know that in the minds of the vast majority of Americans the symbol is permanently linked with them now. Perhaps they are ignorant, but the non-ignorant speaker who willfully disregards how the vast majority of his audience will interpret his speech is himself partly responsible for the misunderstanding.
bg says:
That video gives me the creeps for a couple reasons 1) The Tea Party movement is not just an anti-tax group sick of government corruption…the Tea Party movement (while clearly not falling under a unified organization) promotes the messages of our constitution and fundamental negative and positive liberties. In the video, the taper is telling the swastika-wearer to take off his shirt, that he is not welcome, etc. I find this extremely hypocritical in that of all people, tea partiers know that freedom of speech is an important part of America. There is a difference between legally defined ‘fighting words’ and wearing a swastika. Just as the quote goes “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” we must defend this.
The remedy for bad speech is more speech, and telling the swastika wearer that he’s not welcome is still just speech. No one was advocating for him to be arrested. The defense of freedom of expression does not require that we surrender our own rights to express disapproval of another’s message.
cns (ba0d2e) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:33 am“The same answer I would give regarding the Confederate flag which, I assume, is your next question.”
Promoters of the confederacy have quite a few intents and statements that they are making. Usually it is tied in to a misunderstanding or mythological view of the confederacy.
imdw (9af31a) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:34 amPatterico/Stash/etal – It is fairly clear that imdw is attempting to hijack this thread.
If someone is not clear of the message, or the intent behind a message, why not just freaking ask them?
JD (5375e6) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:36 am“I did not think you were being dismissive, I was going to bed, hence the goodnight.”
I know. I never thought you were upset; my comment had purely to do with re-reading my own comment. When I said I might have been dismissive, I hadn’t even seen your comment saying good night. I never took that as anything but a friendly good night.
Patterico (9c7dfa) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:37 amDoes intentionalism extend to time travel?
I once got into an argument with a professor who stated that Finland deserved whatever they got from the Soviets in WWII because the Finns displayed the swastika on their air force aircraft.
But the swastika was the official emblem of the Finnish airforce going back to WWI when it was the personal sigil of the leading Finnish ace in that war, and was adopted by the Finns long before the Socialists in Germany did.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:38 amWhy the hell is there a Holocaust Museum on the Mall in Washington D.C.? It is a great museum and all that, but valuable Mall space is wasted there commemorating something having little to do with the U.S., and even implying that the U.S. is somehow to blame.
Shouldn’t it have been built on top of the ruined heap of the Reichstag in Berlin instead?
Meanwhile, there is no equivalent museum acknowledging slavery, for which the U.S. actually is to blame.
Ken McCracken (98dfdd) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:56 amKen, it’s an amazing museum, and while it’s a shame there isn’t one like it in places ‘to blame’, I think it’s a place everyone should visit. It’s not causing any problems.
There really is plenty of museum space devoted to slavery. I don’t understand your notion of blame. The people who are to blame for slavery are gone now. Blaming the US today for that is silly.
You’re not meeting the holocaust museum’s ‘communication’ intent halfway. You’re assuming they are saying ‘we blame Washington DC and not Berlin for killing a lot of people’ but I think they go out of their way to say ‘remember this ugly thing so it doesn’t happen again’.
I think communication is a two way street… your communication should attempt to make sense to reasonable listeners, and your listening should attempt to be fair to the speaker.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 9:14 amI think the speaker is obligated to learn the context before they speak. If they don’t, I may assume they’re ignorant/naïve. If they appear intelligent in other ways than I have to assume they just don’t care about the context and how the ambiguity around their meaning might be interpreted.
For example, if an anti-war group stages a rally outside the office of a Jewish senator with many swastika posters that mean ‘peace and good luck’ to them. What do I conclude? If they’re not a group of monks who grew up in the mountains of Tibet I’m going to assume that *at best* they don’t care about offending Jews. If their group, or their close political allies, has a history of opposing policies that would help Jewish people / support Israel I think I’d be reasonable in assuming some malice on their part.
They could stand on intentionalist principle and say that it’s up to the listener to understand what the symbol truly means to them as the speaker. But isn’t that similar to saying they don’t care about the holocaust? How is it different from saying that they don’t care about the emotional impact caused by that message and what that emotional impact might do to the debate?
time123 (fd0080) — 4/21/2010 @ 9:24 amIF the Holocaust Museum was having a special program on “Cultural History of the Swastika”, the Buddhist might be OK in wearing it.
Otherwise he would be knowingly intruding on other people’s crief (personal or cultural) and he would be in the same category as the asshats who picket military funerals.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 4/21/2010 @ 9:55 amWell, first, its worth noting that if you turn the swastica one way it means harmony, more or less “goodness.”
if you turn it the other way it means disharmony, more or less, evil.
the nazis turned it the “wrong” way. i put wrong in quotation marks, because in a deeper way, it was truth in advertising. it would be like adopting the cross and then turning it upside down.
that being said, as far as the Buddhist is concerned, i don’t know. i mean what if Hitler used the cross as his symbol? Would i as a christian stop using the cross? hell no. why should my religious practices be altered one iota because some idiot took a symbol of my faith, misappropriated it and made it their own?
The nazis took on the swastika because they believed that the aryans who conquered india eons ago (and established the caste system), were related to the germans. i am not sure how that interacts with the belief that germans were in fact aliens from atlantis, but well, its all too goofy to keep track of. seriously, it would be as hilariously lame as scientology if they hadn’t murdered so many people invoking it. Anyway point is to the buddhists, this was misappropriation in the purest sense. And i think we should be grown up enough to recognize it.
And that being said, some common sense can make you figure out the difference between swastika as a happy symbol and one that is not. So if the video is as described (can’t watch it now), then common sense says he is just trying to use a fig leaf. its no different then when a pro-palestinian idiot says “death to all zionists!” Everyone knows what he is really thinking.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/21/2010 @ 9:56 amAt the risk of being accused of making a personal attack, I still believe that your argment is fundamentally flawed. You persist in going along with the fiction that Mr Fake Nazi is actually a Nazi.
Here is the scenario you should have covered.
3) A person pretends to be a Nazi and infiltrates a meeting of people whose views he opposes in an attempt to discredit them.
Subotai (ffe690) — 4/21/2010 @ 9:57 amAW, the fact that it’s the ‘good’ swastika is central to the hypo and stipulated.
Subotai, in my opinion, that’s not a personal attack, it’s an attack on the argument. But I don’t understand.
Whether the person was pretending to be a Nazi or was a real one, he’s saying disgusting stuff and should be verbally confronted and expect to be interpreted as a jerk. Maybe he was trying to make Tea Partiers look like him, or maybe he was trying to use the Tea Party to spread a sincere racism message.
I don’t see how it fundamentally flaws the argument that I take as ‘people should and do involve the way their comments are heard by listeners with their intent, and it’s OK to draw inductive conclusions about their intent from the way their comments come across (to some extent)’.
In fact, you seem to agree with this. Even if he isn’t really a Nazi, he was trying to assert a message of hate based on how he knows his message will be received. That’s part of how the infiltrators wanted things to proceed. I’m glad he was there, because it showed that the Tea Party rejects that message in a general organic way.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:08 amSo the guy in the video, to you, is not advocating Nazism because the swastika is not in a white circle on a red background?
The guy in the video no more advocating Nazism than Werner Klemperer was advocating Nazism when he played Colonel Klink.
Subotai (ffe690) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:11 amAssuming you’re right, and this guy was simply trying to make the Tea Party look like it accommodated racists (and I’m not claiming you’re wrong, he even called himself a concerned conservative, so he sure acts like a moby), isn’t it easy to determine that the intent of his bullshit was to convey a hateful message?
Even if this is directly different than what your claim about this man really thinks, what he intended to come across as is pretty clear. He can’t pretend his swastika logo doesn’t evoke hatred, whether he’s a hippie or a nazi.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:19 amHe can’t convincingly pretend his swastika logo wasn’t INTENDED to evoke hatred, I mean.
I get to make assumptions about this guy, and that’s one of the easiest ones. He meant to promote racism, even if he was trying to do so against his personal views on race in some lame infiltration.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:21 amPay attention to his own words. “I’m proud to be a racist. I’m not a Nazi”.
So what’s with the Nazi symbolism?
He meant to promote racism, even if he was trying to do so against his personal views on race in some lame infiltration
Umm… what? He was not trying to promote racism. He was trying to discredit the Tea party. That was his “intent”.
Subotai (ffe690) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:31 amDustin
> AW, the fact that it’s the ‘good’ swastika is central to the hypo and stipulated.
Well, i don’t think Patterico recognized the importance of which way it was pointed. but yeah, patterico understood that a person could innocently draw a swastika and that was stipulated.
my more substantive point is that the buddhist shouldn’t have to change anything. now the buddhist might decide it is not worth the hassle. i don’t know how central it all is ti yse that as a symbol. i don’t think a no-swastika rule is fair to those poeple. i think we just have to judge on a case-by-case basis.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:31 amThe premise of P’s post is off. It shouldn’t matter what the intent or knowledge of the ‘speaker’ is, their wearing a swastika is a means of letting the world know that they believe in certain things. I disagree with them but what is the basis for getting offended because someone has a view that is different from my own? I don’t get offended when I see someone with an Obama bumper sticker; I feel sorry for them as they’re obviously not of right mind, and the same holds true for bigots and other people who were dropped on their heads at an early age.
As for someone wearing a swastika to the Holocaust Museum (with the purpose of offending), the proper reaction is to ignore them, not to give them the reaction they want by acting like a bunch of easily offended wimps. ‘ooh, my feelings are hurt’. We have the power to ignore them, they can’t offend us unless we offer up ourselves to be offended.
they can say what they want, they can wear what they want, but until they do something that interferes with my safety, I ignore them.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:38 amI don’t see how it fundamentally flaws the argument that I take as ‘people should and do involve the way their comments are heard by listeners with their intent
Obviously, his “intent” is a matter of some dispute. I think the consensus of the conservative blogs is that his intent was to pretend to be a Nazi racist in order to try to damage the image of the Tea Party. That is what I, and many others, took away from his display.
Subotai (ffe690) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:39 amFree speech!
I would encourage the Buddhist to take his emblazon jacket into the memorial and educate the folks there about their prejudice of others who have used the very same symbol for centuries…
If a gay wears a pink triangle (or uses a stamp to mark US currency with a pink triangle/gay pride emblem)–why not. Or is the gay supporting the Nazis use of pink triangles to vilify homosexuals.
The solution to free speech is more free speech.
BfC (5209ec) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:49 amI don’t want to restate my case… I think it’s no accident that the ‘good’ one is juxaposed and labeled as the ‘good’ one against the ‘bad’ ones, but it’s not substantive.
I agree that it’s unfair to people who earnestly mean to display their ‘good’ swastika that common sense and basic decency forbids them from displaying their good symbol where it would be obviously interpreted as the ‘bad’.
Let’s step away from that to whether or not it would be a mistake to interpret the ‘good’ swastika bearer as conveying the ‘bad’ one in that context. I assume, for the sake of the argument, that he knows darn well that this is how it’s going to be interpreted. And I don’t understand how communication could function if we say things we know will mean A and then deny we said A.
It’s certainly unfair. But the message is, at best, for our buddhist ‘I do not care if I distress the heck out of good folks because I like this symbol so much more than I like your peace of mind’.
Even if you think he’s justified to do that, perhaps out of an effort to educate the museum goers about the ‘good’ swastika, and I’ll even grant that he’s not promoting nazism, his intent does include the awareness that he’s rocking that particular boat and accepting the consequence.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:49 amI’m the above post, not sure why it showed as ‘You’
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:49 amUmm… what? He was not trying to promote racism. He was trying to discredit the Tea party. That was his “intent”.
Comment by Subotai
I think you read one reply and not the main reply, because the webiste moderated my use of the BS term.
It’s very difficult to even get the page to load and carry on a conversation, and I don’t want to wait around today for that.
But I have to ask: do you know this guy? What’s his name? How old is he? How many rallies has he attended? Who did he vote for in 2008? You seem to know him incredibly well, if you aren’t simply making a blind guess about his infliltration mission.
I granted that, for the sake of argument alone. Because even if he isn’t a racist and is trying to stain the Tea Party with a racist message diohonestly, his intent would have to be to convey a racist message.
So what you are claiming is a fundamental flaw in this argument actually strongly bolsters this argument, doesn’t it? Some of his intent, in fact, why I said “to some extent [we can see his intent]” is completelt in dispute, that part about WHY he is intending to convey racism. Maybe he’s really racist and maybe he just thinks spreading that hate there will harm the Tea Party.
No disrespect is intended in this message, by the way. I don’t know how to convey that without just saying it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:52 amCommunication is a two way street. When we see or hear something that is puzzling or that we find offensive, the thoughtful thing to do is to move the communication forward by asking to clarify. If one’s intent is to understand and communicate we will want to do this (at least if we have self-control), if it is to persist in having our own way, we won’t. That is a difference between a good faith and bad faith effort.
For example, I’m inclined to think that Ken McCracken and subotai, while they are being compliant to the letter of Patterico’s law on avoiding personal attacks, are making comments that seem out of context, and I could stand further clarification of what their intents are.
I would say Werner Klemperer, if anything, was mocking and castigating Nazis, holding them up to ridicule (whether appropriate or not is another question). I think the intent in the midst of an episode of Hogan’s Heroes would be very clear.
The fellow in the video makes no such clear intent; if anything, his intent seems to be to cause mischief and disruption, whether he is a Nazi or not. I believe a reasonable person with a normal intelligence and any awareness of reports in the media would know that Tea Party gatherings have been accused of harboring Nazi’s and other extremists, and that they have publicly disputed that claim.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:57 amThe right-handed (“good”) swastika is indeed a Buddhist symbol most particularly associated with the Tibetan Bon school of Buddhism, where it is called the Yungdrung and represents the undying nature of the teachings. Bon Buddhism is known in Tibetan as “Yungdrung Bon” which means “Everlasting Dharma”.
Papa Rod (7d1147) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:16 amInterestingly, the six pointed star we know as the Mogen David is also associated with Buddhism and other Eastern faiths. When I traveled to India and Nepal, I saw both the six pointed star and the right handed swastika painted on the same mud wall, most likely by the same hand. I think I got a picture of it.
Now that’s out of the way, the Bon practitioners I know (and I’m one of them) are acutely aware of the recent history of the use of the swastika as a symbol of Nazism and generally don’t display it on clothing. I for one have never seen a fellow American Bonpo wear the Yungdrung visibly. It is much more likely to be seen in an architectural context or on ritual objects. Were a hypothetical Yungdrung-wearing Tibetan Bon Lama who was unaware of the unsavory and unfortunate connotations of the Nazi symbol to visit the Holocaust Museum, I am confident that upon being told the symbol might cause offense, he would quickly remove or hide the offensive (in this context) symbol, in the same spirit he would remove his leather shoes upon entering a Hindu shrine. Of course, the purpose of his visit to the Holocaust Museum would probably be to pray for those who suffered in the Holocaust, rather than to mock their memories. As a rule, Buddhists tend to be very deferential, and go out of their way to avoid giving offense. By avoiding generating negative emotions (anger, attachment, ignorance, pride, and jealousy), our hypothetical Lama minimizes the likelihood of generating the negative actions (bad karma) that trap all sentient beings in the cycle of death and rebirth and thereby prevent enlightenment.
I’m not trying to proselytize and I’m sorry if I sound pedantic, but I’ve thought about this in the past. A lot. And if I were wearing a visible Yungdrung, I would definitely remove it in such a situation.
The fellow in the video makes no such clear intent; if anything, his intent seems to be to cause mischief and disruption, whether he is a Nazi or not.
I think that is a pretty clear intent.
Subotai (ffe690) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:23 amI don’t take your explanation as proselytizing, but rather interesting and helpful. This is what communication in good faith is. Thank you.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:24 amSubotai,
For some reason, even when we seem to agree on a basic level, it seems to me you’re going out of your way to magnify disagreement. At #66 you express agreement that the fellow’s main aim was to cause mischief and disruption, yet you seem to focus on the wording I used to express my thought (which was making comparison to the “obvious” intent of Hogan’s Heroes). Am I misunderstanding something?
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:31 amIf the argument is that we can read someone’s mind, know their entire intent, AW and Subotai have defeated that proposition.
If, however, the argument is that something about intent can be gleaned, and there is an obvious expectation in normal minds to consider the effects of communication when making some kind of statement, then I think we’re talking past eachother.
IT’s hard to imagine a stereotypical peaceful buddhist wanting to disrupt a memorial with a swastika, so either this person isn’t so peaceful, and knows their symbol carries an unfair (as AW points out) association, or this person is amazingly stunningly ignorant. These two possibilities demonstrate that we expect people to use a prediction of how their statements will be received.
Same for maybe infiltrator nazi. Is his intent to show favor to racism? He says it is. Maybe his intent is to make the protest he was at look bad. That part I can’t prove, and I secretly think subotai is right. But I know for sure that his intent was to express support for racism. This is just a comparison basis, not even disputable, since he speaks obviously in favor of racism.
When you communicate with people, you are failing if you shut down that ‘predict how it will be taken’ nerve bundle and simply hope your intent comes across. That Buddhist ought to think, as I’m sure most Buddhists do when they leave their swastikas at home when visiting memorials to Nazi murders.
Steve, I personally don’t think we should ignore these people, but that’s not really relevant to whether or not we know some of what they are up to by expecting them to associate their message with the world outside their head.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:32 amGood post. Good comments. I agree with Patterico, and JD’s stipulation (which Patterico also agreed with).
Leviticus (35fbde) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:33 amBut I have to ask: do you know this guy? What’s his name? How old is he? How many rallies has he attended? Who did he vote for in 2008? You seem to know him incredibly well, if you aren’t simply making a blind guess about his infliltration mission.
If you work on the assumption that a person claiming to be a Nazi (actually, he said he is not a Nazi, but lets not go there for the moment) is actually lying, you’ll be correct far more often than not. The number of lefties pretending to be Nazis greatly exceeds the number of actual Nazis in America. So I’m mostly just playing the percentages here. But if you pay attention the the remarks the guy nakes in the video I also think it is clear that he is a fake. For instance, at one point he insists he is NOT a Nazi – even while decked out in a ton of Nazi symbols. When confronted, he demands to know if his confronter is a member of the Council of Concerned Citizens. What’s that all about? His knowledge of these matters seems to be gleaned from reading the SPLC web site.
Subotai (ffe690) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:33 amRe: Swastikas
AD - RtR/OS! (83fa7e) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:34 amWe could just do what the Germans have done, and ban the display of all symbols of the Nazi Party (and of the Confederacy, and any other organization, entity, and idea that gives us heartburn, either individually or collectively), then there won’t be any problem of unintended offense.
Or, we could “grow up”, and practice some of that tolerance for ideas and cultures that seems to be the prevailing drivel in today’s world; but remembering that none of has the right to impose our view of the world on others.
Stashiu, I am having some trouble with the site, and if there are other messages in moderation by my name, please don’t release them because they would just flood the thread with my wonderfulness and I’ve already done enough of that.
Thanks for your hard work.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:37 amFor example, I’m inclined to think that Ken McCracken and subotai, while they are being compliant to the letter of Patterico’s law on avoiding personal attacks, are making comments that seem out of context, and I could stand further clarification of what their intents are.
Then I guess I need clarification as to what you think the correct context is. I’m addressing the central issue here – what the “intent” of the guy in the Nazi regalia was.
Subotai (ffe690) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:39 amDustin
Well, with the buddhist, i just feel that it is wrong to penalize a person for practicing their faith. and faith is special that way.
i mean take the most sacred symbol of your faith. if you are christian that would be a cross. Now imagine that the nazis had used the cross instead of the swastika. so you can’t use the cross? You can’t wear a cross around your neck when you visit the holocaust museam?
The only reason why the swastika is uniquely associated with naziism here is because of frankly our cultural ignorance. we should know enough about other cultures, even other religions, to know that sometimes the swastika is a symbol of good, that in fact it was its original meaning.
Now that assumes, without honestly knowing, how important the swastika is to a buddhist. maybe if you ask them they would say, “ah, i can really live a full spiritual life without it.” Or it might be as central as the cross.
Seriously, how is it right that the buddhists suffer because of how a symbol of their faith was taken from them. We should show some real appreciation for cultural differences, understand that a symbol has no meaning except what we pour into it. Why should we let the nazis victimize the buddhists?
now i think some of this is a proxy fight for the way some people, particularly liberals, use dishonest redefinition to argue. one particularly inexcusable example is when liberals apparently decided to redefine “judicial activism” as overturning precedents, and then claiming that Roberts was lying to say he was not a judicial activist. they know or should know that this is not the accepted definiton of the term. They have a little fig leaf to claim they aren’t lying, but i don’t accept that. If you say an activism is a person who advocates the overturning of judicial precedents, you are either an idiot or a liar, take your pick.
But the fact is the buddhists were using that symbol long before the nazis grabbed it, and this is their faith we are talking about. They aren’t suddenly saying this, but instead it was the nazis redefining the symbol to indicate german supremacy. And the buddhists are just saying, “no that is not what it meant, and we do not accept the nazis attempt to redefine the term.” And if anyone is offended, that is their failing, not the buddhists.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:39 amAgree, totally.
htom (412a17) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:39 am“now i think some of this is a proxy fight for the way some people, particularly liberals, use dishonest redefinition to argue”
Yeah, that sucks, AW.
And I agree again that it’s unfair that a good symbol was stolen by the Nazis from the Buddhists and they shouldn’t have to be ashamed of it.
I think that’s besides the point; as dismissive as I know that sounds, it’s not meant to be.
If we’re proposing to change communication on this planet to be more fair, that’s one thing. If you’re going to decide, later on, that some people who offend the sensitive did nothing wrong, that sounds pretty good too. But normal discourse takes a less fair, and as you note, manipulated by ‘liberals’ (modern usage) to be even less fair. But since the Buddhist is totally aware of this unfair way his ‘good’ symbol would probably get his ass kicked and cause a disturbance if he’s too overt, I inductively determine he probably accepted or intended the ugly message.
Don’t let this get mixed up with the idea that a normal Buddhist doesn’t act like the hypothetical one. I’m sure most of them avoid this symbol for this unfair reason.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 12:19 pmDustin
It might be in part the lawyer in me coming out.
I mean when in law we say “reasonable” it isn’t just a measure of what is common, but there is a moral judgment about what is right. Sometimes what we call a “resonable man” in law, is really someone acting much more ideally than we would expect in life.
But i said my piece. you are either convinced or not, and that’s okay. We can agree to disagree. of course the lawyer in me never wants to stop arguing, but i will now tell that part of me to sit down and shut up. 🙂
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/21/2010 @ 12:34 pm“Obviously, his “intent” is a matter of some dispute. I think the consensus of the conservative blogs is that his intent was to pretend to be a Nazi racist in order to try to damage the image of the Tea Party. That is what I, and many others, took away from his display.”
You’re determining intent by consensus?
Patterico (9c7dfa) — 4/21/2010 @ 1:09 pmBoth right and left facing swastikas are present through the ages with no discernable difference in meaning. The notion of a “good” and “bad” swastika seems to be an urban legend, or at least a modern construct. The Nazi’s flags generally had both right facing swastikas on each side, but also had ones with mirror images on the two sides.
The reasonable man assessment has been perverted by the perpetually offended, PC-ified, media glamorized hate mongers.
Take the cross. Should we ban the cross for the millions killed and oppressed by the Catholics in the name of the Pope? Or the hammer and sickle for the millions killed by the Bolsheviks?
We should fight back against the unreasonable attempts to stifle realistically reasonable speech.
jeff (31e059) — 4/21/2010 @ 1:21 pmYou’re determining intent by consensus?
That is what intent means in the law. The reasonable man (or reasonable person) standard is based on what the typical person would think. You had “intent” to commit a crime if a jury (supposedly representing the populace) says that you did.
What else do you propose to determine it by?
You frame the question as “Why the reasonable reaction of the audience matters to interpreting intent”. Who is the audience though? The people at the Tea Party event? The media? The people reading/watching the media? And who is doing the interpreting?
Subotai (ffe690) — 4/21/2010 @ 1:24 pmI want to make clear I am not advocating explicit confrontation, e.g., the display of the Nazi flag or other truly Nazi symbols.
But, modern want-to-be skinhead Nazis with swastika tattoos are not worthy of attention and should be marginalized by society, not given the attention they apparently desire. Likewise displays of Nazi-like symbols should not be given the weight of the real thing.
My issue is that this scenario seems to have too many vague references and personal assumptions to be a good example of the intent problem. But that’s my problem.
jeff (31e059) — 4/21/2010 @ 1:44 pmNot to throw a wrench in the works, but buddhists are very much aware of the link between Nazis and right facing swastikas, and since the 1920’s have almost exclusively used left facing swastikas (outside of India). What is more interesting is the use of Nazi imagery, including the swastika, by numerous tea party members on signs and such. The logic seems to be Nazis are evil, Obama is like the Nazis, therefore Obama is evil. I would argue that it is not being used racially in that instance, and those displaying such signs cannot necessarily be considered racists. However, the entire concept of Obama being Nazi-like is ridiculous, and the use of such signs really reflects poorly on those holding the signs. Basically, it makes them look stupid and hateful, and is just as childish as drawing horns and a pointed tail on a picture of Obama, and somehow thinking that makes some kind of an intelligent statement. P.S. I know that you guys are intelligent and thoughtful, so I know I won’t get a bunch of useless “You’re a liberal idiot.” or, “How do my ballz taste?” replies, and instead will receive comments that are well thought out and on point. Our country needs a strong republican party. I do not hate republicans or conservatives. I lean more conservative on some issues, and more liberal on others, and shouldn’t be pidgeonholed into some progressive liberal mold, just because I may disagree on a few points. Thank you.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:25 pmOkay, no problem here so far.
Okay, aside from the squishy modifiers like “reasonable” (which you allude at in the examples, but never quite define, which, if you ever manage to do so, hey, law review article), let’s take a crack at one of those other terms.
Responsibility. To whom? For what? Is he responsible only to know of the “reasonable” misinterpretations of his communication, or does the word “responsibility” imply a duty to act beyond mere knowledge, as in a duty for the speaker to alter his behavior to avoid offensive speech? Does it also imply punitive measures to enforce the responsibility?
I’ve been using the Shakespearean idiom “hoist on his own petard” for years. It was only a few days ago that I bothered to actually look up what a “petard” was. (It’s an early shaped breaching charge, and also a pun for the french word for “fart.”) Was I violating this responsibility because I only knew what the idiom signified in whole, but not the meaning of the individual words? I mean, I’m sure I offended some french grandmother with my callous reference to flatulence at some point over the years.
Absolutely correct. Intent simply is. It encompasses the entire meaning of the speaker at the time of the speech. We, the listeners, end up taking rough shots in the dark trying to discern intent after the fact.
Think of intent as the platonic ideal. What we try to describe later are the shadowy likenesses of intent. We’re never going to reach the actual intent of the speaker, but as listeners, it is our duty to try, or, in the alternative, to ignore.
So, in your hypothetical of the buddhist who has been educated in nazi symbolism, his intent incorporates that knowledge, and the existence of his education in nazi symbolism means that if he wears the swastika again, he can mean “good fortune” together with something else, like a refusal to let German history tell him what his culture means. Or, alternatively, good fortune and an embrace of German fascism.
If his listeners know that he knows of nazi symbolism, then their reconstruction of his intent must also incorporate that knowledge.
But if the listeners don’t KNOW that the buddhist knows of nazi symbolism, then they can only make assumptions as to his knowledge, assumptions that serve to write themselves in place of the intent of the speaker. It may turn out that their assumptions are correct, but to what extent should the assumptions of listeners ever be privileged?
An explanation via illustration.
Jeff Goldstein:
(emphasis mine.)
And it is our own urge to signify that underlies the listener’s assumptions that fill in the void of meaning.
The extent to which we can establish the intent of the speaker concretely, our reconstruction of intent is valid. What do we know he knows?
Whatever is left, the space in between that we fill with our own assumptions, that is not a measurement of, but a guess at, intent. It is inscribing ourselves and our own prejudices into the speaker’s place, and while the assumptions are not automatically invalid, they should be rebuttable if not immediately suspect.
Goldstein again:
And this, I think, is the point of divergence between Patterico and Protein Wisdom, the legal view of language vs. the linguistic theorist’s view of language. And it ties back in to the problem of “responsibility” above.
Breach of responsibility is extending a legal concept to something that doesn’t intrinsically call for legal explanation, namely, language. We make exceptions for things like incitement to violence and slander (although both have high standards of proof to protect against overreach, and both are similar to the fire in a theater example as infringement to grease society’s skids) but, as a rule, speech/language is exempted from legal consequence.
IOW, the concept of a “responsibility” to know of reasonable misinterpretations places an unnatural burden on language in a society that pays lip service to enlightenment concepts of free speech. It may be that society decides that such a burden is appropriate, but that is a society that moves farther away from a marketplace of ideas and closer to central control of ideas.
Hadlowe (061332) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:33 pmOn another note, if buddhists thought this was a symbol of good luck and fortune, they should consider using a different symbol, since it obviously didn’t work out that well with respect to the Nazis. It could be argued that the meaning of the symbol has inherently changed due to its relationship to the Nazis. The Nazis became an icon for evil (of a very imperialistic flavor), and thusly their actual graphic icon, the swastika, has also become an icon for evil.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:40 pmHadlowe, what if I just want to say someone’s a jerk, but I really don’t think the State has any place dealing with the issue?
I want general control of ideas, in other words. I do want some ideas to be difficult to express in society because people get annoyed and tell the speaker to ‘get lost’ without having any legal implication whatsoever.
This is clearly a non sequitur. It asserts that something isn’t offensive if anyone doesn’t find it offensive. That’s an extreme and unfounded way to define the concept that seems ad hoc.
What is Goldstein saying it provoked? Offense? Whatever was provoked is probably a euphemism for offensivness. Of course it’s offensive, and while it’s an assumption at some level, like most knowledge assertions, that a normal person presenting that, was aware of the reaction. In fact, they went out of their way to “provoke” it in this case, but that’s more than I need.
Yes, exactly! That’s why he’s responsible. Because of the assumption. This isn’t deduction, it’s induction. Ever read Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript?
We have to make a leap of faith. You might prefer a world or a linguistic theory that avoids that problem, but you have no choice in this world. That leap of faith is being made whenever we interact, and it doubly implies that you made one to me about how I would receive your message.
No such thing as truly authentic perfect communication, though.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:49 pmWhich tea-party participants have had signs with swastikas?
The leftists commonly used Nazi symbology in association with George W Bush.
Speaker Pelosi claimed protestors were carrying swastikas but I think this falls in the same category as those claiming name calling and spitting.
jeff (31e059) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:53 pmUsually I lurk, but on this one I have a question:
Is it possible that the hypothetical Budhist could forgo wearing the Yungdrung out of consideration for others and yet still consider it a restriction on his expression. A tragic and necessary one, but still a restriction?
I’m rather opinionless on the matter. On the one hand, I see the intentionalist argument (as described, I think) as “these are restrictions placed on you by other people, and that’s bad!” And I agree. I see another argument (this may be our host’s, I don’t fully know) is “but without those restrictions there’s be an awful lot of unnecessary confrontation.” And I agree.
I guess I wonder can we admit that it is a restriction, and that’s “bad,” but it’s also the price of peace.
In which case, the important next question is, when is the restriction price of peace more expensive than the benefit of peace?
_____
Second question:
On the man in the video, I vote, on the evidence of the Iron Cross that he’s lieing. I’ve not understood intentionalism to say that I can’t claim he’s lieing, it simply requires that I provide evidence that his intent is separate from his words (like the way we pick up irony or sarcasm). I think he’s obfuscating his intent -either because he is a Nazi and wishes to avoid confrontation, or because he’s a false flag. As an intentionalist, I would need a rebuttal to the context to accept his statement at face value.
What is the non-intentionalist equivalent of this argument? Do we need one? What would an non-intentionalist require to take his statement at face value?
MHowell (5c761a) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:54 pmThey are way ahead of you, but that’s not the point. It’s a hypothetical about a specific issue. It’s not a partisan defense of the Tea Party at all, that’s just a timely comparison for the hypo. Maybe you would have a better discussion in a thread about the Tea Party, so you can provide some evidence for your amazing assertions?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:55 pmNazi imagery of all sorts has been used numerous times. Whether it was a Hitler looking Obama, or a swastika, or whatever. They are all suggesting the same thing. You honestly can’t google “tea party sign swastika”? A little digging came up with numerous examples. I am not suggesting that everyone or even most of the tea partiers carry such signs.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:07 pmHey, um, what does that have to do with the topic of this thread, though? Can you tell me what the topic of this thread is?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:09 pmHadlowe’s comment is really interesting and he put a lot of thought into it, and I hope it’s not overwhelmed by the ad nauseum Tea Party discussion you can have elsewhere.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:10 pmUnfortunately, the post that led to that one was lost in the server transfer. IIRC, certain commenters were listing Piss Christ as an example of per se offensive speech. Jeff was pointing out that the assertion makes the intuitive leap that the audience would include people who would be offended by a religious symbol dipped in urine. Note that he didn’t attack the validity of the assumption, just noted the assumption as a rebuttal of the idea of per se offensiveness. YMMV on the effectiveness of the rebuttal.
And I didn’t assert that there was. Note the reference to shadowy reflections. Intentionalism speaks to the validity of listener assumptions of speaker intent, which takes as a premise the nonexistence of perfect communication.
We’re agreed about the power of the state being left out of speech. The bolded section is a bit problematic for me. There is going to be a certain level of arbitrariness to whatever ideas are excluded, and at some point, coercive power will enter into the equation to enforce the prohibition against certain ideas. Consensus on ideas provides useful order in society, but can be tyrannical almost as easily.
I guess it’s back to a deontology vs. utilitarian argument at that point. I’m a deontologist except for when I’m not.
Hadlowe (061332) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:19 pmThis seems somewhat related to the use of words such as, “niggardly,” which in and of itself is not racist, but use of the word will certainly lead to misunderstandings and confrontations due to it being so similar sounding to the “N” word., and should probably be avoided because of it. It isn’t wrong to use the word, but it makes more sense to not use it in order to increase clarity, and avoid possible confusion. “Stingy,” or, “miserly,” work much better. A swastika may not necessarily refer to the Nazis, but it has become so iconographic of them that it is rather unreasonable to assume that people won’t automatically take it that way, especially after the symbol has been more recently embraced by self-avowed white supremacists and racists.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:20 pm“The bolded section is a bit problematic for me. ”
I haven’t met anybody on here who really seems to agree with me on this. I’m not representative.
I want a decentralized immune system of speech against idiots in our society. I want to say we have a duty to speak up when someone is meeting some threshold of evil in their behavior. That’s off topic, though. Right now we’re just seeing if we can even classify statements of people we can’t mind read.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:30 pmI think it all comes down to knowing your audience, and choosing language and imagery that will not be misinterpreted by them. The responsibility is to be easily understood and clear, not necessarily to avoid offending anyone. Sometimes communication has the express intent of offending. If they are clear and concise about it, they are being both responsible, and offensive. What do you think about that?
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:40 pmI would normally be sympathetic to the natural feelings of someone who wants to retain their religious symbols, and takes a rather hard line view against being forced to drop them because of the actions of some non-believers who had nothing whatsoever to do with them. If the hypothetical was just about being out in public, even in an area with a large Jewish population, like New York City, I would be on their side. I don’t know, but I would guess that the Jewish population in general is more aware of the alternate symbolisms of the swastika than at least I was (I had to go look it up on Wikipedia). I would also guess that it usually isn’t terribly difficult to tell the difference between someone who is wearing it as a white supremacist statement and someone who is wearing it as a Buddhist religious symbol.
All that said, wearing it to the Holocaust museum has just a bit too much in-your-face feel to it, and I would think that the wearer was wearing it more to provoke hostility rather than to embrace their religion.
Anon Y. Mous (5ac901) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:41 pmThe swastika has become associated with Nazi evil because of the strenuous efforts of the Nazis to make it their symbol, and to commit evil. If a really big entity, or a considerable population, put a particular interpretation on a symbol, they tend to get their way.
This is unfair to people who have good reasons to use that symbol in a different way (e.g. the Finnish Air Force) but it’s what happens.
If everyone thinks “Robin” is a girl’s name, parents who name their son Robin are making trouble for him. “Ya can’t fight City Hall.”
Personal intent cannot override general perception. And pretending that it does is disingenuous. The chap in the video is pretending. One can make a whole string of rationalizations – the Eisenkreuz predated the Third Reich etc – but there’s no way he doesn’t know exactly what he’s doing.
#11 points out a difficult issue. Is a loose group entitled to exclude individuals – to prevent them from speaking or displaying among them – if those individuals express a message the majority of the group rejects?
If Tea Party rallies were gatherings of “card-carrying members”, there would be no problem: the TP could say “you’re not one of us, go away.” But there’s no such objective definition of a “Tea Party” supporter; and the desire to exclude is based on a subjective judgment about what is or is not congruent with (or harmful to) the Tea Party’s goals.
No racists? Obviously, I suppose. No Birthers? No Truthers? No LaRouchites? No Creationists? No Gold Bugs? No anti-illegal-immigration activists? No anti-same-sex marriage activists? No pro-Lifers?
How about a guy with a sign protesting Jesuit infiltration of Protestant churches?
(I’m not making this up. I just got a flyer advertising an “amazing” lecture at a local church by a traveling minister of a minor Protestant sect. I poked into the background, and discovered that many members of this sect sincerely believe that Jesuit agents secretly control the sect’s major affiliated colleges.)
Having that guy around would be embarrassing and tend to discredit the group. But on what grounds can he be sent away, and by whom?
I see this as relating to the Supreme Court decision on dogfight videos. The Court said there’s no Constitutional way to suppress speech because it’s really icky; that would be very dangerous.
Likewise, running somebody out of a Tea Party rally because his particular message is icky gets messy.
Rich Rostrom (7a3582) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:49 pmmy comment in #90 was directed at #87.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:53 pmOne problem is that the Buddhaist swastika is at right angles.
The Nazi symbol is tilted at a 45 degree angle.
Lazarus Long (9adfb0) — 4/21/2010 @ 4:36 pmAre you aware with the concept of a hypothetical?
Or the logic could be that Nazi’s are evil, Obama is evil, therefore Obama is like the Nazis. Or it could be that Obama seems like a vegetarian, Hitler was a vegetarian, Go vegetarians, yay. Or it could be that Buddhists like swastikas, Buddhists like peace, Obama likes peace, Obama likes swastikas (and is maybe possibly a secret buddhist!!1!!eleven)
Indeed. And we know this because… well, I guess Hitler did speak Austrian and Obama does not. But really, everyone should learn a second language.
I know. I mean, I saw a faded “No Blood for Oil” bumpersticker the other day. Dude totally didn’t provide sufficient support for his assertions within the bumpersticker. However, I rebutted his argument quite effectively by posting a “Support Our Troops” magnet on my own car. That’ll show him.
Hadlowe (061332) — 4/21/2010 @ 4:38 pmshould be “aware of” instead of “aware with.”
^ is aware with his own grammar.
Hadlowe (061332) — 4/21/2010 @ 4:42 pm“It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.” — Karl Popper
But why make the speaker responsible for clarity? If he’s not clear, he’s a lousy speaker or you’re not the intended audience and the option to ignore is entirely valid.
Furthermore, a lack of clarity can be enlightening at times. For instance, part of James Joyce’s schtick was his opaqueness. The intended effect was a linguistic equivalent to impressionism in visual arts, an expansion of form and a rebellion against stricture. Clarity serves a purpose, but opaqueness does too, even if the purpose is solely to communicate pretension.
But that aside, the responsibility that Patterico mentioned was a responsibility to pre-apprehend the reasonable misinterpretations of listeners, not a responsibility to communicate clearly (although that may be a logical followup to Patterico’s suggestion.) Patterico’s responsibility implied a notion that offense should be avoided. What you suggest is that offense can be calculated for rhetorical effect, and I agree with that idea. Life would be more bland were we to still indulge in covering piano legs so as not to excite the glands of our young men.
So, what do you do with folks like SEK, Chris Matthews, and Bill Clinton who get the vapors at wingnut incendiary rhetoric on the off chance that a psychopath will get himself a gun and do what psychopaths do. (Damn those Beatles and their murdersongs.)
I mean, you can say that they’re dishonestly making a point they don’t really believe for political advantage, but the idea that you should self-restrain speech to avoid inciting irrational people to do irrational things seems of a kind with the idea that you should self-restrain speech to avoid inciting offense. Especially considering the cottage industry of the professionally offended.
I should list Ace in there with them since he advocates self-neutered rhetoric so as not to incite the crazies, but I like the funny. Disagree on that point, but like the funny.
Hadlowe (061332) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:27 pmNow, is that a reasonable misinterpretation of my comment? Did I have a responsibility to anticipate that one?
I ask because I love, but not swastika love.
Hadlowe (061332) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:34 pm“the idea that you should self-restrain speech to avoid inciting irrational people to do irrational things seems of a kind with the idea that you should self-restrain speech to avoid inciting offense.”
Hadlowe – I’m not sure Patterico intended his hypothetical to have universal application as you just suggested, but you would have to ask him. The comment you just made is the usual slippery slope argument about ceding control of language to opponents brought up by intentionalists and does nicely ignore any duty of responsibilty, whether you agree with it or not, on the part of the speaker.
I don’t think the difference in approach is due to a legal background, rather a slightly different thought process.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:45 pmBut why make the speaker responsible for clarity?
Me, I make both parties responsible for effective communication.
Furthermore, a lack of clarity can be enlightening at times. For instance, part of James Joyce’s schtick was his opaqueness. The intended effect was a linguistic equivalent to impressionism in visual arts, an expansion of form and a rebellion against stricture. Clarity serves a purpose, but opaqueness does too, even if the purpose is solely to communicate pretension.
I agree with that. In most settings, we strive to be clear. But there are obviously times we intend to be opaque.
But that aside, the responsibility that Patterico mentioned was a responsibility to pre-apprehend the reasonable misinterpretations of listeners, not a responsibility to communicate clearly (although that may be a logical followup to Patterico’s suggestion.) Patterico’s responsibility implied a notion that offense should be avoided. What you suggest is that offense can be calculated for rhetorical effect, and I agree with that idea. Life would be more bland were we to still indulge in covering piano legs so as not to excite the glands of our young men.
Your restatement of my point does not correspond with what I intend to be saying.
First, when I speak in the post of “the responsibility of a speaker to be aware of how his words might be misinterpreted by a reasonable audience” I was being a touch unclear. I believe a speaker has a responsibility to TRY to be aware of possible misinterpretations. This is little more than restating that if you don’t intend to be ambiguous, you should think about ways you might be reasonably interpreted.
This is why, for example, most travelers take care to learn basic customs when travelling to a foreign country. As I say in my example above, ordering two beers in England with a symbol that means “fuck you” in England is not a good idea — and if you KNOW the custom you shouldn’t be able to stand on intentionalism as if you DIDN’T know the custom.
Your knowledge makes a difference.
Second, I don’t mean to imply “a notion that offense should be avoided.” Sometimes offense is intended and sometimes it should be.
What I’m saying is this: if you’re AWARE that the listener may reasonably misinterpret your language and/or be offended, and you nevertheless choose to express yourself in that manner, knowing that it may be reasonably misinterpreted, it is reasonable for a third-party observer to take your knowledge into account in determining your intent.
In other words, you don’t just get to say: “I intended x” without having interpreters take account of the fact that you knew you could be reasonably misinterpreted.
Now, that doesn’t mean you should always choose the mode of expression that avoids offense.
But if you have two equally effective ways of expressing an idea, and you KNOW that one will cause offense, and you choose that mode of expression with that knowledge, a reasonable onlooker is entitled to conclude that you chose to cause offense.
As I understand “intentionalists,” this mode of thought is ALWAYS a horribly dangerous way of living, making us excessively meek about how we express ourselves, lest we cause offense. I say malarkey, because there are examples where the speech to avoid is obvious. I’ve tried to give examples in this post.
So, what do you do with folks like SEK, Chris Matthews, and Bill Clinton who get the vapors at wingnut incendiary rhetoric on the off chance that a psychopath will get himself a gun and do what psychopaths do. (Damn those Beatles and their murdersongs.)
I mean, you can say that they’re dishonestly making a point they don’t really believe for political advantage, but the idea that you should self-restrain speech to avoid inciting irrational people to do irrational things seems of a kind with the idea that you should self-restrain speech to avoid inciting offense. Especially considering the cottage industry of the professionally offended.
I’m totally against the SEK-style arguments that conservatives should be held accountable for violence because of their incendiary rhetoric. Check my archives for countless examples of my taking this position.
My position is that watching out for REASONABLE misinterpretations is very different from worrying about UNREASONABLE misinterpretations, whether by professional grievance-mongers or psychos who might cite our language to support their own crazy actions or statements.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:54 pmdaleyrocks
I think I remember Patterico arguing against SEK when he tried to tar the tea parties as violence inducers so I think he draws the line in between the two points as you mentioned.
Also, I do see the utilitarian logic behind avoiding purposefully offending a portion of the listeners. Folks who have aggrieved friends are less likely to vote for the aggrievors (yay for made up words.)
What I’m interested in is the underlying principle behind why we should draw the line between those two otherwise arbitrary points. I doubt Patterico would support using government coercion to suppress ill-defined hate speech, but I think he’s in favor of excluding hatey louts from polite society.
Me, I’m of the mind that polite society ought to could use some louts from time to time. Han Solo shot first, and Kirk is better than Picard.
Hadlowe (061332) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:56 pmACK !
Patterico – I believe that you will find that the usage “to cause offense” is a comparatively new one …
Offense is something that one must offer …
Once offense has been offered, the potential recipient/target then has the decision to make whether or not to take offense …
This is particularly true with words … when someone says something which can be contrued as offering offense, some of us believe that we are better not to allow ourselves to be suckered into taking offense … after all, why dance to the tune of someone who is trying to give offense ?
Lots of things in Life can be subjectively offensive, but I am having difficulty thinkig of anything which is objectively offensive, irrespective of viewpoint/perspective …
Alasdair (d6208e) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:04 pmHadlowe:
I agree, but I’m not convinced Patterico would disagree with this, either. That’s why he said “Sometimes offense is intended and sometimes it should be.” And speaking just for myself, I classify Rush Limbaugh’s statement that he hopes Obama fails as one of those times.
DRJ (09fa6c) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:04 pmAttempting to communicate effectively requires taking into account the audience of said communication. A group of lawyers is going to communicate differently to family, friends, and colleagues. For instance, they are going to be much more likely to use lawyer-specific legalese with their colleagues than their friends or family. They certainly communicate differently in front of the court. If you ignore your audience, and just try to communicate using the most precise, but esoteric language, you are not effectively conveying the communication to the audience, unless the audience is equally familiar with the language being used.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:12 pmI doubt Patterico would support using government coercion to suppress ill-defined hate speech, but I think he’s in favor of excluding hatey louts from polite society.
I’m not sure where you get that idea. I think it depends on context.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:15 pmNow, is that a reasonable misinterpretation of my comment? Did I have a responsibility to anticipate that one?
I don’t know. The comment you’re quoting is now gone, because the commenter said someone was being silly. I took that as a personal dig and deleted the comment.
(I am indeed deleting the hatey louts from THIS thread, but I have a particular set of reasons for doing so.)
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:19 pmNow, having said that, it is realistic to take into account that many people do not realise that taking offense is indeed a choice which is open for them to take or not … just as there are many people who are not capable of ignoring their phone when it rings, there are many people who will rise to whatever bait is offered to them, even when they realise rationally that they are being baited …
When one addresses such people, it is both polite and sensible to take into account that this may be true for them, and couch one’s terms accordingly …
When one chooses the ‘message’ that one wishes to convey, part of that choice goes to choosing *how* to convey it … “loaded” terms may or may not help … terms conveying concepts shared by both the speaker and the audience often do help … there is, however, the risk that not all the details associated with the concept may be held in common … hence Wilde or was it Shaw or possibly Churchill and his observation about “Two great peoples divided by a common language.” …
In the video example, what I take from the Swastika-wearer’s presence is that the jacket looks like a “Club” jacket, reasonably well-finished in detail … the overall symbolism, I associate with the moderately-informed yet clueless-as-to-detail side of White Power folk … and, from his demeanour, he was in no hurry, wasn’t bothered by the questions, seemed almost understatedly amused …
I don’t actually see him as an expicit infultrator seeking to make Tea Party folk look bad … rather, I perceive him as someone who decided to see just what sort of reaction (and probably publicity, too) he could get bym doing what he did … slowly, and quietly, and deliberately …
So – his intent ? Dunno for sure …
Alasdair (d6208e) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:28 pmAh, you posted while I was typing that one up.
I think you’re actually pretty close to the intentionalist argument, unless I’ve completely misunderstood Jeff G’s stuff, and I wouldn’t overlook that possibility.
See, I think that fits right in with Jeff’s post I cited above. Intentionalism holds that intent can incorporate even the subconscious strains that inform a speaker’s motives for making speech. So if he knows that a crucifix in a jar of urine will be offensive, or a swastika worn on a robe in a holocaust museum, then that knowledge will inform his intent and shouldn’t be viewed separately.
Where the friction comes is in looking at what we know about the speaker or speech and what we assume we know. IOW, a question of reasonability. One of the examples that Jeff used in the past was public umbrage at the phrase “nigger in the woodpile” which, although it uses a racial epithet, was actually an idiom that has an abolitionist past, and invokes simultaneously racism and the positive efforts of abolitionists in aiding the underground railroad.
One might say that a person using that idiom could reasonably anticipate offending a wide swath of the country. But don’t the listeners also have a reasonable responsibility to become educated about the origin of the idiom and the actual meaning incorporated, to better apprehend the intent of the speaker?
Hadlowe (061332) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:35 pmAnd speaking just for myself, I classify Rush Limbaugh’s statement that he hopes Obama fails as one of those times.
The interpretation of that phrase is tied to the debate we’re having in this thread — but I prefer not to discuss that phrase here because the baggage associated with it tends to obscure the underlying arguments about intent and expression.
Which I guess means I’m following my own advice. Because I think the baggage associated with the phrase will distract from my message, I am avoiding discussion of that phrase, to make my message clearer. I suppose I could complain that I am being restricted (help! I’m being repressed!) — but really, it’s just a choice I’m making, to keep the focus where I want it.
Which is not to blame you for bringing it up, DRJ. I’m just explaining why I’m avoiding discussing that phrase, even though it was the original catalyst for this precise debate.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:39 pmAt Patterico’s #112. Awww. That’s too bad. I thought it a useful illustration. Plus it let me pretend at wit. My wife doesn’t let me do that very often. She says either it’s the real thing or nothing.
Hadlowe (061332) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:40 pmI guess that wasn’t my comment, as it is #104, and still there. I mentioned they were being silly (in the specific part of the comment that I was referring to.) It was quite obvious from the context that the portion I was commenting on was just a bit of goofiness. I was not name-calling. It was not meant as a shot at the commenter. I just want to be clear.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:43 pmChris,
I’m not trying to attack you either but I am being hypervigilant about anything even resembling personal attacks in these threads because the topic somehow gets people heated (why, I’m not sure, but it does). So no harm no foul, but just understand that anything that even begins to resemble a personal shot will be deleted. If you didn’t intend it that way, I’ll accept that — but understand why I am being so vigilant.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:51 pmHadlowe @ 114 – that raises/repeats the consequence side of Political Correctness …
When one avoids any and every use of a possibly-offensive term, then people eventually no longer learn what the term meant … and when that term’s meaning re-rears its ugly (or not) head, people are uprepared to discuss it, never mind to deal with it …
Look how we pussy-foot around the term-now-known-as-‘the N-word’ … by choosing to under-use it, we allow it to retain its ‘power’, its nastiness … if, on the other hand, we were over-using it yea unto death, it loses its power, its shock-value … I tend to favour the latter combined with education, so that folk know *why* not to over-use it, or even use it very much …
I am personally way too melanin-disadvantaged to be the recipient of the N-word … on the other hand, when someone calls me “English”, said person generally does not get off Scot-free (when it amuses me to respond) … if I do not respect the person calling me “English”, then I simply do not choose to respond … when I *do* respect ’em, then I will explain why such an appellation is not necessarily diplomatic …
With the Swastika example, I *want* people to remember the Nazis and what they did and why what they did was wrong … and I also want people to realise that the swastika is a symbol of Good, of Light …
Alasdair (d6208e) — 4/21/2010 @ 7:04 pmI’m a deontologist except for when I’m not. – Comment by Hadlowe
That’s a clever comment that I’ll have to find a use for sometime. It would be even more of an oddity to say “I’m a deontologist, except when it doesn’t work out OK.”
Or
“I’m an intentionalist, except when it doesn’t make sense to me.”
Plus it let me pretend at wit. My wife doesn’t let me do that very often. She says either it’s the real thing or nothing. – Comment by Hadlowe
I can sympathize. One of my wife’s greatest commentaries was, “He [me] said something funny once, but I forget what it was.”
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/21/2010 @ 7:25 pmHe was playing dress-up is all. This was just mischief.
I think he was kinda dumb. If he wanted to associate the Tea Party with harmful images or messages he was barking up the wrong tree.
Nazis are cartoons anymore.
happyfeet (c8caab) — 4/21/2010 @ 7:31 pmOff for the night. Laters, all you [redacted for gratuitous insults — or not. You’ll have to suss my intent.]
Hadlowe (061332) — 4/21/2010 @ 7:55 pm“One might say that a person using that idiom could reasonably anticipate offending a wide swath of the country. But don’t the listeners also have a reasonable responsibility to become educated about the origin of the idiom and the actual meaning incorporated, to better apprehend the intent of the speaker?”
Absolutely. Each side is responsible for trying to understand one another.
Patterico (e47b29) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:59 pmMore importantly, how should a Jewish Buddhist living in Germany feel about the swastika? 🙂
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 9:12 pmI think the only disagreement I have with Patterico is that I think that people that are loose cannons can more easily become unhinged and do bad things when exposed to hateful, violent rhetoric. If your audience has even a small portion of loonies in it, you should tone down the rhetoric, and remove any kind of violent or hateful imagery that might inadvertently provoke some paranoid schizophrenic who thinks the whole government or even the whole world is out to get them.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 9:22 pmNot this audience, mind you. I wasn’t suggesting that.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 9:23 pm“So if he knows that a crucifix in a jar of urine will be offensive, or a swastika worn on a robe in a holocaust museum, then that knowledge will inform his intent and shouldn’t be viewed separately.”
Hadlowe – OK. Above you pretty much outlined that the crucifix did not wind up in the jar of urine by accident. It was provacative, probably in different way to viewers of a religious and nonreligious bent. So assuming that the artist deliberately chose to insert the crucifix in the jar of urine are you saying offense was deliberately offered to certain viewers?
It reminds me of an art competition at the Art Institute of Chicago some time in the 1980s, I believe. One of the winners painted noted tax cheat and deceased former mayor Harold Washington in drag. Many members of the community were scandalized and offended by the work and called for its banishment. I have no idea of the artist’s intent.
As I indicated earlier, Patterico has now made clear he had no intention of establishing a universal principle of giving no offense as you suggested. The Piss Christ and the Harold Washington painting examples both suggest to me that blowback potential needs to be factored into communications, whether that is internalized as suggested in your quote, or through some other mechanism. I think there is always room for giving offense where warranted, but the failure of efforts like Air America and the viewership of stations like MSNBC suggest that full-time offense is not a successful mode of operation.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/21/2010 @ 10:20 pmChris Hooten:
That doesn’t strike me as a workable standard. First, every national political audience has loonies. Second, if your standard is we can’t do anything that might trigger a mentally ill person, then no one can ever say anything. Unless, of course, saying nothing is a trigger. Then what?
DRJ (09fa6c) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:00 pmWait, you find Air America and MSNBC to be full-time offensive, but not Fox News? Who has the more checkered past of misinforming, and then not retracting? Because the only time I am offended by news is when it is flat out not true, or severely misleading. There are various non-partisan organizations that keep track of that sort of thing. Once you move from the realm of opinion to facts, they can be fact-checked. Of the three, Fox is by far the worst offender. Of course, if you don’t vigorously fact-check things through multiple non-partisan sources, you might not know that.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:12 pmWas that a response to my comment?
DRJ (09fa6c) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:21 pm“Of the three, Fox is by far the worst offender.”
Chris – Link please.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:29 pmWow. Yep, Air America never had Randi Rhodes talking about killing GWB. And I loved Chris Mathews getting exercised about the regime thing—when he said it himself when GWB was Prez.
Retractions? Bueller?
CH, I think you are either a seminar poster or are, um, just a wee bit partisan.
You no doubt use Media Matters as your fact checker.
I don’t mean to go all Biblical on you, but I am sure you know the bit about the mote and the log.
But I don’t think you are genuine, based on your posts. I think you are fertilizing the astroturf.
Eric Blair (e9e883) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:30 pm#132:
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:37 pmNo I was responding to the one before from daleyrocks. I can understand your confusion, :-). But in response to your comment, I merely suggest toning down rhetoric, and not letting it get carried away where it could be misinterpreted as promoting violence. For instance “targeting” members of congress with an actual map that has bullseyes on them is a bit overboard, and could have been presented in a much less provocative way. I think it is even more important that individuals within an organization speak up when the rhetoric from within that organization starts leaning toward being suggestive of violence, even if vaguely. Someone must stand up and say that violence is never the answer to politics. Sorry about the confusion.
“For instance “targeting” members of congress with an actual map that has bullseyes on them is a bit overboard, and could have been presented in a much less provocative way.”
Chris – You are aware that both parties used similar targeting imagery, right?
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:57 pmChris – We will await your link regarding accuracy.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/21/2010 @ 11:58 pm#133:
You have got to be kidding me.
#134:
I told you what I found offensive. I find those opinions distasteful and unacceptable, but only when a news source lies do I get offended. And what the heck is a seminar poster? I can assure you I am a genuine person, and not posting for anyone or anything else, and am not trying to provoke people, but merely add an additional voice. Sorry if I am singing in the wrong key or something. I am bound to disagree with you on many points. That is OK. I would NEVER post to any internet thread for pay or at the behest of someone else. I DESPISE that sort of thing, especially when done by corporations to salt the mines of public opinion.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/22/2010 @ 12:03 amNo, CH, you are yet another troll. That or you are very selective about your current events knowledge. I realize this is a hopeless task, but please: can we have a list of the retractions from RR and CM? I mean since you say that FN is so much worse, you surely have a list.
Unless you are just trollin’ around.
Most likely result? More aggrieved protestations from you and another subject change.
Eric Blair (daec7f) — 4/22/2010 @ 12:34 amThat is strange, when I made comment #136, the comment #133 that I referred to has now been renumbered as #131 (daleyrocks), and the #134 has now been renumbered #132 (Eric Blair). Also the current #133 has a different number than it originally did. Yikes. I guess I learned my lesson about responding to comments by the number. many more numbers were changed as well making my comments unintelligible. (Many here might argue that they were unintelligible to begin with 🙂 )
Chris Hooten (017d51) — 4/22/2010 @ 1:06 amEric Blair:
Selective about my current events knowledge? What do you mean? (honestly don’t have a clue) And do you honestly believe that fox news is more reliable than cnn, msnbc, and other news organizations? I feel sorry for you if you actually feel that way. I will not waste my time proving what has been proved time and time again from numerous sources. Just because you claim it is not true does not mean I have to go jump and put everything on a pedestal for you. I put the burden of proof on you. Show me the hundreds upon thousands of glowing reviews of Fox News, touting their extreme factualness when compared with other news outlets. I will not speak anymore about this in this thread. Surely it shouldn’t be hard to come up with a bunch of links, right? Oh wait, you don’t want to waste your time either? Remember death panels killing seniors, Obama wasn’t born in America, Obama is a socialist/communist/marxist, liberals are trying to bring back the fairness doctrine, etc. The list is VERY long.
and the numbers of comments here have changed again. Sheesh.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/22/2010 @ 2:46 amNice proof of my point. Where are those links, again? Remember, you are the one popping off.
You don’t have them. You are just an angry little troll.
Eric Blair (8ea798) — 4/22/2010 @ 6:00 amEric, if I deleted your comments now it would screw up the thread, but I’m still tempted. I tried to make it very clear that on THIS thread, personal insults are off limits. Let the facts speak for themselves. The observations about Randi Rhodes are great. Characterizing another commenter in a disparaging fashion is not permitted on this thread.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/22/2010 @ 6:08 amChris Hooten, I have deleted many comments including dome of yours. Quote what you are responding to.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/22/2010 @ 6:14 amAt Patterico’s 123:
And this is where I think we may be talking past each other just a little bit, the difference between communication and speech. The speaker only has a responsibility to understand his audience if he actually wants to communicate his intent to his audience through his speech. Intentionalism, largely a descriptive philosophy, takes a granular look at the parts of language that lead to communication.
Think of it as identifying the subatomic particles (or quanta, for the wonks) that compose matter. Communication is the atom, while speech is a component of the atom (and intent is the charmed quark forming a part of speech.) But speech doesn’t actually have to be part of communication. Communication requires that an author make an act of speech (“signing” in linguistic terms) and that a listener observe the speech and attach meaning (signification) in a manner that approximates the intent of the author at the time he signed. Any breakdown in that structure, and something other than communication comes out.
Most importantly, speech happens regardless of conscious intentions of the author, conscious intentions being distinct from the linguistic concept of “intent” referenced above.
Think of it this way, everywhere you go, you’re spitting out little texts that can be read and interpreted by passersby if they care to. The way you dress, the gait of your walk, the side of your head you part your hair… all of it is an act of speech reflecting a choice on your part, whether you want it to be or not. If you’re actually addressing an audience in person then the larger text of what you say is added to these little emanating texts, forming speech.
And all these little acts of speech, or the combined bigger acts, once they’re out there, they’re out there. Discrete quanta (WONKS RULE!) of speech constantly flowing from us. The great majority of these acts are going to bounce around in nothingness, never finding an audience to become communication or miscommunication or some other thing.
The few that do we may consciously intend (as here, where I addressed a specific audience by name, tailored my speech using shared symbolism and linguistic tropes, and, due to the medium, there were relatively few non-verbal cues that can influence and confound interpretation) we can control those few to the extent we control ourselves, and if we wish to communicate ideas, then our knowledge of our audience’s history and prejudices should color the way we tailor our speech. But the desire to communicate is separate and apart from the concept of speech or authorship.
This separateness is best illustrated in the problem of the unintended audience. A prime example was the “bitter clinger” snafu during the campaign. Obama thought he was only addressing a condescending bunch of rich liberal snobs in northern California. He tailored his speech to appeal to the audience’s perception of shared values. He was speaking to a select audience and his conscious intent was to communicate only with that audience. He absolutely did not desire to communicate to the bitter clingers he was deriding, but, unregulated lips having a propensity to founder vessels, communicate he did, both his own derision for gun-clinging bitter godbotherers and his belief that upper-class coastal elites shared those values. His carefully tailored address aimed at a limited audience when disseminated beyond that audience carried his intent at the moment of authorship despite his desire not to communicate.
Obama anticipated his audience, he tailored his remarks to appeal to his audience, he kept the press out of the fundraiser to limit wide dissemination of his remarks, and his statements were not so ambiguous as to be easily misunderstood. The breakdown came from actions outside his realm of influence. By definition, a person cannot be responsible for items outside his realm of influence, so how can Obama be responsible for anticipating the prejudices of an audience where he cannot determine in advance who the audience will be?
So, to recap: 1) Speech happens. 2)Speech is a part of communication… or not. Depends on the listener really. 3) Responsibility for anticipating the reactions of an audience is only important for the intended audience and only in speech that is designed to communicate the author’s intent to that audience. It’s not really an implicit part of the broader concepts of speech or communication. 3) Go Lakers!
Hadlowe (ad8aae) — 4/22/2010 @ 6:38 amYou have my apologies, Patterico, as I do to every poster who was on topic. I responded to a poster who, in a self-perceived drive to equivalence, irritated me sufficiently to respond off topic.
I have no problems with any comment I make being deleted, including this one. It’s your house Patterico.
Eric Blair (33cfa8) — 4/22/2010 @ 6:48 amProblem is, when one side gets to define reasonable opposition as racist, hateful, and inciting violence, that little construct takes on much greater significance. Plus, do you blame the Beatles for Charles Manson?
That is rather convenient. By commonly accepted standards, it would be the responsibility of the party making the assertion to prove the assertion, not the other way around.
So, Randi Rhodes, Chris. What say you? Ed Schultz, Chris. What say you? Rachel Maddow, Chris. What say you?
JD (9f2abc) — 4/22/2010 @ 6:53 amAnd do you honestly believe that fox news is more reliable than cnn, msnbc, and other news organizations?
Fox will follow stories and facts that the other news organizations ignore because of their left-leaning ideology, and vice versa. So adding Fox to your news menu provides a more balanced diet of accurate information.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 4/22/2010 @ 7:24 amdaleyrocks 127
It’s an assumption that’s backed up by evidence. Do we KNOW, categorically, that he intended offense? Well, no. Our interpretation of the act is bolstered by various levels of factual support that we take from the context.
I would put it this way, Andres Serrano was not raised by wolves, therefore it is reasonable to assume that he anticipated the potentially offensive nature of Piss Christ and that anticipation colors his intent at the time he proffers the art. Our interpretation always rests on assumptions at some level, and the facile nature of those assumptions should be taken into account when arguing against what you perceive as the speaker’s intent.
Admittedly, it’s tough to do when egos get involved. Politics and egos being inseparable, our political speech ends up being a lot of “No Blood for Oil” rebutted by “Support Our Troops” and vice versa. Two separate arguments taking place simultaneously. No rhetorical point of stasis from which to proceed. Support Our Troopers may assume that what No Blood For Oilers really mean is that America is evil and so are the troops and argue against that strawman. No Blood For Oilers may assume that Support Our Troopers are either unwitting stooges of corporate interests or actively evil and argue against that assumption.
And there are further complications, like how to deal with dishonest clarification after the fact, how far do we privilege author’s insistence on his meaning at the time of authorship, etc.
vis a vis Plato’s shadowy reflections above, what Intentionalism recognizes is that at some level we’re all arguing against strawmen. The prescriptive element is that the strawmen should be as realistic as possible.
Hadlowe (ad8aae) — 4/22/2010 @ 8:10 amEric, Patterico-
There are a few things which I use as indicators if someone is discussing in good faith or not. Obviously, these are my criteria and reflect my view of the world.
One is claiming that the media is not biased, or, as is pointed out above, claiming that Fox somehow is the worst offender. Now, if I was in charge of a news channel, it would not look like Fox. But, that said, to single out Fox as worse than the others I don’t think can be supported by objective evidence. I would be interested to see any such attempt.
A second is equating spending under the Bush administration (the last two years with a Dem. Congress) with spending under Obama, which Chris Hooten has made elsewhere today.
I am happy to abide by no name calling. Unfortunately, enforcing a “nothing disingenious” policy is a bit harder, since we don’t always know the intent of one communicating. 😉
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/22/2010 @ 8:18 amsince we always don’t know the intent of one communicating.
Hadlowe (ad8aae) — 4/22/2010 @ 8:27 amBah, the html ate my joke. There were supposed to be visible intentionalist tags around that restatement of MD’s closing comment.
Hadlowe (ad8aae) — 4/22/2010 @ 8:29 amAn intentionalist will NOT tell you this. Instead, he will tell you that when you are up against a rhetorical situation in which you know you will be taken out of context no matter how hard you try to modify your expression, it makes little rhetorical sense to try to modify your expression and surrender to someone else’s idea of what constitutes acceptable speech. Instead, the better rhetorical maneuver is to assert that you meant what you meant, and disallow the legitimacy of the intentional misreading.
Well, why you’d want to fight that particular battle is up to you. Perhaps you’re spoiling for a confrontation so that you can teach the Brits that, to you, holding up two fingers in such a way means you want two beers — and so you’ve just engaged in a nice little multiculturalist teachable moment. That is, if they listen to your explanation.
And yes, it would be their problem if they misinterpreted, though its a problem that I could certainly understand, their conventions being different than our own. Of course, it would also be my problem, should they decide to beset me because of it.
What it wouldn’t do is make my meaning other than it was. My prior knowledge of how the Brits use the symbol — and my decision to go ahead and “stand on my intentionalist principles” wouldn’t make what I’ve done either obviously right or obviously wrong for the situation, precisely because my decision to go ahead and flash the sign may either teach a few Brits how different signifiers are conventionally attached to different signifieds in different cultures, or it may lead to my getting “my ass beat by some thugs with bad teeth who don’t care about my intentionalist philosophy.”
That’s a rhetorical decision. That it may end badly for me doesn’t make the facts of sign function and language that undergird it in any way wrong.
Hadlowe is largely on point.
As for the Piss Christ example, daleyrocks writes:
Quickly: offense may or may not have been deliberately offered. Perhaps the artist meant to offend certain people in order to point out the vacuousness of their taking offense. That is, he didn’t agree with their idea of what is offensive and so refused to define offense in the way they would, making his piece a performative of that intent.
Or maybe he simply meant to denigrate Christianity — not caring one way or the other about who it might or might not offend.
The point being that his prior knowledge of whether or not something might cause somebody offense may or may not have factored into his intent — and whether it should have is a rhetorical question, not necessarily a linguistic one (other than that we’d use our knowledge of his knowledge to try to divine his intent; still, his knowledge doesn’t necessarily inform his intent in every instance: his knowledge of the chemical makeup of urine, for example, likely didn’t have any bearing on the intent behind the piece).
And of course, I have never said there isn’t blowback potential in communication. Intentionalism doesn’t make any such claims. It does, however, help mitigate the blowback potential by attempting to illustrate how and why people are able to achieve the requisite level of outrage for blowback — namely, by instructing them to be cognizant of how language actually functions. It takes away the power of those who willfully misinterpret by disallowing that meaning is fully a function of texts somehow separated from the will of their utterers.
JeffG (1600ff) — 4/22/2010 @ 8:37 amThe “intentionalist” will tell you that the swastika has no inherent meaning aside from that assigned to it by its wearer (just as the intentionalist claims that words have no inherent meaning apart from that assigned to them by their utterers). The intentionalist will tell you that you can’t allow the baggage associated with certain words or concepts to restrict your use of those words or concepts, if your intent is different from the baggage that society has attached to them.
No, that’s not what an intentionalist says.
How far are we going to take that logic?
Well, consider this .. case after case of deaf people signing in gang territory and being assault, even murdered, because gangbangers interpreted the signs as rival gang signs.
I dare say a prosecutor would strenuously fight any attempt on the part of the defense to assign any responsibility to the victims for their “righteous ass-kicking” for not being aware that one shouldn’t be using provocative hand signals in gang territory.
Darleen Click (fe8e8e) — 4/22/2010 @ 6:06 pmDarleen:
That was a good, thought-provoking comment.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/22/2010 @ 6:41 pmJeff G:
Thanks for the comment and the post. I’ll respond at length when I get a chance. I’m actually more interested in the steamed dumpling arguments, but I’ll try to address it all.
Darleen:
I dare say a prosecutor would strenuously fight any attempt on the part of the defense to assign any responsibility to the victims for their “righteous ass-kicking” for not being aware that one shouldn’t be using provocative hand signals in gang territory.
Your assumption is right. But there are about three points to make here that make your analogy off point.
First, none of my examples assigns any “responsibility” for violence on the part of speakers who are not even aware of how their language could be reasonably misinterpreted.
My examples go more toward the issue of how one analyzes the intent of someone who IS aware of how their language could be reasonably misinterpreted.
So a slightly closer (but still inexact) analogy would be more to someone who knowingly goes into a gang area and engages in sign language in front of gang members, knowing that the gang member is likely to misinterpret the sign language as a gang sign.
Even in that situation, the analogy is inexact, because I think we can all agree that a gang member acts unreasonably when he takes offense at seeing gang signs flashed at him. By contrast, I think many people would find it reasonable for a descendant of Holocaust victims to become upset at seeing a person wearing a swastika in a Holocaust Museum. So you’re positing an example where the audience is unreasonable, which is a situation where I am convinced that the speaker should not feel obligated to concern himself with the audience’s reaction (although in the gang situation he may wish to concern himself with it anyway — not because he SHOULD have to, but simply for his own safety). I am more concerned with situations where the audience reaction is reasonable.
Finally, it loads the dice to bring legal responsibility for violence into the equation. As I noted above, under the law a person has the right not to be assaulted even if he has engaged in fighting words. However, if the fighting words are truly offensive, I might feel less sorry for him than I would for the typical victim. Sympathy and the law are not the same.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/22/2010 @ 6:42 pmI think we can all agree that a gang member acts unreasonably when he takes offense at seeing gang signs flashed at him
Unreasonable according to who? Someone attempting to defend gangbangers would say that according to the culture they occupy that their reaction was at least foreseeable to “hostile signs”.
Now whether or not the law supports the victim not having any responsibility as you well know that such an appeal to a jury can definitely influence their final verdict.
The example of sign language is particularly apt in dealing with intentionalism because the mechanics of language and communication are very easy to see if we strip words away completely. The deaf are both members of American Society AND use a language is most hearing Americans do not know. So who is “more responsible” in being careful to communicate clearly?
Darleen Click (fe8e8e) — 4/22/2010 @ 7:45 pmIt originated in Hinduism and is a good symbol in that religion.
Saying that he’s taking it as the Nazi symbol is inconsistant, at the very least.
David R. Block (5ace16) — 4/23/2010 @ 9:01 amThe guy in the video said or meant it shows his love for his race, the “white race”.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 4/26/2010 @ 10:34 pmWhat occurs to me is any ethnic persons in the USa can have their ethnic race, and their symbols for it, and claim they are proud of their race, but the minute a “racist”(white racists ONLY- black or mexican or asian racists are allowed no matter what) is around a “republican” movement (the tea party labelled), by golly all the right and conservatives and republicans and libertarians go into high gear to try desperately to remove that racist label the remocrats have drilled and attached to their foreheads for the last 40 plus years.
I think it is a SHAME the way the guy was run out.
I certainly cannot imagine Barak or Michelle acted any different for their 20 years at their church, but heck, he gets to be president and she gets to be first lady, now that she is “proud of this country for the 1st time”.
I know, the whole tea party high command and operatives are policing every event like officers on speed and steriods in the hope that not a single “racist” makes a great show for some left wing news msm lib to use against the whole nation of tea partiers, in full support of their racist Obama master.
It makes me sick how the tea party movement is on steriods to oust anyone and everyone they percieve is “like this fella”, unless of course, it’s an ethnic person, who will get the affirmative action pass, after all, that color in the tea party crowd looks good on TV and to the left wing msm reporters.
I have this symbol of controversy tattooed on my person.
It is in no way the straight lined, hard edged variation that the Nazi Regime employed.
So far, I have not encountered any ill-will or conflict because of it, primarily because I am (sadly) aware that the majority of the cultural mindset takes an immediate association to the atrocities of Hitlers employment of said symbol, and do my best to keep it covered.
(as a personal affirmation and meditation, I see not reason to display it publicly anyway.)
Still, why do we continue to allow that paradigm of interpretation to be the dominant view of this symbol?
Seems to me, Hitler has gotten exactly what he wanted – he turned a beautiful, auspicious symbol that has been used in countless cultures from time immemorial into a thing of disgust and hatred for generations to come – in short, he outright STOLE the original meaning and made it his own (as was his intent, if I understand correctly – to further solidify the Nazi ideology throughout history).
Personally, I am of the opinion it’s due time we reclaim the beauty and let the negative associations fade under the weight of beauty, knowledge and understanding.
Excellent article, by the way.
WhispersOnWinds (f231a8) — 12/14/2010 @ 9:18 amVery thought provoking.
Thank you for bringing this matter to light.