4 ms·

Unfortunately, that doesn't work either, because there are some neurotypical people who have mastered the art to say technically correct things but implying dif

by wozer 6y ago

Unfortunately, that doesn't work either, because there are some neurotypical people who have mastered the art to say technically correct things but implying different, often awful things.

gameman144 6y ago
But isn't that a core part of the problem? If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? It seems like a constant game of walking on eggshells if you're trying to pre-emptively prevent anyone from concluding that you were trying to imply something bad. It also seems like this is a largely solved problem in candid one-on-one conversations and interviews: if the other party thinks you're implying something, they can follow-up and ask whether you are indeed intending to. Without two-way discourse, taking someone's statements in good faith seems like the lesser of two evils.
- herbstein 6y ago
  > If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? If the mafia boss says "I think he is going to get a visit tonight", the person in question is probably not long for this world. Did the mafia boss order the killing of said person? I agree that every little sentence, in isolation, shouldn't be scrutinized, and meaning inferred in a vacuum. However, surely patterns of behavior and the larger context of the words being said should play a role in our interpretation of the words said? Otherwise you end up with things that, read hyper-literally, are innocuous while being completely heinous in context. "Exterminate the Vermin" said by an exterminator is very different to it being said by a German in 1944.
  - gameman144 6y ago
    Totally agree on all points. If someone said "exterminate the vermin", though, the ideal follow-up would be to ask "who or what are the vermin? And what do you mean by 'exterminate'?" Weasel words are always going to dog whistle, but if you think that someone is implying something, the best scenario is to get them to explicitly agree or disagree with that statement. Definitely not applicable in all cases, but if a person explicitly says "I did not mean to imply X, and I disagree with X", then it seems a good rule of thumb to believe that they do in fact disagree with X.

by wozer 6y ago

Unfortunately, that doesn't work either, because there are some neurotypical people who have mastered the art to say technically correct things but implying different, often awful things.

gameman144 6y ago

But isn't that a core part of the problem? If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? It seems like a constant game of walking on eggshells if you're trying to pre-emptively prevent anyone from concluding that you were trying to imply something bad. It also seems like this is a largely solved problem in candid one-on-one conversations and interviews: if the other party thinks you're implying something, they can follow-up and ask whether you are indeed intending to. Without two-way discourse, taking someone's statements in good faith seems like the lesser of two evils.

herbstein 6y ago
> If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? If the mafia boss says "I think he is going to get a visit tonight", the person in question is probably not long for this world. Did the mafia boss order the killing of said person? I agree that every little sentence, in isolation, shouldn't be scrutinized, and meaning inferred in a vacuum. However, surely patterns of behavior and the larger context of the words being said should play a role in our interpretation of the words said? Otherwise you end up with things that, read hyper-literally, are innocuous while being completely heinous in context. "Exterminate the Vermin" said by an exterminator is very different to it being said by a German in 1944.
- gameman144 6y ago
  Totally agree on all points. If someone said "exterminate the vermin", though, the ideal follow-up would be to ask "who or what are the vermin? And what do you mean by 'exterminate'?" Weasel words are always going to dog whistle, but if you think that someone is implying something, the best scenario is to get them to explicitly agree or disagree with that statement. Definitely not applicable in all cases, but if a person explicitly says "I did not mean to imply X, and I disagree with X", then it seems a good rule of thumb to believe that they do in fact disagree with X.