4 ms·

I used to think that words were just words, logical things with defined meanings. I have come to understand that there really are "poisonous" words; words, phr

I used to think that words were just words, logical things with defined meanings. I have come to understand that there really are "poisonous" words; words, phrases, attitudes that absolutely have impacts well beyond their dictionary definitions and the speaker's likely intent. If you include these things when conversations are tense or critical, the situation is likely to destabilize and get worse. Making the conversation "safe" and non-threatening is very important. Steering away from emotional arguments and focusing on facts is also key. All of this is harder to do in any text message or email as well, as body language and other social cues are unavailable. Added: This comes up a lot in employer - employee conversations. If you want your team to function efficiently, you really have to create a safe environment for comments and discussion.

unalone 14y ago
> I used to think that words were just words, logical things with defined meanings. Well, they are! But those defined meanings are different for everybody who has a history with the word, and oftentimes you don't know that history going in. The problem with "straight white male" privilege, speaking as a straight white male myself, is that there are words which have enormous baggage for one group or another, yet I've simply never had to deal with such baggage myself. That's where the overreacting canard comes from, and I don't think raganwald fully empathizes with this in his post. Some people simply don't understand why somebody might have a reason to be worked up about a particular issue because they've never had to care about that issue in their life. I don't just hear "you're overreacting" from people who can't comprehend that people have bad days sometimes. In fact, assuming that the only reason a situation might be personally charged is because somebody had a bad day can be just as frustrating: it really sucks, I've learned, to be "forgiven" for your bad mood when the forgiver has said something truly offensive. What's difficult, but also truly necessary, is to be able to understand why somebody's reacted the way they have – to be willing to admit to yourself that even if something you said didn't seem egregious to you, that you might have crossed a line somehow that you simply haven't learned to notice. A lot of people forget that in any human-to-human interaction, the logical endpoints are the humans. Language, as all aspects of communication, is human-oriented; using it like it's a logical end unto itself is like trying to use Python phrases in a C script.
- raganwald 14y ago
  Excellent, thank you.
rayiner 14y ago
That's the beauty of human communication. If we were stuck simply trading well-defined units of definite communication, it would take us forever to convey the depth of ideas that we can convey by depending on the context surrounding words. We're a species where two people can look at each other and with nothing more than eye contact convey complex thoughts and emotions.
aredridel 14y ago
Indeed. The definitions of words are easy; the connotations are harder to learn, and slippery. That's where the danger lies.

unalone 14y ago

> I used to think that words were just words, logical things with defined meanings. Well, they are! But those defined meanings are different for everybody who has a history with the word, and oftentimes you don't know that history going in. The problem with "straight white male" privilege, speaking as a straight white male myself, is that there are words which have enormous baggage for one group or another, yet I've simply never had to deal with such baggage myself. That's where the overreacting canard comes from, and I don't think raganwald fully empathizes with this in his post. Some people simply don't understand why somebody might have a reason to be worked up about a particular issue because they've never had to care about that issue in their life. I don't just hear "you're overreacting" from people who can't comprehend that people have bad days sometimes. In fact, assuming that the only reason a situation might be personally charged is because somebody had a bad day can be just as frustrating: it really sucks, I've learned, to be "forgiven" for your bad mood when the forgiver has said something truly offensive. What's difficult, but also truly necessary, is to be able to understand why somebody's reacted the way they have – to be willing to admit to yourself that even if something you said didn't seem egregious to you, that you might have crossed a line somehow that you simply haven't learned to notice. A lot of people forget that in any human-to-human interaction, the logical endpoints are the humans. Language, as all aspects of communication, is human-oriented; using it like it's a logical end unto itself is like trying to use Python phrases in a C script.

raganwald 14y ago
Excellent, thank you.

rayiner 14y ago

That's the beauty of human communication. If we were stuck simply trading well-defined units of definite communication, it would take us forever to convey the depth of ideas that we can convey by depending on the context surrounding words. We're a species where two people can look at each other and with nothing more than eye contact convey complex thoughts and emotions.

aredridel 14y ago

Indeed. The definitions of words are easy; the connotations are harder to learn, and slippery. That's where the danger lies.