i've been having, off an on, an on-going conversation with various friends about my ability to 'translate' the way i think into the way everybody else thinks in order to have clear, meaningful conversations.
i usually assume i've got a couple of stumbling blocks that i myself have to work though - that being that i'm 1) not particularly empathetic, and that 2) i assume people by default use precision language, like i myself prefer too. but even when i work particularly hard to make sure that i have been as clear and concise as possible, i am still often the subject of what i term the 'swahili effect' - which is to say, i'm writing in english, and then i hit the 'post' button, and somewhere on some south african server, my perfectly good english is translated to not so good swahili, and upon arriving at it's destination, my post is translated *back* into english - but it's evidently reprehensibly terrible. i've had people confirm that other people's reactions are completely out of sync with what i've written, so i know it's not just me. granted, there are a number of reasons such misunderstandings could happen, but i like giving people the benefit of the doubt. so:swahili.
one of the side-discussions i've had with various said friends is whether or not i'm expecting other people to have specialized knowledge of language, and that i expect a static language whereas it's obvious that language is a changing thing. cue discussion of the word 'chivalry.' chivalry is an historical concept and code of conduct, that many, many people today say they subscribe to. but i doubt the truth of that, and that's not a bad thing. if you go back and research chivalry, the behavior of knights, the social institutions, eras, and ideas where-in 'chivalry' is proposed as a great value - you'll find all of this stuff is not so great. and i also suspect that most people really know this, because they're glad they don't actually live back in the day when chivalry was the in thing. and if they don't know this, then they don't know what 'chivalry' means, and they shouldn't use words they don't know.
but the point is, 'chivalry' has a feeling, and emotion, a connotation, that's brought about by it's history and usage and application. and all of that is important when using this word in everyday conversation, because it has a different connotation than words that are synonyms like 'respect', 'honor', and 'politeness'. all of those words are different, mean different things, and yet mean similar things.
and today, while i was reading some of synecdochic's writing meta, this passage jumped out at me:
[...] Ideally, everything down to your language choice should reflect the theme you're using. One of the most common things I'll ding people for, on beta, are moments when the prose works against the theme, not enhances it.
There are many, many layers and levels of connection-to-theme. Ideally, a really good story is going to employ all of them. A not-exhaustive list is, in rough order of how much your reader is going to pick up on it down to the subtle parts that your reader might not notice unless they're really picking at your prose analytically (but they'll notice if something is really off):
[snippity]
5. The choice of language you use in descriptions and narrations -- the subtle, connotative details of each particular word.
This is what Mark Twain was talking about when he made his famous statement that "the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug" -- the English language in particular is blessed or cursed with a thousand synonyms for just about any concept, and each one of those synonyms has small subtle differences in connotative meaning and can affect the overall impression of theme and tone of your writing.
And this, too, is an entire essay on its own, because there are so many levels to it.
and i felt the lightbulb go on.
right now you're asking 'ok, bs, how does that relate to online debates?'
and here's the thing. in online debates, *you have the time to choose between the right word and the almost right word* to make your point. contrary to popular opinion, i do not hold language a static thing when i examine a written argumentative response. instead, i hold it to a standard i would expect in proffesional writing, in which each nuance of every word can be debated and dissected. now, this is completely natural to me when i read, probably brought on by the fact that i've been reading fiction literally since before i can remember. and in popular literature, word choice is inevitably something that's agonized over by the author and editor so that the reader will get *exactly the right emotional and intellectual punch that they are intended to get*. and it's why there are some people on the bar i simply *won't* read, because their posts are so littered with mis-constructions of whatever stripe that it takes far more energy for me to figure out what they're actually saying than usual - much less figure out if that's what they *really* mean.
the question becomes one of whether or not i'm right or wrong to hold what can be seen as a casual debate to the same standards as fiction writing and professional/ academic debate. i make here the argument that i'm not wrong, although i am probably as annoying to others as they find me. and the reason i do not think i'm in the wrong here is because a non-face-to-face discussion relies much more on having your respective facts in order, in backing up your assertions, and *being precise* in your language.
in a face to face context, there's all sorts of things that communicate one's ideas, whether you use them conciously or not: gestures, facial expression, body posture and language, even pauses and emphasis. i had one friend, for instance, who if you had taped her mouth shut, you could probably have had a perfectly coherent conversation with her anyways - she *always* gestured at warp speed in support of her speech, even if it was just 'let's go to mickeyD's and get a shake'.
online, those gestures have *no* translation, but one - becoming more precise and aware in your language usage to get your point across. and that precision and awareness means knowing enough of the words you're using to understand their history, and why they have the connotations they do. the meaning of 'chivalry' has changed between the middle ages definition, in which a knight was *only* beholden to being courteous to his lady, and his lords' ladies. it now means being courteous to *all* women, no matter who they are or what they do. *but* 'chivalry' will never divest itself of the connotation of women being on pedestals, held as all that is good and right and light and soft in the world - in short, the connotation of being courteous to an idealized version of 'woman', who is neither realistic, nor all-encompassing. and if you don't understand that connotation inherent in the word, it's not a word you really understand, and therefore, it's not a word you should really use.
now i hear you say 'bs, most people don't use that definition, you know.' and no, i can't know that, because that's not an assumption i can make. more, most of the people on the forum in question are readers, so, my instinctive assumption is actually the exact counter to that - that most of the people on that forum know *darn well* what these words mean, and how important these connotations can be. but in any case, in the end, it may not matter, because one of the backbones of debate is agreed-upon (as opposed to assumed-upon) definitions of various words.
that is, having your facts in order means stating explicity what various words you're using means. if you're using the word 'chivalry' to describe your personal code of ethics, and don't want me to assume some rather dire things about you, you really need to expand on that. you could something as simple as 'chivalry, without all the icky parts' to let me know exactly where you're headed - but you do need to explicitly state your definitions, so i can agree with them, or not. and this foundational agreement is important.
the classic example is the creationist/evolutionist debate, where creationists continually complain that evolutionists change the meaning of their words mid-way through the debate. 'it's all jargon', they say, or, 'it's all semantics'. except in the case of this debate, and written debates in general, *the semantics are important.* that's the end-all, be-all of a debate. without knowing what the semantics *are*, without knowing the connotations and subtle nuances of meaning, you can't have a debate on the same subject at all. if a debate consists of two people talking about two different things using the same words, it's not a debate, it's a waste of energy for both parties.
now, i may be misreading my situation vis-a-vis communication problems. it's entirely possible that the real problem here is that other people in the bar forum are interested in spouting off opinions and not actually discussing things. there's nothing wrong with that; but it would explain my relative lack of desire to engage: i prefer to debate in a polite manner, and part of debating is embracing the subtle nuances of language.
-bs, thinky
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
