Words Against You

Years ago, I had a conversation with a friend about her ex-boyfriend. She said one of the problems she had with him was that he’d use her words against her. When she explained, it seemed to amount to her not liking it when he pointed out the contradictions in what she said on different days at different times.

I had to be honest with her and say that I’d probably do the same thing. If I’m making a point which you dispute today, but which your words supported yesterday, I’m going to say so.

And I don’t consider that to be throwing your words back in your face or using your words against you.

Maybe that sounds too much like the police: “Anything you say can and will be used against you…” But that’s not my intention and hopefully, not my tone.

The fact remains, though, that plenty of people object when someone expects them to mean what they say and say what they mean. That’s unfortunate because it says, to me, that I shouldn’t pay much attention to what they say – which can be problematic.

Here are a couple of examples of the kinds of (semantics-laden) situations that I’ve encountered:

Scenario 1: “The Creative Process”

I was talking to a comic book writer about creating fictional characters. Below is an inexact recreation and summation of that conversation.

Me: A fictional character’s ethnicity can sometimes be randomly assigned. It doesn’t always have to be deliberately “Black” or Asian or anything else. A character can be created in all the ways necessary for the story and then, if the character needs to be rendered in an illustration, the ethnicity can be assigned by simply pulling a piece of paper out of a hat. If it’s black, the creator could make the character African-American. If the paper’s white, the character could be Caucasian. And so on.

Writer: No. That’s not part of the creative process.

Me: I disagree. There’s more than one creative process – possibly as many as there are creative people.

Writer: I didn’t say there was only one creative process.

Me: When you say no one creates characters that way because that’s not “the” creative process, you’re suggesting that there is no creative process besides that with which you are familiar.

Writer: That’s not what I said and it’s not what I meant. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Scenario 2: “The Other”

A couple of guys were talking about the Hulk movies.

Smith: The latest movie was good. There was plenty of action whereas the previous one was too character driven.

Wesson: They gave us the action, this time, and a little loving but that’s about all. I wouldn’t have minded something more.

Smith: They already tried it the other way, already, and it flopped.

Wesson: You say “the other way” as if there are only two ways to make a film. I think there are degrees between the two extremes of “all action” and “all talking.”

Smith: I didn’t say there were only two ways.

Wesson: When you say “the other way,” you’re saying “not this one but THAT one” – like there’s nothing else out there.

Smith: Don’t put words in my mouth.

If these examples are anywhere near as terrible as I suspect, I haven’t made my point very well. Hopefully there’s a hint of clarity in there somewhere.

The point is, of course, that the words we use matter because they a way that we share the thoughts and ideas that are hidden away in our heads. I agree with those who say it’s possible to “semanticize” a conversation to-death, but that doesn’t change the fact that words have meanings. If someone misrepresents their own thoughts by using the wrong word, they ought to admit that so the conversation can move forward. If they said what they meant and what they meant was flawed, they ought to admit that – again, so that the conversation can move forward and more ideas can be exchanged and reviewed and rejected and embraced.

All without letting pride get in the way.

I guess I’d say to those people that, it’s not me using your words against you. It’s you.

Forever in a Day

I went to the Post Office, today, to send off a graduation gift card. As I tried to one of the doors in the facility, a man noticed my arm was in a sling and was about to help me. I was all but through it, though, so I just thanked him and then got in line behind him.

Because of his kind gesture, I noticed him more than I might have, otherwise. I noticed when he and an associate of his unexpectedly saw each other and began talking (but I didn't eavesdrop). I also noticed when he reached the counter and then asked the clerk for something called "Forever Stamps."

I didn't hear a lot of what they said, but I became curious. When I was called to the counter, I asked what "Forever Stamps" were and how they worked. She said, "They are stamps you can purchase today, at today's rate, but that you can use in the future, after rates increase, without having to pay the rate increase."

I said, "Okay. Is that it, though? It seems like there's got to be something else to it."

"Nope. That's it," she replied. "If that were the case, I don't see why anyone would ever buy anything else."

She went on to explain that they come in packs of twenty, so I said, "Oohh. So, I have to buy twenty to..."

"No," she said with exasperation. "You can get however many you want."

"So, I could buy ten or these, now, and use them to..."

"No, they come in packs of twenty. You have to buy them in packs."

"That's what I've been saying all along - that I have to buy a minimum amount of them. Like twenty."

"No,..." she continued, but I was tired of this semantics (ha!) exchange by then. I hadn't even done what I'd come there to do. By this time, each of us thought the other was an idiot, so I was ready to cut my losses.

I did what I went there to do, bought a pack of Forever Stamps, gathered my belongings in my one good hand and got the heck out of there. You can read more about Forever Stamps here, if you like. I hadn't heard of them, so I thought it was worth mentioning, but I also just thought there was a certain irony in the name since it seemed like it took forEVER just to find out what the hell they were.

Debate vs Discussion

I received some criticism recently that has me thinking about the difference between debate and discussion.

I can understand how not every discussion is a debate and how not every debate is a discussion. I can also imagine how it might be frustrating when one person's trying to have a discussion and someone else is trying to have a debate - or vice-versa. Generally speaking, I consider a discussion to be an act of sharing - ideas, thoughts, and even opinions. I more or less consider a debate to be an act of unveiling - of the strengths and weaknesses of different opinions... and, hopefully, of the truth.

I believe there are times when the two intersect. When a discussion results in a difference-of-opinion or a disagreement about the facts, the participants are likely to attempt to resolve that disagreement. This offshoot of the discussion, which may merge back into the main topic, is a debate. Sometimes it's best to leave certain disagreements unresolved or to make a modest effort to find common ground, but there are times when the topic is so weighty or the participants are so invested that the debate continues.

This is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion. And it seems Webster's Dictionary agrees:

dis·cus·sion
-noun
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

It's clear that some people (and I'm not just talking about the source of that recent criticism) see focused disagreement as verbal conflict. Maybe that's true, but I don't believe there's anything wrong with conflict, in and of itself. What matters is how we go about it, how we conduct ourselves. Basically, it's about how we treat each other, but not about whether we agree with each other.

It's not that we disagree, but how we disagree. Well, that's how I see it, anyway.

In the blogosphere, there are places where it's perceived as inappropriate to comment on other people's comments. I guess the idea is that the post is the topic of discussion, so all commentary should be relative to only that post.

I tend to think that those of us within this sphere make up a broad community of-sorts and that those of us who comment on a particular blog topic are an even tighter community. As such, I find it natural for us to interact with each other the way communities do - through agreement and disagreement.

Maybe my perspective is too different from the prevailing opinion, though - whatever that may be. I've already seen how things like removing people from a blogroll is interpreted as the online equivalent of a slap in the face. *shrugs*

Personally, I frequent blogs because I enjoy the content and it suits my lifestyle. If a blog's content ceases to stimulate me or the posts are too infrequent or too long or I find that I'm not mature enough to keep my emotions (and, maybe language, in-check), then I scoot.

My blog roll isn't like those MySpace "friends" lists. I actually read the blogs I list. In fact, I use the blog roll like internet browser "bookmarks." That's how I check those blogs and websites out. When I stop checking them out, they usually come off the list.

If I see that my blog has come off of someone else's list, that doesn't stop me from frequenting their site. Obviously, there are a number of folks who feel differently (and, once again, this is not about the recent falling-out I mentioned). Hell, I recently realized that I don't know who's still got me on their blog roll.

That's largely irrelevant, to me. What is relevant, though, is whether they bother to respond when I and others comment. If not, I tend to lose interest because it feels like we're talking at each other instead of to each other. That's not very fun. (And I need to be careful of doing this, myself.)

There are some blogs I still enjoy, but don't bother to comment on for the above reasons, but those are the exceptions.

Anyway, I guess I'll stop here before I end up talking about every tangential subject under the sun. I'll keep welcoming and questioning and challenging opinions, though, until or unless I'm no longer welcome elsewhere and until no one feels welcome here.


Feel free to comment, whether you agree or disagree. Criticize my opinions or behavior, if you like, or just speak generally on the subjects.

An Apology and An Explanation

DJ Black Adam and I had something of a falling out, recently. If you're interested, here's the post that broke the camel's back.

I got so pissed at his statements (on and off his blog) so much that I did some cursing in the comments section. For that I apologized via e-mail (as of this posting I am currently banned):

"Recently, Someone told me about Misty Knight's comment, so...

You may be right about the profanity thing, Mrs. BA.

I'm torn between apologizing (because I feel bad about that) and saying nothing because I am equally offended by DJBA's comments about Black parents and communities. Seriously.

We don't have to agree or ever speak, again, and you certainly don't have to change your opinions about me, but I hope you will accept my apology. I am sorry about the profanity.

This apology is freely given and I recognize that you have every right to refuse it.

Good evening."

My apology is for both DJBA and Mrs. DJBA because my conscience says there's too great a chance that I did a bad thing, but I continue to feel offense with respect to both DJBA's statements about Blacks, in general, and his misrepresentations of my opinions. Hopefully, that doesn't venture too far into the realm of "semanticizing," but I think it's a fair hair to split. I'm sorry for the delivery (i.e. by way of profanity) but not the content.

And, for the record, it is not dissenting opinions that bother me so much as their foundations. Misrepresentation is also quite bothersome. It was those things, not the act of disagreeing, which set me off.

This is not an attempt to do anything other than to publicly apologize (since I showed my tail publicly) and clear up a thing or two.

It Should Go Without Saying

It's a familiar phrase that's usually used in a somewhat contradictory manner. Here's a hypothetical:

"It should go without saying that she's one of the most brilliant, ground-breaking, critically and commercially successful authors of our time."

But it doesn't go unsaid. You said it, anyway - largely, I'm guessing, for the sake of flattering the person being introduced. Plus, this informs the unlikely few who weren't familiar with the person, beforehand.

I think that's what this usually comes down to: accommodating the unlikely or the uninformed.

Or maybe these sayers of that which should go unsaid have been burned in the past:

"I think our workflow system has gaps that we could address with a few quick and simple procedural changes."

"What? Are you saying that the rest of us are so stupid that we couldn't set up a good system or identify its flaws? So, you're basically saying we're useless - that we're bad people - no good for the company, our families, or ourselves?!"

Okay. No one verbally responds that way, but that's what often goes on inside their heads. Whether its due to their own deep-seated personal insecurities or professional shortcomings, many people react to suggestions and criticism assaults on their right to exist and an indictment of their worth as human-beings.

Because of this, time gets wasted on explanations and disclaimers that "should go without saying:"

"I think our workflow system has gaps that we could address with a few quick and simple procedural changes... Now, I'm not saying that the boss or you guys did a bad job setting up our current system. In fact, I'm sure it aligned with our needs and the time-constraints of the time. Because of your skills and hard work, we've accomplished so much over the years. Now, with your help, we can execute a system that will allow each of us to achieve even more for this company and for ourselves."

Oh my goodness.

Why, oh why, can't we grown folks just say things to each other in the simplest way, without having to worry about so many unjustified* assumptions and people leaping to conclusions?

"Wow. You look really nice, today!"
"What, I look like shit every other day?!"

"We shouldn't have gone into Iraq."
"Why do you hate freedom/America?"

"Hi. I just want a fade and a trim, but please don't cut any lower/higher than here."
"What are you saying, that I don't know how to do my job? I went to this hair care school and have this much experience, blah blah blah blah blah..."

Folks know I'm good for trying to "read between the lines," but even I don't think people should have to say:

"You look great today, which is not a statement in favor of or against any physical aesthetic you've had in the past or that you may exhibit in the future."

"I'm against the war, but I'm support the troops and don't want America reduced to the plaything of ideological extremists."

"Here's how I'd like my hair done, but my preferences are in no way meant to tread upon your lofty credentials or many years of experience in your field."

Sometimes it really should go without saying, if only we, as listeners, would just let it go.







* - because, y'know, sometimes there are valid reasons to be offended or feel attacked

Religious Semanticizing

Intro
I've probably been driving this blog bus around long enough to have visited the same topics a time or three. I guess one person's tired old story, though, is fresh (and hopefully interesting) to someone else.

Today, I thought I'd drop some of my thoughts on religion. Some of my views seem to all but encourage folks to make certain assumptions about who and why I am. Maybe I can clear up a few things, today... and maybe muddy up a few other things.

Semantics
First, allow me to semanticize a little bit. (Yes, I made that word up, but I kinda dig it so it stays.) I'm hoping the following will give the perceptive reader an idea of where I'm coming from... where I'm truly coming from when I make certain statements.

For instance, I believe there are three general states of being, opinion-wise:

• the affirmative state, in which you believe "it" is so.
• the negative state, in which you believe "it" is not so.
• and, finally, the neutral state, which could mean "none of the above" or even "all of the above."

Lemme throw out some nuanced examples. If someone says, "I believe God exists; do you," the respondent might say any of the following:

1) "Yes." This is the affirmative state, in which the respondent believes "it" is so. (i.e. "Yes, I believe there is a God.")
2) "No." This could be a negative state or a neutral state. When asked if one believes something is true "No," simply means the respondent is not prepared to say the above is so.
2a) Negative state - That may be because the respondent definitely disagrees (i.e. "No, I believe there is no God.") or...
2b) Neutral state - ...it may be because she thinks it may be true or untrue (i.e. "No, I don't believe there is a God." or even "...I don't disbelieve, either."

If I asked you, "Do you think DLP projectors are better than LCD models," you might say, "no," meaning, "No, I wouldn't say that because I don't know enough about either to choose one over the other."

So, the person who says, "No," isn't necessarily condemning or actively disagreeing with those who believe in God, prefer DLP projectors, or think there were WMD's.

It's all about how the topic is framed and how much the respondent wants to explain. So yeah, as with so many things, it really comes down to a question of semantics.

Labels and Assumptions
That said, "No, I don't believe there is a God."*

I'm no atheist, but I'm not prepared to say they're wrong, either. I'm becoming more comfortable with the "agnostic" label, but even that can be confusing, depending on which definition stands out to you.

Some folks tend to see agnostics as an indecisive lot, confused and befuddled by existential exploration - spineless souls without the conviction or confidence to stand for anything, so they're likely to fall for everything.

That's about as accurate as saying that people of faith are a herd of lemmings with no capacity to reason, bound by rusty chains of logic. It's about as accurate and fair as saying that atheists are a cult of devil-worshipers with no moral fiber and less compassion and respect for the natural world.

To even begin to have an atypically meaningful, illuminating discussion on religion, participants must be prepared to actively disabuse themselves of the temptingly one-dimensional assumptions and characterizations of everyone who disagrees... simply because they disagree.

Knowing & Believing
I can respect someone who believes there's a God or that there isn't one. One thing that concerns me, though, are people who say that these things are definitely so. Many theists and atheists do just that.

Many atheists say they KNOW that the universe(s) is Godless, despite being incapable of proving this. Many theists say they KNOW there's a God, despite being incapable of proving this.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with believing something is likely so or even being convinced, but to state that something is objective fact is to take it out of the realm of belief and raising it to a higher standard of proof, discussion, and debate.

Atheistic Faith
Some atheists condemn the very concept of faith, without realizing how much of their own position is faith-based. Many are unaware of the fact or unwilling to admit that they more or less have embraced science as if it were a religion. In a lot of cases, science is their belief-system, despite how much they hate to hear me say that.

We know that science offers many answers, but we also know that it raises many questions. What we know pales in-comparison to what we don't. Still, many believe that science is perfectly capable of drawing definitive, objective, timeless conclusions about not only what is, but what cannot possibly be.

It is an act of faith to draw such all-encompassing conclusions (i.e. that there is no God) based on comparatively little evidence.

Religion as Science
Some religious people mistake faith for reason and religion for science. It's the flip side of the coin I describe in the previous section, but it's just as flawed, in my opinion - perhaps even moreso.

False Truth
In either case, drawing conclusions based on false, inconclusive, or incomplete information and perspectives is very different from uncovering universal truths. Let's compromise and call them the truth... as you see it.

Science and religion attempt to answer many of the same questions, but there are areas that are better addressed with one or the other. I don't look to science to figure out why I am here and I don't look to religion to tell me this world is thousands instead of millions of years old.

I Believe...
Maybe by now, those who are still reading this are thinking that I spend more time saying what's wrong with others' perspectives than I do sharing my own. You may have a point, but I share many of those perspectives, except in the places where I find fault with them. It can be easier to say, "I agree with everything except..." than to itemize one's worldview. Still, before bringing this rant to a close, I'll try to focus a little more on what I do believe than on what I don't.

More Than You Can Handle
I do not believe that "He won't give you more than you can handle." Okay. I know I said I'd focus on what I DO think, but this qualifies. To rephrase, I think He, life, fate, or whatever WILL give you more than you can handle. I think that believing otherwise would require willful ignorance of the world around you and the lives that preceded ours. People suffer so much that they break. This happens today and it happened to Black slaves, despite how much they believed in their new religion.

Touched by God
I believe there's value in acknowledging what subjectively appears to be the influence of a higher power on your life, the lives of those around you, or the world in which we live. I have a hard time confirming whether this person or that person really was touched by the Hand of God, abducted by aliens, or saw the Virgin Mary in some alphabet soup, but I know that I've often felt as if my life were going well or poorly due to some outside influence. I've felt that I've experienced things because there were lessons I needed to learn and put to good use. Kinda like how you learn a word, then it seems like you encounter it everywhere - almost as if you learned it just so that you could understand or cope with what was to come.

Love
I believe in love as a concept that is greater than any electro-chemical processes that may take place within my brain or my body.

Soul
I don't know if we have a soul.

Fear
I believe many people embrace the concept of God or the afterlife because embracing the reality of their existence is too scary or painful for them. I believe this is beneficial in some ways and harmful in others.

Playing God
Some people are praying like they're playing Lotto. Oh, they'd hate to hear me say it that way, but I can't count the number of times have I heard someone say, "Well, why NOT believe? I mean, if you're wrong, so what? You lose nothing. If you're right, then you saved your soul from eternal damnation!"

Sorry, but this ain't about the odds. It's not a crap shoot. It's not a trip to the dog races. It's not a visit to Biloxi.

I question the sincerity of any believer who suggests the idea that one could or should fake or force belief in something so marvelous and all-encompassing as a Higher Power. I mean, if He's all-powerful, he'll know you're faking, anyway.

I'm not brainwashing myself or my future children in this way. If I find my own path to God or away from Him, it will be because that is what makes sense to me.

And that brings me to what I hope will be my final point, for now:

The Worthy
If searching for, exploring, and embracing the path that makes the most sense to me, while treating others with respect, is the kind of thing that would make this or any God divinely pissed and prepared to torture me forever, then He's unworthy of my Love and I never truly had a chance of proving myself worthy of his.

That's all I have to say about that, for now. I welcome your questions and comments.

* - If, after all that, you don't now what I mean by this, I'm going to have to ask you to see me after class.

The Origin...

Being a comic book fan, I'm surprised it took this long for me to realize I left out the "origin" story - at least of the name of this blog. I may change it, at some point, so I'll mention that it's now called "Damned Anti-Semantics." The second pseudo-word came about after I'd been accused of being uninterested in discussion topics and would rather bicker over semantics. That ain't me, but I *do* think that more truths are revealed after consulting a dictionary than one might suspect. It's always related to uncovering truths or exchanging ideas, but I doubt I'll ever be anything more than an argumentative ass to those Damned Anti-Semantics.


The irony is that those who are most likely to call me argumentative are usually the ones who are just pissed that I don't agree with them because they said so. I give reasons for feeling and believing this or that. I listen to yours, comment on them, present mine, and so on. They call that discussion. Anyone who thinks they're going to tell me what to think or feel and I'm supposed to accept this without question or comment... Well, that person's in for a surprise.

It's surprising just how many people consider themselves to be civil, reasonable souls, but, when faced with someone who simply disagrees with them, become uncivil and completely unreasonable. I don't think that's usually due to something CHANGING them, so I misphrased that. I think it's more like the curtain was pulled back, revealing the Wizard's true appearance. Everything else was an illusion.

S'kinda funny that the times I'm most likely to drop a dictionary on yo' ass are the times when we disagree about the nature of something. For instance, a smart guy I know recently objected when someone else referred to a murderer as "religious." Smart Guy's point was actually a little different than I first suspected, but I think this will illustrate my point well, anyway.

I don't think that someone doing a bad thing means that person's not religious. I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive. BUT, maybe I've misunderstood the meaning of the word "religious." So, I took a look at the dictionary. I concluded that religious people do very bad things, but don't forfeit that religious label, as a result. Now, Smart Guy didn't flip out or anything, like some people do. What often happens is that we (meaning me and some other folks) spend time discussing what "religious" is, they get frustrated, and then they accuse me of only being interested in semantics.

It's simple. If you say it's a duck and I say it's not, we oughta consult a reference source about ducks. If that's too hard to understand, I'm sorry. If you ever change your mind, hit me up. Until then, you'll remain one of those Damned Anti-Semantics I complain about.

I still love you, though.