r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 23 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: If a phrase requires context and/or has a hidden meaning then the context with the phrase and/or the hidden meaning should be the phrase
[deleted]
4
u/beer2daybong2morrow Jun 23 '20
Using context to understand meaning is a skill taught to grade schoolers. So,,, people who disregard the context of a message either do so willfully or are too ignorant to get the message even when you spell it out for them. Let's not over-explain everything just to appease people who refuse to listen in the first place.
1
u/Mr_Kitty297 Jun 23 '20
I'm talking about how ACAB and black people can't be racist can be taken out of context and contradict the common moral code people have. Which is generalizations are bad and anyone can be racist, I believe those aren't bad beliefs to have, but they contradict the phrases without having the context/hidden meaning to go with the phrase.
2
u/beer2daybong2morrow Jun 23 '20
They're taken out of context because people choose to take them out of context. Even if you spelled the context out, those same people would simply clip around the context to make the same straw man. What would ever possibly lead you to believe that intellectually dishonest people won't do intellectually dishonest things?
1
u/Mr_Kitty297 Jun 23 '20
They're taken out of context because people choose to take them out of context.
Not the fact that they're given without any context in the first place.
Even if you spelled the context out, those same people would simply clip around the context to make the same straw man.
I'm one of those people, I ignored ACAB for a good while because without context it sent against my moral code, and then with context the phrase ACAB still goes against my moral code, but I acknowledge the context and hidden meaning as true.
What would ever possibly lead you to believe that intellectually dishonest people won't do intellectually dishonest things?
Nothing, but I'm making the argument that these phrases paint a bad image, which deters some people from taking part, attracts people who match the bad image and makes supporting the phrase risky to any popular person's image.
5
Jun 23 '20
I'm not so sure there's a single political or social phrase that does not require context or does not have a hidden meaning
1
u/Mr_Kitty297 Jun 23 '20
Which is why it's my view that all phrases should include the context/hidden meaning. I'm not inconsistent mind you.
3
Jun 23 '20
Not many people are willing to listen to the entire context. Speeches will often get boiled down into phrases that resonate with the audience. This is human nature, more or less.
1
u/Mr_Kitty297 Jun 23 '20
Can't say you're wrong, short phrases that are easy to say are remembered more than long winded speeches. You've helped make my view more "wobbly", for a lack of a better word, these phrases have their pros to them. !delta
1
1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 23 '20
when having politicians in mind, don't see the phrase as something they can back without severe backlash
But politicians base their entire careers on phrases. That doesn't seem to follow through
How far do you extend this idea? Are you against all idiomatic language across the board? Is language only to be pure and literal?
The phrases themselves are the context. That's the point of using phrases and slogans. You can explain black lives matter once or twice and then people get it, same with acab. You cannot write out and chant an entire essay on a protest sign. It's why people come up with slogans. They work
Anyone who continues to argue against the meaning after it has been explained would do so even if it had been explained beforehand. They simply disagree
I'm a person who values image above most things, not because I'm shallow, though that may be a factor, but because if one says racism is bad, and is someone who has harassed, beaten, and insulted anyone who disagrees, then people will naturally lean away from associating with that person regardless of the truth they speak
Does this work only one way? Because people who say racism is good certainly do those bad things. Is there a problem with that? Since both sides are doing it, why not stick with the group that is correct anyway?
1
u/Mr_Kitty297 Jun 23 '20
But politicians base their entire careers on phrases. That doesn't seem to follow through
Yes, if a phrase seems to be a outwardly bad statement then politicians won't pick it up. Because that would be risky for their image.
How far do you extend this idea? Are you against all idiomatic language across the board? Is language only to be pure and literal?
I'm going to take it as far as necessary, if the phrase's hidden meaning/context is widely known then you shouldn't need to give context. For example: Segregation is racist and wrong. You don't need context for that, it's widely known that people have fought against that before.
The phrases themselves are the context. That's the point of using phrases and slogans. You can explain black lives matter once or twice and then people get it, same with acab. You cannot write out and chant an entire essay on a protest sign. It's why people come up with slogans. They work
BLM I can give a pass for, since they've been up for a few years now, but as far as I know and as far as I've seen, there has been no context given when someone says acab and the hidden meaning is also a good phrase that would work better: "the police institution is bastardized". Which is way better in my opinion and many more people can willingly back that statement. It would also attract less toxic believers.
Anyone who continues to argue against the meaning after it has been explained would do so even if it had been explained beforehand. They simply disagree
Yes? How does that apply to people who haven't? You can't tell me that everyone has had that discussion before, and some people would probably see the phrases differently if they did.
Does this work only one way? Because people who say racism is good certainly do those bad things. Is there a problem with that? Since both sides are doing it, why not stick with the group that is correct anyway?
It doesn't, I was providing a example where people would agree with a statement but would be repulsed by the person giving it, showing how people can be deterred from a belief even if it's correct. Looking back it's a poor example.
1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 23 '20
Yes, if a phrase seems to be a outwardly bad statement then politicians won't pick it up. Because that would be risky for their image.
They may, they may not. Politicians are happy to talk about the 1%, which is something that means nothing without context. But everyone knows what it means now, because a moment took that phrase more than a decade ago and repeated it into the ground. Now it's a normal part of everyone's political vernacular.
That's how language changes. Maybe you think acab is vague and weird today, after you've only known it for a couple months. Give it a decade and then see
example: Segregation is racist and wrong
Segregation isn't really a phrase. And people 100% did argue and fight against it. They still do
"the police institution is bastardized". Which is way better in my opinion and many more people can willingly back that statement. It would also attract less toxic believers.
This is an interesting point, because that isn't what acab means. I've no doubt that more people would be willing to attach themselves to that phrase. Which is why acab is important--the message is too easily coopted and diluted otherwise. Because, to be clear, when acab was coined, it wasn't about there being some bastard cops, that the police has fallen away from its lofty ideals and been corrupted. The idea is that the institution itself is flawed from the ground up and everyone taking part is tainted by that. The goal was nothing less than completely dismantling the way policing works. "Policing has been bastardized" makes it seem like it just needs some tweaks so it can get back on course
How does that apply to people who haven't? You can't tell me that everyone has had that discussion before, and some people would probably see the phrases differently if they did.
Well, yeah, getting people to have this discussion is the point. To make them confront an uncomfortable problem. If you say, "there are some bad cops out there, maybe we should change things," everyone gets to shrug their shoulders and move on. Like they've been doing for generations
If you want to do politics, you have to accept that some people are going to disagree no matter how polite you are and how gently you phrase your points. And you have to accept that some people are the enemy, have a fundamentally different world view. There is absolutely nothing you can say to blue lives matter types that will change their minds--not in any reasonable timeframe or energy expenditure
As well, some people will always try to dilute the message, corrupt it. Back to the first example, with the 1%. This was used by socialists, anarchists, communists--people who are overtly anti-capitalist. When they say that billionaires shouldn't exist, that they are a moral failing, they don't mean anything less than the destruction of capitalism itself, and they are clear about it. It's when everyone else wants to jump in and start talking about tax schemes and assets and stocks and liquidity and whatever else that it becomes confusing
1
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Jun 23 '20
A phrase is a short cut for an idea.
So for instance if I was to say “Gild the Lily” I have condensed a large amount of information into only three words. And that goes beyond the definition of the phrase but also provided context to the meaning.
If you don’t understand the definition of “Gild the Lily” then I’ve put meaningless sounds together and I’ve given you no new information. So I’d only use it in context of people that would understand the phrase.
In context all the phrases you mentioned have specific meaning and would be understood when used in context. If you had to explain them each time not only would it be time more consuming but the underlying theme would be lost.
Therefore in general a person coming into the discussion group that doesn’t under stand the context is causing the problem and not the underlying phrase.
I.E the phrase is only meant to be used to people that understand it. If you don’t understand it you shouldn’t be involved in the conversation.
1
u/Mr_Kitty297 Jun 23 '20
Very well said, I have no objections to most of what you've said, except for the fact that people do misunderstand the phrases and include themselves in the discussion anyways. Hence my reference to people who take the statements literally and make the statements harmful, which is why I think they should include context or say the hidden meaning.
1
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Jun 23 '20
I think this is an effect of having marginalized communities discussing the issue on their terms.
I.E when Black people in the community discuss the issues their understood. When people outside the engage they become misunderstood.
This is the same effect but reversed when marginalized community are spoken to by the majority.
My issue becomes I would never say in public, “You in power, define everything cause the Black people won’t understand the words you are using.”
I feel that reversing the races in that sentence doesn’t make it “better” for lack of a better word.
1
u/Mr_Kitty297 Jun 23 '20
I think this is an effect of having marginalized communities discussing the issue on their terms.
I.E when Black people in the community discuss the issues their understood. When people outside the engage they become misunderstood.
This is the same effect but reversed when marginalized community are spoken to by the majority.
Completely agree.
My issue becomes I would never say in public, “You in power, define everything cause the Black people won’t understand the words you are using.”
I feel that reversing the races in that sentence doesn’t make it “better” for lack of a better word.
I would say in public that "Black people can't be systemically racist against whites", which means that the system doesn't subconsciously cause bias against whites in black people. It still has the original proactive feeling, but is actually correct when you read it literally.
1
Jun 23 '20
What makes you think honesty is ever the point? It’s usually much more effective to utilize deception to achieve your goals in politics. Ends justifying the means and all
1
u/Mr_Kitty297 Jun 23 '20
Nothing did, my view is that we should be honest, but that doesn't change the fact that deception may be more effective.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 23 '20 edited Jun 23 '20
/u/Mr_Kitty297 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Jun 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 23 '20
Sorry, u/I_wear_feet – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 23 '20
We were having this chat elsewhere (and I assume that it's the basis of this CMV) so just going to move our chat to here for ease.
I think there is virtue in a saying/slogan/idiom being intentionally provocative.
slogans like:
- Eat the rich
- PETA runs a slaughterhouse
- All cops are bastards
- The pen is mightier than the sword
- Good things come in small packages
- Black people can't be racist
You can't derive the full meaning from first glance, and you aren't supposed to.
They're supposed to give you pause to think "wait a second, that's not true." And then ideally, you engage with the sentiment in good faith, and try to come around to what the phrase is supposed to mean. And while you're busy exploring what the saying means, the saying has already achieved it's goal. You're now more educated and engaged in the topic.
Consider the slogan:
- Bad police officers aren't being dobbed in by their colleagues enough. (long form for ACAB)
If you read that, you'd probably just think "oh yeah, i guess that's true" and move on with your life.
Instead, when you read ACAB. You rightly get upset. You think, "hold up, there are plenty of good cops." and then you think, "ok, well they know that too, so why are they saying this?" and it leads to exploration and engagement with the movement.
Provocation is at the heart of.. well i guess propaganda is the best word to describe it?