| Chuck Stevens 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3lt40aF14658jU1@individual.net...
> One of the reasons Chuck was offended by my original post is because he
> believed I was stating matters of opinion as matters of fact. That was
fair
> enough, but he then went further and decided that there was implicit
> contempt in the posts.
Just to be clear, I believe that to describe an action as "stupid", based on
the common understanding of the meaning of the word (as well as the M-W
definition) as dim-witted or having characteristics of the actions expected
of a dim-witted person, carries implications about the person taking those
actions. There are a wide variety of other equally-pejorative adjectives
one could use that don't carry the pejorative characterization of the
*person* taking the action that "stupid" does.
M-W Ninth Collegiate lists the synonyms "STUPID, DULL, DENSE, CRASS, DUMB
mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions. STUPID implies a
slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or
temporary ... ". *All* these terms have implications directed toward
people. If you didn't *mean to communicate* what the term "stupid"
communicates, then perhaps another term that more accurately reflected your
intent might have been more suitable!
< None of that was ever intended by me.
Yes, I understand that now, and have for a while. What you intended wasn't
as accurately reflected in what you actually wrote as you might have hoped.
> I am forced to wonder whether he would have had the same opinion if we had
been sitting in
> a bar discussing it over a beer.
Yes, I think I would have, if (as appeared to be the case in the course of
the thread) the insistence that there is no possible context in which the
described actions could be described as anything but "stupid". And if you
think I've been overly sensitive about the use of "stupid" you should have
seen how I'd have reacted back when I still was doing stuff like "sitting in
a bar discussing it over a beer"! I tend to stay out of bars and pubs and
the like these days. "Over coffee", maybe!
> Would my body language and tone of voice have made a difference to his
interpretation of my meaning?
> I'm inclined to believe it would have. (But, obviously, I can't prove
it...)
Might well have; I do think I'd have at least responded with something like
"Stupid is a pretty harsh word, don't you think?"
I might even have gone on to amplify it with an example like: What if the
*reason* a particular person did it that way was that that's the way the
application architect told him he wanted it, and that if he didn't do it
that way he was going to lose his job, and along with that the medical
benefits he was planning on to cover the upcoming birth of his child? I'd
contend the behavior of a person who stomped out of the office in a huff
Never To Dark On Their Door Again rather than offend his own sensibilities
would objectively be considered at least as unreasonable as the behavior of
a person who did what his employer told him to do! Which one's taking the
"stupid" action?
> Are we so conditioned by the adversarial approach to argument that we
always
> expect the worst? Is it always a contest? I honestly don't know.
It certainly wasn't my intent here. But as I'm sure you've seen in another
current thread (about whether unsigned items always have an *explicit* sign
on all meaningful architectures) I will question a categorical statement
when I see that there's a "local" truth, and not a "universal" one,
underlying the statement.!
> I do know that relying only on rigid definitions is limiting and risky.
True enough, but as others have pointed out when I use a word the way *I*
define it, rather than the way I have good reason to believe *others
understand* the word, it is *I* that am failing to communicate my intent,
not my audience that is failing to make the proper assumptions.
> Context is much more important than I realised previously.
So, I would argue, is ensuring that we don't use terms "idiopathically"
(taken in its non-pejorative current dictionary sense, rather than its
etymological one), particularly for terms that others might find pejorative!
-Chuck Stevens
|