When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
Post Reply
User avatar
stand@desk
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:40 pm

When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Post by stand@desk » Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:54 pm

How as societies are we ever going to get past statements like "And All Americans should be concerned about Russian Hacking" or "All Canadians should be taking the issue of climate change seriously."

There are (just to name a few):
-Citizens with dementia that do not know who Russians are anymore
-Babies just born who do not know what climate change is
-Uneducated citizens who do not know what these things are
-And people who really don't give a @$&@@$ about said issues
-Criminals in jail. Should this really be their concern or should their concern be rehabilitation and chaning their personal direction in life

So when a politician or some prominent person says: "And this service is available for ALL Texans." or whatever..I think to myself, it's not and it never can be, but it sounds good and it's manipulative and using those phrases is not fair and is an assualt of the common conscious of society.

End Rant.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Post by steveo73 » Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:13 pm

Political statements that try and have everyone comply to a certain world view will always exist.

scriptbunny
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Post by scriptbunny » Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:05 pm

In both the examples you use, "all" is used to convey "individuals on both side of our polarized two-party system should care about this rather than just one as it seems to be now." It's a slightly less divisive than saying "stop disagreeing with me out of pure partisanship, people with the opposing view" so in the interest of being politic, politicians say "all X (where X is a shared characteristic between the speaker and listener) should care about Y (currently partisan-split issue)."

Expecting the word "all" in that sort of context to literally mean every single person is overly prescriptive.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1777
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Post by Riggerjack » Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:51 am

In both the examples you use, "all" is used to convey "individuals on both side of our polarized two-party system should care about this rather than just one as it seems to be now." It's a slightly less divisive than saying "stop disagreeing with me out of pure partisanship, people with the opposing view" so in the interest of being politic, politicians say "all X (where X is a shared characteristic between the speaker and listener) should care about Y (currently partisan-split issue)."
That's how it sounds from within that flock. From the opposing flock, it sounds like " if you're a true X, you would be concerned by Y" so, of course, if you are not concerned by Y, but self identify as X, this causes negative feelings. It is meant to be divisive. It is supposed to make those within the fold tighten up. At the same time, appeal to the fringes of the opposing flock.

Division is a vital part of leadership.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1777
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Post by Riggerjack » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:02 am

BTW, if anyone is thinking:
stop disagreeing with me out of pure partisanship,
It is because they have completely failed to grasp the opposing views.

The most entrenched, creationist, redstate Republican and the SJW treehugging bluestate Democrat, have arrived at their positions by engaging their knowledge and values. Nobody disagrees out of partisanship, they disagree about values. Partisanship is just shorthand for other values, you are being encouraged to dismiss.

User avatar
stand@desk
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Post by stand@desk » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:10 pm

It just signals pandering and talking down to in my opinion when these types of statements are used. It makes me think that the speaker has realized these statements are not fair but they do it anyway because they feel they get more from it than from being honest. When I hear it I automatically think "but why?" instead of hearing the second part of the statement. If I find a presenter who avoids these types of statements I'll give them instant respect because it means they have respect for me, the listener.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Post by steveo73 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:53 am

stand@desk wrote:It just signals pandering and talking down to in my opinion when these types of statements are used.
This is exactly what it is. We all must or something like that. The follow-up question as you state should be why ?

scriptbunny
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Post by scriptbunny » Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:42 pm

I honestly don't think it is usually meant by the speaker to be divisive, but I certainly can understand it sounding that way to a listener. I frankly don't know of a better way to signal "Hey folks, you really should care about this too even though I know you probably don't" in a shorthand fashion (not every speech can be a prolonged recitation of evidence supporting one's belief set) without it sounding smarmy. Maybe y'all do.
riggerjack wrote:Nobody disagrees out of partisanship, they disagree about values. Partisanship is just shorthand for other values, you are being encouraged to dismiss.
I don't think this captures the whole picture. For instance, there is nothing in the core value set of Republicanism-- which I understand to be a particular interpretation of small-government conservatism-- that I think would seem to necessitate disbelief in anthropogenic climate change. Not even talking about whether it is the government that has a responsibility to do anything about it, just whether it is real. Conservative parties in Europe don't have that belief. Nor do I think there is anything in the core value set of Democrats-- which I understand to be a favor toward government solutions to socioeconomic problems-- that I think would seem to necessitate a belief in anthropogenic climate change. And yet in the US, belief of anthropogenic climate change falls strongly along party lines.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Post by steveo73 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:56 am

scriptbunny wrote:I honestly don't think it is usually meant by the speaker to be divisive, but I certainly can understand it sounding that way to a listener. I frankly don't know of a better way to signal "Hey folks, you really should care about this too even though I know you probably don't" in a shorthand fashion (not every speech can be a prolonged recitation of evidence supporting one's belief set) without it sounding smarmy. Maybe y'all do.
The point is that there is an assumption that we should all care about something just because it's politically correct too or because person A thinks it's highly important. Maybe it is but maybe it isn't. We all have the right to think for ourselves and determine what we feel is important. It's arrogant to believe that everyone else should believe in the same things that you believe in.

A better way to phrase it would be "I think that we should be concerned with X because of reasons 1,2,3 etc".

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1777
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: When someone says "All (fill in the blank here)" -Start Rant

Post by Riggerjack » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:25 pm

I don't think this captures the whole picture. For instance, there is nothing in the core value set of Republicanism-- which I understand to be a particular interpretation of small-government conservatism-- that I think would seem to necessitate disbelief in anthropogenic climate change. Not even talking about whether it is the government that has a responsibility to do anything about it, just whether it is real. Conservative parties in Europe don't have that belief. Nor do I think there is anything in the core value set of Democrats-- which I understand to be a favor toward government solutions to socioeconomic problems-- that I think would seem to necessitate a belief in anthropogenic climate change. And yet in the US, belief of anthropogenic climate change falls strongly along party lines.
My point is nobody lives in the aggregate. When someone is giving a speech, one of persuasion, as the example, they have a target audience that agrees with the speaker. But they want to enlarge this group. This is a zero sum game, so by making gains, they are taking from another group. Their point is trying to move the dividing line further out, capturing fringe folks from the opposition. But this must be done in a way that alienates fewer than it attracts.

When both X and A self identify as J, and someone declares that "all true J's should be (concerned by/love/afraid of/hate) Y (in alignment with interests of X or A)" this is said to gather in the friendly group ( don't lose members) gather in strays from the opposing group or independents, and push away the core of the opposing group.

The division exists, the goal is to move the border. Unity is Not the goal. From a leadership perspective, unity is simply a division that hasn't happened yet. Unity is a threat to leaders, in that they can't tell where the spit will happen. But they know it will happen. There is no "us" without a "them".

I'm not making this up. This is in any leadership course. You build morale by segregating your group from another. This is the identity of the group. We're better than them. It goes back to our tribal evolution. We are hardwired this way.

AGW is another topic, in another thread, but it is a perfect example of my point. The vast majority of people have an opinion on AGW, and very few of those has a clue about the science. Activists have herded people on both sides, each viewing the other with distaste and distrust. And each side is right, as seen through their values.

Post Reply