“Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.” by John Maynard Keynes, New Statesman and Nation (15 July 1933)
I’ll change it a little bit;
“Words ought to be extremely wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.”
How much should we polite when we talk to the others? Should we be as direct as we can in order to inform them, with offending them by saying they are ignorant and uninformed?
I wonder what the meaning is for ‘wild’ in this context.
Words being wild may mean that their meanings can be stretched.
But, that is merely a WAG.
Anybody else?
I am simply asking “should we be polite or in the most insulting and offending way possible?”
Why should not we insult and offend?
For the same reason we don’t conduct important conversations where large jets are taking off: We wish to be understood, which means we try to talk where there is the least noise, and we avoid causing noise while we’re talking or trying to listen.
Insults cause cognitive noise in the form of emotions. When you’re simply trying to insult, the cognitive noise is the desired result, so that’s good. However, if you have anything important to say, the cognitive noise just gets in the way and impedes communication, so it should be minimized.
Methinks the OP has misinterpreted the quote. I’d insult him for doing so, but it’s against the rules of this forum.
You have chosen to interpret the word “wild” to mean “rude.” Can you provide any evidence that that was the meaning that Keynes intended for the word? Or are you simply looking for an excuse to rationalize offensive behavior?
I can think of several other possible meanings for “wild” in the context of that lone sentence.
Because we don’t wish to get punched in the face?
I don’t see how the quote relates to insults - rather it looks to me like Keynes would have got on famously with George Orwell, since the latter used the opposite views as a cautionary in Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the totalitarian regime is aggressively promoting “Newspeak”, a vocabulary of rigid and limited definitions, in an effort to remove all ambiguity.
A current real-world example is the fight by some Americans to restrict the definition of the word “marriage”, because they see expanding it to homosexuals constitutes an “assault” on their sensibilities. I suppose they’re right, and some lines of thought need to be assaulted at times for progress to occur. Alternately, if the word “text” was rigidly defined as a noun, we would have needed a new, probably more cumbersome term for the activity now known as “texting”. Language has to has meaning, but not a fixed meaning, and instead of words being our domesticated predictable goldfish, they’re more useful as our mostly-domesticated occasionally-unpredictable cats, because they come up with surprises now and them.
Words gone Wild. if you act now, we’ll include Hand Gestures Gone Wild at no extra cost! You pay only shipping and handling.
Because it’s insulting and offensive.
However:
We should be polite. However, you should be as insulting and offensive as possible.
All I ask is that you get someone to put it on YouTube and post the link.
This. A wise man once counciled me that I oughtn’t let my mouth write checks my ass can’t cash. Since I’m small and have no adult experience with physical brawls, my ass’s ablity to cash checks is limited enough to keep my mouth from courting physical violence.
On topic link the OP might enjoy:
I’m a wordsmith. Words ought to be used correctly to convey the idea. If the idea is nasty, so be it.
I hate mealy mouth people. Saw what you mean in the most direct way possible, and to hell with the rest.
Piffle. This is just a rationalization to excuse rudeness and is only true if one holds the odd belief that truth cannot be expressed with civility.
Martin Luther King, Jr. had no problem expressing himself with complete courtesy while the Bull Connors of the world demonstrated their wrongheadedness in the most crude comments.
There is a type of wrongheaded person who will hold that any challenge to their error is, in itself, rude. However, even that silly notion may be challenged without resorting to actual incivility.
Well said, tomndebb.
John Mace– I can’t believe you would promote Words Gone Wild in this forum. That video is exploitative and demeaning to language. Don’t even get me started on the other one-- it’s disgustingly gestist.
And anti-semantic, as well.
So, is this thread in response to the negative feedback you got from claiming that Jews control the US government and media? Just want to know what the actual thesis under discussion is here.
But if you aren’t being heard by the person you’re talking to, what’s the point? You might as well find a room and go masturbate.
I’m sure there’s some level of moderation to be met, but I think it is far from piffle. There really are facts of the matter in some topics and I agree with that individual (RIP) that civility for the sake of civility in matters of fact serves no one but people who refuse to admit facts. There are matters of discussion where there is no metric for truth, and in such cases I think everyone agrees civility should be the default, as hostility, verbal aggression, or rudeness serves no aim.
Love the example. Could you load it a little more, maybe with a racist puppy-kicker? But anyway, so what? Civility does not add factual force to an argument, and a hostile attitude does not turn truth into fiction. Don’t let your overwhelming attachment to civility poison the well.
It may be challenged in such a manner. But I would not begrudge anyone who chose to be aggressive or rude, if the facts called for it.
So what aim does rudeness serve when there is a metric for truth?
I think you’re being confused by the fact some people will claim things to be rude even when they are not; for example, there are many religious people who claim that anything that challenges their faith is ‘rude’ even if it is a verifiable fact. That no more makes the statement rude than claiming it is green would make it green. I agree that such people should not be allowed to foreclose on discussion, but yelling obscenities at them (that is, actually being rude) does nothing to serve a useful purpose.