CDZ At what point do you stop giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

[Circe]

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary is an excellent resource to consult if you don't understand a word or idiomatic phrase I use:

• Merriam-Webster

....Readers having strong reading comprehension skills are able to do so accurately, whereas readers with weak ones often do not. I do not write targeting readers with poor reading comprehension skills, nor do I take kindly to readers who show a pattern of willfully availing themselves equivocal techniques, rhetorical framing is one such technique, to shift the meaning of what I write to something other than what is clear from the context of the passage(s) I composed.

Snark: not useful. And certainly not polite. I'd watch that stuff if I were you.

The "truth" is, if there is such a thing as truth, which I gravely doubt, that your phrase "benefit of the doubt" definitely needed definition for the context. It still does. You should be able to define your own terms when asked! You know that.

Suggestion: figure out who is on your side and who is not and be loyal to your side.

Who is on one's side and who is not has nothing to do with whether one gives the benefit of the doubt. Trusting in the veracity of one's remarks on account of whether they are on one's side or not is pure partisanship, be it politically nexused or not. As implied or explicitly stated in earlier lines of discourse, by me and by others, most folks only grant that measure of benefit of the doubt to family members because, generally, they presume that their family will not willfully palter to them. Obviously, that presumption isn't always sound, but nearly everyone has a strong desire/commitment to thinking it is thus with regard to their own family members.

About palter and nexus: I have a rule of thumb about excessively abstruse vocabulary which has stood me in good stead. If by now I don't know that word (and I was an editor for years) ---- then the writer is posturing. And probably studied "Word of the Day" regularly for a long time. As an editor, I would say Keep It Simple. I do not add the usual clichéd ending because it doesn't apply to you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary is an excellent resource to consult if you don't understand a word or idiomatic phrase I use:

• Merriam-Webster

....Readers having strong reading comprehension skills are able to do so accurately, whereas readers with weak ones often do not. I do not write targeting readers with poor reading comprehension skills, nor do I take kindly to readers who show a pattern of willfully availing themselves equivocal techniques, rhetorical framing is one such technique, to shift the meaning of what I write to something other than what is clear from the context of the passage(s) I composed.

Snark: not useful. And certainly not polite. I'd watch that stuff if I were you.

The "truth" is, if there is such a thing as truth, which I gravely doubt, that your phrase "benefit of the doubt" definitely needed definition for the context. It still does. You should be able to define your own terms when asked! You know that.

Suggestion: figure out who is on your side and who is not and be loyal to your side.

Who is on one's side and who is not has nothing to do with whether one gives the benefit of the doubt. Trusting in the veracity of one's remarks on account of whether they are on one's side or not is pure partisanship, be it politically nexused or not. As implied or explicitly stated in earlier lines of discourse, by me and by others, most folks only grant that measure of benefit of the doubt to family members because, generally, they presume that their family will not willfully palter to them. Obviously, that presumption isn't always sound, but nearly everyone has a strong desire/commitment to thinking it is thus with regard to their own family members.

About palter and nexus: I have a rule of thumb about excessively abstruse vocabulary which has stood me in good stead. If by now I don't know that word (and I was an editor for years) ---- then the writer is posturing. And probably studied "Word of the Day" regularly for a long time. As an editor, I would say Keep It Simple. I do not add the usual clichéd ending because it doesn't apply to you.

OT:

Snark: not useful.

There was no snark, as it were. I merely explicated the nature of my writing approach regarding the use of idioms.

The "truth" is, if there is such a thing as truth, which I gravely doubt, that your phrase "benefit of the doubt" definitely needed definition for the context. It still does. You should be able to define your own terms when asked! You know that.

There is no point to my defining idioms I've not used euphemistically and that already have accepted definitions that precisely align with the meaning I intend.

If by now I don't know that word (and I was an editor for years) ---- then the writer is posturing.

Have you considered that if having been an editor you don't by now know a word I write here that that says more about you than it does about the writer?

As an editor, I would say Keep It Simple.

The extent to which one's writing simple is a function of the reasonably expected reading skills of one's target audience, and we both know that the writer (publisher) defines what his/her target audience is. While some may think my posts here are written for every member's consumption, the fact is a fair share of them are not at all thus targeted. Often enough, my posts are written for very well informed readers who exercise political dispassion, erudition, and substantive due diligence in considering matters they willingly discuss in public.

For instance, one'll note that I somewhat frequently cite scholarly papers and texts. If one is either unwilling or uncomfortable reading such documents, one may not be part of my target audience for the post containing those references.

I do not add the usual clichéd ending because it doesn't apply to you.

Thank you.​

 

[Circe]

Have you considered that if having been an editor you don't by now know a word I write here that that says more about you than it does about the writer?​

No; there are lots and lots of words. That's why we have an Oxford English Dictionary: to look things up from old books, not because we want to inflict weird and arcane words on our reading audience. I sort of know what nexus is and would pass it by in a novel without stopping, or not for long, but palter is beyond the Pale, to use a cliché.

I was quite a good editor, back in the Day, and here's the thing: language is to communicate, not to confuse or pose. You are never going to sound uneducated -- you don't have to worry about that! But if you stop people cold in sentence after sentence, that's not good communication. So I'd say throw away all those books on Latin You Can Use to Amaze Your Friends and Vocabulary Only You Understand to Amaze Your Friends and just say it, simply. You could view it as having pity on the rest of us?

I wish you'd start another thread. I like to talk like this, but I don't know what this thread is about.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

Have you considered that if having been an editor you don't by now know a word I write here that that says more about you than it does about the writer?​

No; there are lots and lots of words. That's why we have an Oxford English Dictionary: to look things up from old books, not because we want to inflict weird and arcane words on our reading audience. I sort of know what nexus is and would pass it by in a novel without stopping, or not for long, but palter is beyond the Pale, to use a cliché.

I was quite a good editor, back in the Day, and here's the thing: language is to communicate, not to confuse or pose. You are never going to sound uneducated -- you don't have to worry about that! But if you stop people cold in sentence after sentence, that's not good communication. So I'd say throw away all those books on Latin You Can Use to Amaze Your Friends and Vocabulary Only You Understand to Amaze Your Friends and just say it, simply. You could view it as having pity on the rest of us?

I wish you'd start another thread. I like to talk like this, but I don't know what this thread is about.​

You are never going to sound uneducated

Thank you.

I don't know what this thread is about.

The thread topic is precisely as indicated by the title question and OP.

 

[usmbguest5318]

palter is beyond the Pale

You seem to have a particular disdain for the word "palter." I don't know why. It's a word that carries a connotation, thus implication, very different from other words like it; there is a material degree of willfulness associated with paltering. Conveying the notion of that willfulness along with the misrepresentation of truth is why I use it; it's one word that "kills two birds with one stone." As such it is vastly more succinct than are other approaches to conveying those two ideas.

Having been an editor, surely you are aware of the needs to do that when space is limited, as it is for poll choices. (AFAIK, USMB allows 100 characters for poll choices and titles.) Another word I often use for economy's sake is "procrustean," primarily in it's non-capitalized form. It, like "palter," is just another of the words I learned in high school; thus I use it. I'm certainly not going to here suddenly renounce it and other words I've used for most of my life.

 

[Circe]

[Another word I often use for economy's sake is "procrustean," primarily in it's non-capitalized form. It, like "palter," is just another of the words I learned in high school; thus I use it. I'm certainly not going to here suddenly renounce it and other words I've used for most of my life.

Enjoy! The dictionary is free to all to graze on.

(Scrambles to look up "procrustean.")

 

[JoeMoma]

[Another word I often use for economy's sake is "procrustean," primarily in it's non-capitalized form. It, like "palter," is just another of the words I learned in high school; thus I use it. I'm certainly not going to here suddenly renounce it and other words I've used for most of my life.

Enjoy! The dictionary is free to all to graze on.

(Scrambles to look up "procrustean.")

I tend to be anticrustean.

 

[Circe]

I tend to be anticrustean.

I'm just crusty, at this point.

 

[JoeMoma]

I tend to be anticrustean.

I'm just crusty, at this point.

Sometimes I like to be spontaneous and somewhat random rather than trying to fit things to an arbitrary standard. My life has a high level of entropy.

 

[Leo123]

The very first time I see them spouting the MSM media memes.

 

[JoeMoma]

Anyway.. to the topic of the tread. I usually give people the benefit of a doubt when it has to do with something of little importance.

 

[usmbguest5318]

[Another word I often use for economy's sake is "procrustean," primarily in it's non-capitalized form. It, like "palter," is just another of the words I learned in high school; thus I use it. I'm certainly not going to here suddenly renounce it and other words I've used for most of my life.

Enjoy! The dictionary is free to all to graze on.

(Scrambles to look up "procrustean.")

Scrambles to look up "procrustean."

At least upon encountering a word with which you are unfamiliar, you will bother to look it up. That alone suggests you are part of my target audience. Who is not among my target audience? Folks who will read, or partially read, my posts and be unsure about the meaning of some or all of it, and initially reply to it with something other than a request for clarification, which is also something you do not seem to do. There is shown in both those behaviors a level of prudence and integrity above that of humanity's hoi polloi, the unwashed as they are sometimes described.

 

[Mac1958]

Anyway.. to the topic of the tread. I usually give people the benefit of a doubt when it has to do with something of little importance.

That's true, it does depend on the situation. Once it crosses a line of importance, though, I get more cynical.
.

 

[Circe]

[There is shown in both those behaviors a level of prudence and integrity above that of humanity's hoi polloi, the unwashed as they are sometimes described.

My underlining -- My father used to say that! He'd refer to "the Great Unwashed," and I expect it was a quote from someone obnoxious like Bertrand Russell or Oscar Wilde or whomever. Those were the days, when you could get away with that. Well, he couldn't, really, but he said it anyway.

 

[danielpalos]

The only reason I don't assume the right wing is simply, full of fallacy, all the time is due any, twice a day moments.

 

[ChrisL]

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary is an excellent resource to consult if you don't understand a word or idiomatic phrase I use:

• Merriam-Webster

....Readers having strong reading comprehension skills are able to do so accurately, whereas readers with weak ones often do not. I do not write targeting readers with poor reading comprehension skills, nor do I take kindly to readers who show a pattern of willfully availing themselves equivocal techniques, rhetorical framing is one such technique, to shift the meaning of what I write to something other than what is clear from the context of the passage(s) I composed.

Snark: not useful. And certainly not polite. I'd watch that stuff if I were you.

The "truth" is, if there is such a thing as truth, which I gravely doubt, that your phrase "benefit of the doubt" definitely needed definition for the context. It still does. You should be able to define your own terms when asked! You know that.

Suggestion: figure out who is on your side and who is not and be loyal to your side.

Who is on one's side and who is not has nothing to do with whether one gives the benefit of the doubt. Trusting in the veracity of one's remarks on account of whether they are on one's side or not is pure partisanship, be it politically nexused or not. As implied or explicitly stated in earlier lines of discourse, by me and by others, most folks only grant that measure of benefit of the doubt to family members because, generally, they presume that their family will not willfully palter to them. Obviously, that presumption isn't always sound, but nearly everyone has a strong desire/commitment to thinking it is thus with regard to their own family members.

About palter and nexus: I have a rule of thumb about excessively abstruse vocabulary which has stood me in good stead. If by now I don't know that word (and I was an editor for years) ---- then the writer is posturing. And probably studied "Word of the Day" regularly for a long time. As an editor, I would say Keep It Simple. I do not add the usual clichéd ending because it doesn't apply to you.

I'll tell you what the problem is, sesquipedalian grandiloquence!

 

[usmbguest5318]

[There is shown in both those behaviors a level of prudence and integrity above that of humanity's hoi polloi, the unwashed as they are sometimes described.

My underlining -- My father used to say that! He'd refer to "the Great Unwashed," and I expect it was a quote from someone obnoxious like Bertrand Russell or Oscar Wilde or whomever. Those were the days, when you could get away with that. Well, he couldn't, really, but he said it anyway.

Describing coarse/cretinous individuals as "unwashed" dates at least to Shakespeare. He used the the term in the play King John.

Who, with his shears and measure in his hand,
Standing on slippers, which his nimble haste
Had falsely thrust upon contrary feet,
Told of a many thousand warlike French
That were embattailed and rank'd in Kent:
Another lean unwash'd artificer
Cuts off his tale and talks of Arthur's death.
-- Shakespeare, The Life and Death of King John, Act IV, Scene II, Hubert
​

Someone surely coined the specific turn of phrase "great unwashed," but for all I know, it could have been your father who did so.

I expect it was a quote from someone obnoxious like Bertrand Russell or Oscar Wilde or whomever.

FWIW, when one's of a mind to guess a source for the metaphorical context associated with modern terms and phrases, far and away, Shakespeare is one's best guess if one truly has no idea of who else may have long ago documented the usage under consideration. The Bard's immense influence on the English language, its vocabulary, styles and uses, is one of the reasons continue to be mainstays of English curricula. Shakespeare is not alone among the pantheon of great writers who most shaped the language as we today know it; Milton, Chaucer, Joyce, Twain deserve mention too, as do I suspect, the authors of the King James version of the Bible. Be that as it may, Shakespeare is far and away the most influential overall, particularly, I'd say, when it comes to aspersions and accolades. Nobody I'm aware of documented turns of phrase to "do the dozens" or "sing one's praise" as did he.

 

[Circe]

Yeah, ol' Will did have a way with words.

Took me a few look-ups, but as for the Great Unwashed, a derogatory term referring to the general public or the masses as usually used today --

"This rather disparaging term was coined by the Victorian novelist and playwright Edward Bulwer-Lytton. He used it in his 1830 novel Paul Clifford: 'He is certainly a man who bathes and 'lives cleanly', (two especial charges preferred against him by Messrs. the Great Unwashed).'"

This is not exactly the same meaning that it has now, which is a pose of intellectual snobbism against the "muggles."

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yeah, ol' Will did have a way with words.

Took me a few look-ups, but as for the Great Unwashed, a derogatory term referring to the general public or the masses as usually used today --

"This rather disparaging term was coined by the Victorian novelist and playwright Edward Bulwer-Lytton. He used it in his 1830 novel Paul Clifford: 'He is certainly a man who bathes and 'lives cleanly', (two especial charges preferred against him by Messrs. the Great Unwashed).'"

This is not exactly the same meaning that it has now, which is a pose of intellectual snobbism against the "muggles."

[Lytton's usage] is not exactly the same meaning that it has now

I agree; thus I went with the discursive, thus inherently intellectual, context implicit in Hubert's description of a conversation he overheard between a blacksmith and a tailor.

Hubert relates to King John the progress of the tradesmen's conversation wherein the tailor abruptly shifted the topic of conversation from an English battle against the French in Kent to the matter of Prince Arthur's death, even though, Hubert knows the tailor to an "unwashed artificer" who was not all well informed about the circumstances of the rightful heir, Arthur's, death. The King subsequently echoes Hubert's sentiments about the presumptuousness ("winking of authority") of people unfamiliar with the burdens of leadership and power, which he calls "dangerous majesty." [1]

It is the curse of kings to be attended
By slaves that take their humours for a warrant
To break within the bloody house of life,
And on the winking of authority
To understand a law, to know the meaning
Of dangerous majesty, when perchance it frowns
More upon humour than advised respect
-- Shakespeare, The Life and Death of King John, Act IV, Scene II, King John
​

Of course, I don't know whether the connotation of bumptiousness was part of the meaning your father intended when he used the term "great unwashed," but it most certainly is a connotative element in my use of the term "unwashed" to refer to individuals or groups thereof. As much can be seen in several of the quotes I've on USMB used to amplify my remarks about a variety of behaviors. Among those quotes are:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
​

Though the tone of officious meddling is concomitant with my use of "unwashed," in my mind, procrustean hubris is more the focus of my using that term with regard to the rhetorical formulations I hear/see aired by the unwashed. Prior to the Internet, that wouldn't have been so; however, in these times, regardless of how rigorous be one's formal education and exposure to the details of a matter, there is, quite simply, no excuse for one's not becoming well informed about it prior to, in the public sphere, remarking about it. There almost literally nothing about which one might care to speak/write and for which copious credible content is not readily available via the Internet. (That said, equally abundant is copious incredible content. LOL)


Note:

1. King John's remarks echo King Henry's pithier expression of the theme of "dangerous majesty": "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." (Henry IV, Part II, Act II, Scene I) To be sure, John comes at it from a different vantage, but the theme seems nonetheless the same.
   
   Not being a Shakespearean scholar, I can't say whether the recurrence of the theme in King John was intentional on Shakespeare's part. I can say I don't recall discussing that theme in my high school English literature classes, which by no means indicates that aspect wasn't discussed. While there's plenty I recall from those sessions, there's arguably plenty more I don't. LOL

 

[usmbguest5318]

"This rather disparaging term was coined by the Victorian novelist and playwright Edward Bulwer-Lytton. He used it in his 1830 novel Paul Clifford: 'He is certainly a man who bathes and 'lives cleanly', (two especial charges preferred against him by Messrs. the Great Unwashed).'"

OT:

Having not read Paul Clifford, I lack the contextual information need to be sure; however, I wonder whether by "preferred," Lytton meant "proffered." It's quite possible that he does mean that the Great Unwashed prefer to and often enough do gripe about Clifford's (?) hygiene, though the placement of the quotation marks around "lives uncleanly," absent further contextual guidance, suggests otherwise. I'm certain about the current contextual connotation and denotation of "proffer" being apt to the nation of one's levying a charge.

Why do I mention the above? To call attention to and illustrate the practical purpose of my earlier discussion of quotation marks, which, I believe you took as "snarky." As I earlier wrote, "snark" was not at all what was in my mind when I conceived and composed that post. I am clearly not the only writer who uses quotation marks as I mentioned I use them; it's simply a standard usage.​