Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but doublespeak seems to be prevalent even in casual conversation

  • Lvxferre
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I suspect a lot of people make the mistake of seeking out analysis, but not stopping to consider if they actually understand more after reading it, as well.

    Yup. Or stopping to analyse the analysis, it isn’t just because someone analysed it that it’ll be necessarily worth a damn.

    from a writer’s perspective that gives an opportunity to make money by producing giant quantities of boilerplate text.

    Similarities with “self-help” are not a mere coincidence.

    Can you give an example?

    Sure. Made up and a bit forced, but it should be typical enough to highlight what I mean:

    • [Alice] Bob, I think that you should cut your hair.
    • [Bob] Alice, this is toxic. I didn’t ask your opinion!

    Bob clearly doesn’t like uncalled advice. That’s fine for me, I don’t like it either, and it would be also fine if Bob said “hey Alice, I don’t like this, stahp”. But that’s still someone (a subject) not liking something - in other words a subjective matter. It’s an opinion and it should be treated as such.

    And, yet by labelling the behaviour “toxic”, Bob makes it look like it’s something about the object (the behaviour) thus objective, something intrinsically true, shielded against the criticism that an opinion would get. But it’s still an opinion, so you can’t even criticise it as a true/false statement - you can’t “prove” an opinion.

    Note that even the description that you’ve provided hints this duplicity: hostility is objective, but “negative emotional” is subjective.

    (I didn’t include “toxic masculinity” because I didn’t really think about it. Plus as you said it’s a fixed expression, those tend to vary in meaning too much from the component words. )

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Note that even the description that you’ve provided hints this duplicity: hostility is objective, but “negative emotional” is subjective.

      That’s interesting. My first reaction was to think it’s more the other way around. Hostility is based on intention which is in fact un-knowable unless you make assumptions about how patient an adversary is, whereas emotional content has simple litmus tests like looking at frequency of certain words. But, hostility can be seen as game theoretical and mathematical, whereas emotional content comes from an older part of our brain and is only partially shared between people, so I see what you mean. I guess sometimes more subjective things can actually be more measurable, counterintuitively.

      I wonder if there’s a good example of a space that’s toxic, as measured by the effect on participant’s mental health scores, but only to some participants. I’m conjecturing that there is not, that at least 80% of the population will experience it the same way, but I could be wrong. I suppose even a very stressful interaction could make someone feel less lonely.

      • Lvxferre
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hostility is objective because it’s behaviour. I were to punch or insult someone, and the definition of hostility includes those things (it should, right?), then I couldn’t bullshit “it’s a matter of opinion if I was hostile or not” - it’s a fact. However the emotional impact of the punch/insult would depend on the target of that hostility.

        I guess sometimes more subjective things can actually be more measurable, counterintuitively.

        Sometimes they do. Specially when it’s for multiple subjects - human experiences don’t overlap completely, but they do overlap a bit. But for that we need to acknowledge that they’re subjective.

        I wonder if there’s a good example of a space that’s toxic, as measured by the effect on participant’s mental health scores, but only to some participants.

        Spaces that target specific groups. Specially vulnerable groups based on sexuality, race, etc.

        For example. If I were to crack gay jokes nonstop, most people would at most feel umconfortable… unless they’re homo or bisexual, for them there’s a heavy (and negative) emotional impact. Same deal with jokes targetting people based on race, gender, etc.