Straight-Talking in Al Franken's "Age of Neo-Sticklerism"

Franken: I am hoping for the pendulum to swing back,

and that we have an age of neo-sticklerism

where everyone is a stickler for the truth.

         The Honorable but still funny Al Franken, junior U.S. Senator from Minnesota, hopes for "an age of neo-sticklerism where everyone is a stickler for the truth" — but he doesn't "see that happening." I don't either, but in the Time of Trump and Tribulations, we should attempt to denormalize, so to speak, lying, and to limit bullshitting to contexts where bullshit is funny and fun, and everyone know the rules.

         I will contribute toward an age of neo-sticklerism with some curmudgeoning on my field of language.

         As a student of language and a human person, I know that it's unlikely we'll ever get most people most of the time to listen seriously to what others are saying, but I think we can get people more frequently listening to what they themselves say.

         So listen to yourself and think about what you say, and try to avoid talking what we intellectuals often call "weird shit." Or "weird shit," if you think about it, which few people do, so it's too familiar to seem weird.

         Start with figurative language.

        

Hyperbole: Hyperbole — overstatement, "hype" — is a figure of speech and can be fun, as in the American tradition of the tall tale. When a bit of hype become a cliché though, it's a problem because with clichés we don't think (which is the primary reason George Orwell disliked clichés so much).

         E.g., when people say they just love something. Okay, Would you run into a burning building to save it? If not, ratchet that back to "like." (Same with people, although that gets really complicated. Take seriously the moldie oldie advice "Be sure it's true"; it is usually a minor sin, but, indeed, in intimate human relationships, "It's a Sin to Tell a Lie," although lying may be less bad than telling some truths.)

         Or if you're tempted to demand 110% dedication from your employees or students or players, remember that there is usually only 100% of anything and you damn well don't deserve anywhere near all of anyone else's time and effort.

Absolutes (read again about "hyperbole"):

         President Trump is bigly on this one, and it's an old habit going back to at least to building temples to the god Jupiter, "Optimus Maximus": "Best and Greatest" or what we might call Biggest and Best. 

         Something doesn't have to be "the best" to be good or "biggest" to be big. Besides, such absolutes would invite serious listeners — and there are some out there — to come up with an exception. Any exception. "The exception proves the rule" means exceptions test rules. If you've thrown out an absolute, one exception disproves your "rule."

         One common form is "everybody" and "nobody." We should know better. If your kid comes home and tells you "Everybody in seventh grade is getting lip studs," you're going to say "Name two," rattle off some families you're really, really sure won't have kids with lip studs, and end the argument.

         Similarly with something like "Nobody would want …." Check out the Internet. If it's something sexual, there's probably a website devoted to devotees of what "Nobody would want."

         If you've dealt with humans a fair amount, you should know to be careful with absolute generalizations about people. There are always at least trivial exceptions, so even when you're really sure of your assertion, try, "With only trivial exceptions, if any, everybody/nobody …."

Political Metonyms/Synecdoches: This is mostly for journalists and other political writers and is more familiar than it sounds. If you're from the UK or part of the old British Empire, you can talk of a "Crown Prosecutor" without much danger of people thinking a piece of fancy headgear has a staff of lawyers (or barristers?).

         But if you talk of "Whitehall" for some part of the government of the United Kingdom — or "the Whitehouse" or "Kremlin" or "Capitol Hill" — there are problems. The buildings and such don't do things; people do, and you need to do your best to name the people or explain why you don't need to.

         It sounds much more impressive to report, "The Whitehouse said today," than, "a media release from some flack whose name I've forgotten reads in part." Still, in the Time of Trump and Tribulations, in the time of accusations of fake news — and the fact of fake news — in the time as always, where people who do stuff often want to avoid responsibility, spell it the hell out.

Embedded Lies, or at Least Embedded-and-Assumed Arguable Assertions:

         This one I've written on before, in the case of the phrase "alcohol and drugs." There's an assertion buried in that phrase: "alcohol is not a drug." One can argue that the phrase is just a short form for "alcohol and other drugs" or "alcohol and illicit drugs" or "alcohol vs. drugs used by less respectable people than alcohol users." Uh-huh. Just say "alcohol and other drugs," or be prepared to argue, "Alcohol is not a drug," and offer a sensible definition of "drug" that excludes alcohol.

         Well, and so forth, including "polite nothings" where every now and then maybe we should tell someone, "Well, you've got other clothes that make you look better" and respond to "How are you?" with something short but fairly honest, or maybe just "Thank you for asking."

         It's difficult: English is a highly figurative language, and the vast majority are harmless (any many are fun). Listen, though, for the dangerous ones and try as much as possible to stick to truth.

         Except when you're sitting around swapping lies, and everyone knows that's what you're doing. But when someone says, "Really?!" and it's not, emphatically not really real, just say, "Nah. I'm bullshitting."

         Oh — and if you've got a job as some high-power but ultimately sleazy flack doing PR or deceptive advertising: Quit. Repent. Go straight.

Flies: Watch Out for Honey / Consumers: Watch Out for Deals

"You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

— Poor Richard's Almanac (traditional)

 
         On the web on 27 August 2011, someone posting as "Jeremy" noted "that you actually attract more fruit flies with vinegar than honey, because the acetic acid in vinegar makes them think they sense fruit," but he (?) was good enough to note also that even if that bit of natural history is true, the proverb is still that you can deal more effectively with people if you are sweet to them than if you are sharp and biting. The upshot of the saying is the same as that of Aesop's fable of the Sun vs. the North Wind (Boreas), competing to get a man to take off his cloak. The more and harder Boreas blows, the tighter the man wraps his cloak; when the sun shines bright and hot, the man, of course, removes it.

         From the man's point of view, however, either way he's ultimately doing what some minor deity wants him to do, even if in basking in the sunshine he's doing what he immediately wants to do. But let's move to the point of view of the flies.

         I'm not old enough to have ever seen people try to kill flies by putting out honey or vinegar, nor even old enough to remember flypaper. I do, though, remember fly ribbon, also called fly capture tape: "a fly-killing device made of paper coated with a sweetly fragrant, but extremely sticky and sometimes poisonous substance that traps flies and other flying insects when they land upon it. "

         You can spray insecticide and kill flies efficiently (until they mutate and you get immune populations), and you can try to smash flies with newspapers. It's arguably more effective, if esthetically pretty nasty, to capture and poison, or capture and starve to death, flies with sweet sticky stuff.

         I have been thinking about such things because I have a "Rewards!" coupon from Office Depot that expires shortly, one for $24.48, and I will almost undoubtedly go to Office Depot and cash it in and buy computer printing cartridges I don't really need yet.

         And there's a fair chance that while in the store I'll see something I don't need at all but will come to want and will buy.

         That is, of course, the whole idea. If coupons really got customers to spend less money, companies wouldn't give them out.

         Like most people, I prefer to be warmed by the sun on a mild day rather than be blasted by the North Wind. Like most people, more relevantly, I prefer to be bribed rather than coerced.

         Still, I don't like to be manipulated, and I am quite certain that the bribe from Office Depot — or the Kroger Corporation or Bed, Bath, and Beyond — will end up costing me one way or another, even if, to my surprise, the coupons and other deals end up saving me money.

         'Cause unless you're Scrooge McDuck and get your kicks rolling around in money, money itself isn't your goal. What we want are the things money can buy, and for me, one of the major things money buys is some of my freedom and sense of control.

         Mainly, money buys freedom from money worries that are endemic to most strata of capitalist society. Having modest but secure income, and being careful with my money — not cheap but definitely tight — I've been able to live most of my life not having to worry much about not having money. I also haven't had to worry about just how to invest and conserve my fortune since having a modest but secure income I didn't have enough money to invest and conserve.

         It has made little sense, and continues to make little sense, for me to sacrifice any of my time to money issues to save a few bucks.

         Ah, but that $24.48 coupon is a temptation. Cheap people don't want to spend money; we tightwads will spend, but we get very upset if we waste money, and some place buried deep in my brain, probably just north of the limbic system, there's a small set of over-trained ganglia convinced that not cashing in a coupon for $24.48 is wasting $24.48 and — and those brain cells are sending out the neurological equivalent of "The horror! The horror!"

         I finally gave in to the Kroger Corporation, so I have a Ralphs card — Kroger's in the West is Ralphs — and also a card from Von's, another grocery chain; grocery stores make you an offer very difficult to refuse: you either allow them to track your purchases or you pay significantly more for their products. Freedom is valuable to me, but not paying $4 extra per pound of shrimp, which was the bit of extortion that got me to finally give in and get the card.

         I have done this much however, especially since shopping at a supermarket has become a rat-running exercise in figuring out a maze, as the rat: I make a shopping list of basics and try to buy the same basics every time, with only minor variations. So KrogerCorp can track my purchases, but the data, I hope, will bore even a computer program.

         "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" and, all things considered it's better to be bribed than coerced. Still, with all the PR people, advertisers, politicians, and propagandists trying to get our votes and our money and our "hearts and minds" — I'd just as soon do without both for. Or, if I had to choose, I think I might prefer an outright threat (if nonviolent) to a bribe.

         On the other hand, I pass Office Depot fairly regularly, and $24.48 is almost twenty-five dollars ….