*Sigh*. Using the phrase "in lipstick" in a derogatory context when S.P. is on-topic is a bit like using the word "crusade" when Muslims are on-topic: every reasonable person knows what's meant, no need to make a fuss, but how many people are reasonable these days?
It is not enough to strive for clarity; you must actively think about how you will be deliberately and maliciously misunderstood, and pre-empt that. This applies right across the board, from politics to scientific papers. And unfortunately, we need leaders who are good at playing (the avoiding being misunderstood side of) that stupid game. *Sigh*.
However, when playing dirty (and US politics are pretty dirty), the ability to gratuitously misunderstand and misquote what your opponent has said is a valuable tactic.
I was most amused today when the BBC forgot to bias its watchers as it meant to by failing to appropriate cut the news reel. They said of McCain's speech that he suggested Hilary was better suited than Obama, however they let the speech run long enough for him to say something along the lines of instead of me, making it clear he was suggesting Hilary for vice president not instead of Obama at all!
Comments 22
It is not enough to strive for clarity; you must actively think about how you will be deliberately and maliciously misunderstood, and pre-empt that. This applies right across the board, from politics to scientific papers. And unfortunately, we need leaders who are good at playing (the avoiding being misunderstood side of) that stupid game. *Sigh*.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Besides, the entire republican campaign is based on this sort of thing.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment