Skip to main content

Watching My Language

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

No, this isn't about my saying rude things to the computer when it doesn't work the way it's supposed to. This is about wording choices in general. It's easy nowadays to have a misunderstanding, especially on the Web. At The Question Evolution Project, I made a remark about "st00pid dumb Xtians" that someone disliked. Mayhaps he was in a in a bit of a hurry, and sent a message:
What is an Xtian??? If you don't have enough respect to spell out Christian, then you have little, or no power, to persuade. I will unfollow you.
Since he wrote, I figured he would let me reply, so I wrote back:
No need to get all excited, I also said "st00pid dumb" in that sentence. It was sarcasm on how anti-Christians treat us, and I have been called that several times - but not by Christians. Although "Xtian" (or "Xian") is considered by some to be a legitimate abbreviation, I don't use it unless I'm being sarcastic about professing atheists who like to attack us.
He was mollified by this, and after we exchanged a few more messages, I realized that he gave me the inspiration for this here article.

Our language choices, phrasing, humor, other things can complicate communication and even cause misunderstanding. There are several reasons for this. I suggest that we take things slow and check before getting angry.
Image credit: Pixabay / geralt
The Bible isn't the only place that context is important. I have been hurt, and I have hurt people, through misunderstandings. This troubles me. Often times, it's word choice and the way they're used that cause confusion. Add to this the increasingly frantic pace of society (seems that people are more interested in captioned pictures than quality articles, for instance), so things are read quickly. I've had some long articles that had to be split into two parts because I thought I'd lose readers if I left them running long.

Another factor is people's grasp of language. Some people have excellent vocabularies, others not so much. Then you can have someone with your language as their second language. I've made jokes that were not understood and had to be explained.

I believe we all tend to expect that people are reasonably intelligent and know where we're coming from, but sometimes we can over-assume. I've heard remarks on theological and science podcasts that I couldn't repeat that to co-workers because I don't know which of them would understand the references. Not a slur on their intelligence, but a simple fact that some of us catch specialized lingo and others do not.

My offbeat sense of humor and desire to add some personality or color to things are also personal complicating factors that can cause confusion.

"I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
— Attributed to several people, actual source unknown

Let me give you a small piece of advice, Pilgrim. Slow down and check. The fellow I mentioned above was initially incensed, but he checked with me, and let me explain myself. Here's another example. While talking with the lady that cuts my hair, the topic wandered and I said, "I like sets". She said, "I don't know what that means". I told her, "Matching fragrance in soaps, shampoo —" She interrupted, "Oh, you mean sets!" I really think she thought I said, "I like sex", and was trying to get her to do the Mattress Mambo with me. Glad she took it slow and didn't get angry at something she didn't hear correctly.

Meanwhile, I still have to deal with my odd sense of humor, language and vocabulary difficulties, and today's hasty society. But I still feel bad when someone gets a meaning out of what I said that wasn't intended — especially when I stated something poorly.

Popular posts from this blog

Four-Legged Snake in the News Again

Writing about sciency things can be both fascinating and exasperating. The fascinating part is for those of us who like science, but the exasperating part is doing updates. New discoveries are a part of science, especially regarding origins. Darwin's disciples are continually attempting to rewrite history to accommodate observed evidence and still preserve their narrative of atheistic naturalism. Excitement over a supposed four-legged snake fossil slithered back ( which I posted about earlier ) and disputes continue. Tetrapodophis amplectus , Wikimedia Commons / Ghedoghedo  ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) This whole thing was sensationalized from the get-go to promote fish-to-fool evolution and millions of years. Indeed, some important facts about the fossil were not even discussed. It "sheds light" on evolution. Secularists think it would be (insert mouth click here like Cousin Eddie) really nice, but they still have nothing upon which to base that claim. Mayhaps if they realized that

The Secular Science Industry Propagandizes Same-Sex Attraction

We are told that the peer review process in the secular science industry is a method of providing truth and accuracy, and ensuring correct procedures were followed in submitted papers. That sounds like a mighty good idea, but peer-reviewed papers are often bad,  downright fraudulent, or hoaxes . Homosexual activists passed a peer-reviewed paper in  Science  magazine, but that should not have happened. It was fake science research, and  Science  was embarrassed by the fraudulent tactics. The secular science industry did not seem to learn from this. Assembled with images from Open Clipart After the Science  humiliation and the "We're so sorry if we've caused you any pain, Uncle Albert, and boy, does this hurt the credibility of science itself in the public eye" schtick, the disastrous Obergefell decision by the US Supreme Court struck. (That is one reason I believe we're under divine Judgment .) After that ruling, the militant Gaystapo cut loose with harassing peopl

Doing Evil in the Name of Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen (Material added 24 February 2024.) When Christians point out that the mass murderers of the 20th century were atheists (Hitler was a pantheist who believed nature was "god"), misotheists with things like, "Prove to me that Stalin said he did atrocities in the name of atheism!" Not in those words, but they hated the God of the Bible and had no consistent moral foundation to inconvenience their consciences. In a similar way, one would have a difficult time finding a scientist who says, "I am using science for evil!" Scientists are not blank slates driven by data. They are as corrupt or virtuous as everyone else, subject to operating within their worldviews. Open Clipart / Olga Bikmullina Professing Christians should be honoring God and following what he has revealed in the Bible. Those who are unregenerate (John 3:6-7, 2 Cor. 5:17) are unable to discern the things of God (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Rom. 12:2). We cannot expect