Two Kinds of People

~ Clarissa

People are divided into those who do and those who don’t understand why Newsom’s post is terrible:

What a shit person is writing his social media posts.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

81 thoughts on “Two Kinds of People”

  2. Yeah, that Newsome! Making us think about our knee-jerk responses and what meaning they have! The nerve!

    It’s a wake-up call, and I think it’s a damn good one. It isn’t disrespectful in any way, shape, or form to those who believe in the efficacy of prayer (I do, as well, comes to that). It’s a blunt reminder of… maybe thinking twice before saying, “Okay, sent thoughts and prayers, done. Next.”

    Also, Gavin’s Trump-trolling will never, ever not be funny. I’m almost ready to completely forgive him for selling out trans athletes and hand him my vote.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I agree. I’m not sure what’s offensive about this. It’s pointing out that prayers alone are not going to solve this problem. At this point, offering prayers without any nod towards a policy-oriented solution seems hollow, cynical, and hypocritical.

      Like

      Reply

    2. “It isn’t disrespectful in any way”

      I’m not a professor of literature like Clarissa, but I have a background in studying things like semantics and presuppositions and subtexts. The meta message of Newsome’s loathsome tweet wasn’t “Don’t just send ‘thoughts and prayers'” it was where was “prayer is stupid, the children’s god did nothing to stop the attack”. If he wanted to say something else he would have.

      Most native users of NAmerican English will understand that message whether or not they can consciously articulate it (see reactions to the tweet they get that). Whether it was meant or not it was a slap in the face to the faithful (a group I don’t belong to but I found the tweet extremely offensive).

      Like

      Reply

      1. “The meta message of Newsome’s loathsome tweet wasn’t ‘Don’t just send “thoughts and prayers’ it was where was “prayer is stupid, the children’s god did nothing to stop the attack”…

        Strongly disagree. That is your (and perhaps others’) inference, not Newsome’s implication. If “prayer is stupid,” etc. is what some folks infer, then they will need to reconcile those feelings with their personal faith, as do we all at one time or another.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “not Newsome’s implication”

          You can read his mind? I did not address what was going on in his head. I was addressing how normal literate native speakers of NAmerican English will interpret the post.

          Remember the only practical meaning any sequence of language has is what is understood by the recipients, because that is what their response will be based on.

          Responses to the tweet would indicate that more people understood it the way I described than the way you did (maybe they don’t share your impressive powers of telepathy).

          Like

          Reply

          1. Exactly. As a literary critic, I confirm that trying to read an author’s mind is a dead end. The only thing that matters is how readers understand a text. And the existence of a few people with no feel for the language doesn’t cancel the fact that the sentence in question means “religious people are stupid.” If the Newsom campaign thinks that’s a great electoral message, that’s their right.

            Like

            Reply

              1. I actually saw a few people eagerly advance the idea that shooters should target more Christian churches because that would help repeal the second amendment.

                Mosques and synagogues were not mentioned.

                Like

          2. Well, a couple of things…

            First, in your studies of presuppositions and subtexts, you probably noticed that both those elements of communication have to do with figuring out what the communicator means (and assumes before hand). In your analysis, you were not only 100% certain of Newsome’s loathsome “meta message,” but also 100% certain of how “normal literate native speakers of NAmerican English will interpret the post.” So it looks as if you’re reading more minds than I am.

            Next, the folks who are interpreting it that way? I would submit they hear a “liberal” talk about prayer and religion and immediately assume it’s an attack of some sort. As you’ve noted on this blog before, some people like to be victims–and they have a chance to share victimhood with the real victims of the horrible shooting. I would submit that’s as a big a factor as their “normal literate” interpretive skills.

            Finally, Newsome was also echoing the Minneapolis mayor, who said, “they were literally praying to God” in the midst of ineffable grief. Is the mayor also loathsome, crying out to a universe for impossible answers in the face of tragedy? I mean, you’d pretty much have to be a monster to think that. I don’t know for certain that you’re a monster, as my telepathy is on the fritz these days, but people who study presuppositions and subtexts might interpret things that way.

            Like

            Reply

            1. “not only 100% certain of Newsome’s loathsome “meta message,”

              It’s called information structure (and discourse rules).

              The tweet is set up to highlight and contrast two ideas:

              “Americans… who believe in the power of prayer.”

              Children being shot while praying.

              What other reasonable interpretation is there apart from: People who believe in prayer are wrong (at best)?

              Lay out the steps, using only the material in the tweet, that lead to your interpretation.

              Like

              Reply

              1. The victims were protected by the pews. If they hadn’t been in church, we’d see a much worse carnage.

                Aside from that, though, a politician that hates religious people to such an extraordinary degree should not be in public office in a country like the US.

                Liked by 2 people

              2. “a politician that hates religious people”

                Agreed, but maybe that’s a selling point in CA?

                Not a good look for someone being floated as a presidential candidate though. Religious still make up over 60% of the US public.

                Like

              3. If someone translates this to the Hispanics who are now so numerous in CA, they will hate it, too. This is cute to a small drug-addled class of liberals. Everybody else is repelled.

                Liked by 1 person

              5. “Lay out the steps, using only the material in the tweet, that lead to your interpretation.”

                People on this blog like to command a lot–just an observation.

                Anywhoozles, material in the tweet: They were literally praying to God.

                Idea 1: Sending thoughts and prayers.

                Contrasting idea: children shot while praying.

                Reasonable interpretation: thoughts and prayers are not always enough. (note no mention of right, wrong, or stupidity.)

                Now, why do I think this interpretation is more reasonable than “religion is stupid”? Because, again, Newsome was echoing, repeating the words of the Minneapolis mayor: They were literally praying to God. And since Newsome is repeating the mayor’s message, I think you’ll agree that the mayor’s context is also important (since I note in your fustian self-description above, you’ve also studied context). And if you look at everything the mayor said, he made it clear that the response to this crisis can’t JUST be about thoughts and prayers.

                Now, some help for you and all the others who are seeing nothing but “religion is stupid” in the tweet, because I am just a hell of a sweet guy. The “religion is stupid” message does not come from Newsome. It does not come from the. Minneapolis mayor. It does not come from any “Liberal” whose leadership would automatically be worse than Trump. It comes from you. And you must find a way to deal with this challenge to faith. It could be that you renew your faith and your faith becomes stronger. It could be that you need to drop your faith an do a complete overhaul. Whatever the answer, it’s all on you. As the Reverend Mr. Black says:

                “You’ve got to walk that lonesome valley.

                You’ve got to walk it all alone.

                Ain’t no one can walk it for you.”

                Hey, who says religious literacy is at a low? Not in the Colonel’s household.

                Like

      2. I actually agree, despite probably being the most left-wing non-anonymous person left on this blog.

        There are times and places to mock religion, but this was not one of them.

        Like

        Reply

        1. With all due respect, you have lost this competition, my friend, to the very sweet and very liberal Robert Basil. 🙂

          I do deeply appreciate the extraordinary tolerance of my liberal readers who are truly open-minded if they keep coming here.

          Like

          Reply

  3. All this emphasis on prayer is disrespectful to those of us who know there are no gods. We are forced to respect superstition and act as though there is something sacred about it.

    Like

    Reply

      1. I guess I’m sorry for myself too. It’s so comforting to be soothed by delusions, and that path is closed to me.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Anonymous, you are missing the point. There has to be some respect towards dead innocent children, that should not depend on their religion and that definitely should not be trumped by your desire to debate the silliness of their religion whenever fancy strikes you or whenever it is beneficial for you to make a political point. Even in situations when your views on religion or politics in general (outside of this particular context) might be objectively more reasonable then the views of your opponents.

          Like

          Reply

  4. Do non-Christians honestly think Christians believe that as long as we pray, nothing bad will ever happen to us? If so, they are shockingly ignorant of Christianity and should probably not display their ignorance with idiotic remarks like this.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Do non-Christians honestly think Christians believe that as long as we pray, nothing bad will ever happen to us?”

      Of course not. But when conservative politicians mention prayer, it generally serves as a smokescreen to obfuscate their refusal to enact any meaningful policy changes. I think it’s disrespectful to religion personally.

      Like

      Reply

        1. As I articulated in the “The Minneapolis Shooting” thread, I support stricter gun control laws. But I’m happy to listen to other ideas…..greater mental health support for troubled youth? Public programs designed to provide healthy outlets to young men? Maybe making all teenagers run every morning? I would be happy just to hear some serious ideas that extend beyond insincere prayers…….The only policies I don’t support are asinine calls for MORE GUNS and think it’s ludicrous to arm teachers or to install armed security at every school across the nation. Going to school in a developed country shouldn’t resemble an afternoon at the O.K. Corral. .

          Like

          Reply

          1. EXACTLY: Something exactly right is precisely, totally, completely right. This is a word with no fuzziness or wiggle room.

            Now exactly what do you mean by “stricter gun control laws.”

            As for the reforms you are considering, simply remove all the touchy-feely “improvements” of the last 60 odd years; return recesses plus outdoor sports, have male teachers in grades 6-8 to handle hormonal students, and return male authority figures, i.e.,principals and vice-principals, allow no trans support whatsoever from teacher/guidance instructors, and no legal trans remedies, surgery or hormonal until a person has attained majority i,e,. 18.

            Like

            Reply

            1. …and make everything after 8th grade voluntary.

              Before the trans thing, I’d have estimated more than half of school shooting incidents were kids forced by the system to remain in school, long after they had no interest in being there. Don’t make kids feel trapped.

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply

              2. methyethyl

                Yes, one required grade 8 to enter some apprentice training in tradeschools, other courses required grade 10. And it is not always intelligence, some kids are simply bored; some teachers seem to have the ability to reach students, some lack that spark.

                Liked by 1 person

              3. @Cowboy: I was one of the top three students in my grade, even though I hardly ever turned anything in on time.

                I’d happily have left school after 8th, if there had been *anything* better available: a job, a specialized course in any of my several fields of interest, an apprenticeship, an internship, anything. Everything I did after 9th grade was an effort to finish early so I could be done with the whole thing. I was so sick of being there: summer classes, evening classes, college classes… I lacked one credit to graduate by the end of 11th, and then quit, got a GED, and went to college. Those last two years were torture. Wish I could’ve GED’d out after 9th (I could have passed the test) but at the time they wouldn’t let you take the test until age 18.

                Everybody I went to school with is lucky I wasn’t violent.

                Liked by 2 people

              4. methylethyl

                Yeah, my wife did the same, got bored at Niagara falls in grade 11, saved her money, and grabbed trains several thousand miles to Winnepeg then Calgary on her 18th birthday. A decade later, she needed grade 12 , took her GED, no errors, no sweat. Always thought she might just have been looking for a cowboy ;-D

                Liked by 1 person

            2. I could get behind “no legal trans remedies, surgery or hormonal until a person has attained majority.” In spite of having some friends who feel (and act) differently, I’m inclined to agree it should be an adult decision.

              The rest? Ew…

              I mean, you’re demanding specifics from occasional reader, but then you come back with something even more fuzzy: “touchy-feely ‘improvements'”? And “handling hormonal students?” You mean, besides advising boys to hold their books in front of their pants and bend over? And haven’t we put to rest the whole men-Mars women-Venus stuff? If we’re going back to that era, I’ll break out the bell-bottoms and fire up the bongs.

              Like

              Reply

              1. and Col. Potter

                Well, we can at least agree on one important matter ;-D

                First there is absolutely nothing fuzzy about my demand that the term “stricter gun control” be defined. As his earlier use of the likewise term “military-grade weapons” indicates that he and and his would be fellow travellers know next to nothing on the matter.

                And speaking of your thinking feelings of there not being significant, not only physical, but major psychological differences between the sexes…well, have to say that some of us enjoy that “whole men-Mars women-Venus stuff“:

                Liked by 1 person

            3. There are so many shootings in the US that for purely statistical reasons some of them have to be done by the trans people. Trans people are human, as fallible on average as non-trans humans. So I would not go to another extreme and attribute this murderer’s murderous inclinations to being trans or to some school or some teachers possibly supporting him in being trans…

              So you lost me after “returning male authority figures”…

              Like

              Reply

              1. v07

                He left a sad and rather truly disturbed manifesto. His parents were separated, neither have responded, but his mother supposedly legally agreed to some undetermined alteration when he was 17. When I commented the public did not know much more than that.

                Like

              3. Clarissa

                Actually I feel more pity for the parents. Like the other parents, they have lost a child, but they are at least in part likely been at fault. Shaming was definitely once not only a major, but very effective, tool at controlling/developing society.

                Divorce was considered not only a familiar but also a personal failure. There were only a few acceptable and serious charges, proof must be provided to ajudge, and even when accepted, a separation of several years were required. The latter was in hope of family reconciliation, the latter demonstrating how serious the matter was concerned.

                And even the physical disciplining of hormonal schoolchildren, so concerned by Col. Potter, brought home family shame with the explanatory note from the principal. And trust me, I was there, the shame bringing such at note home was far more effective than any minor pain.

                But we are three generations beyond any shaming, and frankly, as a society, we are not better for it.

                Like

              4. I agree completely. This whole mentality that everybody should do whatever makes them happy in the moment and nobody should judge is terrible. If we want to have a society, we must have norms and expectations. And we must be able to decide when people do anti-social things. We have outsourced the task of society-building to the government, and it’s not working.

                This killer spent a long time stewing in his resentments and trolling extremist websites. Nobody in his family gave a crap. These people are all guilty. Not criminally guilty but morally.

                Liked by 1 person

              2. According to this logic, if there has ever been a burglar on the planet that picked locks, you should not lock your front door.

                Leaving that aside, it’s clear that making access to either weapons or victims difficult would not have deterred this murderer. He was dead-set on killing. The problem here is much more complex than removing this particular weapon from his hands and putting it into somebody else’s. This is a young man who was abandoned by family, friends, doctors and society to handle his own dysfunction. There’s no simple solution here, and I understand that this reality is scary and disturbing. I understand the need to hide from the realization that we are all at the mercy of very unhinged people created by this failed model of relating to each other. I understand the need to dismiss the issue with making it about too many / not enough guns. But the reality doesn’t care about our avoidance strategies.

                Liked by 2 people

              4. Responding to Clarissa’s “According to this logic, if there has ever been a burglar on the planet that picked locks, you should not lock your front door.”

                What logic? I was responding to the statement that “School shootings don’t happen at schools that have armed security guards.” with a counter example. The claim was not that school shootings are less likely to happen in such schools , which I agree with.

                Like

  5. “Idea 1: Sending thoughts and prayers”

    That phrase does not occur in the tweet, and neither does the word ‘thoughts’. It might be background information for some but the phrase is common enough that if that was the intended idea it would be easy to say so (or find a quote).

    Everybody communicates in an unclear manner at times, usually when that happens and the person realizes the message isn’t being understood in the way they intended they rephrase what they’ve said to try to be more clear.

    AFAIK that hasn’t happened in this case – so what’s in the tweet can be assumed to be the intended message.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “…so what’s in the tweet can be assumed to be the intended message.”

      Well, I’d agree with that. And yet, very recently, you jumped all over me for discussing “the intended message.” I guess telepathy is your lane, and I should stay out of it.

      Ay-yi-yi. You are an exhausting man, Cliff. Absolutely, thoroughly, endlessly exhausting.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “for discussing “the intended message”

        There’s a difference between inferring what an intended message is through the contents of the message and between inferring what an intended message is by positing contents that aren’t in the message.

        My inference is based entirely on what’s in the message (and the arrangement of the message) while yours is based on things that are not found in the message that were said elsewhere by other people.

        The fact that despite the mostly negative reaction to the original tweet there hasn’t been an update or clarification (as far as I’m aware) would tend to indicate either:

        a) the original message was meant to insult those who believe in the power of prayer and Newsom is okay with that

        b) that wasn’t the intent but a decision was made to not explain further but rather to let it blow over in the hopes that people will forget it

        Like

        Reply

  6. “then quit, got a GED”

    My brother did something similar… except in his case it was ‘stopped going to classes sometime in his junior/senior year without telling anybody’ (I kind of knew but didn’t want to rat him out).
    A few years later he realized he wouldn’t be able to enter his career of choice (since he was about 7 years old) without going to a post-high-school educational institution which required a high school diploma. He did a GED and kind of felt bad because it was so easy for him and yet so obviously hard for most of the others there.
    My mother was for many years called to parent-teacher conferences where she got the ‘he could do so much better!’ spiel but she knew pushing him was a lost cause.
    I took the easier track of laying low… easily passing, sometimes doing well but always with an eye to keeping from being too noticed. Toward the end of senior year I actually thought I’d miss high school (a mixed bag but with enough positives that I realized I’d miss it).

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I think there’s a surprising proportion of the smart kids who can’t handle the boredom + coercion. I was friends with the top kid in the next grade up, and I’m fairly certain he took up heavy drinking and dropped out (changed schools, dropped off the map, haven’t been able to track him down since even in social media age, and have tried– was worried). In my own family (none of us were dumb), 3 out of 4 of us have GEDs.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. “a surprising proportion of the smart kids who can’t handle the boredom + coercion”

        That sometimes happened when I paid attention but a lot of the time I was just spacing in my own little mind palace. I also think, oddly enough, that being in band (actually two – marching/concert and stage band) helped a lot. There was some idea that I needed to be there for the others (not that I was that good or necessary or even that the bands were…) but there was an esprit de corps thing going on that was missing elsewhere. Without that I might have zoned out even more.

        And not having the foggiest idea of what I might want to do after HS was probably also a factor in my not hating it completely.

        And no one thought of HS in terms of coercion when I was in school. There were lots of dumb rules but the idea of mandatory education was as accepted as air and water by almost everyone (even among parents’ weirdo/misfit friends).

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. It’s very important for kids to learn to tolerate boredom. Life is not going to be all fun all the time. It’s a crucial life skill.

          But there’s also a larger truth here which is that the way education system is set up works for girls but not for boys. And it works for the temperamentally calm people better than for others. Which means that the growing Hispanic population is set up to be unsuccessful in school. This can be very talented people who are temperamentally unsuited to pore over worksheets in silence.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. The education system with classes of kids listening to teachers in a calm, disciplined fashion was set up for and populated only by men for a long time.

            Like

            Reply

            2. “…classes of kids listening to teachers in a calm, disciplined fashion was set up for and populated only by men for a long time.”

              Before we all crawl around pissing, moaning, and crying in complete and utter abject guilt, could you at least identify the specific location and the historic era involved?

              Like

              Reply

              1. I’m also interested in hearing how “kids” at the beginning of the sentence morphed into “men” at the end. Are we discussing university education in the Middle Ages? Boarding schools in Victorian England? Parish schools in the German countryside?

                Life is more complicated than slogans.

                Like

              2. Responding to Clarissa’s “I’m also interested in hearing how “kids” at the beginning of the sentence morphed into “men” at the end. Are we discussing university education in the Middle Ages? Boarding schools in Victorian England? Parish schools in the German countryside?”

                All of those. I used “men” to mean people with XY chromosomes. That encompasses the boys, teenagers, and young adults taught by adults.

                Like

              3. All of those what? You are telling me you are unaware that Victorian boarding schools existed for both male and female students? Never heard of Jane Eyre? How about Villette?

                I won’t list many other novels that depict girls’ schooling from the time when primary education became the norm because if a person never heard of Jane Eyre, more complex references won’t help.

                Like

              4. “All of those.”

                So as public schooling began in the mid and late Victorian era in America and Britain plus many of its colonies, there were only male students? And worse, the stereotypic schoolmarm was apparently a complete fantasy? Well, what can I say, that tragedy certainly spoils a lot of the romances in my favourite dusters ;-D

                Like

              5. It’s truly stunning how a person could have missed the entirety of the cultural legacy since 1800 yet so eagerly participate in discussions.

                Let’s say our anonymous friend doesn’t read. But there are movies, TV series. How is it possible not to have caught any mention of female schooling throughout the 19th century?

                Like

        2. Heh. I quit after 11th grade, but I was still in band for another year. Wee tiny private school, I talked to the band director, and he said: whatever, just show up for band practice (I was not enrolled there, and nobody was paying tuition). These days somebody would probably freak out about liability, but nobody said anything. I played in the band when the rest of my classmates graduated, even though I wasn’t a student there anymore. I mean, I was first chair clarinet: what would they have done without me?? 😉

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. “was still in band for another year”

            Hail fellow band kid, well met!

            I was nowhere near first chair. I started with flute (I was much better at piccolo but not much chance to actually play). Then later I wanted to be in stage (pseudo jazz) band and was switched to tenor sax. I was not…. good at saxophone but the energy was better, a kind of solidarity among the saxophones that was missing among the flutes probably because all the other flute players were girls and so there were the usual teen-girl drama issues, made worse by some also being majorettes… (as one told me once “Cathy and I are really good friends, and I like her a lot… but put batons in our hands and I just want to kill her.”)

            Ah… memories.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Sax is one of the instruments I have forbidden my children to play. Beginner sax is all the worst things about beginner clarinet BUT LOUDER. I told them if they learn clarinet first, it’s easy to switch later. I hear piccolo will damage your hearing on the right side? So maybe you lucked out on that one. I have recently acquired a flute, and one of my goals this year is to get past the beginner stage for myself. It is, as you say, girly, and I’m not sure I can interest the kids, who are variously doing violin, trumpet, and recorder.

              Anyway, I was never great at clarinet, but, wee tiny school: there were only three clarinets, and the other two had just graduated beginner, while I’d been playing for four years already.

              Like

              Reply

              1. “I hear piccolo will damage your hearing on the right side?”

                I dunno… interestingly the first time I tried playing it I couldn’t make any sound (this is apparently not uncommon). The mouth position and airflow required is slightly different from the flute.

                “It is, as you say, girly”

                Yeah….. where was James Galway when I needed him?!?!?

                Liked by 1 person

      2. How do you reconcile this with Clarissa’s views that just letting kids do whatever makes them happy is a bad idea? And yes, I’m aware that you and Clarissa are different people.
        Learning to deal with boredom and coercion is good preparation for an adult life.
        It’s the same as making sure kids eat vegetables even though they prefer ice cream, and making sure they exercise even though they would prefer to play video games.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I don’t need to reconcile this with Clarissa’s views, because I am not Clarissa.

          I also don’t let my kids do “whatever makes them happy.” I’m a huge fan of John Holt, Ivan Illich, and Everett Reimer, but even I don’t go so far as to just tootle around the house and let the kids do whatever.

          The thing is, you don’t have to waste your kids’ time.

          We find that basic literacy and numeracy, well above grade level– we can do that in 12 hours a week, taking summers off. Your average schoolkid, from the time he gets on the bus to the time he gets off the bus– that’s 40-45 hours a week. More if they’re rural, or at the end of a long bus route.

          What do they have to show for the time?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. I’m a fairly permissive mother who can’t summon the energy for a complex system of prohibitions for my child. But it’s very clear to me that parenting is about handing over the responsibility for the child to her gradually and in age-appropriate ways.

            I’m not remotely an authoritarian mother but it doesn’t mean I palmed off the responsibility of raising my 9-year-old on her. She can’t raise herself. We are doing it. It’s an exceptionally fascinating, deeply meaningful process. I haven’t enjoyed anything in my life as much as I’m enjoying this.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. We are all doing the best we can for our kids, given the resources we have available.

              I don’t even recommend our education setup to other people: it’s evolved over the years to suit our family, and our particular children. It doesn’t work for everyone.

              You’re right though: whatever route you take there, the end goal is: you’ve raised competent adults who can be responsible for themselves and others.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

  7. I was unaware that there were public Victorian boarding schools for kids of parents who couldn’t afford to pay. It wasn’t exactly public education, it was still education for the rich.

    Did Victorian schools for boys offer differential instruction? Did they take pupils outside for timeouts? Did they adapt to boys who didn’t want to learn?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply