Confrontational language need not be violent, inadvertently, metaphorically, or otherwise.

[RadiationTherapy]

There has been a lot of misunderstanding about my refutation of the quality of Hoffa’s word choice in his now famous speech. There was never a moment when I “clutched my pearls”. There was never a moment when I was “outraged” or “shocked” by the word choice. I simply perceived and called out a clumsy media moment that could have been written and expressed a thousand other ways. However, there is something else underlying this debate.

I dispute the notion that to be passionate and confrontational requires violent imagery through words, actions, or performance. The imagery in Hoffa’s words “take them out”, even contextualized as voting, implies an elimination of the enemy from reality. To “take them out” is to “take them out of the picture” which is to eradicate a thing. I find this notion inferior to outwitting and out-politicking our ideological other. There is also something to be said for the timeliness of his words. The rhetoric is hot and the civil war underlying it is getting quite warm to the touch – to be metaphoric. I recommend a downgrading of rhetoric and better, more careful choices of words and phrases. Not conciliatory or “wimpy”, since violence does not equal toughness, but creative and passionate.

Thanks for taking the time to read this elaboration of my humble opinion on the topic.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RadiationTherapy]

2. Did you have to type that in Word so you wouldn't accidentally lose it all

if your browser suddenly closed? hahahaha.

[hfojvt]

3. so then you'd have said the same thing

without saying "class war", "fight", or "take them out".

I notice you don't provide an example of a way to say it that is just as effective, without the metaphorical violence.

[RadiationTherapy]

5. Yes, I would have.

And I probably would have built a rhetorical moment that relied on some other aspect of the speech, such as reinforcing our ideology and purpose. "Taking people out" doesn't create jobs or end wars.

[duhneece]

4. Your point of view is one I try to find

I want to find peace within me and speak from that place. I find 'warrior' type imagery too violent for what I want to express. I struggle with this.

That said, I applaud Hoffa, for speaking from his heart. (see the struggle? lol)

[RadiationTherapy]

6. I too applaude his passion.

There have been many passionate speakers who did not rely on violent imagery and who were not watered-down milquetoasts.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. A vote takes a son of a bitch out of the Congress.

If you have a problem with understanding the English language, that's your issue. You are simply characterizing Hoffa's words, just as those who characterize your overreaction as 'pearl clutching' are doing. You are stretching and reaching and delivering tons of bluster to try to impose your misreading of what he said, which is identical to the Republican's reaction as the truth of what he said. I do not agree with your characterization at all. Few do on the Democratic side of things. That's because you and the GOP are incorrect, using hyperbole, and taking up the pretense that the language is not what the language is.
What does one do when one wishes to woo? You date, you 'take him out'. So if someone 'takes me out' I should tell them they are using violent imagery? Honestly, now. Have you ever, even once, told someone that saying 'I'd like to take you out' is not an invitation to a date, but rather an threat? "He's been taking her out for months now, will they get engaged?"
Things that get taken out all the time: the trash, the laundry in the dryer, many Americans for dinner will have take out, they take out dinner all the time. In fact, they get take out when they are taking out a date and the reservation was mistakenly taken out of the book.
So, you have never been 'taken out dancing' or taken out to dinner, or taken out of the running, or taken out of consideration, how do you live a life?

[RadiationTherapy]

9. But it is to be ignorant of media to ignore characterizations.

Any language is symbol system that requires contextualizing by both the sender and receiver, so let's not pretend otherwise.

As far as your second paragraph - yawn - NO, it's not the same thing, YES it is the same words. Shall we continue that line of thought?

[Bluenorthwest]

13. You are imposing a meaning that is not there. I made every dime

I've ever had in the media, sweetie face, and if you intend to construct your speech to be 'safe' from Fox types, you are dreaming a sweet dream.
Typing in CAPS does not make any point at all, you know. And snark is not a replacement for a counter point It is difficult for me to see a desire for peaceful ways in your tactics which are dismissive, rhetorically dishonest, aggressive and filled with sarcasm. Your posts in this thread are the ones that are seeking to control, impose, define and frame how others correctly understood what Hoffa said. Your view of his words is shared by the Republican Party, and that should give you comfort. It is not shared by me. Those who seek peace do not respond with 'yawn' and a sting of angry caps, ending with a question asked in sarcasm. In such ways there is no peace, no respect which is the basis for peace. You are calling for a pretense of peace using all the methods of war and combat. So snark and yawn and characterize away. Those things are your real defining qualities, they are the actions that give proof to your words. Yawn. CAPS. Snark. 'For peace'. Right. Righty oh.

[RadiationTherapy]

14. Oh, ok.

[Le Taz Hot]

8. Ah, yes.

We must "watch what we say." I think I've heard that message before, lemme think . . .

[RadiationTherapy]

11. No one is asking anyone to watch what they say.

But let's not pretend there aren't repercussions. Repercussions are the entire purpose of a speech. Hopefully they are what we intend.

I am not disagreeing with his content and, not too much anyway, the violent imagery. But to imply a person is weak or "watered down" because they don't use violent imagery to passionately confront their ideological others.

[HappyMe]

15. What repercussions?

While I respect your right to your opinion, I don't see the problem with what the man said.

He wasn't speaking to little kids or a herd of nuns. He is a Union official, speaking to Union members. Last time I checked, Union officials still have freedom of speech.

[RadiationTherapy]

27. I meant repercussions in the sense of what one intends when giving a speech.

Of course he has freedom of speech. Of course I know who his audience was. I am not implying it was wrong or ineffective, just that it could be better and less polarizing.

[TheKentuckian]

10. TeaPubliKlans should be eliminated/taken out/eradicated they are a terrorist

organization determined to spread poverty, destroy civil rights and liberties, promote theocracy, and are champions of fascism.

I prefer to remove threats not out politic them over and over re-fighting old battles in the context of a game controlled by wealth.

[RadiationTherapy]

12. That's fine. I understand every word you are saying.

You are not taking a non-violent thing (voting) and implying we can do it more passionately by overlaying it with violent imagery. You are talking of violence. A straight shooter, so to speak.

[TheKentuckian]

52. Not necessarily violence but I'm not against any tool to eliminate them as a governing party

and to bury their bankrupt ideology be it use of state powers, legal maneuvers, traditional political organizing, education, and certainly inclusive of calling them out clearly for what they are and acting as steadfast opposition to their failed agenda.

The TeaPubliKlans are the number one threat to humanity, they must be treated as such rather than coddled and under the silly pretense that they are well meaning and loyal citizens.

So, I am fine with overlaying violent imagery over a non-violent act too.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Of course, the etymology of "take him out" come not from war but from

movies. (1920s)

Specifically, the editing process. Very literally, to "Take him out of the picture." At some point a clever film writer put the phrase in the speech of a gangster (1930s) trying to create colorful mob-talk, and this morphed into military usage in WW2.

It's been suggested that "take him out" derives from baseball - "take him out of the game" (1870s), but as that applies to taking out someone on your own team rather than the other team, that doesn't work.

Gary Hart was 'taken out' by Monkeybusiness. There was no violence there, but as a presidential contender he was most decidedly 'taken out'. Removed from the picture, and given the barest mention in the end credits.

When Pat Robertson talked of special forces 'taking out' Chavez, there was no ambiguity about that - he mentioned special forces, and when they take someone out they don't do it with character assassination. In this case, to take out the opposition, the great many teabaggers and the politicians they support, it was obvious, to all but the clueless, that it referred to removing them from any decision-making positions, AND he specifically mentioned voting, not special forces, in the same sentence.

Grow the fuck up.

[RadiationTherapy]

17. "Grow the fuck up"

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHaHaHaHaHaHaAHAhaHaHaA
HAHAHaHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHaHaHaHaHaHaAHAhaHaHaAHAHAHAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHaHaHaHaHaHaAHAhaHaHaAHAHAHa
Helpful. There is nothing about your communication style that might trigger a defensive wall be put up.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. As if communication was the point - you've been flogging this horse for two days now

and nothing I'm going to say is going to change your tiny mind.

It's like arguing with a...teabagger, dare I say.

[RadiationTherapy]

19. Hyukhyukhyuk!

Yup! I'm just like a teabagger!

As if communication and symbols aren't the point.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. No, they are NOT the point.

And your inability to digest what progressives are saying does make me wonder. You are deliberatly spinning what Hoffa said to attack him - why would you do that?

Hoffa was not trying to 'communicate' with the anti-union teabaggers. He was staking out his ground. We KNOW what the teabaggers (and apparently you) think already, and no nice words are going to cause them to suddenly like unions.

His communication was strictly for OUR side, saying "We're not going to take this crap anymore."

Of course, if you really like crap, bon apetite.

[RadiationTherapy]

37. I am not spinning what he said.

I am questioning the character of it.

[backscatter712]

20. Fuck that. The teabaggers haven't been the slightest bit civil to us.

Why should we be civil to them?

You want my opinion, I want more of Hoffa's kind of talk, not less.

[RadiationTherapy]

23. I believe in civility over, not all, but quite a bit.

But I understand, and do not judge, your opinion here. I study communication and language, so I only intended to highlight methodology and not to stifle any thoughts or words.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Maybe you should study a little harder. What you are doing is limiting

the breadth of our language...

Hoffa: We're going to take them out (at the voting booth).

Sports figure: We're going to take them out (of the competition).

Wooer: I'm going to take her out (on a date).

Gangster: I'm going to take him out (of the realm of the living).

Context actually means something and only one of the above evokes violent imagery.

[RadiationTherapy]

32. Right. Because no one was conflating the violent imagery with

Democrats "finally" being "tough" and "having a spine". No one is conflating violent imagery with toughness and the lack of violent imagery with "bending over" as a "watered down" "milquetoast" speaker. I'm just crrrrrraaaayyyyyzay!

[Luminous Animal]

39. Being tough does not not mean resorting to violence.

Having a spine does not mean resorting to violence.

Saying that you are going to take them out at the voting booth is being tough. It is not violent.

[RadiationTherapy]

42. I agree with you.

I understand he was being tough and not violent. The conversation has gone awry a bit, but I was just focusing on the turn of phrase and not the overall sentiment. Thank you for your comment.

[TriMera]

21. You're right, words matter. However, IMO, nothing that

James Hoffa says is nearly as detrimental to democrats as what our own POTUS keeps repeating in speech after speech. Mr. Hoffa said something once that was taken out of context by folks who are just trying to create a diversion. The President, OTOH, keeps saying things like "Congress" instead of "Republicans in Congress" continuously and to a much wider audience. Maybe you should be objecting to that, rather than perpetuating the republican diversion of Mr. Hoffa's remarks.

[RadiationTherapy]

25. I will try harder to look at the communication model of Obama's speeches.

I am not objecting to Hoffa's words in any way. I am not asking him to change in any way. I simply wondered aloud if it was effective for what he was striving for and if violent imagery is necessary to express passion when confronting our ideological others.

[Wait Wut]

22. I get it.

I really don't have my own opinion, though. I don't think what Hoffa said was necessarily "violent". Possibly unnecessary, but we all get caught up in the moment and say things we probably wouldn't otherwise. Do I think he should apologize? Not at all. Like I said, I don't see "take them out" as violent, unless your a fan of old gangster movies. Okay...he's a Hoffa, so maybe it was violent. :P

Your point is well made when you say there are ways of getting a point across without using violent imagery and still come across with a strong character. There really is too much of this (and much, much worse) talk being used these days. While most of us are adult enough to let it slide, there are many that take it literally. It only takes one nut to ruin it for all of us.

[RadiationTherapy]

33. There is too much of it in my opinion as well.

I am worried about civilian on civilian violence soon. I think it is ridiculous that some think violence will take the form of workers vs. owners, but workers are divided and, until reunited, conquered.

[woo me with science]

24. Yeah, let's keep everybody from ever using a metaphor again.

:eyes:

[RadiationTherapy]

31. It is my totalitarian goal to eliminate all metaphors!

[patrice]

26. It is a good idea not to give your case difficulties that are un-necessary. Priorities ARE vitally

important to outcomes.

It is in fact possible to be the ultimate in strength and clarity on the issues, without giving the opposition anymore openings for their bullshit than absolutely necessary.

If the issues are not as important as other stuff, let us just admit that up front by saying what that other stuff is, so that all others have the opportunity to make rational decisions about that fact.

[RadiationTherapy]

30. Wow. Thank you for phrasing it this way.

I truly appreciate how succinct and clearly you expressed this.

[patrice]

41. As a high school teacher and later a technical writer, I have learned not to surrender any of

my drive toward objectives.

It IS possible to actually conserve your own power/work by focusing on the functionality of your own objectives while at the same time inviting others to share their own FUNCTIONAL power/objectives collaboratively with you. It is necessary for everyone to be selective about the process and also to look forward, so that stuff doesn't get any more disorganized than absolutely necessary. In order for that to be possible, bullshit filters on one's own self/power/objectives and that of others must be clean and fully operational. And the thing about a filter is that it is ahead of the curve, it performs its function so that you don't have to. This also goes under the general heading of Reality Checking.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Yup, voting is a form of violence...

:eyes:

[RadiationTherapy]

34. Do you have a question?

I did go out of my way to distinguish the image from the act.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Why do you insist on using FOX memes?

English is not my first language, let alone American, and I got it.

[RadiationTherapy]

44. If you think I am using FOX memes, then you do not get it.

That doesn't make it your fault though. Perhaps I communicate poorly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Funny, that was indeed a fox meme

[RadiationTherapy]

46. Well, for what it is worth, I watch zero TV of any kind.

I am strictly internet. The ideas I expressed on this topic, for better or worse, are my own - as much as any can be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Yes, but they spread beyond the tv

[RadiationTherapy]

48. I understand the nature of memes. I understand no one is immune.

And, still, I reject that my train of thought was initiated by anyone else's meme. I understand that it is an unprovable assertion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Things can originate in many places at the same time

This one started...not on the tv, but on the twitter sphere...and spread to places like this very fast.

Not saying you could be original, but it was alive and kicking five minutes after the speech.

[RadiationTherapy]

50. The meme being about violent imagery and it's relative import to communication

(my point) or that his words were "violent" (not my point)

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Not in full context

Unless we equate violence with voting, which is the point of the meme. Fox is not spreading this just because...there is a war on the wrong types pf people voting as well.

[dtexdem]

36. But it's better when it is.

Way to go, Hoffa!

[Claudia Jones]

38. Fox and other right wing sources...

...have been relentlessly hammering on this "violent" theme in regards to Hoffa's speech. Sadly, we have some here claiming to be Democrats who are also hammering on that theme.

[RadiationTherapy]

40. OOooooooo!

Maybe they have "something in common" huh? Maybe? Huh?

[bobthedrummer]

53. I hope somebody fucks them all up n/t

[War Horse]

54. I get what you are saying

And I respect it. Really, I do. But if Hoffa had said "kick them out" rather than "take them out", Fox/the RW propaganda machine would have come up with some sort of outrageous outrage no matter what.

The disturbing thing here isn't what Hoffa said, it's Fox' spin on it, and the fact that they are getting away with it.

[RadiationTherapy]

56. Perhaps, but I would not have made any fuss about it.

I don't think FOX would get as far with "kick", but I get what you are saying. We are in a communication war as well as a class war. It is a crazy time in the jungle these days.

[GusBob]

55. someone should ask alan grayson how his tough talk worked out for him

eom