6 ms·

>> We have trended from subjective language to objective language. Why? Alternative theory: asynchronous communication. It used to be your speech stayed with

>> We have trended from subjective language to objective language. Why? Alternative theory: asynchronous communication. It used to be your speech stayed with you, and if you were unprecise, or misspoke, or was caught meandering off-topic, people could just ask you and you would clarify. With exception for authors and journalists, that were explicitly taught how to write. Now, your speech stays while you leave, so you have to construct as precise of an image as you can. If you misspoke or said something wrong, people have to engage with your speech as-is. People can ask you to clarify online, of course. But you have to build a solid foundation, before people even start to think that they could benefit from a few clarifications.

thomastjeffery 1mo ago
That's another useful perspective on the same thing I'm talking about. Your speech doesn't just fail to stay with you, it's implications hang over you. What you have said is treated structurally like a magical incantation: directly relevant to reality itself, no matter how little sense comes out of that relationship. This is the vain objectivity I'm talking about: everything you say is interpreted as if you meant to state an objective fact. Context is a fundamental feature of communication. Objectivity just means factoring as much context as we can out of the interpreter, and into the expression. It's a useful tradeoff, but it has limitations. At some point, there must be subjective interpretation. Without it, you are just talking to a brick wall.