The point is that the only thing you can control, as the communicator, is the words you use. You can't control your audiences vocabulary and their interpretation, thus the onus is on the communicator to communicate their message, not the listener. It's up to the communicator to understand their audience and make the best faith attempt to communicate that they can, and to listen and learn how to communicate effectively to the intended audience after a failure occurs.
> to listen and learn how to communicate effectively to the intended audience after a failure occurs.
You, accidentally, hit the nail on the head. I'm pretty sure that the intended audience often gets the message just fine.
The mobs trying to police everyone else's speech are never the intended audience; they just butt in to try to control how everyone else talks regardless of how much they actually care about the topic, group or subject matter.
In this particular example, I highly doubt that anyone in the middle of working against slave trade cares about whether anyone used the words "black market". It's only later, if that ever were discussed on twitter or reddit, etc, that one would start finding people taking issue with that choice of words.
> If the "mobs" are receiving a message not intended for them, the onus lies on the communicator to resolve this.
That's just terrific: I joke around with my friends in private chat, there's a leak, a twitter mob gets ahold of the data and doesn't like my joke. They then try to get me at my job, ultimately getting me fired.
All of that was my fault... As said by you.
> Are you currently doing that?
... I don't know how to answer this. The very root comment you're currently arguing against was made by such a person. We're inside that comment thread...
>The very root comment you're currently arguing against was made by such a person. We're inside that comment thread...
Did you make the original statement? I'm confused. You said that people shouldn't be an armchair analyst in discussions. Then you proceeded to do it. I then called you out on it.
I feel like you have removed so much nuance from the discussion that what you are saying is essentially meaningless.
Choose your words wisely, listen, react, respond.
It says nothing about the intent of the listener. A listener can intentionally take a statement in good faith or bad faith. If your statement is taken in bad faith and weaponized against you it's hard to respond over the chorus of the angry mob waiting to skewer the new victim. People enjoy being outraged. Usually, once your side of the story comes out they have moved onto their next cause and could care less what you really meant.
So, as others have said, it's better to just say nothing.
The point is you can't control the listener. You can only control yourself and your statements. If you find yourself in situations where people are weaponizing your statements against you, then you should consider listening and learning from them so that you can communicate effectively in the future. That's all you can do. You can't control other people.
I really don’t see how what you are saying helps in any way. There can be a conversation outside of our agency in the situation. Sure we can adjust our language to the ever more sensitive sensibilities of society but we can also question those sensibilities at the same time. Question their harm and their value.
The problem is that you think the problem is "the ever more sensitive sensibilities of society" but the real problem is that you're unwilling to listen to other people and communicate with them effectively.
You can't control other people's sensibilities. If you find that your actions don't return responses that you want, you should consider adjusting your actions.
What's the saying? Doing the same thing expecting different results is the definition of crazy?
