A person does not need to purposefully communicate implicitly for their words to have implicit meaning. Especially when putting words out into the world.
Sure, in a discussion between two people, if a person doesn’t communicate implicitly and you know that, you can take their words at face value, and words on their own should be taken at face value in general. If you’re reading something implicit from someone, it’s good to talk to them about it, especially in the context of a loving relationship. But when you put your words out into the world where everyone can see them and nobody knows anything about you, you could be spreading rhetoric that you don’t want to with their implicit meaning.
Implicit meanings are created by putting [words] into a specific [context].
Implicit meanings are created by putting [words] into a specific [context].
The following is a very rudimentary explanation of this.
- If a person walks into a grocery store [context] and says “I’m looking for a chicken,” [words] they’ll be directed to the deli/meat section because it means they want to buy some chicken of some sort to eat.
- If a person goes to the SPCA [context] and says “I’m looking for a chicken.” [words] It means they’re probably looking for a live chicken.
- If a person goes to a biker bar [context] and says “I’m looking for a chicken” [words] it means they’re probably looking for a fight. lmao
(I don’t know if the SPCA deals with birds of any sort, but, listen, one of my neighbors has chickens and a rooster, and the rooster crows all day, as long as the sun is up, so it’s been on my mind. Gimme a break.)
The words are all the same and are very clear, but the context is different, giving them an entirely different meaning.
When you say something that you don’t mean because of an implied meaning, it happens because you don’t fully consider the context that your words are in. It happens to all of us.
I remember one of the first times I really noticed this. It was something incredibly simple.
I was in a relationship with a woman from Colombia. Her English was excellent, but not perfect. She was entirely fluent and conversational, but she would often ask questions about words and phrases (which I loved). One day she asked me how I was doing, and I said, “fine.” She responded, “That’s great!” I continued on to explain some crappy things that had happened that day. She was very confused because I had said I was “fine” which literally means “excellent,” “exceptional,” or “outstanding.” Consider “fine arts,” or “fine dining.” But she didn’t know that, at least in my part of the world, when you say that you’re doing “fine” it usually means somewhere from “okay” to “bad,” and, if bad, it usually carries with it the implicit meaning, “I’m not sure that I want to talk about it.” There’s a whole psychology to this one, that I’m not going to get into, because I don’t know it. I only bring it up because it serves as one of the first times I really considered the context of my words.
I have come across more than one person that I genuinely cared about, making a post about one thing, usually something well meaning, while the post implicitly says something entirely different, often contrary to their main point. I would not invest any time into the conversation if the person didn’t matter to me, or if the conversation wasn’t extremely important. This conversation was indeed extremely important, and they mattered enough to me to give them the benefit of the doubt so they could rectify the situation. If they were a person I didn’t care about, I’d just unfriend them. If it was a conversation that ultimately didn’t matter, I’d just ignore it. I usually end up blocked by the person. Which makes it hard to keep caring. But I do care. I’m aware, I care to a fault. These conversations happen because they are attempts to save a friendship.
This happened today, and I took time to be gentle but still clear with this person. I explained in detail how their words came across. They responded saying that they don’t ever communicate implicitly. Which I was aware of, and I was also aware they didn’t know the implications of what they were saying, because their neurodiversity makes that difficult for them. That’s why I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. But they carried on, now knowing full well what their words were saying.
Allow me to remind you that intent does not equal impact.
You can be an abuser unintentionally.
Scary right?
That’s why we need to be acutely aware of our words and our actions.
INTENT DOES NOT EQUAL IMPACT.
Just Facts.
Now, this is a pretty extreme case, because the meaning in their post is barely implicit. But I think that it serves as an excellent example of how words have implicit meaning even if you don’t intend for them to. As such, it’s important to listen to people, especially if you struggle with picking up these things. If someone tells you that something you’re saying means something you didn’t intend, it is advantageous to listen to them. Otherwise it is just evidence of your support for the thing you didn’t mean.
I’ve included our conversation in the images at the bottom so you can see the full context.
In this post this person is talking about the truckers protesting the vaccine mandates in Canada right now (January 30, 2022). The protest turned into what amounts to a white supremacy gathering. While they mean to disavow white supremacy with their post, and they do, they also end up sounding like they’re pretty okay with being anti-vaccine-mandate.
In their first paragraph they say “While I do understand absolutely a position that is against vaccine mandates, that stance was co-opted…”
They see this sentence in the context of “but white supremacy is worse.” But the additional context here is that we are in a pandemic where vaccine mandates are integral to our safety, and you’re saying “I absolutely understand that position.”
Their fifth paragraph reads: “To clarify, this is NOT a post in favour of a vaccine mandate.”
They’re seeing this in the context of their main topic only, the white supremacy. But we are given a new context with this sentence, because they bring up the vaccine mandate again for no reason other than to clarify that they are definitely not in favor of vaccine mandates. If it’s not a post in favor of it, then it is a post against vaccine mandates. If it was a post that is simply not commenting on vaccine mandates, then the post would simply not comment on vaccine mandates.
In their sixth paragraph they say “Perhaps you didn’t know and you truly were in support because you are against a vaccine mandate. Understood.”
They’re doing an excellent job being empathetic toward people that they genuinely believe are not white supremacists, but are rather disconnected or uninformed. This is really important in general, and I think it’s excellent. But while they do this they suggest that they understand the position. Which one could take or leave. In a vacuum it seems perfectly fine (there’s that word defying definition again), but the context here is that they’ve made two previous statements that are anti-vaccine-mandate, so this one reads as such as well.
I never post words on the internet that I don’t stand by. If I change my mind, I will not remove those words, but comment on them, and allow them to display a lesson learned. I’m not always right. I’m often wrong, but I do my best to make sure I’m right before putting words online. So, I allow you to read this conversation, and see what you think. I entirely stand by my words, even if my last comment was just blunt since it was clear that they were just fine saying these things.
As I get ready to post this, I’m still genuinely mystified that they could take that information and just be fine with it. I want to believe that they’re cool with vaccine mandates, but their words clearly say otherwise.
One final note, if this person requests that they be credited for their post, I can absolutely do that. Their name is currently censored for their safety and privacy, but if they for some reason want to take credit for their words, I, of course, will accommodate. I just can’t ask them since they’ve blocked me. However, I implore you, dear reader, to not try to go out of your way to find this post and harass them. I’ve censored the names for a reason. I have no interest in hurting them. This entire interaction, and blog post, all of it exists to help people understand implicit meaning. Where I failed earlier, I hope I can at least encourage you to think a little more complexly about the words we say and they contexts in which we say them.
Anywho.
I love you so much, thanks for being here. 💕
Arcade 😘
