Straw phrase? Broken-backed emollient?
You know those phrases that are notoriously unconvincing and self-serving – so much so that they form a category, which people recognize? Phrases that are meant to reassure but don’t because they are so transparent? You know the ones I mean. The one I’ve been pondering is ‘It’s not personal’ – used about an obvious, blatant insult or rejection or exclusion or other bit of invidious treatment. The others I’ve been able to think of are ‘The check is in the mail.’ ‘Don’t worry, I’ll pull out in time.’ ‘It’s okay, I’ve had a vasectomy.’ ‘The donation in no way influences my vote.’ ‘It’s not you, it’s me.’
Does that genre have a name? And what are some others? There must be others, but I don’t seem to know of any.
“Don’t take this the wrong way.”
“With all due respect”
“If you don’t mind”
“Not to interrupt, but…”
“Not to change the subject, but…”
“I’ll pick up the check next time.”
“That looks good on you.”
Of course, sometimes people are being genuine when they use these phrases.
“Your call is important to us.”
“Do not call us – we will call you!”
“Do not forget to close the door behind you!”
“This hurts me more than it hurts you.”
My advice to everyone– and I am being frank and sincere — is to “just get over it.”
“No offense, but…”
“What goes around, comes around.”
“I’m not really a homophobe/racist/sexist/nazi but…”
Occasionally someone really floors you with the manipulative levels these statements reach. I can’t remember how it was put because it was so well done, but the form was:
“I am so glad you are the kind of Christian that wouldn’t expect a payback on this emergency babysitting request (that allows me to comfortably go off to work while screwing up your day completely)…”
This one uses a form of ‘committment and consistency’ where the initial ‘committment’ to the path is presumed for you, or projected onto you. Doesn’t fit for the initial examples though.
Category name? Manipulation, machination, engineering, maybe presumption…
We are talking cliches of the type that let the hearer’s ‘reluctance to confront’ override their sense that they are ‘being had’.
“I promise not to come in your mouth” is the classic of the genre.
“My best friend is a…”
I think the word we are looking for is:
BULLSHIT.
Oddly enough, the “this isn’t personal” one is, sometimes, true.
I had to use it three weeks ago, on a social security official, who had got the admin. badly around his neck, and his co-workrs and bosses had further screwed up. He whined at me for my loss of temper, and I responded, as above, and pointed out that it wasn’t just him – it was the whole set-up, and the towering edifice of bureaucratic incompetence. I think he got the point – we’ll find out on Wednesday – hopefully the final round of this particular insanity ( and DON’T ask! )
Try this one on for size:
http://tinyurl.com/2g89a5
I’d call these phrases ‘poxy moronisms’.
Maybe I’m missing the point, but there seem to be at least two classes of phrase here. ‘I’ve had a vasectomy’ is either true or a lie. Same with ‘the cheque’s in the post’. Promises to withdraw, etc, also verge on that territory…
The phrases that spring to mind as connecting with ‘it’s nothing personal’, by contrast, are qualitatively different. They’re not lies, exactly – they’re cut-price rhetorical cards, ‘get out of jail free’ phrases that are generally used as licences to be offensive, obnoxious, etc without thought. ‘No offence meant’ is one: Pratchett points out that the thrilling repulsiveness of this expression is that it’s uttered by people who find it easier to say ‘no offence meant’ than to actually avoid giving offence.
I don’t think they’re bullshit exactly (cf Frankfurt; pace Tingey). I’m not sure ChrisPer’s analysis is quite right, either – I think we’re talking about pro forma expressions that really don’t have manipulative power. They’re insulting in part because they’re so lazy – they imply that the person doen’t even think it worthwhile to genuinely attempt to manipulate, soften their words, use tact, avoid being obnoxious, etc.
“Move on,” “I am hearing you,” “Sorry for your troubles,” = “really gets my goat”.
“But it’s also true that …” can be a perfectly fair way of saying that that what someone has just said is true but not the clincher that they assume, or it can be a clever way of ignoring an inconvenient point.
Guess which way you’re more likely to hear it used by a government spokesperson.
Less similar your originals, but equally irritating (especially to anyone with half an ounce of logic) is “I totally refute” actually meaning the opposite, namely “I have no evidence or argument against it but am prepared to deny it very loudly”. Another interviewee special.
Doug: “This hurts me more than it hurts you.”
That’s my favourite! Because of the blatant mendacity of it – it just adds to the pain of being dumped/sacked/totally screwed over. “This hurts me more than it hurts you.” Er, no it doesn’t. You seem to be doing just fine, compared to me. In fact, you seem to be doing very well compared to me! Just be honest about it and admit that you like to apply pain, to see people suffer. It strokes your ego. Admit it and we can part ways with the appropriate hostility. Just stop drawing it out.
Some other favourite weasel phrases:
“I love you like a brother.” (No you don’t!)
“Oh. Ah well. Don’t worry about it. This happens to so many guys.” (No it doesn’t!)
“You’re such a good listener.” (Translation: you’re lousy in bed, you have the charisma of an autistic goldfish, but it just about beats talking to a traffic sign.)
The alternative tactic is to skip the weasel-phrase phase entirely and just be brutal about it. There’s a certain kind of admirability to it:
“Oh. Er… Hi. Didn’t expect you here. Hmm… See that guy over there?”
(points to big, hairy-fisted Neanderthal sitting at the bar)
“He’s my new boyfriend.”
Or
(Calling in after seemingly succesful date)
“Sorry… Who were you again?”
Dear Merlijn, I know sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but do you really want to share that much of your suffering with us?
As for ‘it’s not personal’, the most infuriating thing about it is that it’s often entirely true – coming from someone representing an organisation, etc, it’s simply proof that you are nothing to them. A rejection of intersubjectivity, as it were.
My personal favorite is:
“I think of you as friend”
‘Great idea, we’ll call that Plan B’.
Prior to the recent Irish election, 24th May, 2007
Please note,
“The Progressive Democrats and the Green Party today again called on Mr Ahern to make a full statement on his personal financial affairs”. … [T]he leader of the Green Party, Trevor Sargent, has said he believes “the Taoiseach has been economical with the truth about his financial affairs”.
Almost one month later: After the Irish election. 17th June 2007.
The Taoiseach invited the Green Party -to join Fine Fail government in making up a comfortable majority [with also the aid of the Independent. Their support was also needed by the FF/independents – in re-electing Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach.
Please note the unexpected extremely significant discrepancies.
“Sargent is very happy with Taoiseach’s account of finances”
“…[T]he outgoing Green Party leader, Trevor Sargent, last night declared himself “absolutely” happy with the Taoiseach’s word on his personal finances” “…[M]r Sargent said; “there had to be a relationship of trust for a coalition to succeed”
“… [B]ut in the end he delivered, so he has not certainly let me down. I’ve no reason not to trust him and I think he’s a man of his word,”
I should add that the subsequent is as imperative to the rationale behind all of this duplicity
Along with getting into bed with Bertie’s horde Trevor Sargent has just negotiated senior/junior ministerial positions with Mr Ahern after “long and fairly arduous” discussions”.
This is Mr Sargent’s firmest endorsement yet of Mr Ahern over his finances as he waits to get a junior ministerial position in the government.
It was the reverse story before the election. I predicted that the electorate would wipe out the Progressive Democratic Party after the election. It was proven – by the polls to be roughly correct. I would also hazard another guess that the Green’s will go in the same mode. The electorate is by now at this very early juncture exasperated with the party for the two-facedness, double standards it has displayed. People in its direction have bandied about the word – traitor-. In addition, the Dail is not yet sitting. It has not got off to a good start. You can fool the people some of the time, but by God, not all the time; by a long chalk, The FF from the higher echelons into the spider’s web has lured the green Party. They are momentarily besotted – but it will not last… Now that is not a very nice scenario indeed – sleeping with the enemy!
The Green Party has no sooner said -“down with the teflon Taoiseach” and it has gotten into power with said Irish leader. It is suddenly softening and soothing, Bertie Ahern – especially the harsh and abrasive elements of his non-stick skin. There will be big red rash left on him with all this stroking and the Green’s will for it be held responsible. The mollifying approach of Trevor Sargent who has acted throughout as diplomatic mediator will come back to haunt the party. Emollient phrases rule not okay!
“Their support was also needed by the FF/independents” I omitted; > “as well as the PD’s – with, what is left of them anyway“.< What a hotch-potch government we presently have! They all came with their big shopping trolleys and went away loaded to the hilt with auction/bought politics. “NAME THAT PRICE”!
Antillocutionary acts? I think you would need to ask John Searle. Or his wife.
“It’s good for you.”
“It’s just the way things are.”
“I hate to do this/say this, but…” (they love to do it, I can tell)
“I’m only doing it/saying it because I love you.”
There are more, but they mercifully don’t spring to mind. Poxy moronisms is a good name for them. But some shade over into cliches. Not sure just where the dividing line is. Arts and Letters Daily just linked to something about cliched expressions, you will find it on their page.
From a page on rhetorical devices (http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm) there is “apophasis” which is close but not perfect:
“22. Apophasis (also called praeteritio or occupatio) asserts or emphasizes something by pointedly seeming to pass over, ignore, or deny it. This device has both legitimate and illegitimate uses. Legitimately, a writer uses it to call attention to sensitive or inflammatory facts or statements while he remains apparently detached from them”
This seems to be exactly what we need but the examples that follow are quite different to those above, e.g. “If you were not my father, I would say you were perverse”.
I am therefore not sure if this is the correct term but I note that the discussion on the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate uses of apophasis parallels part of the discussion here.
And here’s possibly the worst example of this sort of thing in a while: “Medical Journal Malpractice?” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trevor-butterworth/medical-journal-malpracti_b_52677.html).
I typed too soon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6763119.stm:
‘”If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified,” he said, according to the translation by the Reuters news agency. ‘
And then :
‘Later he returned to the floor of the assembly and said his remarks were not meant to be a justification of suicide attacks.’
For this the Americans have given us the handy notion of ‘mis-speaking’, or “when I said that, I didn’t mean that, I meant this”. A different case.