Equivocation: Not Sure, but This Is Probably the Thread to Ruminate On It

Life in the gray area (our anthem: Husker Du's "Something I Learned Today"). I'm proofreading a manuscript, and even more than being on the lookout for a few adjectives I overuse badly, I'm searching for three phrases that are like "the," "and", and "is" to me: "I guess," "sort of," and "kind of."

i've seen "probably one of the best _____" a lot recently when people are talking about their favorite of something, which is two layers right off the bat

That's a good one. Even as a habitual equivocator, I always laugh at superfluous use of "arguably": Citizen Kane, arguably one of the most acclaimed films ever...

Never trust certainty.

Maybe

equivocation is m/l something to make your proffered opinion sound less...idk, pompous? imo

don't @ me, all rights reserved, i have a lawyer

^^^equivocation when used defensively enough can shut down debate

there i am, promoting and on the other hand condemning equivocation in two successive posts. ouroboros is complete, lock my account

I think it's tied into both those things. (Another habit of mine: starting off with "I think," just to signal that this is not a ringing affirmative pronouncement.)

Really awful example of equivocation: Rand Paul yesterday.

I'm against equivocation, but I'm very much in favor of personalizing opinions with "I think" or "I believe", mostly because I hate when journalists, particularly in the arts, start talking about "we" as in "Why We Love Bruce Springsteen". We do? Fuck off; don't count me in your "we".

Pro tip: If you avoid ludicrous superlatives, you can also avoid clumsy equivocation. Frequently at the same time ("probably one of the most life-alteringly glorious albums of the month, if not the century").

Like all other language, this is a tool to be used with care and responsibility.

unless you're just shitposting, I guess. IDK

It seems like this thread is more about overusing qualifiers rather than it is about actual equivocation. Isn't equivocation when you vague up what you're saying so that it can be interpreted multiple ways, or where you deliberately use a word that has multiple meanings in such a way that people can't tell which meaning you're going for?

maybe yes, maybe no

That sounds more like ambiguity or obfuscation. When I say things like "I sort of see what he means"--and I do that all the time--I'm saying I understand and agree a little, but I also have my doubts. Or at least that's what I intend to say when I tack on "sort of."

There's definitely a logical fallacy called equivocation in which you deliberately use ambiguous language/ words with multiple meanings. Maybe I've taught it too many times to remember how the term is used outside of logic.

I think it's only apropos that this thread would be clouded by uncertainty.

My understanding of equivocation is to be deliberately obfuscatory to hide the truth or to avoid telling the truth, and (cause I teach it so much) is rooted in Macbeth, where it's central to the story (in the language of the witches and because of the trial of Henry Garnet, the Jesuit priest who used it as a method of lying in court to protect himself, and the gunpowder conspirators. Which went well).

I'm fucking awful with the 'sort of' 'kind of' stuff but that feels kind of more like sort of tentativeness and a desperation not to offend or be pinned down which could be the same thing but feels of a different order.

This is all new to me, very interesting; I'm lived my life thinking equivocate = not quite sure.

Webster's indeed has the evading-the-truth idea as their first definition:

1: to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2: to avoid committing oneself in what one says

So my use of it is the second, although I never thought of it as avoidance, but more I'm just not sure about this (which amounts to the same thing in the end: I'm not sure, so I want to avoid committing).

Breakthrough: my first impulse there was to write "which I guess amounts to the same thing..."

Xp For clarity with Macbeth, most of the equivocation stuff is buried in the Porter's drunken ramblings, but the direct reference is right at the end of the play where Macbeth finally thinks, 'hang on, they weren't telling the *truth*?! and says'I pull in resolution and begin/ to doubt the equivocation of the fiend/ that lies like truth'.

I use “seems” too much

Bad one for me too: "seems like," "feels like," "possibly," "maybe," "not sure, but," "I'd have to check," the list is endless.

i feel like being full of doubt in a doubtful reality is not a bad thing. a lot of people upthread are right about the different rhetorical ways this works, it's not all the same thing

As could only be the case, I land somewhere in the middle. I don't want to eliminate that altogether from things I write, because yeah, it reflects the way I view the world, and if I do have any kind of a written voice, that's part of it. I just have to be mindful of not overdoing it.

i don't know about anybody else but i get irritable and nitpicky and bored with my own narrative voice all the time

(suddenly imagined a chorus of voice going "yeah we get bored of it too you bloviating cunt) :D

(Very meekly) I may have the opposite problem, that I barrel ahead in the face of overwhelming evidence that nobody likes what I write more than I do.

ah fuck 'em clem, fuck 'em all

Yes, yes, yes--including, and most of all, those fucking Beatles.

Huh ... hmmm ... idk?

My sense of "equivocate" is that it describes a situation where one is expected to have certainty, for example in answering the question "would you like eggs and toast this morning, or prefer pancakes and sausage?", and one's answer avoids committing to either choice.

In situations of complexity, where one's knowledge is incomplete and a spectrum of possibilities seem to apply, I try to qualify my language to admit that my conclusions are tentative or reflect nothing more than an opinion based on a limited sample of pertinent experience or facts. I wish more people would explicitly acknowledge this when stating their thoughts on complex issues, because it means they see the limits of their own thinking and leaves open the possibility of learning new facts and changing their minds. That's something I value and try to adhere to.

Fairly or unfairly, I think Obama was/is thought of as an equivocator. He rarely says this is so; he shades and hedges and qualifies. Drives many people up the wall. It's part of why I gravitated towards him--NV's "being full of doubt in a doubtful reality." (No need to chime in, Morbius--we know, he never equivocated about drone strikes.)

Trump, of course, is at the other end of spectrum. Not a trace of uncertainty in every ridiculous thing he says.