Is it all in what you say, or is it all in how you say it? Could it be a combination or the two, or should we argue how to intrepret meanings of things?
Text messages are often taken the wrong way, "maybe if you could see my face when I typed that you would know I was laughing" are words often spoken as damage control between friends. We have all had situations of word intrepretation that have gotten us into trouble, maybe even less obvious than not reading sarcasm in a text.
So despite urban dictionay's definition calling semantics stupid I would like to look at the word dealbreaker, I think it deserves a closer look at ways the word can and should be used.
Dealbreaker-
A deal breaker is ‘the catch’ that a particular individual cannot overlook and ultimately outweighs any redeeming quality the individual may possess. (urban dictionary) To begin, I used Urban Dictionary definitions to offer the meaning that is used in conversation not the original/official definition. Often when people argue semantics a quick check to urbandictionary could easily solve the disagreement. Anyway. Dealbreakers are a good concept, there is something about what is going on that you just refuse to give a second chance. The word is often used in relation to well relationships after Liz Lemon popularized the word on 30 Rock. He is bald, dealbreaker. He lives at home with his mom, dealbreaker. She is a single mom, dealbreaker. You get the idea. Again, this sounds like an easy way to narrow your options, preventing you from spending time in relationships that have no future (I am guessing that you have so many people lined up that you need to remove people before giving them a chance). The second part of the definition is often overlooked as a result of the "dealbreaker," often these people have real redeeming qualities. The word has gained new momentum into our daily lives recently and I personally hate the concept. Where I come from (actually I don't think this matters, but it sounds good) we call this close minded. You would seriously turn down a date with a bald person based on the number of hairs on his/her head? The redeeming qualities of that person may make you so happy and in love that you forget all about the hair. Or you may fall in love with a fully hairy person to be disappointed later by a gradual balding. Or the ultimate in terrible alternatives, you have a medical condition that takes your hair (some people would say Karma here but again there are semantics that can be argued so I will save Karma for another rant). I do not wish these things on people I just think that by remaining open to all different options you remain open to living life. I feel this way for 2 reasons, the most obvious is if I had created a set of "dealbreakers" for my potential spouse I would be in a very different place. I always thought I knew what I wanted, but remained open to available options. Not only would I not be with the person I am with, smoker would have been a dealbreaker, I would not be the person I have become as a result of meeting and learning about so many different people and the circumstances they have overcome resulting in their personal story. The second reason is more political than personal. I think that dealbreakers are ruining the way we think about government and compromise. Like I said earlier I equate this to close mindedness but before I begin to explain what I mean I want to say this is neither a Democrat or Republican problem, it is a problem with how we intrepret the word, its semantics. With dealbreakers holding hostage any real conversations in Washington, the American legislative process suffers. I realize that there are a few people who really support every dealbreaker that the representatives of the people have to stick to, but here is the problem with leading the legislature by rules of dealbreakers: nothing gets accomplished. And not only that, I think I would be ok if there were serious conversations and debates that resulted in the deal being broken by an issue that came up and was seriously debated but broke the deal. The problem now is all a group has to say is that a certain issue is off the table for debate and debate does not even take place. I feel the same way about threatning to filibuster: DO IT! If something really is so terrible that voters would be appaled by them, debate your point to your peers, explain it in a proper debate where your opponent has the opportunity to offer a rebuttal. This opens you to the idea of compromise. (WHAT? compromise?) I have devised a quiz like the ones girls used to take in the magazines to determine if they really were with the right boy, or if they should wear lipstick to let you know where you stand on the issue of dealbreakers. I have made it easy just one question with a lead up story. You are house hunting with your spouse and you really have your eyes set on a very small nieghborhood. You know some of the people who live there are really like the schools for your kids. School starts in 3 weeks so you really need a move-in ready house and a fast closing. The only house for sale in the neighborhood is on a small lot and it is the furthest house from the people you know. The agent tells you the seller is very motivated and would be willing to close quickly as they already moved into a new home and are anxious to get rid of this mortgage. You go in and house is beautiful, all of the space you could possibly need for the kids plus a huge walk-out basement with a surprisingly large area for the backyard. The kitchen if perfect, bathrooms updated, bedrooms just the right size (you get the idea here). You do a walk around and notice a crack in the foundation. The question is what do you do now: A) Dealbreaker. You will not purchase a house with a crack in the foundation. You will not have a house at all in 3 weeks if necessary to keep from having a house with a crack in the foundation. B) Offer pending. You will not purchase a house with a crack in the foundation. You ask the agent if the sellers are motivated enough to have the crack fixed. If they are, and the rest of the inspection is satisfactory you are willing to make an offer. The offer includes that the crack must be fixed and the sell is pending a professional inspection for other problems. If problems come up you and the seller will have to discuss either a reduction in the offer price since the closing date can't be moved. C) Offer NOW! We love the house and I am sure that the crack can be fixed at some point, right? We like the nieghborhood and if the seller is willing to close even if it is a week after school starts we want this neighborhood and this is the only house so we will take it. In this situation you could say dealbreaker, noone wants to buy a house even if it is their dream house with a crack in the foundation (imagery there, that can be applied anywhere) but if you are unwilling to compromise a little time to get everything else you want you lose. I do not understand being so resolute in getting everything you want that you leave almost everything you want on the table with a willing to compromise seller. People selling houses usually want out, and would willingly pay or compensate a buyer for this kind of repair. Apply this to Washington, if you are so resolute on getting everything you want that you are unwilling to even ask what someone else is willing to give NEWSFLASH: everyone loses. I don't care if you think a group will get mad that you went in to a debate and had to give a little on the crack, they will be living in a house they love when move in time comes. The alternative is being homeless. rant done. | ||
No comments:
Post a Comment