"If you are, you might want to be"
« previous post | next post »
According to Douglas B. Brill, "Barack Obama image targeted in Roseto Big Time shooting game", 8/3/2010:
A game called "Alien Attack" at the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Big Time celebration in Roseto encouraged players to shoot darts at the head and heart of an image of a suited black man holding a health care bill and wearing a presidential seal.
The images are certainly egregious, but what prompted reader KB to write was the quoted reaction of Irvin L. Good Jr., president of Goodtime Amusements:
“Yes, a woman talked to me about it,” Good said today. “She said she was offended by it. I said if you are, you might want to be. But you’re interpreting it as being Obama. We’re not interpreting it as Obama. The name of the game is ‘Alien Leader.’ If you’re offended, that’s fine, we duly note that.”
For KB, this belongs in Language Log (rather than Bizarre Church Fundraiser Log, Transparent Falsehood Log, or Belligerent Apology Log) because of Mr. Good's puzzling use of verb-phrase ellipsis (VPE):
She said she was offended by it. I said if you are __, you might want to be __.
KB's reaction: "Is this some kind of idiom of rural PA, or a speech error?"
Presumably both elided VPs are "offended by it", so that the full form would be:
She said she was offended by it. I said if you are offended by it, you might want to be offended by it.
And this makes sense, I think, if Mr. Good is mounting a two-stage defense against the woman's reaction. First, his protasis ("if you are offended by it") grants only hypothetically that she's really offended, rather than deluded or lying about her own emotional state. And second, his apodosis ("you might want to be offended by it") suggests that this hypothetical state of taking offense is not a primal and thus genuine reaction, but rather a choice on her part to "want to be offended".
This exegesis commits Mr. Good to a somewhat strange theory of emotion, but it's the best that I can do. Comments are open, and you may be able to come up with a better story.
By the way, after a fair amount of fuss in the press, and a visit from the Secret Service, Mr. Good seems to have changed his mind:
Good said he supports the president and has gotten rid of the game. Good previously indicated he planned to swap Obama's image for a pirate, although not immediately.
"I know some people won’t accept our apology, but we are sincere when we offer it," he said.
Twitter Trackbacks for Language Log » “If you are, you might want to be” [upenn.edu] on Topsy.com said,
August 10, 2010 @ 4:52 am
[…] Language Log » “If you are, you might want to be” languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2539 – view page – cached According to Douglas B. Brill, "Barack Obama image targeted in Roseto Big Time shooting game", 8/3/2010: Tweets about this link […]
Joe said,
August 10, 2010 @ 4:55 am
Seems to be a peculiar blend of, "if you are offended by X, you might want to do something to avoid x" (i.e., turn to another channel) and "if you are offended by x, you are looking to be offended."
rented said,
August 10, 2010 @ 5:09 am
I initially interpreted it as meaning "it's appropriate for you to be offended by it, as Obama and his health care bill are offensive".
i.e. deviously dismissing the woman's emotional reaction and redirecting it away from the offensive subject (the game) and onto the target of the offence (Obama + healthcare). This seems compounded by the way he continues to press the offensive point home by citing the game's title as "Alien Leader". I wonder if he wears a white hood at the weekends.
Brian said,
August 10, 2010 @ 5:37 am
I initially read it as "If you find yourself offended by it, then that's probably an appropriate choice for you." The subtext being that it's entirely your business how you feel about it, but it doesn't obligate him to do anything about it.
Your reading is probably the right one.
rented said,
August 10, 2010 @ 5:41 am
I initially interpreted it as a devious way of dismissing the woman's emotional reaction and deflecting offence back onto Obama and healthcare. Saying "yes I agree, it is appropriate for you to be offended" (but deviously implying in a round about way that the offence should be taken at Obama/healthcare, not the game). He then goes on to describe the game's title as "Alien Leader"….one wonders if he wears a hood at weekends….despite the later actions to remove the game.
The phrase "you might want to" could be seen as sarcastic advice or agreement. e.g. "yeah, you might want to think about applying the brakes" as a car is rolling down a hill towards a cliff.
h. s. gudnason said,
August 10, 2010 @ 6:09 am
Così è (se vi pare)
Joe said,
August 10, 2010 @ 6:12 am
On thinking about it, I agree with Brian (given the "but" that follows and the last sentence). So, my paraphrase is thus:
"If you are offended by it, then you certainly have a right to be offended. But your reason for being offended is because you interpret it as Obama (and given that interpretation, it is offensive). But we are not offended by it because we don't intrepret it as Obama."
Rolig said,
August 10, 2010 @ 6:46 am
The construction "If you are ___, you might want to ___" seems very familiar to me in the area of giving advice. For example, "If you are a man over 50, you might want to have your prostate examined on a regular basis." "If you are interested in going to college, you might want to study harder." Here, the locution "you might want" means essentially "you should" or "you must," only it softens the notion of command by positing the action as something the addressee would probably want to do. I suspect that this common construction influenced the ironically named Mr. Good. So I interpret his statement to mean:
"If you are offended, you should be offended."
Which leaves open the question why the woman should be offended. My first guess is that she ought to feel offended because the offence is intentional, since the point of the game is to evoke a strong response from people (either delighted approval or disgust). Another possibility is that Mr. Good was saying that she should feel offended because Obama is president. One can only speculate about what was going through Mr. Good's elliptical mind.
Ran Ari-Gur said,
August 10, 2010 @ 7:45 am
My interpretation was the same as Dr. Liberman's, but it took me a moment to get there, because my first thoughts were along the lines of what Rolig describes.
It's interesting, because something like "If your family tree doesn't fork, you might be a redneck." is immediately intelligible. I guess the problem is that "if X, you might want to Y" is so common with one sense (X causes the desire to Y) that it's hard to understand when it's used in a different sense (the desire to Y causes X, with Y = X).
Zubon said,
August 10, 2010 @ 8:12 am
Potential rephrasing: "If you seek offense, you will find it."
Nick Lamb said,
August 10, 2010 @ 9:07 am
Is "shoot darts" here intended as equivalent to "throw darts" or is some apparatus for propelling the darts incorporated into the game? The idea of throwing darts at an effigy of a political figure I'm familiar with, but I would never call this "shooting" darts, I'd reserve that verb for a dart gun, which I've never seen in that context.
Ralph Hickok said,
August 10, 2010 @ 9:22 am
My immediate interpretation was: "If you're offended by it, maybe you're predisposed to being offended by such things."
Mr Fnortner said,
August 10, 2010 @ 9:24 am
I find it offensive that Mr Good's right to freedom of expression without government interference, as guaranteed in the First Amendment, didn't last beyond a visit by the Secret Service. While individuals, such as the woman offended, are not constrained by the First Amendment and can protest or sanction speech as they choose, the government by law is supposed to show complete indifference to the content of people's speech. This has been reinforced by court decisions, and applies as well to political criticism as to other, tamer expressions. Will no linguists take up this issue?
Ralph Hickok said,
August 10, 2010 @ 9:24 am
@Nick Lamb
In my experience, it's very common for darts players to say "shoot darts" and to refer to their sport as "shooting darts" or "dart shooting." I've heard it frequently both in New England (where I now live) and in Wisconsin (where I grew up).
language hat said,
August 10, 2010 @ 9:35 am
That was my reaction as well.
(Mr Fnortner, please do not try to turn this into a political discussion, or you will just discourage the Loggers from posting about anything that might be hijacked for such purposes. Thanks!)
Joe (same as above) said,
August 10, 2010 @ 9:43 am
One last point/question.
Is the use of "might" in this context a remote conditional of what CGEL describes as "concessive may," along the lines of "it might be expensive, but it is worth every penny." (cf. If you are offended, you might be (legitimately) offended, but you interpret it as Obama" whereas I don't. Again, it is the "but" here that leads me to this reading, since I think the reading "you are looking to be offended" would most likely be followed by "because" rather than "but."
John said,
August 10, 2010 @ 10:05 am
I understood it right away exactly as ML suppleted it. Perfectly good English to me.
Richard said,
August 10, 2010 @ 11:03 am
Fnortner,
That's the problem in a system where the Head of State and Head Executive are the same person.
Randall said,
August 10, 2010 @ 11:14 am
I interpreted it as you supposed in your analysis, that he was suggesting she was offended because she was looking to be offended.
Greg B said,
August 10, 2010 @ 11:25 am
I think I interpreted it differently, as follows: "If one is (or has been) offended, one might choose to spend one's time doing the things offended people do." In other words, there is the initial insult ('I am offended!') and then the choice to act like an offended person ('want to be offended'). I am trying to think of an analogy, and I can only think of "Some people who are victimized go on to play the victim". Or "If you are fooled, you might want to act the fool." There is the the initial subjection to an offensive stimulus, followed by the state of actively taking offense. I don't know if this differs from ML's interpretation, maybe on the level of consciously choosing to be offended or not.
Greg B said,
August 10, 2010 @ 11:37 am
In simpler words, I read it as "If it offended you, yeah, you might want to go on and on about it (but I don't think it's necessary)". Something about his use of 'to be' where the former is meant to indicate a singular moment and the latter is meant to indicate a continuous state of being offended, doing the things offended people do.
Bobbie said,
August 10, 2010 @ 11:39 am
The game was called "Alien Leader" which makes me suspect that Irvin Good is a birther… (i.e. one who states that Obama was not really born in the US….) If that is the case, then it hardly matters what he offers as an explanation, because the name of the game was intentionally offensive.
Bobbie said,
August 10, 2010 @ 11:45 am
Correction: Alien Attack
a said,
August 10, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
I don't think he could have meant "If you're offended, it's appropriate" or "you should be offended" or any of the other similar interpretations. He clearly doesn't agree that it is appropriate or that one should be offended, because he claims that he sees nothing offensive about the game. I interpreted it (like Joe originally and Ralph Hickok) that if she was offended, she is just the type of person who was looking to be offended. He probably didn't just say, "If you're offended, you're probably just looking to be offended," because it sounds snitty. Maybe his weird way of being polite was by using this other construction.
groki said,
August 10, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
"but we are sincere when we offer [our apology]"
If you are, you might want to be.
Kim Belcher said,
August 10, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
There does seem to be a shooting device, as shown in this article's photo: http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2010/08/us_secret_service_speaks_with.html
Will said,
August 10, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
Yeah, this is actually a case of "shooting darts", with a dart gun, not throwing darts.
Mr Fnortner, there is nothing explicit to suggest that either the Secret Service or the Attorney General did anything to force Mr. Good to change/remove the game. The only thing reported was that the Secret Service talked to him. Perhaps they gave him an ultimatum that resulted in him changing the game, but it's also possible that they were just doing the part of their job which requires them to investigate this — and that the investigative officers concluded this case was not actually a threat to the president's life (and in the latter case, it's conceivable that Mr Good was spooked enough by the investigation to change the game, regardless of the outcome of the investigation).
Will said,
August 10, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
Back on topic, I interpreted the statement exactly as ML did, but I did not find the meaning immediately apparent. I had to look for it. In other words, if I understand it that way, I might want to understand it that way.
Rolig said,
August 10, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
Why do we believe Mr. Good when he says, "We're not interpreting it as Obama"? The figure ("a black man in a suit holding a health care bill and a presidential seal" can reasonably only be interpreted as Obama, at least in the context of the USA (what other black president has passed a health care bill?). Mr. Good is being disingenuous. Which is why I still think he meant to signal — elliptically — to the woman that the offense was intentional, even as he denied, verbally, that any offense was intended.
As to the freedom of speech issue, people do not have the right to encourage other people to kill the president, which is certainly the import of this game, however facetious it might be.
Josh said,
August 10, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Here's my theory. Mr. Good got the events of his story mixed up. I don't think there's any additional editorializing or theorizing or philosophizing going on in Mr. Good's statement, besides guessing at the complainants' thinking.
Here's the relevant part of the quote:
"Yes, a woman talked to me about it. She said she was offended by it. I said if you are, you might want to be. But you’re interpreting it as being Obama. We’re not interpreting it as Obama."
Now, here's how I think he meant to tell the story. He probably told it a few times already that day, preparing certain statements in advance. I do this all the time, and speak my sentences in the wrong order.
["Yes, a woman talked to me about it. She said she was offended by it. I said you’re interpreting it as being Obama. We’re not interpreting it as Obama. I said if you are, you might want to be."]
And here's me taking journalistic license to turn spoken conversation into something parsable on paper.
"Yes, a woman talked to me about it. She said she was offended by it. I said if you are [interpreting it as being Obama], you might want to be [offended]. But you’re interpreting it as being Obama. We’re not interpreting it as Obama."
Josh said,
August 10, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Do I win a prize for getting the right answer?
Mr Fnortner said,
August 11, 2010 @ 9:25 am
With apologies to Language Hat, I don't consider personal liberty and the right to express oneself to be a (mere) matter of politics. I am also not responsible for the actions of others who would discuss politics on this forum. That said, my point is this: alertness to offense seems to be skewed toward whether the vendor was sensitive to the feelings of patrons, whereas no one seems aware of, or to care about, the chilling effect on expression of a visit by the Secret Service*, regardless of the innocence of their conversation with the vendor. If we are to defend language and its use, it seems to me that our outrage should have been more stirred by the suppression of speech than by the quirky interpretations of a fumbled sentence.
*That the game could represent a palpable threat to the president, or that the vendor was inciting the crowd to mayhem, if truly believed by the Secret Service thus warranting further investigation, says more about their mental health than the vendor's.
Richard said,
August 11, 2010 @ 11:07 pm
Uh, the Secret Service investigates all threats to the President. 99.9% are deemed as harmless. In any case, I'm not sure that you want a society where shooting the President (or any other public official) is made less taboo, because some mentally unbalanced nut may get the idea in his head (burning in effigy is less of a threat because no nut will actually be able to get close enough to douse the President in gasoline and set him on fire).
Here's a Slate explainer: http://www.slate.com/id/2263595/
Marcus Schwartz said,
August 13, 2010 @ 2:25 am
Maybe the article's author made the wrong guess about whether he said "want" or "wont", and then dropped a "be" that didn't make sense with "want". So: "I said if you are, you might [be] [wont] to be." In other words, he was saying that people who are offended by this are abnormally inclined to being offended.
Glemph said,
August 16, 2010 @ 3:23 am
The most offensive thing of all about this is :-
When Mr Fnortner commented on the alleged violation of Good's First Amendement rights, it took language hat a mere 9 minutes to deliver a smack-down for "try[ing] to turn this into a political discussion".
Now let's see how long it took Mr Hat (or any of the bloggers) to deliver similar smack-downs to rented for his (at least equally political) 'white hood' comment (August 10, 2010 @ 5:09 am), and to Bobbie for his Birther accusation (August 10, 11:39 am).
Well, we're past the five day mark and the clock is still ticking … …
THAT'S what I find offensive — the nasty political bias displayed by the bloggers and the regular contributors.
I feel sure Mr Hat doesn't care much about losing the respect of some unknown and anonymous commenters on what, after all, isn't even his own blog, so it's not his traffic he's blowing off.
—
douglas b brill said,
October 3, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
I'm the guy who quoted Mr. Good and I can tell you for certain he meant, "If she was offended, maybe she wanted to be offended." He's saying the woman was bothered either because she let the game bother her, or because she merely wants something to complain about.
Not a great defense, of course, but that's beside the point.
I'm actually quite surprised the phrase led to any confusion. I understood it easily. But maybe it's a colloquial usage and I understand it only because I'm from the same region as Mr. Good.
Still, I didn't think the usage was all that uncommon. "If you think you are deficient, then you are." "If he said it's green, then it is."
Maybe the confusion arises because the verb phrase has to be borrowed from another sentence to create the meaning. My best theory for the confusion is that borrowing from another sentence to complete a verb phrase ellipsis is idiomatic to, say, a part of Pennsylvania, and readers from other regions wouldn't necessarily be quick or even willing to use such "foreign borrowing" to create meaning.
For what it's worth, none of four editors flagged the usage, so I presume it was understood to them as well. But, again, they're Pennsylvania people.
Anyway, I stumbled upon this discussion while googling my name and I'm a huge grammar nut (linguistics degree), so I had to chime in.
Thanks for reading.