Semantics worth arguing -- literal interpretation still important?

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

Now what prompted this thought was the many interpretations of what Jimmy Kimmel said the other day --

It was very arguable that he inferred the shooter was maga -- Honestly I would have inferred that had they replaced "Maga" with "The radical left"

However in the strictest literary sense it was never DIRECTLY IMPLICATED. --- Me @Burnout and @someguyontheinternet had a fairly decent back and forth about this and I believed we were reaching a fair conclusion.

All of that got snipped from the thread for reasons I am not quite sure (Semantics, what's the point I suppose) So I figure I would take it to words.

Is the literary meaning of what one says the take away? (and should that be the precedent--- or is it fair to infer based on tone, previous bias, etc etc

Now Kimmel aside, I believe in choosing my words carefully (Ya wouldn't know it here) knowing they can be held against me in writing later.

I know I would be pissed if I got to court and they were like he said "Nah never" when we asked if he was high but based on his inflexion we interpret it as sarcasasm - couple that with the poster on his wall for phish and we still have a case here!

 

[Shambles]

I think there is a fundamental difference between the kind of language required - absolutely required - in courtrooms and, say, scientific papers and so on, and common or garden expression.

I for one have near zero technical understanding of what constitutes “proper” English. I mean I left school at 14. Many of us are clueless when it comes to technicalities.

However, in cases like Kimmel I’d say it clearly comes down to colloquial usage and that is… ambiguous. Which also suggests absolutely not to be considered factual.

A clear and blatant example of state censorship imo.

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

I absolutely agree -- public opinion many different inferences are likely to occur, one likely more often than the rest. If you wanna call someone to the carpet over something they said legally (or at all in most cases) it should be strictly interpreted literally.

None the less people have the right to be outraged over controversial statements based on how they interpreted them (Not take legal action though.... kind of like controversial deaths; if you mourned Charlie should you be prosecuted. Not in my mind. You rejoiced, also not in my mind). Its a two sided coin and all one of the same?

Seems like we were about to rest on that so maybe this thread wasn't required.