People think Rumsfeld’s particular phrasing is funny,
So what would be the non-funny way to say? IMHO, Rumsfeld’s phrasing is what you get if you just say it the most direct way possible.
This is what always bothers me: people who say, “hey, what you said was valid and all, but the way you said it was strange/stupid”. Er, so what would be the non-strange/stupid way to say it? “Uh, implementation issue.”
Rumsfeld used it as the basis of a non-answer to a question...
In the exchange, it looks like the reporter’s followup question is nonsense. It only makes sense to ask if it’s a known unknown, since you, er, never know the unknown unknowns. (Hee hee! I said something that sounds funny! Now you can mock me while also promoting what I said as insightful!)
I’m not sure I’m capable of a good answer for the edited version of the question. I would guess (even more so than I’m guessing in my grandparent comment!) that once someone’s ‘ha ha’ reaction kicks in (whether it’s a ‘ha ha his syntax is funny,’ ‘ha ha how ironic those words are in that context,’ or a ‘ha ha look at him scramble to avoid that question’ kind of ‘ha ha’), it obscures the perfectly rational denotation of what Rumsfeld said.
So what would be the non-funny way to say? IMHO, Rumsfeld’s phrasing is what you get if you just say it the most direct way possible.
I don’t know of a way to make it less funny without losing directness. I think the verbal (as opposed to situational) humor comes from a combination of saying the word ‘known’ and its derivatives lots of times in the same paragraph, using the same kind of structure for consecutive clauses/sentences, and the fact that what Rumsfeld is saying appears obvious once he’s said it. And I can’t immediately think of a direct way of expressing precisely what Rumsfeld’s saying without using the same kind of repetition, and what he’s saying will always sound obvious once it’s said.
Things that are obvious once thought of, but not before, are often funny when pointed out, especially when pointed out in a direct and pithy way. That’s basically how observational comedians operate. (See also Yogi Berra.) It’s one of those quirks of human behavior a public speaker just has to contend with.
In the exchange, it looks like the reporter’s followup question is nonsense. It only makes sense to ask if it’s a known unknown, since you, er, never know the unknown unknowns.
Strictly speaking that’s true, although for Rumsfeld to avoid the question on that basis is IMO at best pedantic; it’s not hard to get an idea of what the reporter is trying to get at, even though their question’s ill-phrased.
(Belated edit—I should say that it would be pedantic, not that it is pedantic. Rumsfeld didn’t actually avoid the question based on the reporter’s phrasing, he just refused to answer.)
I would guess … it obscures the perfectly rational denotation of what Rumsfeld said.
Right, that would make sense, except that the very same people, upon shifting gears and nominally changing topics, suddenly find this remark insightful—“but ignore this when we go back to mocking Rumsfeld!”
I think the verbal (as opposed to situational) humor comes from a combination of saying the word ‘known’ and its derivatives lots of times in the same paragraph, using the same kind of structure for consecutive clauses/sentences
Wow, you have got to see Under Siege 2. It has this exchange (from memory):
Bad guy #2: What’s that? [...] Bad guy #1: It’s a chemical weapons plant. And we know about it. And they know that we know. But we make-believe that we don’t know, and they make-believe that they believe that we don’t know, but know that we know. Everybody knows.
And I can’t immediately think of a direct way of expressing precisely what Rumsfeld’s saying without using the same kind of repetition, and what he’s saying will always sound obvious once it’s said.
Yes, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” is fun, but ultimately to be avoided by respectable people.
Things that are obvious once thought of, but not before, are often funny when pointed out, especially when pointed out in a direct and pithy way.
Right, but aren’t they typically followed by the appreciation of the insight rather than derision of whoever points it out?
Strictly speaking that’s true, although for Rumsfeld to avoid the question on that basis is IMO at best pedantic; it’s not hard to get an idea of what the reporter is trying to get at, even though their question’s ill-phrased.
True, but it’s not really Rumsfeld’s job to improve reporters’ questions. I mean, he might be a Bayesian master if he did, but it’s not really to be expected.
Right, but aren’t they typically followed by the appreciation of the insight rather than derision of whoever points it out?
I imagine the people who used the quote to mock Rumsfeld were already inclined to treat the quote uncharitably, and used its funniness/odd-soundingness as a pretext to mock him.
Wow, you have got to see Under Siege 2. It has this exchange (from memory):
Yeah, that got a giggle from me. Makes me wonder why some kinds of repetition are funny and some aren’t!
Yes, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” is fun, but ultimately to be avoided by respectable people.
Agreed—I didn’t mean to condone simultaneously mocking Rumsfeld’s quote while acknowledging its saneness, just to explain why one might find it funny.
True, but it’s not really Rumsfeld’s job to improve reporters’ questions. I mean, he might be a Bayesian master if he did, but it’s not really to be expected.
It is (well, was) his job to make a good faith effort to try and answer their questions. (At least on paper, anyway. If we’re being cynical, we might argue that his actual job was to avoid tough questions.) If I justified evading otherwise good questions in a Q&A because of minor lexical flubs, that would make the Q&A something of a charade.
So what would be the non-funny way to say? IMHO, Rumsfeld’s phrasing is what you get if you just say it the most direct way possible.
This is what always bothers me: people who say, “hey, what you said was valid and all, but the way you said it was strange/stupid”. Er, so what would be the non-strange/stupid way to say it? “Uh, implementation issue.”
In the exchange, it looks like the reporter’s followup question is nonsense. It only makes sense to ask if it’s a known unknown, since you, er, never know the unknown unknowns. (Hee hee! I said something that sounds funny! Now you can mock me while also promoting what I said as insightful!)
See also the edit to my original comment.
I’m not sure I’m capable of a good answer for the edited version of the question. I would guess (even more so than I’m guessing in my grandparent comment!) that once someone’s ‘ha ha’ reaction kicks in (whether it’s a ‘ha ha his syntax is funny,’ ‘ha ha how ironic those words are in that context,’ or a ‘ha ha look at him scramble to avoid that question’ kind of ‘ha ha’), it obscures the perfectly rational denotation of what Rumsfeld said.
I don’t know of a way to make it less funny without losing directness. I think the verbal (as opposed to situational) humor comes from a combination of saying the word ‘known’ and its derivatives lots of times in the same paragraph, using the same kind of structure for consecutive clauses/sentences, and the fact that what Rumsfeld is saying appears obvious once he’s said it. And I can’t immediately think of a direct way of expressing precisely what Rumsfeld’s saying without using the same kind of repetition, and what he’s saying will always sound obvious once it’s said.
Things that are obvious once thought of, but not before, are often funny when pointed out, especially when pointed out in a direct and pithy way. That’s basically how observational comedians operate. (See also Yogi Berra.) It’s one of those quirks of human behavior a public speaker just has to contend with.
Strictly speaking that’s true, although for Rumsfeld to avoid the question on that basis is IMO at best pedantic; it’s not hard to get an idea of what the reporter is trying to get at, even though their question’s ill-phrased.
(Belated edit—I should say that it would be pedantic, not that it is pedantic. Rumsfeld didn’t actually avoid the question based on the reporter’s phrasing, he just refused to answer.)
Right, that would make sense, except that the very same people, upon shifting gears and nominally changing topics, suddenly find this remark insightful—“but ignore this when we go back to mocking Rumsfeld!”
Wow, you have got to see Under Siege 2. It has this exchange (from memory):
Bad guy #2: What’s that? [...]
Bad guy #1: It’s a chemical weapons plant. And we know about it. And they know that we know. But we make-believe that we don’t know, and they make-believe that they believe that we don’t know, but know that we know. Everybody knows.
Yes, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” is fun, but ultimately to be avoided by respectable people.
Right, but aren’t they typically followed by the appreciation of the insight rather than derision of whoever points it out?
True, but it’s not really Rumsfeld’s job to improve reporters’ questions. I mean, he might be a Bayesian master if he did, but it’s not really to be expected.
I imagine the people who used the quote to mock Rumsfeld were already inclined to treat the quote uncharitably, and used its funniness/odd-soundingness as a pretext to mock him.
Yeah, that got a giggle from me. Makes me wonder why some kinds of repetition are funny and some aren’t!
Agreed—I didn’t mean to condone simultaneously mocking Rumsfeld’s quote while acknowledging its saneness, just to explain why one might find it funny.
It is (well, was) his job to make a good faith effort to try and answer their questions. (At least on paper, anyway. If we’re being cynical, we might argue that his actual job was to avoid tough questions.) If I justified evading otherwise good questions in a Q&A because of minor lexical flubs, that would make the Q&A something of a charade.