“a phrase used to diffuse any ill feelings caused by a preceded remark. sort of like a mentos.”

The submissions at UD nail the evil of this phrase in the heart with a stake. When people use this phrase, they are trying to say that they’re allowed to say things that they know are intended to offend and/or humiliate the target of the remark, without receiving any social repercussions. It’s a verbal get out of jail free card.

Unfortunately, I have seen this phrase used quite often on the internet, and it’s usually preceded by an ellipsis. As a result, whenever I use this phrase verbally, I like to hold up a visual ellipsis: 3 or 4 pointed fingers toward the person that I am offending. Maybe I’ll post a video here of an example.

Here are some examples of how to use this phrase.

This one actually happened on Facebook. I posted a status update that said, “The singular goal of an economy is to produce consumer goods.” This comes from Murray Rothbard. (HT Sam Selikoff).

The first comment on my status said:

“…most of which people do not need… just sayin’.”
(Yes he did start a sentence with an ellipsis)

No. You’re not allowed to make the generalization that people don’t “need” most of the goods they consume. I know that it is not my place to determine what other individuals “need” to consume, and I hope that everybody else will accord me this same courtesy. When you decide that you have the right to determine what other people consume, you lose the ability to say the word “Freedom” and instill it with any meaning.

Here is another example that you might observe when a group of young people are conversing.

“Yo bro, Michael Moore is a straight up communist, and I hope somebody kills him Columbine style… just sayin.”

“Word. I mean it’s possible, but everybody knows you’re a faggot… just sayin’.”

No. We need to teach our children that words have meanings. We use these meanings to communicate ideas. You are not allowed to string words together, not worry about what they mean, and then use the phrase, “just sayin,” to absolve yourself of any responsibility for your words.

But seriously, at the end of the day, it is what it is, and Michael Moore is an evil socialist… just sayin’.

P.S. John Stewart does a pretty good job here (I found this after I wrote this post… just sayin’).

“It what it is” might be the most meaningless truism ever uttered. When combined with #5, it is a deadly weapon made of pure evil, used by agents of moral and logical destruction. Allow me to demonstrate.

“Look, I hate war just as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day it is what it is: Saddam Hussein is dead and the world is a better place.”

Again, using these phrases before making a generalization that you believe to be true does not make it true. You cannot pull logical deductions out of thin air. When having a debate or discussion, you should at a minimum make sure that both people agree on the founding assumptions. You cannot build a house without a solid foundation, and the same goes for a sound argument.

On a related funny note: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=It+is+what+it+Is

The worst is yet to come.

Let me give you an example of how this phrase can be used for evil.
Let’s say Ann and John are having a debate about whether we should nationalize healthcare.

Ann says: “Using every piece of data, and every tool of logic, I can conclude that by nationalizing healthcare, both the quality and availability of healthcare will experience a severe decrease. In addition, the current abuses that we have addressed will become exaggerated to criminally ludicrous levels.”

John says: “Maybe, but at the end of the day, every human has a right to be healthy, and we have to decide as a nation that we value public health. At the end of the day, no matter what you tell me about the current system, there are a billion people without access to healthcare. We have to do something about this, because it’s the right thing to do*.”

Saying “at the end of the day,” does not give you the right to assume that the person with whom you are talking agrees with the primary assumption of your argument. Usually the speaker of this phrase is trying to insinuate that–at the end of the day–nothing his opponent has said means anything. Stating a meaningless aphorism does not make everything you say after the aphorism true.

On rare occasions, this phrase is followed by the words, “it is what it is.” When I hear this, I know that it’s time to write another blog post.

*”it’s the right thing to do” is the subject of another post soon to come.

For the best speech I have ever read on the subject, I will again defer to Ayn Rand, who wrote this through the character of Francisco d’Anconia in Atlas Shrugged.

The first paragraph is below, and the entire speech can be found at: http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=1826

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?”

The real violation of human rights in this case lies within the solution meant to protect the rights of the workers. Based on the fact that the foreign workers were voluntarily working for the American companies, we can conclude that this was the worker’s best available alternative; we know this with certainty, because if this were not the case, the worker would not have voluntarily chosen to work there in the first place.

So what is the effect on human rights of legislation that prohibits this exchange–that of the foreign worker’s labor for the American company’s money? The result is that now the workers in the developing nation who once had a job that allowed them to attain a higher standard of living than previously possible, are now unemployed and most likely will fall back into abject poverty.

For more info, check Murray Rothbard’s essay here: http://mises.org/daily/2569

I’ll hand the mic to Ayn Rand on this one:

“I could say to you that you do not serve the public good—that nobody’s good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices—that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction.”

Check the entire article here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/public_interest–the.html

His explanation will be posted here soon.

This is a list. It is short now, but soon to be long.

I hope you enjoy it. Please email any submissions to phrases@joelhackman.com

Cheers,

Joel Hackman