On My Philosophical Reflection Concerning “(I’m) Just Sayin'”

There are many phrases or words in the English language which contain a deeper, underlying meaning than the words themselves may suggest. Some of these beg to have deeper meaning ascribed to them, such as “hope” or “change,” while others we may look upon just as curious mannerisms and not attribute any real meaning to them whatsoever. Yet, it could be said that if it is spoken then it has to have meaning and reflection on this meaning can be useful to understand exactly what is trying to be conveyed by the speech or even the disposition and character of the speaker themselves. Even in the case of “ums” or “ers,” the purpose remains clear: The brain is merely trying to give itself a few extra milliseconds in which to formulate thought and arrange it into a viable expression.

That being said, I would now like to reflect on the phrase, “I’m just sayin.” This phrase is used more abundantly than one may realize and could be easily passed off as one of those aforementioned curious mannerisms. Yet, in reality the profound meaning behind it is as deep and vast as the oceans. First, it is worthy to understand the placement of the term “I’m just sayin.” Grammatically it occurs most frequently at the beginning of a sentence or at the conclusion of it suggesting it relates to those intermediate words between the start and finish. When used at the beginning of a sentence it is usually for reasons of emphasis, while at the end it is used as a means of defense against any argument which may be brought up concerning those intermediate words or ideas. Yet, it could be reasonably concluded that if the phrase is uttered at all, then the defense is proposed upon all the ideas.

In order to properly extrapolate this point we are going to have to provide an example where this conclusion can easily be seen and reflected upon by the reader independent of the text. Therefore, let us suppose a conversation between two individuals engaged in discourse concerning a matter of important disagreement, such as their favorite kinds of cheese. For a moment, let us assume both parties articulate their arguments to such a degree that both sides appear equal and no conclusion can be reached concerning who is the victor. However, while in their discourse, the party which prefers Cheshire over Bougon begins to gain the upper hand by citing information like a lower fat content, that it comes from a cow rather than a goat, and texture. With every argument proposed, the Bougon fan begins to get wore down, his bias becoming more clear as logic and reason begin to show Cheshire is going to be victorious. Yet, it is not enough for Mr. Bougon to concede to Mr. Cheshire due to the strength of his bias, thereby he may start off a subsequent statement with, “Look, I’m just sayin…” or finalize an idea with “I’m just sayin.”

Within this illustration the meaning becomes apparently clear. In the context of argument it denotes a lack of real reasoning or logic. If one backs another party up into that proverbial corner by means of superior reasoning then he is more likely to encounter the phrase as uttered by the opposing party. In fact, it could be said that if it is uttered by one party then the adverse party has indeed been victorious in the argument by making the one who is weaker resort back unto his bias alone. Therefore, we see there is an intrinsic connexion between the defensive posture of “I’m just sayin,” and the admittance of an extreme difficulty in answering a charge.

So, with the cheese example we see Mr. Bougon still believes his cheese to be better, but has no evidence for this other than his bias produced by his own senses and not by reasoning of the mind. Despite the compound agreement of sense perception and reason expressed by the Cheshire fan, Mr. Bougon still remains upright in his defense of his cheese by uttering, “I’m just sayin.” Thus, Mr. Bougon feels vindicated in his belief by ascribing it only to himself, rather than a fact independent from the self. The purpose of this is to express a steadfastness concerning his immediate unshakable belief that Bougon is the better cheese, and by projecting the conclusion upon the self, this serves to negate any argument or further challenge of the conclusion. If this were to occur, then an endless repetition could be supposed of “I’m-just-sayins” to every argument or judgment.

As clear as this is by the example, we should revisit the instance of emphasis when used at the beginning of the phrase, for this shows us another use of the term. The term is employed as means of enumeration of various points or ideas. However, it is not admittedly as effective as the phrase, “Here’s the deal.” In short, the phrase is said for five reasons:

1. To assign conclusion to the self.
2. For emphasis.
3. For enumeration.
4. To negate contrary argument.
5. To assign conclusion to belief.

I’m just sayin . . .

I will just go ahead and resist making a "I'm just Super Sayin" joke.

On A Quick Explanation and Some Arbitrary Criticism(s)

So, yeah, I haven’t been around for a while and for that I apologize. Unfortunately, my computer decided of its own accord to bug out and fry all the information on the drive. Compound this with my schooling and I just haven’t had the means or time to get on and blog about recent events, though I am certainly not void of opinion. So here is a quick run down of some things I have been pondering, thinking about and the conclusions or sentiments I have reached concerning them.

Stimulus Package: I hate it and have some intense reservations about it.
A-Rod: A-Tool

Laptop Computer Gliches: They really put things into perspective, mainly how much life sucks without computers.
Pencils: Obsolete for a reason people.
Oscars: Didn't watch them. Don't care. I'm only watching Bollywood movies now.

Sean Penn Winning Best Actor: Real shock to the system there. Ever get the feeling they judge on the "edginess" of the role rather than the performance itself? Just sayin . . .
Boxcar Hopping Hobo’s: Don’t have so much of a problem with them now, because its really going to be all those squatters which get our tax dollars. So I say keep moving hobo, keep moving.

The NYU Protest: I wonder why people don’t get that if you do stupid things while in the process of protesting it only makes you come out looking like a moron and while you may think it increases your chances of being heard, in reality the message becomes a mere footnote. The argument itself becomes not the topic of debate nor becomes subject to judgment, but rather the actions and disposition of those individuals who engage in the protest are the things the public looks upon. Concerning this issue, I posted this at nyulocal.com:

“I love it when people trespass against rules and order then have the audacity to put on the guise that they are standing up for rights and law. The ends and means need to compliment each other and not contradict, for if they conflict the cause is completely negated and any respect or support you may have from outside of that brethren engaged in the particular conviction is completely nullified. In short, bad form kids. Bad form.”

That’s my half-buttocked update and now with my computer up and running again you can expect more completely worthless piles of commentary very soon.

On The Senate's Recent Bill Movement

The US Senate: Hard at Work and Hard up for Your Cash.

On Jan 26, the Senate passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the internet was immediately abuzz with the fact that the only people who voted against it were, yes, those horrible Odin worshipping male Republicans (they also kill kittens). My first inclination was to think that this obviously doesn’t reflect on Republican’s (who go baby seal clubbing in their time off) very well. Yet, instead of freaking out like a rabid Chris Matthews in heat, I wanted to take a closer look to try and understand the other side of the issue, for there are two sides to everything; just in case the duality of the world has escaped anyone’s attention out there.



Within a society where everyone loves to play the victim and is overly sue happy, an employer needs to be protected against people who wish to take advantage of the law and contort it around their desires in an effort to extort money. I find this legal extortion to be despicable and we see it happen time and time again. One way to protect against this is to have strict terms upon which someone can sue. A most effective deterrent is the statute of limitations (I wonder what museum this statute is located in, for I have never seen it) and I feel it is a necessity. Yes, the burden does lie with the plaintiff supposedly, but this can be argued, for the accused are still expected to defend themselves from accusation and without a statute of limitations this becomes increasingly difficult. Though they say otherwise, the burden of proof is now essentially upon the defendant.



This is one of the terms within the amendment that I and the Republicans (“the man”) raise issue with. Not equality. As I read it, it occurred to me that media and bloggers are freaking out over the Republican’s (who really killed JFK) voting “no” because the title of the bill doesn’t demand any more in depth investigation. That is, people who see the headlines and the title of the Act are inclined to judge only from those relatively minute details. For instance, The Huffington Post, known far and wide for its objectivity, ran with the headline last April, “McCain Opposes Equal Pay Bill in Senate”. The key phrase there is “Equal Pay Bill.” Just think about what images that evokes, then add in the fact someone is actually opposing it and you come to the reasonable conclusion those who oppose it are uncaring chauvinists. Some cut right to the chase and apply it as an absolute, such as, “Republicans Believe Women Should Receive Less Pay.” We currently see similar headlines by bloggers and media about the Republicans (the same group owns a huge machine in Antarctica that eats away at the ozone and increases the global temperature) who voted it down, again evoking the same feeling every time we hear or see it. How could someone say “no?”



I will not say absolutely there are not any misogynistic Republican’s (they think Dakota Fanning is terrible) who voted no, for I don’t have the required omniscience to draw such a conclusion, but I will say some of the Senators legitimately opposed the Act due to it’s disregard for the statute of limitations. They considered this dangerous and so do I, but one wouldn’t know about this particular issue unless one were to take the time to look at what the Republican’s (GOP is now slipping mind control substances to your children in school lunches) who said “nay” had to say and read the Act itself. In fact, you’re probably better off just reading the act yourself, for who can trust the word of politicians nowadays anyway? At any rate, the title of these Bills and Acts are often used as a form of propaganda to bring about an emotional response towards an opposing party. Why didn’t they just title this one the “Female Genital Mutilation* Discouragement Act of 2009?” Then, anyone who voted “no” based on their feelings on the statute of limitations would be completely buried and burned in effigy by pop opinion.



Lilly Ledbetter, (how much you want to bet her friends call her “Silly Bedwetter” behind her back?) who worked for Goodyear Tires for 19 years, filed a claim after her retirement stating that there was a long history of discrimination within her checks and in her retirement benefits. It stated men who were working the same job were being paid more, both at work and in their retirement packages. This could be discrimination, but then again I can’t find any information on the other side of the story and there is ALWAYS another side. There are several things one needs to take in account with such a suit. What title each juxtaposed employee has, how long they have worked at the company, a list of their duties, if they relocate or travel and so on. All these things need to be compared and if two employees line up exactly then one can judge based upon the pay if it is discriminatory. Unless the difference is so extensive, absurd and without adequate explanation and then, in that case, one may be warranted in calling it “discrimination.”



The lawsuit was eventually turned down by the Supreme Court citing she was outside the 180 day statute of limitations. Now, I completely agree that this statute should be extended. Pay matters are a pretty private and discovery of discrimination could take a long time, but not two decades. Not to mention, that by her own admission she had known about it for a long time, since she stated Goodyear had a long history of discriminatory behavior. Furthermore, to essentially get rid of them altogether is frightening prospect for employers, especially the small business owner. We shouldn’t be too shocked if our court system gets overcrowded with people deciding to sue over long past incidents of discrimination. In this tough economy I am actually thinking about filing a Norwegian discrimination suit. Damn prejudiced Macaroni Grill! Anyway, I would have voted nay for the bill too until this limitation was expounded upon. Then, if a revised bill came before me with reasonable limitations, I would raise my vote in earnest, for as I have said before, I find equality to be a universal good and this should, not only extend into households across America, but also into justice and business as well.



The question remains though, why did so many Republican’s (they eat babies!) jump on the nay bandwagon? I have been watching TV for a long time now, for I have no life to speak of, and even I realize this is just part of the normal politics as usual for Washington DC. You show me any Bill and I will show you partisanship. For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the Fair Pay bill amends was ironically spearheaded by Republicans (just looking for any excuse to push the button and by “push the button” I mean take advantage of your sister), which the Democrats (love kittens, baby seals, Dakota Fanning, babies and completely respect your sister) voted against, but not all of them. Then again, we may come to the exact same argument, perhaps they didn’t like something in that bill, but the title of the Act makes it look really bad. Whatever the case, I feel the Republicans (who bathe in baby deer blood) were justified and the Democrats (saviors of the wilderness and our very souls), while their intentions towards equality are commendable, it seriously deteriorates a businesses right to protect itself. Soon it won’t matter though, Government will be running all business anyway and it’s REALLY hard to sue them!



*(On a quick rather serious side note, FGM is a horrible practice that is conducted in Africa and the Middle East with just over 90% of all women having it forcefully done to them in some countries. Vast amounts of information can be found online if you want more and I encourage everyone to sign as many petitions as they can against this practice. This sort of thing should not be going on in a “civilized” world and I really bring it up again here because I have run into many, many people who haven’t even heard of this practice, which is shocking due to its commonality.)