The No Comment Paradox
I posted a message on my messaging app and someone responded with "no comment" but isn't "no comment" itself a comment? Is not taking sides tantamount to creating a side, a side that takes no sides? There's a difference between remaining silent and uttering the words, "I don't want to say anything". It's like saying, "I'm not exhaling" but to say that one has to exhale.
Comments...
Comments...
Comments (26)
If I was debating whether we should put criminals in jail or not, being neutral is a position. It's not unbiased. Same with if we were debating whether the Earth is flat or not. Neutrality is a position.
If I do not want respond I literally do no do it. Because saying ambiguous things as "no comment" is ineffective.
This thread is a good example itself: imagine instead of answering you I didn't want to. Well I just do not answer but I don't say "no comments"
It is the projection of a corporeal action through writing.
If your conversation had been in person, the person's reaction would be silence.
It seems like passive aggressive gamesmanship. "I look down upon x from a height but risk nothing by doing so."
To All:
Question: Does god exist?
Type 1 Answer: Yes (Theism)/No (Atheism) [Knowledge]
Type 2 Answer: I don't know (Agnosticism) [Ignorance]
Type 3 Answer: Silence [?]
Type 4 Answer: No comment [?]
What are the differences between these 4 categories of answer or more germane to the discussion, what's the difference between answer types 3 and 4?
The "no comment" response occurs in the context of a request for information. The usual way it happens is a question is asked, like the one above, and one option for the person being asked the question is "no comment".
A question is, ultimately, just another way of getting one's hands on a desired piece of information. The question then is, what's the information content of "no comment" as compared to silence as a response/lack of response to a question? This is just one, the most obvious one, of many possible ways to explore the significance of the no comment paradox.
One might be that they just don't know the topic well enough. Another might be that they don't have the time to make a proper response. Or maybe they just don't feel strongly enough one way or another.
Or, they're Pyrrhonian skeptics and are intentionally not taking a position.
Are the reasons for replying to a question with "no comment" identical to the reasons for keeping mum?
No comment is a holding statement and rich in potential interpretations.
There is a difference between silence and an explicit refusal to answer. I agree. But let's also consider why 'no comment' might be used. If someone calls me on the phone to ask me about a scandal, I probably won't want to just rudely hang up. I'd just say that I have no statement, confirming at least that I understood the request. Then my silence can be registered as meaningful and not accidental.
The answer number 3 is correct. The number 4 is incorrect.
When you ask me something I can answer whatever I want but if I do not want to I do the nodded act or another no verbal form.
As you explained it is not only a paradox but grammatically incorrect or ambiguous.
When someone types "no comment" he is literally doing so. If I really do not want participate in this thread I simply no comment but I don't type because it is clearly not grammatically correct because I am not expressing properly in that way.
In my opinion "no comment" expression is empty and doesn't make effect as just silence
Sticking to the example question, "does god exist?", I provided, remaining silent and replying, "no comment" BOTH provide zero bytes of information on god. However, silence itself is zero bytes but "no comment" is 9 bytes on a Windows Notepad. There is some information in "no comment", the 9 bytes indicate that this is the case, but no information at all in silence. What is this information contained in "no comment"?
[quote=Anonymous 1]My words were met with a wall of silence.[/quote]
[quote=Anonymous 2]It was as if the pen on the desk was speaking to me[/quote]
Please note, my intuitions maybe a little off the mark.
No comment is best not read into as it contains a universe of potential meanings - including: 'Fuck you!', 'I don't know', 'I don't feel like sharing now', 'I have no views', 'I feel safer saying nothing as it might be problematic if I comment', 'I don't talk about that subject'.
No comment gains power when attached to some kinds questions and is some contexts. Such as, 'Did you hit that person?' No comment here could be read as an admission of guilt. And on it goes...
In other words then "no comment" is not the same as keeping one's mouth shut. Last I checked the "no comment" response is usually seen when government officials and the media find an occasion to talk to each other, the media's questions being met with "no comment" answers.
The media's objective is to find out what's going on regarding whatever's the hot topic. The government official's objective is..."no comment"??? Can you pick up the thread from there.
Politicians say 'no comment' because their default setting (and their job) is never to give the game away. Someone is always looking to nail a politician for something (media, the other side, lobby groups), no comment serves to minimize potential ammunition.
:ok:
So, "no comment" contains information unlike silence but, for my money, silence on the part of "politicians" can be construed in the same way, right? I mean if a "politician" doesn't say anything it means the same thing as faer saying "no comment" - in both cases the "politician" hasn't done anything to let the cat out of the bag. Why then is there this trend to say "no comment" when silence would've achieved the same thing?
That would always depend on the particular question and poster. Are you looking for some sort of universal ethic here? There is none.
Silence does not achieve the same thing (even in an online one-on-one conversation).
It wouldn't. One has to make one's silence heard, in order to distinguish one's silence from one's absence.
Replying "no comment" signals that you actually heard the question and considered it. If you remained silent, this could also be simply due to not having heard the question to begin with.
Note that replying "I don't want to say anything" and similar metacommunicative utterances indicate that the power relationship between the communicating parties is equal, or that the prospective replier is not subordinated or doesn't consider themselves to be subordinated to the other one.
Remaining silent can indicate one's (assumed) superiority, or (assumed) inferiority, so there is an ambivalence to be resolved. Making at least some kind of reply, even if it is just a metacommunicative verbal or non-verbal expression signals the replier is not subordinated or doesn't consider themselves to be subordinated to the other one.
On an important further note: The importance of the nonverbal. In face to face interactions, the nonverbal can, ideally, be seen and read accordingly. Rolling one's eyes or a facepalm gesture can be the nonverbal equivalent of "no comment". But for a person who has to act professionally, colloquial nonverbal expressions are not an option, which is why such a person has to put things into words.
Putting things into words also minimizes the possibility of misinterpretation.
For example:
Person A: Did you finish the homework?
Person B: No Comment.
This is quite an interesting angle that is becoming more commonplace, within online and real life contexts, due perhaps to an increase in ironic humour, given that the use of the term in this context is in fact, ironic.
. I won't answer to that question Mr. ...
. Now ... my question to you is - "Did I answer you ... ? " If I did ... how ... ?
. Empty words ... nothing but empty words ... and ... emptiness cannot follow ... by its very nature ... somethingness ...
. Empty words ... cannot be an answer ... in fact their quality is ineffably higher ... than ... any so-called answer ...
. In fact ... all questions itself ... are absurd ...
. You must have noticed that I never answer to any question ... because ... there is no need ... necessity ... as such ... never follows something which is not ... just ... something ... whose nature is ...
. There is no answer to any question ... because ... the answer potentially leads to another question ...
. All questions ... are ... by it's very nature ... stupid ...
. Existence does not know questions ... any question ... friend ...
. That's why ... the wise Being ... they wise Man ... is by nature ... silent ... he cannot be stubborn ... he cannot be an ambitious Man ...
. A creative silence ... a creative force ... surrounds him ... an Aura ... he does not answer to anything ... there is no need ... because ... his silence ... annihilates ... all questions ... through the answer of no answer ... through the voiceless voice ...
. It's a paradox ... yes ... friend ... but existence ... as such ... is a beautiful paradox ...
. So ... empty words ... as such ... are bound to happen ...
. The process of Metanoia ... is the process of the empty words ... is the process of the wise Man ... is the process of existence ...