Cliches Lie

Big Frank has been thinking more about cliches lately - they have been much on his mind (sorry). This particular approach to them has Big Frank thinking not only are they mind stopping in the way that they prevent an idea, emotion, event, or experience from being examined, but in their very expression they falsify what is being referenced. Here are a few example:

1. "It is what it is." OK - obviously this is tautalogical in that "it" of course always is what "it" is. In other words, the implication is, that what you think it is, is what it is. Well, that might work if you are referring to a mouse ("A mouse is a mouse."), or a wrench ("A wrench is a wrench."); however, it is usually used to encapsulate some very complicated and undefined situation or phenomenon (problems in a relationship, some friend's behavior, or a situation at work). In all these cases, when one says "It is what it is" and you haven't even defined it, or have agreement with the person with whom you are talking, then the outcome is that you both agree on the supposition that what you think (even if it hasn't been confirmed by your friend in conversation) is "what is". How do you know that? Is it not eminently possible that it (any of the above complex phenomena) are NOT what you think they are? Is it not most probable, given the multiplicity of possible explanations, it is most probably NOT what it is in your mind. So, a more truthful expression (in those situations) would be to say: "It probably is not what it is".

2. "It stands to reason." This is a kind of filler cliche that that only serves to introduce something that one is going to say . . . about as meaningful as saying . . . "Hmmmm . . .". What follows is usually (most often) not particularly reasonable or obvious in any way. Usually, in fact, the reverse is true, as in It stands to reason that no sane person would ever agree to have their taxes cut in order to gain more social benefits, or It stands to reason that anyone in my position would do exactly what I have done.

3. "It takes one to know one." This is a catch phrase cliche that is used to indicate that someone who is quick to identify someone of wrongdoing is often guilty of the same offence - in the way that a swindler would be swift to identify the signs that indicate that someone had swindled, or that someone who had been guilty of infidelity would quickly identify someone else who was: "Peggy's husband says that Jim is being unfaithful to his wife. Well, you know what they say. It takes one to know one." Of course, there is no correlation there whatsoever, and the opposite is more often the case - that the one who identifies a wrongdoing has no experience whatsoever in committing that indescretion, otherwise all police would have to have criminal experience to do their jobs!