TheRPGSite

The last four years or so have seen a great increase in the amount of political reading I engage in. Specifically, the reading of opinion pieces by various pundits and talking heads.  I'm an equal opportunity reader, I don't care about their politics so much as what they have to say.

I must say that, after four+ years that I am nothing but disappointed.

I can sum up the entire experience by means of a single anecdote that amused me greatly when I first read it a few years back.

Famously William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal :

QuoteAt the Aug. 28 debate in Chicago - the penultimate encounter in the series, with an estimated 10 million people watching - things began with relative calm. But it didn't stay that way, and before long the men began exchanging words that one simply didn't hear on TV at that time (see box below). Vidal called Buckley a "pro-crypto-Nazi," a modest slip of the tongue, he later said, because he was searching for the word "fascist" and it just didn't come out. Inflamed by the word "Nazi" and the whole tenor of the discussion, Buckley snapped back: "Now listen, you queer," he said, "stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in you goddamn face and you'll stay plastered." Smith attempted to calm the exchange with "gentlemen, let's not call names," but the damage had been done.

That these two great, opposed, minds could not make it past convient labels like Crypto-Nazi (or even Fascist...) and 'queer' speaks to me of the problem with political pundits.

I watch the news to stay informed, and yet both sides of the aisle, so to speak, tell me that its biased and unreliable.  I may not have the education of some people but I've learned how to read between the lines, to see what isn't being said.  So I read what they have to say... and continue to not see what what isn't being said.

Both sides seem incapable of telling the entire truth, of letting the reader make up their own minds. I don't mind bias, but hiding and obfuscating facts isn't bias, its sign of your own weak arguments.  If you aren't deliberately doing it... if you think your arguments aren't weak, then don't preserve me from hard counterarguments to 'save space'.

Another anecdote, this one personal.  16 years ago, as a youth, I took a debate class in school. Well, it was a speech class that included a singular major project in the form of a Debate. I chose to stand for Capital Punishment, while my distinguished opponent chose against.  It should have been a rousing debate. I know I spent weeks doing research to support both my own preconcieved notions, and to find reasons I hadn't thought of to support it. I also looked at the reasons AGAINST capital punishment, all the arguments I could find in my spare time, and how I would counter them.

My opponent chose, however, to coast on his existing grades and did nothing at all to prepare.  As we stood there before the class and I waited for his first rebuttal, or his own first point I realized something.  I couldn't win this debate.  I couldn't win because without sound counterarguments, or even unsound counter arguements, there was nothing for me to say, nothing for me to do but devolve into a lecture.  

So I handed my opponent my cards with all my arguments, all my notes, all my counterarguments, especially the ones I felt I was weakest against.  I fed him points, pointing to research I did.  It was brutal, it was one sided, but it was better that people could hear all the arguments... I could only wish they could have heard them from someone who had done their own research.

I got the only A+ for that project.

But I learned a great many lessons. I learned that arguing with yourself is a great way to win, but a terrible way to make a point.  I learned that the strongest arguments are made when there are strong points for them to resist.  I even learned a few things about blindly assuming I know something without looking for the facts.

Why can't these stuffed shirt experts learn the same thing? Or is that they are right and I am wrong, and people really are sheep that only want their own preconcieved notions repeated back to them as confirmation?

-Spike, who looking back at what was said realizes that the points made are weaker looking than intended... bah.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene II)

That sums up my political feelings, adding only "and take their stuff!". :D

-clash

I think any time you approach the media in the U.S. and Canada, you have to always keep in your mind first and foremost that it is a product being sold to you as a consumer.  What drives the machines that give spaces for these people to speak is advertising and that's what everybody running the machines is concerned about.  They don't give a shit about the actual information.  Obviously, you know this, but I think it really needs to be the first filter any time you read any of that stuff, whatever side of the debate it is on.

Second, the idea that journalism can be objective is a very American one.  In Europe, it is assumed from the start that media outlets have a certain bias.  Front page news stories are written much more editorially, with an individual linked to them.  We have one paper here in Montreal, Le Devoir, which follows that model.  It definitely reports on the news, but it makes very clear where it stands on those issues.  I find it much more honest than these fake objective articles where supposedly just the facts are relayed to the reader (see:  all of John Morrow's links).

I've been watching a lot of Daily Show lately, and downloaded the audiobook of America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction, and it inspired me to watch more C-Span, more of the moment-to-moment debate on the House and Senate floors.

My advice: don't do this. Don't. Save yourself the agony of realizing that nearly everyone involved in the process, from media talking heads to the leaders of our nation, is no different from every douchebag you meet online. It's sometimes terrifying to see how like message forum bullshit every session of our legislature is, with irrational polarity, irrational off-topic discourse, irrational personal conflicts, and more than anything else, irrationality. Also, no one involved seems at all rational.

Then someone grabs two random people from opposing poles and throws them in front of a camera for Caricature Time, which assures no one hears anything moderate, productive, or rational. And they yell their opinions back and forth as if they're certainly right, without any more logical support than talking points can deliver.

It's all bullshit. The government is too mired in self-indulgence to service the people who bleed money to pay for it. The media doesn't care, forgot, or never knew that the trade for their freedom of the press is the responsibility to make government transparent to the people. And the people are people: mostly mediocre, and also having forgotten that their freedoms are bought at the cost of responsibilities, too.

The solution is revolution, destroying it all so it's all new and exciting again. And then it'll wear off, and be bullshit again. The one great truth about all times, all ages, all empires and federations and nations, is that overall, they're average, because that's what average is. Exceptionality is the exception.

I understand the objective media thing, I also understand that it is a relative newcomer in the grand scheme of things. At one time you had openly liberal and openly conservative, or more party based, newspapers... many of whom survive today in name, if not ideals.  

That said, there was... as near as I can tell... some few decades ago where journalistic 'objectivity' and so forth were... while imperfect... still held as honest ideals to be striven for.  Now we have open bias masquerading as objectivity.

But as I said: I don't mind bias. I expect bias. What I dislike is when people try to convince me by lying to me, either deliberately or by omission.  It has the opposite effect on me.  In the words of The Operative [Serenity] " I am not a moron"...

Some of these pundits and talking heads make good, even great points. But every time they catagorically dismiss their opponents position without a thought (Liberal Intelligensia, Conservative Fundamentalists, Tax and Spend whomever the otherguy is....) they lose me.

The one thing I come away with is the disturbing idea that maybe both sides are actually, completely, absolutely correct... that each side is in fact in lock step on all these various issues. Yes, every liberal, from the News Media, to the Democratic Party, to the National Educators Association really ARE working together to turn our school systems into Political Re-Education Camps. Maybe every Republican and every Christian and every Business are in lock step to turn America into a Theocracy, with the 'poor' as serfs.


I mean, that shit falls right behind 'Demolition Man' Utopian future as the stuff of nightmares.

Quote from: walkerpI find it much more honest than these fake objective articles where supposedly just the facts are relayed to the reader (see:  all of John Morrow's links).

Like you actually ever read or understand any of them.

Quote from: SpikeBoth sides seem incapable of telling the entire truth, of letting the reader make up their own minds.

That's because the truth doesn't serve any particular pure political agenda.  That leaves a person with a choice.  They can compromise their political agenda or conceal the truth.

Quote from: John MorrowLike you actually ever read or understand any of them.

well the first one I went to was one of the most horrible crime stories I have read in quite a while, where they specifically emphasised, in the guise of being objective, the details of the torture, rape and murder of a white women by several black ex-cons.  You were using that to make some kind of point, I guess, but I couldn't see what there was to understand and after that I stopped following any of your links.

My point in that throwaway line was those are the kinds of articles that act like they are reporting info, when their main goal is to drive a very specific fear-based political agenda.

I just read this bit of blather from Jonathan Kay, an editor* of Canada's National Post newspaper (quite well respected). In this bit posted on the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7444116.stm) here's his reasoning for why American deserters shouldn't be able to stay in Canada:**

Quote from: Jonathan KayShould Corey Glass have enlisted in the US National Guard back in 2002? Probably not. From what I saw and heard of his 21 May press conference in Toronto, my first impression was that this pale, lanky 25-year-old should be playing synth in a Gothic emo band - not kicking down doors in Iraq.

Piss off. :rolleyes:

It's stuff like this that bugs the hell out of me.  The entire Left = Sissies / Right = Macho Men politics in North America. So people pick teams based on whether they want to appear smart, or tough, or sensitive, or whatever... instead of actually talking about the issues.

*Kay is comment pages editor of the National Post. In addition, he is a columnist for the National Post op-ed page, and a regular contributor to Commentary magazine and the New York Post.

**It doesn't matter what you think about the issue.  If Corey Glass was built like Hulk Hogan it really shouldn't make any difference.

Quote from: SpikeI watch the news to stay informed

And there's your problem ;)

It's not so much that it's biased, rather that it's very trivial and superficial. "But is he wearing his flag pin?" For fuck's sakes...

The average political candidate wouldn't survive a high school debate. That they can survive journalists show how piss-weak journalism has become.

Quote from: StuartIt's stuff like this that bugs the hell out of me.  The entire Left = Sissies / Right = Macho Men politics in North America.

What?! I can't be a leftie and macho?

I will have to rethink my whole approach to life now.

Quote from: StuartI just read this bit of blather from Jonathan Kay, an editor* of Canada's National Post newspaper (quite well respected).

While I agree with your overall point, I do have to take exception that National Post is quite well respected.  It's an upstart national newspaper that developed out of what was a very well-respected financial daily, centered in Toronto but focused on Canadian business.  The editor who launched it into a general national paper (Ken White, I think his name is) is a well known neo-con of the David "Wormtongue" Frum school of Canadian Bush Admin lampreys.  And the publisher was of course Conrad Black, another traitorous scumbag on his way to jail if he's not there already.

It's always been firmly right-wing and kept going there when they sold it to Izzy Asper, who is more of a free market asshole of the old school than a true neo-con.

It is commonly considered the right-wing national paper here in Canada.  The lack of respect, though, comes from its trashy, celebrity-oriented (generally American) journalism. It does things like putting Pamela Anderson on the cover in big splashy colour.  It's choice of front page articles are either strongly biased to their politics or sensational (not that the Globe & Mail is much better on that latter point).

So while a large national paper, I don't think we can say it is truly respected.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat?! I can't be a leftie and macho?

I will have to rethink my whole approach to life now.

No no no... you can't be macho because you are GREEN. The fact that Greens fall to the far left is coincidence.

Not that Greens are the only movement that happens to be leftist that can't be macho...

Communists, however, they can be macho.  Just look at the Russians. Even the women are macho and they were communist for years....

You don't have to be a commie to be green. I mean, I want a free market, a very conservative financial sector, logging, hunting vermin with a rifle, I believe in exploiting the Earth - just doing it in such a way that we can still exploit it tomorrow - and so on.

I was just having an argument with my old man over bailouts to struggling businesses in the country and subsidies for diesel. As he lives in the countryside and drives a diesel truck eighty miles every day, he supports them. Whereas I am a "you chose to live there knowing you'd have to drive a long way to everywhere, and businesses sink or swim on their own, tough shit."

Apparently only left-wing commie city slickers think things like that - that if you make choices and they have consequences, you should have the benefit or trouble of them. I thought "stand up and take it like a man" was right-wing. Not nowadays, though.

Politics is fucked-up and confused. I mean, if you say, "so the banks made dodgy decisions, let 'em sink", people think you're a communist. I thought in a free market shit like that happens? You take the bad with the good.

I 'spose when you try to force all the political ideas in the world into just two parties, as in the US or Australia, then things are going to be mixed up, though.

At some point, green has to be macho, doesn't it?  I mean definitely not the I buy organic diapers for my child that I drive around to play dates kind of urban greenie that are popular today, but what about the rugged, forest ranger types or Earth First militants?  That seems kind of macho.

Quote from: SpikeThe last four years or so have seen a great increase in the amount of political reading I engage in. Specifically, the reading of opinion pieces by various pundits and talking heads...

Both sides seem incapable of telling the entire truth, of letting the reader make up their own minds. I don't mind bias, but hiding and obfuscating facts isn't bias, its sign of your own weak arguments.  If you aren't deliberately doing it... if you think your arguments aren't weak, then don't preserve me from hard counterarguments to 'save space'.

Columnists are not the place to look for reasoned arguments and carefully marshalled facts. That's not really what they're hired to do. They're hired to generate heat, not light. Fact is, most of the market for current affairs prefers heat to light.

If you really want to keep informed about politics, economics, and public policy without all the partisan hysteria, do yourself a favour and get a subscription to the Economist. Or borrow it from the library. But you aren't going to find what you're looking for from American commentators, especially television/radio commentators.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe average political candidate wouldn't survive a high school debate. That they can survive journalists show how piss-weak journalism has become.

Journalists works for businesses. Those businesses want to make money. The media gives its customers what they want.

You want to blame someone for how lame journalism has become? Blame the 90 per cent of your fellow citizens who will turn the channel as soon as soon as anything substantive, rational, and the least bit complex appears on their television.

Quote from: walkerpAt some point, green has to be macho, doesn't it?  I mean definitely not the I buy organic diapers for my child that I drive around to play dates kind of urban greenie that are popular today, but what about the rugged, forest ranger types or Earth First militants?  That seems kind of macho.

You've just noted a division not everyone notices. It's one that shouldn't trouble me, but it often does. A lot of "green" people don't spend very much time in the wilderness, but only consume it passively, and it distorts their priorities. They read about environmental issues in Sierra Club newsletters and publications like Scientific American and Discover - which are so completely filled with environmental issues that I've canceled my subscription to each; look, I know about the environment, I was subscribing to you for information on, you know, all of science, not this one damned thing - and not by being in a watershed and watching partially-treated sewage being dumped into it.

I'm a, well, at least a "forest ranger type," although I'm not sure if it's kosher for me to self-identify as "rugged," and these city folk don't really know much about the environment as it is, only the environment as it's shown to them. I love their money, and they've got lots of it, and it's done a lot of good, but there's still something that grates about listening to some douche go on and on about changing sea levels when he doesn't know that his local rivers are running dry and he could do things personally to change that.

And perhaps that's a part of my objection: sure, I'm troubled that they don't bother to enjoy the nature they want to protect, but what really drives me mad is that they think buying a Prius and writing a check is all they need to do. They still shower twice a day, use a dishwasher, overwash their clothes, run the TV six hours a day, leave their computers on 24/7, and eat prepackaged food made in factories which pump out awful, awful crap. They've made changes: we couldn't have gotten where we are on issues like recycling if it weren't for the ignorant passion of city greens, and I appreciate the hell out of them, as a class, for standing up as consumers. But I wish they'd stop fucking consuming so much!

Real change requires that we ourselves make real change. Yelling at factory owners produces results, certainly, but not buying so much of the shit they make would produce superior results. But people don't want to sacrifice more than money, or make changes that their neighbors won't notice, and maybe that's because they don't spend enough time in the parts of the world they're trying to fix.

So shut off your damned electricity-gulping television and go outside. Walk outside the city limits, and find a small river. Walk up it. Do this every single day, until you realize you don't want or need the television: then give it to someone who was going to buy a new one. [Don't want to build another if we don't have to!] You'll be more fit, you'll use less environment-damaging energy, and you'll learn to love the earth as we rugged forester types do: personally, not vicariously.

Couldn't agree with you more, Engine.

I could go on about the yuppie-greens, but I'll start to have a freakout.  Let me summarize it to say that their greenness almost always stops at status, "health" and "security".  I put the last two in quotations because they are basically advertising code words that don't have anything to do with the actual word.  So health is anti-bacterial wipes and security is a giant SUV (safer in an accident).  I'd put cleanliness and sanitation under health as well, but they are such massive categories of consumption that they probably deserve their own.

So they are all for community composting as long as the compost is driven far from their neighbourhood, or they'll by organic juice but also buy bottled water because it's "purer".

Oh shit, I almost started ranting again.  

Back to the positive.  Yes, walk to the river.  Give your TV to someone who will use it. Excellent suggestions.

Quote from: EngineBut I wish they'd stop fucking consuming so much!

Do you mean like buying computers? Using them to post on RPG boards about environmental issues? Heck, like turning you computer on at all? Pot-Kettle-Black.

Bill

Quote from: walkerpwell the first one I went to was one of the most horrible crime stories I have read in quite a while, where they specifically emphasised, in the guise of being objective, the details of the torture, rape and murder of a white women by several black ex-cons.

Normally, I don't post the most graphic links because of that reaction.  I didn't, for example, post links of the movie of what went on at Abu Ghraib during Saddam and there were some other equally horrific incidents that I've avoided posting links to.  But I think your illustrates the problem with being "objective".  Do we make crime stories more objective by hiding the gory details and the politically incorrect details about he perpetrators or does that bias the story in a different way, making the crime seem less awful and the race relations less messy than they really are?  Isn't avoiding outrage as much of a bias as encouraging it?  How is selectively reporting the details to avoid possible interpretations that you don't approve of "objective"?

Quote from: walkerpYou were using that to make some kind of point, I guess, but I couldn't see what there was to understand and after that I stopped following any of your links.

My point was probably that people have a very different impression of events when all of the gory details are known to them than when they've only seen reports sanitized for their protection.  Hearing that a woman was sexually assaulted and killed by a faceless perpetrator creates a very different impression than reading the details does.  Similarly, we saw pictures of what American soldiers did to detainees in Abu Ghraib and think they were awful but most people only have a vague idea of what Saddam Hussein did there.  But if you watch the video of what Saddam's people did (which includes cutting off finger, hands, tongues, and so on), then it puts a different perspective on the severity of not only what Saddam did but on what the Americans did in comparison.  It's easy to be aloof and morally relative when everything is an academic abstract.

Quote from: walkerpMy point in that throwaway line was those are the kinds of articles that act like they are reporting info, when their main goal is to drive a very specific fear-based political agenda.

But I don't think that's really your problem.  Your problem seems to be that the article wasn't sanitized of details to serve a political agenda that you approve of.  Political bias is created by omission just as much as it's created by inclusion.

Quote from: HinterWeltDo you mean like buying computers?

I haven't bought a computer in ten years. The computer I use has been tuned over those ten years to use the least wattage possible, because it's the heart of my recording studio, and low wattage means low heat means fewer fans means lower noise.

Quote from: HinterWeltUsing them to post on RPG boards about environmental issues?

I post only, you might notice, from work, where the computer is on, anyway.

Quote from: HinterWeltHeck, like turning you computer on at all?

No one is saying, "Never use electricity." What I'm saying is that it sure would be nice if people used less electricity. My studio equipment is literally the only electricity-using property I own.

Bill, I take your point, but you don't know anything at all about my life and how I live it. For three months last year, I used no electricity at all, because I lived outside the entire time. I have never used air conditioning. I don't cook most of my food, and I grow a tremendous proportion of it, watering it with water from a nearby stream, which filters back into said stream through a bed of aggregate. Rather than buy a new car, I drive a 22-year-old car that anyone else would put in a junkyard, which gets 32 miles per gallon, which I only repair myself, and from which I have removed all excess weight so as to improve efficiency, and I mean shit like I took out the interior of the car, as well as the entire air conditioning system. [But not my subwoofer; again, no one is saying "no impact," I'm saying, "please lower your impact."] I don't own a bed, because I won't buy something new when there's no necessity for it: I sleep on the hardwood floor. And I'm only scratching the surface of the differences between my life and that of the Prius-owning caricature of an environmentalist I'm objecting to.

Before you start throwing pots around, maybe drop the accusatory tone and just ask questions like someone who isn't a dick.

Quote from: EngineBill, I take your point, but you don't know anything at all about my life and how I live it.
Before you start throwing pots around, maybe drop the accusatory tone and just ask questions like someone who isn't a dick.

And now you get it. You don't know me, but you are o.k. lecturing me on a device that take 10 times the petroleum products to create by weight than a car.

My point is not that you are using a computer to criticize the world but that you use a very broad brush to do so.

Because, yes, you do not know me and how I live. And you know what? I don't feel the need to preach to others about my "superiority".

So, maybe drop the accusatory tone and just ask questions like someone who isn't a dick.

Bill

Edit: To be perfectly clear, my point is to let you know how you (and others) sound when you preach. For the record, I do not disagree that people should enjoy wilderness more, explore nature. That is a good thing and would likely bring a better understanding of the environment.

Quote from: EngineBefore you start throwing pots around, maybe drop the accusatory tone and just ask questions like someone who isn't a dick.

Then stop being a sanctimonious dick. You're going to end up being Kyle's clone. See, here's the problem - we get it. You're hard core. you think you know the way to go about things, otherwise it wouldn't upset you if someone tried to be good about the environment by recycling and turning off some lights.

So even though you're putting all kinds of disclaimers on it, you're being a dick who thinks he can judge everyone else - by explaining how you live, even though you say you don't expect it, you are, by implication, setting the standard by which others can, and apparently should, be measured. How nice for you.

People make all kinds of changes, some little, some big. The fact that you are willing and able to sleep on a hardwood floor and drive (and repair) your own car says nothing of the suburban housewife who uses the dishwasher because she needs the extra time to bike to the grocery store to save gas. Her small change is no less important than yours.

So please dial it down a notch, Engine. This is more self-serving than usual for you. You're better than it.

Quote from: HinterWeltAnd now you get it. You don't know me, but you are o.k. lecturing me on a device that take 10 times the petroleum products to create by weight than a car.

Presuming you're talking about my computer at work, I have no choice in the matter or manner of its creation.

Quote from: HinterWeltBecause, yes, you do not know me and how I live. And you know what? I don't feel the need to preach to others about my "superiority".

You put that word in quotes, so I'm assuming I used it. Let me check. Hmm, that's strange, I didn't use it at all. You must, then, be using it in the "air quotes" sense of the word, so let me put it to you this way: I don't think I'm better than anyone else, because I don't think the word better - or superior - has any meaning beyond that which we assign it. We could say, for instance, I'm a superior conservationist, meaning I'm superior at conserving, but that doesn't imply any sort of quality about me.

I do feel the need to preach - pontificate, evangelize, however you'd like to put it - about environmental conservation and sustainability, because most people are not particularly aware of it, and much of what they're being told is false, distorted, or not, in my own personal opinion, that meaningful. I feel no shame for encouraging others to conserve resources.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, maybe drop the accusatory tone and just ask questions like someone who isn't a dick.

Oh, nice rhetorical turnaround! Except that I'm not the one making accusations about you,* so it actually doesn't make any sense, it's just a cheap rhetorical tool to score a point, which is, in my opinion, stupid bullshit.

Quote from: HinterWeltEdit: To be perfectly clear, my point is to let you know how you (and others) sound when you preach.

You failed utterly and completely at that task, Bill. I still don't know how you think I [and others] sound when I [we] preach, because you said nothing at all about that subject at all. What you did was incorrectly identify me as a hypocrite, and then refuse to admit it.

I don't know how you live, Bill: perhaps you're very conservation-aware, and do all sorts of things to improve the quality of life on this planet. In that case - listen closely - I wasn't talking about you.

Quote from: James J SkachThen stop being a sanctimonious dick.

Okay, so the rule is, I can't rant about the environment? I ranted about the media, earlier, without a ripple in the pond. Is there something about the environment, in particular, that makes it bad if I rant about it?

Quote from: James J SkachYou're hard core. you think you know the way to go about things, otherwise it wouldn't upset you if someone tried to be good about the environment by recycling and turning off some lights.

I do not perceive the logic in that statement. People seem to be reading some sense of superiority into my words that I not only did not intend, but which I have repeatedly stated I don't intend.

Quote from: James J SkachSo even though you're putting all kinds of disclaimers on it, you're being a dick who thinks he can judge everyone else...

Well, that's shitty. So, if I expressly state things like, "I don't think everyone has to live this way," but then say, "I live this way," I'm judging them and being a dick? We just ignore mitigating statements as "disclaimers?" Wipe them out in favor of what people want to read into what I've said?

Quote from: James J SkachThe fact that you are willing and able to sleep on a hardwood floor and drive (and repair) your own car says nothing of the suburban housewife who uses the dishwasher because she needs the extra time to bike to the grocery store to save gas. Her small change is no less important than yours.

I never said it was. And you'll notice I didn't mention one fucking whit of my own efforts until someone challenged me on my level of conservation. I certainly didn't say, "Look, I'm fucking awesome, I have low environmental impact, I'm super cool, and you suck for not being like me." Somehow, however, even when I've expressly said the opposite, people only hear that.

God damn it, this has got me pissed off. There's really nothing that troubles me more than people reading things into what I've written that I did not intend, much less reading things into what I've written that I've expressly stated I don't intend. So sorry if I sound pissed, but I am.

Quote from: EngineOkay, so the rule is, I can't rant about the environment? I ranted about the media, earlier, without a ripple in the pond. Is there something about the environment, in particular, that makes it bad if I rant about it?

What the hell is this? Come on, Engine. You like to accuse people of cheap rhetorical tricks? Well, here's one right here. Stop it.

Quote from: EngineI do not perceive the logic in that statement. People seem to be reading some sense of superiority into my words that I not only did not intend, but which I have repeatedly stated I don't intend.

Well, perhaps – just perhaps – you might want to go back then, read what you wrote in post #18, and try to see how you might be coming across.

Quote from: EngineWell, that's shitty. So, if I expressly state things like, "I don't think everyone has to live this way," but then say, "I live this way," I'm judging them and being a dick? We just ignore mitigating statements as "disclaimers?" Wipe them out in favor of what people want to read into what I've said?

Here – let me help you.

Quote from: EngineI'm a, well, at least a "forest ranger type," although I'm not sure if it's kosher for me to self-identify as "rugged," and these city folk don't really know much about the environment as it is, only the environment as it's shown to them. I love their money, and they've got lots of it, and it's done a lot of good, but there's still something that grates about listening to some douche go on and on about changing sea levels when he doesn't know that his local rivers are running dry and he could do things personally to change that.

And perhaps that's a part of my objection: sure, I'm troubled that they don't bother to enjoy the nature they want to protect, but what really drives me mad is that they think buying a Prius and writing a check is all they need to do. They still shower twice a day, use a dishwasher, overwash their clothes, run the TV six hours a day, leave their computers on 24/7, and eat prepackaged food made in factories which pump out awful, awful crap. They've made changes: we couldn't have gotten where we are on issues like recycling if it weren't for the ignorant passion of city greens, and I appreciate the hell out of them, as a class, for standing up as consumers. But I wish they'd stop fucking consuming so much!

Or this:

Quote from: EngineSo shut off your damned electricity-gulping television and go outside. Walk outside the city limits, and find a small river. Walk up it. Do this every single day, until you realize you don't want or need the television: then give it to someone who was going to buy a new one. [Don't want to build another if we don't have to!] You'll be more fit, you'll use less environment-damaging energy, and you'll learn to love the earth as we rugged forester types do: personally, not vicariously.

How about that one? Look at that last line – that's not sanctimonious?

So don't be surprised when someone pushes back.

Does that help clear it up? Does that help you understand how one might "read into it"?

Quote from: James J SkachWhat the hell is this? Come on, Engine. You like to accuse people of cheap rhetorical tricks? Well, here's one right here.

Actually, it was intended to be a real question: why could I rant about the media, but not the environment? I seriously don't understand.

Seriously, pretty much everything I write is meant to be taken at face value. You kind of have to, on the internet, or things like this happen.

Quote from: James J SkachHow about that one? Look at that last line – that's not sanctimonious?

Not unless sanctimonious means something other than I think it does [showing devotion hypocritically]. Now that I think about it, driving a Prius is often sanctimonious, although in fairness I don't think most Prius drivers realize it; they want to do something, and they've been told this is a great thing they could do, so they do it without asking if it's really the best thing to do in order to accomplish their goals.

Quote from: James J SkachDoes that help clear it up? Does that help you understand how one might "read into it"?

Not really, no, but I appreciate that we've gotten into the calm place.

I made what I'd call, at worst, a call to action, an encouragement of a way in which people could make themselves healthier and happier, and benefit the world at large: chuck the TV and go outside. I like that more than sitting inside, watching TV and writing checks to the Sierra Club; I think it results in more meaningful change for everyone. And in case I haven't made it clear, I don't think the fact that I do those things makes me "better" or "superior" to anyone else, and if I somehow communicated that, I did so in error.

Quote from: EngineActually, it was intended to be a real question: why could I rant about the media, but not the environment? I seriously don't understand.

Oh. Maybe I do: do you suppose the rants would have been received differently on, say, a board full of media pundits? Do people just not mind criticism so long as it's aimed elsewhere? That'd be kind of sad.

Quote from: EngineActually, it was intended to be a real question: why could I rant about the media, but not the environment? I seriously don't understand.

Seriously, pretty much everything I write is meant to be taken at face value. You kind of have to, on the internet, or things like this happen.

I don't recall off-hand. I doubt you did or I might have reacted the same - but did you say that you were being a member of the media the right way and pretty much everyone else wasn't?

Also, by it's very target, a shot at the media can't be taken as a broadside at everyone reading. Criticism is fine - constructive criticism is great. This was...not your best moment at constructive criticism.

Quote from: EngineNot unless sanctimonious means something other than I think it does [showing devotion hypocritically]. Now that I think about it, driving a Prius is often sanctimonious, although in fairness I don't think most Prius drivers realize it; they want to do something, and they've been told this is a great thing they could do, so they do it without asking if it's really the best thing to do in order to accomplish their goals.

Really? We're going to get in to definition debates? I'm using it in the perfectly acceptable and often used manner of smug. Sanctimonious has several synonyms - hypocritical and pious among them. I don't think you're a hypocrite, so if you'd like me to call you smug instead, so be it. I forget that you have an aversion greater than mine even when it comes to colloquialisms.

Quote from: EngineNot really, no, but I appreciate that we've gotten into the calm place.

I made what I'd call, at worst, a call to action, an encouragement of a way in which people could make themselves healthier and happier, and benefit the world at large: chuck the TV and go outside. I like that more than sitting inside, watching TV and writing checks to the Sierra Club; I think it results in more meaningful change for everyone. And in case I haven't made it clear, I don't think the fact that I do those things makes me "better" or "superior" to anyone else, and if I somehow communicated that, I did so in error.

Well, I'm sorry it didn't help. See, when you do things like assume it will make them healthier, and particularly happier, and follow this with something that seems to be based on your preference for that instead of writing checks...well, I would, for one, certainly have no problem with someone who thought you were being smug - no matter how many "I'm not saying it's better," disclaimers you put on it.

Just sayin' is all...

Quote from: EnginePresuming you're talking about my computer at work, I have no choice in the matter or manner of its creation.

You always have a choice. To take Kyle's "move closer to work" theory you could choose a profession that does not use a computer. A number come to mind. You choose to pursue a profession that uses a computer. Not in a minimalist way, but in a manner that has luxury time allowed to such a device.

Simply, what one person considers a "necessary evil" others consider a "decadent indulgence". And no, I am not quoting you, merely using punctuation to indicate a colloquial usage.  

Quote from: EngineYou put that word in quotes, so I'm assuming I used it. Let me check. Hmm, that's strange, I didn't use it at all. You must, then, be using it in the "air quotes" sense of the word, so let me put it to you this way: I don't think I'm better than anyone else, because I don't think the word better - or superior - has any meaning beyond that which we assign it. We could say, for instance, I'm a superior conservationist, meaning I'm superior at conserving, but that doesn't imply any sort of quality about me.

You have a very strange way of showing your humble nature. You seem fond of telling others how they should live their lives while using one of the worst environmental offenders of the century to do so.

Quote from: EngineI do feel the need to preach - pontificate, evangelize, however you'd like to put it - about environmental conservation and sustainability, because most people are not particularly aware of it, and much of what they're being told is false, distorted, or not, in my own personal opinion, that meaningful. I feel no shame for encouraging others to conserve resources.

See, I believe, and it is only my opinion, that environmental conservatism is best served by action. Local initiatives, local involvement and local education. For instance, solar and wind power may not be viable for industry but if we look at the problem a different way than traditional power production/distribution and see every home as a power production station...things can change.

Quote from: EngineOh, nice rhetorical turnaround! Except that I'm not the one making accusations about you,* so it actually doesn't make any sense, it's just a cheap rhetorical tool to score a point, which is, in my opinion, stupid bullshit.

You are making them about anyone who is not you. You used a broad brush. You make statements like "But I wish they'd stop fucking consuming so much!" or "for the ignorant passion of city greens". The first has a the "superior" attitude of "I am superior because I do not consume as much" and the second  an "inferior" knowledge to your "enlightened" views.

Note: Quotes used to indicate paraphrasing and colloquial usage.

Quote from: EngineYou failed utterly and completely at that task, Bill. I still don't know how you think I [and others] sound when I [we] preach, because you said nothing at all about that subject at all. What you did was incorrectly identify me as a hypocrite, and then refuse to admit it.

I don't know how you live, Bill: perhaps you're very conservation-aware, and do all sorts of things to improve the quality of life on this planet. In that case - listen closely - I wasn't talking about you.

Hmm, I see a failure to communicate here. Partly my fault but let me try again.

I actually agree with many of your points, just not how you say it nor how you implement you spread off the idea. To say one aspect of consumption, say, auto use, is evil then rationalize computer use only shows me you have different needs. I am speaking in general here. To me, it is more about reducing where you can, doing (taking action) where you can and helping those around you to take action. Preaching to people about what you do is of little use if not followed up with them seeing the benefit. It has a powerful effect to show people how solar/wind can power a home by turning on a light while they see the windmill go around.

So, I am not even against some level of championing environmentalism I just prefer it in a more positive manner. Not what you say but how you say it.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltYou always have a choice. To take Kyle's "move closer to work" theory you could choose a profession that does not use a computer.

I cannot. I live in a state in which no higher-paying non-computer job within an acceptable radius of persons whose housing I cannot control. Trust me, if I could get another job, I would.

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I believe, and it is only my opinion, that environmental conservatism is best served by action.

So, should I start bitching about how you're not taking enough action? How you're using a computer? How you're not out taking action right this instant, and thus you're a smug jerk? No, because you're expressing your opinion about what action should be taken, which is action itself.

Quote from: HinterWeltYou are making them about anyone who is not you.

No. No no no no no nonononono. Again, no. I was speaking about a fairly narrow group of people, defined by someone who wasn't me in the first place. I've said this before, and I'll keep saying it. Are you someone who is environmentally-conscious but takes no personal actions beyond giving other people money to fix problems, or buying a hybrid? No? Then I wasn't talking to you. Yes? Then I was, and I recommend you throw out your TV and go for a walk.

Quote from: HinterWeltTo say one aspect of consumption, say, auto use, is evil then rationalize computer use only shows me you have different needs.

I didn't say auto use is evil, and I didn't rationalize computer use. Honestly, I don't think you're reading what I wrote.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, I am not even against some level of championing environmentalism I just prefer it in a more positive manner. Not what you say but how you say it.

Oh. Fuck off, then. A brother was ranting, and if, in the face of the other positive shit I do, one rant is objectionable, seriously, fuck off.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't recall off-hand. I doubt you did or I might have reacted the same - but did you say that you were being a member of the media the right way and pretty much everyone else wasn't?

If that's the division, I'd like to point out I didn't say I was being an environmentalist "the right way," or that "pretty much everyone else" wasn't.

Quote from: James J SkachReally? We're going to get in to definition debates?

No. I'm going to use the word the way it's defined, and you can use it however you'd like. I cannot speak to "common usage," because I don't know what usage is common. I will use the definition from the dictionary, and if you've a better one, please provide it. In the meantime, if you mean "smug," say "smug," because "sanctimonious" doesn't mean "smug."

And no, I don't think I'm better than anyone else because I'm using a word in the manner in which it's defined. Will I need to preface every statement of mine with that disclaimer? And since we're ignoring disclaimers, will it matter?

[edit: And that came off snippy and bitter, when I only meant for it to be bitter. James, you're doing your level best to aid me, and I wish I could respond with something other than anger, but I'm stuck in this disbelieving state where I ranted about superficial environmentalists and some people took it personally, and I feel like now every time I say anything about anyone, I'm going to have to spend the next week explaining, "No, I didn't mean that; you can tell by how I didn't say that. No, I didn't mean you; you can tell by how I didn't mention you." My apologies, anyway.]

Quote from: James J SkachSee, when you do things like assume it will make them healthier, and particularly happier, and follow this with something that seems to be based on your preference for that instead of writing checks...well, I would, for one, certainly have no problem with someone who thought you were being smug...

Whoa, really? Well, I assume anyone - with the exception of people with injuries which preclude walking, and people who already walk several hours a day - who gives up several hours of television and replaces it with walking, will, indeed, be healthier, and all the data I've ever seen suggests it'll make them happier, too. And I think it's better - for you, and for the environment, unless you write big checks - than writing checks, yes. But I honestly, honestly, don't understand how saying those [true!] things makes me smug!

Don't get into it with these two, Engine. This "if you want to be a real environmentalist, you can't use a computer" meme is a real obsession with Hinterwelt who otherwise seems generally quite rational and intelligent.  It's such a classic case of the excluded middle that I can only assume he was seriously mocked and teased by some eco-activists at a young age because otherwise I wouldn't expect him to use such faulty logic.

And I've given up trying to figure out Skach.  I just think he likes to argue.

What's telling in this case, is that I suspect neither of them are the green yuppies we were discussing, so why they are suddenly acting all put upon like we were calling them out or something demonstrates that they entered this thread with some kind of victim mentality due to past abuses.

Also, that really was a nice in-your-face when you did actually describe your low impact lifestyle.  They have nothing to say after that.  Nothing at all.  Which is why they can't shut up now.  I applaud you on your efforts, btw.  I live a pretty low impact myself (well except that I own a computer which makes it all for naught anyhow) but not close to your level.  Well done.

Quote from: EngineOh. Fuck off, then. A brother was ranting, and if, in the face of the other positive shit I do, one rant is objectionable, seriously, fuck off.

Damn it, I don't want to be this guy.

HinterWelt, I don't entirely understand your objection to my initial post, but most of it seems to be centered on the idea that I think I'm doing things right, and everyone else should be more like me, and I want you to understand I didn't intend that at all. I was complaining, and I didn't mean that complaint to be taken as constructive criticism, I was just complaining about a class of people - superficial environmentalists - who upset me, emotionally and rationally. My tone seems to have offended somewhat, and for that I have no rational defense: it's just my tone, when I'm complaining about something.

I try very hard to maintain a calm poise here, precisely because I very strongly dislike this manner of argument, in which it's about person versus person, not ideal versus ideal. I should not, by that standard, have made my initial post, and while I stand by all I said in it, I apologize for any offense my tone may unintentionally have caused.

You're a bigger man than I am, Engine.

They are not actually fighting with you.  They are fighting with an enemy they already have in their heads and with that one post you became the enemy.

I do see that Skach has actually made an effort to ride his bike to work so because of that I excuse his online persona.

Hinterwelt, I just really don't get.  I mean he almost comes off as a little insane here.

Quote from: EngineIf that's the division, I'd like to point out I didn't say I was being an environmentalist "the right way," or that "pretty much everyone else" wasn't.

Well, it kinda comes off that way. Just so you know.

Quote from: EngineNo. I'm going to use the word the way it's defined, and you can use it however you'd like. I cannot speak to "common usage," because I don't know what usage is common. I will use the definition from the dictionary, and if you've a better one, please provide it. In the meantime, if you mean "smug," say "smug," because "sanctimonious" doesn't mean "smug."

And no, I don't think I'm better than anyone else because I'm using a word in the manner in which it's defined. Will I need to preface every statement of mine with that disclaimer? And since we're ignoring disclaimers, will it matter?

For someone who is explaining to me why I should not use sanctimonious when I mean smug (which, btw, point taken and I can see where, although considered synonyms, the difference would be enough to be confusing), I would say take care to mean what you say and say what you mean. We're all guilty of it. Look at my very use of sanctimonious. - assuming you would understand that I meant smug. It's a horrible medium with little to no contextual support. If you don't want to come off as a person trying to tell everyone else how bad they are for not being as superior as you are in conservation, take care not to - even when you're convinced you're not doing it.

Quote from: Engine[edit: And that came off snippy and bitter, when I only meant for it to be bitter. James, you're doing your level best to aid me, and I wish I could respond with something other than anger

I dropped anger in this conversation after the first post. Now I'm trying to find common understanding with someone I find generally rational and with whom I enjoy conversing on this, and my own, forum.

Quote from: Engine...I'm stuck in this disbelieving state where I ranted about superficial environmentalists and some people took it personally, and I feel like now every time I say anything about anyone, I'm going to have to spend the next week explaining, "No, I didn't mean that; you can tell by how I didn't say that. No, I didn't mean you; you can tell by how I didn't mention you." My apologies, anyway.]
It started out as a rant about superficial environmentalists. I get it. The problem is that superficial to you might be someone's reasonably decent effort. So it gets this weird vibe where it seems like nobody is going to be doing enough unless they are conserving at the level you are.

Quote from: EngineWhoa, really? Well, I assume anyone - with the exception of people with injuries which preclude walking, and people who already walk several hours a day - who gives up several hours of television and replaces it with walking, will, indeed, be healthier, and all the data I've ever seen suggests it'll make them happier, too. And I think it's better - for you, and for the environment, unless you write big checks - than writing checks, yes. But I honestly, honestly, don't understand how saying those [true!] things makes me smug!

Yeah...I'll try to cut down on my time on the treadmill in front of the tv, then, eh? Any big checks I write will bounce  higher than...well..you get the gist of it.

In all his inanity, and obviusly not meaning to, walker stumbles on the heart of it.

Quote from: walkerpWhat's telling in this case, is that I suspect neither of them are the green yuppies we were discussing, so why they are suddenly acting all put upon like we were calling them out or something demonstrates that they entered this thread with some kind of victim mentality due to past abuses.

Because to at least two people (one of who walker thinks is rational) at some point the rant appeared to go from that to a larger rant against anyone who doesn't conserve well enough to satisfy Engine's desires.

Engine would have been better to put it as he did in a later respone to Bill:

Quote from: EngineAre you someone who is environmentally-conscious but takes no personal actions beyond giving other people money to fix problems, or buying a hybrid? No? Then I wasn't talking to you. Yes? Then I was, and I recommend you throw out your TV and go for a walk.

Works for me...

Quote from: walkerpAlso, that really was a nice in-your-face when you did actually describe your low impact lifestyle.  They have nothing to say after that.  Nothing at all.

Really? Nothing? Maybe you just don't know as much as you think (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=110), dipshit.

Quote from: James J SkachI would say take care to mean what you say and say what you mean.

With respect, I think my problem is that [with some notable exceptions] this is exactly what I do; my problem lies in assuming everyone will somehow magically know this, and not read into anything I've said. That is foolish of me.

Quote from: James J SkachYeah...I'll try to cut down on my time on the treadmill in front of the tv, then, eh?

Ooh, there's another electric thing I own: a treadmill. I've never used it, but it was a gift from someone who doesn't use it anymore. Winters here make walking more unpleasant than I'd like, so I've been trying to find a way to convert the treadmill motor to a generator, and use it to power my computer: the idea is, I can only watch TV on the computer - which I do, sometimes: Daily Show is the current show I watch - when I'm providing the power for it.

And there's only one obstacle: it's too easy to just neither walk, nor rebuild the treadmill [which may prove impractical, given its high-friction design], but instead to sit on my ass and gain pound after pound, which I then have to burn off when the snow goes away. I am weak and lazy, and it drives me fucking nuts.

Quote from: EngineI cannot. I live in a state in which no higher-paying non-computer job within an acceptable radius of persons whose housing I cannot control. Trust me, if I could get another job, I would.

And thus your needs are different from others.

Quote from: EngineSo, should I start bitching about how you're not taking enough action? How you're using a computer? How you're not out taking action right this instant, and thus you're a smug jerk? No, because you're expressing your opinion about what action should be taken, which is action itself.

That is certainly your right.

Quote from: EngineNo. No no no no no nonononono. Again, no. I was speaking about a fairly narrow group of people, defined by someone who wasn't me in the first place. I've said this before, and I'll keep saying it. Are you someone who is environmentally-conscious but takes no personal actions beyond giving other people money to fix problems, or buying a hybrid? No? Then I wasn't talking to you. Yes? Then I was, and I recommend you throw out your TV and go for a walk.

And excluding them. I tend to prefer inclusion, bringing people to action through action.

Quote from: EngineI didn't say auto use is evil, and I didn't rationalize computer use. Honestly, I don't think you're reading what I wrote.

And I did not say you did. I think you read what I write but do not understand it very well. This is my failing in not finding a way to better communicate with you.

Quote from: EngineOh. Fuck off, then. A brother was ranting, and if, in the face of the other positive shit I do, one rant is objectionable, seriously, fuck off.

You were ranting in a public space. Did you not expect a reaction?

I am honestly asking, not being snarky, is English a second language for you? It would help me to better communicate with you if I knew where you were coming from linguistically. English is my second language so I know how difficult it can be at times. You seem to have some very narrow and literal definitions of words. I could be more precise if it would help you.

Again, it was not what you said, but how you said it.

Bill

Quote from: walkerpYou're a bigger man than I am, Engine.

They are not actually fighting with you.  They are fighting with an enemy they already have in their heads and with that one post you became the enemy.

I do see that Skach has actually made an effort to ride his bike to work so because of that I excuse his online persona.

Hinterwelt, I just really don't get.  I mean he almost comes off as a little insane here.

Thank you. I think the same about you.

That said, my point here, and elsewhere, has not been you must be all or nothing but you should understand that preaching on high can lead to a blind spot. You fall in love with some implementation of conservatism and become blind to the workings of the world, other people's needs and sometimes even the reality of how things work. It's like looking at statistics. You see a graph, it shows an increase in births, you project out that the world will be covered in human flesh in 20 years and panic. I do not argue you should drive less. I an a big fan of conservation. However, I think people's needs must be considered in the equation. Creative solutions found. Simply saying "Tough shit, move closer to work" just is a bit naive to me.

And on a personal note, it is actually a reaction to one-true-wayism I see far too often in RPGs and my professional life at large. So, yes, I have some baggage I take to this fight but it is one I feel very passionate about. Much like your environmentalism.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltTo say one aspect of consumption, say, auto use, is evil then rationalize computer use only shows me you have different needs.

Quote from: EngineI didn't say auto use is evil, and I didn't rationalize computer use.

Quote from: HinterWeltAnd I did not say you did.

I am so very, very confused.

Quote from: HinterWeltI am honestly asking, not being snarky, is English a second language for you?

No, it is my first language.

Quote from: HinterWeltYou seem to have some very narrow and literal definitions of words. I could be more precise if it would help you.

Greater precision in language, when communication is the goal, is nearly always to be desired, at least by me, except in the case of artistic expression.

I maintain narrow and literal definitions of words because doing otherwise leads to constant miscommunication. And because my mother, her mother, and her mother before were all English teachers, and I wrote English professionally for many years. It is certainly a foible, but it is not one I would alter, because I have seen the results of not doing so, and it's actually worse, in my experience.

Quote from: EngineI am so very, very confused.

English lacks the ability to speak int he general form, meaning, I was stating a general example not siting you else I would have stated "Engine said" or the like.

Edit to add: as in the "you" was meant as a general form "you" not the specific "you".

Quote from: EngineNo, it is my first language.

I asked in good faith.

Quote from: EngineGreater precision in language, when communication is the goal, is nearly always to be desired, at least by me, except in the case of artistic expression.

There is a point though, were you exclude dictionary definitions. This makes for difficulty in communication since the dictionary is our common code book. Combine this with context and colloquial usage and you have discussion. That said, when communicating with you, I will endeavor to be precise in my definitions and word usage.

Quote from: EngineI maintain narrow and literal definitions of words because doing otherwise leads to constant miscommunication. And because my mother, her mother, and her mother before were all English teachers, and I wrote English professionally for many years. It is certainly a foible, but it is not one I would alter, because I have seen the results of not doing so, and it's actually worse, in my experience.

I have seen your method of interpretation and comprehension in ESL students. It seldom serves them well and leads to far more misunderstanding. To insist the one and only definition of a word which has many is the one you have chosen will lead to misunderstandings.

That said, I say again, I will try my best to communicate with you in a manner you can understand.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltEnglish lacks the ability to speak int he general form, meaning, I was stating a general example not siting you else I would have stated "Engine said" or the like.

Isn't that a pain in the [metaphorical] ass? The only general form we have is "one," and that word means something else, usually. Ridiculous language, really.

Quote from: HinterWeltI asked in good faith.

I know you did, and I thought you were very polite about it; thank you.

Quote from: HinterWeltThere is a point though, were you exclude dictionary definitions.

I hope you mean this in the general sense, also! While sometimes I submit to "common usage," or some definition provided by another party, I personally prefer to use the arbiter of "dictionary" wherever possible.

Quote from: HinterWeltTo insist the one and only definition of a word which has many is the one you have chosen will lead to misunderstandings.

As I say, both lead to miscommunication, but utilizing the dictionary as arbiter allows everyone free and clear access to a source of meaning which has no agenda. [Ironic, given the history of some dictionaries, but there it is.] In the cases in which a word has more than one dictionary meaning, some discussion must be had to determine the intended usage, but that's as bad as it gets...so long as everyone is using the dictionary, and they're using roughly the same dictionaries!

Miscommunication is nearly inevitable. In my experience, precision in language and utilization of common dictionaries reduce the level of misunderstanding and provide immediate arbitration in the event of a dispute over meaning. Lax usages and reliance on "common usage" for definitions leads more often, in my experience, to protracted semantic disputes with no reasonable conclusion.

On this, I can offer only my experience. I'd share what that experience is, but now I'm concerned that might be seen as smugness.

Quote from: EngineI hope you mean this in the general sense, also! While sometimes I submit to "common usage," or some definition provided by another party, I personally prefer to use the arbiter of "dictionary" wherever possible.

I was thinking of another thread where you said I was using subjective and objective incorrectly. I quoted dictionary.com and you preceded to indicate I was incorrectly using the stance. This seemed to be because it did not match your chosen definition which I even conceded and included in the definitions (if I understood you correctly).

I am not the only nor the first person that you have had this difficulty with. This would seem to mean the problem is with your interpretation although I do concede that it may be that all of us are misusing the word. Contrarily, I am not claiming everyone is using the words correctly.

Quote from: EngineAs I say, both lead to miscommunication, but utilizing the dictionary as arbiter allows everyone free and clear access to a source of meaning which has no agenda. [Ironic, given the history of some dictionaries, but there it is.] In the cases in which a word has more than one dictionary meaning, some discussion must be had to determine the intended usage, but that's as bad as it gets...so long as everyone is using the dictionary, and they're using roughly the same dictionaries!

I fully acknowledge that if we all use similar dictionaries it would help. However, if you do not pay attention to the context then you will not know which definition to use. "Objective" alone has 11 definitions under one listing. If you choose:
something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.

to the exclusion of the context, then I use:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

In context, then there is little hope we will not be dragged down into a debate of the words we are using. Look at my earlier usage of quotes (in a previous post), this is a good example of misinterpretation on your part. You believed I was quoting you where the context and colloquial usage should tell you that it was meant to denote a colloquialism or paraphrasing. Apply the standard usage of a forum to use quotes in this manner and it should be a simple extension. Now, do not misinterpret me, it would still be valid to say "I did not say that" in order to challenge my para-phrasing of your post.

Quote from: EngineMiscommunication is nearly inevitable. In my experience, precision in language and utilization of common dictionaries reduce the level of misunderstanding and provide immediate arbitration in the event of a dispute over meaning. Lax usages and reliance on "common usage" for definitions leads more often, in my experience, to protracted semantic disputes with no reasonable conclusion.

On this, I can offer only my experience. I'd share what that experience is, but now I'm concerned that might be seen as smugness.

I have seen this stance before. Do not take this as an attack but I have seen it in people with mental disorders. These patients had speech impediments and could only interpret speech literally. The had no context or understanding of colloquial speech. They would get horribly frustrated. One approach is to have them memorize dictionary definitions but this would often cause more problems since they would get frustrated in fitting definitions to the conversation. Understandable so.

As to smug, well, that depends on if you talk with people or down to them. Part of that is with the speaker and part with the listener.

Bill

Is there currently a single thread on therpgsite that has anything to do with it's title?  Not complaining, just pointing out that we have some long-running and meandering threads going on!

Quote from: walkerpIs there currently a single thread on therpgsite that has anything to do with it's title?  Not complaining, just pointing out that we have some long-running and meandering threads going on!

Tis the season for meandering...I just don't have some folks laser like focus on the OT.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltDo you mean like buying computers? Using them to post on RPG boards about environmental issues? Heck, like turning you computer on at all? Pot-Kettle-Black.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

"I don't believe in the death penalty."
"What?! So we should just let them all go?!"
"I believe in the death penalty."
"What?! So we should execute people for jaywalking?!"

This idea that if you believe in X then you must certainly follow it to some absurd extreme is an idea poisoning much of political discussion in the West today.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, maybe drop the accusatory tone and just ask questions like someone who isn't a dick.

Jumping in with the fallacy of the excluded middle is being a dick. You're not trying to have a real conversation about the topic, you're trying to shut people up. If you want people to shut up, just be honest and tell them to shut up, don't gloss over it with some pretense at rational argument which is actually nonsense.

Quote from: James J SkachThen stop being a sanctimonious dick. You're going to end up being Kyle's clone.

Shut up and fuck up off, Jim. See, Bill? Like this. Much more honest and straightforward.

Consumption is always relative. Which you know. If you know it but talk about the absurd extremes seriously, then you're being deliberately obtuse. A dick.

You're better than that, Bill. Leave that nonsense to the fuckwits in Tangency, or those running for office.

Anyway, as I said, Spike - this is a nice clear example of one of the problems with politics in the West today. It's all this rushing to extremes and being dicks. It makes productive conversations difficult, and in a democracy, all the give and take and compromise to get majorities to pass laws, that needs productive conversations.

Quote from: Kyle AaronFallacy of the excluded middle.

Kyle, you don't even get it and I am far too busy to explain it to you. I think Engine understands where I was coming from even if he does not agree.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI quoted dictionary.com and you preceded to indicate I was incorrectly using the stance. This seemed to be because it did not match your chosen definition which I even conceded and included in the definitions (if I understood you correctly).

Yes, in the cases of conflicting dictionary definitions, negotiation must take place to determine the preferred definition. This is no worse than debating between two "common usages," and in most cases, allows easier arbitration of definitions.

Quote from: HinterWeltLook at my earlier usage of quotes (in a previous post), this is a good example of misinterpretation on your part. You believed I was quoting you where the context and colloquial usage should tell you that it was meant to denote a colloquialism or paraphrasing.

Oh, my, how embarrassing for me. My apologies, but that was one example of nonliteral speech called "sarcasm," which I really shouldn't use, because it's even more problematic online than offline. Mea culpa. My intent was to say, "Hey, don't paraphrase me wrong," but I did so nonliterally, and here you can see the misunderstanding which resulted. I've been an unfortunate proof of my own point, by example rather than by rhetoric.

Quote from: EngineYes, in the cases of conflicting dictionary definitions, negotiation must take place to determine the preferred definition. This is no worse than debating between two "common usages," and in most cases, allows easier arbitration of definitions.

See, but I think you miss the point. The context is as important to reading comprehension as any definition of the word. It is what allows us to choose the correct definition, the meaning of the writer. If you insist on applying one and only one meaning, then you can only understand when a person's usage of that word agrees with your own. You need to read the context, and then put the definition to the context.

Quote from: EngineOh, my, how embarrassing for me. My apologies, but that was one example of nonliteral speech called "sarcasm," which I really shouldn't use, because it's even more problematic online than offline. Mea culpa. My intent was to say, "Hey, don't paraphrase me wrong," but I did so nonliterally, and here you can see the misunderstanding which resulted. I've been an unfortunate proof of my own point, by example rather than by rhetoric.

This is highly problematic in your case. You ask for an extreme extent of precision in your communications but then use as vague a method as written sarcasm. I thought that was what you were doing but then I told myself that this is a very precise writer and is honestly expressing a genuine confusion. I found it rather incredible that someone whould misinterpret a grammatic usage like that but then, at the time, I was not sure how familiar you were with the language.

So, you are not an example of your point but victim of your own rhetoric. You demanded precision, built the expectation in your reader that there would be no rhetoric tactics used, that plain language with precise definitions would be used, then proceeded, without any indication to violate your own precept.

This is why semantic debates and meta-discussions of discussions serve the parties involved so poorly. Unless you are so divorced from the culture of the discussion group as not to understand cultural references (and then you are better served again by context and straight forward questions) it is best to observe and listen (or read in this case) so as to gain a comprehension of the culture you are interacting with.

Bill

Quote from: Kyle AaronShut up and fuck up off, Jim.

Man, if only you were always this brief and direct.

But I'm confused - here in the States you can be a fuck up (which I have no problem with being called), and you can tell someone to fuck off (again, isn't the first and won't be the last for me), but I'm not familiar with the "fuck up off" usage. Is that some special Australian form?

I think for explanation I need one of your thousand word essays about America that have three "It's like this" examples and demonstrate how little you know about the States.

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, but I think you miss the point. The context is as important to reading comprehension as any definition of the word.

Absolutely, and I do not believe otherwise. Context is what allows one to choose from between differing definitions in cases in which words have more than one definition, such as in the case you offered, objective [goal] versus objective [of or pertaining to the object of thought]. Context also allows one to judge when someone is using a "common misuse" of a term, such as when someone says, "D&D is the best roleplaying game, objectively." Context is very important.

Quote from: HinterWeltThis is highly problematic in your case. You ask for an extreme extent of precision in your communications but then use as vague a method as written sarcasm.

Please allow me to apologize again: I am sorry for having been sarcastic and nonliteral in my writing; I attempt not to be, particularly in somewhat serious discussions, but my pursuit of personal perfection is and always will remain ongoing.

Quote from: EngineAbsolutely, and I do not believe otherwise. Context is what allows one to choose from between differing definitions in cases in which words have more than one definition, such as in the case you offered, objective [goal] versus objective [of or pertaining to the object of thought]. Context also allows one to judge when someone is using a "common misuse" of a term, such as when someone says, "D&D is the best roleplaying game, objectively." Context is very important.

Again, we may be having a communication issue here. I refer you to //www.dictionary.com and the #5 listing of the definition of Objective:

"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

It is quite apparent to me that the author of the sentence is using "Objective" in this form. He is using the word correctly. I do not believe his statement to be true but that is a different issue having nothing to do with the definition of the word "Objective". In his use, he is saying by some unbiased and based on factual data, DND is the best.

As for your definition, I am not confident I understand your meaning. "The Object of thought" meaning that it is of the subject matter of thoughts and thinking?

Quote from: EnginePlease allow me to apologize again: I am sorry for having been sarcastic and nonliteral in my writing; I attempt not to be, particularly in somewhat serious discussions, but my pursuit of personal perfection is and always will remain ongoing.

No need to apologize. I am merely making you aware that an attempt to have it both ways (demanding precise language usage and then employing colloquial usage) will lead to confusion in your efforts at communication. If you desire, you could just drop the insisting on one definition that does not fit the context and use colloquial or sarcasm as you will. Alternatively, using precise language and demanding precise language will keep a clearer path for communication. Finally, you could continue to switch between the two and breed confusion in your conversations. Note: I am not telling you to perform in some manner, merely discussing the results of possible paths. You are free to pursue whatever form of communication you wish.

Bill