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, 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.