resume ples(?) @-@
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,217
I have no idea what you're on about. If you fail to understand what the person said, it can ONLY be one of two things: either you can't read properly and are severely lacking in the knowledge of that specific language, or the person who wrote it lacks a deeper understanding of said language/doesn't know how to express themselves properly and concisely.abraker wrote:
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.
If someone makes an intentionally vague statement in an argument, you call them out for that, because that's not how debates and discussions work. It's called being a mongrel, and if they refuse to throw vague statements at you, you simply cease talking to them, as there's nothing to discuss with such people.
This wouldn't fix anything, communication extends beyond the literal meaning of words, and if the other party is being intellectually dishonest it doesn't matter how precise your speech, they will find a way to strawman you. E.G Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman debate. It's the fault of the person, not the fault of English.abraker wrote:
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.
The video you provided is frustrating, but interesting. From what I have gathered, in addition to the literal meaning, there is contextual information to the literal meaning, information on what an idea suggests for entities, past, future, and present. This contextual information seems to change on a whim while literal meaning remains the same.B1rd wrote:
This wouldn't fix anything, communication extends beyond the literal meaning of words, and if the other party is being intellectually dishonest it doesn't matter how precise your speech, they will find a way to strawman you. E.G Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman debate. It's the fault of the person, not the fault of English.abraker wrote:
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.
To simply put it, "I will go outside" can supposedly be interpreted literally, but there is a wealth of unknown contextual information to it: outside the room? Outside the house? Outside when? Tomorrow? Etc... and the lack of such information can be taken advantage of as freedom to formulate arguments that suits your needs.
That's true.
I used to agree with this, but I've seen so many problems and arguments happen as a direct result of linguistic misunderstandings that I can't help but feel like the language itself is part of the problem. English has a LOT of words and ways of conveying ideas that rely too heavily on context and previously agreed-upon definitions. Abraker just pointed this out too.Aurani wrote:
I have no idea what you're on about. If you fail to understand what the person said, it can ONLY be one of two things: either you can't read properly and are severely lacking in the knowledge of that specific language, or the person who wrote it lacks a deeper understanding of said language/doesn't know how to express themselves properly and concisely.
I think most arguments are caused by misunderstandings, and part of those misunderstandings are attributable to inherent flaws within English. It becomes especially apparent when talking to someone who isn't a native speaker.
So you argue that you're someone (or know someone) who has fundamentally learnt the entire English language, down to the last detail and who can without fail utilize it to its fullest, and that the language is to blame for the misunderstandings? That's....... lunacy.
Most of the misunderstandings stem from improper use of the language, and that's the fault of none other than the user.
Most of the misunderstandings stem from improper use of the language, and that's the fault of none other than the user.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯Aurani wrote:
So you argue that you're someone (or know someone) who has fundamentally learnt the entire English language, down to the last detail and who can without fail utilize it to its fullest, and that the language is to blame for the misunderstandings? That's....... lunacy.
What can I say, people misinterpret very easily. You see it online with people HARDCORE misreading even scientific journals. I don't think clarity is a strong point of the English language at all, especially in contrast with something like German.
That's still a problem with the people - not the language. People misreading it due to their own lack of a deeper understanding of the language = people's problem.
As for German having more "clarity" than English - it has nothing to do with the overall functionality of the language. It's the same as saying it's impossible to cut bread with a dull knife and pointing out that a sharp knife is the only way to go. Yeah, a sharp knife may do it with better efficiency, but a dull knife will do the job nonetheless. It's your fault if you're so clumsy with it as to not cut the bread and instead cut yourself.
As for German having more "clarity" than English - it has nothing to do with the overall functionality of the language. It's the same as saying it's impossible to cut bread with a dull knife and pointing out that a sharp knife is the only way to go. Yeah, a sharp knife may do it with better efficiency, but a dull knife will do the job nonetheless. It's your fault if you're so clumsy with it as to not cut the bread and instead cut yourself.
Then in that case, we disagree on the meaning of "overall functionality", because I think if a language is more clear (in your analogy, a sharp knife as opposed to a dull one) then it IS more functional/useful, particularly for debates and arguments.
See how disagreements tend to come purely from people interpreting words differently? ;^)
See how disagreements tend to come purely from people interpreting words differently? ;^)
I hate it when people blame the system instead of the person abusing the system. Yeah, the system has flaws, but only an asshole would abuse those flaws. Not specifically talking about your discussion right now, it's just something that popped into my head after reading it.
I don't really believe German is much different from English in terms of clarity. I know it's kind of a meme at this point that Germans have a word for everything, but really all it does is make sentences shorter. The language might be more efficient in that sense but I don't think there is any German phrase that couldn't be directly translated into English while still maintaining the same level of precision.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What can I say, people misinterpret very easily. You see it online with people HARDCORE misreading even scientific journals. I don't think clarity is a strong point of the English language at all, especially in contrast with something like German.
I'm with Aurani on this one, really in 99% of the cases it comes down to how well the person can use the language. I doubt there's a lot of people that push the boundaries of the English language.
silmarilen wrote:
I hate it when people blame the system
silmarilen wrote:
the system has flaws
When people "blame the system", they're generally talking ABOUT those flaws that are openly acknowledged to exist in the first place. No need to get defensive and reject analysis into those flaws/how they can be improved, you know?
BrokenArrow wrote:
I don't really believe German is much different from English in terms of clarity. I know it's kind of a meme at this point that Germans have a word for everything, but really all it does is make sentences shorter. The language might be more efficient in that sense but I don't think there is any German phrase that couldn't be directly translated into English while still maintaining the same level of precision.
I'm with Aurani on this one, really in 99% of the cases it comes down to how well the person can use the language. I doubt there's a lot of people that push the boundaries of the English language.
I think it's a bit better than English. All languages, as far as I'm aware, still have serious clarity issues; it's just the nature of languages in general, at least the ones I've seen. I think it'd be nice to have a language someday that fixes that flaw though.
No, when people "blame the system" they are generally saying that the people abusing it shouldn't be blamed.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
silmarilen wrote:
I hate it when people blame the systemsilmarilen wrote:
the system has flaws
When people "blame the system", they're generally talking ABOUT those flaws that are openly acknowledged to exist in the first place. No need to get defensive and reject analysis into those flaws/how they can be improved, you know?
It's one thing to point out the flaws in a system, it's another thing to pardon the people abusing those flaws because "hey, the system is flawed anyway right? can't blame the people for abusing it."
Just because you can exploit a system does not mean you are not at fault for abusing that exploit. Why do you think exploiting is a bannable offense in so many games?
Trying to fix the flaws is a whole other thing that i didn't even mention. You can try to fix the system without pardoning the abusers.
silmarilen wrote:
No, when people "blame the system" they are generally saying that the people abusing it shouldn't be blamed.
It's one thing to point out the flaws in a system, it's another thing to pardon the people abusing those flaws because "hey, the system is flawed anyway right? can't blame the people for abusing it."
Just because you can exploit a system does not mean you are not at fault for abusing that exploit. Why do you think exploiting is a bannable offense in so many games?
Oh, I see. Yeah I think it's okay to criticise people who go out of their way to exploit systems just as much as it's okay to criticise systems themselves. I'm not really sure what specific conversations you're thinking about here though
I see absolutely no reason why people should shun or be annoyed by anyone socially inept, especially if that person wants to socialize.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
E m i
that's because you're coolDJ Enetro wrote:
I see absolutely no reason why people should shun or be annoyed by anyone socially inept, especially if that person wants to socialize.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
cooler than me and stuff
DJ Enetro wrote:
I see absolutely no reason why people should shun or be annoyed by anyone socially inept, especially if that person wants to socialize.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
Socially inept people can be annoying because you need to put a lot of energy into them just to have a normal interaction. They need to be "carried", essentially.
The only big long lasting three here
Forums are a place for discussions, but that does not mean “create only topics that the majority of people like to talk about”.
Then again, posting spam is not okay either, where the not-extremes are subjective.
Then again, posting spam is not okay either, where the not-extremes are subjective.
I think we are overdue for an Enertro thread
I refuse to believe the accumulation of Enetro posts thus far ease the amount of unrest that has built up
I refuse to believe the accumulation of Enetro posts thus far ease the amount of unrest that has built up
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language.
Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
As a socially inept person myself I agree with this sentiment and don't expect anyone to expend energy to interact with me (and I wouldn't want pity like that anyway). Though I would add that sometimes I do have something important to say so it would be nice if certain loud-mouthed people could learn to shut up and let someone speak without interrupting for just a few seconds.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Socially inept people can be annoying because you need to put a lot of energy into them just to have a normal interaction. They need to be "carried", essentially.
Shohei Ohtani
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language. Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
Don't know 'how a language should function' is such a partisan issue now. Or is it just B1rd applying political rhetoric to irrelevant topics again?
CDFA wrote:
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language. Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
I was going off on a tangent pointing out how the personality tendencies of different political groups translate into arguments about the definition of some political words, as I gave an example of. But mainly the post was just some reflections on language use, rather than a political point. Though the post was somewhat vague itself, because I'm at a public library so I don't have unlimited time to translate vague and indefinite thoughts in to indefinite words.
Here's another example of politically driven word usage contributing to vagueness in this article, and it's something I've always spoken against: the usage of the word "they" for individuals. It makes it hard to tell whether it's a person or group being spoken about. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christi ... university
On this subject of English, George Orwell wrote a good essay about English usage http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_a ... age/0.html
In other news, I got a my comment published in a popular national newspaper, which is cool.
Here's another example of politically driven word usage contributing to vagueness in this article, and it's something I've always spoken against: the usage of the word "they" for individuals. It makes it hard to tell whether it's a person or group being spoken about. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christi ... university
On this subject of English, George Orwell wrote a good essay about English usage http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_a ... age/0.html
In other news, I got a my comment published in a popular national newspaper, which is cool.
pleonasms are a bitch
keep it simple lads
keep it simple lads
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.
That's why it's good. It embodies everything bad and goodCanadian Baka wrote:
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.
Dawnsday wrote:
That's why it's good. It embodies everything badCanadian Baka wrote:
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.and good
Why do people name themselves Dick even though they know it's penis
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
I blame our regressive society. Dick has a nice ring to it, and people really went out of their way to ruin it.B1rd wrote:
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
Funnily enough, one of the first recorded instance of the pejorative "dick" was used by a guy named Head.
Art I commissioned from Brian has reached top results in Google when you search "Libertarian anime girl".
Let it not be said I haven't achieved anything in life.
edit: I like how you use your signature to pronounce your nihilism
Let it not be said I haven't achieved anything in life.
edit: I like how you use your signature to pronounce your nihilism
Comfy Slippers wrote:
B1rd wrote:
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
I blame our regressive society.
dont compare your third world society to ours
Too real.
mfw I could get a krstni list and domovnica and roll over to Croatia, but it wouldn't change anything. And it's not like another south slavic orgy aka Yugoslavia would fix shit.
btw
we're preventing rabies dudelmao
- based bulgarian
lol wrote:
dont compare your third world society to ours
Yeah, all third-world societies are different! Our third-world society is better than theirs, huh lol?
johnmedina999 wrote:
lol wrote:
dont compare your third world society to ours
Yeah, all third-world societies are different! Our third-world society is better than theirs, huh lol?
who said you can @me