|
So we use language to convey our ideas. Very cool tool.
But sometimes we misunderstand each other! Oh no!
Natural languages allow for lots of ambiguity, and the correct meaning is supposed to be inferred from the context. But sometimes it is not, and text-only language has the added hindrance of not having body language and intonation to help add context. So I see a lot of people misunderstanding each other, and getting angry when really there is no issue.
Take for example the thread in the General Forum labeled "Spain racist towards Chinese?" I'll ignore the misleading title for now.
Travis says "why is this a problem?"
Some interpret this question as saying "racism is OK." Cue flames.
Perhaps another interpretation is that Asians really do have slanted eyes, so Travis doesn't see why depicting them as having slanted eyes is a problem. (My preferred interpretation, as it agrees with my thoughts.)
Point is, lots of people spend lots of time arguing with a position that no one is holding. Spend the extra minute to make sure you understand what the guy's saying before you spend an hour arguing with him!
|
Braavos36374 Posts
I disagree with your analysis of the situation. Travis asserts that we asians should not be offended by the slanty-eye gesture, which carries with it a great deal of history. While he's not saying racism is ok, he's certainly downplaying the history and context behind a gesture like that. It's trivializing something that has a great deal of meaning to a large group of people.
It has nothing to do with language or semantics and everything to do with the merits of what he's saying.
|
Maybe I should have named the thread title "Wasted time on forums" or something similar. Then I could add stuff like "using fallacious arguments" and expand the topic. Heck, I'm going to do it anyways. (If someone could change the title to "BOTTLEABUSER HAS TOO MUCH TIME" or something else appropriate?)
The "racism" thread and others really irritate me because something like half of the posts are spent on ad hominem arguments and other fallacies, in addition to posts from misunderstandings.
If you're talking about, let's say, the morality of killing the passenger next to you on the bus, my intelligence is unimportant. My argument and reasoning are important. Don't tell me I'm stupid; it doesn't matter. I could be saying "If I wear a red shirt tomorrow, then you will win the lottery" and you might be thinking "what a retard," but don't say it - prove my argument wrong and maybe I'll actually shut up or agree.
If I'm good at basketball and I say that AMD > Intel, and say "everyone agrees because I'm good at basketball," that's a bad justification for the argument. Even if it happens to be true (ooooh! j/k, I'm unqualified to hold an opinion).
Cookies for people who recognize the fallacies and don't use them.
|
i think white people would be offended if asians started smearing shit all over their bodies to smell bad. JUST LIKE WHITE PEOPLE DO. HARHAR jk.
|
On August 13 2008 11:09 BottleAbuser wrote:
Maybe I should have named the thread title "Wasted time on forums" or something similar. Then I could add stuff like "using fallacious arguments" and expand the topic. Heck, I'm going to do it anyways. (If someone could change the title to "BOTTLEABUSER HAS TOO MUCH TIME" or something else appropriate?)
The "racism" thread and others really irritate me because something like half of the posts are spent on ad hominem arguments and other fallacies, in addition to posts from misunderstandings.
If you're talking about, let's say, the morality of killing the passenger next to you on the bus, my intelligence is unimportant. My argument and reasoning are important. Don't tell me I'm stupid; it doesn't matter. I could be saying "If I wear a red shirt tomorrow, then you will win the lottery" and you might be thinking "what a retard," but don't say it - prove my argument wrong and maybe I'll actually shut up or agree.
If I'm good at basketball and I say that AMD > Intel, and say "everyone agrees because I'm good at basketball," that's a bad justification for the argument. Even if it happens to be true (ooooh! j/k, I'm unqualified to hold an opinion).
Cookies for people who recognize the fallacies and don't use them.
what the hell is this post about?
that has nothing to do with what hb said
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 13 2008 11:17 ramen247 wrote:
i think white people would be offended if asians started smearing shit all over their bodies to smell bad. JUST LIKE WHITE PEOPLE DO. HARHAR jk.
Didn't you see the dodgeball South Park episode? How can people seriously not find this funny.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153634/?tag=Mongolian Missile Defense System
I think people are being extremely hypocritical in that thread.
|
Arguments over the meaning of communication are political. Meaning is political. Most people ignore this. To me, the most dangerous sort of politics is that which is disguised as something other than political. So let there be arguments over meaning, and let the fact that this is political be recognized.
|
Eh? I'm not going to participate in the derailing of my own thread. I'm talking about general reasons that people end up wasting a lot of their times on forums. We can argue about what Travis said in that thread in that thread.
Anyways, when I say "A and B lead to C" and you say "B and D lead to E" we're not contradicting each other, although because of the common element B we somehow end up arguing for hours to end up realizing that we were agreeing but using different words. Possible scenario. Happens actually. Which is why I say that we should take the time to make sure that what I think you're saying and what you think you're saying are the same.
|
Inky! Not sure what you're saying 
Are you saying that the significance of communication is not necessarily to transfer ideas?
What exactly do you mean by "political?" Certainly how you interpret and how you convey information is based on a policy that we call language. Or does this have something to do with government that I'm not aware of?
|
United States22883 Posts
My guess is he means through socialization, which is closely tied to politicization.
|
I'm as lost as before. I would expect that all communication is done through a combination of (and only of)
1. words
2. context
If the context includes social concepts, sure. Political concepts? Okay.
But are you calling this whole idea of classifying communication as a combination of words and context a political thing? I dunno. Explanation pls :X
|
On August 13 2008 10:50 BottleAbuser wrote:
Spend the extra minute to make sure you understand what the guy's saying before you spend an hour arguing with him!
I bet you stoled that from Sun Tsu (don't lie)?
+ Show Spoiler +brobably you made that up on your own, but every great saying has to be creddited to San Sun
|
I am not sure I even know what I mean anymore 
That which is political is concerned with power, specifically the exercise and interaction of power. (I'm not at all referring to governmental or electoral politics, which are only a very small subset of what I'm talking about when I talk about politics).
My contention is that everything is political. But specifically, meaning is political. When we make a statement, we are arguing for an idea. "This thread is dumb" is a political statement, in that it implies we should view this thread in a certain way, and perhaps take some appropriate action (let the thread die.)
Arguments over meaning are intensely political. When I say something, I have a specific meaning in mind. I am trying to convince you that what I say has the same meaning that I intend it to have. This is political - an exercise of power.
Some people truly believe that what they say will have an undisputed meaning. The meaning is absolute. This is a kind of totalitarian politics at work. I would rather recognize that meaning is slippery and not absolute, and so recognize the political struggle at work in all communication, and celebrate it. I welcome brutal critique of language, because often it will reveal hidden politics. Consider the way people use "Man" to refer to humanity, for example. Or "he" to refer to gender unspecified.
So I welcome arguments over meaning. But I also think your complaint is valid; some people do purposely craft strawman arguments or use weasel words, and this is a dishonest form of argument/communication.
I'm just masturbating right now.
|
United States22883 Posts
Please tell me that last part is just a semantic misunderstanding.
|
Haha
And do I hear some kind of implied message that masturbation is bad?
|
I think that if we clearly define terms, the "slipperyness" or ambiguity can be avoided outright.
Surely if we go all the way back on "how do we define these terms that you used to define those other terms?" we'll have to rely on similar experiences and whatnot. But it is possible to agree on the meanings of certain terms. Similar to how everyone agrees with certain mathematical postulates and everything else, the whole mathematical framework from addition to fourier transforms are provable and undisputed. No politics pertain.
We could express ideas in boolean logic for unambiguous and clear-cut statements. But that's time-consuming and unnecessary, as natural language is "good enough" for many of our purposes, and misunderstandings are usually inconsequential. But if you don't consider a couple of hours arguing against a nonexistent position inconsequential, it might be desirable to invest the time in clarifying.
In short: convention allows communication of ideas, which are not necessarily political in nature.
|
United States22883 Posts
The implied message is that telling someone that you're masturbating while talking to them, thus devoting some portion of brain activity towards them while having an erect penis, is bad, unless they want you to.
I don't want you to, but maybe BottleAbuser is into it.
|
I took that to mean "I am now mentally stimulating myself instead of being engaged in discourse with you," or "I don't think we're talking about the same thing any more." But you can take it to be in a sexual context, I guess. Not the intended meaning! I think. See how we waste time due to ambiguous terms?!
|
It's trivializing something that has a great deal of meaning to a large group of people.
For the final goal of having greater tolerance and more mutual respect between spain and china, or between any two groups in general. There's a lot of history behind the gesture?
Great. So add this to history as one of the times it was used in a non hostile way instead of trying to assault those who are destigmatizing china to the west.
|
Definitely another way to interpret the ad, L. And paints the people who ran it in a much better light.
I take this example, in addition to the previous ones, as evidence for the statement "your first interpretation is not the only possible one."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
