Why do people get vaccines? Don't they research the ingredients?

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

intelligible

"

Boem wrote:

intelectual

QED.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I feel for these non-English speakers being forced to use English to get their point across. I really do.

"

Boem wrote:

Still baffled how you think i would post something like this.
This feels, really weird, to be honest reading his post's in that thread.

"

Charan wrote:

Damn right I got a good laugh. Boem's English isn't stellar but you can generally understand it. Rexeos struggles and doesn't realise it, which results in a very weird mix of obnoxious assertions and tonal confusion. Interacting with that feels like a real waste of time to me: I wouldn't do it IRL and if I did, we'd have visual cues to help get by. More and more often, I find myself less interested in encounters on here that would have no real world analogue. They're unrealistic and frustrating. I feel for these non-English speakers being forced to use English to get their point across. I really do. I imagine there's a huge bias towards English fluency when it comes to discussing pretty much anything globally online, anything from psychology to gardening. That doesn't mean I have to put up with unintelligible English when I want to interact with...y'know, intelligible English.

AAR, neither Boem nor Rexeos are what you'd call My Favourite Human on here, but they're really nothing alike.

"

Boem wrote:

Without mutual respect a conversation cannot occur, in my opinion...

I don't really understand this "people don't deserve human courtesy if they disagree with me or belong to a different political camp" which permeates that topic from both sides.

Sincerely, your not most favorite human running around on this orb.

"

erdelyii wrote:

Some ideas are worth setting fire to things for.

Compassion for how someone got to be such a hateful, wrong-headed person is one thing, tolerance of the flawed and harmful consequences is quite another.

Yet - most people are at least a bit open to a seed being planted, not by me, I mean as a larger process of communication. Sometimes that's enough.

"

erdelyii wrote:

Ed: LMAO guys! Ah, I spoke too soon. Well, it was a lovely peace while it lasted.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I'm not even sure you know the difference between 'intelligible' and 'intelligent', but it's integral that you do if you're going to respond to me saying 'I find rexeos unintelligible but not Boem'.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Pearls before swine, man. I'm never going to learn.

And this proves my point even more, erd. All that effort I make to explain the difference between 'intelligible' and 'intelligent' and this shallow dismissal is the response I get. Boem isn't engaging with what I said at all, and merely fixating on what they thought was a spelling correction (I was merely quoting them verbatim, because that's how it's done).

Like I said: unnatural and frustrating.

"

"

Completed 9 Challenges鬼殺し wrote:
AAR, neither Boem nor Rexeos are what you'd call My Favourite Human on here, but they're really nothing alike.

I like to think it's intellectually more interesting to discuss topics with people that disagree or at least have idea's out of your comfort zone and the capacity to undermine your logic.

Which is why i don't see stress/friction as a bad thing or even unwanted.

It's perfectly reasonable for me to not be "Charans favourite human"(god damn that sounds....., seriously) while still having respect and entertain dialogue with you.

Without mutual respect a conversation cannot occur, in my opinion.

I'd pin that on the trump thread if we had that possibility.

I don't really understand this "people don't deserve human courtesy if they disagree with me or belong to a different political camp" which permeates that topic from both sides.

Sincerely, your not most favorite human running around on this orb.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Completed 9 Challenges鬼殺し wrote:
intelligible


"
Completed 24 ChallengesBoem wrote:
intellectual


QED.

edit: it was never about something as simple as a typo. These are two distinctly different words and you confused them.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Barbarus hic ego sum, qui non intellegor ulli -- Ovid

Roughly: I am a barbarian here, for no one understands me.

I drag this quote out now and then to illustrate the importance of mutual communcation but it seems particularly appropriate here. Ovid was one of the great Greek poets of his day, a veritable genius. And yet, for all his prowess and brilliance, once he found himself in a place where no one could understand his language, he was 'a barbarian'. A savage. Unintelligible.

Or then there's this gem from Baudelaire:
[the albatross]

Obviously this is a bit of a self-congratulatory wank about how poets are held back by the everyday man and their inability to understand POETRY, man...but I always read it as an extension of Ovid's lament. In the sky (the albatross' home -- in context, one's native language) the bird is graceful and handsome, but when forced to walk on the deck of a ship (not its home -- in context, not one's native language) it is clumsy and awkward, a thing of ridicule by low-born folk.

...but this is just the albatross' perspective. To the sailors, the albatross is unintelligible and thus assumed unintelligent.

"

Delacroix was himself the heroic, isolated figure he depicted, despite the popularity and success he achieved. He lived and worked at a historical moment when artists became independent commodity producers almost wholly subject to speculation, self-promotion, innovation, and a fickle market. The stock subjects and styles that had sustained careers for generations were no longer in demand by the broad new audiences at the annual salon exhibitions, and patronage from church, state, and nobility had markedly declined. In this modern context, imagination and novelty were prized above all else, and the most successful artists were those who either responded to public taste (risking vulgarity or cliché) or took immense risks in order to achieve striking effects. Delacroix generally opted for the second route, and the danger to his life and health was real. His early diary entries, for example, are filled with alternate expressions of doubt, arrogance, paralysis, and hypomania. Whereas conventional historic, mythic, and religious subjects—the Crucifixion of Christ, the Martyrdom of St. Cecilia, the Battle of Alexander at Issus, the Rape of Persephone—allowed libidinal desire to be safely sublimated through approved iconographic traditions and academic formulas, the new circumstances of art, which valued innovation above all and provided few reliable patrons, meant that every new artwork was a leap into the unknown, requiring considerable emotional as well as financial investment. Thus, in Delacroix, we find images of tormented artists such as Dante, Michelangelo, Paganini, and Chopin.

Delacroix wasn’t celebrated by the modernists, from Redon to Picasso, and from Baudelaire to Greenberg, just because he seemed to eschew subject in favor of form, but because he accepted the new circumstances of art-making under the aegis of a market-driven cultural and economic order. He continued to paint many of the same subjects that more traditional artists had, but from a new perspective: that of the isolated artist forced to deploy the complex resources of his own mind and imagination in order to maintain a semblance of autonomy amid a succession of repressive cultural and political regimes.

"

He [Baudelaire] told Flaubert once that he wanted to become ‘a pure will constantly in motion’. He must have succeeded, since when Courbet tried to paint him, he had to admit, “I don’t know how to finish Baudelaire’s portrait. His face changes every day’.

"

Boem wrote:

Compassion is a negative emotion though, since it comes forth from pitty which is the act of looking downwards on somebody mentally.

So compasion doesn't create equal "footing" or a solid foundation to help. It might create an illusion of good intent though, but i don't think i have to explain why good intentions dont intrinsically have good outcomes.

"

Aquinas would deny the major premise of the preceding argument, drawing
our attention to a significant difference between compassion and pity.21 He
argues that pity is solely an emotional response to another’s distress. A purely emotional response can cause more harm than good, because it can move us to misapprehend a negative situation or respond to it incorrectly. Moving us to respond incorrectly to suffering, emotions render us powerless to discern the cause of the suffering or help the situation. For instance, an employer may hire someone out of pity who lacks the essential skills needed for a job. The suffering this creates will affect all the stakeholders in the company and eventually create even more suffering for the person he pitied.

Moreover, a purely emotional response isn’t a virtue because virtue involves choice. Pity, like any mere feeling, can well up in us without us choosing to feel it. In fact, there are some feelings (anger, jealousy, envy) we would choose not to feel if we had a choice in the matter. Compassion or mercy, on the other hand, comes from the will, the rational desire. In other words, we choose to extend compassion or mercy to someone.

Because compassion involves choice and isn’t simply an ephemeral feeling, it stays with us long enough for us to assist the sufferer. Because it has an intellectual component as well as feeling, the compassionate person is able to identify a practical solution.

The Dalai Lama concurs that compassion, as a virtue, doesn’t imply pity. Like
Aquinas, he says that compassion ‘‘belongs to that category of emotions which
have a more developed cognitive component.’’ His Holiness describes compassion
as a combination of empathy and reason. He writes that compassion
or mercy must be ‘‘accompanied by wisdom’’ so ‘‘that it is put to the use of
others.’’24 Then the compassionate person can offer genuine practical assistance to those who need it. Aquinas would add that the reasoning component the Dalai Lama discusses is found within the act of choice, which follows from deliberation. While all people, at one time or another, may feel a pang of pity, not everyone makes the choice to exercise compassion.

"

Boem wrote:

And ideas are just that, we all have them, we all gather them, but we are not them.

It's like an intellectual endevour, you are not the idea's and concepts you learn. And the moment you identify with them is the moment you start disregarding the fact you once didn't have them.

At which point you lose the potential to honestly look at people who don't share your idea's and make the distinction they are just like you before actualizing them.

I think that's a part of what i would consider "the intellectual snobishness".

The inability to see your former self in the people who haven't educated themselves.
Which is something i commonly come across when listening/talking with intellectual people.

My mind was rather puzzled by this a few years ago, since my younger self assumed that higher intellect would be capable or spatious enough to allow meta-thinking in this field. But so far i usually encounter very specific oriented intellectual people with a disregard to other fields/layers of the population

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Charan wrote:

I imagine my response to Boem explains this a little bit, but plainly put, I typically don't socialise much outside of my long-established circles and I know what each of my friends likes to discuss, what sets them off, what we can explore together. There is no fear of linguistic barriers causing friction or unnecessary conflict. I see no point in discussing topics that require a high competency in a language with someone who doesn't have that. And in real life, if you do do that, it can come across as rude, imposing, 'snobbish', etc. You read the room, so to speak. Or as the Japanese put it, Kuuki o yome, 'read the atmosphere'. To be KY in Japanese (Kuuki o yomenai -- unable to read the air) is to be socially awkward to an unpleasant, clumsy degree.

In contrast, the net has for decades brought people together in very unnatural ways -- and it remains dominated by English, although platforms like Weibo are friggin' huge these days. My first experience of a chat room was an English-speaking anime community on Geocities, circa 1996 I believe. Not long after that, Battle.net. Again, the chatrooms were overwhelmingly English. There were rooms for other languages but there was never a dedicated 'English' room. And I think that was my first exposure to what I perceive as the unfairness of the internet -- if you're a native English speaker or fluent enough to be consistently intelligible, you are able to move through communities about anything else in English. You can be selective with what sorts of people you hang out with. Personality can dictate your associations on here. But if English isn't your first language, you either have to learn it OR be shoved into a community bound only by one thing: that language. Doesn't matter if you don't get along with the other people, they're 'your' people. This is 'your' channel. It has your language's name on it. GET ALONG.

I really do feel bad about that. But I get the necessity of it. The victor writes the code, so to speak. Who invented the internet? English-speaking folk. Who first used it? The same. Who propagated it? And so on. That said, even had the Chinese invented the net, I have no doubt Westerners would have treated it the same way they treated noodles: remake it to their taste and call it pasta. Dare I say, copypasta? Muhahahaha.

Language barriers are not such a big problem in real life. For all our global interactions on here, most of us exist in much more comfortable bubbles away from the computer. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It has been that way for millennia, and until we figure out some sort of global language, it'll remain that way. Should there be a need for interlingual communication, we have translators, or we can learn for ourselves, if the need isn't at a high fluency level. I find European folk a little less comfortable with this because they have been raised multilingually, at least academically. And at the other end of the spectrum you have the Americans, who were born the victors and can't understand why the rest of the world won't just speak the same damn language as them. Not even the British, who lay harder claim to English than the US by centuries, are that intolerant -- but I suppose that's the result of post-colonial guilt and subsequent openness to cultures they'd formerly merely appropriated.

Fuck, what was the question again?

"

Charan wrote:

Pearls before swine, man. I'm never going to learn.

And this proves my point even more, erd. All that effort I make to explain the difference between 'intelligible' and 'intelligent' and this shallow dismissal is the response I get. Boem isn't engaging with what I said at all, and merely fixating on what they thought was a spelling correction (I was merely quoting them verbatim, because that's how it's done).

Like I said: unnatural and frustrating.

"

Boem wrote:

A miscomunication born from the word inteligible.

That's source material for a fawlty towers episode right there.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : i like to believe this chain of event is ammusing at least to some
on-lookers :p

"

Charan wrote:

That really has nothing to do with intelligibility but instead intelligence. Indeed, without intelligibility, you can't 'discuss topics with people that disagree or at least have ideas out of your comfort zone' because you won't understand them enough to even know that's what they're saying.

Hence my subsequent clarification on the difference between intelligible and intelligent. And I would NOT blame anyone who isn't a native speaker for confusing the two words. The more I thought about it, the more I realised I believe even native speakers often confuse the two.

"

intelligence (n.)
late 14c., "the highest faculty of the mind, capacity for comprehending general truths;" c. 1400, "faculty of understanding, comprehension," from Old French intelligence (12c.) and directly from Latin intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, knowledge, power of discerning; art, skill, taste," from intelligentem (nominative intelligens) "discerning, appreciative," present participle of intelligere "to understand, comprehend, come to know," from assimilated form of inter "between" (see inter-) + legere "choose, pick out, read," from PIE root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather," with derivatives meaning "to speak (to 'pick out words')."

"

intelligible (adj.)
late 14c., "able to understand, intelligent," from Latin intelligibilis, intellegibilis "that can understand; that can be understood," from intellegere "to understand, come to know" (see intelligence). In Middle English also "to be grasped by the intellect" (rather than the senses). In English, sense of "capable of being understood, that can be understood" first recorded c. 1600. Related: Intelligibly.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Friction between huge social groups is detrimental to the survival of the species of a whole. So it stands to reason that the assimilation or destruction of either party is required to re-instate social equilibrium.

Something like "war comes before peace". Not because people enjoy war, but because it's a pre-requisite to attain the next peace stadium.

Didn't the romans utilize a similar strategy historically? Conquer, wage war with a different social group and then assimilate their culture afterwards to produce peace.(relative concept of peace here, obviously not as we know it today)

The motivation seems obvious at that point, more people allow for exponentially complex tasks or power, increasing the species survival as a whole.

The intelligence in relation to my tangent is creative inteligence opossing physical intelligence.
The scolar vs the macho, stupidly simplified but it should do to get my point across.

"

Charan wrote:

oh, hey. so. real world analogue. Did I answer it? Somewhere in there I think I did. But let's be really direct: the real world analogue of what we do here would be a splinter group of bored students at an international symposium for the same broad school of thought hiding in the basement trying to discuss *anything* but that school of thought. Needless to say, it's usually a disaster and the rest of the students at the symposium are like 'why the fuck are you even here?' but occasionally get dragged into our inane topics because madness is fucking contagious when you keep it in the basement and leave the door unlocked so innocent passers-by can hear the crazy howls of manic laughter...

"

erdelyii wrote:

I was pleased to find a piece that combines these two elements -

"

erdelyii wrote:

I'm still not sure that short term group goals are in the best interests of the species as a whole, or that the Romans aim was peace. From a scientific point of view?

Anyone?