In which we talk about talking

[The Wandering God]

Well, I just wanted to talk about a few things with the good folks at Nuklear Power Forums.

How can people better communicate with one another?

Feel free to place your response along the appropriate section of the humor/seriousness curve.

Those of you with communications degrees can finally show yourself off!

pay no attention to the post icon behind the curtains.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Irrevocably seperated dialogues renders conversation beyond the trivial and mundane inherentely flawed and conceptually impossible. Thread over!

[ChaoticBrain]

Irrevocably seperated dialogues renders conversation beyond the trivial and mundane inherentely flawed and conceptually impossible. Thread over!

Did that even mean anything, or are you just stringing together random words into a grammatically correct sentence?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Depends who you ask. Which is conveniently also my point!

[akaSM]

Shyria has an interesting way to communicate with people. It involves a sniper rifle/bow and your head. It's really effective in creating reactions in others.

[The Wandering God]

Irrevocably seperated dialogues renders conversation beyond the trivial and mundane inherentely flawed and conceptually impossible. Thread over!
Let's just break this down.
Why are they forever sundered? Hasn't there been plenty of cases where languages simply stopped being spoken because of an outside influence? And that the farther apart people were, the more apt languages were to be different?

Meaning that familiarity eventually becomes recognition.

Why can't you form a concept? A concept is just a thought, it's the easiest thing to mold.
Depends who you ask. Which is conveniently also my point!

Are you basically saying that there is a certain lack of empathy needed for the willingness to consort with others?

[Aldurin]

Talking makes more sense the less you think about it, and I can tell you were thinking about it hard if you were confused enough to make a thread talking about talking.

[The Wandering God]

Talking makes more sense the less you think about it, and I can tell you were thinking about it hard if you were confused enough to make a thread talking about talking.
What do you have against communication?

[ChaoticBrain]

I like communication. It gave me the internet. I like the internet. It gave me porn.

[Bells]

Shyria has an interesting way to communicate with people. It involves a sniper rifle/bow and your head. It's really effective in creating reactions in others.

Usually followed by a Myriad of High Pitched sounds portraying Joy or Revolt!

[Token]

What do you have against communication?

Communication is too close to communism. Therefore it's horrible, and you are horrible for liking it.

[Fifthfiend]

How to communicate better:

Step 1:

Make Barrel stop posting

[The SSB Intern]

The secret to communicating effectively is to not be me.

I like the internet. It gave me porn.
You have this backwards.

[bluestarultor]

Talking is honestly a lot easier than typing. You get to emote clearly right on the spot without having to specifically add anything extra. Plus you don't have to deal with people spamming emotion in most cases, unlike many people on the Internet. :);)^_^:(:cool::aaa::3::dance::crying::ohdear: :raise::D:rolleyes:

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Let's just break this down.
Why are they forever sundered? Hasn't there been plenty of cases where languages simply stopped being spoken because of an outside influence? And that the farther apart people were, the more apt languages were to be different?

Meaning that familiarity eventually becomes recognition.

Why can't you form a concept? A concept is just a thought, it's the easiest thing to mold.


Are you basically saying that there is a certain lack of empathy needed for the willingness to consort with others?

I would comment but...

How to communicate better:

Step 1:

Make Barrel stop posting

:( :( :(

[TDK]

Talking is honestly a lot easier than typing. You get to emote clearly right on the spot without having to specifically add anything extra. Plus you don't have to deal with people spamming emotion in most cases, unlike many people on the Internet. :);)^_^:(:cool::aaa::3::dance::crying::ohdear: :raise::D:rolleyes:

I feel that the opposite is true, I have a much easier time communicating through text, especially emoting. Typing ":)" is much easier than smiling.

For me, anyway.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Text based communication is easier for me too. I'm still learning some tricks in this verbal communication thing that's all the rage these days, though. Back when I was a kid we had only IRC and none of this Skype nonsense.

Oh, you mean like... talking to a person right in front of me? Oh, the horror that people are.

EDIT: Today I talked to someone, it was nice.

[Magic_Marker]

Receiving message:

Irrevocably seperated dialogues renders conversation beyond the trivial and mundane inherentely flawed and conceptually impossible. Thread over!

Translating:

Because two human minds can never transmit ideas with absolute accuracy, leading to misunderstanding, incoherence and believing you understand the other mind's thoughts when really you only understand part of it, conversation that is not about trivial topics is deeply flawed. It is Smarty's position that because of said flaws the attempt at conversation, at least true conversation, is impossible.


In response:

However, while it may be true that you can never gain true understanding in conversation, at least without some alien technology, Just because the endeavor is asymptotic does not mean that it is not worth undertaking. While we can never truly fully understand another with complete clarity, we can sometimes come very close, and these insights make operating with other minds worth the effort.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Your translation of my original statement is completely flawed and completely misrepresentive of my premises. Point further validated.

[Ryanderman]

Your translation of my original statement is completely flawed and completely misrepresentive of my premises. Point further validated.

Unless it's your interpretation of his translation of your statement that is flawed. In which case, your point is... Also validated.

[rpgdemon]

So, really, there's no way to win. Except by giving Smarty statements wherein the only way that he wins with is if he interprets them properly, and if he interprets them improperly, they tear down his defenses.

[Azisien]

We could just kill him, incinerate the corpse, and have the mods delete his posts.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm not sure why the incineration of the corpse is necesssary.

[Azisien]

I'm not sure why the incineration of the corpse is necesssary.

I got this thing on Amazon clearance 30% off and I haven't found a reason to use it yet. This would be perfect!

[Satan's Onion]

We could just kill him, incinerate the corpse, and have the mods delete his posts.

Deleting all Smarty's posts? He's got, like, hundreds of those fuckin' things. Fuck that noise.

[Azisien]

Deleting all Smarty's posts? He's got, like, hundreds of those fuckin' things. Fuck that noise.

I would have figured the all powerful beings running this place have like, a select all button or something.

[Satan's Onion]

Yeah, but I have to, like, find it and click it and shit. Not even worth it.

[Azisien]

I completely understand.

[The Wandering God]

I think Smarty is basically just being a pessimist at this point.

Humanity, if it wants to thrive as a species, is going to have to be able to achieve http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7695/consensus.jpgconsensus to some degree.

Or we'll end up extinguishing in a puff of smoke. I just happen to think we can pull it off.

[The SSB Intern]

TWG is like that youth pastor that refuses to give up on you even after your jackass friends convince you to take his car out for a joy ride and you crash it into a tree.

[Magus]

Hey, Pastor Fred helped me through a lot of tough times in juvenile detention center, and then my arraignment for murder, and then those years in jail, and then my arraignment for that second murder, and then he was even there for me when I broke out of prison and held his family at gunpoint in a stand-off with police. Through all of that, he never quit saying, "Listen, son, it's not too late to turn your life around. Unless you aim that shotgun at my face, in which case that sniper is going to blow your brains all over the wall. So what you should do is set it down and let's talk about what Jesus would do in this situation."

So if TWG is like Pastor Fred, then he is a great and godly man! Now excuse me, I think I heard some muffled voices outside the back door. They may be using the battering ram any second now, I have to move the couch into a more advantageous position for cover.

[Krylo]

Your translation of my original statement is completely flawed and completely misrepresentive of my premises. Point further validated.

No that is exactly what you said. And your opinion on the matter means nothing to me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author)

[The Wandering God]

TWG is like that youth pastor that refuses to give up on you even after your jackass friends convince you to take his car out for a joy ride and you crash it into a tree.http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/2596/stubborn.png (http://img219.imageshack.us/i/stubborn.png/)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

No that is exactly what you said. And your opinion on the matter means nothing to me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author)

Death of the author leads invariably to dialogue/person specific readings. Point proved.
Unless you some kind of New Critic- but that would merely be you being so crazy as to project your own ideals onto a universal slate from which literature is drawn.

[Archbio]

Death of the author leads invariably to dialogue/person specific readings.

As opposed to the philosophy of criricism that results in everybody agreeing on a single interpretation.

The magical unicorn land school of criticism!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Death of the Author leads to the belief that is impossible for two people to have the same reading and that their different readings are equally valid.

[rpgdemon]

Death of the Author leads to the belief that is impossible for two people to have the same reading and that their different readings are equally valid.

What? I thought that it means that two different people can read something (Author and not-author) and HAVE different meanings from it. I always interpreted death of the author to mean, "Whatever you see there is really there, regardless of whether or not the author intended it", meaning that things can be interpreted however you want.

[Krylo]

Death of the author leads invariably to dialogue/person specific readings. Point proved.

I'm sorry, but your point has already been disproven when MM perfectly translated what you said. Any attempt to argue this point with me is wrong, as that your opinion, as author of the post, is invalid. It is only the intrepid critics and literary analysts which are capable of forming a true interpretation of your work.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What? I thought that it means that two different people can read something (Author and not-author) and HAVE different meanings from it. I always interpreted death of the author to mean, "Whatever you see there is really there, regardless of whether or not the author intended it", meaning that things can be interpreted however you want.


Death of the author is inherentely tied up in the post-structural ideas that as readers of the text you are irrevocably seperated from the authour and thus cannot recreate his meaning- the author and the text are different identities and the text stands along. Further your reading is irrevocably seperated from the reading of others unless they shared the same dialogue as you. So the reader is empowered in his own reading of the text and indeed is limited by his own culture/mental states such that that is the only reading of the text that he can make- regardless of what others interpret into a text you cannot change your reading of it.
Not all "Death of the Author" meanings lead here, however. As I was getting at with my New Critic mention was that New Criticism still disempowers the author but does not empower the reader as such. In New Criticism there is really a "correct" reading of the text but this is seperate from the authors intentions/context. BUt those dudes are wacky.

I'm sorry, but your point has already been disproven when MM perfectly translated what you said. Any attempt to argue this point with me is wrong, as that your opinion, as author of the post, is invalid. It is only the intrepid critics and literary analysts which are capable of forming a true interpretation of your work.


But their own readings are conceptually limited by their arbitrary signifying systems and form classifications. My opinion as a reader of the text, not as the author, is equally valid as those of other readers and critics and I contend that the translation was inadequate. I approached the problem as a reader, not as an author.

[Krylo]

But their own readings are conceptually limited by their arbitrary signifying systems and form classifications. My opinion as a reader of the text, not as the author, is equally valid as those of other readers and critics and I contend that the translation was inadequate. I approached the problem as a reader, not as an author.

It is impossible to remove your authorial bias, and thus your attempts to persuade me that you have done such only serve to prove your intellectual dishonesty.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

My intellectual dishonesty is predicated, however, on the need to break the Frankfurtian negative dialetics which ravage postcapitalism. Self-reflexive approaches, such as postulating from a position that both highlights and attempts to deny my own bias, promotes an examination of the symoblics of the field therefore allowing us to remove the loaded terms which we so freely exchange- terms loaded with the cultural baggage in which we exchange and which promote the trivial differentiation of the populace seen in said negative dialetics. By actively engaging in such dishonesty, therefore, I escape from the Weberian disenchantment of natural discourse and therefore provide the only critical approach, invalidating all others as the tools in a century long campaign of social stagnation.