Results 61 to 71 of 71
22-08-2014, 01:49 AM #61
A more sincere method of asking someone to clarify something they have said can be "what did you mean when you said this?"
Lethe asked what I meant.... so I clarified. Yes, obviously there was a contradiction in there. It may be hard to appreciate.... but in conversation, yes, people make contradictory statements. Yes, they are usually not so ignorant that they don't realize it. And yes, sometimes they even try to clarify what they were trying to say.
If it was not so articulate and clear... just ask for clarification. Maybe you meant this? Maybe you meant that? But don't talk down to other members and suggest they aren't capable of observating a basic contradiction in their statements. Unless one is so perfect...
And this is more in response to the behaviour of people not specifically in this thread, but in general in quite a few threads... who take a improperly reductionist method in responding to others. Taking posts by piece meal or in small fractions and responding to what is not anything resembling what they might be trying to say is not fun (for everyone). It is not productive, and just frustrates the original poster who might have done what I did... just think out loud.
Taking conversation literally to the point where are people are looking for is "an error" rather than actually trying to understand each other.... that's not a forum either. That's just a bunch of people thinking they are smarter than the next average forum bear.
At least respond in a holistic sense, and at least pretend like you're interested in one another member is discussing. In that way, everyone feels appreciated. And maybe a friendly discussion can be had.
Celebrating "I used logic against you!" is just... lol. It's nice one has the faculties of comprehending a contradiction, and pointing one out. Yea, that's good and nice and all.
But it takes more effort probably to withhold an innate forum-dweller desire to point out and find as many literal flaws as possible (are there forum brownie points for this???) in a little write up they spent 5 or 10 minutes on for kicks, and instead to make a genuine effort to understand where everyone is coming from.
But tbh I attribute this to not being in an actual forum where people speak to each other. In general I feel people act nicer to each other outside of a forum setting.
Last edited by rockman29; 22-08-2014 at 02:01 AM.
22-08-2014, 04:24 AM #62
Maybe one you might have not seen, one of my other favourites is an oldie but a goodie: Raja Hindustani. Not as much political, but I thought it was great, he's an awesome actor :)
He was in the last action movie Dhoom 3 (part of a series).... that was just bad. Lol. It made tons of domestic and even worldwide cash probably, but dear lord.... those movies are so bad lmao.
Last edited by Lethe; 22-08-2014 at 04:47 AM.
22-08-2014, 06:36 AM #63
@ Rockman: I agree that there's a lot of ugly rhetoric being thrown around in discussions around here, but I don't think that's what happened in this case. Zephro merely pointed out what I also noticed to be a pretty significant flaw in your reasoning. I don't think that he/she was trying to assert supremacy, but simply taking part in the discussion. Being made aware of such things is one of the main benefits of discussing thoughts and opinions IMO, since it helps one to reassess and clarify one's thoughts.
22-08-2014, 06:54 AM #64
You're right and I overreacted.
Still.... I just get an impression of persons, and again not limited to this thread, and still including some users in this thread, being decidedly short with other members in the sense of trying to one-up them through dissecting posts piece meal and avoiding an attempt for understanding/clarifying. I find it mostly inappropriate and rude. It's just a games forum, there's no life achievement award for doing that.
That said that's not the interaction I've experienced with most everyone here. If I was in the wrong that was my own fault for being extra sarcastic lol, but just in general there's just a choice few members who seem to just want to take posts a little too literally and chase all these technicalities and it just sours the mood of posting for fun. Sometimes it's fun to post a stupid idea you thought of in passing just thought of for kicks.
But it's not as fun when it's met with an attitude, and tone is hard to read in text alone. Posting on a games forum doesn't mean everyone wants to be taken so seriously and literally in every regard. It feels a little less harsh to give everyone at least *some* leeway, and it doesn't hurt to make it a bit more clear one is not trying to insult the other. It's hard sometimes to discern tone through text alone.
Was just bouncing ideas around for fun... I've no problem with complete disagreement with my post, but in a rude or unsincere way, or something that seems like it at one point, it just robs all the fun out of posting.
Coming into the thread simply to point out "didn't you see this logical fallacy?" (which is a little sharp and a little too common from some users on this forum) and then contributing nothing else, especially when I was just discussing with another user and trying to clarify exactly what I was trying to convey in posts before that, that's a little unnecessary and not conducive to a fun discussion.
Again, if one is so perfect and all-knowing and can easily compartmentalize all of thinking and life into neat categories and where nothing is an exception or contradicts anything else, only then can you really chase after people after a simple literal error in their written words. This isn't the first time I've seen it happen to others or to myself, even by users in this thread, to take posts piece meal and respond to a fraction of those posts without even attempting to address what they might actually be trying to say, but I don't expect it to be the last. At the same time, I also think it's silly and not fun for everyone.
Last edited by rockman29; 22-08-2014 at 07:34 PM.
22-08-2014, 07:34 PM #65
The words diversity and monoculture/multicultural are used in many, many different interpretations outside this thread. There is much disagreement of whether or not diversity in ethnicity/language alone is multicultural (a great example in that paper posted earlier alone with Brazil).
To refer to the one aspect of culture in India (which has more to do with behaviours and attitudes towards politics or caste systems and such) is not so extraordinary when trying to explain which aspect of culture I was trying to bring attention to or address.
For example, women's issues in India are a quite a singular cultural phenomenon that goes across the entire country of India, despite many different cultures defined in a different way existing across the country. The issue of rape of women is part of that category. So is the treatment of widowers. So is safety of young girls in terms of sanitary products provided for menstruation, or even safety in going to the washroom in rural areas. So are dishonourable "honour killings." You could be the whitest or blackest Indian and speak a completely different language, but these are quite universal issues in rural India.
The culture of police abuses or political/financial corruption is also a common cultural problem across India as well. And none of these things are some literal contradiction to the multicultural face of India in other senses, as some overzealous forum members would like to (incorrectly) point out. Political corruption was a massive issue in the recent elections (which took over a month to institute due to the massive population of the country), and that is a national cultural problem, to the point the incumbents were slaughtered in the elections.
Despite the fact that India is so multicultural, Amir Khan's show is a national program trying to address national cultural problems. It addresses massive cultural issues in India that are common in the entire country due to ingrained prejudices and common practices across the entire country.
A user with an intent to misunderstand does not warrant a sharp response from that same user just because, especially one who isn't a stranger to those type of responses, and it will not contribute positively to a discussion. I think people on the forum should take more issue with users who behave like that and choose to snipe and judge others posts first, rather than seeking a mutual understanding of what exactly was being said, even if disagreement is the end result.
So why did I redefine what I meant when I said cultural? Because it made sense in trying to explain what I was referring to. Corruption was what I was talking about before, but even women's issues, and many other features are cultural problems universal to the vast states and populations of India.
If one understands the issues of India to a greater degree than I do (and that is not impossible, as I don't know very much at all), then by all means share that information rather than contributing very little to the discussion and just playing the technicality card.
Last edited by rockman29; 22-08-2014 at 07:48 PM.
22-08-2014, 11:05 PM #66
This isn't a technicality in the slightest.
An issue is not a culture and a culture is not a single issue. How women are treated throughout a culture, or similarly across several cultures, is an issue but not a culture. Within a multicultural society, such as India, there may be common threads and issues but that does not make it a monoculture in any particular way. They in fact blur between each other in a very difficult way.
The best definition of a monoculture is one where the culture is broadly similar within a nation state or society. So Nordic countries are great examples, almost exclusively from the same heritage, religion, etc. The nation state of India encompasses people of quite highly divergent religious, political, historic and various other traditions. Though they could all be said to be Indian in a way which makes far more sense than attempting to say any one person is Iraqi, other than they live in Iraq.
Based on that, which is not a technicality and has been linked to earlier in the thread regarding diversity and also linked to regarding corruption indexes, there is no correlation between monoculture and corruption, except possibly the complete inverse. Again this was linked to earlier, and it should be noted not responded to but selectively quoted, so there just isn't any link between the two unless you just redefine the words.
Excuse the spelling, am drunk.
23-08-2014, 12:12 AM #67
And then culture can be defined extremely differently.
It is the same old debate when Toronto calls itself multicultural (which it is in one interpretation) and when academics call it more accurately referred to as diversity.
Multicultural can be different ethnic groups, such as in Toronto. Oriental asians, South Asians, Middle Easterns, Western europeans, etc.
Yet academics (some of them) call Toronto monocultural. Why? Because they consider the term multiculture not to mean simply ethnic diversity, but also diversity in the laws and norms. Toronto is not considered a multiculture with this other definition, because everyone, despite their ethnic diversity, conforms to the same laws.
There is not one accepted definition, or best definition, of multicultural. Because the term culture is not well defined either (it is not universally based on any single or combination of aspects from ethnicity/language/laws/norms, anything else), and has very variable interpretations.
23-08-2014, 04:25 AM #68
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Thousand theories of corruption, thousand pieces of non-sense. You will commit corruption because you can: you can do it, profit from it, and get away from the consequences. As simple as mother has to be woman.
If British Royal family members can, they will, too (and some being caught having done just that).
23-08-2014, 09:04 AM #69
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
24-08-2014, 04:12 AM #70
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
24-08-2014, 08:35 AM #71
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
I like your thinking, in which country can I vote for your presidency?