Ce sujet est fermé
Guest_starlitegirlx_*
Arashi08 wrote...
Rifneno wrote...
Arashi08 wrote...
But what have you done with your "awakeness?" what good is being awake if we don't do anything with it? I think what Megumi means is we shouldn't try and put ourselves on a pedestal on the others and call them "blind" afterall, we don't know for sure anymore than they do so it is folly to assume we have the answers. Though admittedly thinking we have all the answers is something humans just looooooove to do.
We don't have all of the answers. The literalists seem to have none of the answers though. Yes, they are blind. There is too much to IT for it all to be "bad riting" and coincidences. The writers may be misleading us, but they certainly intended for us to at least question if the ending was a Reaper mind game. I don't have to think above average of us to think below average of litalists.
I agree with this mostly, especially the part about the writers wanting us to question the endings. Possibly even question something about ourselves as we play it., but if it turns out we're wrong does that make us "blind" by the literalists' standards? What I mean is how fair is it to say that we are making a factual argument and literalists aren't.
Now I'm of course not talking about those people who rant and troll us or who don't even bother to even understand IT; they chose not to look into it and chose to be ignorant. But not ALL literalists can be seen this way, as I'm sure at least some of them have tried to logically think this through and came to the conclusion that IT isn't what was going on.
Now does this make them right? of course not. But the same can be said of us. Is it really fair to lump all literalists in the same category of "not understanding?" for all we know some people did look at the evidence we presented and just disagreed. Now to be fair, maybe the people who actually looked hard at the evidence and still ended up taking the endings literally are in the minority, I can't say, but they still exist.
long story short: I think the problem wasn't that we disagreed, it was that we seemed to be lumping all literalists together just like they would lump all ITers together. I just don't think we should do that. Now we can definitely say that compared to those trolling ones who just spew hate and ignorance and clearly didn't look deeper into it, we could say we obviously worked harder than they did and tried to look at things a different way, so ya we can think below average to them I suppose but I just don't want people to think we are just as bad, especially when some of the people I've met here have been some of the most thought-provoking and just plain fun to talk to.
I came across too broad in my idiot comments. I was specifically referring to those who refuse to look at evidence, to look at perspectives, or to give IT a chance. I'm also not speaking of ones that play to play for fun. That's a different level of the game which I suspect was deliberately designed into the game. Who among us doesn't have our guilty pleasures? I have a few TV shows I love that are not really intelligent in a way that makes you ponder issues but they are still fun. So I leave out that group entirely. What I'm speaking of when I say idiots, and I will admit that is a terrible choice wordwise, (but what would fit better and be as on the nose as needed) is the group that deliberately and doggedly holds to their beliefs even when their is evidence throughout the game that with most open minded people would put them in the 'okay, I can see your point but I don't agree with it. However, I will also not attack it." Those are not the people I refer to as whatever is the perfect word for them. It's the ones who see the evidence and stick to their guns without even flinching despite that our evidence has merit enough to at least trigger a 'I'm still not there but I can't 100% say you are wrong." And yet, that is not what ITers have witnessed, is it? By large, it has been trolling mindsets with almost irrational ability to look at another perspective and see that point of view.
I was accused of not being able to see other POVs, which is not true. I have actually said in a few posts a week or two ago that perhaps we need to look at it from a psychological perspective rather than an intellectual one and consider that people are defending their choices based on some psychological reason for it which differs from individual to individual and that it is not about the logical process of it or the evidence but about some emotional reasoning given that there exists a large percentage of people that are emotionally based rather than intellectually and logically based. That is a different POV and perspective that handed the benefit of the doubt to those people and removed the presumption that we or I am right. No superiority just different ways of thinking. Those posts were ignored entirely, which to me, was rather telling. I still stand by this as a reason as to why certain people are so attached to certain choices. If anything, that entirely removes all superiority. However, when I'm fed up with troll posts I snap and type idiots. I'm human. It happens. When the synthesizers get to me, it will not. ;-)
Feel free to begin attacks on me now for something I wrote in this post.
Modifié par starlitegirlx, 15 novembre 2012 - 11:18 .
Retour en haut
I'm glad to see the thread is back in good form.
