720 réponses à ce sujet

[Feybrad]

*filthy Pests*

 

[Lady Artifice]

 
Of course it does. Removing a word from a sentence changes its meaning. You're telling me that 'Only white protagonist" and "Not only white protagonist" have the same meaning because 'I didn't type one word' ?

 

Or, to put it another way: 

 

"The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."

 

-Mark Twain

[o Ventus]

"Not only white protagonist"

 

I agree, we should also have purple and green protagonists.

[Malthier]

"Not only white protagonist"

 

I agree, we should also have purple and green protagonists.

 

Or we should be able to design a realistic looking black character for the second time ever but with better hair than the other time. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

The remark doesn't exist in a vacuum though.

I disagree.

Even if I don't include it in the remark itself.

I especially disagree.

The context in which I say the remark has the power to affect its meaning.

Only to the extent that the context resolves the ambiguity of the meaning of the words you're using.

If you say someone is from "the north", are you referring to the geo-political entity that won the US Civil War, or are referring to the region in England that produced Christopher Eccleston, Jeremy Clarkson, and Sir Patrick Stewart? That's ambiguous, and context can help with that.

You identify it by reading the atmosphere.

This doesn't have a reliable method of doing so and is prone to error, so it's no wonder you hate it.

Until I can see the mechanism by which it functions, I won't concede that it's actually happening.

A simpler explanation is that the listener infers this on his own, and relevantly similar listeners will infer the same thing, thus confirming their belief that they discerned something real. And if the speaker is also relevantly similar, then he may well expect that inference, and when it occurs he might think that he conveyed that information, even though that information wasn't actually included in his remarks.

But that doesn't mean people don't do it all the time or that it doesn't exist.

I'm not at all confident that peolle aren't just doing what I described, which would look exactly the same from the outside, but doesn't require that most people (but not all) have access to some secret method of transmitting information, a method they lack the ability to describe or even discern.

Yours is, I think, the more extraordinary claim.

In the case of me condemning your bad taste, the context would be my past remarks regarding SAO and the sarcastic tone of my comments.

Speaking of taste in anime, you should watch PMMM.

I have no idea what this means.

[Lady Artifice]

I'm not at all confident that peolle aren't just doing what I described, which would look exactly the same from the outside, but doesn't require that most people (but not all) have access to some secret method of transmitting information, a method they lack the ability to describe or even discern.

Yours is, I think, the more extraordinary claim.

 

I don't think you realize how much your claim that implication doesn't happen flies in the face of both literary analysis and common sense. Subtext and implication don't defy description. They're described and used all the time. 

 

Have you read, Hills Like White Elephants by Hemingway? During my first semester of creative writing, I was assigned the task of trying to write an "iceberg" scene, using Hemingway's style as a format. Basically, it means writing a scene that's dialogue focused, but where the actual speech doesn't directly express the subject being discussed. In other words, it's all subtext and implication. It's called an iceberg scene, because most of an iceberg's size is hidden under water, beneath the surface. What you're saying would mean that not only did Hemingway himself not know what he was doing, but every single person who has analyzed or imitated him since has also been wrong. You're trying to redefine what communication is to make your theory work. Doesn't that give you a slight pause enough to wonder whether maybe it might be off base? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think you realize how much your claim that implication doesn't happen flies in the face of both literary analysis and common sense.

I loathe literary analysis.  "What was the author trying to say?"

 

That's unknowable, unless you're the author, or you have special mindreading powers and the author's mind is available to be read.  Any claims to the contrary are arrant nonsense.  We know only what the author said, and we can make some assumptions about the author's state of mind in order to try to draw conclusions about that, but we never really learn anything.  There's no knowledge available in literary analysis.

 

Appeals to common sense are unlikely to sway me.

Subtext and implication don't defy description. They're described and used all the time.

Can you describe the mechanism by which they are used?  Does your description require more assumptions than mine?

Have you read, Hills Like White Elephants by Hemingway? During my first semester of creative writing, I was assigned the task of trying to write an "iceberg" scene, using Hemingway's style as a format. Basically, it means writing a scene that's dialogue focused, but where the actual speech doesn't directly express the subject being discussed. In other words, it's all subtext and implication. It's called an iceberg scene, because most of an iceberg's size is hidden under water, beneath the surface.

I really like Hemingway, because his dialogue does a terrific job of highlighting the ambiguity and of the spoken language when it comes to expressing information.  I like how the characters seem so aware of what they've said and what they didn't, which I don't generally find in real people.

What you're saying would mean that not only did Hemingway himself not know what he was doing, but every single person who has analyzed or imitated him since has also been wrong. You're trying to redefine what communication is to make your theory work. Doesn't that give you a slight pause enough to wonder whether maybe it might be off base?

I'm Copernicus, shouting down Ptolemaic astronomy.

 

I think the commonly held understanding of communication is unscientific.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's a fine definition of implication I think, but I would disagree with you concluding that it's not real because of this. If he intended the message and they received the message, seems to me that it's as good as sent even if he didn't actually say it outright. It's not unknowable psychic hocus pocus, it's just part of the silent and imprecise language of empathy.

I don't think that's real, either.

Though when I said Kyubey is your spirit animal I might have been implying something.

I don't recall you saying that.

[Steelcan]

wut

[Lady Artifice]

He's Copernicus, he says.

 

Appeals to common sense are unlikely to sway him, he says. 

 

He doesn't think empathy is real, he says. 

 

I should have dropped it when I said I would the first time. 

[Hair Serious Business]

I'm mixed Asian myself so I did once made my sister look alike-Shepard in ME3.

Spoiler

Still I had to use mods plus mod game myself to get face I wanted,I know this would be perhaps too much to ask from EA/BW but I think it would be amazing if they looked closer to EVE online CC.

Besides ME:A will be next gen so we might as well get CC worth to be called next gen one

[SardaukarElite]

I should have dropped it when I said I would the first time. 

 

To be fair, arguments like this with Sylvius are something of a forum tradition.

[Massa FX]

OP Topic - 3 games Black FemShep - same settings except complexion on 1 game (1 freckled, 2 smooth)

 

ME1

 

Spoiler

 

ME2

 

Spoiler

 

ME3

 

Spoiler

[Sylvius the Mad]

He's Copernicus, he says.

 

Appeals to common sense are unlikely to sway him, he says. 

 

He doesn't think empathy is real, he says. 

 

I should have dropped it when I said I would the first time. 

I'm glad you didn't.

 

Thank you for your time.

[PhroXenGold]

I'm Copernicus, shouting down Ptolemaic astronomy.

 

I think the commonly held understanding of communication is unscientific.

 

While I'm not particularly interested in getting into the whole discussion on intent and implications, I do find that a rather amusing parallel to draw given how wrong Copernicus got things.... 

[Sully13]

Don't know if i should post this but meh i will.

 

Anyway this is the character creation i want to see.

[Farangbaa]

While I'm not particularly interested in getting into the whole discussion on intent and implications, I do find that a rather amusing parallel to draw given how wrong Copernicus got things....

This is where I look at my warning points and consider it's best to leave this topic be.

[Sully13]

Same. but my motto is " hay i treat everyone the same.. like tax collectors."

[pdusen]

He's Copernicus, he says.

 

Appeals to common sense are unlikely to sway him, he says. 

 

He doesn't think empathy is real, he says. 

 

I should have dropped it when I said I would the first time. 

 

Yup. I predicted this.

[Lebanese Dude]

Use racially stereotypical phenotypes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

While I'm not particularly interested in getting into the whole discussion on intent and implications, I do find that a rather amusing parallel to draw given how wrong Copernicus got things....

It's science. Everyone is wrong once we falsify their ideas. But the scientific process keeps us moving toward knowledge.

[o Ventus]

 

I really like Hemingway, because his dialogue does a terrific job of highlighting the ambiguity and of the spoken language when it comes to expressing information.  I like how the characters seem so aware of what they've said and what they didn't, which I don't generally find in real people.

Have you read Hemingway? His work is incredibly straightforward and to-the-point, not much ambiguity.

 

And yes, most people in real life make it a point to not be annoying, confusing, and obtuse when they converse with other people. That's something I like to call "basic human decency". I'm sure you don't believe in that either, Copernicus. Also how are you alive 562 years after your recorded death, Copernicus?