or anyone who was assuming that the standard phrase would be used in the standard way.
the reader had to Work to get what mike wanted to say out of the original post. getting the Opposite took only reading what was written and assuming it was used in the standard way.
that's... bad writing, i guess?
still, if one did read it carefully one could see what he actually meant... after rereading parts of it several times. it's not at all surprising many people misunderstood.
actually, the problem here is poorly chosen wording given common figures of speech.
'what X looks like' is Usually used to mean 'here is an example of X so you will know what it looks like, and thus be able to identify it, in future'.
pretty much everyone going off the handle about this is reading it based on the common usage, which Heavily implies the presence of actually corruption.
what ever point was trying to be made (and i do understand what was meant), this wording caused problems.
the store ma have had candles that look like baked goods... but i doubt anyone said 'this is what baked goods look like' without including the fact that they were Actually candles... or having an audience that actually knows what baked goods and candles are.
reading comprehension and intelligence only get you so far when the entire article is written using an expression strangely.
the title probably Should have been 'this looks like corruption'. the entire issue goes away then, and any argument over whether it is or not is a lot more... coherant? legitmate? whatever.
i actually read the first article and, once i figured out what was meant, had to keep reminding myself of it.
(this reminds me strongly of the fact that, to my ear, a lot of Americans pronounce 'can' and 'can't' identically, and lots of people accidentally leave the 'n't' off the end of words in online posts. the entire meaning of the post is inverted due to a simple error. )
so... yeah, doesn't take an idiot to be confused when the thing confusing them was presented in a confusing manner.
ugh. techdirt's being weird on me. hope this doesn't cause a triple post.
further up thread, Lobo said the following
"From religion--the acknowledged authority on brain-washing:
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6"
err, not that critical thinking and actually checking out the facts are a Bad thing. they're a huge help and a lack of doing that is a major problem in todays world. this doesn't actually conflict with my above point though. ... except maybe situationally.
think, verify, and having verified ... then what?
verification of truthfulness leads to belief.
at some point you have to assume Something to be correct to form the basis of your frame of reference or it is literally impossible to prove anything. (including this statement. what's that you say, a recursive loop? exactly.)
let's add in the part in the new testament (... i hate failing at references) about 'test everything, and keep that which is good'
and Christians are humans.
humans are things.
90% of everything is crud
the vast majority of humans, Christian or otherwise, are pretty darn stupid, at least collectively, and/or lazy. it's more efficient to get someone else to do the thinking about everything that's not in your immediate day to day for you.
most humans are just generally predisposed towards blind obedience in anything that doesn't directly harm them in immediate and visible ways.
... efficiency is NOT the best option when the less efficient process has a better output and you can afford the resources to maintain the less efficient method. (this applies to thinking... and to the various content industries too, actually. problem is they Can't afford the inefficiency anymore, and their definition of a better output was/is skewed. that's a bit off topic though)
well, if one calls 'away from stupid' both a 'leaning' and 'political' then technically, yes, probably.
*tilts his laptop for a different version of leaning, ponders methods of inserting politics into it*
... does it really count as brainwashing when it's a description of fact?
it is the nature of children that they learn from their parents, and that such experience forms the basis of how they make decisions for the rest of their lives... or at least part of it.
What you teach them doesn't change this.
it's like saying a lioness teaching cubs to hunt (if i'm getting the biology wrong here, adjust it as necessary). is it brainwashing? and, if so, is it better or worse than Not teaching them to hunt, given that, as carnivores, they'd then starve, or at least not eat well and/or get injured more than necessary.
i get so sick of this little snippit showing up like it's evidence of absolute evil or something... it's in the book of Proverbs for a reason...
At least then the rest of the world can start calling you 'Imperials' and use the word 'American' properly again. (and the Canadians won't have to call themselves Antarcticans anymore, allowing the penguins to reclaim that one)
It's not like anyone else has been using 'Imperials' since ww2 anyway.
heck, even without it's global actions, the USA rules Half a freaking Continent. if Brazil can be an empire (and i believe it was/is at one point? or is that just my alternate history reading coming back to bite me?) and China can be an Empire... then the USA is certainly an empire. heck, it's bigger than Europe, and there have been legitimate empires There that included only 1/6th to 1/8th of that...
so yeah... add in the tendency towards actions beneficial to achieving and maintaining a global hegemony (at least in theory... many failures there) and you'd be hard pressed to say it was Inaccurate, at least.
ahh, there was your problem. you were expecting the Spanish inquisition. this is the Australian inquisition.. (or American... corporate... you know, i don't even know who anymore, but neither the Spanish nor the papal inquisition were actually involved)
gets better. as i understand it it wasn't his science that got him in trouble (the conclusion was right but his methodology and such were Rubbish), but Politics... he was actually friends with the pope at the time but screwed up so badly in this reguard that even that didn't help him.
oddly, yes. and New Zealand, for that matter... if you don't mind some combination of signing up as crew, spending far more than it would cost to fly, and/or taking three months... (the latter based on Amazon's shipping practices, admittedly :P)
i think the only real passenger ships that do that these days are cruise liners though...
you mean those ones people hit the 'report' button on for being excessively trollish or spammy? (or in some cases excessively repetitive and annoying, which is almost-but-not-quite the same thing)
mentioning them would be rather ... redundant. kinda the anti-thesis of the entire point of the report button, really...
(and the 'report'ed ones are still there. people can click and read 'em if they want to.)
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re:
the reader had to Work to get what mike wanted to say out of the original post. getting the Opposite took only reading what was written and assuming it was used in the standard way.
that's... bad writing, i guess?
still, if one did read it carefully one could see what he actually meant... after rereading parts of it several times. it's not at all surprising many people misunderstood.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re:
of course that's going to confuse people...
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re:
'what X looks like' is Usually used to mean 'here is an example of X so you will know what it looks like, and thus be able to identify it, in future'.
pretty much everyone going off the handle about this is reading it based on the common usage, which Heavily implies the presence of actually corruption.
what ever point was trying to be made (and i do understand what was meant), this wording caused problems.
the store ma have had candles that look like baked goods... but i doubt anyone said 'this is what baked goods look like' without including the fact that they were Actually candles... or having an audience that actually knows what baked goods and candles are.
reading comprehension and intelligence only get you so far when the entire article is written using an expression strangely.
the title probably Should have been 'this looks like corruption'. the entire issue goes away then, and any argument over whether it is or not is a lot more... coherant? legitmate? whatever.
i actually read the first article and, once i figured out what was meant, had to keep reminding myself of it.
(this reminds me strongly of the fact that, to my ear, a lot of Americans pronounce 'can' and 'can't' identically, and lots of people accidentally leave the 'n't' off the end of words in online posts. the entire meaning of the post is inverted due to a simple error. )
so... yeah, doesn't take an idiot to be confused when the thing confusing them was presented in a confusing manner.
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Religion, Politics, and _____
i shall settle for a mix of both.
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re:
further up thread, Lobo said the following
"From religion--the acknowledged authority on brain-washing:
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6"
TDR is just failing at using the reply feature.
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re:
verification of truthfulness leads to belief.
at some point you have to assume Something to be correct to form the basis of your frame of reference or it is literally impossible to prove anything. (including this statement. what's that you say, a recursive loop? exactly.)
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and Christians are humans.
humans are things.
90% of everything is crud
the vast majority of humans, Christian or otherwise, are pretty darn stupid, at least collectively, and/or lazy. it's more efficient to get someone else to do the thinking about everything that's not in your immediate day to day for you.
most humans are just generally predisposed towards blind obedience in anything that doesn't directly harm them in immediate and visible ways.
... efficiency is NOT the best option when the less efficient process has a better output and you can afford the resources to maintain the less efficient method. (this applies to thinking... and to the various content industries too, actually. problem is they Can't afford the inefficiency anymore, and their definition of a better output was/is skewed. that's a bit off topic though)
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re:
*tilts his laptop for a different version of leaning, ponders methods of inserting politics into it*
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Not The Only Example
is this irony? I'm never really sure if I'm using that word right. sarcasm's essentially deliberate irony, right?
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Children
it is the nature of children that they learn from their parents, and that such experience forms the basis of how they make decisions for the rest of their lives... or at least part of it.
What you teach them doesn't change this.
it's like saying a lioness teaching cubs to hunt (if i'm getting the biology wrong here, adjust it as necessary). is it brainwashing? and, if so, is it better or worse than Not teaching them to hunt, given that, as carnivores, they'd then starve, or at least not eat well and/or get injured more than necessary.
i get so sick of this little snippit showing up like it's evidence of absolute evil or something... it's in the book of Proverbs for a reason...
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: We need a new word!!
It's not like anyone else has been using 'Imperials' since ww2 anyway.
heck, even without it's global actions, the USA rules Half a freaking Continent. if Brazil can be an empire (and i believe it was/is at one point? or is that just my alternate history reading coming back to bite me?) and China can be an Empire... then the USA is certainly an empire. heck, it's bigger than Europe, and there have been legitimate empires There that included only 1/6th to 1/8th of that...
so yeah... add in the tendency towards actions beneficial to achieving and maintaining a global hegemony (at least in theory... many failures there) and you'd be hard pressed to say it was Inaccurate, at least.
On the post: Arrested Pirate Party Member In Tunisia Freed, And Appointed State Secretary
Re: Re:
On the post: Australian Politician Compares Attempts To Silence Assange With Catholic Church Silencing Galileo
Re: Re:
On the post: Australian Politician Compares Attempts To Silence Assange With Catholic Church Silencing Galileo
Re:
care to guess which is which?
(i actually agree with the point you're making here, but still...)
On the post: Australian Politician Compares Attempts To Silence Assange With Catholic Church Silencing Galileo
Re: Re:
On the post: 82-Year-Old Cancer Survivor Demands Apology From Airport Security Over Screening
Re: thoughts...
i think the only real passenger ships that do that these days are cruise liners though...
On the post: 82-Year-Old Cancer Survivor Demands Apology From Airport Security Over Screening
Re: Re: Monty Python
good job... i think?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Re:
mentioning them would be rather ... redundant. kinda the anti-thesis of the entire point of the report button, really...
(and the 'report'ed ones are still there. people can click and read 'em if they want to.)
On the post: Irony Alert: NYC's Anti-Piracy Propaganda Campaign Using 'Free' YouTube
Re: Re: Ad space
Next >>