Sadly myself and many from the Ishukone-Raata Board were unable to attend this important occasion. I still wish to thank all of those involved.
A celebration of life seemed fitting after all these years, as we continue to mourn all those lost during this regretful affair, but it shows that we as a corporation and a community continue to move forward in an effort to heal the wounds of the past.
You know, I get yelled at for being argumentative and ‘trying to win’, and told ‘what about discussion?!?’
Then, I ask a question. That question spurs, you know… discussion. Nobody’s saying ‘ZOMG, Makoto, how DARE you???’ I even think… lemme look… yep! Even complimented the speech. I think it’s a good speech. But what’s with all the passive-aggressive hate on the tangential discussion an element of your speech inspired?
Isn’t sparking discussion and exchange of ideas a good thing?
No, that’s a serious question, Makoto.
This isn’t laid back.
Generally, yes. But you and pedantry are like a fish and water. An extensive discussion of the varying competing philosophies involving labor, employment, and such things will ultimately boil down to value judgments. Moralizing on points of cultural variation seems a poor way to spend our time, especially when we could debate it for days, weeks, months on end with no change on either of our part because it boils down to cultural norms that differ between here and there.
Essentially, imagine, if you will, that a True Amarr started to quibble over minor matters of kith and tribe, and intended to argue until the third coming of Jamyl. That’s where we are.
Sooo.
It’s more laid back than normal, though. I mean, I’m not getting aggressive, I’m not saying certain things that, if I were to explain what they are, I’d be saying them, so I won’t… but…
You know, it’s a work in progress.
Really wasn’t a “debate”, though… just expanding on some earlier thoughts to make my reasons a little clearer. Seemed like the thing to do when we were exchanging our views on the role unions play and how it analogizes to a biological system. But hey, whatever.
Also, just as a request for clarification here: Moralizing?
When one can stay within context of the environment i.e trying to understand what the author is trying to convey and in fact realise that rhetoric is a holistic endeavor i.e trying to understand what the author is trying to convey in an invention called a unified piece of text which holds a particular angle and stream of thought which then may lead to argumentation on that whole piece of text …then yes its a good thing.
Rather than the tottally opposite of it being nip and tucking i.e what someone could easily be doing in every.post.in.the.IGS which is the most horrible way to portray one doesnt view discussion in a holistic manner but a race against impressions…
Then its a waste of time for the most part and not a good thing.
P.S
Yes I nipped and tucked your argument because sarcasm is a thing of mine.
Well, yes, but that’s why I asked her what she’d meant, to begin with. When she explained, I offered an observation—a contrasting view for consideration, rather than any kind of challenge or direct refutation or accusation of error. After all, she was expressing an opinion, not claiming ‘this is the proven fact’. As such, it’d be impossible to say ‘you can’t feel like that’, and frankly, it’d be pretty silly to try, you know?
Then Miz offered her opinion, and Ara offered some thoughts on that and Makoto’s, and so I clarified my position in relation to Aradina’s expansion on Makoto’s point. You know, discussing the way we think about the matter I’d asked for clarification on, initially.
So, as a further request for clarification: Is it your position that in order to discuss someone’s public statements, you have to discuss only the primary point of those statements, or is it allowed to say ‘those are all good points, and I support your message. I just have a question about this part here?’ and then discuss the answer to that question?
Because… that’s what happened.
The title of the thread reads 10th year anniversary of Malkalen Incident for which by now all this nip and tucking has turned it from a forum discussion of a particular topic the respectable authors wanted to express as is their right to do so, to a luncheon discussion that led all the way to discussing Unions within the cultural context of the State(maybe, nobody knows actually because that wasnt the point anyway of the thread but oh well…) and then what is rhetoric…
Do I need to offer something more per clarification goes?
Yes, it’s an announcement thread for an event whereupon Makoto made a speech. And now we’re discussing a matter that developed from a clarification of a question about the speech she made at the event.
The event the respectable authors wanted to express was going to happen. Which it now has. And so there’s no need to let people know it will happen, because the 10th anniversary event of the Malkalen Incident will never happen again.
Is there only a limited number of letters available to put in the thread? Are we preventing other people from discussing the event that has already happened, with our discussion of an aspect of a speech given at the event the thread’s author intended the thread to raise awareness of in advance?
Someone should crash a Nyx into this thread.
Let’s say I would agree but I dont. But for entertainment purposes, allow me to offer my opinion on this; your point to Miss Priano’s speech was effectively this:
So within the context of what this forum post had turned to be you effectively took a tiny point from the whole speech and turned the argumentation curve towards evaluating a particular segment which is meant to be a part of a unified stream of thought. This means effectively you broke a sequence and that means that a broken array of sequence hardly will make sense standing on its own. This is the faulty mechanisms of what we call Language, but lets not get into that, also this is the problem of a feed based UI as this forum has but lets not get into this as well and let me offer my opinion;
So, for me, you should have made some thorough research on your own about the context of Unions in the State, make your own argumentative notes and then go open another thread, name it whatever you fancied and then offer your argument against the topic area you wanted to isolate and then argue against Miss Priano’s point of view within the same isolated post, on the isolated point.
In the meantime you could have read the whole speech and offer a response within the context of that in this post. Thus, and here is where this comes to effect:
Where now we would have two pieces of posts where one is a sequence of the other and we would all enjoy cohesively, the good thing.
Uhm… what? Ok, well, let’s say that three six five but blue.
So, your position is that rather than ask Makoto what she meant, I should do research on the context of Unions in the State. Tell me, would researching the context of Unions in the State have given me a better understanding of Makoto’s specific meaning than she could? Would it have taken less time, and thus been more efficient?
But I’m not arguing against her point of view. I completely accept her point of view. Her point of view is entirely valid. Why would I make an argument against it? I simply offered my own thoughts as part of a broader discussion, a kind of ‘oh, ok, I looked at it more like this, but I can see what you’re saying, too’.
And I did read the entire speech. And I offered a response based on the entire speech. Here, let me quote it for you:
Or did you maybe not read the whole response before accusing me of doing what you yourself appear to be guilty of having done?
Oh Miss Arrendis I just happened to do this:
on your argumentantive style which turns out isnt an argumentative style just a missconception of mine of you simply stating an opinion after derailing the topic which was the speech( at the time) .
And you accomplished the derailing through pushing the curve of the discussion through this:
Where suddenly your portayal of simply stating your opinion (According to you anyway) turned to an argumentation of a completely different topic, which if you had read or paid close attention to what I said about argumentative notes and opening a different post about it, you would understand that no,
You didnt
But you did a
Which also extended into my responses as well, but dont worry Miss Arrendis I am certain you just were doing this(where her, add a him)
And also you were doing a
In a very convenient manner as well not because its the truth but because you claim it to be… You know your argumentation style Miss Arrendis is what is called cluster criticism, its not that hard for someone to see of it as it is and I can assure you cluster criticism has broadly speaking, three stages, upon which you barely make it to the second…
In the meantime I received this from the CONCORD UI
========================================
Consider replying to more people
You’ve already replied 3 times to @Arrendis in this particular topic.
Have you considered replying to other people in the discussion, too? A great discussion involves many voices and perspectives.
If you’d like to continue your conversation with this particular user at length, send them a personal message.
==========================================
So to my great surprise I agree with CONCORD… one of the very few times but I agree. And that is the only thing I am guilty. Have a nice day.
Well then wasn’t the transcript of the speech derailing the topic which was the event (at the time), since Makoto didn’t include a full transcript of everything that happened?
I’m really not trying to be combative here, but it seems like you’re dead set on it. There’s a preconceived notion that discussing one part of the larger thing is somehow suddenly not ok, even though that’s exactly what was being done in the post my original question was a response to.
Can you please explain to me how Makoto only detailing a part of the event is significantly different, and what discussion of the speech the literal first reply after the transcript derailed? How have I prevented others from discussing the speech? Is it impossible for them to talk about it? I’ve offered my thoughts on the speech itself, what are yours? Did you like it? Do you think it was a good speech? Do you agree with the overall sentiment in the speech?
And when you quote my original question there, and try to portray that as the part where I say I was offering my opinion, are you intending to be dishonest, or did you miss both of my later posts, where the opinion is expressly offered?
Since you say you agree with CONCORD, are you going to take Aradina or Mizhara to task for offering their opinions on Makoto’s response now, as well? Or are you simply singling me out because Makoto chose to do so?
Ya know, maybe I’m not entirely up to speed on ettiquette, but this seems like the wrong place to have such a discussion and is wholly disrespectful to those who honor this day. A little cultural courtesy goes a long way. If you have questions for Miss Priano, take it elsewhere. Don’t sully this thread with another pedantic debate.
A rather tasteless comment but I suppose you can’t expect much from the IGS these days.
In other news, it was an honor to take part in this memorial event. We at RDC stand shoulder to shoulder with our I-RED allies and contractors. For Ishukone! For the State!