No, I’m saying you’re presenting things as simple ‘this is what it is’, when that’s not all it is.
Things are always more complex. Nuanced analysis takes time and space-- as you know full well. Seeming to expect (or think that I’d expect) a few pithy lines to approximate a reality people can write books about and still fail to capture the whole is a bit much even for you.
You’re being mean, Arrendis, and I think you’re doing it on purpose.
I’m not. I’m discussing a topic, and trying to discuss it accurately, including pointing out when claims being made are inadequate. That’s all.
There’s a vast difference between being mean, and trusting the other person to be able to talk about something without needing matters softened and cushioned. And you’ve seen me do the one, so you should know this is the other.
See-- that’s a thing I like doing. But I don’t trust you very far with it, Arrendis. I’ve seen you casually misrepresent your views on any number of topics because you like arguing and testing your wit.
I’m sure you find it fun-- and, intellectual sparring is, kind of.
But I don’t spar just for fun. It seems to me there’s enough worthy material for battling over in this world without making up more, so I’d much rather argue over what people actually think. You’ve definitely already noticed this about me.
When you’re talking about someone else’s culture, of which you aren’t a part or even a long-term observer, that’s … presumptuous, at best, to be frank. At worst it’s both arrogant and extremely rude.
All of which you know, which means this is you picking a fight.
And combined with the above you already know it’s a fight that won’t interest me once I detect the insincerity.
So yes, you’re being mean.
Only until you run into being wrong, and then suddenly you pivot to arguing over your assumptions of the other person’s motives and state of mind.
Not when you’re trying to boil everything down to a single line-item. Because no aspect of culture is ever a single line-item. Nor is it presumptuous when my argument is based on ‘this is what other people of that culture have said that refutes that’.
No, it means you’re once again telling other people what they’re thinking, rather than responding to their actual argument.
Except the insincerity is entirely of your own presumption.
[ETA: The worst thing about that presumption, Aria, is that you build in immunity to being wrong, or being corrected. Because by deciding you know what the other person is thinking better than they do, and deciding ‘this argument must be insincere’, you instantly give yourself the pretense to insist that any claim of error on your part about the presumed insincerity is also insincere. And no, pointing that out isn’t mean, either.]
Still not, no.
the undercut hairstyle is trending again on Pator social media, on account of it being easy to maintain, and versatile.
1 Like
Maybe you really are being serious this time. Maybe not. It’s hard to know for sure.
Here’s the thing, though, Arrendis: I don’t believe you. I can’t trust you. You’re predatory, self-consciously, proudly predatory, and intellectually dishonest, and in a clever person that’s a real problem.
For a long time I felt like it was worth it anyway. But I’m tired, Arrendis. I’m tired of gamely taking on whatever fictitious challenge you feel like tossing out, as though the game we were playing was the same-- as though you were really looking for the truth.
I’m tired of wasting hundreds and thousands of words on a contest that was only rarely about anything any deeper than your delight in exercising your wit.
Find another plaything.
Here’s the thing, Aria:
That entire post is you telling me what I’m thinking. Again. You retreat into this every time you’re shown to be wrong, and act like your refusal to accept your own error is somehow me treating you like a ‘plaything’. And then you go into the ‘I’m tired’ and ‘it’s exhausting’ line.
So here’s my suggestion to you:
Stop.
If it exhausts you so much to actually have to support your statements and not be taken as an unquestionable font of wisdom, to be expected to actually discuss the things you claim you’re raising in a discussion, rather than simply spouting off and have everyone defer to you, right or wrong… then stop.
Don’t respond to this. Don’t respond to me. Put me on ignore, no time limit.
Because, really, this song and dance where as soon as what I’m saying becomes something that actually demonstrates you’re wrong, you play the ‘you’re being insincere’ card, and accuse me of playing a game because I’m pointing out the things that contradict you? The schtick where you tell people you know what they’re thinking better than they do?
It really makes me feel like maybe you’re the one who’s not being sincere, and maybe never was.
So if you’re tired of the game only you seem to believe is being played? Stop playing. You’re the only one who is.
And for the record: that’s not being mean either. Just blunt.
State ideology itself is virtually the exact antithesis of Gallente values.
That is no coincidence.
I feel that modern Caldari thought was influenced somewhat in it’s early days by a sense of contrarianism towards early Federal “cultural projection”.
Of course the harshness of Caldari Prime led us down a certain path to collectivism, but who can say what form it would have taken had the Raata been left to their own devices?
Admittedly I allow myself to attribute certain facets of Caldari society I dislike to this contrary reaction while adhering to the brighter aspects as the legacy of the ancient tribes.
In many ways, sure, and that’s hardly surprising. The contrarian impulse you describe is a perfectly normal response, especially from a people used to needing to put the community’s welfare ahead of any individual benefit.
I was not Lost, I knew where I Was. I was simply… Misplaced.
I Did win the Game of Hide and Seek that I was Playing though.
1 Like
This is actually kinda what I mean: that entire post is me telling you what I’M thinking, about you. After all, I don’t really know what you’re thinking.
Here’s what I had to say about what you, right now, are thinking:
Gray. Uncertain.
And that’s obvious, certainly to someone as clever and incisive as you are.
You’ve given me a certain amount of experience in how you approach this stuff. The above is just one of dozens of examples. You don’t play nice and you don’t play fair. I could tolerate the first as long as I thought I could coax you into sometimes treating the truth as a goal, our conversations as discussions instead of battles.
But I don’t believe that any more.
I don’t know what you’re thinking, Arrendis. Maybe you’re even low-key proud that I’m confronting you like this; you’ve done that a time or two. But the impression you’ve left, true or not, is that to you good faith is a weakness to take advantage of-- that when I give you my trust, in return I’ll receive the back of your hand.
So, yeah, we’re done. Goodbye.
1 Like
Like my post, then. In fact, you should like all of my posts, or, failing that, as many of them as possible.
1 Like
Charles is as Informative as he is Stylish.
1 Like
Test.
Please Ignore.
Strikingly blond hair, both seen and heard on the IGS.
Oh Joy of Joys, It’s time for another damn round of “LETS STICK THE ALIEN ARTIFACT IN OUR BRAIN” from all the idiot capsuleers with more guns than brain cells.
Of bloody course the majority of them will pick the options that give them “OOO NEW SHIPS AND WEAPONS” that promise the ability to violence each other in ways that are 5% more violent than current methodologies, even when huffing drugs made from some other banal method involving oh I don’t know, distilled orphans or some such nonsense.
“Deathless” ? Cartel ? Guristas ? A bunch of idiots that consider the inflicting of violence to be the apex of human endeavour. Booooooring. A thousand poxes on them. Such trite boring banality.
SOCT ? Oh right. The spooky bunch of spooky secret spooks that hide out in the ass end of space and pop up every so often to remind people that they’re spooky spooks. Whoop de doop.
I expect all that will be learned is how to violence other capsuleers with marginally more efficiency. No great technological or philosophical breakthroughs. Just more shootier shootyguns. Fan-bloody-tastic.
I should have been a naval architect or weapons engineer, instead of an archaeologist. Seems to be a lot more fardling money to be had from desiging phallus-shaped ships with phallusguns that shoot exploding phallus-shaped projectiles.
Do what you want. Nothing good will come from any of it.
2 Likes
Well now here’s a thing.
It seems if you say a certain word three times, the IGS doesn’t like it, and dumps your post for “review” by a non-existent moderator.
Fascinating
Frankly, I’m shocked that it wasn’t always obvious to you. If there’s anything that a study of humanity, past and present, should tell you, it’s that guns and phallii will always get all the money.