Who you fight would probably not indeed be of interest to many people, if you yourself did not profess loyalty to the Khanid King.
But when you do, at a time when relations between Khanid and Amarr are strained at best, your decision to go against Empire-loyal forces raises… all sorts of interesting questions.
And repeating “nothing to see here, just personal” raises them some more.
That, sir, is another place where you’re wrong. You, who so openly and proudly ignore the movements of forces far beyond your ability to even imagine, have no idea what my concerns are, or what falls within them.
NSH. PHEW. Shadow Cartel. Waffles. Where they are and who they’re shooting is definitely among my concerns. What they’re using to do it is among my concerns. Who lives in Providence, 2 regions away from me, is among my concerns. Who may be once again seeding the ground for an invasion, so soon after NSH/PHEW got themselves a keepstar just outside Catch, is among my concerns.
What you do… less so. The activities of ants, as I said, I leave to our diplos. So far, you haven’t really been among my concerns. But you’re getting there.
Is that a compliment? A warning? Maybe both?
Definitely not a compliment. Probably not a warning. Call it… a bit of quasi-friendly advice: you are aligning yourself with interests who will never care about you or your concerns, who have a long history[1] of turning on their ‘allies’ the moment they sense weakness or get bored. And that association will make it far less likely that anyone will ever see you as anything but their pet, and when they decide to shoot you, it will be seen as what you deserve, for working with them.
It’s funny, but everyone’s always so dismissive in exactly this way. ‘Oh, it’s semantics’, like that doesn’t matter[1].
Semantics matter. The most maddening words in any language are ‘you know what I meant’. There are people here with wildly different life experiences, who think in different ways because they think in different languages. To dismiss semantics is to literally dismiss clear communication in favor of laziness and assumption. Any why? Because people don’t feel like taking the time to communicate clearly? Because they can’t bother being precise?
I swear, sometimes I feel like people do it on purpose, so that when they get called on their crap, they can hide behind ‘you know what I meant’ and accuse anyone who tries to take them at their actual word to be somehow venal, shallow, and interested only in scoring idiotic points in the kind of popularity contest most of us should have outgrown by the time we learned algebra.
Oh, I agree it matters. It’s just semantics and translator-fun-times are a topic I find the most tiresome part of diplomacy and PR, so I go oh ffs not this again before I do it anyway.
So … only, even using this language we’re using now, with all its variety, real precision isn’t possible because in the end we’re still using a complicated semiotic system to communicate things that aren’t always going to fit it very tidily. And that’s not even getting into hard-to-explain cultural or philosophical concepts such as mu (there’s a reason it doesn’t translate; the concept is somewhere between “void” and “nonsense,” but that’s a very sketchy way of explaining it).
Really, successfully communicating despite all our differences in the way we think and our cultural assumptions and so on seems like it’s less about precision and more about … well, artistry. Having a clever way with words can shed light with a grace and appeal that loads of technical language and jargon won’t be able to, even if it is more precise.
I’d say it takes both, really, but then, real artistry requires precision. It’s true even of surrealism and abstract art.
You’ll notice, I didn’t invoke ‘technical language and jargon’. Precision is not found in esoterica[1], but in selecting the right word to convey exactly what you mean, both in the factual context and the evocative. And if you have to fall back on ‘you know what I meant’… then clearly, you failed to select that right word, because you didn’t evoke the impression you wanted.
“You know what I meant,” at least spoken in anger, is more an accusation that you’re knowingly twisting someone’s statement based on an overly-literal reading, though, Arrendis.
It’s more an argument about bad faith than literalism.
If spoken more casually, it’s effectively a linguistic shrug: “Yeah, I could’ve said that better, but I don’t see a point in wracking my brain over how; you get the idea, anyway.”
This.
And when used that way, it’s thrown about in bad faith, by people who are looking for bad faith, and refusing to accept even the possibility that maybe they have conveyed an impression other than the one they intended to convey.
Maybe, but, Arrendis, you have been known to play with people instead of arguing earnestly.
I didn’t used to look for it much, you know? It’s only since I’ve started really watching for it that I’ve become more willing to just cut an argument short. I don’t argue for fun-- I mean, it can be fun, but I like arguing real ideas. Competing brands of nonsense don’t hold a lot of interest for me.
You have a reputation for sophistry. You’re not going to get out of it just by accusing people of only accusing you of bad faith in bad faith.
If we’re going to argue, let’s argue over something real.
So once you started looking for a specific pattern, you found that pattern. It’s amazing, isn’t it? It’s also how the brain works: it doesn’t matter if the conclusions are right, you’ll find the patterns you’re looking for, if you look hard enough.
This isn’t about my reputation for sophistry, Aria. And I know you and others won’t believe that, because it doesn’t fit into the neat little world view that you’ve constructed. It doesn’t let you be dismissive of things that prick at you and whisper ‘you may be at fault’.
And yes, I fully admit, I have a reputation for sophistry—a reputation built, in large part, on the cries of ‘you know what I meant’. The rest of it comes from bludgeoning people about the head and shoulders with the inaccuracies they present and then refuse to correct. You’ll note, on that score, that when I mistakenly said Diana had cut someone’s hands off, and she called me on it, I went back and checked the logs, then acknowledged my error and corrected myself: it was only the fingers. That simple act of ‘ok, I misspoke/mis-remembered/was wrong/was imprecise’ matters—just maybe not with her, but that’s a different issue.
And yes, I know that I did say at one point that I am not only capable of arguing both sides of most of the issues I give a crap about, but I’ve been known to do it sometimes, for fun. I never said I did it here. I never said I did it in actual debate. But see, I wasn’t precise. That was my mistake, then, and I didn’t correct the misinterpretations immediately, when I should have. So, for the record:
But as I said: this isn’t about my reputation for sophistry. It’s about clear and honest communication. It’s about why semantics are important:
Primate empathy is an amazing thing. It’s simultaneously our greatest tool for rapid communication, and one of our biggest traps for clear communication, for precise communication. We see others saying things, doing things, and on a subconscious level, we try to identify ‘why?’. Our minds look for ‘what would make me say that? What would my motives be? How am I feeling in that moment?’, all so we can understand them better. And so we tend to assume others are doing what they do… for the reasons that would prompt us to do that.
Go on back to the old forums. Look at my posting history. Look at the earliest bits of it. It took a long time for me to get to the point where I decided that ‘you know what I meant’ was a sign of bad faith. I started off assuming it was exactly what it would have been from me: an objection that my statements were misunderstood. I started off asking what was meant, because if I’d been the one who was misunderstood, I’d have tried to find ways to be understood.
I came in asking questions. In some cases, I got answers. In others, I got ‘you know what I meant’—especially when I questioned parts of answers that didn’t make sense to me. When there was a lack of clarity, where there was vaguery, I turned to the only real tool that exists for concise clarity in a text-based medium: precision of language. And seeking precision was met with derision. Including from those who claim to be all about seeking knowledge and understanding. Like you.
And that’s part of what’s so damned maddening about bullcrap like every post you’ve made on this after the first. We, here, a few dozen (generously speaking) capsuleers are not going to resolve international tensions. We’re not going to end or reform or secure slavery. We’re not going to have any damned impact whatsoever on the Fabai situation or the Triglavian/Drifter war. We’re not going to convince the Mandate to accept or oppose Tetrimon. Every little bit of that, while an interesting diversion, is empty. It is competing brands of nonsense that can serve only to allow us to better understand one another—if clearly communicated.
And as a result, semantics, as a tool for clear communication and understanding, is about the most ‘real’ thing there is on these boards. But again, I don’t expect you to even pause for a second to consider that possibility. You made up your mind years ago.
Okay.
Want to demonstrate your ability to argue both sides by doing the response?
Make myself a liar in order to satisfy your penchant for dismissiveness? Yeah, I think I’ll pass.
All right, then.
But I think you’re a liar already, Arrendis.
its really hard isnt it
Not empty quoting.
Is that how they make Quafe?.. 
