My eel fursuit is full of eels.
Posting to see replies.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Ok Furries, we need to talk. [NSFW] (was forum=28)
Ok Furries, we need to talk. [NSFW] (was forum=28)Follow
Quote:
There is a reason we have generally accepted definitions for thing; we want to have a clean and accurate tool for discussion and dissemination.
Untrue. You also get into conflicts about the fact that those in power, then, are allowed to shape reality for those without power and thus there are conflicts about language. It is not "clean" because reality isn't clean--it's only simplistic when you get a small subset of people defining reality for the rest of the people in the culture. And clean for those people who can't really handle multiple social contexts and multiple lenses in any social interaction.
One example is how "racism" is defined in Critical Race Theory as being used only when a member of a more powerful racial group (white in our country's context) discriminates against a person from a less powerful racial group (i.e. all other people of color), whereas other people define it as anytime any person from one race discriminates anyone else on the basis of their race. Disseminating this in academic and social justice circles doesn't muddy reality as much as it educates people by shaping language and redefining it. In the mind of the theorists ,keeping racism to the traditional definition (the second) suits only those in power (i.e. the white majority), who want to deny how the nature of the discrimination by white people against people in color is essential different and more pernicious than other forms of discrimination.
Knowing how to use language to redefine and shape reality is an essential political skill. Think about how the term "liberalism" has changed and been used.
Quote:
Yes. I doubt most do, nor have a real grasp of what it means
Do you remember any of it? especially in terms of changing language for the sake of communication between subgroups?
Edited, Mar 9th 2009 2:23pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Quote:
Untrue. You also get into conflicts about the fact that those in power, then, are allowed to shape reality for those without power and thus there are conflicts about language. It is not "clean" because reality isn't clean--it's only simplistic when you get a small subset of people defining reality for the rest of the people in the culture. And clean for those people who can't really handle multiple social contexts and multiple lenses in any social interaction
Believe me, I enjoy running conversations through multiple lenses. But when converting ideas efficiently, ie. without misconstruing their nature, a common language that can cleanly convey the meaning its quite effective.Note that this doesn't mean they can't handle multiple social contexts or lenses, instead that they wish to have a more general/universal for concise discussion without needless explanations.
Quote:
Knowing how to use language is an essential skill.
Obviously.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
Do you remember any of it? especially in terms of changing language for the sake of communication between subgroups?
Indeed, as both parties want their specific language interpretations to be the dominant and successively common language. It usually ends up in consecutive semantics arguments and less total understanding between the subgroups. Unfortunately this dulls it's use as a communication tool.
Just as Planned.
It is use, is it?
HAH! I have found a mistake in your post, thus rendering your argument invalid.
HAH! I have found a mistake in your post, thus rendering your argument invalid.
Quote:
HAH! I have found a mistake in your post, thus rendering your argument invalid.
I rest my case.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
Note that this doesn't mean they can't handle multiple social contexts or lenses, instead that they wish to have a more general/universal for concise discussion without needless explanations.
But that denies the reality that language itself is inherently loaded, changing definition based on political needs. It's not a neutral tool as you are implying. Dismissing concerns about the basic foundations of communication for the sake of expediency is seen by many groups and theorists as inherently oppressive--it is when less powerful people are not allowed to shape language but literally, they can only speak and communicate the ideas of the dominant culture. In many ways, this is seen as the ultimate act of colonialism.
Edited, Mar 9th 2009 2:35pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
HAH! I have found a mistake in your post, thus rendering your argument invalid.
I rest my case.
My other case is made of gold.
Quote:
But that denies the reality that language itself is inherently loaded, changing definition based on political needs. It's not a neutral tool as you are implying. Dismissing concerns about the basic foundations of communication for the sake of expediency is seen by many groups and theorists as inherently oppressive--it is when less powerful people are not allowed to shape language but literally, they can only speak and communicate the ideas of the dominant culture. In many ways, this is seen as the ultimate act of colonialism.
Colonialism? Nay the colonies can have whatever colloquialisms they desire. Amongst their peer-groups they can speak whatever accepted common language they wish, as the need to be understood by those outside this group is removed.
Amongst different groups, in order for ease of communication, they adapt their style to a different common language; one that meshes with the multitude of len interfaces involved in that group.
It isn't oppressive, it's utilitarian by necessity.
Edited, Mar 9th 2009 2:47pm by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
Quote:
Colonialism? Nay the colonies can have whatever colloquialisms they desire. Amongst their peer-groups they can speak whatever accepted common language they wish, as the need to be understood by those outside this group is removed.
Oh, Timelordwho. Honey, really, you don't get it.
Quote:
It isn't oppressive, it's utilitarian by necessity.
That's because you are from the dominant culture.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Quote:
Oh, Timelordwho. Honey, really, you don't get it.
Incorrect. I know and understand what you are saying. I disagree with your claim.
Quote:
That's because you are from the dominant culture.
Hahaha.
Just as Planned.
Sooo.... Were Mermaids the first Furries, or are they more kind of Fishies?
Scalies.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I've became completely lost in that last argument.. I was following along at first.. and then I started skimming, and then I didn't know what was going on!
Someone summarize it for me, what were they even arguing about? The incorrectness of somebody thinking that zoophilia and bestiality are the same thing?
Someone summarize it for me, what were they even arguing about? The incorrectness of somebody thinking that zoophilia and bestiality are the same thing?
Dear people I don't like: 凸(â—´―｀â—)凸
The One and Only Deadgye wrote:
I've became completely lost in that last argument.. I was following along at first.. and then I started skimming, and then I didn't know what was going on!
Someone summarize it for me, what were they even arguing about? The incorrectness of somebody thinking that zoophilia and bestiality are the same thing?
Someone summarize it for me, what were they even arguing about? The incorrectness of somebody thinking that zoophilia and bestiality are the same thing?
Something like that. Apparently they mean nearly the same thing to out-groups but not to in-groups, who are allowed to define the terms for themselves because dammit, that's how language is used.
Language is illogical, and that seems to be a sticking point.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Language is illogical, and that seems to be a sticking point.
I think I'll have to agree with that. Nothing pisses me off more than "I before E except after C and words that sound like Neighbor." It screws with you when you try to write words like seizure and weird.
Also as far as I'm concerned zoophilia　≠　bestiality the same way lolicon ≠pedophilia. There's a slight difference, although some are too headstrong to admit it.
Dear people I don't like: 凸(â—´―｀â—)凸
Legally, a non-human animal can not give consent, so as far as any official body that might get involved is concerned, there is no difference.
And until you find a non-human sentient being that can speak the same verbal language you can, that's not changing.
Edit:
That doesn't make it not disgusting.
Edited, Mar 11th 2009 2:37pm by Ehcks
And until you find a non-human sentient being that can speak the same verbal language you can, that's not changing.
Edit:
The One and Only Deadgye wrote:
lolicon ≠@#%^philia
That doesn't make it not disgusting.
Edited, Mar 11th 2009 2:37pm by Ehcks
Quote:
I've became completely lost in that last argument.. I was following along at first.. and then I started skimming, and then I didn't know what was going on!
Someone summarize it for me, what were they even arguing about? The incorrectness of somebody thinking that zoophilia and bestiality are the same thing?
Someone summarize it for me, what were they even arguing about? The incorrectness of somebody thinking that zoophilia and bestiality are the same thing?
Thanks for proving my point.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
That doesn't make it not disgusting.
Because the point of that comparison was to declare which one of two is personally more disgusting, amirite?
Dear people I don't like: 凸(â—´―｀â—)凸
Recent Visitors: 266
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (266)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Ok Furries, we need to talk. [NSFW] (was forum=28)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC