I sit here with my thoughts and ponder the mysteries of the harmonic chaos of existence.
Why is it that there is a razors edge between genius and insanity?
Why are the brightest the most likely to fall victim to obsessions?
I think sometimes that there is a great deal of truth to the old saying about ignorance being bliss.
Having said that I must also say that ignorance disgusts me. Especially self imposed ignorance, the kind where people refuse to learn about a thing because they feel deep within themselves that they would have to consider and actually form a different opinion. These people will mount the pulpit to scream about what they have stupidly decided is right, not to convince you and I. No, they do it to convince themselves. If you attempt to counter with actual facts they will shout louder and deny you the opportunity to speak, because as we all know the one who shouts the loudest and the most is always right. So my new method of talking to these people will be to allow my eyes to glaze over just a little, possibly allow some spittle to come out of the corners of my mouth while I agree with them and encourage them to continue to ramble!
While at dinner last night in a popular I overheard several conversations. A young woman in particular made my ears point up. She opened the conversation with "I didn't vote for Obama, but not because he is black." I grabbed Mrs. Asshats hand and said just listen, don't kill her. As Mrs. Asshat settled back into her chair the young woman continued saying if Biden had been running for president she would have voted for him, and this on the tails of just having said she didn't like the Democratic party.
Mrs. Asshat and I discussed this between ourselves and came to the obvious conclusion that from the opening statement made by this young woman that she is indeed a bigot and her vote was determined solely by color. Now, understand that while Mrs. Asshat and myself both feel that Obama was by far the better candidate neither one of us feel that the world is now a better place. This isn't about politics. This is about the ways people can and will unthinkingly deceive themselves.
It takes determination and old fashioned guts to look in the mirror and stare the reflection down until all the makeup is stripped away and the soul is laid bare. The first time I ever did it I ended up sweating and with shaky legs. And a healthy disdain for myself which allowed me to make some changes.
People are forgetting how to think. Thinking has been replaced with robotic responses to something half heard (because people have also forgotten how to listen) that they have managed to convince themselves that has actually come from them.
The good news is that this can be a tool. Yes, a tool. A carefully thought out and defensible opinion can be presented in such a way as to sway sheep. It can be done to change the world or as I prefer to amuse myself and give me something to laugh about.
There is a razors edge between genius and insanity that is called laughter. So look around. Listen. Manipulate.
And don't forget to laugh.
Hold on a second: In the primaries, I thought Biden was a better candidate than Obama, too.
I'm pretty sure I'm not a racist. Except for the Dutch of course, but who isn't?
I understand that, but in the missing details of the conversation it was very obvious what her position was, especially when the conversation stopped immediately when a black couple came in.
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on December 09, 2008, 02:26:17 PM
I understand that, but in the missing details of the conversation it was very obvious what her position was, especially when the conversation stopped immediately when a black couple came in.
Well, I personally stop speaking whenever black folks enter a room because I'm certain that some knee-slapping funnies are about to happen, do to their comedic nature, and I really enjoy a good laugh.
If she even THINKS she's a bigot, she's a WIMP for not saying NIGGER. People like Biden more because he openly loves the Israel so much, and that's what America is all about, really.
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on December 09, 2008, 02:40:47 PM
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on December 09, 2008, 02:26:17 PM
I understand that, but in the missing details of the conversation it was very obvious what her position was, especially when the conversation stopped immediately when a black couple came in.
Well, I personally stop speaking whenever black folks enter a room because I'm certain that some knee-slapping funnies are about to happen, do to their comedic nature, and I really enjoy a good laugh.
If she even THINKS she's a bigot, she's a WIMP for not saying NIGGER. People like Biden more because he openly loves the Israel so much, and that's what America is all about, really.
Why must you continually act like a fucking idiot?
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on December 09, 2008, 02:40:47 PM
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on December 09, 2008, 02:26:17 PM
I understand that, but in the missing details of the conversation it was very obvious what her position was, especially when the conversation stopped immediately when a black couple came in.
Well, I personally stop speaking whenever black folks enter a room because I'm certain that some knee-slapping funnies are about to happen, do to their comedic nature, and I really enjoy a good laugh.
If she even THINKS she's a bigot, she's a WIMP for not saying NIGGER. People like Biden more because he openly loves the Israel so much, and that's what America is all about, really.
GTFO of my thread.
Reverend: I really, really like this. Much respect.
In particular, I think that you hit the nail on the head when you made the connection between lack of listening and lack of critical thought:
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on December 09, 2008, 01:05:08 PM
People are forgetting how to think. Thinking has been replaced with robotic responses to something half heard (because people have also forgotten how to listen) that they have managed to convince themselves that has actually come from them.
I've noticed that the robotic-response-mechanism works very intricately due to not listening. In college, my various mentors and professors would always spout the line, "You have to be a critical thinker," not realizing or not conveying that the greatest aspect of critical thinking is critical listening. The result would be a lot of spags in Philosophy 101 "critically" grinding up and spitting out theories which, while original, lack an connection to the real-life people and concerns for which they were intended. I'll never forget the day when I had to endure a speech by some idiot about Nietzsche's "God is dead" claim being a supportive claim for modern Satanism and hedonistic gratification . . .
I say this simply as an illustration that robotic response works both ways, as a tool of the ignorant and the "critical thinking," alike. I don't really have any implications to draw from this, other than to commend you again on pointing out the negative affects that not listening can cause, both for the idea-repeaters and "intellectuals." A lot of times people are duped into thinking that they can use information and ideas non-contextually to prove anything, and become a complete opposite type of moron from the one who plugs their ears and shouts, "La la la! I can't hear you!"
Since I'm on the subject, which do you think is a more virulent or negative aspect of thought, ignorance or sophistry?
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2008, 01:11:43 PM
Hold on a second: In the primaries, I thought Biden was a better candidate than Obama, too.
Why? Because he grinds up orphan children and injects them into his face?
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on December 09, 2008, 02:40:47 PM
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on December 09, 2008, 02:26:17 PM
I understand that, but in the missing details of the conversation it was very obvious what her position was, especially when the conversation stopped immediately when a black couple came in.
Well, I personally stop speaking whenever black folks enter a room because I'm certain that some knee-slapping funnies are about to happen, do to their comedic nature, and I really enjoy a good laugh.
If she even THINKS she's a bigot, she's a WIMP for not saying NIGGER. People like Biden more because he openly loves the Israel so much, and that's what America is all about, really.
OPTIMUS:
Shut.
The.
Fuck.
Up.
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on December 09, 2008, 02:40:47 PM
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on December 09, 2008, 02:26:17 PM
I understand that, but in the missing details of the conversation it was very obvious what her position was, especially when the conversation stopped immediately when a black couple came in.
Well, I personally stop speaking whenever black folks enter a room because I'm certain that some knee-slapping funnies are about to happen, do to their comedic nature, and I really enjoy a good laugh.
Myself 2 white guys and a black guy walk into tim hortons today (together). The black guy orders french vanella, and says he likes it cause he is french... the white guy says, YEAH BUT YOU ARE NOT VANELLA... everyone laughs.. ah ha ha ha..
really funny eh.........
i was more concerned with them getting the fck outa my way so i could order... even the cashier was too busy laughing.. to take my order. bah
:|:|:|:|:|:|
maybe a lot of these robotic reponses could cut out if everyone learned linguistics.... instead of math as a requirement in school...
So people actually learn why they think what they do when hearing/seeing words..??? instead or following mothers rule of not saying anything at all if it isn't something nice to say, doesn't really help us in being able to communicate effectively???
meh.
Linguistics applies to the mechanisms of how language is formed, not what you choose to communicate with it.
then what the fuck am I talking about?
NLP? neuro linguistic programming...
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:17:09 AM
Linguistics applies to the mechanisms of how language is formed, not what you choose to communicate with it.
I quite beg to differ. :D
Quote from: topo on December 10, 2008, 05:27:15 AM
then what the fuck am I talking about?
NLP? neuro linguistic programming...
Probably. And also just the way people interact with each other in regards to race stereotypes. Teaching people not to say things don't mean that they still won't think/feel them, and act accordingly.
Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 05:28:26 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:17:09 AM
Linguistics applies to the mechanisms of how language is formed, not what you choose to communicate with it.
I quite beg to differ. :D
:asplode:
But yeah, learning about linguistics won't help you learn to communicate meaningfully if you already don't know how to.
why wouldn't it? I would think that knowledge would allow people to realize that one of their "triggers" was switched.. allowing them to adjust their reaction accordingly...
*shuts up now.
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.
DICK FUCK!
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.
Truth.
Linguistics works best when it's coupled with a study of Rhetoric which, unlike Linguistics, is fully concerned with the conveyance of meaning and the most effective transmission of thought. At least classical rhetoric is. Contemporary and modern rhetorical theory cover much wider ground (e.g., see Cain's posts on Foucault, who is considered a rhetorical theorist by some), including identity, the acquisition of power, gender dialectics, etc.
Also, at a young age people should be taught to just shut the hell up unless their words better the silence.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.
One of my favorite phrases I use on myself is, Never pass up the perfect opportunity to shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 09, 2008, 06:54:08 PM
Reverend: I really, really like this. Much respect.
In particular, I think that you hit the nail on the head when you made the connection between lack of listening and lack of critical thought:
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on December 09, 2008, 01:05:08 PM
People are forgetting how to think. Thinking has been replaced with robotic responses to something half heard (because people have also forgotten how to listen) that they have managed to convince themselves that has actually come from them.
I've noticed that the robotic-response-mechanism works very intricately due to not listening. In college, my various mentors and professors would always spout the line, "You have to be a critical thinker," not realizing or not conveying that the greatest aspect of critical thinking is critical listening. The result would be a lot of spags in Philosophy 101 "critically" grinding up and spitting out theories which, while original, lack an connection to the real-life people and concerns for which they were intended. I'll never forget the day when I had to endure a speech by some idiot about Nietzsche's "God is dead" claim being a supportive claim for modern Satanism and hedonistic gratification . . .
I say this simply as an illustration that robotic response works both ways, as a tool of the ignorant and the "critical thinking," alike. I don't really have any implications to draw from this, other than to commend you again on pointing out the negative affects that not listening can cause, both for the idea-repeaters and "intellectuals." A lot of times people are duped into thinking that they can use information and ideas non-contextually to prove anything, and become a complete opposite type of moron from the one who plugs their ears and shouts, "La la la! I can't hear you!"
Since I'm on the subject, which do you think is a more virulent or negative aspect of thought, ignorance or sophistry?
The problem is that people are waiting for their turn to talk instead of hearing all of what is being said. Waiting for your turn to talk is not listening. There should be a course in every school about the rudimentary skills of conversation.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 10, 2008, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.
Truth.
Linguistics works best when it's coupled with a study of Rhetoric which, unlike Linguistics, is fully concerned with the conveyance of meaning and the most effective transmission of thought. At least classical rhetoric is. Contemporary and modern rhetorical theory cover much wider ground (e.g., see Cain's posts on Foucault, who is considered a rhetorical theorist by some), including identity, the acquisition of power, gender dialectics, etc.
Also, at a young age people should be taught to just shut the hell up unless their words better the silence.
Language, interaction and culture have long been disciplines of linguistics--it's the applied side, the one I got my master's degree in. It's the driving force in a lot of ways behind what is said and how people are taught to say it. Not to mention the contextual cues Rev Asshat alludes to above.
In a sense, that situation you find yourself in can often dictate what it is you are going to say, and your audience is ALWAYS the most important factor (otherwise: why use words at all). Hence the robotic nature of students when they speak to their professors and mentors--people who know what they know and know all about everything they know, so there's "no such thing as an original idea" on the subject they KNOW.
And the girl in question in the OP, I believe she was just as much speaking to an AUDIENCE as she might have been to express her opinions on the subject at hand. Who is listening usually can determine (before a word is uttered) what will be said.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:34:51 AM
:asplode:
But yeah, learning about linguistics won't help you learn to communicate meaningfully if you already don't know how to.
No, not necessarily. To me, this has to do with context. And we always switch what we say, how we say it, according to who we are speaking to.
Children are taught this through interaction (and adults introduced to newer social situations as well) all their lives. This is why you speak differently to a teacher than you do to your peers. That's called "register"--you switch your register according to the person you are addressing.
Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 10, 2008, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.
Truth.
Linguistics works best when it's coupled with a study of Rhetoric which, unlike Linguistics, is fully concerned with the conveyance of meaning and the most effective transmission of thought. At least classical rhetoric is. Contemporary and modern rhetorical theory cover much wider ground (e.g., see Cain's posts on Foucault, who is considered a rhetorical theorist by some), including identity, the acquisition of power, gender dialectics, etc.
Also, at a young age people should be taught to just shut the hell up unless their words better the silence.
Language, interaction and culture have long been disciplines of linguistics--it's the applied side, the one I got my master's degree in. It's the driving force in a lot of ways behind what is said and how people are taught to say it. Not to mention the contextual cues Rev Asshat alludes to above.
In a sense, that situation you find yourself in can often dictate what it is you are going to say, and your audience is ALWAYS the most important factor (otherwise: why use words at all). Hence the robotic nature of students when they speak to their professors and mentors--people who know what they know and know all about everything they know, so there's "no such thing as an original idea" on the subject they KNOW.
And the girl in question in the OP, I believe she was just as much speaking to an AUDIENCE as she might have been to express her opinions on the subject at hand. Who is listening usually can determine (before a word is uttered) what will be said.
Of course; thanks for the clarification, Jenne. I wasn't trying to bash on Linguistics or anything - my entire sophomore year in college was devoted to Linguistics - I was just trying to mention that Linguistics covers more than just effective communication, such as general language histories, grammar and semantics, etc. Hence, I was mentioning that Rhetoric was the distillation of the ideas of effective communication (classically speaking, that is), and would be of benefit to those who get hung up in the sentence-diagram-trappings of introductory Linguistics. The two subjects are complementary and include facets of each other, which is why I was advocating their use simultaneously. Only taking a year and a half of Linguistics, I had trouble transitioning from that framework to effective interpersonal/oral communication until I began my hardcore rhetorical studies, so I thought it was worth mentioning as a tool for those who, like me, need a bit of a kick in the pants, Linguistically-speaking. :)
I guess I'm a bit biased towards Rhetoric, though, because applied rhetoric is my speciality.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 10, 2008, 03:11:15 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 10, 2008, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.
Truth.
Linguistics works best when it's coupled with a study of Rhetoric which, unlike Linguistics, is fully concerned with the conveyance of meaning and the most effective transmission of thought. At least classical rhetoric is. Contemporary and modern rhetorical theory cover much wider ground (e.g., see Cain's posts on Foucault, who is considered a rhetorical theorist by some), including identity, the acquisition of power, gender dialectics, etc.
Also, at a young age people should be taught to just shut the hell up unless their words better the silence.
Language, interaction and culture have long been disciplines of linguistics--it's the applied side, the one I got my master's degree in. It's the driving force in a lot of ways behind what is said and how people are taught to say it. Not to mention the contextual cues Rev Asshat alludes to above.
In a sense, that situation you find yourself in can often dictate what it is you are going to say, and your audience is ALWAYS the most important factor (otherwise: why use words at all). Hence the robotic nature of students when they speak to their professors and mentors--people who know what they know and know all about everything they know, so there's "no such thing as an original idea" on the subject they KNOW.
And the girl in question in the OP, I believe she was just as much speaking to an AUDIENCE as she might have been to express her opinions on the subject at hand. Who is listening usually can determine (before a word is uttered) what will be said.
Of course; thanks for the clarification, Jenne. I wasn't trying to bash on Linguistics or anything - my entire sophomore year in college was devoted to Linguistics - I was just trying to mention that Linguistics covers more than just effective communication, such as general language histories, grammar and semantics, etc. Hence, I was mentioning that Rhetoric was the distillation of the ideas of effective communication (classically speaking, that is), and would be of benefit to those who get hung up in the sentence-diagram-trappings of introductory Linguistics. The two subjects are complementary and include facets of each other, which is why I was advocating their use simultaneously. Only taking a year and a half of Linguistics, I had trouble transitioning from that framework to effective interpersonal/oral communication until I began my hardcore rhetorical studies, so I thought it was worth mentioning as a tool for those who, like me, need a bit of a kick in the pants, Linguistically-speaking. :)
I guess I'm a bit biased towards Rhetoric, though, because applied rhetoric is my speciality.
No, rhetoric is fine. I got hung up on the sociological/cultural side, anyway, since the functionality of the thing bored me to tears!