Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

Ah.

You didn't mean what you said.

Again.

But it's not your fault, it's my fault.

I see.

[Phox]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes), I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

[Dildo Argentino]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

Ah.

You didn't mean what you said.

Again.

But it's not your fault, it's my fault.

I see.

When you said this:

I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".

You were actually repsonding to a rather overgrown wall of words.

That large chunk included this, written by me, a while back:

"The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high."

I'M too tired to dig out the thing that the "as I attempted to explain above" refers to, but I do recall it: about the increasingly fractal nesting and intermingling of cultures everywhere. This, incidentally, is pretty much the same as what Nigel now tells me is the colloquial use of the terms.

[Dildo Argentino]

Bye, Ladies, it's half past midnight here, I need to crash. I'm looking after ill 2-year-old tomorrow (unless she gets better overnight), so I may not have time for verbal gymnastics.

[Kai]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

Ah.

You didn't mean what you said.

Again.

But it's not your fault, it's my fault.

I see.

When you said this:

I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".

You were actually repsonding to a rather overgrown wall of words.

That large chunk included this, written by me, a while back:

"The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high."

I'M too tired to dig out the thing that the "as I attempted to explain above" refers to, but I do recall it: about the increasingly fractal nesting and intermingling of cultures everywhere. This, incidentally, is pretty much the same as what Nigel now tells me is the colloquial use of the terms.

You need to be acquainted with East St. Louis. It fits your definition to a T.

[Phox]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

Ah.

You didn't mean what you said.

Again.

But it's not your fault, it's my fault.

I see.

When you said this:

I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".

You were actually repsonding to a rather overgrown wall of words.

That large chunk included this, written by me, a while back:

"The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high."

I'M too tired to dig out the thing that the "as I attempted to explain above" refers to, but I do recall it: about the increasingly fractal nesting and intermingling of cultures everywhere. This, incidentally, is pretty much the same as what Nigel now tells me is the colloquial use of the terms.

So what you are saying is that you have no argument to back up your claim, or that you are unfamiliar with the demographics of the above cities? Because at this point, you're leading into are argument in which you will be required to cite legitimate demographic comparisons between a "third-world city" and the "first-world cities" I've listed.

[Kai]

Also, quit responding to different people as if they're the same person. What do you think we are, the Borg?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

Ah.

You didn't mean what you said.

Again.

But it's not your fault, it's my fault.

I see.

When you said this:

I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".

You were actually repsonding to a rather overgrown wall of words.

That large chunk included this, written by me, a while back:

"The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high."

I'M too tired to dig out the thing that the "as I attempted to explain above" refers to, but I do recall it: about the increasingly fractal nesting and intermingling of cultures everywhere. This, incidentally, is pretty much the same as what Nigel now tells me is the colloquial use of the terms.

I didn't say that.

Maybe part of your problem is that you can't keep track of who says what.

[Dildo Argentino]

That you are pulling a classic evasion maneuver by claiming that you misspoke and really meant something else... in other words, shifting goalposts. I also want to know in what way your attempt to redefine the conversation relates to the original point you were attempting to make.

Well you know, what happened can be described as "a classic evasion maneuver" and  "shifting goalposts" if we assume I am being dishonest in modifying my claim (nomen est omen). But I happen to know that I wasn't being dishonest, which makes it, quite simply, "claiming that you misspoke and really meant something else" - i.e. an admition of a mistake (which you claim you value highly) followed by clarification.

[Dildo Argentino]

Maybe part of your problem is that you can't keep track of who says what.

Yes, you are perfectly right there, I screwed that up.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Requesting a thread split to remove The Holist Show from this thread, starting at post #7.

[Cain]

I saw your report.  I'm only just up but when I have a free hour later this morning, I'll go through and split the incidental arguments from the main discussion, since there was actually some useful information in there, before Holist made it all about him.

[Dildo Argentino]

Bump.

I think the behaviour Nigel describes in the OP (and yes, I think it is a very good question) is partly a spandrel of social evolution. I also think it is partly also caused and sustained by the prevailence of neurosis among people raised and living in the multicultural (and, as someone pointed out earlier here, though I don't remember who and which thread, fractally cultural) environment of the megapopulation after being raised in more or less dysfunctional families. I believe this unfortunate story began about the time the paelolithic slowly turned into the neolithic, whenever that was. When sustained and significant interaction between cultures and hence cultural evolution got off the ground.

In greater detail: I think people do not find it hard to admit to making a mistake in general. I think they find it hard to admit a mistake they are confronted with when they feel misunderstood, and when they sense that they are being rejected. Of course, some people are maladaptive to the point that they feel they are misunderstood and rejected every single time they are confronted with a mistake (this is the sort of thing you are trying to pin on me, totally unfairly, but I'll leave that until later.) It is those element of misunderstanding and rejection that make it hard. And it makes it hard because being misunderstood and rejected is actually quite terrifying.

And this is despite the fact that, if you look at it objectively, in this day and age, being misunderstood and rejected is in most cases not such a big deal.

But it is a big deal in a monocultural tribal society. In a society where there is one language, one ethos, one set of customs, one way of understanding the world, in which people who stray from those norms are seen as fundamentally defective (mad, or evil, possessed, or whatever, but badwrong), being misunderstood is a terrible thing. A terrifying thing. It could well be the lead-up to being abandoned, or coerced (in Africa, I am told, mad people in small villages are frequently chained to trees. They get fed, but are not allowed to move about freely, because they are considered too dangerous.) And most (though not all) people spend those first three, most formative years of their lives, when their emotional self-regulation is fine-tuned for a life in a particular culture, in an environment (a family, or, unfortunately, sometimes an insitution) which is quite a lot like a monocultural tribal society. So their emotional self-regulation, when they are thrown into the sea of the megapopulation at age 3, or later (kindergarten, school, etc.), is that of a monocultural human. Very scared of being misunderstood/rejected. Try to think back to your earliest memories: your were a blessedly happy and sheltered child indeed if you don't recall some scary incidents that involved interacting with strangers who did not know how you tick and didn't much like you.

If close family did that, so much the worse, which brings me to the second part of my explanation:

Most of the people on this board, just like most of the people who grew up in this civilization we share and are alive today, actually were raised in a manner that was far from optimal (in the evolutionary sense), and hence their emotional self-regulation is (to a greater or lessed degree) off-kilter. They feel threatened when they are faced with their mistakes, because they think they can only be loved if they are perfect: their lack of security in their relationship with their primary caregiver scars them for life. Some overcome it. Many never do. Those who don't often find it very hard to admit being wrong because they are afraid that if they do, they will be left alone to die. Those two effects interplay and reinforce each other in a number of interesting ways.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

So who else is super stoked that the NFL got their real refs back, huh??

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I saw your report.  I'm only just up but when I have a free hour later this morning, I'll go through and split the incidental arguments from the main discussion, since there was actually some useful information in there, before Holist made it all about him.

Thank you Cain, I appreciate you going to that much trouble to salvage the thread.