4 ms·

The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. Ironically, anyone convinced that utte

The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. Ironically, anyone convinced that utterances have no exact meaning had to be so convinced using language. So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker. It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic. It is not a surprise that obfuscation should surround this topic and individual. The intentional obfuscation of language by the autocratically minded has been well know so long that Orwell wrote a book about it. Pseudo intellectuals like De Gobineau have been doing it for generations to cover absurd ideas they want to believe. Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck. Which reminds us that charlatans and scientology-like cultist also do it: A person no one would have heard of can shoot to fame, influence and extra cash when done right. What's remarkable is that people still fall for it. When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal. It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam, with ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any. I suspect the followers tend to be isolated people of underwhelming accomplishment and without life direction. Historically anyway, this has been the group that gets targeted. >Here you have completely manufactured reality This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else. It does not. And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article. Thus the utterance and it's implications are correctly linked. >What's interesting to me is that on a programming focused website, frequented predominantly by people who are well above average not just in general intelligence but specifically logical thinking, when the topic of discussion touches on certain things, it is almost as if the logical reasoning part of the brain is downgraded, and the emotional reasoning part takes over. And not only that, but all indications are that the individual is not only not aware of this, it almost seems like they cannot be made aware of it. I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people. Possibly only a narrow slice of software requires clarity. There's an API for hackernews one could query and maybe analyze a bit. Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken. Why the chant to lock up politic opponents doesn't cause alarm. And why a self made holocaust survivor who aids pro-democracy movements worldwide can be turned into an omnipresent boogie man. Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy. The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable. It's nice the Times is drawing attention to it. At any rate, today's blinding emotions are not too surprising given the extremism sown by wanna be autocrats, commentators maximizing an audience and foreign dictatorships seeking to disrupt democracies with divisions. That topics beyond software are posted is entirely good. Software is made for a purpose, often altruistic, usually by bright people. No doubt this why the most progressive part of the county is the center of it; a place attracting experimentation since before the summer of love. Since, to the thoughtful, software is a tool not an end and, since this site uniquely still embraces that idea, it covers a broad range of reality based issues and problems from business opportunities to social ones like radicalization. I regret, like most of the web with unlimited user contribution, that it is so trivially vandalized. >I'm very curious to know if you are able to believe anything else is happening here. I can not speak to the intent of posting, I assume for entertainment. But maybe practice for rhetoric class, maybe a Molyneux acolyte. It's not really relevant, only what is written matters. But as an aside, it does strongly resemble an argument between college students with an emphasis, even over application, of a particular epistemic theory rather than more substantive concrete analysis. Which is fun of course.

mistermann 7y ago
> The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion, the topic of discussion is one specific utterance, and very specific claims that you are making based upon it. > So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker. You are restating your claim in a different way, but this provides no evidence or solid reasoning. I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic is acceptable. > It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic... There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase, other than the one you created. > ...just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct? > ...and just obfuscates the more important topic I'm not obfuscating (or even disagreeing with) another topic, I am asking you to provide evidence for the specific claim you made. Drawing attention to other "more important" topics is a common way to avoid doing so, but I shall persist in asking for evidence or reasoning. > Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck. Could be, but you're claiming he is a white supremacist who supports/advocates eugenics based on a single phrase he used in a 2+ hour long unscripted discussion. It appears you haven't even listened to the segment of the talk that you are using as evidence, because he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming. > What's remarkable is that people still fall for it. Not so much to me, based on what you've fallen for without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said. The human mind is easily tricked, sometimes even when the trick is shown to them. > When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal. As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior. > It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam Is "easy solution to the world's problems" what he proclaims to be selling? That sounds more like a story an active imagination would make up to rationalize a belief that lacks evidence. > ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any That's a bit rich considering the argument you're putting forth in your accusation of him. >> Here you have completely manufactured reality > This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else. You have not provided any evidence that it means what you say it does. Try to find something on Google that agrees with you and link it here. > It does not. Please provide evidence or reasoning that supports this assertion. > And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article. Another claim. Let me guess, you won't be substantiating this one either? > I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people. Well, I'm talking to one right now, but s/he seems highly reluctant to shed any light on the matter. It's not too late though! > Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken. Another explanation is that they agree with the phrases, at least partially. That's the case with me. Believing things with no evidence isn't surprising coming from simple minded Trump supporters, but it's people who are otherwise intelligent who will readily believe even more extraordinary (and specific) things, like accusations of Nazism or eugenics advocacy, despite no evidence that is so intriguing to me. > Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy. I bet this is your imagination working again. Regardless, Noam Chomsky has a theory of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU > The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable. As is the process leading to a belief that there are people doing as you describe. > It's not really relevant.... How individuals behave varies on their conscious and subconscious perceptions of other people, and typically there is no self-awareness of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory > ...only what is written matters. And simultaneously, the actual words someone speaks don't matter, but the contradictory (to the actual spoken words) interpretation of the listener does, and can even be used as a proof?

mistermann 7y ago

> The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion, the topic of discussion is one specific utterance, and very specific claims that you are making based upon it. > So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker. You are restating your claim in a different way, but this provides no evidence or solid reasoning. I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic is acceptable. > It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic... There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase, other than the one you created. > ...just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct? > ...and just obfuscates the more important topic I'm not obfuscating (or even disagreeing with) another topic, I am asking you to provide evidence for the specific claim you made. Drawing attention to other "more important" topics is a common way to avoid doing so, but I shall persist in asking for evidence or reasoning. > Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck. Could be, but you're claiming he is a white supremacist who supports/advocates eugenics based on a single phrase he used in a 2+ hour long unscripted discussion. It appears you haven't even listened to the segment of the talk that you are using as evidence, because he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming. > What's remarkable is that people still fall for it. Not so much to me, based on what you've fallen for without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said. The human mind is easily tricked, sometimes even when the trick is shown to them. > When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal. As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior. > It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam Is "easy solution to the world's problems" what he proclaims to be selling? That sounds more like a story an active imagination would make up to rationalize a belief that lacks evidence. > ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any That's a bit rich considering the argument you're putting forth in your accusation of him. >> Here you have completely manufactured reality > This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else. You have not provided any evidence that it means what you say it does. Try to find something on Google that agrees with you and link it here. > It does not. Please provide evidence or reasoning that supports this assertion. > And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article. Another claim. Let me guess, you won't be substantiating this one either? > I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people. Well, I'm talking to one right now, but s/he seems highly reluctant to shed any light on the matter. It's not too late though! > Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken. Another explanation is that they agree with the phrases, at least partially. That's the case with me. Believing things with no evidence isn't surprising coming from simple minded Trump supporters, but it's people who are otherwise intelligent who will readily believe even more extraordinary (and specific) things, like accusations of Nazism or eugenics advocacy, despite no evidence that is so intriguing to me. > Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy. I bet this is your imagination working again. Regardless, Noam Chomsky has a theory of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU > The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable. As is the process leading to a belief that there are people doing as you describe. > It's not really relevant.... How individuals behave varies on their conscious and subconscious perceptions of other people, and typically there is no self-awareness of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory > ...only what is written matters. And simultaneously, the actual words someone speaks don't matter, but the contradictory (to the actual spoken words) interpretation of the listener does, and can even be used as a proof?