@doppelgreener hence why I will never watch that show

@doppelgreener I need to take a look at community sometime

I hear it's basically like, better Big Bang Theory

what gets me the most about Big Bang theory vis a vis Sheldon,.... the show creators repeatedly denied that was what was going on

I don't know if they ever walked that back but even if they did, they definitely at least waited until there were too many people calling them out about it

and I don't need my entertainment to be filled with that garbage

also I saw just like, 1 minute of an episode and in that space of time there were like, three hits of laugh track

that can also go die

xD

laughtrack is dumb as hell

@trogdor Community is a fantastic series. Often full of references without being overbearing, funny without making certain character traits the butt of the joke (generally speaking). And it somehow maintains a plot and shows that the main characters somehow help address each other's flaws and make each other better people, all while being an overall comedic show

(also there's no laugh track :P )

@doppelgreener After some contemplation, I'm trying to put some conclusions into words. I think one of the reasons behind me chasing small details goes something like this: I encounter a difference in views, replying to someone with View A, and begin discussing it, in the process of which I encounter a statement that also highlights View B (which I also disagree with).

And I have an impression that View B may be either the cause of holding View A, or a hint that both A and B are conclusions of some View Z which is not yet explicit in the discussion.

In the past I have repeatedly been in discussions where people and I managed to unearth some Disagreement Z (where I hold View Z1 and another holds View Z2) turned out to be a root of our disagreements A through X (this view has often been near-axiomatic, such as differences between utilitarian and deontological ethics).

While such a discovery is not guaranteed reaching consensus in either direction, I have seen it result in greater mutual understanding. But that's when the process works well. When it works badly, it results in events like the Big Immersion Tangent, where I go on a chaotic chase after smaller things and annoy people by it. Maybe it's because I've been too hasty in my replies. Maybe some other reason. I'm not sure how to identify the source of my missteps.

As in, I see that sometimes the end result is very constructive and sometimes it's a trainwreck, and I cannot (so far) identify what I did differently between the constructive cases and the trainwreck cases.

@vicky_molokh Listen to people when they say your re-statement of their points is inaccurate, and graciously allow them to return to the main point instead of insisting on hashing out something they keep trying to walk away from.

And, you know. If something seems wrong, ask about it instead of just announcing it's wrong.

@BESW I'll try (but am not guaranteed to succeed, especially immediately) to remember to more often stop and think/ask whether I misunderstood a point that can lead down another rabbit hole. Based on my rephrasing, does this look like a correct understanding of your advice?

In my experience, assuming that I'm wrong and asking questions to find out what I don't know, is always better because if it turns out I'm right that becomes clear without driving anyone away--and if I'm wrong, then I've already been humble and am ready to learn.

@vicky_molokh Sounds close enough to start with! And nobody reasonable expects perfection, or even swift improvement.

Thank you.

@V2Blast always a good thing

I have also identified some of the things that might be examples of such Views Z where my opinion differing significantly from the room consensus / average leaning of the room may have aggravated the discussion. But I'm not sure getting back to them and enumerating them now would do much good. Still, it's a thing to consider.

As an example. This response is confrontational and accusatory‌​, when it could have been phrased as "Is the article broadening the definition of that word?" and the answer would have been that while "politics" is most commonly used to describe partisan governmental structures the word is also well-established to be about systems of social power in all their forms.

Instead your accusation sounded like a common bigoted talking point so everybody ignored you.

I'm currently trying to think how to reply to the example without chasing individual rabbits down their holes.

@BESW Especially this part.

Mmm. You don't have to reply to everything.

As in, I see what you mean from a pragmatic PoV - I wrote something that looks like words of X, so everyone disliking X defaulted to being Not Impressed. But

@vicky_molokh [shrug] It did. Regardless of intent, the "making words meaningless by redefining them" concept is weaponized online to shut down discussions. And since the article's subject was totally irrelephant to the word used, nobody was gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.

You focused on a definition that wasn't actually central to the article's thesis. It wasn't worth arguing and you'd phrased your confusion as an argument instead of a question.

But I don't know how to reply in a reasonable number of words to elaborate my disagreement with the statement that 'everything is politics'.

(I may be running into a case of soundbites not meaning what they say.)

Did you read the article? Because that's the other thing--you definitely sounded like you were responding to the title and nothing else.

If you read the article carefully, you might discover what was meant by the title.

I even quoted the pull line that summarizes the thesis without using that word.

@vicky_molokh See above: if you want a conversation then re-phrase your disagreement as a question. "I disagree" and "That's wrong" don't start conversations. They end them.

Trying to remember: either yes, or yes to most of it. I have also encountered the argument before in other phrasings, and I still am not convinced, and as far as I understand the disagreement between the article's views and mine stems from a difference in the understanding of what is signal and what is noise in a message. Should I elaborate?

I'm not interested in having the discussion. I used an example to illustrate how your phrasing closes down conversations, and how you can change your rhetoric to open them up instead. It was not an invitation to have a second conversation in the middle of the first.

However, I commend your asking instead of just barging ahead. That's good!

I have a . . . well, I'm not sure how much it's a question, and how much it's a comment/concern, about the effects of phrasing in the broader sense (not chasing this individual rabbit). I need to AFK for a bit, and in the mean time I'll try to phrase it. I'm of course not assuming you will be interested in replying to it, but maybe you or Doppelgreener would be.

I'm at times encountering cases where a word or phrase is 'taken away from me'. As in, there was a phrase that was useful for concisely conveying Idea A. Then it ended up being associated with also conveying idea B, then overwhelmingly so. And the big problem for me happens when it turns out that there is now no way for me to clearly and/or concisely convey Idea A. Trying to stand my ground is a path to more conflict, but letting the ground be 'conquered' leaves me nowhere to 'go'.

Yeah, living language changes and it's often difficult to keep up. You do it too, like assuming everyone who puts together the two words "system matters" are implying that they believe the full baggage of the Forge approach to RPGs.

(Despite people explicitly saying they rejected the extreme Forge attitude on the matter.)

@BESW Guilty, though not sure whether as charged or partially - needs some contemplation either way.

I don't have a solution. Effective clear communication is a matter of constant effort and always knowing we will never actually attain it but it's worth reaching for anyway. Generally, that means active, reflective listening; not relying on shorthand jargon to do the work on its own; being attentive to when things seem amiss and asking questions when they do.

Do you personally lean towards thinking that it's more right (not talking absolutes here) to refrain from assuming a soundbite use indicates holding the greater belief associated with it, or assuming it does indicate such belief?

Certain "communities" like the RPG community are especially vulnerable to false assumptions of shared understanding and common jargon, because by "the RPG community" we mean "a vast, fractured, barely-interconnected set of diverse groups and experiences, most of which think their paradigm is the dominant one and are completely ignorant of many other ways of being."

@vicky_molokh I think it depends on context, and I try to generally assume good faith without putting others at risk if I'm wrong. Trust in God but tie your camel.

In other words: I don't agree with the framing of your question as a matter of whether or not to assume phrases are used as shibboleths or dogwhistles. I prefer to identify a virtue or quality I want my decisions to uphold, rather than creating a set of if:then guidelines.

A follower of Virtue Ethics?

Not as such.

Ah OK. Was curious.

My faith's morality has a lot in common with virtue ethics, but it's not Virtue Ethics.

I also think that there's a related matter of how to apply category labels based on actually exhibited characteristics (such as expressed beliefs), but that may be another rabbit hole.

Mmm. That's an epistemological issue for which it's difficult to even assert that a one-size-fits-all answer can exist.

Perhaps.

(...and just to be a better person occupying my place in the world.)

@trogdor I'd say yes except that would be like saying an apple is a better turd. Big Bang Theory was ostensibly supposed to be a show for geeks about celebrating geek culture, but wound up being a show for everyone else about geek culture (so they can laugh at it). Community is actually a show for geeks about celebrating geek culture. Also, it has no laugh track, which is always a positive.

They're night-and-day in a lot of ways.

I like live audiences; laugh tracks less so.

I think the only sitcom I might've seen with a live audience was Home Improvement, and I didn't mind that, but then that was way before I started having a beef with laugh tracks.

Oh hey. Frasier and Friends did too.

@doppelgreener Red Dwarf.

(The early seasons.)

:O

Whoa

Ok, I didn't mind that one at all

I mostly just like shows that let me find my own comedy in things without telling me "you are amused now. comply with laughter."

Yup!

Live audiences are also forces for good, in my experience, because it gives the performances a sense of theatrical spontaneity and improvisation that you don't get otherwise.

Because you can't really do second takes, the audience won't respond properly.

And if you DO do second takes, you have to change it up to get the right response.

That's part of why Red Dwarf feels so lively.

Ooooh.

I like that.

Multiple takes definitely have their place among most media but improv is a wonderful thing.

@doppelgreener Also Monty Python. Most BBC comedy was done in front of a live audience, and the bits that couldn't be (because of special effects or locations) were taped and then played to the live audience and their reactions added to the recording.

@BESW Oh, that's lovely.

if i didn't laugh at step 1 or only laughed a little, it's totally lost me by step 3 and become a drag

(i typed out "become a dragon" at first and that would've been interesting)

@trogdor I've got access to Community. We can watch it together.

@BESW cool

@doppelgreener but see, the turd wasn't supposed to be" a turd

you're right

it's a better version of what big bang theory was supposed to be lol

Yeah that's pretty much what I meant

It's not so much an objection to the comparison of what they are as to what they both started as in concept