razlem:

...logical and coherent structures...

Relative.

Well, to a certain extent. What one perceives as relative can be logically broken down into logical steps arising from logical causes Additionally, there's also common factors, for example, all humans share the same "structure", e.g. our brains use the same system, just in different ways per person. And all computers are created by us, so they too share our "bias". And all creatures on this planet to a lesser degree share similarities mentally as we all run on the same evolutionary DNA "system".

So the trouble is finding out what people find easy relatively speaking, and what they find easy simply because they are human, or even because they are intelligent beings (what all intelligent beings all have in common is a bit hard to do though when we have such a limited about of examples to compare, us all being humans well, *almost* all of us... )

RiotNrrd:2: Calling a troll a troll isn't meant to insult them. As trollness is a choice, one can suppose that they already realize they are being a troll, on purpose, and fully accept that fact. Calling a troll a troll is meant as a warning to everyone ELSE that they are about to embark upon an already well trodden path which will not result in anything new worth noting.

Can this not happen in private then? You don't call the average joe you disagree with a dickhead within earshot just because you want to warn your friends about him... I mean, there are people I'm sure are nice, but I tell my friends to avoid them for various reasons - if the person being talked about were to hear that, perhaps they can accept it, perhaps the can pretend they can accept it, or perhaps it will just straight out have a bad consequence. And since this is written, non-live communication, people can easily read threads to know whether it's something dangerous to get involved with, and can opt to pretend they never saw the conversation.
In any case, I think that "relative" thing is quite important, but also it's conflicting with common etiquette - yes, I know, the internet doesn't have any, but that's no reason to justify perpetuating that fact.

A parallel - as you probably know, I'm a stubborn little bastard, and god I know it. But if someone were to call me that without me having much of a friendship with them, it might be somewhat devestating. If someone were to tell me in a more subtle way, e.g. "man, you're overwhelming me here, calm down a bit", then it's less of a baseball bat over the head of my self confidence.

RiotNrrd:I still believe that we should formally adopt the position regarding changes to Esperanto that Lernu will be happy to incorporate any and all new proposed changes, immediately AFTER the rest of the worldwide Esperanto community does.

Haha, I completely agree. If only there was a quick and simple way to have a bot on here that automatically can understand whether someone's proposing changes, and let them know personally (some forums manage to do it, god knows how, probably would be quite difficult and not worth the time...).

But that said, I think their main idea is to use Lernu as a vehicle to introduce their idea, which is problematic. Sure, it's a logical tactic, but this is a place to learn the language.

ceigered:You don't call the average joe you disagree with a dickhead within earshot just because you want to warn your friends about him...

The word in question is 'troll', not the one you mention there. I would say that 'troll' is a somewhat less offensive word. But, it's interesting that you seem to feel a link between the words.

ceigered:A parallel - as you probably know, I'm a stubborn little bastard, and god I know it. But if someone were to call me that without me having much of a friendship with them, it might be somewhat devestating. If someone were to tell me in a more subtle way, e.g. "man, you're overwhelming me here, calm down a bit", then it's less of a baseball bat over the head of my self confidence.

Nobody has been so rude as to say something quite so extreme towards the person in question. The only word mentioned was 'troll'. I don't see the point of arguing over the use of this word - I think you generally only see it when there is a real reason for it.

Anyhow, why are you being so overly sensitive now, Ceigered? What happened to the jolly, non-politically-correct, fun-loving banter of the Australians that you described in the other thread, where you defended the right of a person to insinuate negative things about Arabs?

Surely, your argument should be the other way round? Criticise the person making those negative insinuations about a whole people, none of whom were present in the given conversation or had anything to do with it. And if a person is clearly acting as a troll, then why be so upset if people call him that?! I think the person concerned was actually rather chuffed that he'd earned this title - if not, then he would probably make a more sincere attempt at engaging with people here.

Chainy:

ceigered:You don't call the average joe you disagree with a dickhead within earshot just because you want to warn your friends about him...

The word in question is 'troll', not the one you mention there. I would say that 'troll' is a somewhat less offensive word. But, it's interesting that you seem to feel a link between the words.

ceigered:A parallel - as you probably know, I'm a stubborn little bastard, and god I know it. But if someone were to call me that without me having much of a friendship with them, it might be somewhat devestating. If someone were to tell me in a more subtle way, e.g. "man, you're overwhelming me here, calm down a bit", then it's less of a baseball bat over the head of my self confidence.

Nobody has been so rude as to say something quite so extreme towards the person in question. The only word mentioned was 'troll', which is a fair enough.

Chainy:
Anyhow, why are you being so overly sensitive now, Ceigered?

Ha, ha, ha, I already was waiting for that sorry - selfcentered - response. In German: "Hab' dich mal nicht so!" Chainy, you should try to understand that selfcentered behaviour triggers hate of collegialism-minded folks. Yes, it triggers hate. Just try to fix it: If someones inside a collegialism-minded society marks somebody a troll with a generalisation manner this behaviour will be seen rude (and much more "arrogant"). Active collegialism-minded folk will ever try to stop that blaming attack. That doesn't matter if they know the person or not. Even if they don't like the person they will act like this because you attack a basical principle of collegialism society with that. Maybe that could try to explain that clash situation:

de: Es fällt sehr schwer gegenüber egozentrischen Personen höflich zu bleiben, welche versuchen ihre Mitmenschen in Objekte zu verwandeln und welche ihre Mitmenschen wie willenlose Objekte behandeln.
en: Seems to be nearly unimpossible to be polite to egocentric (attituded)persons, who try to transform/wizard their fellows into objects and try to handle(?) their fellows like soulless/will-less objects.
eo: Estas tre malfacile, ke oni restas ĝentila al memcentrigajn personojn, kiu provas transformigi iliajn kun-homojn al objectojn, kaj kiuj traktas iliajn kun-homojn kiel de senmemvoloajn objectojn.

Chainy:
What happened to the jolly, non-politically-correct, fun-loving banter of the Australians that you described in the other thread, where you defended the right of a person to insinuate negative things about Arabs?

Try to understand: The comment was made by an Polish folk who are collegialism-minded. Collegialism-minded folks don't blame/to rough up other members the sanies-vampire way. If they do blaming they will stop it instantly if the "attacked person shows some hurt". That's a basic principle of collegialism-minded society. Stopping if it obvioulsy hurts.

And I repeat it again: targanook did not blame against Middle-East. That was your interpretation the individualism-minded way: "Never touchs any crazy individualist, even if that individualist hurts other folks of the society".

2011-05-12 10:38:50

targanook seems to have the opinion that these countries don't take care to be independent countries during political aggreements. (in German: "sich unterbuttern lassen/über den Tisch ziehen lassen") Why that? Individualism-minded society seems to be everyones positioning itselves against everyones else position. And of course that will ironing away any collegialism agreement thinking.

Chainy:
Surely, your argument should be the other way round? Criticise the person making those negative insinuations about a whole people, none of whom were present in the given conversation or had anything to do with it. And if a person is clearly acting as a troll, then why be so upset if people call him that?!

You don't get it, that you make an selfcentered statement here. In your own opinion someones is clearly acting as a troll. Others can see that quite different. Furthermore they try to find out (=they have interest why somebody behave like that, there must be a reason why s/he behaves like that. Questioning). Marking somebody a troll will enforce counter-force. Doing that with a collegialism-minded folk it will trigger - hate. Do you understanding what you're doing?

Chainy:
I think the person concerned was actually rather chuffed that he'd earned this title - if not, then he would probably make a more sincere attempt at engaging with people here.

You put the other person against the "selfjustification wall"/ into a positioning situation. Completly crazy response from a collegialism-minded view. You behave like a court of justice: "he'd earned this title". You are not allowed to do so, because you're - I'm sorry about - not the middle of the universum.

Deleted message. I can't be bothered getting into a conversation with Qwertz about his ridiculous 'colegialism' theories...

Chainy:Deleted message. I can't be bothered getting into a conversation with Qwertz about his ridiculous 'colegialism' theories...

I agree, that "ridiculous 'colegialism' theories" are a danger for self-positioning folks. I find it quite disappointing to find that folks at an Esperanto forum, which - I thought - understand what "community" means. Obviously they don't.

Good bye everybody.

I will move to Facebook where I can be in touch with community folks who I met offline at three E-o renkontiĝon. And of whom I know that they are community-/collegialism-minded.

Sorry about that: This English en.lernu.net forum section doesn't have much community-/collegialism-minded "spirit".

Ĝis.

Chainy:Anyhow, why are you being so overly sensitive now, Ceigered? What happened to the jolly, non-politically-correct, fun-loving banter of the Australians that you described in the other thread, where you defended the right of a person to insinuate negative things about Arabs?

What was negative was your interpretation of what Targanook said. Personally, I took it to mean, when the dust had settled, that he simply blamed English for the lack of proper communication and understanding in the Middle East. (Which would be in character, Targanook doesn't seem to have much love for English; which is a fair opinion to have.) Saying 'I am calm, we are not Arab, we are worse!', meant 'I am calm. But though we are speaking the same language, we are not understanding each other well at all!', or at least that's what it seemed to me.

Nevertheless, regardless of Qwertz's (rather interesting, I really must read up on Collegialism/Individualism) theories on the psychology situation at play here, he does have good underlying points. Some people are willing to give others the benefit of the doubt to a greater extent than others. We all come from different backgrounds and cultures, so why not?

Also, this is dreadfully off-topic.

Ninja edit: Qwertz, please don't leave the forums. I enjoy seeing you around, you always have a refreshing opinion on things.

I was gonna do a lengthy reply until BlackOtaku came by. Dankon! Now I'll write another one on a slightly different tangent!

Basically, to sum up what I was going to say:

We don't know why Chicago's acting in a way that annoys some forum members. We don't know him, his reasons. Perhaps he respects his friend's opinions and is regretting the lack of approval for them here. Perhaps he has bad social skills. Perhaps he's a busy man and has trouble finding time to do stuff here. Perhaps he's dyslexic and can't be stuffed reading all these offtopic threads to find a coherent answer. Who knows?

Same with Targanook. We never really got another comment out of him, so it's hard to understand what he actually meant.

We apparently live in a society where we presume people innocent until proven guilty. Of course, people in the west might be forgetting that - there is little lustre in an idea that requires the inhabitants of our fine lands to actually put in an effort to understand each other - it is just easier to throw around a label, no? Furthermore, Esperanto, a language we are all drawn to for SOME reason, is a language of equality, and trying to understand each other.

Of course, Esperanto might not be able to compete with some very deep and hard to pinpoint attitudes within us. It seems I'm apparently much more socialist minded than many people here, and that, as Qwertz said in an admittedly round-about way. that many here are very capitalist.

Calling someone a troll I believe is not something of equality, unless done in a friendly manner, something not being demonstrated here. How is it equal, and risk your own reputation, to call someone a troll? It's simply a one-sided attack. And why is it an attack? An insult? OK, who here likes being called a troll? Granted, some of us probably haven't been called one before - which means some of us probably don't know what it feels like. So we have our imaginations. Powerful tools! So after using our imaginations, what do we think about being called a troll? Is it a nice image? Do we often think of trolls in fairytales as being nice creatures? Do we think being social outcasts on the internet is a nice reality? Hopefully, NO.

But why should we pay heed to things like the Golden Rule? Why should we treat others like we ourselves would like to be treated? Granted, there is no reason really. We humans can be as individualistic and narcissistic as we like. We can still get by. So this bit I leave for people to think about themselves:

Why on earth should we bother being nice to others, fighting fairly with others?

ceigered:But why should we pay heed to things like the Golden Rule? Why should we treat others like we ourselves would like to be treated? Granted, there is no reason really.

Sure there is, it's to build trust and allies, and thereby lower the chances of us getting attacked ourselves. The nice side-benefit of it is a slightly more civilized society. One thing I've noticed about the Golden Rule is that the self-interest angle (i.e. how should people treat me?) seems to warp the sensibleness of it, sometimes. An example - I wouldn't want to be punished, so therefore I think punishing others is a bad idea, too. Or, maybe I want to be rewarded for no effort, so I think others should be, too. But sometimes people just need a smack. I do concur with a lot of your sentiment, though.

"Agu kun aliuloj tiel, kiel vi dezirus, ke aliuloj agu kun vi," said homaranismo; I wonder if 'kun' and 'al' were interchangeable? The nuance changes a bit if it does, I think.

---