Equality

[Uccisore]

Last I knew, "we" still meant "we".

Wow...

Did you actually read what I wrote? Yes, the term 'we' is used. Nevertheless, arcturus couldn't have possibly MADE the statements he did if he was including himself, check this out:

"If only we humans were smart enough to realize war is pointless."

See now, if I say the above, it's pretty damn obvious that I realize war is pointless, isn't it? Seriously, tell me if I'm wrong- anybody that said the above is saying so because they think war is pointless, yes or no. So even though I said 'we humans', and I am in fact a human, I wasn't really including myself. What I was really saying is, "If only the human race was as smart as I am". The point made, and the turn of phrase used to make it, aren't always in 100% parity, you see.

What I'm pointing out is a really common trend in rhetoric that should concern you. It's aggrandizing one's own positions without argument, and doing it with a guise of false humility. It's such a common device that I think a lot of people do it without even realizing it's inherently elitist- they just think that's how clever/wise/humble/whatever people are supposed to talk.

[Tab]

And... Tab votes for Ucc. on that one.

I love "we".

Tab to wife: "Come on, we need to stop spending our money on new dresses all the time, because we've got other bills to pay."

One of those "we's" is a total lie.

[uglypeoplefucking]

idk, if talking in general terms about human shortcomings, i don't see any reason why "we" must be interpreted in such a way that it excludes the speaker - the speaker might be aware of her own flaws without actually claiming to be free of them.

if i said, "we cannot see the organelles without a microscope", am i really implying that i CAN?

[Tab]

We must realise that the dilema over the duplicious use of collective pronouns to cynically diffuse what otherwise could be construed as arrogant statements premeditatively, is solved only through the thorough examination of both context and intent.

[Arcturus Descending]

We can't even see far enough past our own noses - we need to look away or to run away - to realize the hidden value, meaning, self-awareness and consciousness that that life we're looking at might bring to us about our own selves and life. We see ugliness where perhaps there are gifts being bestowed on us if we would just take the time to recognize a human being as ourselves.

But YOU can see past your own nose, YOU've managed to realize these things- or else you wouldn't have been able to think of the above. So when you say 'the human race is like this', what you really mean is, "The human race, with the exception of a me and a few other super exceptional people, is like this".

It's just base elitism. Why don't you say what you think, instead of saying what you think with the grandstanding about how sad it is that most people in the world aren't sophisticated enough to agree with you?

I realize you didn't MEAN what you said in an elitist, condescending sense, but that IS exactly what you did. In a thread about equality, irony of ironies.

Tell me, Uccisore, what do they say about those who assume - they make asses of themselves.
When I said: Maybe because most of us have tunnel vision, why would you assume that I was excluding myself from those who have tunnel vision? I said most because there ARE those who do not have tunnel vision and are able to see at least most of the picture and if they cannot, they still do not judge. The fact that I am able to see something does not mean that I am a finished product insofar as moving away from it is concerned. It simply means that it IS what I see. I suppose that in the future, I will have to clarify things by making a commentary on myself.

Nevertheless, arcturus couldn't have possibly MADE the statements he did if he was including himself, check this out:

Though it's sort of nice - you making another assumption - that I am a male - I am woman and enjoy being a woman. So there you go again, making another assumption 'he'.
I suppose that you are capable of looking deeply into me and knowing without the shadow of a doubt that I could not have possibly made those statements WITHOUT INCLUDING MYSELF. We all express ourselves differently, Uccisore. So, sometimes we will see what we want to see because we are looking with our 'eyes' and not those of the other person.

I realize you didn't MEAN what you said in an elitist, condescending sense, but that IS exactly what you did. In a thread about equality, irony of ironies

There you go again - and how do you know that I DIDN'T mean it in an elitist condescending way...but I didn't, at least hopefully I didn't.

I would greatly appreciate it though if you would explain what you mean by - In a thread about equality, irony of ironies. What was it that you were trying to say here? That ultimately we all have the freedom to act and to judge and to be the way we are, I mean, those of US (INCLUDING MYSELF - ARCTURUS DESCENDING) who are judgmental and biased and are not capable of seeing an entire picture or most of it. Can you explain what you meant. I was simply addressing the question.

And yes, there may be times when I would appear to be grandstanding - and perhaps am - sometimes perhaps not - I simply like to express myself and ramble on too much sometimes - as I am doing now.

[Uccisore]

idk, if talking in general terms about human shortcomings, i don't see any reason why "we" must be interpreted in such a way that it excludes the speaker - the speaker might be aware of her own flaws without actually claiming to be free of them.

if i said, "we cannot see the organelles without a microscope", am i really implying that i CAN?

Obviously there are both types of cases.

"I cannot jump over two story buildings" makes sense, therefore so does "We cannot jump over two story buildings".

"I don't know that Augusta is the capitol of Maine" can only be understood, perhaps, as a backhanded way of saying "I don't think Augusta is the capitol of Maine". In the plural, "We don't know that Augusta is the capitol of Maine" is most easily read as either "We don't believe Augusta is the capitol of Maine (we think it's something else).", or "SOME of the people in this room don't know that Augusta is the capitol of Maine, and I am saying 'we' to be polite".

So when Arcturus is declaring all the things that 'we' don't understand, I only see two interpretations- either Arcturus is denying that these things are there to be understood (which is obviously not the case based on the context), or Arcturus is politely pointing out all the things that (s)he understands that the rest of poor humanity doesn't get.

[Uccisore]

Tell me, Uccisore, what do they say about those who assume - they make asses of themselves.
When I said: Maybe because most of us have tunnel vision, why would you assume that I was excluding myself from those who have tunnel vision?

Because you go on to explicitly state the truth of the things that you allege that 'we' have tunnel vision about. It's the only interpretation that makes any sense. Are you saying you DON'T realize hidden value and meaning behind looking at other people's lives as being equal to our own? Are you saying you AREN'T aware that we should take the time to view the people we see as ugly as being ourselves? How the hell are you declaring it if you don't know a thing about it? You said 'we' because it's a softer blow than saying 'you'. It's Communication 101, and you're asking me to explain it like you've never heard of it before.

I said most because there ARE those who do not have tunnel vision and are able to see at least most of the picture and if they cannot, they still do not judge.

Right, and I said that supposing there is a small group of people that see humanity for what it really is and are more capable of dealing with life's problems is elitist. Are you disagreeing with my definition of the word?

We all express ourselves differently, Uccisore. So, sometimes we will see what we want to see because we are looking with our 'eyes' and not those of the other person.

Another 'we', when what you really mean is "you, Uccisore". You deny you're doing it, then you just up and do it again.

I would greatly appreciate it though if you would explain what you mean by - In a thread about equality, irony of ironies.

We're talking about everybody being equal, and you said (whether you want to admit it or not) that the reason there's not more equality in the world is because most people don't have the foresight or wisdom that you have. It struck me as ironic- and common enough to warrant comment. People who crow on and on and on about equality are VERY OFTEN the same people that view the world as being full of tragically stupid masses that need the good ideas of a few to uplift them. particularly, it seems like everything I see you write is basically like this- a lament about how sad and awful the world is because 'we' don't all see things in a particular way that just happens to be the way Arcturus Descending sees them.

[anon]

idk, if talking in general terms about human shortcomings, i don't see any reason why "we" must be interpreted in such a way that it excludes the speaker - the speaker might be aware of her own flaws without actually claiming to be free of them.

ditto. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Uccisore, yes I read what you wrote. To your point about ""If only we humans were smart enough to realize war is pointless", I know for myself that I would surely go to war for various reasons, while at the same time believing that war is pointless. That may strike you as contradictory, but it is what it is. We are divided against ourselves. That's right, "we". Though perhaps you're special.

[uglypeoplefucking]

idk, if talking in general terms about human shortcomings, i don't see any reason why "we" must be interpreted in such a way that it excludes the speaker - the speaker might be aware of her own flaws without actually claiming to be free of them.

if i said, "we cannot see the organelles without a microscope", am i really implying that i CAN?

Obviously there are both types of cases.

"I cannot jump over two story buildings" makes sense, therefore so does "We cannot jump over two story buildings".

"I don't know that Augusta is the capitol of Maine" can only be understood, perhaps, as a backhanded way of saying "I don't think Augusta is the capitol of Maine". In the plural, "We don't know that Augusta is the capitol of Maine" is most easily read as either "We don't believe Augusta is the capitol of Maine (we think it's something else).", or "SOME of the people in this room don't know that Augusta is the capitol of Maine, and I am saying 'we' to be polite".

So when Arcturus is declaring all the things that 'we' don't understand, I only see two interpretations- either Arcturus is denying that these things are there to be understood (which is obviously not the case based on the context), or Arcturus is politely pointing out all the things that (s)he understands that the rest of poor humanity doesn't get.

i didn't get the sense that Arcturus really considers herself especially enlightened compared with everybody else.

we are all flawed and prejudiced and shortsighted, that comes with being human - that's the basic message i got from her post. i thought she was basically saying there is a ubiquitous kind of shortsightedness among people.

of course i really can't say whether or not she meant to exclude herself, only that it didn't really leap out at me that she was. in the end, i'm not sure it matters terribly.

[Uccisore]

i didn't get the sense that Arcturus really considers herself especially enlightened compared with everybody else.

Which I why I said multiple time that she may well be doing it unintentionally. It's entirely possible that she doesn't, and I'm uninterested in whether she does or not. Nevertheless, the position she presented is inherently elitist regardless.

[uglypeoplefucking]

Is it elitist to regret what one sees as human shortcomings? Moralistic, sure . . . but elitist?

Yes, you have acknowledged that it may have been unintentional, but you still portray as something so nefarious - i'm not sure i grasp why.

[Uccisore]

Is it elitist to regret what one sees as human shortcomings? Moralistic, sure . . . but elitist?

Yes, you have acknowledged that it may have been unintentional, but you still portray as something so nefarious - i'm not sure i grasp why.

It's only dubious insofar as it's hypocritical, when arguing for the position that we're all equal, while asserting that some of us are enlightened. There's no point in discussing her real intentions, it's true, but this goes back to what I was saying about equality being such a loaded term now. Rawls wanted equality, and proposed a system that he quietly hoped would lead to the abolition of all religion- because he personally didn't see a use for it. Marx was all about equality, enforced an academic class that knew what was best for everybody and had absolute authority to enforce it. I'm just not convinced it means overmuch as used in today's popular rhetoric.

[uglypeoplefucking]

It's only dubious insofar as it's hypocritical, when arguing for the position that we're all equal, while asserting that some of us are enlightened. There's no point in discussing her real intentions, it's true, but this goes back to what I was saying about equality being such a loaded term now. Rawls wanted equality, and proposed a system that he quietly hoped would lead to the abolition of all religion- because he personally didn't see a use for it. Marx was all about equality, enforced an academic class that knew what was best for everybody and had absolute authority to enforce it. I'm just not convinced it means overmuch as used in today's popular rhetoric.

You have a valid point, of course - it's hard to avoid a certain degree of hypocrisy when espousing any moral ideal. And the rhetoric of equality gets just as overblown as the rhetoric surroung any politically charged issue. But again, i have to ask if we are not of equal value then who is of the most value and why? And who is of the least value and why? And how is this determined? And by whom?