- For the narration, I did changed definitions. Simply because the words I needed to use are simply badly defined for the public from an objective narrative standpoint. And since I know a few thing about narration and those words or concept weren't clarified or aknowledge, I defined them.
- For the political. I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing on the other hand, is using definition used by people who actually work on the subjects we were talking about such as scientists or militant. If your point is that I sometimes refused to use dictionnary definition because they were outdated in regard to those knowledge and usage, then yes.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with doing that. But the way you are phrasing your sentence make it look like you are trying to tell that I'm somehow inconsistant or just delulu about the real meaning of the words I'm using. Which, like I explained, can't be further from the truth. I'm actually always trying to be very precise in the usage of my words.
Hence why I'm asking you to understand what I'm writing instead of reading it through the veil of your own biases.
Indeed. This are really not my predilection domains but what I'm talking about is not economy or history (mainly at least).
I'm talking about values BEHIND economy and history.
And for that, I don't need to know deeply about the subject. I only need to be deeply aware of the relevancy of those values for those subjects. So when I'm saying that meritocracy and liberalism leads to capitalism and toxic values, I don't need to explain it with history or economically. I only need to explain it to you through the prism of value system. Because, despite your awareness on those subjects, you seems to be blind that values are what rule the world. And no matter your economy, if the value behind it are toxic, the economy will be toxic.
In what way ?
Yup, conservatives and toxic ones. I'm sorry, but you seems to think that leftism means that we must be angels with minorities and women when they F up. That's not the case.
Again, if you think that leftists are kind to each other you are completely blind. I don't like social traitors.
Like ?
Oh , you mean the Nakama thread ?
They simply couldn't handle my political interventions. And by "they", I meant the staff.
I suppose you are talking about the Nakama thread since I never invented concepts here :
When narrative terms are described with care and great lengh, there is no reason not to understand them. But what I saw in the Nakama thread was not missunderstanding nor debate. What I saw was laughs. From the beginning to the end.
So while I excuse ignorance. I don't excuse foolishness.
You take that as you wish mate :)
No objective facts here as always. What you did is take reality and bend it the way your biases told you to bend it because of the missunderstanding you hold of those discussions.
Sadly I can't do anything about that. I can only hope that one day you will be able to get rid of your biases.
But then again.. its this type of BS that motivate me to write so.. in a way.. stay the way you are, it keeps me going
- For the political. I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing on the other hand, is using definition used by people who actually work on the subjects we were talking about such as scientists or militant. If your point is that I sometimes refused to use dictionnary definition because they were outdated in regard to those knowledge and usage, then yes.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with doing that. But the way you are phrasing your sentence make it look like you are trying to tell that I'm somehow inconsistant or just delulu about the real meaning of the words I'm using. Which, like I explained, can't be further from the truth. I'm actually always trying to be very precise in the usage of my words.
Hence why I'm asking you to understand what I'm writing instead of reading it through the veil of your own biases.
Indeed. This are really not my predilection domains but what I'm talking about is not economy or history (mainly at least).
I'm talking about values BEHIND economy and history.
And for that, I don't need to know deeply about the subject. I only need to be deeply aware of the relevancy of those values for those subjects. So when I'm saying that meritocracy and liberalism leads to capitalism and toxic values, I don't need to explain it with history or economically. I only need to explain it to you through the prism of value system. Because, despite your awareness on those subjects, you seems to be blind that values are what rule the world. And no matter your economy, if the value behind it are toxic, the economy will be toxic.
In what way ?
Yup, conservatives and toxic ones. I'm sorry, but you seems to think that leftism means that we must be angels with minorities and women when they F up. That's not the case.
Again, if you think that leftists are kind to each other you are completely blind. I don't like social traitors.
Like ?
Oh , you mean the Nakama thread ?
They simply couldn't handle my political interventions. And by "they", I meant the staff.
I suppose you are talking about the Nakama thread since I never invented concepts here :
When narrative terms are described with care and great lengh, there is no reason not to understand them. But what I saw in the Nakama thread was not missunderstanding nor debate. What I saw was laughs. From the beginning to the end.
So while I excuse ignorance. I don't excuse foolishness.
You take that as you wish mate :)
No objective facts here as always. What you did is take reality and bend it the way your biases told you to bend it because of the missunderstanding you hold of those discussions.
Sadly I can't do anything about that. I can only hope that one day you will be able to get rid of your biases.
But then again.. its this type of BS that motivate me to write so.. in a way.. stay the way you are, it keeps me going
