Which role would you prefer government plays in our social organization?

AkinaAkina Posts: 50
edited November 2016 in Politics & Current Events
I stumbled on these two definitions while reading and found them helpful in differentiating between these potential governance approaches:

1. The elected government should have the right to disseminate incentivized threshold programs via discriminating measures for the purposes of repairing resultant social and economic injustices and perceived inequalities, whether they be through opportunistic or social constructs. Sensitivity, administration, and enforcement are required to secure access to said rights.

2. The delegated government should have the responsibility to facilitate sustainable and enterprising constructs via value-based measures for the purposes of providing and protecting social and economic necessities of essentials and autonomy, whether they be through group participation or self-determination. Respect, facility, and protection are required to secure access to said freedoms.

Let me know if anyone has questions about the concepts presented here. Thanks!
by Akina

Which role would you prefer government plays in our social organization? 2 votes

I strongly agree with #1 / Where can I find more people to make this happen?
0%
I strongly agree with #2 / Where can I find more people to make this happen?
0%
I kinda agree with #1
0%
I kinda agree with #2
0%
I have no preference / I am fine with either
100%
RolloTelMolagMora 2 votes
I have a preference other than one listed here (and I'll explain thoroughly below in the thread)
0%

Comments

  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    Please rewrite these without using Newspeak and waffle.

    Also, why is this a binary choice?
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
    edited October 2016
    Because I'm hoping nerdfighteria would help me out by participating and offer any other choices they would prefer. (So I could make it nonbinary.)
    That seems to much to ask for, even considering I selected these two choices based on the nerdfighter census value matrix.

    Which words do you identify as newspeak and waffle? Could you be more specific in your request? I selected these explanations because they clearly differentiate how each approach to governance is different without politicized vocabulary.
    by Akina
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    edited October 2016
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    Akina said:


    Which words do you identify as newspeak and waffle? Could you be more specific in your request? I selected these explanations because they clearly differentiate how each approach to governance is different without politicized vocabulary.

    "They clearly differentiate" do they?

    Such as:

    "disseminate incentivized threshold programs"

    Or:

    "facilitate sustainable and enterprising constructs"


    The interlocutor which I now describe by means of the perpendicular pronoun, has carefully weighed the ontoglogical merits of these propositions and has come to the conclusion that they must have been written by none other than Sir Humphrey Appleby.

    You couldn't have made your choices more obfuscatory, even if you painted them in grey on the side of a grey weasel and then let it loose in a nightclub where the smoke machines had been let off.

    by Rollo
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
    edited October 2016
    I can't refine my communication if you do not clearly identify the point at which you lose track of what is trying to be communicated.

    Please, I know you are a very intelligent person (as I have read many of your posts over the last few years); there is no need to resort to hyperbolic comparisons to prove your intellectual superiority.

    Are you stating that you see no clear difference between

    "disseminate incentivized threshold programs" Or:

    "facilitate sustainable and enterprising constructs" ?

    P.S. I didn't write these choices. I selected them because I found them extremely helpful in differentiating between these two approaches to governance.
    by Akina
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
    edited October 2016
    The following:
    "disperse planned series of events/items/performances which provide motivating rewards to those who reach the magnitude or intensity deemed necessary to qualify"

    "make easier maintainable-at-a-steady-rate ideas which contain various conceptual elements and show initiative and resourcefulness"

    are two alternative phrasings, which end up being a bit more convoluted and less precise in my opinion. I do tend to prefer succinctness.

    Do you also consider these nondifferentiable?
    by Akina
  • TelMolagMoraTelMolagMora Alliance, OhioPosts: 510 ✭✭
    edited October 2016
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    I certainly find them to be equally not understandable. For example, what in the name of Shiva is a threshold program? Granted, I'm not the best search engineer, but I couldn't find a satisfactory answer to what exactly that is. I have a vague idea, but that's about it.

    If I have the right idea, a threshold program is simply something to give extra help learning for those that for various reasons don't perform well & could use the help.

    Next, what exactly do you mean by discriminating measures? I know what those words mean, but in the context of #1 I have no idea whats been attempted to be said.

    As well for #1, what do you mean by opportunistic and social constructs? That's simply to vague for me to have an opinion about.

    I'll leave it there for now and get to #2 when we're on the same page.
    by TelMolagMora
    무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    Akina said:

    I do tend to prefer succinctness.

    The rapacity of your verbosity knows no satiety.

    One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — into the dustbin where it belongs.
    - George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, Apr 1946.

    1. The Government should have the right to to enact welfare policy and direct it where needed.
    2. Government should enact policy which allows greater individual freedom.

    Done.

    Please drop your verbal diahorrea.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
    edited October 2016
    Rollo said:

    Akina said:

    I do tend to prefer succinctness.

    The rapacity of your verbosity knows no satiety.

    One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — into the dustbin where it belongs.
    - George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, Apr 1946.

    1. The Government should have the right to to enact welfare policy and direct it where needed.
    2. Government should enact policy which allows greater individual freedom.

    Done.

    Please drop your verbal diahorrea.
    I don't understand why so many people think my word choice is based on anything other than the word which seems most appropriate according to my experience. At least I'm not forgetting to be awesome by making fun of them.
    by Akina
  • TelMolagMoraTelMolagMora Alliance, OhioPosts: 510 ✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    Wow that's what the choices come down to actually meaning? Thank you very much Rollo for breaking that down for me (and everyone else that comes here).

    I still don't know where I fall on the issue though, gimme a couple days to stew it over.
    무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
  • TelMolagMoraTelMolagMora Alliance, OhioPosts: 510 ✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    There, just there what you said Akina. Its just that the way you write comes off as prolixical. It's needlessly wordy. I'm not trying to be rude by calling it out, I just simply don't understand what you were trying to say.
    무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50

    I certainly find them to be equally not understandable. For example, what in the name of Shiva is a threshold program? Granted, I'm not the best search engineer, but I couldn't find a satisfactory answer to what exactly that is. I have a vague idea, but that's about it.

    If I have the right idea, a threshold program is simply something to give extra help learning for those that for various reasons don't perform well & could use the help.

    Thank you so much for clearly stating which words you are having difficulty understanding!

    My understanding is...
    Threshold program = planned series of events/items/performances which are available to those who reach the magnitude or intensity deemed necessary to qualify

    As Rollo mentioned, this definition does include but is not exclusive to welfare policy (depending on how it is written). Your application would also be included.


    Next, what exactly do you mean by discriminating measures? I know what those words mean, but in the context of #1 I have no idea whats been attempted to be said.

    My understanding is...
    Discriminating measures = qualitatively or quantitatively assign value to something by using an instrument or device marked in standard units to differentiate between program effects and background noise


    As well for #1, what do you mean by opportunistic and social constructs? That's simply to vague for me to have an opinion about.

    I'll leave it there for now and get to #2 when we're on the same page.

    My understanding is...

    Opportunistic constructs = ideas which contain various conceptual elements and exploit chances offered by immediate circumstances without reference to a general plan

    Social constructs = concerns the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event

    I really appreciate you taking the time to verbalize your confusion/my lack of clarity. (Although, I did not write the original definitions.)
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
    edited October 2016

    There, just there what you said Akina. Its just that the way you write comes off as prolixical. It's needlessly wordy. I'm not trying to be rude by calling it out, I just simply don't understand what you were trying to say.

    Warning: [ ] Denotes superfluous information that is available for lurkers, if desired.

    Is 'prolixical' supposed to be a combination of prolific and political? (Sorry I can't find a definition.)

    I respectfully submit that "needlessly wordy" is a subjective statement. Subjectivity which may change with continued development in social consciousness complexity.

    For instance, I find the majority of individual words and commonly used phrases insufficient to convey most concepts with intellectual honesty or precision, unless they are scientifically defined concepts. [Because my meaning-making system is operating on/actively constructing an abstract>dialectical system of perception and many people are operating with less complex systems (concrete or abstract perceptions).]

    I view Rollo's version of the above statements as a mutated version that Ze forced into a box to fit Zer meaning-making system. It is valid according to Zer perspective, and I have no problem with that... but how Ze decided to phrase it, according to my perspective is not the whole idea which was originally conveyed. Again, I will repeat I did not write the original definitions.

    I do not have any issue with being asked to clarify, I just don't appreciate being mocked, as Rollo has done.

    In fact, I appreciate you respectfully sharing your perspective with me, it will help me refine my future attempts. Thank you!
    by Akina
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    Akina said:

    I respectfully submit that "needlessly wordy" is a subjective statement. Subjectivity which may change with continued development in social consciousness complexity.

    Respectfully, no.

    Also from that same essay:

    http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
    ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
    - Rule 2

    Orwell's five rules for effective writing, work.

    If you did not explain a hard idea using the ten hundred most used words, then you did not do a good job*.
    Akina said:

    because my meaning-making system is operating on/actively constructing an abstract>dialectical system of perception and many people are operating with less complex systems (concrete or abstract perceptions).

    Well good. They should.

    I work in a job where people use big words all the time. You can talk with complex lemmata if you like, but that merely makes things more exclusionary.

    I think that this video which explains How To Go To Space using only the ten hundred most common words, is pure joy:

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=2p_8gx-XHJo

    It inspired the "Up-Goer Five Test" - http://splasho.com/upgoer5/




    *this passes the Up-Goer Five Test.





    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    edited October 2016
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    Are you using this as an object lesson?

    Imagining others complexly is not the same as using unnecessary complex language. Hank does not use complex words to disguise what he means to say.

    Language is about conveying meaning. If you fail to do that, then you have failed at using it properly.
    by Rollo
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
    edited October 2016
    Rollo said:



    Imagining others complexly is not the same as using unnecessary complex language.

    Language is about conveying meaning. If you fail to do that, then you have failed at using it properly.

    Totally agree.

    Imagining others complexly requires development of more complex orders of social consciousness.
    by Akina
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    So then, why deliberately intend to fail at conveying meaning?
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • TelMolagMoraTelMolagMora Alliance, OhioPosts: 510 ✭✭
    edited October 2016
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    The word prolixical, it comes from the word prolix. Not sure if you can use the word the way I did, but you just gotta invent the language as necessary.


    adjective
    1.
    extended to great, unnecessary, or tedious length; long and wordy.
    2.
    (of a person) given to speaking or writing at great or tedious length.
    by TelMolagMora
    무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    1. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    2. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    In my country, Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia, which is a godzillion times better, says that:
    The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to... some things.

    Akira still hasn't explained what in blue blazes Ze meant in plain English and with my obviously poor grasp of the language "English As She Is Spoke", I can't make out what the question was trying to get at.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
    @Rollo ... and yet you still managed to answer my question and thoroughly explain your opinion about it. You think they are equivalent and you don't like the word choice used, thank you - your opinion has been recorded! I'd really like to hear from other people now.

    @TelMolagMora Thank you for clarifying, I wasn't able to figure out your root word. I'd like to remind you that I didn't write the original selections and that perhaps you are leaping to incorrect judgements about me based on false assumptions.

    The mass is on fire.

    The sodium metal is combusting.

    Are these statements equivalent? Is the latter statement prolixical?
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    Akina said:

    Is the latter statement prolixical?

    Consider this:

    The sodium metal is combusting.
    - Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease = 32.6

    Versus:

    The elected government should have the right to disseminate incentivized threshold programs via discriminating measures for the purposes of repairing resultant social and economic injustices and perceived inequalities, whether they be through opportunistic or social constructs. Sensitivity, administration, and enforcement are required to secure access to said rights.
    - Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease = -0.8


    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    edited November 2016
    1. The Government should have the right to to enact welfare policy and direct it where needed.
    2. Government should enact policy which allows greater individual freedom.

    To this clear and concise choice, if they really are my only options, I choose 2.

    As for the debate that this has turned into: I agree with Rollo. In fact I only scrolled down to see how many folks were pretending to fully understand what you were asking. By wording questions the way this have the level of entry into the conversation is so high that even here you get no real response.

    Worse than that this question is overshadowed by the words. It would be easy for you to "pull one over" on somebody with that. Which would make some people not trust the intent of the question or believe that they are trying to make them feel dumb.

    The purpose of language is to be understood. Another way to put it is: The area of a cube is V=L*W*H

    Or if I wanted to needlessly confuse it

    V=⌠h
         ⌡0 l*w dx

    or V = L * ((L*H)/W) * sqrt(W^2)

    (Math majors give me a break this is the first time I've tried to put an integral on a website not set up for that purpose)

    All of those are technically true but only one communicates it easily.

    *Off topic edit* The question was painful to read but not nearly as painful as that 10 hundred words link. That is ridiculously frustrating.
    by Smith
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    I like Smith's options.

    In this binary, I'll always side with option 1 because pure capitalism consistently proves that it will not provide for those people who are unprofitable. Individualism left unchecked equals mass selfishness.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
    @Smith I understand what you are saying, even if your calculus is not technically set up correctly. (I'm pretty sure your tail piece should be dw, based on how you continued to solve the integral - but it has been nearly 10 years for me and I wasn't a math major, so take it with a grain of salt... Also, I'm impressed that you took the time to try to get the integral to display correctly enough for it to be readable - thank you.).

    Using your analogy:
    My entire point is that V=L*W*H =/= ⌠h ⌡0 l*w dw=V ; they are fundamentally different. Its understandable if you cannot tell this difference yet, especially if you just started integrals... I think I was mostly through multivariate calculus before I really started understanding the theory of what I was doing with partial derivatives and integrals.

    Another, less complex, version of this is 1 =/= 0.999

    The original options, which I did not write but presented, are as fundamentally different from each other as an estimation of volume of an object is to the integral of the area of the same object.

    If you find this difference negligible... that is your opinion and there is a poll option for that.

    I was really hoping to find others who are able to clearly see the difference, but alas, nerdfighteria might not be developed enough or might be going the way of the pseudo-intellectual. It's hard to tell at this juncture.
  • TelMolagMoraTelMolagMora Alliance, OhioPosts: 510 ✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    Akina said:

    I was really hoping to find others who are able to clearly see the difference, but alas, nerdfighteria might not be developed enough or might be going the way of the pseudo-intellectual. It's hard to tell at this juncture.

    (^ก^)

    무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    Psst... It's a Great Satire, Charlie Brown

    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
    edited November 2016
    @TelMolagMora
    Not sure what that emoticon is supposed to mean... but the quote which you've identified is more of an observation of John and Hank's recent behavior and speech and less so of the interactions here on this thread. Their lack of critically examining sufficiently diverse ideas fosters and promotes pseudo-intellectualism.

    If you read "not developed enough" as insulting, then perhaps we have different information about human development over the lifespan.

    Not really sure what else you could be making a face about.
    by Akina
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    I have no preference / I am fine with either
    Akina said:


    I was really hoping to find others who are able to clearly see the difference, but alas, nerdfighteria might not be developed enough or might be going the way of the pseudo-intellectual. It's hard to tell at this juncture.

    Flagging opinions you do not like, as spam, is pretty low. To then deride discussion as "pseudo-intellectual" is also pretty low.

    by Rollo
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • AkinaAkina Posts: 50
    @Rollo - Flagging as harassment isn't an option. I tried to make a note to administrators that I was trying to flag for harassment reasons, not spam reasons - though they probably don't pay enough attention to figure that out.
    I have a right to participate in the nerdfighteria forums without being constantly harassed by trolling behavior. Futhermore, I only flagged the one most harassing and inappropriate comment - it had nothing to do with any opinion expressed therein. If you want to run me off these forums in retaliation, then feel free.

    Perhaps we have a cultural barrier of some sort between us (or maybe you are purposely trying to misunderstand) because...
    I said that the way Hank and John have talked about serious issues over the last year fosters pseudo-intellectualism.
    I expressed the burgeoning assessment that pseudo-intellectualism is apparently affecting the nerdfighteria community.
    When someone responds to a question about representative democracy versus direct democracy (among other things - it was a complex set of ideas), and the most intelligent reply is a series of abusive criticisms on effective communication of ideas based on the recommendations of one of the great propagandists, it's an inappropriate comparison used to criticize an idea which wasn't fully understood in the first place. When all others are either scared away by the aggression or misled from the original purpose of the post the original post has effectively been hijacked. I attempted repeatedly to respectfully acknowledge your need for social status, and when that was not enough, I attempted to steer the conversation back on track only to be derailed again with the same inappropriate criticism seeking status.

    That looks a lot like pseudo-intellectualism to me. An honest attempt at discussion is shut down by others' refusal to be curious, seek diverse perspectives, and being open to changing an opinion or idea.

    (I cannot count how many times I've decided to not post anything simply because I saw the way YOU (Rollo) spoke to others. There is a reason I have so few posts here even though I've been a part of this forum for the last 5 years.)

    We obviously do not hold the same values at the same level, so I really don't mind your poor assessment of how my values are not satisfying your own standards.

    I personally find pride in intellectual honesty and standing up against harassment. I really wish we could have had a discussion about the original idea, where you could actually understand the complexity of the concept - even if you decide that it's unnecessary complexity, as I doubt it's beyond your intellectual comprehension, and I would have valued your perspective. Alas! Emotional intelligence and cultural barriers!

    Best wishes on your continuing growth!
Sign In or Register to comment.