Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2021 edited
     
    Several idiocies recently percolating out of the mire:

    1. The pointless abolition of the demonym: "the Irish Foreign Minister" becomes "The Ireland Foreign Minister"

    2. The meandering conjunction: "UK Prime Minister rejects calls for resignation as Indonesian submarine goes missing" (The Guardian is very fond of this sort of thing.)

    3. Answering the wrong question: "There's Another Universe. This Is Why" (actual example from today)
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2021
     
    Posted By: Angus2. The meandering conjunction: "UK Prime Minister rejects calls for resignation as Indonesian submarine goes missing" (The Guardian is very fond of this sort of thing.)

    It does. You wonder how much of that has to do with dark arts of news aggregation and getting your stories picked.

    Maybe these "double" headlines help get your stories noticed? Or maybe they are down to one sub editor who is too busy to do it properly.
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2021
     
    'No one' wanted Rudy Giuliani at Trump's debate prep because he 'passed gas constantly': Michael Wolff

    (Seen on the 'RAW STORY' tabloid)
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2021
     
    Posted By: Angus3. Answering the wrong question: "There's Another Universe. This Is Why" (actual example from today)


    The "This Is Why" element/scheme seems to be quite popular amog the click-baited.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2021 edited
     
    I think it's more than the internet. It is a shift in human consciousness toward expecting to know what others are thinking. For example, I believe the "Why" headline style comes from assuming that the hearer will interpret it as a statement about the speaker's mental state, not about the external universe.

    "There is another universe. This is why I think so."

    whereas old fogeys like myself would have expected a statement about external fact

    "There is another universe. Here is the evidence"

    We see it in daily life. It is common in the UK to answer the question "Would you like another sausage". With "No, you're all right". This sounds bizarre to outsiders but seems to mean "No, you don't have to go to the enormous trouble of frying me another sausage". It presumes that my mental state was contemplating any such thing.

    On our side of the pond the equivalent would be "No, I'm good". This is less obviously a statement that presumes to know what the other person is thinking. However, the intent seems to be "No, I am no longer hungry for a sausage", which in my literal mind presumes that the sausage offerer gives a damn whether you are hungry or not. The question asked was about a fact - whether you want a sausage. Your hunger is not a legitimate part of the response.


    Whole lot of bloody cheek, if you ask me.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    Posted By: AngusWhole lot of bloody cheek, if you ask me.

    Me also.

    And:
    "Thanks for the sausage."
    "No problem."

    My thanking you was not asking whether it was a problem for you.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    That's another outrageous piece of waitress-speak for the book.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    Posted By: AngusWhole lot of bloody cheek, if you ask me.


    Funny, I usually respond "No, thank you"
  1.  
    I too am repulsed by this subtextual frippery.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    Posted By: AsterixFunny, I usually respond "No, thank you"


    Cheek, not nose. Could happen, though.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    Posted By: AngusWe see it in daily life. It is common in the UK to answer the question "Would you like another sausage". With "No, you're all right". This sounds bizarre to outsiders but seems to mean "No, you don't have to go to the enormous trouble of frying me another sausage". It presumes that my mental state was contemplating any such thing.

    Which mental state? The mental state of the asker is obviously contemplating the act of making another sausage, the evidence is they asked if that is what is wanted. Can you ask without 'contemplating' (think about) the act?

    A lot of communication is just ritual and birdsong. A shake of the head might be an acceptable response. No doubt there are people out there who would look at the minutia of that shake and tut tut that the angular movement wasn't ISO standard. IMO the world would be poorer if we all sing exactly the same song.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021 edited
     
    Posted By: pcstruThe mental state of the asker is obviously contemplating the act of making another sausage, the evidence is they asked if that is what is wanted.


    Not at all. It is quite normal for me, and for many of my acquaintance, to ask "would you like X" without necessarily taking on the responsibility of providing it. But whatever my intentions might be, it is surely presumptuous to respond by permitting me to relax and stand down.

    And a shake of the head would indeed be an acceptable response, and somewhat more polite.
  2.  
    "I got sausage" is vernacular to me meaning I received nothing. This of course complicates matters somewhat.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    Especially since a sign on a delicatessen door that says exactly the same thing means the opposite.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: pcstruThe mental state of the asker is obviously contemplating the act of making another sausage, the evidence is they asked if that is what is wanted.


    Not at all. It is quite normal for me, and for many of my acquaintance, to ask "would you like X" without necessarily taking on the responsibility of providing it. But whatever my intentions might be, it is surely presumptuous to respond by permitting me to relax and stand down.

    And a shake of the head would indeed be an acceptable response, and somewhat more polite.


    I can't fathom why you think the intent is you can "relax and stand down". Perhaps the intent is to convey a negative and satisfaction. Round here it is usually "na, you're arite ta" or "no ta, I'm all right thanks".

    Reading any Robert Burns must give you angina.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    The thread begins by noting some features of internet headline writing that seem silly to me - and apparently to some others as well. I proposed a model to explain one of them and tied it in with some other features of modern life that seem silly to me and apparently to some others as well. The model posits that there is a cultural shift away from dealing directly with the external world and toward being concerned with mental states or attitudes toward external situations. Such a shift would be broadly in line with some postmodernist philosophical ideas, perhaps.

    If you have a better idea, let's hear it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    I think you are conflating some cultural norms with deliberate differentiation on the basis that it generates click-through. I don't see a shift, I've been parroting some form of "all right" for decades in my daily birdsong rituals.

    > The model posits that there is a cultural shift away from dealing directly with the external world and toward being concerned with mental states or attitudes toward external situations.

    To me this is word salad. If our senses and language 'dealt' with the external world, we wouldn't need physics. Language is 100% about 'mental states'.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    Posted By: pcstru If our senses and language 'dealt' with the external world, we wouldn't need physics. Language is 100% about 'mental states'.


    Plato's cave again.

    Our senses and language do deal with the external world otherwise we would have remained unable to sense it or talk about it. Physics is just part of the language.

    Among other things, language is a mechanism relating mental states to externalities. I said "shift" in my proposal. The shift I posit is toward placing more emphasis on, or finding more interest in, the mental state end of that relation than the external reality end.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: pcstruIf our senses and language 'dealt' with the external world, we wouldn't need physics. Language is 100% about 'mental states'.


    Plato's cave again.

    Our senses and language do deal with the external world otherwise we would have remained unable to sense it or talk about it.

    Our language deals with our experience of the world through our sense of it.

    Maybe 'thinking' is just a sense that makes sense of our senses? Unicorns exist in our world. We have a sense of them. But "tables" aren't actually real, no matter how much mine stops my dinner falling to the ground.

    Physics is just part of the language.

    You don't believe in objective measurement by proxy, of things we can't directly sense? And surely you can't dick about with the mental state of a math proof. It's a binary thing.

    Among other things, language is a mechanism relating mental states to externalities. I said "shift" in my proposal. The shift I posit is toward placing more emphasis on, or finding more interest in, the mental state end of that relation than the external reality end.

    Yes. It's word salad to me, sorry. The 'external reality' end is (best) described by physics. We simply do not directly experience fields & particles and all that stuff that make up the actual physical world. You can's shift toward something that is discrete and boolean.

    The philosophical boundary you seem to me to be trying to conjure half a photon into, is between epistemology and metaphysics. Good luck with that.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2021 edited
     
    [Fe]
    The philosophical boundary you seem to me to be trying to conjure half a photon into, is between epistemology and metaphysics.

    That's Greek to me, and I don't hold with them Greeks and what they got up to with their catapults an' all[/Fe]

    This is making a dog's breakfast out of half a strawberry. I made an observation about a trend in internet headlines, which seemed to resonate with some others here, and I threw out an idea about what might be behind the trend.

    Here is the example I cited. It is entitled
    There's Another Universe. This Is Why.
    It proposes to answer a different question than it actually answers. The video is about purported evidence for another universe. But the title implies it is about the reason for its putative existence. Promising metaphysics but delivering epistemology if you like.

    But to avoid such exalted terms, I was suggesting that people are becoming more interested in abstractions and less interested in concrete observations. If that is so, then a more understandable interpretation of the title would be "There is another universe. This is why I think so." Then it promises only epistemology, but now the emphasis is on somebody's mental workings rather than on the evidence itself.

    It's a long way from philosophy, really.