KtheC's recent activity

  1. Comment on Colorado is not a rectangle, it’s not even a quadrilateral, in fact it is a hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon in ~science

    KtheC
    Link Parent
    Thank you. Most sensible thing said in this thread. (Myself included.)

    Thank you. Most sensible thing said in this thread. (Myself included.)

    1 vote

  2. Comment on Colorado is not a rectangle, it’s not even a quadrilateral, in fact it is a hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon in ~science

    KtheC
    Link Parent
    I don't think context was "wrestled away" in any way. Once again, the context is quite explicitly drawn out in my comment. No matter how many times you ignore this fact, it won't make it untrue....

    You then wrestle it away from the context to include a point raised nowhere in the blog post because... you wanted to?

    I don't think context was "wrestled away" in any way. Once again, the context is quite explicitly drawn out in my comment. No matter how many times you ignore this fact, it won't make it untrue.

    As though it was relevant to the conversation at hand, the one about details of a map, rather than one you wanted to raise.

    Meta-analysis is still an analysis. In fact, it requires the context of the original post in order for it to make sense. Again, you can choose to not like the analysis I made, but that doesn't make it off-topic.

    In my original comment I quite blatantly stated "know your audience." To which, here on Tildes, making a thesis about the social implications of a topic isn't a controversy. Like I said, if your audience is interested in the subject matter, then by all means, talk about it. That's why I made the comment.

    It's the in-your-face presupposed-correcture attitude of that comment that got to me while the examples tell not to do that.

    Of what comment? I'm not correcting the article. I'm not correcting the user who posted the article.

    I postulated that there are people who don't read social situations well and might make a conversation tedious and exasperating by spouting off (mostly) irrelevant facts. Would you like me to apologize to them?

  3. Comment on Colorado is not a rectangle, it’s not even a quadrilateral, in fact it is a hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon in ~science

    KtheC
    Link Parent
    Frankly, most people would say that taking an abstract concept, like an "imaginary know-it-all," and giving a concrete real life example of one isn't something that weakens an argument. My initial...

    I'm not... sure taking extremes for your examples makes for a good advice point.

    You started off discontent about an imaginary know-it-all.

    You're not discontent about a real know-it-all.

    Frankly, most people would say that taking an abstract concept, like an "imaginary know-it-all," and giving a concrete real life example of one isn't something that weakens an argument.

    The context: a blog about maps, and details of maps, and one particular map not being precisely what most people think of it.

    Your decided context: someone's pointing out inconsistencies for the sake of being pedantic, which doesn't do well in conversations.

    My initial comment made this very distinction though. In fact, I even included this sentence:

    "The article is from a cartography and maps blog, thus the geometry of Colorado is a relevant (and interesting) topic there."

    I provided the context of the article and made a comparative analysis by providing a different context as a foil. Maybe you don't find that comparison interesting or don't like my analysis (and that's fine), but the comment is salient and relates to the original post.

    1 vote

  4. Comment on Colorado is not a rectangle, it’s not even a quadrilateral, in fact it is a hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon in ~science

    KtheC
    Link Parent
    Are you referring to my comment? I didn't really talk about "nitpicking." I think, in general, it is perfectly tenable to say that not every opportunity to lecture some 'interesting' fact needs to...

    I'm resisting the urge to point out how nitpicky the comment about supposed nitpicking is, quite heavily.

    Are you referring to my comment? I didn't really talk about "nitpicking."

    I think, in general, it is perfectly tenable to say that not every opportunity to lecture some 'interesting' fact needs to be acted upon. A contemporary example of this might be Neil deGrasse Tyson. He often misses the context of the conversation and rambles off a series of interesting tidbits. Quite honestly, he is exactly the type of person you are talking about. He is an excellent public speaker with a penchant of taking dry topics and turning them into something fun.

    That said, he often ends up under a critical lens because he doesn't seem to know the appropriate time to say these things. He also misses the context of the conversation and his information ends up meaning something different than he intended. The most devastating example of this was probably least year when he rattled off death statistics after the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings happened. He thought this was a good, context providing, factoid to share. Instead he ended up embarrassing himself because he didn't "read the room."

    I mean, there are plethora of these kinds of examples. Even if you are talented at taking information and making it interesting, you still need to understand context to know when this information is wanted or helpful.

    1 vote

  5. Comment on Colorado is not a rectangle, it’s not even a quadrilateral, in fact it is a hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon in ~science

    KtheC
    Link
    I suppose the article is rooted in exploring the fine details of the generally accepted trope that Colorado is a rectangle. That said, it is pretty easy to fall into pedantry when discussing these...

    I suppose the article is rooted in exploring the fine details of the generally accepted trope that Colorado is a rectangle. That said, it is pretty easy to fall into pedantry when discussing these kinds of topics. Context is key for understanding this.

    The article is from a cartography and maps blog, thus the geometry of Colorado is a relevant (and interesting) topic there. However, if you were in a casual conversation and someone was describing the shape of Colorado as a rectangle, you (probably) ought to ignore the temptation to interrupt them and say "Colorado is actually a hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon, not a rectangle. At most it is rectangular." In the vast majority of cases, you probably aren't being clever or interesting, you're just being insufferable.

    Of course, if your nerdy math friend or cartography professor would be receptive to such things, then these are delightful facts to know and bring up. Save it for them. Know your audience. Satisfy their interests instead of your own ego.

    7 votes

  6. Is death always tragic?

    ~talk Text 720 words
    I'll preface this by saying this post is birthed out of a small argument I'm having on Reddit, but the topic seems like a worthwhile one. (And I'm not getting much other than downvotes for a...

    I'll preface this by saying this post is birthed out of a small argument I'm having on Reddit, but the topic seems like a worthwhile one. (And I'm not getting much other than downvotes for a counterargument over there!)

    The initial question is whether or not the death of someone who is very old (95 years or more) should be considered tragic. Some things to consider:

    1. The overall health and condition of the person.
    • Are they in constant state of suffering?
    1. The wishes of the person.
    • Do they actively wish to be dead? This might not even be out of suffering. Some people, as they get to be quite old, are just bored of their lives or want this stage to be over. Anecdotally, my great-grandmother was this way from the ages of 90 and onward. (She quite famously would greet cashiers with "I want to die.")
    1. Are they still active?
    • Do they still find meaning in what they are doing? For example, David Attenborough is 93 years old and is still a big presence on the world stage. Despite his great age, if he were to die, his work would still be ‘cut short.’
    1. The circumstances by which they die.
    • Was it sudden, or did it take a long time? Was it painful? Was it violent?

    This list is not exhaustive. I welcome suggestions for what should be added to it.

    There is also how we define tragedy. In general terms, it typically just alludes to an event that causes great suffering and distress. I think this is the definition that we are more concerned with. Alternatively, there is the theatrical definition of tragedy, which is more tied to the leading character suffering some major downfall at the end of the narrative. While we could construe the death of someone in real life this way, it seems to be a bit of a stretch as most of us do not live out our lives in three-act structures with a clear climax and finale. (I’m going to rule out this definition now, if not just for the sake of argument.)

    Balancing all of these thoughts, I think the crux of where disagreement lies is in how we feel about death for the deceased versus our own selfish desires. Bringing this back to my anecdote, about twenty years ago, my great-grandmother passed at the age of 94. She spent at least the last 5 years of her life pleading to God to finally take her. Her health was fine. She lived in her house, alone, fully capable of maintaining it (and herself). In fact, in the year prior to her death, she was so physically active that she painted all 200 feet of her white picket fence! By all means, she was not physically suffering. She just simply wanted to go.

    Then she did. I think the group consensus was something akin to, “Well, I guess she finally got what she wanted. I’m going to miss her.” It was a feeling of simultaneously being happy for her and grief for ourselves.

    To which, does this make for a tragedy?

    Some might call it splitting hairs, but what I am arguing is that the death itself was not tragic. What is tragic is our loss of the ability to interact with that person and the feelings of grief that follow. I cannot help but feel these are ultimately separate things that we have such a difficult time reconciling. Part of life is death, and as long as we revere life, we must also revere the last part of it. If we did this better, we might have an easier time accepting things like medical-assistance-in-dying. It is for this reason that I say, death, by default, does not necessitate tragedy.

    However while death is not necessarily tragic, I do think there are a multitude of conditions that would make death sufficiently tragic. Looking back at my list above, the death of a young healthy person would be considered tragic. Suppose someone was violently beheaded; this could be considered tragic. Even suppose that the 93-year-old David Attenborough passed away, I would think his death to be tragic as he wanted to offer more to the world.

    Anyway, I think I’ve rambled enough. What are your thoughts?

    11 votes