In praise of nuance
-
That's sort of my point. "Nuance" as used by the left (and this is a recent thing since Kerry used the term...I'm sure regretably) as nothing more than a way to avoid actually tacking an issue or providing solutions. While the real world clearly involves solving innumerable problems every day, saying that you need to approach something in a "nuanced" way does not say anything. In fact, it's a deliberate method of avoiding real solutions. In my examples, the decisive person recognizes challenges and confronts them. The "nuanced" liberal simply claims there are too many nuances to act.
-- modified at 19:27 Thursday 10th August, 2006
"I curse economic prosperity as it puts an end to much-needed poverty, famine and pestilence." -dennisd45 "I fully support Communists in key positions of our government. I believe that they contribute positively to the liberal ideal." -dennisd45
espeir wrote:
While the real world clearly involves solving innumerable problems every day, saying that you need to approach something in a "nuanced" way does not say anything. In fact, it's a deliberate method of avoiding real solutions.
I agree. What a disgusting tactic.
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Gosh, you sound just like espeir. Are you actually different people?
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
There are nuanced differences between us that only nuanced abserver can discern.
"I curse economic prosperity as it puts an end to much-needed poverty, famine and pestilence." -dennisd45 "I fully support Communists in key positions of our government. I believe that they contribute positively to the liberal ideal." -dennisd45
-
dennisd45 quoted:
Originally a term of praise, suggesting an intelligent consideration of the many sides and shades of a complex issue, it’s now a term of mockery.
Oh, please. No one i know has ever used "nuance" as anything other than a name for a subtle aspect or feature of some larger, more important whole (at least, not around me). If, in the past, it was routinely used as a term of praise, then it never made it to where i lived. If Cheney is using it as an insult now, then someone else probably used it in an attempt to weasel out of an argument by using nuances to distract from the topic at hand. Both are the sort of tactics that should be ignored by anyone not completely in love with rhetoric. :rolleyes:
dennisd45 quoted:
Ideologues simplify things. They refuse to acknowledge those nasty nuances.
What, like pigeonholing people and opinions under vague names like "liberal", "feminist", "nuanced" "construction worker", ideologue", "neoconservative"... :sigh:
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
In praise of nuance[^] A selection from this article: “Nuance” is one of those words successfully poisoned by American conservatives, like “liberal” or “feminist”. Originally a term of praise, suggesting an intelligent consideration of the many sides and shades of a complex issue, it’s now a term of mockery. Dick Cheney sneers it really well, makes it sound like a construction worker mocking a gay Parisian. The problem is, some issues ARE nuanced. Some ethical and moral decisions are nuanced. Life is nuanced, unless you’re very young, very stupid, or an irredeemable idealogue of some persuasion. (Those qualities are not mutually exclusive.) That’s why ideology, be it neoconservatism, Maoism, fundamentalist Christianity or Taliban-style Islam, is such a useful thing. Ideologues simplify things. They refuse to acknowledge those nasty nuances. There’s a simple for answer for everything: you just have to consult the revealed text (be it the Koran, Das Kapital, or Fukuyama’s “End Of History”), and there’s the answer. As long as it’s derived from or consistent with your chosen revelation, no further thought is required. Nuances don’t exist. And best of all, you don’t don’t actually have to engage with any ideas that challenge your stance. If they are not in consistent with your truth, then they are self evidently wrong, because they’re - well, they’re not consistent with the Bible, the Koran, the Little Red Book or the Thoughts of Chairman Tom Flanagan. So they’re wrong. End of story. Emphasis added.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
This has been an entertaining thread. First it's 'nothing is nuanced'. Then - since that won't work - it's 'the word can only be used in trivial matters'. Then the repetition of 'the left uses it to obscure'. Can't say that I'm suprised. I sure wouldn't have thought that 'nuance' would be so politically loaded (at least on one side of the aisle). This thread is perfect proof of the author's original premise: "“Nuance” is one of those words successfully poisoned by American conservatives". -- modified at 20:54 Thursday 10th August, 2006
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
So, you believe the word can only be used in a trivial context. You and I will have to disagree on that.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
So, you believe the word can only be used in a trivial context.
I believe only context can give the word a non-trivial meaning. Heck, this thread wouldn't exist if some politician hadn't used the word in a non-trivial context. But my point is that it's just a word; if politicians suddenly started describing their views as "nit-picking" or "piddly", the meaning would be similar - but of course, they wouldn't need anyone to point out how stupid that sounds. Put enough pigs in dresses, and pretty soon people will just associate the two...
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Killing - good or evil? Right or wrong? Make your choices.
To liberals killing is always wrong, unless it is done by muslims. Have at it one voters.
This post is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.
Score: 1.0 (3 votes). wrote:
To liberals killing is always wrong, unless it is done by muslims
I'm a liberal. I think killing is always wrong. Abortion is killing. It is wrong. The death penalty is killing. It is wrong. When a Muslim kills someone, unless in legitimate self-defense, it is wrong. The same goes for any person of any faith or lack thereof.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
So, you believe the word can only be used in a trivial context.
I believe only context can give the word a non-trivial meaning. Heck, this thread wouldn't exist if some politician hadn't used the word in a non-trivial context. But my point is that it's just a word; if politicians suddenly started describing their views as "nit-picking" or "piddly", the meaning would be similar - but of course, they wouldn't need anyone to point out how stupid that sounds. Put enough pigs in dresses, and pretty soon people will just associate the two...
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
That's pretty good, I have to admit. You don't really say much, but you make sound like you're being critical, without saying about what. Then you end with a cheesey little dig. Not bad.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
Score: 1.0 (3 votes). wrote:
To liberals killing is always wrong, unless it is done by muslims
I'm a liberal. I think killing is always wrong. Abortion is killing. It is wrong. The death penalty is killing. It is wrong. When a Muslim kills someone, unless in legitimate self-defense, it is wrong. The same goes for any person of any faith or lack thereof.
I mostly agree with you, although i think that war is justified in some cases. I was mainly just posting that to see how many one votes i could get. :)
This post is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.
-
Nuance is fine for humor, entertainment and other such inconsequential aspects of life, but if you're making a significant moral decision, say one involving life or death for another, you really aught to seek solider ground than a "subtle difference in opinion, meaning or attitude".[^] In this regard I disagree with both the author and the poster - most of the really consequential problems in this world are not in the least "nuanced". They may be confusing, complex, or even seemingly intractable, but they almost never involve a subtle difference in opinion or meaning, but rather a fundamental one. The left's use of nuance in this respect, serves more to obfuscate reality or to avoid recognition of a troubling fundamental disagreement than it does to help address the problems.
Rob Graham wrote:
most of the really consequential problems in this world are not in the least "nuanced". They may be confusing, complex, or even seemingly intractable, but they almost never involve a subtle difference in opinion or meaning
To nuance or not to nuance: UN Resolution 242 Operative Clause 1(i) requires "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Arab nations believe the resolution demanded that Israel retreat from all the territories it captured in the 1967 war. Israel believes it complied by retreating only from part of the territories.
-
That's pretty good, I have to admit. You don't really say much, but you make sound like you're being critical, without saying about what. Then you end with a cheesey little dig. Not bad.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
You don't really say much, but you make sound like you're being critical, without saying about what.
*tsk* You're totally missing the nuances of what i'm saying... :rolleyes:
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
dennisd45 wrote:
You don't really say much, but you make sound like you're being critical, without saying about what.
*tsk* You're totally missing the nuances of what i'm saying... :rolleyes:
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Oh for fuck's sake, grow up!
-- Not Y3K Compliant
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
If Maoism is right wing, I'm so far to the right that light is distorted.
Where would that put Stan?
Rob Graham wrote:
Where would that put Stan?
Stan is a singularity. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out.
-
Got my 5. The biggest problem in the soapbox is that most people come in to defend their view of the world against all comers, and mostly that is a one dimensional view. I've tried to argue otherwise, and what generally happens is that both sides of an argument accuse me of being part of the other. It's really no different to how my 6 year old acts in the playground.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
what generally happens is that both sides of an argument accuse me of being part of the other
You're just saying that because you're on their side.
-
Good, but no cigar. Sorry:)
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
Just as well, i should smoke less. :)
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Emphasis added.
misses the point entirely. there is no nuance twixt right and wrong, good and evil. those are absolutes.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
This is simply poppycock. "Nuance" does not denote a correct worldview or even complex thinking. It is another left-wing corruption of a term. As defined[^], it is nothing more than a "subtle difference". What subtle difference? It's not defined and is simply another left-wing term to avoid answering any real challenging questions. So when you're saying that you have a "nuanced" approach to terrorism, you're not saying anything...at all. Conservatives speak in terms of definites and absolutes because such an approach is needed in the real world. So called "nuance" is nothing but a euphemism for childish indecisiveness. That's why conservatives make fun of liberals (especially John Kerry) for it's use. It's tantamount to countering somebody's proposed solution with "Well, the world is filled with subtle differences and we should therefore do nothing." A real world example of decisiveness vs. "nuance" follows: Decisiveness: Piece of software Q will take an estimate 3 months to design and develop based on the requirements that have been acquired to date. There may be factors that effect the delivery date such as X, Y or Z. X will have this much effect, Y this much and Z this much, etc... The result is a project that will be delivered more or less on time and experts who have real world experience with this can deliver a project successfully within the given parameters. Nuance: The piece of software Q is extremely complex. As such, it's very difficult to predict how long it will take, how it will be designed, which technologies we will use, etc... There are many outside factors that could effect our ability to deliver such a project. As such, we cannot determine when the software can be delivered. Instead, we propose an organic approach by which we can meet in a community and discuss the software over an extended period of time. Which approach is likely deliver the spec'd software on time and budget? That is the difference between a decisive and a nuanced approach.
"I curse economic prosperity as it puts an end to much-needed poverty, famine and pestilence." -dennisd45 "I fully support Communists in key positions of our government. I believe that they contribute positively to the liberal ideal." -dennisd45
espeir wrote:
factors that effect the delivery date such as X, Y or Z. X will have this much effect
The first time you used the word "effect" in that sentence, it should have been "affect". The second is correct.
-
In praise of nuance[^] A selection from this article: “Nuance” is one of those words successfully poisoned by American conservatives, like “liberal” or “feminist”. Originally a term of praise, suggesting an intelligent consideration of the many sides and shades of a complex issue, it’s now a term of mockery. Dick Cheney sneers it really well, makes it sound like a construction worker mocking a gay Parisian. The problem is, some issues ARE nuanced. Some ethical and moral decisions are nuanced. Life is nuanced, unless you’re very young, very stupid, or an irredeemable idealogue of some persuasion. (Those qualities are not mutually exclusive.) That’s why ideology, be it neoconservatism, Maoism, fundamentalist Christianity or Taliban-style Islam, is such a useful thing. Ideologues simplify things. They refuse to acknowledge those nasty nuances. There’s a simple for answer for everything: you just have to consult the revealed text (be it the Koran, Das Kapital, or Fukuyama’s “End Of History”), and there’s the answer. As long as it’s derived from or consistent with your chosen revelation, no further thought is required. Nuances don’t exist. And best of all, you don’t don’t actually have to engage with any ideas that challenge your stance. If they are not in consistent with your truth, then they are self evidently wrong, because they’re - well, they’re not consistent with the Bible, the Koran, the Little Red Book or the Thoughts of Chairman Tom Flanagan. So they’re wrong. End of story. Emphasis added.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
Oh for fuck's sake, grow up!
-- Not Y3K Compliant
-
Now see what you've done, you made him create yet another new name to try to sew his swill. :laugh: -- modified at 13:10 Friday 11th August, 2006
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
It is not his fault
This post is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.