In praise of nuance
-
When did Maoism become "right wing"?
Rob Graham wrote:
When did Maoism become "right wing"?
I was being a bit trigger happy. my bad.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
there is no nuance twixt right and wrong, good and evil.
Do you have children? Rick (8 years old) catches his brother Paul (6 years old) playing with one of Rick's toys. Rick proceeds to abruptly take the toy away from Paul while telling him, "That's mine". Paul gets mad and kicks Rick in the leg. Rick, who can't believe his little brother would dare do that, grabs Paul by the neck, punches him, and pushes him to the floor. Paul starts crying. Mike (that's you) walks into the room. Who's right and who's wrong? Who's good and who's evil? Alvaro
Josh: So you have been married twice? You must have been young the first time around. Christian: Yeah, we were young and stupid. I was young, and she was...
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Who's right and who's wrong? Who's good and who's evil?
both.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
sometimes the black-and-white-seers are closer to the right ting. But even then, I still prefer the colors.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistNuance 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.
-
ahz wrote:
Hmm, could that be because there's a bit of biased, self-righteous thinking going on here?
He has no ideology. He doesn't need no stinking ideology!
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Who's right and who's wrong? Who's good and who's evil?
both.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
both.
Exactly. So why do some people rush to choose a side, claiming that the other one is wrong or evil? Isn't finding a solution what really matters? Alvaro
Josh: So you have been married twice? You must have been young the first time around. Christian: Yeah, we were young and stupid. I was young, and she was...
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
there is no nuance twixt right and wrong, good and evil.
Do you have children? Rick (8 years old) catches his brother Paul (6 years old) playing with one of Rick's toys. Rick proceeds to abruptly take the toy away from Paul while telling him, "That's mine". Paul gets mad and kicks Rick in the leg. Rick, who can't believe his little brother would dare do that, grabs Paul by the neck, punches him, and pushes him to the floor. Paul starts crying. Mike (that's you) walks into the room. Who's right and who's wrong? Who's good and who's evil? Alvaro
Josh: So you have been married twice? You must have been young the first time around. Christian: Yeah, we were young and stupid. I was young, and she was...
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Who's right and who's wrong?
Both are wrong, for different reasons.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Who's good and who's evil?
Neither is "good" nor "evil". We're talking children's behavior here, there is no "nuance" involved, nor is there any fundamental moral issue, only questions of socially desireable behavior and appropriate response. Either you chose a really poor test, or you are really confused about the actual meaning of "nuance".
We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
Since you lack nuance, you don't know the difference between ideology and idealogue.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
Actually this entire nuance vs. ideology theory of yours has me quite amused...
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Since you lack nuance, you don't know the difference between ideology and idealogue.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
So, you would be an ideologue, then? (and one who doesn't know the difference between idealogue and ideologue). ;P
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
there is no nuance twixt right and wrong, good and evil.
Do you have children? Rick (8 years old) catches his brother Paul (6 years old) playing with one of Rick's toys. Rick proceeds to abruptly take the toy away from Paul while telling him, "That's mine". Paul gets mad and kicks Rick in the leg. Rick, who can't believe his little brother would dare do that, grabs Paul by the neck, punches him, and pushes him to the floor. Paul starts crying. Mike (that's you) walks into the room. Who's right and who's wrong? Who's good and who's evil? Alvaro
Josh: So you have been married twice? You must have been young the first time around. Christian: Yeah, we were young and stupid. I was young, and she was...
In my house, Rick is wrong, but he goes unpunished because Paul escalated the situation by being the first to strike a blow. But, if I just walked into the room and I hear two different versions, both get sent to their rooms and told to cool down, I won't make judgement beyond that on something I didn't see.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
dennisd45 wrote:
That’s why ideology, be it neoconservatism, Maoism, fundamentalist Christianity or Taliban-style Islam, is such a useful thing. Ideologues simplify things.
So you've developed the non-ideology ideology? I'll have to give it to you - that is certainly fucking nuanced. Good work.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Yeah, it sure is a lot more screwed up than your 'the good guys can do evil stuff' theory.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
It's either right or wrong, good or evil. Killing - good or evil? Right or wrong? Make your choices.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
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.
-
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
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
-
16 minutes ago, apparently. :~ If Maoism is right wing, I'm so far to the right that light is distorted.
-- Torn from tomorrow's headlines
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
If Maoism is right wing, I'm so far to the right that light is distorted.
Where would that put Stan?
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
If Maoism is right wing, I'm so far to the right that light is distorted.
Where would that put Stan?
He's shining blue.. :~
-- A Stern Warning of Things to Come
-
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:
It's really no different to how my 6 year old acts in the playground.
The only thing that differs from grown ups are the toys...
-- Broadcast simultaneously one year in the future
-
ahz wrote:
both.
Exactly. So why do some people rush to choose a side, claiming that the other one is wrong or evil? Isn't finding a solution what really matters? Alvaro
Josh: So you have been married twice? You must have been young the first time around. Christian: Yeah, we were young and stupid. I was young, and she was...
Well, your example is rather simplistic it seems to me and often finding a real solution means finding what started it all. People choose sides based on their own biases, who they like and how well/poor they percieve reality.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
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
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
-
Yeah, it sure is a lot more screwed up than your 'the good guys can do evil stuff' theory.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Satan My Master, I slit my wrists to drain me of my blood. Recieve this sacrifice this blood of mine, I cut into my rotten flesh your signs. Satan My Master, Remember me when judgement day is near, take my hand when Armageddon is here.
Oh Fisticuffs, I Need Your Approval For I Am Misguided Without Your Awesome Insight Please Validate My Existence With You're Internet Powers By Pumpkinhead, Age 15 or something http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX ba
-
Satan My Master, I slit my wrists to drain me of my blood. Recieve this sacrifice this blood of mine, I cut into my rotten flesh your signs. Satan My Master, Remember me when judgement day is near, take my hand when Armageddon is here.
Oh Fisticuffs, I Need Your Approval For I Am Misguided Without Your Awesome Insight Please Validate My Existence With You're Internet Powers By Pumpkinhead, Age 15 or something http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX ba
Gee, Adnan, you must have deleted a lot of your own posts, because you've now only made four of them. I'm curious, how do you get the letters to render backwards ? The confirmation email says your user name is iqiddiS nandA. Here's a clue, if you want to spoof someone, try not saying something that the person in question wouldn't say in a million years.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
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 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