Well, I decided that I was letting my emotions get in the way of thinking clearly, and I probably said things that I shouldn't have said. And likely would have said more if I allowed myself to continue. So I decided to sit back and try to cool off before jumping back in. (Spoilered section is related to the meta-conversation, and has no
direct bearing on the overall discussion.)
Ritter Delorges wrote:That's the kind of joke that works better if it isn't so uncomfortably close to the truth.
For the sake of this discussion, I made that comment three times - here, here, and here.
As I already said, in retrospect, it was probably ill-advised. And I'll admit that I do have a bit of a sarcastic streak that probably puts people off (I'd say the internet makes it worse, but my sarcasm tends to be deadpan in person, so...). And It probably is unfair of me to expect someone else to remember the tone of a throwaway joke in a single post from several months ago (the callbacks to the initial joke come off as a bit harsh without the initial context). But I would say that it's (for the most part) unfair to argue that I've been actively trying to silence his voice or shout him down. I was probably a little harsh in my post that got this whole flare-up started, but I'll be getting around to that below.
I do not intend to derail, but let me make it clear that I have no quarrel with Oddball. From what I know of him, I respect him as a person. From what I've read of his work, I respect him as a writer. On the majority of his posts, we tend to agree. But there are some areas (like his interpretation of Shizune) where I am baffled not because he disagrees with me, but because (by my interpretation) they seem inconsistent with how he approaches nearly everything else. I could very well be in the wrong there, but that's how I've seen things as we come to this point.
You come here and present opinions that are really no more convincing than anybody else's and then you spend thousands of words expressing your disbelief that people disagree with you. Perhaps you think that the amount of text adds weight to your argument or that you get credit for the effort because it shows that you somehow mean it more than others, but I don't think it is working. You just end up suffocating the discussion.
It's pretty hard to argue against this accusation. Not because it's unassailable logic, but because it would be "expressing [my] disbelief that people disagree with [me]." We're getting meta here, but I'd say that's at at odds with, well, the text of this conversation. I present an opinion (which possibly includes objections to the opinions of others). People respond to my opinion with their own objections (often defending their own opinions against the objections I presented). I respond to their objections, etc. Questions of tone aside, that is simply the essence of the dialectic.
I write thousands of words not because I'm trying to be better than anyone, or because I think more is better, or anything like that. I write only as far as I feel is necessary to support the argument. I may tend to be wordy, but the size of my posts is not something that comes into consideration when I write them. If they are large, it is as an effect, not a cause.
If it suffocates the conversation, that is something which I truly regret. I do not think there is evidence of such. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite, as most of the activity in this thread has come when individuals have been having these point-and-counterpoint discussions. And it's not restricted to this thread alone. Most threads here die if there isn't some (heavily invested) discussion between one or more people. Far more stifling would be the opposite - a limit on the number of words or replies one individual is allowed.
I think you underestimate how much of your argument is based on your own subjective judgments. Making those judgments is unavoidable in discussions like this one, but occasionally one should try to take a step back and recognize them as such. Most of the time the others aren't objectively wrong and treating them as if they were won't get you anywhere. Claiming rationality, objectivity and quality of discourse for yourself while denying others those qualities comes across as rather aggressive, especially if you are, with all due respect, not living up to it.
I will readily admit that I am human, with all the imperfections that come with it. It is liberating to know that you aren't perfect, and it's possible to make mistakes. But the admonition "better thyself" can only get you so far. Far more valuable is "know thyself." And if you think that I am being blind in my assessment of self, please, feel free to call me out with what specifically I'm doing wrong (either publicly or privately - you have my permission). But you need to be specific - "You're doing it wrong" helps no one.
More importantly, I know that ALL of my argument is based on subjective judgments. It is the nature of man to be subjective. That's why I try to base my arguments on the objective reality - the text. I make significant effort to refer to the text, and share relevant portions, for the very reason that people may interpret those portions differently. If I were to argue that an object is a chair, I might cite the four legs and flat surface on top. If someone were to come and object to my interpretation, arguing that the object is an end table because the flat surface is too high, and there is no back, and the surface is not contoured in such a manner as to encourage sitting, I would consider the merits of their argument. If, on the other hand, someone came in and said "It's not a chair, dumbass, it's an end table," they may be right, but they have not contributed to the discussion.
And THAT is where my objections came in the post that caused this whole flare-up. My requests in a discussion are not burdensome, but they are not negotiable, either:
- If you are disputing a subjective interpretation, put in the time to articulate WHY you don't believe that interpretation is correct - it stretches the limits of credulity, it's not consistent with other information from the text, it's based on cultural assumptions that do not apply, etc. "I disagree with you" adds nothing to the conversation. You are well within your rights to disagree, and no one will force you to justify yourself. But if you want your disagreement to be taken seriously in a conversation, you must present your justification for scrutiny. Whether your justification is accepted or rejected has no bearing on your beliefs - you are free to maintain belief in whatever you choose. It is assumed that people will disagree - the entire dialectical structure is based upon disagreement - but a disagreement needs to be refined into a specific and focused argument before it's relevant to the discussion.
- If you are presenting new information, you should at least be willing to cite an authority. In an informal discussion, there is no need to cite sources for every point, especially on matters of common knowledge, but there is still the obligation that you be willing to substantiate your positions. A reference to the text, for example, does not need chapter citations and direct quotes (although those are certainly helpful), but it does need a reasonable indication of where it comes from, such that someone else can find it with a reasonable amount of effort. To do otherwise is simply not respectful, as it places the obligation upon your interlocutor to prove a negative (i.e., that your objection does not hold). In order to respond to a vague statement (such as "evidence seems to point elsewhere"), he would have to search a significant portion of the text (if not the whole text) to find whatever might be interpreted as "evidence to the contrary," and then, after identifying this evidence, he would have to argue why the evidence does not, in fact, point elsewhere. And even then, it is far too easy to follow up with the accusation that he didn't do his research fully, that he's creating a straw man, that he's misrepresenting his opposition, etc. And that's not even touching on the fact that memory is a funny thing, where you can be positive of something that simply isn't the case (like, for example, my belief that the text specifically stated that Shizune was directly involved in procuring the fireworks). If you can not or will not cite an authority for this new information, it is perfectly legitimate to (temporarily) disregard the claim in its entirety. Similarly, a request for a citation is reasonable, and should be handled gracefully.
If you do not follow those two rules, you are not adding to the conversation. You are making statements that cannot (and often need not) be challenged. This serves only to disrupt, and thus I believe it may legitimately be considered trolling.
As a final point, if anyone EVER feels I'm not living up to these standards, call me out (preferably by private message - it's really not good to make these public displays). I know I'm human, and I know I make mistakes, but it's a lot easier to spot those mistakes if someone has your back.
And now back to your regularly scheduled discussion:
She goes from "I want to help people," to "i want to be rich and help people." I don't see how either is more or less vague than the other.
I felt this statement deserved a better response. A doctor "helps people." A social worker "helps people." A soldier in the army "helps people." Strictly speaking, any role in society is in place ostensibly to "help people." In fact, if you were paid to be an asshole and cause problems and otherwise be a jerk, the fact that you're being paid implies that someone considers it to be a valuable service, and even then you are "helping people."
What is key is that each of these roles has a specific way of helping people. The doctor does not "help people" by overthrowing dictators. The social worker doesn't "help people" by performing open-heart surgery. The designated asshole (usually) doesn't "help people" by giving powerless individuals an escape from an abusive family situation.
So yes, a philanthropist "helps people." She "helps people" by taking the personal fortune that she has amassed for herself and, rather than spending it on her own wants and needs (which is well within her rights), providing money to individuals to allow them to accomplish their goals.
What's with all the talk of sociopathy? There are no sociopaths anywhere in Katawa Shoujo.
I'm the one who first mentioned it. I was objecting to Oddball's (apparent) interpretation of Shizune as an individual who treats other people as something less than human, fails to take responsibility for her actions, and blames problems and failures on others. It was probably unjust hyperbole.
Growth, according to you, is the movement of a character's... um... character, from X to Y.
Then what's X and Y?
At X, Misha believes that if she stays with Shizune, Shizune might change her mind.
At Y, Misha accepts that life moves on- she's happy because Shizune if with someone, even if it's not her, and she accepts that Shizune probably won't change her mind, and that she believes she'll find someone else.
Now I know what you're saying, "It's never said that she believes she'll find someone else, so that's invalid!"
Wasn't the objection I was going for. I was more arguing that Misha's already intellectually at Y in the beginning of the route. The issue is that she's
emotionally still at X. And while there is of course growth of her character, I still disagree that the route is
about her. She plays a major role because she's so close to Shizune, but I feel that all her character development is in the service of Shizune's character development, rather than an end in itself.
In the subject of crushes, I'm confused - are you saying that it's obvious that Shizune has a crush on Hisao, or that Misha has a crush on him?
But it's still a stretch.
.
They (specifically Shizune) immediately latch onto him because he's awfully depressed and they want to pull him out of that. 
Alternatively, if you loved it, say why as well!
