thread: 2006-04-10 : A problem for feminists/pro-feminists
On 2006-04-10, Vincent wrote:
Is the following clear enough?
The conversation must, inevitably, exclude people who object to our endeavor.
If we exclude anyone else, we could have avoided it. By using different language, by being in a better mood that time, by being smarter better subtler wiser more friendly more understanding more outgoing - however it might have happened, we needn't have excluded that person.
Excluding someone who does not object to our endeavor is a failure of us to communicate.
This makes VB go "and yes, it does rub me the wrong way."
The first time I said it was better: more graceful, more concise. I liked those sentences better. Do I really have to write so draggily just to make myself understood?
This makes Sben go "Writing draggily"
I don't know how you have to write. I do know that I seem to have a history of not understanding your meaning at first. And I also didn't read "Excluding someone who does not object to our endeavor is a failure of us to communicate" *anywhere*, in any fashion, in your earlier (#17) comment -- I didn't read the opposite, but I couldn't tell whether or not you cared about unnecessary exclusions.
Are you writing like you design games, to point to a "fruitful void" (or whatever it's called) that has the real nut of the issue?
This makes JW go "What Sben said"
See your Comment #18 up there? That's me not understanding you.
This makes misuba go "Language sucks, huh."
I have the same problem. I'm like, "Dammit, why can't you just plug into my brain and get what I mean so I don't have to use these stupid blunt tools called words?" Then I remember that cyberpunk also sucks.
