Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5969058" data-attributes="member: 54877">You seem to have missed the point that &quot;polite fictions&quot; are not bad in and of themselves.&nbsp; I specifically stated so in the post where I explained what I meant by them.&nbsp; &nbsp;Rather it is the unconscious adoption of &quot;polite fictions&quot; in contexts where they do not apply, that is bad.&nbsp; For example, getting down into the nitty gritty of how a game does actually work requires that one ignore some of the smoothing that is done to it in play.&nbsp;Manners are &quot;polite fictions&quot; to make up for the fact that none of us are infinitely tactful.&nbsp; That doesn't make manners bad--quite the contrary.&nbsp; It does mean that you have to be willing to look past the manners on the surface, if you want to discuss the nature of tact in human relations.&nbsp; When have manners been really abused?&nbsp; When a society has treated them as hard facts rather than &quot;polite fictions.&quot;&nbsp;As to the other specifics quoted above, you aren't required to justify what you find plausible or not, to anyone.&nbsp; If you don't find it plausible, you don't find it plausible.&nbsp; End of that story.&nbsp; That's a powerful argument for wanting a way to not need to deal with it, at least in some subset of the game. OTOH, if you want to say that something other people find plausible should be excluded entirely, on some kind of greater plausibility criteria, then the burden and grounds of reason shift dramatically.&nbsp; You'll find it easier to have that discussion if you are clear about the &quot;polite fictions&quot; involved--and indeed, if your opponents in the discussion are as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5969058, member: 54877"] You seem to have missed the point that "polite fictions" are not bad in and of themselves. I specifically stated so in the post where I explained what I meant by them. Rather it is the unconscious adoption of "polite fictions" [B]in contexts where they do not apply[/B], that is bad. For example, getting down into the nitty gritty of how a game does actually work requires that one ignore some of the smoothing that is done to it in play. Manners are "polite fictions" to make up for the fact that none of us are infinitely tactful. That doesn't make manners bad--quite the contrary. It does mean that you have to be willing to look past the manners on the surface, if you want to discuss the nature of tact in human relations. When have manners been really abused? When a society has treated them as hard facts rather than "polite fictions." As to the other specifics quoted above, you aren't required to justify what you find plausible or not, to anyone. If you don't find it plausible, you don't find it plausible. End of that story. That's a powerful argument for wanting a way to not need to deal with it, at least in some subset of the game. OTOH, if you want to say that something other people find plausible should be excluded entirely, on some kind of greater plausibility criteria, then the burden and grounds of reason shift dramatically. You'll find it easier to have that discussion if you are clear about the "polite fictions" involved--and indeed, if your opponents in the discussion are as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification