The Magic-Walmart myth

[I'm A Banana]

BTW, I would say that a large part of maturity is recognizing that our experiences are subjective, and making the attempt to understand the POV of others. The claim that "I shouldn't have to attempt to understand your POV" is, while technically true, tantamount saying to "I shouldn't have to grow up".

IMHO, this is a stance that should be (when possible) corrected rather than catered to.

Welcome to the human race, where your subjective opinion on what constitutes this vaguely-defined "maturity" is worth entirely the value of the paper it's written down upon, perhaps less because now it has writing on it.

Sorry, it's still the obligation of the one who wants to communicate their ideas to, y'know, try to do that, as effectively as possible. Denial of that little principle just leads to semantics debates and misunderstandings galore. Which, if you're fine with that, have fun. Me, I'd rather change what I'm saying so that they know what I mean then insist that they're being too immature or too sensitive to truly understand me. But then, I'm interested in exchanging ideas, not in having people listen to me or preserving my pet neologisms.

 

[Midknightsun]

Welcome to the human race, where my subjective experience always trumps your intentions.



Yours does too, I guess.

Funny how that works, and how when you assume that a definition you hold is necessarily a definition that others should hold, how they don't. (CF: "Coke")

Seriously, it doesn't matter what it's offensive too. It matters that it is messy communication that has the ADDED burden of being perceived by some as derogatory, encouraging it's messiness. If you don't WANT to be understood, fine, but it's not someone else's fault that you keep using a messy term.

Always statement are generally a very bad idea, (btw all experience is subjective) . . . and yes, it is an issue of perception, but most human beings that function moderately well in society don't automatically assume the most negative connotation possible and internalize it. In my field we call that a half step away from neurosis. That's not a function of humanity, its a disfunction.

Never said you had to hold a given definition. I defend your right to hold whatever definition you want, no matter how silly it may seem to me, on any word or phrase you want, though of course the extreme of this could become complicated, as is often the case in any exercise where one takes the consequences out to the most hyperbolic ends of the spectrum.

I do hold onto my right to use a phrase that is derogatory to a (very small) subset of a (also small) subset of people, and after explaining where I am coming from to said people. Once i've clarified my intent, the rest is largely the listener's burden to bear, especially in a situation such as this. I mean the initial "Hey, what'd you mean by that?" is expected and encouraged. The continual outrage and nitpicking would seem to indicate some tenderness on the part of the complainer that goes beyond the phrase and or buzzward itself, and into baggage that the speaker should not have to be ever wary of agitating in some potentially over sensitive reader.

I have no such issue with buzzwords as long as intent is clarified, and yet manage to remain a member in good standing of the human race. . . . other than those speeding tickets, but you see me and the local police just have different experiences with speed despite my best intentions. . . .

 

[Raven Crowking]

Welcome to the human race, where your subjective opinion on what constitutes this vaguely-defined "maturity" is worth entirely the value of the paper it's written down upon, perhaps less because now it has writing on it.

Sorry, it's still the obligation of the one who wants to communicate their ideas to, y'know, try to do that, as effectively as possible. Denial of that little principle just leads to semantics debates and misunderstandings galore. Which, if you're fine with that, have fun. Me, I'd rather change what I'm saying so that they know what I mean then insist that they're being too immature or too sensitive to truly understand me. But then, I'm interested in exchanging ideas, not in having people listen to me or preserving my pet neologisms.

Answered upthread ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Once again, you conflate what is communicated with how you feel about what is communicated. And then you attempt to prevent the initial communication that raises feelings you do not like. This isn't a complaint against the term, but against what the term is intended to communicate.

EDIT: Very nice response, Midknightsun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I do hold onto my right to use a phrase that is derogatory to a (very small) subset of a (also small) subset of people, and after explaining where I am coming from to said people.

That subset is also your audience, however. It's not like the term pops up in TV sitcoms.

Once i've clarified my intent, the rest is largely the listener's burden to bear, especially in a situation such as this.

If an intent needs to be clarified, then it wasn't properly expressed in the first place. Much better to actually express something well in the initial conversation and avoid having to spiral into 10-page semantics discussions, no?

Once again, you conflate what is communicated with how you feel about what is communicated.

Once again, if your communication doesn't make me feel the way you want me to feel about it, then it is poorly communicated. Those words are meant to conjure images in my head. If those don't match yours, they're not the right words to use between us.

And then you attempt to prevent the initial communication that raises feelings you do not like. This isn't a complaint against the term, but against what the term is intended to communicate.

I don't know what you're complaining about, really, but I know I'm complaining about the term itself. Because it doesn't effectively convey the ideas in it. If it *did* effectively convey those ideas, we wouldn't be still discussing the ramifications of the term in a 10-page semantic argument.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If an intent needs to be clarified, then it wasn't properly expressed in the first place. Much better to actually express something well in the initial conversation and avoid having to spiral into 10-page semantics discussions, no?

Answered upthread, ad infinitum ad nauseum.

No. Because this isn't a 10-page semantics discussion. There is very little to do with semantics in the last 10 pages. Trying to force someone to say what you want them to say (or not say what you don't want them to say) has nothing to do with terminlogy. The actual semantics part of this thread would be lucky to be ten posts long.

Once again, if your communication doesn't make me feel the way you want me to feel about it, then it is poorly communicated.

Only if making you feel this way or that way is the point of the communication.

I don't know what you're complaining about, really, but I know I'm complaining about the term itself. Because it doesn't effectively convey the ideas in it. If it *did* effectively convey those ideas, we wouldn't be still discussing the ramifications of the term in a 10-page semantic argument.

Ad infinitum, ad nausuem upthread.

Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Magic Walmart" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Pokemount" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not understand the connotations of either word? Because those are the requirements for arguing that the language is unclear. If you are not arguing this, you are not arguing against the clarity of language used.

If you are arguing any of these things, then how can you also argue that a term you do not understand is offensive?

If you are arguing that a term is offensive, then how can you also argue that you do not understand it?

The fact is that very, very few people have problems understanding these terms, and none whatsoever of the very vocal minority claiming that they are unclear makes a claim to not understand them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, it's Friday and work is done. I'm sure there'll be a lot here the next time that I check in, and if someone has actually said something different from "I'm offended, but I don't want to admit that I'm offended therefore it's about language clarity" I'll answer.

If you post something that can be answered by cut & pasting the ad infinitum ad nauseum (and thus far unanswered) responses to the same point, made over and over upthread, don't be surprised if you need to get someone else to fill out your dance card, though.

 

[Midknightsun]

If an intent needs to be clarified, then it wasn't properly expressed in the first place. Much better to actually express something well in the initial conversation and avoid having to spiral into 10-page semantics discussions, no?

Communication is a messy business, and its often amazing sometimes how words can fail to completely convey ideas in a vacuum of singularity. Its also a dynamic process that requires a string of these amazing little things to get a point across, and even then sometimes with misunderstanding. People are different, and I accept that not everyone will know where i'm coming from right away on a variety of issues or even terms. That's why we clarify. It is a far more common result of communication than the type of word efficiency you are suggesting, and I believe, a more profitable one in the long run, as you are more likely to learn the various underpinnings of others intentions through further communication.

Like i said before, I've had no issues (except here, apparently) where my intentions were grossly misread. Uber efficiency in communication is not a requirement as long as the intention is made clear. To echo RC, a bit of understanding and maturity leads to asking "why?" not merely blazing out your hatred of a word or phrase and blaming all of it on the speaker.

That subset is also your audience, however. It's not like the term pops up in TV sitcoms

No, only some disagree with the term under discussion, and to what degree and what exact portion is largely up for debate. This was my indirect way of saying "hey, its a game, try to lighten up".

This whole semantics-thread-argument is itself an extreme and hyperbolic example of a process that generally happens just fine in a few brief moments, when people are actually trying to understand each other, but has been complicated by stubborness --which is amounting to a largely unprofitable "nuh uh"-- "uh huh" volley back and forth. So I'm going to just leave and occasionally watch this abomination of a thread linger on as long as you need it so you get your much desired last word in, and therefore, "win" by manner of persistence, despite what entreaties have been made to help show you that the word/phrase is, as I said before, being internalized far too much and is not intended as a personal slight.

 

[I'm A Banana]

...curse my inability to drop it and my boredom here at work!

Trying to force someone to say what you want them to say (or not say what you don't want them to say) has nothing to do with terminlogy.

...right, because trying to force someone to do anything is really what's going on at all anywhere in this thread.

The way I read it, the OP had a complaint about a term, it was discussed for a while, and gradually transformed into several people (call them the Martians) saying that the OP has the wrong definition for the term, a point which was challenged by others saying they totally understood what the OP was talking about (call them the Anti-Martians), and it wasn't what these Martians are saying the term means. Many of these Anti-Martians supported the OP's position that the term doesn't work for what it wants to work for. The Martians disagreed, claiming that the Anti-Martians were just being hyper-sensitive (the giant "taking offense" strawman).

I, as an Anti-Martian, believe the term doesn't work for what it is intended for. I don't care about the reasons for this (though I do believe to assume it is because everyone who is against the term is taking needless offense is disingenuous). All I care about is that the term does not work as it is intended to work. I don't want to fix things so that it can work as the Martians intend. Rather, I point out the flaws in the word, including a needlessly subjective definition that the OP obviously didn't understand.

And your defense, as a Martian, is "You're really emotionally damaged by the phrase, you're trying to control my words, we're not talking about definitions any more."

It doesn't matter how I feel or what motives I truly have. All that really matters is if the word is useful for the purposes of comment. My rational, educated answer, is "No." Why? Because it doesn't convey the message it means to. My evidence? The first post, plus everyone saying "I don't mean that!"

Sure, a reasonable person can disagree with me and say that the meaning is clear, but they'd really have to demonstrate that this thread didn't just start off with a conversation about how the OP's definition of the term was wrong from some angles and accurate from others to convince me of that.

Only if making you feel this way or that way is the point of the communication.

The intent of the communication doesn't matter. How the communication is received does. If the point of communication isn't to cause someone to receive some meaning, it's just parrot-talk.

Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Magic Walmart" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Pokemount" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not understand the connotations of either word? Because those are the requirements for arguing that the language is unclear. If you are not arguing this, you are not arguing against the clarity of language used.

#1: You're wrong. I don't need to evolve myself to propose a theory of evolution, I don't need to eat a maggot to question their tastiness, and I don't need to be unclear myself to say that the term is unclear.

#2: I am arguing that Magic Walmart means significantly different things to enough of the intended audience to render it more useless than other, competing, more efficient, more specific terms. Such as "easily buying magic items."

If you are arguing any of these things, then how can you also argue that a term you do not understand is offensive?

If you are arguing that a term is offensive, then how can you also argue that you do not understand it?

The whole "offensive" tangent is entirely pointless. What makes the term less clear than "easily buying magic items" should be fairly evident: It's more ambiguous. Offense or not really only describes how hard it is to get to a clear definition of the term that all can understand.

Answered upthread, ad infinitum ad nauseum.

The fact that you don't see the problem with this statement, is the problem with this statement.

 

[Ourph]

I, as an Anti-Martian, believe the term doesn't work for what it is intended for. I don't care about the reasons for this (though I do believe to assume it is because everyone who is against the term is taking needless offense is disingenuous). All I care about is that the term does not work as it is intended to work. I don't want to fix things so that it can work as the Martians intend. Rather, I point out the flaws in the word, including a needlessly subjective definition that the OP obviously didn't understand.

And your defense, as a Martian, is "You're really emotionally damaged by the phrase, you're trying to control my words, we're not talking about definitions any more."

It doesn't matter how I feel or what motives I truly have. All that really matters is if the word is useful for the purposes of comment. My rational, educated answer, is "No." Why? Because it doesn't convey the message it means to. My evidence? The first post, plus everyone saying "I don't mean that!"

I think you have a skewed view of the "anti-Martian" stance in this thread. It seems to me that the discussion can be summarized as such:

pro-M: I find the word "martian" to be useful shorthand. If you don't find it to be so, you don't have to use it.
anti-M: The word "martian" is confusing and vague, therefore nobody should ever use it.
pro-M: Why shouldn't I use it, if I find that it works fine for me?
anti-M: The word "martian" is purposefully inflammatory, if you use it you are accusing others of having wrongbadfun. Therefore, nobody should use it.
pro-M: I'm not using it to insult anyone, I'm using it as shorthand. Please explain how it is insulting.
anti-M: The word "martian" is confusing and vague, therefore nobody should use it.
pro-M: How does that answer the previous question?
anti-M: The word "martian" is purposefully inflammatory, if you use it you are accusing others of having wrongbadfun. Therefore, nobody should use it.
pro-M: How does that answer the previous question?
anti-M: The word "martian" is confusing and vague, therefore nobody should use it.

As RC puts it, "ad infinitum, ad nauseum".

At least, that's how it looks from my POV.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you have a skewed view of the "anti-Martian" stance in this thread. It seems to me that the discussion can be summarized as such:

pro-M: I find the word "martian" to be useful shorthand. If you don't find it to be so, you don't have to use it.
anti-M: The word "martian" is confusing and vague, therefore nobody should ever use it.
pro-M: Why shouldn't I use it, if I find that it works fine for me?
anti-M: The word "martian" is purposefully inflammatory, if you use it you are accusing others of having wrongbadfun. Therefore, nobody should use it.
pro-M: I'm not using it to insult anyone, I'm using it as shorthand. Please explain how it is insulting.
anti-M: The word "martian" is confusing and vague, therefore nobody should use it.
pro-M: How does that answer the previous question?
anti-M: The word "martian" is purposefully inflammatory, if you use it you are accusing others of having wrongbadfun. Therefore, nobody should use it.
pro-M: How does that answer the previous question?
anti-M: The word "martian" is confusing and vague, therefore nobody should use it.

As RC puts it, "ad infinitum, ad nauseum".

At least, that's how it looks from my POV.

That sums it up, with one major exception: You cannot, from a rational viewpoint, both fail to understand a word and argue that it is purposefully inflammatory. The anti-M view is that these mutually contradictory things should somehow both be true.

Not to mention the viewpoint that "Therefore, nobody should use it" being coupled with "I'm not trying to tell people what they shouldn't use".

Thankfully, most people can see the contradictions in the anti-M position right away, or at the very least understand them once they are pointed out.