Random Thoughts IV: the Abyss Gazes Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
The classic "I put it where I wouldn't lose it." I have solved that problem. I have no stuff.
We don't have that much stuff either, but I still mange to lose my stuff, sometimes for weeks before it shows up again in places that don't make sense.

I DID find that thing by the way, on the window sill right below a stack of clothes that I had not (and still haven't) put into the wardrobe yet. I guess that was too obvious.

@topic:
"Must" and "must not" caused me some real headaches when I was younger and had to learn English. Took me ages to wrap my head around the idea that "You mustn't stop her." is not the direct opposite of "You must stop her.". These days however, I find that there is some poetic beauty in the construct.

Not sure if that makes sense, so here's a parallel with "have to", which doesn't act in that way:

"You must stop her." <> "You mustn't stop her."
"You have to stop her." <> "You don't have to stop her."

The first sentence has the same meaning, but if you add the "not", you suddenly have two different meanings. In a way, it is as if the status of the word "must" being an order is so strong, that it withstands the attempt of the "not" to reverse the meaning of the sentence, and instead, what you end up with is a reversed version of the order.

That's not how it works in German, "Du musst sie aufhalten." means "You must stop her.", but the moment you add the negative and turn it into "Du musst sie nicht aufhalten.", the meaning of the sentence becomes "You don't have to stop her." - The "muss" ("must") immediately gives in.
 
"In English, the meaning of words are like slippery pigs, they can be hard to catch."
 
Remind us again about how deep you actually are.....
Her posting reflects that she is actually quite deep and her failure to be easily triggered reflects that she indeed can take it all in...

I think you guys mean underdeveloped, not undeveloped.
Your avatar suggests neither
 
But that's not how humor works. One can't have an "undeveloped" sense of humor, even babies understand humor and will laugh at silly faces you make. If you think ones humor is bad, then they have an underdeveloped sense of humor (= a bad sense of humor) in your opinion, not an undeveloped (= nonexistent) one.

Babies don't laugh at silly faces you make because they have a sense of humor.
 
You reminded me that Syn is gone
*blinks* I am really channelling Pinky then, going off on tangents even more than usual. Maybe I'd better return to Kiela.
Between trolling and satire? Well, there are many, but I think the biggest one is intent. One is a cynical attempt to get a reaction out of another person, and the other one is trying to make a point about a person or society. So to avoid that, one has to get their intent across, and I think in this case it worked, given that nobody made a serious response to the words that were written, people immediately understood the message that was sent in the subtext.

What is interesting is that hobbsyoyo then reacted to the satire that he had clearly understood as such and still called me out on it, but I don't think that's a valid complaint. When he realizes that I'm using very on-the-nose satire to make a point and claims that it's indistinguishable from "the real thing" (trolling), then what he is saying is that Satire IS trolling in his opinion, which I very much disagree with. That complaint might have been valid had my satire been very subtle - like it sometimes is, but not in this case; I went out of my way to go over the top to make sure people understand that I don't stand behind the literal meaning of the words I write - because then it really would not have been apparent whether I was making a point or just fishing for a reaction, and my post could have been perceived as either of the two. Not the case here.

Of course I was also being ironic when I claimed that only Germans can spot those "subtle" differences.
No. If it is so close to trolling as to be indistinguishable from it then you'd better make an effort and make it more obvious, lest you gain the reputation of being the hopeless troll which some of us know you are (yet) not.
Why? I've made posts before entertaining the idea that there is no objective morality.
Isn't morality subjective by definition?
@topic:
"Must" and "must not" caused me some real headaches when I was younger and had to learn English. Took me ages to wrap my head around the idea that "You mustn't stop her." is not the direct opposite of "You must stop her.". These days however, I find that there is some poetic beauty in the construct.

Not sure if that makes sense, so here's a parallel with "have to", which doesn't act in that way:

"You must stop her." <> "You mustn't stop her."
"You have to stop her." <> "You don't have to stop her."

The first sentence has the same meaning, but if you add the "not", you suddenly have two different meanings. In a way, it is as if the status of the word "must" being an order is so strong, that it withstands the attempt of the "not" to reverse the meaning of the sentence, and instead, what you end up with is a reversed version of the order.

That's not how it works in German, "Du musst sie aufhalten." means "You must stop her.", but the moment you add the negative and turn it into "Du musst sie nicht aufhalten.", the meaning of the sentence becomes "You don't have to stop her." - The "muss" ("must") immediately gives in.
And yesterday in class I was told that I should say ‘Ich fahre keine Auto’ rather than ‘Ich fahre nicht Auto’ because the latter is technically correct (at least, until somebody reforms the language again and outlaws it), which, to me, was a bit odd at first.
"In English, the meaning of words are like slippery pigs, they can be hard to catch."
This actually applies to more or less every language.
 
Isn't morality subjective by definition?

It should be. However, a lot of people operate on the assumption that there really is a such thing as objective morality. The irony of course being that those people also think that their own subjective morality is the objective morality the rest of society should operate on.
 
This actually applies to more or less every language.
Perhaps, but I know English best and have worked with many for whom English is a second language and its subtleties are devious, deep and wide for those struggling to understand it.
 
I think we're well beyond the point where that makes any difference. I actually did, a few months ago now, have a phase where I tried just posting constructive stuff
Yeah I started paying a lot more attention to your posts.
 
And yesterday in class I was told that I should say ‘Ich fahre keine Auto’ rather than ‘Ich fahre nicht Auto’ because the latter is technically correct
I think you meant 'former', not 'latter'.

Because AFAIK, the latter version has no (indefinite) article (ein, eine), so is not technically correct (‘Ich fahre nicht Auto’= "I drive not car"); whereas the negation 'kein/keine' includes an implicit article (‘Ich fahre keine Auto’ = "I drive no[t one] car").

But bear in mind that I am not a native speaker (just married to one, and father of two), so what I just typed might well be a load of foetid dingo's kidneys. IOW, 'Ich habe keine Ahnung' ;)
 
It should be. However, a lot of people operate on the assumption that there really is a such thing as objective morality. The irony of course being that those people also think that their own subjective morality is the objective morality the rest of society should operate on.

That's not irony - that's a logical extension of their worldview, whatever that might be
 
And yesterday in class I was told that I should say ‘Ich fahre keine Auto’ rather than ‘Ich fahre nicht Auto’ because the latter is technically correct (at least, until somebody reforms the language again and outlaws it), which, to me, was a bit odd at first.

This actually applies to more or less every language.

I think you meant 'former', not 'latter'.

Because AFAIK, the latter version has no (indefinite) article (ein, eine), so is not technically correct (‘Ich fahre nicht Auto’= "I drive not car"); whereas the negation 'kein/keine' includes an implicit article (‘Ich fahre keine Auto’ = "I drive no[t one] car").

Ich fahre nicht Auto is acceptable. It's not proper Deutschlehrerdeutsch (German teacher German), but it's something an ordinary German would say and understand.

Ich fahre keine Auto is not correct. It's the kind of Ausländerdeutsch (foreigner German) that non-native speakers say when they don't know that cars are male.
It should be "Ich fahre kein Auto".
 
But bear in mind that I am not a native speaker (just married to one, and father of two), so what I just typed might well be a load of foetid dingo's kidneys. IOW, 'Ich habe keine Ahnung' ;)
Ich fahre keine Auto is not correct. It's the kind of Ausländerdeutsch (foreigner German) that non-native speakers say when they don't know that cars are male.
It should be "Ich fahre kein Auto".
QED... :lol:
 
So... me and a school colleague of mine are at a bar. I tell him about what music I like and that tough guy from the other table must have been listening, because suddenly he turns around and is like: "Yo, hiphop ain't for you, little girl." I glare at him like, oh, it's on. He stares back, doesn't seem particularly intimidated. Music in the background drops and changes into a hiphop beat. DJ had been waiting for my signal. I climb onto the table and go into that epic freestyle and spit line after line at him, like a nazi machine gun spitting bullet after bullet at that army of soldiers that's approaching the Atlantic Wall. Anger keeps me going faster and faster as the rest of the bar starts gathering around us. He's just standing here, sweating, as he realizes what's happening. But it's like he's paralyzed. Beat keeps getting louder and louder, and my blood keeps pumping and pumping. Feels like it's burning as I deliver like after line, each one with more aggression than the previous ones. Guy falls over, drops into a coma, but people don't care about him. They keep cheering at me for hours, even as I mount my Harley and drive off into the sunset. It's a rough life, being the mistress of rap. But you gotta do what you gotta do, ain't ya?
 
Last edited:
So... me and a school colleague of mine are at a bar. I tell him about what music I like and that tough guy from the other table must have been listening, because suddenly he turns around and is like: "Yo, hiphop ain't for you, little girl." I glare at him like, oh, it's on. He stares back, doesn't seem particularly intimidated. Music in the background drops and changes into a hiphop beat. DJ had been waiting for my signal. I climb onto the table and go into that epic freestyle and spit line after line at him, like a nazi machine gun spitting bullet after bullet at that army of soldiers that's approaching the Atlantic Wall. Anger keeps me going faster and faster as the rest of the bar starts gathering around us. He's just standing here, sweating, as he realizes what's happening. But it's like he's paralyzed. Beat keeps getting louder and louder, and my blood keeps pumping and pumping. Feels like it's burning as I deliver like after line, each one with more aggression than the previous ones. Guy falls over, drops into a coma, but people don't care about him. They keep cheering at me for hours, even as I mount my Harley and drive off into the sunset. It's a rough life, being the mistress of rap. But you gotta do what you gotta do, ain't ya?
:lol: Is that truly true? Sounds like a cool story to tell, but I have my doubts. Too many coincidences falling into place.
 
It was entertaining. :lol:
 
It's all true, I swear by my nose. You see how it's growing right now? It gets longer the more true things I say.
 
It was entertaining. :lol:
Yes, I'm left with images of her avatar drawing all eyes in the room as she rhymes and jiggles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom