Guild Wars 2

I think they fact that the OP made this thread at all is indicative of what the hate is REALLY toward.

Zelyhn.8069:

Ashen.2907:

Zelyhn.8069:

Ashen.2907:

Zelyhn.8069:

So you agree that not changing a statement because of potential interpretations is not wrong

Actually it is wrong. It is also not wrong. The situation you describe can only be described as wrong or not wrong in terms of the current social environment. It could be absolutely wrong to not change a statement based on potential interpretation in one instance, and completely not wrong at all in another.

Indeed, I meant “morally wrong” (as a reference to one of my previous posts).

So was I. It is morally wrong in some circumstances and not morally wrong in others.

I don’t believe morals change according to the situation.
Can you give me an example of when it is morally wrong to not change a statement in light of potential interpretations?
And by the way I believe that it is morally wrong to interpret statements

One of the basic tenets of morality, or at least those moral templates that I am aware of, is to do no harm to those who have done no wrong deserving of it.

A statement that does harm to one who does not deserve it is arguably immoral.

Lets look at a more explicit possible example of a statement that, if not altered, could be considered immoral:

You are in a movie theater. You tell a joke with the punchline of, “fire !” You note that the person next to you overhears your exclamation and begins to get agitated, as if they thought you had spotted a fire in the small crowded room. If you do not address this interpretation of what you said you are allowing a potentially lethal situation to grow out of your statement.

It would be immoral, in my opinion, to allow others to be hurt and perhaps even die because you chose not to alter your comment to prevent misunderstanding in such a circumstance.

Ashen.2907:

One of the basic tenets of morality, or at least those moral templates that I am aware of, is to do no harm to those who have done no wrong deserving of it.

A statement that does harm to one who does not deserve it is arguably immoral.

Lets look at a more explicit possible example of a statement that, if not altered, could be considered immoral:

You are in a movie theater. You tell a joke with the punchline of, “fire !” You note that the person next to you overhears your exclamation and begins to get agitated, as if they thought you had spotted a fire in the small crowded room. If you do not address this interpretation of what you said you are allowing a potentially lethal situation to grow out of your statement.

It would be immoral, in my opinion, to allow others to be hurt and perhaps even die because you chose not to alter your comment to prevent misunderstanding in such a circumstance.

I mostly agree with you (I won’t blindly defend my position), but I would like to be more accurate:

I am in a movie theatre. I tell a joke with the punchline of, “Red!” I note that the person next to me overhears my exclamation and begins to get agitated, as if they thought I had spotted a fire in the small crowded room.

-The person next to me interprets my words: they hear “red” so they think “fire”.
-I am aware of this potential interpretation before making the joke.

In light of this I should indeed be guilty: I knew that if I said “red” I could harm the person next to me.

If I say “red” I will cause harm, but this is only possible because the person next to me is interpreting my words, which is wrong. So in a way the person next to me is participating in the harmful action.

If I was a “nice person” I would then not say “red”. But that would mean accepting the wrongful interpretations. Accepting something wrong is not right ;) So I am in a moral dilemma.

Let’s put some Godwin into this.
The Jews in kitten Germany were aware of the fact that kittens perceived their existence as harmful to them. So if they were to avoid causing any harm to the kittens they should end their lives.
Obviously this is wrong; and it is wrong because the “harmful perception” of the Jews by the kittens is wrong in the first place.

This is a bit drastic, I admit, but you get my point: not altering a statement in light of wrong interpretations is not wrong.

[Edit: apparently the name of Hitler’s party is censored, read accordingly]

Zelyhn.8069:

Ashen.2907:

One of the basic tenets of morality, or at least those moral templates that I am aware of, is to do no harm to those who have done no wrong deserving of it.

A statement that does harm to one who does not deserve it is arguably immoral.

Lets look at a more explicit possible example of a statement that, if not altered, could be considered immoral:

You are in a movie theater. You tell a joke with the punchline of, “fire !” You note that the person next to you overhears your exclamation and begins to get agitated, as if they thought you had spotted a fire in the small crowded room. If you do not address this interpretation of what you said you are allowing a potentially lethal situation to grow out of your statement.

It would be immoral, in my opinion, to allow others to be hurt and perhaps even die because you chose not to alter your comment to prevent misunderstanding in such a circumstance.

I mostly agree with you (I won’t blindly defend my position), but I would like to be more accurate:

I am in a movie theatre. I tell a joke with the punchline of, “Red!” I note that the person next to me overhears my exclamation and begins to get agitated, as if they thought I had spotted a fire in the small crowded room.

-The person next to me interprets my words: they hear “red” so they think “fire”.
-I am aware of this potential interpretation before making the joke.

In light of this I should indeed be guilty: I knew that if I said “red” I could harm the person next to me.

If I say “red” I will cause harm, but this is only possible because the person next to me is interpreting my words, which is wrong. So in a way the person next to me is participating in the harmful action.

If I was a “nice person” I would then not say “red”. But that would mean accepting the wrongful interpretations. Accepting something wrong is not right So I am in a moral dilemma.

Let’s put some Godwin into this.
The Jews in kitten Germany were aware of the fact that kittens perceived their existence as harmful to them. So if they were to avoid causing any harm to the kittens they should end their lives.
Obviously this is wrong; and it is wrong because the “harmful perception” of the Jews by the kittens is wrong in the first place.

This is a bit drastic, I admit, but you get my point: not altering a statement in light of wrong interpretations is not wrong.

[Edit: apparently the name of Hitler’s party is censored, read accordingly]

You have supported my position that sometimes it can be morally wrong, and others not so. In your example of the joke it would not be morally wrong, in mine it would.

Your example using Germany falls a bit short of my statement in that the Germans believed that the presence of Jews was harmful, they were wrong.

My statement was that it is morally wrong to do harm to those not deserving of it, not that it was morally wrong to do what the recipient incorrectly thinks is harmful to them.

Many children think they are being treated in a harmful manner when a parent administers a scolding or punishment that will actually benefit, assuming the child pays attention to the lesson, them in the long run.

Jemmi.6058:

I believe you misunderstood my analogy.

The -ist at the end of elitist implies that you are discriminating against some based on the former part of the word

i.e.

Sexist / based on gender
Racist / based on race
Classist / based on what class one is
Agist / based on age
Elitist / based of how elite one is (based on skill)

Naturally this is not the case for any word that ends with ist; such as bioligist, physicist, altruist, assist etc etc.

However, I am not saying that Racism and Elitism operate in the same way or are in anyway related. I am simply saying that the word implies descrimination.

This act can occur both ways. It does not have to be an elite person being prejudice towards an inferior player. It can be an inferior player excluding a better player based on their skill. The only reason i can see this, is if that person expects the better skilled player to be ‘elitist’ simply because they are an ‘elite’ player, but that isn’t a given. The act is hypocritical, because the inferior player is acting elitist in this scenario.

However the technical definition is (which differs slightly from my interpretation)

e·lit·ist
/i?l?tist/
Noun
A person who believes that a system or society should be ruled or dominated by an elite.
Adjective
Favoring, advocating, or restricted to an elite.

Then we agree :)

Scrambles.2604:

And taking shots at peoples live’s just makes you sound bitter…“anyone worse than me is a noob and anyone better than me has no life!”

I never call anyone noob. Never did. I’m a pretty big noob myself and I don’t care about becoming a top player. I do want to improve to the point where I can beat most content while still having fun. People who are better don’t necessarily have a lack of life, and I don’t immediately disrespect them.
However people often tend to disrespect me for not wanting to improve, when the facts clearly are so that I don’t have time for that. I don’t want to improve because it comes at the cost of something I don’t want to lose. That’s my choice, not yours. If anything makes me bitter, it’s people not respecting what I want out of a videogame, namely fun, fun, fun. I’d rather have fun losing than grind my teeth to win
.
Only when “being good” comes at the cost of sacrificing your entire life, that I will form an opinion. Apart from that it’s mostly live and let live.

Ashen.2907:

You have supported my position that sometimes it can be morally wrong, and others not so. In your example of the joke it would not be morally wrong, in mine it would.

Your example using Germany falls a bit short of my statement in that the Germans believed that the presence of Jews was harmful, they were wrong.

My statement was that it is morally wrong to do harm to those not deserving of it, not that it was morally wrong to do what the recipient incorrectly thinks is harmful to them.

Many children think they are being treated in a harmful manner when a parent administers a scolding or punishment that will actually benefit, assuming the child pays attention to the lesson, them in the long run.

I do support the logic behind your initial example, but there is something I would like to clarify:
There is a difference between interpretation (similar to changing the words) and perception (the effect of these words).
Your example was more about perception than interpretation.
I think I agree that it would be morally wrong not to change a statement in light of potential harmful perception, but this is different from what I meant.

Can you give me an example of when it is morally wrong to not change a statement in light of potential interpretations?

My example is more about interpretation (as well I perception of course).
So the moral rule has not changed I believe.
This doesn’t mean that I am right, by the way, it just means that your initial example does not contradict my position :)

Zelyhn.8069:

More and more I am experiencing this habit that the community has to despise people who claim to be skilled for this game.

Try it: go to LA, and say that you are a good player.
(Note: I am not saying I do it. This sentence is for rhetorical purposes)

People will instantly tell you that you lack humility, that you are an elitist, that you are despicable etc; for no reason.

People do not want to see or be aware of the fact that some players can be more skilled than them (no boasting, just statement of skill). The community seem to believe that they would be better off without such players.
It appears as if the community would like to stay bad and play only with bad people.

It is also the same on the forums.

I believe this is not benefiting the game in itself because it promotes stale and boring gameplay additions rather than diverse and challenging content.

As a comparison: when you play football as an amateur you play it for fun and you dream of being as skilled as the players of international level. In GW2 the ’amateurs" have no such dreams, worse: they do not want to face the fact that being better is possible.

With all due respect, why the discrimination?

A truly good player already knows hes good and does not need to proclaim it to a bunch of bookahs in lions arch mapchat.

Zelyhn.8069:

I am going to repeat myself with a bit more details and accuracy. i really want you to understand what contrast I see between racism and elitism: [/quote]

After all the nice explaining he did, you still miss his point. Communication. Please, learn it.

I’ll try this the other way around.
In communication skills you’re currently like a good support elementalist trying to go to CoF1 speedrun. You can use words well if you have the time to explain yourself and you have put a lot of thought behind them, but your build is completely wrong for a forum speedrun. If you want a cookie cutter build for communication, learn to be polite. It won’t really teach you how to communicate, but it’ll get you through life.

Edit: It should be 50% responsibility for both people in discussion to try to achieve a good communication. You can’t have a discussion if the person listening is shutting his ears and singing loud… and you can’t have a discussion if the person talking refuses to talk. When both does 30% and 30%, you get a bad communication. When it’s 80% and 80%, you’ll get great communication. Sometimes communication just doesn’t work out because words are not words like we read them from the dictionary – it’s just that as humans we agreed that they have a certain meaning. They still have a unique meaning to each of us. Sometimes you just need to accept that in order to reach a better communication with other people.

Edit2: Not that anyone minds if you do go to forum runs. We’re not communication elitists, lol. Well… unless you go with the build “I dramatically quit this game because of X” or “I’M SELLING GOLD”.

@ Onis
I believe I am being quite polite, even after all the irrelevant raging posts that were made without properly reading my OP!
Note that the discussion is pleasant now that moderators have skimmed aggressive posts, and that only people who put some thoughts into their posts contribute.

You may as well consider the fact that a lot of the raging post replies this thread got tend to proove my points :)

(Also if I was very honest I would tell you that I may have made my OP intentionally intriguing so as to pull attention to this matter which I consider crucial)

Being polite and liked =/= good at communication. Being polite and nice is just a good way to get to people listen to you and to be patient in trying to find a middle ground.

I’m not trying to say you’re the bad guy here or even that horrible at communicating, but… well. If you have this many people that don’t even understand your original point, you say you’re not an evil elitist while everyone is “painting” you to be one, maybe, you know. The problem is in the communication? If you can’t communicate the point you’re trying to make across and a lot of different people are constantly talking about things you never meant to discuss “in a wrong way”, the problem could be in how you represent them?

Personally, I would consider making a new thread/changing the original post with a different tone and look what sorta effect that would have to the discussion.