The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


what next?

Everything related to politics in Cyprus and the rest of the world.

Re: what next?

Postby erolz66 » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:03 pm

Londonrake wrote:Erolz. When you earlier commented that I post "reams and reams" you might now perhaps better appreciate my response - that you were being somewhat hypocritical? :wink:


That you appear to think / perceive / claim that I was putting forward an argument that you post 'reams and reams' more than me in any generic sense is evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of what my point / position / identity is.

I am always willing to try my best to clear up such misunderstandings, without judgement or apportioning blame as to how they occurred. I want to be understood and understood as well as can be. Not be right, just be understood.

So firstly lets clear up what I do NOT think. I do not think you post reams and reams more than I do at the most zoomed out level. Do not think it. Have not said it. Is that clear and understandable to you ?

The two points I was trying to make were (are)

1. Posting 'reams and reams' or 'not doing so' is not a binary state. Everyone does both to varying degrees over varying time scales and in various topics. I sought to highlight this by pointing out that in the specific time range of last year say on the specific topic of Brexit, actual evidence shows that you have done the 'reams and reams' thing more than I have.

2. Dismissing out of hand someone else's 'posts' with comments like 'nah too long, didn't read it mate' is pretty rude, and considerably ruder than saying nothing at all, and is a very easy technique to avoid addressing points that you have no quick and easy trite answer for. This is worse when done in a time span and and topic range where you yourself are more 'guilty' of such actions than the person who's identity your are choosing to pro actively publicly dismiss.

Anyway you should read some Chomsky on this topic I recon. He is very coherent when he talks about it being impossible to challenge orthodoxy in 3 minute sound bite but easy to reinforce orthodoxy in such brief time spans. As far as my tendency to post long posts more than average is at all linked to me challenging orthodoxy rather than reinforcing it, more than average, I find that idea quite complimentary.
erolz66
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: what next?

Postby erolz66 » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:25 pm

Londonrake wrote: Not really. Much of Lordo's output is deliberately offensive. So, I've no conscience issues in pointing out the fact that he hasn't really a leg to stand on. That seems fair enough. If you're involved in contentious issues on an English speaking site what credibility do you have when you're posts are illiterate?


I think you have just conflated 'offensive' with 'illiterate' ? If you are saying people that are purposely offensive should be pulled up on their spelling and grammar, that is one thing. However I would expect some consistency if that is the given 'rule'. That is I would expect there to be evidence of you having pulled up posters who have been offensive but are also on the 'same side' generally as you. If you only do this when it is offensive people you disagree with and never when it is offensive people you agree with, then the degree to which it sounds like 'excuse' rather than 'reason' increases considerably for me.

As for intelligibility, I personally do not have much trouble understanding what the 'concept' or 'idea' is behind Lordo's posts to any atypical degree. No where near as much as I often struggle with Repulsewarriors posts who has been unfailingly polite and non offensive over more than 15 years here. I just do not see the connection between 'deliberate offensiveness' and 'unintelligibly' myself ? Nor do I see consistency from you if the issue really is 'how well can I understand what the person is trying to convey' unless you have no trouble ecver understanding what RW is trying to convey with a post and always do with Lordo, which I find hard to imagine is genuinely the case ?

Londonrake wrote: It's a strange thing that whereas you stand back-to-back on a British issue like Brexit in the next post Lordo will be gloating about the Turkish intervention that's resulted in the division of your island for the past 45 years. It's a funny old world. :?


I try my best to treat arguments, expressions of others identity, on their merits and to avoid a binary, tribal approach, where every poster has to either be 'with you' or 'against' you on every and any topic. I no doubt share some views with Lordo on countless issues and disagree with him on others. Just as the same is no doubt true between just about any two individuals even you or me. I do not find it surprising at all that agree with Lordo on some things and not on others. I would find it surprising if that were not the case. What I am increasingly coming to suspect / understand is how much conflict in the world is actually rooted in this tendency to 'tribalise' the universe and all those in. That much if not most of all conflict is down to this tribalisation more than the actual core differences between tribalised groups.
erolz66
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: what next?

Postby Kikapu » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:38 pm

erolz66 wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:You are completely unable to appreciate the meaning of 'binary' aren't you...? :roll:


I am perfectly able to understand and appreciate, as well as many, if not most, the varied meanings and use of the word binary and the underlying concept that label seeks to convey when used in a given context. That it appears that the only response you seem to have to the points I have made, other than to ignore them entirely and just repeat your starting statement, is to 'belittle' my cognitive abilities, to me is quite telling. Just stating someone who has a different view to you is wrong because they are stupid is not my idea of a rewarding dialectic experience. It can and inevitably does however inform my opinion, to some degree, of you, as wrong as that may turn out to be.

Decisions can be binary yet still involve and lead to multiple possible outcomes that all or to some degree met the original binary decision.

Should we eat out tonight ? That is a binary decision. That is is a binary decision but this does not mean there is no need to ask 'where should we eat out' if the decision to the original binary question was 'yes'. Should we all go out and watch a film tonight. Binary. Should we move house. Binary. Should we put up our prices. Binary. The idea that just because a question/decision is binary , therefore any implementation of that decision needs no further agreement or discussion is I would suggest somewhat undermined by the examples I have given ?

I will try and use an exaggerated analogy in an attempt to get the essence of my view / opinion / identity across as clearly as I can with the tools available to me. It is not an attempt to 'prove' I am right and any else who disagrees is wrong. Just and attempt to explain the point I am trying to make as clearly as I can in the vain hope that it will not just either be ignored or dismissed as a failing of my intelligence or ability to understand or written off with 'long winded crap can not be arsed to respond to it, but can be arsed to tell you I can not be arsed to read it'. Vain hopes I know.

So 5 people 40 years ago agreed to go and live together in London. Let call them Grump, Erol, Dave, Mary and Jane. They all agree and then they find a suitable house in London and buy it and move in to it, all by agreement, with majority deciding when unanimity can not be reached. Over the years some tire of living in London more than others. 40 years later they all agree to vote on 'should we move out of London or not' and agree to abide by the majority decision. Erol and Jane vote to remain in London. The other three vote to leave. So far so good.

Grump then says to me 'so that is agreed, when are you going to quit your job and start looking for a different one outside of London ?

Me: To which I reply 'hang on a minute I just voted to move out of London, I did not vote to move so far out of it that I can not still reasonably commute in to London from outside ?"

Grump: everyone knew what moving out of London meant when we voted and agreed to abide by the decision. You are just trying to overturn that vote now because you didnt get the result you wanted ?

me: Hang on a minute I did not know that and if that was the case why when discussing if we should move out of London did you give examples of people living in Hertfordshire that commuted in to London for work as examples, if it was clear that 'leaving London' meant leaving in its entirety, not just where our house is ?

Grump: It was a binary choice. What do you not understand about binary ? Living outside London but working in London is not 'leaving London'. It is 'leaving London in name only'. You said you respect the outcome of the vote. Only moving so far away from London that you can not feasibly work there and preferably not even visit every month or so, is what the vote result requires. Everyone knew this when they voted. You are just stupid and seeking to overturn the decision because you do not like it.

me: hang on. I am happy to move out of London, given that was the majority decision, but can we not at least discuss the option of moving say to St Albans, from where I could still commute in and keep my job of the last 40 years ?

Grump: The decision was binary. You have accepted that. Anything you say beyond at is puerile nonsense.

me: sigh :(

--------------------------

Personally I find it nearing the realms of beyond all possibility that you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the essence of the point I am sharing here. So I am left with speculating why it is you seem to be trying so hard to make out that you can not understand what I am saying ?


That was a great analogy of a binary agreement, Erolz.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 17985
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Re: what next?

Postby erolz66 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:23 am

Pyrpolizer wrote:erolz the ancient Greeks had this proverb
ου με πείσεις καν με πείσης spelled ou me peiseis kan me peiseis
== You will not persuade me, not even if you persuade me; I will not be convinced against my will :wink:


Now that is an idea that I find interesting, intellectually stimulating and could and may well lead me to write 'reams and reams' in response to it. Such gems are all to rare for me here generally so thanks for that.

I am, all fairly recently it must be said, coming to understand that saying in very new and different ways to how I have for the first 50 years of my life. I am starting to understand that expression of individuality is a basic common human urge and desire, stronger even than say the urge to procreate. Thus the fear of this being 'taken away' or 'stolen' or 'tricked' from you is also a generic human fear, one that is in part what defines us as humans. Fear of death, fear of isolation / loneliness and fear of denial or theft of unique identity, all basic human fears that we all share. Before recently I used to think the saying above was a great summary of what I often experienced at the hands of others and such experience would often lead me to frustration. Now I much more understand that it is a common and essentially valid fear, that we all experience and 'know', me no different to others. Which in turn has led me to understand that for the previous 50 years or so when I thought what I was trying to achieve was in essence to do my best to try and 'prove' my identity (view , opinion etc) is more right than someone else, what I was actually trying to do was make my identity and the uniqueness of it known to the universe.

The way in which we, all of us, me included often, deny others an ability to express their unique identity, which we all have a drive and urge to do, simply by imposing a false binary simplification on the universe that is not a reflection of reality and without any intent to deny others their expression of their identity, is becoming increasingly clear to me in terms of others doing it to me and me doing it to others. I am by the day getting closer to a clear and consistent world view that this false imposition of a binary dichotomy on a universe that just does not work that way, is the root of the bulk of all conflicts over things like 'identity politics' and may well be related to the vast majority of conflict generically.

Sticking with identity politics for now. Take an issue like 'gender identity'. I think much, probably the bulk, of the 'tension' around the issue of 'gender idendtity' is down to the way insisting the universe is such that gender is a binary thing, not just in how people consider it themselves but at a 'physical level'. That there are only in existence two states possible that of male and female. Yet we know the universe is more complex and wondrous than this. In other species and also in humans. From hermaphrodites to castor semenya to countless other examples of physical ambiguity between the two binary (and false) states of just male and female. I think once you accept that the reality is that there is in fact a spectrum of 'states', of 'unique identities' that range from the two polar extremes of male and female and that most but not all people are in or place themselves at each the polar extremes, then things become a lot 'easier'. That it is the denial of the ability for someone unique to be able to express their unique identity because we all say, for convince, there are only two states possible. The practical problems of accepting a universe where even gender is a matter of degrees and not binary polar opposites, like which toilets people can or should use and how many there should be, are tiny and almost certainly surmountable once you take out the inherent denial of someones identity and ability to express it by 'binarising' what is a spectrum.

Or take 'race identity'. I had a fascinating discussion with a good friend of mine about the experience of being 'mixed race'. I am mixed race in the sense that my mother is English and my father was Cypriot. My friend is also mixed race but unlike me he is also much more visibly 'other' than I am against the backdrop of living in the UK. That is to say principally his skin was darker than mine to a degree that visually alone in the UK he would be identified as 'not white' or 'black' in a way that was not the case for me. It took some time, in an atmosphere of being able to talk sincerely without fear that close friendship can allow, to 'wheedle out' what were the commonalities of our 'mixed raceness', which we we very similar on and what were commonalities of our experience of 'blackness', 'or growing up in the UK in the same time period and being visible more black than just white', which we were not similar on. It was clear his experience growing up in the UK at the same time as me (we are within a year of each other age wise) were markedly different from mine, yet on the scale of 'mixed raceness' we were in very similar places on that spectrum. His experience of brutal overt racism at the hands of a teacher at the age of 7 was something of a degree and intensity leagues greater than anything I ever experienced. Yet there still were elements of 'mixed raceness', which we both were to a very similar degree on any scale of measurement of such a spectrum, that were totally common and shared between us to a similar intensity and frequency over time and place. Things like feeling like not belonging to one group or the other. To many other people from each of the poles (in my case english to cypriot) I was not 'one of them'. Not really British to many Brits and not really Cypriot to many Cypriots. Our commonality of 'mixed raceness' existed and was real but took time and effort to disentangle from our relative experiences of 'black / whiteness'.

This in turn led to me to a more mind boggling realisations but that would require a book to properly explain, which I may actually be in the process of trying to write, for what that is worth. Anyway enough for now. Thanks for your thought provoking post Pyrpolizer. I appreciate it, even if no one else does.
erolz66
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: what next?

Postby erolz66 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:25 am

Kikapu wrote:That was a great analogy of a binary agreement, Erolz.


Thanks.
erolz66
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: what next?

Postby Paphitis » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:46 am

Good grief, so much incoherent pullution! :roll:
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 32303
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: what next?

Postby Paphitis » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:52 am

Back on track boys and girls.

This is The Last Chance Saloon for the EU.

NI will be leaving the EU with the UK whether or not the Boris Deal is accepted.

Boris will be taking Britain ourt of the EU on the 31st unless Parliament decide to have a Coup.

You are ALL in a losing position now as the people will eventually drain the swamp when Christmas comes.

User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 32303
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: what next?

Postby erolz66 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:02 am

Paphitis wrote:Boris will be taking Britain ourt of the EU on the 31st unless Parliament decide to have a Coup.


A parliamentary majority asserting it's sovereignty over that of a crippled and wounded minority executive is the opposite of a coup. It is the defence against a coup.
erolz66
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: what next?

Postby Paphitis » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:07 am

looks like the EU is on the ropes for the first time.

they have clearly under-estimated Boris thinking he will be disorganised as a new Government but he has indeed tabled a plan.

A plan the EU can either accept or reject. Either way its a win win for Boris because even if the plan is rejected, Boris can turn around and say "we tried". My Government tried to get a deal.

An extension automatically becomes more untenable. that is if there is a request which there will not be unless there is a Coup from the swamp dwellers across the benches.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 32303
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: what next?

Postby Paphitis » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:11 am

That's incredible! The UK pays the EU just under billion pounds per year and then the UK gets some of the money back as EU funds to fund EU projects and claim credit for it.

You couldn't make this shit up. Far out but this is a rort! :shock:

User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 32303
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests