Jordan Peterson, controversy, following guidelines on discussion forums, free speech.
Jordan has had a recent run-in with the twitter guidelines and he produced a video to respond to twitter which has had over 3 million views so far. Matt Dillahunty and a guy I am not so familiar with, Jimmy Snow has produced a response to Jordan's video which I have linked to below.
I strongly believe in free speech. I don't mind when debate/dialogue between individuals on public forums or on tv/internet etc gets heated. I don't mind when the language chosen is insulting or angry but I do agree that a 'free for all,' when it comes to the level of insult and the number and intensity of expletives is inadvisable. Moderation is therefore essential but I think it takes skilled moderation to get the balance correct and adhere to the guidelines but be aware of the difference between the word guideline and law.
I am a socialist and an atheist but when I first watched material with Jordan Peterson in it, I considered him very interesting and very intelligent. Now, I am not so sure and I think he is probably a little mad, definitely transphobic, theistically conflicted and increasingly right-wing.
But to me, it's only when he is angry that he is more likely to reveal his true opinions.
I am also a fan of Matt Dillahunty but on occasion, I think he can get very insulting indeed during his call-in shows posted on youtube via 'The Athiest Experience.'
I would be interested in your general opinion of the usefulness of angry exchanges between people to YOU as a reader and observer. Do you get a 'bigger buzz,' if there is more 'honest anger'/emotional terms used/clever puns/humourous putdowns etc during an exchange?
Is everybody on their absolute best politically correct behaviour the only way to go and the main standard that must be enforced?
Regardless of the topic under discussion and regardless of how a person truly feels about a topic, is the most important rule, the rule of being nice/respectful to your opposition, especially when you have an audience watching/reading?
I don't advocate for a free for all slagging match during debate on topics which are highly controversial but I don't think a total PC :halo: :pray: :flower: :halo: is good either.
It would be interesting to also get your opinion on the language/phraseology used in the video I have linked to below, from a 'philosophy of language,' point of view, defined as:
In analytic philosophy, philosophy of language investigates the nature of language and the relations between language, language users, and the world. Investigations may include inquiry into the nature of meaning, intentionality, reference, the constitution of sentences, concepts, learning, and thought.
I have provided a youtube link to the video below rather than a 'media' link as the video does contain expletives so perhaps it would be preferred that the video is watched via the YouTube site rather than directly via TPF.
https://youtu.be/raHxmTkQaGs
I strongly believe in free speech. I don't mind when debate/dialogue between individuals on public forums or on tv/internet etc gets heated. I don't mind when the language chosen is insulting or angry but I do agree that a 'free for all,' when it comes to the level of insult and the number and intensity of expletives is inadvisable. Moderation is therefore essential but I think it takes skilled moderation to get the balance correct and adhere to the guidelines but be aware of the difference between the word guideline and law.
I am a socialist and an atheist but when I first watched material with Jordan Peterson in it, I considered him very interesting and very intelligent. Now, I am not so sure and I think he is probably a little mad, definitely transphobic, theistically conflicted and increasingly right-wing.
But to me, it's only when he is angry that he is more likely to reveal his true opinions.
I am also a fan of Matt Dillahunty but on occasion, I think he can get very insulting indeed during his call-in shows posted on youtube via 'The Athiest Experience.'
I would be interested in your general opinion of the usefulness of angry exchanges between people to YOU as a reader and observer. Do you get a 'bigger buzz,' if there is more 'honest anger'/emotional terms used/clever puns/humourous putdowns etc during an exchange?
Is everybody on their absolute best politically correct behaviour the only way to go and the main standard that must be enforced?
Regardless of the topic under discussion and regardless of how a person truly feels about a topic, is the most important rule, the rule of being nice/respectful to your opposition, especially when you have an audience watching/reading?
I don't advocate for a free for all slagging match during debate on topics which are highly controversial but I don't think a total PC :halo: :pray: :flower: :halo: is good either.
It would be interesting to also get your opinion on the language/phraseology used in the video I have linked to below, from a 'philosophy of language,' point of view, defined as:
In analytic philosophy, philosophy of language investigates the nature of language and the relations between language, language users, and the world. Investigations may include inquiry into the nature of meaning, intentionality, reference, the constitution of sentences, concepts, learning, and thought.
I have provided a youtube link to the video below rather than a 'media' link as the video does contain expletives so perhaps it would be preferred that the video is watched via the YouTube site rather than directly via TPF.
https://youtu.be/raHxmTkQaGs
Comments (44)
Im a little confused because as far as I can tell there is no exchange. The video you linked to, of which I briefly skimmed, appears to be a couple of guys ridiculing a ridiculous JP video.
Oh? How did you access this thread? I posted it 28 days ago but it was removed by a moderator or an administrator. I even typed some random characters (the 'kjh' you can see posted 18 days ago) to test it and nothing appeared in the main forum showing all threads. So I assumed it had been removed. So where did you find it?
To answer your query, My use of 'exchange,' particularly referred to angry exchanges between people here on TPF. I included the Jordan Peterson vid and Matt and Jimmy's response to it as an example of the anger and language that YouTube is willing to accept. I consider YouTube to be one of the best resources on the internet but I have not watched every video on it so I don't know how many I would personally disapprove of. I know TPF is not YouTube but I thought it was fair game to compare the two in the way my OP is suggesting.
There is an exchange between Matt, Jimmy and Jordan, in the same way, that there is an exchange between Jordan, twitter and twitter followers/members. People watch and will respond to posted video on YouTube via their own postings on sites like twitter etc, I am sure many response posts to his video will get back to Jordan personally and many of his responses to those posts will get back to the respondees. I am sure you are quite familiar with how these public exchanges work. They do not have to be direct face-to-face exchanges.
Again, I just checked and my thread still does not appear in the main page of the forum!
If you didn't post it to the Lounge originally, a moderator must have moved it here.
Charming, the moderator involved could have at least told me they had done so and told me why.
I am not a fan of monarchistic moderation but you are one of the administrators so I will leave my protest with you. Thanks anyway for informing me.
1) There were people taking JP seriously.
2) The people taking JP seriously were making insulting comments about him. Thats surprises me because I dont usually mind that sort of thing.
Same thing happened to me some time back. I started a thread of whether mathematics could be considered racist, based upon changes advocated in California that seemed to imply just that. Zip, gone. But I quickly found it here in the lounge where it quickly expired. This is where threads go to die.
:lol: Or more precisely, this is where moderators/administrators, in full monarch mode, put threads they don't really like, to die. One day, come the on-line bloodless revolution, oppressed posters everywhere, from small town discussion websites to full city-sized websites. Our brothers, sisters and gender-varied comrades will rise up and overthrow all privately owned discussion-based webspace and their unelected, aristocratic moderators and administrators and insist that the democratic will of the membership be regularly consulted on all important decisions such as who becomes/stays a moderator/administrator and who gets banned.
Quoting praxis
Well, thanks for doing that but if you get some free time I would recommend watching more. These people have a significant influence on many many people.
Quoting praxis
Many people do, he has a very large following and many admirers. I think it is folly to discount such sources of significant influence.
Quoting praxis
So does that mean that you don't mind heated debate and the use of one or two insults between relatively anonymous people here on TPF? Do you think the moderation here is over the top at times?
That's why I wanted folks to listen to the words/terms thrown at Jordan by Matt and Jimmy and also some of the terms used by Jordan towards twitter and asses whether their choice of phrase attracted you more to the video or repelled you more.
I generally don't mind it but circumstances vary widely, of course, and I can imagine debates where insults are too disruptive or counterproductive.
Quoting universeness
No.
Quoting universeness
I find practically everything that comes out of JP's mouth repellent. And as I mentioned, I didn't care for the way Matt & Jimmy were talking about JP in his absence. In the brief part I watched, a randomly chosen spot about a third of the way through it, they were smugly calling him a prick for something. Granted he is a prick. I guess because they were taking him so seriously to begin with and the smugness is what bugged me.
I think some topics are very emotive and moderation should take more account of that before they threaten with the Banno, I mean ban reaction.
Quoting praxis
Ok, thanks for answering.
Quoting praxis
I understand how you could come to such a viewpoint based on arriving at just the scenes you described rather that what had gone before that part. Before that point, Matt and Jimmy opined (using Jordan's video) why they thought JP is unjustly transphobic. The issue of transsexuality is very emotive for many people. I think Matt Dillahunty's current partner is transsexual and Jimmy Snow is homosexual, so perhaps that's why they use angrier language when debating the issues.
Youre displeased with the moderation? If so, Im curious and interested in seeing an instance of what you regard as heavy handed or whatever.
Btw, your OP in this topic is somewhat unclear and apparently not of a philosophical nature so I can easily see why it was moved to the lounge area (to die). Heres a link to a good guide for producing an OP: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op
Yes, I was threatened twice with banning due to some of my angry responses and insults towards the antinatalists on antinatalist threads. They responded in kind and I think some of them were also threatened with banning. I dont think the ban threat should be trundled out so quickly. I think there could be more dialogue between moderator and disgruntled/angry member before the ban threat card is played. No need to start with a 'warning' why not start with a PM question like 'why are you so angry here....' I know the admin/moderator staff might protest that 'we just dont have the time to do that,' or 'We are not a psyche service,' then ok, at least imo, they will be admitting they are a private concern and their rule is not democratic.
Quoting praxis
I appreciate your impudence but I have no such need and I reject your opinion on my OP for many reasons, including the mention of 'philosophy of language' in my OP.
I was threatened with banning once for allegedly expressing bigotry. I would characterize it more as devils advocacy. In any case, the threatening moderator has since been banned for rudeness and bigotry, so go figure.
'streetlight,' is an interesting case which has been discussed a lot in the 'bannings' thread.
In his case I personally would 'leave the door open' for a possible future invite back, maybe on some trial basis, to see if he could tone down the anger a little but I don't have any inside track on the details involved. He was certainly an interesting intellect, based on the very few exchanges I had with him and the fact that I am still a relative newbie on TPF.
It's like Jordan Peterson. I found him initially interesting but I am moving very quickly to your position of completely dismissing him as a dangerously camouflaged, right-wing extremist. I watched this guy (Cody Johnston) below, also rally against Peterson (almost 3 Hours of it). He made a lot of very good points.
I think that in today's world it is vital to do your own research on anyone in the public eye that has significant influence and catches your personal attention and you probably need to continue to do so even if you are convinced enough to become an approver/follower/facilitator of someone.
Do you think that posters on a thread should be threatened with banning if they call each other idiot or dimwit or describe something typed as idiotic or dimwitted? I mean in cases of important and emotive issues that affect the lives of many people. I think skilled moderation is required. I am not suggesting the staff on TPF are unskilled. This thread was an attempt to invoke discussion regarding TPF moderation against twitter moderation or youtube moderation, just as a topic for dialogue. I am trying to not come across as just displaying 'sour grapes' because I was ban threatened but I have a feeling that I am coming across like that. I can only insist that was not my 'hidden reason' behind the thread. But then there is always the 'well he would claim that wouldn't he,' claim.
This seems to be the core of the OP. The trouble is that its buried in the middle, between the stuff about Peterson and some gesturing towards the philosophy of language. The trouble starts with the title, which is all over the place. The result is a very unclear post, lacking in focus. It also looks like it might be a complaint about the staff of TPF, which is a separate issue that belongs in the Feedback category.
If the OP had been pared down to the above quotation, without the Peterson distraction, then it might have been ok for one of the main categories. Having said that, its not philosophy. Thats not to say its not interesting, of course. It might have worked in Politics and Current Affairs. Im not sure though; its still quite Loungey.
As for your own issues with moderation, it wasnt just about being nasty or angry or what have you. It was the fact that you were just ranting, so there was nothing much of substance there anyway.
This post is somewhat off-topic but its the Lounge so I went ahead. I can remove it if you like.
I appreciate you as admin staff taking the time to post on this thread, regarding the issues I raised and the issue of 'well-formed OP's.'
I watched the video of Matt Dillahunty and Jimmy Snow on Jordan Peterson and based on the language involved and the fact that the issues under discussion were important and emotive, It was, I felt a good comparator with some of the language used in the antinatalist threads. That's why I used it as I wanted to offer a comparison between exchanges on TPF and other sites. Philosophy of language is a topic allowed on TPF so that is why I landed there also as it seemed important to analyse the reasons why people choose to employ certain language in certain situations and how that is currently being moderated on discussion websites in general.
If the staff opinion was that my thread and its OP was cumbersome and 'all over the place,' and it needed restructuring, then why was I not offered an opportunity to do this?
I appreciate your mention of the feedback process which I admit to not being as aware of as I should have been.
Quoting Jamal
So why play the ban threat card so quickly, why not 'why are you being so insulting and you just seem to be ranting' as a PM communication? Okay, I might have tried to defend with 'give me some examples of me ranting!' and it would have took some more time to settle things but is such effort not part of skilled moderation or is it just not worth the effort in your opinion and the 'stop or be banned' is your easiest first response?
Yes, I understand. But as I say, it was a distraction from the point of the post. Although, the point still isnt clear, probably because youre trying to make too many.
Quoting universeness
Thats more linguistics and psychology than philosophy of language, but even then, its rather too casual and vague for those disciplines too.
Quoting universeness
Its time-consuming to do this kind of thing all the time. What Id suggest now is just to post in the Feedback category, something like Do aggression and strong language have a place in TPF discussions? In which you could make the case that they do, citing your own experience with moderators. I agree its up for debate, and some mods are more tolerant than others.
Quoting universeness
I cant remember how things went, but I seem to recall it was me and Xtrix who were involved. Maybe the ban warning came after you had refused to comply with the first warning message.
In my OP I included:
In analytic philosophy, philosophy of language investigates the nature of language and the relations between language, language users, and the world. Investigations may include inquiry into the nature of meaning, intentionality, reference, the constitution of sentences, concepts, learning, and thought.
I consider 'intentionality,' 'constitution of sentences,' etc to be indeed related to linguistics which in turn then seems fair game in 'Analytic Philosophy' or 'Philosophy of language,' but if you don't agree, you don't agree.
Oh, the ban threat card was played very early both times by Xtrix and confirmed by yourself but I would have appreciated the opportunities of a little more dialogue on the issues I described.
I might post something under the feedback category as you suggest but the embers are a bit too cooled at the moment.
Anyway, any comments on the clash between Matt, Jimmy and Jordan?
Do you think Jordan should be allowed to make transphobic quotes on twitter?
Do you think he is transphobic?
If Jordan claims the title of philosopher at times then surely a philosophy forum can comment on what he claims to be true?
I dont have any, no. Im not interested.
Quoting universeness
No. The debate, as I see it, is about what counts as transphobic.
Quoting universeness
I dont know. I stopped paying attention to him after some initial interest, because of his ignorance when it came to Marxism and postmodernism, and his apparent slide into right wing crap.
Quoting universeness
Only if what he says is philosophically, psychologically, politically, or culturally interesting. Note that there have been a few discussions about JP over the past few years.
Ok, thanks for contributing to my recategorised thread and your further input regarding my two ban threats. I still don't want to be nice to antinatalists, so I will continue to comment around them on TPF and will employ more stealth when dealing with them.
It would be much more fun to challenge them head-on and rant at them and insult their viewpoint with gusto, as well as posting why their viewpoint is completely wrong. We have different views of what trolling is compared to how bad and dangerous viewpoints should be dealt with. I know that one person's defender is another person's terrorist but imo, you pick your camp and raise your standard as best and honestly as you can!
I just watched the Perterson video about his twitter suspension so that I might better understand the comparison. I didn't know, or I forgot, what that was about. He was suspended for tweeting:
Twitter insists that it be deleted for violating the rules against hateful conduct, which are that "you may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of... gender, gender identity, ..."
It seems the suspension will be lifted if he deletes the post, but laughably, in the video Peterson says that "I would rather die than do that," so he considers it a ban.
My general impression of JP's video is that it's all theatrics. If I remember right, his initial rise to fame surrounded an issue like this and it seems to me that he's milking this twitter suspension for all it's worth. I even suspect that a Twitter action may have been part of the plan all along.
There are four points in his tweet that are... I'll say controversial, and he covers each of them.
Remember when pride was a sin?
Pride in this context is self-affirmation, promotion of equality, and attempts to counter shame and social stigma. Conservatives are known to take pride in things, such as being an American. In fact, they often criticize liberals for having weak national pride and claim that they hate America.
He refers to page as her and Ellen rather than Elliot
Refusing this kind of consideration is what initially rose him to fame so it seems he's merely playing the same winning tune.
Criminal physician
His rhetoric and reasoning are particularly bizarre on this point. Experimental Nazi surgeries, really? :lol:
Anyway, I don't think that if someone posted here at TPF what JP tweeted that any action would be taken against them, but I'm not entirely sure.
Quoting praxis
So Twitter did not ban him straight away they gave him a chance to delete the tweet. This is similar to TPF's approach in that you get a threat to ban and perhaps even a second or third warning before you are actually banned. Would you have banned Peterson straight away for this tweet or give him the chance to withdraw what he typed? The house of commons speaker will let an MP withdraw a statement/comment and if they don't then they have to leave the chamber and can be removed by security if they don't comply.
Quoting praxis
This was one of the first issues Matt and Jimmy had with his response video. This 'I would rather die than do that' approach is very provocative. He used two cameras to shoot him from different angles. He sits suited up in a fancy chair trying to look quite regal and authoritative.
He invokes images of the captured hero soldier, refusing to comply with an enemy (in this case twitter) despite their tortures (threat to ban). Do you think Peterson has been studying Trump and his approach to rhetoric. Do you think Jordan is employing psychological tactics here to win over more supporters?
I think this is why Matt and Jimmy felt the need to tear this imagery down with valid counterpoints and angry insults. Is it not important that he be 'torn down' with a mix of valid counterpoints and insults because to do otherwise would be a weak response to dangerous and destructive viewpoints such as those doctors who perform surgery requested by transsexuals should be vilified as criminals?
This is why I think YouTube will publish such angry responses by the likes of Matt and Jimmy or the Cody Johnson video. They see past the need to control the language and the insults due to the importance of countering the imagery JP is trying to sell. I don't think the antinatalism group is as powerful as the transphobic group but they could become so.
Quoting praxis
So what's his philosophy of language here? What's his intentionality? To attract theists/Christians to his side or at least confirm that they are still on his side as he already had many of them in his camp. He was obviously attacking the gay pride events here.
Quoting praxis
Matt and Jimmy called this 'dead naming.' They did not coin the term but seemed keen to repeat it many times. Are such phrases an effective counter?
Find a cool-sounding short sharp phrase that will be easy to understand, make the person who is accused of it look nasty, it will be hard to defend against.
Do these phrases work? or are people beginning to see through such phrases?
Quoting praxis
This is the most serious and dangerous comment he made and Matt and Jimmy countered in the strongest terms they could, almost suggesting JP was talking like a fascist himself.
If you responded to this gently and with non-emotive language, I think you would just look weak.
I could not offer a 'with respect' response to such an unacceptable statement.
Quoting praxis
Only the staff could tell us but I think if Jordan would be banned straight away if he typed that on TPF but I also am not entirely sure.
I'm tempted to talk about the specifics but the larger picture, as I see it, is that JP is a brand and all this crap is totally on-brand for him and his particular audience (market segment). I'm glad there are folks like Matt and Jimmy who are there to tear it down.
The thing that really bugs me about people like JP is when they talk about how bad it is for the county to be divided the way it is, as if they're not selfishly contributing to its division.
He has not made any contributions to the philosophy of language that Im aware of, and note that intentionality in philosophy is not about intentions as commonly understood.
https://iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/
https://iep.utm.edu/intentio/
Im not trying to be a smart arse. Its just that youve carried on with your conviction that what youre discussing is relevant to the philosophy of language even though I told you it isnt.
Feel free to ignore me, of course.
I agree that he increases divisions between people but I object a lot more to his claim to not be right-wing and be theistically conflicted. He talks about hierarchies in such a way that suggests they are a natural imperative and he tries to justify power and wealth being in the hands of the few through such bad science. I just wonder if he is trying to build enough of a following that he could throw his hat into the political ring in the USA.
I thought he was Canadian.
Where did I suggest he has? Everyone imo has their own philosophical approach to life, yes?
Suggested synonyms for the word philosophy from the Bing on-line dictionary are:
thinking · reasoning · thought · wisdom · knowledge. So thinking and reasoning are manifest in language. Jordan uses language to describe his philosophy. This is my angle of approach in trying to analyse what his intentions are and how on-line social media is accommodating/moderating him.
I have no qualifications in philosophy and I will defer to those that do when it comes to technicalities or interpreting terminology. I will look at both the links you provided and respond after I have read the contents.
Quoting Jamal
Not at all. I do not want to make statements which are based on completely misinterpreting terminology so if that is what you think I am doing then I appreciate the fact you are telling me so and are providing the links to show me why. Give me a little time to look at what you have linked me to.
He is, but I don't know the various ways into American politics for people not born there.
Even if he can't gain high political office in the USA, he might become just as dangerous, if he gains more and more followers and can then influence who they vote for in the USA.
We Americans try not to deplatform anyone because they may influence elections, ideally, unless it's from a hostile foreign power.
Perhaps that's part of the reason why a horror like Trump can become president. Although living in Scotland under the gangland Westminster crew with Don Boris in charge was a similar horror and it now looks like the next Don will be a choice between two Thatcherbots. So, we in the Britain, can't really say much about the weaknesses in the political systems of other countries.
Started reading the first link to the IEP resource.
I like the fact its free and the editors are not paid so have no 'ulterior motives,' in what they type.
I noticed all the editors of the philosophy of language, were Americans.
The preamble in the first link states, and I paraphrase a little,
Many philosophers outside this tradition(Anglo-American with roots in German and Austrian philosophy) have views on the nature and use of language.'
and
Readers should bear in mind this restriction of scope.
Ok, so reading the sentences on Wilfrid Sellars, language as 'the medium of conceptualisation,' seems to match my typing about 'thinking, reasoning, manifest as language.'
It's interesting Broca's area is mentioned soon after this. I have read Carl Sagan's book 'Broca's brain' a few times.
Kant and wittgenstein are briefly mentioned then it's John Stuart Mills and Mill's Empiricism.
He connects language, meaning and experience.
Example: 'Professor,' normally implies an expert in an academic field.
Jordan Peterson claims expertise in many fields, yet he is actually only academically qualified in one field, clinical psychology. But his philosophy seems to be to claim expertise in many fields. I don't see why you are claiming that I am misinterpreting 'philosophy of language' when I type such sentences about JP. I don't think I misinterpret 'Mills Empiricism' here.
The article states;
'Not all those concerned with language shared Mills empiricist leanings, though most shared his sense that denotation rather than connotation should be at the center of an account of meaning. A word denotes something by standing for it.'
In what ways am I infringing this?
I decided to stop at this early point in reading the IEP material for three reasons.
1. I don't want to end up responding to you with something of unwieldy size.
2. Get some feedback from you on my initial, early, thoughts.
3. Confirm that you wish me to delve deeper into the IEP material as I have not even touched the main points of your objections yet.
To put it bluntly, I think the reason Trump can become president is because many Americans are ignorant. Not that our other choices are much better.
I personally now favour non-party politics. I won't go into the details here of how and why I see voting for people rather than parties would be better and how authority levels should be organised and structured.
That's one or more threads under titles like 'new politics.' I am a socialist/humanist and an atheist and those viewpoints do drive my politics but I soooooooo agree that too many folks have not studied politics or learned the lessons from history (or even know history well enough) to make informed political decisions. It must be also stated however that the nefarious work hard at distracting the majority with mind-numbing reality tv shows, BS low-level celebrity culture to aspire to and some little crumbs of forlorn hope from their table. I have said and typed many times before that they never needed to fool all of the people all of the time, some of the time or some of the people all of the time has been good enough for the nefarious rich and powerful to thrive and even consolidate and expand.
There, I [s]said[/s] wrote it! :snicker:
Sorry for the late reply to this, again, nothing appeared in my 'mentions' section to indicate your posting here.
Quoting Agent Smith
I have the physical and mental scars from past clashes that seem to indicate that I cannot partake of that particular protection. Make a good song title though:
Oh! Rather curious that!
Quoting universeness
Oh well, too bad. Have you come across of ishin-denshin or in Western terms tacit understanding aka implicature?
As Homer Simpson often exclaims! DOH! I just noticed why I was not informed in 'mentions,' you had no 'reply' link in your post. Mystery solved! or there was no mystery just a lack of attentive observation on my part.
I have to mostly look up the terms you throw out Mr Smith. You seem to have more knowledge of eastern cultures than I. So, I got:
ishin-denshin, a Japanese idiom which denotes the traditional concept of interpersonal communication through unspoken mutual understanding. This four-character compound, known as a yojijukugo, literally translates as "what the mind thinks, the heart transmits." Sometimes explained in English in terms of "telepathy" or "sympathy", ishin-denshin is also commonly rendered as "heart-to-heart communication" or "tacit understanding."
Not for me, I like to make my viewpoints loud, proud, heard and crystal clear, without comming across as an arrogant pr***. So. loud, proud, heard and humble I hope. So Quoting Agent Smith
Is not my style either, Implication often causes misinterpretation and misundertanding so I try to be crystal clear and unambiguous. That's why I want to insult and ridicule the antinatalist viewpoint because I find it ridiculous and insulting. But the mods wont let me insult and ridicule the antinatalists and that worries me as I think it gives the antinatalists succour and any extremists among them will feed and grow from such weakness.
Well 'humility' is certainly big in Eastern cultures as far as I can tell, lots of traditional bowing and honour concepts, regardless of truth and hands clasped in :pray: images. No disrespect to trad Eastern cultures intended but I would not personally choose to mimic any of them. But I do not claim expertise or fluency in my knowledge or understanding of them either so perhaps it is unwise to carelessly dismiss all aspects of them.
Précisément!
A time and place for everything, oui?