Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

0

2,931 thoughts on “Noyau (2)

  1. keiths: Of course we’re talking about verbal irony. Did you think Alan communicated his comment through interpretive dance?

    Slow down, dude.

    Well KN and Alan might have been setting phoodoo up for a bit of situational irony or dramatic irony. Y’know, parts 1 and 2 of the three part Ted-Ed series you linked to.
    Although, ironically, it was keiths who took the bait. (Hence my ‘trolling’ comment above…)

    keiths: DNA_Jock:

    Please take the time to consider the “You and I know, of course, though other less intelligent mortals walk benighted under the midday sun” type of irony.

    That isn’t irony.

    Sez keiths.

    Tim Conley disagrees, and he wrote a book on the subject

    LOL

    0
  2. keiths: Robin,

    I would just like to note for the record (since this discussion has not gone on long enough*) that technically KN was being sarcastic (with a liberal sprinkling of facetiousness.)

    Sarcasm is a form of irony, Robin. Here’s the definition of irony I quoted earlier:

    1.
    the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning:
    the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

    KN’s statement fits perfectly:

    (My apologies if any of this requires reading at a college level.)

    It was both sarcastic and ironic.

    *sigh*…I think your irony meter might need some adjusting Keith…I didn’t say or imply it wasn’t a form of irony. In fact, I was being…wait for it…sarcastic. Hence the “/snark”.

    0
  3. DNA_Jock:

    Tim Conley disagrees, and he wrote a book on the subject…

    LOL

    LOL, indeed. Tim Conley doesn’t disagree. You were in such a frantic rush that you didn’t notice that Conley was citing a list of misuses of the word.

    Here’s Conley:

    As an ironist, Stephen Dedalus has nothing on the youth of the century after him. ‘Ironic’ has become a byword of our age, either despite or perhaps partly because of its predictably regular misuse by television news anchors and pop music singers. As early as 1974 — long before the supersaturation of irony in works by post-Pynchonian novelists such as David Foster Wallace and Dave Eggers — Wayne Booth lamented that ‘irony has come to stand for so many things that we are in danger of losing it as a useful term altogether’, and ‘like the sublime… irony has seemed to many to have a life of its own’, and in 1978 Philip Howard assembled a list of seven implied meanings for the word ‘ironically’, as it opens a sentence:

    1. By a tragic coincidence
    2. By an exceptional coincidence
    3. By a curious coincidence
    4. By a coincidence of no importance
    5. You and I know, of course, though other less intelligent mortals walk benighted under the midday sun
    6. Oddly enough, or it’s a rum thing that
    7. Oh hell! I have run out of words for starting a sentence with.

    He’s mocking your meaning, not endorsing it!

    You see why I keep urging you to slow down? When you’re agitated, it’s just one mistake after another.

    0
  4. Robin,

    People make that mistake — saying “It’s not irony, it’s sarcasm” — all the time. Why should I have assumed you were immune, when your words indicated the very opposite?

    0
  5. Yes, he’s lamenting its expanded use.

    keiths sez “That isn’t irony”

    Tim Conley and Philip Howard disagree, saying “Sadly, these days (i.e. since 1978), it is.”

    Or are you perhaps a member of the prescriptive school?

    Oh! I, err, hadn’t realized.

    I’ll get me coat.

    0
  6. Jock, you’re a hoot.

    Conley is a prescriptivist:

    ‘Ironic’ has become a byword of our age, either despite or perhaps partly because of its predictably regular misuse by television news anchors and pop music singers.
    [emphasis added]

    The whole paragraph is a screed against misuse.

    You righteously cited Conley as an expert, but he thinks your meaning — what you mistakenly called the “Conley sense” — is a misuse of the word “ironic”. Oops.

    Is there anything that can get you to admit such an obvious error?

    0
  7. Jock,

    I enjoy sparring with you. It’s too bad you aren’t a better sport about your mistakes.

    0
  8. keiths,

    What does Conley say about ‘sardony’? IIRC, jock’s initial claim was about your weakness in deciphering THAT.

    Anyhow, I love how the debate about whether Alan meant what he said literally has descended into a semantic quibble about how one ought to use the word ‘ironic.’ You guys are just so awesome sometimes.

    0
  9. walto:

    What does Conley say about ‘sardony’? IIRC, jock’s initial claim was about your weakness in deciphering THAT.

    That was just DNA_Jock’s attempt to change the subject. Alan’s claim was that I had missed the irony in his statement, not the sardony.

    In fact, the exchange with Jock has consisted mostly of his increasingly desperate attempts to expand the definition of “ironic” in a way that somehow, in some way, encompasses Alan’s statement. Otherwise DNA_Jock is wrong, and that simply cannot be tolerated!

    It hasn’t worked out very well for him, as you can see. Proudly pointing to an expert in support of your meaning, and then discovering that the expert thinks your meaning is a complete misuse of the word in question, is not the way to make your case. It was entertaining, though.

    0
  10. walto:

    You guys are just so awesome sometimes.

    So are you, walto! Your contribution really carried the debate:

    walto:

    But, once he [Alan] clarified, keiths’ continued attacks are just obnoxious, as I tried to explain nicely to him the other day.

    No avail.

    keiths:

    Regarding Alan’s “clarification”, it doesn’t even address the actual issue. He wrote:

    Let me make this clear. I noticed, as I imagine anyone would reading thé comment, KN’s dig at phoodoo. I did not feel the need to state thé bleeding obvious. A mistake, obviously! 🙁

    He’s making an excuse for not pointing out KN’s irony.

    That has nothing to do with his claims that his own statement was both ironic and absolutely sincere.

    Perhaps you can explain how Alan’s statement was ironic and totally sincere at the same time.

    I look forward to it.

    walto:

    <silence>

    0
  11. I present an attempt at combining irony with truth in a statement.

    Keiths:There is no way you can miss the point for ten years unless you are trying very hard not to get it.

    I agree. That is an astute observation.

    Here

    0
  12. @ DNA Jock, Allan, Robin.

    Risky! You’re on his list, now! 😉

    ETA, and walto (I think you were there already!)

    0
  13. Hi Rich

    I appreciate your attempt at collegiality.

    Just check back and see how this started. KN writes a “straight-bat” comment, whose intention is to direct snark at phoodoo but stands on its own making good points that I agree with.

    I comment, also employing the “straight bat’.

    Keiths points and laughs, assuming I’ve missed the point of KNs comment.

    I comment, saying no I didn’t.

    Keiths calls me a liar.

    What I’d like to ask you, Rich, is do you think, based on the exchange, Keiths’s accusation of lying is a fair one?

    0
  14. Keiths

    Upthread you made another false accusation. I said I wouldn’t bother to argue with you. I (2 hours later – thanks for saving me the trouble of looking that up) I posted a comment that was neither an argument nor addressing you.

    Square that one.

    0
  15. keiths:
    Alan,

    Care to tell us what the point is that I’m supposedly missing?

    Not following. Where have I written that you are missing another point?

    0
  16. Alan,

    It isn’t just that you missed the snark in KN’s comment.

    In an attempt to cover up your mistake, you claimed that your comment was ironic. Then you turned around and told KN that it was absolutely sincere!

    0
  17. Alan,

    Not following. Where have I written that you are missing another point?

    Don’t play dumb, Alan. It isn’t necessary.

    0
  18. BTW, I would have responded earlier but I can’t respond effectively when out-and-about on a smartphone and we were hosting a gathering to celebrate the summer solstice yesterday evening.

    Yes, I know it was a day late.

    No, I didn’t think to get signed statements from guests.

    Yes, I did manage to steer the conversation to irony at one point.

    0
  19. keiths,

    Yes, and I stand by that. If you tell me that it is impossible to make a true statement ironically, I disagree. But as I said, I’m not going to argue that point with you.

    Do you think your latest accusation of lying is justified?

    0
  20. Alan:

    keiths, Do you stand by your latest accusation of lying?

    Of course.

    Do you stand by this statement…

    I’ve never lied in this forum.

    …even though it’s demonstrably false?

    0
  21. Alan,

    If you tell me that it is impossible to make a true statement ironically, I disagree.

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. Why not just read my comments? I’ve already explained all of this.

    In fact, I wrote this just a handful of comments ago:

    In an attempt to cover up your mistake, you claimed that your comment was ironic. Then you turned around and told KN that it was absolutely sincere!

    0
  22. keiths,

    You can’t support your latest accusation because you can’t in reality know whether I overlooked thé fact that KNs comment or not. Thé plain fact is I didn’t. I’m interested to hear what Rich has to say in response to my questions.

    0
  23. Alan,

    You can’t support your latest accusation because you can’t in reality know whether I overlooked thé fact that KNs comment or not. Thé plain fact is I didn’t.

    That doesn’t quite parse. Could you try again?

    ETA: Did you mean to put “was ironic” between “KNs comment” and “or not”?

    0
  24. As I said, I’m not going to argue with you about that. I’m disappointed but not surprised that you continue to claim my plain statement that I had not overlooked thé point of KNs comment is a lie.

    0
  25. Alan,

    As I said, I’m not going to argue with you about that.

    You just did!

    I’m disappointed but not surprised that you continue to claim my plain statement that I had not overlooked thé point of KNs comment is a lie.

    I do it because it’s true and because it’s part of a larger pattern in your behavior. You have a lying problem, as you yourself have twice admitted, and it’s a big one.

    You might not believe this, but I actually feel some sympathy for you. It can’t feel good to be battling these sorts of problems at this point in your life. However, I’m also pissed that you keep inflicting your problems on everyone else here at TSZ instead of dealing with them — all the while sanctimoniously proclaiming that you “care about the aims of TSZ” (as if the rest of us didn’t) and criticizing others for tiny bits of snark that you routinely exceed, such as this comment of mine, spoken of Mung’s failed attacks on Weasel:

    He can’t. And it bugs the crap out of him.

    Which would you rather have? Someone writing

    He can’t. And it bugs the crap out of him.

    …or lies, abuses of moderation privileges, and a childish refusal to admit mistakes?

    Motes and beams, Alan.

    0
  26. Also, you keep avoiding the fact that this isn’t just about KN’s statement, it’s also about yours.

    Again:

    In an attempt to cover up your mistake, you claimed that your comment was ironic. Then you turned around and told KN that it was absolutely sincere!

    0
  27. keiths: Regarding Alan’s “clarification”, it doesn’t even address the actual issue.

    My ‘actual issue’ was maybe not the same as yours? Unlike Jock, I hadn’t realized that Alan was kidding when he said you cause him to lie here sometimes. That seemed like a odd remark to me. However, when he said that was a joke, it was clarified for me. Jock’s discussion clarified it further.

    I know–you take the position that Alan’s first, odd-if-not-a-joke remark was true, and that his later statement was a lie. I just point out that nobody on this site agrees with you about that, in spite of your tireless efforts to convince them for maybe a year. Your interpretation is, to put it charitably, sui generis–the theory, one might less charitably suggest, of an utter dipshit with serious problems.

    As to whatever the hell you’ve managed to shift the debate to and have been able to get people to argue with you about instead for the last couple of days here, I couldn’t care less. In a site that is chock full of peurile arguments (so often led by you!), this one may take the cake.

    0
  28. Soooo, we’ve established that keiths is a prescriptivist (which explains a whole helluva lot, I feel kinda dumb for not grokking this earlier), and that keiths claims that Tim Conley is also a prescriptivist (which claim he based on Conley’s use of the word “misuse” to describe Alanis Morissette’s ‘Ironic’. WTF? By that standard, I’m a prescriptivist!).
    Cool and somewhat interesting in its own right, but not in fact relevant to the matter at hand.
    Keiths’s accusation of lieing rests on his claim that a statement cannot be both ‘ironic’ and sincere, viz:

    [keiths to Alan, emphasis added]
    In an attempt to cover up your mistake, you claimed that your comment was ironic. Then you turned around and told KN that it was absolutely sincere!

    So what matters here is Alan’s linguistic philosophy. Was HE perhaps using the term ‘ironic’ in the “You and I know, of course, though other less intelligent mortals walk benighted under the midday sun” sense, which sense has been acknowledged (and lamented) since 1978, as keiths has helpfully pointed out?
    Simply put, due to his rule-fixation, keiths has great difficulty understanding subtle use of language; it often goes straight over his head.
    ET change spelling of singer’s name to prescribed version 😉

    0
  29. keiths:
    Robin,

    People make that mistake — saying “It’s not irony, it’s sarcasm” — all the time.Why should I have assumed you were immune, when your words indicated the very opposite?

    Sure, people make such statements. But I didn’t. And I didn’t intentionally. I even set it up that way – all the noise about sarcastic and facetiousness and the Ironic song. Oh…and the “/snark”. And hey…I get it…Tone doesn’t come through across the Intertubes really well, so it’s easy to miss when someone’s being tongue-in-cheek sometimes. But then who’s making the mistake?

    0
  30. It’s very simple. If I say my intended meaning was X, and I am posting at TSZ, exeryone is required by the rules to accept X as my intended meaning.

    0
  31. DNA_Jock: Soooo, we’ve established that keiths is a prescriptivist (which explains a whole helluva lot,

    Not as much as you seem to think, iMO. I believe there are other factors in play which will, no doubt, all be covered by keiths’ promised OP. What I think is funny is that it’s apparently not only the case that someone has written a book on what irony is, but that more than one person here has looked at it. Awesome indeed!

    0
  32. petrushka:
    It’s very simple. If I say my intended meaning was X, and I am posting at TSZ, exeryone is required by the rules to accept X as my intended meaning.

    Simple until I explain that when I called him a lying fuckhead I really meant that he is the most decent person with the greatest honesty that I have encountered.

    There are real problems with rules that require that you treat what is actually one thing as if it were another. It’s a major loophole to be exploited, and it often is.

    Glen Davidson

    0
  33. petrushka:
    It’s very simple. If I say my intended meaning was X, and I am posting at TSZ, exeryone is required by the rules to accept X as my intended meaning.

    Exactly.

    0
  34. GlenDavidson,

    You’re right that at some point it looks like we have translation problems. But I think a rule requiring a ‘principle of charity’–at least for starters–is a good thing.

    0
  35. walto: Not as much as you seem to think, iMO. I believe there are other factors in play which will, no doubt, all be covered by keiths’ promised OP. What I think is funny is that it’s apparently not only the case that someone has written a book on what irony is, but that more than one person here has looked at it. Awesome indeed!

    It isn’t really a book on irony per se, it’s a book on Joyce’s use of irony. Conley’s written three books on Joyce, which might lead one to think that he’s in the descriptivist camp, but here (for once) keiths might be right: Conley might be a prescriptivist who wrote three books on Joyce. Think on that for a minute…
    I never said he or his book were any good. To me, he sounds like Gregory. keiths failed to detect the sardony in “he wrote a book on the subject”.
    Oh well…

    0
  36. DNA_Jock tries to back away from Conley, a little too late:

    I never said he or his book were any good.

    Riiiiight.

    You brought Conley into the conversation out of the blue. You kept mentioning what you (mistakenly) called the “Conley sense” of “ironic”, urging me to consider it. When I pointed out that the (non-)Conley sense wasn’t irony, you responded:

    Sez keiths.

    Tim Conley disagrees, and he wrote a book on the subject…

    LOL

    Problem was, Tim Conley doesn’t disagree. You looked at an entire page of text and missed its point entirely. You saw what you wanted to see, failing to notice that Conley was mocking misuses of the word, including the one you latched onto, rather than endorsing them.

    Now that you recognize your screwup and understand that Conley doesn’t actually support your position, you’re suddenly lukewarm on him:

    I never said he or his book were any good.

    Seriously, Jock, is there anything in the world that could get you to admit your mistake?

    0
  37. keiths:

    People make that mistake — saying “It’s not irony, it’s sarcasm” — all the time. Why should I have assumed you were immune, when your words indicated the very opposite?

    Robin:

    Sure, people make such statements. But I didn’t. And I didn’t intentionally. I even set it up that way – all the noise about sarcastic and facetiousness and the Ironic song.

    You think that italicizing a word or two makes a sentence ironic? (Read that question again before answering.)

    Oh…and the “/snark”.

    Which you put at the end of your comment, nowhere near the statement in question, and with no indication of where the snark was supposed to begin.

    You make plenty of mistakes, Robin. Why should I have assumed you were incapable of making this one, when there was nothing in your sentence — including the italicized words — to indicate that you didn’t mean what you wrote?

    0
  38. DNA_Jock,

    So what matters here is Alan’s linguistic philosophy. Was HE perhaps using the term ‘ironic’ in the “You and I know, of course, though other less intelligent mortals walk benighted under the midday sun” sense…?

    The answer is no, which is obvious if you’d just slow down and think this through.

    The reason Alan posted this disclaimer…

    @ KN

    BTW, notwithstanding, I meant what I said, which I’m sure you realise.

    …was because he realized that his comment, if taken ironically, inverted the compliment to KN, turning it into an insult. Alan didn’t want that, so he walked the irony back, not realizing that he was shooting himself in the foot by doing so.

    If Alan had meant “irony” in the bizarre sense that you propose, then there would have been no need for the disclaimer, because the compliment would not have been inverted.

    So yes, Alan does understand the meaning of “irony”, and no, he wasn’t misusing it in the goofy way you claimed.

    You aren’t doing Alan any favors by painting him as a goofball who has no idea what irony is (some “defense”!), or as someone so inept that he tries to insult phoodoo but ends up inadvertently taking a dig at KN instead.

    But of course, your chief goal here is not to defend Alan, but to deny, no matter how implausibly, your own mistake.

    It’s the DNA_Jock cri de coeur:

    Mistakes must never be admitted!

    0
  39. DNA_Jock,

    Here’s another obvious point that you overlooked.

    After Alan made his blunder, I explained how I knew he had lied:

    Alan,

    I pointed to your sincere statement.

    To get yourself off the hook, you claimed that your statement was ironic, not sincere, and you accused me of missing the irony.

    Now you’re telling KN that there was no irony — you were being completely sincere!

    That is a textbook foot-shot.

    You lied about the statement being ironic, and as liars often do, you got your story mixed up. You contradicted yourself, thus revealing the lie.

    If Alan had meant “ironic” in the goofy sense you’re proposing, he would have immediately objected that there was no contradiction between his comment being sincere and its being ironic.

    He didn’t do that. Why would he? He already recognized that he’d been caught in a contradiction, and it didn’t occur to him to pretend that he didn’t know the meaning of “ironic”. That was your ditzy idea.

    0
  40. I’m reassured to see that no other member seems to agree (at least publicly) with Keiths bizarre allegation that my objection to his “point-and-laugh” was a lie. And thanks to those above who expended time and effort in trying to communicate with Keiths.

    Nonetheless, it’s frustrating to see the allegation repeated notwithstanding the fact that only I can know whether or not I noticed KNs snark when making the comment Keiths “pointed-and-laughed” at.

    Perhaps Keiths should try an OP on irony.

    Regarding what Glen says about a loophole, this came up a couple of times before with other members. I reckon the rules already exist. I suggest an unsupported allegation, repeated often enough, is tantamount to spamming the board.

    Anyway, I have little time these days to look in or comment, so I’ll try putting Keiths on ignore.

    0
  41. Alan,

    I’m reassured to see that no other member seems to agree (at least publicly) with Keiths bizarre allegation that my objection to his “point-and-laugh” was a lie.

    How many people have stepped forward to (try to) explain how your statement could be sincere and ironic at the same time? One. That’s it. One.

    And his argument, which fails anyway (see comments above), depends on your being a doofus who doesn’t know what irony means and is too inept to do an insult right, aiming it at phoodoo but hitting KN by accident.

    You must be overwhelmed by the support.

    Nonetheless, it’s frustrating to see the allegation repeated notwithstanding the fact that only I can know whether or not I noticed KNs snark when making the comment Keiths “pointed-and-laughed” at.

    You’re clinging to that like a lifeboat, yet it wouldn’t help you even if it were true, because that wasn’t your only lie. You also claimed that your statement was ironic, and then you claimed it was sincere. It can’t be both.

    Stop avoiding the issue.

    I suggest an unsupported allegation, repeated often enough, is tantamount to spamming the board.

    That wouldn’t help you. My allegation is supported, and neither you nor anyone else has been able to rebut it.

    Anyway, I have little time these days to look in or comment, so I’ll try putting Keiths on ignore.

    I agree that your best strategy is not to comment. Like many liars, you’re having a hard time keeping your story straight, and your confusion has already caused you to incriminate yourself. If you keep talking, you’re likely to do it again.

    Also, what could you say to explain how your comment was both sincere and ironic at the same time? That’s a challenge you simply can’t meet, It’s a nonsensical claim.

    See this definition and this video.

    Even a robot gets it. (Thanks, Rich.)

    0
  42. keiths:
    keiths:

    Robin:

    You think that italicizing a word or two makes a sentence ironic?(Read that question again before answering.)

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComicallyMissingThePoint

    Which you put at the end of your comment, nowhere near the statement in question, and with no indication of where the snark was supposed to begin.

    Which would then…I don’t know…perhaps…you know…to most people…imply that maybe…just maybe…the poster was signifying that the entire post was a snark. Maybe.

    Seriously Keith… *rolls eyes*

    You make plenty of mistakes, Robin.Why should I have assumed you were incapable of making this one, when there was nothing in your sentence — including the italicized words — to indicate that you didn’t mean what you wrote?

    Why assume anything in this context? Why not just respond to the words actually printed? Who knows…maybe the meaning the author intended is in there. If not…if it’s unclear…it’s not like you can’t ask. It’s not like you’re immune to making mistakes, so really…assuming you know better than the author is just plain ol’ arrogance. This entire exchange really only serves to support Alan et al’s points that you are incapable of admitting when you are mistaken.

    0
  43. Robin: This entire exchange really only serves to support Alan et al’s points that you are incapable of admitting when you are mistaken.

    WHAT?!?!? He’s like the total EXPERT on NEVER doing that!!! X>{

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.