Puella Magi Adfligo Systema
- Thread starter Firnagzen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- puella magi adfligo systema puella magi madoka magica be gay do crimes (gay) female protagonist bad decisions dating mami tomoe (tomoe mami) diabolical laughter friendship is the best ship handholding identity crises microwaving tea gets you put in the bad place names are important the body is the fursona of the soul this is not the baked goods thread we don't talk about rionna what could possibly go wrong? who in the world is azure sanfrancisco?
bird_poison
Knowing their wrath, unfettered and raw
- Location
- margarita
Madokawish universe is flawed. That is both true and irrelevant.
We will prevent such universe from existing. Therefore, we are providing an alternative.
If the alternative we are providing is inferior than the Madokawish universe, then we are a source of net suffering, and our existence is less than waste of potential.
Whatever the means, whatever the times, our objective must be weighted against the universe we are denying existence. Otherwise we are the daughter of a great tragedy making the best of a doomed mission.
At least, that's my position.
We will prevent such universe from existing. Therefore, we are providing an alternative.
If the alternative we are providing is inferior than the Madokawish universe, then we are a source of net suffering, and our existence is less than waste of potential.
Whatever the means, whatever the times, our objective must be weighted against the universe we are denying existence. Otherwise we are the daughter of a great tragedy making the best of a doomed mission.
At least, that's my position.
- Location
- spinning
Well, getting bogged down into post pieces and addressing individual quotes*, I think, going by Firn's slapping of the sphagetti posting. I'm guilty of it at times as well, to be honest, but I notice this tends to happen back and forth when you discuss things with @AuraTwilight, for instance.
How I fight it:
I nowadays try to not address things superfluously. Unimportant points, things others have addressed or agreements don't merit quotes.
I try to consolidate where possible.
i.e. to take the post from last page as example, it could be less than fourth the length and less repeating by (perhaps linking to) broadly rejecting an , short sentence on what you agree on at most and comment on wraithverse.
And I believe others could do way better at not sphagetti posting than me, so their advice would be appreciated from my perspective as well (@foamy has explained before what it is and that it is bad etiquette, but not how they personally avoid it? [AFAIK, link would be nice])
Result looks way cleaner, though I recall it resulting in confusion at least once in this thread (I'm still learning).
* I do see some dogpiling here: @aeqnai and @Gadjo, I see you jumping on exact same points one after another on both this and last page.
Last edited:
Gadjo
Doka
More than one person having the sameish points or arguing against the same points isn't really dogpiling. Unpopular opinions draw arguments from more people.
bird_poison
Knowing their wrath, unfettered and raw
- Location
- margarita
Unles your own critique adds something different or you are clarifying your oppinion, use the likes system instead.
Onmur
Archangel of Nutella.
An apple tank with just one apple? Blatantly ridiculous.
Higure
Witch of Faith
- Location
- The Golden Land
*sighs*
I get what you're saying @Sereg. I don't necessarily agree with your philosophy, but I get it.
You have two problems here:
1. You (among others), speak as if your words are objectively true. After all, they are to your perception. For the sake of minimizing social conflicts based around this, I'd recommend using softer language and making it clear that these statements are based in your perceptions and beliefs.
"I believe that the number of people suffering is less important than the degree of suffering experienced." is far less likely to upset people than "The number of people suffering is less important than the degree of suffering experienced." for example. It seems silly, but...that's Social for you.
It's even worse when you do this with concrete facts, rather than abstract ones: Asserting a suspicion that X is True is fine. Asserting that X is True, however, requires a satisfactory proof and supply of evidence to avoid causing offense. This is less silly, for reasons I assume are apparent.
2. You never drop it. I know it's hard to ignore it when someone says something incorrect about your beliefs, or makes a statement that is anathemic to your worldview, but sometimes you have to either acknowledge that agreement cannot be reached and drop it there, or simply move on to another topic without reaching a satisfactory comclusion to the last one.
It sucks, but it's the Internet. RL, an argument that gets too heated is usually defused by either the fear of violence, a descent into violence, or an interruption. Here, only the last can occur, and even then isn't always sufficient.
Basically? Less absolute statements, more willingness to drop this and move on. It helps.
I get what you're saying @Sereg. I don't necessarily agree with your philosophy, but I get it.
You have two problems here:
1. You (among others), speak as if your words are objectively true. After all, they are to your perception. For the sake of minimizing social conflicts based around this, I'd recommend using softer language and making it clear that these statements are based in your perceptions and beliefs.
"I believe that the number of people suffering is less important than the degree of suffering experienced." is far less likely to upset people than "The number of people suffering is less important than the degree of suffering experienced." for example. It seems silly, but...that's Social for you.
It's even worse when you do this with concrete facts, rather than abstract ones: Asserting a suspicion that X is True is fine. Asserting that X is True, however, requires a satisfactory proof and supply of evidence to avoid causing offense. This is less silly, for reasons I assume are apparent.
2. You never drop it. I know it's hard to ignore it when someone says something incorrect about your beliefs, or makes a statement that is anathemic to your worldview, but sometimes you have to either acknowledge that agreement cannot be reached and drop it there, or simply move on to another topic without reaching a satisfactory comclusion to the last one.
It sucks, but it's the Internet. RL, an argument that gets too heated is usually defused by either the fear of violence, a descent into violence, or an interruption. Here, only the last can occur, and even then isn't always sufficient.
Basically? Less absolute statements, more willingness to drop this and move on. It helps.
Last edited:
Speaking in affirmation, this, more than anything.
- Location
- Here
My own strategy for avoiding lengthy arguments is to listen to the voice in my head. It sounds like my mentor from undergrad, telling me "Don't speculate! What is a test that can tell the difference?"
I thought I knew more than I did sometimes, and he would have none of it, so instead of arguing I would end up with a list of facts to gather and/or tests to perform. Most of the time, these provided decisive evidence to settle the argument, or revealed that we were asking the wrong questions. The exercise was always useful.
With words, one can argue one's way into convincing conclusions a long way from the well-known facts of a matter. This is usually unwise. Reliable conclusions are essentially only ever obtained by a fairly short cycle of testing and theorizing, in my personal experience. If someone shows you a long chain of fancy reasoning to get somewhere and it works, they already knew the answer with evidence not derived from the reasoning, usually.
Long internet arguments raise all my flags for "none of these people have enough information to decide the issue" so they're consequently easy, emotionally, to avoid or abstain from.
I thought I knew more than I did sometimes, and he would have none of it, so instead of arguing I would end up with a list of facts to gather and/or tests to perform. Most of the time, these provided decisive evidence to settle the argument, or revealed that we were asking the wrong questions. The exercise was always useful.
With words, one can argue one's way into convincing conclusions a long way from the well-known facts of a matter. This is usually unwise. Reliable conclusions are essentially only ever obtained by a fairly short cycle of testing and theorizing, in my personal experience. If someone shows you a long chain of fancy reasoning to get somewhere and it works, they already knew the answer with evidence not derived from the reasoning, usually.
Long internet arguments raise all my flags for "none of these people have enough information to decide the issue" so they're consequently easy, emotionally, to avoid or abstain from.
bird_poison
Knowing their wrath, unfettered and raw
- Location
- margarita
You are discrediting your own insight with arguments like these. Being long doesn't mean it is "fancy reasoning", it means it is long.
You are missing the forest for the trees.
Long arguments mean 1 thing. 2 or more people disagree on a topic, and have fuel enough to maintain such arguments. Why they maintain enough fuel varies wildly from case to case. A topic on ethics, with imperfect knowledge is bound to have lengthy arguments even if the involved parties have enough information.
The main isue here is not about arguments being lenghty in size. It's about arguments being not constructive, or being out of place, or (for some dumb reason) spaguetti arguments being looked down upon in this forum. So we should limit ourselves to a few pages if we don't reach concensus, or fight the matter outside if we realize it leads nowhere. But arguments being wrong for being lenghty is a poor stance to take in my oppinion.
To clarify on this point?
I, in particular, dislike spaghetti arguments and don't want them in my thread because they're disruptive and tiring to read. They also contribute to a toxic and hostile environment, because it invites people engaged in the argument aggressively attack the opposing arguer. Especially when there's more than two people in said argument - it tends to displace other posters and discourage them from posting.
Investment is one thing. I'm very glad you're all interested and invested in what I write. When you start turning the thread into a slog to read, well, then that's a problem.
Last edited:
- Location
- Here
I'll admit to lengthy but constructive arguments being welcome, inasmuch as they occur. My naive impression is that non-constructive arguments tend to get longer much more easily than constructive arguments, but as you say, if people aren't talking past each other one can have a lengthy discussion of something that ought to be talked about.
Godwinson
"Well, I've got nothing."
The only good spaghetti argument is the one about what seasoning to put in the sauce!
- Location
- Rockford, USA
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Oregano's good.The only good spaghetti argument is the one about what seasoning to put in the sauce!
Flee the path of off-topic!
But yeah, in support of Firn, even though I have way more time for this thread than I thought I might when I first posted here, I just don't want to spend time here when it's erupting like this.
- Location
- South Africa
What's odd is that I consider failure to "spaghetti post" to be inherently rude and disrespectful. I get incredibly frustrated at some posters' lack of "spaghetti posting". It feels, to me, that the person is claiming that the other person's argument does not deserve proper examination and they're hoping to confuse their opponent into giving up rather than debate fairly.
Maybe this is a weird, culture thing?
Maybe this is a weird, culture thing?
AuraTwilight
The Sorcerer of Smiles
- Location
- The Silver City
Sereg said:
Uh, it changes a lot, actually, because if Madokami is omniscient but "Ai" lets Homura derail the future possibilities Madokami can see, then it means Homura is a blindspot in her omniscience without creating a noticeable absence of information.
A near-omniscient being lead to believe it's absolutely omniscient.
Yea, except Chaos Theory is a bitch.
In Witchverse, Person A is killed, and while Person B is horrendously sad about it, they move on.
In Wraithverse, Person A loses their emotions, and Person B and Person C both end up committing suicide because they were emotionally dependent on Person A's emotional validation, and seeing him become distant and apathetic upsets their fragile mental balance, whereas if he just died they could hold on to his ideal in memorium.
It's extremely dangerous to simplify this sort of "suffering math" like you've been doing. That's what Kyubey does, but for the opposite direction.
bird_poison
Knowing their wrath, unfettered and raw
- Location
- margarita
Probably. Considering the evolution of the forum, its purpose and all that it is to be expected. But there will always be inbox, and "short" arguments can still be useful as long as they are useful.
Onmur
Archangel of Nutella.
The best spaghetti argument is the one we have with Mami about seasoning.The only good spaghetti argument is the one about what seasoning to put in the sauce!
Last edited:
Gadjo
Doka
The issue is it gets long and generally disjointed. When you feel the need to respond to lots of stuff, quote it in one spot, and then respond to it in one go, going from point to point. It's easier to read and generally more to the point anyway. Focuses on the actual arguments at hand rather than little incidental stuff.
Onmur
Archangel of Nutella.
OK, as soon as possible, we must invite some friends over for dinner. Madoka, Sayaka. Homura at the very least.
And for dinner, there'll be... Spaghetti and Spaghetti!
That's right! Both Mami and Sabrina will prepare Spaghetti... separately!
Which one of the two can prepare the best Spaghetti?
YOU DECIDE!
*Leans back from camera*
And for dinner, there'll be... Spaghetti and Spaghetti!
That's right! Both Mami and Sabrina will prepare Spaghetti... separately!
Which one of the two can prepare the best Spaghetti?
YOU DECIDE!
*Leans back from camera*
LucidProp
Pocky Eating MafiaDoka
I'm pretty sure the only Spaghetti Sabrina can cook is the one that falls out of her pockets.
Mami stomps effortlessly. Why are you so mean towards the rest of the collective, Onmur?
AuraTwilight
The Sorcerer of Smiles
- Location
- The Silver City
And in this timeline, Mami gemsplodes Sabrina, blubbering, "If Sabrina doesn't like something as fundamental as Spaghetti, then she has no choice but to die!"
It gets remixed into a youtube video called Bejeweled, and goes viral.