home go links go books go opinion go gallery go projects go resumé go
about this site
archives
book reviews
"to read" list
tech books
search books
books archive
last 10 posts
quotes
cluetrain
cluetrain (mirrored)
randobracket
image auth
search engine hits
  hit history
indexer stats
user agent list
HTML (view)
  (most up-to-date)
MS Word (dl)
code examples
doesntsuck.com
doesntsuck.com

December 31, 2003

deconstructing vacuous rap   (link, opinion)

http://www.feisar.de/content/gfx_en_gangstarapper.html
Fitty is a bit of a special case. He can only threaten to shoot someone so many times until it loses its edge. So he has to say things other than "I'm gonna f*#*$@ shoot you" to break up the threats. I can also partially forgive him for saying nothing and talking like an idiot because I'm not wearing a bulletproof vest at the moment, and he probably has some sort of firearm within reach.

This (see link) reminds me of a scene in Asimov's Foundation where logical analysis is applied to a transcript of an Imperial ambassador's visit. The result is that the ambassador said exactly nothing during his entire visit, even though the Mayor of the Foundation came away with the distinct impression that his planet was under Imperial protection.

I'm a big fan of conciseness and clarity. When I read books or articles, I like to have my dictionary handy so I can look up any words I don't understand and make fun of the author for being needlessly sesquipedalian if that's the case. As many of my friends and acquaintances are well aware, conversation fillers try my patience...

As an example, I was watching Russell Crowe on Letterman (I think it was Letterman, but who really cares) last night and he would not stop saying "an-dumb" whenever his pickled brain couldn't keep up with what he was trying to say. I was probably the only one (of three people) in the room who noticed it enough for it to bother me, but it was really pissing me off.

People will argue that unless you use said fillers, people will interrupt you and overwhelm the "conversation." I agree that some people will do that. However, I do not enjoy having serious discussions with the sort of person who will interrupt me to gain an argumentative advantage, and I do my best to end that sort of interaction as quickly as possible by being either intentionally painfully boring or extremely obnoxious.

Unless I'm in the mood to be cruel and amuse myself. A fun game is to play devil's advocate to anything a person like that says until they get frustrated and try to physically assault you. Or to loudly emphasize edge cases that punch holes in that person's points. Or to introduce tangent arguments that have no relevance to the topic of discussion but can be loosely connected (possibly by edge cases) and vigorously defended. Tangent arguments are a great way to shut someone up because it's relatively easy to find a subject that somebody knows nothing about. Once you have one of those subjects on the table, they will either admit they know nothing about that (no fun) or try to bluff their way through an argument, at which point you can make them feel stupid and punish them for interrupting you.

Did I say that out loud? Anyway, It's hard to find good conversation these days. "Course I love ya. I love alla ya. Fuh-real."

Posted by yargevad at December 31, 2003 11:13 AM


This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.