A plea to the multitudes...

Lex

Dec 18, 2007
53
0
47
Chicago, IL
I know the original post had a somewhat "above the rest of you" tone / nuance (I know there is a better way to express this, but I am forgetting my English nowadays), and I know that there were CAPS, and explicit expressions etc... but if you strip that all away, what do you get?

Honestly? That tone was pretty much all I got from the original post, even the substantive points.

Mindsmoothie gave what I see as the one relevant response to the substantive argument: neither you nor any of us can control what other folks do. You (and others) can make fun of them as "damn noobz," as I saw on another thread recently, or throw around the term "hobbyist" as if it were an insult, but none of that will stop people from doing exactly what you dislike (as cm763 pointed out).

There's a saying among people who hike the Appalachian Trail that makes sense here too: "Hike your own hike." People get into magic for different reasons, and get different things out of it. People will do what they will do, and having a heart attack because someone isn't doing what you want them to do is a little fruitless.

But then there's the "but what about MAGIC?" argument: that there's some definable community that is obviously harmed by people doing a bad double lift on YouTube.

Don't see it, sorry. There's no "we" that's getting hurt by this, and no "we" that can do anything about it. There is no standard-making organization that can document the decline of magical standards over the decades. There is no self-regulating licensing organization for magicians like there is for lawyers, doctors, and accountants. There have always been tyros, failures, pedants, half-assed newbs, dilettantes, and other non-stars; the only reason we don't remember them is because they were exactly that. But they have always been around, "dragging down" the art. I just don't see anything other than an imaginary harm here, and certainly nothing new.

That is actually all I care about. The number of people who publicly agree with me vs. the number of people who actually might take something away from this both privately and publicly... well, I would have to care more for the latter.

And this is where I say that I actually completely agree with what you say about the quality of discourse on many of the forums, the videos, and so on. It isn't exactly reading the Sunday Times.

But that's just the way things are: it is what it is. So I skip the threads talking about the sudden, inexplicable appearance of White Centurions at Walgreens (which I did indeed see the other day). They make someone warm inside, even if it isn't me, and they do no harm to me, so why rail against them? The forums are for everyone, not just the few.

But in return, I can sift through and find interesting posts that offer constructive critiques and interesting ideas. That's worth it.

If you want to have that sort of discussion, post with that in mind. Yes, you might only get 5 responses, but you will likely get 5 good responses, rather than 6 pages of responses that stem more from your tone than your ideas. I'm sure you have a good point, but your medium overrode your message in such a way that it was pretty obscured this time around.
 
Nov 30, 2007
835
0
if we know someone doing that thn well u can help them or try to...but u can never control someones actions.

I actually couldn't disagree anymore...you can't control someone's actions? You can try and many times you can succeed.
 
Jan 13, 2008
1,161
0
I actually couldn't disagree anymore...you can't control someone's actions? You can try and many times you can succeed.
I wouldn't say "control"...I'd use the word "influence". :)

Yes, they have different meanings, and yes, that's important.
 
Jan 13, 2008
1,161
0
uhh no yes u can influence someone but you can not FORCE them to do something.
This is exactly the distinction I was making with the two words. Even if you had a gun to their head and told them to do what you say or die, and they subsequently do what you say, you are still not controlling them...just influencing their decision. They still have the choice to not comply (and thus die...making it a silly choice, if one values self-preservation, but a choice none-the-less).

So yeah, you can influence or coerce someone, but not really "control" them (in the strictest sense of the word). :)
 
Nov 30, 2007
835
0
uhh no yes u can influence someone but you can not FORCE them to do something.

Thats something I can agree with but like cm763 said, there is a distinctive difference between "control" and "influence". Two completely different words.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results