Js so yk your last sentence reflects bias in your own argument
I already did. Feel to reread if you are that curious.
Besides, you don't need to antagonize me nor to rely on ad personam. My proses are not meant to be provocative. I keep replying out of politeness or because you keep projecting your misunderstanding on me. And yes, I know you are going to say for the 20th that I misunderstand like a broken record.
What is the point of me saying that those seeking realism do not seek reality for one to conclude that unrealistic is an accurate term? Intricacies are sought, not realism. Intricacies do not equal reality, the more something is intricate does not mean it is closer to the real. It's a common misconception when modelling, believing the more complex the model is, the more it would grasp real patterns.
In modeling and in storytelling, the level of complexity does not guarantees realism; complex models, just like complex characters, don’t inherently mirror reality. As such, reality or realism (commitment to reality) is not the goal, but sophistication, polishment, refinement and truly, plausibility. A lot of things are believable, everything believable is not real. A lot of things are complex, everything complex is not real. A lot of things are nuanced, everything nuanced is not real.
As I already wrote, realistic characters are novelty, while exaggerated or unrealistic ones are the norm. Saying characters from a fiction are unrealistic is like complaining that artificial vanilla tastes like fake vanilla; it would be a novelty if it tasted like real vanilla. I like to think about HxH. Incredibly complex and nuanced characters. Far from realistic, but definitely plausible, coherent, cohesive, deep and authentic. "Plausible" is worth opening the dictionary for.
Finally, if you are that displeased with my rhetoric and find it pointless, you do not need to keep seeking me.
hello so no I am not saying a character doesn’t feel plausible
I’d rather see you debunk all of my arguments making me doubt myself instead of whatever this is, you’d make a great writer for literacy fiction tho
does “unrealism” not fully capture what I mean so therefore it’s a poor choice of words as you mentioned before or did you just happen to initially misinterpret me (trying to avoid the now forbidden word but it’s basically the same thing, mb for overusing it) because of your own maybe not always great comprehension skills so I should adapt to your special needs and use another word because you didn’t understand immediately even tho I think the average person would, my original comment has like 10 likes and one person replied saying they get what I mean…? You’re the only one disagreeing with me here, I really don’t think it’s that hard to comprehend what I was saying so it’s not a poor choice of words and I still do not agree with that it’s inaccurate but tbh I’m just gonna drop that bc we’re only gonna go back n forth if that’s brought up again
err but ofc I am not sure if everyone who read mt comment really understood what I meant, if you wish I could ask a few people ik that aren’t stupid to read my comment without any bias and explain what I meant to see if they understand what I mean without me having to further explain. If they all end up responding similarly to you or simply don’t understand me then yeah I’d probably consider using a better choice of words next time but hey you’re still the only person I’ve encountered to claim that unrealistic is an inaccurate choice of words even in a context like this
I don't know why you feel the need to cry at almost every reply or to assume things that you cannot prove, especially about myself since we are basically strangers. I am even more confused on why someone believing that a conversation is pointless and ridiculous is still engaging in circular arguments. But before one may be tempted to explain the obvious, I shall state that I know why. Regardless, it gives me hopes that I may even be able to make cats graduate Harvard, which is a pleasant mindset I uphold.
- "I am not saying a character doesn’t feel plausible" Nor do I say you do. Read carefully what I wrote, I was talking about my views on HxH. When I refer to your statement, I use the words "multi-dimensionnel", "authentic" or "complex" or words you seem familiar with it. I once said that implausible aligns with your critic, which does not mean that I am suggesting you accept this term. I am making observations, not projecting them on you.
- "does “unrealism” not fully capture what I mean so therefore it’s a poor choice of words as you mentioned before or did you just happen to initially misinterpret me" I believe I clarified this point multiple times already. My first reply reads as "I never understood this kind of critics against fictions". One who does not presume may wonder: why don't you? My second reply suggests that it implies a tautology. Tautologies are most of them not insightful unless you want to emphasize on something as, "the man who speaks is a man able to speak". Furthermore, I graciously made my views more explicite: "I know very well what people mean by an "unrealistic story". My grief comes from people's inability to use accurate diction." As well as with "unrealistic characters" as you pledge. This last quote answers your question. If there is more accurate wording to express fully oneself, why do people keep using words which fail to fully capture what they mean? This question does not seek answers. I know the reason why and you know why you use this term. I simply raised an eyebrow upon seeing this formulation, so bizarre yet common.
- " not always great comprehension skills so I should adapt to your special needs" You complained earlier that I used fallacies yet failed to name them and properly illustrate them, making the accusation baseless. Ad personam or the personal attacks that you throw at me does not rebuke my point. It may portray you as an abrasive and rude person, but it does not demonstrate any flaw in my statement.
- "I think the average person would, my original comment has like 10 likes and one person replied saying they get what I mean…?" You keep believing that I do not get what you mean. But my point is not that I do not understand you, it is that "unrealistic" is a poor choice of words. It is really that simple. You keep asking the same question over and over, and naturally, I will keep giving the same reply. You may want to push this fantasy of yours that I do not understand, but my point can sustain itself without you. As people commonly use "unrealistic" to mean something which has often little to do with realism.
- "You’re the only one disagreeing with me here" I do not need to agree or to disagree with you. I already said it before, I do not need to argue against or in support of your statement. My point is what it is and most often, I simply answer your questions and correct, what I believe to be a mischaracterization of my statements as you desperately want to picture me as an imbecile. What can I say? There was a time when people were so desperate to call anyone with slightly unorthodox beliefs fools or heretics despite History proving them right, but I digress.
- "I really don’t think it’s that hard to comprehend" It never was. But one cannot stop an individual to believe it could be hard for others, projecting that idea on them, as to validate whatever they want to validate. If one wants to believe that anyone who does not share their views are idiots, well, "it is what it is" as they say.
- "I still do not agree with that it’s inaccurate" You do not have to agree. I simply made a point and never was asking for validation nor felt compelled to insult your intelligence.
- "we’re only gonna go back n forth if that’s brought up again" Inevitably as you use the same claims and I find no need to be creative with my answers.
- "I am not sure if everyone who read mt comment really understood what I meant," The matter is not if people understand you or not. The matter is about diction. More than you, as you take it so personally, it is about "unrealistic" being used in a poorly fashion. As I already said, my point can exist without you. And the appeal of majority is a fallacy. It does not prove me wrong nor prove you right. It just shows that many share the same beliefs. Racism was once a popular belief. And History taught us to be wary of the opinion of the mass.
- "I’ve encountered to claim that unrealistic is an inaccurate choice of words even in a context like this " It is not accurate, therefore it is a poor choice of words. It does not mean that you cannot be understood through inaccuracies or that is an uncommon use, it means that one lacks diction. Toddlers for example use simple terminologies, which are most often inaccurate, but can be very intelligible. We do expect toddlers to use words that sounds more "familiar" to them than words which fully capture what they mean. But among adults or "little adults", who are expected to have developed linguistic discernment, it can feel a bit jarring. Words evolve as you said, but not always in the right direction.
Take care of yourself, as I wish you to find stories with more vibrant characters.
It really does aound like AI, whether it is or isn't doesn't really matter anyways. I might be incorrect but it seems like the diffrence in opinions is one person saying, for example. (The brothers loving the fl after meeting her for one day is "UNREALISTIC"). While the other person argues that the use of the word "unrealistic", not the underlying meaning or purpose of intent with the word, is reduntant and serves no real purpose and a better way to express your frustrationation/critic would be, for example. (The brothers loving the fl after meeting her for one day is "UNBELIEVABLE"). Atleast that's what I got from it
This is a nice summary. Concise and straightforward. Very correct, in my opinion.
Regarding the AI allegations, or that seemingly red herring, it's a bit weird that as soon as someone writes "properly", even with slight grammar mistakes, it is attributed to AI. I think people should higher up their standards, because it is just regular writing we were once taught. I believe a lot of people are able to write as I do but wish to do otherwise. But like you judiciously wrote, it has basically nothing to do with the issue at hand.
ya my fault i was stuck on that “misunderstanding” since one of your first replies implied or maybe seemed to imply the opposite of understanding and your later replies did not help because they came across as dismissive to me rather than directly addressing it or engaging with my point since the focus was on diction but I suppose that I could’ve done the same not sure ima have to reread everything but I also further emphasized my stance to clarify that my usage was valid something like that
I saw this before but was too lazy to type out my response so this is the best i can do
alr yes “unrealistic” can potentially be ambiguous and there might be more precise terms I could use however my intent with that was to convey a broad critique that’s widely understood by audiences and “unrealistic” serves that purpose so is it really objectively a poor choice if it effectively communicates a critique understood by the audience? If people get the message, then I don’t think the word choice is poor. like I said, language evolves and you said not always in the right direction but it doesn’t frequently lead to confusion nor has it lost it’s meaning so I wouldn’t argue that it evolved in the wrong direction unlike um idfk “literally” ?
Dude that is not considered a regular way of writing in a debate your writing style got more complexity than clarity it was exhausting to read sometimes but you can take the ai allegations as a compliment
me 4-5 years ago would’ve eaten ts up lmfaoo only like 5 chaps in n i cannot take this seriously the characters feel so unrealistic its js silly to me it doesn’t seem like this will get any better but is this worth continuing