I can play on my own time, and I can play with friends, but god help me I HATE playing on the server's time. I can kinda do it with Pokemon Go, but that's one you can play as casually or as hardcore as you like since you're mostly playing for yourself after a point.
It's the way of the world. To eat, to live, work must be done. The most fair is way to divide up the work which must be done is by capacity. The fruits of those labors should be distributed first according to need, second according to whomever produced them.
This is not how things are done now, of course. Now, the neediest work hardest, and the fruits of that labor flow to those who have the least need.
Gender variant expression is found across all human societies (probably gender/sexual dysphoria too), but transgender identification (and third genders) seems highly culturally dependent.
Hard to know what impact language has. It's perfectly possible that in cultures without as much linguistic gendering, there's less trans identification because there's less gendered language to attach to or push away from.
And yeah, their loss, I agree. And don't get me wrong, not everything Malik ever does works 100% for me. Tree of Life was good, but A Hidden Life was profound. I think anyone could find at least one of his films that would make them feel something deeply, if they had the patience.
This is kind of like what happens internally on platforms for 3rd party sellers like eBay, Amazon, and AliExpress. Even decades later they're still working the kinks out obviously. Amazon and AliExpress particularly have lots of scammers, so they clearly haven't figured out the secret sauce yet. They're not under-resourced, so either they're under-motivated to weed it out or it's actually pretty tricky to do.
My guess is it's both, but more that it's just tricky to implement a reliable system of reputation and trust. EBay and Amazon got around it early on by being cheap and establishing policies that heavily favored buyers in disputes, which made the prospect of using the service less risky to the public, improving their market shares. They probably also have non-trasparent systems for tracking buyer reputations as well to avoid abuse.
It seems to be the norm to keep these systems obscure to avoid abuse, but to make a truly functional open platform you would need to have public systems, so I'd hope that the norm of obfuscation is out of convenience or laziness and isn't required to make the system function.
Boycotting is hard, because "no ethical consumption (etc).
That said, I boycott Wendy's and highly, HIGHLY encourage everyone else to do so as well because they still won't sit down with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and join the Fair Food Program.
To the ends of coherent communication, intent always has to have priority over perception. That's not to absolve speakers of responsibility for failures of communication, just to define the ends of communication.
Consider a discorse you may have heard before, in some variation:
A: How're you?
B: I'm terrible. I was trying to mow the lawn today, and the mower just wouldn't start. I think the gas I used was too old. Did you know gasoline can actually expire? (etc for a couple of minutes).
A: I'm so sorry to hear that. Your total is $57.48. Will that be cash or card?
B misinterprets A's perfunctory greeting as a literal inquiry. What's more important? That A's original intent be understood (I.e. A simple salutation and transaction)? Or that B's interpretation be recognized and explored? I believe it's A's intent.
Or maybe:
C: Nice shirt!
D: What?
C: I said that's a nice shirt man. It looks good on you.
D: I'm not gay.
C: What?
D's perception of C's compliment as a sexual advance is incorrect. What's more important here: C's intent, or D's interpretation? I believe it's again C's intent. Maybe it's easier to empathize with C here, but I think the principle holds broadly. C gives a compliment, and D replies with a general inquiry as to the intent. C mistakenly believes that he was not heard clearly, and repeats the statement with greater detail. D, believing that C is clarifying that he is making a pass at him, expresses that he is not interested. C is confused D's seemingly random declaration of his sexual orientation, and asks why he said that.
And on it goes when people talk past each other. But the way people stop talking past each other is by understanding the intent behind each other's words. Understanding a perception, or more particularly a misperception, only gets you part of the way there. It helps you determine whether or not communication was successful, but it is a measure of the success of communication only by the degree to which it conforms to the intent of the speaker.
Well the question which it was trying to answer was "Which is more important?" without further context. We've all had to fill the blanks around "more important for what?" The intent is somewhat unclear, ironically enough.
I've interpreted as a question about communication, or specifically about which of these two factors is more important in determining how communication ought to be interpreted. A way to rephrase the question as I interpreted it could be "When a communication fails, when the interpretation varies from the intent, which merits greater consideration in determining the final disposition of the communication? Do we circle back to the intent of the statement, or does meaning imbued in the new interpretation take precedence?"
So it's to that question that I say it's intention all the way, and that if we iteratively communicate with the goal of making intent and interpretation match, the goal should be to arrive at the intent of the initial communicator and not to convince the intial communicator that the interpreter's initial interpretation was correct.
Of course I might have misunderstood what OP was asking, idk.
What I'm saying is that communication is a burden upon the speaker and the listener, or the writer and the reader. The encoder and the decoder. But any way you look at it, the goal is to communicate (on the part of the encoder) and discern (on the part of the decoder) the intent of the communication act. It's not about fault or responsibility when communication fails, but what's more important in understanding a communication act.
If the question is intention vs. perception, intention all the way. Perception of a speech act should track the intent of the speaker, otherwise the perception has failed.
There are of course ways a person can make their intention clearer, particularly by following rules/norms of communication, and a person receiving or processing that communication should also utilize understanding of those rules to interpret (to properly perceive) the information.
But if both parties are doing their level best to clearly encode and decode the information, but the perceived message varies from the intended one, which one is closer to the truth? Intention. And over the long term truth wins out.
Mi volas konvinki mian edzinon al lerni kun mi. Mi pensas ke se mi povas praktiki kun alian homon, mia gramatiko kaj vortfarado pliboniĝus. Sed ŝi ne volas.
I can play on my own time, and I can play with friends, but god help me I HATE playing on the server's time. I can kinda do it with Pokemon Go, but that's one you can play as casually or as hardcore as you like since you're mostly playing for yourself after a point.