2022 Olympic Qualifying News

[kabidjan18]

I ask you to elaborate and you do not. Why am I not surprised? Tell me why "ever-so chauvinistic" and "among other things" are "disgusting."

In case you were unaware, the english word "chauvinistic", especially in academia, has extremely negative connotations. If you call someone a chauvinist, you are actively trying to degrade their reputation. What I find disgusting is not the content of your characterization of chinese people, but that you would characterize them as such. As though Chinese people were small-minded. Which is exactly that term implies. Perhaps you were going for something more like "patriotic", broadly speaking. But calling someone a chauvinist when you mean they are patriotic is like calling someone a misogynist when you mean to say that they are masculine.

 

[singlesliceofcheese]

In case you were unaware, the english word "chauvinistic", especially in academia, has extremely negative connotations. If you call someone a chauvinist, you are actively trying to degrade their reputation. What I find disgusting is not the content of your characterization of chinese people, but that you would characterize them as such. As though Chinese people were small-minded. Which is exactly that term implies. Perhaps you were going for something more like "patriotic", broadly speaking. But calling someone a chauvinist when you mean they are patriotic is like calling someone a misogynist when you mean to say that they are masculine.

I'm well-aware of its connotations, but it's rather presumptuous to assume that because it typically has negative connotation, I was utilizing it in such a way. Your interpretation is superfluously critical, since it was a rather neutral statement in regards to their utility. It's quite evident that you're straw manning me and this leads me to think you're rather "small-minded," not them. It's evident that I was referencing patriotism. "Misogyny" usually implies prejudice, whereas "masculinity" does not. Someone can typify a group with aggressive patriotism sans prejudice. This is a false equivalence quite frankly.

Am I a fan of patriotism? No, I am not, but this isn't an anarchist forum of mine, so I am describing in how it appertains to hockey; popularization. None of this was derived from some prescriptive notion.

 

[kabidjan18]

I'm well-aware of its connotations, but it's rather presumptuous to assume that because it typically has negative connotation, I was utilizing it in such a way. Your interpretation is superfluously critical, since it was a rather neutral statement in regards to their utility. It's quite evident that you're straw manning me and this leads me to think you're rather "small-minded," not them. It's evident that I was referencing patriotism. "Misogyny" usually implies prejudice, whereas "masculinity" does not. Someone can typify a group with aggressive patriotism sans prejudice. This is a false equivalence quite frankly.

Am I a fan of patriotism? No, I am not, but this isn't an anarchist forum of mine, so I am describing in how it appertains to hockey; popularization. None of this was derived from some prescriptive notion.

You can't use a word that universally has a negative connotation and merely say, after the fact nonetheless, that you aren't co-opting that negative connotation. Then I, or anyone, could call you any number of negative slurs only to say, upon reprimand, "what? are you using the universally applied and accepted negative connotation? I here have this other definition which does not have that connotation, though I am the only one to use it." That would be, and is, absurd.

Indeed, a simple search of the word "chauvinism" and its various definitions would have provided you various descriptive terms within those definitions such as "irrational", "aggressive", "excessive", "extreme", "unreasonable", "partial", "biased", and yes, "prejudiced." There is a point, with any term in the english language, that the connotation becomes part of the plain text definition. What is a good way to tell that point? Well, for starters, when these connotations have literally been baked into many of the formal definitions of the term.

Someone can typify a group with aggressive patriotism sans prejudice. Someone cannot typify a group as aggressive patriots sans prejudice with the word "chauvinist". It is not presumptuous, nor is it false equivalence, to understand a word with the characterization with which it is attributed by this society. Even if we were to grant you that you, for no other reason than the sake of debate, that you were not insinuating the outward facing descriptors such as "aggressive", or "biased" or "partial" or prejudiced", but merely inward facing descriptors such as "irrational" or "unreasonable", then keep in mind that you are speaking of an entire population, the most populous nation in the world, and describing them largely as holding irrational or unreasonable attitudes. That alone should itself be seen as indefensible.

 

[singlesliceofcheese]

You can't use a word that universally has a negative connotation and merely say, after the fact nonetheless, that you aren't co-opting that negative connotation. Then I, or anyone, could call you any number of negative slurs only to say, upon reprimand, "what? are you using the universally applied and accepted negative connotation? I here have this other definition which does not have that connotation, though I am the only one to use it." That would be, and is, absurd.

Indeed, a simple search of the word "chauvinism" and its various definitions would have provided you various descriptive terms within those definitions such as "irrational", "aggressive", "excessive", "extreme", "unreasonable", "partial", "biased", and yes, "prejudiced." There is a point, with any term in the english language, that the connotation becomes part of the plain text definition. What is a good way to tell that point? Well, for starters, when these connotations have literally been baked into many of the formal definitions of the term.

Someone can typify a group with aggressive patriotism sans prejudice. Someone cannot typify a group as aggressive patriots sans prejudice with the word "chauvinist". It is not presumptuous, nor is it false equivalence, to understand a word with the characterization with which it is attributed by this society. Even if we were to grant you that you, for no other reason than the sake of debate, that you were not insinuating the outward facing descriptors such as "aggressive", or "biased" or "partial" or prejudiced", but merely inward facing descriptors such as "irrational" or "unreasonable", then keep in mind that you are speaking of an entire population, the most populous nation in the world, and describing them each as holding irrational or unreasonable attitudes. That alone should itself be seen as indefensible.

Where do you get that it's universal? The term isn't even universally utilized. Stop begging the question here. Of course I can do such. Terms apply to their usage and if someone doesn't utilize in such a way, then it isn't negative. You can't just supplement someone's else's content with your own context and label it as negative. You're hopelessly perpetuating strawmen and I don't think you comprehend this.

So, what? Again, I acknowledge the fact that it's habitually negative, but again I repeat, merely because some term is habitually utilized in negative connotation, that doesn't mean it has to be. Now it seems you're appealing to population through a positivistic, linguistic purview. Terms don't possess truth value, so I don't see your point here? Again, they subjectively apply to the semantics and pragmatics of those utilizing it.

You're pedantically going on because, "muh other people." Your logic is piss-poor which has been exhibited by the numerous accounts of logical fallacies.

 

[Thedogo]

How do this turn into a racial debate about Chinese people?

 

[singlesliceofcheese]

How do this turn into a racial debate about Chinese people?

When people start being unnecessarily presumptuous, I suppose.

 

[Thedogo]

When people start being unnecessarily presumptuous, I suppose.

I guess.

 

[kabidjan18]

Where do you get that it's universal? The term isn't even universally utilized. Stop begging the question here. Of course I can do such. Terms apply to their usage and if someone doesn't utilize in such a way, then it isn't negative. You can't just supplement someone's else's content with your own context and label it as negative. You're hopelessly perpetuating strawmen and I don't think you comprehend this.

So, what? Again, I acknowledge the fact that it's habitually negative, but again I repeat, merely because some term is habitually utilized in negative connotation, that doesn't mean it has to be. Now it seems you're appealing to population through a positivistic, linguistic purview. Terms don't possess truth value, so I don't see your point here? Again, they subjectively apply to the semantics and pragmatics of those utilizing it.

You're pedantically going on because, "muh other people." Your logic is piss-poor which has been exhibited by the numerous accounts of logical fallacies.

First of all, let's get this straight. No term is universally uttered, but that doesn't prevent people from referring to the universal usage of terms because it is well-understood that universality refers to the totality of the population that speaks a given language. The societal usage. The term "yes" is not used by all human beings, but all humans who use "yes", do so in the affirmative, and not the negative. Trying to argue against a term being universally uttered is intentionally missing the point.

See, this is the problem. You even concede the fact that this term is "habitually" used in a negative connotation. I back this up with descriptors from dictionary definitions to depict the societal usage of the term. All these two show that, in the english-speaking society, the term "chauvinist" has a negative connotation. With your concession, that really should be the end of the debate right there. Yet you argue that because you, allegedly, did not intend to use this word negatively, that there is a separate definition that is attributed to your usage, one without the typical negative descriptors. There are a few clear problems for this assertion. The first is that semantic internalism is extremely unpopular in philosophy of language right now, and for good reason. Putnam's Twin-Earth thought experiment is a good illustration of the problems with that theory. So it is a bad theory to just say "meaning is in the head." Secondly, that would lead to unreasonable conclusions for language from a practical sense. Because you're not merely arguing semantic internalism, you're basically arguing that whatever you say not only originates solely from your understanding, but also that others should understand terms as you use them to mean what you wish them to mean when you wish them. Not only could any given person use any word previously known as an insult as a neutral or even as a compliment (ex. hussy, idiot), any person could use any word to mean almost anything, so long as he meant that when he provided the content, and put forth that particular "usage" of the term. But that would nullify the entire point of language. Language is conventions, accepted habitually, by which we communicate with each other. If each person may ascribe their own convention at the point that they desired to, then there would be no relatable conventions and language would lose its communicative value.

What the hell is a "positivistic linguistic purview?" First of all, it would be a "theory", not a "purview." Secondly, perhaps you know some philosophical theory that I don't, but it honestly sounds like you just made that up. No. I'm not arguing for the possibility of a model theoretic language. Not because there isn't the possibility of assigning T/F values but because of Putnam's Model Theoretic Argument against Metaphysical Realism. I don't know what else you could mean by "positivistic" linguistic theory. Semantic externalism does not require a model theory of language. Neither are you going for some skeptical argument to the tune of "meaning is unintelligible", you're presenting your own theory of semantic meaning. It's just not a well-developed theory, using a lot of vague language like "...subjectively apply to the semantics and pragmatics of those utilizing it." Is that semantic internalism? Is it making different claims, perhaps slightly stronger claims? No one would be able to tell.

Here's what has fundamentally happened. You called Chinese people chauvinistic. How are you even an authority on that? You probably aren't. Anyways, I called you out on it. Now you're trying to create some complicated argument to say that chauvinistic actually doesn't mean what society uses it as.

 

[kabidjan18]

How do this turn into a racial debate about Chinese people?

When people call chinese people "chauvinistic", and are shocked when chinese people take exception...

 

[Thedogo]

When people call chinese people "chauvinistic", and are shocked when chinese people take exception...

Dont get me involved in this argument, because I really don't care.

 

[singlesliceofcheese]

First of all, let's get this straight. No term is universally uttered, but that doesn't prevent people from referring to the universal usage of terms because it is well-understood that universality refers to the totality of the population that speaks a given language. The societal usage. The term "yes" is not used by all human beings, but all humans who use "yes", do so in the affirmative, and not the negative. Trying to argue against a term being universally uttered is intentionally missing the point.

See, this is the problem. You even concede the fact that this term is "habitually" used in a negative connotation. I back this up with descriptors from dictionary definitions to depict the societal usage of the term. All these two show that, in the english-speaking society, the term "chauvinist" has a negative connotation. With your concession, that really should be the end of the debate right there. Yet you argue that because you, allegedly, did not intend to use this word negatively, that there is a separate definition that is attributed to your usage, one without the typical negative descriptors. There are a few clear problems for this assertion. The first is that semantic internalism is extremely unpopular in philosophy of language right now, and for good reason. Putnam's Twin-Earth thought experiment is a good illustration of the problems with that theory. So it is a bad theory to just say "meaning is in the head." Secondly, that would lead to unreasonable conclusions for language from a practical sense. Because you're not merely arguing semantic internalism, you're basically arguing that whatever you say not only originates solely from your understanding, but also that others should understand terms as you use them to mean what you wish them to mean when you wish them. Not only could any given person use any word previously known as an insult as a neutral or even as a compliment, any person could use any word to mean almost anything, so long as he meant that when he provided the content, and put forth that particular "usage" of the term. But that would nullify the entire point of language. Language is conventions, accepted habitually, by which we communicate with each other. If each person may ascribe their own convention at the point that they desired to, then there would be no relatable conventions and language would lose its communicative value.

What the hell is a "positivistic linguistic purview?" First of all, it would be a "theory", not a "purview." Secondly, perhaps you know some philosophical theory that I don't, but it honestly sounds like you just made that up. No. I'm not arguing for the possibility of a model theoretic language. Not because there isn't the possibility of assigning T/F values but because of Putnam's Model Theoretic Argument against Metaphysical Realism. I don't know what else you could mean by "positivistic" linguistic theory. Semantic externalism does not require a model theory of language. Neither are you going for some skeptical argument to the tune of "meaning is unintelligible", you're presenting your own theory of semantic meaning. It's just not a well-developed theory, using a lot of vague language like "...subjectively apply to the semantics and pragmatics of those utilizing it." Is that semantic externalism? Is it making different claims, perhaps slightly stronger claims? No one would be able to tell.

Here's what has fundamentally happened. You called Chinese people chauvinistic. How are you even an authority on that? You probably aren't. Anyways, I called you out on it. Now you're trying to create some complicated argument to say that chauvinistic actually doesn't mean what society uses it as.

Are you seriously utilizing the word, "Yes," as a proxy for a word that's exceedingly more conceptual? Oh, boy, we have another false equivalence on your part. It is ascertainable that this word exists in every other language (or so I believe); affirmation is indispensable in language. I cannot say the same for the word we are debating. For instance, some languages have issues with translation, wherein a word does not exhaustively depict our equivalent and it subsequently requires a phrase(s). As far as my knowledge extends, Thai is an example of such. There's not much of a reason to beat this point to death, since you literally concede that universality in language isn't feasible insofar as your second sentence is concerned. I think we should concede that commonality and universality are divergent. The latter implies the former, but the former does not imply the latter.

You don't need to back it up, though. I clearly don't disagree that it's usually negative. The debate should end when someone indicates they're utilizing a term in such a way that contrasts from its commonplace context. You trying to shoehorn me into some 'conformic category' simply does not alter the fact that my intentions were not ill. I'm not asserting that meaning exists in the mind, but rather how individuals communicate is subject to their understanding. Putnam's thought experiment clearly doesn't apply here (much akin to your other FE fallacies), since in his original exposition, he was describing something concrete (or at least his proxy was derived from something that is, but I'm sure you get it). Chauvinism is not concrete like the planet Earth (or perceptibly so if hard solipsism is crap), it's an abstract concept. The water that exists on our Earth and the presumed twin Earth would likely still possess hydrogen bonds and what not; Chauvinism does not possess such qualities. This is a bit of a hypostatization on your part. Notwithstanding, his thought experiment isn't sufficient. If you want to delve deeper, then we can discuss this someplace else (email or what have you). I don't want to clog up this thread with philosophy.

Theory possesses (or can) a purview, though. If one were to assert how something functions, then they can do it based on their understanding (that doesn't mean it's accurate of course). Anyhow, when I say your position appears positivistic, I mean it appears that you're asserting that words and terms possess truth value (not sure if you are; feel free to clarify). Now, most would concede that the point of language is to communicate (whether it be intrinsically with oneself or extrinsically with others), as do I. It generally is counterintuitive to communicate with others utilizing contrastive semantics. This I concur. My issue is that, despite it being counterintuitive, that doesn't imply one's usage of the term. You were expressly presumptuous. It's generally 'Logic 101' to ask how individuals are utilizing their words, and more specifically terms. I'm not asserting that it's unintelligible. I'm not sure where you got that from? I'm saying that merely because some word has commonplace meaning, that doesn't mean every individual conforms to such. What is so vague about someone indicating that context and meaning applies to the subject that's interpreting it? Can terms be internalistic? If they're abstract, then I think it's more likely.

I guess I'm one that has a bit of an understanding of how patriotic the Chinese can be (in a relative sense, of course).

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Folks, let's get back on topic here.

 

[Thedogo]

Folks, let's get back on topic here.

Agreed!

 

[singlesliceofcheese]

Folks, let's get back on topic here.

I continued it through the messenger, so you can rest assured that our antics won't continue on my end.

 

[baronsforever]

IIHF has posted that first Olympic qualifier has been moved from Hong Kong to Hainan, China. This appears to be approved by all participants but I was wondering if this provides any issues for the team from Taiwan?

 

[wetcoast]

Yeah, I guess that they want China to have a team in the hope of growing the sport there, but I am not sure whether a Chinese team getting destroyed will do much for that.

Pretty much this.

Korea looks like a juggernaut to what the chinese are going to put out there.

For those keeping track at home Korea is ranked 17th and China is 32 between Spain and Iceland.

 

[mattihp]

Pretty much this.

Korea looks like a juggernaut to what the chinese are going to put out there.

For those keeping track at home Korea is ranked 17th and China is 32 between Spain and Iceland.

Iceland is still being carried by an ancient Gunner Stahl though, like 25 years after he played in the junior goodwill games.

 

[ZT]

Olympic Qualification Preliminary Round 2 started today. Iceland won against Kyrgyzstan (9:4).

 

[ozo]

Olympic Qualification Preliminary Round 2 started today. Iceland won against Kyrgyzstan (9:4).

This group belongs to Romania, no real contest here at all. Interesting to see Kyrgyzstan facing off against strongest opposition in their short hockey history.

 

[filip85]

Netherlands and Serbia should win their groups. Croatia is without Rendulić and bunch of players who only plays croatian "league".

 

[filip85]

Official stream for Croatian group.

 

[kabidjan18]

I wonder how, if at all, the WADA news will affect Qualifying. I mean, Russia is supposed to have a guaranteed spot and maybe not even be a team...

I say this despite hoping that the WADA suggestion will be ignored full stop.

 

[ozo]

We don't have a winner from Barcelona group "Due to unplayable ice conditions at the end of the 1st period the game was stopped." Pretty farcical to say the least.

 

[kabidjan18]

Croatia qualified for round 3. Good for them. Maybe Borna Rendulic will care enough to show up for round 3.

I think I really start getting interested in the OCQs at round 3 because that's the mid-minors, and then the final quali will be the mid-majors which will be absolutely no fun for me for different reasons.

 

[Maverick41]

We don't have a winner from Barcelona group "Due to unplayable ice conditions at the end of the 1st period the game was stopped." Pretty farcical to say the least.

From the IIHF website:

...

The game started as planned on Sunday evening, but a problem while cleaning the ice caused a large hole in the face-off circle to the right of the net defended by the Spaniards in the first period. The game officials gave as much time as possible to try to solve the problem but at 23:00 local time, two-and-a-half hours after play stopped, it was clear that it would be impossible to complete the game on the night.

...

Full source:
IIHF - Group L showdown abandoned