= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alsadius comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 17, chapter 86 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (606)
That, if anything, makes the system less clear.
Okay, some explanation: I took drethelin's "showdown/makeouts" line to be an oblique reference to Homestuck, a long and rambling webcomic saga which prominently features a number of character relationships that might be described in such terms. If this assumption is false, the comment doesn't make much sense.
So I responded in terms of the "quadrants" used by Homestuck's troll characters to describe their romantic lives. There really isn't any simple explanation of these, but this is as good as any.
Yes there is a simple explanation.
Some relationships (♥ and ♠) involve intense, romantic, sexual passion, whereas others (♦ and ♣) are quieter, more reasonable, and closer to friendships and other platonic relationships. Also, some relationships (♥ and ♦) are based on positive feelings, whereas others (♠ and ♣) are based on negative ones.
♥ (violent positive) is passionate romantic love. ♦ (quiet positive) is deep platonic attachment. ♠ (violent negative) is a love/hate relationship. ♣ (quiet negative) is smoothing things over between a feuding pair.
Point of order: the caliginous quadrant is not love/hate; it's all hate, but in a sexualized way. You have to genuinely dislike someone to be ♠ for them.
You mean that the one time I try to rely on how vague English is about feelings and just use "love" for "fascination, sexual tension, importance in one's life" it's not proper usage? That's it, I'm suing the Ingaevones.
I've read that, and I'm no more enlightened. However, I approve of in-jokes, so I've taken away my downvote. Also, now I know that I should never, ever read Homestuck, so that's something.
That's a shame. If there's one thing that Homestuck does right, it's time travel (and actually thinking through and writing what a world with casual time travel and timeline enforcement would look like.)
Er, okay? That's not my objection.