Translation Corner

[Kaedan]

You talk about polarization, which means two distinct and extreme groups of equal mass, and you talk about a lot of people on each side. There's actually very little polarization, with very little people arguing for harsh death penalties like xp/sp ones (and most of those postig multiple times). Most people argue for lighter death pealties and agree partially or completely with Yoshida's standpoint.

You're getting awfully specific about things I was very general about.

"Polarized" simply means to have opposing factions. They are polarized on the issue... there are many people who posted that want a death penalty and many who posted that don't. Notice how I never said anything about harsh penalties vs. lighter penalties... that's you putting words into my mouth.

So what it's really coming down to here, is you are making up your own definitions. You are separating the people who want heavy and light death penalties and adding the "light penalty" people to your side. You are using semantics to make it seem like I am being biased because you don't like me.

So basically you're saying "listen to me! Don't look with your own eyes!". Are you perchance afraid that people could think that your summary isn't exactly accurate?

Google translator is unreliable only to look for the smaller details. It's quite reliable to understand the general meaning of a text.

Nope, that's what you're trying to make me say. I'm merely pointing out the fact that Google translate is known for being very inaccurate.

I have absolutely no problem with people using it to try and read the Japanese threads. And actually, it might even help facilitate questions being asked. If someone decided to use Google translate, but the result they were getting was nonsensical or difficult to understand, they can ask about it here and get a more accurate translation.

[Abriael]

"Polarized" simply means to have opposing factions.

"extreme opposing factions" is the definition. There arent really extreme opposing factions, as the vast majority of the posters of the theard don't have an extreme position as well. The ones wanting harsh penalties or no penalties at all are a very, very small number, compared to the bulk.

It seems that you're the one making your own definition.

You are separating the people who want heavy and light death penalties and adding the "light penalty" people to your side.

People wanting light penalty *are* on my side, because I want a light penalty.

You are using semantics to make it seem like I am being biased because you don't like me.

You sure like playing the victim. Sorry mate, I don't care that much about you. I care about avoiding people being misled, hence I gave people tools so that they can protect themselves from that, whoever it comes from.

Nope, that's what you're trying to make me say. I'm merely pointing out the fact that Google translate is known for being very inaccurate.

And a personal summary of a few lines on a thread counting several pages would be more accurate?

[Dreamer]

"extreme opposing factions" is the definition. There arent really extreme opposing factions, as the vast majority of the posters of the theard don't have an extreme position as well. The ones wanting harsh penalties or no penalties at all are a very, very small number, compared to the bulk.

It seems that you're the one making your own definition.

People wanting light penalty *are* on my side, because I want a light penalty.

You sure like playing the victim. Sorry mate, I don't care that much about you. I care about avoiding people being misled, hence I gave people tools so that they can protect themselves from that, whoever it comes from.

And a personal summary of a few lines on a thread counting several pages would be more accurate?

Straight from Wikipedia: In politics, polarization (or polarization) is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.

This is pretty much what he meant. Polarization is often used to refer to a split (like the poles), in general usage it really only means the positions are at extreme ends of the spectrum. The reset of his comment puts into into context that he didn't mean just two groups, pro-penalty and anti-penalty. The two of you should just leave each other alone and focus more on debate points, rather than each other.

As far as the link for the google translation goes...thank you for providing it, but I've tried using in the past (and I tried that link as well), but it's nearly unusable. I'm not surprised - I can't imagine that a direct latin-based to non-latin-based language translation is ever going to work well without human intervention to decipher context.

[Abriael]

Straight from Wikipedia: In politics, polarization (or polarization) is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.

This is pretty much what he meant. Polarization is often used to refer to a split (like the poles), in general usage it really only means the positions are at extreme ends of the spectrum. The reset of his comment puts into into context that he didn't mean just two groups, pro-penalty and anti-penalty. The two of you should just leave each other alone and focus more on debate points, rather than each other.

Fact is that actually polarized opinions are the rarest between the ones expressed in that thread.

As far as the link for the google translation goes...thank you for providing it, but I've tried using in the past (and I tried that link as well), but it's nearly unusable. I'm not surprised - I can't imagine that a direct latin-based to non-latin-based language translation is ever going to work well without human intervention to decipher context.

You're very free to use the tools you prefer. I provided a 100% unbiased alternative that I find quite usable, especially to grasp the general meaning of what's said. You should definitely be able to tell if someone's opinion on a subject is negative or positive 99% of the times.
I'm quite sure the level of precision and detail attainable is still better than a short, extremely condensed summary of several pages with hundreds of different opinions. But again, you're free to take or drop it It's a tool, the more tools the better.