Editing Ontology:P213

{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean compound">
<li><onlyinclude><dfn class="field_nations manual" data-dimension="P" data-qid="213" data-numbersign="200" data-field="Property" data-series="" data-work="" data-chapter="" data-tale="" data-object="" data-note="communication question" data-lexeme="" data-structure="item">{{IP0}}{{#if: {{{1|}}} | [[Ontology:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] | [[Ontology:P213|"Signs test"]] }}<ins class="data-structure"> [rating]</ins></dfn></onlyinclude>  __NOTOC__
</li></ol><!-- change summary template:  copy or update fake Item from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|P213]] -->

<dl class="wikitable hue">{{HueRoster|P={{Ontology:P213}}| field value |OP1=test passed| {{Ontology:P213/G}} |OP2=test failed| {{Ontology:P213/NG}} }}</dl>

== Characteristics in draft ==

=== Properties ===

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueClaim|P=item type| {{Template:P}} }}
{{HueRoster|P=label (en)| {{Ontology:P213}} }}
{{HueRoster|P=alias (en)| Does this description or argument heavily rely on localized cultural constructs? | Does this description or argument highly rely on concepts or terms whose entire premises might be discarded by outside groups of people? | "Signs test" (communication question 13) }}
{{HueRoster|P=alias (en)| Would this description or argument make sense to a Saiyan? | Would this description or argument make sense to someone who doesn't believe in morality? }}
{{HueRoster|P=QID references| P200 rating / communication rating level }}
{{HueRoster|P=color swatch references| Toryism }}
{{HueClaim|P=Property data type| item |OP=instance of| communication rating level }}
</dl>

== Prototype notes ==

* Does this description or argument heavily rely on concepts or terms that normal people will reject as being coherent concepts? ("Signs test")
** Relevant in cases such as a video abusing the word "transphobia" and the concept of the inherent obviousness of morality when the people who most need to be convinced are people who fundamentally don't use the word transphobia and who don't actually believe in morality. But, note that this is a surface-level problem: talking about concrete happenings such as transgender depression and suicide is not considered a violation of this principle because both of those are real events rather than a constructed idea somebody can choose not to understand.
** Would this description or argument make sense to a Saiyan? - sub-case of signs test.
* There will not be a "Palestine test" because many people do not see genocide as obviously bad, and assuming that they do would fail the "signs test". As far as the United States is concerned, informational sources have to pass all the other tests for their ability to communicate with people and then actually persuade people that genocide is bad.
** The "George Floyd" test is okay because there are non-racial ways to read it, namely in terms of due process for all people versus shooting people to death or crushing them on the ground.
** The "Vietnam test" is okay because a great number of people do recognize that sending whole populations to war with each other is bad.
* Admission: there is a certain "SCP appeal" to all of these rubric questions where unsolvable problems are solved in silly ways through constructing a bureaucratic apparatus and doing everything by holes or internal rules in the apparatus. Well, Liberalism did it first; I've had to live my whole life with every law in the United States that builds on anything else sounding basically like this and making absolutely no sense.


[[Category:Properties accepting a communication rating level]] [[Category:Communication rating levels ontology]]