WARNING: I'm mostly blowing off steam, if you don't want to read someone whine, then just watch the youtube video and have a larf.
I don't know how to embed videos, but here's an old gem I found recently.
I'm pretty tired of the internet and of the random people who all have an even say on here. The communal resource that is the internet has done a lot for me, and I've met some OK people on here, but over all, you have to wade through a lot of shit to get to the gems.
Some points that are pissing me off right now:
- The ability to debate trumps the search for truth - Trolls feel no remorse and have no conscience - People have no ability to see from another's perspective (and thus have no ability to make convincing arguments, but rather make polarizing ones) - There's no context to supplied information (no way to know how old you are, what your education and work experience are, and how they relate to your claims)
The worst of it is having been a denizen of the internet for almost 15 years I have myself become much more argumentative. Why do people have to be so contrary? I understand the need for conflict in order to grow, but most conflict on the internet is utterly meaningless.
I've taken recently to playing more Single-Player games and reading fiction in the time that I would usually use on the internet browsing or playing multiplayer games. I have real friends, a real family and a real community, and I don't really need to supplement them with a hundred million trolls.
I do hear you. I think my time on the internet has made me a more cynical and unbelieving person. When you have to deal with the fucktards/trolls and you can't believe anything you hear on the internet, it makes to act the same way in real life. I can't word this very well but I think you understand what I am saying.
Like even that video, it's gotten to the point where i don't even enjoy it, because I just think "oh just a person trolling for views on youtube". If I didn't spend so much time on the internet I would have just laughed and had a good time watching it.
Okay, sorry for that, it's early and my sense of humor is always off..
I want to respond to your blog, but I can't really think of something to say; yes, you're right. The internet's anonymity is often the cause for terrible, terrible habits; people don't feel responsible for their own actions anymore. However, I do think the TL mods are doing quite a fine job, don't you agree? The trolling here is kept to a minimum and I must say that TL is often times a better source of information than the media here in the Netherlands.
However, on the subject of the pot and the kettle, a quick question for your conscience; have you ever changed your opinion based on another internetuser after a discussion?
On June 26 2012 13:59 venomium wrote: However, on the subject of the pot and the kettle, a quick question for your conscience; have you ever changed your opinion based on another internetuser after a discussion?
It happens often enough, actually. But it's when their education or expertise is particularily evident (ie opinions on competitive video games) OR when they take the time to see my point of view and relate their counterargument to me.
Telling someone they're wrong with no explaination, or telling them their way of thinking is backwards, etc is the obvious form of un-convincing arguing. However passively ignoring someone's point of view is just as counter-effective. People's form of "discussion" on the internet is based on proving one's self right, and not in convincing anyone of anything.
On June 26 2012 13:59 venomium wrote: However, I do think the TL mods are doing quite a fine job, don't you agree?
I do not debate for a moment that TL is cleaner than the majority of community-based websites, but I'm not only talking about trolling. Things that are not bannable here are still destructive, particularily polarized discussions. When discussions become You vs. Us it's not exactly bannable until people make it personal.
For example,
Person A: I believe in national/universal healthcare Person B: That's ignorant and short sighted. The economic viability of ... blah blah blah.
Is not constructive, but not bannable. A better response would be
Person B: It has worked to some level of success in the past. However I think in Contry X's current position maybe 1, 2, and 3 would be difficulties it would run in to. How do you think they would properly adress that?
On June 26 2012 13:59 venomium wrote: However, on the subject of the pot and the kettle, a quick question for your conscience; have you ever changed your opinion based on another internetuser after a discussion?
It happens often enough, actually. But it's when their education or expertise is particularily evident (ie opinions on competitive video games) OR when they take the time to see my point of view and relate their counterargument to me.
Telling someone they're wrong with no explaination, or telling them their way of thinking is backwards, etc is the obvious form of un-convincing arguing. However passively ignoring someone's point of view is just as counter-effective. People's form of "discussion" on the internet is based on proving one's self right, and not in convincing anyone of anything.
On June 26 2012 13:59 venomium wrote: However, I do think the TL mods are doing quite a fine job, don't you agree?
I do not debate for a moment that TL is cleaner than the majority of community-based websites, but I'm not only talking about trolling. Things that are not bannable here are still destructive, particularily polarized discussions. When discussions become You vs. Us it's not exactly bannable until people make it personal.
For example,
Person A: I believe in national/universal healthcare Person B: That's ignorant and short sighted. The economic viability of ... blah blah blah.
Is not constructive, but not bannable. A better response would be
Person B: It has worked to some level of success in the past. However I think in Contry X's current position maybe 1, 2, and 3 would be difficulties it would run in to. How do you think they would properly adress that?
They could do better though, for starters they could correct grammar and some distinction when they penalize people. Use the word "suspended" if it temporary and the word "ban" if its permanent, right now they use "permanent banned" which makes as much sense as they would use the "user is temporary suspended".
They could also invoke different penalties, like certain users only had max amount of posts they could do each day for those that doesn't seem to get it, some threads could be enforced with rules, such as the LR thread could be under the force of "slow posting" which means anyone posting only could do so every few minutes and so fort. This would be great for "hot" topics as well. Further they could penalize anyone who posts offensive/garbage posts and anyone that responds to it, since if no one responds to shitty posts they wouldn't get an exposure and thus just die out.
Then there is the whole "mystery" or the lack of transparency/lack of communication of what rules that actually apply when posting. There are tons of "hidden" rules that you should not violate but it's near impossible for a newcomer to understand what these rules are.
I'm not saying the mods are doing a bad job, they are keeping the forums clean, but there is room for improvement.
You know, it's kinda hard to discuss the subjects in your post when I think that 9% of the people will agree with your opinion, even though they may not act on it -.- So okay, you're right.
However, the second part of your second post is worth noting an extra point:
I'm going to talk about this point based on something that happened to myself recently, and it might not come out 100% correctly, but bear with me. The following is based on my understanding of some no-name psychologist's opinions (had to visit him for a job-assesment).
People got three level of communication, emotional, logical and law-based (lacking a better translation). Emotional being the level of what you named, transferring in the other's shoes and talking about feelings and making sure everyone feels good about the discussion and try to confince the other through his emotions. Logical talking is less about discussing and more about 'correcting' the other through facts and data. Law-based.. I didn't really get his point on this subject, but if I understand correctly, it was talking on a level of 'well, smarter people than us have decided this/ life sucks, we have to deal with this/ okay, you want to execute the process differently, but you should do it according to the norm, and then afterwards file a complaint that the current process might not be the right way'.
The reason I failed the assesment is because I speak mostly on the logical level, just like the posters you mentioned. Your example is a great example of logical discussion; 'you're wrong because A,B and C, hence you should change your opinion unless you got better facts.' In my opinion, this is great discussing, no feelings involved, cold, straight facts being thrown around by both parties untill one of both gives in, making that person the 'winner' in the discussion.
Of course, the counter-argument is that people won't really change, rather simply give up on the discussion, when their feelings aren't changed.
I'm not really sure why I started rambling this way, but my point kinda boils down to; 'someone on the internet is wrong, I've got to fix this', is how I like to discuss and I faultly assume that this is how everbody's brains work. So, this might not really be an internet problem, but more a RL problem translating to the internet, strengthened by the anonymity (not losing face when you back out of the discussion).
Edit: ninja'd
On June 26 2012 14:29 Integra wrote: They could do better though, for starters they could correct grammar and some distinction when they penalize people. Use the word "suspended" if it temporary and the word "ban" if its permanent, right now they use "permanent banned" which makes as much sense as they would use the "user is temporary suspended".
They could also invoke different penalties, like certain users only had max amount of posts they could do each day for those that doesn't seem to get it, some threads could be enforced with rules, such as the LR thread could be under the force of "slow posting" which means anyone posting only could do so every few minutes and so fort. This would be great for "hot" topics as well. Further they could penalize anyone who posts offensive/garbage posts and anyone that responds to it, since if no one responds to shitty posts they wouldn't get an exposure and thus just die out.
Then there is the whole "mystery" or the lack of transparency/lack of communication of what rules that actually apply when posting. There are tons of "hidden" rules that you should not violate but it's near impossible for a newcomer to understand what these rules are.
I'm not saying the mods are doing a bad job, they are keeping the forums clean, but there is room for improvement.
I do think this borders on backseat moderation, a better place for this might be on website feedback?
On June 26 2012 14:35 venomium wrote: You know, it's kinda hard to discuss the subjects in your post when I think that 9% of the people will agree with your opinion, even though they may not act on it -.- So okay, you're right.
However, the second part of your second post is worth noting an extra point:
I'm going to talk about this point based on something that happened to myself recently, and it might not come out 100% correctly, but bear with me. The following is based on my understanding of some no-name psychologist's opinions (had to visit him for a job-assesment).
People got three level of communication, emotional, logical and law-based (lacking a better translation). Emotional being the level of what you named, transferring in the other's shoes and talking about feelings and making sure everyone feels good about the discussion and try to confince the other through his emotions. Logical talking is less about discussing and more about 'correcting' the other through facts and data. Law-based.. I didn't really get his point on this subject, but if I understand correctly, it was talking on a level of 'well, smarter people than us have decided this/ life sucks, we have to deal with this/ okay, you want to execute the process differently, but you should do it according to the norm, and then afterwards file a complaint that the current process might not be the right way'.
The reason I failed the assesment is because I speak mostly on the logical level, just like the posters you mentioned. Your example is a great example of logical discussion; 'you're wrong because A,B and C, hence you should change your opinion unless you got better facts.' In my opinion, this is great discussing, no feelings involved, cold, straight facts being thrown around by both parties untill one of both gives in, making that person the 'winner' in the discussion.
Of course, the counter-argument is that people won't really change, rather simply give up on the discussion, when their feelings aren't changed.
I'm not really sure why I started rambling this way, but my point kinda boils down to; 'someone on the internet is wrong, I've got to fix this', is how I like to discuss and I faultly assume that this is how everbody's brains work. So, this might not really be an internet problem, but more a RL problem translating to the internet, strengthened by the anonymity (not losing face when you back out of the discussion).
I don't know how familiar you are with Meyers-Briggs, but I'm INTJ, also known as the "Mastermind." I am very, very logically minded, and also enjoy discussing facts. However, the statement "you're wrong" which you used is inherently offensive. A logically-minded person will not enjoy being called "wrong" and unless they're a robot their response will be slightly emotionally affected.
On June 26 2012 14:38 Shai wrote: I don't know how familiar you are with Meyers-Briggs, but I'm INTJ, also known as the "Mastermind." I am very, very logically minded, and also enjoy discussing facts. However, the statement "you're wrong" which you used is inherently offensive. A logically-minded person will not enjoy being called "wrong" and unless they're a robot their response will be slightly emotionally affected.
Familiar on this topic thanks to TL^^ My outcome was INT... something, maybe even J.
And yes, 'you're wrong' is offensive. (I actually want to keep a couple of blank lines after this line) But why should I care about some else's opinion? They're wrong, and should know that they're wrong, they should read up on a subject before wasting people's time with nonsense.
I honestly feel (here we go again, me, damn hippie) this way, why should I care? When I'm wrong, I feel terrible, absolutely defestated, but I still like people to call me on my BS, so that I can improve and become smarter/ a better person.
Edit; sorry for clogging up your blog, I just wanted to say that I understand where you're coming from, but I also understand why people discuss the way they do.
On June 26 2012 14:38 Shai wrote: I don't know how familiar you are with Meyers-Briggs, but I'm INTJ, also known as the "Mastermind." I am very, very logically minded, and also enjoy discussing facts. However, the statement "you're wrong" which you used is inherently offensive. A logically-minded person will not enjoy being called "wrong" and unless they're a robot their response will be slightly emotionally affected.
But why should I care about some else's opinion? They're wrong, and should know that they're wrong, they should read up on a subject before wasting people's time with nonsense.
I honestly feel (here we go again, me, damn hippie) this way, why should I care? When I'm wrong, I feel terrible, absolutely defestated, but I still like people to call me on my BS, so that I can improve and become smarter/ a better person.
Our differences are fewer than our similarities.
I think the two statements you gave in this quoted section are directly disagreeing with eachother. I also want "people to call me on my BS." But I want people to convince me I'm wrong, not tell me I'm wrong. People on the internet tell eachother they're wrong every other sentence, but nothing comes out of it because no-one's convinced.
If instead of saying "You're wrong and here's why:" you said "Here's contrary evidence you should think about:" you are far more likely to help that person and in the end change their opinion.
EDIT: Or even just said "I disagree and here's why:." The point isn't to coddle people but rather to have a constructive conversation as opposed to a polar one.
Some people can see other peoples point of view, but most of what you are ranting about is about maturity and how the people around you are lackluster in maturity, thats definitely a valid thing to bitch about.
On June 26 2012 14:56 Shai wrote: Our differences are fewer than our similarities.
I think the two statements you gave in this quoted section are directly disagreeing with eachother. I also want "people to call me on my BS." But I want people to convince me I'm wrong, not tell me I'm wrong. People on the internet tell eachother they're wrong every other sentence, but nothing comes out of it because no-one's convinced.
If instead of saying "You're wrong and here's why:" you said "Here's contrary evidence you should think about:" you are far more likely to help that person and in the end change their opinion.
EDIT: Or even just said "I disagree and here's why:." The point isn't to coddle people but rather to have a constructive conversation as opposed to a polar one.
Your words come out better than mine -.- And yes, that difference was partly exactly what I'm talking about; in my opinion you shouldn't have to convince people when they're wrong that they are wrong. They'll have to add the 1 and 1 themselves, if they think highly enough of themselves to engage in discussion, they should be mature enough to do that simple math.
However, I'm working on becoming more of the convincing type, like you, it just took me quite a session with that psychologist to realize that the 'telling them they're wrong' is something you can only do when you're in a higher position (a.k.a. their boss).
I certainly would agree. The world would be much better off if people were respectful and tactful, and I get the feeling that many people aren't that aware that other people have "emotions", or think that it doesn't matter, because so long as they're right and the opponent is wrong they "deserve" whatever they get. But there is also a perverse sense of enjoyment that I notice people take when someone completely trashes another person; not just proves them wrong politely, but demolishes their argument and further implies that the person is either completely ignorant or stupid (i.e. Gheed's posts making fun of bronze people, actually perhaps his posts in general). Its not conducive to any positive development, it just leads to egotistical or emotional reactions which further detract from the quality of the arguments.
Sometimes I think its because people feel some sense of justice needs to be meted out; their values are being trod upon and a sort of "righteous indignation" or zeal seems like the appropriate form of response to the offending person. Other times I wonder whether its just the need to feel intellectually powerful and inflate one's ego; or to tag along with the intelligent ones and feel a similar sense of aggrandizement. Or maybe they just genuinely enjoy destroying people intellectually...which would be a sad state of affairs. Hopefully people will learn after being trashed by others how it might be good to be nice to people, and further learn to avoid the subtly offensive wording that pervades posts (like starting posts with "Wrong.") But wouldn't people have learned by now? That's why I wonder whether people even feel that much emotion at all. Or maybe I'm too sensitive
On June 26 2012 13:48 Shai wrote: The worst of it is having been a denizen of the internet for almost 15 years I have myself become much more argumentative. Why do people have to be so contrary? I understand the need for conflict in order to grow, but most conflict on the internet is utterly meaningless.
I don't think that people being contrary is restricted to the internet. I run into people who disagree just for the sake of arguing. I even live with one!
My biggest internet frustration is that you can't go upside a nerd's head if he's running his goddamn mouth like the punk he is. I'm talking mostly about the people who start flaming when your trying to have some goddamn fun playing a game...
On June 27 2012 00:25 B.I.G. wrote: My biggest internet frustration is that you can't go upside a nerd's head if he's running his goddamn mouth like the punk he is. I'm talking mostly about the people who start flaming when your trying to have some goddamn fun playing a game...
B.I.G., your comment reminds me of another hated facet of the internet argument. The dude that would use his e-jiu jitsu to kick your ass if only he weren't on the internet.
EPT
