| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
But the concerning dimension is space rather than time. If a poor neighborhood is deemed 'unimportant' and therefore isn't allocated enough transit capacity to actually transport everyone in and out, it takes a huge economic hit and people move away, resulting in a self-reinforcing cycle of neglect. So we need cars as a backup option for when public transit isn't efficient. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 18 2016 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote: Although I would an increase in ZipCar use over car ownership--and I would love even more to have a zero car ownership rule where people just hop in and out of public transport systems. For the most part, car ownership is one of the worse things we have done to the environment in ever. It's not for no reason that we're at a point where we're using cars the way we are. Are they creating a detriment environmentally? Demonstrably yes, even as cars are developed that cause no such harm. If public transit were the end-all be-all of transportation, and solved every need one could have from transportation, it would be the only thing we have. But it lacks flexibility and control, not to mention personal space(this one's a luxury, if you must go there). With a car I can take any route I please, at any time necessary, and with the exact company I choose. If I wanted to go somewhere with public transport, I have to fit into its schedule, and its predetermined set of routes, and if my destination changes, I have to finish the route I'm on first. Cars have a massive advantage of control, if I suddenly have to go somewhere else instead, I just go there. This saves so much time that it's worth it. Not to mention the practicality of a vehicle, and the loads it may carry, that I could never hope to have with me on a train or bus. No matter how you look at it, saying the world would be perfect if only we abolished all cars and drilled into public transit instead is willfully ignorant. We have a balance of both in every developed country for a reason. If your goal is to protect the environment, look for ways that play nice with the idea of public and private transport existing in harmony, as they do. The development of hydrogen-fueled transport is one such way. Things aren't black and white like you might want them to be. Honestly, I just found it so ridiculous that you tried to just drop into the discussion, drop your "watch the world burn" line, then try to drop the mic and peace out. Try understanding the whole of the situation if you want to comment on it. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 18 2016 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote: What's magical is that all these things can easily come true even without AI by simply increasing funding to public transit. But you hit the nail in the head--the world will not become better until people stop having their own cars and people stop seeing vehicles as property for them to own. Although I would an increase in ZipCar use over car ownership--and I would love even more to have a zero car ownership rule where people just hop in and out of public transport systems. For the most part, car ownership is one of the worse things we have done to the environment in ever. Stuff like car2go is more frequent here, but it has its limitations, a car might not be where you want it to be, for example if you're going to work, all cars might already be in downtown, and vice versa... Since most people work in downtown, you'd need a lot of cars - almost the same as everyone having a car (assuming no AI cars of course). Next, I dunno about you, what I'm not sure exactly how you imagine public transport, but I live in the 4th largest city in Calgary, and am someone who doesn't currently drive, and let me tell you - my city is larger than NY in terms of area, and I can get to ANYWHERE in the city faster using my fancy road bike that I travel 30-32km/hr on flat roads with 200W of power from my legs generated than using public transit. My gf lives 38km away from me in the same city, and the average time it'll take me to get to her place with transit is 1h45, while I bike there in 1h10-1h15, driving with zero traffic is around 30 minutes, and this in fact is one of the easiest to get to places in the city with transit. I don't know if you drive, but what I hear from all my friends is once you get a car, you just never go back... The convenience just doesn't compare to anything else. Furthermore, your argument involves imo bear minimum thinking, or assumes a society that is way different. What if I'm going grocery shopping at wal-mart, and I make my standard $250 weekly grocery purchase for the family... You want me to carry that all around on public transport? Not to mention if you're making a bigger purchase like a fridge, or you know, anything that people who own a Ford F150 do. I live right next to the mountains, how exactly does public transportation work there? Also, did you know that taking a bus for those 200km is currently more expensive than the money I spend on gas? And I'd still have to go to the bus meeting place, and have to go and leave at very restricted times. Or how about you are doing something time sensitive, the reliability of transit is awful compared to cars (from personal experience taking a train to University). It's simply delusional thinking that public transport can replace cars in anything more than a very limited sense. Buying a cheaper used car for $5000, and paying $1000 insurance a year, and driving 20,000km/year at 10km/L, at $1 per L works out to $2000 in gas. So over 5 years, the cost of a car is $20,000... Versus transit which right now here is $1200/year or $6000 in that same time period. Being 3.333x more expensive while being a million times better is a no-brainer imo. So imo, there is absolutely no alternative to car ownership, and I see car-sharing services like car2go more of a replacement to public transit than to car ownership, and Uber being a replacement to cabs, etc. On the AI topic -Elon Musk's hyperloop idea is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of, I actually thought of something very similar if not identical when I was like 16... But a legit way to achieve intercity travel in the long term would imo be "super high-ways". AI controlled electric supercars travelling at 250-450km/hr. Also on the environmental side of things, I think cars are completely reasonable. They account for 28% of all CO2 emissions, and surely if we didn't have cars, we'd need some other machine to get around, which I assume wouldn't be human powered. 28% and this number will decrease quickly due to the recent massive jump of average MPG of cars due to better engines, hybrids, electric cars, and so forth. Cars and the environment is figured out, and it will just take some time to implement, but it will happen, the real place we need to turn our eyes to in terms of the environment is electricity production. Burning methane is just so cheap right now, than wind and solar don't come anywhere close, and hydro can be cheaper, but there's a large reliance on having enough bodies of water nearby, in addition to plenty of infrastructure needed due to the locations of dams being decided by geography, and with us turning away from nuclear, that's exhausts all the commonly used methods right now (not including coal, since that will be out of western civilization by 2050). | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 18 2016 07:09 FiWiFaKi wrote: Stuff like car2go is more frequent here, but it has its limitations, a car might not be where you want it to be, for example if you're going to work, all cars might already be in downtown, and vice versa... Since most people work in downtown, you'd need a lot of cars - almost the same as everyone having a car (assuming no AI cars of course). Next, I dunno about you, what I'm not sure exactly how you imagine public transport, but I live in the 4th largest city in Calgary, and am someone who doesn't currently drive, and let me tell you - my city is larger than NY in terms of area, and I can get to ANYWHERE in the city faster using my fancy road bike that I travel 30-32km/hr on flat roads with 200W of power from my legs generated than using public transit. My gf lives 38km away from me in the same city, and the average time it'll take me to get to her place with transit is 1h45, while I bike there in 1h10-1h15, driving with zero traffic is around 30 minutes, and this in fact is one of the easiest to get to places in the city with transit. I don't know if you drive, but what I hear from all my friends is once you get a car, you just never go back... The convenience just doesn't compare to anything else. Furthermore, your argument involves imo bear minimum thinking, or assumes a society that is way different. What if I'm going grocery shopping at wal-mart, and I make my standard $250 weekly grocery purchase for the family... You want me to carry that all around on public transport? Not to mention if you're making a bigger purchase like a fridge, or you know, anything that people who own a Ford F150 do. I live right next to the mountains, how exactly does public transportation work there? Also, did you know that taking a bus for those 200km is currently more expensive than the money I spend on gas? And I'd still have to go to the bus meeting place, and have to go and leave at very restricted times. Or how about you are doing something time sensitive, the reliability of transit is awful compared to cars (from personal experience taking a train to University). It's simply delusional thinking that public transport can replace cars in anything more than a very limited sense. Buying a cheaper used car for $5000, and paying $1000 insurance a year, and driving 20,000km/year at 10km/L, at $1 per L works out to $2000 in gas. So over 5 years, the cost of a car is $20,000... Versus transit which right now here is $1200/year or $6000 in that same time period. Being 3.333x more expensive while being a million times better is a no-brainer imo. So imo, there is absolutely no alternative to car ownership, and I see car-sharing services like car2go more of a replacement to public transit than to car ownership, and Uber being a replacement to cabs, etc. On the AI topic -Elon Musk's hyperloop idea is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of, I actually thought of something very similar if not identical when I was like 16... But a legit way to achieve intercity travel in the long term would imo be "super high-ways". AI controlled electric supercars travelling at 250-450km/hr. Also on the environmental side of things, I think cars are completely reasonable. They account for 28% of all CO2 emissions, and surely if we didn't have cars, we'd need some other machine to get around, which I assume wouldn't be human powered. 28% and this number will decrease quickly due to the recent massive jump of average MPG of cars due to better engines, hybrids, electric cars, and so forth. Cars and the environment is figured out, and it will just take some time to implement, but it will happen, the real place we need to turn our eyes to in terms of the environment is electricity production. Burning methane is just so cheap right now, than wind and solar don't come anywhere close, and hydro can be cheaper, but there's a large reliance on having enough bodies of water nearby, in addition to plenty of infrastructure needed due to the locations of dams being decided by geography, and with us turning away from nuclear, that's exhausts all the commonly used methods right now (not including coal, since that will be out of western civilization by 2050). Which is why I have said, repeatedly, that personal ownership of cars are purely a luxury item. You know a really easy way to increase efficiency in buses? Remove all personal cars. Buses can then drive faster, safer, and in a more regulated clip. With more people per vehicle, the cost in resources to move them would be many times better for the environment than any system of privatized ownership. The only reason for owning your own car is for the exact reasons your pointed out--selfishness. Because you personally want to get somewhere faster, because you personally want to live somewhere farther, because you personally want to be isolated and removed. As you said, even if the cost more than triple, you're willing to burn that money because of convenience. Now, if the argument for all this is because you guys want the convenience and luxury of having a butler--then be honest about it and accept that that is the reason. Trying to point out something ass backwards as "better for the environment" or "safer" or any other metric outside of luxury and leisure is dishonest. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
The internet makes for some very interesting interaction, in which applying the conventional rules of human conversation leads to very poor discussion. The point that I was to specifically address is that when talking to your peers, for a thoughtful conversation, you usually shouldn't jump to the conclusion of you're wrong, unqualified, stupid, etc. In the real world this makes plenty of sense, you're surrounded by peers of whom you can assess their age, their education level and so forth, and when they're in line with what you'd call an educated person you can associate yourself with, you might enjoy a discussion with them. But parties that don't meet your standard, whether that's children/teenagers, a drunk first nations on the train, a homeless person, people from other countries that have a poor education system, etc... You'd probably not put yourself into a situation where you'd have a discussion with them, or if you did, maybe you'd take the conversation like-heartedly, because what they're saying is nonsense, and you're just trying to be nice. But come to any forum on the internet, let's use TL as an example... And you just have to assume that this person is someone you'd converse with in real life, while it may be someone who'd never be allowed into your conversation circle in the real world (you'd turn away, not have a conversation until you met some other people, etc). But on the internet, on a forum like TL everyone is allowed to comment in any discussion. It makes for an interesting dynamic, because really you can't get banned for teamliquid unless your doing something "bad", usually this can only be done if you're intentionally trying to sabotage the conversation with spam, advertising, all caps, memes, etc, but more or less, anyone who wishes to participate in discussion is allowed to due so, even if they're talking out of their ass, don't know what their saying, etc - there's no rule saying this post isn't thoughtful enough, so your post will be deleted, of course that's very difficult to do, especially doing it on an objective set of criteria. I hope you guys understand what I'm getting at - sometimes there's massive asymmetry in the intelligence and knowledge of the users (actually every thread in TL general really), and I believe it's the primary factor of why there is an upper limit on the discussion quality of a public forum. So my question for you guys would be how feasible would it be to ask for and possibly verify some other requirements for some theoretical forum. Currently TL displays country, which hopefully people are honest about, that gives some insight into what kind of concepts and living conditions this person might be familiar with. There's only so much you can read into from it, but location of primary education can be fairly significant imo. So what about displaying more information? Particularly, some of: -Age -Sex and sexual orientation -Race -Religion -Income -Industry/company/career -Education/What Degree -IQ (1 attempt at an online IQ test after 500 posts, maybe 1 re-entry allowed every year) -Weight/height/bfp Just to list a few. Before you say anything, I know I know, it opens a huge door for discrimination, but this is a forum that takes time to create an account, and is closely moderated... Akin to the real world if you will, so rampant discrimination should not happen. In the real world you're given some of these factors before you engage in discussion to aid you, so why not on the internet? Or do you guys believe that conversation on the internet is more conductive for transport of thoughtful ideas (maybe). Verification could be by submitting your driver's license when you sign up for example (with certain fields covered with paper), and in the photo of your ID that you take, you'd have to say "for teamliquid" for example, so you can't just take one from the internet, or just make it a larger hassle to do. Or at least, make this fields optional to fill out, I have no shame in telling people I'm a 22 y/o white male from Canada, hard agnostic, straight, relationship, unemployed, engg uni degree, 18%bfp, IQ145... They can use that information how they will, it can only help them, so long as they're not making statements like "because you're white you wouldn't understand", or they have a history of only replying by berating black posters, etc. Do you guys think this could have any positive effect at all, or be useful every for online conversation? It'd have the advantage over linkedin/facebook where your identity is unknown to other posters, so you can be liberal (lol, conservative is probably a more accurate word for it nowadays) with your thoughts, but people could also learn a bit about you before they post, and make some stereotypes and use some of their preconceived notions before spending hours of their time discussing with someone who is a waste of time. Anyway, I know stereotypes aren't great, but all people use them subconsciously (or consciously) all the time, and they prove to be a great help and time saver. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 18 2016 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote: Which is why I have said, repeatedly, that personal ownership of cars are purely a luxury item. You know a really easy way to increase efficiency in buses? Remove all personal cars. Buses can then drive faster, safer, and in a more regulated clip. With more people per vehicle, the cost in resources to move them would be many times better for the environment than any system of privatized ownership. The only reason for owning your own car is for the exact reasons your pointed out--selfishness. Because you personally want to get somewhere faster, because you personally want to live somewhere farther, because you personally want to be isolated and removed. As you said, even if the cost more than triple, you're willing to burn that money because of convenience. Now, if the argument for all this is because you guys want the convenience and luxury of having a butler--then be honest about it and accept that that is the reason. Trying to point out something ass backwards as "better for the environment" or "safer" or any other metric outside of luxury and leisure is dishonest. I really have no idea what you're talking about now. Everything in our world is a luxury, even the filtered water we drink and the bananas we eat (not the food, drink, shelter, transportation thing you learn in primary school). Our entire social structure is built around the governing dynamics of that one human trait - selfishness. I fail to see how that's bad. On October 18 2016 07:41 VHbb wrote: You have also to account for the nationality of the people discussing  In Europe it is much easier to not have a car, distances are much shorter: my familiy doesn't own a car (they live in a big city in Italy), I personally don't own a car (live in a big city in France) and I never ever miss it. I spent 2 month in the US, and I understand distances are very different, so I see why some arguments may hold in one place and not in an other. This said, I agree that in general (a part from very specific cases) cars are more a luxory item than a necessity: of course if you removed all cars right now this would create huge problems for people living in remote placese / etc. , but I can see a world without cars, and better organized and more efficient public transportation.. and it's honestly a world in which I would prefer to live edit: I also think this opens a very interesting discussion: what comes first in our idea of "happiness"? A "happy" society/community ( -> are we willing to renounce to personal advantages - like cars - in order to create an ideally better community) or a "happy" self / individual life ? (I know the word happy is misused but I don't have a better one - I hope the concept is clear) For your last point, I've unfortunately had to reiterate the point a million times in this thread. People like to pick out specific cases and discuss them, which is a waste of time without discussing and finding the common ground between (I guilty this time around too): 1) Personal freedom 2) Public duty Or in the more popular but less accurate way it's said - freedom vs safety To me it looks like 95% of the EU and US politics thread and gun thread are about this one issue, except people keep insisting on discussing specific cases instead of debating the underlying question which leads to that outcome. | ||
|
VHbb
692 Posts
In Europe it is much easier to not have a car, distances are much shorter: my familiy doesn't own a car (they live in a big city in Italy), I personally don't own a car (live in a big city in France) and I never ever miss it. I spent 2 month in the US, and I understand distances are very different, so I see why some arguments may hold in one place and not in an other. This said, I agree that in general (a part from very specific cases) cars are more a luxory item than a necessity: of course if you removed all cars right now this would create huge problems for people living in remote placese / etc. , but I can see a world without cars, and better organized and more efficient public transportation.. and it's honestly a world in which I would prefer to live edit: I also think this opens a very interesting discussion: what comes first in our idea of "happiness"? A "happy" society/community ( -> are we willing to renounce to personal advantages - like cars - in order to create an ideally better community) or a "happy" self / individual life ? (I know the word happy is misused but I don't have a better one - I hope the concept is clear) | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
Also it's a fool's errand to start arguing the "selfishness" of using a personal car. Am I supposed to just adopt communism, and throw myself into your utopian society? At what point do you draw the line, am I supposed to forsake myself entirely for the good of 'society'? What do you define as the good of society? | ||
|
VHbb
692 Posts
it's a bit of a stretch isn't it?In my opinion it's mainly a matter of : - personal advantage VS - community advantage Using cars is surely more practical for you as an individual, using public transports is more practical for the whole community. Where you draw the line it's up to you of course, I'm not arguing someone should be forced to renounce to its car. What a country can do is prioritize public transportation by making it easier to exploit, more diffuse and efficient, and make car ownership more difficult (more constraints, higher prices, etc.). This, ideally (of course it's an ideal discussion) would lead to you using your car only when really necessary (i.e. to move furniture or something similar) and public transports for the rest. As in every field, there should be a balance between incentives for public transportations and needs of people that use cars. Overall yes, I see owning a car as a selfish act: it's not a negative comment, I just mean that it's something that benefits you over the community, so you are sacrifying something for your personal advantage (it's your choice clearly) | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
It has nothing to do with communism, IDK how that comes up and it's absurd. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 18 2016 08:17 Djzapz wrote: It has nothing to do with communism, IDK how that comes up and it's absurd. It has to do with the notion of sacrificing personal wealth, convenience and luxury for the sake of the whole, which is shot through Magpie's argument. The idea that I shouldn't be able to live where I choose, and go to and fro how I choose, because he doesn't like the ramifications it has on society as a whole, is born from exactly the same thinking. A utopia is never as perfect as it sounds. We have a balance of both for a reason, so people may go as they please, in whichever manner they please. Trying to dictate our modes of transportation for the express goal of "benefiting society" is a slippery slope that ends poorly. There's really nothing absurd about it. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On October 18 2016 07:38 FiWiFaKi wrote: I want to shift the topic a little bit now, dunno if it'll catch on though. The internet makes for some very interesting interaction, in which applying the conventional rules of human conversation leads to very poor discussion. The point that I was to specifically address is that when talking to your peers, for a thoughtful conversation, you usually shouldn't jump to the conclusion of you're wrong, unqualified, stupid, etc. In the real world this makes plenty of sense, you're surrounded by peers of whom you can assess their age, their education level and so forth, and when they're in line with what you'd call an educated person you can associate yourself with, you might enjoy a discussion with them. But parties that don't meet your standard, whether that's children/teenagers, a drunk first nations on the train, a homeless person, people from other countries that have a poor education system, etc... You'd probably not put yourself into a situation where you'd have a discussion with them, or if you did, maybe you'd take the conversation like-heartedly, because what they're saying is nonsense, and you're just trying to be nice. But come to any forum on the internet, let's use TL as an example... And you just have to assume that this person is someone you'd converse with in real life, while it may be someone who'd never be allowed into your conversation circle in the real world (you'd turn away, not have a conversation until you met some other people, etc). But on the internet, on a forum like TL everyone is allowed to comment in any discussion. It makes for an interesting dynamic, because really you can't get banned for teamliquid unless your doing something "bad", usually this can only be done if you're intentionally trying to sabotage the conversation with spam, advertising, all caps, memes, etc, but more or less, anyone who wishes to participate in discussion is allowed to due so, even if they're talking out of their ass, don't know what their saying, etc - there's no rule saying this post isn't thoughtful enough, so your post will be deleted, of course that's very difficult to do, especially doing it on an objective set of criteria. I hope you guys understand what I'm getting at - sometimes there's massive asymmetry in the intelligence and knowledge of the users (actually every thread in TL general really), and I believe it's the primary factor of why there is an upper limit on the discussion quality of a public forum. So my question for you guys would be how feasible would it be to ask for and possibly verify some other requirements for some theoretical forum. Currently TL displays country, which hopefully people are honest about, that gives some insight into what kind of concepts and living conditions this person might be familiar with. There's only so much you can read into from it, but location of primary education can be fairly significant imo. So what about displaying more information? Particularly, some of: -Age -Sex and sexual orientation -Race -Religion -Income -Industry/company/career -Education/What Degree -IQ (1 attempt at an online IQ test after 500 posts, maybe 1 re-entry allowed every year) -Weight/height/bfp Just to list a few. Before you say anything, I know I know, it opens a huge door for discrimination, but this is a forum that takes time to create an account, and is closely moderated... Akin to the real world if you will, so rampant discrimination should not happen. In the real world you're given some of these factors before you engage in discussion to aid you, so why not on the internet? Or do you guys believe that conversation on the internet is more conductive for transport of thoughtful ideas (maybe). Verification could be by submitting your driver's license when you sign up for example (with certain fields covered with paper), and in the photo of your ID that you take, you'd have to say "for teamliquid" for example, so you can't just take one from the internet, or just make it a larger hassle to do. Or at least, make this fields optional to fill out, I have no shame in telling people I'm a 22 y/o white male from Canada, hard agnostic, straight, relationship, unemployed, engg uni degree, 18%bfp, IQ145... They can use that information how they will, it can only help them, so long as they're not making statements like "because you're white you wouldn't understand", or they have a history of only replying by berating black posters, etc. Do you guys think this could have any positive effect at all, or be useful every for online conversation? It'd have the advantage over linkedin/facebook where your identity is unknown to other posters, so you can be liberal (lol, conservative is probably a more accurate word for it nowadays) with your thoughts, but people could also learn a bit about you before they post, and make some stereotypes and use some of their preconceived notions before spending hours of their time discussing with someone who is a waste of time. Anyway, I know stereotypes aren't great, but all people use them subconsciously (or consciously) all the time, and they prove to be a great help and time saver. As you say, huge window for discrimination, and as you show yourself, it just turns into a penis size contest. "I got higher IQ than you, so you are wrong." No thanks, go back to MENSA and keep that crap there. If you want a discussion with experts only, there are forums for that within each field. Go there. I find the mixed level part of the beauty of TL. Experts get some insight into how "normal" people think, and "normal" people can get an angle from experts of whatever field is being discussion. Sometimes I wish that the normal people would realise that they are indeed not experts, but I think even the (mostly unfounded) confidence of normal people is useful to see for an expert. It's a bit of a reality check I think.  The list of properties you suggest is more appropriate for a dating site I feel. I don't want my perception of what other people write to be clouded by a host of prejudice from age/gender/race/whatever. If someone is an expert on what they are talking about, the usually say so, and that's all I need to know. All I WANT to know. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On October 18 2016 08:25 NewSunshine wrote: It has to do with the notion of sacrificing personal wealth, convenience and luxury for the sake of the whole, which is shot through Magpie's argument. The idea that I shouldn't be able to live where I choose, and go to and fro how I choose, because he doesn't like the ramifications it has on society as a whole, is born from exactly the same thinking. A utopia is never as perfect as it sounds. The sacrifice of some individual liberty doesn't just instantly lead to communism. There are plenty of things you don't get to do, plenty of things that are collectivized even though people don't necessarily all like it. In Canada for the longest time it was essentially impossible to have private healthcare, and it's still difficult. Is Canada a socialist dystopia with paintings of Stalin everywhere? Anyway I don't think the point is to ban automobiles. Inciting public transit has insane advantages. Singapore I think has massive taxes for personal automobiles, I don't know how it's working for them because I don't know how their cities were planned, but nobody would say Singapore is communist, even though it's specifically trying to dissuade people from getting cars through taxation. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 18 2016 08:29 Cascade wrote: As you say, huge window for discrimination, and as you show yourself, it just turns into a penis size contest. "I got higher IQ than you, so you are wrong." No thanks, go back to MENSA and keep that crap there. If you want a discussion with experts only, there are forums for that within each field. Go there. I find the mixed level part of the beauty of TL. Experts get some insight into how "normal" people think, and "normal" people can get an angle from experts of whatever field is being discussion. Sometimes I wish that the normal people would realise that they are indeed not experts, but I think even the (mostly unfounded) confidence of normal people is useful to see for an expert. It's a bit of a reality check I think. The list of properties you suggest is more appropriate for a dating site I feel. I don't want my perception of what other people write to be clouded by a host of prejudice from age/gender/race/whatever. If someone is an expert on what they are talking about, the usually say so, and that's all I need to know. All I WANT to know. IQ is definitely one of those more iffy ones, but I think that'd be one of the first rules in the forum, same way as don't be racist on most forums now would be. You'd hope that people would be intelligent enough to realize that IQ can only tell so much, and that'd quickly become the norm, and any others trying to use that information otherwise would be scolded by the others appropriately. I'm not really after an expert vs expert discussion, just a way to asses someone's "cred" before I post. Currently, my only system I have is a few names blacklisted in certain threads which I just won't reply to... Outside of that when I look at a stranger, the country tells me something, and then I try to infer as much as I can from join date and post count. High post count and recent join date is usually a bad sign in my head (statistically speaking anyway), less than 50 posts I won't ever commit a serious reply to for example, especially when they're being questionable, because often just some lag in them getting banned. Like for example this topic here with the cars, I don't claim to be an expert, and really, I don't think there's anyone out there who's going to be an expert on this - even if you're working on Google car, there's a good chance that their opinion won't be more thought out than someone here (if someone is asking help for a math problem, that's a different situation). More information about the people you talk would at least for me, allow to create better relies, tailor better for my audience, save everyone some time, etc. I'd consider myself a fairly average slightly nerdy computer Joe in many ways, and I think it would improve my experience having discussions on the internet, and since I think there's plenty of people out there similar to me, it should have a place at least on some forums on the internet, but I don't see it frequently at all. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 18 2016 08:47 FiWiFaKi wrote: IQ is definitely one of those more iffy ones, but I think that'd be one of the first rules in the forum, same way as don't be racist on most forums now would be. You'd hope that people would be intelligent enough to realize that IQ can only tell so much, and that'd quickly become the norm, and any others trying to use that information otherwise would be scolded by the others appropriately. I'm not really after an expert vs expert discussion, just a way to asses someone's "cred" before I post. Currently, my only system I have is a few names blacklisted in certain threads which I just won't reply to... Outside of that when I look at a stranger, the country tells me something, and then I try to infer as much as I can from join date and post count. High post count and recent join date is usually a bad sign in my head (statistically speaking anyway), less than 50 posts I won't ever commit a serious reply to for example, especially when they're being questionable, because often just some lag in them getting banned. Like for example this topic here with the cars, I don't claim to be an expert, and really, I don't think there's anyone out there who's going to be an expert on this - even if you're working on Google car, there's a good chance that their opinion won't be more thought out than someone here (if someone is asking help for a math problem, that's a different situation). More information about the people you talk would at least for me, allow to create better relies, tailor better for my audience, save everyone some time, etc. I'd consider myself a fairly average slightly nerdy computer Joe in many ways, and I think it would improve my experience having discussions on the internet, and since I think there's plenty of people out there similar to me, it should have a place at least on some forums on the internet, but I don't see it frequently at all. First of all a sign-up requirement of the sort is obviously unrealistic due to the fact that no normal person would sign-up to a some random website that wants a picture of your driver's license. The question is more interesting from a theoretical point of view (where the hassle of verification, and the privacy issues aren't a factor). I think it's a bad idea. One of the beauties of the internet is that you could be discussing with anyone with no preconceptions based on their appearance, religion, race. It allows for statements to be evaluated on their own merits, rather than based on who utters them. It doesn't take long to form an opinion of someone based on their posting, and if it so happens that the person in question possesses expertise related to the topic being discussed they'll usually disclose it. In a perfect world personal information of the sort would be marginally informative (to help understand someone's background and where they are coming from), but in the real world it's just fuel for ad hominems. Sidenote: I'm from Canada and not Iraq. The reason I put my country down as Iraq is that my account's namesake, the Ziggurat Of Ur, happens to be in Iraq. Some other people have "incorrect" countries for similarly whimsical reasons, so I wouldn't read too much into them. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 18 2016 09:29 ZigguratOfUr wrote: First of all a sign-up requirement of the sort is obviously unrealistic due to the fact that no normal person would sign-up to a some random website that wants a picture of your driver's license. The question is more interesting from a theoretical point of view (where the hassle of verification, and the privacy issues aren't a factor). I think it's a bad idea. One of the beauties of the internet is that you could be discussing with anyone with no preconceptions based on their appearance, religion, race. It allows for statements to be evaluated on their own merits, rather than based on who utters them. It doesn't take long to form an opinion of someone based on their posting, and if it so happens that the person in question possesses expertise related to the topic being discussed they'll usually disclose it. In a perfect world personal information of the sort would be marginally informative (to help understand someone's background and where they are coming from), but in the real world it's just fuel for ad hominems. Sidenote: I'm from Canada and not Iraq. The reason I put my country down as Iraq is that my account's namesake, the Ziggurat Of Ur, happens to be in Iraq. Some other people have "incorrect" countries for similarly whimsical reasons, so I wouldn't read too much into them. The requirement could be for certain subforums for example a dating or mafia section of TL, so it'd be less intrusive, and something along the lines is already done with Quora for example (not the best example, just can't think of many places that do what I'm asking about), which imo is hugely successful. That uses facebook (I believe) to confirm your identity, and you make your own profile where you talk about yourself so there's more mutual understanding with others about what you say. I disagree that you can learn a lot about people from reading two of their paragraphs, especially on a topic you're not well-versed in. It takes a lot longer to build a kind of chemistry with a stranger on the internet, while with friends who you've just recently started talking to over the web, it's almost instant. Some of that surely is just the fact that you don't see their body language and tone, but I think that a significant portion of it is that they're just an unknown on the other side. In small communities, like TL very early on, or online clans, ShieldBattery for BW, Mafia here... Just to name a few, you spend enough time to get to know people quite well, and it's a very welcoming feeling, in big threads like this one, it's not possible (outside of some very regular posters like Cascade or Djzapz in this thread). You're right that in the perfect debate situation, you'd list all your assumptions and all your underlying views to reach them, because for any debate there must be some common ground before discussion can be had (we can't discuss war meaningfully if we can't agree that killing innocent people is generally not good). There's so many things you imo need to disclose to treat it with proper rigour, and hence you're better off creating the best image of that person in your head you can, and then as you read and something doesn't align, you fix that image in your head ("easier to erase and redraw a couple windows on a building than drawing a city skyline"). And yeah, voluntary disclosure is more helpful than no disclosure, since I think in general it helps. Don't worry, when I first saw a post from you I didn't have sirens screaming in my head with a mental image of the triggered meme thinking of ISIS. With you I think it was fairly clear you weren't from Iraq, or if you were, you'd be the most westernized Iraqi I've ever known. Usually it's something I take into consideration, but it doesn't go above and beyond the content of posts - just helps me get on the right track more often than not. Anyway, I appreciate the opinion. My perspective is that it's a fairly compatible concept in a forum with a moderation style like TL. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 18 2016 08:41 Djzapz wrote: The sacrifice of some individual liberty doesn't just instantly lead to communism. There are plenty of things you don't get to do, plenty of things that are collectivized even though people don't necessarily all like it. In Canada for the longest time it was essentially impossible to have private healthcare, and it's still difficult. Is Canada a socialist dystopia with paintings of Stalin everywhere? Anyway I don't think the point is to ban automobiles. Inciting public transit has insane advantages. Singapore I think has massive taxes for personal automobiles, I don't know how it's working for them because I don't know how their cities were planned, but nobody would say Singapore is communist, even though it's specifically trying to dissuade people from getting cars through taxation. I never said anything instantly leads to anything. I don't disagree with anything you say, so please don't try to mis-characterize anything I'm saying. And of course, for normal people, the argument isn't to ban all automobiles forever. However, I was responding to not a normal person. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On October 18 2016 11:35 NewSunshine wrote: I never said anything instantly leads to anything. I don't disagree with anything you say, so please don't try to mis-characterize anything I'm saying. And of course, for normal people, the argument isn't to ban all automobiles forever. However, I was responding to not a normal person. I haven't kept track of what was being said, sorry for mirepresenting dem arguments. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On October 18 2016 08:47 FiWiFaKi wrote: IQ is definitely one of those more iffy ones, but I think that'd be one of the first rules in the forum, same way as don't be racist on most forums now would be. You'd hope that people would be intelligent enough to realize that IQ can only tell so much, and that'd quickly become the norm, and any others trying to use that information otherwise would be scolded by the others appropriately. I'm not really after an expert vs expert discussion, just a way to asses someone's "cred" before I post. Currently, my only system I have is a few names blacklisted in certain threads which I just won't reply to... Outside of that when I look at a stranger, the country tells me something, and then I try to infer as much as I can from join date and post count. High post count and recent join date is usually a bad sign in my head (statistically speaking anyway), less than 50 posts I won't ever commit a serious reply to for example, especially when they're being questionable, because often just some lag in them getting banned. Like for example this topic here with the cars, I don't claim to be an expert, and really, I don't think there's anyone out there who's going to be an expert on this - even if you're working on Google car, there's a good chance that their opinion won't be more thought out than someone here (if someone is asking help for a math problem, that's a different situation). More information about the people you talk would at least for me, allow to create better relies, tailor better for my audience, save everyone some time, etc. I'd consider myself a fairly average slightly nerdy computer Joe in many ways, and I think it would improve my experience having discussions on the internet, and since I think there's plenty of people out there similar to me, it should have a place at least on some forums on the internet, but I don't see it frequently at all. You're a white straight male, as am I. I don't think either of us really understand how it is being discriminated against, but I think I've at least realised that I don't know. You're a fair bit younger as well, which probably is part of it. Nonetheless, being forced to wear your source of discrimination on your account is in principle similar to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear the star to be recognised. I'm not saying that your a nazi or that you suggest this with the intention of discriminating anyone. I just think that you're not aware of what it is like to be discriminated. Most of the properties you suggest are discriminated against on one end of the spectrum, and they will be here on TL as well, consciously or subconsciously or both. So let's give the women, homosexuals and coloured people a break from discrimination at least here on TL, what do you think? | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 18 2016 13:19 Cascade wrote: You're a white straight male, as am I. I don't think either of us really understand how it is being discriminated against, but I think I've at least realised that I don't know. You're a fair bit younger as well, which probably is part of it. Nonetheless, being forced to wear your source of discrimination on your account is in principle similar to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear the star to be recognised. I'm not saying that your a nazi or that you suggest this with the intention of discriminating anyone. I just think that you're not aware of what it is like to be discriminated. Most of the properties you suggest are discriminated against on one end of the spectrum, and they will be here on TL as well, consciously or subconsciously or both. So let's give the women, homosexuals and coloured people a break from discrimination at least here on TL, what do you think? It's an argument I hear too often, you're a straight white male, so there's a good chance you don't understand what it's like to be discriminated. I don't want to dwell on that point too much, since I don't think it has much merit. I've had plenty of hardships in my life, they are different for everyone, but we all have our shit. I can here from an Eastern European country, it wasn't the easiest to fit in either, but in that department, more fortunate than most, sure. My philosophy is that by far and away the most effective way to get people to not discriminate is by being surrounded by different people. This is the entire concept of multiculturalism, though it's questionable whether it's actually good for society or not. We don't paint everyone blue, and cut everyone's hair to stop discrimination. Imo what you're suggesting it's what's done with children at boarding school because it's too much for them to handle - so they wear uniforms. Even this is something that's being phased out, being at best it's a pretty shitty bandage... I've had an ex who was in a program where uniforms were required, and my brother's current gf was in this situation, so I have fairly first hand experience. So I think you could argue that in the current form, my mind might just kind of directly jump everyone I talk to on the forum being a white/east-asian male, somewhere in the age of 16-35, and not very religious. Maybe this sounds bad to say, but I can't be the only one who said "hey dude" or something when in a chat group in a game before they said, I'm a girl. So in my opinion, you're doing nothing to remedy the problem of discrimination at all... It's the same way as the workplace discrimination laws, you have a company, and you have to be extremely careful with what questions you asked so you don't infringe on the enumerated grounds. It's all just such a synthetic way to achieve the goal, when the aim is to have people not step back when they hear someone is gay because of whatever notions they have about these people, etc. So that's a bit of an aside, since clearly my main argument for this is to make communication over internet forums "better". I just wanted to shed some light to the other side, instead of the gut reaction. For example, the gay thread on TL, I thought people were extremely receptive towards them, and I'd think most people that would be supportive of this would also wouldn't judge based on race or sex. Honestly, sexual orientation probably doesn't add much for most arguments, minus social movement stuff... But stuff like age and education has serious implications about how you'd discuss with people. It could easily build a toggleable setting, much like user join date is, so it's not screaming in your face type of thing. Anyway, I'm realistic, I know this is something that will almost certainly never see light on teamliquid, it was more of a theoretical question of whether this mode of conversation in a public forum could be useful. Everyone has a different perspective of what the internet should be, whether it should be a free space where you can say whatever you want without any repercussions (with the most toxic examples being 4chat, twitch chat, youtube comments, etc.)... Or whether it should be an extension of the real world, but with all these distance barriers being torn down. When I was younger, I was all about the first point. No responsibility, no accountability, no government intervention, it was beautiful. Reality is that government laws will catch up sooner or later, and even though this kind of safe space in the world is fantastic, there is also ample use of the internet an extension of the physical you (facebook, twitter, etc). But there's no middle ground at all. It's all 100% anonymous, where quality goes to shit. We try to remedy this by creating a task force of volunteers, but that's like trying to shoot individual cancer cells in an ever-growing tumor. There's so much grey area, that gap between good posting and bad posting, collective mentality of mods, trying to minimize false positives... Having a system where people are forced to respect their identity (while still aiming to keep it anonymous) is good, and TL does this by not allowing name changes after certain post counts, not allowing multiple accounts, etc. That's great, it surely helps, and it's a big reason why TL is a better forum than just about everything out there. Some people on the other hand don't give a fuck about if people like them or not, but other people have no way to identify the credibility/quality of the poster (I mean yeah, you have the stars and whatnot, but it's a small percentage of the populace so not really meaningful). So I'm listing (in a convoluted manner) the motivations for this thinking, and trying to figure out a method where a user can be assessed beforehand, without reading the post. It's the same kind of thing with dressing nicely or shaving, it's not like you're a bad person if you don't, but if you present yourself well, it shows you probably handle yourself well, you prepare, you whatever. A reddit upvoting system isn't great, because the number of likes is a single score, and often depends on how witty of a one liner someone made or something. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Qualifier
GSL
Cure vs sOs
SHIN vs ByuN
Replay Cast
GSL
Classic vs Solar
GuMiho vs Zoun
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
