What do you think of the quality of OT discussion today?

[Hygro]

Why? Why are you meeting up with internet people?

Because "internet people" are real people. And I'm on here, often hours every day, talking to real people about some of my favorite subjects and learning about theirs. It's really cool making friends and acquaintances with like-minded and different-minded folk from not just around the country, but around the world.

Godwynn and Downtown became roommates the same summer I worked for Whomp, all in the same city. Bill3000 and I flew out to make dt's wedding the following summer, and Godwynn and his then GF and I carpooled on over (I drove ). Meanwhile, I think Whomp really enjoyed having an out-of-state intern seek him out who he already had thousands of posts to vet him from, while also could talk both civ and cfc with on the DL.

People online are surprisingly similar to how they are in person, with the big difference that in person people tend to be friendlier and there's more beer. Everyone I've met has turned out to be real cool.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Obviously everyone on the internet is a balding, white American pedophile man living in their parents' basement who is not to be trusted.

 

[JollyRoger]

I can be trusted.

 

[Borachio]

With anything?

 

[Zack]

I've met one person from CFC. Though, I used to be Facebook friends with a couple others.

 

[Richard Cribb]

If by few worries you mean a constant anxiety about our future both as individuals and as a society and stewards of an abused planet, then yes, the quantity of worry-categories are few

No I didn't, but you knew that already, didn't you?
It is more that one often gets the feeling why perusing the discussions here, that one is on a Country Club for Moderate Young Gentlemen. Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but the lack of input from those not naturally belonging in such an environment makes the debates sterile and dull, disregarding the cleverness of those participating. Echo chamber would be an exaggeration, but in this particular doxic room I can't hear much dissonance, and that is not due to my tinnitus I am afraid.
I am not impressed by that statement above, whatever florid the language. My assumption is rather that we are dealing with a long of quite comfortable young men, and having spent almost half a century on this miserable planet my experience both first- and second hand gives me reason to think that one should search elsewhere for anxiety and abuse. I suppose some of you are actively engaged in politics, but it is more my impression that most of like to discuss on message boards. Nothing wrong with that either, but then there is no reason for dramatic statements. I honestly think that for most of you the world is basically in order. You are free to prove me wrong.
And, the hat, was not unnecessary. I doesn't reflect favourably on you, it gives an impression of impertinence.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No I didn't, but you knew that already, didn't you?
It is more that one often gets the feeling why perusing the discussions here, that one is on a Country Club for Moderate Young Gentlemen. Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but the lack of input from those not naturally belonging in such an environment makes the debates sterile and dull, disregarding the cleverness of those participating. Echo chamber would be an exaggeration, but in this particular doxic room I can't hear much dissonance, and that is not due to my tinnitus I am afraid.
I am not impressed by that statement above, whatever florid the language. My assumption is rather that we are dealing with a long of quite comfortable young men, and having spent almost half a century on this miserable planet my experience both first- and second hand gives me reason to think that one should search elsewhere for anxiety and abuse. I suppose some of you are actively engaged in politics, but it is more my impression that most of like to discuss on message boards. Nothing wrong with that either, but then there is no reason for dramatic statements. I honestly think that for most of you the world is basically in order. You are free to prove me wrong.
And, the hat, was not unnecessary. I doesn't reflect favourably on you, it gives an impression of impertinence.

"Comfortable young men"? "Moderate Young Gentlemen"?



That's interesting, coming from someone who once insisted I address him as "Sir" and dressed me down as though I were a callow teenager, when in fact I'm female and older than you.

I don't disagree that there are quite a few gentlemen here, who display wit, humor, honor, and a sincere desire to interact amicably with others in a way that they can learn from others and pass along their own knowledge and insights.

But please remember that there are women here as well, from different backgrounds, countries, age groups, and so on. I've noticed that on some issues we have very different opinions, too.

 

[Richard Cribb]

"Comfortable young men"? "Moderate Young Gentlemen"?



That's interesting, coming from someone who once insisted I address him as "Sir" and dressed me down as though I were a callow teenager, when in fact I'm female and older than you.

I don't disagree that there are quite a few gentlemen here, who display wit, humor, honor, and a sincere desire to interact amicably with others in a way that they can learn from others and pass along their own knowledge and insights.

But please remember that there are women here as well, from different backgrounds, countries, age groups, and so on. I've noticed that on some issues we have very different opinions, too.

I apologize for that, but you didn't state your age in your profile, and not quite being a clairvoyant I have no idea about your age if you don't behave accordingly. But then I don't remember much of this old exchange of PMs and I have no interest in it anymore. Unless somebody wants to open a thread about me, that is. They have my blessing, as it seems it might prove beneficial for certain posters mental health.
But apart from that, when you dignify to address the topic, it would seem that you basically agree with me. Your insights in this are neither new nor surprising. I know there is a certain diversity.
As for your smiley, the expression "callow teenager" above was fortunately not my choice of words.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I should add that in case people get the impression that I am harsh and disreptful towards mr Hygro, he is in fact one of my favourite posters here.

 

[Traitorfish]

What do you think of the quality of OT discussion today? And how do you think it might be improved?

Pretty good, overall. We've got a lot of smart, knowledgeable posters, and putting smart, knowledgeable people in each others' company tends to generate good discussion. We've got a few ignorant blowhards, to be sure, but they're definitely a minority, and if anything most posters seem to under-rate themselves.

How do you rate your own style of posting?

Not great? Could be better. Too many one-liners, not enough engagement. And when I do engage, I seem to default to a sort of bargain-basement Socratic questioning, which can be a little slow and obtuse for this format.

What, without directly criticising anyone, would you like to see less of?

Less personality. Too many posters insist on making threads about them, about treating whatever is being discussed as proxy for their own status or identity. Too many threads follow the format "A says that X is Y. B agrees with X, but does not think of himself as the sort of person who agrees with Y. So X cannot be Y." And it may be the case that X isn't Y, but how would we ever know?

What would you like to see more of?

The opposite, I guess. Posters approaching threads with a greater degree of self-criticism, asking themselves why certain arguments produce in them certain reactions, rather than simply posting the reaction. Emphasising the subject of discussion, rather than what the discussion says about your or about other posters.


(And all of the above, it has to be said, applies to myself, probably more than most.)

If by few worries you mean a constant anxiety about our future both as individuals and as a society and stewards of an abused planet, then yes, the quantity of worry-categories are few

You could argue that the dissolution of individual cares into an all-encompassing anxiety-field only counts as a single worry.

 

[Tarquelne]

And when I do engage, I seem to default to a sort of bargain-basement Socratic questioning, which can be a little slow and obtuse for this format.

There's a reason for that.

Large posts covering many points are easily distorted (via omission) or simply ignored.
The effort to "reward" - on-point response, or even approval! - can be terrible.

You could engage by making many such posts within a thread, but there's all sorts of problems with that. At best, you're being repetitious. I think such posts are generally futile, too. People seem prone to believe if they explained a little better all would be well, when, while there is a lack of clarity, the lack isn't theirs.

One liners may not signal as much engagement, but the effort/reward ratio is far, far better.

The Socratic thing is something of a happy medium. You're directly engaging another poster, but you aren't committing a lot of time or effort unless they do, too.

The opposite, I guess. Posters approaching threads with a greater degree of self-criticism, asking themselves why certain arguments produce in them certain reactions, rather than simply posting the reaction.

Part of the problem is different people want very different things out of forum discussions. Some want a reasonably serious - or at least sincere - debate. Others simply want to vent.

Well ... "vent" is probably prejudicial, though it is the word posters have occasionally volunteered. There are, I'm sure, many reasons why people post, and they're not necessarily mutually compatible.

 

[Mise]

Half the time when one of the World History guys asks a Socratic thing, it's all just a game of numberwang to me.
"Yeah cos that worked out so well for you in 1892..."
"John Whosamaflip got elected on exactly that platform in the 1766 Maybridge By Election. I didn't expect you to be such a royal apologist."
"Are you sure? I would have thought that the Battle of Obscure References proved that strategy to be fatally flawed."

It's quite tiring to read

 

[Kyriakos]

Half the time when one of the World History guys asks a Socratic thing, it's all just a game of numberwang to me.
"Yeah cos that worked out so well for you in 1892..."
"John Whosamaflip got elected on exactly that platform in the 1766 Maybridge By Election. I didn't expect you to be such a royal apologist."
"Are you sure? I would have thought that the Battle of Obscure References proved that strategy to be fatally flawed."

It's quite tiring to read

^The above aren't particularly socratic, though. I mean socratic dialectic (half of which is zenoic anyway) is either:
-to present the extensions an argument of the opponent has, so as to show through an error in their extensions that the basis is false too.
-to examine if the argued basis really is evident or relying on strong evidence and can thus serve as a basis.

What you are talking about is more like Diogenes (of Athens, not Laertios ), ie trolling accompanied with sound-byte one-liner composition

(then again Plato is said to have characterised Dioneges as 'Socrates if he was insane').

 

[kochman]

I have only been in a few threads since coming back, but the dog piling seems to have lessened compared to how it was when I initially left, and the moderators seem less, how shall we say... militant.
I'm hoping that this perception isn't proven wrong in the near future.

 

[Cutlass]

I think dogpiling is an issue. But I don't think it's done deliberately. I think that conservatives are heavily outnumbered enough so that they may feel dogpiled, even when it wasn't the intent on anyone's part.

 

[Traitorfish]

Most alleged "dogpiles" involved three people, two of whom display the very height of good manners. It does occur, but not as frequently as its complained about.

 

[Hygro]

No I didn't, but you knew that already, didn't you?
It is more that one often gets the feeling why perusing the discussions here, that one is on a Country Club for Moderate Young Gentlemen. Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but the lack of input from those not naturally belonging in such an environment makes the debates sterile and dull, disregarding the cleverness of those participating. Echo chamber would be an exaggeration, but in this particular doxic room I can't hear much dissonance, and that is not due to my tinnitus I am afraid.
I am not impressed by that statement above, whatever florid the language. My assumption is rather that we are dealing with a long of quite comfortable young men, and having spent almost half a century on this miserable planet my experience both first- and second hand gives me reason to think that one should search elsewhere for anxiety and abuse. I suppose some of you are actively engaged in politics, but it is more my impression that most of like to discuss on message boards. Nothing wrong with that either, but then there is no reason for dramatic statements. I honestly think that for most of you the world is basically in order. You are free to prove me wrong.
And, the hat, was not unnecessary. I doesn't reflect favourably on you, it gives an impression of impertinence.

I think this, and the first post I responded to, is mostly spot on. And your prose is, as always, a pleasure to read.

I just take issue with the word "comfort" and "few worries". I would offer "stuck", "overwhelmed", and "complacent" in its stead. In many ways we are an incredibly comfortable, but in that kind of way a wealthy prisoner with a wide open, but un-vetted, escape might be. The fear that bolting is more dangerous than staying. An abused spouse, only with society, the state, and the system being much, much more than a spouse.

We saw the last radically-minded generation, our parents, get completely co-opted by the system, watched Occupy do absolutely nothing except make finance careers uncool which just means we're surrendering even more of the system to those who don't care to fix things. We're incredibly nonviolent except when one of us snaps and shoots schoolmates, so we're not about to revolt against the state and they know it. Plus we don't know how to stop the giant blackmail machine (NSA) that has written record of so, so many crimes (drug crimes mostly, but all the others too) committed by my drug-friendly generation. We know that if we want to make change, we have to go all in at once, unified, and not step too early and get picked off one by one. It's like trading stocks, trying to guess what the other investors are going to guess what you'll guess they'll guess, only lives are at stake.

And then our planet is on the brink of some radically dangerous change and I can't help but notice that three generations of Americans secretly want the apocalypse, because of course "I'm going to be one of the survivors" ("amirite?") and it would make life so much more existentially simple. It makes doing the obvious: putting solar panels on every rooftop, building high speed rail, switching to electric cars and sustainable agriculture, aka the easiest public works project in the history of major public works projects in the entire history of humanity, out of our reach. If we weren't nonviolent, this is what we'd be taking up arms for.


So I meant it when I said "few worries" translates to just a couple of big worries. You're probably right that if you want to fret about things, there are better ways to do that. But it keeps me awake at night. It's 4:26 am as I finish this post.

The hat was "and now I tip my hat/don my hat and continue living that reality". It represents my mix of a disposition for enthusiasm with present exasperation with everything aforementioned.

I should add that in case people get the impression that I am harsh and disreptful towards mr Hygro, he is in fact one of my favourite posters here.

I am quite honored to read that. Thank you.

 

[Light Cleric]

Most alleged "dogpiles" involved three people, two of whom display the very height of good manners. It does occur, but not as frequently as its complained about.

I don't even describe myself as conservative(though I probably look it in comparison to how many vocal people there are on the left) but I can definitely see it when the few conservatives here do speak up. It happens in no small part because some people almost never actually express opinions of their own. Rather, they just go around looking down their nose and smugly attacking others for their points of view. When I've challenged some of them on it, they bristle and either retreat into their shell, are incredulous that they were actually challenged, or will try to drive the thread into a direction where they can bash someone they don't like(sometimes it's a strawman sometimes not). Yet no one sees anything wrong with this and it's just taken for granted that those people are smart and actually have something in their heads. Is this a discussion forum or is this MST3K?

Incidentally, the few times I see those people get pinned and pretty much forced to have to defend their position or express their views, they don't do so well, either, and kind of resemble a fish out of water. It's almost like actually expressing an opinion is harder than sitting back and shooting spitballs from your pillow fort.

Also, something I'm really, really getting tired of is the ridiculous partisanship. People get their ass on their shoulder when you point this out, but the only criticism of Obama I have seen that doesn't get you savaged by someone is that he's too conservative. Even criticizing his lack of transparency, which plenty of liberals have criticized, gets you crap here. We're not supposed to lump liberals and Democrats together, but if one is going to blindly and painstakingly defend the other, why shouldn't we? Basically my way of telling when I've hit on a legitimate criticism of Obama or another lefty is when the pack comes in and tries to forcefully shift the subject to <insert Republican here>. It's hilarious because it is the cable news/Fox news tactics that the same posters complain about, almost like Alan Colmes or that fat guy with suspenders has a bunch of sockpuppets on CFC. You can't criticize the drone strikes, civili liberties infractions, executive power, or basically anything else without it being driven back to Bush. I wasn't even old enough to vote until the '06 election cycle. I was 14 when we invaded Iraq. I didn't have a damn thing to do with Bush's presidency. So how many times do I have to deal with my points being "answered" with whining and moaning about Bush and how I'm not criticizing Republicans enough? Spoilers, I don't criticize Republicans as much because almost everyone else on the forum already does that for me? Do I HAVE to be an echo or a parrot? Furthermore, why do I have to be "balanced" when others don't?


Also re: the "Socratic" questioning stuff: I'm sure that it's not meant to be distracting or drive things off track, but the end result is that it does. I remember spectating a discussion about employmenr or somesuch where it happened and I think it was Mise who said "omg stop letting TF drive". I understand the desire not to get into quote wars which are just as bad or worse, but long volleys of short posts goes the other way and has the same effect of burying other people's posts, just instead of being buried between walls of text, they're buried many pages back because the thread is several pages longer than it really needs to be. There is an in-between of making succinct(basically not what I just wrote lol) posts and not devolving into monkies throwing their poop at each other or whatever the metaphor is people have used here before for quote wars.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, I remember that one Light Cleric - I was spectating too up to that point. The problem there was that people were so concerned with answering TF's questions that they weren't making a positive case of their own. I like it when people lay out their vision and attempt to take me with them, rather than fighting fires that TF starts with his questions. He's very good at it; they're good questions that deserve answers. But those answers ought to be framed within a holistic vision for (in this case) employment laws. To me it doesn't really matter if the posts are long or short, as long as they have the goal in sight at all times, and everything they're saying is working towards something really important.

 

[kochman]

I think dogpiling is an issue. But I don't think it's done deliberately. I think that conservatives are heavily outnumbered enough so that they may feel dogpiled, even when it wasn't the intent on anyone's part.

Classic obfuscation.
The special little groups behind the scenes, etc... sometimes it's been blatantly out in the open.

Not saying it is always done deliberately, but sometimes it is certainly done deliberately. I have no way of knowing how often, but to act as though it was always incidental is naive.