Last Post on the Forum

[oOo]

@Emerald I agree.

Leo doesn't realise how stupid the space has become, that thread should have been locked far earlier and I don't  even have the breath to properly check on it now. 

Most of the guys didn't even research the actual research, they just blindly believed the OP, and the OP just blindly believed the author of the article that arguably deliberately misled the reader by creating false interpretations of the original research.

 

Leo needs to redesign the forum as I have expressed on a number of occasions.

Simply enforcing rules more strongly doesn't change the toxic sub-culture, also it makes interacting with the forum more stressful for those that need to do the enforcing.

 

@Leo Gura I do wonder what you are genuinely getting from the forum when the most well-intentioned persons contributing have an issue with its functioning

Lastly, I would refrain from turning this into any kind of war, but the basic economics here shouldn't be ignored. 

[Joseph Maynor]

9 hours ago, Emerald said:

There's maybe some fantasy that if I'm just very high integrity with my arguments... and I am very rational and reasonable and nuanced and thorough in my perspective, that the immovable object will budge.

I've stopped trying to do this.  

[Alexop]

9 minutes ago, oOo said:

@Emerald I agree.

Leo doesn't realise how stupid the space has become, that thread should have been locked far earlier and I don't  even have the breath to properly check on it now. 

Most of the guys didn't even research the actual research, they just blindly believed the OP, and the OP just blindly believed the author of the article that arguably deliberately misled the reader by creating false interpretations of the original research.

 

Leo needs to redesign the forum as I have expressed on a number of occasions.

Simply enforcing rules more strongly doesn't change the toxic sub-culture, also it makes interacting with the forum more stressful for those that need to do the enforcing.

 

@Leo Gura I do wonder what you are genuinely getting from the forum when the most well-intentioned persons contributing have an issue with its functioning

Lastly, I would refrain from turning this into any kind of war, but the basic economics here shouldn't be ignored. 

Leo and the moderators are doing a great job. This forum is not an agenda dictatorship. Anyone should be able to say whatever they feel as long they are not constantly insulting others or constantly coming with ridiculous conspiracy theories or such nonsense. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@oOo I take great personal issue with how users engaged with @Emerald and @Xonas Pitfall in the above topic you linked.

Instead of a dialogue, exchange of ideas and debate in a mature & charitable manner - there was all manner of slippery dishonest character attacks, condescension, sly jabs at people's capacity for understanding or general topic knowledge and overall dishonest debate tactics.

Agreeing to disagree is a great, albeit rarely conceded outcome, on this forum. 

The manner of engagement made me wish to lock the thread, not the topic itself. Unfortunately I woke up after the majority of the damage was done.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Ulax]

gg

[Alexop]

24 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@oOo I take great personal issue with how users engaged with @Emerald and @Xonas Pitfall in the above topic you linked.

Instead of a dialogue, exchange of ideas and debate in a mature & charitable manner - there was all manner of slippery dishonest character attacks, condescension, sly jabs at people's capacity for understanding or general topic knowledge and overall dishonest debate tactics.

Agreeing to disagree is a great, albeit rarely conceded outcome, on this forum. 

The manner of engagement made me wish to lock the thread, not the topic itself. Unfortunately I woke up after the majority of the damage was done.

 

Lock my thread if you want. It feels like we consumed it. 

[Rigel]

Human getting mad at other human for being human while being human. There ain’t no levity in debating people. Everyone is wrong including you and me in the end you loose even if you win.

There is no point at which arguments are intense or rational enough. Your opponent will also fail at that. It’s a dead end. Another way to use the forum that is more sustainable is using it for fun instead of for convincing people of ultimately meaningless inventions.

Edited 5 hours ago by Rigel

[Alexop]

15 minutes ago, Rigel said:

Human getting mad at other humans for being human while being human. There ain’t no levity in debating people. Everyone is wrong including you and me in the end you loose even if you win.

There is no point at which arguments are intense or rational enough. Your opponent will also fail at that. It’s a dead end. Another way to use the forum that is more sustainable is using it for fun instead of for convincing people of ultimately meaningless inventions.

I've had this protest that Emerald has, a few years ago, about this forum. I had to accept that this is how people are and we cannot silence people. People should be free to express their opinion. If the quality of the conversation goes low, so be it. Accept the situation. 

[Rigel]

11 minutes ago, Alexop said:

I've had this protest that Emerald has, a few years ago, about this forum. I had to accept that this is how people are and we cannot silence people. People should be free to express their opinion. If the quality of the conversation goes low, so be it. Accept the situation. 

It’s fun to be a stupid human when it doesn’t matter. When it does matter we are still stupid but now also waging war.

[Joseph Maynor]

9 minutes ago, Rigel said:

It’s fun to be a stupid human when it doesn’t matter. When it does matter we are still stupid but now also waging war.

Yes but we don't think of ourself as a stupid human entirely.  Nobody does.  

[oOo]

1 hour ago, Alexop said:

Leo and the moderators are doing a great job. This forum is not an agenda dictatorship. Anyone should be able to say whatever they feel as long they are not constantly insulting others or constantly coming with ridiculous conspiracy theories or such nonsense. 

You directly linked an article that mischaracterised the scientific research behind it, and then used it as your weapon to parade as a weapon against science. Sorry to say but this reflects a lack of integrity, something that's also corroborated by the fact that you side-stepped any accurate critique that would have forced you to hold yourself accountable.

Your anti-science ranting is the very conspiracy theory nonsense that needs to be vetted out of the forum. You should be identifying and critiquing authors, not SJW'ing against the very thing that enables you to wage a war against it on the forum.

At present, I can't take you seriously, and I don't believe you're genuine, I believe you're pretending to have opinions that are really just projections of your own biases. And you carry that from discussion to discussion I've ever seen you a part of. 

So you don't at all fit my description of "most well intentioned persons", so move on please. Thank you.

If you are genuinely working in good faith on the forum, then my suggestion is that people that create a thread should at the very least be held to a standard before its allowed to be posted.

One recommendation moderators and Leo: have a minimum set of fields that need to be entered which in order to answer all things being equal force a "in good faith" thread start.

[oOo]

@Natasha Tori Maru sorry you had to experience that.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Alexop said:

Lock my thread if you want. It feels like we consumed it. 

I think it's run its course naturally now. 

I'll add that I also dislike when users also try to psychologically profile others and reduce them to a bunch of mechanisms to explain behaviour. Or explain motivations behind some lines of argument (particularly when our proposals or arguments are not accepted). It does nothing but turn the person against us and impede charitable reception of our own ideas and concepts. 

It can also lock us to a frame of explaining a person. Rather than understanding. This leads to frequently misunderstanding or misinterpreting their points because we are preoccupied trying to fit them to a preconceived frame. 

It does nothing but shoot us in the foot debate wise to engage in this type of analysis of others openly.

@oOo appreciate you 

Edited 5 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Joseph Maynor]

What are you guys getting so offended about?  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Regardless, whats done is done.

Let this thread return to farewelling @Emerald

I apologise for the derail.

[LastThursday]

@Emerald I am always impressed by your contributions and your level headed approach and plain speaking, despite being buffeted around by others. I get your sentiment that this isn't a good space for women, and yet it's even less so without the women being here. Pop in occasionally and say hi!

[Ulax]

19 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What are you guys getting so offended about?  

They lost a debate and threw a tantrum

[Alexop]

1 hour ago, oOo said:

You directly linked an article that mischaracterised the scientific research behind it, and then used it as your weapon to parade as a weapon against science. Sorry to say but this reflects a lack of integrity, something that's also corroborated by the fact that you side-stepped any accurate critique that would have forced you to hold yourself accountable.

Your anti-science ranting is the very conspiracy theory nonsense that needs to be vetted out of the forum. You should be identifying and critiquing authors, not SJW'ing against the very thing that enables you to wage a war against it on the forum.

At present, I can't take you seriously, and I don't believe you're genuine, I believe you're pretending to have opinions that are really just projections of your own biases. And you carry that from discussion to discussion I've ever seen you a part of. 

So you don't at all fit my description of "most well intentioned persons", so move on please. Thank you.

If you are genuinely working in good faith on the forum, then my suggestion is that people that create a thread should at the very least be held to a standard before its allowed to be posted.

One recommendation moderators and Leo: have a minimum set of fields that need to be entered which in order to answer all things being equal force a "in good faith" thread start.

Relax. I did not make a complex critique of the study. I just made a comment on the arguments of that "Ocowoke" researcher presented in the article. Such recontextualization, putting words in people's mouth, moving the goal posts, whatabaoutisms and side tracking makes me lose interest in arguing with you guys. ✌️ 

[Zenterus]

@Emerald I'm sorry to see you go. I have found great value in your perspective since joining this forum last year. I've grown tremendously as a man, and I credit some of that development to the advice you've given me in the past. Thank you for your contributions.

Having that said, I am also slowly getting burned out on the forum. The quality has dipped tremendously the last couple of months and I hope something will be done about it before we lose all of our quality posters.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I'll add that I also dislike when users also try to psychologically profile others and reduce them to a bunch of mechanisms to explain behaviour. Or explain motivations behind some lines of argument (particularly when our proposals or arguments are not accepted). It does nothing but turn the person against us and impede charitable reception of our own ideas and concepts. 

It can also lock us to a frame of explaining a person. Rather than understanding.

This is just you explaining things in order to get a better grip on a situation that just unfolded 🙄

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard