| Author | Message | ||
     Seanp |
It seems that there have been quite a few folks around here getting pissed off at one another, (which is funny in a sad way) for various reasons. Some of this is politics, and some is misinterpreted sarcasm. Here are a couple of articles that you might all like to read in order to gain a better understanding of why folks react the way they do to political discussions and/or sarcastic comments. Why sarcasm doesn't translate well digitally... Why we don't listen to the other side's political views... Just wanted to share a couple of articles with you folks to maybe try to explain why things get heated up around here. Read them and discuss amongst yourselves! | ||
| Aldaytona |
I think the real problem is that some people take this site (and life in general) waaaaaay to seriously.  | ||
| Blake |
"People write absolutely, incredibly stupid things in company e-mails," said Flynn." Or... People write absolutely, incredibly stupid things on discussion boards. No, I'm not being sarcastic.  Name of someone who ignores facts in favor of a partisan agenda = "ideologue." Some folks aren't. Some are. Not a problem in and of itself. The problem starts with social interaction and when some choose to repeatedly engage in fraudulent debate, rudely ignoring entirely the valid points made by their opponents and/or when personal attack replaces thoughtful debate of the issues. Sad but true. We've had to confront and even ban folks from participating on BadWeB for just such behavior. And it's not just politics. It can be anything, even motorcycle technology and performance. Take for instance some naysayers' irrational stance concerning the merits of a significantly lighter front brake/wheel assembly. Talk about ignoring the facts. Some of those same folks can be expected to crow and snipe and gloat should the brand new fresh out of the box Buell XBRR fail to win the Daytona 200 in its racing debut. Utterly predictable. Naysaying ideologues? You bet. | ||
| Voltage_vector |
I think your both right, and I am guilty of it myself sometimes. The printed word is so impersonal, and has a hard time showing the little facial expression that would normally de-fuse a harsh reaction, as a comment in jest. Also in my opinion, our lifestyle of today, with a lot of separated insulated, non-accountable actions... like all the road rage for a lack of a better word. Just last night, I'm in the left turn lane, and a woman in a oncoming mini-van is about 45 degrees blocking her own lane, and mine. I stop, give a quick flash of the brights, meaning GO...she flips me off like I'm the one who has jammed the intersection! We are all so insulated, and many, me too sometimes, do rude things we would never do face to face. For fear of getting a punch in the mouth, and rightfully so! Next time someone jams you at a escalator in a store, stand there and swear at them at the top of your lungs and flip them off. See what happens. Yet this happens all the time in our cars, or emails, or blogs...you guys are right. We ALL need to chill the F%$# out. Hey my .02 cents worth. Blast away!  We all need a good ride on a real twisty smooth road....It's a pretty rare thing to see someone take a helmet off with a frown on their face. At least on a Buell anyway!  | ||
| Scooterroid |
That observation is pretty much right on the mark Voltage_vector. People write things on the internet and drive rudely and aggressively because they feel somewhat insulated and anonymous. They lose the social "politeness" that we normally have to exercise to keep someone else from kicking our a$$es. The person who cuts you off in traffic would not usually think of cutting in line in front of someone in a grocery store. I got rudely cut off in traffic this morning on the way to work. A good friend of mine once said that everyone would be much more polite if we all carried guns. Food for thought, eh. (the concept maybe, not literally) (Message edited by scooterroid on February 15, 2006) | ||
| Blake |
Al, I agree with the clarification that some folks take themselves WAY too seriously. Been there, done that. Doesn't work out too well for me. Trying to adapt and change, some might even say "evolve."  | ||
| Aldaytona |
Blake, I think we've all been there at some point, hope to see you in Daytona. | ||
| Voltage_vector |
Scotterroid, I think Mr. Colt called it "The Peacemaker"...  | ||
| Ryker77 |
I know I'm a know it all A$$hole. So I don't get upset when others think that way of me. Makes life much easier. Plus I allways use the old saying "if your arguing with an idiot,, then who is the idiot now?" BTW you'd better agree with me or we we'll go bird hunting and I'll shoot you in the face!  Like I just told you. I want 50% of the profit your company is making off of this war.. Since I started it! | ||
| Grndskpr |
Trying to adapt and change, some might even say "evolve." Mutate would be a better word, has less of a Darwinian sound to it R | ||
| Buellbozo |
Like I've mentioned before, this is the only forum that I've ever participated in. I know that the settings allow us to choose the "preview post" option or not. On more than one occasion I've pecked out some nasty barb, seen what it would look like to others, and deleted what I just typed. Not some moral high ground or anything like that--I wanna meet some of ya'll someday and I don't want anybody to have a reason to think me an a****** before we even meet. Afterwards, all bets are off.lol. I tend to think in nuts and bolts.That preview function has saved me from being a fool and being inconsiderate of others- ALWAYS a good thing. so my question to Blake and the custodians is "What if the preview function wasn't optional"??? It might have a "save us from ourselves" effect. On another note- I'll go with "EVOLVE". Mutate sounds too "NUCULER".  | ||
| Iamike |
I'm not going to respond to Ryker's ignorant remark because it will probably be deleted again. It's like at work when the guys blather the union propaganda that they read. I can't keep my mouth shut. | ||
| Voltage_vector |
bozo...ever notice how nuclear is almost the same as unclear?  | ||
| Buellbozo |
V V, Once we hash out evolution, we can tackle that damn space-time continuum thing and then we can... RUH ROW... Duck and cover! duck and cover! Duck and c | ||
| Voltage_vector |
AHHH duck and cover...the good old days...saw a great film clip on Military.com today of a old 50's or early 60's shot of a big howitzer fired nuke...I think a 155mm maybe, or a little larger, but not much... Totally awesome.  | ||
| Buellbozo |
History Channel just did cannons. Atomic Annie I think it was called. 20 kilotons. Just a cute little gun... "BOOM goes London, BOOM Paree, More room for you and more room for me; And every city the whole world round will just be another American town..." -Randy Newman, Political Science | ||
| Lowflyer |
Some people have a sense of humor; some people don't. As for politics on the Internet or anywhere else; you can engage with or without emotion. Some people don't know how to detach. Lastly, a debate is only as intelligent as the dumbest participant. | ||
| Buellbozo |
Lowflyer,  Like Mr. Buffett said- "If we couldnt laugh we would all go insane" | ||
| Seanp |
Lowflyer, The point of the first article was that humor does not necessarily translate through the digital medium that we call the Internet. So yes, some people have humor, and some don't; however, even if you have humor, people might not know it by reading what you post. And the gist of the other article is that no, actually, you can't engage in a political discussion without emotion; your brain actually causes you to be blind to the other side's logic. That's why so many forums have a specific section for political/religious/etc. type discussions. They're all inherently volatile topics that are bound to turn into a verbal slugfest. | ||
| Lowflyer |
You proved my point. My post was meant to be completely innocuous, yet you respond by calling me out. People will find fault in whatever suits them. I believe that the second article is just plain bullshit like a lot of "scientific" studies. Scientists do not yet know enough about the human brain to draw any concrete conclusions about or assign meaning to the presence/absence of brain activity for a given stimuli. For all we know, they could have it completely reversed. I recently read where a low fat diet now does not reduce the risk of heart disease. Oh, and coffee is good for you now too. | ||
| Seanp |
Scientific studies have always been called bullshit - Galileo's studies were called bullshit, albeit in Italian. I'm sure Newton's studies, Darwin's studies, and many other "scientific studies" have been called bullshit in various tongues throughout the ages. But if it weren't for scientific studies, then we'd stop advancing our knowledge of life, and then we might as well live in a cave somewhere. I'd be willing to bet that the motorcycle you ride and the helmet you (hopefully) wear and the bright colored clothing you (hopefully) wear and the Internet you're using right now are all beneficiaries of scientific studies. But I won't claim to know anything for sure, because I'm not a scientist, and can't make a judgment one way or another. All I can do as a layman is decide whether something has possible merit. I think this particular scientific study regarding politically-motivated emotionally-caused blindness has possible merit, because it has played out to be true so many times, both on the Internet and off. But again, I am not a scientist, so that's just my opinion. As Herr Ripley said, "Believe it, or not!" | ||
| Captpete |
Of course all that's true, especially when poorly written. But the Internet's the self-healing robot. It invented emoticons to solve the problem. Or was it that guy who really beat Bush a while back?  Or was it Blake?  | ||
| Lowflyer |
I didn't say that it isn't plausible. It just makes no sense (is bullshit) to me because I can argue with anyone without getting emotionally attached to my position. I do it all the time. Just ask my wife.  Which guy that beat Bush? Gore or Kerry?  | ||
| Court |
Much research, in its day, is not truly appreciated. I have a friend who patented "fuel in the frame" and it's taken 20 years for the idea to connect with reality. One really neat exception was the great scientist George Washington Carver who, in 1921, was called to testify before the U. S. Senate. He was to speak on Chemergy, the discovery of manufacturing used for agricultural products. He was allotted 10 minutes to speak. The attendees were so fascinated they asked him to continue and he went for 90 minutes. Henry Ford, another great inventor, was one of Carver's greatest admirers and was using soy bean products in automobiles (you knew your steering wheel was made from soy beans, right?) years ahead of others. I think I'm well read, my wife thinks I'm dull. P.S. - don't get me started on some of the great Italian and European inventors. . . I'll go off like Blake taking out a Bush-basher . . particularly if you think Marconi invented the wireless. | ||
| Seanp |
Court - didn't Jefferson Starship credit Marconi with inventing the wireless, (in a roundabout way) in "We Built This City"? So they're wrong? Damn, I knew I shouldn't have tried to learn history by watching MTV...  | ||
| Road_thing |
Well read?? And you think there's a connection between pasta and wireless communication??  rt ...don't wanna hurt no kangaroo... | ||
| Lowflyer |
Okay, I am not bashing all scientific studies; just the ones that reverse themselves every 20 years or so. I will say that I recently read (US News & WR - I believe) how scientific studies get accredited. It's basically one guy making a report and several of his buddies, without ever even reading it, signing off on it as truth. I am a skeptic by nature, but that article has probably dimmed my view on the whole '4 out of 5 doctors agree' thing. I take exception to the whole, 'your brain can't process the other side of the argument...' thing. That is the part that I believe is bullshit. I am responsible for what I take exception to. I can't blame it on my brain's internal mechanism or lack thereof for processing liberalism for example. I have the ability to reason and I have insight, so that is how I draw my conclusions. Court, Inventions are one thing, the plethora of "scientific" studies that are excreted from the annals of academia are another entirely. It's sort of a tangible vs. intangible deal. Did you catch the imagery there? I was laying it on thick in that first sentence.  | ||
| Henrik |
It's basically one guy making a report and several of his buddies, without ever even reading it, signing off on it as truth. Weeeell - laying it on thick, you may fortunately not be entirely correct there A well designed study begins with a thesis - an idea - which if well formulated will indicate what needs to be measured/tested and analyzed in order to truly clarify whether this thesis is correct or not. (as an aside, some researchers are not happy unless their thesis is proven to be correct. If proven incorrect they'll see that as failure, not as an opportunity - which in the long run will "taint" their research) While there are indeed many studies in all fields that go the other way; "we have some results - let's see if we can use these to prove and publish something." That's not always the case. I guess part of problem is that many assume that just because a study has been published, it's findings are indeed correct. That is not the case - a study may in reality just have raised a question, which in turn would be an interesting starting point for another study. Well, there is more to it, but you get the picture. Henrik | ||
| Buellbozo |
RT, "don't wanna hurt no kangaroo"...  Thanks for the belly laugh! They all hate us anyhow...let's drop the big one now. | ||
| Buellbozo |
Court, "...like Blake taking out a Bush basher". "That is an accurate statement." For anyone who isnt sure- ITS A JOKE! |
