by Novorobo » Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:21 pm
Socialist Nordia wrote:Oh shit, let's hope we don't have to take in any /pol/ refugees.
by The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:24 pm
by Costa Fierro » Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:36 pm
by Kubra » Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:57 am
by USS Monitor » Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:02 am
by Cetacea » Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:06 am
Novorobo wrote:, to treat it for NSG purposes as equivalent to a thought experiment?.
by AiliailiA » Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:01 am
Novorobo wrote:Without being too specific, (don't want to derail the other thread) I was recently part of a conversation involving a personal story by another user on a very sensitive matter. I responded to said user, but I avoided commenting on the personal story specifically. But what made me feel especially uncomfortable, even if I agreed with the opinions they were connected to, (for the most part) was the unspoken but implied assumption from some that we HAD to take the user at his or her word by default.
Trouble is... this is the Internet. The very nature of the Internet is that there's no way to verify whether or not people mean what they say here.
So rather than forcing us to choose between either suspending skepticism or being insensitive to those who shouldn't have needed to bring up personal matters in the first place, why not just sidestep this by focusing on what can be proven in the first place? If someone needs to name an example of something, why not either make it the norm (if not a guideline) to cite an actual news story or something like that, or if they can't, to treat it for NSG purposes as equivalent to a thought experiment?
EDIT: For the record I didn't realize how meta this was until posting it.
Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:30 am
Novorobo wrote:Without being too specific, (don't want to derail the other thread) I was recently part of a conversation involving a personal story by another user on a very sensitive matter. I responded to said user, but I avoided commenting on the personal story specifically. But what made me feel especially uncomfortable, even if I agreed with the opinions they were connected to, (for the most part) was the unspoken but implied assumption from some that we HAD to take the user at his or her word by default.
Trouble is... this is the Internet. The very nature of the Internet is that there's no way to verify whether or not people mean what they say here.
So rather than forcing us to choose between either suspending skepticism or being insensitive to those who shouldn't have needed to bring up personal matters in the first place, why not just sidestep this by focusing on what can be proven in the first place? If someone needs to name an example of something, why not either make it the norm (if not a guideline) to cite an actual news story or something like that, or if they can't, to treat it for NSG purposes as equivalent to a thought experiment?
EDIT: For the record I didn't realize how meta this was until posting it.
by Maineiacs » Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:47 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Novorobo wrote:Without being too specific, (don't want to derail the other thread) I was recently part of a conversation involving a personal story by another user on a very sensitive matter. I responded to said user, but I avoided commenting on the personal story specifically. But what made me feel especially uncomfortable, even if I agreed with the opinions they were connected to, (for the most part) was the unspoken but implied assumption from some that we HAD to take the user at his or her word by default.
Trouble is... this is the Internet. The very nature of the Internet is that there's no way to verify whether or not people mean what they say here.
So rather than forcing us to choose between either suspending skepticism or being insensitive to those who shouldn't have needed to bring up personal matters in the first place, why not just sidestep this by focusing on what can be proven in the first place? If someone needs to name an example of something, why not either make it the norm (if not a guideline) to cite an actual news story or something like that, or if they can't, to treat it for NSG purposes as equivalent to a thought experiment?
EDIT: For the record I didn't realize how meta this was until posting it.
Are you talking about my personal story?
Let me make something clear: It doesn't matter if you believe my story or not (I did link to a picture of her for visual evidence, but I suppose that it's possible that I could cruelly pull a photo of a ventilator dependent kid off of Google images). I was only bringing it up to illustrate a point. Whether or not you accept my retelling of my daughter's personal issues, and the challenges that she and our family face as a result, what is important is that you realize that these things do happen across the nation. I could be your stereotypical fat 50 year old virgin living in his Mom's basement, lying about who he is in order to gain sympathy, and it wouldn't matter, since whatever you may think of what I've said, you cannot realistically deny that this is something that millions of families face to varying degrees, whether through sick children, parents with dementia, spouses with cancer, and so many other things that can and do go wrong. That's all that I was trying to say, and I only used my family's circumstances to illustrate a larger issue.
In conclusion, my story is only relevant as one story among millions, and if you don't believe mine, you sure as hell must believe theirs.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:48 am
Maineiacs wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
Are you talking about my personal story?
Let me make something clear: It doesn't matter if you believe my story or not (I did link to a picture of her for visual evidence, but I suppose that it's possible that I could cruelly pull a photo of a ventilator dependent kid off of Google images). I was only bringing it up to illustrate a point. Whether or not you accept my retelling of my daughter's personal issues, and the challenges that she and our family face as a result, what is important is that you realize that these things do happen across the nation. I could be your stereotypical fat 50 year old virgin living in his Mom's basement, lying about who he is in order to gain sympathy, and it wouldn't matter, since whatever you may think of what I've said, you cannot realistically deny that this is something that millions of families face to varying degrees, whether through sick children, parents with dementia, spouses with cancer, and so many other things that can and do go wrong. That's all that I was trying to say, and I only used my family's circumstances to illustrate a larger issue.
In conclusion, my story is only relevant as one story among millions, and if you don't believe mine, you sure as hell must believe theirs.
C'mon, Yum. You've been here long enough to know that if he can dismiss your story as false, that means all stories like it can be safely ignored.
by USS Monitor » Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:51 am
by Yumyumsuppertime » Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:09 am
USS Monitor wrote:OP, if you are talking about Yumyum, he's been around NS for a long time, and he's been consistent in his personal stories. That is why people assume he is telling the truth, because it would be hard to keep the stories consistent over such a long posting history if he was making them up. He has mentioned before having a disabled child, so it's not something he made up just for the purposes of a recent thread.
by Pope Joan » Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:31 am
by Katganistan » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:39 am
by Novorobo » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:20 am
USS Monitor wrote:OP, if you are talking about Yumyum, he's been around NS for a long time, and he's been consistent in his personal stories. That is why people assume he is telling the truth, because it would be hard to keep the stories consistent over such a long posting history if he was making them up. He has mentioned before having a disabled child, so it's not something he made up just for the purposes of a recent thread.
Ailiailia wrote:But more likely you were getting your ass kicked as usual, and you thought your problem was everyone's problem.
Socialist Nordia wrote:Oh shit, let's hope we don't have to take in any /pol/ refugees.
by USS Monitor » Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:14 pm
Novorobo wrote:USS Monitor wrote:OP, if you are talking about Yumyum, he's been around NS for a long time, and he's been consistent in his personal stories. That is why people assume he is telling the truth, because it would be hard to keep the stories consistent over such a long posting history if he was making them up. He has mentioned before having a disabled child, so it's not something he made up just for the purposes of a recent thread.
It's also possible Yumyum is just especially consistent in the character he/she is playing, and/or that this site isn't that good at keeping track of any apparent contradictions.
But the point isn't about whether or not Yumyum would do this; the point is that we don't know, and it's best to get into a habit of focusing on the verifiable, rather than on what isn't.
. . .
Didn't mean to single you out on this, Yumyum, and my opinions on the subject surrounding the discussion are otherwise similar to yours. I just figure that relying on stories that can't be proven is a bad habit to get into. This wouldn't be the first time, it just so happens that such a sensitive subject raises the emotional stakes of this issue.Ailiailia wrote:But more likely you were getting your ass kicked as usual, and you thought your problem was everyone's problem.
Any reason to assume this? Like, any, at all?
by Expectareaction » Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:01 pm
Novorobo wrote:Without being too specific, (don't want to derail the other thread) I was recently part of a conversation involving a personal story by another user on a very sensitive matter. I responded to said user, but I avoided commenting on the personal story specifically. But what made me feel especially uncomfortable, even if I agreed with the opinions they were connected to, (for the most part) was the unspoken but implied assumption from some that we HAD to take the user at his or her word by default.
Trouble is... this is the Internet. The very nature of the Internet is that there's no way to verify whether or not people mean what they say here.
So rather than forcing us to choose between either suspending skepticism or being insensitive to those who shouldn't have needed to bring up personal matters in the first place, why not just sidestep this by focusing on what can be proven in the first place? If someone needs to name an example of something, why not either make it the norm (if not a guideline) to cite an actual news story or something like that, or if they can't, to treat it for NSG purposes as equivalent to a thought experiment?
EDIT: For the record I didn't realize how meta this was until posting it.
by Len Hyet » Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:39 pm
Novorobo wrote:Without being too specific, (don't want to derail the other thread) I was recently part of a conversation involving a personal story by another user on a very sensitive matter. I responded to said user, but I avoided commenting on the personal story specifically. But what made me feel especially uncomfortable, even if I agreed with the opinions they were connected to, (for the most part) was the unspoken but implied assumption from some that we HAD to take the user at his or her word by default.
Trouble is... this is the Internet. The very nature of the Internet is that there's no way to verify whether or not people mean what they say here.
So rather than forcing us to choose between either suspending skepticism or being insensitive to those who shouldn't have needed to bring up personal matters in the first place, why not just sidestep this by focusing on what can be proven in the first place? If someone needs to name an example of something, why not either make it the norm (if not a guideline) to cite an actual news story or something like that, or if they can't, to treat it for NSG purposes as equivalent to a thought experiment?
EDIT: For the record I didn't realize how meta this was until posting it.
by Novorobo » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:53 pm
Expectareaction wrote:Novorobo wrote:Without being too specific, (don't want to derail the other thread) I was recently part of a conversation involving a personal story by another user on a very sensitive matter. I responded to said user, but I avoided commenting on the personal story specifically. But what made me feel especially uncomfortable, even if I agreed with the opinions they were connected to, (for the most part) was the unspoken but implied assumption from some that we HAD to take the user at his or her word by default.
Trouble is... this is the Internet. The very nature of the Internet is that there's no way to verify whether or not people mean what they say here.
So rather than forcing us to choose between either suspending skepticism or being insensitive to those who shouldn't have needed to bring up personal matters in the first place, why not just sidestep this by focusing on what can be proven in the first place? If someone needs to name an example of something, why not either make it the norm (if not a guideline) to cite an actual news story or something like that, or if they can't, to treat it for NSG purposes as equivalent to a thought experiment?
EDIT: For the record I didn't realize how meta this was until posting it.
So am I to understand then, that in the real world you actually physically verify everything you are told in person or say, on the phone?
And that because NSG does not meet this exhuasting standard that no human being I've encountered uses (eh, I can't provide any evidence of that sorry) you want flow conversation regulated to only sourceable material... just wow.
Socialist Nordia wrote:Oh shit, let's hope we don't have to take in any /pol/ refugees.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:21 pm
Novorobo wrote:Expectareaction wrote:So am I to understand then, that in the real world you actually physically verify everything you are told in person or say, on the phone?
And that because NSG does not meet this exhuasting standard that no human being I've encountered uses (eh, I can't provide any evidence of that sorry) you want flow conversation regulated to only sourceable material... just wow.
There's a reason I said "this is the Internet" in the OP.
by Mushet » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:30 pm
by Yumyumsuppertime » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:38 pm
by Cannot think of a name » Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:10 pm
by Yumyumsuppertime » Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:05 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
Couldn't be. I've been waiting forever for my Grand Slam breakfast, and nobody's brought me a refill on my coffee.
Until a homeless woman shows a customer her vagina and asks him to feel how cold it is to prove how 'real' shit is, it's still not the worst Denny's.
Totally unverifiable story that totally happened.
by San Marlindo » Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:33 pm
Novorobo wrote:Without being too specific, (don't want to derail the other thread) I was recently part of a conversation involving a personal story by another user on a very sensitive matter. I responded to said user, but I avoided commenting on the personal story specifically. But what made me feel especially uncomfortable, even if I agreed with the opinions they were connected to, (for the most part) was the unspoken but implied assumption from some that we HAD to take the user at his or her word by default.
Trouble is... this is the Internet. The very nature of the Internet is that there's no way to verify whether or not people mean what they say here.
So rather than forcing us to choose between either suspending skepticism or being insensitive to those who shouldn't have needed to bring up personal matters in the first place, why not just sidestep this by focusing on what can be proven in the first place? If someone needs to name an example of something, why not either make it the norm (if not a guideline) to cite an actual news story or something like that, or if they can't, to treat it for NSG purposes as equivalent to a thought experiment?
EDIT: For the record I didn't realize how meta this was until posting it.
"Cold, analytical, materialistic thinking tends to throttle the urge to imagination." - Michael Chekhov
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: -BRITAIN-, American Legionaries, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Big Eyed Animation, Cyptopir, Deblar, El Lazaro, Empire of Lettuce, Foxyshire, Google [Bot], Gorutimania, Ifreann, Israel and the Sinai, Kaapsestaat, Kreigsreich of Iron, Kyoto Noku, Lycom, Northern Wood, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, Stellar Colonies, Valrifall
Advertisement