Why Are We So Mean to Fox News?

[Des-Bal]

Grew up on a farm, fuck foxes.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Grew up on a farm, fuck foxes.

Fox mains just got triggered thanks to your post.

Why would any one hate Narwhals?

There unicorns Jedi of the sea.

Had to fix that for you.

How about Unicorn Jedi's of the sea?

[Shofercia]

It gotcha to click, didn't it?
[*]The premise is wildly flawed... there are very, very good reasons to not like foxes:
#notallfoxes

That's even worse... if it's not meant to be a pun as we've seen with other "deceit threads" then it's just plain clickbait. I suppose it could be a clever commentary on the clickbait phenomenon, but Shof loses points for not having managed to get enough posts in the thread to reach a point where he can reveal this. I suggest that the main reason for this is the absent pun.

Yes, you're right, not all foxes. Just red/silver foxes and arctic foxes. So... the ones people care about.

Considering my opinion of mass media in general, and Fox News (or MSNBC, my opinion of CNN is even worse,) in particular, no sane NSGer would actually think that I would start a thread saying that NSGers are too mean to Fox News. As thus, the people who clicked on it can be grouped into several groups. First group is the group that doesn't read who the OP is - and just clicks on the thread. Their responses are as follows:

god damn click bait......

CLICK BAIT!!!!!

The second group of people are those who realized that it won't be about being nice to Fox News, but were just really curious where the thread would go. Maybe they thought it was going to be a parody, or where I'd play the Devil's Advocate, or about uniting America in spite of the ever growing confrontation on both sides of the extreme. They didn't expect vulpes, but were able to quickly adapt, because of their curiosity. Here is a sample of said responses:

You got me.

Huh. This isn't going where I thought it would

Well done OP.
And I hate foxes because of that STUPID FUCKING SONG.
You all know the one.

You got me. I didn't expect a thread about rights for vulpes.

Credit where credit is due, nice job there Shof.

A second part of said group decided to have a bit of fun:

They make Melee tournaments look like this

How can we be so mean to these guys?

How? Well, you start by rounding up some British gentlemen, hounds and horses. Serve some light refreshment, something apt for a morning, like anything consisting of gin for at least half of its mass. Then someone blows a horn, the hounds are unleashed, and there's a general trampling of crops at the hooves of noble steeds. Someone else yells "tally ho!".

While we're at it, can we address the unfair complaints against CNN (the Cassowary News Network)?

ABC (Aardvark Broadcasting Corporation) and NBC (Narwhal Broadcasting Company).

I'm against fox news because I think that the Tories have more important things to do than hunting. Also, foxes eat sheep.

I'm against fox news because I think that the Tories have more important things to do than hunting. Also, foxes eat sheep.

That's just propaganda from the wool industry. #wakeupsheeple

Not to mention MSNBC (Millions of Spiders News Broadcasting Corp.)

And some made serious posts:

Not entirely sure what's going on here, but I'm going to weigh in. Foxes don't always live up to their reputation as sly, deceitful hunters. Take a look at this footage recovered from Alaska: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSEd6O0bBFs
It's getting along fine with two cats.

I hate it when foxes steal my chickens, but I would rather put up a fence then kill one. Wasn't there Soviet/Russian project to domesticate gray foxes to see how domestication affected animals?

Yes, they become adorable hyper doggos.

My main problem with foxes are they are overpopulated in cities, and they create messes by tipping over bins.

To be honest, I've knever really thought about why foxes are always considered to be "evil" animals. My guess would be that the tradition comes from foxes hunting various farm animals and causing the farmers much annoyance. As well as them being unable to be farmed themselves. Given the rather utilitarian outlook on life back then this might mean that foxes were regarded as evil animals. This general dissatisfaction would later make its way into stories.

In modern days we probably still regard foxes as "evil" out of force of habit and the sheer volume of stories that label them as such. This creates a self-perpetuating belief in the evilness of foxes as each generation reads the stories of the last and writes new ones for the future. Like any things this hatred is highly unlikely to be undone within one century and will take hundreds of years to dissipate completely. Then maybe sheep might become the cunning, sly villains.

That second group pretty much forms the majority of intelligent and on topic discussion of the thread. And then there's the third group. That group's just here to argue over anything. They make posts like these:

This thread is moronic.

• The title's pun doesn't work, i.e. doesn't exist.
• The premise is wildly flawed... there are very, very good reasons to not like foxes: consider the company they keep.

Go think about what you've done.

Except not many posters are making those posts. So far I've seen just one, and, by the way, the pun works just fine. There was a punny movie about it - Outfoxed. Oh wow, I guess bringing that up makes me mean to Fox News... except the thread's about Vulpes. Now as for that other thing you said:

Shof loses points for not having managed to get enough posts in the thread to reach a point where he can reveal this.

I should point out that losing points on the Forsher point scale is an Honor for me, but, alas, I cannot thank you for the compliment, because I did get enough posts to reveal this:

Even better: title a thread Fox News and make it about vulpes.

Just going to leave that here

And with that, let's get back on topic - so how would a pro-vulpes fairy tale look like?

Whoops, I guess in your anger you missed it. As a wise man once said: Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I do not wish for you to suffer on NSG, so please Forsher, let's just have fun in this thread, eh?

[Shofercia]

Do you often find the sexual characteristics of non-human animals worth noting?

No. Do you often find questions about the sexual characteristics of non-human animals worth asking about?

Because they're a fear-mongering, bullshit pandering, faux news network.

Quick reminder of what's on topic:

Discussion of the Rights of Vulpes, treatment of Vulpes, Fairy Tales of Vulpes, video games of Vulpes, (since Herp made that on topic,) and puns of Vulpes. Discussion that relates to those issues.

Discussion that's not on topic: the actual Fox News channel, CNN, MSNBC, other news channels. Saying that CNN = Cassowary News Network is a pun, so that's fine. Saying "CNN sucks because they think black holes coexist within planet Earth" isn't on topic, even if it's true.

This is a fun thread, let's keep it that way

[Shofercia]

Just going to leave that here

And with that, let's get back on topic - so how would a pro-vulpes fairy tale look like?

It would end with the words "Mishon Compreet"

Also, and I can't believe that I didn't say this earlier, Fox and buns can indeed be frends.

I can't believe you didn't say that earlier either

While we're at it, can we address the unfair complaints against CNN (the Cassowary News Network)?

How're the Cassowaries mistreated?

My main problem with foxes are they are overpopulated in cities, and they create messes by tipping over bins.

Coyotes and raccoons are worse... and bigger.

And they can take on human form:

I'm against fox news because I think that the Tories have more important things to do than hunting.

Also, foxes eat sheep.

That's just propaganda from the wool industry.

#wakeupsheeple

If a fox saw a flock of sheep that has 90 white sheep and 10 black sheep, and only ate the black sheep - would that be discrimination?

I don't hate foxes. I love foxes. They are adorable and fun. I'd even consider raising one, if I didn't know how difficult they can be to care of.

The Russian domesticated foxes are very easy to take care of, if you can provide the right environment:

BECAUSE THEY ARE EXACTLY WHATS WRONG WITH AM-

*sees OP*

...oh. Now I feel foolish.

Mwhahaha

Why would any one hate Narwhals?

There unicorns Jedi of the sea.

Had to fix that for you.

Speaking of Jedi and Foxes - where is the fox race? The closest I can think of, would be Juhani, and she's more cat than anything else!

Had to fix that for you.

So who are the wookies?

Walking carpets

Grew up on a farm, fuck foxes.

My thread lasted three pages before a zoophilia reference!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Do you often find the sexual characteristics of non-human animals worth noting?

No. Do you often find questions about the sexual characteristics of non-human animals worth asking about?

Because they're a fear-mongering, bullshit pandering, faux news network.

Quick reminder of what's on topic:

Discussion of the Rights of Vulpes, treatment of Vulpes, Fairy Tales of Vulpes, video games of Vulpes, (since Herp made that on topic,) and puns of Vulpes. Discussion that relates to those issues.

Discussion that's not on topic: the actual Fox News channel, CNN, MSNBC, other news channels. Saying that CNN = Cassowary News Network is a pun, so that's fine. Saying "CNN sucks because they think black holes coexist within planet Earth" isn't on topic, even if it's true.

This is a fun thread, let's keep it that way

Don't engage in click bait, Shof.

[Shofercia]

Don't engage in click bait, Shof.

Not everything revolves around American news stations Nana, some threads are just about Vulpes

(And Vulpes in video games, stories, news, etc, etc, etc )

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Don't engage in click bait, Shof.

Not everything revolves around American news stations Nana, some threads are just about Vulpes

(And Vulpes in video games, stories, news, etc, etc, etc )

Don't talk about foxes too much. An NSer I won't call by name may think the ones in video games are real. >.>

[Zurkerx]

Damn it, I been deceived...

[Khalisako]

I think foxes are very cute and I'd love to own a doemsticated fox. Even better if domestic fox became common.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think foxes are very cute and I'd love to own a doemsticated fox. Even better if domestic fox became common.

If you have Instagram, follow Juniperfox. Such an adorable fox. The owner saves and rehabilitates foxes.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

Welp, I was clickbaited.

*And you guys thought that only happens in youtube*

[Neanderthaland]

Because the fucker won't let me cross the bridge.

[Singularity Multiversal Travel Empire]

I imagine it has something to do with their predatory behavior and small size.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Because the fucker won't let me cross the bridge.

What did he do, ask you these questions three? Like the old man from scene 24?

[Liberalter]

Fox "news" ruined foxes for me, the same way Pepe the racist Frog ruined frogs.

[Forsher]

Considering my opinion of mass media in general, and Fox News (or MSNBC, my opinion of CNN is even worse,) in particular, no sane NSGer

Seriously dude? You think every NSGer knows your opinions of mass media generally? That's... um.... a headscratcher.

would actually think that I would start a thread saying that NSGers are too mean to Fox News. As thus, the people who clicked on it can be grouped into several groups. First group is the group that doesn't read who the OP is - and just clicks on the thread. Their responses are as follows:

Your seriously flawed premises aside, yes, you could reasonably infer complaints about clickbait are motivated by feelings about clickbait. To remember the flawed premise, it is nuts to think it's reasonable to infer they didn't read who the OP is.

The second group of people are those who realized that it won't be about being nice to Fox News, but were just really curious where the thread would go. Maybe they thought it was going to be a parody, or where I'd play the Devil's Advocate, or about uniting America in spite of the ever growing confrontation on both sides of the extreme. They didn't expect vulpes, but were able to quickly adapt, because of their curiosity. Here is a sample of said responses:

A second part of said group decided to have a bit of fun:

Regardless of one's views about the premise (and note there is actually only one class of correct view): dat mindreading, though.

It would be reasonable to suppose, for instance, that the first group of these posters were motivated by some desire to express their views. After all, notice the level of personal pronouns or by some desire to reward something they found wry/amusing/whatever because, you know, this is broadly how English speakers are raised. If we want to start doing some pop psychology on these posters, then, are sometimes talking to themselves and sometimes saying "good dog"... mechanical beings processing everyday experience, with suitable modification for the circumstances, i.e. the internet. From here we might bother with some mindreading, but, of course, Shof has kindly already done that for us.

On the other hand, Shof is also asking us to believe "you got me" is sarcastic, that he should be given credit for some reason other than the deception or whatever as otherwise "those who realized that it won't be about being nice to Fox News" wouldn't accurately classify these posters. But I repeat myself.

We could extend the pop psychology to the funny posters, because it's almost the epitome of pop psychology to say stuff about "humour is a way of releasing tension" or "humour deflects from personal failings, such as being conned". Both of these particular hypothetical pop psychology interpretations also happen to imply Shof is wrong, but that's just a coincidence. Certainly, we might imagine some other pop psychology interpretations. I won't, though, because I am not a pop psychologist, so I'll just stick with the trite.

Another way of looking at these posts is through the lens of "improv". Basically the first lesson in improvisation is "accept the offer". And, lo, the offer was accepted, many times. Basically, this theory asks one to believe that people read Shof's OP, inferred it was meant to be funny and then decided to use the prompt to be funny. Naturally, one isn't surprised to find the general rule of improv holds true here: it gets funnier. However, I should mention I am very definitely not suggesting that the original offer wasn't, in fact, funny. I repeat: definitely not. Far be it from me to act as the final arbiter of humour^TM.

And some made serious posts:

At this point one might wonder why it is reasonable to infer that this lot also decided that the thread wasn't going to be about Fox News, given that we haven't explicitly stated any mechanism which allows this lot to be part of the same umbrella group as the two previous member classes. However, I suggest one doesn't wonder if this might possibly have been by design. So we're all absolutely clear, I will repeat my earlier assurance that pop psychology only had those implications for want of imagination. I mean, this lot could just all be playing the straight man role to Shof's, um, funny guy. Who knows?

Whatever we happen to decide, we'll definitely agree that none of these posters are motivated by a sense of sharing their opinion and that seriously considering the implications of the thread's proposition can only happen in the above manners. For example, it definitely isn't allowable to wonder if perhaps the OP was constrained by a certain ethnocentrism, and that it would be useful to step into another experience. No, that definitely isn't allowed.

That second group pretty much forms the majority of intelligent and on topic discussion of the thread. And then there's the third group. That group's just here to argue over anything. They make posts like these:

Actually, I rather think they make long posts which make a big deal out of, apparently, one singular criticism of their attempts at humour and artificially limited perspective of the issue (i.e. foxes and their reputation). I say this because I recently read such post and it made several pointed remarks which are difficult to explain otherwise. Certainly, I felt, in this post I recently read, the poster seemed rather too sincere to be having a laugh that no-one else happened to get. Such posts are generally completely unwilling to contemplate the deeper implications and might well impose impossible contexts.

Except not many posters are making those posts. So far I've seen just one, and, by the way, the pun works just fine.

What pun?

Fox: why so mean?

Pun. Is it Fox News being shortened to Fox as is fair enough? Is it a Fox being interviewed and quoted, e.g. like is common in news headlines? Dunno. Hence, pun.

Why Are We So Mean to Fox News?

What news about foxes? Is it some further comment on how the news is often just the olds in clickbait? Maybe it's some kind of news about Edward Fox? It wasn't and there's still no news, either...

There is only the literal meaning... unless we want to believe it is a clever comment on the superificiality of Fox News, i.e. the title has only a superficial meaning which is, in reality, completely irrelevant to the Truth of the thread. I doubt this: it is difficult to coherently explain.

Hence, what pun? But I really do repeat myself.

There was a punny movie about it - Outfoxed. Oh wow, I guess bringing that up makes me mean to Fox News... except the thread's about Vulpes.

By which Shoft means there was a limited released documentary movie which riffed on the Fox part of the Fox News (rather than being a pun per se), that was released in 2004, that he expects a forum where the majority of members are (a) not American and (b) too young to remember the Bush administration (even as a foreign government) to be aware of. Now, that's just ridiculous... much like suggesting all word play is punny.

Now as for that other thing you said:

Shof loses points for not having managed to get enough posts in the thread to reach a point where he can reveal this.

I should point out that losing points on the Forsher point scale is an Honor for me, but, alas, I cannot thank you for the compliment, because I did get enough posts to reveal this:

Just going to leave that here

Oh, hilarious. That is a real laugh.*

However, I missed the bit where that had anything to do with revealing your deep seated belief that you posted an arcane commentary about the clickbait phenomenon. But, hey, I apparently also missed a pun, so are you really surprised?


*And this was an actual pun (and also actual word play). To explain... it is a "real laugh" i.e. a complete joke that Shof thinks this is at all relevant to what was a really specific possible explanation, but it is also the video.

Whoops, I guess in your anger you missed it. As a wise man once said: Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I do not wish for you to suffer on NSG, so please Forsher, let's just have fun in this thread, eh?

I'm having plenty of fun. But the thread is still moronic. It is based around a non-existent pun (that is, because I was loose with the terminology before, the thread title is just straight up lies rather than any kind of word play... beyond the very simplistic "it's got fox in it", which is much like saying that 12% of a plan is better than 11%) and absolutely fails to consider that perhaps there are actual reasons to be mean to foxes, to the extent that they are literally banned from entering at least one country. It is also limited in the extent that the depiction of the fox is not even entirely negative in Northern Hemisphere traditions:

The term "foxy" in English ("having the qualities of a fox") can also connote attractiveness, sexiness or being red-haired. The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".

[...]

The Medieval Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard was nicknamed "Robert the Fox" as well as the Resourceful, the Cunning, the Wily - underlining the identification of such qualities with foxes.

[...]

During World War II, the German commander in North Africa, Erwin Rommel, was grudgingly nicknamed the "Desert Fox" by his British adversaries, as a tribute to his cunning and skill in operational art.

And then there's this, this, this and this.

So...

I think that we should rehabilitate vulpes, and stop scaring our kids with news of the Vulpes Scare.

Done and done. (And it was always a nuanced animal... that last link is great for this point.)

Your point, sir?

[Shofercia]

Considering my opinion of mass media in general, and Fox News (or MSNBC, my opinion of CNN is even worse,) in particular, no sane NSGer

Seriously dude? You think every NSGer knows your opinions of mass media generally? That's... um.... a headscratcher.

would actually think that I would start a thread saying that NSGers are too mean to Fox News. As thus, the people who clicked on it can be grouped into several groups. First group is the group that doesn't read who the OP is - and just clicks on the thread. Their responses are as follows:

Your seriously flawed premises aside, yes, you could reasonably infer complaints about clickbait are motivated by feelings about clickbait. To remember the flawed premise, it is nuts to think it's reasonable to infer they didn't read who the OP is.

The second group of people are those who realized that it won't be about being nice to Fox News, but were just really curious where the thread would go. Maybe they thought it was going to be a parody, or where I'd play the Devil's Advocate, or about uniting America in spite of the ever growing confrontation on both sides of the extreme. They didn't expect vulpes, but were able to quickly adapt, because of their curiosity. Here is a sample of said responses:

A second part of said group decided to have a bit of fun:

Regardless of one's views about the premise (and note there is actually only one class of correct view): dat mindreading, though.

It would be reasonable to suppose, for instance, that the first group of these posters were motivated by some desire to express their views. After all, notice the level of personal pronouns or by some desire to reward something they found wry/amusing/whatever because, you know, this is broadly how English speakers are raised. If we want to start doing some pop psychology on these posters, then, are sometimes talking to themselves and sometimes saying "good dog"... mechanical beings processing everyday experience, with suitable modification for the circumstances, i.e. the internet. From here we might bother with some mindreading, but, of course, Shof has kindly already done that for us.

On the other hand, Shof is also asking us to believe "you got me" is sarcastic, that he should be given credit for some reason other than the deception or whatever as otherwise "those who realized that it won't be about being nice to Fox News" wouldn't accurately classify these posters. But I repeat myself.

We could extend the pop psychology to the funny posters, because it's almost the epitome of pop psychology to say stuff about "humour is a way of releasing tension" or "humour deflects from personal failings, such as being conned". Both of these particular hypothetical pop psychology interpretations also happen to imply Shof is wrong, but that's just a coincidence. Certainly, we might imagine some other pop psychology interpretations. I won't, though, because I am not a pop psychologist, so I'll just stick with the trite.

Another way of looking at these posts is through the lens of "improv". Basically the first lesson in improvisation is "accept the offer". And, lo, the offer was accepted, many times. Basically, this theory asks one to believe that people read Shof's OP, inferred it was meant to be funny and then decided to use the prompt to be funny. Naturally, one isn't surprised to find the general rule of improv holds true here: it gets funnier. However, I should mention I am very definitely not suggesting that the original offer wasn't, in fact, funny. I repeat: definitely not. Far be it from me to act as the final arbiter of humour^TM.

And some made serious posts:

At this point one might wonder why it is reasonable to infer that this lot also decided that the thread wasn't going to be about Fox News, given that we haven't explicitly stated any mechanism which allows this lot to be part of the same umbrella group as the two previous member classes. However, I suggest one doesn't wonder if this might possibly have been by design. So we're all absolutely clear, I will repeat my earlier assurance that pop psychology only had those implications for want of imagination. I mean, this lot could just all be playing the straight man role to Shof's, um, funny guy. Who knows?

Whatever we happen to decide, we'll definitely agree that none of these posters are motivated by a sense of sharing their opinion and that seriously considering the implications of the thread's proposition can only happen in the above manners. For example, it definitely isn't allowable to wonder if perhaps the OP was constrained by a certain ethnocentrism, and that it would be useful to step into another experience. No, that definitely isn't allowed.

That second group pretty much forms the majority of intelligent and on topic discussion of the thread. And then there's the third group. That group's just here to argue over anything. They make posts like these:

Actually, I rather think they make long posts which make a big deal out of, apparently, one singular criticism of their attempts at humour and artificially limited perspective of the issue (i.e. foxes and their reputation). I say this because I recently read such post and it made several pointed remarks which are difficult to explain otherwise. Certainly, I felt, in this post I recently read, the poster seemed rather too sincere to be having a laugh that no-one else happened to get. Such posts are generally completely unwilling to contemplate the deeper implications and might well impose impossible contexts.

Except not many posters are making those posts. So far I've seen just one, and, by the way, the pun works just fine.

What pun?

Fox: why so mean?

Pun. Is it Fox News being shortened to Fox as is fair enough? Is it a Fox being interviewed and quoted, e.g. like is common in news headlines? Dunno. Hence, pun.

Why Are We So Mean to Fox News?

What news about foxes? Is it some further comment on how the news is often just the olds in clickbait? Maybe it's some kind of news about Edward Fox? It wasn't and there's still no news, either...

There is only the literal meaning... unless we want to believe it is a clever comment on the superificiality of Fox News, i.e. the title has only a superficial meaning which is, in reality, completely irrelevant to the Truth of the thread. I doubt this: it is difficult to coherently explain.

Hence, what pun? But I really do repeat myself.

There was a punny movie about it - Outfoxed. Oh wow, I guess bringing that up makes me mean to Fox News... except the thread's about Vulpes.

By which Shoft means there was a limited released documentary movie which riffed on the Fox part of the Fox News (rather than being a pun per se), that was released in 2004, that he expects a forum where the majority of members are (a) not American and (b) too young to remember the Bush administration (even as a foreign government) to be aware of. Now, that's just ridiculous... much like suggesting all word play is punny.

Now as for that other thing you said:



I should point out that losing points on the Forsher point scale is an Honor for me, but, alas, I cannot thank you for the compliment, because I did get enough posts to reveal this:

Oh, hilarious. That is a real laugh.*

However, I missed the bit where that had anything to do with revealing your deep seated belief that you posted an arcane commentary about the clickbait phenomenon. But, hey, I apparently also missed a pun, so are you really surprised?


*And this was an actual pun (and also actual word play). To explain... it is a "real laugh" i.e. a complete joke that Shof thinks this is at all relevant to what was a really specific possible explanation, but it is also the video.

Whoops, I guess in your anger you missed it. As a wise man once said: Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I do not wish for you to suffer on NSG, so please Forsher, let's just have fun in this thread, eh?

I'm having plenty of fun. But the thread is still moronic. It is based around a non-existent pun (that is, because I was loose with the terminology before, the thread title is just straight up lies rather than any kind of word play... beyond the very simplistic "it's got fox in it", which is much like saying that 12% of a plan is better than 11%) and absolutely fails to consider that perhaps there are actual reasons to be mean to foxes, to the extent that they are literally banned from entering at least one country. It is also limited in the extent that the depiction of the fox is not even entirely negative in Northern Hemisphere traditions:

The term "foxy" in English ("having the qualities of a fox") can also connote attractiveness, sexiness or being red-haired. The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".

[...]

The Medieval Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard was nicknamed "Robert the Fox" as well as the Resourceful, the Cunning, the Wily - underlining the identification of such qualities with foxes.

[...]

During World War II, the German commander in North Africa, Erwin Rommel, was grudgingly nicknamed the "Desert Fox" by his British adversaries, as a tribute to his cunning and skill in operational art.

And then there's this, this, this and this.

So...

I think that we should rehabilitate vulpes, and stop scaring our kids with news of the Vulpes Scare.

Done and done. (And it was always a nuanced animal... that last link is great for this point.)

Your point, sir?

Is there a way you can shorten that term paper? Because if you think that I am going to waste my time reading of all that, you are very much mistaken. Someone very wise once said: "brevity is the Soul of Wit" - and I appreciate said knowledge, now more than ever. Oh yeah, that was Shakespeare. He was witty and punny, i.e. "you will find me a grave man". College Humor time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtlm9sJFVEk

[Forsher]

Seriously dude? You think every NSGer knows your opinions of mass media generally? That's... um.... a headscratcher.



Your seriously flawed premises aside, yes, you could reasonably infer complaints about clickbait are motivated by feelings about clickbait. To remember the flawed premise, it is nuts to think it's reasonable to infer they didn't read who the OP is.



Regardless of one's views about the premise (and note there is actually only one class of correct view): dat mindreading, though.

It would be reasonable to suppose, for instance, that the first group of these posters were motivated by some desire to express their views. After all, notice the level of personal pronouns or by some desire to reward something they found wry/amusing/whatever because, you know, this is broadly how English speakers are raised. If we want to start doing some pop psychology on these posters, then, are sometimes talking to themselves and sometimes saying "good dog"... mechanical beings processing everyday experience, with suitable modification for the circumstances, i.e. the internet. From here we might bother with some mindreading, but, of course, Shof has kindly already done that for us.

On the other hand, Shof is also asking us to believe "you got me" is sarcastic, that he should be given credit for some reason other than the deception or whatever as otherwise "those who realized that it won't be about being nice to Fox News" wouldn't accurately classify these posters. But I repeat myself.

We could extend the pop psychology to the funny posters, because it's almost the epitome of pop psychology to say stuff about "humour is a way of releasing tension" or "humour deflects from personal failings, such as being conned". Both of these particular hypothetical pop psychology interpretations also happen to imply Shof is wrong, but that's just a coincidence. Certainly, we might imagine some other pop psychology interpretations. I won't, though, because I am not a pop psychologist, so I'll just stick with the trite.

Another way of looking at these posts is through the lens of "improv". Basically the first lesson in improvisation is "accept the offer". And, lo, the offer was accepted, many times. Basically, this theory asks one to believe that people read Shof's OP, inferred it was meant to be funny and then decided to use the prompt to be funny. Naturally, one isn't surprised to find the general rule of improv holds true here: it gets funnier. However, I should mention I am very definitely not suggesting that the original offer wasn't, in fact, funny. I repeat: definitely not. Far be it from me to act as the final arbiter of humour^TM.



At this point one might wonder why it is reasonable to infer that this lot also decided that the thread wasn't going to be about Fox News, given that we haven't explicitly stated any mechanism which allows this lot to be part of the same umbrella group as the two previous member classes. However, I suggest one doesn't wonder if this might possibly have been by design. So we're all absolutely clear, I will repeat my earlier assurance that pop psychology only had those implications for want of imagination. I mean, this lot could just all be playing the straight man role to Shof's, um, funny guy. Who knows?

Whatever we happen to decide, we'll definitely agree that none of these posters are motivated by a sense of sharing their opinion and that seriously considering the implications of the thread's proposition can only happen in the above manners. For example, it definitely isn't allowable to wonder if perhaps the OP was constrained by a certain ethnocentrism, and that it would be useful to step into another experience. No, that definitely isn't allowed.



Actually, I rather think they make long posts which make a big deal out of, apparently, one singular criticism of their attempts at humour and artificially limited perspective of the issue (i.e. foxes and their reputation). I say this because I recently read such post and it made several pointed remarks which are difficult to explain otherwise. Certainly, I felt, in this post I recently read, the poster seemed rather too sincere to be having a laugh that no-one else happened to get. Such posts are generally completely unwilling to contemplate the deeper implications and might well impose impossible contexts.



What pun?

Fox: why so mean?

Pun. Is it Fox News being shortened to Fox as is fair enough? Is it a Fox being interviewed and quoted, e.g. like is common in news headlines? Dunno. Hence, pun.

Why Are We So Mean to Fox News?

What news about foxes? Is it some further comment on how the news is often just the olds in clickbait? Maybe it's some kind of news about Edward Fox? It wasn't and there's still no news, either...

There is only the literal meaning... unless we want to believe it is a clever comment on the superificiality of Fox News, i.e. the title has only a superficial meaning which is, in reality, completely irrelevant to the Truth of the thread. I doubt this: it is difficult to coherently explain.

Hence, what pun? But I really do repeat myself.



By which Shoft means there was a limited released documentary movie which riffed on the Fox part of the Fox News (rather than being a pun per se), that was released in 2004, that he expects a forum where the majority of members are (a) not American and (b) too young to remember the Bush administration (even as a foreign government) to be aware of. Now, that's just ridiculous... much like suggesting all word play is punny.



Oh, hilarious. That is a real laugh.*

However, I missed the bit where that had anything to do with revealing your deep seated belief that you posted an arcane commentary about the clickbait phenomenon. But, hey, I apparently also missed a pun, so are you really surprised?


*And this was an actual pun (and also actual word play). To explain... it is a "real laugh" i.e. a complete joke that Shof thinks this is at all relevant to what was a really specific possible explanation, but it is also the video.



I'm having plenty of fun. But the thread is still moronic. It is based around a non-existent pun (that is, because I was loose with the terminology before, the thread title is just straight up lies rather than any kind of word play... beyond the very simplistic "it's got fox in it", which is much like saying that 12% of a plan is better than 11%) and absolutely fails to consider that perhaps there are actual reasons to be mean to foxes, to the extent that they are literally banned from entering at least one country. It is also limited in the extent that the depiction of the fox is not even entirely negative in Northern Hemisphere traditions:



And then there's this, this, this and this.

So...



Done and done. (And it was always a nuanced animal... that last link is great for this point.)

Your point, sir?

Is there a way you can shorten that term paper? Because if you think that I am going to waste my time reading of all that, you are very much mistaken. Someone very wise once said: "brevity is the Soul of Wit" - and I appreciate said knowledge, now more than ever. Oh yeah, that was Shakespeare. He was witty and punny, i.e. "you will find me a grave man". College Humor time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtlm9sJFVEk

u wot m8

Hey, look, it summarises the previous post and remarks on the absurdity of someone who writes something rather long (as far as I can tell the same length give or take a little screen space) demanding a shorter response. Laziness unbounded... I should have seen it coming.

[The Federation of Kendor]

Vulpes are majestic creatures, and yet the news about vulpes has been mostly negative. Just look at this charming fellow:

(Image)

And yet, we have such bad images of the fox. In fairy tales, the fox steals the crow's cheese, comes off as arrogant in the "Fox and the Cat"... The fox is generally viewed as a trickster, and we better watch out for the fox.

However, the fox forms an integral part of the ecosystem. Even the fox's sexual characteristics are worth noting: The male fox's scrotum is held up close to the body with the testes inside even after they descend. Like other canines, the male fox has a baculum, or penile bone. The testes of red foxes are smaller than those of Arctic foxes. Sperm formation in red foxes begins in August–September, with the testicles attaining their greatest weight in December–February.

How can we be so mean to these guys? What did they ever do to the Grimm Brothers?

I think that we should rehabilitate vulpes, and stop scaring our kids with news of the Vulpes Scare.

What does NSG say about vulpes? Or about Cerdocyon? Or Dusicyon? Or Lycalopex? Or Otocyon? Or Urocyon?

Can you edit the title. It sounds clickbaiting?

[Shofercia]

Is there a way you can shorten that term paper? Because if you think that I am going to waste my time reading of all that, you are very much mistaken. Someone very wise once said: "brevity is the Soul of Wit" - and I appreciate said knowledge, now more than ever. Oh yeah, that was Shakespeare. He was witty and punny, i.e. "you will find me a grave man". College Humor time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtlm9sJFVEk

u wot m8

Hey, look, it summarises the previous post and remarks on the absurdity of someone who writes something rather long (as far as I can tell the same length give or take a little screen space) demanding a shorter response. Laziness unbounded... I should have seen it coming.

I provided a ton of sources to prove my point by directly quoting numerous posters. You wrote an essay. Are you really saying that's the same thing, because they take up roughly the same screen space? Oh, and you mean you didn't see laziness on an online forum?

Vulpes are majestic creatures, and yet the news about vulpes has been mostly negative. Just look at this charming fellow:

(Image)

And yet, we have such bad images of the fox. In fairy tales, the fox steals the crow's cheese, comes off as arrogant in the "Fox and the Cat"... The fox is generally viewed as a trickster, and we better watch out for the fox.

However, the fox forms an integral part of the ecosystem. Even the fox's sexual characteristics are worth noting: The male fox's scrotum is held up close to the body with the testes inside even after they descend. Like other canines, the male fox has a baculum, or penile bone. The testes of red foxes are smaller than those of Arctic foxes. Sperm formation in red foxes begins in August–September, with the testicles attaining their greatest weight in December–February.

How can we be so mean to these guys? What did they ever do to the Grimm Brothers?

I think that we should rehabilitate vulpes, and stop scaring our kids with news of the Vulpes Scare.

What does NSG say about vulpes? Or about Cerdocyon? Or Dusicyon? Or Lycalopex? Or Otocyon? Or Urocyon?

Can you edit the title. It sounds clickbaiting?

I can.

[Forsher]

u wot m8

Hey, look, it summarises the previous post and remarks on the absurdity of someone who writes something rather long (as far as I can tell the same length give or take a little screen space) demanding a shorter response. Laziness unbounded... I should have seen it coming.

I provided a ton of sources to prove my point by directly quoting numerous posters. You wrote an essay. Are you really saying that's the same thing, because they take up roughly the same screen space? Oh, and you mean you didn't see laziness on an online forum?

If by "provided a ton of sources" you mean you mischaracterised and misinterpreted a bunch of posts, yes, you did that. And in doing that you created a burden to respond to your sources. This is obvious Shof. You see, the thing about sources, and here I'll let you in on a little secret, they don't speak for themselves. Hence, they need to be examined. What if you're playing fast and loose with the sources? What if you're not? How does that affect any potential response? And do you really examine the evidence if you don't show the working? No, no you don't. And if anyone reads the evidence they'll notice that, despite all the insincere and facetious commentary I wrapped that working in, you, Shof, did play fast and loose with those quotes.

But noting that there is a reason why length begets length does beg the question of what is unreasonably long to read. Essays don't need to be long, and just because they are "long" doesn't mean that they feel like a long experience. Similarly, it seems completely absurd to believe that you imagine including a bunch of quotes doesn't create reading length. By Word, my post was 1697 words long whereas yours was 1072. Does that 625 word difference really matter that much? It's in plain, even colloquial, English. It's in short paragraphs. It's not written in academic English. There is a distinct absence of referencing (footnotes/APA/whatever). In short, it shares no meaningful features with a "term paper"...
One wonders, indeed, why it would be particularly burdensome to read.

Of course, though, I actually know the answer. It is because Shof has no interest in the conversation. Shof isn't here to discuss social attitudes to foxes (or even just read foxes). If he was, Shof would ignore the comments about the jokes and engage with the original source I provided, i.e. a piece of legislation specifically banning all "big name" fox species from NZ. If he was, Shof would scan through the "too long" post and notice that, at the end, it criticises the central premise of the thread, i.e. that the Northern Hemisphere English speaking tradition is anti-fox or suffers from a failure to rehabilitate the fox. And we might also notice that a world where Shof is here for the superficial purpose of the thread would not be one where he defends a clickbait title that has resulted in (as he has so exhaustively quoted) a swamping of that discussion of attitudes with random "props to Shof" comments or "oh you" posts. The superficial Shof definitely wouldn't sidetrack the discussion further by making intellectually bankrupt remarks about how to post in NSG threads, preferring to just ignore the posts and let them die, lonely and ignored. Hell, even the lower burden of a Shof interested in having a conversation wouldn't post the way Shof has been. That Shof would recognise that remarks like "laziness unbounded" are rhetorical flourishes (whether appropriately deployed or not) rather than taking them literally as some illiterate would be wont to do.

Which is to say...

Come back when you have a defensible position that you're actually willing to defend. On past experience, though, you're just going to double down even further, so I'll give you a hint... if it's easy to stay on point, it's a good sign you've got a defensible position, and if you're tempted to talk about everything but you probably don't. And if you do talk about everything but, the logical inference is that you don't actually have anything else to say... which implies that you, too, recognise your position is indefensible. As a point of practical advice that might be written: it's better to fly by than talk about anything else.

tl;dr -- intellectual bankruptcy begets intellectual bankruptcy

[Shofercia]

I provided a ton of sources to prove my point by directly quoting numerous posters. You wrote an essay. Are you really saying that's the same thing, because they take up roughly the same screen space? Oh, and you mean you didn't see laziness on an online forum?

If by "provided a ton of sources" you mean you mischaracterised and misinterpreted a bunch of posts, yes, you did that. And in doing that you created a burden to respond to your sources. This is obvious Shof. You see, the thing about sources, and here I'll let you in on a little secret, they don't speak for themselves. Hence, they need to be examined. What if you're playing fast and loose with the sources? What if you're not? How does that affect any potential response? And do you really examine the evidence if you don't show the working? No, no you don't. And if anyone reads the evidence they'll notice that, despite all the insincere and facetious commentary I wrapped that working in, you, Shof, did play fast and loose with those quotes.

But noting that there is a reason why length begets length does beg the question of what is unreasonably long to read. Essays don't need to be long, and just because they are "long" doesn't mean that they feel like a long experience. Similarly, it seems completely absurd to believe that you imagine including a bunch of quotes doesn't create reading length. By Word, my post was 1697 words long whereas yours was 1072. Does that 625 word difference really matter that much? It's in plain, even colloquial, English. It's in short paragraphs. It's not written in academic English. There is a distinct absence of referencing (footnotes/APA/whatever). In short, it shares no meaningful features with a "term paper"...
One wonders, indeed, why it would be particularly burdensome to read.

Of course, though, I actually know the answer. It is because Shof has no interest in the conversation. Shof isn't here to discuss social attitudes to foxes (or even just read foxes). If he was, Shof would ignore the comments about the jokes and engage with the original source I provided, i.e. a piece of legislation specifically banning all "big name" fox species from NZ. If he was, Shof would scan through the "too long" post and notice that, at the end, it criticises the central premise of the thread, i.e. that the Northern Hemisphere English speaking tradition is anti-fox or suffers from a failure to rehabilitate the fox. And we might also notice that a world where Shof is here for the superficial purpose of the thread would not be one where he defends a clickbait title that has resulted in (as he has so exhaustively quoted) a swamping of that discussion of attitudes with random "props to Shof" comments or "oh you" posts. The superficial Shof definitely wouldn't sidetrack the discussion further by making intellectually bankrupt remarks about how to post in NSG threads, preferring to just ignore the posts and let them die, lonely and ignored. Hell, even the lower burden of a Shof interested in having a conversation wouldn't post the way Shof has been. That Shof would recognise that remarks like "laziness unbounded" are rhetorical flourishes (whether appropriately deployed or not) rather than taking them literally as some illiterate would be wont to do.

Which is to say...

Come back when you have a defensible position that you're actually willing to defend. On past experience, though, you're just going to double down even further, so I'll give you a hint... if it's easy to stay on point, it's a good sign you've got a defensible position, and if you're tempted to talk about everything but you probably don't. And if you do talk about everything but, the logical inference is that you don't actually have anything else to say... which implies that you, too, recognise your position is indefensible. As a point of practical advice that might be written: it's better to fly by than talk about anything else.

tl;dr -- intellectual bankruptcy begets intellectual bankruptcy

Another essay? C'mon now Forsher, we've been over this: "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" - you should try to be brief. Not to mention your posts haven't said anything about the topic at hand. This is like the worse mix of a serious professor and a hipster - it's hipster to go off topic and make it about yourself or someone you believe have gravely harmed you intellectually, and it's a very professorial way to write it up in an essay form. The worse mix. Ever.

[Forsher]

If by "provided a ton of sources" you mean you mischaracterised and misinterpreted a bunch of posts, yes, you did that. And in doing that you created a burden to respond to your sources. This is obvious Shof. You see, the thing about sources, and here I'll let you in on a little secret, they don't speak for themselves. Hence, they need to be examined. What if you're playing fast and loose with the sources? What if you're not? How does that affect any potential response? And do you really examine the evidence if you don't show the working? No, no you don't. And if anyone reads the evidence they'll notice that, despite all the insincere and facetious commentary I wrapped that working in, you, Shof, did play fast and loose with those quotes.

But noting that there is a reason why length begets length does beg the question of what is unreasonably long to read. Essays don't need to be long, and just because they are "long" doesn't mean that they feel like a long experience. Similarly, it seems completely absurd to believe that you imagine including a bunch of quotes doesn't create reading length. By Word, my post was 1697 words long whereas yours was 1072. Does that 625 word difference really matter that much? It's in plain, even colloquial, English. It's in short paragraphs. It's not written in academic English. There is a distinct absence of referencing (footnotes/APA/whatever). In short, it shares no meaningful features with a "term paper"...
One wonders, indeed, why it would be particularly burdensome to read.

Of course, though, I actually know the answer. It is because Shof has no interest in the conversation. Shof isn't here to discuss social attitudes to foxes (or even just read foxes). If he was, Shof would ignore the comments about the jokes and engage with the original source I provided, i.e. a piece of legislation specifically banning all "big name" fox species from NZ. If he was, Shof would scan through the "too long" post and notice that, at the end, it criticises the central premise of the thread, i.e. that the Northern Hemisphere English speaking tradition is anti-fox or suffers from a failure to rehabilitate the fox. And we might also notice that a world where Shof is here for the superficial purpose of the thread would not be one where he defends a clickbait title that has resulted in (as he has so exhaustively quoted) a swamping of that discussion of attitudes with random "props to Shof" comments or "oh you" posts. The superficial Shof definitely wouldn't sidetrack the discussion further by making intellectually bankrupt remarks about how to post in NSG threads, preferring to just ignore the posts and let them die, lonely and ignored. Hell, even the lower burden of a Shof interested in having a conversation wouldn't post the way Shof has been. That Shof would recognise that remarks like "laziness unbounded" are rhetorical flourishes (whether appropriately deployed or not) rather than taking them literally as some illiterate would be wont to do.

Which is to say...

Come back when you have a defensible position that you're actually willing to defend. On past experience, though, you're just going to double down even further, so I'll give you a hint... if it's easy to stay on point, it's a good sign you've got a defensible position, and if you're tempted to talk about everything but you probably don't. And if you do talk about everything but, the logical inference is that you don't actually have anything else to say... which implies that you, too, recognise your position is indefensible. As a point of practical advice that might be written: it's better to fly by than talk about anything else.

tl;dr -- intellectual bankruptcy begets intellectual bankruptcy

Another essay? C'mon now Forsher, we've been over this: "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" - you should try to be brief. Not to mention your posts haven't said anything about the topic at hand. This is like the worse mix of a serious professor and a hipster - it's hipster to go off topic and make it about yourself or someone you believe have gravely harmed you intellectually, and it's a very professorial way to write it up in an essay form. The worse mix. Ever.

You're making yourself into a joke here...

consider the company they keep.

Or, perhaps:

I'm having plenty of fun. But the thread is still moronic. It is based around a non-existent pun (that is, because I was loose with the terminology before, the thread title is just straight up lies rather than any kind of word play... beyond the very simplistic "it's got fox in it", which is much like saying that 12% of a plan is better than 11%) and absolutely fails to consider that perhaps there are actual reasons to be mean to foxes, to the extent that they are literally banned from entering at least one country. It is also limited in the extent that the depiction of the fox is not even entirely negative in Northern Hemisphere traditions:

The term "foxy" in English ("having the qualities of a fox") can also connote attractiveness, sexiness or being red-haired. The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".

[...]

The Medieval Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard was nicknamed "Robert the Fox" as well as the Resourceful, the Cunning, the Wily - underlining the identification of such qualities with foxes.

[...]

During World War II, the German commander in North Africa, Erwin Rommel, was grudgingly nicknamed the "Desert Fox" by his British adversaries, as a tribute to his cunning and skill in operational art.

And then there's this, this, this and this.

So...

I think that we should rehabilitate vulpes, and stop scaring our kids with news of the Vulpes Scare.

Done and done. (And it was always a nuanced animal... that last link is great for this point.)

Your point, sir?

And if anyone has tried to make this thread about me, that's been you too.

This is just pathetic.

[Shofercia]

Another essay? C'mon now Forsher, we've been over this: "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" - you should try to be brief. Not to mention your posts haven't said anything about the topic at hand. This is like the worse mix of a serious professor and a hipster - it's hipster to go off topic and make it about yourself or someone you believe have gravely harmed you intellectually, and it's a very professorial way to write it up in an essay form. The worse mix. Ever.

You're making yourself into a joke here...

consider the company they keep.

Oh wow, an entire link followed with all of 5 words. Nice and brief. Followed by pages of boring, infantile, and quite absurd essays. You claim the thread to be moronic, yet you're the only one writing massive essays in it, so Forsher - do you often waste your time on moronic threads? Did you come here looking for a fight because of something else?

I'm having plenty of fun.

If by fun you mean writing extraordinarily boring essays...

But the thread is still moronic.

It will slowly become that, unless you actually lighten up for a change.

It is based around a non-existent pun

Not according to the OP, but you're not here to respond the OP; you're annoyed that you think you were clickbaited, and perhaps for some unrelated reason, and you're here looking for a fight, but Forsher, NSG isn't ED. There are moderators here.

(that is, because I was loose with the terminology before, the thread title is just straight up lies rather than any kind of word play... beyond the very simplistic "it's got fox in it", which is much like saying that 12% of a plan is better than 11%) and absolutely fails to consider that perhaps there are actual reasons to be mean to foxes, to the extent that they are literally banned from entering at least one country.

So when I'm talking about Bear News, I'm not talking about news about bears? Let's Google that:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bear+ne ... e&ie=UTF-8

Oh wow, Bear News actually provides news about bears. Who knew? Oh yeah, anyone who knows how to use Google. Now just substitute Bear News for Fox News and... nah, you probably still don't get it.

Forsher, quoting Wikipedia, wrote:

The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".

The very first definition I get on Google talks about deception, but hey, what does Google know compared to Forsher?

This is just pathetic.

Writing long essays in a fun thread? Yeah, I agree with that.