CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: SFBadger96 on November 06, 2018, 06:31:25 PM

Title: OT: Online Civility
Post by: SFBadger96 on November 06, 2018, 06:31:25 PM
There was a piece on the radio today about how to better teach and encourage civics. There was a lot in it that I agreed with, but it ended with, "no one has figured out how to have a civil online conversation." And I thought, "not true! I know just the place."

So kudos to you around here who have managed it. Not without some trying times, of course--and I'm still planning to go out in a giant orange ball of political flames some day (but my day hasn't come yet)--but this place really has stayed pretty darned civil over the years--even on the older platform (with more users).
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MarqHusker on November 06, 2018, 06:59:26 PM
Indeed.  
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 06, 2018, 07:52:55 PM
Palabra a tu mamá
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Reyd on November 06, 2018, 10:24:10 PM
Bah! I think most of us are too old or too lazy to pull the knives out and throw them back. Or maybe we recognize the futility of infinite knife throwing and opt for civility. *flips a coin*. Can I change my attitude on the knife throwing moratorium?
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 07:13:02 AM
I suspect many of us have viewed the more typical sports and political message boards are have realized they are a waste of time and effort.  While we all "pull" for our teams on Saturday, we understand that teams (usually) have flaws and can discuss them with civility.

Just yelling on line gets boring rather quickly.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MaximumSam on November 07, 2018, 07:18:14 AM
I got a lot of problems with you people and now you're going to hear about it
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 07, 2018, 07:34:13 AM
Palabra a tu mamá
Them's fighting words - what ever the hell they mean
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MarqHusker on November 07, 2018, 08:03:41 AM
Internet Tough Guy is the most pathetic persona to adopt.  Stay on Twitter or the comment pages of Yahoo if that's your shtick.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 07, 2018, 08:12:45 AM
Them's fighting words - what ever the hell they mean
"Word to your mother," friend.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 07, 2018, 08:16:47 AM
And what tongue was that Polynesian?Northern Cheyenne?
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 07, 2018, 08:18:35 AM
Internet Tough Guy is the most pathetic persona to adopt.  Stay on Twitter or the comment pages of Yahoo if that's your shtick.
or tean home boards,that I only visit for information.Loaded with program lackeys & slappies
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 07, 2018, 08:30:14 AM
the civility found with this group is the biggest motivator to keep us together, methinks.   the thing that fascinates me about this group is the open mindedness that exists here that is hard to find elsewhere.  it's as if internet flamers believe their comments carry more value than anyone else's elsewhere- where here folks are willing to entertain other vantages and weigh them against their own.

the political board south of this one is a curiosity.  there are few posters from one side of the aisle and many from the other.  those guys, however, have been together for 20+ years, and they know how to take each other.  if you doubt the connection between them, pop in there and attack the boards 'black sheep' @fuzzynavol (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1557) and see how quickly he will be defended.  i realize the interaction is alien to most who came here from CFNScout, but it's not nearly as nasty as it appears.  People don't have near the intended animosity as it appears on the surface.  they are a good bunch of guys, and though they don't venture out of there much they also have pretty dang good analytical skills when it comes to the game.  they came from scout before the cfn merger, or fox merger, or whatever merger there was that provided barrier between the two prior sites.  Fuzzynavol, and i have locked horns several times, but i read what he posts and it is fairly considered- i may not reply as if i took anything he said into account, but i did- and he may post as if he thinks the rest of us are children, but we know he's thinking about it...

i've seen @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and @mcwterps1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1590) venture in there and get flamed w/o mercy or regard, but it's because they're 'outsiders'.  that place is clannish. the only assimilation i've seen made w/o hiccup is @BrownCounty (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1582) ... @CatsbyAZ (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1532)  has made effort and done well, too- and largely because i think he takes the whole circumstance in stride recognizing it for what it is- which isn't evident on the surface.

but to the point of this thread:  the contrast between the boards here is dramatic to the casual observer, where one board 'appears' to behave like many boards on the interwebs, and the rest behave as something not common at all.

I'd like to thank all of y'all for making this possible.  it makes me happy we could all stick together after someone yanked the carpet out from underneath us.  this includes the board south, too.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 07, 2018, 08:37:40 AM
Not to sound like a suck up but things could have gotten dicey had you not set up shop.Thanx for the efforts/time/know how pulling it off
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 07, 2018, 08:45:22 AM
Not to sound like a suck up but things could have gotten dicey had you not set up shop.Thanx for the efforts/time/know how pulling it off
many of y'all keep saying something to this affect, but the pleasure is mine.  this group of people have been a part of life through two wives, three dogs, about a dozen vehicles to include three motorcycles and half a dozen mountain bikes, 80 additional pounds, 1 divisional conference championship, and about a 15 year run of pure football misery (being a Tennessee fan).  the absurdity of cfnscout just dropping it was just that- their loss.  i guess counting beans and pennies is their game, where it has value surpassing that to 'us' (i think 'us' anyway, or @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) and @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) along with several others wouldn't have teamed up and made it happen). 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 09:00:41 AM
It is interesting to me that the place has not attracted any "typical posters" for more than a day or three.  I have seen a few drive by and make the usual comment about how slow the Big Ten is, and then they move on, usually after receiving some unexpected responses.

Folks here are pretty good at "unexpected responses", like "no beans in chili" etc.

Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 07, 2018, 10:02:03 AM
i've seen @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and @mcwterps1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1590) venture in there and get flamed w/o mercy or regard, but it's because they're 'outsiders'.  that place is clannish. 
hah, those two get flamed here w/o mercy or regard as well
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 10:05:58 AM
I ventured over to the UNC a few years back when they were about to play UGA just to get a sense of how they were feeling about their team (optimistic, and it was a decent team).  I dipped a few toes into their politics forum and after a month or so ended up banned.  I've never been banned before.  The reason given was "for the good of the board", not that I had infracted a rule.

Fine, their choice, I didn't mind.  I mostly asked questions and that was not apparently received well.  I got called all kinds of names, which were infractions, and I was banned.  
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 07, 2018, 10:10:47 AM
clannish
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 07, 2018, 10:12:17 AM
I ventured over to the UNC a few years back when they were about to play UGA just to get a sense of how they were feeling about their team (optimistic, and it was a decent team).  I dipped a few toes into their politics forum and after a month or so ended up banned.  I've never been banned before.  The reason given was "for the good of the board", not that I had infracted a rule.

Fine, their choice, I didn't mind.  I mostly asked questions and that was not apparently received well.  I got called all kinds of names, which were infractions, and I was banned.  
i've held my nose and stepped away many times in the A51 board both here and when it lived on scout.  i've come really close to lighting some people up, and i've come mighty close to issuing bans, if only temporary.  but.... i won't.  i dive into the conversations too, which renders any punitive action on my part biased beyond any defense.  so..... i just leave it alone.   
one of the most intriguing and profound realizations i've ever encountered derived from a quote.  "Give a man a mask and see his true face".   
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 11:18:23 AM
I only now realized that the A51 place exists.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 07, 2018, 11:26:20 AM
I don't need the aggravation
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 07, 2018, 11:30:39 AM
I only now realized that the A51 place exists.
it accounts for a fluctuating 57~61% of the sites traffic. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MarqHusker on November 07, 2018, 12:20:28 PM
Who has time for that?
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 12:59:16 PM
I have time for about anything.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 07, 2018, 01:01:54 PM
And what tongue was that Polynesian?Northern Cheyenne?
Plain ol' Spanish. The wife is a professor of hispanic linguistics**, so I picked up a couple things. I used to say "Palabra a tu madre," but apparently "tu madre" is kind of an "[expletive] your mother" way to curse, so I switched it to be friendly, which is the point.
**(a scientist studying how words are used, how that changes over time, or when different languages meet, and what that says of the brain)
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 07, 2018, 01:51:28 PM
I've heard languages, on average, change 19% per 1,000 years.  Sticklers to language are silly, because they're fluid.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 01:58:50 PM
I suspect they change faster than that.  None of us could understand Olde English.

I have "heard" that the British spoke with an "American accent" in 1800, it was they who changed more than we, and that Quebequois is more similar to 1800s French than Parisian French.

German of course has changed massively since 1870.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: utee94 on November 07, 2018, 02:03:11 PM
Plain ol' Spanish. The wife is a professor of hispanic linguistics**, so I picked up a couple things. I used to say "Palabra a tu madre," but apparently "tu madre" is kind of an "[expletive] your mother" way to curse, so I switched it to be friendly, which is the point.
**(a scientist studying how words are used, how that changes over time, or when different languages meet, and what that says of the brain)
"Tu madre" is a slang shortened version of "chinga tu madre" which translates directly to "f*ck your mother."  
Definitely don't go around saying "tu madre" to native Spanish speakers, at least not Mexican ones.  Not sure if that slang carries over to other Latin American cultures or not.
And "palabra a tu madre" is a literal translation, which might or might not have a contextual translation in Spanish.  I'd have to consult some of my Mexican-American friends and lean on their memories of late 80s/early 90s hip hop slang, juxtaposed with the Spanish language, to know for sure. :)
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: utee94 on November 07, 2018, 02:06:08 PM
I suspect they change faster than that.  None of us could understand Olde English.

I have "heard" that the British spoke with an "American accent" in 1800, it was they who changed more than we, and that Quebequois is more similar to 1800s French than Parisian French.

German of course has changed massively since 1870.
So can we figure out why the English (and some New Englanders) add an "r" to the end of words that end in "a?'  
For example, "idea" becomes "idear."  I've always found that one odd.
And yes, I realize "y'all" and "fixin' to" aren't exactly normal...
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 07, 2018, 02:18:10 PM
realizing the dictionary is expanding every year, i still wonder how much the language (especially English) has shrunk over the years in actual vocabulary.   

living overseas for a while I sought to learn the language, only to find that likely 85% of the people there spoke english (the language of business).  i had issues with slang and had to slow down and enunciate, but felt disadvantaged rarely due to language barrier... I honestly have a LOT harder a time reading english written in the 1700's, and because a dictionary has to be close by.  

i'm told English is precise in regards to exhausting options, and is therefor preferred for business transactions.  makes sense... an Arab telling me something takes three or four breaths for English to explain in less than one.... which automatically made me suspicious of everyone attempting as Grandpa's words kept ringing in my ears "boy, if it takes more than a breath to explain something, there is a fair amount of bull shit present". 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Hoss on November 07, 2018, 02:22:55 PM
I don't need the aggravation
Right? 
I quit a different Big Ten board for that reason. It went well for a while- not always tranquil, but tolerable- until a couple flamers found the place. The discourse bottomed-out, posters who were normally civil became nasty, and the place devolved into pure hackery. 
One day I just wondered why I bothered to log into the board every day, when half the people wanted to insult and aggravate me. Having no good reason, I quit. 
No problemo. Life's too short. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 07, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
@Hoss (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1658) , your very first post on this site carried a weight that should have told readers you were no damn troll- it was insightful and on point.... we need a load more like you, but we don't need a single one as you describe elsewhere. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 07, 2018, 02:50:22 PM
For example, "idea" becomes "idear."  I've always found that one odd.
And yes, I realize "y'all" and "fixin' to" aren't exactly normal...

This,I always wanted to see someone from Maine or New Hampshire have a conversation with someone from Southern Mississippi.Might as well be speaking Latin and Swahili - there would be no understanding
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 07, 2018, 02:52:50 PM
@MrNubbz (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=17) , in my current neck of the woods there is a language that has earned itself the right to be determined 'unto itself'.  down east north carolina.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Tider

Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 03:00:01 PM
France still has local languages spoken at home and even taught in school in places.  They oscillate between trying to preserve things like Breton and Languedoc and Alsatian and stamping them out.  We heard quite a bit of Catalan in Barcelona.

English has ingested quite a bit of French over the decades, sometimes with differing meanings, like the  term "entree" and even "menu".

Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: utee94 on November 07, 2018, 03:04:07 PM
"Menu Big Mac avec biere si'l vou plait"

Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 07, 2018, 03:05:24 PM
@MrNubbz (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=17) , in my current neck of the woods there is a language that has earned itself the right to be determined 'unto itself'.  down east north carolina.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Tider
There are pockets of funky sounding Queen's English spread amongst the colonies.I know in NE Ohio we sound like the Nightly National News folks.You go 40-45 miles down the road to L.A.(Lower Akron) they sound like Bobby Bowden.Ironically his son Terry coaches the Akron Zips FWIW
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 07, 2018, 03:08:45 PM
English has ingested quite a bit of French over the decades, sometimes with differing meanings, like the  term "entree" and even "menu".
Forget what Holy Roman Emperor said "I speak Latin to God,Italian to men,French to women an German to my horse"
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 07, 2018, 03:26:17 PM
And "palabra a tu madre" is a literal translation, which might or might not have a contextual translation in Spanish.  I'd have to consult some of my Mexican-American friends and lean on their memories of late 80s/early 90s hip hop slang, juxtaposed with the Spanish language, to know for sure. :)
That's right. It's idiomatic in English. Nonsense in Spanish. This is my favorite part about it.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: CatsbyAZ on November 07, 2018, 03:28:44 PM
 

i've seen @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and @mcwterps1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1590) venture in there and get flamed w/o mercy or regard, but it's because they're 'outsiders'.  that place is clannish. the only assimilation i've seen made w/o hiccup is @BrownCounty (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1582) ... @CatsbyAZ (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1532)  has made effort and done well, too- and largely because i think he takes the whole circumstance in stride recognizing it for what it is- which isn't evident on the surface.


And @P1tchBlack (fans.@P1tchBlack) is an entertaining counterbalance to the out of context fundy rhetoric amidst the vols fans.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 07, 2018, 03:31:36 PM
I like this conversation. My wife would like it more. It also applies to changing definitions that grate many people. Merriam-Webster recently gave "Literally" an auxilliary definition of "Figuratively." That one kills people.
But language is just a mutually understood series of symbols whose meaning is primarily born of their frequency of use. So "Literally" being used sufficiently often as "Figuratively" requires that Literally will ultimately mean Figuratively. It's not any more or less stupid than any other aspect of language change. It's all an emotionless and predictable evolutionary process.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 07, 2018, 03:32:41 PM
Also: Something I didn't know until I met the linguistic scientist wife: The #1 driver of language change in EVERY modern language? Teenage girls. Seriously. It's a highly durable and consistent international pattern. 
Those little ladies, past and present, influence all of our language use in ways that the vast majority of us never notice.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 07, 2018, 03:34:01 PM
@Hoss (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1658) , your very first post on this site carried a weight that should have told readers you were no damn troll- it was insightful and on point.... we need a load more like you, but we don't need a single one as you describe elsewhere.
I'm a bit disappointed that the good old posters such as Old Scribe, B.G., Vine Street Bomber, and the poster formerly known as "Chuck Green" don't have the time or energy to join us here.  But, I understand folks priorities change over time.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 03:35:07 PM
Literally literally means figuratively now.  Penultimate is also misused.

Like, really really like kewl.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 07, 2018, 03:35:31 PM
 Teenage girls. Seriously. It's a highly durable and consistent international pattern.

they are highly verbal
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 03:38:11 PM
Also: Something I didn't know until I met the linguistic scientist wife: The #1 driver of language change in EVERY modern language? Teenage girls. Seriously. It's a highly durable and consistent international pattern.
Those little ladies, past and present, influence all of our language use in ways that the vast majority of us never notice.
I like this conversation. My wife would like it more. It also applies to changing definitions that grate many people. Merriam-Webster recently gave "Literally" an auxilliary definition of "Figuratively." That one kills people.
But language is just a mutually understood series of symbols whose meaning is primarily born of their frequency of use. So "Literally" being used sufficiently often as "Figuratively" requires that Literally will ultimately mean Figuratively. It's not any more or less stupid than any other aspect of language change. It's all an emotionless and predictable evolutionary process.
Forget what Holy Roman Emperor said "I speak Latin to God,Italian to men,French to women an German to my horse"
My step grand kids lived in Munich for a while with a French mother and American father.  When they get mad at each other, they speak German, and when I need to get on them about something, I speak German.  SCHNELL!!!!
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 07, 2018, 03:39:33 PM
Those little ladies, past and present, influence all of our language use in ways that the vast majority of us never notice.
I dunno I've heard language at Cleveland-Pittsburgh games or at the Race Track I've never heard females use
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 07, 2018, 03:41:22 PM
Another dialectic peculiarity I noticed in Pennsylvania:
Instead the infinitive is elided:
Elision is a common feature of language change. We tend to (unknowingly and in aggregate) chase the most succinct way to say something without sacrificing meaning.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 07, 2018, 03:42:37 PM
I'm a bit disappointed that the good old posters such as Old Scribe, B.G., Vine Street Bomber, and the poster formerly known as "Chuck Green" don't have the time or energy to join us here.  But, I understand folks priorities change over time.
You must be harkening back to the SI/CNN daze,because I don't recall any of those posters on CFN
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 07, 2018, 03:43:49 PM
yup, the good ol daze

I can harken
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Kris60 on November 07, 2018, 04:24:23 PM
CD, there’s something particular to Cincinnati that maybe you can comment on.  I have family in Cincinnati and they do something I’ve never seen anyone else do.  If they don’t quite catch something you said they don’t say, “Excuse me” or “I beg your pardon.”  They cup their hand to their ear and say, “please.”

I always noticed it but thought it was just something they did.  But a few years ago I caught a comedian on TV or somewhere and he had a joke about people in Cincinnati doing that very thing.  I laughed because I immediately thought of my family doing that.  Hell, I even wondered if it was my family he encountered and was joking about.

Did you ever see people do that while living there?
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 07, 2018, 06:03:13 PM
the political board south of this one is a curiosity.  there are few posters from one side of the aisle and many from the other.  those guys, however, have been together for 20+ years, and they know how to take each other.
That may be true, and they may like each other and enjoy whatever it is they do down there, but they're not at all interested in debate. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 07, 2018, 06:08:30 PM
I like this conversation. My wife would like it more. It also applies to changing definitions that grate many people. Merriam-Webster recently gave "Literally" an auxilliary definition of "Figuratively." That one kills people.
But language is just a mutually understood series of symbols whose meaning is primarily born of their frequency of use. So "Literally" being used sufficiently often as "Figuratively" requires that Literally will ultimately mean Figuratively. It's not any more or less stupid than any other aspect of language change. It's all an emotionless and predictable evolutionary process.
I was just listening to morning radio the other day when they brought up "irregardless" claiming it's not a word [which it's not]. But apparently Merriam-Webster has waved the white flag on this one (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless)... 
The one that gets me is "begging the question". It clearly does not mean what most people using it thinks it means, but the wrong usage has gotten so common that it's only language pedants that recognize that it's wrong. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 07, 2018, 06:14:09 PM
Well it begs the question what does it really mean then?
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: rolltidefan on November 07, 2018, 06:16:49 PM
I suspect they change faster than that.  None of us could understand Olde English.

I have "heard" that the British spoke with an "American accent" in 1800, it was they who changed more than we, and that Quebequois is more similar to 1800s French than Parisian French.

German of course has changed massively since 1870.
which american accent? there's quite a few to choose from.
fwiw, i've heard this as well.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 07, 2018, 06:46:58 PM
Language is sort of democratic that way...the mass’ usage dictates what’s ‘correct’ over time.

One that stands out to me is ‘myriad’...people tend to say ‘a myriad’, but that’s wrong.  ‘There are myriad possibilities...’ is correct, but since so many people use it the ‘wrong’ way, it’s only a matter of time until it’s correct.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 07, 2018, 07:03:21 PM
the democratic masses consider "chili" to be a soup with beans

sorry Texas, the mass’ usage dictates it’s ‘correct’
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: rolltidefan on November 07, 2018, 07:08:37 PM
the democratic masses consider "chili" to be a soup with beans

sorry Texas, the mass’ usage dictates it’s ‘correct’
Well there goes the civility 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MarqHusker on November 07, 2018, 07:24:07 PM
I'll dig it up bit a prof. From Nebraska studies dialects in the U.S. and he created a map w sample audio of about every dialect.   It looks like a weather map w isobars.  It's awesome.    

There is great convergence of dialects here in the lower Midwest, Ohio River Valley which makes sense.   I hear quite a bit of variance here in central IN.

The dialects in Maine are quite extreme, speaking of Queens and Old English.

My favorite Wisconsin expressionism, since most everybody knows about 'bubblers',  'I'm going to go over by Dave's house.'  When you intend to go to Dave's house.

Runner up: 'borrow me $20'.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 07, 2018, 07:28:17 PM
Well it begs the question what does it really mean then?
"Begging the question" is originally a logical fallacy that's sort of a circular logic thing. Where a person says some premise and makes a conclusion based off that before proving that the premise was actually true.
An example might be something like: "There are more blue-eyed QBs than WRs because there are fewer blue-eyed WRs than QBs."
The sentence could be true if the blue part can be independently proven, but people who talk like this often try to use the red part as proof of the blue part. Which is a mistake.
CFB51's philosopher kings will let me know if I butchered that.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 07, 2018, 07:30:12 PM
That may be true, and they may like each other and enjoy whatever it is they do down there, but they're not at all interested in debate.

Haha - Palabra a tu mamá!

There's a running thread over there entirely committed to tearing down a nonsense argument "about what people who accept evolution believe." Except, it's constructed to be circular and stupid. And the thread's participants have thoroughly enjoyed pointing out how the thing that was intentionally made to look circular and stupid is ... circular and stupid.

For those who haven't seen it, it's born of an article touting this as a strong statement of evolution being logically fallacious:

(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orthodoxytoday.org%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2FxDarwinism_Evolution_Circular_Reasoning_01.jpg.pagespeed.ic.SiydJPgPec.jpg&hash=70b4b578d5e27859825d62419cd352ee)
Except:
(1) "Survival of the fittest" isn't even part of the modern parlance, because survival is only one aspect of selection
Even then:
(2) The evolutionary meaning of fitness is pretty specific and ignored by this (reproductive output for a given genetic variant)
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 07, 2018, 07:39:42 PM
It grated me enough to post it here, given the chance. (I'm a weak man.) But I knew better than to contribute there. What they are doing isn't a conversation. It's their own kind of heavily insulated fun. Let 'em have it.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 07:49:21 PM
It is fun.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MarqHusker on November 07, 2018, 07:54:12 PM
Here's a link to this funhouse of examples and tidbits devoted to dialects in the U.S.    While it isn't scentific per se, its the best thing I've seen on the subject.  He keeps it relatively current.  I love the ancillary information and links he provides.
Rick Aschmann (I guess it is his wife from NE, not certain of his background).  
Dialect Map and assorted fun (https://aschmann.net/AmEng/)
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 07, 2018, 08:50:44 PM
Here's a link to this funhouse of examples and tidbits devoted to dialects in the U.S.    While it isn't scentific per se, its the best thing I've seen on the subject.  He keeps it relatively current.  I love the ancillary information and links he provides.
Rick Aschmann (I guess it is his wife from NE, not certain of his background).  
Dialect Map and assorted fun (https://aschmann.net/AmEng/)
I sent it to my wife, very cool. Gotta love that Pittsburgh is basically circled as its own thing, linguistically separate from its surroundings. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: mcwterps1 on November 07, 2018, 09:35:03 PM
That "Area 51" section should really be changed to "The Cesspool" 

Makes this whole thing look like a domestic terrorist site disguised as a CFB site. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Hawkinole on November 08, 2018, 02:47:44 AM
Terry Bowden was a classmate, one year ahead of me, but I didn't know him. I believe Terry played at WVU, and so maybe the Bowdens got part of that dialect at WVU?
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Hawkinole on November 08, 2018, 02:53:18 AM
Language is sort of democratic that way...the mass’ usage dictates what’s ‘correct’ over time.

One that stands out to me is . . .
graduate high school.
graduate college.
Mass misusage has now allowed this to become proper, and I am not accepting it or adjusting. I will correct the younguns.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 07:35:48 AM
I see the terms "dominate" and "dominant" misused, a lot.  I find that extremely annoying.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 08, 2018, 07:42:04 AM
A word I carefully listen to, because it's horribly misstated far more often than it is said correctly - supposedly.
I probably hear it said 'supposably' around 80% of the time instead.



It's not even a misuse, it's changing the letters within a word, lol.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 08, 2018, 07:43:42 AM
There's a running thread over there 
That "Area 51" section should really be changed to "The Cesspool"

Makes this whole thing look like a domestic terrorist site disguised as a CFB site.
Where is this infernal wasteland of forums you two speak of?
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 08, 2018, 07:44:37 AM
the democratic masses consider "chili" to be a soup with beans

sorry Texas, the mass’ usage dictates it’s ‘correct’
It's not inspiring, but it's nevertheless true.  I mean, you could be a scholar studying the English language from the century before you, and discover a discrepancy...but the people around you are going to continue misusing the word because everyone misuses it and it's simply the way it's now used.
Words are to convey ideas...a word is only correct if it helps do so.  If you're "right" about a word, but no one understand it, you're wrong.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 08, 2018, 07:45:41 AM
graduate high school.
graduate college.
Mass misusage has now allowed this to become proper, and I am not accepting it or adjusting. I will correct the younguns.
This is the issue in action - the masses who do not graduate college will always outnumber those who do, so they'll always have the numbers on this.  
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 08, 2018, 07:45:55 AM
I probably hear it said 'supposably' around 80% of the time instead.
It's not even a misuse, it's changing the letters within a word, lol.
I've never heard that,maybe its a FLA-AZ thing
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: utee94 on November 08, 2018, 07:51:12 AM
I've heard "supposably" but not often.

Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 07:53:15 AM
TV has standardized the language, and accents, a good bit.

I don't hear many southern accents around me here in the ATL.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 08, 2018, 07:54:42 AM
"Begging the question" is originally a logical fallacy that's sort of a circular logic thing. Where a person says some premise and makes a conclusion based off that before proving that the premise was actually true.
An example might be something like: "There are more blue-eyed QBs than WRs because there are fewer blue-eyed WRs than QBs."
That appears to be saying the same thing just rearranging the verbage.Hanging around the yinzers has taken its toll
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: utee94 on November 08, 2018, 07:55:48 AM
TV has standardized the language, and accents, a good bit.

I don't hear many southern accents around me here in the ATL.
You also have a lot of non-Southern transplants in Atlanta.  Austin is similar.
But head 60 miles east of here, and you get quite a bit of "Texas twang" back in the language.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 08, 2018, 07:58:09 AM
TV has standardized the language, and accents, a good bit.That's a very valid point.But have you ever heard the Amish?To me they sort of sound like a blend of Pennsylvania Dutch,Appalachian Hill Folk and Canuck like the McKenzie Bros.

I don't hear many southern accents around me here in the ATL.Carpetbaggers prolly
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 08:09:12 AM
Speaking of the Amish, I was advised by folks when I moved to Cincy that I should check out "Amish furniture" because it was well built and cheap.  So, I ventured out east one Saturday to see said Amish furniture in shops etc.  I found two, and both were labeled as Amish, and the folks there were no more Amish than I am.  One lady admitted to me that they just had a wood shop out back building furniture and they didn't care who did the work for them.  It was marketing.  I'm sure some actually was made by the Amish, but most, probably not.

I gather they did not trademark the term.  

It's a bit like terms like Champagne used to be, or Chablis, or Hearty Burgundy (which is a bit of an oxymoron).

What is the etiology of the term "oxymoron" anyway?
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 08:15:29 AM
oxymoron (n.)
1650s, from Greek oxymoron, noun use of neuter of oxymoros (adj.) "pointedly foolish," from oxys"sharp, pointed" (from PIE root *ak- (https://www.etymonline.com/word/*ak-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) "be sharp, rise (out) to a point, pierce") + moros "stupid" (see moron (https://www.etymonline.com/word/moron?ref=etymonline_crossreference)). Rhetorical figure by which contradictory terms are conjoined so as to give point to the statement or expression; the word itself is an illustration of the thing. Now often used loosely to mean "contradiction in terms." Related: Oxymoronic.

It is related to "sophomoric", which makes sense.

I see "oxy" and think something was oxidized.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 08:17:21 AM
Looks like I have been misusing the term.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 08, 2018, 08:20:08 AM
Actually I bought Amish furniture Queen size bed and Kitchen table that stretches out to 10 feet(that I've never used).But i went down the the back roads and inner recesses.Holmes & Tuscarawas Counties found plenty of small family shops that usually sold directly to the big furniture stores.Saved over $800.00 on the Table/chairs and about $400.00 on the bed by picking it up and buying directly.So depends on where ya go
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 08:21:18 AM
Yeah, I'm sure there are "real Amish" shops, I just didn't find any poking around, and those two were just selling off the name.  I was a bit annoyed and gave up my search.

Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 08, 2018, 08:28:20 AM
Yeah, I'm sure there are "real Amish" shops, I just didn't find any poking around, and those two were just selling off the name.  I was a bit annoyed and gave up my search.
There is a difference to between the Old Order Amish and the Mennonites.When they work together the Mennonites are the ones who use the modern amenities(driving,phones,power tools,etc).It's funny the Amish can't own a phone or car but they can use your phone or get a ride with you.They still have public phone booths in Amish Country.And they'll hire non Amish for the purpose of E-Business.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 08, 2018, 08:33:30 AM
That "Area 51" section should really be changed to "The Cesspool"

Makes this whole thing look like a domestic terrorist site disguised as a CFB site.
bluntly, you went in there making an ass of yourself blasting vulgarities and childishly calling people you don't know names charged with intent to incite. insofar as i am concerned about the interaction, i'm thinking 'the cesspool' handled you accordingly. 

cursing on this site isn't something promoted, but it isn't penalized either- as it is we're all mostly adults and the conversation often includes a few- uh- descriptors- that wouldn't be used somewhere, perhaps like a court room or church or something akin.  i've never seen attacks here where harsh language intended to incite was used except in rare cases, and all on that board. 

you can do what you want- it's your call... nobody is going to 'police' anyone here unless there is an extreme circumstance.  the facts, however, are you offered nobody any opportunity but to retort to your attacks, and then you call them 'terrorists'.  you can hate on me all you want for speaking truth, but the objective with this post is not to create another situation where 'internet tough guy' comes back around, but to diffuse the circumstance and ask you to have some respect for others even if what they comment is alien to you.  

that board is an echo chamber- much more so than it was on the other site as there were more opposition there- i'd like to see it change to something like that, and where contempt for others opinion's and positions isn't more important than decency.  There was a common bond on the other site that was Tennessee Alum and Tennessee Football, even posters that personally knew each other outside of the intertube.  that still exists on this site, but doesn't with outsiders, such as yourself, blasting in with the name calling. - meaning: you got precisely and exactly what you asked for and went in there seeking.  

man to man, as well as in public here so others can understand the position and posture i'd like to see offered on the site and board (all of them) :  please don't do that anymore.  it only serves destructive purpose, not any type of joining.  I'm sick and tired of division- i'm thinking most people are.  I'm not asking you (and never would) to consider their positions and demand you respect them, but instead to consider they have the right to them, and realize you're not going to change them while attacking them.  if you have enough interest in them as people, which i recognize you don't -but THEY do and I do- and it triggers your interest to sway, do so with respect next time? 

this is about as close as i will hopefully ever come to 'moderating', but i'd like to remind you and everyone else that this place wants to be a place people can speak their mind and much in the spirit of the 1A but with added opportunity not to be judged for sharing thoughts and opinions, but it remains private property where there is no 'right' to say anything you want. i truly and absolutely hope to never have to edit anyone's post or attempt silencing of anyone. 

thank you, @mcwterps1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1590) , we've known each other via interweb a long time and i know you're a reasonable person and knowledgeable of the game as well as of Maryland Football.  i'd rather see unsteady cooperation than nasty rejection of the notion we can make this place (including that board) work to remain civil.... and by the way- i also had this conversation elsewhere.  you're not being singled out as much as being used as an example among friends here that aren't judging.  apologies for that and thank you for your understanding of that- i wouldn't do it if i didn't think you'd understand and at least appreciate i do it without malice or judgement of you.  i'm just trying to take this opportunity to describe what i'd like to see us become.   
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 08, 2018, 08:48:48 AM
TV has standardized the language, and accents, a good bit.

I don't hear many southern accents around me here in the ATL.
It may not be what you were getting at, but close enough for another linguistic wowzer: many books have been written about this odd phenomenon in America where, when it comes to accents, *everyone* thinks they sound like the media.
It's super weird.
Our ability to appreciate our own accents is surprisingly limited. Obviously I'm a midwesterner. When I went to school in central PA, it took me a *long* time to notice that (or how) they spoke differently than me. But right from hour 1, they knew I wasn't from around there.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 08:52:44 AM
I started noticing how my family developed a Southern accent a few years after I moved north.

It was amazing, don't know why they did that.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: SFBadger96 on November 08, 2018, 11:22:55 AM
"Supposably" is definitely a thing beyond Florida and Arizona. And it's like nails on a chalk board to me.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 08, 2018, 11:31:22 AM
I try to distance myself from the unwashed masses that use "Supposably"
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 08, 2018, 11:39:00 AM
i recall a teacher lighting me up as a senior in high school- she was devastated i used the words "a lot" together... as in "alot".   She asked me to spell it verbally and I said "a ell oh tee"... she asked me to act like i was typing it and which keys i'd push and I said "a space l o t"... she then docked me for not using the typewriter correctly.  

that would be the one that bothers me, i guess.... a lot... two words, yo.  and this is coming from a dude who used to think "Taj Mahal" was "Tajma Hall" before i actually saw it in print and not spoken...

someone once said a person not capable of performing math is given a pass, but a person who can't spell just show's they're an idiot.  Well, without spell check- i'm an idiot.  i base on phonetics, and catch myself all the time typing at full blast how something sounds instead of how it is properly spelled- thank God for those little red squiggly underlines.


oh... another humorous folly i nail every. single. time. 

I see Yosemite and i initially read it 'yoze-mite'... you'd think i'd have that one nailed visually by now... and I still have a hard time why Arkansas and Kansas aren't related more than they are... 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 11:42:57 AM
I was almost unique in HS for scoring higher on verbal than math on the SATs (among boys anyway).  Some guys would max the math (almost) and make like 550 on the verbal.

And it's spelled "fonetix".
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 08, 2018, 11:53:04 AM
....... but.... i say it "phone-etics"...  it's universally understood short-speech for how you ought to conduct yourself while using a phone. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 12:01:36 PM
Penultimate.

Ilk.

Symbiotic.

Lax.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 08, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
bluntly, you went in there making an ass of yourself blasting vulgarities and childishly calling people you don't know names charged with intent to incite. insofar as i am concerned about the interaction, i'm thinking 'the cesspool' handled you accordingly.   
And I did the opposite. No vulgarities, no name-calling. I did my best to source and justify every position I took. I handled myself with the decorum I use in this portion of the forum. 
Now, there was really only one poster down there that I was really locking horns with, who seems to prefer not to read what anyone actually posts but merely copy-paste walls of text in response [most of which doesn't justify what he claims it does, and in one case he was quoting the same source I was using back at me without realizing it]. When I had him ABSOLUTELY DEAD TO RIGHTS WRONG, he couldn't even admit based on clear language that he was wrong and claimed I don't understand the Supreme Court--when I'd just argued circles around him on the topic.
But I stand by my assertion that the folks down there are not interested in debate. They're interested in pounding their chests and talking about how much their "team" is awesome and how the other "team" is evil and horrible. And most of it is completely unhinged from reality, as in the thread they had about the mail-bomber a few weeks ago declaring it must be a Democrat false flag operation. And when it was proven not to be, went off on "tu quoque" tangents about Bill Ayers and Hillary. 
While we try to avoid "politics" up here in the B1G forum, we definitely talk about issues. And what I've found here is that even when we disagree, people take the time to read, to understand, and to respond to what the other posters say. We learn something from each other, instead of talking past each other. That's debate. What they do in A51 is not debate. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 08, 2018, 12:20:53 PM
you did just as you reported @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) , and i commend your attempt and appreciate your integrity.  i was disappointed in that interaction, but not from your activity in the least... 

isolation in a place where concepts are reinforced and not challenged is a bad thing.  i've told them this over and over- and that they should entertain opposing views instead of believing the person posting intent on trolling alone.  

much of their clannishness comes directly from fly-by's we used to get on the other site- you guys talk about the merits of beans in chili- they deploy a few sorties in the form of personal attacks to deal with same.   
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 12:27:14 PM
Few folks on line are interested in understanding "alternative POVs".  They are more interested in deriding, name calling, and "winning arguments" (chest beating).  I think THIS community here is a unique exception in my experience, even if we can't spell.

Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 08, 2018, 12:47:59 PM
I rarely pronounce "awry" the right way the first time. Force of habit from childhood.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: bayareabadger on November 08, 2018, 12:52:56 PM
you did just as you reported @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) , and i commend your attempt and appreciate your integrity.  i was disappointed in that interaction, but not from your activity in the least...

isolation in a place where concepts are reinforced and not challenged is a bad thing.  i've told them this over and over- and that they should entertain opposing views instead of believing the person posting intent on trolling alone.  

much of their clannishness comes directly from fly-by's we used to get on the other site- you guys talk about the merits of beans in chili- they deploy a few sorties in the form of personal attacks to deal with same.  
Me after reading this: There’s a politics board on here?
/Goes and gives it a look
Holy hell. My elbows ain’t sharp enough to deal with that.
This place is good. Even when we get testy with one another, it usually washes out pretty quick.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: SFBadger96 on November 08, 2018, 01:22:07 PM
I have essentially zero interest in what they say on the Pac-12 board, let alone some alien political space.

I miss the old back porch thread on the Big 12 space on the cfn boards, but when I visited there in the new space it just wasn't the same so I haven't been back.

Change is hard.

The political side of this board--our BigTen board--is interesting to consider. We've all had our moments where we've been more or less explicit about our political leanings (see, for example, the Weather, Climate, and Environment thread--which I largely avoid). And as is true in the real world, we all have nuance to our views. There are people with whom I clearly share more political solidarity, but with whom I am not at all aligned on the important matters of college football, and vice versa.

I'm reasonably confident that I don't think anyone who posts here is a threat to America. And at the same time, if we were to strip away the football and focus on our politics, I would truly struggle to understand how some of us can reach the conclusions we do.

It seems like there might be a bigger lesson there about our common humanity ("community," as in "common" and "humanity"?) and patriotism, but I'm too busy to explicitly find it right now.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 08, 2018, 01:29:09 PM
isolation in a place where concepts are reinforced and not challenged is a bad thing.  i've told them this over and over- and that they should entertain opposing views instead of believing the person posting intent on trolling alone.  
Yep. And maybe someone will drag them, kicking and screaming, to real debate. 
I just gave up. I'm not invested enough in any of it to try to fix that mess. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 01:44:08 PM
I find that once I appreciate I'm not going to change opinions on things like politics or whatever, it is all much better.

I tell people in real life, if asked, that I'm an "extreme moderate".  

The wife doesn't yet quite get American "politics", which is fine with me.  When in France, the entire dinner is taken up with talking political stuff.  Usually they are pouring some pretty serious wine, so I don't mind at all.

My "cousin" Thierry is particularly political.  His view of Americans is rather interesting.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MichiFan87 on November 08, 2018, 02:38:15 PM
When we first ended up here I was surprised to find on the A51 board a few people that were actually interested in energy policy. The one guy was all about roof-top solar for its cost-effectiveness and ability to help him disconnect from the grid. The other guy was pro-nuclear. For whatever reason, though, they couldn't come to any agreement with each other, much less me, about how they're both right to an extent, but there's still a lot of changes that are and will continue to happen. When I've made similar posts in the Environment thread, most of you seem to at least understand my points, even if you disagree with them.

I think a lot of it goes back to education, which I'd argue makes people become more future-minded and forward-thinking. Part of that may just be correlation instead of causation (ie. the intuitive v sensing split in the MBTI personality model, since intuitive people are more likely to be more educated) but either way it frequently holds true. Most people here have at least a college degree and many have graduate degrees. And now, of course, we're seeing increased correlations between education attainment and how people vote. This article explains this pretty well: http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 08, 2018, 02:41:57 PM
maybe, @MichiFan87 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=24) , but what you don't know about those two individuals is one is heavily invested in solar and the other retired from a nuclear plant..... and though that shouldn't matter, it adds some context to what you encountered.  that thread is an extension of one that existed on the other site, and it is largely two participants there and here. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 02:48:48 PM
Humans obviously get emotional about whatever (including football oddly enough).  What "should" otherwise be a perfectly logical decision basis ends up often being emotional.  The former would suggest that everyone in that situation should choose Product A and Products B and C are clearly deficient for whatever reason.  The latter suggests that Product C is preferred by some because they like the name, or the color, or the buttons on the radio.

A few years back I went to buy a small car, I had a lot of credit using a GM credit card and I figured that $3500 off the price of a small cheap car is a pretty big discount.  The first salesmen I encountered asked me what I wanted, and I said "A Sonic, but it has to have a manual."  He informed me they all had manuals in the glove compartment.  I gather manual trannies are so unusual these days the salesmen don't know what they are.

When we bought the GTI, the VW salesman we happened to encounter was a GTI ENTHUSIAST, in spades.  He was delighted that I wanted a manual, though he seemed surprised that I could drive one.  I'm not THAT old.  I wanted a white one, which they didn't  have, ended up with a sort of charcoal bluish color.  

I was probably emotional about choosing a graduate school myself, or at least not very rational, but it worked out.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Entropy on November 08, 2018, 03:32:40 PM
@Hoss  and I are good friends off the boards… (on the boards I hate him..heh).  We disagree politically...  But not in the sense left or right… or D vs R.   We have our leans but most of the time, when you actually have the discussion, there is more overlap in opinion than disagreement.  And that disagreement usually is around how rather than what.   For whatever reason, we’re both fine with the other not agreeing.   If anything I think we appreciate not agreeing.   Echo chambers are boring.  But because we know each other and give each other enough crap… our ego’s are not involved.  It’s ok to evolve an opinion based upon what the other said.  It’s ok to be wrong because you lack information.  It’s also ok to appreciate a point of view due to a different experience.  But mostly, Hoss knows I'm right..

Our culture, at least on twitter, FB or message boards, ego’s get in the way....   It’s about being right more than discussing.  A disagreement means someone is insulting you…  and discussions turn into demonizing because it is easier to dismiss you due to a moral flaw than it is to engage in understanding and finding a middle ground.  

JMO... but I see a big difference in how people interact between friends and on message boards...
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 08, 2018, 03:34:23 PM
I miss the old back porch thread on the Big 12 space on the cfn boards, but when I visited there in the new space it just wasn't the same so I haven't been back.

Change is hard.
the new back porch isn't the same, but it's similar and continues to evolve.  
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 08, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
Humans obviously get emotional about whatever (including football oddly enough).  What "should" otherwise be a perfectly logical decision basis ends up often being emotional.  The former would suggest that everyone in that situation should choose Product A and Products B and C are clearly deficient for whatever reason.  The latter suggests that Product C is preferred by some because they like the name, or the color, or the buttons on the radio.
I've made the argument several times that humans are basically pack animals, who pretend to reason (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2015/04/22/humans-pack-animals-pretend-reason/). Boy, it pisses people off when you say that. But I think it's largely true.
People like to be a part of something. Whether it's a political party, a religious affiliation, nationality, race, fans of a sports team, or owning a Ford instead of those Chevy pieces of trash. 
The issue is that sometimes people take this a little too far. They go beyond finding tribal/pack affiliation with those like them, into denigrating those of the other packs. We start to think of our "in group" pack as universally good, and the "out group" packs as universally bad. It's natural, but it's destructive. 
This is one reason that this board is better than most "team" boards. We're forced to interact with those from different teams. Even the OSU and Michigan fans here get along with each other. Because over time, although we might argue about football [and other matters, such as the culinary arts or occiasionally energy policy], we're all a part of the same thing.
However, even we have our problems... We occasionally denigrate the SEC as being "lesser" in academics, or scheduling parity, etc. And because we don't have [many] posters from the SEC, we can largely do so with impunity, as only a few SEC folks post in the B1G forum, and they've probably been forced to grow thick skins. And we continue to do it with impunity, relying on "well, I've got a few friends who are SEC, so I'm not conference-ist!"
This is human nature. It's a big part of the strife we see in the world today, and getting back on topic of ONLINE civility, is particularly important in the online world because we can easily wall ourselves off from other packs into an online world where everyone we interact with is part of our own pack. And it coarsens us to remembering that the other packs are--in fact--human beings with hopes and dreams and well-reasoned opinions, even if those opinions differ from our own. 
All the dreams of the internet age are dashed on these rocks. The idea that instant global communication would BREAK DOWN barriers rather than making it easy for us to retreat into our own little walled fortresses surrounded by people like ourselves is gone. We are supposed to be getting better; we're actually getting worse.
I don't know how to fix it... Which is extraordinarily depressing, because I look around at the world and see these factors getting increasingly worse, and can only imagine it's going to lead to a very dark place. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 08, 2018, 04:24:35 PM
Even the OSU and Michigan fans here get along with each other. 


this doesn't seem natural or "right"

actually it frightens me a bit
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 04:31:34 PM
I'm not sure if things are getting worse or if what is worse is simply more visible.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 08, 2018, 04:33:57 PM
old folks like me are always convinced that things are going to hell

actually I'm not convinced and have a positive outlook on most topics
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 04:50:29 PM
My window on the world circa 1968 was the nightly news, which I watched almost every night, and the local newspaper, which I skimmed.

We didn't have videos of people doing stupid stuff all the time, and I suppose "we" thought people didn't do idiotic stuff and stunts, other than Evil Knievel of course.  Today of course much of Youtube is people doing stupid stuff.

And of course we get exposed to "alternative views" on line all the time.

I vaguely recall going with my Dad to vote in 1960.  I wanted to have a side, he wouldn't tell me how he was voting, but others in line had on Kennedy hats or Nixon buttons or whatever else.  I desperately wondered who was right and who was wrong.  The world had to be binary for me, and digital, not analog.  

I recall my Uncle told my dad that if he voted for Goldwater in 1964 we'd have war and riots in the street and big deficits.  I guess my Dad did vote or Goldwater, and that caused all of that mayhem.

Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Hoss on November 08, 2018, 04:57:19 PM
This is human nature. It's a big part of the strife we see in the world today, and getting back on topic of ONLINE civility, is particularly important in the online world because we can easily wall ourselves off from other packs into an online world where everyone we interact with is part of our own pack. And it coarsens us to remembering that the other packs are--in fact--human beings with hopes and dreams and well-reasoned opinions, even if those opinions differ from our own.
 
All the dreams of the internet age are dashed on these rocks. The idea that instant global communication would BREAK DOWN barriers rather than making it easy for us to retreat into our own little walled fortresses surrounded by people like ourselves is gone. We are supposed to be getting better; we're actually getting worse.

I don't know how to fix it... Which is extraordinarily depressing, because I look around at the world and see these factors getting increasingly worse, and can only imagine it's going to lead to a very dark place.

Depressing...and depressingly astute IMO. I am convinced that the explosion of mass communication over the past 25 years, and exacerbated over the last ten by social media, is going to be the downfall of this country for the reasons you state.
Tribalism runs amok...and maybe worse. You will often see persons of the "other" political persuasion described in terms that make it seem as though the author considers them a different, and lesser, species. While largely true in the individual case of Entropylipithicus, as evidenced by the cyber version of clicks and whistles that pass as his posts, the overall implications for the rest of us sapiens are dark and troubling.    
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 08, 2018, 05:05:51 PM
I rarely pronounce "awry" the right way the first time. Force of habit from childhood.
I don't think I've ever seen that word before now.  Heard it plenty of times.  Hmmph.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: ELA on November 08, 2018, 05:07:02 PM
I rarely pronounce "awry" the right way the first time. Force of habit from childhood.
That's one of those I was embarrassingly old before I put together.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 08, 2018, 05:10:42 PM
I've made the argument several times that humans are basically pack animals, who pretend to reason (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2015/04/22/humans-pack-animals-pretend-reason/). Boy, it pisses people off when you say that. But I think it's largely true.
People like to be a part of something. 
Yeah, I've found that people from many different walks of life get pissy when it's suggested we're "merely" just animals.  It infringes on their religion and, I guess, makes them feel less special.
I wish the loudest blowhards would be dropped out into nature with nothing, a la "Naked and Afraid".  They'll be quick to knock the greatness of humanity off it's pedestal.  Tip-toeing around, struggling to even function after only 2-3 days.  
If often wondered what it would be like and the thing that would make me quit isn't the hunger or the failed shelters or dangerous animals...it'd be the gnats in my ears while trying to sleep.  It would drive me insane and I'd tap out.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 08, 2018, 05:17:43 PM
I'm not sure if things are getting worse or if what is worse is simply more visible.
I wish I could just assume things getting more visible... 
But I actually think that social media is making this worse, because people are sharing things to their entire online universe that they would only share in close company before. And they're often doing it not in long-form debate, but in catchy memes that completely remove all nuance of a topic--so people increasingly think nuance doesn't exist. 
As if we weren't already in a sound-bite, tl;dr culture, social media and memes have made it worse.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 08, 2018, 05:23:36 PM
Yeah, I've found that people from many different walks of life get pissy when it's suggested we're "merely" just animals.  It infringes on their religion and, I guess, makes them feel less special.
I get that aspect of it, but I coming at it from a completely different angle. Not that the "animal" portion is the key, but the "tribe/pack" aspect is the key. 
People like to feel like they're actively running their lives, their opinions, their emotions. They like to think that they're doing it based on logic, and reason, and good sense.
Yet people generally have the same religion as their parents, and all think their religion is the "right" one. People same political stance as their peer group / socioeconomic group / location, and think they came to it honestly instead of by assimilation. 
Do you think it's a product of reason that Berkeley is very liberal while Omaha is very conservative? Or do you think that people grow to emulate the politics of those around them to avoid rocking the boat and feeling ostracized? I think it's the latter...
People have a conceit that they are the product of the reasoned mind, when in SO many cases they're products of their tribe/pack. People don't like being told they're not in control. But the VAST majority really aren't.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 08, 2018, 06:14:54 PM
Yeah, we want credit for all the good we exhibit and produce.  The idea that 98% of it was out of our hands to begin with and that the 2% we may be responsible for is just well-disguised herd mentality doesn't really allow any room for a stroked ego.



btw, social media has changed everything.  Used to be, there were 3 or 5 or 20 arbiters of knowledge out there to expose yourself to.  They were the stewards of what was important and what wasn't.  Now there are 30 million stewards and it's all deemed important (enough) to share.  There was a bell curve of validity back then as there is now, but now it's impossible not to get mired in the sludge.  
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Honestbuckeye on November 08, 2018, 09:00:23 PM
Very good observations throughout.

I often wonder what is chance versus what we actually control.  Feels like there is plenty of both.

There are things about our world and people that I really like and feel are improvements in our evolution. But I also feel ther are people that do things because they have no accountability for what they say or do, and obviously social media really enables that. And it really makes me want to turn and look the other way, and hope it goes away.

What if we had to live up to what ever we claimed on social media?  Would it change what people say?

It is so easy for mankind to proclaim how others should act, like, dislike, pay for, contribute too.....but I wonder if it would be different if those who say those things had to back it up with their own money, or religion, or behavior or whatever..

When it comes to politics, I have neither the desire or ability to change anyone’s mind. I just want to respect the other opinions and have mine respected.

My worst peeve are those who resort to violence or intimidation over basic differences of opinion.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 09:25:41 PM
It's all like football - that tipped pass was intercepted, or fell on the turf, that QB spotted a receiver breaking open, or he didn't, the referee saw holding, or he didn't, the guy fumbled because a helmet hit the ball just so, or it didn't.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 09:26:48 PM
This is a bit OT, if the link works, thought it was neat:

https://www.facebook.com/limacompanymemorial/videos/1617706745001871/UzpfSTE1MjQ2MDQ0NzE6MTAyMTIxNTMyNTg2OTY0MTg/

Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 09, 2018, 12:15:17 AM
@Hoss  and I are good friends off the boards… (on the boards I hate him..heh).  We disagree politically...  But not in the sense left or right… or D vs R.   We have our leans but most of the time, when you actually have the discussion, there is more overlap in opinion than disagreement.  And that disagreement usually is around how rather than what.   For whatever reason, we’re both fine with the other not agreeing.   If anything I think we appreciate not agreeing.   Echo chambers are boring.  But because we know each other and give each other enough crap… our ego’s are not involved.  It’s ok to evolve an opinion based upon what the other said.  It’s ok to be wrong because you lack information.  It’s also ok to appreciate a point of view due to a different experience.  But mostly, Hoss knows I'm right..

Our culture, at least on twitter, FB or message boards, ego’s get in the way....   It’s about being right more than discussing.  A disagreement means someone is insulting you…  and discussions turn into demonizing because it is easier to dismiss you due to a moral flaw than it is to engage in understanding and finding a middle ground.  

JMO... but I see a big difference in how people interact between friends and on message boards...
This was very nice and insightful. A common error I think people make is that "I believe something good and therefore those who disagree must be bad." There are several logical mistakes there, and despite my optimism about most things, the prevalence of this on all sides sure can be depressing.
It isn't popular, but I tend to veer hard in the opposite direction -- that there are zero good or bad people. Just people. Being people. Acting in predictable ways based on their order of events since leaving the birth canal. Such that, today, or at any point, each of us has our ratio of good or bad (occasionally horrifying) behaviors. But that's about how we animate, not about who we are. That contrary to most identity teachings, we are not our actions. And though bad-behaving people often deserve to stop being trusted (because bad patterns are nevertheless real), no one is technically irredeemable.
I have no interest in being a cultist and am not trying to convert anyone to my side. And yet I do feel like several categories of problems could be improved if "My opponent is a bad person" became extinct for whichever reason, and my reason is because bad people don't exist in the first place.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: MrNubbz on November 09, 2018, 07:35:31 AM
 And yet I do feel like several categories of problems could be improved if "My opponent is a bad person" became extinct for whichever reason, and my reason is because bad people don't exist in the first place.
You haven't been reading the Unabombers Manifesto again have you?
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 09, 2018, 08:19:38 AM
You haven't been reading the Unabombers Manifesto again have you?
That's certainly the most logically extreme and rare case. And still: Just a person. Whose behaviors happen to be horrifying. People like that are never worth trusting. And always worth punishing (because societal standards are essential).
But they are also a somewhat predictable product of their environment (whether deterministically or probabilistically):
For this, imagine a hundred or ten-thousand people who grew up in loving families in healthy communities in a thriving era, never abused, and even add that none of them are ever taken in by manipulative role models with hateful things to say. Now, watch as they grow up. How many of them turn out totally normal/healthy (in that meh/fine/good/great range)? ...
Now, take those people you imagined and put them all in shitty families, in damaged communities, in an era of fear or deprivation, and perhaps even with dangerous role models, and watch how they turn out. The same people, born with the same human potential, same brains: Except this time the same cohort is worse off. It's predictable that they'd finish less normal/healthy (fewer of them in that meh/fine/good/great range).
Of course, I have to admit I don't know how large the cohort needs to be before horrifying behaviors in the second group start leading to, well, murder. But it's certainly more likely for them than for group #1.
Again. Still horrifying. Still essential to punish. But even in this rare and extreme situation, I believe it's still behavior. Not an inherent thing about the person. That many people may be so far gone (prone to bad behavior) that they are realistically beyond saving, but nevertheless no one is technically irredeemable.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 09, 2018, 08:27:45 AM
And that irredeemableness is key. If the way you use the terms "good person" and "bad person" for Joe Schlub changes every day based on whether Joe acts good or bad, then you're largely agreeing with me because you are just judging his behaviors ... except you may have the habit of equating that with who Joe is.
But that's not how most people use those terms "good people" and "bad peoples." We usually use them as tidy bins to place a person and then never switch them in or out again. And it's that usage that I'm saying isn't real. Is illogical. That irredeemableness doesn't exist.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 09, 2018, 08:38:36 AM
A good chunk of my mindset here is derived from the Fundamental Attribution Error, which is a logical fallacy about judging people (for who they are in terms of their value as people) on the basis of their behaviors.
That we tend to judge others as bad for doing something bad, whereas for ourselves, we never say we are bad people when we behave terribly. Instead, we appeal to circumstances and explain why we are good people who messed up that time. And partly to eliminate that double standard but also because it is a far more optimistic outlook, I choose to believe that we are correct in how we address ourselves and that others deserve an identical treatment.
That all people are just people behaving in any maddening, boring, or uplifting variety of ways based largely on their history since birth and their circumstances in each moment when they do that thing we judge.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 09, 2018, 09:09:31 AM

It isn't popular, but I tend to veer hard in the opposite direction -- that there are zero good or bad people. Just people. 
Sir, respectfully, this is far from correct.  there are people who are just plain bad.  relative to standards of the culture, "contract with society" and all that jazz even accounted for- there are people who just want to see and do bad things.  i will strike a comment as such up as 'lack of exposure' as opposed to willingness of applying relativism of morals. 
i had a long response posted that offered some of the things i've seen in my travels first hand, but they are personal and should stay that way.  there is evil, and there is good i am certain.  they may coexist (and do) in the same person (most people) with a ever fluctuating dynamic, but... there are some that are lost in whole and seemingly driven by the desire to be bad. 
you can attempt an objective vantage as if extracting yourself from the experiment of human nature and postulate 'there are no good or bad people, just people', but it doesn't add up.  There is possibly a layer below the surface that could prove your position, but the surface will kill your ass dead and with a quickness long before you even scratch it and without concern of your suspicions or understandings IF you get the opportunity to meet a truly 'bad' person who has this intent for whatever reason- which renders your position moot- because you're part of this experiment too whether you want to be or not. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 09, 2018, 09:17:59 AM
On the first paragraph, I disagree as strongly as you do with me. And that's OK. I think humans are prone to projection. That all of us have that evil you describe in us, too, and good for us to usually suppress it! But when we see others failing to suppress it, we label them as irredeemable. Nevertheless, when we give that label, we nearly always ignore the story that got the person to that moment and are also judging them for behavior that we'd treat somewhat differently if it came from ourselves instead of them. And I think those are major errors on our end.

At the same time, I'm in medicine. I've seen a significant quantity of the horrifying. Kindly try not to patronize me as only having this opinion because I have the luxury of naivety. Because that degrades the conversation by assuming I've seen only lollipops and risks turning this into a competition of who's seen worse, which is below us.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 09, 2018, 09:24:20 AM
you can attempt an objective vantage as if extracting yourself from the experiment of human nature and postulate 'there are no good or bad people, just people', but it doesn't add up.  There is possibly a layer below the surface that could prove your position, but the surface will kill your ass dead and with a quickness long before you even scratch it and without concern of your suspicions or understandings IF you get the opportunity to meet a truly 'bad' person who has this intent for whatever reason- which renders your position moot- because you're part of this experiment too whether you want to be or not.
I have no illusions about what ills may befall me if I run into a horrifyingly-behaving person. For many of them, I acknowledge how unrealistic it is that they will change how prone they are to terrible behavior. That's why, so many times, I wrote that it's essential to punish and good practice to never trust them.
But I do take the step to insist it isn't because they are technically irredeemable but because a person whose story and behaviors are that far gone is highly unlikely to stop behaving horrifyingly.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 09, 2018, 09:55:28 AM
i didn't mean to come off patronizing at all.  Apologies for it being presented in a way that allowed that perception.

i think the point i was trying to make did find target, though, in the last post-

I have no illusions about what ills may befall me if I run into a horrifyingly-behaving person. For many of them, I acknowledge how unrealistic it is that they will change how prone they are to terrible behavior. That's why, so many times, I wrote that it's essential to punish and good practice to never trust them.
But I do take the step to insist it isn't because they are technically irredeemable but because a person whose story and behaviors are that far gone is highly unlikely to stop behaving horrifyingly.
and that being we're stuck in this 'experiment' which is reality- and though a vantage above or outside of reality may support not only 'good people/bad people' but also the absence of 'good/bad' altogether, as much of it is emotionally driven anyway. 

i'm guessing there have been paths i crossed with people dead set on doing things that make no sense whatsoever and offer even them no advantage- and lends a measure of proof that 'some folks just want to see the world burn'.  
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 09, 2018, 10:15:43 AM
We're all good Drew. And I also think there are people in this world who only want to watch it burn. But I think that's compatible with my philosophy too. Those people have complicated stories to explain why they became the way they are. And the wanting of the burning and the doing of the burning don't necessarily have to be who they are, but *how* they are.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 09, 2018, 01:35:32 PM
Sir, respectfully, this is far from correct.  there are people who are just plain bad.  relative to standards of the culture, "contract with society" and all that jazz even accounted for- there are people who just want to see and do bad things.  i will strike a comment as such up as 'lack of exposure' as opposed to willingness of applying relativism of morals.
i had a long response posted that offered some of the things i've seen in my travels first hand, but they are personal and should stay that way.  there is evil, and there is good i am certain.  they may coexist (and do) in the same person (most people) with a ever fluctuating dynamic, but... there are some that are lost in whole and seemingly driven by the desire to be bad.
Drew, I know that given your own history as a soldier, you've seen a lot of things that whether you label it subjectively or objectively evil, are horrors that should never had occurred.
I think what AC might be saying is that a lot of those horrors were again a product of their environment. That some of the people you fought against, had they been born and raised in the USA, might have turned into model citizens and perhaps soldiers such as yourself. And that he's saying that some of your comrades in arms--guys you trusted with your life--had they been born into the environment in which you fought, would have become those evil people.
Essentially I think AC's point is that people are very much inherently malleable, and not inherently good or evil. It's a point with which I have qualified agreement; some people would turn out good in good situations, and evil in evil situations. They are absolutely a product of the environment. 
I think your point is that some people are just bad. And it's a point with which I also have qualified agreement. There are people who are the product of loving households in affluent and tolerant communities, but something in them is so askew that they become sociopaths, or sadists, or elsewhere. Nothing in their external environment made them this way. Now, it might be their brain chemistry and not that they're just born immoral, but I can see your point in calling them inherently evil because it was their own internal problem. 
So I think it's a mix of nature and nurture. Whether the "nature" is a chance mix of biochemistry or a inherent moral depravity doesn't matter for the purpose of how to deal with those people; they should be confined in such a way that their nature cannot cause the rest of us harm.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: SFBadger96 on November 09, 2018, 01:57:29 PM
CD--good video. 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 09, 2018, 02:13:33 PM
The wife and I were walking in the park a few weeks back, not too many people around, nice day but midweek.  Some dude walking towards us is yelling stuff, looking at me, walking my way, yelling something about "F the US" and whatever, with an African accent.  I got between him and the wife looking for a tree limb or something if needed, he was a scrawny dude but young, yelling quite loudly.  We were able to move 10 or so feet from where he passed, and he just passed us.  That's the only time since we moved that I had a bit of a fright.

He walked on yelling obscenities at the air.  I guess he is "well known" in the area, have not seen him since, and I go to the park almost daily.

The encounter was seconds long but it gets one to thinking about crazies.  I was not carrying, I abhor the idea of needing to shoot another human, but had I been I would have had hand on implement.

The park seems very safe, we see a lot of younger females running rather scantily clad, and often alone, and mothers with strollers etc very often.  But it only takes one of course.  

I saw a policeman yesterday on the street on one of those two wheelers going by.  I thought that was a good device for them.  I forget their name now.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 09, 2018, 02:15:15 PM
... @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) and @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) , I get this.  People are products of environment.  however, after my child was introduced in the world and after observing her everyday for the past five years- i am wiling to bet the farm 'instinct' plays an equal role.  I used to think to myself "what in the hell am i going to do when little boys come to call" and that changed as her personality developed and now it's "those poor effers, i wonder if i should warn them?"....

on a serious note, though:

i still can't swallow it.  some people are bad.  think: wiring. chemicals.  predisposition.  

insofar as being a Marine or attache to groups doing defense stuff- people gonna do bad things in combat.  what people are capable of, it's always surprised me, is that is surprises them.  i wager people have no clue what they are capable of until they're forced to decide. this totally wiped my concept of black/white/wrong/right... "you just don't know until...you do..."  i think this incredibly terrifying realization contributes to the majority of combat induced PTSD.  it has less to to with what happened than it does the person's actions or conceptualization as a result.  

but this isn't what leads my belief into some people just plain being bad.... what does is 'what people do when they know they can get by with it no matter what that is' which is to say you can observe their true character.  the lack of what most people consider integrity or character in people you'd think have it in spades is what i speak of... conditional? "contract with society"? this falls inline with @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) 's position and is valid... the Stanford Prison Experiment? It would seem to also fall inline- and it does... however my contention is that this creature lives in all of us and is capable of escaping, while in others it is encouraged into 'escaping'- if for no other reason than to 'see if they can get by with it'... and these people are bad.  chemicals? brain injury? wiring? don't know.... just that some people are pre-disposed to do wrong knowing it's wrong and against their 'contract with society'.      
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: FearlessF on November 09, 2018, 02:32:58 PM


i still can't swallow it.  some people are bad.  think: wiring. chemicals.  predisposition.  
unfortunately, I wholeheartedly agree
some humans are evil

regardless of their experiences and/or environment
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: bayareabadger on November 09, 2018, 03:13:42 PM
I wish I could just assume things getting more visible...
But I actually think that social media is making this worse, because people are sharing things to their entire online universe that they would only share in close company before. And they're often doing it not in long-form debate, but in catchy memes that completely remove all nuance of a topic--so people increasingly think nuance doesn't exist.
As if we weren't already in a sound-bite, tl;dr culture, social media and memes have made it worse.
I don’t know if it’s quite that as much as, we’re in a mode where we seek out what we agree with, but also what we don’t do we can be caustic about it. But now, instead of hate reading the local columnist three times a week, we can seek out ALL of it, on our own, and then fire back by calling for his or her job. 
I think we’ve always been bad with nuance, we just have more chance to show it. (Plus I’ll agree there’s a certain death of expertise). 
(I meant to respond to a past post about journalists needing to become more expert in technical fields. I kind of saw it the other way. It’s more important for people in technical fields to become better communicators, as the barriers for who has a platform get lower and lower)
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 09, 2018, 04:00:26 PM
Are sociopaths inherently evil?
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Drew4UTk on November 09, 2018, 04:19:56 PM
Are sociopaths inherently evil?
Some are profoundly important to society... They got there and will remain there by having laser sharp focus void of distractions most folks have due to conscious or moral code. Not all of them are social failures. Its actually in their better interest to obey the rules yet navigate them in a way advantagious to them (and of your interests are aligned, you too).  Its said as many as one in 20 are full blown sociopaths, and its also said they are valuable to big companies in management positions as the symbiotic relationship flourishes.  
Strange world, no?  
Now psychopaths... That may be different.. I'm not sure a put that either though, to be honest, nor if they're "bad" either .... Sympathy for the devil and all that.  
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 09, 2018, 06:56:16 PM
The nature/nurture debate is over - it's 50/50.  Well not exactly that, but it's a bell curve (like everything else).  We're all victims of circumstance - individual experiences, genetic predispositions, ongoing or chronic experiences, etc.  Some we overcome, some are an ongoing struggle, and many we don't even identify - some, ever.  




I've had students (young children) who I'd trust to do my taxes and I've had others that should be locked in a cage.  Many want to do the right thing but physically aren't in control of their own bodies.  Garbage parenting is a major culprit.  But there are other guilty parties in nearly every aspect of humanity.  A high IQ is good, but not too high, because then it becomes a detriment.  Having 2 parents is good, unless it's a poisonous union and daily fallout from the clashes.  There's "yeah, but"s weaved throughout all of it.  



For those who turn out leaning on the "good" side, we're far more fortunate than responsible for turning out that way.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Reyd on November 09, 2018, 07:21:58 PM
Psychopaths are the writers of their universe which makes you and me bit players on their tapestry and as such we have no say about the psychopath's  script. Sociopaths know they are not the only writers but they don't care about the other writers unless it is to their advantage. Most leaders have a little sociopath in them. 

Good and evil are human constructs and as such I consider them descriptors. Depending on your position in the universe the more black and white these descriptors  can become. Salespersons end up with lots of grays whiles soldiers try to see as much black and white as possible.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 09, 2018, 07:33:53 PM
A high IQ is good, but not too high, because then it becomes a detriment.  
How so? 
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 09, 2018, 10:16:20 PM
Are sociopaths inherently evil?
I don't believe anyone is inherently evil, but anyone who violates social norms as often as necessary to serve themselves is a person whose behaviors can be terribly problematic.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 09, 2018, 10:21:41 PM
How so?
People with extremely high IQs are far more likely to suffer from mood and anxiety disorders.  I don't know if it's a mind thing or not, but it's easy to see how this could be the case just by environmental factors.
The world is made for people of average intelligence, by and large.  Or the average range (95-105) or so.  
If you think of your life in our society as a game, it's best to be somewhat smarter than most.  That way, you can excel at it.  But if a game is too easy for you, it gets boring.  If the game is full of (perceived) glitches and errors, you become frustrated.  
I first realized this when reading the bios of many of the great philosophers - many of them had mental breakdowns.  Many mass killers have 150+ IQs.  But of course those are anecdotal.  But if you do a little research, it's confirmed.  An IQ between 120-140 is great (safer,healthy).  An IQ up around 160 - you're as likely to hate life as to enjoy it.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 09, 2018, 10:38:32 PM
It’s more important for people in technical fields to become better communicators, as the barriers for who has a platform get lower and lower
Highly underrated comment.
At the present and upcoming critical junctures (be them conversations related to Alzheimer's, stem cells, GMOs, climate change, evolution, vaccines, consciousness, cancer), where scientific literacy is as rare as it is critical to our way forward, Earth needs ... well, a hundred thousand Carl Sagans wouldn't be too many to lead the way.
Niel De Grasse Tyson is "neat" enough to lend my ear from time to time, but he doesn't reliably supply a tenth of what I'm talking about. The need isn't just for inspiration without dumbing down. Or the ability to connect and blossom minds to massive ideas. We also need something much harder: for all of that to come packaged with the skill to relate, be likable, friendly. Worthy of the audience. Never above the audience.
There aren't many like that who are rockstar leaders of their field. In fact, after puzzling for a half-minute, I can think of zero whose voice is also mainstream. So we have to go deeper until we end up with a list of countless nameless, uncelebrated types. For every thousand high school, university, or unassociated-with-school teachers, there's one or forty who do their work this kind of well.
As mankind's most precious resources go, they share the top of my list.
Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Cincydawg on November 10, 2018, 08:05:36 AM
I had a friend, of sorts, between about 7th and 10th grade.  He was clearly smarter than any of the rest of us.  He ended up being State Star Student and made 1600 on the SAT back when that was a perfect score.  I hear from another friend he went to GaTech and dropped out and ended up managing an apartment building in ATL somewhere.  I don't know if that is true, just what a friend of both of us told me.

He did have problems "socializing" (not that I didn't have my share, in common with many teen boys of course).

As to being able to communicate complex scientific concepts, it simply is not easy at all.  Feynman was quite good at it with his books and lectures, but the shoe is also on the other foot, how many lay people read anything Feinman wrote or watch his lectures?

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-1-law-of-gravitation

How many have even heard of Feynman?



Title: Re: OT: Online Civility
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 10, 2018, 12:19:57 PM
The "lay people" who know and read Feynman aren't pure lay people. They are scientists and professionals outside of physics.