Stuff I just don't understand, post here yours.

[The Eye]

So there are a lot of stuff that I just don't understand, so I’ll list them here in the hopes someone cane explain it to me. If you also have your own stuff that you just don't understand, feel free to post it here as well to be clarified or mocked.

1- People who spit in the street, why do why people spit on the street? It's such a horrible habit that I see so many random pedestrians just spiting on the street as if it was something normal and no one besides me batting an eye or calling then out on their horrible behavior. Why? In my 24 years of existence I never felt the need... The urge to do that, why do people feel that they need to? Is there a thing I'm not getting?

2- Public displays of affection, it's so rude and inappropriate, I'm not a prude or anything but why don't keep private actions, you know, private?

3- People who work in the career advice field, I can't help but think they were so in doubt about their own career that they were unable to move on and decided to just advise others in something they kind of failed at, they felt they couldn't have to choose a real career so they decided to work with careers instead.

Anyway those are my points for today, what you guys think?

[Velaryon]

1- People who spit in the street, why do why people spit on the street? It's such a horrible habit that I see so many random pedestrians just spiting on the street as if it was something normal and no one besides me batting an eye or calling then out on their horrible behavior. Why? In my 24 years of existence I never felt the need... The urge to do that, why do people feel that they need to? Is there a thing I'm not getting?

I sometimes do this. I don't know if it's post-nasal drip or what, but I get a lot of phlegm in my throat and sometimes I just need to get rid of it. I try not to spit it anywhere that someone could step on it, though.


2- Public displays of affection, it's so rude and inappropriate, I'm not a prude or anything but why don't keep private actions, you know, private?

This is just a matter of personal preference. Every person is going to draw the line in a different place of how far they think it's appropriate for people to go in terms of PDA's. Personally, while I have no desire to see this sort of thing, it doesn't really bother me until it gets to the groping stage. Then it's time for them to find somewhere private.


Stuff that I don't understand...

1. Stoichiometry. I did fine in high school chemistry until we got to this chapter. No matter how many times it was explained to me, I was unable to wrap my brain around it. I almost had it when my dad (who used to major in chemistry in college) explained it to me better than the teacher did, but I still couldn't keep that understanding in my mind. I failed that section hard, and it took everything I had to battle my grade back up to a C by the end of the quarter.

2. The appeal of "reality" television. I don't know what to say about this, I just don't get why so many people like to watch other people being jerks to each other in pursuit of a prize and becoming D-list celebrities.

I'm sure there's more, but that's what I can think of now.

[Gnoman]

2. The appeal of "reality" television. I don't know what to say about this, I just don't get why so many people like to watch other people being jerks to each other in pursuit of a prize and becoming D-list celebrities.


Not all reality television falls into this category, and the majority of those that did have either folded or took a hard shift back toward a genuine competition. The only now-successful shows I'm aware of that really match your description are Survivor and Big Brother, which rely as much on their longevity to continue as they do anything else. Most reality-TV shows are now just extremely extended game shows.

Apart from that, the bar for a "successful" reality-TV show is far, far lower than that for a sitcom or scripted drama. The "cast" of a reality TV show often get paid (in the form of prizes) less in a season than actors in a moderately successful sitcom get per episode. It is an insanely cheap form of television, which is why networks churn out so many such shows in the summer months when there are a lot fewer people watching TV. (This is also where the "It is all totally scripted" claims fall flat - manipulative editing is cheap, but scriptwriters aren't, and even poor quality actors (who could follow a script) are a lot more expensive than the people who sign up for these things (who probably couldn't).

[BWR]

1- People who spit in the street,


If it's spitting in the street or swallowing a huge chuck of phlegm, I'll spit every time. I try to do it as out of the way as possible, but out it goes.






1 - Public displays of affection


You realize you really do come off as a prude, right? You might want to define just how much is going too far so we don't lambast you for something you didn't say.
Is holding hands inappropriate? giving someone a hug? A quick kiss? Smiling and laughing with another person?

[Eldan]

I'll agree on reality TV. I don't get the appeal. I mean, I see the appeal for the production company. But not for the viewers.

Also, I hate sports.

[Chen]

I'll agree on reality TV. I don't get the appeal. I mean, I see the appeal for the production company. But not for the viewers.

I tend to agree on the ones that have huge drama associated with them (Big Brother for example). Survivor is actually quite interesting from a game perspective since it's been around so long. Watching the manipulation there can be interesting but sometimes it does fall too much into what seems like "forced" drama.

There are a number of other reality shows though that lack the drama all together and are interesting. A lot of the home improvement shows or real estate ones for example. The individual cooking competition shows (Chopped for example) also don't have the continuity to really cause much drama. Even the longer series ones (Top Chef) tend to get rid of the drama after the initial couple of episodes, for the most part.

[Lord Joeltion]

I don't understand how hypocrites function in RL. You know, those people who preach something and then do exactly the opposite anywhere else? There are a lot, from Left to Right, to Upper to Lower class. Education usually isn't a factor either. There's always one in every field, from every religion, philosophy or group. I don't understand how they cope with their own contradictions.

Also, I don't get fanatism of any kind. Ok, well, I get WHY you would become a fan of X. What I don't understand is how people voluntarily become "sheeples" and don't realize the intrinsic meaninglessness of being a fan of anything. Who cares when Kurt Cobain died or how? Just shut up and let me hear this goddamned sweet track! :smallcool:


1- People who spit in the street, why do why people spit on the street? It's such a horrible habit that I see so many random pedestrians just spiting on the street as if it was something normal and no one besides me batting an eye or calling then out on their horrible behavior. Why? In my 24 years of existence I never felt the need... The urge to do that, why do people feel that they need to? Is there a thing I'm not getting?
I do this, because, sadly; I need the air vents to my lungs somewhat open you know? To prevent brain damage and asphyxia. While sometimes I need to do so in public places, I try to avoid doing it in front of other people (my friends aren't people :smalltongue: ). I do it on purpose in front of smokers tho. I also cough them in the face whenever their existence pisses me off :smallfurious: I suffer from asthma.


2- Public displays of affection, it's so rude and inappropriate, I'm not a prude or anything but why don't keep private actions, you know, private?
Ogling people who are showing their affection in public is worse, IMO. It's not only rude and inappropriate by all standards; it's creepy and gross.

Anyway, how much "showing affection" is appropriate, depends on the culture/town you are walking. It's not anything I truly care; I show my affection whenever I have the urge, in the manner my urges tell me it's appropriate for my girlfriend. I have great disregard for people, so they generally don't mean anything in the equation, only my partner's comfort.


3- People who work in the career advice field, I can't help but think they were so in doubt about their own career that they were unable to move on and decided to just advise others in something they kind of failed at, they felt they couldn't have to choose a real career so they decided to work with careers instead.
That's just demeaning. What did they ever made to you anyway?


Also, I hate sports.
Don't we all? :smallbiggrin:


The individual cooking competition shows (Chopped for example) also don't have the continuity to really cause much drama. Even the longer series ones (Top Chef) tend to get rid of the drama after the initial couple of episodes, for the most part.
I thought the appeal of every kitchen related show/series was just the Food Porn.

[FinnLassie]

My eldest sister. She's a freaking mess of a mystery.

[factotum]

I don't understand how hypocrites function in RL. You know, those people who preach something and then do exactly the opposite anywhere else? There are a lot, from Left to Right, to Upper to Lower class. Education usually isn't a factor either. There's always one in every field, from every religion, philosophy or group. I don't understand how they cope with their own contradictions.

They probably don't notice the contradictions, because when they're doing it themselves it's *different* from when other people do it.

[Chen]

They probably don't notice the contradictions, because when they're doing it themselves it's *different* from when other people do it.

There's also the distinction between principle and practice. You can still be for something in principle but realize the impact of going through with it is too detrimental to you personally to follow through on it. Still hypocritical of course. It also depends on the specificity or vagueness of the statement. I can certainly say "You should obey the law" and then jaywalk. It is technically hypocritical but that tends to come from the original statement being overly broad.

[Zurvan]

Ogling people who are showing their affection in public is worse, IMO.

Hey, now just as you have the right to make out with your gf in the middle of the street or in the bus making me uncomfortable I have the right to stare and make you uncomfortable.

Do you want to be able to make out with your loved one without having to deal with people being creepy about it? Well, do it in private.

[shawnhcorey]

2- Public displays of affection, it's so rude and inappropriate, I'm not a prude or anything but why don't keep private actions, you know, private?

I remember one documentary on this from PBS Nova, I think. They were looking at where in a small downtown park couples would go. They discovered that rather than finding the secluded areas, couples showed their affection in the busiest locations. They conclude that couples subconsciously wanted to show the rest of the community that they were indeed a couple. Perhaps a behaviour we inherited from when we lived in small tribes.


1. Stoichiometry. I did fine in high school chemistry until we got to this chapter. No matter how many times it was explained to me, I was unable to wrap my brain around it. I almost had it when my dad (who used to major in chemistry in college) explained it to me better than the teacher did, but I still couldn't keep that understanding in my mind. I failed that section hard, and it took everything I had to battle my grade back up to a C by the end of the quarter.
I'm sure there's more, but that's what I can think of now.

Stoichiometry is a NP-problem. That means it is not easy to solve (except for restricted cases), so don't be surprised you find it difficult. It is chemistry's version of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

[FinnLassie]

I remember one documentary on this from PBS Nova, I think. They were looking at where in a small downtown park couples would go. They discovered that rather than finding the secluded areas, couples showed their affection in the busiest locations. They conclude that couples subconsciously wanted to show the rest of the community that they were indeed a couple. Perhaps a behaviour we inherited from when we lived in small tribes.

Going out to secluded areas to perform PDA would probably look a little creepy from a side glance.

[Chen]

Going out to secluded areas to perform PDA would probably look a little creepy from a side glance.

Suspicious perhaps, but creepy? Why?

[Thufir]

I remember one documentary on this from PBS Nova, I think. They were looking at where in a small downtown park couples would go. They discovered that rather than finding the secluded areas, couples showed their affection in the busiest locations. They conclude that couples subconsciously wanted to show the rest of the community that they were indeed a couple. Perhaps a behaviour we inherited from when we lived in small tribes.

This seems to me like a clear case of correlation =/= causation. Generally PDAs are not the actual reason a couple goes somewhere - they might be an anticipated component of spending time together in public, but they don't decide "Let's go to the park and make out in public," they just decide "Let's go to the park." In which case this suggests the busiest locations are the more popular locations to go in general, but it needn't say anything about people's preferences for where to display affection.

[sktarq]

Going out to secluded areas to perform PDA would probably look a little creepy from a side glance.
Then wouldn't it be, well, a Private Display of Affection.


This seems to me like a clear case of correlation =/= causation. ....In which case this suggests the busiest locations are the more popular locations to go in general, but it needn't say anything about people's preferences for where to display affection.

Also since the vast majority of PDA is spontaneous this makes sense. Also most "Lover Lane" type locations are technically public but are secluded and private. Its those type of places most people go if they are planning to get frisky.

[shawnhcorey]

This seems to me like a clear case of correlation =/= causation. Generally PDAs are not the actual reason a couple goes somewhere - they might be an anticipated component of spending time together in public, but they don't decide "Let's go to the park and make out in public," they just decide "Let's go to the park." In which case this suggests the busiest locations are the more popular locations to go in general, but it needn't say anything about people's preferences for where to display affection.


Then wouldn't it be, well, a Private Display of Affection.



Also since the vast majority of PDA is spontaneous this makes sense. Also most "Lover Lane" type locations are technically public but are secluded and private. Its those type of places most people go if they are planning to get frisky.

I did say "subconsciously".

[Velaryon]

Not all reality television falls into this category, and the majority of those that did have either folded or took a hard shift back toward a genuine competition. The only now-successful shows I'm aware of that really match your description are Survivor and Big Brother, which rely as much on their longevity to continue as they do anything else. Most reality-TV shows are now just extremely extended game shows.

Apart from that, the bar for a "successful" reality-TV show is far, far lower than that for a sitcom or scripted drama. The "cast" of a reality TV show often get paid (in the form of prizes) less in a season than actors in a moderately successful sitcom get per episode. It is an insanely cheap form of television, which is why networks churn out so many such shows in the summer months when there are a lot fewer people watching TV. (This is also where the "It is all totally scripted" claims fall flat - manipulative editing is cheap, but scriptwriters aren't, and even poor quality actors (who could follow a script) are a lot more expensive than the people who sign up for these things (who probably couldn't).

I get why they are appealing for networks, since the cost to produce them is significantly lower than a scripted show. I just don't get why anybody actually wants to watch them.

[Thufir]

I did say "subconsciously".

Sure, and I still don't buy it. They're going to those places anyway becuse those are the places they like to go regardless of what activities they may partake in while there. For that matter, the fact those are the busiest parts of the park clearly indicates that they're popular with a lot of people for presumably many different reasons.
If you wanted evidence of the subconscious desire to demonstrate their coupliness which you're suggesting, you'd want to compare the frequency of PDAs between couples (or the same couple at different times) in the same place but with varying numbers of other people around.

[Lord Joeltion]

They probably don't notice the contradictions, because when they're doing it themselves it's *different* from when other people do it.
Well, let's just say it's very hard for me to picture a person in my head having that kind of obvious oversights and not feel at least ashamed.


Hey, now just as you have the right to make out with your gf in the middle of the street or in the bus making me uncomfortable I have the right to stare and make you uncomfortable.
Ok. I'm just saying, you will feel more uncomfortable than me because I'm simply too busy to pay attention to strangers. So, joke's on you :smalltongue:

But that's not what I meant to say. All I'm saying is that "making somebody else uncomfortable" always goes both ways; but to third parties (people who aren't ogling or feeling playful), the one who ogles is the creepiest of them. Why? Beats me, for some reason voyeurism generally has worse publicity than promiscuity.


Do you want to be able to make out with your loved one without having to deal with people being creepy about it? Well, do it in private.
http://i.imgur.com/FHS4VBd.png


I remember one documentary on this from PBS Nova, I think. They were looking at where in a small downtown park couples would go. They discovered that rather than finding the secluded areas, couples showed their affection in the busiest locations. They conclude that couples subconsciously wanted to show the rest of the community that they were indeed a couple. Perhaps a behaviour we inherited from when we lived in small tribes.
Did they mention that people also generally pay less attention to their surroundings on busier places? That's why pickpocket doesn't happen on lonely streets. Also, people generally is more reserved when there is few people than when they are in the middle of a crowd. Paradoxically, crowds tend to make a more private space than a waiting room or a park.

[The Ari-tificer]

Something I don't understand is why TV here in America sucks, while other countries' television (e.g. Doctor Who, Sherlock, most animes) are really good.

[sktarq]

Something I don't understand is why TV here in America sucks, while other countries' television (e.g. Doctor Who, Sherlock, most animes) are really good.

in part because the US gets unrepresentative sample of other nations TV. It is generally the best of British or Japanese TV that makes it across. Thus most of what an American sees of foreign TV is of good or better quality. This can quickly become "The Brits/Japanese/Swedes have better TV" because the utter horrid stuff remains hidden. I mean look up some of the Japanese game shows.

That said there some basis since we Yanks have SO MANY channels which means that major focus of time and effort (which have a better chance of being good) are more rare as a percentage of total work produced.

But there are reasons why shows like CSI (for a few years), House, etc are common American exports to other places too. Which probably makes US TV seem far better than it is to a non-American audience.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Something I don't understand is why TV here in America sucks, while other countries' television (e.g. Doctor Who, Sherlock, most animes) are really good.

Because "here" (regardless of where "here" is) only gets the good product from abroad, while having to deal with Sturgeon's Law for everything local. Growing up, I thought that the TV produced in my country was terrible compared to what the US produced... until I realised that only the most famous and successful TV series produced in the US were imported.

GW

[ve4grm]

Stuff that I don't understand...

1. Stoichiometry. I did fine in high school chemistry until we got to this chapter. No matter how many times it was explained to me, I was unable to wrap my brain around it. I almost had it when my dad (who used to major in chemistry in college) explained it to me better than the teacher did, but I still couldn't keep that understanding in my mind. I failed that section hard, and it took everything I had to battle my grade back up to a C by the end of the quarter.


Stoichiometry is a NP-problem. That means it is not easy to solve (except for restricted cases), so don't be surprised you find it difficult. It is chemistry's version of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Ooh, here's one I can help with!

At its simplest, Stoichiometry is just algebra, and finding lowest common multiples. If you have X amount of oxygen, and Y amount of hydrogen, how much water do you get? X + Y = Z, solve for Z.

Where it gets tricky is that molecules have defined amounts of atoms that they need. So for the same example:

Oxygen comes in O2, so you get 2 atoms of O from it.
Same thing with Hydrogen, H2.

1 molecule of O2 + 1 molecule of H2 = H + H + O + O
This can be combined into H2O, but we have an extra O left over! What we actually need is 1/2 molecule of O2, which would give us a single O atom.

1/2 O2 + 1 H2 = 1 H2O

But that's silly. You can't have half a molecule. So it's lowest common multiple time. Double the recipe!

1 O2 + 2 H2 = 2 H2O

It can get a lot more complicated, but this is the basis of everything.

---
The other part of stoichiometry is mass-based. But all that is is multiplying the equations you got above by their density. So if you know how much water a molecule of oxygen can produce, you can figure out how much a pound of it will produce.

If you actually needed to learn it, I'm sure I could teach you. But for a forum post, this will have to do. :smallsmile:

[shawnhcorey]

Ooh, here's one I can help with!

At its simplest, Stoichiometry is just algebra,...

At its simplest. But it is a NP-problem, so at its hardest, it's trial & error.

[ve4grm]

At its simplest. But it is a NP-problem, so at its hardest, it's trial & error.

I mean, sure, but we're talking high school chemistry, where I don't think it quite gets to NP level. :-P

It can definitely be tricky to wrap your mind around, though, especially if your teacher isn't great at explaining it.

[shawnhcorey]

I mean, sure, but we're talking high school chemistry, where I don't think it quite gets to NP level. :-P

It can definitely be tricky to wrap your mind around, though, especially if your teacher isn't great at explaining it.

They have difficulty at explaining it because they themselves don't fully understand it.

[ve4grm]

They have difficulty at explaining it because they themselves don't fully understand it.

Fair enough! :smallsmile:

[2D8HP]

...Also, I hate sports.

But how about fan-fictions?
:biggrin:
My first and only laugh of the day (so far) was upon seeing "Also I hate sports" Thank you Eldan!

Anyway, from another thread I've learned that I really don't get Jungian archetypes and non-materialist philosophy at all.

Nor do I get pizza specials.

Have you read my thoughts on gender and the alignment of Vaarsuvius?

And sarcasm, what's that about anyway?
Why don't people just say what they mean?

Also, I hate bluetext.

[Aedilred]

Something I don't understand is why TV here in America sucks, while other countries' television (e.g. Doctor Who, Sherlock, most animes) are really good.


in part because the US gets unrepresentative sample of other nations TV.
This is accurate. The real junk doesn't tend to get exported, so you generally get the idea that foreign TV is better than yours because you're only seeing the cream of it, no matter where you live.

There are exceptions. For many years, the volume of television content produced for the US market rather than the British one meant we did import a lot of crap from the US, and led us to the conclusion that US TV was terrible. Which, to be fair, it was, but then so was ours. We just had less of it. That started to change about twenty years ago with the growth of long-form drama shows like The Sopranos, The West Wing, and the widening of the availability of these shows to audiences beyond those who could afford satellite TV - which has led to a revolution in our thinking about American TV: the assumption now is that, like the converse, they produce better stuff than we do.



1- People who spit in the street, why do why people spit on the street? It's such a horrible habit that I see so many random pedestrians just spiting on the street as if it was something normal and no one besides me batting an eye or calling then out on their horrible behavior. Why? In my 24 years of existence I never felt the need... The urge to do that, why do people feel that they need to? Is there a thing I'm not getting?
It is a pretty filthy habit. The key word there being "habit", I think. Every now and again you need to spit something out and there just isn't another option, but even then, try to do it discreetly. But the constant hawk-spit in the middle of the pavement that you see in some countries (China was particularly bad for it, I recall) is very unpleasant. If you find yourself needing to spit that often, you're either ill or doing something wrong - and even then, try to do it more privately, please.


2- Public displays of affection, it's so rude and inappropriate, I'm not a prude or anything but why don't keep private actions, you know, private?
Why is it rude? Also, any time anyone starts a sentence with "I'm not a prude or anything..." it gives rather the opposite impression.

Full-on heavy petting (or more) is something definitely better kept to a private environment. But there is a scale and I don't see anything wrong with the display of affection in public up to a point. Often what PDAs amount to is a spontaneous display of affection that happens to be in public. When it's deliberate and being seen is the point, that's... annoyingly smug, if nothing else, but the assumption that all PDAs are for the purpose of exhibitionism is to misunderstand people.

3- People who work in the career advice field, I can't help but think they were so in doubt about their own career that they were unable to move on and decided to just advise others in something they kind of failed at, they felt they couldn't have to choose a real career so they decided to work with careers instead.
Again we come back to the judgmental thing. While it's true that I suspect not many children grow up wanting to be a career advisor, that's the same for almost all jobs. At the end of the day people have to earn a living. There are worse things they could be doing - more useless, less moral, less profitable. It seems like a strange thing to have a problem with.

And I'm sure there are some people who genuinely want to help others in their careers and really get something out of working in that field. I've met some people who certainly gave a good impression of it if not.



2. The appeal of "reality" television. I don't know what to say about this, I just don't get why so many people like to watch other people being jerks to each other in pursuit of a prize and becoming D-list celebrities.
It depends what one means by "reality TV". It's a huge genre and there are probably a number of shows or formats within it that don't attract the same opprobium.

Shows like Survivor and Big Brother started out with firstly the faux-psychology-experiment gimmick, and novelty value. Over time they have acquired an inertia (although they're not immune from cancellation). Most other shows have something similar to hook people into watching at first, and rely on water-cooler interest and memetic value to sustain an audience.

Plus, as someone has already said, they're generally really cheap to make. Better to make a reality show that nobody watches than an expensive drama that nobody watches.

[A.A.King]

I'm totally with you when it comes to PDA. I would argue that anything you wouldn't do to a relative (obviously I am assuming here that you're a normal person and not say someone who is currently trying to keep the royal bloodline pure for the next generation) is something you shouldn't really do in public. The polite and proper way to behave outside is in such a way that you blend easy with the crowed. Everybody who's outside has their own life to live and they don't want to take notice of yours, it's the same reason you should keep your arguments to yourself. If you do something that makes you stand out (like making out for half an hour, or even for just a few minuts) I will simply assume you're doing it for the attention and judge you accordingly.

That is the thing of course about the public space. You can do what you want outside (as long as it is legal) and nobody can stop (nor should they try too) but some of the things people can do outside is watch and judge others. If you don't want somebody to watch what you're doing, do it somewhere they can't watch it.

[Leecros]

Shows like Survivor and Big Brother started out with firstly the faux-psychology-experiment gimmick, and novelty value.

I enjoyed the first few seasons of Survivor and Big Brother. After that, it became about the drama and how to stir it up. The host of Survivor is super notorious for this. Often at "Tribal Council", he'll bring something up that was supposed to be private just to get the drama going.




1- People who spit in the street, why do why people spit on the street? It's such a horrible habit that I see so many random pedestrians just spiting on the street as if it was something normal and no one besides me batting an eye or calling then out on their horrible behavior. Why? In my 24 years of existence I never felt the need... The urge to do that, why do people feel that they need to? Is there a thing I'm not getting?


I got triggered so badly one day. i was out to eat with my family and the restaurant that we were eating at had their entire front redone. New Sidewalks, new parking lot, the works. When i say they just had it done...i mean they just did it the night before.

Anyway, we're eating and it's a busy night and lots of people are coming and going. Then a guy and his group of friends come around the corner...probably not even 20 years old. They open the door and this guy makes the snottiest, messiest sound that i could imagine and spat right in front of the door, right in the middle of the brand new sidewalk, right where everyone was going to be walking.I don't think he did it on purpose. It's not like he laughed about it afterwards, but I got so irritated at it that if i was not an introverted antisocial person who fears any kind of social interaction. I would have probably have said something.


Here's something that I'll never understand. Why do people get so angry at multiplayer gaming?I get it...in cases where there's something actually on the line like say you were playing a ranked game of League of Legends, but even then there's no reason to yell and scream at your opponents or teammates. Especially when there's nothing on the line...There's no reason to get angry. If things don't go your way, then sit back and try again next time. However, i've been yelled at ,screamed at, reported for cheating, told to kill myself. It's absolutely absurd how angry people get over a video game. Then you get on the forums and complain about all the toxicity within a community and you often just get told to toughen up and get over it. That's...not the kind of attitude that leads to a positive conclusion.

In my opinion, If gaming wants to put itself up there with other sports, then there really needs to be some sort of sportsmanship conduct in any multiplayer game. I think part of the problem is that many of the people playing video games don't really get the opportunity or have to learn what proper sportsmanship is and what it means. All they know is how to get angry and yell at people who beat them.

[GolemsVoice]

Here's something that I'll never understand. Why do people get so angry at multiplayer gaming?I get it...in cases where there's something actually on the line like say you were playing a ranked game of League of Legends, but even then there's no reason to yell and scream at your opponents or teammates. Especially when there's nothing on the line...There's no reason to get angry. If things don't go your way, then sit back and try again next time. However, i've been yelled at ,screamed at, reported for cheating, told to kill myself. It's absolutely absurd how angry people get over a video game. Then you get on the forums and complain about all the toxicity within a community and you often just get told to toughen up and get over it. That's...not the kind of attitude that leads to a positive conclusion.

In my opinion, If gaming wants to put itself up there with other sports, then there really needs to be some sort of sportsmanship conduct in any multiplayer game. I think part of the problem is that many of the people playing video games don't really get the opportunity or have to learn what proper sportsmanship is and what it means. All they know is how to get angry and yell at people who beat them.

Frustration. I am generally a polite guy, even if I have somewhat of a temper, but I lose it sometimes. Not on voice, though, and I never actually communicate this to my teammates, but it happens. If you get killed a lot, maybe even in ways which seem unfair, or embarrasing, and/or you feel that your teammates are just that incompetent, it build up a mighty feeling of powerlessness. And sometimes you just want to vent that.

Then there's the fact that sometimes, the players aren't exactly mature, emotionally or simply age-wise. To a certain point, I guess, it's a self-enforcing circle, because people might even feel like it's expected, just a thing you do when playing, say, CoD, and so people do it, and so it's expected...

Also, obviously, internet anonymity, and almost total lack of enforcement. Note that I'm not defending this kind of behaviour, just explaining it.

Last but not least, if you look at popular sports, like soccer, there's a lot of rudeness going on, both during and after the game, kept in check mainly by the presence of the referee and maybe the audience. Now, the FANS however....

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If it's spitting in the street or swallowing a huge chuck of phlegm, I'll spit every time. I try to do it as out of the way as possible, but out it goes.

I know a guy who has this as a pet peeve. He organizes water sports specific training for young people following an education to become sports instructors/organizers/professionals, and he generally is of the opinion that most of them aren't professional or motivated enough to make it in sports. This is coming from a man who was educated as a musician himself and then fought his way into the field, so there's probably some truth to his ideas on how to handle a career like that. But spitting on the ground is his main pet peeve. He'll mention it in his "big" start of the day speech, and he's just so ashamed when he's talking to someone from the sailing club who's grounds we're on and he sees one of the students sitting there spitting on the ground. So I guess my point is: know that each and every one of you ground spitters have a mortal enemy out there somewhere. A mortal enemy who's a cool dude overall and good at what he does, but still.

Myself, I'll do it occasionally, on those moments when you're plowing along with a dry mouth and no drinking water in the foreseeable future, and there's nobody around whom I wouldn't want to have a bad image of me.

[Westhart]

Well, this one may take me to the stake, but here goes:
Anime, particularly people's obsession with it... Why? :smallconfused:

[Lettuce]

Spitting in the streets: I have to say that I 100% agree with OP on this one-- it's icky and gross and spreads germs. To all of you people who post about why you do it: Yes, the reasons for needing to spit are absolutely quite fair, but-- why do you not carry a packet of tissues with you, that you can spit into if you need to? It's like not covering your mouth when you cough, except ten times worse!

PDA: Eh, I don't have problems with 'em, as long as no one's getting undressed. No one's forcing me to watch them, and it obviously means something to them, so... sure, why not, I guess. *shrugs* Generally I have something else to be doing anyway-- walking somewhere, shopping, or sitting and reading-- so by and large no one person stays on my radar for very long. Depending on how prudish you are, you could say that I'm a contributor myself: my husband and I walk holding hands when we're out together sometimes (although this is somewhat common where I live), and we will sometimes give each other quick kisses (e.g. like if he's leaving me at the table to go order food at the local pub), but that's about it. I'd find doing a full make-out session in front of other people pretty awkward, but hey, to each their own.

Career Advisors: O...kayyyy.... that's kind of a sweeping assumption without any data provided to back it up. :smallconfused: Where does this broad generalization come from, and if it indeed comes from nowhere, why entertain it and be mistaken? I guess you could say I don't understand this thing-you-don't-understand!

- - -

Responding to the person above me about anime, I would guess that it's for the same reason a person might like "movies" or "music"-- the art style appeals to them and they've liked both content and delivery of the stories they've watched. Liking "anime" is really broad thing, so it's hard to pinpoint anything specific that's the sole appeal. Slightly different tropes or different cultural undertones/values? Different narrative techniques and different tones mixed and struck withing a series? Soundtracks and instrumentation slightly different and utilized differently than in western media? *shrug* And I imagine that the reasons that people like specific genres within it vary depending on what the genre in question is, the same as it would in movies/books/music/etc.

- - -

My thing that I don't brain: Why does the "insert" key still exist on the keyboard? What's it used for in this day and age? I mean-- I obviously know what it's LITERALLY used for, but... why would anyone want to messily overwrite stuff they're typing? I'm genuinely curious about what use people have for it since I'd be much happier if it were gone, seeing as I seem to have this mildly frustrating habit of not realizing I've accidentally pressed it at some point (it's right next to one of the arrow keys on my keyboard) until I've gone and typed half a sentence over something else. :smalltongue:

My other thing that I don't brain: Some people using terms like 'nerd' or 'geek' as a put-down. The concept of intelligence and/or studiousness being objectionable traits is honestly pretty baffling to me. My best guess is 'jealousy', but I get the feeling that it has to be more than that-- it's far more seldom that I seem to hear people making fun of people for being too pretty or athletic or what-have-you.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well, this one may take me to the stake, [b]ut here goes:
Anime, particularly people's obsession with it... Why? :smallconfused:

The story structure and/or its tropes and/or its imagery appeals to them, presumably. I.e. "they like it". I myself quite enjoyed Ranma 1/2 when I was younger, even if I simply can't get into anime anymore.


Career Advisors: O...kayyyy.... that's kind of a sweeping assumption without any data provided to back it up. :smallconfused: Where does this broad generalization come from, and if it indeed comes from nowhere, why entertain it and be mistaken? I guess you could say I don't understand this thing-you-don't-understand!

Even a cursory examination of other threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?530014-Jobs-people-do-willing-that-I-will-never-understand) started by The Eye will tell you that he is an uncommonly judgmental (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?527946-Why-are-people-friends-with-annoying-people) individual quick to make sweeping generalisations of entire professions. Also, he hates sports (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?531549-How-can-someone-be-fit-without-going-to-the-gym-Also-I-hate-sports).

In short, "it's him, not you".


My thing that I don't brain: Why does the "insert" key still exist on the keyboard? What's it used for in this day and age? I mean-- I obviously know what it's LITERALLY used for, but... why would anyone want to messily overwrite stuff they're typing? I'm genuinely curious about what use people have for it since I'd be much happier if it were gone, seeing as I seem to have this mildly frustrating habit of not realizing I've accidentally pressed it at some point (it's right next to one of the arrow keys on my keyboard) until I've gone and typed half a sentence over something else. :smalltongue:

Some of us still have to deal with Fixed Width files where each field is not delimited by commas as in a csv but by establishing that each field must be a pre-arranged length. When editing such files, insert is a great way to ensure you don't break them.

But yes, thankfully, they are dying out and the insert key is increasingly obsolete.


My other thing that I don't brain: Some people using terms like 'nerd' or 'geek' as a put-down. The concept of intelligence and/or studiousness being objectionable traits is honestly pretty baffling to me. My best guess is 'jealousy', but I get the feeling that it has to be more than that-- it's far more seldom that I seem to hear people making fun of people for being too pretty or athletic or what-have-you.

I believe you misunderstand the intention behind the insult. It is not accusing them of being smart (presumably, anyone who makes "nerd" an insulting remark puts little stock on knowledge) so much as remarking on the negative stereotypes associated with the labels - usually lack of social graces. They are not saying that the individual is too intelligent as much as they are saying that "your knowledge of that area demonstrates you are incapable of having friends/getting laid/etc".

As to the reason they are insulting them? Reasons will vary, of course, but it probably is a form of tribalism ("you are an outsider to my group").

Grey Wolf

[Lettuce]

Some of us still have to deal with Fixed Width files where each field is not delimited by commas as in a csv but by establishing that each field must be a pre-arranged length. When editing such files, insert is a great way to ensure you don't break them.

But yes, thankfully, they are dying out and the insert key is increasingly obsolete.

Ah-ha! I knew there had to be a reason; thank you. I guess I'm lucky that I haven't had the 'privilege' of interacting with any such program!


I believe you misunderstand the intention behind the insult. It is not accusing them of being smart (presumably, anyone who makes "nerd" and insulting remark puts little stock on knowledge) so much as remarking on the negative stereotypes associated with the labels - usually lack of social graces. They are not saying that the individual is too intelligent as much as they are saying that "your knowledge of that area demonstrates you are incapable of having friends/getting laid/etc".

As to the reason they are insulting them? Reasons will vary, of course, but it probably is a form of tribalism ("you are an outsider to my group").

Grey Wolf

Huh... so to put it another way, it's due to (erroneously) grouping several traits together and making an over-generalization that if you have one trait in that group, then you must have all of them? That's an interesting way of looking at it! And you're right-- I had definitely thought that they were suggesting that being smart was itself a negative trait, somehow. Your explanation is definitely more brain-able.

[ve4grm]

Here's something that I'll never understand. Why do people get so angry at multiplayer gaming?I get it...in cases where there's something actually on the line like say you were playing a ranked game of League of Legends, but even then there's no reason to yell and scream at your opponents or teammates. Especially when there's nothing on the line...There's no reason to get angry. If things don't go your way, then sit back and try again next time. However, i've been yelled at ,screamed at, reported for cheating, told to kill myself. It's absolutely absurd how angry people get over a video game. Then you get on the forums and complain about all the toxicity within a community and you often just get told to toughen up and get over it. That's...not the kind of attitude that leads to a positive conclusion.

In my opinion, If gaming wants to put itself up there with other sports, then there really needs to be some sort of sportsmanship conduct in any multiplayer game. I think part of the problem is that many of the people playing video games don't really get the opportunity or have to learn what proper sportsmanship is and what it means. All they know is how to get angry and yell at people who beat them.


Frustration. I am generally a polite guy, even if I have somewhat of a temper, but I lose it sometimes. Not on voice, though, and I never actually communicate this to my teammates, but it happens. If you get killed a lot, maybe even in ways which seem unfair, or embarrasing, and/or you feel that your teammates are just that incompetent, it build up a mighty feeling of powerlessness. And sometimes you just want to vent that.

Then there's the fact that sometimes, the players aren't exactly mature, emotionally or simply age-wise. To a certain point, I guess, it's a self-enforcing circle, because people might even feel like it's expected, just a thing you do when playing, say, CoD, and so people do it, and so it's expected...

Also, obviously, internet anonymity, and almost total lack of enforcement. Note that I'm not defending this kind of behaviour, just explaining it.

Last but not least, if you look at popular sports, like soccer, there's a lot of rudeness going on, both during and after the game, kept in check mainly by the presence of the referee and maybe the audience. Now, the FANS however....

To put it more succinctly, refer to John Gabriel's Greater Internet F***wad Theory (https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19).



Huh... so to put it another way, it's due to (erroneously) grouping several traits together and making an over-generalization that if you have one trait in that group, then you must have all of them? That's an interesting way of looking at it! And you're right-- I had definitely thought that they were suggesting that being smart was itself a negative trait, somehow. Your explanation is definitely more brain-able.

There is some of that as well, though. Especially here in North America, but to an extent everywhere, there is an anti-intellectual subculture that has been ongoing since... the 80s maybe?

You can see this represented in the denial of scientific fact, cuts of funding for higher education and other such things.

But it still tends to boil down to an "Us vs Them" thing. We aren't nerds, they are, therefore being a nerd is inherently bad!
(To be honest with ourselves, we tend to do the same to Jocks, Preps, Goths, whatever other clique we aren't.)

[GolemsVoice]

Well, this one may take me to the stake, nut here goes:
Anime, particularly people's obsession with it... Why? :smallconfused:

With anime, I suspect part of it is the same as with role-playing games and video games. There was (and to some extent still is) a certain social stigma attached to liking "nerdy" things, as we are discussing right now. While anime has some mainstream appeal, like RPGs and video games, many people still remember real or imagined shaming, and thus get overzealous in response. Also, a lot of anime is still not readily available outside of Japan (it's much better now, as far as I know, though), so to get into anime outside of the mainstream, you probably have to bring some zealousness from the get go.

Also, as Grey Wolf said, most people just like it, and as with any fandom, some make an obsession out of it.

[ve4grm]

Well, this one may take me to the stake, nut here goes:
Anime, particularly people's obsession with it... Why? :smallconfused:

Part of it is that the tropes and style of it is very different from western media. It's similar to how some people will become obsessed with K-pop, or Nordic metal music. Or the British version of the Office. Or Thai food. Really anything that's interesting, and different from what's commonly available.

(Note, this is also why many of those same folks will shun western adaptations of the same. The writers and directors used the tropes and styles familiar to them, which are different from the styles the fanbase likes. Again, see The Office.)

There's also a certain amount of novelty involved in being a fan of something unusual, especially from a different culture. Some people (obviously not the majority, but some of the obsessives) take that novelty and decide it's a superiority, something that makes them unique, and they use it to define themselves. You can see similar in any niche fandom. Like D&D for instance. :smalltongue:

[Westhart]

Alright, maybe I should have said why they try to get everyone else to watch it even when they don't want to? More of a why is no not an answer?

You can see similar in any niche fandom. Like D&D for instance. :smalltongue:

:smallbiggrin:

[golentan]

Alright, maybe I should have said why they try to get everyone else to watch it even when they don't want to? More of a why is no not an answer?


:smallbiggrin:

Often because people hear anime and think of maybe one or two genres, when it has a LOT of genres and sub-niches, and most shows have a complete plot of varying degrees of originality and genre convention. Saying "I don't like anime" to an anime fan is usually perceived as a bit like saying "not a big fan of chinese food" to a foodie on a trip to Beijing when you've only had the Panda Express at the mall. I'm with you on Panda, but c'mon, have a bite of this mushroom noodle soup and tell me it isn't the best damn mushroom soup you've ever tasted, we could eat a different delicacy from a different world class chef every meal and die comfortably of old age before experiencing a tenth of what's on offer!

[ve4grm]

Alright, maybe I should have said why they try to get everyone else to watch it even when they don't want to? More of a why is no not an answer?


:smallbiggrin:

Eh, again there's similar in any fandom. Passion.

They love the thing, and they think you would too. If you maybe just gave it a chance! No, more of a chance than that! No, I swear you'll like this one! Argh, why don't you like this one??!!?!?

People want to share their passions with people. See the Rick and Morty discussion above this in the thread. Some folks like it, some don't, and some of those who love it have a hard time seeing why people might not.

I think everyone does it to a certain extent, with different things. Bands, shows, sports, books, whatever. Some are more... passionate than others. :smallsmile:


Often because people hear anime and think of maybe one or two genres, when it has a LOT of genres and sub-niches, and most shows have a complete plot of varying degrees of originality and genre convention. Saying "I don't like anime" to an anime fan is usually perceived as a bit like saying "not a big fan of chinese food" to a foodie on a trip to Beijing when you've only had the Panda Express at the mall. I'm with you on Panda, but c'mon, have a bite of this mushroom noodle soup and tell me it isn't the best damn mushroom soup you've ever tasted, we could eat a different delicacy from a different world class chef every meal and die comfortably of old age before experiencing a tenth of what's on offer!

There is this, too. Anime isn't a genre in itself, and most people could probably find something they liked if they tried.

But for some folks, that would take a LOT of effort they don't have time for.

For example, I'd probably be able to find some horror movies I like, or hardcore metal, or whatever. But sifting through it to find that is a tiring thought.

[Westhart]

Often because people hear anime and think of maybe one or two genres, when it has a LOT of genres and sub-niches, and most shows have a complete plot of varying degrees of originality and genre convention. Saying "I don't like anime" to an anime fan is usually perceived as a bit like saying "not a big fan of chinese food" to a foodie on a trip to Beijing when you've only had the Panda Express at the mall. I'm with you on Panda, but c'mon, have a bite of this mushroom noodle soup and tell me it isn't the best damn mushroom soup you've ever tasted, we could eat a different delicacy from a different world class chef every meal and die comfortably of old age before experiencing a tenth of what's on offer!
Hmm, good point...

Eh, again there's similar in any fandom. Passion.

They love the thing, and they think you would too. If you maybe just gave it a chance! No, more of a chance than that! No, I swear you'll like this one! Argh, why don't you like this one??!!?!?

People want to share their passions with people. See the Rick and Morty discussion above this in the thread. Some folks like it, some don't, and some of those who love it have a hard time seeing why people might not.

I think everyone does it to a certain extent, with different things. Bands, shows, sports, books, whatever. Some are more... passionate than others. :smallsmile:



There is this, too. Anime isn't a genre in itself, and most people could probably find something they liked if they tried.

But for some folks, that would take a LOT of effort they don't have time for.

For example, I'd probably be able to find some horror movies I like, or hardcore metal, or whatever. But sifting through it to find that is a tiring thought.

Well, maybe I should give anime (another) try... not toturo this time though XD

[Eldan]

Well, this one may take me to the stake, but here goes:
Anime, particularly people's obsession with it... Why? :smallconfused:

For me, at least? I find most Anime utter trash, even what is recommended to me in threads. But that goes for most media, really. However, every so often, there is Anime that just satisfies things I like that I can't find anywhere else. Let's see.

1) Genre. There is a good amount of nerdy genres in Anime. Cyberpunk, Sword and Sorcery, Sci-Fi, Noir and a lot of other genres really don't get much content outside of anime.

2) Plot. Now, American TV shows have discovered the long-form story telling again, but for a long time, if you wanted a continuous story in a TV show, you went with Anime. And a lot of it is quite well told.

3) Art. A lot of anime is just damn beautiful.

Now, this is mostly anime written for older teens and adults, and mostly shorter series. All the stuff I actually (still)* like is in there.

*Still because I quite liked Naruto when the first few seasons came out. I imagine I would hate it now. And as a kid I watched a lot of those fairy tale animes that were imported for children's TV.


What I'll specifically never get about Anime is the humour. I don't think any anime has ever made me laugh. Whether it was a specific comedy anime or just a one-off joke, to me it's all either gigantic cringe or just head-scratching.

Also, yeah, the "not liking anime thing"... most commonly, if someone says they don't like anime, what they mean is "I've seen episodes of both Dragonball and Naruto, it's all childish crap". Two shows with mainstream appeal, in broadly the same genre aimed at teenagers, when there's anime of every genre and age group you can think of.

[Westhart]

For me, at least? I find most Anime utter trash, even what is recommended to me in threads. But that goes for most media, really. However, every so often, there is Anime that just satisfies things I like that I can't find anywhere else. Let's see.

1) Genre. There is a good amount of nerdy genres in Anime. Cyberpunk, Sword and Sorcery, Sci-Fi, Noir and a lot of other genres really don't get much content outside of anime.

2) Plot. Now, American TV shows have discovered the long-form story telling again, but for a long time, if you wanted a continuous story in a TV show, you went with Anime. And a lot of it is quite well told.

3) Art. A lot of anime is just damn beautiful.

Now, this is mostly anime written for older teens and adults, and mostly shorter series. All the stuff I actually (still)* like is in there.

*Still because I quite liked Naruto when the first few seasons came out. I imagine I would hate it now. And as a kid I watched a lot of those fairy tale animes that were imported for children's TV.

I hate naruto, one of the ones I have watched (partially)


What I'll specifically never get about Anime is the humour. I don't think any anime has ever made me laugh. Whether it was a specific comedy anime or just a one-off joke, to me it's all either gigantic cringe or just head-scratching.

Also, yeah, the "not liking anime thing"... most commonly, if someone says they don't like anime, what they mean is "I've seen episodes of both Dragonball and Naruto, it's all childish crap". Two shows with mainstream appeal, in broadly the same genre aimed at teenagers, when there's anime of every genre and age group you can think of.
Let's see: an episode of RWBY, naruto, and all of toturo...

[AuthorGirl]

"The thing is that you guys stereotype and repress other ideologies and that's bad."

. . . I think my brain is breaking. Somebody already pointed out that it doesn't make sense how people can function as hypocrites - here's my example of that.

[Lord Joeltion]

Everybody who's outside has their own life to live and they don't want to take notice of yours, it's the same reason you should keep your arguments to yourself. If you do something that makes you stand out (like making out for half an hour, or even for just a few minuts) I will simply assume you're doing it for the attention and judge you accordingly.
Ugh, I'm not trying to point fingers or accusing you or anything; but this is exactly the argument people use on girls who dress "to stand out", or simply use a skirt "way too short". Which is a totally disgusting way to rationalize things.

I'm fine if you dislike "having to watch PDA" (nobody ever pointed a gun, I assume; and you could always simply mind your own business); but I totally hate the kind of reasoning supporting your argument. People should do as they please in the street or in their houses, as long they aren't invading/threatening anything that is personal to another being (i.e.: "do as much PDA, but please don't traumatize my kids or rub against my shoulder").


Here's something that I'll never understand. Why do people get so angry at multiplayer gaming?
In addition to the previous answers; I just want to point out the (kinda) obvious: Games want to be engaging. A game whose people aren't engaged with, is never a good game. From the perspective of the game designer, the actual feeling that the game triggers may or may not relevant; but a "happy player" is always one that feels engaged with the gameplay.

So, while game design doesn't actually foment hating or being angry at the game; part of GD is certainly creating the most engaging environment. In a competitive game, it's only natural the most common form of engagement is Hate, Despise and Anger. It's a game about destroying things, after all.

Successful game about blowing stuff up + strong feelings/engagement = PEEPLFKNPWNUONL1NEBCH!!!!!


Well, this one may take me to the stake, but here goes:
Anime, particularly people's obsession with it... Why? :smallconfused:
Because the culture is very different. I could speak a lot about what makes anime its own thing; but in reality it all reduces to the cultural differences. Japanese and Asians in general share a particular form of humor (not talking about comedy). For instance, some months ago I got really hooked by a DORAMA (Japanese "drama" or soup-opera). It was a romantic comedy. Now, I basically never in my life would have watched a romantic series; or any kind of soup-opera. But the show was really witty, fun, and the characters were quirky enough for be truly bizarre; yet realistic enough to appear very human and relatable. A "westernalized" version of the same series I would have probably found not worth my time. I know, because the plot was pretty standard too. :smallbiggrin:


My other thing that I don't brain: Some people using terms like 'nerd' or 'geek' as a put-down. The concept of intelligence and/or studiousness being objectionable traits is honestly pretty baffling to me. My best guess is 'jealousy', but I get the feeling that it has to be more than that-- it's far more seldom that I seem to hear people making fun of people for being too pretty or athletic or what-have-you.
Depending on the context, the insult might be referring to something related but not necessarily the same or part of the actual meaning of the word. Like when people say "don't be a pussycat". They don't mean cats, or women, or anything sexual. It's the implied connotation of weakness that really matters*. It's like an euphemism, only for insults.

Now, whether that connotation is true or based on personal belief doesn't truly matters (from a linguistic POV). People convey meaning everyday, and while some are more unfortunate (racist slurs, sexist slurs); some others are more innocuous, like people using the word "nerd" when they mean something else, unrelated to being smart.

*I wanted to avoid such a sexist slur, but the other example involved "donkeys" and "holes", and I really don't know what would be worse using here.

[ve4grm]

I hate naruto, one of the ones I have watched (partially)

Ha, yeah, Naruto (and DragonBall, and others like those) have a very specific audience that they're trying to appeal to. Teen (and somewhat pre-teen) boys. They attract others as well, but if you aren't a teen boy, there's a good chance you won't enjoy it.


Let's see: an episode of RWBY, naruto, and all of toturo...

Yeah, not really the broadest of experience. This is like saying you don't like Western cartoons, when you've only seen She-Ra (awesome girls kicking butt), Thundercats (pre-teen male power fantasy) and Alvin and the Chipmunks (youth-focused).

The key, just like finding a movie you like, or a book you want to read, is finding the genres you enjoy. Do you want to find a good fantasy? Sci-Fi? Action? Do you want comedy? Slice of Life? Something darker?

I'm sure there would be something you'd enjoy, but go into it with your own preferences first, not those of other people.

[Velaryon]

Here's something that I'll never understand. Why do people get so angry at multiplayer gaming?I get it...in cases where there's something actually on the line like say you were playing a ranked game of League of Legends, but even then there's no reason to yell and scream at your opponents or teammates. Especially when there's nothing on the line...There's no reason to get angry. If things don't go your way, then sit back and try again next time. However, i've been yelled at ,screamed at, reported for cheating, told to kill myself. It's absolutely absurd how angry people get over a video game. Then you get on the forums and complain about all the toxicity within a community and you often just get told to toughen up and get over it. That's...not the kind of attitude that leads to a positive conclusion.

In my opinion, If gaming wants to put itself up there with other sports, then there really needs to be some sort of sportsmanship conduct in any multiplayer game. I think part of the problem is that many of the people playing video games don't really get the opportunity or have to learn what proper sportsmanship is and what it means. All they know is how to get angry and yell at people who beat them.

I may be totally off-base here, but I wonder if it has something to do with gamers having a less developed sense of team, for various reasons.

1. Gamers usually are playing in the solitude of their own home, connected to other players only via headset (if even that much). Many other players, not only on the opposing side but on their own team as well, are strangers that they will probably never meet in real life.

2. Regular team-based sports often have coaches, who coordinate strategies for the entire team, cultivate a sense of collective identity among their players, and give directions that most players understand are to be followed for the good of the entire team. Video gaming, to my knowledge, does not have this. I'm not sure about the esports scene because frankly I don't care, but most people playing a team-based game just for fun are no more coordinated than a dodgeball team in 2nd grade gym class.



Well, this one may take me to the stake, but here goes:
Anime, particularly people's obsession with it... Why? :smallconfused:

Well for one thing, there have always been people who enjoy foreign films. Anime is basically just foreign films, but in animated form. And sometimes more of a TV series than a movie, but you get my point.

Also, western countries still have a perception that animation is for children's entertainment, or at most for comedic shows (the Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, etc.). With a few exceptions (most of which are at least somewhat influenced by anime anyway), those who want a more dramatic show that's aimed at an age group over 10-12 years old don't have much other than anime to turn to. Also, with a very few exceptions, much of the art and animation of western cartoons is IMO really, really bad anymore.

For that matter, go back 20 years and there wasn't a whole lot of televised media at all that would appeal to fantasy or superhero fans. Sure, there was some televised sci-fi in the 90's like the various Star Treks and Babylon 5, but other than that you had Buffy in the late 90's, and not much else. Anime scratched the itch of someone who might be looking for something a bit more superhero-ish, or who wanted something more fantasy-based. We have more alternatives now, but anime has had a huge head start in terms of catching the interest of people who are more geek-minded in their entertainment.

Also, I'd argue that anime was helped along by the Japanese dominance of the video game industry in the 80's and 90's. When Nintendo and Sega ruled the gaming world, they gave Japanese culture an in to western markets that didn't previously exist.



Alright, maybe I should have said why they try to get everyone else to watch it even when they don't want to? More of a why is no not an answer?

This is not restricted to anime fans. Lots of people tend to push the things they like on others in hopes of finding a new fan they can gush about their passions with. Often times, it has the opposite effect, and makes that person hostile to the thing that they feel is being crammed down their throats. This is why I avoided anime for my teens and early 20's, why one of my friends refuses to ever read A Song of Ice and Fire, and so on.

[Peelee]

Yeah, not really the broadest of experience. This is like saying you don't like Western cartoons, when you've only seen She-Ra (awesome girls kicking butt), Thundercats (pre-teen male power fantasy) and Alvin and the Chipmunks (youth-focused).

OK, this is actually my biggest problem with anime. Or, more precisely with people who obsess over anime. There are so many different styles and different stories in different genres, and the only thread that holds any of it together is a generic art style. Virtually all of my friends are huge anime fans, and I've never understood it; they love almost all the anime they've seen, and will readily watch things based solely on the fact that they're anime. Now, I've nothing against anime. Some of my favorite movies are animes (I'm looking at you, Castle in the Sky). But I've never seen a reason to completely geek out over the whole damn style. Another of my favorite movies and one of my favorite shows are Western animation (I'm looking at you, Iron Giant and Futurama), and I'm not running out to find every Western animated show I can find. I just don't get it.

Oh, also, fan service. **** fan service. What a waste of creative ability. If you like that sort of thing, then what's wrong with just admitting it and watching hentai or something? There's been the occasional anime that I've really enjoyed, and then BAM! Pointless, gratuitous fan service. Completely takes me out of the story. Also I hate sports.

[Algeh]

My thing that I don't brain: Why does the "insert" key still exist on the keyboard? What's it used for in this day and age? I mean-- I obviously know what it's LITERALLY used for, but... why would anyone want to messily overwrite stuff they're typing? I'm genuinely curious about what use people have for it since I'd be much happier if it were gone, seeing as I seem to have this mildly frustrating habit of not realizing I've accidentally pressed it at some point (it's right next to one of the arrow keys on my keyboard) until I've gone and typed half a sentence over something else. :smalltongue:



I use the Insert key a lot when I'm copying and pasting something and tweaking it so I can send it out again, because a lot of the communications I need to send to my students are things like "Don't forget that Assessment #1 is coming up next week, on 09/15/17! [Long explanation of things about assessments.]" Next month, I can copy that, paste it, turn Insert on, and over-write the 1 with a 2, the 09/15 with 10/16 (or whatever) and go through the document generally making those kinds of changes (most of my changes are dates and occasionally times, so tend to be the same number of characters each time). I get annoyed when programs override my use of the Insert key (which newer versions of Word seem to).


Well, this one may take me to the stake, but here goes:
Anime, particularly people's obsession with it... Why? :smallconfused:

I got really into anime for a while, because until I understood the Japanese set of drama conventions, a lot of the plots seemed less formulaic and more surprising to me than the tv I was used to. After a while, I learned the typical genre conventions they were playing by and my interest in watching pretty much any random thing waned (this was way back before streaming services when people got their anime either as fansubs passed along by mailing tapes around, bought commercial tapes based on the cover art, or had to deal with whatever limited selection of tapes a local rental shop had, so my ability to choose what kind of anime to watch was limited by what people I knew had lying around), but at first it was just nice to have a fresh set of assumptions to work with.

[Draconi Redfir]

if you're going to be spitting out pghlem, carry some tissues with you and spit into that, then toss it into the nearest garbage can. easy, clean, and a thousand times less gross.

if you're spitting out saliva... dude... just swallow it, it's not going to hurt you.



As for what i would like to add:

People who Don't take their shoes off when they enter their home / someone else's home. Like dude, take those off, leave them at the door. You're getting dirt everywhere, no telling what you stepped in outside. n-no, don't put your feet up on the table / couch / bed! You're just making things worse! For cripes sake people just take off your shoes when you enter a home!

[A.A.King]

Ugh, I'm not trying to point fingers or accusing you or anything; but this is exactly the argument people use on girls who dress "to stand out", or simply use a skirt "way too short". Which is a totally disgusting way to rationalize things.

I'm fine if you dislike "having to watch PDA" (nobody ever pointed a gun, I assume; and you could always simply mind your own business); but I totally hate the kind of reasoning supporting your argument. People should do as they please in the street or in their houses, as long they aren't invading/threatening anything that is personal to another being (i.e.: "do as much PDA, but please don't traumatize my kids or rub against my shoulder").

The thing is something like don't traumatize my children doesn't work as a standard because it is way too subjective. I don't think that I, or anyone from my old elementary school would have been traumatized by seeing two peole.. created life so to speak. On the other hand Ned Flander's boys might just get traumatized if they saw a simple innocent kiss. The latter may be a fictional example but there are plenty of real world strict upbringings. Arguably a kid raised in the right culture could get traumatized by this girl of yours wearing a skirt, even if ut isn't too short as long as it shows some skin. The assumption that "potential to traumatize kids" is some kind of standard we can all understand and agree upon is just as wrong as the assumption we can agree upon what is and isn't moral behaviour.

Similarly, the idea that if there is no gun pointed at you then you don't have to watch it makes no sense. Take for example one if the general concensus on decent public behaviour: you don't go outside in the nude. Not everyone agrees with it but most people do and for now I will assume you are part of this general public. Would you tell me that if a man walked into bus nude and sat down in your line of sight, maybw not directly across from but it still a seat facing you that you could simply ignore him? That you could chose not to look at him and feel the same as if he wasn't there? What if this man started to... really enjoy his state of undress so to speak, could you ignore it still?

Maybe you can, maybe you have an iron will and an uncanny ability to reach a zen-like state that few have manage to master but surely you can see why others would not be able? Why a large part of the population, not just people sharing my original view, would not be able to simply ignore this man's pressence. We might be able to look away but that would not stop us from knowing he was there and it wouldn't stop his flaunting of society's conventions from ruining our bustrip.

If you can think of just one scenario where someone doing something they think is okay but you don't would be impossible for you to look away from and still feel as comfortable as you did before yo briefly noticed that occurance than you have to accept it's a silly thing to suggest. What can and can't be looked away from is just based on personal levels of comfort. I can't really understand people doing something that I am that uncomfortable with it andI bet you can't either (it's just that PDA isn't one of them).

What constitutes too short is up to personal opinion. I would argue most skirts are too short but that is only because I get cold very quickly (so it's the same argument I use against shorts), no moral judgement involved here. However, I would assume that you Joeltion have no problem with anyone oggling someone in short attire, you might find there justification to be disgusting but surely if you notice someone oggling you and you don't like it you can simply look away and mind your own bussiness. No one is pointing a gun at you. An oggler is neither threatening you nor invading personal space so they should do as they please.

[lio45]

1/2 O2 + 1 H2 = 1 H2O

But that's silly. You can't have half a molecule. So it's lowest common multiple time. Double the recipe!

1 O2 + 2 H2 = 2 H2O

Actually, the way we do it here, your last step wasn't needed, as the former recipe can be interpreted to be half a mole of O2 + one mole of H2 will give you one mole of H2O

[sktarq]

My thing that I don't brain: Why does the "insert" key still exist on the keyboard? What's it used for in this day and age? ...I've gone and typed half a sentence over something else. :smalltongue:
I find it very useful in certain database and excel spreadsheet type situations where there is a lots of copy and update with new information as replacements and the like. . . massively lowers my error count.



My other thing that I don't brain: Some people using terms like 'nerd' or 'geek' as a put-down. ...t's far more seldom that I seem to hear people making fun of people for being too pretty or athletic or what-have-you.

Also "nerds" were a lot more socially outcast before the rise of the the personal computer and its subsequent dominance in the entertainment and now social milieus. Thus they had less social capital to push back against being outcast. Further there were fewer extremely high status people who would have been associated with the term "nerd" it was when people like Bill Gates became incredibly rich and public known for his wealth that those "computer nerds" started to look like they may be able to have social status one day. For a similar idea look how quants moved into the finance system and became a major force in a field that was dominated by people who were known for their charisma, salesmanship, etc at most levels of the system....college athletics was actually seen as a huge plus for many companies because it "showed drive and competitive spirit" and probably an ability to BS over a few drinks.

So while people with nerd traits can get a lot more respect today the insult is part of a throwback to an earlier image of the nerd in society. Kinda like how cheerleaders are still often stereotypes as doing not much except hanging out with football team and being the "plastics" of their high school which may well have applied when the acrobatics teams still existed in the 70's but much less so after.

and the anti-intellectualism tradition has been waxing and waning in the US for MANY MANY years. It was seen a effete and European vs the manly frontier spirit back in one of its other heydays.



Alright, maybe I should have said why they try to get everyone else to watch it even when they don't want to? More of a why is no not an answer?:smallbiggrin:

Eh, again there's similar in any fandom. Passion.

They love the thing, and they think you would too. If you maybe just gave it a chance! No, more of a chance than that! No, I swear you'll like this one! Argh, why don't you like this one??!!?!?
....
There is this, too. Anime isn't a genre in itself, and most people could probably find something they liked if they tried.
.....

Well for one thing, there have always been people who enjoy foreign films. Anime is basically just foreign films, but in animated form. And sometimes more of a TV series than a movie, but you get my point.....
This is not restricted to anime fans. Lots of people tend to push the things they like on others in hopes of finding a new fan they can gush about their passions with. Often times, it has the opposite effect, and makes that person hostile to the thing that they feel is being crammed down their throats. This is why I avoided anime for my teens and early 20's, why one of my friends refuses to ever read A Song of Ice and Fire, and so on.

And this is where I'd disagree with a bunch of you. Sure there are people who really love opera or modernist classical music (myself) but the odds that they will be of the "no you must like this thing I like" is higher than just about any other obsessive about their hobby topic if that topic is Anime. Huge football fans (both types) generally don't try to get me to watch after I've said no. Heck huge sports fans don't keep trying to see if I like watching Jai Alai, skeet shooting, or field hockey if I don't watch sports. So there is something either about Anime, the kinds of people attracted to it, or the social norms associated with it that makes this behavior MORE COMMON than in many other fields. To some extent comics and manga fans (and the various overlaps between all three) seem rather similar and often come from the same social field so I guessing it is that. But anime/its fandom does have something about it.

Myself I know why I don't really like it- it has animation and words. . . and I find it really hard to like anything with both. Anime or Western. Doesn't stop people from trying. . . and I find it insulting

[2D8HP]

....For that matter, go back 20 years and there wasn't a whole lot of televised media at all that would appeal to fantasy or superhero fans. Sure, there was some televised sci-fi in the 90's like the various Star Treks and Babylon 5, but other than that you had Buffy in the late 90's, and not much else....


That's actually something I don't get.

I think there's some superhero stuff being broadcast now, but of other fantasy and science fiction shows being broadcast I know nothing.

"Back in the day", I could watch Babylon 5, Buffy, Doctor Who (on PBS), and Star Trek.

Now I can't watch anything like those shows that I know of. If they're being broadcast they're after my bedtime, or on cable which is NOT BROADCASTING (I hate the rise of cable so very much, TV was free dagnabbit! I WILL NEVER PAY FOR CABLE!)..

:annoyed:

[ve4grm]

That's actually something I don't get.

I think there's some superhero stuff being broadcast now, but of other fantasy and science fiction shows being broadcast I know nothing.

"Back in the day", I could watch Babylon 5, Buffy, Doctor Who (on PBS), and Star Trek.

Now I can't watch anything like those shows that I know of. If they're being broadcast they're after my bedtime, or on cable which is NOT BROADCASTING (I hate the rise of cable so very much, TV was free dagnabbit! I WILL NEVER PAY FOR CABLE!)..

:annoyed:

Well I guess that all depends on your definition of "back in the day".

Anime started gaining western popularity in... the 80s? Late 70s maybe? Star Trek TOS was gone (except reruns). Doctor Who was around, but was definitely an acquired taste back in those days. TNG hadn't come out yet. DS9 and B5 were a decade away, as was Buffy. We were even between BSG series.

And that covers sci-fi, sure. But fantasy and superhero genres (besides things made for kids, and the occasional movie) have always been harder to find in the west, until recently.

By the 90s, when the shows you're talking about were on, anime was already a small but growing subculture.

(With regards to now, there's tons of content, but the concept of broadcast networks is indeed dying. Much of it is on streaming services, without even going to cable first, too. So you're right there. The 90s were a good time for genre TV.)

[2D8HP]

Well I guess that all depends on your definition of "back in the day"...

...With regards to now, there's tons of content, but the concept of broadcast networks is indeed dying. Much of it is on streaming services, without even going to cable first, too. So you're right there. The 90s were a good time for genre TV.


Yeah I was referring to the '90's, but for the record I watched the Star Trek, Doctor Who, Planet of the Apes, Logan's Run, Lost in Space, Wonder Women, Ultraman and The Incredible Hulk live action television shows in the 1970's.

Also in the '70's I saw the Speed Racer, Battle of the Planets, and Star Blazers Japanese Cartoons (I didn't know the word"anime" back then), plus I had seen Hobbit cartoon television movie, and a bunch of "genre" films probably starting with The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (at a drive-in theatre!) and ending the decade with Star Trek:The Motion Picture

By the end of the 1980's I did learn the word "anime" and had watched Akira, Galaxy Express, and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind in movies theatres, not on television. I think I may have watched some Robotech in the early 1990's, but the only "anime" I've watched since has been stuff my son chose this last decade.

The last "genre" show that I can remember seeing broadcast was Extant in 2015, which wasn't very good.

Judging by the mentions I see about it Doctor Who is still being broadcast in the UK, but if it's still on PBS (like it used to be) it's either after my bedtime, or while I'm at work.

[Knaight]

"Back in the day", I could watch Babylon 5, Buffy, Doctor Who (on PBS), and Star Trek.

Now I can't watch anything like those shows that I know of. If they're being broadcast they're after my bedtime, or on cable which is NOT BROADCASTING (I hate the rise of cable so very much, TV was free dagnabbit! I WILL NEVER PAY FOR CABLE!)..

:annoyed:

Babylon 5 is free on go90 literally right now. I finally got around to watching (most) of it, and can confirm its current presence.

[factotum]

and the only thread that holds any of it together is a generic art style.

I don't think it even has that, to be honest. The art style of "Ghost in the Shell" is utterly different to the more cartoony visuals of "Dragonball Z", for instance. I wouldn't say Frozen has the same art style as Snow White, either, despite being made by the same company (albeit half a century or more apart).

[Frozen_Feet]

I don't understand why a co-worker opted to use a broom with a broken handle, when an intact one was available. Especially since I'd already thrown that broken broom in the trash once already.

There have also been surprising number of threads about "how do I tell X to someone?", where the obvious solution would be to, you know, tell X to someone. Like Jesus Christ, people, don't make social interaction any more convoluted than it has to be! I have concluded that the people asking these kind of questions must be near-pathologically introverted.

Related to this, people who lament they don't know enough people who share their interests, but refuse to go to conventions "because they are too social". Good God. It's no wonder that my personality diagnosis has shifted from Introverted to Extroverted, because it's impossible to not feel like a hyper-energetic people person around people like these.

[Aedilred]

Judging by the mentions I see about it Doctor Who is still being broadcast in the UK, but if it's still on PBS (like it used to be) it's either after my bedtime, or while I'm at work.
It was cancelled in 1989 but revived in 2005. Since the revival it has had much shorter series, rather than being a weekly fixture for most of the year. It's been shown on the Sci-fi channel and BBC America (and occasionally on CBC only) in the Americas; I'm not sure which channel currently hosts it over there.

[Tvtyrant]

Why the particular brand of pop vocals has colonized nearly every genre of music. If a song comes on the radio they are all but guaranteed to have the same pitch. Country, metal, pop, hip hop. Where did it come from and how can we get rid of it?

[Draconi Redfir]

I don't understand why a co-worker opted to use a broom with a broken handle, when an intact one was available. Especially since I'd already thrown that broken broom in the trash once already.

it could be any combination of things. emotional attachment, distrusting of newer equipment, or simply preferring the feel of the old broom over the new one.

Few questions for you.

To your knowledge is the co-worker autistic in any way or has something similar? I don't mean this in an offensive way, but it could be why he's attached to the old broom.

Is the new broom made out of a different material? such as plastic while the old one is wood? hold both of them for awhile, do they feel at all different from one another in terms of texture, weight, warmth, grip, etc? Could be the co-worker got used to the feel of the old broom and feels he isn't as good as the new broom.

Does the old broom have something the new one doesn't? (other then a broken handle.) such as softer bristles, more bristles, a wider / different shape, etc.

if yes to any of these, try looking around for a broom that is more similar to the original. he may be more willing to transfer to that one then the one you currently have.

Alternatively, and i found this worked with myself personally, try setting up situations where the co-worker needs to use the new broom, maybe ask him to clean a location the old one can't reach, or just outright ask him to use it for one day a week, then let him go back to the old broom.

Gradually he will get more used to the new broom, may even start to find it better and use it more. that's how i transferred over to chrome from internet explorer. i loved IE, but Chrome could do things IE couldn't, such as watch youtube or play flash games. so i used chrome for only those things, and eventually i used it for more things, and more things, and now i rarely use IE at all.

If the co-worker seems to make the switch to the new broom permanently, keep the old broom around for awhile, keep it in the janitor closet or something, so he's at least aware it's still there. After some time, maybe six months, maybe a year, his attachment will drain and you should be able to throw away the old broom no problem.

used that tactic to get rid of some knik-knacks, stuffed animals, and a blanket i was attached too as a kid. i kept them in my closet for years, but never used them. Eventually, the time came to clean my closet, and i found that it was much easier to get rid of them knowing i hadn't used/seen them in so long, then it was before.

[Peelee]

Oh god, this call I just got. Fair warning, there's going to be a large amount of vagueness due to HIPAA.

So this person is on a medical device. It's set to a specific setting that the doctor prescribes. The doctor, for whatever reason, decided to put her on an auto-trial. Short version, we give her a rental machine free of charge that can adjust itself depending on what her body needs at the time. Really cool technology, honestly. After a week, we send a report of the data to her doc, and doc decides whether to change the prescription as needed. Well, this woman is six days in, and just today called. She's never seen the setting go above the minimum number (which makes perfect sense, since it only does that when she's asleep). So because of that, she felt bad using it, and hasn't used it past the second day.

I just don't get why she wouldn't call us on the second day when she decided, "i should stop using this thing because i feel bad," or call her doctor and ask them, or at the very least, if she was dead set on not using it, bring the damn thing back to us.

Although, to be fair here, a good deal of people on this do things that I just don't get. Like, when they're new, I totally understand, they've never dealt with this stuff before. But people who have been on it for years and years, and then do things that very obviously make no sense whatsoever... people are weird.

[Vinyadan]

+1 to 'Dear spitters, please bring tissues'.

[Lord Joeltion]

The thing is something like don't traumatize my children doesn't work as a standard because it is way too subjective.
(Snip)

Similarly, the idea that if there is no gun pointed at you then you don't have to watch it makes no sense. Take for example one if the general concensus on decent public behaviour: you don't go outside in the nude.
(Snip)
could you ignore it still?

(Snip) What can and can't be looked away from is just based on personal levels of comfort. I can't really understand people doing something that I am that uncomfortable with it andI bet you can't either (it's just that PDA isn't one of them).

(Snip)However, I would assume that you Joeltion have no problem with anyone oggling someone in short attire, you might find there justification to be disgusting but surely if you notice someone oggling you and you don't like it you can simply look away and mind your own bussiness.

First, I used the kids as an expresion. It was an euphemism to refer to "real public sex" vs simple PDAs. RPS could be anything involving nudity to a hand under clothes, and I think anything under that range is forbidden by law. Now, Raising children is up to parents alone. Whatever may traumathize then is strictrly responsibility and problem of their parents. This rule does not apply when Law is broken, since thats something beyond control of parents. I never meant to say kids was any kind of standard. They obviously arent.

And no. Nothing obligues you to look at anyone in the street. If you find something disgusting/scary (a burn victim, a clown, a spider, a huge dog) a good citizen should simply look away. He has no right to control or tell people what is forbidden or shouldnt be done. Thats why we have laws and discrimination is a crime in a developed country. As I said, nudity and sex are covered by law. The reason you shouldnt overlook those cases is because they are crimes, not because of being gross or because you dont like them. Good citizens should always report crimes. Your example is moot.

Answering your question: No I cant. I generally dont look away from crime. Anything else, I dont generally mind, everyone should mind their own business too.

Whatever the case, I dont think "what makes me feel comfortable" can never be a parameter for anything. Be it in private or public. You may ask politely that people stick to your personal standard, but you have no power to impose them or even demand them. Nobody has nor should have that power on any kind of environment. Thats why we have laws (not that anything the law says is ok either, specially on cases where it allows discrimination).

And yeah, even if I were a girl, I dont mind people oggling in general. Not even to my girlfriend (unless she feels uncomfortable, thats when I throw them a death glare or visually block them). What I said, is that ogglers are nastier than people kissing or showing affection, because to the general public they come accross as perverts. I made a general statement, not a personal one. But yeah, I do think oggling is more pervy than showing any PDA that doesnt threaten the law. Heck, people in my country feel more uncomfortable of people kissing the same sex and dont mind owners kissing their pets. Im exactly the opposite (specially dogs, they lick their parts just too often).

Sorry for typos and the likes. Im writting on phone :)

[lunaticfringe]

Some places require women to wear heels as part of Professional or Business dress. It's 2017, let that poor girl wear a fancy flat for God's sake.

Wearing uncomfortable shoes because they look good.

[Aedilred]

And no. Nothing obligues you to look at anyone in the street. If you find something disgusting/scary (a burn victim, a clown, a spider, a huge dog) a good citizen should simply look away. He has no right to control or tell people what is forbidden or shouldnt be done. Thats why we have laws and discrimination is a crime in a developed country. As I said, nudity and sex are covered by law. The reason you shouldnt overlook those cases is because they are crimes, not because of being gross or because you dont like them. Good citizens should always report crimes. Your example is moot.

...

Whatever the case, I dont think "what makes me feel comfortable" can never be a parameter for anything. Be it in private or public. You may ask politely that people stick to your personal standard, but you have no power to impose them or even demand them. Nobody has nor should have that power on any kind of environment. Thats why we have laws (not that anything the law says is ok either, specially on cases where it allows discrimination).


Even if we take it as read that nothing that is not illegal is objectionable (flawed on a number of levels, but let's run with it for now), most societies have public decency laws. The law therefore takes the view that when you're in public you are subject to certain responsibilities not to act in a way which will offend those around you. It places the onus not on the offended party to look away but on the offending party not to offend them in the first place. It's the same principle as applies to pretty much all criminal law, really: the same one that means that the right to swing a club ends where someone else's face begins. The public sphere is considered a common "face", and consequently club-swinging (or in this case, performing acts of private intimacy) are frowned upon.

As to "what makes me feel comfortable", often such laws are vaguely drafted to allow a wide degree of discretion on the part of what is prosecuted, and what offences people get convicted for, to allow for various contexts and elements of intent, but also to reflect whether anyone was actually offended or likely to be offended by it. This permits for different venues and audiences (a nudist beach vs a children's playground) and also for changing social mores. But social mores pretty much amount to the sum, or perhaps average, standard of "what people feel comfortable with". So I don't really see any problem at all with considering that and making judgments on an individual level, at least to the extent of defining what you're ok with and what you feel is acceptable public behaviour. The individual view is relevant in determining the common one, even if it's not the standard.

[Potato_Priest]

With regard to spitting, I was recently on a camping trip in a field campus, and one of my cabinmates was sick. Throughout the first night I kept hear him hacking up phlegm and spitting it out (that sort of hwach ptoo sound) , which is pretty disgusting by itself, but when I woke up and asked him about it I found out he'd been spitting it on the wall because he didn't want to get up to move the trash can.

He cleaned it up, but I still don't think that I ever want to speak to this person again.

Absolutely disgusting.

[ve4grm]

There have also been surprising number of threads about "how do I tell X to someone?", where the obvious solution would be to, you know, tell X to someone. Like Jesus Christ, people, don't make social interaction any more convoluted than it has to be! I have concluded that the people asking these kind of questions must be near-pathologically introverted.

Related to this, people who lament they don't know enough people who share their interests, but refuse to go to conventions "because they are too social". Good God. It's no wonder that my personality diagnosis has shifted from Introverted to Extroverted, because it's impossible to not feel like a hyper-energetic people person around people like these.

To both of these, I'm just going to say social anxiety is a horrible thing, and can make these sorts of interactions absolutely terrifying. It's also unrelated to intro/extroversion, though having it does give you a reason to be more introverted.

In any case, everyone has their lines, where they don't feel comfortable past them. I'm sure you have yours as well.

[Florian]

A thing that I don´t really get is the consumption of alcohol in public. Not talking about Oktoberfest, drinking a beer in a cafe/club/bar/restaurant or at a social event/gathering, rather people buying two or three bottles of beers for the sole purpose of drinking them in the metro at their way home or even standing before the supermarket where they bought it. Absolutely nothing wrong with getting drunk, I´d be a hypocrite to condemn this, but it´s nothing that should be down so openly in the public, as that´s sending the wrong signals and can be very inconvenient to people that will react negatively to it, like people in the AA, minors or generally someone having grown up in a "drinking" family....

[factotum]

Even if we take it as read that nothing that is not illegal is objectionable (flawed on a number of levels, but let's run with it for now), most societies have public decency laws. The law therefore takes the view that when you're in public you are subject to certain responsibilities not to act in a way which will offend those around you.

I think that's stretching the definition of "Public decency" somewhat? Those laws are intended to ensure you won't have a couple having sex in the middle of a public park, not to prevent that same couple kissing on the street.

[Aedilred]

I think that's stretching the definition of "Public decency" somewhat? Those laws are intended to ensure you won't have a couple having sex in the middle of a public park, not to prevent that same couple kissing on the street.

But this goes to my point, I think. We have reached the point where we no longer consider public decency to be outraged by a couple kissing on the street, but in many cultures and at various points in our history a couple kissing in public would be, or have been, considered in that way. In the UK at least, offending public decency is a common law offence, so the point at which the line is drawn is constantly updated to reflect current social mores - which in turn are informed by the views of the individuals who make up society.

As an individual you may fall on the "wrong" side of the line with regard to that judgment, but you're still entitled to your opinion. The extent to which you express that opinion, especially to the parties involved, is a rather thornier issue, but I think that applies to almost everything anyway.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Draconi Redfir: the workplace is littered with intact brooms of identical make, so they could've fetched or asked for one of those. Instead of taking one out of the trash with its handle snapped halfway and splintered. I believe I succintly communicated all the vital information to them by saying "just throw that thing in the trash and use this". :smalltongue:

---

@Ven4grm: there is a mile-wide gap between me feeling anxious about doing something, and me asking self-answering questions about how to do something.

[Draconi Redfir]

@Draconi Redfir: the workplace is littered with intact brooms of identical make, so they could've fetched or asked for one of those. Instead of taking one out of the trash with its handle snapped halfway and splintered. I believe I succintly communicated all the vital information to them by saying "just throw that thing in the trash and use this". :smalltongue:

i dunno then, maybe the broken broom-handle lets him hold it in a certain way an intact-handle wouldn't allow, like under his arm or something. who knows, he'll switch if he wants to switch, just leave it be.

[Algeh]

A thing that I don´t really get is the consumption of alcohol in public. Not talking about Oktoberfest, drinking a beer in a cafe/club/bar/restaurant or at a social event/gathering, rather people buying two or three bottles of beers for the sole purpose of drinking them in the metro at their way home or even standing before the supermarket where they bought it. Absolutely nothing wrong with getting drunk, I´d be a hypocrite to condemn this, but it´s nothing that should be down so openly in the public, as that´s sending the wrong signals and can be very inconvenient to people that will react negatively to it, like people in the AA, minors or generally someone having grown up in a "drinking" family....

Is this common where you are? Where I live, you generally don't see non-homeless people drinking in public unless it's at an event where beer is sold or at a restaurant/bar/other place with on-premise sales. (The stereotype for homeless people includes the idea that they have a large bottle of cheap alcohol with a brown paper bag wrapped around it while they're drinking it, but I actually am not at all sure I've ever seen that happen, either. I assume that some of them do drink just like many other adults, but they probably try to do so in a less visible place.)

I think it may even be against the law to drink alcohol while just walking down the street here, but it's to the point that I've never seen anybody do it and it's never occurred to me to do it either, so I'm actually not sure if it's a specific law or just a thing that everyone doesn't do as a cultural thing. (Given all of the other variously-antisocial things people do in public around here, I'm guessing it's a law.)

I would probably enjoy taking long rides on public transit more if I could drink while I was doing it, but I'd probably enjoy the experience less if the other random people could also drink while they were on transit with me, so I guess it's a wash. (People certainly do take transit when they've recently been drinking and are still pretty drunk, of course, but at least they don't get drunker over the course of the trip.)

[2D8HP]

A thing that I don´t really get is the consumption of alcohol in public. ....
II think it may even be against the law to drink alcohol while just walking down the street here,....

@Alger, your guess was right it's about what's legal.

@Florian lives in Germany
where drinking in public is mostly legal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_in_public), while you live in the USA where drinking in public is mostly illegal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_open_container_laws), the brown paper bags over the containers are a dodge to avoid arrest (not much of one, they just give police officers an excuse to ignore the obvious, I work around a lot of City and County of San Francisco cops, and they mostly look for reasons to leave the homeless alone, I remember last year one homeless lady kept repeatedly vandalizing a station trying to get arrested without success, and we had a bunch of tents surrounding one station for months, until the local merchants complained enough that the mayor ordered that they be cleared out).

[Lord Joeltion]

Even if we take it as read that nothing that is not illegal is objectionable (flawed on a number of levels, but let's run with it for now), most societies have public decency laws. The law therefore takes the view that when you're in public you are subject to certain responsibilities not to act in a way which will offend those around you.
Nope. Laws are crafted in relation to a "social ideal", it has nothing to do with the sensibility of individuals. It's this "social construct" what ultimately matters. Your personal opinion/sensibility may or may not be covered by this "social standard", but that's ultimately irrelevant. That's precisely why laws are voted in a democracy: the entire point of the Law is to fit a social standard that comprises all individual standards but oppresses none (that last part is where laws in RL can be crappy). This social collective should be as objective as possible, and as such, they should agree with a majority*.

The fact that they are called "decency laws" doesn't turn them into a special kind of law either. Of course, in RL what is "socially acceptable" mutates through the years, but that's exactly what majorities do in a society: they fluctuate. Individuals don't fluctuate through the years, but the majority they once belonged to may lessen through the years. That's what produces a need of modifying the "decency code". This "decency code" is about what the majority thinks, not individuals. And like every other kind of law, they need to be crafted in a way that doesn't oppress a minority either.

*Of course, what I mean with "majority" isn't just "the biggest single group of people"; but the "most general definition that includes most of the peoples".


It places the onus not on the offended party to look away but on the offending party not to offend them in the first place. It's the same principle as applies to pretty much all criminal law, really: the same one that means that the right to swing a club ends where someone else's face begins. The public sphere is considered a common "face", and consequently club-swinging (or in this case, performing acts of private intimacy) are frowned upon.
That misses the point of having laws too: Just because a law agrees with you it doesn't mean it was crafted for you. Laws aren't crafted for individuals, they must correspond to the greater number of people as possible. That's why minorities fight to be included in the first place(women, lgtbs, native americans, etc). Minorities should be protected and recognized by the law too, as long as they aren't oppressing anyone else.


As to "what makes me feel comfortable", often such laws are vaguely drafted to allow a wide degree of discretion on the part of what is prosecuted, and what offences people get convicted for, to allow for various contexts and elements of intent, but also to reflect whether anyone was actually offended or likely to be offended by it. This permits for different venues and audiences (a nudist beach vs a children's playground) and also for changing social mores. But social mores pretty much amount to the sum, or perhaps average, standard of "what people feel comfortable with". So I don't really see any problem at all with considering that and making judgments on an individual level, at least to the extent of defining what you're ok with and what you feel is acceptable public behaviour. The individual view is relevant in determining the common one, even if it's not the standard.
And this is precisely what I said. "What makes ME feel uncomfortable" is NOT an acceptable standard. "What makes PEOPLE feel comfortable" is not only acceptable, but what everyone supposedly already agreed on. The problem is, individuals aren't people. YOU are not PEOPLE. "People" is an hypothetical ideal of what society thinks, and in a fair country is a standard that covers most of the people. Your opinion as an individual is weightless when contrasted with the opinion of law (that people already agreed on).


(snip)when I woke up and asked him about it I found out he'd been spitting it on the wall because he didn't want to get up to move the trash can.

He cleaned it up, but I still don't think that I ever want to speak to this person again.

Absolutely disgusting.
It's not only disgusting, it was very jerky on his part. Spitting (or emanating any kind of fluid) in a shared space shouldn't be accepted. Yeah, that's one of the few cases where it demands swallowing it back, no matter how sick you feel. Either that or jump over a window of something.


A thing that I don´t really get is the consumption of alcohol in public. Not talking about Oktoberfest, drinking a beer in a cafe/club/bar/restaurant or at a social event/gathering, rather people buying two or three bottles of beers for the sole purpose of drinking them in the metro at their way home or even standing before the supermarket where they bought it. Absolutely nothing wrong with getting drunk, I´d be a hypocrite to condemn this, but it´s nothing that should be down so openly in the public, as that´s sending the wrong signals and can be very inconvenient to people that will react negatively to it, like people in the AA, minors or generally someone having grown up in a "drinking" family....

Well, I don't think it's justifiable either, but there may be social/personal reasons behind that kind of behaviour. Take into account it isn't implausible for a worker going home "getting the urge" of a beer, but having a wife/family that is both waiting him home and that also won't allow him having a beer*. Or maybe he wants to share it with his pal but they don't have the time to go to a pub. I mean, there may be a million justifications for that (the majority of them probably still reproachable) but it isn't necessarily tied to a bad habit such as alcoholism; it may be just a minor misbehavior or disregard for social etiquette (like people listening to music without earplugs in public).

*And for a lot of countries, beer is the preferred social drink in a friendly context. For every social group there's a single kind of drink (alcoholic or not) that fits this place and most others don't. For example, this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_(beverage)) is the most popular in the Southern Cone.

[A.A.King]

Thats why we have laws (not that anything the law says is ok either, specially on cases where it allows discrimination).



The problem is, individuals aren't people. YOU are not PEOPLE. "People" is an hypothetical ideal of what society thinks, and in a fair country is a standard that covers most of the people. Your opinion as an individual is weightless when contrasted with the opinion of law (that people already agreed on).


How exactly do you reconcile these two points? How can you on one hand say that laws can be faulty when they allow discrimination (a very individualistic view, because if a law allows for discrimination it's a majority of the people who have agreed up on it so clearly it should be okay) yet on the other hand say that the opinion of the individual is weightless when contrasted with the opinion of the law?
Why bother saying you believe that there are (or can be) laws which are wrong when you also believe that your individual feeling is weightless against the law?

I also feel the need to state that I never said anything about what the law should be. I simply stated my individual opinion on what constitutes proper public behaviour (if you do something to a man and people would be disgusted if you followed it with 'he is my brother' then don't do it at all, a perfectly sensible and simple to follow rule) but I never mentioned any intent on making that law or even an intent to tell people that they are behaving in an unproper way. I mentioned my private annoyance and my equally private judgement of these people.

I then deconstructed your silly rebuke that you can 'just look away' by trying to illustrate that if you know something is there you can't simply break eye contact and be just as happy as you were before noticing. You didn't seem to understand that yet clearly you understand that your girlfriend does. So how come that when your girlfriend feels uncomfortable knowing she is being oggled you try to stop the oggler and don't tell her to 'just look away, he isn't pointing a gun at you' (unless in the rare case in which you 'throw a deathstare' to protect your girlfriend is when someone is actually pointing a gun at her to make her look at them, in which I can only commend you for the power of your deathstare. I like to think I can throw a mean look, but I fear mine would be powerless when used on someone who is armed and, presumably, dangerous. Law Enforcement could use more people like you).

The point of public decency laws was never 'we have public decency laws so when something is considered indecent by someone you better get your act together and stop' but if it was you would be right: Every individual has his own interpretation of what it means to be 'decent' so we need a consensus law so everyone knows what to expect outside and how to behave. What you have to ask yourself however is "Why do we have public decency laws if you can just look away"? Do you not wonder as someone who can ignore pretty much anything that isn't an active crime scene why there are laws prohibiting behaviour which doesn't affect others accept by maybe what they see? Public Decency laws are there because the 'just look away' method of living your life has been tried and tested and survey says "After having seen it and knowing the naked man is still on the bus I feel almost as uncomfortable as I did when I had to look at it" as our top answer.

Sadly for most of us 'Object Permanence' is a thing. The world doesn't disapear when I put a hand in front of my eyes and so neither does that uncomfortable feeling.

[Westhart]

Wow, semi-gone for a few days and every thread I'm posting in explodes :smallbiggrin:. Here goes!


Because the culture is very different. I could speak a lot about what makes anime its own thing; but in reality it all reduces to the cultural differences. Japanese and Asians in general share a particular form of humor (not talking about comedy). For instance, some months ago I got really hooked by a DORAMA (Japanese "drama" or soup-opera). It was a romantic comedy. Now, I basically never in my life would have watched a romantic series; or any kind of soup-opera. But the show was really witty, fun, and the characters were quirky enough for be truly bizarre; yet realistic enough to appear very human and relatable. A "westernalized" version of the same series I would have probably found not worth my time. I know, because the plot was pretty standard too. :smallbiggrin:

Hmm, fair enough then.

Ha, yeah, Naruto (and DragonBall, and others like those) have a very specific audience that they're trying to appeal to. Teen (and somewhat pre-teen) boys. They attract others as well, but if you aren't a teen boy, there's a good chance you won't enjoy it.



Yeah, not really the broadest of experience. This is like saying you don't like Western cartoons, when you've only seen She-Ra (awesome girls kicking butt), Thundercats (pre-teen male power fantasy) and Alvin and the Chipmunks (youth-focused).

Ha, fair enough


The key, just like finding a movie you like, or a book you want to read, is finding the genres you enjoy. Do you want to find a good fantasy? Sci-Fi? Action? Do you want comedy? Slice of Life? Something darker?

I'm sure there would be something you'd enjoy, but go into it with your own preferences first, not those of other people.
Eh, I watch pretty much anything, whether it be star trek, indiana jones, the riddick series, and LotR to romance, and comedy (mainly lewis black and gaffigan). I guess I'll have to look for another anime to watch :P


[QUOTE=Velaryon;22432157]Well for one thing, there have always been people who enjoy foreign films. Anime is basically just foreign films, but in animated form. And sometimes more of a TV series than a movie, but you get my point.

Also, western countries still have a perception that animation is for children's entertainment, or at most for comedic shows (the Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, etc.). With a few exceptions (most of which are at least somewhat influenced by anime anyway), those who want a more dramatic show that's aimed at an age group over 10-12 years old don't have much other than anime to turn to. Also, with a very few exceptions, much of the art and animation of western cartoons is IMO really, really bad anymore.

For that matter, go back 20 years and there wasn't a whole lot of televised media at all that would appeal to fantasy or superhero fans. Sure, there was some televised sci-fi in the 90's like the various Star Treks and Babylon 5, but other than that you had Buffy in the late 90's, and not much else. Anime scratched the itch of someone who might be looking for something a bit more superhero-ish, or who wanted something more fantasy-based. We have more alternatives now, but anime has had a huge head start in terms of catching the interest of people who are more geek-minded in their entertainment.

Also, I'd argue that anime was helped along by the Japanese dominance of the video game industry in the 80's and 90's. When Nintendo and Sega ruled the gaming world, they gave Japanese culture an in to western markets that didn't previously exist.




This is not restricted to anime fans. Lots of people tend to push the things they like on others in hopes of finding a new fan they can gush about their passions with. Often times, it has the opposite effect, and makes that person hostile to the thing that they feel is being crammed down their throats. This is why I avoided anime for my teens and early 20's, why one of my friends refuses to ever read A Song of Ice and Fire, and so on.
All good points, you got me :smallbiggrin:

I got really into anime for a while, because until I understood the Japanese set of drama conventions, a lot of the plots seemed less formulaic and more surprising to me than the tv I was used to. After a while, I learned the typical genre conventions they were playing by and my interest in watching pretty much any random thing waned (this was way back before streaming services when people got their anime either as fansubs passed along by mailing tapes around, bought commercial tapes based on the cover art, or had to deal with whatever limited selection of tapes a local rental shop had, so my ability to choose what kind of anime to watch was limited by what people I knew had lying around), but at first it was just nice to have a fresh set of assumptions to work with.
Fair enough.

And this is where I'd disagree with a bunch of you. Sure there are people who really love opera or modernist classical music (myself) but the odds that they will be of the "no you must like this thing I like" is higher than just about any other obsessive about their hobby topic if that topic is Anime. Huge football fans (both types) generally don't try to get me to watch after I've said no. Heck huge sports fans don't keep trying to see if I like watching Jai Alai, skeet shooting, or field hockey if I don't watch sports. So there is something either about Anime, the kinds of people attracted to it, or the social norms associated with it that makes this behavior MORE COMMON than in many other fields. To some extent comics and manga fans (and the various overlaps between all three) seem rather similar and often come from the same social field so I guessing it is that. But anime/its fandom does have something about it.
Bingo.

Well, it seems that I'll have to give anime another try XD

[ve4grm]

Well, it seems that I'll have to give anime another try XD

Not necessarily. Just don't close yourself off to all of it because some weren't to your tastes. If you come across one that sounds like it might work better, give it a go.

Given that you mostly listed sci-fi/fantasy genres, I'd suggest seeing if anyone has a good example of one of those.

[Lord Joeltion]

How exactly do you reconcile these two points? How can you on one hand say that laws can be faulty when they allow discrimination (a very individualistic view, because if a law allows for discrimination it's a majority of the people who have agreed up on it so clearly it should be okay) yet on the other hand say that the opinion of the individual is weightless when contrasted with the opinion of the law?
Why bother saying you believe that there are (or can be) laws which are wrong when you also believe that your individual feeling is weightless against the law?
How do I reconcile the idea that something is in theory one thing but in practice it may be very different? Even the opposite? Because I lived for quite a while here, that is. One thing is what a Law should do "in theory"; but practice may differ, because errare humanum est. That's why. Claiming that laws are real objective truths would be simply lying. That doesn't mean that's what they aspire to be. Practice and theory doesn't always go holding hands, specially for law, which is generally a reactive phenomena.
And no, you are mixing the fact that because "individuals" are victims of discrimination, discrimination is a phenomena in relation to individuals. That's not how it really works. The problem isn't when an single person is discriminated for his/her/its particular traits; it's because that his traits belong to a collective that is actual discrimination. When you are discriminating a woman for being a woman, it's all the women who are being discriminated by default. That's what you call it "discrimination" (as a legal term).

Now when she allegates that she is being "discriminated", but in reality it was because of her specific behaviour (maybe she did something against the norm, or is misbehaving in general) that isn't actually discrimination. In that case, the fact that she happens to be a woman is secondary, and it's her own personal traits what makes her be rejected. The same applies to any group, religion, or whatever that may be considered a minority or a significant group in society. Discrimination is related to prejudice; and prejudice always deals with generalizations. But of course, every case of discrimination requires special attention, more than rules allow here, I reckon.

But this is probably too convoluted a topic to be spoken so lightly, so I rather not discuss this here. You can PM me if you want.
The reason I said your personal opinion was weightless was in relation to police yourself what other people do. That's where your opinion holds zero water. Now, if your opinion moves you to want a change in the system; now that may be valid. But the point is the same, as long as the law is allowing it, you have no right to push anyone to fit your personal standards.


I also feel the need to state that I never said anything about what the law should be. I simply stated my individual opinion on what constitutes proper public behaviour (if you do something to a man and people would be disgusted if you followed it with 'he is my brother' then don't do it at all, a perfectly sensible and simple to follow rule) but I never mentioned any intent on making that law or even an intent to tell people that they are behaving in an unproper way. I mentioned my private annoyance and my equally private judgement of these people.
And I never said or implied you shouldn't be bothered. I said you shouldn't annoy other people with your annoyance. Having an opinion is ok, but it's like having a kinky tatoo in a private part of your body: You don't need to show it to everyone. People may find it disgusting. Altho, I don't really mind.


I then deconstructed your silly rebuke that you can 'just look away' by trying to illustrate that if you know something is there you can't simply break eye contact and be just as happy as you were before noticing. You didn't seem to understand that yet clearly you understand that your girlfriend does. So how come that when your girlfriend feels uncomfortable knowing she is being oggled you try to stop the oggler and don't tell her to 'just look away, he isn't pointing a gun at you' (unless in the rare case in which you 'throw a deathstare' to protect your girlfriend is when someone is actually pointing a gun at her to make her look at them, in which I can only commend you for the power of your deathstare. I like to think I can throw a mean look, but I fear mine would be powerless when used on someone who is armed and, presumably, dangerous. Law Enforcement could use more people like you).
I don't really understand anything you said here. People should mind their own business as a rule of thumb. I thought it would be pretty obvious for an inclusive forum like this one. Specially with a respected LGTB community.

In any case, just because I have already grokked this behaviour (minding my own business*) on a subconscious level it doesn't mean I am oblivious to the insecurities or fears a girl may feel when she is victim of any kind of staring. For all I know her; it's not the fact that she is being "appraised" that might bother her; but like I said; people who stare are always creepy. And from creepy to dangerous there are too few hypothetical steps. My duty towards her isn't just protect her physical health, it's also about making her feel safer in general. Just like she does for me.

*And to clarify, by "minding my business" I simply mean don't judging what other people do in public. It's not like I won't notice somebody trying something shady on my blindspot. I'm no Rambo, but I'm also quite paranoid from time to time.


The point of public decency laws was never 'we have public decency laws so when something is considered indecent by someone you better get your act together and stop' but if it was you would be right: Every individual has his own interpretation of what it means to be 'decent' so we need a consensus law so everyone knows what to expect outside and how to behave. What you have to ask yourself however is "Why do we have public decency laws if you can just look away"? Do you not wonder as someone who can ignore pretty much anything that isn't an active crime scene why there are laws prohibiting behaviour which doesn't affect others accept by maybe what they see? Public Decency laws are there because the 'just look away' method of living your life has been tried and tested and survey says "After having seen it and knowing the naked man is still on the bus I feel almost as uncomfortable as I did when I had to look at it" as our top answer.
I think you missed my point entirely. I solely claimed that policing what other people do under personal beliefs wasn't acceptable. People shouldn't stick to anyone's standard, as long as they obey the law. If you aren't comfortable with the laws you were born with (like... A LOT of people EVERYWHERE) go work and make some change. But don't judge people based on your beliefs alone. That's wrong. And most of the time it's also futile.


Sadly for most of us 'Object Permanence' is a thing. The world doesn't disapear when I put a hand in front of my eyes and so neither does that uncomfortable feeling.
Honestly (and please take this as a friend), that's what psychoanalysis* is for. Mental discomfort isn't something you deal with by trying to enforce the world to shape it as your desire. That only leads to frustration. I know from experience. I'm still dealing with the fact too, btw.

*Or whatever is available in your country instead. Meditation always good too.

[Aedilred]

It's not only disgusting, it was very jerky on his part. Spitting (or emanating any kind of fluid) in a shared space shouldn't be accepted. Yeah, that's one of the few cases where it demands swallowing it back, no matter how sick you feel. Either that or jump over a window of something.

Is it illegal? No? Then you don't get to complain!

:smalltongue:

[Lord Joeltion]

Is it illegal? No? Then you don't get to complain!

:smalltongue:
Actually, being a friend the one in question that's true. He wouldn't get a complain from me. He would get a punch in the nards. But complain? Of course not. What are we? Savages?

[A.A.King]

[Stuff that was too long to keep, I, A.A.King, copied some sentences down below but because I'm on my phone I didn't want to add have to add the Quote box to all of them]

I would suggest you listen to your own advice friend

"People who stare are always creepy" -> "People should mind their own business*" & "*And to clarify, by "minding my business" I simply mean don't judging what other people do in public."

You are judging people for what they do in public.

"you shouldn't annoy other people with your annoyance. Having an opinion is ok, but it's like having a kinky tatoo in a private part of your body: You don't need to show it to everyone. People may find it disgusting." -> Itself really. You were annoyed by my criteria for what constitutes proper public behaviour, which is fine opinion to have but you don't need to show because then you annoy people with your annoyance.

And of course:
Most things you said -> "The reason I said your personal opinion was weightless was in relation to police yourself what other people do. Now, if your opinion moves you to want a change in the system; now that may be valid. But the point is the same, as long as the law is allowing it, you have no right to push anyone to fit your personal standards."

Why tell me I shouldn't voice my opinion on behaviour that annoys me? The law allows me to say what I want so surely your opinioj with regards to my behaviour is completetly weightless and you have no right to push me to fit your personal standard.

If you're that annoyed by someone voicing an opinion you disagree with may I suggest Pyschoanalysis? Mental discomfort isn't something you deal with by trying to enforce the world to shape it as your desire.

I mean, to be honest if you were that annoyed by how I believe the world should be (a believe I don't even try to enforce) you could have just ignored it. You didn't have to read, nobody was pointing a gun at you.

[JNAProductions]

People. Just people.

[sktarq]

People. Just people.

I get this.....I really get this...but I find that thinking of humans as rationalizing not rational helps a lot.

[Fiery Diamond]

I would suggest you listen to your own advice friend

"People who stare are always creepy" -> "People should mind their own business*" & "*And to clarify, by "minding my business" I simply mean don't judging what other people do in public."

You are judging people for what they do in public.

"you shouldn't annoy other people with your annoyance. Having an opinion is ok, but it's like having a kinky tatoo in a private part of your body: You don't need to show it to everyone. People may find it disgusting." -> Itself really. You were annoyed by my criteria for what constitutes proper public behaviour, which is fine opinion to have but you don't need to show because then you annoy people with your annoyance.

And of course:
Most things you said -> "The reason I said your personal opinion was weightless was in relation to police yourself what other people do. Now, if your opinion moves you to want a change in the system; now that may be valid. But the point is the same, as long as the law is allowing it, you have no right to push anyone to fit your personal standards."

Why tell me I shouldn't voice my opinion on behaviour that annoys me? The law allows me to say what I want so surely your opinioj with regards to my behaviour is completetly weightless and you have no right to push me to fit your personal standard.

If you're that annoyed by someone voicing an opinion you disagree with may I suggest Pyschoanalysis? Mental discomfort isn't something you deal with by trying to enforce the world to shape it as your desire.

I mean, to be honest if you were that annoyed by how I believe the world should be (a believe I don't even try to enforce) you could have just ignored it. You didn't have to read, nobody was pointing a gun at you.

I'm terrible with images and gifs, so...

*Claps*

[Lord Joeltion]

I would suggest you listen to your own advice friend

"People who stare are always creepy" -> "People should mind their own business*" & "*And to clarify, by "minding my business" I simply mean don't judging what other people do in public."

You are judging people for what they do in public.
Well, honestly I don't think that because I think doing something is creepy I am "judging them" in the sense that I will go and recriminate anything to them. People have all the right to be as creepy and disgusting and ugly and horrible as they want, as long as they don't harm you in any way. For me "judging them" is go and play the judge to them and tell them right our they shouldn't be doing. Or even thinking they shouldn't be doing that. They have their right to be. You can't police them, nor should. That's all I ever meant.

Then again, this could be a linguistic misunderstanding from our personal definition for the word. So, meh.


"you shouldn't annoy other people with your annoyance. Having an opinion is ok, but it's like having a kinky tatoo in a private part of your body: You don't need to show it to everyone. People may find it disgusting." -> Itself really. You were annoyed by my criteria for what constitutes proper public behaviour, which is fine opinion to have but you don't need to show because then you annoy people with your annoyance.
So you are saying my freedom of speech offends your freedom of speech? What the hell are talking, man? What in the Nine Hells? Did I ever told you to shut up? Did I ever questioned you for questioning me back? What's the point of the whole thread if it isn't for discussing these things?

Stop misinterpreting my words, or at least get them some context, for Kami's sake. I mean don't go around telling strangers what they should or should not do. Be disgusted in your head as much as you want, but never think that gives you the right of anything. Or even that you are standing on a higher moral ground. All people is equal, "disgusting" or not.


And of course:
Most things you said -> "The reason I said your personal opinion was weightless was in relation to police yourself what other people do. Now, if your opinion moves you to want a change in the system; now that may be valid. But the point is the same, as long as the law is allowing it, you have no right to push anyone to fit your personal standards."

Why tell me I shouldn't voice my opinion on behaviour that annoys me? The law allows me to say what I want so surely your opinioj with regards to my behaviour is completetly weightless and you have no right to push me to fit your personal standard.
Why do you think when I say "push" people around (my words) I mean "voice" your opinion (your words)? Really man, get down your high horse for a moment and consider the meaning behind words. Of course you have the right to voice your opinion, as twisted as it may be. It is not in your right to put any kind of action in consequence of them. Freedom is speech is just that. Speech. Not policing behaviour of the others.


If you're that annoyed by someone voicing an opinion you disagree with may I suggest Pyschoanalysis? Mental discomfort isn't something you deal with by trying to enforce the world to shape it as your desire.

I mean, to be honest if you were that annoyed by how I believe the world should be (a believe I don't even try to enforce) you could have just ignored it. You didn't have to read, nobody was pointing a gun at you.
Yes, play the card that I am the one disgusted. Play the Trap Card of trying to turn the table against me. Bravo. But it's a miss, actually. You have an opinion. I just happen to live by exactly the opposite.

If you were annoyed because some people have an opinion on your own opinions, then you should consider where you publish your "vision of the world", don't you think? Nobody pointed a gun at you to write your opinions in a public forum. The proper way to use the words of others against themselves is when they actually make sense, not when they only make you feel special :)

[Fiery Diamond]

Well, honestly I don't think that because I think doing something is creepy I am "judging them" in the sense that I will go and recriminate anything to them. People have all the right to be as creepy and disgusting and ugly and horrible as they want, as long as they don't harm you in any way. For me "judging them" is go and play the judge to them and tell them right our they shouldn't be doing. Or even thinking they shouldn't be doing that. They have their right to be. You can't police them, nor should. That's all I ever meant.

Then again, this could be a linguistic misunderstanding from our personal definition for the word. So, meh.


So you are saying my freedom of speech offends your freedom of speech? What the hell are talking, man? What in the Nine Hells? Did I ever told you to shut up? Did I ever questioned you for questioning me back? What's the point of the whole thread if it isn't for discussing these things?

Stop misinterpreting my words, or at least get them some context, for Kami's sake. I mean don't go around telling strangers what they should or should not do. Be disgusted in your head as much as you want, but never think that gives you the right of anything. Or even that you are standing on a higher moral ground. All people is equal, "disgusting" or not.


Why do you think when I say "push" people around (my words) I mean "voice" your opinion (your words)? Really man, get down your high horse for a moment and consider the meaning behind words. Of course you have the right to voice your opinion, as twisted as it may be. It is not in your right to put any kind of action in consequence of them. Freedom is speech is just that. Speech. Not policing behaviour of the others.


Yes, play the card that I am the one disgusted. Play the Trap Card of trying to turn the table against me. Bravo. But it's a miss, actually. You have an opinion. I just happen to live by exactly the opposite.

If you were annoyed because some people have an opinion on your own opinions, then you should consider where you publish your "vision of the world", don't you think? Nobody pointed a gun at you to write your opinions in a public forum. The proper way to use the words of others against themselves is when they actually make sense, not when they only make you feel special :)

There's a lot of "distinction without a difference" going on in this post, at least as I see it. You're the one misusing words, not A.A. King.

[Lord Joeltion]

There's a lot of "distinction without a difference" going on in this post, at least as I see it. You're the one misusing words, not A.A. King.
Well, if that's the case, then I apologize. I might get it over my head when I see people trying to police what others should or shouldn't do. Also, English ain't myfirst language, so I'm disadvantaged at making myself clear, I guess.

For me one thing is to think somebody is being weird, disgusting or whatever; freedom also means you can be as horrible or nice as you want, as long as you don't harm anyone (physically or verbally). But trying to police behaviour that doesn't affect you in the least and trying to put shame on it by pointing fingers in public, that simply shouldn't be. That's the only reason I think Democracy works. Also a lot of social improvements are receding lately where I live, so that's a reason for me to be touchy about it too.

And no, I wasn't trying to say King or anyone else here was one of those horrible people. I simply said the logic he used was too similar to other people I met in RL (who are in fact, horrible people) and that I didn't like it

Ugh, I'm not trying to point fingers or accusing you or anything
In retrospective, I can read that sentence with some jerky voice, but that wasn't my intention. Sorry :smalltongue:
So I voiced my discomfort about his rethoric (it's the rethoric he used that I don't like, not his opinion on PDA's*). Then he just asked (not in the best manner) how I reconciled my position and I tried to explain accordingly (apparently not in the best manner either), adn I guess at some point we derailed or something (?). And I suppose I got carried away with the words bc of said discomfort.

I still stand with my original point tho, if people aren't OK with the laws they have, they should strive for a change; but nobody has the right to ostracise or try to make other people ashamed for what is accepted under the law (like being married to a goat, or whatever). I don't see any contradiction there, or that it contradicts me not having a strong opinion on how people "should behave".

*heck, I have friends whith similar opinions, and I try to respect them by not doing anything they don't like with my girl in front of them. Just because I try not to judge people, doesn't mean I have total disregard for them, or that I like making them uncomfortable. It's strangers I don't mind, beause.... well, I can't read minds. Yet.

[Ronnocius]

What in the Nine Hells?
I can't believe someone just said "what in the Nine Hells?" That is hilarious.

For the original post, I think spitting in the street is fairly obvious. As for PDA, I agree that people should be more mindful of others. When I was younger there were these kids who were always make out in the halls. I found it quite rude.

[Liquor Box]

I'm with Joeltion to a degree. Just because someone (or even some people) are offended by a PDA, does not put people who engage in that PDA in the wrong.

People are always going to disagree around the fringes of what conduct if offensive/acceptable. Somewhere we have to strike a balance between not causing offence/and not taking offence. Laws (in the case of PDA, those relating to public decency/obscenity) provide a useful starting point for where that standard should lie.

If it is legal though, what gives someone the right to say that their right not to be offended trumps someone else's right to express themselves? There may be occasions, but I am thinking that generally it is easier for the intolerant person to simply avoid taking offence.

[Lacco]

As for PDA, I agree that people should be more mindful of others. When I was younger there were these kids who were always make out in the halls. I found it quite rude.

I also found it quite rude that the ladies did not choose me as their make-out partner :smallbiggrin:

Then I became guilty of participating on the PDA myself. Now I'm... more tolerant :smallbiggrin:

[2D8HP]

On the whole heavy PDA thing, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw one of note (maybe the '90'?).though I'm oblivious to lots of things.

The only things new of note that I've noticed are more electric cars and that tents all over. I've even seen a "tent city" off the freeway that had solar panels!

Are electric cars and "tent cities" just a bay area thing or are they sprouting up elsewhere as well?

[Peelee]

On the whole heavy PDA thing, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw one of note (maybe the '90'?).though I'm oblivious to lots of things.

The only things new of note that I've noticed are more electric cars and that tents all over. I've even seen a "tent city" off the freeway that had solar panels!

Are electric cars and "tent cities" just a bay area thing or are they sprouting up elsewhere as well?

Electric cars, no. You might get a disproportionally higher number due to California laws, but they're definitely a growing market (which I am a HUGE fan of).

Tent cities? Probably. Bay area rent, from what I've heard, is insane

[DataNinja]

Are electric cars and "tent cities" just a bay area thing or are they sprouting up elsewhere as well?

I've been seeing an increasing number of electric cars over the years. But, my home city of Victoria has been having issues with tent cities. We have a housing crisis (less than 0.5% vacancy), and the way it played out, it was just attracting more homeless to our city. Which is a problem when we can't even begin to try and house those who we already had.

So, no, they're certainly not just a 'bay area thing'.

[Knaight]

Tent cities? Probably. Bay area rent, from what I've heard, is insane

There's a few areas in the vicinity of Denver that are approaching tent cities. There's also very few places in the vicinity of Denver where anything that even looks like reasonable rent is to be found.

[Mrc.]

Can I suggest "The whole of my degree"?

[Peelee]

Can I suggest "The whole of my degree"?

Oooo, I like it. What field.

[Mrc.]

Oooo, I like it. What field.

Chemical Engineering. Final year at Huddersfield

[Peelee]

Chemical Engineering. Final year at Huddersfield

Chem engineering?!? You have my sympathy.

[Knaight]

Chem engineering?!? You have my sympathy.

It's actually a really cool and interesting field in my experience*. Sure, the workload is a little obscene at times, and there's a lot of math involved that takes a while to be traced back to equations that make direct sense on their own, and sure there's almost nothing going on that maps to clearly visible physical processes**, but a lot of the basics are simple enough to intuitively internalize, and keep in the back of your mind while you're doing math six or so steps removed from them.

*Technically chemical and biological engineering.
**There's fluid flow, and maybe vapor liquid equilibrium depending on how exactly "clearly visible" is defined.

[Mrc.]

It's great fun and you learn some incredible things (like how due to the different laws of resistance to heat transfer, insulation can actually cool things down. This is the equivalent of putting on a coat and getting colder) and the application: for our final year project we have to design a plant from scratch. But holy crap is it hard at times! Multiphase systems is the bane of my existence right now.

[Peelee]

It's actually a really cool and interesting field in my experience.

Oh, I have no doubt it's cool and interesting. I was referring to the difficulty, from everything I've heard.

[factotum]

It's great fun and you learn some incredible things (like how due to the different laws of resistance to heat transfer, insulation can actually cool things down. This is the equivalent of putting on a coat and getting colder) and the application: for our final year project we have to design a plant from scratch. But holy crap is it hard at times! Multiphase systems is the bane of my existence right now.

I was flatmates with a chemical engineering student in my second year at university nearly 30 years ago. He once said that there was always a large part of any chemical engineering process that was basically a box saying "VENT TO ATMOSPHERE"--guessing that's probably changed in the last few decades!

[Mrc.]

I was flatmates with a chemical engineering student in my second year at university nearly 30 years ago. He once said that there was always a large part of any chemical engineering process that was basically a box saying "VENT TO ATMOSPHERE"--guessing that's probably changed in the last few decades!

Yeah there are loads of laws governing that; we had to do a second year module that covered all the economical and environmental concerns, because these projects are huge investments that often span 20-30 years, and if you have to abandon it halfway through because you're breaking environmental laws or a particular material you're using gets reclassified as illegal, you're losing several millions. It's pretty hefty stuff but I love almost all of it. Just wish I knew more!

[Knaight]

It's great fun and you learn some incredible things (like how due to the different laws of resistance to heat transfer, insulation can actually cool things down. This is the equivalent of putting on a coat and getting colder) and the application: for our final year project we have to design a plant from scratch. But holy crap is it hard at times! Multiphase systems is the bane of my existence right now.
Good old critical insulation thickness - although that's often less a matter of different laws of resistance and more a matter of surface area effects, where the surface area goes up on stuff being insulated* and thus there's a bigger surface area to cool.

*Pipes and the likes, obviously this wouldn't work for houses.


Oh, I have no doubt it's cool and interesting. I was referring to the difficulty, from everything I've heard.
I'm not going to say that it's easy, but I think the difficulty is a bit overstated. From a difficulty perspective I'm very glad I'm doing engineering and not, say, Classics. I can deal with the math, I can't deal with multiple dead languages.

[Peelee]

I'm not going to say that it's easy, but I think the difficulty is a bit overstated. From a difficulty perspective I'm very glad I'm doing engineering and not, say, Classics. I can deal with the math, I can't deal with multiple dead languages.

Well, there's also general usefulness. I had four years of Latin in high school, and was in the top 1000 on the Xbox Live Guitar Hero 3 leaderboards when it hit a million people, and I maintain that the latter has been more useful in life than the former.

[Amazon]

The fact we have to be sad when soemone die, I rather do it like the mexicans party and celebrate, death is part of nature why the need to be sad?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The fact we have to be sad when soemone die, I rather do it like the mexicans party and celebrate, death is part of nature why the need to be sad?

We're not sad they died, we're sad they stopped being alive. It's kind of a definitive end to knowing a nice person. And it's sad for them too, that they stopped being a nice person. And since they can't be sad about that anymore, we're sad on their behalf.

EDIT: In theory I sort of agree with you, in practice when someone I know well dies I feel sad.

[Amazon]

We're not sad they died, we're sad they stopped being alive. It's kind of a definitive end to knowing a nice person. And it's sad for them too, that they stopped being a nice person. And since they can't be sad about that anymore, we're sad on their behalf.

EDIT: In theory I sort of agree with you, in practice when someone I know well dies I feel sad.

I still don't get it. I don't feel sad at all but then i feel gulty for not being sad. :smallannoyed:

It's part of life and being sad won't bring the person back so what's the point?

[Peelee]

I still don't get it. I don't feel sad at all but then i feel gulty for not being sad. :smallannoyed:

It's part of life and being sad won't bring the person back so what's the point?

Because my family member/close friend is gone and I'll never get to be with them ever again.

Pretty damn sad, that. You don't HAVE to be sad. Nobody forces you. But chances are you will be.

[ve4grm]

I still don't get it. I don't feel sad at all but then i feel gulty for not being sad. :smallannoyed:

It's part of life and being sad won't bring the person back so what's the point?

You aren't alone on that. Some of us are wired to grieve differently than others, no need to feel guilty about it. So far I've only had one funeral that I was at the edge of tears for, and I was going through some other things at the time that contributed to that.

My grandma passed away when I was 8, after being very sick for a long while. When my mom told me in the morning, my response was: "Oh. That's good. She didn't want to go to the care home anyways."

So yeah, don't feel guilty for not being sad. If your grieving is just remembering the happy times you had, more power to you. Just be aware that others will be sad and respect that, and everything's cool.

[2D8HP]

I originally posted this at another thread, but it seems to fit here


....I fear I'm being turned into a kind of sociopath, and I also fear that may be for the best.

In the last month at work, and getting to and from my job I've seem multiple corpses, hundreds of homeless beggars, and many hundreds of imprisoned men.

The month before last I went to do an annual inspection (of part of the water supply system) at the Richmond Police Station, and an older woman came crying that she lost her granddaughter, and unlike my co-worker I couldn't even pretend to care or offer any reassurances that she would be found.

Ever so often, something I read, or a song I hear, or a movie I watch will get my eyes misty, but all the actual real-life-in-front-of-me human misery just evokes simmering annoyance and fatigue.

[lunaticfringe]

I originally posted this at another thread, but it seems to fit here



In the last month at work, and getting to and from my job I've seem multiple corpses, hundreds of homeless beggars, and many hundreds of imprisoned men.

The month before last I went to do an annual inspection (of part of the water supply system) at the Richmond Police Station, and an older woman came crying that she lost her granddaughter, and unlike my co-worker I couldn't even pretend to care or offer any reassurances that she would be found.

Ever so often, something I read, or a song I hear, or a movie I watch will get my eyes misty, but all the actual real-life-in-front-of-me human misery just evokes simmering annoyance and fatigue.

Empathy is uncomfortable. It does not release Happy Fun Time Chemicals in your brain when you are exposed to human misery. You get a hit of Suffering. Shutting down, stonewalling, avoiding people in pain, anger, frustration, and general prickish behavior happen. Especially if repeatedly exposed to sad situations, which it sounds you have been.

I was a bad friend when my best friend got divorced. I couldn't take it anymore. I was and still am good friends with his Ex. I listened to both their Sad for a year & half before they split. Apparently I'm very understanding, nonjudgemental (this is Crap, I just know when to STFU & Comfort), and easy to talk to. It really sucks sometimes.

Art is totally designed to **** with your feelings, so mission accomplished on the Artist's part. I jokingly & lovingly refer to Creatives as Emotional Terrorists (go be in a LTR with one). Sounds like you may be a bit Burned Out. Perfectly Human of you.

[Green Elf]

Also, I hate sports.

I really need to change my signature to a compilation of "I hate sports".

Actually, If anyone can send a quote of "I hate sports"/ "Also, I hate sports" etc., It would be very much appreciated.

Also, I hate sports. :)

[2D8HP]

....Perfectly Human of you.


Thanks for your kind response.

[Tvtyrant]

Thanks for your kind response.

Elegant pun there.

[Frozen_Feet]

Today I was reminded of something that's baffled me for a long while:

Engineers who cannot calculate volume for their own designs.

Like, these people. Are sitting on a computer. Drawing blueprints with computer aided design. Noting down all the necessary measurements. With calculator program one click away.

And yet, almost every damn time, the volume given for concrete required is off by margin of nearly 200 litres. And I have to calculate it again myself.

Like, we're talking about walls here. 99% of the time they're rectangles. A third grader knows how to calculate this stuff. Yet somehow professional engineers don't manage.

How is this possible? How? Hoooooow?

[ve4grm]

Today I was reminded of something that's baffled me for a long while:

Engineers who cannot calculate volume for their own designs.

Like, these people. Are sitting on a computer. Drawing blueprints with computer aided design. Noting down all the necessary measurements. With calculator program one click away.

And yet, almost every damn time, the volume given for concrete required is off by margin of nearly 200 litres. And I have to calculate it again myself.

Like, we're talking about walls here. 99% of the time they're rectangles. A third grader knows how to calculate this stuff. Yet somehow professional engineers don't manage.

How is this possible? How? Hoooooow?

I assume you're in construction?

Well, as an engineer, I'll give a possible answer, but not an excuse. It's likely that they are taking the output of the CAD program at its word, and the program is doing something wrong. Perhaps it thinks there's a void where there isn't one. Alternately, the volume they're giving you is the volume of the wall, subtracting the space the rebar takes up. Who knows.

But like I said, not really an excuse. (Unless it's wall minus rebar, in which case it's probably on purpose, just isn't what you're looking for I guess?)

Personally, all my volumes are very, very approximate, as I don't do walls and easy rectangles. I do roads and grading. So we estimate volumes either by comparing two surfaces to each other, or by taking cross sections every 10-25m and multiplying by the distances between them. Either way, once you're in the field, and depending on how well things compact, it ends up being +/- 10-20% from the estimated quantity.

[Chen]

If it's always the same people they could just be incompetent too. Alternatively you could ask them why and maybe there'd be an explanation. I know I won't put up with someone just saying they made the same mistake on multiple occasions without some justification.

[AuthorGirl]

The trope of sassy bartenders (in fiction - I don't know how common this is in real life). For reference, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about:

"Excuse me, this isn't a martini."
"It is in Kentucky."
"Fair enough."

And this sort of scene is so common in fiction that it seems to be playing with a real-life stereotype, but how would such a stereotype have gotten started in the first place? Wouldn't a bartender end up unemployed if they actually acted like that? (Assuming that, as a sort of wait staff, their job is to dispense what people actually order . . . right?)

I don't understand why I'm even thinking about this, but I thought the answer might be interesting.

If it's more suited for the Media Discussions subforum, do please let me know.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The trope of sassy bartenders (in fiction - I don't know how common this is in real life). For reference, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about:

"Excuse me, this isn't a martini."
"It is in Kentucky."
"Fair enough."

And this sort of scene is so common in fiction that it seems to be playing with a real-life stereotype, but how would such a stereotype have gotten started in the first place? Wouldn't a bartender end up unemployed if they actually acted like that? (Assuming that, as a sort of wait staff, their job is to dispense what people actually order . . . right?)

I don't understand why I'm even thinking about this, but I thought the answer might be interesting.

If it's more suited for the Media Discussions subforum, do please let me know.

Many bars' income is significantly based on regulars, who come in every day, and who are served precisely what they want. Newcomers asking for "weird" stuff may get a bit of lip, especially if that will please the regulars. It endangers the generation of new regulars, of course, but if you are the kind of person who wants a martini from a bar that only serves whiskey, then you aren't regular material for the bar. They lose little, they stand to gain further appreciation from their actual patrons.

In films, the main character is usually on the move, and having this kind of scenario, such as in Kingsman 2, which you quoted, is a way to show how far the character is outside their comfort zone. The flip side is the character that goes into a bar, asks for "my usual" and gets served. In either case, it is also a good moment for a bit of levity, which is always appreciated.

The midpoint between the two is usually NOT shown in films, because it adds nothing to the scene. Instead, the film may cut to the character already with food in front of them (or if an interruption is needed for the scene, starting without food, and getting it delivered, usually to show some kind of characterisation based on what each person ordered).

So, in short, "in films, interacting with the bartender has to serve the story".

Grey Wolf

[Tvtyrant]

Many bars' income is significantly based on regulars, who come in every day, and who are served precisely what they want. Newcomers asking for "weird" stuff may get a bit of lip, especially if that will please the regulars. It endangers the generation of new regulars, of course, but if you are the kind of person who wants a martini from a bar that only serves whiskey, then you aren't regular material for the bar. They lose little, they stand to gain further appreciation from their actual patrons.

In films, the main character is usually on the move, and having this kind of scenario, such as in Kingsman 2, which you quoted, is a way to show how far the character is outside their comfort zone. The flip side is the character that goes into a bar, asks for "my usual" and gets served. In either case, it is also a good moment for a bit of levity, which is always appreciated.

The midpoint between the two is usually NOT shown in films, because it adds nothing to the scene. Instead, the film may cut to the character already with food in front of them (or if an interruption is needed for the scene, starting without food, and getting it delivered, usually to show some kind of characterisation based on what each person ordered).

So, in short, "in films, interacting with the bartender has to serve the story".

Grey Wolf

And unfortunately Pulp Fiction wins the "interacting with serving people" competition, so everyone else has to make due with living in its shadow.

"Garcon means boy." Guy totally ignores her.

Or Hot Fuzz "what is your wine selection." "Red.... Or white." "I'll have a beer then."

[Honest Tiefling]

As for what i would like to add:

People who Don't take their shoes off when they enter their home / someone else's home. Like dude, take those off, leave them at the door. You're getting dirt everywhere, no telling what you stepped in outside. n-no, don't put your feet up on the table / couch / bed! You're just making things worse! For cripes sake people just take off your shoes when you enter a home!

Oh goodness yes. What sort of person can't take off their shoes!? I live in an area where it isn't universal, but I think you should damn well ask the host if you can keep your shoes or take them off. Carpets get filthy after a while if you don't.


Tent cities? Probably. Bay area rent, from what I've heard, is insane

Bay area rent is insane. But I'm willing to bet that the tent cities are going to only be in warm cities. I doubt you get many faux-bos in Toronto during a snow storm!


The fact we have to be sad when soemone die, I rather do it like the mexicans party and celebrate, death is part of nature why the need to be sad?

Because people miss the person. They won't see that person again for some time. Grieving is a personal process, and should be focused on helping the bereaved process it. So I'd mention to loved ones what you'd prefer for yourself, but keep in mind they might not do it because of what they need.

I believe it was custom in New Orleans to do a bit of both? The sad bit first, then a party to celebrate the person's life? I could be wrong.

And I have to confess, I sometimes watch reality TV shows. It's a guilty pleasure to watch some of the food networks ones, but in my defense, sometimes things catch on fire and there's genuine cooking tips in there. I just bear it with a grain of salt and remember that half of what they say probably isn't true or is taken out of context. The drama stuff, not the cooking stuff.

[lunaticfringe]

"Garcon means boy." Guy totally ignores her.


It been awhile but I recall him looking briefly amused at the factoid.

[AuthorGirl]

So, in short, "in films, interacting with the bartender has to serve the story".

Grey Wolf

That . . . ugh, that makes perfect sense. Brainless moment on my part, I suppose.

[Honest Tiefling]

The month before last I went to do an annual inspection (of part of the water supply system) at the Richmond Police Station, and an older woman came crying that she lost her granddaughter, and unlike my co-worker I couldn't even pretend to care or offer any reassurances that she would be found.

Ever so often, something I read, or a song I hear, or a movie I watch will get my eyes misty, but all the actual real-life-in-front-of-me human misery just evokes simmering annoyance and fatigue.

I too don't think you should worry, because I think you hit the problem on the head: Fatigue. People in stressful situations around others can become emotionally fatigued or drained. I've heard this issue happening a lot in the medical field for instance (the ol' story of EMTs having the darkest sense of humor, for instance).

If the woman is at the police station, she might not have wanted a stranger to come up and offer empty condolences or butt into a very important matter, if it helps. Sometimes all you can do is help and make sure the damn water works so the people who can help can get to work faster.

If the matter continues, consider just taking a day to relax and focus on what is your concern: Your kids! Make sure you do the best you can for them. Maybe take a day to do something fun with them to have a mini-vacation.

[2D8HP]

I too don't think you should worry, because....

Thanks for the words of encouragement


...If the woman is at the police station, she might not have wanted a stranger to come up and offer empty condolences...

Since she was leaving the station I think condolences and reassurances were precisely what she wanted, not the "We have noted this" she likely got. My co-worker was able to tell her "Don't worry they'll find her", but all I could think of (which I didn't voice) was "Hopefully not at the autopsy room" (Pretty much all of us who have worked in the autopsy room learn not to answer when asked "How was your day? ")


If the matter continues, consider just taking a day to relax and focus on what is your concern: Your kids! Make sure you do the best you can for them. Maybe take a day to do something fun with them to have a mini-vacation.

Good advice, thanks.

[ve4grm]

Thanks for the words of encouragement



Since she was leaving the station I think condolences and reassurances were precisely what she wanted, not the "We have noted this" she likely got. My co-worker was able to tell her "Don't worry they'll find her", but all I could think of (which I didn't voice) was "Hopefully not at the autopsy room" (Pretty much all of us who have worked in the autopsy room learn not to answer when asked "How was your day? ")



Good advice, thanks.

Yeah, this seems about normal.

My dad is a retired firefighter. We were talking recently about all the issues that job involved, the potential for PTSD, etc, and he mentioned just how dark the humour gets around the fire hall. It's a coping mechanism. You have to be able to distance yourself from the situation emotionally, or you can't do the job.

And, just like you did, you have to remember not to make those jokes in front of the people whose house burned down/daughter went missing. So yeah, seems pretty normal.

Some people, like your coworker, are better at turning the empathy back on, or at least faking it. And sometimes you go through rough periods where it doesn't come as easy.

But I assume if it was someone you knew, such as your child or a friend, you would have been able to be more supportive. Especially if you weren't at your job at the time.

[Honest Tiefling]

Since she was leaving the station I think condolences and reassurances were precisely what she wanted, not the "We have noted this" she likely got. My co-worker was able to tell her "Don't worry they'll find her", but all I could think of (which I didn't voice) was "Hopefully not at the autopsy room" (Pretty much all of us who have worked in the autopsy room learn not to answer when asked "How was your day? ")


Some people are different, and in case I think I was wrong. But I think I agree with ve4grm, that the coworker might be better with compartmentalizing or faking empathy. If you don't think you are up to faking it...Don't bother. If that's what gets you through the day, I'm really not going to complain. You have a job to do and the cops probably aren't going to solve anything if they have to jog to the 7-11 to use the bathroom.

Maybe ask your coworker how he deals with it, even if you make your inquiry a little vague. Even just having someone to talk to who goes through the same thing might help.

Or start a DnD group? Maybe some time bashing trolls upside the head will help.

[GolemsVoice]

A thing that really made me think when I noticed is: why does the poop emoji have a face? Sure, to convey a mood, but why? Or rather, what mood that isn't adequately expressed by just the poop?

[ve4grm]

A thing that really made me think when I noticed is: why does the poop emoji have a face? Sure, to convey a mood, but why? Or rather, what mood that isn't adequately expressed by just the poop?

Also, why is it a happy face?

[GolemsVoice]

I'm actually quite happy it's a smiling face, because otherwise you'd have sad poop, or merely indifferent poop, which just deepens the mystery.

[Honest Tiefling]

Because the artist wasn't paid enough and trying to make a poop emoji that is obviously lighthearted is quite difficult.

But I think a angry poop emoji would be a great way to communicate certain types of illnesses.

[Vinyadan]

Since it's been hinted at: people who ask me to take off my shoes when entering their home, and then leave me barefoot while they walk around with slippers. Dude, give me some slippers, too! Or felt pads, if it's all shiny.

[Peelee]

Since it's been hinted at: people who ask me to take off my shoes when entering their home, and then leave me barefoot while they walk around with slippers. Dude, give me some slippers, too! Or felt pads, if it's all shiny.

I don't quite get the point of slippers. I just don't want people tracking dirt all around my house. Plus, just for myself, it's way more comfortable.

[Honest Tiefling]

I don't quite get the point of slippers. I just don't want people tracking dirt all around my house. Plus, just for myself, it's way more comfortable.

If your feet get cold, you have circulation issues or uneven floors? Or pets inclined to sit on your feet? I think it's hard to explain what feels comfortable, versus what isn't.

However, since I don't wear slippers, I am free not to offer any to my guests. HAH. Through do people not go barefoot/have socks on? If I know someone well enough to be in their house, I probably don't care that I am showing my mismatching socks to them.

[Peelee]

If your feet get cold, you have circulation issues or uneven floors? Or pets inclined to sit on your feet? I think it's hard to explain what feels comfortable, versus what isn't.

However, since I don't wear slippers, I am free not to offer any to my guests. HAH. Through do people not go barefoot/have socks on? If I know someone well enough to be in their house, I probably don't care that I am showing my mismatching socks to them.

Socks.Socks are great. Feet don't get cold, feet still feel comfy without the harsh restrictions of shoes or slippers, socks can be tin in summer and thick in winter. I have Star Wars socks, plain white sicks, nice thin socks, super fat winter socks, super nice 100% cashmere socks ($2 at Bargain Hunt. Seriously, I will never find a deal that good ever again. They had no idea what they had. It's like wrapping my feet in a cloud).

[Mojo]

Something I don't understand? The gays.

Why would a guy prefer to love, sleep and be with another guy than with a girl?

They are guys! They should know better.

Most guys are selfish and disgusting huge jerks.

How can a guy find that more attractive than a girl?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T3DOejGi4g0/VGCogQd9JrI/AAAAAAAAEh8/643j7e4Bti4/s1600/094-mulan-r.jpg

[Knaight]

...socks can be tin in summer...

While technically true I'm not sure this actually helps in any way.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

While technically true I'm not sure this actually helps in any way.

Fun fact: the true reason for the Bronze Age collapse was that they had to use all the available tin to make their socks, leaving none for making the actual bronze.

GW

[Vinyadan]

The advantage is that aliens won't control your feet. Also, you can preserve them in the fridge.

[golentan]

Something I don't understand? The gays.

Why would a guy prefer to love, sleep and be with another guy than with a girl?

They are guys! They should know better.

Most guys are selfish and disgusting huge jerks.

How can a guy find that more attractive than a girl?


This is also why all women are lesbians, I suppose?

There are many fine, cute, smart, adorable, sexy, (and my favorite) geeky guys. It's true that most of them just aren't interested in guys like you, going off your self description.

[An Enemy Spy]

Something I don't understand? The gays.

Why would a guy prefer to love, sleep and be with another guy than with a girl?

They are guys! They should know better.

Most guys are selfish and disgusting huge jerks.

How can a guy find that more attractive than a girl?

I desperately hope this isn't a serious question, because if so... yeesh. There is something deeply wrong with your view on people.

[2D8HP]

...How can a guy find that more attractive than a girl?



I desperately hope this isn't a serious question.....


When I was a new apprentice plumber I actually heard one of the Journeyman ask this out-loud to the whole crew, supplemented by "I mean women are just amazing, I mean wow...". No one answered him and he was basically considered a nut-job, with the other the Journeyman laughing at him (this was in Silicon Valley during the last year of the Clinton administration when the main qualification for staying employed was the ability to fog a mirror), he lived in a VW Microbus and would tell the crew things like "My hobby is to go to restaurants and leave really big tips, waitresses love me!", and I was warned by another apprentice , "He called me over to his van to tell me something, and the dude started changing his clothes in front of me!, So if he calls you over stay out of the van!".

[Peelee]

While technically true I'm not sure this actually helps in any way.

You've clearly never been to Alabama.

[Knaight]

You've clearly never been to Alabama.

I know there's a problem with biting and stinging things, but tin socks still seem like overkill.

[Tvtyrant]

Something I don't understand? The gays.

Why would a guy prefer to love, sleep and be with another guy than with a girl?

They are guys! They should know better.

Most guys are selfish and disgusting huge jerks.

How can a guy find that more attractive than a girl?


Hmm, let us see.

1. Pretty sure no one likes being referred to that way. "The Straights" would be an equally incorrect way to refer to straight individuals.

2. Lots of reasons, even if we ignore the biological determination question. Men smell different, often have different body shapes/more muscular/lower BMI, and will have a different relationship to society and thus to their lover.

3. I think there is some self-loathing going on here. Why would you classify half of the population as inherently undesirable and unlikable? And going beyond that, it comes off as more than a little objectifying. Women are not passively pleasing things for desiring, they are as capable or incapable of being gross boors as men.

4. Lots of individual reasons that can't be widely assumed.

[ve4grm]

Something I don't understand? The gays.

Why would a guy prefer to love, sleep and be with another guy than with a girl?

They are guys! They should know better.

Most guys are selfish and disgusting huge jerks.

How can a guy find that more attractive than a girl?


I desperately hope this isn't a serious question, because if so... yeesh. There is something deeply wrong with your view on people.

Right... so while it might be a troll question, there are indeed folks around who just don't understand. And he's not saying it's morally wrong or disgusting, so I'm going to try to answer honestly.

.

Mojo - you need to keep in mind that you're seeing this from a skewed perspective. You are attracted to women. You are intrinsically wired to find them attractive. So seeing how someone could not be might be difficult.

So yes, women are amazing, beautiful creatures. This is great. Yet a majority of THEM are attracted to men. If men are as you say, how is this possible? They are women! They should know how great they are, right?

But just like you are attracted to women because of your own internal wiring, those women are attracted to men because of how they're wired.

Now, the big thing is, this wiring isn't consistent. Some women aren't very sexual at all. Some are extremely sexual and will obsess over their crushes. Some are bi, and attracted to both men and women. And some are only attracted to women. The target and level of attraction varies from woman to woman.

This is also the case in men. Most are attracted to women. Some are attracted to men. Some are attracted to both. And the level of attraction varies from person to person. But it isn't a choice, it's part of their internal wiring.

So the ultimate answer is just: Why are gay men attracted to men? Because that's just how they are programmed. And they couldn't help it any more than you can help being attracted to women.

.

Though you bring up one other point. "Most men are selfish and disgusting huge jerks."

You're overstating this, but not 100% wrong. Society's current form of "ideal masculinity" encourages this behavior. Men are encouraged to be rude, condescending, consider themselves superior to women, not express feelings, and be violent, while women are encouraged to be submissive and demure.

This is part of a concept known as "toxic masculinity". http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity
It isn't a good thing, and is a learned behaviour. Men aren't intrinsically any of these things (though we may have some tendency towards aggression due to hormones, it isn't overwhelming). Men can be soft, caring, beautiful people, just like women can.

Currently society pushes them in the other direction. There are many people out there today trying to mitigate this harmful effect.

[Velaryon]

I think this one is applicable here.

I'm unable to grasp what it is people get from looking at art. I can respect the skill that goes into making a painting, sculpture, etc., and I can look at a picture and go "oh, that's cool" but that's the sum total of my reaction. I don't have favorite art pieces, I don't feel any need to buy art to hang in my home, and there isn't any imagery that I feel passionate enough about to want to have it tattooed on my skin. I certainly don't begrudge people who are moved by art, and on an intellectual level I can understand discussions about one art style vs. another, but none of it really means anything to me in the same way that it seems to mean something to other people.

The same goes for dance as well. For me it's just... there.

Music, theatrical performances, stories, those I understand the appeal of and can appreciate.

[Peelee]

I know there's a problem with biting and stinging things, but tin socks still seem like overkill.

Imean, a lot of people can it tin, but it's really aluminum.

[Knaight]

Imean, a lot of people can it tin, but it's really aluminum.

Is this a real thing? I was assuming a misspelling of "thin", but aluminum foil socks seems vaguely plausible.

[Tvtyrant]

Imean, a lot of people can it tin, but it's really aluminum.

"It won't turn to aluminum in the can."

[AuthorGirl]

I think this one is applicable here.

I'm unable to grasp what it is people get from looking at art. I can respect the skill that goes into making a painting, sculpture, etc., and I can look at a picture and go "oh, that's cool" but that's the sum total of my reaction. I don't have favorite art pieces, I don't feel any need to buy art to hang in my home, and there isn't any imagery that I feel passionate enough about to want to have it tattooed on my skin. I certainly don't begrudge people who are moved by art, and on an intellectual level I can understand discussions about one art style vs. another, but none of it really means anything to me in the same way that it seems to mean something to other people.

The same goes for dance as well. For me it's just... there.

Music, theatrical performances, stories, those I understand the appeal of and can appreciate.

I am much the same: paintings, drawings, etc. rarely move me. Sculpture never does. Painting is moving; paintings . . . really not.

Music, stories, and poetry teach my soul how to fly.

I can possibly relate to how people feel when they look at art, because it may (or may not) be how I feel when I hear music. I suspect that it's hardwired and there's a disconnect between how different people experience the arts (see the discussion that's also going on around sexuality?). So I can't really explain the answer to this question, but here's a related thing that I've noticed: most "looking-at-art" type people that I know either disregard or actively dislike music. Just another part of how humans are different from each other?

As for why people get tattoos, that seems like a whole other discussion.

[Velaryon]

As for why people get tattoos, that seems like a whole other discussion.

Undoubtedly, but I think in my particular case it's related. I can't think of any image that's meaningful enough to me that I'd want it on my skin all the time. Even if there were, depending on where it went, either I wouldn't care to look at it all the time, or I wouldn't be able to see it anyway. So based on that, I would rather spend the money on something else.

And I'm sure my complete and utter terror of needles has nothing to do with it.

[Peelee]

Is this a real thing? I was assuming a misspelling of "thin", but aluminum foil socks seems vaguely plausible.

It may be a southern thing or an older generational, but I've hear plenty of people refer to aluminum foil as tin foil.

Also, quick googling: tin·foil
ˈtinˌfoil/Submit
noun
noun: tin-foil; noun: tin foil
foil made of aluminum or a similar silvery-gray metal, used especially for covering or wrapping food.

So it's even more common than I thought, apparently.

Also, just in case I'm being dense and you're being serious, no, the "tin" thing was my phone's new (well, relatively) onscreen keyboard being incredibly stupid. I think I'm gonna change it again. It was supposed to be thin. And then it was too funny to change it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think this one is applicable here.

I'm unable to grasp what it is people get from looking at art.

Art is intended for two main purposes (plus a secondary "author showing of skill" purpose). Leaving aside the obvious "record what someone/something looks like for posterity", the other reason is to instill an emotion. I suspect that most art that attempts this fails (just like songs and films fail: Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap). But just like you may find a song blah while others are moved by it, same with art.

In case it helps, I am like you. I have visited museums all over the world, and while I too appreciate the skill in art, I am mostly unmoved by it (it doesn't help, of course, that museums just overload you with art). But once in a while, I do come across this or that picture that does resonate with me. And it's not necessarily the famous ones - I once came across a picture in a private collection of a harbour city in flames at night, with a ship moored off of it, which somehow impacted me far more than anything else in the collection... and as far as I could tell, I was the only one affected so. I couldn't even find the stupid thing in catalogues.

Grey Wolf

[Honest Tiefling]

It may be a southern thing or an older generational, but I've hear plenty of people refer to aluminum foil as tin foil.

I'm not exactly young anymore, but I can confirm that it is used outside of the south. Say tin can/tin foil and people know what you mean, not that the actual item is made of tin.

[DataNinja]

It may be a southern thing or an older generational, but I've hear plenty of people refer to aluminum foil as tin foil.

Canadian here. Around where I live, at least, it's commonly referred to as tin foil, regardless of age.

[Mojo]

Girls just don't know any better. ;p

Yeah that was a joke, sorry it was a bad one, I suck at... Pretty much everything.

But a little bit of it is true, I still haven't find a guy that I think is pleasant or nice to be around. :smallannoyed:

[Honest Tiefling]

But a little bit of it is true, I still haven't find a guy that I think is pleasant or nice to be around. :smallannoyed:

Um. Pretty sure the majority of the forum-goers here are dudes. Or are you just here to talk to the ladies?

[Mojo]

Um. Pretty sure the majority of the forum-goers here are dudes.

Yes, and you are all jerks! I'm joking but I guess online meeting doesn't count.

[2D8HP]

Yes, and you are all jerks! I'm joking but I guess online meeting doesn't count.


That's a fair cop in my case, as I'm told by the "guests" on the 7th floor most every work week.

[FreddyNoNose]

So there are a lot of stuff that I just don't understand, so I’ll list them here in the hopes someone cane explain it to me. If you also have your own stuff that you just don't understand, feel free to post it here as well to be clarified or mocked.

1- People who spit in the street, why do why people spit on the street? It's such a horrible habit that I see so many random pedestrians just spiting on the street as if it was something normal and no one besides me batting an eye or calling then out on their horrible behavior. Why? In my 24 years of existence I never felt the need... The urge to do that, why do people feel that they need to? Is there a thing I'm not getting?

2- Public displays of affection, it's so rude and inappropriate, I'm not a prude or anything but why don't keep private actions, you know, private?


1- Your post about people spitting in the street has inspired me to start spitting on the street!

2- so you don't like hand holding? A little kissing? Perhaps Anal? Does this apply only to a man and woman doing PDA?

[The Eye]

1- Your post about people spitting in the street has inspired me to start spitting on the street!

2- so you don't like hand holding? A little kissing? Perhaps Anal? Does this apply only to a man and woman doing PDA?

Oh my, what have I done to you to deserve such hatred and contempt?

What's pda? You mean anal in public? Of course I object. Who wouldn't?

[Algeh]

Late to the party, but I'm firmly on Team Wear Shoes In The House. Why? Because I wear hiking boots with ankle support, and I do so because my doctor told me that if I wanted to stop spraining my ankle several times a year just walking around, my two choices were to wear ankle braces or to wear fancy hiking boots.

Living in Oregon, hiking boots were the more fashion-conscious choice, and I've been happily wearing my boots everywhere ever since. I sprained my ankle twice the year in which I finally gave up and bought them, and zero times in the five years since (I have two pairs of the older version of these (https://www.rei.com/product/896262/asolo-tps-520-gv-evo-hiking-boots-mens), which I get re-soled as needed and have otherwise held up just fine as my only two pairs of shoes for five years now), so I am going to keep on with this wearing boots everywhere thing. (One of the two times I sprained my ankle that last year was simply walking down a normal set of carpeted, indoor stairs. The other was stepping down a curb. I don't trust uneven surfaces of any kind at this point.) If I know I'm going to the house of someone who doesn't allow shoes indoors, I bring my ankle brace so I can go shoeless, but I need advance warning to do so since most houses around here allow shoes and I don't generally haul medical equipment around with me "just in case".

(The flannel shirt, on the other other hand, is a fashion choice. No doctor's recommendation involved.)

[Knaight]

It may be a southern thing or an older generational, but I've hear plenty of people refer to aluminum foil as tin foil.

It's more of a reduction from 5-6 syllables to two thing than anything - it's the socks which seemed vaguely plausible. Kind of dumb and pointless, sure, but it wouldn't be the first niche fashion item to fit that description, or even the first made of tin foil.

[FreddyNoNose]

Oh my, what have I done to you to deserve such hatred and contempt?

What's pda? You mean anal in public? Of course I object. Who wouldn't?

2- Public Display of Affection. How does that related to PDA... The list from hand holding to anal was suppose to show you that PDA isn't as meaningful as when you tell us specifically what you are so offended by. Ex: Hand holding...

[Honest Tiefling]

Here's another one...What exactly constitutes Old School Gaming? I see people post about it a lot, and I don't really get if it is a mere mechanical thing, or if there are certain themes and plots to the actual story that really make it feel old school.

[Peelee]

Here's another one...What exactly constitutes Old School Gaming? I see people post about it a lot, and I don't really get if it is a mere mechanical thing, or if there are certain themes and plots to the actual story that really make it feel old school.

Generally 80's-era. Arguably early 90's. Pre-82 games are usually referred to by "old-school arcade" or by their specific names. At least, that's the general feel I get when I hear about it.

[2D8HP]

Here's another one...What exactly constitutes Old School Gaming? I see people post about it a lot, and I don't really get if it is a mere mechanical thing, or if there are certain themes and plots to the actual story that really make it feel old school.


Beats me. I played RPG's in the late 1970's and early 80's (so arguably the "old" era), but when I read about "how it was" I remember different (maybe my tables in Berkeley, California were different?).

@Yora has posted a lot on the subject, maybe search his old posts.

The OD&D in the Playground? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?525403-OD-amp-D-in-the-Playground) thread, has posts by some old-timers, maybe that's a start, but I get the distinct impression that what is meant by "old-school" is not the same as "how it was". I'm reminded of certain other bogus claims about "how things used to be" that I hear more and more of.

When I get some more time, I'll do a compare and contrast, maybe in a new thread.

[Fawkes]

It may be a southern thing or an older generational, but I've hear plenty of people refer to aluminum foil as tin foil.

I use both depending on context. I use 'aluminum' when using foil to preserve food, and 'tin' when making hats to keep out the government mind control rays.


What's pda? You mean anal in public? Of course I object. Who wouldn't?

Hey man, don't knock it 'til you tried it.

[2D8HP]

...don't knock it 'til you tried it.


http://dubbatrubba.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/phil_hartman-as-ed_mcmahon-2-300x200.jpg That's Phil Hartman as Ed McMahon reacting to something funny kids!

[Frozen_Feet]

Here's another one...What exactly constitutes Old School Gaming? I see people post about it a lot, and I don't really get if it is a mere mechanical thing, or if there are certain themes and plots to the actual story that really make it feel old school.

"Old-school gaming" really just means playing old games and games which try to emulate those games. As time passes, the definition naturally changes as more and more games become old.

The confusion comes from the arguments over what are the important parts of "old school" games. Because even when the games are the same, newer players may appreciate different things in them than the old ones. Then there's general "back in good old days / bad old days" biases which warp the discussion, especially noticeable when the person talking of "good old days / bad old days" couldn't possibly been there themselved is essentially reciting biased history from someone else.

[JBPuffin]

I don't understand how hypocrites function in RL. You know, those people who preach something and then do exactly the opposite anywhere else? There are a lot, from Left to Right, to Upper to Lower class. Education usually isn't a factor either. There's always one in every field, from every religion, philosophy or group. I don't understand how they cope with their own contradictions.

Just so I’m clear - you don’t ever do something and think, “Oh man, I said I would never do this”? Or is it different because you’re not doing so regularly?

Everyone’s hypocritical in some way, small or large. Believing otherwise is self-delusion. Now, if you’re specifically targeting a group you find “particularly” hypocritical (I can take a couple guesses as to who), there are some blatant examples of hyper-hypocrisy, but let’s not pretend we don’t all have core values we betray every now and again for someone’s benefit (whether our own or another’s depends on the value betrayed).

[Eldan]

I'll agree to the painting and sculpture part, and I'll add music for myself. Music is occasionally... nice. When paired with movies or games, mostly, as a background for atmosphere. But by itself? I'll never understand why people listen to music all the time. It's just annoying. Noisy. Doesn't make me feel much. (I recognize which feelings it's meant to elicit, see atmosphere comment above, but I don't feel it myself.) Much of it is repetitive, too, which I hate.

[Peelee]

I don't understand how people can believe in bat**** crazy things just because they hear the word "chemicals." For instance! Right now, this crazy lady is talking to my crazy coworker. I can type out what I'm hearing in real-time, even! "That's the reason people have cancer coming back sometimes, they get it treated and somehow the chemicals coat the cells and that lets the cancer regrow, but we need our cells cleansed so they can get oxygen and nutrients that they need." I have to stop here due to forum rules, because she's now talking about the bible and how it relates to essential oils.

My coworker is a sucker for stuff like this, too. I basically just have to not listen or not respond when she talks about her pseudosciences, because she'll just refute with more crazy until she just refuses to believe at some point.

Fun fact: crazy lady is now going on about dentists, and how she's lost teeth, but they just need to spray some of this stuff, and she knows its safe because her 7-year old granddaughter had a cold sore in her mouth before they knew it was safe to spray in your mouth and you know how kids are intuitive like that and the granddaughter said said, "i bet this will work" and sprayed it in her mouth and in the morning her cold sore was gone.

[Vinyadan]

I never understood what essential oils are. I once tried a mouthwash that contained them, and it tasted like diesel.

[Potato_Priest]

In our newspaper there was an article last year about how to cure various diseases with essential oils. Most of the treatments involved rubbing them on your feet.

:amused:

[factotum]

I never understood what essential oils are.

They're oils that contain the "essence" of a plant (hence essential). Not sure what use they are apart from maybe putting into a burner and making your house smell nice, though...

[lunaticfringe]

They're oils that contain the "essence" of a plant (hence essential). Not sure what use they are apart from maybe putting into a burner and making your house smell nice, though...

It's basically distilled or concentrated plant, the uses are many. Historically this was done for scents & flavor but pharmalogically speaking it's too broad to assign a use to Essential Oils. Certain oils have different uses

Chili Oil is good for mixing into a spray to keep critters out of your garden & hypothermia I hear.

[Knaight]

Here's another one...What exactly constitutes Old School Gaming? I see people post about it a lot, and I don't really get if it is a mere mechanical thing, or if there are certain themes and plots to the actual story that really make it feel old school.
Are we talking about videogames or tabletop games here? Because the former is a bit vaguer than the latter, where the latter tends to refer to a combination of playing retroclones that are basically early D&D and loudly proclaiming how games were better in your day and modern gaming is terrible while not acknowledging the existence of anything outside D&D.

[NovenFromTheSun]

I'm not sure why romantic affection and sexual desire are assumed to be "meant" to go together. Asexuals and aromantics who aren't the other show that these things aren't inherently tied. Is it just a "two great tastes go great together" sort of thing?

[Knaight]

I'm not sure why romantic affection and sexual desire are assumed to be "meant" to go together. Asexuals and aromantics who aren't the other show that these things aren't inherently tied. Is it just a "two great tastes go great together" sort of thing?

It's more of a strong positive correlation thing - they don't have to go together, but they usually do, at least in conditions where they're at high concentration.

[Peelee]

Bytheway, Knaight, did you mean to quote my fun day?

[Knaight]

Bytheway, Knaight, did you mean to quote my fun day?

There might have been another half of the post planned at some point, but I don't remember what it was. As such, the quote is now gone.

[Kaytara]

I think this one is applicable here.

I'm unable to grasp what it is people get from looking at art. I can respect the skill that goes into making a painting, sculpture, etc., and I can look at a picture and go "oh, that's cool" but that's the sum total of my reaction. I don't have favorite art pieces, I don't feel any need to buy art to hang in my home, and there isn't any imagery that I feel passionate enough about to want to have it tattooed on my skin. I certainly don't begrudge people who are moved by art, and on an intellectual level I can understand discussions about one art style vs. another, but none of it really means anything to me in the same way that it seems to mean something to other people.

The same goes for dance as well. For me it's just... there.

Music, theatrical performances, stories, those I understand the appeal of and can appreciate.

Hm as someone who both makes art and likes SOME art... it depends on the kind of art. Some more realistic artwork (historical scenes, paintings of the ocean or ships or castles or whatever) transport you to a different place and time that maybe looks real enough. So it's briefly like standing on the same hill top as the artist was, who knows how many hundreds of years ago. Or standing on a hill top that only existed in the imagination of someone long dead. Both of which are equally cool experiences. Sometimes you can see scenes that you would in your lifetime probably never be exposed to in person, like the way THIS particular seedy alley late night in Amsterdam looks like, or THIS particular angle of some famous monument. It's a way to experience something different. And with visual artwork, the artist can show you what THEY want to draw your attention to, by use of colour and focus and detail and framing and composition. If the artist has a motif they keep coming back to, obviously dissatisfied, I find that really relatable and it makes me wonder what they were trying to capture. So it's "what were they trying to say?" It's a strangely intimate human connection to someone from the past or just from another life.

For other paintings, it's like a puzzle. You may see what's going on, then see a detail that changes your understanding of what's going on, or maybe you're noticing something that few people have noticed but the artist saw fit to include. Sometimes it's fun to guess at why the artist did what they did. I sometimes look at pictures and joke that this artist used this obviously religious commission as an excuse to draw several hyperrealistic dogs in the corner, which they were obviously more into than the rest of the painting. Sometimes you can tell which parts the artist spent more effort on. Sometimes you can spot mistakes. Sometimes you can tell, really obviously, that the reason certain characters are posed in such a way or covered by drapes is so the artist doesn't have to draw hands, or some other body part they're not fond of.

In short: making and sharing art is a pretty intimate experience. Looking at it, it's a little window into both the soul and the perception of a person you will probably never know. It is both a source of wonder and a reminder of our mortality and the passing of time.

Though on this note I might as well admit this doesn't extend to all art for me, and I have no clue what people get from most MINIMALISTIC art. There needs to be some content there for me. I don't get what people see in random lines or colour blotches or a black square on a white background, or why people hang it on their walls when to me, it's indistinguishable from the random pattern of the wallpaper. Someone explain this.

[factotum]

I can kind of see Velaryon's point about art. As a general rule, I don't appreciate realistic landscapes or portraits, because I think you could just take a photograph of the same scene. When the artist has captured something that either does not exist or is not easily photographable is when I start to get interested--so, all the old space art from the early part of the 20th century, for example.

[Vinyadan]

Then you should like Canaletto too, since some of his views are actually impossible, because of how buildings are located.

[Lady_Springtime]

I don't understand the concept/appeal of drinking for the purpose of intoxication. For that matter, I don't get why people who don't drink at all are assumed to be moralizing against those who do. I do, however, understand why I don't understand. Having been on a daily regimen of psych meds for over a decade on reaching the legal drinking age where I grew up, and being a more than a bit scared of side effects, I've never gotten drunk. I know that all alcoholic beverages taste good to at least some people, but I've also seen people who don't care about that adding as much high proof stuff to their drinks as they can.

In answer to a previous poster: hypocrites can function in real life due to a number of psychological coping methods such as cognitive dissonance or rationalization.

[lunaticfringe]

I don't understand the concept/appeal of drinking for the purpose of intoxication. For that matter, I don't get why people who don't drink at all are assumed to be moralizing against those who do. I do, however, understand why I don't understand. Having been on a daily regimen of psych meds for over a decade on reaching the legal drinking age where I grew up, and being a more than a bit scared of side effects, I've never gotten drunk. I know that all alcoholic beverages taste good to at least some people, but I've also seen people who don't care about that adding as much high proof stuff to their drinks as they can.

In answer to a previous poster: hypocrites can function in real life due to a number of psychological coping methods such as cognitive dissonance or rationalization.

Well sometimes it is the Drinkers guilt, like maybe they know they have work tomorrow and shouldn't be drinking. In my experience it is most often the NonDrinkers tone and justifications for not drinking.

I have declined alcohol on several occasions, just not a fan. "Nah I'm good, thanks though". That's it, never had a problem. Never had to explain more than *shrug* "I don't feel like it".

[ve4grm]

I don't understand the concept/appeal of drinking for the purpose of intoxication.

It's like any drug, really. From caffeine to pot to heroin. It induces a pleasant, if temporary, feeling. As a depressant, it is generally along the lines of a pleasant fog on the senses.

Also like any drug, it has some rather nasty side effects if done wrong, or in too high of dosage.

But unlike most other drugs, it's socially acceptable, at most levels below addiction. Even betting completely drunk and falling all over yourself is generally laughed off. (It really shouldn't be.)


For that matter, I don't get why people who don't drink at all are assumed to be moralizing against those who do.

The big part is that if they're already tipsy, their judgment is impaired. You may say "No thank you." in a friendly manner, but the inebriated brain reacts to it poorly because it is, by definition, impaired and can't judge and react to things properly.

This is also why people get into fights while drunk, are more promiscuous while drunk, etc. Alcohol in large amounts reduces inhibitions and impairs judgment.

So while sometimes the non-drinker is actually moralizing against alcohol, most of the time it's just that the drinker is inebriated and perceives it that way.


I do, however, understand why I don't understand. Having been on a daily regimen of psych meds for over a decade on reaching the legal drinking age where I grew up, and being a more than a bit scared of side effects, I've never gotten drunk.

Good on ya. Knowing what your limits are (in this case, zero) is a big part of drinking responsibly. More power to you for doing so.

[factotum]

Then you should like Canaletto too, since some of his views are actually impossible, because of how buildings are located.

I think that's maybe an over-literal interpretation of what I said. Canaletto's paintings are generally something that *could* exist in a photograph, even if they're not actually of a real place. A typical Escher or Bonestell image are of things that you couldn't just take a photo of. (And yes, I know Escher is technically a draughtsman not a painter, I still find his work fascinating).

[Knaight]

Well sometimes it is the Drinkers guilt, like maybe they know they have work tomorrow and shouldn't be drinking. In my experience it is most often the NonDrinkers tone and justifications for not drinking.

I have declined alcohol on several occasions, just not a fan. "Nah I'm good, thanks though". That's it, never had a problem. Never had to explain more than *shrug* "I don't feel like it".
There's plenty of people who will take "Nah I'm good, thanks though" as a personal attack on them and start getting really pushy about drinking, regardless of the tone and justification for not drinking. In my experience said group overlaps almost completely with the people who get really aggressive about other people not eating meat, and fairly heavily with people who get really upset when you don't share some hobby they love (maybe it's football, maybe it's videogames).

It's part of a general class of behavior where some people have trouble understanding mindsets that don't sort everything into mandatory and forbidden, and thus assume that anyone who doesn't view their stuff as mandatory is outright hostile to it in general as opposed to just not interested.


But unlike most other drugs, it's socially acceptable, at most levels below addiction. Even betting completely drunk and falling all over yourself is generally laughed off. (It really shouldn't be.)

As long as people aren't doing stupid stuff like getting into fights, driving, or drinking to the point where alcohol poisoning is a real risk, who cares if they're completely drunk and falling all over themselves?

[ve4grm]

As long as people aren't doing stupid stuff like getting into fights, driving, or drinking to the point where alcohol poisoning is a real risk, who cares if they're completely drunk and falling all over themselves?

Eh, drunk to the point of falling down is about the time those things you mention happen. And in many people, it's far more than they should healthily have. I'm not saying we need to stop people from doing it, but laughing at it discredits the potential seriousness of the situation. When you are actively impaired, and people are standing around laughing and feeding you shots, it's a recipe for potential disaster.

As long as there's someone there watching out for people, and taking care of them, I'm good. People should value their Responsible Friend (tm).

[Knaight]

Eh, drunk to the point of falling down is about the time those things you mention happen. And in many people, it's far more than they should healthily have. I'm not saying we need to stop people from doing it, but laughing at it discredits the potential seriousness of the situation. When you are actively impaired, and people are standing around laughing and feeding you shots, it's a recipe for potential disaster.

Actively stumbling around is a good sign it's time to stop drinking, but the issue here isn't the people laughing it off - it's the people deciding to keep feeding shots to the drunk person. A group of reasonable people can all get drunk together with no issue, a group of irresponsible frat bro morons egging each other on tends to end in stupidity of some sort, and that stupidity can be seriously damaging or even fatal.

I don't blame the hooch for that - I blame the irresponsible frat bro morons.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Actively stumbling around is a good sign it's time to stop drinking, but the issue here isn't the people laughing it off - it's the people deciding to keep feeding shots to the drunk person.

In that situation there is plenty of blame to pass around. The people that laugh are making light of a fairly advance stage of alcohol poisoning. Would you laugh at someone who is having trouble breathing or collapsing due to a heart attack? No? Then you have no business laughing at someone who has so much alcohol in his system his sense of balance is malfunctioning. Making light of the situation is what encourages others to keep giving the guy drinks.

The world of drinkers is not cleanly divided into "frat boys" and "responsible drinkers". Plenty of people - including me - have "amusing" stories of "what happened" at this office party or that - i.e. presumably responsible adults capable of holding jobs who just weren't responsible when it came to alcohol.

Now, blaming the alcohol? Obviously not directly like I blame enablers, since alcohol is non-sentient. But given that people know in advance this is a danger and decided to partake of alcohol anyway (rather than, say, tea or coffee, which are also culturally social drinks), yes, I can and do "blame alcohol" in an abstract sense.

Grey Wolf

[Knaight]

In that situation there is plenty of blame to pass around. The people that laugh are making light of a fairly advance stage of alcohol poisoning. Would you laugh at someone who is having trouble breathing or collapsing due to a heart attack? No? Then you have no business laughing at someone who has so much alcohol in his system his sense of balance is malfunctioning. Making light of the situation is what encourages others to keep giving the guy drinks.


Stumbling kicks in at 0.07 BAC. Alcohol poisoning isn't a serious concern until about 0.2 BAC, and even then it takes some fairly specific conditions prior to 0.3 BAC. A dose at 35% the lowest level for concern isn't an advanced stage of poisoning by any reasonable definition.

[Vinyadan]

I guess this is the result of using "intoxicated" instead of "drunk"?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Stumbling kicks in at 0.07 BAC. Alcohol poisoning isn't a serious concern until about 0.2 BAC, and even then it takes some fairly specific conditions prior to 0.3 BAC. A dose at 35% the lowest level for concern isn't an advanced stage of poisoning by any reasonable definition.

I find the definition "advanced enough to impair basic motor functions" perfectly reasonable. Impaired motor function can by itself cause death - say, the person that while drunk falls down a set of stairs or into a body of water and drowns. We are not machines. Just because they'd still need to take twice as much alcohol as they have so far to die of the alcohol itself doesn't make the stage of alcohol poisoning less advanced due to their increase risk of serious injury or death. The important bit is not the sheer amount of poison in the system but its physiological effects, and their risk to the individual.

Heck, from a strictly actuarial perspective, you are in an advanced stage of alcohol poisoning the moment you are too drunk to drive, which happens before the ataxia sets in.

And again, I note that making light of this is part of the problem.

Grey Wolf

[ve4grm]

I don't blame the hooch for that - I blame the irresponsible frat bro morons.

Right, so this got out of hand a bit. I think we all generally agree on the issue, but are talking around each other a bit, or making assumptions the other isn't making.

Of course the alcohol isn't at fault, it's the stupid people imbibing it badly. Full agreement. And I think on any point we differ, our arguments are now clear. I think I'm going to stop and let the thread continue with other stuff, rather than derail it into a side argument, where neither of us will convince the other.

[FinnLassie]

My sister, who has lived in Japan for 6 years, speaks almost solely in Japanese with one of her Finnish friends that also lives there.

Goes beyond me. (though of course, when it's time to gossip, it's Finnish speaking time :smallsneakytongue:)

[Chen]

My sister, who has lived in Japan for 6 years, speaks almost solely in Japanese with one of her Finnish friends that also lives there.

Goes beyond me. (though of course, when it's time to gossip, it's Finnish speaking time :smallsneakytongue:)

Is that really so odd? I know plenty of people who speak the language of the country they're in, rather than their native tongue, even to others who share the same native tongue. Comes from living in a place for a while I'd think.

[LughSpear]

Internet "debates".

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DH69LAPUwAIoPSP.jpg:large

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Is that really so odd? I know plenty of people who speak the language of the country they're in, rather than their native tongue, even to others who share the same native tongue. Comes from living in a place for a while I'd think.

It's usually a sign you've progressed enough in the new language to think in that language. It is easier to speak the same language you are thinking in.

GW

[Velaryon]

I don't understand the concept/appeal of drinking for the purpose of intoxication. For that matter, I don't get why people who don't drink at all are assumed to be moralizing against those who do. I do, however, understand why I don't understand. Having been on a daily regimen of psych meds for over a decade on reaching the legal drinking age where I grew up, and being a more than a bit scared of side effects, I've never gotten drunk. I know that all alcoholic beverages taste good to at least some people, but I've also seen people who don't care about that adding as much high proof stuff to their drinks as they can.

I kinda don't get the appeal either, but in my case I think there might be something weird about me. I don't seem to experience the loosened inhibitions or other "fun" aspects of getting drunk the way most people do. I don't feel any different than normal until I reach the point where I start getting queasy. As a result, I've only been really drink (as in, enough to get sick) three times in my life - once to find out what it was like and twice for stupid emotional reasons that just made me feel worse. Now I'll occasionally have a drink or two for the taste, but stop after that.



There's plenty of people who will take "Nah I'm good, thanks though" as a personal attack on them and start getting really pushy about drinking, regardless of the tone and justification for not drinking. In my experience said group overlaps almost completely with the people who get really aggressive about other people not eating meat, and fairly heavily with people who get really upset when you don't share some hobby they love (maybe it's football, maybe it's videogames).

I've experienced this, too. I used to gather to watch WWE pay per views at a friend's place a few years ago. He would invite this one guy that most of us didn't like very much, but was at least tolerable most of the time. Let's call him M. M is certainly generous enough, and brings beer that he likes and happily shares with anyone who wants some. But I wasn't in the mood and he didn't want to take no for an answer. He bugged me 4 or 5 times until one of my other friends went off on him to shut up and stop trying to push it on me.

[factotum]

I kinda don't get the appeal either, but in my case I think there might be something weird about me. I don't seem to experience the loosened inhibitions or other "fun" aspects of getting drunk the way most people do.

I haven't drunk alcohol in 20 years, but when I did have the occasional tipple, I can remember *one* occasion where I'd drunk enough to be tipsy--I don't think I was fully drunk because I remember everything quite clearly, and one of the things I remember clearly was that I didn't like the feeling. It felt like I was controlling my body from some distance using a slightly unreliable and difficult to use remote control, which is why I nearly walked into a lamp-post on the way home.

It's quite easy for me to be teetotal, though, because I hate the taste of most alcohol. About the only things I ever did drink were either mixtures like rum and coke or snowballs, or maybe an occasional Bailey's Irish Cream at Christmas, and when I figured out that the main reason I could drink those was because the major component of the flavour wasn't the alcohol part, it was quite easy to give up entirely.

[NovenFromTheSun]

It being considered polite to wait until everyone's got their food to start eating. So if you're the first person served, you'll just have to settle with your food getting colder for absolutely no benefit to the person served last.

[Knaight]

Heck, from a strictly actuarial perspective, you are in an advanced stage of alcohol poisoning the moment you are too drunk to drive, which happens before the ataxia sets in.

From a strictly actuarial perspective this kicks in specifically because of people driving, and given the other related driving issues around distracted driving (texting, eating) and wide acceptance of speeding I'd chalk that up more to a culture thoroughly unwilling to really consider cars as the highly dangerous heavy machinery they actually are.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It being considered polite to wait until everyone's got their food to start eating. So if you're the first person served, you'll just have to settle with your food getting colder for absolutely no benefit to the person served last.

At least were I grew up, if there are more than 7 people sitting at the table, you are not expected to wait, precisely to prevent the food from becoming cold.


From a strictly actuarial perspective this kicks in specifically because of people driving, and given the other related driving issues around distracted driving (texting, eating) and wide acceptance of speeding I'd chalk that up more to a culture thoroughly unwilling to really consider cars as the highly dangerous heavy machinery they actually are.

The lengths you will go to be defensive about not finding issues with drinking beyond the point of self control (or people minimizing its dangers, which you clearly are doing at this point) are concerning enough to me that I am ceasing this conversation immediately.

Grey Wolf

[Frozen_Feet]

Re: alcohol.

If you get no high from drinking, it might be educational to read on the exact mechanism of what alcohol does. It may prove revealing about yourself or others.

To wit, ethanol itself is just pain killer. It doesn't cause euphory in itself. However, to counteract its effects, your body emits more neurotransmitters such as dopamine, adrenaline and testosterone. It is these substances which are more directly to blame for loosened inhibitions, increased risk taking and sense of pleasure.

It's also why alcohol withdrawal can be more immediately lethal than withdrawal for many less legal drugs. If your body is used to presence of alcohol, your body already is in sort of constant "overdrive" to function normally. So when there's no longer ethanol to counteract, you go into a neural shock, see pink elephants, spit blood, convulse and die.

Hangover is just lesser version of the same crap. That's why all the sounds are too loud and all the lights too bright when hung over.

[FlammySenpai]

I don't get why you write the recipient's name on the outside of a birthday card envelope. It's their birthday, everyone knows who it's for. You should put the name of whoever is giving the present on the outside.

[Honest Tiefling]

I don't get why you write the recipient's name on the outside of a birthday card envelope. It's their birthday, everyone knows who it's for. You should put the name of whoever is giving the present on the outside.

...If you happen to have multiples of that envelope lying around, it might be easier to grab the correct one. Not that I would be such a forgetful person like that!

[factotum]

Also note that things like twins, triplets etc. exist--how are you going to differentiate the cards for those if you don't write their names on the outside?

[Mikemical]

How come there is people that praise my country's government and it's allies around the globe for "standing up" against the dominant economic model when they themselves don't live in these countries and have all the things we, the common citizens who live in said countries, have no access to.

World of Warcraft gold is currently worth more than my country's currency. Imagine that.

[Peelee]

Aaaaaand I'm noping out of this thread.

[ve4grm]

How come there is people that still believe Communism/Socialism/Marxism can work when there's heaps of evidence and dozens of failed economies that prove otherwise. I live in a Socialist Banana Republic, and the only reason I can think of is that they're buying into the propaganda that remains from the Cold War-era.

World of Warcraft gold is currently worth more than my country's currency. Imagine that.

Pretty sure real-world politics is not allowed here. There's plenty of places to discuss it online.

Suffice it to say that most economic philosophies have some level of flaws, and we won't resolve those here.

[Mikemical]

Pretty sure real-world politics is not allowed here. There's plenty of places to discuss it online.

Suffice it to say that most economic philosophies have some level of flaws, and we won't resolve those here.

Oh shoot. Think if I change the post to make it less explicit will help?

[sktarq]

On naming the "To:" person on gifts. . .

Also some people with close birthdays will celebrate together. The "to: X" becomes useful.

Also in many gift giving situations multiple people are receiving gifts at once leading proper identifiers being necessary. This leads it to just be norm even when at events like b-days and weddings when it is not strictly necessary.

Also lots of people get a bit of a high on seeing their name on a gift. It reinforces the dopamine rush of "mine".

And finally. It is dang useful if you have multiple presents laying around prepping to off to various recipients. Makes sure you don't send an adult themed wedding shower gift to your nine year old niece's birthday (or other such embarrassments).

[Honest Tiefling]

Also in many gift giving situations multiple people are receiving gifts at once leading proper identifiers being necessary. This leads it to just be norm even when at events like b-days and weddings when it is not strictly necessary.

Putting two names onto a gift can be symbolic of welcoming the newcomer to the family, or the beginning of them coming together to form their own household.

If you don't believe me, put one name on the next wedding gift you give and check out the results!

[truemane]

Professional sports team loyalty. It doesn't make any sense even when the team you're rooting for is your own 'home team' but it makes even less sense when you're a fan of some other place's team.

In the modern era, the players change all the time, they're rarely (if ever) from the place where they play, and even the coaches and managers move around quite a bit and playstyles change all the time.

So what are you loyal to? If you live, say, in Toronto, and you're a Montreal Canadiens fan, then what exactly are you a fan of? The stockholders? The picture on the uniform? Or do you just like fighting? There's no stable THING there that remains year after year.

It doesn't make any sense to me. It never has.

[Keltest]

Professional sports team loyalty. It doesn't make any sense even when the team you're rooting for is your own 'home team' but it makes even less sense when you're a fan of some other place's team.

In the modern era, the players change all the time, they're rarely (if ever) from the place where they play, and even the coaches and managers move around quite a bit and playstyles change all the time.

So what are you loyal to? If you live, say, in Toronto, and you're a Montreal Canadiens fan, then what exactly are you a fan of? The stockholders? The picture on the uniform? Or do you just like fighting? There's no stable THING there that remains year after year.

It doesn't make any sense to me. It never has.

Its tribalism, basically. Its a group that you can identify with and compete against other groups that you don't identify with. It doesn't matter if the actual team itself changes, its the group that's important.

My home town is a college football town (we become the biggest town in our state on football weekends, much to the chagrin of the locals who just want to go grocery shopping), and while I have no particular knowledge or interest in football, I still cant help but get a little excited when our local team does well.

[Peelee]

Its tribalism, basically. Its a group that you can identify with and compete against other groups that you don't identify with. It doesn't matter if the actual team itself changes, its the group that's important.

My home town is a college football town (we become the biggest town in our state on football weekends, much to the chagrin of the locals who just want to go grocery shopping), and while I have no particular knowledge or interest in football, I still cant help but get a little excited when our local team does well.

I really, really love not living in Tuscaloosa or Auburn. Game days are the greatest days ever for shopping. Streets are clear, parking lots are empty, nobody is crowding me in the stores, it's glorious.

[ve4grm]

Oh shoot. Think if I change the post to make it less explicit will help?

If you really want to try, I'd recommend starting a new thread, just so the big thread doesn't get locked if there's a problem. Or derailed, which it probably would.

[GolemsVoice]

Its tribalism, basically. Its a group that you can identify with and compete against other groups that you don't identify with. It doesn't matter if the actual team itself changes, its the group that's important.

My home town is a college football town (we become the biggest town in our state on football weekends, much to the chagrin of the locals who just want to go grocery shopping), and while I have no particular knowledge or interest in football, I still cant help but get a little excited when our local team does well.

Amusingly enough, it can also be the fans themselves. Some teams, and the associated cities, and their fans, have, justly or unjustly, certain associations. So one team might be the team of the "simple working man", so to say, and their fans might pride themselves on their rough but warm behaviour, their down-to-earth decorations, or whatever. That can be a powerful "spirit", so to say, and can be tapped into by trainers or club presidents, or at least represented by past individuals. Never mind, of course that each of the players probably makes more in one season than most of their fans will see in 10 years.

[Honest Tiefling]

It is also an excuse to drink or party. Who cares if you can't name all of the people for that team, understand what the positions are, or even name the sport! Celebration time!

Also, butts. Probably doesn't apply to all fans, but it might apply to some.

[Vinyadan]

Hooligans tend to see the team as important, and players as mercenaries. That's why players changing isn't an important factor.
However, I know Ukrainians who were for AC Milan because Sheva played there. So sometimes it's the opposite, people can follow a beloved player across teams.

[An Enemy Spy]

Plus, I mean it's not like the entire team just ups and leaves every year to be replaced by a whole new crew of guys. Every years some players retire, sign on with other teams, or get cut, and then new guys are added through the draft or free agency. Eventually every player will be gone, but that's just part of the ever shifting world around that we all experience no matter where our interests lie. What's constant is the team, that despite being an ever shifting entity also remains as a constant.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Plus, I mean it's not like the entire team just ups and leaves every year to be replaced by a whole new crew of guys. Every years some players retire, sign on with other teams, or get cut, and then new guys are added through the draft or free agency. Eventually every player will be gone, but that's just part of the ever shifting world around that we all experience no matter where our interests lie. What's constant is the team, that despite being an ever shifting entity also remains as a constant.

In short, sports teams are an excellent example of Theseus's paradox.

GW

[An Enemy Spy]

In short, sports teams are an excellent example of Theseus's paradox.

GW

Along with any long running organization staffed by human beings.

[Peelee]

In short, sports teams are an excellent example of Theseus's paradox.

GW

Let us pretend for a moment that I am not a smart man. What is Theseus' Paradox? It's it the same thing as the Ship of Theseus?

[Keltest]

Let us pretend for a moment that I am not a smart man. What is Theseus' Paradox? It's it the same thing as the Ship of Theseus?

Yes, it is.

[An Enemy Spy]

Let us pretend for a moment that I am not a smart man. What is Theseus' Paradox? It's it the same thing as the Ship of Theseus?

Yes, it's just another name for it.

[2D8HP]

SJW .

virtue signaller..
:yuk:


Much like the person using "SJW" earlier, using the phrase "virtue signaling" says a lot more about you than it does about the person you're referring to..
Something that I don't "get" is that some choose to mangle the meaning of words to tick people (well me) off.

I first encountered the previously unknown to me term "SJW" at this Forum about a year ago, and "Virtue signalling" quite recently (what can I say, I'm old and out-of-it), and after a quick web search I learned, to my bewilderment and annoyance, that it was a slur and that the letter "J" contained in it stood for "Justice".

Some months later I saw a delightful webcomic (http://www.dorktower.com/2017/05/09/you-keep-using-that-word-dork-tower-09-05-17/), that articulated my confusion and annoyance:

http://www.dorktower.com/files/2017/05/DorkTower1394.jpg

Know that someone responding "Those terms are used ironically" does not lessen my annoyance.

What's next, "Orphan feeder" as a slur?

How about "Caretaker" and "Honorable" as slurs as well?

:confused: :annoyed:

[Eldan]

It's more along the lines of "Holier-than-thou" (isn't being holy a good thing?). Someone who makes a glorious crusade out of some percieved injustice that does not even directly affect them, usually when the people it actually affects don't care. The slur is the "warrior" part, not the "justice" part. I'll admit it's not the best word to describe it, but a true SJW is someone who goes on a multi-page rant on a forum about how someone is oppressing someone else by not using the right kind of language when no one else cares, least of all the person "Oppressed". Someone who makes a mountain out of a molehill while ignoring more urgent problems and who loves leaping to the defence of people who don't need it.
They aren't that rare on the internet. However, through general internet dickishness, it pretty much has come to mean "Anyone who cares about anything remotely social-related I don't care about".

*shrug*. It's the internet.

[Frozen_Feet]

"Virtue signalling" is just a more boring way to say someone's tooting their own.

"Social justice warrior" is a straight example of verbal irony, and it's weird some people don't get that. No, I don't mean people like you, 2D8HP, who notice the words are neutral and get confused when they're used as a slur. That's just a normal case of irony flying under someone's radar. I mean people who honestly don't get that "social justice warrior" is made of neutral words and think it is and has always been unironically negative.

A similar phenomenom existed with "White Knight", with some people apparently complete unaware that the phrase could be used unironically to communicate a notion of romantic chivalry.

[ve4grm]

<comic>

Know that someone responding "Those terms are used ironically" does not lessen my annoyance.

What's next, "Orphan feeder" as a slur?

How about "Caretaker" and "Honorable" as slurs as well?

:confused: :annoyed:

That's a great comic. I love Dork Tower.

As far as being used ironically? They're not. These are generally people who actually feel that "social justice" is an undesirable goal. That it's political correctness taken to too high of a degree. I don't understand it, personally.

I believe "virtue signaling" is supposed to mean that the person is showing off kind of? Like "hey, look how virtuous I am"? So I kind of get that one maybe?

Regardless, this topic is bound to bring out the real-world politics, so we might want to leave it at that. Sorry.

[A.A.King]

.
I first encountered the previously unknown to me term "SJW" at this Forum about a year ago, and "Virtue signalling" quite recently (what can I say, I'm old and out-of-it), and after a quick web search I learned, to my bewilderment and annoyance, that it was a slur and that the letter "J" contained in it stood for "Justice".

Some months later I saw a delightful webcomic (http://www.dorktower.com/2017/05/09/you-keep-using-that-word-dork-tower-09-05-17/), that articulated my confusion and annoyance:

Know that someone responding "Those terms are used ironically" does not lessen my annoyance.

What's next, "Orphan feeder" as a slur?

How about "Caretaker" and "Honorable" as slurs as well?

:confused: :annoyed:

To be fair, anything can be a slur if you say it with enough anger, even "Orphan Feeder".

In the case of SJW it's an insult-by-association kind of a thing. It's not so much about the individual words, but the group of people it represents. When that insult is thrown at you people are saying you are like the people who call themselves SJWs (even if you share little to no values with those people). In terms of insult it is often quite similair to "Alt-righter" or "Communist". The people who call themselves those words deem nothing wrong with the group and the people who use the words as insult care very little for your actual believes or position, simply using it as a catch-all term for people who oppose them on certain issues.

National, Socialist German, Worker and Party are also all fairly neutral terms, but if you put them together (at least in my language) you get quite the powerful insult ;) (which is also more often than not completely misused as a catch-all to the point is has lost a lot of meaning).

Virtue Signalling on the other hand is a more obvious insult, the 'signalling' bit referring to it being disingenuous. You're not doing something because it needs to be done or because you actually believe it, you're not trying to correct an injustice you just want other people to know that you're believing the 'right' thing. If you ever get the feeling that someone who you were having an online discussion with stopped addressing you and is more or less monologueing than that's an example of virtue signalling. They don't want to get a point across, they're not having an honest argument, they simply want to let themselves and any potential audience know that they believe the right thing.

[Vinyadan]

Orphan Feeder definitely can be a slur, depending on to whom you have fed the orphan.

[Mith]

I haven't read the entire thread, so this may have come up already.

WHen it comes to math, what scares people away from it? And not the really complicated math (which isn't necessarily complicated if you have the basic concepts), but things such as simple algebra and case by case break down. Is it a systemic problem where teachers don't know what they are teaching to the degree they should? Only teaching surface understanding so that math becomes a black box in which things just happen? For those for who math doesn't come to easily, what is your experience with this?

I am coming to this question as someone who takes those weird math questions that pop up on social media that say "take your age, do a bunch of arithmetic, get the year you were born." sort of thing. To me, the interesting thing is taking the problem and figuring out why it works. It already says what it does, so there is no interest in that.

[ve4grm]

I haven't read the entire thread, so this may have come up already.

WHen it comes to math, what scares people away from it? And not the really complicated math (which isn't necessarily complicated if you have the basic concepts), but things such as simple algebra and case by case break down. Is it a systemic problem where teachers don't know what they are teaching to the degree they should? Only teaching surface understanding so that math becomes a black box in which things just happen? For those for who math doesn't come to easily, what is your experience with this?

I am coming to this question as someone who takes those weird math questions that pop up on social media that say "take your age, do a bunch of arithmetic, get the year you were born." sort of thing. To me, the interesting thing is taking the problem and figuring out why it works. It already says what it does, so there is no interest in that.

Highlighted for emphasis.

Whether it's a teaching problem, or that's actually just the way the student learns best, many people learned math through rote memorization. Given the sheer number of people (especially in the west) that are terrified of math, I'm inclined to think it's at least partly a teaching problem.

I've always felt this was best exemplified by the "times tables". Do you know your nine times table? Your 12 times table?

I'm an engineer. My life is algebra. I have never learned a times table, even back in grade 3. I just learned how to do multiplication, and did it when I needed to. The times tables were a memorization shortcut that prevented learning the process.

In the end, whether or not you agree with the methods, this is what Common Core is attempting to solve. It's trying to remove the black box, and teach the methods, not the results. There's probably plenty wrong with Common Core (I'm Canadian, so I don't have much exposure to it, and this isn't the place to discuss it anyways) but that's why it exists, and the goal is solid.

[Mith]

Highlighted for emphasis.

Whether it's a teaching problem, or that's actually just the way the student learns best, many people learned math through rote memorization. Given the sheer number of people (especially in the west) that are terrified of math, I'm inclined to think it's at least partly a teaching problem.

I've always felt this was best exemplified by the "times tables". Do you know your nine times table? Your 12 times table?

I'm an engineer. My life is algebra. I have never learned a times table, even back in grade 3. I just learned how to do multiplication, and did it when I needed to. The times tables were a memorization shortcut that prevented learning the process.

In the end, whether or not you agree with the methods, this is what Common Core is attempting to solve. It's trying to remove the black box, and teach the methods, not the results. There's probably plenty wrong with Common Core (I'm Canadian, so I don't have much exposure to it, and this isn't the place to discuss it anyways) but that's why it exists, and the goal is solid.

I would say that when I went through school, what I learned was both times table and proper multiplication. The first was to show the patterns inherent to the numbers, the latter so you know what you are actually doing.

As for New Math, having talked to some teachers, the point of the system is to give students multiple options to find what makes math click in their brain, and allowing the student to use that method to solve problems.

[factotum]

Not to boast, but I'm rather good at maths--I have an A level in the subject with an A grade, which is the highest qualification you can get in the UK short of going to university. However, it took me about a year before I "got" algebra--I struggled with it for months, and it's only because I really liked the subject that I just didn't give up on it. I can quite easily see how someone would be in the same situation but would *not* have the impetus of enjoying it, and so wouldn't bother.

[Peelee]

Not to boast, but I'm rather good at maths--I have an A level in the subject with an A grade, which is the highest qualification you can get in the UK short of going to university. However, it took me about a year before I "got" algebra--I struggled with it for months, and it's only because I really liked the subject that I just didn't give up on it. I can quite easily see how someone would be in the same situation but would *not* have the impetus of enjoying it, and so wouldn't bother.

Is A level like completing American high school? Or is it more advanced? Are the classes optional?

[caden_varn]

In my day, A-levels are taken at 18, taught from ages 16-18.
You studied 3 subjects, though I think that has changed a bit these days. For example, I took Maths, Physics and Chemistry. In my school we also did General Studies, but this did not lead to an exam in most cases, where we studied a few other things of our choice. This was more to keep us occupied I suspect, as I was at a boarding school - not sure this was generally true.

Now, my day was nearly 30 years ago now (and now I feel old :smalleek:), and I believe things have changed somewhat in that time (I think you take AS at 17 for example), but I believe it is still more specialised that US high school (although I know little about that). Maybe someone with more recent experience (or children) can give a more up-to-date overview.