Gwazi Magnum

"You're a Fake Geek!" and Sexism among Geeks/Nerds/Etc (us)

ishtar said
o .o Alright... so, will there ever be a time where a girl can play a game, online or not, without other male gamers goes "GASP! You're a girl??!!!" or "What are you doing here? Go back to kitchen and make me a sammich!" or something along that line?

If you mean general culture society is always making progress, we're showing the clear signs of getting there.
Nothing like that happens over night though, it's going to take a little bit but we'll get there.

That being said though you'll always have the few Individuals always willing to deal the low blow to win an argument, boost their ego etc. May that low blow be race, gender, sexuality etc.

Suicide, Tragic or Selfish?

Halo said do you not think that being desperately insecure enough to need that attention, or bitter and angry and hurt enough to lash out at the world in that way, in itself signifies that something is deeply wrong and that the person needs help?It is very similar to an argument I see frequently: that self-harmers who don't hide their fresh cuts or old scars, or who post them on Facebook, are "only doing it for attention", don't really have any issues, or whatever. What seems ridiculous about this is that the people making the argument don't seem to realise that such a need for attention and pity is, in itself, demonstrating that that person is deeply in need of support and help. Anybody who really was cutting themselves for attention is clearly just as pathological and needing of support as someone doing it for reasons considered more "legitimate". Exactly the same thing applies here, to the case of suicide.

Good point... That honestly never even crossed my mind. :/

Well done.

"You're a Fake Geek!" and Sexism among Geeks/Nerds/Etc (us)

Turtlicious said
You just argued that longer = smarter in the paragraph before you said "I'm not arguing longer = smarter."Not true, like at all.e: You said also like 3 or 4 times, that's just lazy writing, at this point it's becoming difficult to read what you write, I understand you feel like putting more down on paper means you're going more in depth on the subject, but there is just no way in hell I'm going to subject myself to that.

As in posting longer doesn't automatically make you smarter. I honestly can't tell if you're either consciously choosing or simply incapable of being able to derive means from one's words and/or follow and understand something that's longer than a couple of sentences.

Tick said
What does Spam have to do with Fake Geeks?

Basically Turt didn't like how long we made our posts.
So he started trolling/attacking people having long posts claiming it made people less Intelligent and/or was just stupid.
And that turned into a very long derailment that turned into "Spam is smart they keep it short" which is now being debated.

I feel pretty silly for having been stuck on this debate for so long when others knew to leave long ago... -.-
But when someone posts stupid shit I tend to be pretty bad at ignoring it, I get way to compelled to counter the point and prove it wrong rather than it let it die on it's own.
Then again I also have a huge pet peeve of people/communities that get scared/intimidated by thought and Intelligence (like spam), and that pet peeve just get's amplified when they try claiming they're in fact smarter when they've done absolutely nothing on countless occasions to prove it.

I obviously need to go let off stress/steam from this...
*Loads up Dark Souls*

Vaccines?

I think everyone here can agree that there are obvious exceptions to vaccines such as allergies or too young.
The debate mainly refers though to those who are of proper age and health to take the vaccines.

Suicide, Tragic or Selfish?

When it comes to parent's and children the parent has a responsibility to raise their children.
It's part of the agreement they signed up to when they had a child and chose not to abort or put the child up for adoption.
Also in your example it's not personal selfishness the other parents shows, it's care and concern for a child's well being.

But even in this case though, if the parent is happier leaving the children then let the parent leave.
Studies have shown that children develop worse when parents are together out of a sense of necessity rather than having separated parents.
Plus even without those studies it's fair to argue that a parent with no desire to be with their kids is probably one shitty parent, hell there are tons of parents who do want to be with their kids who are god awful at parenting.

"You're a Fake Geek!" and Sexism among Geeks/Nerds/Etc (us)

You cut out the comparison, which is part of the argument.

When you trying to fully dissect and understand issues it pays off to take the time/effort to go into detail rather than try to be nice and quick because people find it easier when it's short and sweet. If you were trying to appeal to an uneducated and/or short attention spanned audience your method would be right. Cause you need the point quick enough to fit in while they're listening. But if you're talking with others who do not shy away from longer posts/lectures. Those who know a lot about the topic and are willing to take the long haul of dissecting it (as professionals do/should, look at the whole picture) it's better to go longer/detailed to get a better idea of the topic.

I'm not arguing longer = smarter though, and that's not my argument against spam. But longer does help a better/deeper conversation to happen that is harder to have with shorter posts. Spam's issue is like said in the previous post, they don't care for the argument being put forward and will simply troll or support the person making the argument based on if they like the person or not.

And I don't see any emotional arguments on my end, I'm simply highlighting a fact/flaw that is hugely connected with intelligent conversations ability to happen.
Which is you need to be addressing the argument, not the individual. Otherwise you're just being selective in who can argue/debate and that ultimately leads to confirmation bias, only allowing those opinions that agree with your own.

Also have you considered there's another reason people post in spam more?
A normal post in spam has almost no requirements, it requires little effort, not any thinking for the majority of them and can be as random and silly as you want.
A normal post in OT (If you want it treated seriously) needs some point behind it, some thought out argument, and willingness to deal with counter points.

Also on top of that more people tend to enjoy simple games/fun over debates may it be over knowledge of the topic, time it takes or simply not liking to be at disagreement with others.
Spam's nature both appeals to a bigger amount of people and has a lower entry barrier. That is why you find spam more popular and many OT people there, not because spam is inherently better.
Also if the term "High School mentality" makes you uncomfortable then fine, but it's me taking any sort of insecurity and throwing it at spam. It is basic observation noting how the two work very similar, and has also been something others here have admitted to, but I've seen none of them be accused of projecting insecurities.

Vaccines?

Alright, now to add my own view.
It's basically the same as what others have said, however I wouldn't go as far as saying "Those who deny it deserve to die".
I also admit the vaccine business has had some shady and foul behavior.

For example.

1. In regards to vaccine cause autism, apparently that was never the claim by the scientist (Just media the stupid mother who thought a diet cures autism. [Speaking as someone with Autism who has also worked as an autism therapist, this is bullshit. A diet can help reduce the symptoms but it does not cure it]). It was simply "We see a connection, I suggest we look more into it", and it was journalist/media looking for exaggerated headlines and claimed "Vaccines cause autism". But because of said media arousal anyone who even comments on the original study is regarded to as a nutter.

2. The swine flu. You know that flu which was practically harmless? It killed less people than the common cold? The vaccine itself killed more people than the illness itself? This was a basically harmless disease that the Media completely exaggerated and made out to be the end of human kind. Everyone panicked and demanded the vaccine, and the vaccine ended up being rushed and poorly tested as a result. Is this a case with all vaccines? No, most are pretty safe and treat actual threats. But it's hard to fully blame those concerned with vaccines when incident's like this happen where the vaccine actually did more harm than good.

With all that being said though, people should be getting vaccine's for the deadly diseases. Sadly my Mom was one of those people who hates vaccines and is utterly convinced that they cause autism, so I grew up without them and now that I'm a legal adult do need to remember to get around to and get the vaccines myself. Also even if vaccines causing autism was true, it would definitely be something to aim to fix, but assuming there was no way to avoid way Penn & Teller bullshit put it nicely.

Dervish said
It's kind of like refusing to have a fire extinguisher in your home because you heard the dust poses a risk of cancer.

Wow really? Now I know to get rid of the fire extinguishers in my home.
And here I was listening to the fire department about this... silly me! :P

Vaccines?

OT been's quiet for some time now and I'm getting exhausted of my only discussion being if ______ holds up to ______ group or not.

So here's a serious topic to munch on.
Vaccines? Do you support them? Are you against them? Are you unsure/have doubts?

My Ultimate Knowledge on the field is limited so my opinion piece should be brief (Unless if someone gives me a long post to reply to), but I'll wait a bit before posting it.
It's bad practice to set the tone of a thread with a certain stance/viewpoint right when it starts.

"You're a Fake Geek!" and Sexism among Geeks/Nerds/Etc (us)

Turtlicious said
You are completely ignoring what I'm saying, you're moving the goal posts, your point is tangentially related to the subject we were discussing, and you're taking a shit on McDonald's employees, who most are just trying to survive.Your either retarded or a very good troll, either way I'm done with you. Learn how to debate your point proper, then try again.Without the classist bullshit as well.e: I was never arguing spam is a place for debates, I just think it's dumb to say you can't have a discussion that's intelligent in spam, when you have to be pretty intelligent to find a way to fit in. Which is why the best posters are generally pretty smart, erego they must be having discussion that's intelligent, even if it doesn't fit your weird arbitrary standards.Please get over being laughed out of spam, you can say their nothing but trolls, but that's because you don't know how to fit in with them lmao.

Goal posts never changed :P
You're trying to prove that spam does (or at least can) have Intelligent conversations.
I'm showing how they've never shown any reason for people to believe that.

I'll admit my wording/deliever with the McDonalds point was off/out of line.
The point with McDonalds was highlighting the general environment/what it takes to work.
McDonald's the requirements are pretty low, cook fries, take an order. Purpose/end result being people get food.

It would be inaccurate to say that such an environment was one that's good for something like science or long discussion.
It's possible they could, but it's not an environment set up to do so.

While positions such as scientist require a lot of effort, dedication, education, discipline etc to pull off.
And if you do it well the end result is the benefit/advancement of humankind.

If McDonald's want to claim they're at that level, they're free to. But they need to prove it.
And them simply saying "You need to look at us more" or "Those scientist are just mad cause they wouldn't get along with us" are not good arguments.
Not meaning to claim OT = Scientists though, no where close. But it is a community that has easily proved it's merits for Intellectual conversation and addressing the argument, not the individual.
While spam, has established itself as a community that addresses the individual, not the argument. And if they do address the argument it's usually "TLDR, I don't like reading".

And that last bit follows logic same as "Stop saying High School mentality/cliches are silly. You're just mad at not being on top".
Spam runs on a broken and vicious system, we've even had people here who did come out on top of there system admit this.
You don't need to be popular/accepted by a system before being able to say if it works and/or makes sense.

To be fair, it does work if you're looking for a High School boot camp sort of thing.
Or you happen to enjoy constantly playing social mind-games to gain popularity points.
But it does not work at all as a place for people to be accepted/looked on by merit, skills and abilities (well, if those skills and abilities are anywhere other than being socially charming that is).

Suicide, Tragic or Selfish?

So Boerd said
Thinking about it is effectively beyond your control. Doing is not, and doing makes you selfish.

This is rare but I agree with Turt.

What's selfish is forcing people to stay alive who don't want to live just because you don't want to see them go.
For an example some people may relate to more.

Let's say you're in a relationship and your partner wants to end it but you don't.
So you basically go "But I don't want you to go! I'll be sad/hurt without you!". Is this behaviour/reaction understandable? Yes, you care for the person and don't wish to let them go. But by pressuring them to be somewhere they don't want to is what is being selfish.