An Appreciation Thread for Tude Dog and halfway...

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:15 pm

No seriously. Really. I appreciate you. According to an article in this month's Scientific American, when people isolate themselves and only interact with others with comparable views, they unilaterally become more and more extreme and limited in their views.

"The Rich See a Different Internet From the Poor"

Imagine an Internet where unseen hands curate your entire experience. Where third parties predetermine the news, products and prices you see—even the people you meet. A world where you think you are making choices, but in reality, your options are narrowed and refined until you are left with merely the illusion of control.

The Rich See a Different Internet Than the Poor: Scientific American

Me: So thanks guys. I may not understand you, and I certainly don't agree with you. but I am, apparently a better, wider, more open-minded person for speaking to you!:-6

edited for 'fair use'. Anyone who would like to read the article in full should visit the site that placed it originally. diane

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:47 pm

What are you saying Saint ?

Your freedoms don't relate to how big an arsenal you possess ?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:02 pm

No, I'm just saying that it's good to talk to people you don't agree with every once in a while. It makes you more open-minded.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:11 pm

And hope some of it rubs off ?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:15 pm

Michael Fertik might appreciate attribution for that post.

The Rich See a Different Internet Than the Poor: Scientific American

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:20 pm

Saint

Thinking about the other opinion should broaden your horizon

You don't have to agree with the other opinion - but the other opinion should make one think/wonder what avenue they're on to arrive with that opinion.

and it doesn't make a opinion wrong.

Patsy

Lady J · Post by **Lady J** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:53 pm

SnoozeAgain;1417073 wrote: Michael Fertik might appreciate attribution for that post.

The Rich See a Different Internet Than the Poor: Scientific American

BUSTED!!!!

You may appreciate what you read Saint....but pleassuuuuuze.... I was surprised! I thought you had more about you.

Lady J

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:02 am

The Science of Why Comment Trolls Suck

The Science of Why Comment Trolls Suck | Mother Jones

Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Times, BBC, and CNN - Comment - Voices - The Independent

I've always thought going on a forum and ranting or just talking to yourself was a bit like intellectual masturbation.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:12 am

gmc;1417088 wrote: The Science of Why Comment Trolls Suck

The Science of Why Comment Trolls Suck | Mother Jones

Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Times, BBC, and CNN - Comment - Voices - The Independent

I've always thought going on a forum and ranting or just talking to yourself was a bit like intellectual masturbation.

To whom is this directed? It looks like a non sequitur to me although it's interesting reading.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:02 am

Saint_;1417069 wrote: No, I'm just saying that it's good to talk to people you don't agree with every once in a while. It makes you more open-minded.

Can't agree with you more. I always found conversations with Jester fascinating and, although I rarely agreed with him I always learnt from him.

There are still members in the Garden who think deeply about what they post and don't just react from an entrenched position, they are the ones I look forward to having discussions with.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:05 am

I'm not sure I care for the purpose of this thread...

I myself have Interacted with both of these members.

We all have someone on forums who we bounce off.... eg.... gmc likes Insulting me and I enjoy dismissing him as a wanker.

As my Mother would ask.... ' Are they hurting you? No?... well keep quiet then'.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:17 am

oscar;1417105 wrote: I'm not sure I care for the purpose of this thread...

I myself have Interacted with both of these members.

We all have someone on forums who we bounce off.... eg.... gmc likes Insulting me and I enjoy dismissing him as a wanker.

As my Mother would ask.... ' Are they hurting you? No?... well keep quiet then'.

What do you see as the purpose of the thread?

Most of us have interacted with "both those members" (even though one one was mentioned in the OP) and several members disagree with them but disagreement is no reason to "keep quiet then" - all the more reason to discuss subjects and try to find common ground.

If you're suggesting that Saint is trying to insult them as people who "isolate themselves and only interact with others with comparable views" I think you're being unfair - they are demonstrably not acting in that way so such an attempt would fail anyway.

A different lead in to an interesting article - where do you see the malice?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:20 am

Bryn Mawr;1417109 wrote: What do you see as the purpose of the thread?

Most of us have interacted with "both those members" (even though one one was mentioned in the OP) and several members disagree with them but disagreement is no reason to "keep quiet then" - all the more reason to discuss subjects and try to find common ground.

If you're suggesting that Saint is trying to insult them as people who "isolate themselves and only interact with others with comparable views" I think you're being unfair - they are demonstrably not acting in that way so such an attempt would fail anyway.

A different lead in to an interesting article - where do you see the malice? I don't see malice.. that's a strong word. I'm also happy to admit that I may have misjudged Saint's OP but I just didn't see the point of highlighting the two members.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:25 am

Bryn Mawr;1417104 wrote: Can't agree with you more. I always found conversations with Jester fascinating and, although I rarely agreed with him I always learnt from him.

There are still members in the Garden who think deeply about what they post and don't just react from an entrenched position, they are the ones I look forward to having discussions with.

Thanks.

he he

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:26 am

oscar;1417110 wrote: I don't see malice.. that's a strong word. I'm also happy to admit that I may have misjudged Saint's OP but I just didn't see the point of highlighting the two members.

Oops, the title does mention both.

Because it has been obvious over the past couple of weeks that Saint disagreed with most of what they post. What better way to lead into a discussion about not limiting your posting to those with comparable views.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 am

Bryn Mawr;1417112 wrote: Oops, the title does mention both.

Because it has been obvious over the past couple of weeks that Saint disagreed with most of what they post. What better way to lead into a discussion about not limiting your posting to those with comparable views. I'm always happy to admit If I'm wrong.... fair enough... apology to Saint.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:52 am

Saint only started this thread so we could all admire how handsome he is.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:21 am

AnneBoleyn;1417115 wrote: Saint only started this thread so we could all admire how handsome he is.

Yes, I was wrong but now I find some Irony In the two members Saint Is praising, another member dismisses them as half wits and liars.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:05 pm

Saint_;1417063 wrote: According to an article in this month's Scientific American,

Well, I did put the magazine and the issue. That wasn't enough?

And yes, I was a little miffed at being called a "sheep" by halfway. (A derogatory buzz-word overused by the extreme right to describe anyone who is either moderate or liberal towards guns.) And I not only disagreed with just about everything they had posted, but I vehemently disagreed with it. I found myself almost wishing they'd go to a rabid pro-gun NEOCON forum. Then I came across this article and I began to think about what it was saying about people who only talk to people who validate their views and how they become more extreme.

So I concluded that it was not only good for them to be here, it was good for me as well (I do NOT want to be "extreme" in my views). Thus.... the thank you thread.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:13 pm

From OP: "edited for 'fair use'. Anyone who would like to read the article in full should visit the site that placed it originally. diane"

Who is diane?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:14 pm

I was under the impression that management wants only a paragraph or two of the original and then a link to the article. Andy's done the same thing that you did in your OP and he's gotten warnings and infractions for it.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:14 pm

AnneBoleyn;1417163 wrote: From OP: "edited for 'fair use'. Anyone who would like to read the article in full should visit the site that placed it originally. diane"

Who is diane?

Flopstock.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:16 pm

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:17 pm

AnneBoleyn;1417163 wrote:

Who is diane? Flopstock

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:18 pm

Well then TY to you too!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:00 pm

SnoozeAgain;1417090 wrote: To whom is this directed? It looks like a non sequitur to me although it's interesting reading.

I do go off at tangents. It is a bit of a non-sequitur I was thinking there were one or two posters who just like to rant or when disagreed with resort to the sort of personal attacks or accuse the person disagreeing with them of attacking them personally referred to in the article or worse insist on redefining the meaning of words to suit their own world view. The theory of evolution is just another belief system like Christianity that type of thing or ignore inconvenient facts. I thought the articles made the point about the baleful influence that type of troll has on free-flowing discussion. Generally people on this will just ignore them - bit like ignoring the village idiot. I agree with saint, it's more productive when there is someone you passionately disagree with about something but you can each put your point of view without the insults flowing. you might still disagree but at the very least you've had to think about why you hold a particular view. If you want to sharpen your intellect you need someone that can challenge it. I can't be bothered with those who can only respond I'm right you're wrong nah nah nah nah nah.

If you can't explain why you hold an opinion you don't have one of your own you are just repeating what you have heard. Disagree but at least use your own words. I don't agree with halfway and tude dog a lot of the time either. Threads where people agree tend to be very short and pointless.