fchan

discussion

is it just me

Pages:1
1Report
at 23 May 2006: 04:57

or do you guys like to find problems with every little thing?

lighten up. this site is about the free exchange of porn, not preaching personal opinions.

2Report(capped)
Xenofur at 23 May 2006: 05:13

hey i'm happy they keep this stuff off the imageboards. :P

3Report
at 23 May 2006: 05:31

>>1
Spend a week at a MMORPG forum. This place will PALE in comparison 0.o

4Report
Juberu at 23 May 2006: 08:50

>>1
Wait, so we shouldn't discuss things on a discussion board?

5Report
at 23 May 2006: 14:31

>>3

Oh god!  MMORPG forums are like "Days of Our Lives" for nerds!  It's awesome! :D

>>2
But yeah, keep it apart from the porn.

6Report
at 23 May 2006: 23:12

>>1
  Yeah, I noticed /dis/ getting a bit soap-box-ish as well - The strange thing is it's all a bunch of self-righteous holier-than-thou types pushing their moral agendas. 

Which is fine, they've got every right to be self-righteous and flaunt their (IMO overblown, baseless) moral superiority around all they like. 

What I *don't* understand is why they're doing it on Fchan.  It's reminiscient of the god-hates-fags trolls flaming the shit outta alt.sexuality.gay or the swingers going and posting on alt.religion.christianity going on about how uptight and repressed catholics are...  In otherwords, it's like going where you're obviously out of place, and then whining because you're seeing stuff that offends you. 

I can see that 'preaching to the choir' is fruitless persuit, but preaching on a bloody porn board and then wondering why not everyone hops on the band-wagon of their moral doctrine seems just like shit disturbing to me. 

But hey, live and let live, I guess.  At least it's not on the image boards, as you folks say, but I'd still be gratified to see more folks ignore/laugh at all these bringing-morality-to-the-damned style threads. 

7Report
at 23 May 2006: 23:40

Drama is innate to anywhere furries or otherwise nerdy people are involved. Believe me.

Watch any LARP footage. There will be drama.
Look at any gaming message board. There will be drama.
Look at any furry message board. There will be drama.
Look at any television message board. There will be drama.
Goto any convention. There will be drama.

8Report
at 24 May 2006: 00:22

>>6
Gotta confront nonsense where you see it, and you gotta stand up for yourself when someone calls you out.  It can happen anywhere.
I don't start shit, but I do finish it.

9Report
at 24 May 2006: 23:29

>>9

at least if one has the basic intelligance to actually recognise when they have been handed their head"


Ha, I wish more folks were that wise.  Then again, there'd never have been that hilarious 'no u' image macro if they all were...  :)

10Report
SuperSeoul at 25 May 2006: 02:23

>>7

Go to any Mixed Martial Arts conventions, there will be drama.

11Report(capped) (sage)
Raven at 25 May 2006: 08:14

What people seem to not get is the following:

Being alive means there will be drama.

It's just part of life. No matter where you go, whether it's on or off the internet, shit happens. It just does. There really isn't any escaping it. The only difference is that sooner or later, people have to learn one very important rule: It's not whether or not things seem dramatic, it's how you respond to those things. It's part of growing up.

Sadly, some people never do grow up.

12Report
at 25 May 2006: 10:09

>>12
 Not really, on the internet you can just turn the power button off to escape it, in reality you could either deal with it and end up joining the others online on the internet to vent it out.. but still be bullied about it lol.

13Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 May 2006: 10:34

>>9

at least if one has the basic intelligance to actually recognise when they have been handed their head.

1. Internet.
2. Furries.

14Report (sage)
at 25 May 2006: 14:25

>>15
  Is that your excuse? 

15Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 May 2006: 16:48

>>16
No. I'm just saying people on the Internet don't recognize defeat, especially Furries.

Said 'defeat' can also refer to giving up because your opponent will never change their mind, not using traditional debating, at least.

16Report(capped) (sage)
Raven at 25 May 2006: 21:03

>>14

You can do that in real life, too. It's called "sleep."

17Report (sage)
at 25 May 2006: 22:05

>>17
  Oh, in that case, I think we actually agree on something.  Huzzah. 

18Report (sage)
at 25 May 2006: 22:15

Additionally, I'd like to know when debate/discussion became such an exercise in mental fuck-wankery.  Does nobody bother with things like evidence or even persuasive reasoning anymore? 

And when did "OMG, your smarter than me, so I'll be sarcastic and rude" become an acceptable tactic?  Better yet, when did people quit being able to see it for what it is? 

19Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 May 2006: 22:25

Oh, in that case, I think we actually agree on something.

Seconds later, the universe exploded.

20Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 May 2006: 22:27

>>20

Does nobody bother with things like evidence or even persuasive reasoning anymore? 

I tried the reasong part. Fail. Apparently, I have to introduce new evidence or my statements are invalid.

And when did "OMG, your smarter than me, so I'll be sarcastic and rude" become an acceptable tactic? 

Actually, I rarely see it used by anyone who isn't genuinely debating. Their opponents focus on it and ignore their actual argument, ant the whole thing dissolves into a wankstorm.

21Report (sage)
at 26 May 2006: 01:14

>>22

Actually, I rarely see it used by anyone who isn't genuinely debating. Their opponents focus on it and ignore their actual argument, ant the whole thing dissolves into a wankstorm.


Are we reading the same board here?

22Report
Wolfblade at 26 May 2006: 02:08

>>22 "I rarely see it used by anyone who >isn't< genuinely debating"

So you feel the people to use that tactic ARE genuinely debating, while the ones who actually try to use reasoning in their arguments are just fucking around?

Or was it just a typo? ^_^

23Report
at 26 May 2006: 07:50

>>1 You're wrong. There aren't enough threads to complain about everything.


>>6 While Fchan has porn on it, it also has clean art on it. Fchan is more of a "furry" board than a "porn" board or even an "art" board. As such, there happen to actually BE furries here, and the discussion baord will be about things furries find important. The fact that you've come to a furry board to preach about things that shouldn't be on a porn board tells me you are either very naive or just pretending your poop doesn't stink.


>>9 Yet you're posting on an Internet forum rather than just lurking. No, no need to get your word in at all. ;)

>>15 >>17 I'm tired of people thinking drama is just a furry issue. I'm going to be 100% honest: there is more drama in the company I work for than there is in the entire furry fandom. As far as I know (and I'm probably wrong, as it's a large company) I'm the only furry there. Statements that blame furries for drama are in exactly the same realm of respectability as statements that blame blacks for car theft. Bigots.

>>20 This happens because some people assume anything on the Internet that disagrees with them is a personal attack. The whole "if you're not with me you're against me" idea. So they launch a counter attack.

24Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 26 May 2006: 13:25

>>23
I'm talking about the Internet in General.
>>25

This happens because some people assume anything on the Internet that disagrees with them is a personal attack. The whole "if you're not with me you're against me" idea. So they launch a counter attack.

But furries tend to value solidarity above all else, even at the cost of common sense. "Thou shall not criticize the fandom, or thopu art not part of the fandom; thou art a persecuter."

25Report (sage)
Juber#3LrT5NRVks at 26 May 2006: 14:28

>>24

So you feel the people to use that tactic ARE genuinely debating, while the ones who actually try to use reasoning in their arguments are just fucking around?

Either you're straw manning again, or you misunderstood me;

I rarely find people being snarky for snarkiness sake. Troll, almost by definition, have no concept of a real sense of humor. This is *not* to say that people can't make good arguments without snarking.

Whoa, triple negative.

26Report
at 26 May 2006: 16:44

>>26 Yes, that was kind of my point later on when I said people have a "with us or against us" mentality. Feel free to read my whole post.

27Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 26 May 2006: 17:19

>>28

All too true.  The dreaded republican/democrat debate being an especially visible example yes? ^_^; No room for us neutrals... but I understand the mentality.  If you have strong convictions, you're probably desiring some sort of change, which means that those who desire no part and no change really are against you in some respect.  Their apathy is another obstacle to overcome and such.  Frustrating, since it drags those with no interest into the problem, but I believe these things are best discussed willingly, or even unwillingly, before the desire for change erupts into something that cannot be ignored and such.

I don't, however, forsee any furry revolutions in the future. ^_~

28Report
at 26 May 2006: 22:49

hahahaha, this thread got so long. i havent read anything past the first maybe 3 posts (because my computer crashed and this is my first time back in a while), but it looks like you guys just proved my point.

29Report
at 26 May 2006: 22:55

>>30 We also proved you're a hypocrite. What's your point?

30Report
Wolfblade at 28 May 2006: 04:41

>>25 I don't think I misunderstood you, and I was not straw manning. >If< I misunderstood you, it is because the words you are using simply do not convey the meaning you think they do.

What you said was: "I rarely see it used by anyone who >isn't< genuinely debating"

A different combination of words that convey the SAME message would be: "I most often see it used by someone who >is< genuinely debating."

If you rarely see it used by someone who ISN'T, then you most often see it used by someone who IS. This is an accurate and logical strand of reasoning. Very simple. Not debatable. If something is >either< A >or< B and you determine that it is B, then you know it is not A.

What I understood you to be saying was that you feel people using that tactic are genuinely trying to debate. Adding in "I rarely find people being snarky for snarkiness sake", I do believe I understood you correctly.

My question was whether or not you were saying that you felt people who used that tactic were genuinely debating, and based on the words you have used in the order you have used them, the answer is "yes." You say "I rarely find people being snarky for snarkiness sake." So that is a "yes", you believe those people are genuinely trying to debate.

That answers my question.
I do understand you, I just disagree with you.

As for responding to your new comment: "Troll, almost by definition, have no concept of a real sense of humor"

There are two ways to take this statement: the specific meaning of the words you have used in that sentence on its own, and the meaning that would be most likely given the context of your statements in general, and the last few in this thread specifically.

Either you are saying you feel that trolls have no sense of humor, or you are saying that you feel a troll's sense of humor to be completely different from a "real" sense of humor.

I disagree if you meant the former, I agree if you meant the latter.

Trolls do what they do BECAUSE they find amusement in being a troll. It is all about humor to them. They find it funny to watch people get upset by their bullshit. This, I agree, is not a "real" sense of humor. It is sad and pathetic.

As for the last sentence, please, if people misunderstanding you is something that bugs you, try to avoid using a TRIPLE negative if you can.

Your sentence:
"This is *not* to say that people can't make good arguments without snarking."

So, the statement "people can't make good arguments without snarking" is NOT what you are saying. Which means you ARE saying that "people CAN make good arguments without snarking". I agree with this. People CAN make good arguments WITHOUT snarking. And that is why I feel good arguments SHOULD be made without snarking.

"Snarkiness" detracts from an honest discussion of opposing viewpoints because it takes the focus off the actual discussion at hand, and turns the focus to trivial matters of perceived and intended insults unrelated to the discussion. For example: the "snarkiness" shown in this thread has turned the conversation away from the actual topic. Rather than people of two opposing opinions discussing the points of their opinion neutrally, people read negativity and hostility into the argument where it isn't intended.

31Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 28 May 2006: 05:31

>>30

Not really. People get emotional when they debate. People who aren't really into the subject tend either not to get involved (becuase they don't care), or they argue for arguing's sake. I've found that people who tend to be completely "objective" only do so because they like to argue... unless they're being patronizing, which is as bad as being snarky (or will get you the same response anyway).

32Report
Wolfblade at 28 May 2006: 06:09

>>31 Or they could just be being objective.

Yes, people get emotional. But the problem is when they read emotion that isn't there. If you choose to believe that the appearance of objectivity only means the person likes to argue, that's your prerogative. But to ignore that its >possible< a seemingly objective person is just ACTUALLY trying to be objective, is just foolish.

If someone says "fuck you", it's safe to assume there's a fair amount of contempt and disregard behind those words.

If someone hasn't resorted to profanity, they might just be speaking their mind. Its hard to express that you disagree with someone's behavior without it being taken as a personal insult.

But directly cussing someone out leaves little room for questioning the intent of the message.

33Report
at 28 May 2006: 06:23

>>32

Okay okay, bad wording/angle. What I sorta meant but didn't say was that emotion and snarkiness don't take away from debate. People get really emotional about issues that matter to them. Polotics for instance. I've never heard a serious political debate that didn't become heated.

I have, however, heard people who declare themselves the victor because they "kept their head". That's ridiculous though. Just because someone becomes angry doesn't mean their words are suddenly less true... and heck, the "reasonable" one can be at fault sometimes.  I know a guy who likes to bring up touchy subjects so that he can be really "objective" about it.  If you talk to a really devout pro-lifer about abortion, you know they're going to get emotional...

Gah, I don't know!  Basically what I'm trying to say is that "cool headed" people are just as prone to push hot buttons as emotional people.

34Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 28 May 2006: 06:23

>>33

Man... I miss auto log...

35Report
Wolfblade at 28 May 2006: 06:38

>>33 There is a difference between a heated discussion/debate, and people swearing and insulting each other. Emotion and conviction don't take away from debate. But heavy attitude an hostility do. A person's natural response to hostility is to either become defensive, or be hostile back. Neither of which are conducive to calm, mature, and rational exchange of ideas. "Snarkiness" might not be so bad in itself, but the degree to which a mild bit of hostility may be taken as an outright attack just makes it that muchy more likely that a debate becomes an argument, and an argument just becomes a fight.

Someone is not a victor just for "keeping their head." However, if one side keeps cool and rational, and sticks to their points without turning to petty insults, but the other side gets angry, and hostile, and insulting, and then ultimately leaves, as far as any "victory" can be determined, it has to go to the person whose argument was not defeated, and who sustained their argument on actual points, and not just insulting the other side.

Or should the person who says "fuck you I quit" and leaves the debate be considered the victor?

Yes, cool-headed people can push hot buttons. But not all of them do. One person who "keeps their cool" might just be an asshole trying to piss the other guy off. But another might actually be a calm and mature individual.

Its hard to give someone credit for being a calm and mature individual if they get pushed to profanity and insults over something as trivial as a debate about morality, etc, on a porn board.

As for that guy you know who likes to bring up touchy subjects, again, I get the impression you disagree with that, and so do I. But the person who was called a parasite elsewhere, who you were defending, was doing exactly that.

Posting a "I think these fetishes are wrong" on a board that allows images of those fetishes to be shared is really a very similar concept. It's shit-stirring. And I think we agree that that's not cool.

36Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 28 May 2006: 06:56

>>35

Someone is not a victor just for "keeping their head." However, if one side keeps cool and rational, and sticks to their points without turning to petty insults, but the other side gets angry, and hostile, and insulting, and then ultimately leaves, as far as any "victory" can be determined, it has to go to the person whose argument was not defeated, and who sustained their argument on actual points, and not just insulting the other side.


Or should the person who says "fuck you I quit" and leaves the debate be considered the victor?


Arguments end all the time without a victor.  Unless your goal was to piss the other guys off and make them give up, you need to actually be right to be a victor.  Being cool headed and objective is just a method of argument... one form of rhetoric; one that mimics (MIMICS) logic in order to gain credibility.

You could have someone who calmly tells you that the earth is flat while an impatient hot head insists that it's round, but the truth, as it ever has been, is a completely seperate entity from the people arguing. Being patient and well spoken doesn't make you right, and being a whiny putz doesn't make you wrong.

Yes, cool-headed people can push hot buttons. But not all of them do. One person who "keeps their cool" might just be an asshole trying to piss the other guy off. But another might actually be a calm and mature individual.


I don't think it's that simple.  Debate is fluid, and I think the most important part (if you're actually trying to convince anyone) is to know your audience/opponent... the one you're trying to sway. If being "level headed and mature" works on them, fine, excellent, good choice of technique.  If it annoys them and brings everything to a halt, then that's not the right method of convincing.  Perhaps they see you as stand-offish and snotty, perhaps they didn't understand what you said and feel threatened, perhaps they just don't like the "tone"... either way, as a good debator, you've made an observation: objective and cool headed doesn't work.

So... if you try again, and again go in being objective and cool headed, you can assume you're going to get the same results.  Now, this might be your goal... to annoy the other guy.  Or maybe you lack experience with other tools of debate (I hear listening is a powerful tool).  Or maybe you just like to gaze upon the perfection of your arguments... I don't know; whatever the case, you've done something that you know doesn't work, and you know it annoys the other side.

In other words, if you keep doing it when it doesn't work, you're typing up a long, elaborate "fuck you", and people respond to that predictably enough, if not well.

So yeah, that's why I see most "objective" arguers as being the same as emotional arguers. Same people, same goals, different angle of attack, often poorly executed.

37Report
Wolfblade at 28 May 2006: 07:11

>>36
"Arguments end all the time without a victor.  Unless your goal was to piss the other guys off and make them give up, you need to actually be right to be a victor."

If there's an argument, obviously both sides feel they are right. So who decides victory? The observers. People who have no stake in the argument, or who are capable of being swayed.

"the most important part (if you're actually trying to convince anyone) is to know your audience/opponent... the one you're trying to sway."

If the guy I'm talking to is as steadfast in his opinions as I am, there IS no convincing him. So I'm not tailoring my responses to do so. I say what I feel with the hope that anyone who CAN be convinced by arguments will be convinced by >my< arguments. I try to know my opponent and respond accordingly, but as to who I'm trying to sway, that would be the audience.

People directly involved in a heated and emotional debate can see and understand the emotions of like-minded people, the other people "on their side." These people are the least likely to be convinced. People NOT directly involved, who are merely watching two opposing opinions being expressed, will not share those emotions. They will see one person making cool and reasonable arguments, and the other person just yelling and insulting. The calm reasoning will be more palatable to them than the person expressing emotions and anger that they don't feel themselves.

"In other words, if you keep doing it when it doesn't work, you're typing up a long, elaborate "fuck you", and people respond to that predictably enough, if not well."

If I am speaking my mind honestly, and calmly, and someone else decides to take it as a "fuck you", that is their prerogative. Any statement can be taken many ways. But an emotional, angry, hostile wording is more than likely going to be taken as such. While a calm and rational argument will usually be taken as calm and rational by anyone who has themselves remained calm and rational.

"So yeah, that's why I see most "objective" arguers as being the same as emotional arguers. Same people, same goals, different angle of attack, often poorly executed."

We're all flawed. We're human. So yeah, same people. We all think we are right, and want other people to be convinced that we are right. So yeah, same goals. Obviously, we're discussing two different angles of attack: calm and rational versus emotional and hostile. I do agree that one is poorly executed, but I believe that it isn't mine.


38Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 28 May 2006: 07:34

If the guy I'm talking to is as steadfast in his opinions as I am, there IS no convincing him. So I'm not tailoring my responses to do so. I say what I feel with the hope that anyone who CAN be convinced by arguments will be convinced by >my< arguments. I try to know my opponent and respond accordingly, but as to who I'm trying to sway, that would be the audience.


So right there, your target for your debating isn't the one you're talking to, it's the observers that you're trying to convince.  You aren't arguing with your opponent, you're arguing with the audience's apathy.  If being cool headed works, great... if not, bad choice...

If there's an argument, obviously both sides feel they are right. So who decides victory? The observers. People who have no stake in the argument, or who are capable of being swayed.


Uh?  But I already addressed that.  Most arguments don't HAVE a victor.  If you don't convince anyone, it's a stalemate.  Maybe you could score partial victories if you "gain ground"...

Or, maybe the flipside: Maybe any resolved argument is universally victorious (or something like that).  I mean, if one side was wrong, and they're persuaded to come around to the right side, have they really lost?  Maybe the problem isn't in deciding the voctor, but in that there's this burning need to "win" in something that can't really have a winner.

People directly involved in a heated and emotional debate can see and understand the emotions of like-minded people, the other people "on their side." These people are the least likely to be convinced. People NOT directly involved, who are merely watching two opposing opinions being expressed, will not share those emotions. They will see one person making cool and reasonable arguments, and the other person just yelling and insulting. The calm reasoning will be more palatable to them than the person expressing emotions and anger that they don't feel themselves.


I actually look at it the other way. If someone is impassioned by their cause, I tend to think they have good reasons for this, and try to discover those reasons.  When I see people being "cool" and "reasonable" arguments, I tend to become suspicious and start to read their words really carefully to see where they're lying, misleading, and otherwise manipulating.  The old "never trust a lawyer" response.  I don't like it when people are too proficient at word smithing.  Those kind of people can twist words and muddle the issues.  Emotional types (when they aren't faking it) are much more earnest, and easier to understand.

calm and rational versus emotional and hostile. I do agree that one is poorly executed, but I believe that it isn't mine.


Yeeeeah... I didn't say that.  that "often poorly executed" referred to both of them.  A well executed emotional card is VERY powerful.  Why do you think they show pictures of victims to the jury in trials?  Same with a well worded "smart" speech... Winston Churchill anyone?  Both powerful when done right... neither one powerful because it IS right though.  The goal is the same either way: manipulate the target.

Oh! What you did there:

calm and rational versus emotional and hostile.


The name of that trick eludes me right now, but I see it all the time, and it bugs the crap out of me.  Why not "calm and rational versus emotional and [intense]", or "[pretentious] and [patronizing] versus emotional and hostile".  You chose to word it so that the "emotional" side seems ludicrous compared to the "rational" side!

Argh!  I hate being this paranoid and picky, but I have to be, or I get led around or I get led around by posts like that!

39Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 28 May 2006: 07:36

>>38
WTF am I doing!! Jesus, it's the weekend! I've been on this site for hours!  God Damnit!  I'm outies for now.  I hear there's this thing called a life out there.  Gonna go see if I can find it.

Man... maybe a shrink too...

40Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage