Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
And now, for something completely serious.

By 11223 in Meta
Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 01:10:04 AM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

I've not been actively posting philosophical or political discussion to kuro5hin for a while. I'm sure that all of you who still remember me realize that this couldn't be out of neglect, as I was one of the most prolific posters to K5 for a while. During that time, I learned a few lessons about how to communicate on a discussion site like this. At the same time, it seems that the number of people who understand just that has dropped to a near-insignificant level. Here are some observations which may help you should you choose to have reasonable conversation instead of overheated flamage at this site.


Rule number 1: Don't take everything seriously.
This rule number 1 because it's most important. When approaching an unfamiliar idea, don't take it completely seriously. Learn how to play around with ideas. Learn how to kick an idea around almost as if you're playing football. Learn how to discuss ideas you don't agree with. If you consider yourself a socialist, try reading an article written from a capatilist viewpoint and making some suggestions to the authour about how to improve their point - from the capitalist viewpoint.

If it's not fun to kick around ideas at a discussion forum, the type of articles will begin to approach flames or trolls. That's what people who take everything seriously tend to be viewed as.

Rule number 2: Don't make unsupported accusations.
If people could learn to read their own articles and figure out which assertations have been not properly supported, even though they understood them, the quality of submissions would increase drastically. Treat your articles as mathematical proofs. Have I proven this statement? Can I find another proof of it so I don't have to? Can I reference that instead of supporting it myself?

How many of you have actually taken a course in mathematical proof?

Rule number 3: Beware the irony inherent in the submission.
This is an excerpt from an article that may or may not be in the queue by the time you read this:
At any rate, his flerbage shmerbage is just a bunch of garbage.
...
But let's not argue over separate issues and call each other names for not understanding.

Does everyone understand what's ironical about this? He attacks the same tactics he employs. Don't do this.

Rule number 4: If you have a hunch that your ideas are half-baked, take some time to bake them.
There's a difference between an idea that you'd like to kick around for feedback and a half-baked idea. While nobody can really consider all the angles on an idea before presenting it, you should at least look for the obvious holes. Once you've done that, you can kick it around for feedback. Usually you do this when the ideas are pretty solid but the presentation is not.

Rule number 5: (Advanced authours only!) Read a good book on skepticism and logical fallacy.
Anything by Carl Sagan or Stephen Jay Gould would do just fine. Understanding fallacy is the first step to avoiding it. Understanding how a good skeptical argument is presented will do you a world of good in communicating with your peers.

Rule number 6: (Really advanced authours only!) Pick up Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach.
If you want to become proficent at kicking around an idea, you should learn from the modern-day master of whimsical musings and discussion.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o Also by 11223


Display: Sort:
And now, for something completely serious. | 67 comments (49 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden)
And one more oddball... (3.55 / 9) (#1)
by 11223 on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 03:54:03 PM EST

This one didn't belong in the article, so it goes in a comment.

I'm astounded at the number of people who voted "don't care" at the deliberately-crap submissions in the QUE earlier. I'm not sure I can find any clearer evidence that people don't read the articles when they vote 0. The articles were part of a crapflood! It's impossible to not care about a crapflood! You either want to stop it (and vote -1) or want to participate in it (and vote +1). I'd like to hear from the folks that did vote 0 and see their side of the story.

--
The dead hand of Asimov's mass psychology wins every time.

What part of apathy don't you understand? (3.33 / 6) (#3)
by Anonymous 242 on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 04:02:51 PM EST

Apparently these post-Gen X newbies don't even know how to slack properly. Sheesh!

-l

[ Parent ]

I dunno.... (2.87 / 8) (#8)
by 11223 on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 04:14:21 PM EST

I haven't taken the time to properly understand apathy.

BTW, you're an ass ;-)

--
The dead hand of Asimov's mass psychology wins every time.
[ Parent ]

It's not hard to understand apathy. (2.00 / 1) (#10)
by Faulty Dreamer on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 04:17:52 PM EST

What is hard is caring enough about apathy to gather the proper understanding of it. If that makes sense. :)

--------
Faulty Dreams - Barking at the moon 24/7...

If you think I'm an asshole, it's only because you haven't realized what a fucking idiot I am. - Faulty Dreamer
[ Parent ]

Reminds me of a good Futurama scene . . . (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by ZorbaTHut on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 07:31:00 PM EST

Scene: Fry walks through the political party campaign, searching for a party he can get behind.

f> "Now there's a political party I could get interested in!" (points to "Voter Apathy Party")

(walks up to booth)

f> "Can I join this party?"
"Not with that attitude."
f> "Eh, whatever."
"Congratulations, you're in!"
f> "WOOHOO!"
"You're out."

I'm probably mangling the scene ;)

[ Parent ]
Why does one . . . (3.50 / 2) (#11)
by Anonymous 242 on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 04:24:32 PM EST

. . . criticize people that don't care if one doesn't understand apathy?

Isn't that like the renecks that dropped out of grade school criticizing the lunar landings because they don't understand rocket science?

Come back when you really don't care and it will all make sense.

Regards,

-l

[ Parent ]

Quoth Lisa: (3.00 / 3) (#12)
by egerlach on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 04:34:22 PM EST

"Meh. M-E-H. Meh."

:)

"Free beer tends to lead to free speech"
[ Parent ]
OT: Que es "QUE?" (3.66 / 3) (#31)
by fluffy grue on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 07:24:45 PM EST

Are you misspelling "queue" on purpose, and if so, why? It's very irritating to see it spelled as "what" in Spanish.

(Yes, I know that "que" can mean things other than "what," but it's the most convenient mapping into English.)
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Actually (3.00 / 1) (#35)
by acb on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 08:43:14 PM EST

My story, which appeared to start the crap flood, was semi-serious.

Just it appears that people could not withstand some criticism, yet they are so happy to dish it out in comments on other articles.

--- acb #kuro5hin
[ Parent ]
0 voter, thats me! (4.00 / 3) (#45)
by hollowearth on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 03:07:54 AM EST

Whenever an article/topic doesn't interest me enough to read it all the way through, i usually vote it to 0 to be fair on the authors, and people who might be more interested. I only tend to vote -1 if its a story that i'd normally be interested in, but was badly (terribly) written, or a duplicate of an existing story.

[ Parent ]
Attention span (3.00 / 1) (#46)
by crankie on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 04:57:33 AM EST

I read K5 from work and I generally do so during idle time when my computer is tied up and all I can do with the spare clock cycles is web-surf. As a result, I rarely have time to read through the stories in detail and so I tend to end up posting more comments to the diaries, which are inherently shorter, than to articles. That's my excuse for not reading entire articles.

On the other hand, the author was discussing people voting zero on a crapflood. Pretty much every article in the crapflood was very short, so I find it hard to believe that anyone lost interest half way through.

So are you explaining your zero rating in general terms, or in the context of the crapflood (and this discussion).

~~~
"The great thing about hardcore socialists is the silence they emit once they start earning a decent wage." - tombuck
[ Parent ]
Should this be in the FAQ? (2.90 / 11) (#2)
by theboz on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 03:56:02 PM EST

Perhaps rusty should have an extra page to click through before submitting a story. A page that looks like a EULA, but just gives some guidelines about submitting stories. While most people won't read it, some might, and it could help out some (plus rusty would get a few more page hits and banner ads in, he could buy a pack of gum with the additional cashflow.)

As far as irony, I found it ironic to see someone bitching about us bitching about the sorry state of the stories. That Dick Richards account did just that, and proved to be a bit hypocritical in my perspective.

In any case, good job. I hope some of this gets added to the FAQ or something because it's needed.

Stuff.

Please no, Rusty (2.83 / 6) (#28)
by Dick Richards on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 07:19:25 PM EST

Please don't go adding crap like this article to any submission click-throughs.

Oooh, yes. It was me who was hypocritical, not you and your IRC circle-jerk buddies. Flooding the queue with crap to protest a perceived lack of overall story quality. Not only is it a stupid and self-important thing to do, it's been done before. So you don't even get points for being original. Then when I come along and use your tactics against you, in the faint hope that you might see how stupid you look, I'm somehow the hypocrite in all of this.

The best part for me, is that this whole episode started because your little clique broke rule #1. Maybe you should set up a scoop site for yourselves so you don't have to put up with the unwashed masses of K5 anymore. May I suggest preteniou5wankers.org? Apparently it's available.

[ Parent ]

Typical boz tactics (2.50 / 4) (#36)
by Dick Richards on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 09:37:29 PM EST

When finding himself on the short end of a losing argument, out comes the zero mod. Good thing there's still some trusted users worth trusting, huh? So you want me to leave K5 in the hands of people like you? Give me a fucking break. Learn to fight fair in your own arguments before launching tirades about others, mkay?

[ Parent ]
Wrong (3.00 / 4) (#40)
by theboz on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 11:25:35 PM EST

Personal attacks get modded down by me. I don't think there is any place for name calling or attacking people here. It is counterproductive, and in my opinion they are deserving of a zero in this case. Until you at least start using your "normal" K5 username I will not waste any more time dealing with you. I at least am honest enough to not register another account to hide behind when I want to show people any hidden animocity I have towards others.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

OK. (4.25 / 4) (#48)
by Dick Richards on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 07:44:38 AM EST

Justify it to yourself however you want. Actually, I thought that I was the one who was responding to a personal attack. You did call me a hypocrite after all, without any justification. Perhaps you were looking for another word, I don't know. For someone so willing to turn to the FAQ to support his opinons, I'd think you'd know that being "counterproductive" isn't cause for a zero rating.

I suppose it doesn't matter. You'll probably rate this to zero without making an attempt to refute any points. That, in my opinion, is the truly counterproductive thing. Attempting to censor anyone who points to flaws in your arguments.

BTW, I've been critical of you in the past with my normal K5 account. I'm not going down that road again. I'll only use it to debate with people who don't go on childish mod-war campaigns.

C'mon, boz. Try actually answering one of the points in my rebuttal. Just for shits and giggles.

[ Parent ]

Uhh (4.50 / 2) (#30)
by fluffy grue on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 07:23:20 PM EST

The "submit" page already has stuff on "read the FAQ" and such. People don't pay attention to that, and a clickthrough page will just cause people to click through it without reading it.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Addendum (4.28 / 7) (#5)
by Rift on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 04:07:19 PM EST

Perhaps one more,

0) In journalism of all types (and online is no exception), your reputation and credibility are extremely important - don't throw them away!

If you expect to ever be taken seriously, you must make sure that people respect your views and opinions (they don't have to agree, however). To respect your views and opinions, they have to respect you. Once that is lost, it is almost impossible to gain again. In online terms, this means that everything you write will most likely be passed by or thought of as pure crap.

Pulling childish stunts or getting involved in flamewars are not the way to keep credibility. Be careful - while the interent community may seem like a place where you can do anything with impunity, there is one commodity - your name (nick). 'Take a joke, it was only to prove a point' is not the way to wave off an annoying stunt - only time helps your reputation to recover.

--Rift
A pen is to a car what a meteor is to a _____
So... (3.25 / 4) (#51)
by Farq Q. Fenderson on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 09:04:12 AM EST

Kuro5hin, then, is nothing special. Just another media outlet? I think a little differently.

Screw that. The moment I stopped caring about my reputation, I felt greatly relieved. I lost a bunch of friends. Then I made some better ones.

Who in their right mind cares about reputation to such a degree that they'll put up with pointless crap?

It's not funny anymore, but the joke's on you: It never was.

farq will not be coming back
[ Parent ]
To paraphrase ... (4.00 / 1) (#58)
by Herring on Wed Aug 22, 2001 at 11:37:07 AM EST

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. They know you're a twat though.

Say lol what again motherfucker, say lol what again, I dare you, no I double dare you
[ Parent ]
GEB (3.28 / 7) (#6)
by treetops on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 04:09:16 PM EST

Rule number 6: (Really advanced authours only!) Pick up Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach

I strongly agree. This book should be considered the standard handbook for any aspiring pop intellectual. Nothing of true depth, only faked, flawed ideas dressed up in fancy covers. Much like most Kuro5hin articles. If only Hofstadter had written on the DMCA.

--tt

Hmmm..... (4.00 / 5) (#7)
by 11223 on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 04:12:45 PM EST

Care to defend your point?

(Background information: are you a CS person (not a programmer, but someone who groks computation theory)?)

--
The dead hand of Asimov's mass psychology wins every time.
[ Parent ]

Sure (2.00 / 1) (#38)
by kumquat on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 11:22:49 PM EST

For starters, anybody who considers Escher's work to be artistic is already fighting a losing battle. Second, claiming that the primary source of greatness in any artistic work can be reduced to a mathematical formula is idiotic. Third, using a flawed understanding of art and music as a basis to claim that a mathematician's work is representative of some holy truth is doomed to failure.

[ Parent ]
i liked it anyway.. (none / 0) (#44)
by hollowearth on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 02:55:31 AM EST

I agree with most of what you say, regarding the fields of art, music, mathematics (and writing), but his comparisons between the people he uses works quite well as individuals. I don't recall his attempt to reduce art to a mathematical formula, but (tries to) use each to make points about the others.

Though i do remember going through phases of finding parts really interesting, parts trivial, and parts incomprehensible, i think the book is definitely worth a go though. Even if you don't like Escher (i'm not a fan myself).

[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0) (#49)
by spiv on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 08:06:19 AM EST

For starters, anybody who considers Escher's work to be artistic is already fighting a losing battle.

I disagree. I consider Escher's work to be artistic. The reasons I do so are the usual reasons something is considered artistic: because I like most of it, and also because some of it makes me think. Not deep, world-shattering thoughts, but thoughts nonetheless.

It's perfectly reasonable for you to not like his work, but that doesn't automatically disqualify it as "art" (And yes, I do realise this vague definition allows virtually anything to be defined as art).

Second, claiming that the primary source of greatness in any artistic work can be reduced to a mathematical formula is idiotic.

Agreed -- even if you believe that a brain can be represented deterministically and mathematically, it seems unlikely that any such representation would be a "reduction", in the sense of simplifying the original. And as art is judged by the brain, or at least a significant part of it, that claim seems ridiculous to me also.

However, I do not recall reading any such claim in Godel, Escher, Bach. He may have suggested that Escher used mathematicals concepts to aid him in conceiving and producing his artistic creations, but that is by no means the same claim.

Third, using a flawed understanding of art and music as a basis to claim that a mathematician's work is representative of some holy truth is doomed to failure.

That's another strawman argument, as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure what "holy truth" you are referring to. Hofstader's point in that book was that he believed AI -- real artifical consciousness and creativity, not just some watered-down "expert system" -- is possible within the deterministic framework of a sufficiently complex computer or similar device. He used ideas drawn from the work of Bach, Escher, and mostly relevantly Godel to help explain this. It's an interesting conclusion, but a debatable one.

It's also a very straightforward conclusion, but many people seem to have missed it.

Unfortunately, people seem to have gotten bogged down in the final third of the book and hence been confused about his goal. He is not trying to show some underlying fundamental connection in the universe between mathematics, art and music. He is not trying to show that life in an enormous braid. He is trying to explain his theory of consciousness.

His intended goal has been overshadowed by the remarkable quality of his writing. Using concepts from many different fields to explain things and provide interesting examples, and interspersing it with cleverly written dialogues makes for excellent reading. By working so hard to make his ideas approachable to the layman, he seems to have disguised his ideas beyond reach of many people. It's a pity, but the book is a good read regardless.

I might be wrong about your understanding of the book, but it seems to me that your criticisms of it are based on a misunderstanding of it.

Regards,

-Spiv.



[ Parent ]
Ok, but you're wrong (none / 0) (#54)
by kumquat on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 12:16:01 PM EST

He is trying to explain his theory of consciousness.

Which strikes me as equivalent to defining a Holy Truth. And I am highly skeptical that mathematics are the best avenue for pursuing that Truth.

I consider Escher's work to be artistic. The reasons I do so are the usual reasons something is considered artistic: because I like most of it, and also because some of it makes me think.

Those are not the usual reasons something is considered artistic. Those are the flawed rationalisations of people who absolutely do not understand art but try to claim that all artistic appreciation is purely subjective to individual taste, thereby making themselves feel better about not understanding it. Some people are better qualified to judge art than others. Yes, this is eltist. Yes, it implies that you are not one of those people. Deal with it. Escher was not an artist.

[ Parent ]

UN approved (none / 0) (#57)
by dr k on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 08:58:19 PM EST

Those are not the usual reasons something is considered artistic. Those are the flawed rationalisations of people who absolutely do not understand art but try to claim that all artistic appreciation is purely subjective to individual taste, thereby making themselves feel better about not understanding it. blah blah blah

Go stick your head in a bucket. Or better, since you know so much more about art that everyone else, could you please point me in the direction of the nearest Council of Artistic Standards, that we may better ourselves? Does the United Nations have some sort of committee that issues an annual report on what is and is not art this year?
Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]

In Defense of Escher (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by mcherm on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 02:29:49 PM EST

First of all, I'll start off by conceding that Hofstadter didn't say ALL that much about Escher.

But I am amazed to find that you say "anybody who considers Escher's work to be artistic is already fighting a losing battle". I guess this just goes to show that different people have different tastes in art.

I was recently at the Guggenheim in Bilbao where I saw a few of the well-regarded pieces in their permanent collection -- one was two walls close together with a green florescent light between them, and another was a large empty room painted white.

While these completely failed to move me, I contrast it with Escher's Mosaic 2, which I think is one of the most beautiful pieces of artwork I have ever seen.

What can I say... I guess tastes differ.

-- Michael Chermside
[ Parent ]

This is highly offensive. (3.00 / 5) (#9)
by Faulty Dreamer on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 04:15:28 PM EST

(Rule # 1) You have offended me greatly by under-appreciating my ability to think for myself. (Rule # 2) The last damn thing I need is one more fool telling me what to think. Get off your high-horse already! (Rule # 3) I honestly think most of you morons would do better to go back to school to learn proper ways of thinking, but I'm not holding my breath. (Rule # 4) While I'm not completely sure this is the way I feel, I think I'll just throw it up here and make sure you know how much you pissed me off right off the bat. (Rule # 5 and #6 are non-demonstratable, unfortunately.)

Honestly, this article is a pretty good assesment of what most folks should think about before submitting a story, or even a comment. But, I think we all could take a moment and think, "Was this meant seriously". And, maybe think, "Am I being superly-overly sensitive?

Get those ideas hammered out and stop the knee-jerking and we might have something here. But what would I know, I'm probably one of the bad ones.

--------
Faulty Dreams - Barking at the moon 24/7...

If you think I'm an asshole, it's only because you haven't realized what a fucking idiot I am. - Faulty Dreamer

On Football (3.50 / 4) (#14)
by BobaFatt on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 05:03:34 PM EST

Which kind of football are we to kick ideas around like? is this American Football, Soccer Football, Rugby Football, Australian Rules Football, or what?

Someone with more time and imagination can try and translate football types into modes of thinking, I'm too lazy/stupid, and besides, I don't understand Australian rules at all, and American just looks like rugby, without the restriction on throwing forward, and lots more padding and players.


The Management apologise for any convenience caused.
American football (4.50 / 2) (#42)
by Sven on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 12:13:50 AM EST

It can't be American football, because then we would be throwing the ideas rather than kicking them. And between each thought we would have to stop and rest for five minutes.

--
harshbutfair - you know it makes sense
[ Parent ]
Must be soccer ... (none / 0) (#67)
by vrai on Fri Sep 07, 2001 at 06:10:33 AM EST

... as we kick ideas around for a while then have huge fight about who won.

[ Parent ]
I agree, for what it's worth... (3.66 / 3) (#15)
by watchmaker on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 05:16:02 PM EST

...but it won't help.

I voted this +1 because, well, it needed to be said.

But the whirling and oddly palpable sphere of apathy that surrounds my waking hours give me pause about this story. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, often attributed to Douglas Adams, though for the life of me I now can't find proof of that on google...

Never try to teach a Neanderthal to play scrabble. The only word they know is "Ungh" and they don't know how to spell it.


Close.... (4.50 / 4) (#20)
by Your Mom on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 06:26:11 PM EST

"It's uphill work," said Arthur wearliy. "The only word they know is grunt and they can't spell it."

The Resturant at the End of the Universe, Chapter 33

--
"As far as I'm concerned, Osama bin Laden can eat a dick." -trhurler
[ Parent ]
i like this.... (3.66 / 3) (#17)
by zzzeek on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 05:34:06 PM EST

1. Dont take ideas on here so seriously, learn to play with ideas. If you take everything seriously, you are probably going to appear like a flamer or a troll.

2. Never say anything that is not mathematically provable. If you dont know mathematical proving techniques, you suck because I said so.

3. Irony, anyone? (Perhaps this observation is only 4. half baked. But I didnt read the books in 5. and 6. so what can you expect from me?)



expression (2.33 / 3) (#27)
by tequila tux on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 07:18:48 PM EST

I think you might be forgetting what this site is about. It's about building a community where peple express their various views. Unfotunately, there are no real rules for expression and so summing them up into a nice neat little package is not only unpacticle its undesirable. This is great if you want to turn K5 into a boring weblog verison of the JAMA.

Sometimes, an idea just sucks and all you can say about it is, "your idea sucks." There is no need to point out every inconsistancy, its jsut bad and needs to be said as such. You give to much point/counterpoint prpoer agumentation to an idea and you validate it by spending time on it.

And now ,for something completely *NOT* serious (3.85 / 7) (#34)
by radar bunny on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 08:17:12 PM EST

Rule number 1: Don't take everything seriously.
then you say
Learn how to kick an idea around almost as if you're playing football.
Have you ever met a green bay packers fan? How about a Stealers fan. They take it very seriously. Lets watch those analogies.

If it's not fun to kick around ideas at a discussion forum, the type of articles will begin to approach flames or trolls. That's what people who take everything seriously tend to be viewed as.

how seriously should we take the idea of not taking everything seriously. Now before your head explodes, let me explain. Some people take ideas seriously and if you are going to discus it with them, you had better do so as well. besides you turn around a few paragraphs later and say ---

If you have a hunch that your ideas are half-baked, take some time to bake them.

Now do you see the conflict? Basically you are suggesting that a person be ready to accept new ideas but watch out when presenting them. Well, a new idea is just that and should I only accept new ideas from experts who have come off the mountain to enlighten me?

Treat your articles as mathematical proofs. Have I proven this statement? Can I find another proof of it so I don't have to? Can I reference that instead of supporting it myself?

Ok, here's where the trolling and flaming i refered to above comes into play. To many times, I have watched as people have ripped apart an entire idea because one single aspect of it fell into one of the catagories. "Oh he made thirty statements and didnt prove one of them, ITS ALL WRONG!" And again, i come back to the whole "new idea part" discussion above. New ideas have holes that havent been explained and its a two way street. New ideas also are short on references, hence the whole "new" aprt of the idea. So, should I only take new ideas that have lots of backing?

Rule number 3: Beware the irony inherent in the submission.

Irony is a great tool for showing both humour and for ointing out faults. How about "Beware of Contradictions."

Now, on the last two rules. How about reading George Carlin. If you really want to learn how to deal with falicies and argumntation, learn form the real master, and you dont have to be some "advanced" or (my favorite) "really advanced reader". You might like him because he doesn'ttake things seriosuly, though you might dislike him because he rarely uses references and LOVES irony.


The whole point of this is that I don't need you to come down off the mountain and preach to me about how to and not to submit an article. You may notice (or not, i really don't care) that I havent posted much lately and a big art of this is that I've grown warey of some of the overly intelligentsia preaching ideas and ripping everyone else because of some small point. "Oh sure, appreciate new ideas, but only mine. And, if you are going to argue against my idea you had better make fewer mistakes than I did in presenting it to you." It seems like too many debates have come to this where both parties post 6 comments each and who ever makes the fewest spelling/grammer/substance/argumentative/logical mistakes is the winner. And, this all comes from people aproaching post and stories the with the same mindset you jsut did. Lighten up, its jsut an idea it cant hurt anyone. As you say, don't take it so seriously --- but then you just did and here I am replying seriously. Andf I'm sure there issome eager beaver out there that will take my comment even more serously -- probably more so than it was intended--- especially considering it wasn't. :-P

ahh screw it, where's my carlin CD.

Damn you and your insulting words... (none / 0) (#63)
by BOredAtWork on Wed Aug 22, 2001 at 11:10:22 PM EST

Have you ever met a green bay packers fan? How about a Stealers fan. They take it very seriously. Lets watch those analogies.
It's STEELERS, man. S-T-E-E-L-E-R-S. Dammit, 'stealers' is like saying Jesus was that 'magic dude with the nappy hair'. The STEELERS are a DYNASTY. 'Stealers' is as insulting as lumping the Black and Gold in with the god-damned Cleveland Browns... Grrr...

And just for your information, STEELER fans are NOT militant. Not in the least. Nope, not at all. Least of all me...

[ Parent ]

I think this is entirely the wrong approach. (3.50 / 2) (#39)
by jd on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 11:24:12 PM EST

Most people see the computer, but they don't see the people on the other side. So, trying to teach people to behave decently isn't going to work.

I've an alternative approach. Let's teach people to flame -well-. Hey, if we're going to have insufferable idiots on K5, let's at least try to get them to be insufferable idiots with style.

So, here's my contribution to this new approach, the Flamer's FIQ-WIMA (Frequently Ignored Questions - With Ignorant, Meaningless Answers):

1) What is the FIQ-WIMA

If you need to ask, you're in the wrong place. Just figure it out yourself.

2) Someone asked me a question and I don't know the answer. What do I do?

Lie! Fake it! It's not like they're really going to put anything you say to the test. But the attention you'll get, even for a blatantly stupid answer, is worth it's weight in gold, to your ego.

3) Someone called me a name! What's the correct response?

A 50 megaton nuclear warhead. Failing that, flammage of roughly equal intensity. You'll be despised by everyone, but so what? You WILL be known. And, after all, isn't that the whole point of being online? Being a mini-celebrity? If you wanted to hide in a cubby-hole, you could do that much more cheaply without all the expensive computer stuff.

4) Should I take anything in this FAQ to heart?

Only if you want to be the most famous moron on the run. Following advice like this is a good way to make yourself wanted, alright. Not everyone keeps computer stuff to the computer, and it only takes ONE person to go postal on you. Sure, they might get caught afterwards, but that's a bit late. Sure, you can go paranoid, and eventually end up exactly that sort of nutcase yourself. Or, you can accept that YOU choose what to give, and YOU choose what to take.

No (4.11 / 18) (#41)
by qpt on Mon Aug 20, 2001 at 11:44:01 PM EST

While I do not doubt that you are very much impressed with your own cleverness, narcissism does not constitute an appropriate submission. Whether through skill or chance, you manage to glaringly violate at least three of the six rules that you purport to be promoting.

Admittedly, you have rule number one down pat. It is obvious that you did not take the task of writing this submission at all seriously. If the gaping holes in your logic did not make this clear, your wretchedly shoddy grammar would. "This rule number 1 because it's most important," indeed.

In rule number two, you exhort us to treat our articles as mathematical proofs, a rigor you no doubt neglected to put yours through because you were not taking it seriously. You write, "Have I proven this statement?", but nothing at all is proven in your story. Are we to understand that the entire submission does not contain a single statement? If that is so, and it truly is nothing more than rambling, semi-coherent opinions, then it is a waste of our time.

Rule three encourages writers to abhor contradictions and hypocrisy. I hardly think that much at all needs to be said about this except that violating one's own rules certainly seems like examples of both.

Finally, rule four urges submitters to patch any gaping holes in their argument. If what I said about rule two does not qualify as a gaping hole in your submission, I am uncertain what does.

This submission is quite clearly garbage. If you intentionally wrote it so poorly, you should be ashamed of trying to exploit your perceived superiority over the rest of Kuro5hin. Crawl back into your hole knowing that a great many of us were not fooled in the slightest, nor were we amused by your stupid infantile games. While irony and contradiction can be married with true insight to produce genius, this is, unfortunately, far from what you have done.

Alternately, if you did not intend for your story to come out so poorly, you should likewise be ashamed. Learn before you criticize and listen before you speak.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.

Poll should have read... (none / 0) (#59)
by valency on Wed Aug 22, 2001 at 12:13:50 PM EST

Who is more arrogant?
  1. 11223
  2. qpt
  3. valency


---
If you disagree, and somebody has already posted the exact rebuttal that you would use: moderate, don't post.
[ Parent ]
It is a meta-submission. (none / 0) (#60)
by arcade on Wed Aug 22, 2001 at 02:23:04 PM EST

It is a meta-submission. Its 'about the community', or 'about the site'. He presents his opinions, he does not draw conclusions - but presents what he views as 'facts'.

You may of course disagree with him. But I do not like your way of attacking him - because I do not see how it is possible to present a comentary on this - while you at the same time 'follow' the rules he present. It is, after all, just a commentary.



--
arcade
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#62)
by qpt on Wed Aug 22, 2001 at 10:36:48 PM EST

because I do not see how it is possible to present a comentary [sic] on this - while you at the same time 'follow' the rules he present
Since his rules purport to be a guideline by which submissions can be judged for quality, failing to follow them clearly demonstrates that either his rule set or his submission is flawed. If he wanted to exclude opinion pieces from his rules, he could have done so. However, he took great pains to emphasize that stories should be held to the same standards as mathematical proofs.

Whether or not it is appropriate to apply those rules to his submission is not strictly relevant. At the very least, it was shoddy and careless of him to completely disregard his own guidelines while writing.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

You seem to have a fondness ... (4.00 / 1) (#66)
by joegee on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 07:09:55 PM EST

for accusing others of narcissism.

From dictionary.com:

nar·cis·sism (närs-szm) also nar·cism (-szm) n. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

And yet if one digs deeper into postings it is possible to see that you yourself are not at all above self-indulgence. I have nothing personal against you, and I have +1'd a few of your queue submissions, but I guess I just don't understand why this should be an insult coming from you.

I suspect you probably will not take criticism as readily as you hand it out. Say what you will, but you appear to be living in a glass house ...

<sig>I always learn something on K5, sometimes in spite of myself.</sig>
[ Parent ]
NEWS AT 11 (2.83 / 6) (#47)
by panck on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 06:46:15 AM EST

THIS JUST IN:
Pretentious Bastard barks at other Pretentious Bastards and gets Pretentious replies.

omg, welcome to fucking hell

of course it's contradictory (1.50 / 2) (#52)
by goosedaemon on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 09:30:48 AM EST

or perhaps a more appropriate word would be paradoxical. i mean, come on, when it comes down to it everything's paradoxical somehow, and discussion, which has the capacity to discuss everything, is going to be more paradoxical.



Rule #1 ... not quite (4.00 / 1) (#53)
by kostya on Tue Aug 21, 2001 at 09:59:51 AM EST

Rule number 1: Don't take everything seriously.
This rule number 1 because it's most important. When approaching an unfamiliar idea, don't take it completely seriously. Learn how to play around with ideas.

I disagree with your wording, but I think I get your meaning. You are trying to encourage people to think--to play with ideas like legos, seeing what fits and what does not, to try different configurations, to explore paths to see what rabbit holes they go down.

This is good. People should do this. But I think it comes from being serious about ideas, but not dogmatic about them. Or more simply put, don't rush to conclusions; be flexible and be willing to try ideas on to see how they fit.

I think you need to rephrase rule #1 in some way to reflect your real intent. Perhaps something like "Enjoy thinking and experimenting with ideas."

Now, about seriousness. The reason why I am nitpicking Rule #1 is that we really do need to ease up around here, to not be so serious. I suggest "Rule #0" in homage to Comp Sci:

Rule #0: Don't take things too seriously.
This is just K5. It is not life or death. It is ok to be wrong. It is more fun to be relaxed. Do not take things personally even if they are. Do not take this site too seriously. I repeat, just relax and enjoy yourself. If you are getting mad right now, it is time for you to take a K5 vacation.
Well, it's just my opinion ;-) Since the morons and the idiots who keep posting flames won't stop until they feel they are "l33t", the rest of us need to ease up and learn to ignore them.

In the mean time, some simple thinking and experimental diary entries would improve the quality of many posts. I think the only really valuable rule in the bunch is #4. That would solve a lot of story problems. But this references back to the "l33t" and pride-points problem inherent in a meritocracy like K5. When the queue let less of this crap through, people learned to post better stories. I still think the queue should drop faster than it posts. Ah well, I am a grumpy old K5er, so you can just ignore me.



----
Veritas otium parit. --Terence
Isn't it ironic (none / 0) (#61)
by Defiant One on Wed Aug 22, 2001 at 06:56:56 PM EST

Oh ironies upon ironies!

I agree with your post in general, but find it so ironic, even given this 'meta' level, to want to steer what a discussion community is going to do, and to reply to it, but here I am.

Are there people who participate yet know nothing of how to argue a point politely? Yes. Are there trolls and flamers who live only to piss us off? Check. Is there a freakin' thing we can do about it? No.

Oh, sure you could FAQ this site to the teeth and rate everything down and out which doesn't fit the FAQ. However, to do so is to kill the very thing one would want in a discussion forum. In fact, I'm not so sure it hasn't already been killed, if it ever lived to begin with (I came up on Usenet, you see).

I think, as somebody here noted, that if your ego is so strong that you think we should actually care what your posting history is or what you have to say in-and-of-itself, then you're falling for the oldest online Grail there is: The "I can whip this place into shape" Grail.

The best thing to do is jump in and post, ratings be damned, and when that gets old, find another forum. I intend to. As for posterity, write a book from it. I did.


"What can I say, I believe in total, honest democracy. I also believe this American system can work."
- Woody Allen, Stardust Memories


Surely this isn't serious (none / 0) (#64)
by exa on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 06:51:34 PM EST

According to your rules, I'll take this post with a grain of salt. Especially last rule which I don't agree with. I like short discussions/musings and bright ideas.

Thanks,
__
exa a.k.a Eray Ozkural
There is no perfect circle.

And now, for something completely serious. | 67 comments (49 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!