The problem with being human

Pages: 123

devonrevenge wrote:
this is outrageous, LB it makes no sense but because I wanted to be part of it IM the spammer, I see what is going on here, this is whats known as forum snobbery, no the quality of my posts are not as indepth and helpful as the masters of C++.com, but im a beginner of both coding and the internet, this is me trying to communicate for real. SNOBBERY

This was your post that I reported:

devonrevenge wrote:
See what happens to the lounge when im away, see what happens

1. It is not related to the thread
2. It is not related to any of the posts in the thread
3. It is not related to the forum
4. It is not related to any users on the forum
5. It is not related to C++
6. It is not related to the website

Explain to me why it is not spam.

Last edited on

sargon94 (405)

1. It is not related to the thread: Neither are most of the other posts.
2. It is not related to any of the posts in the thread: Again, most of the posts are disjointed nonsense.
3. It is not related to the forum: The lounge? It has no defined purpose.
4. It is not related to any users on the forum: Explain why posts must have this?
5. It is not related to C++: Neither is your thread
6. It is not related to the website: Neither is your thread.

Double Standards.

closed account (N36fSL3A)

Why didn't you report the other posts then? They could all be considered spam (well the ones that didn't have anything else to do with the topic).

Why did it have to be only devon who was reported?

LB (13399)

Last edited on

sargon94 (405)

His post was about as related as Disch's and Lumkin's. It was a humorous nod at the silly state of the thread. I'm sorry you didn't get it, or that it may have offended you, but abusing the report system is something people like Spoonlicker do.

LB (13399)

The thread was not in a 'silly state', there were four consecutive on-topic posts before devon's. Spam doesn't offend me - I just report it and move on. I don't see how reporting spam is abuse of the reporting system - maybe you want to argue whether the message is spam? I believe twicker gets the final say, but I can't know what that will be unless I use my own judgement and report it first.

Last edited on

closed account (N36fSL3A)

Fair enough. I see how you could consider that spam.

sargon94 (405)

I don't see why he was targeted. All the first 5 posts should be lumped in. I'll grant perhaps posting silliness after the the thread returned to your original idea was off-topic and maybe a little rude. But it wasn't intentional derailing and as such should've simply been ignored like so many posts of that type have. Reporting a post because you find it personally annoying (a position no one else seems to share) is abuse.

Also, look up the definition of spam please. You seem to have some misconceptions about what qualifies.

LB (13399)

sargon94 wrote:
Reporting a post because you find it personally annoying (a position no one else seems to share) is abuse.

I did not report it because it was annoying, I reported it because of the several reasons I listed previously. You countered my points, but I listed them in order of scope.

> Neither are most of the other posts. [...] Again, most of the posts are disjointed nonsense.
I listed why each post was considered spam or not above.

> The lounge? It has no defined purpose.
The point was referring to the forum as a whole, not the section alone. After saying this, you then say:
> Neither is your thread [...] Neither is your thread.
So I am confused on your stance toward the lounge.

> Explain why posts must have this?
Sometimes users have their PMs disabled and no public email address, so it is acceptable to temporarily hijack a thread to ask them to enable PMs.

When I said 'I listed them in order of scope', I meant like a C++ compiler searches for an identifier. If going in order I exhaust all options, I say it must be spam (e.g. the compiler gives an error for unrecognized identifier).

> Also, look up the definition of spam please.
Google: "irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients."
What misconceptions do I have?

Last edited on

sargon94 (405)

Frankly I'm running out of logical/fully-supported reasons why I consider it inappropriate use of the report button, so I'll just drop it entirely. I just want to say I don't agree with it, but it's not up to me.

LB (13399)

And that brings us back to the thread: it's generally against human nature to 'agree to disagree' or to admit being wrong (I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong, but we have just agreed to disagree).

I've actually had to practice both saying aloud and typing "you're right, I'm wrong" because the opposite is so commonly portrayed in movies and shows (think of the classic case of some teacher telling some kid "I'm right and you're wrong"). It's so prevalent that people often mishear or misread when I say "you're right, I'm wrong", and when they do a double-take and realize what was said, they often feel shocked.

Someone corrected me in the YouTube comment section once, and I replied "you're right, I'm wrong" - this resulted in about 600 thumbs-up within the day and several comments commending me. This shows that our society is clearly aware that admitting being wrong is uncommon - at least our society is decently self-aware, but it is slightly too instinct-driven to correct the known problems.

You will hear me often complain that our instincts are the only thing hindering society (except for empathy, of course, which is a beneficial instinct that seems to be getting bred out of positions of power).

Last edited on

sargon94 (405)

On that subject there's something rather neat about arguments (specifically ones like ours just now). Devon being reported doesn't affect me in any way. The fact that it was you who did it doesn't either. Yet simply because you disagreed with me on whether or not it was earned, I felt compelled to argue back. Without having any real stake in the outcome, the simple act of disagreeing was enough to get us both going.

My point: I think it's really human nature to pick sides. In arguments like this one, it becomes less about the action being right or wrong, and more about simply not wanting to lose to the other person (personally at least, I've noticed so many debates turn into this, whether the debaters admit it or not). That may be why hearing "you're right, I'm wrong" is so uncommon. Even when you're wrong, you're compelled to keep it up, just in the hopes of "winning."

LB (13399)

Speaking of taking sides, I try hard to have an open mind, but at the same time I try to defend my beliefs. This generally means I just believe in something until something else is more compelling to me.

Interestingly, while many people are closed-minded, there are also those who just vigorously take whichever side spoke last. I don't know any euphemistic short name to refer to that group, but I've always wondered what goes on in their head and why they think like that.

Last edited on

sargon94 (405)

Short term memory loss? Complete inability to contextualize entire conversations? I've always attributed that kind of behavior to low attention-span.

The trick with defending one's belief seems to be retaining the ability to doubt them. Not to bring religion into this (that's a touchy subject) but fringe groups are usually characterized by being the most certain and obstinately rejecting any counter-thoughts out of hand.

LB (13399)

I was thinking more along the lines of political speeches - some people remember only the first to speak, some remember only the last to speak. Some remember both but take sides depending on who was first/last. There are very few who actively think and consider both speeches before taking a side.

Duthomhas (13206)

I assumed that Disch's post was deleted before Duoas posted.

Disch did not post before me. Mine was a response to your existentialist posting, particularly in reference to my future self being able to remember anything useful -- I defer to someone whose future self may be more reliable.

But, as existential postings go, discussion doesn't seem to happen as much as confusion.

Devonrevenge did nothing more inappropriate than succinctly:
1) ask what this thread was about
2) comment that forum members apparently went insane in his (non-causal) absense

Hence, the following invalidate:

1. It is not related to the thread
2. It is not related to any of the posts in the thread
4. It is not related to any users on the forum

Clearly, none of those are true when simply observing an apparently nonsensical thread.

The following is true of the thread itself, not just any posting in it:

3. It is not related to the forum
5. It is not related to C++
6. It is not related to the website

As already noted:

Let's not forget ... that this is the lounge.

If you want to start an existential thread, expect some random stuff.

I cannot change what my past self has done. Therefore I have no issue of trust with him. If my future self were to begin distrusting my past self's actions, how then should my future self chose?

Trust of self is the first step for trust of others -- you have to trust that you are capable of recognizing trust merit in others -- otherwise you cannot trust your future self to learn anything at all -- only to be blown about by winds of the moment.

LB (13399)

Trusting your future self results in procrastination. My past self has learned from experience that my future self is completely untrustworthy - my present self has to do all the work.

Last edited on

sargon94 (405)

Your future self's a great example of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: You can never be quite sure what he's going to do until you observe it happening XD

LB (13399)

That reminds me - although it is slightly off-topic, I wanted to discuss the theory that the future could change the past. My concept of time is too strong for me to open my mind to other ways of perceiving time, so I am having trouble understanding how we could even know.

sargon94 (405)

Seems like the ultimate tech right? The ability to change the past. I follow the multiverse model of what would happened if you traveled back: A universe is created at that moment with you in the past, and everything carries on. It conveniently removes all paradoxes since you're almost an addition to that universe and a subtraction from ours. It breaks all sorts of energy equivalence principles but it really easy to get your head around.
EDIT: typo

EDIT EDIT: I didn't really make this clear but if that's truly the only way it can be done, you essentially can't change your past, therefore killing your other self before they travel back is totally legitimate since them traveling didn't lead to you being there. See? Super convenient.

Last edited on

Pages: 123