It'd Be Better If You Wrote Nothing At All

Hey what's up. I just wanted to tell you that your writing is trash and a fifth grader from Guatemala can write better than you. The things you write are so retarded that I'd lose less brain cells tripping on acid and taking shots at the same time. I don't understand how you can be so stupid. Did you shove crayons up your nose when you were young causing permanent brain damage? Why couldn't you be a literate, rational person and actually use logic instead of just posting idiotic spam. I don't intend to be mean but your posts cause me to scream. Till I want to lash out and break all your dreams.

In general I've been curious whether or not criticism stops people from contributing. Are there a plethora of ideas running through your mind and the fear of being heavily criticized prevents you from posting your opinions? Are you showing more self-moderation and are you happy that you didn't post what you were originally planning to write down? I think that there are two scenarios associated with moderation. Over-moderation and policing by the community causes a drought of new posts and opinions whereas under-cutting moderation results in too many threads being made and only a small portion of it being interesting to most people. In general how do you view Southperry and what is your personal code of ethics when it comes to posting your opinions?

Edit: Haha. Shit. Thread title. If someone could delete that extra "be" I would appreciate it.

Did you mean this thread for the Angry Dome?

First off, I think you might want to put the first paragraph in anonymous quotes. Had me going there at first when I read it thinking "wtp is this thread about?"

Second, answering your questions:

Are there a plethora of ideas running through your mind and the fear of being heavily criticized prevents you from posting your opinions?

I think like most people there are always a plethora of ideas running through my mind, but the beauty of internet forums/blogs is that comments are made on a post-by-post basis, and thus the very process of hashing out a response (for competent, intelligent people like those on SP, at least) allows one a chance to eloquently state what they feel with the chance to revise and rephrase. This is all as compared to instantaneous communication, as seen in the form of real life interpersonal discussion, speeches, and to a lesser degree internet instant messaging programs like MSN and IRCs (these still allow a chance to edit and rephrase, but, especially in a place like a large chat room, responses need to be made quickly in order to fit the order and flow of conversation).

With regards to criticism, I've learned to care less. Many of you probably dislike many things I've said and done before, but I believe that should be the case if people truly express their opinions. In most cases, you shouldn't like everything about a person. It's taken a long time for me personally to come to the point of apathy towards other comments (though I still get upset here and there), and I've definitely had numerous occasions on several forums where it's me in a thread v. everyone else, but again, that's natural (see: 12 Angry Men). In all honesty laziness probably prevents me from posting most of the time, as I usually have a lot to say (as indicated by this wall-of-text), and it's rather random when I'm feeling up to responding.

Are you showing more self-moderation and are you happy that you didn't post what you were originally planning to write down?

As I said above, I personally show a lot of self-moderation, as do most, and a lot of times I just post whenever I feel like it, so I usually don't have times where I feel happy that I didn't say something but rather times when I regret saying something the way I did. We all learn from cases like those, of course, so in the sense that they're still good to have I don't regret my half-decade+ of foruming at all.

In general how do you view Southperry and what is your personal code of ethics when it comes to posting your opinions?

Let me put it this way: in my 5-7 years of active foruming, Southperry is the only board I continue to visit because of the high level of intellectual, competent, logical, and mature discussion and debate that occur here. It's a wonderful place to get the first, most in-depth news from any version of Maple around the globe, participate in discussion on almost any issue with a diverse pool of users ranging in age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc., and a place to just have fun. For example, I personally love the Funhouse as the place where I find cool and random news/internet things, and often find myself sharing neat things posted there with real life friends on Facebook. In the end, the site is well kept with a strong and visible administration (Paul and everyone actually post and contribute to discussions) that aptly monitors and allows a liberal amount of discussion, and, again, is a place with a fantastic user base that contributes daily to the knowledge and development of all who visit.

Finally, my personal code of ethics? Don't be annoying, arrogant, or narcissistic, though since "annoyance" is defined differently to everyone that's probably the most difficult to monitor. In general keeping posts concise and free of excess verbiage/audio/visual media is key.

When I think of criticism, three things come to mind: flaming, spam, and constructive criticism.

Flaming is exemplified by the vast majority of your first paragraph. Comments such as "omg you so newb rofl your ideas sucks" are clearly not helpful but neither do they discourage me from continuing to form my ideas. I simply report the user to a moderator, slap them on my ignore list, and respond only to the replies that I can still see.

Spam, by my personal definition as applied to forum criticism, is when a user seems to be completely oblivious of other presented arguments with merit and continues down a non-productive trail of logic.

Ex

 Spoiler

User: Hey guys, I have this cool idea that works because 1+1 = 2 !
Spam: Well it obviously doesn't work because 1+1 = 3
User: Actually, by these [link] reliable sources 1+1 = 2
Spam: And since 1+1 = 3, you're going to have to make these changes to your idea...

And so on

Again, this doesn't discourage me from continuing my ideas as it is clear this person doesn't understand how the flow of a discussion progresses and would rather participate in a monologue of sorts. If the person eventually does say something constructive, then they regain my attention.

Constructive criticism is invaluable to a forum community. It's fine if your idea had flaws or was even entirely wrong. As long as some thought was placed into the idea beforehand, constructive criticism can help get you back on track or even allow new ideas to spawn. I welcome this sort of discussion as it can turn an average idea of mine into a great one. If 20 forum posters attack an idea from every angle, changes are made, and the idea is constantly reformed, then the chances of the idea being flawed are considerably lower than when it was just floating around in my head. I think at least one piece of your first paragraph could be considered constructive criticism:

Why couldn't you be a literate, rational person and actually use logic instead of just posting idiotic spam?

Granted that should be reworded in a more civil tone to further distinguish it from flaming.

During my short stay on Southperry, I've noticed very little flaming compared to other forums. There is quite a bit of spam, but an extraordinary amount of constructive criticism. Many posters here do not seem to be afraid to stand in the face of any sort of criticism and counter with their own. Overall ideas seem to flow into the forums and develop much more efficiently than other forums. There is one minor exception to be noted which involves posters who provide a decent argument defending some business practice of Nexon. These are frequently shot down with nothing better than spam, but then again, Nexon hasn't been too kind to this forum either.

When I think of criticism, three things come to mind: flaming, spam, and constructive criticism. Flaming is exemplified by the vast majority of your first paragraph. Comments such as "omg you so newb rofl your ideas sucks" are clearly not helpful but neither do they discourage me from continuing to form my ideas. I simply report the user to a moderator, slap them on my ignore list, and respond only to the replies that I can still see.

Do all flames come across as being unsophisticated taunts or can they bear more complexity? It's easy to simplify situations like this, "Killing people is bad." But when it comes to issues such as human suffering, euthanasia, medical emergency, and life support the statement takes on more complex dimensions. If the difference between a comment being a flame and not a flame is simply drawing out a snide one sentence remark to an elaborate paragraph then does that still constitute as being a flame? And what happens in circumstances where the basis behind my commentary is really the fact that I think the other guy is an idiot. Is flaming so reprehensible that the writing paragraphs of elaborated discussion really a superior substitute to an honest "fuck you." Again. I'm curious.

Spam, by my personal definition as applied to forum criticism, is when a user seems to be completely oblivious of other presented arguments with merit and continues down a non-productive trail of logic.
User: Hey guys, I have this cool idea that works because 1+1 = 2 !
Spam: Well it obviously doesn't work because 1+1 = 3
User: Actually, by these [link] reliable sources 1+1 = 2
Spam: And since 1+1 = 3, you're going to have to make these changes to your idea... And so on

Again, this doesn't discourage me from continuing my ideas as it is clear this person doesn't understand how the flow of a discussion progresses and would rather participate in a monologue of sorts. If the person eventually does say something constructive, then they regain my attention.

It's interesting that your definition goes as follows, "... when a user seems to be completely oblivious of other presented arguments with merit and continues down a non-productive trail of logic." You used a simple mathematical example again so that I could understand your point for which I am grateful. But let's say for example that the 1 + 1 = 3 person is a Christian who is posting about their belief that God created the world and the other two people stating 1 + 1 = 2 are atheists arguing about Darwinism and providing scientific papers. If you've read this sentence without questioning my choice of association then your logic is biased. There is no reason why the person who is mathematically wrong should be the Christian unless we associate with Christianity being a wrong ideology in this time and space. It is interesting that we think of Christianity as illogical when the premise behind logic is having a bias to advocate rationality rather than irrational comments. When it comes to how the world truly works, how much actions are actually rational? Does it make sense that affirmative action was enacted in order to make up for discrimination by advocating discrimination? Does it make sense that Howard Univesity's mission statement when it comes to accepting applicants of African American descent is to support "minorities" when the school is located in the District of Columbia which according to 2008 population statistics is 60% African American? Does it makes sense that people like Michael Brown somehow manage to run departments like FEMA and make phone calls stating, "These people are so fucking annoying." When it comes to an irrational world, does it always make sens to always interpret everything through a rational perspective? Again. I'm curious.

Constructive criticism is invaluable to a forum community. It's fine if your idea had flaws or was even entirely wrong. As long as some thought was placed into the idea beforehand, constructive criticism can help get you back on track or even allow new ideas to spawn. I welcome this sort of discussion as it can turn an average idea of mine into a great one. If 20 forum posters attack an idea from every angle, changes are made, and the idea is constantly reformed, then the chances of the idea being flawed are considerably lower than when it was just floating around in my head. I think at least one piece of your first paragraph could be considered constructive criticism: Granted that should be reworded in a more civil tone to further distinguish it from flaming.

I don't believe that the gap between destruction and construction is so shallow as to be bridged by feable power of semantics.

During my short stay on Southperry, I've noticed very little flaming compared to other forums. There is quite a bit of spam, but an extraordinary amount of constructive criticism. Many posters here do not seem to be afraid to stand in the face of any sort of criticism and counter with their own. Overall ideas seem to flow into the forums and develop much more efficiently than other forums. There is one minor exception to be noted which involves posters who provide a decent argument defending some business practice of Nexon. These are frequently shot down with nothing better than spam, but then again, Nexon hasn't been too kind to this forum either.

Do you feel that writing complaints to the Consumerist is a constructive method in getting Nexon to address it’s method of conducting it’s business?

Wow. Again, you should have stated you were directing that at me - I hope others don't think you're upset at them!

Comments:

The basis of my statements regarding the superiority of forum boards are based off the very statements we're making now. You contradicted your belief yourself - wall-of-text posts (on Southperry, at least) tend to NOT be ignored all the time, as you read through mine and responded with an even longer post, and by the looks of things I'll be responding with a huge ass post, too . Perhaps, then, Southperry is an exception to most forum boards (which is, again, why I value it so highly as compared to such sites) in that you can go to literally any subforum on the site (excluding the Funhouse, on most occasions) and find long, well-written responses to the topic at hand. I do agree that the majority of web forums out there do not follow such standards, but again, Southperry is a community of curious, engaged, passionate intellectuals who enjoy discussing and debating more than the average casual forum goer. With regards to short statements, Southperry again excels as compared to other sites. For example, many times you'll view a picture or a link on another site and have simple comments like "Hahaha I love it" "That's crap ew" or whatnot, whereas the typical 1-2 sentence posts found on Southperry (with the best sampling found in the Funhouse) are concise yet filled with wit and are clever responses that carry a thread. You don't have to type a lot to make a great post, but you do have to say something that makes your post stand out as a contributing facet of the thread in order for it to be worthwhile - which is, again, a strong point of Southperry's. With regards to your comments about infractions, I couldn't agree more. While free speech and expression should be encouraged, negative writing that demeans, insults, or in some way "knocks others down" should be removed and infracted, allowing promotional, positive writing to flourish. Finally (and perhaps this is just coming from an individual standpoint), I do disagree with your final comments about restrictions. You don't have to be so emotionally engaged to what you post online. Just recently I posted a huge comment on the Pokemon board about every generation of handheld games in the franchise. I was excited to see if people would respond, and as of yet no one has. Does it hurt a little or make me regret posting? A little to the first, but I'm not regretful. Regardless of who reads and writes, comments and responds or lurks, if you find personal satisfaction at having the chance to publicly communicate your emotions and opinions, that should be enough to keep you from, at the very least, regressing to negative posting. In some cases it's understandable that you may not want to post again for a while, but ignorance of your efforts or a pessimistic loss of hope in others should never be a reason to develop exacerbating writing.

Your comments about "I could care less" are absolutely correct. I should have elaborated upon those initial comments, in that, while I could care less in the end, I usually am emotionally charged when participating in discussions in which it's all v. me. My point with that comment was tying it to the context of the thread - you should care less about feeling paralyzing fear to keep you from posting in any situation, but you should thus value and respect every comment to which you read and respond. In this sense you're still able to treat everyone with equal respect, and concede defeat and apologize when necessary.

No worries about feeling like a nitpicky prick with me! I'm a bluntly honest person, but I'm also a person who listens and understands people who have an issue with me, and try and change to fix the issue. Okay, that sounded arrogant....I guess all I'm trying to say is that be as bluntly honest with me as you want, because I'll always listen and won't take anything as a complete, hateful attack . To respond to your comments specifically, let me start by backing up including that personal tidbit. I mentioned my years of foruming to indicate that I'm not new to the online forum world, and, after posting on various diverse boards, can be seen as a more reliable source when claiming that Southperry is an intellectual, mature forum. It's just like when companies advertise how much experience they have in the field, as it boosts their reputability. Again, if you told me my self-moderation wasn't good enough, I wouldn't take that as being a prick but rather as constructive criticism, to which I'd ask "what can I do to be good enough?" Finally, no worries again about nitpicking when it comes to me. I think you shouldn't worry to much about what you say, but again (when it comes to self-moderation), try and keep in mind who you're responding to and format your response in a way they can take it. I'm not saying you can't be bluntly honest, but instead utilize different ways of conveying your message with different people so they are open to your message.

Haha! I'm not a troll nor a retard. If you analyze what the Funhouse exists for, you'll see why I love it: a place where the rules don't apply, where spam flows freely as a way for those who feel the urge to spam can act upon that urge. Now not ALL of the threads are overly intellectual in the Funhouse, but then again, do we always have to be overly intellectual in every aspect of our lives? If 90% of the site consists of intellectual people posting intellectual responses, then allowing them 10% to goof off and let out some randomly represented steam is understandable. Plus, that's only part of the Funhouse. Sometimes there are some pretty clever, witty, funny threads/posts that indicate a person's ability to respond with humor to the world around them. My comments about Maple were also justified, in that the discussion I'm referring to are things like those that heavily surround EXP/hr rates and the plethora of mathematical formulas that comprise the game. Yes, the average Mapler is immature, unintelligent, and unawares of the very makeup of the game they're playing, but those who understand just how much there is to master in the game realize it takes a while to digest. In this case, again, the discussion on Southperry's Maple-related forums embody this notion, as they advance the community's understanding of the very foundation of the game. Also, since the Funhouse allows the random posting of anything, the Jersey Shore references are appropriate (I thought they were clever and funny, but I guess that didn't go over so well. Ohwell - comedy is hit or miss, anyways). And about my academic compulsion: you're probably right. I feel like I only tell people that when appropriate (like in discussions about H1N1 or bacteria and cleanliness), but there probably are a number of other instances in which saying that was unnecessary. I'll work on that!

And finally, I'm not trolling you/being hypocritical (thought you're right; some of those synonym pairs were unnecessary). In many cases, a proficient vocabulary used correctly can keep writing concise (ex. "You need to keep your posts short." v. "You need to keep your posts concise."). Also, order and flow are very different concepts. The order of writing is the specific placement of different ideas, while flow is the overall "readability and understandability" of the writing. They're definitely related, but different. And yes, you're correct about narcissism - subjective responses can always be deemed as such. However there are definitely places within a forum that are objective and do not need personal inflection.

Blah! Like I said at the beginning, I knew I was going to type a lot. Sorry again for that! In the end, to answer your final concern I'll say this: I don't think it's better if you wrote nothing at all. I enjoyed reading and responding to your comments, and look forward to future conversation with you .

Do all flames come across as being unsophisticated taunts or can they bear more complexity? It's easy to simplify situations like this, "Killing people is bad." But when it comes to issues such as human suffering, euthanasia, medical emergency, and life support the statement takes on more complex dimensions. If the difference between a comment being a flame and not a flame is simply drawing out a snide one sentence remark to an elaborate paragraph then does that still constitute as being a flame?

I believe that I simplified my definition of flaming a bit too much because I view it as the least important component of conversation and preferred to keep my discussion focused on the other topics. I intended to portray flaming as simply any sort of comment that has little logical basis, does not contribute to any future discussion, and is aimed at causing other posters to abandon helpful discussion, including but not limited to personal insults to try to provoke a poster to insult back. It can be implemented with proper grammar and impressive vocabulary. Paragraphs that only deem a poster an "idiot" are obviously inflammatory. However, if you instead take the approach of pointing out why you find a poster to be an idiot by opposing his/her flawed ideas and offer sound reasoning for your opposition, then you have successfully countered that user's misinformation while avoiding an inflammatory response.

It's interesting that your definition goes as follows, "... when a user seems to be completely oblivious of other presented arguments with merit and continues down a non-productive trail of logic." You used a simple mathematical example again so that I could understand your point for which I am grateful. But let's say for example that the 1 + 1 = 3 person is a Christian who is posting about their belief that God created the world and the other two people stating 1 + 1 = 2 are atheists arguing about Darwinism and providing scientific papers. If you've read this sentence without questioning my choice of association then your logic is biased. There is no reason why the person who is mathematically wrong should be the Christian unless we associate with Christianity being a wrong ideology in this time and space. It is interesting that we think of Christianity as illogical when the premise behind logic is having a bias to advocate rationality rather than irrational comments. When it comes to how the world truly works, how much actions are actually rational? Does it make sense that affirmative action was enacted in order to make up for discrimination by advocating discrimination? Does it make sense that Howard Univesity's mission statement when it comes to accepting applicants of African American descent is to support "minorities" when the school is located in the District of Columbia which according to 2008 population statistics is 60% African American? Does it makes sense that people like Michael Brown somehow manage to run departments like FEMA and make phone calls stating, "These people are so fucking annoying." When it comes to an irrational world, does it always make sens to always interpret everything through a rational perspective? Again. I'm curious.

Religion was a poor choice as a counter-example. There are reasons that religious arguments are not valid in professional communities and many organized debates and are disallowed on Southperry from my understanding. If I get a "go ahead" from a moderator, I will elaborate further. I am currently making no personal statement of the validity of religion and would like to emphasize that fact to any reader.

Many discussions have no right or wrong answer. However, when that is the case, there are solid arguments for both sides, and either side must be willing to acknowledge those arguments.

I disagree with your statement that irrationality rules the world. Affirmative action, for example, is only entirely irrational to those who oppose it and refuse to acknowledge other arguments.

Proponents claim affirmative action is an attempt to promote equal opportunity, or increase ethnic diversity or other forms of diversity. That the impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: first to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and second to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination. The manifest justification for this may be to compensate for past persecution or exploitation, or to counteract a current supposed discrimination against the protected groups. This may come with the implication that there is an imbalance of power.

They may regard the basis of the transgressor's discrimination, as an irrational prejudice, such as a xenophobia, or they may view it as exploitation for selfish gain, etc. (Usually a combination of these elements.)

Opponents argue that affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. Some argue that racial affirmative action is actually motivated by racism (racial chauvinism, racial identity politics. Most claim to value merit as the appropriate qualification for employment or even tax-funded (tertiary) education, and that affirmative action is counter to this goal.

Another claim is that discrimination based on affirmative action, will give reason for the perception that any members of a group who would qualify for affirmative action, are not qualified for their position. That this may be counter-productive, particularly to those who (they predict) would have qualified and been accepted, without the need for affirmative action.

Opponents also counter that affirmative action is a politically correct form of discrimination, divides groups on socioeconomic or racial grounds rather than uniting them and thus fosters animosity instead of mutual understanding.

Being in opposition to an idea must carefully be distinguished from the idea itself being irrational.

Do you feel that writing complaints to the Consumerist is a constructive method in getting Nexon to address it’s method of conducting it’s business?

It's a healthy form of communication. I believe that Nexon is unlikely to take any action because of it.

Off Topic:
This thread is really starting to feel better suited for the "Rubik's Cube".

Responding to your:

In general how do you view Southperry and what is your personal code of ethics when it comes to posting your opinions?

Personally, opinions means one’s own view and perspective. They don’t have to be facts, but if they are, it would make your information more valid and credible. When I post an opinion, most of the time, it is half-assed and just for the spur of the moment. If I am serious, you will know it judging by how long my post came out to be as well as how I phrase my posts.

There are some users on this site that I happen to enjoy reading their posts as I skim through various threads. Of course, I won’t mention that I like this or that person because I like how they show their internet-persona, but this is just to give you an idea. I also learned to not take things overly serious, but at times, I can’t help it if I do. There are some rather intellectual individuals on SouthPerry that I enjoy having debates with, especially if they can prove me wrong (providing that they show me actual sources and not just bullshit that they pull out of their ass). Then there’s the people who won’t admit they are wrong, and just repeat the flaws others have made in the past in attempt to ‘guilt-trip’ them or make them look bad in front of the community.

Internet, is serious? What? No. The only time I take anything serious is when I find myself curious within a certain topic, or if I feel like I should stand up for my own beliefs. Opinions are meant to show others one’s perspective and outlook. It can be criticized, but judging (should I say, “hating” others based on their outlook makes you be deemed as uneducated in my own eyes. Personally, my current habit works like this for how I post and browse things:

1a) Does it look interesting? [If yes, proceed to 2a. If no, proceed to 1b]
1b) -skips thread-
2a) Skims through most of the posts. Does any of this pertain to my own interests? [If yes, proceed to 3a. If no, proceed to 2b]
2b) -skips thread-
3a) I type an opinion.

Edit ; Agreed with above posted, this is definitely more suitable for Rubik's Cube, because you're invoking for an intellectual and serious response. Also, the below image sums up how I treat threads these days.

 Spoiler

I believe that I simplified my definition of flaming a bit too much because I view it as the least important component of conversation and preferred to keep my discussion focused on the other topics. I intended to portray flaming as simply any sort of comment that has little logical basis, does not contribute to any future discussion, and is aimed at causing other posters to abandon helpful discussion, including but not limited to personal insults to try to provoke a poster to insult back. It can be implemented with proper grammar and impressive vocabulary. Paragraphs that only deem a poster an "idiot" are obviously inflammatory. However, if you instead take the approach of pointing out why you find a poster to be an idiot by opposing his/her flawed ideas and offer sound reasoning for your opposition, then you have successfully countered that user's misinformation while avoiding an inflammatory response.

I'm partially confused on issuing personal attacks. It seems like in the first couple of sentences you were opposed to defamation of character. But you issue the condition that when a stupid statement is made, it is okay to insult their character as a consequence of their own statement. The following criterion you listed for flaming: little logical basis, no contribution, and abandonment of helpful discussion are fine from a personal perspective. But how do you work out a proper judgment when both people feel like the other person is flaming them? How about dealing with differences in people with different standards?

Religion was a poor choice as a counter-example. There are reasons that religious arguments are not valid in professional communities and many organized debates and are disallowed on Southperry from my understanding. If I get a "go ahead" from a moderator, I will elaborate further. I am currently making no personal statement of the validity of religion and would like to emphasize that fact to any reader.

I think religion is perfectly valid. There are plenty of creationists such as Ken Ham who are trying to prove biblical truth via chronology and archaelogical data. When it comes down to the creation of the universe, no one presently alive witnessed the creation of the Earth. The only reason why religious discussion is prohibited is not because religion itself is inherently an evil subject. The main purpose is to monitor immature responses and heavy arguments that tend to be a natural consequence of such discussions. You stated before that flaming was low in this forum and that there was plenty of "constructive criticism." Yet you feel compelled to follow the rules for unexplained reasons. In addition you felt compelled to state that religion was a poor example. Yet you failed to provide a better alternative. Certain people would consider this as being non-constructive. But I'm not making a personal statement of the validity of constructive criticism and would like to emphasize that to the universe at large.

Many discussions have no right or wrong answer. However, when that is the case, there are solid arguments for both sides, and either side must be willing to acknowledge those arguments.

Many discussions do have right and wrong answers. Take for example the issue of stem-cell research. I make the argument that promoting stem-cell research will promote abortion among females because they will not feel guilty as their embryonic fetus will be used for medical treatment and saving lives. I reference a psychology paper about guilt and making ethical choices. It sounds like a fairly solid argument. But it's wrong. Research regulations stipulate that am embryo used for stem-cell research can only be 2-3 days old invalidating embryos from aborted mothers. Strong arguments are dependent on a multitude of factors. The more you address the holistic truth of an argument the less strength it appears to possess.

I disagree with your statement that irrationality rules the world. Affirmative action, for example, is only entirely irrational to those who oppose it and refuse to acknowledge other arguments.

Affirmative action was intended to help a very focused group of minorities. Despite 50 years of action, affirmative action still exists. Professor Neil Sheflin, an economics professor has take numerous data on work unemployment and discrimination in the labor force. The result of his data explicitely indicates that the ratio of black to white unemployment has not changed since World War II (1939). This is particularly alarming. Especially since affirmative action is intended to have a multiplying effect if not an exponential effect. If you accept an applicant based on affirmative action to medical school or law school, they become an alumni. This makes their sons and daughters open to legacy preference giving at least a 1:1 ratio most of the time. Assuming only a 1:1 ratio is maintained, we should look at why I advocate an increase in minority success. The fact is that being a lawyer or a doctor allows you to set up your own practice and influence other people in the community. For example, there are many independent firms in New York City. It is natural to help out the community or your family. Thus giving other fellow minorities to intern and give them experience that make them better applicants to admissions comittees for those explicit fields. In addition, having such jobs comes with a six-figure salary giving their own family the privilege to pursue knowledge and get similar educational opportunities. Despite this, affirmative action is still in effect. Unemployment ratios are still maintained. And the principle of countering discrimination with a discriminative policy is at the purest form of hypocritical policy.

I could have just retorted, "Affirmative action is only rational to those who benefit from it." But this stems from the assumption that people choose to believe only in things that will benefit them. It assumes that humanity is blind and stupid. A fact that I fight by being honest about my opinions for once, for trying to expand conversation, and trying to find novel thought that isn't simply regurgitated mainstream opinion. I'm opposed to affirmative action not only because it's philosophically flawed (population statistics to justify past history of discrimination) but also does not realistically achieve notable results from a macro perspective. I'm sure there are small, heart-warming stories of minorities coming out from the ghetto and getting into notable schools on scholarship basis. But the fact is that in order for them to succeed someone else had to fail. And we will never hear that side of the story. In the instance of a zero-sum game there are winners and there are losers. The people who should get their jobs should be the people who deserve their jobs. But that's not how the world really works and affirmative action is a reminder that irrationality will always perpetuate irrationality on a daily basis.

Off Topic: This thread is really starting to feel better suited for the "Rubik's Cube".

Threads placed in the Rubik's Cube should contain intelligent comments.

Personally, opinions means one’s own view and perspective. They don’t have to be facts, but if they are, it would make your information more valid and credible. When I post an opinion, most of the time, it is half-assed and just for the spur of the moment. If I am serious, you will know it judging by how long my post came out to be as well as how I phrase my posts.

A user named SwastikaPyle on smashboard forums was trying to defend Hitler by attacking the U.S.'s tendency to get over-involved i.e. supporting Iran during the Iraq-Iran conflict and leading to the rise of Osama. The justification was this: hey you think the U.S. is so righteous but we've done our fair share of getting our hands dirty. Germany was just doing what every nation tries to do, dominate the world. The facts are used to paint a black-sheep to be a sacrificial lamb. It doesn't focus on Germany or Hitler. It tends to seriously annoy me when people do this because it appears that they really don't have adequate facts to support their opinion, so they must scrape the bottom of their limited knowledge to make it justifiable. In any case, such uses of facts detract from their original opinion rather than add on to it. Que lastima.

There are some users on this site that I happen to enjoy reading their posts as I skim through various threads. Of course, I won’t mention that I like this or that person because I like how they show their internet-persona, but this is just to give you an idea. I also learned to not take things overly serious, but at times, I can’t help it if I do. There are some rather intellectual individuals on SouthPerry that I enjoy having debates with, especially if they can prove me wrong (providing that they show me actual sources and not just bullpomegranate that they pull out of their ass). Then there’s the people who won’t admit they are wrong, and just repeat the flaws others have made in the past in attempt to ‘guilt-trip’ them or make them look bad in front of the community.

I think that your greatest strength and weakness when it comes to forum boards is how you make things personal. I think that it's great that you include a similar situation in your life. But I'm not sure whether or not this is the best method to address the original poster. From my perspective, it seems self-centered to interject aspects of my own life after reading about someone who has had it rough, "Oh your dad isn't taking you to a doctor. I know how it feels." Such responses seem over-entitled. Do you really know how it feels? Maybe you could have had it worse, but to the speaker in question they most probably feels worse than you do right now. Also inserting a comment about your life seems to be a bit of hijacking the thread, "Yeah that sucks. Now I'm going to tell you all about me." Bitch please. I don't want to know about how much your life used to suck when my life currently sucks. Haha I never really thought that, but I always think that it would be feasible for someone seriously miffed.

I think that also making things very personal distance your post off from other people. I believe that the punishment is wrong. Well that's your opinion and that's great. I don't want to argue with you so I'm not going to touch your quote since I already know that we're just going to be arguing all night long. I think that trying to speak about things through a third person perspective make things more debatable and discussable. Even though a lack of interest in the topic would still generate one-liners and a lack of response to every comment in the overall thread.

I also question how much you can "like" a person on the internet. If you seriously, seriously liked someone then I don't know why you would show hesitation in mentioning their name. I really like Throes, Sarah, and Kurtle. I can understand why you wouldn't want to mention people you don't like. Because when you mention them, they get even more annoying and in your face. But it's fine to like the people you like and be open with it in my own opinion.

Internet, is serious? What? No. The only time I take anything serious is when I find myself curious within a certain topic, or if I feel like I should stand up for my own beliefs. Opinions are meant to show others one’s perspective and outlook. It can be criticized, but judging (should I say, “hating” others based on their outlook makes you be deemed as uneducated in my own eyes. Personally, my current habit works like this for how I post and browse things:

1a) Does it look interesting? [If yes, proceed to 2a. If no, proceed to 1b]
1b) -skips thread-
2a) Skims through most of the posts. Does any of this pertain to my own interests? [If yes, proceed to 3a. If no, proceed to 2b]
2b) -skips thread-
3a) I type an opinion.

Judging others does make you look like a prick. But most of us are attracted to threads rife with arrogance, insistence, and drama. Maybe it's just me? :x Negative publicity is still publicity when it comes to user counts and forum activity. If you want a forum board to remain active, it is possible that you might do it by writing outlandish threads or attempting to write a low-brow insight thread. Who knows. Not all opinions were born to be equal. In the same space it is possible to spent five hours to five seconds before sending a submission. In the overall aspect of posts I believe that no one really takes anything "too" serious on this forum board and tend to avoid "too" serious topics. So I think you pretty much represent the majority. ZING! IMPLICIT ATTACK ON THE FORUM BOARD! It's okay though because it's generalized and not a focused attack.

Edit ; Agreed with above posted, this is definitely more suitable for Rubik's Cube, because you're invoking for an intellectual and serious response. Also, the below image sums up how I treat threads these days.

I'm really asking for personal philosophy when it comes down to many things. This thread is not intended to be focused. It is supposed to sprawl out a wide number of topics like a social discussion. I normally talk with my friends like this and we cover a broad series of topics. I'm treating this thread like any normal conversation I would have with my friends. Therefore I will address almost all posts and hope to go back-and-forth with original discussion. The Rubik's Cube is meant for focused topics that contain facts and reasoning. I don't need to have facts and reasoning. I just find it desirable when there is a refutation posted to an opinion.

I hate the term intellectual. I don't believe I'm an intellectual. Then again I tend to be a jerk and deny other people's existence in the process of denying my own, "I'm not smart. You're just stupid." Not only do I deny myself as being an intellectual, I feel compelled to deny other people as not being intellectuals. It's interesting whether or not love for other people is dependent on love of self. I had a thought last week, "To deny oneself is also to deny others." I haven't really bothered to prove this statement yet. But for personal purposes I believe that it holds true. It would be so cliched if I added on, "How about you?"

A user named SwastikaPyle on smashboard forums was trying to defend Hitler by attacking the U.S.'s tendency to get over-involved i.e. supporting Iran during the Iraq-Iran conflict and leading to the rise of Osama. The justification was this: hey you think the U.S. is so righteous but we've done our fair share of getting our hands dirty. Germany was just doing what every nation tries to do, dominate the world. The facts are used to paint a black-sheep to be a sacrificial lamb. It doesn't focus on Germany or Hitler. It tends to seriously annoy me when people do this because it appears that they really don't have adequate facts to support their opinion, so they must scrape the bottom of their limited knowledge to make it justifiable. In any case, such uses of facts detract from their original opinion rather than add on to it. Que lastima.

That's the thing. I realize, I make the same flaws at times when I butt-in a debate that I'm not entirely sure in. If it's about, let's use competitive Pokemon for an example, I can debate all day about that because I know what I'm talking about since I've played it for years. If I were to butt-in about debates about the economy, and I tend to watch how I phrase my wording on the internet. Problem with this is that sometimes, I miss the really important factors when I try to prove a point, or I just end up going in circles and prove nothing. The latter is rather common with topics that I'm not well-informed with. Which is why these days, if I see something that I don't fully understand, I don't bother posting. I do browse quite a bit though. Most people here wouldn't be able to provide an interesting read for me. I admit, I do enjoy seeing your threads. It gives me something to read about. As for that user on SmashBoards, though some people there knows their shit, not all of them are smart-asses. It's users like him that you must avoid. I never knew you browsed SmashBoards so often though..

I think that your greatest strength and weakness when it comes to forum boards is how you make things personal. I think that it's great that you include a similar situation in your life. But I'm not sure whether or not this is the best method to address the original poster. From my perspective, it seems self-centered to interject aspects of my own life after reading about someone who has had it rough, "Oh your dad isn't taking you to a doctor. I know how it feels." Such responses seem over-entitled. Do you really know how it feels? Maybe you could have had it worse, but to the speaker in question they most probably feels worse than you do right now. Also inserting a comment about your life seems to be a bit of hijacking the thread, "Yeah that sucks. Now I'm going to tell you all about me." Bitch please. I don't want to know about how much your life used to suck when my life currently sucks. Haha I never really thought that, but I always think that it would be feasible for someone seriously miffed.

I'm at a rather neutral standpoint here. Because if you were to view the topic, you don't have many options if the original poster ranted about his or her life situations. For me, there are three:
-Tell them that your life sucks so they hopefully feel better.
-Tell them that their life just sucks.
-Tell them your life is better (never do this).

Maybe I'm just simple minded, but I feel that being empathetic is best when you're reading another person's post. If I can't relate, I try not to post in that specific thread. You really can't do much. Perhaps offer suggestions on how to fix their dilemma, but even then, they don't know you personally. Why should they trust a total stranger from the internet? Best way to help is to understand, which is why I think understand another's situation by personal experience would be best.

I think that also making things very personal distance your post off from other people. I believe that the punishment is wrong. Well that's your opinion and that's great. I don't want to argue with you so I'm not going to touch your quote since I already know that we're just going to be arguing all night long. I think that trying to speak about things through a third person perspective make things more debatable and discussable. Even though a lack of interest in the topic would still generate one-liners and a lack of response to every comment in the overall thread.

Yeah, speaking through the third-person does generate quite a discussion. This is also why I prefer an online community than one that I can see, because if I can witness their emotions, I might not take what they say too seriously. Vice-versa can be said of me.

I also question how much you can "like" a person on the internet. If you seriously, seriously liked someone then I don't know why you would show hesitation in mentioning their name. I really like Throes, Sarah, and Kurtle. I can understand why you wouldn't want to mention people you don't like. Because when you mention them, they get even more annoying and in your face. But it's fine to like the people you like and be open with it in my own opinion.

This is true. Mentioning someone that you don't like only causes unnecessary 'internet-drama' (this term should be killed and dropped dead, but it's one we're all familiar with), then people just ridicules one another from one thread to the next, it's rather annoying. I also agree with the other part.

Judging others does make you look like a prick. But most of us are attracted to threads rife with arrogance, insistence, and drama. Maybe it's just me? :x Negative publicity is still publicity when it comes to user counts and forum activity. If you want a forum board to remain active, it is possible that you might do it by writing outlandish threads or attempting to write a low-brow insight thread. Who knows. Not all opinions were born to be equal. In the same space it is possible to spent five hours to five seconds before sending a submission. In the overall aspect of posts I believe that no one really takes anything "too" serious on this forum board and tend to avoid "too" serious topics. So I think you pretty much represent the majority. ZING! IMPLICIT ATTACK ON THE FORUM BOARD! It's okay though because it's generalized and not a focused attack.

Sad to say, I'm attracted to that stuff as well. Though I may not participate in it, I do lurk just to view the posts and to give myself a couple laughs. I think there's nothing wrong with judging others. It's natural. If you judge a person by how they look, yes, you're a prick. If you judge another based on the topics he or she makes, as well as how he or she gives off that internet-persona or vibe, that's fair game with my standards.

I'm really asking for personal philosophy when it comes down to many things. This thread is not intended to be focused. It is supposed to sprawl out a wide number of topics like a social discussion. I normally talk with my friends like this and we cover a broad series of topics. I'm treating this thread like any normal conversation I would have with my friends. Therefore I will address almost all posts and hope to go back-and-forth with original discussion. The Rubik's Cube is meant for focused topics that contain facts and reasoning. I don't need to have facts and reasoning. I just find it desirable when there is a refutation posted to an opinion.

I hate the term intellectual. I don't believe I'm an intellectual. Then again I tend to be a jerk and deny other people's existence in the process of denying my own, "I'm not smart. You're just stupid." Not only do I deny myself as being an intellectual, I feel compelled to deny other people as not being intellectuals. It's interesting whether or not love for other people is dependent on love of self. I had a thought last week, "To deny oneself is also to deny others." I haven't really bothered to prove this statement yet. But for personal purposes I believe that it holds true. It would be so cliched if I added on, "How about you?"

Interesting response. I'll probably type more later, not sure. I have to go to work in a bit. Enjoy your day.

I'm partially confused on issuing personal attacks. It seems like in the first couple of sentences you were opposed to defamation of character. But you issue the condition that when a stupid statement is made, it is okay to insult their character as a consequence of their own statement. The following criterion you listed for flaming: little logical basis, no contribution, and abandonment of helpful discussion are fine from a personal perspective. But how do you work out a proper judgment when both people feel like the other person is flaming them? How about dealing with differences in people with different standards?

I don't believe that I have advocated insults, but rather an intelligent rebuttal to a malformed statement.

However, if you instead take the approach of pointing out why you find a poster to be an idiot by opposing his/her flawed ideas and offer sound reasoning for your opposition, then you have successfully countered that user's misinformation while avoiding an inflammatory response.

A personal attack on a poster falls under my definition of flaming, but an attack on that poster's information with sound reasoning for the attack does not.

 Spoiler

Flame: "You are worthless" (personal attack on the poster)
Flame: "Your ideas make no sense" (attack on ideas with no reasoning)
Not-Flame: "Your ideas make no sense because...[Some reason that isn't already classified as flaming]" (attack on ideas with reasoning)

If the reasoning in the last statement is invalid, then there is always opportunity for a rebuttal.

The point of this thread was to ask users if they would be afraid to throw novel ideas out into a community for fear of an overly critical response. For that reason, a strict definition of flaming is not necessary. Every poster is welcome to personally define flaming and how they wish to handle it. I did my best to articulate the types of posts that hold the strongest potential for discouraging me from posting and demonstrated how I handle those posts so that they do not stifle my discussions. I offered the suggestion to simply ignore and report to a moderator those users that a user deems to be flaming. Personally, I have ignored and reported only 2 users for this reason so far. One has been banned from the forums since.

I think religion is perfectly valid. There are plenty of creationists such as Ken Ham who are trying to prove biblical truth via chronology and archaelogical data. When it comes down to the creation of the universe, no one presently alive witnessed the creation of the Earth. The only reason why religious discussion is prohibited is not because religion itself is inherently an evil subject. The main purpose is to monitor immature responses and heavy arguments that tend to be a natural consequence of such discussions. You stated before that flaming was low in this forum and that there was plenty of "constructive criticism." Yet you feel compelled to follow the rules for unexplained reasons. In addition you felt compelled to state that religion was a poor example. Yet you failed to provide a better alternative. Certain people would consider this as being non-constructive. But I'm not making a personal statement of the validity of constructive criticism and would like to emphasize that to the universe at large.

There is no mystery behind why I chose not to engage in a religious topic in this forum, and it is identical to why I choose not to engage in religious discussions outside of forums. I have been in many religious debates, and the religious advocate is more often than not fueled by fanaticism. Strong argument after strong argument can be formulated, and most responses are no better than "You're wrong, and I'm right because the Bible says so." Your own Kenneth Ham for example appears to disagree with the fairly proven methods of carbon dating. Creationism may be a viable argument, but there is either going to need to be a tremendous amount of counter-evidence to heavily proven science and/or changes to the creationism theory before it can hold substantial weight against more proven theories. Kenneth Ham appears to be working on that counter-evidence now. Perhaps in 20-30 years, he will have generated sufficient evidence for proponents of creationism to fall back on and escape the current state of being not much better than the religious equivalent of the Flat Earth Society.

Your entire discussion concerning affirmative action is honestly going nowhere. You are making a compelling argument for the opposition but forgetting that the entire point was that there are people opposed to you on the other side of the debate, and they make just as much sense. The statement cannot be made from any one monologue that you hold that affirmative action is an irrational idea because a strong proponent of affirmative action could simply do the same.

For example, the ineffectiveness of affirmative action to close educational and occupational gaps between races could be explained by it not being in place for long enough and not being aggressive enough.

Historically, the grades and standardized test scores of African Americans have on average been lower than those of whites. While that gap has narrowed over the last 30 years, it remains significant today.

Additionally,

[T]est-score gaps remain . . . That is hardly surprising, given the deep-seated nature of the factors that impede academic opportunity and achievement among minority groups – including the fact that a very large proportion of such students continue to attend primary and secondary schools that are underfinanced, insufficiently challenging, and often segregated. It would be naive to expect that a problem as long in the making as the racial divide in educational preparation could be eradicated in a generation or two.

These two statements in tandem could be used to show that affirmative action has had a positive effect, but still requires more time and may require extension to areas that it currently does not cover. Biased funding for educational systems with large minority populations could boost the positive effects of affirmative action.

If you are fishing for a debate on affirmative action, I suggest you make a thread devoted to that. You won't get much of a counter-argument from me because I am personally opposed to affirmative action as well, but I am not so naive to completely disregard the evidence-supported arguments against my position and deem them irrational.

Threads placed in the Rubik's Cube should contain intelligent comments.

That would be a good example of flaming.