Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Yeah, I thought so, but considering what I've seen in the past (and since Myrmidon throws around "circlejerk" in the forum way a lot), it might have gone either way. My judgment may have been a bit hasty.
Speaking of which, I don't quite get the notion of "circlejerk". Even if everyone is liberal or socialist or whatever, there's still a heck of a lot of disagreement in those categories (everyone agrees change is needed, but no one agrees on what and how it should be changed), and it smacks of undue representation to "need" a conservative viewpoint since discussions where everyone has to argue against one stubborn person (say, Hatter) aren't any more productive. And of course the terms are relative anyway.
I've been saying we need more new blood for a while, but I can't do much myself considering that I don't really post anywhere else.
We have been a lot better with the controversial topics with all the loldramacows banned, though. I think. I've been lurking a lot more than I've been posting lately.
And circlejerk is a stupid word.
I've never personally felt this place was cliquey within itself, but I could see it looking different to an outsider, especially one with no background on TV Tropes. That's really the thing that unites most of us - having been posters there and (mostly) having got disillusioned with it to varying degrees.
I tend to prefer the "serious" topics because - well, that's me. That's why I used to post a lot in OTC on TV Tropes and why I post in the Debate and Discussion sub-forum on Something Awful. I don't have a lot to contribute to discussions on anime or video games, but I think it would be unreasonable to object to them given the number of fans of those things here.
I'm a bit more the opposite. I'd like to participate in more serious topics sometimes, but I kind of feel like I know so little/have so little personal experience that I'd just wind up saying something really stupid/offensive by accident.
And I like talking about fiction (especially stuff I'm watching/reading/whatever) so there's that.
Well, being wrong is part of the debating experience, as that's the way you learn. You're only going to come off as offensive if you persist after people have pointed out that it makes them feel uncomfortable or something along those lines.
the problem in that particular case, though, is that in a matter of public health, any side that opposes the government is not allowed to speak up, which leads to not a debate, but a meeting where the government decides to discuss their actions and how to proceed with them rather than why it should pursue it and, most importantly, whether it should at all.
> circlejerk
I kinda hate this term. That's because some people use it to mean "when everyone agrees". It actually means "when people are discouraged by group consensus from expressing disagreeing viewpoints".
To me, circlejerk is a discussion or group where dissension and opposition are not only ignored, but either implicitly or explicitly disallowed.
I could use echo chamber, of course. But it doesn't have that inherent bite that circlejerk.
it's still better than hugbox, though. then again, being kicked in the balls is better than hearing that word again, bluh.
I prefer echochamber over circlejerk because (1) it's less misused, and (2) the sexual imagery implied by "circlejerk" makes the word less useful in serious conversation.
hugbox is just stupid.
Well, you wouldn't say "Circlejerk" in a serious context. IJBM hardly counts as a serious context, regardless of pretty much any topic, really.
As for the first one, that's kinda like disliking the word literally because it's used to hyperbolize.
*cough*
I disagree with him too >
Lai is not the only person who feels like that. I know a few people who tend to bow out of an argument when Alex enters, not because Alex's posts are multiple paragraphs long, but because Alex is intelligent and it shows, and it kind of intimidates a lot of people who feel they aren't as smart as Alex is.
(I tend to argue out of sheer stubbornness though, so there's that.)
Well, intelligence is not always that, but eloquence as well.
I have not heard of anybody complaining about Alex's eloquence. His lack of laconism, and his overall intelligence that makes people feel inadequate, but not his eloquence.
I am saying people here are saying his intelligence make them feel inadequate or intimidated, but intelligence is not what they are really complaining about, he is intelligent, but that would mean nothing were he not eloquent enought to say things that sound smart as well.
No, I am fairly sure it is the intelligence itself that makes them feel inadequate. The eloquence is merely how he expresses it.
exception. proving the rule. etc
Saigyouji.
Central Avenue.
You have to admit that it is a very small minority, though.
There is also Waltzy. But yeah, us four are the only four I can think of. On the other hand, there is you, INUH, Everest, Malkavian, GMH, Anonus, Icalasari, Vandro, Alex, captainbrass, ninjaclown, Ian Ex Machina, etc etc.
you guys outnumber us so .-.
... No.
But if you don't sound smart, how can your intelligence intimidate anyone?
Four girls...that's quite the minority there. There's also Waltzy's SO, isn't there?
Now that I think about it, is CountryPumpkin female, male, abomination or what
If you're not smart, how can your intelligence intimidate anyone?
I don't know if I'd count Lisztening, if only because she rarely posts outside of what Waltzy's doing.
It cannot, it is something you don't have; however, people not noticing you lack it can be a good approximation.
I wouldn't even count Waltzy, to be honest. She is a regular in the sense that we all know her and she posts enough for us to know her, but it's not like she actually joins many of the actual arguments.
Or I don't know, maybeitsjustme.wav
^^I'm not sure how joining in the arguments is mandatory for being a regular >.>
Well, maybe regular is not the right word, but I think the main complaint here is that we simply do not have enough people arguing, isn't it?
To be honest you kind of come off as like the annoying little brother of the forum. At least to me anyway.
And I agree that you don't have to argue here to be a regular. There's enough non-serious-debate stuff here for that.
^ I guess that's true, but I dunno that that changes whether she's a regular or not.