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
I really want to leave Something Awful right now
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And I agree with Don Zabu on the "SA-idolatry is stupid" thing.
"Oh look, I have 20 bucks! I'm one of the cool people now!"
This isn't high school anymore, guys.
what does that really have to do with anything
besides, it is true that the whole thread has lost its merit when it became tvt 2.0: the opposite, but still the same.
...welp, if that ain't the stupidest thing i've read so far, it's too darn close.
those charts say shit and they don't even point out what's wrong with an argument. they just say "Oh hey, this happens all the time, gaiz, can we not do it" which in turn leads to people deliberately doing what the chart says to annoy the one who posts it. It's stupid, doesn't conduct to good discussion and it honestly is just there to shut it down and come off as a smug self righteous fucker who honestly thinks that noticing a buncha patterns in interner discussions makes such an image the pinnacle of observational humor.
Those would be actually useful if it was a list of points refuted a thousand times complete with refutations.
1: it's ten bucks
2: I really really really really really hate when people boil down their opponents' motives to do things to childish and immature. They liked the forum and they thought the service it provided was good enough for their money. It's their choice what to do with their time, and really, complaining about it seems dumbfucktastic.
I mean, yeah, I wouldn't do it myself, but it's not my business what you or people in general do with their money and time.
OK, you're right.
Bingo cards are mainly used for discussions that occur time and again and never break any new ground, with people constantly falling into the same entrenched positions until the debate turns sour, at which point the thread is locked. While I'll just stay out of any thread that is specifically about it and let peeps merrily chat away, here it detracts from some much needed addressing of that embarassing SA bandwagon that occurred some time ago.
> The people who deserve a ban on TVTropes would have been banned long ago on SA, and the people who have been banned on SA might still be posting on TVTropes. It's a difference in moderation.
> deserve a ban on TV Tropes
Seems like this does not include the category of people who have legitimate points but are very abrasive about presenting it. I know of multiple people like this, at least one of which is TVTF-banned but (I think) a member in good standing at SA.
> It's a more sarcastic version of a "here's what's wrong with your argument" chart.
Except it doesn't actually display what's wrong, merely what's overused. But overused does not necessarily mean wrong.
> You're being sarcastic, right? Trying to convince the person you're arguing with is the entire point of having an argument.
Not really. I am saying this from my experience arguing politics, religion, sexuality, and other controversial and highly opinionated topics with people.
The point of an argument is to convince the other side that you're right, but it almost never actually happens, because most people assume they're right about everything and confirmation bias makes it almost impossible to convince them otherwise.
When you're talking about public arguments, like forum ones, the point's more trying to win over uncommitted third parties. When Richard Dawkins debates atheism with the Archbishop of Canterbury, no-one really expects either of them to suddenly announce they were actually wrong all along.
In an ideal world, that probably is the point of a private argument, but my experience is that above the age of about 20 or so, most people have committed to their basic world-view and they're unlikely to be argued out of it. It may be that they'll go away and rethink their position privately, but most people don't like the loss of face involved in admitting they were wrong to someone else.
Well I go into most arguments thinking that I have about a 50/50 shot of being right, even if it's something blatantly obvious that I'm arguing about.
Except it doesn't actually display what's wrong, merely what's overused. But overused does not necessarily mean wrong.
It being incredibly easy to know what arguments one side is going to make signals that either there have been far too many of these types of arguments or that the side only has a small group of good points.
^ Maybe, but that doesn't mean that the merits of the arguments presented can be ignored. It just means you have an idea going in what your opposition will throw at you.
If you can accomplish this in the course of an argument, I would call that a huge success. (And not in a sarcastic way either. Shut up, GLaDOS.)
Often, people aren't wrong so much as simply interpreting the same situation in a different way.
The idea is that if the arguments are so interchangeable and cookie-cutter that you can make a fucking bingo card out of it, chances are this one isn't gonna break any new ground and serves little purpose other than wanking.
Which is the case with, like, every internet discussion/argument about politics, religion, sexuality, and the like.
Too pessimistic. It's a chance, which is why you don't break the bingo card out beforehand, but after said discussion has been going through the motions for a while.
In further exciting news, I'm now starting to groan every time I visit the site and see the ongoing "humourless social justice twerps v. trolls" war. (To be fair, this is only in part of it - it's just the part I like to visit).
Yeah, I think a break is definitely called for.
can someone tell me what BTL is
also the fact that morven is on that SA thread bothers me for some reason
Beyond the Lampshade was a forum Annebeeche made where you could theoritically discuss what is wrong with TvT freely as both TvT itself and its spinoffs did not allow for such an environment. It proved to be butthurt central and over time it slinked away from that goal of sorts. I dunno how's it going anymore, but from what I understand, it's not doing badly.
BTL is Beyond The Lampshade, a site made by Annebeeche to criticize (and mock) TV Tropes. It's now a very small community site.
Edit: Ninja'd.
Edmania - Morvern hasn't posted on the SA thread in months (under his usual handle, anyway) and I doubt he'd be welcome if he tried now, since they've imposed a "no posting on TVTropes and in this thread" rule.
Annebeeche has basically handed over running BTL to Nils, who I know nothing about but whose posts seemed pretty sensible. Milos may know more about what's going on there know. I left at an earlier stage because the drama got too much.
I'm still around the new BtL. It's probably the most laid-back board I've been on in years, though this is partly because of the exceedingly tiny number of posters. But yeah, the drama is basically gone at this point.
You should swing by, Brass. I really liked your posts.
^At the very least, I joined.
I see!
BTL was made by Annebeeche as an attempt to make an extension of the SA thread for non-goon tropers that still wanted to criticize TV Tropes. With that purpose, it didn't end up as good as it was intended, and most of us eventually saw the error of our ways and snapped out of it. It stayed there as something of a casual hangout site, although it had to move to another site because of some problems with ProBoards. Annebeeche left the site in order to focus on her studies, and left Nils, her aquaintance, as admin and host. We're desperately in need of new people.
I thought they gave him a specific exception because he only shows up to notify them of administrative things and doesn't actually participate in conversation.
^ They did.
^^ OK - I remember Morvern as posting in the second thread that ended up in a dialogue with IJBM and eventually got gassed for (more or less) drama importation, so they weren't sticking to that rule very well generally at the time.
By the way, who was that troll guy, you know, that one who did a smear job before the ProBoards folks?
Jim Profit?
^ Ugh. Him.