No.3505
File: 1551460997200.png (296.6 KB, 1024x1188, 256:297, twilight_sparkle__2_by_vad….png) ImgOps Google
This morning I had a thought that I would like to share. I'm not suggesting any particular mod actions; this is more just food for thought.
I think a major source of nastiness on this site is treating discussion of a disagreement as some sort of a verbal battle instead of as a shared search for truth and knowledge. Political topics are especially prone to this, but it happens on other threads as well. I think threads would go a lot smoother if all participants took responsibility for becoming informed on the topic under discussion and trying to understand others' positions and questioning their own positions, with the ultimate goal of either (1) reaching agreement on the disputed matter after carefully considering evidence and reasoning or (2) coming to the conclusion that both positions have some merit due to factual uncertainties or differently weighing competing values.
I know this can be difficult in practice, but I think even just making a good-faith effort to strive toward this goal would help make things a lot smoother.
Please do not bring any prior drama into this thread. (If you want to use an example to illustrate a point, don't use something that happened on this site. Perhaps use a hypothetical instead.)
No.3506
File: 1551462160150.png (38.46 KB, 142x203, 142:203, 133F9AC3-6801-4241-9E26-09….png) ImgOps Google
>>3505I tend to believe it’s always the OP’s fault, because certain situations wouldn’t exist without the OP’s provocative thread.
No.3509
>>3508I envision something like the following:
Alice: I think P is supported by stats on X, which you can easily find by googling.
Bob: *does googling*
Bob: Source S gives stats on X that don't support P.
Alice: Let me find the stats I was thinking of.
Alice: *googles*
Alice: Here is the source T that I was thinking of that supports my position.
Then Alice and Bob can discuss the merits of their sources.
No.3510
>>3509What if it's NOT something easily googled? Or what if one person has vastly more knowledge on a topic than someone else does? What if Bob just wants to have a conversation without being given homework to do? Wouldn't it make MORE sense for Alice to share her information with Bob and for Bob to decide whether or not it's worth his time and effort to investigate the matter any further or get a second opinion?
And again, this Does NOT factor in political issues where the internet can provide you with two WILDLY different sets of information depending on where you look. Bob could look up a political topic and get a completely different answer than Alice. The way you are describing only works if the posters on this board are robots.
No.3511
>>3510>What if it's NOT something easily googled? Well then it would make sense to supply a URL.
>>3510>Or what if one person has vastly more knowledge on a topic than someone else does?Then the ill-informed poster can admit his ignorance and request help educating himself from the better informed poster.
>>3510>What if Bob just wants to have a conversation Then Bob should admit that he might be mistaken but doesn't want to put in the effort to further pursue the matter. Trying to resolve a disagreement takes more effort than having a conversation.
>>3510>Wouldn't it make MORE sense for Alice to share her information with Bob Yeah, in many cases it probably would. But I'm trying to propose a fault-tolerant system. If Alice doesn't provide the info, Bob should make a quick good-faith effort to find it himself, and if he has trouble, the he can ask Alice for help finding it.
>>3510>this Does NOT factor in political issues where the internet can provide you with two WILDLY different sets of information depending on where you look. In those cases it would of course make sense to provide specific URLs.
No.3512
File: 1551478779692.png (158.79 KB, 415x374, 415:374, img-3137434-2-tumblr_m4pli….png) ImgOps Google
>>3508>dangerousTruly, investing oneself in the process of one's own enlightenment is a high-risk endeavor.
Much better to ignore input for years on the same topic then demand it again, only to refuse it once offered.
Hypothetically of course, not referring to any particular recent anecdotal examples.
No.3514
File: 1551483944332.jpg (18.43 KB, 362x293, 362:293, 0a31896487c85e28cac66ae680….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3513>It makes sense to provide specific URLs in ALL cases, just to make sure you are understood. Yes, I agree that that would be ideal. But sometimes other posters don't behave ideally, and in those cases you should be prepared to gracefully handle such non-ideal input.
>your oppositionSee, that's exactly the mindset that causes so much trouble and strife. If instead you view your fellow users as allies in search of the truth (rather than opponents of the position that you happen to hold at the moment), things will go so much better.
No.3515
File: 1551485094161.png (474.13 KB, 2168x2890, 1084:1445, e65ca90bde60f33ee94fdf4a25….png) ImgOps Google
>>3514Aren't you the anon who constantly gets called things like "pedantic" for trying to explain basic concepts?
I see a lot of demands for knowledge but, it seems to be disengenuous to do so while refusing to examine what's provided in good faith.
No.3516
>>3515There's also absolutely something to be said for not looking up basic information yourself.
Like, if it's literally two clicks away, you shouldn't demand others provide it for you.
Especially when the terms are provided.
Sure, for advance things that won't easily come up in a search, it makes sense to ask. But, for things that're right in front of you at a single click's movement? Things that take a literal couple of seconds to search?
Seems more sensible to look that sort of thing up, so you can operate on a bit of basic understanding within a conversation.
No.3518
File: 1551486925897.jpg (34.08 KB, 501x800, 501:800, d952e1dff0f7136f8249c62dc5….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3517If it's something incredibly basic, I absolutely will. 'Least if they're in front of a computer, and it takes two seconds.
Conversations can be casual as you like. I'm not asking you to research heavy topics. I'm asking you to look up basic information.
If you can't look up bare-bones basic information, I honestly have to wonder what conversation's even happening. I mean, only one party's actually engaging in any effort. Is this a discussion, or a lecture straight out of college?
No.3519
>>3516Exactly.
>>3517>Why can't conversations here be just as casual?Because some people insist on making hurtful statements of false facts despite others explaining and/or providing research repeatedly.
Some people want to remain in the dark and refuse to look at information provided to them because they wish to keep making the same statements of false facts presumably because they wish to keep hurting others.
Or perhaps you have a different definition of "casual conversation" that's different from the kind of conversation you actually seem to do.
No.3520
>>3518Colleges are the ones that give you homework. Not conversations. A conversation should provide you with what you need to participate in it. If one person mentions something the other is unaware of, even a "basic" thing, then it's the courteous thing thing to tell them what that is.
We aren't dealing with people from even the same geographical locations or languages on this site. I don't expect people to know everything I know.
Also, who a character from an anime is and what the character is about isn't exactly "basic" information. Especially when he's not the main character and isn't introduced until the second season.
No.3522
File: 1551487936638.png (349.92 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_annoyed_b.png) ImgOps Google
>>3520You have what you need to participate.
It's called the internet.
There's resources galore to join in a conversation. And if you can't, fine. You don't have to engage.
People're allowed to discuss topics without wanting to explain every single minute detail to every person too lazy to spare a couple of seconds to look up the information for themselves.
We do not have any obligation to spoonfeed you like you're 12.
>I don't expect people to know everything I know. Nor do I.
I expect them to search up basic information, though.
>Also, who a character from an anime is and what the character is about isn't exactly "basic" information. You didn't even start with that much.
If you had come back and said "Oh, okay , some guy from One Punch Man. I haven't watched it. What's his deal?", I would've given you an actual answer.
You came in with "I dunno what that is.", which pretty well exemplifies that you didn't even bother to do a quick lookup, since you didn't even realize it was a
person.
> Especially when he's not the main character and isn't introduced until the second season....He wasn't? He literally showed up in episode 4. That's incredibly early on in the show. And near as I can tell there was only one season, with a 2nd season being worked on.
Geez, maybe that's why you don't look anything up.
No.3523
File: 1551488110041.png (371.66 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google
Genuine question, but, is it really that backwards that I expect people to spend up to 10 seconds of looking up something, as opposed to demanding that I spend my time trying to break it down and explain it to them?
Like, it sure as fuck takes longer than 10 seconds to write it all out and explain everything.
Why can't they just look up the really basic shit?
I'm fine explaining what a character's about, or whatever. Getting in to the nuance, and all that. But, if someone doesn't have any kind of clue whatsoever about the character, even that it is a character, and has the terms to search it up, is it really that backwards to expect them to look that shit up first?
I genuinely do not understand why expecting people engaging in a discussion to give a tiny iota of effort into that discussion makes you a "tool".
No.3524
File: 1551488351128.png (584.71 KB, 1875x2025, 25:27, 1106866.png) ImgOps Google
>>3522>"i dunno" and "if you dont prove it to me right now its because you are an asshole"At least he expressed an interest, for me. Even if that attention span didnt last long enough for me to finish being at work.
No.3525
>>3523It should take you EXACTLY as long to explain something as it would take someone to look it up. In fact, it should take LESS time.
>>3522If someone hasn't heard of the thing, they have no interest in it yet. That should be obvious. If YOU are interested in something, you should WANT to share it with them and possibly get them interested. That's how I always talk about things. I bring up obscure things (a lot of which are probably from before you were born) all day and I've never once told someone who didn't understand to google it.
No.3526
File: 1551488737144.png (105.56 KB, 252x229, 252:229, 1546802312872.png) ImgOps Google
>>3524Um, LP, please try to keep past drama out of this thread.
No.3528
File: 1551488943079.png (75.59 KB, 301x290, 301:290, 5.png) ImgOps Google
>>3525>writing up a detailed explanation of who a character is and what they are about takes longer than searching a name and reading a pre-written explanationBullshit.
It sure as hell isn't going to take "less" time.
And of course this raises the other problem of, you still gotta read it. So you're literally just spending the 1 to 2 seconds to copy something and put it in the search bar.
So, my 10 second expectation was actually incorrect. Thank you for making me notice that.
>If someone hasn't heard of the thing, they have no interest in it yet.They don't have to be interested in something to look it up.
If they're truly not interested to the level that looking it up like that is a pain to do, they aren't interested in a discussion anyway. They'd've not bothered reading you telling them about it, most likely, given that they're so strongly averse to the information.
> If YOU are interested in something, you should WANT to share it with them and possibly get them interested. Just because I am interested in
talking about something doesn't mean I want to spend hours explaining every minute detail about that thing to someone who doesn't have the capacity to do two seconds of effort when it comes to that subject.
No.3529
File: 1551489093186.jpg (32.29 KB, 253x227, 253:227, 20.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3527Exactly.
Meanwhile, I have to spend several minutes typing everything out. More if it's complex. Especially given the complete lack of basic information. I mean, in this particular example, he didn't know that it was about a
person.
Point here is, it isn't rude to expect someone to look up basic information. A healthy conversation requires effort to be given by both parties. If you're the only one doing the explaining, it isn't a conversation, it's a lecture.
No.3530
>>3528No one asked for a detail explination. Someone explained it adequately in two sentences.
Also, I've never googled something in "10 seconds". It would take more than 10 seconds just to type it in and let it resolve.
>>3528>Just because I am interested in talking about something doesn't mean I want to spend hours>>hoursPatently false. Two sentences. Probably less than a minute max.
No.3533
>>3526What past drama?
This is exactly the same topic.
No.3536
>>3530Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V
I've never searched anything in less than two seconds.
>>3531Antagonist in Tiny Toons.
Evidently a human.
According to this wiki page that was the first result;
"Montana Max is a young, brown-haired, male human, who wears a grayish-blue jacket, green shirt, grayish-blue pants and black shoes. He attends Acme Looniversity and lives in Acme Acres. Not surprisingly, Monty's favorite teacher and mentor is Yosemite Sam (also named after a location in the American West). Unlike Yosemite, however, Monty is shown to use proper English, instead of using phrases like "ain't" and "ain't none."
Montana Max is one of the series' major antagonists. He is an only child of wealthy parents and lives with them in a large mansion on the edge of Acme Acres. They have several servants, one of which, Grovely, has been seen is several episodes, even starring prominently in an episode revolving around him and his family. Arnold the Pit Bull also serves Monty personally on many occasions, usually as a watchdog. His doorbell at home chimes "Mon-ey!" in place of a bell sound.
Personality
Monty is a bullying, spoiled, rich kid who throws world-class temper tantrums. Monty possesses a nasty personality and a very short temper, and uses his wealth for his own amusement, often to the discomfort or belittlement of others. His pastimes include counting his capital, landscape deforestation and rabbit stomping. He also owns heavily polluting industries that make things like elevator buttons and holes. Some episodes feature Plucky fighting those factories as The Toxic Revenger (pun on The Toxic Avenger).
Monty enjoys cheating in all forms of competition; oppressing the weak, terrorizing the timid, masterminding hostile takeovers and watching the compound interest rate climb past twenty percent. Monty is bossy and abrasive and hates fair play, honesty and people who stand up to him. He delights in using his vast fortune to bring misery to others, particularly Buster and Babs. He'll spend any amount of money to spoil their fun, but most often winds up bankrupting himself in the process. Monty is the perfect foil for Buster. The sawed-off bully's temper is matched only by his greed, and Buster is always able to bilk some fast bucks out of Monty.
Deep down, Monty is very insecure and sometimes fears no one likes him. He's right, of course, and occasionally feels the need to call "Acme Rent-a-Friend." Although he yells most of the time, sometimes we get glimpses of the real kid beneath the temper. He lives in the grandest mansion in Acme Acres. The grounds include swimming pools, tennis courts, stables and the like. It's the kind of place that would make Donald Trump envious. It has signs which read "Poverty Stinks," and "Charity Workers Will Be Shot."
Monty's goal in life is to bring misery into the life of happy-go-lucky Buster. He's not particularly fond of anyone in Acme Acres, for that matter. He thinks Babs is a scatterbrain and his only use for Plucky is as a pawn in one of his devious plots. He thinks Elmyra is a drippy little nerd, but she is one of his only friends, and he will occasionally call her into service to help him pester Buster and Babs. Elmyra loves the attention, figuring her "boyfriend" has come around and appreciates her at last. "
Is that sufficient?
No.3537
File: 1551489890694.gif (540.65 KB, 353x252, 353:252, Manley search.gif) ImgOps Google
>>3532Really. If it takes him ten seconds, either he's got some major problems, or his computer's horrendously slow.
I've never had to search for anything more than a few seconds. Where I mess up, it'd just be a minor changing in the wording, and I'd typically have my result long before ten seconds had passed.
No.3538
>>3534If you consider less than two seconds of work, given
>>3537, to be "homework", I'd say I don't really want to bother talking to you, since it's clear you do not want to engage in any capacity. I cannot be sure you'll bother to read my posts ,as you've demonstrated an extreme level of laziness and lack of effort as to suggest you will just skim what I say, and not actually care enough about it to treat it with any kind of consideration.
No.3539
>>3536Did you actually read all that, or just copy-paste it? Because that's clearly from the Tiny Toons wiki and there's no way you read it all in 10 seconds. 7 minutes has elapsed since I asked you. It would take me less than 7 minutes to explain it.
Anyway, this is kind of a pointless argument. You're never going to listen to my side of things, and if you ever give me a lmgtfy link when I ask you about something we are talking about again, I'm going to assume you're not actually interested in conversation and stop talking to you immediately.
No.3540
File: 1551490171337.png (1.4 MB, 946x755, 946:755, Crassius_Curio.png) ImgOps Google
>>3539Reading is irrelevant, manley.
As already stated, you would have to read it one way or another.
>7 minutes has elapsed since I asked you. It would take me less than 7 minutes to explain it. I've got far better things to do than waste my time talking to someone who thinks I'm a tool, and can't spare any time to google things.
I was busy playing Kenshi.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't give my entire attention to you.
>. You're never going to listen to my side of thingsWow. King of hypocrisy right here.
Whatever, man.
Honestly, if I never interacted with you again in my entire life, it'd be too soon anyway.
No.3541
>>3540Um... the person you're giving this homework assignment to WOULD have to read it. All of it. To even start to understand who the character is. That is what you expected me to do with Bicycle Rider.
Also I never called you a tool. But the fact that you couldn't spare the time to do the very thing you're demanding I spare the time to do is telling.
No.3542
File: 1551490686702.gif (1.27 MB, 353x252, 353:252, Manley search 2.gif) ImgOps Google
>>3541And what you expected to read out, when I typed it for you, I presume. Only difference is,
I would have to give the effort to typing it out.
For licenseless , see above. First result, read the opening paragraph, and you've got the basics. Further information is there whenever you need it. Wikis are a great way to get basic information about simple things.
>Also I never called you a toolYou damn well implied it in a thoroughly insulting manner.
No.3545
>>3544I'd point to the statements made in >>>/pony/923021
I'd say they definitely go beyond civility. Especially when it's over something so simple and thoroughly dumb.
Apparently I'm a tool for wanting people to get basic information rather than demand I explain every detail for them.
No.3548
File: 1551492474140.png (312.18 KB, 945x827, 945:827, anna_normal_b.png) ImgOps Google
>>3546I wouldn't normally, but, when it's exceptionally basic things, I find it in that same vein rude not to put in the minute amount of effort to look in to it.
But, it's also worth pointing out, he didn't ask.
He just said flatly "I dunno what that is".
When I responded with a link, mostly being a lighthearted dismissal, I was met with >>>/pony/923019
Now, if he had asked me specific questions, I'd've gladly answered them. I'm more than happy to explain the character to someone who doesn't know, but, I think some semblance of effort should be given by parties involved.
I don't deign to burden others with basic questions I can get from a fast search.
I find that rather rude, frankly.
It demonstrates a lack of engagement. It shows that you aren't actually interested in the topic being discussed, and frankly, suggests you're not going to really bother listening anyway, since you can't give that effort.
I mean, why would I, when I can't spend two seconds to search something, read someone's post on that thing?
No.3549
>>3539>You're never going to listen to my side of things, and if you ever give me a lmgtfy link when I ask you about something we are talking about again, I'm going to assume you're not actually interested in conversation and stop talking to you immediately.Ah so now i see why i was supposed to do that for you the other day.
>>3520>Colleges are the ones that give you homework. Not conversationsSo, when you demanded i look stuff up to prove you wrong, you were a college.
See, i thought it was a conversation. Guess it was my mistake after all.
>>3547So decree the master of all conversation.
I see a familiar pattern here. Demamd others do your work, force them by any means necessary, and then when they do, you will "ignore their links" or just ignore them.
On topic, help me understand why, even if obligated, anyone should be compelled to educate you, just so their work can be dismissed and of course be reported to the mods for harassing you.
Not provocatively, i'm genuinely asking. Help me understand this conundrum, please.
No.3550
File: 1551493532282.png (30.99 KB, 323x292, 323:292, This is going to require a….png) ImgOps Google
>>3548That is "bringing up past drama", though if you'd like to make a new thread I will discuss that drama there. Just copy paste this post into a new thread.
>>3549That is
also largely past drama, did you guys even read the OP? I will try to respond to this as though you're not clearly airing out a grudge.
It is never someone's
responsibility to Google things and I'd wager it's never really proper etiquette to say "Go find out yourself." It is perfectly reasonable when presented a disagreeable assertion to request that the person putting forth that assertion provide more information. It's also reasonable not to provide more information if you really don't want to! Like legitimately maybe you don't want to talk about it, that's fine.
But this
is a casual conversation forum and not a hardcore debate forum, so you can expect that people won't want to do research on things. In a lot of situations it's not even going to be important to have solid proof of something. We're usually talking about pokemon or how sexy dragons are or something. These aren't exactly hot button topics. You can just drop it and disagree with each other.
No.3551
>>3550I'd make the case that
because it's a casual conversation forum, it shouldn't be required that you spell every single thing out for people.
Expecting them to put in a small bit of effort to find out basic things is reasonable.
It doesn't make you a tool.
No.3552
File: 1551493944817.png (32.26 KB, 539x593, 539:593, The Thinker.png) ImgOps Google
>>3551I mean, that's an opinion you can have, yes. I don't know that there's a real way to discuss these opinions other than stating that they are different.
No.3553
File: 1551494131657.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google
>>3552Well, I would say we could at least state that responding with "Oh, so you actually dont wanna talk about it." when people provide a simple google link for you isn't conductive to a discussion.
But, it is true that these are two different lines of thinking. One seems to have you impose on others, though, so, I'm more inclined to politely search the obvious and only ask where inconvenient.
No.3554
>>3553It wasn't a "simple google link." It was a link to "let me google that for you". A website which sarcastically plays an animation of typing the thing in question into google. It is at best SUPER sarcastic and at worst dismissive and rude.
>>3551I never called you a tool. In fact, what I said was to illustrate that someone would
look like a tool in a completely different context than the one we are in.
No.3555
>>3554Well, I've really not got much else I can do when someone says "I dunno what that is."
That's completely useless, after all.
I mean, if you want specific answers to specific questions, I can give them, but, for general things where you don't even know what something is at all, google's a great resource.
>I never called you a tool. In fact, what I said was to illustrate that someone would look like a tool in a completely different context than the one we are in.Right.
And if you said what you said in person, you'd look like an asshole.
Totally okay to say, apparently. Not at all a violation of the rules.
No.3556
File: 1551494691102.png (13.75 KB, 345x382, 345:382, I feel the cosmos.png) ImgOps Google
>>3553"Let Me Google That For You" is widely considered to be a very very rude thing to do to someone. The amount of implied disdain in that link is possibly more insulting than any word or phrase in the English vocabulary. People aren't going to respond well to it.
That said, saying something like "You could probably find that sort of thing using Google.", which isn't insulting at all in most situations, still falls within the split we're talking about here regarding who holds the onus of looking up information.
>>3554>I never called you a tool. In fact, what I said was to illustrate that someone would look like a tool in a completely different context than the one we are in.We are just not escaping this, are we? Okay ONE MORE THING, and if either of you say anything else in this thread and not in another one, I'm gonna have to do something about it.
Just like you took offense to LMGTFY, people are going to take offense to even imagined scenarios of what might involve them being "a tool". The fact that you didn't directly call them a tool doesn't mean that it was necessarily polite. People are going to be upset by that. A lot of people might also not be upset by that, but you can't count on it.
No.3557
>>3555You could have said exactly what >>>/pony/923027 said. Or even what
>>3556 suggested would have been slightly less rude.
>>3556I'll keep that in mind. Really I'm just upset he keeps saying I "called him a tool" when I didn't.
No.3558
>>3556I consider it more of a joke. But, alright. I'll avoid using it from now on, even though it literally provides the information.
Mind, that does mean they have to look up things for themselves, which'd seem to me to be counter-intuitive, given that we're talking about supplying basic information, since apparently that's necessary.
>still falls within the split we're talking about here regarding who holds the onus of looking up information.Ultimately nobody has requirement to look up information. But, if the information is not something someone wishes to provide, then it is not their problem, I'd say.
If they provide it, that's them being nice. But they do not have to give it.
It'd be like demanding a meal from a stranger. It'd be nice of them to give you something to eat, but, they don't have to, and if I were visiting someone, I'd be inclined to eat first, so as not to have that trouble to begin with.
I wouldn't want to impose.
Reacting, for example, to someone telling you to get your own food, with "Oh, you don't actually want to have supper", would of course be rude regardless.
It'd suggest an extreme sense of entitlement.
I am not your slave, and naturally, I have no obligation to do anything for you. It'd be
nice for me to go
out of my way for you. But I do not have to, naturally.
No.3559
File: 1551503547543.png (38.24 KB, 189x230, 189:230, 1534190600347.png) ImgOps Google
>>3556I asked some stupid question once and Tracer gave me a LMGTFY link and it was fucking hilarious.
What search terms to use can be legitimately important in finding right result, plus if i remember right, it did actually run the search for me too. (Its the only time i've seen it so cud be rememberinh wrong) so it's legitimate even if a tad sarcastic.
>>3550>It is perfectly reasonable when presented a disagreeable assertion to request that the person putting forth that assertion provide more information. >It's also reasonable not to provide more information if you really don't want to! Like legitimately maybe you don't want to talk about it, that's fineHmmm this seems particularly reasonable to a lost pony.
Especially when, for example you're at work and are able to engage on the topic of how sexy dragons are, but don't really have the focus required to explain or lookup basic physiology. *cough hypothetically.
No.3560
File: 1551506965096.png (101.43 KB, 296x292, 74:73, 8.png) ImgOps Google
>>3559It's definitely sarcastic, but, I've always thought of it as a tad tongue in cheek, than 'rude'.
And like you said, it is fulfilling the rule of question-asking.
I dunno. I guess I'm a tad thicker skinned around it. It's something of an old-internet item, anyway.
No.3561
File: 1551511396411.jpg (57.42 KB, 1024x749, 1024:749, 1551386928803.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3560Perhaps a tad too thick, like dragon scale.
Wheat just started a thread about a very specific topic with no links at all and some are asking questions and others are pulling up links to foster sharing knowledge. Seems an example of what OP is wishing for.
