Conversation, Debates, Dishonest Tactics, Politics

Cryptic nonsense

Dear Diary,

I suppose I don’t know if this post really has a point, but let’s give it a shot anyways.

Cryptic nonsense. We all deal with. Some deal it like it’s a drug to the people around them, others are force-fed it and either smile and like it or spit it out with disgust and ask for something better.

So what am i saying? Cause it’s all rather cryptic at this point. So here, let’s spell it out.

I often find myself in a situation where I disagree with something. It’s either religious, political, social, scientific, some sort of issue I have to deal with where there is a clear disagreement that…. probably neither party will change their mind. That’s fine, I’m okay with disagreement. I don’t make the nonsense statement that it makes the world more interesting, but I certainly accept it and don’t resent the world for it. However a lot of the times I just desperately want to understand what the person is saying. What is the point of their statements? What is it that they’re trying to get at? Do they have a central point? Is this just emotions that don’t seem to have any connection to goals or needs or wants?

I’m often left in this state where I drop the fact that I disagree with them, apologize if they claim I’ve been mean or rude or whatever word they want to throw on me to try and put me on the defensive, and then ask them to elaborate.

What I get is cryptic nonsense. I ask someone what they mean by a “Slippery slope” and they say some story about some governor or something or other that doesn’t seem to really tie to what we’re talking about at all. They often change the topic completely as if they haven’t, pointing out some other hypocrisy that I might even agree with but don’t see the connection to our topic. It’s an endless chain is the worst part. Cause then I ask how that connects to the topic and they say something else that seems random and non-important.

As I go down this path, trying to take them seriously and hear them out and understand them, because I desperately want to not leave this conversation without at least understanding of their point… I come to the realization that I’ll never get the answers I’m looking for. This isn’t about disagreement, this isn’t about debating, simply understanding. I simple want to understand them so I can better access my feelings about hem. However this is simply a waste of my time, I will never get my answers.

So when I say cryptic nonsense, this is what I mean. Cryptic is an adjective meaning hidden. So I suppose I don’t mean “hidden nonsense” but rather “Nonsense that is purposefully hiding what I want to know.” This is an impossible game I’ll never win. They’ll either change the subject or say something so lacking of substance it’s hard to believe it ever got brought up in the first place. Their statements flow into a river and dissolve into it’s waters and I couldn’t begin to piece together what they’re throwing in their even if I had eternity.

This is simply frustrating. It leaves in me a state of distatste for them, which is a shame since I’d much rather like people then dislike them.



Conversation, Definition, Real Men, Thinking about what you say, Words

What do REAL MEN do?

Dear Diary,

Sometimes I feel alone on an island where I’m the only one thinking about the words I say. What do they mean? Do they mean what I really think they mean? Or are they some cheap way to get across a point with horrible side effects? We often judge things that get the job down but have horrible side effects… like laws with horrible side effects, medicine with horrible side effects, corporations with horrible side effects but people don’t take a second to see that our words have side effects we couldn’t even imagine? Words that are trying to get at the heart of being a “good” person, sentences put together to tell people to be faithful to their spouses, to not bully, to dress however you want, with the side effects of saying some truly destructive things and often times false.

So to give an example of the most prevalent and my most hated I’ll use the “Real Men” example. This takes roots somewhere in society or societies where it was decided that men don’t cry, they don’t wear pink? they don’t hug, they want to have sex with as many women as possible, they are strong or not a man at all, this sort of BS that’s commonly agreed upon as bad set’s of rules for men. However then to combat these problematic ideas they use the very thing that starts them, saying “Real Men do so and so.” Real men wear pink, real men stay faithful, real men don’t bully, real men cry, what in the world is all this BS? I’m not saying Men SHOULDN’T wear pink, stay faithful, not bully, and cry… I certainly wear pink, am monogamous, don’t bully people, and cry when I have the need to but…. why are we dictating this is what men do? Some men don’t cry, some men don’t like pink, why are we trying to shame them? Not to mention, being a man is simply defined by either gender or sex…. so meaning you either were born with the parts or you identify as someone who would have liked to be born with the parts. What in the world are we adding on all these FALSE clauses? It’s not helpful, it’s just setting more ridiculous rules that aren’t accurate.

This goes down to the “No True Scotsman Fallacy.” It goes something like this (I heard it from a youtuber TheraminTrees).

Marv is Scottish and so is Brad. Marv says, no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Brad points out that Tim is born and raised in Scotland, Scottish by blood, but puts sugar on his porridge. Then Marv says “Ahh, but no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. This extra clause doesn’t actually fit…. no where in the definition of “Being Scottish” does it say, not putting sugar on your porridge. This simple is just untrue!

So the point is, being a “Man” has a simple definition. Let’s stop saying “Real” or “True” men do things… let’s just say “It’s a good idea to do X, Y, and Z and your gender or sex shouldn’t inhibit that.” I can see it’s well meaning, but it’s counter productive. Actions don’t make a man the sex or gender he is…. his biology and identification as being a man does.

So, what’s the big deal? Well when we try and attribute good moral ideas to “Being a man” it’s almost like we’re implying that being womanly is well… the less moral stand point. This being something you’re born into should show the huge misstep of it. I know people don’t mean it this way, but we can’t give these subtle messages to society, to our children, to our friends, that being a woman is somehow inferior to being a man… You might be able to argue the biology of strength and agility, or ability to get pregnant, but moral compass as far as I’m concerned isn’t determined by your gender or sex.

So yeah…. I guess the lesson, as always, is think about what you’re saying. Seriously look at the words you say. This is a really easy thing to avoid doing.



Activism, Conversation, Debates, FaceBook, Morals, Politics, Values

Burning Bridges

Dear Diary,

Ya know I surround myself with people of many different beliefs. Although generally the sets of very core values tend to be similar, some of the beliefs and how these core values manifest tend to greatly differ. I have atheist and theist friends. I have feminist, liberal, socialist friends and I have conservative, constitutionalist, and libertarian friends. I have friends who have very particularly views on how definitions work and some who are more in agreement with me. People who think video games do or don’t have certain affects on people. People who have particular views on how belief affects the world… the list goes on and on

And a lot of the times… my “Radical” or “Extremist” views will clash with this huge diversity of people. I’m very big on correcting things when I think they’re wrong. I’m also very open-minded on hearing things explaining why I’m wrong, even if in the end I don’t buy it. But I’ll get into a discussions very easily and often find clashing views on things. Now certainly, depending on the situation, i’m likely to just… not get into a discussion. But sometimes, the discussion happens and…. the person burns the bridge with me, deciding that this difference in ideals is so great that they CANNOT be friend.

So it’d be easy to say this person is a horrible person or something around the lines of bad friend…. but let’s first look at the extremes:

Let’s look at the least extreme.Someone doesn’t like the same taste in something as you do. Same taste in music, same taste in food. There’s no philosophical difference that separates you two on a mental stand point, this simple is subjective and often times (hard to know with every case) is a biological or psychological difference that doesn’t really reflect you as a person in a fundamental value sort of way. Anyone throwing you out as a friend in this sense is easily a bad friend. Now certainly, there are contexts where other factors could be put in… like how they communicate it and stuff. Let’s say however, everything was communicated politely and non-aggressively. Yes, this person is a bad friend.

Now the other extreme, the most different someone could be. Let’s say someone’s values are so intrinsically different they think… that killing people is okay. I’m not talking about the abortion debate. Like let’s say someone is saying that it’s perfectly acceptable to kill someone if you want something from them. This might be a little far fetched so let’s say…. they think that beating your spouse is acceptable. This person thinks beating their spouse is acceptable and you disagrere with this. Would you be a bad friend for leaving the friendship? Yes. There is no context where this isn’t so fundamentally offensive that you could justify this. At least for me.

So, now we got our spectrum. On one end we’re extremely critical of the person ending the friendship. On the other we’re completely sympathetic. So, what about…. more realistic situations. Let’s say…. someone doesn’t like my political outlook. This isn’t such a fundamentally different value that you really should feel so offended. One person believes in free health care is the most compassionate and another person believes private charity is more compassionate. In the end though… both people are for helping people. This difference SHOULD NOT get in the way of friendship. If you let something like this break your friendship, then you’re basically showing that the manifestation of your values are more important than the friendship. You really need to ask yourself if you’re disagreeing at the core what’s important, regardless of the implementation and how the two people think the outcomes will come about. Not only does this help preserve perfectly good friendships, but if you’re thinking like this you’re much more likely to UNDERSTAND their argument and well… understand the issue as a whole better. It makes you better prepared to debate about it.

So, the reason i put this up was i recently had a friend take me off facebook. He’s part of a movement I used to be a part of, but have grown distant from I still have a lot of the core concepts in agreement with him, but for I’ve decided the outcome of the solutions to the problems are less than ideal. And when he posted stuff I very politely disagreed with him and explained why. Then I was unfriended. It’s hard to feel anything but a great deal of disappointment when people put the manifestation of their ideals before the ideals themselves.

I suggest to focus on what you have in common and focus on some common core set’s of values, because it can remind you that even though your solutions might be as different as it gets… that doesn’t mean the core values are.



Art, Connotation, Conversation, Debates, Definition, Fun, Music, Thinking about what you say, Words

Using the Correct Word

Dear Diary,

I got into an interesting conversation the other day. So, let’s set the scene:

I’m a musician. Not an amazing one, but I think I’m better than someone who knows a couple chords on a guitar ya know? And in high-school I played music with my best friend at the time. We’ve grown apart, but we still sometimes collaborate ya know? So I sent him a text about my thing, feeling embarrassed about my bad vocals I sent him and said something like.

“But I think it’s fun.”

And he responded. “All Music is fun”

We quickly got into a debate about this as I challenged him. But, as a musician, shouldn’t I like music as a whole? Yes. So don’t I think all music is fun? No.

Here’s the problem, fun is a very vague word. It generally means like “Amusement” but it can also mean more vague things than that, like, “Entertaining” or “Enjoyable.” Enjoyable? That’s INCREDIBLY vague.

So, do I think all music is “Enjoyable?” This is harder to access. I don’t think atonal music is general enjoyable in a direct sense. Like, I’m enjoying hearing the music for musical pleasure. However as musician I think it could be enjoyable to think about and take in for intellectual stimulation. So, I think enjoyable can apply…. but I think this is painting the wrong picture. So, that’s my general complaint.

Is all music, fun? Does all music bring amusement?

No, I don’t think so. I think A LOT of the time it does. Music is an easy way to bring fun to the world, it just is. So, most music is done for that. But here’s the thing, there are other better words to describe lots of music.

For instance, music can be cathartic, meaning like psychological relief through the expression of strong emotion. This usually means anger or sadness. So here’s some cathartic songs that I don’t bounce around having “fun” too, but have or still do bring me a level of catharsis that I often needed.

“Dreaming with a Broken Heart” by John Mayer.

He describes something that I genuinely felt all the time at one point in my life. At one point in my life everything seemed to take a turn for the worse. It was really easy to pin this on a break up that just recently happened, but that wasn’t the center of the problems. Either way, I’d fall asleep and be back together with my ex partner at the time. I’d be SOOO happy, then I’d wake up and instantly feel this wave of agony and sadness. John Mayer perfectly (or at least rounded up to) got this idea down in his song.

“Pictures of You” by The Cure

This actually stems from the same time in my life for similar reasons. Even if the lyrics weren’t as perfectly captured as John Mayer’s dreaming with a broken heart, the tone and subject matter really felt so similar to the feelings I had. When I was going through this, I’d be sobbing alone in my basement listening to this song on repeat. Either way, fun was not the experience I was having then.

“Friend” by Coal Chamber

This actually, in my opinion, was a pretty weak song. However, at the time I had someone who was a friend who betrayed me and I’d listen to this song and deal with my anger I felt from the betrayal. Either way, it certainly was CATHARTIC, but not fun.

However, some songs can be cathartic and fun all together. For instance, “Move Along” by the All American Rejects can be very cathartic if you listen to the lyrics. However, the tone of the song doesn’t have a incredibly sad one. It’s actually a little upbeat even. I could see myself jumping around having fun to this song, but also feeling cathartic and maybe a little sad to it.

Now, this isn’t to say that there isn’t subjectivity that plays into this. Some people have darker senses of humor so songs can feel fun that most people might scrunch up their face to in thought to calling it fun, but on the whole this subjectivity plays less into than you’d think.

Another aspect to this is that a song is really multi-dimensional. Saying a song is “Fun” reduces it to a level of simplicity it just doesn’t have. If you pulled apart each track, each verse, each instrument, you’d find parts that are darker, parts that are lighter, parts that are more fun, and parts that are more cathartic. Trying to pin down an entire song with one verb is just an inappropriate goal. However though, songs put together will have a certain tone to them and because of this you might be able to say the general tone of a song is “fun” or “cathartic” or some other verb.

So, now for the thesis I’m trying to make here with this post, using the right word. Even if we can stretch out a word’s vague definition to apply it to every song, track, or piece of recorded sound to be included into the word “fun” it still wouldn’t be painting the right picture. I was having a conversation earlier about people calling their pets their “Children.” Without proper context, if someone just started talking about their “Children” people are instantly going to imagine someone having either adopted or had a kid. This isn’t an inapplicable word, but it is misleading! Just like calling an atonal, experimental, or extremely avantegarde song fun sort of paints the wrong picture here. Other words better describe the music and if you say “This piece of atonal music is fun” someone might get a bit confused about what you’re trying to imply because the connotation of the word fun just doesn’t paint an accurate picture.

So, in retrospect I think people take this tactic to deal with criticisms of the genres. There is nothing wrong with atonal, experimental, or avantegarde music. Sometimes they might even be rightly labeled fun. However if someone is trying to say they’re “not music” or they’re “bad music” use the right ways to argue their points down. Music is the purposeful arrangement of sound and silence, it’s obviously music. Good and bad music may be discussed in terms of quality, but ultimately this tends to be a subjective matter and it’s hard to quantify what “good” music would be or what “bad” music would be because again…. it’s multi-dimensional. Labeling it fun to try and chase off critics of the genres is just a DISHONEST way to try and fight back against this unfair criticisms, so don’t fall into this trap. You only make it easier for them to say it’s bad music because there is a grain of truth to them saying “No it’s not fun” since it’s just not the optimal adjective to describe it.



A Link to the Past, Conversation, Debates, Egoraptor, HMK, Internet, Ocarina of Time, Presentation, Speedrunning, Storytelling, Zelda

Zelda: A Link to the Past vs Ocarina of Time

Dear Diary,

So about let’s say…… July 1, 2014 Egoraptor put out a video as part of his Sequelitis series about A Link to the Past vs Ocarina of Time. If you’re not familiar with this series, I’d go youtube it right away. His one on megaman is probably universally loved. His analyses is always very intelligent and usually funny as well. Even if you end up disagreeing with him these videos tend to make people think about video games in a critical way that many other critics don’t inspire in people, at least that’d be my guess.

However, his A Link to the Past vs Ocarina of Time video is much more controversial then the previous videos he had made. This ended up with a lot of backlash and criticism since one of the aspects of the video was to harshly criticize Ocarina of Time. This game is so well beloved that people rushed to it’s defense since when they played it they obviously liked it. However if you want to continue reading my post, you probably should watch the video because I’m not going to highlight all his criticisms and some of this post may be confusing without earlier interpretation.

So in retrospect looking back at the game Zelda: Ocarina of Time I can easily say this was a positive part of my life growing up. This game is firmly cemented into my nostalgia and thinking about the game. However when I went to replay it more recently I found myself having trouble enjoying myself. I really WANTED to enjoy myself, but most of the game’s mechanics were just frustrating. I realize now that a lot of what made it hard for me to enjoy are the very things Egoraptor pointed out. The huge amounts of unnecessary dialogue, the jumping through hoops to get things done, the waiting design for all the enemies of the game, the uninteresting puzzles of looking around the room, and one he didn’t point out… the horse very easily losing momentum because it got near a wall but didn’t actually touch it.

So, does Egoraptor have a point? Yes. Yes Egoraptor has many good points. So the question is… why did I like this game growing up? Nostalgia is an after affect, it can’t make you like a game while you’re playing it. Maybe you could make an argument my love for Zelda games in general is what made me walk into Ocarina of Time with nostalgia from previous games blinding my sight to the glaring problems of the games but… I’m not going to buy it.

So, there has to be something of worthy content in these games that it got so firmly placed in my mind as a great game. One thing Egoraptor touches on that most critics of Egoraptor must not have noticed he said. “A 3D world with delicious sound and amazing graphics, at the time. Each dungeon and each town unique and has it’s own energy to it. We were all floored! This felt like what gaming was leading up to.” about 4:19 in the video.

This is a MAJOR part of what makes the game so nostalgic. The game was so beautiful created in terms of sound and visuals. The theming also was really well done. Now the music wasn’t terribly done in A Link to the Past but… every dungeon has basically the same theme. Since the graphics were limited, everything just didn’t look as spectacular either. So when you entered a dungeon it did “feel so epic.”

However, I don’t think that covers the entire span of why this game was good.I do think that this is a big part of it, but there were other things that were well done. So let’s talk about Egoraptor’s criticisms of how the storytelling went.

“It’s this kinda of like misdirection of what you should care about ,in Zelda, that really bugs me about Ocarina. Like let’s take it’s story for example. Ocarina’ story provides you with a context for it’s quest. That accomplishing this will save this or change this but it refuses to acknowledge the players innate sense of wonder and drive to quest and fight. Players want to fight bosses, they want to be rewarded for their efforts, they want to enter a dungeon, see what’s inside and succeed against enemies. But you gotta put tat feeling aside, there are more important matters at hand.” Around 19:50 of the video.

“I think the idea that you’re told you’re a hero saving a kingdom is at least somewhat unnecessary. When it’s an order delivered by the game, it becomes a task it’s like a job. The message should be in that as a player, you’re idea of fun ends up making you a hero.” Around 20:40 of the video.

This point makes me cry it’s so spot on. However, let’s dig a little bit here into A Link to the Past. You totally get orders delivered by the game. When the game starts you get an order right away to go save the princess. You’re cut off from so many areas until you finish the story aspect of the game. Then once you get out you’re also given marks on a map of what you’re supposed to do.But there are a couple differences. One the story aspect of A Link to the Past that you have to complete is mostly GAME PLAY oriented. Ocarina has this too, but the text provided just overwhelms the little pieces of game play attached to it. Also with A Link to the Past you get much more open area to explore once the beginning story part is achieved. You’re not quite as restricted as you are in Ocarina. You can ignore a lot of the marks on the map. More importantly there’s just so much you can do without going straight to where they tell you. The amount of optional things that you can do in Ocarina of time is severely limited. It isn’t non-existent, it’s just not as prominent as it was in Link to the Past.

Another bit of digging will show that there is HUGE amounts of dialogue in A Link to the Past that sits around telling you you’re a hero an you have to save princesses and in the end the world. This is so clear in the game. I certainly think this could have and should have been toned down. Egoraptor’s criticisms of Ocarina can easily be applied to A Link to the Past, but he doesn’t and here’s why I sympathize with it. In Ocarina of Time they have CUT SCENES. Yeah there are a couple in A Link to the Past, sure, but because of the nature of Ocarina of Time’s cut scenes they end up taking WAAAAAAAAAAY more time. It’s just so much more glaring in Ocarina of Time to the point where it’s impossible to ignore This is happening, your time is being wasted and you’re being told why what you’re doing is important. A Link to the Past has it but you can generally just ignore what they’re saying and get back to the adventuring, which takes up far more time in the game. Another reason why it’s less problematic is that it kinda builds up the “You’re a hero” aspect of it. It doesn’t start by insisting you’re the hero of time, it starts by just needing you as purely an ends to means. Zelda’s in terrible danger and calls out for help. Then you are told if you get the masters word you’ll have the sword with the power of evil’s bane. It’s not till you reach the darkworld that they really start hammering home that you’re probably the hero. In fact some of the princesses question whether or not you are the hero even when it becomes increasingly obvious you are. So does A Link to the Past have similar problems to Ocarina in terms of the story telling you what to do? Yes. Is it as overtly problematic for the game? Absolutely not.

“I don’t buy the argument that they’re [semantics and dialogue] only they’re only there to enrichen the world with story.” About 21:30 in.

So, does having dialogue, background, and stories enrichen a story? I’d say, yes. However, it needs to be done well and I’d say the majority of Ocarina’s wasn’t done well. To take an example of what I think was done really well was Baldur’s Gate by BIoWare released for the computer in 1998. I do think some of the dialogue could have been toned down, but let’s take a look at the book items. The books that aren’t important all have a similar cover. You know that those books have no monetary value in the game, they have no story value, they don’t boost your characters strengths. The ones that do have a different look to them, you don’t need to go digging through them to find value. However, they bring story and background to the game you wouldn’t find elsewhere. Want to know the history of the sword coast? You CAN read it. You want to know the history of the fateful coin? You CAN read them. They’re all there for you to choose to ignore or use. Even if you did read them, you don’t have to read them again in a replay making them not a hindrance to the flow of the gameplay in a replay. This is even present in the weapons. You get a special weapon, it has a story you CAN read but don’t have to. This is absolutely brilliant. In Ocarina of Time you have to listen to the Deku tree sit around and tell you the history of how their world was created. Sure, this can be interesting… but you HAVE NO CHOICE. If they had taken a more Baldur’s Gate approach to this it would enrichen the story WITHOUT devaluing the gameplay.

Okay, so I’ve taken a lot of time criticizing Ocarina of Time, so time to give it one more thumbs up aspect to the game. So as I mentioned, the dialogue and story was mostly done poorly. There’s way too much and it’s unavoidable and hard to ignore. However, there is one part they did fantastically well that wasn’t done as well in A Link to the Past. So if you’ve played the game you’ll know that you do three dungeons than go to collect up the master sword. You go to grab it and then Ganon explains that you helped him get what he wanted. Then you go through a five minute set of cut scenes explaining that you’re now older so you can use the master sword and save the world yada yada yada. Although Ganon’s little bit of dialogue is not bothersome, the cut scenes are horribly long.However once you leave the temple of time you walk out and EVERYTHING’S DIFFERENT. The second you leave the temple the entire tone of the game has changed. Death mountain looks like something evil and magical has happened to it, the town is completely gone and full of dead creatures. Where the castle was there is now this giant fortress of doom. You got to know this world and now it’s changed completely. You don’t even need the cut scenes to feel this immense curiosity and to feel the weight of what happened to this world you’ve gotten to know as young link. You’re instantly drawn to try and learn about how time has affected every. This is an aspect of storytelling them did well and could have done with the same affect if they left out the majority of the dialogue. This device is teaching you about the game by playing it. A Link to the Past had something similar, where there’s a world that’s ALMOST the same and you want to explore what’s different, however this has no story implications really. It’s interesting, but not as driving motivational wise as Ocarina of TIme. I think the game deserves some major props for this little piece of storytelling material. Does it make up for ALL of the problems? Certainly not in replayablity, but  for a first play-through I’d say yes.

So one last minor thing I think I’d mention about the game that Egoratpor didn’t touch on and I don’t think he had to. Speedrunning. I watch A Link to the Past Speedrunner quite often and certainly enjoy what I see, but in terms of the tricks the Ocarina of Time ones are just much more interesting visually. I think this is more of a 3D thing, since the visuals are just generally more interesting, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

I wasn’t going to make this blog, but when I got into the debates in the comments of a very weak response to Egoraptor by HMK I figured I’d weigh in on this.

I will say this though, because of how GREAT the story telling was done Majora’s Mask is definitely my favorite Zelda game.



Burden of Proof, Conversation, Debates, Dishonest Tactics, Idiots, Internet, Thinking about what you say

Citing YOUR sources on the internet

Citizens of the world, a very new update has been found about the world! A meteor shower of shit and poopie is coming down this very second and will crush fucking everything! How I know this? Well if you don’t believe me you fucking look it up, you have fingers, why can—-

Dear Diary,

Have you ever noticed that people on the internet are some of the laziest assholes ever? I feel like the internet gives us the power to be more educated and put our ideas out there for everyone to see. However seriously everyone wants to be taken, at the same time no one wants to seem to do the work to be taken seriously.

Increasingly I find if someone makes a claim that is either interesting, unbelievable, or clearly a flat out lie when I ask someone to say…. CITE THEIR SOURCES…. they refuse.

In fact when I ask not only do people not cite their sources but they tend to make the most ridiculous claims I’ve ever heard. Even though they made the claim that needs proof the lazy fucks demand  sometimes that I cite their sources for them. They say if I want proof I should look it up, that I have fingers, that I’m a poor baby I need to google, or something like that. Isn’t this… something they should be saying to themselves? What we have here is a misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works.

How does this work? Well if someone makes a claim they basically have to prove their claim, not demand someone else disproves it. Now if someone doesn’t have support for their claim they may make that clear… that they can’t prove it. This humble position is fine. However, people often result to other tactics, like the one mentioned above demanding someone else get their proof for them.

Some other tactics I’ve ran into are trying to then demand proof be raised for claims earlier made in the discussion. Now, if a claim has been made and it’s truthfulness has been questioned then yes…. that claim should be then verified with proof by the holder of the burden of proof. However it is a dishonest tactic to pretend you are skeptical of a claim that was made to distract people from the fact that your claim has come into question. It’s kind of an order of operations problem here, your claim was questioned first…. deal with that claim then move onto the others. I even once had someone demand I give proof for a claim that he earlier mentioned HE AGREED WITH.

So why would people be so insistent on avoiding giving proof for their claims? I can simplify this into two categories and then expand the categories a bit into sub categories.

They either are LAZY or LYING.

Now, this is an over simplification a bit, so let’s deal with each category one at a time. Let’s start with being lazy.

So in the lazy category we have several situations kind of on a spectrum. One is that the person is actually remembering the source they had, have seen and have looked it over, but either doesn’t want to or can’t find the source. I can understand this to a degree in terms of can’t find or it’s damn hard to find and not worth the time, but then this should be admitted. If you can’t find the source say you can’t find it. If you tried to find it and said this is too big of a hassle, then say you can’t find it. If you simply do not want to find the source, then say you don’t want to. If you make a claim, don’t put it on the other person, either admit you won’t find the source and say it’s reasonable for them to not accept your claim or go find the fucking source.

In terms of the lying, this can’t be broken down in a way that’s at all helpful to understanding the situation. And by lying, I mean, knowingly deceiving someone. I don’t mean saying something you didn’t realize wasn’t true. So, if someone is trying to not cite their sources because they know it’s not true they are clearly just being a scumbag in that particular case, if not a walking monstrosity in their entirety. I mean let’s think about this for a second…. if there is no proof for their claim out there and they’re asking you to find the proof this is basically a wild goose chase. This is why anytime someone asks YOU to find the proof for their claim, you can simply point this out how ridiculous it is for you to find the proof or disproof of their claim.

Cite your damn sources or show some humility, you have the fucking internet at your fingertips. If you’re talking on the internet then…. you can find your sources most of the time. This is really simple and if you refuse to do it you’re painting yourself as lazy or a liar and neither is a flattering picture.



Conversation, FaceBook, Holidays, Idiots, Internet, Presentation, Thinking about what you say, Words

Facebook, we need to talk

Dear Diary,

It’s come to my attention, that like most parts of my life, I have a love hate relationship with a certain entity known as Facebook. Except this like having a love hate relationship with a drunken person telling horrible stories, showing me great pictures, and introducing me to people… all while feeding me crack. You see, it’s really hard to quit Facebook. It’s not that I need to though, that’s the one problem with the analogy. It doesn’t quite suck the life out of me or anything it just… never fails to disappoint me.

Facebook has it’s charms. People post political stuff and since I get to choose what people’s post I see and what pages I have I tend to mostly see things affirming my already hard to move political position. People post funny pictures I can laugh at or cute pictures. People post updates that are generally important, like my minecraft friend posts things about the server. I also get to stay connected vaguely with people I never would. Not that I need this or any of these things mind you, but  it’s generally nice.

Then there’s Facebook’s dark side. Southpark did it well when they made fun of the obvious faults which is people posting what they ate for dinner and how it was good, but it’s evolved beyond that point. I learned the hard way this new years eve that holidays bring out the worst in everyone’s Facebook use. People saying “Bring it on 2015!” or people telling me their new years resolutions… giving vague shout outs to friends and family, I just couldn’t care less. These things are NOT interesting and no one really cares. However people feel they need to do this to reaffirm the people around them that they’re important or something. Even my close friends and family, whom I respect greatly, post this nonsense. It’s like personal thank yous are too much work so they need to give a vague shout-out so that anyone who wants to be thanked can then feel thanked. I guess it’s efficient, but it seems so cold.

Facebook also is a battleground for wars that don’t seem to have purpose or goals. People posting hearts truck things and then getting into raging arguments where they basically just bash each other. I’ve seen some of the calmest smartest people I know get into raging arguments where they can’t act like adults and say nothing productive. It’s like watching two monkeys at a zoo throw poop at each other. And I probably will make a whole post about this but at the moment will just touch this idea that NOBODY cites their sources or thinks they should have to. People will even delete posts if the other person makes too strong of a point…. this is the worst place for discussion but it makes people feel like some sort of warrior.

Now I’ve seen the poem about Facebook and the internet and how we NEED to spend more time in the real world and although I think that CAN be good I don’t fully agree. People spending time on the internet is totally valid if that’s their life, it’s where I get the majority of my social contact. I won’t go as far as to say people need to STOP using Facebook or they need to spend more time face to face. However I will say it’s the people on Facebook that make it so unbearable. People need to THINK about what they say, THINK about whether or not it matters and post things wisely.

So Facebook I suppose WE didn’t need to talk at all… I just wish the users would be smarter about their use. One can dream. Last night i dreamed of insects erupting out of my hand like an ant hill and a cockroach somehow got stuck under my fingers. I woke up and checked my hands to say the least.