(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡 ┻━┻

Thanks for being completely sensible and understanding. Now, back to the birds and the bees cats..

 

I hope this a joke, but the context didn't seem a joking one. At what point was I defending my worm comment, which I thought had been established as satire with the use of the hashtag?

Are you saying that the what the RSPB has to say is irreverent? I fail to see how what's going on in Australia matters, but what's going on in Britain doesn't.

Google doesn't dumb anything down. Dumb Googling does. Looking for what information is available on the internet, which most would not even take the time to do, is no less reliable than taking a random knowledgeable-sounding person's opinion on the internet as an authority. There's organizations that have been formed comprised of scientists who claim GMOs are harmful, but they're fringe, and they don't represent the consensus of most scientists. There's doctors endorsing all manner of quackery, and doctor's organizations formed solely to promote pro-life agendas.

Basically what you're saying here, is that if it turns up in a Google search, it's not a credible source? I don't know how you can claim this our most important issue, and then say the only way anyone can have an opinion on it is if they read primary scientific research (which they are probably not qualified to interpret). This is from the NPR article I referenced:

"The study at issue is a meta-analysis, an overarching review that aggregates data from previously published sources. The accuracy of meta-studies in health and medicine raises some concern, and it's easy to see why: for a meta-analysis to be solid, wise choices must be made among the available sources of information, and results that may vary wildly must be weighed fairly."

Guess what? Just from this paragraph, I can tell the person writing this article is better equipped to read and interpret scholarly data than I am. That, combined with it being from a news source I've trusted to be at least somewhat objective for most of life, is enough to consider what they're saying. The article was from 2013 and the other articles I saw quoting data were from 2013 as well, so I assumed the NPR piece was written with that data in mind. I couldn't find any more current data than that.

I'm not saying this is not an issue, but some of the things you're both saying about a lay person's ability to grasp certain issues seems a bit dismissive and condescending.

So, how exactly do you know I wasn't mocking #alllivesmatter or #bluelivesmatter? The hashtag wasn't meant to mock a social movement, it was mean to mock the co-opting of a social movement. Better?

 

What have I done

 

Wait so your argument is that because I felt it was inappropriate to mock ANY(BLM)movement (we both know alllivesmatter and bluelivesmatter aren't movements at all) I'm in the wrong because there's a chance you were mocking what is basically a mockery of a social movement? lol?


I mean it's great your aware of the co-opting but this doesn't seem like the place to show how aware you are of it. It definitely doesn't excuse being insensitive or making light of these things. I know it can be left out entirely from this discussion about birds,worms, cats, ecosystems or whatever else.

 

Woah slow down there tiger. Let me get this straight.... So you're saying googling is an effective research tool- even beyond scientific peer reviewed literature, and that anyone with a computer as long as they do it in a 'smart' way can google their way to completely understanding all the ins and outs of a subject in a scientific way? If you mean googling to pdf's from peer reviewed journals and scholarly articles then yeah I'd agree. But if you mean any old article written 'about' a subject then nope, not really.

There is a reason you can't just look something up in Wikipedia, or use news articles etc when doing research papers. Credible data, showing how the results were derived? Not really. That is a reason professors don't let you do this in highschool or college. Also did you read my post in full?:

So I never made the claim that I hold a random knowlegable-sounding person's opinion (aka a scientist) as absolute authoirty. It's about deciphering data presented in scientific journals (i.e. what experiment did the researcher perform, what were the results, did they not account for this or that? etc etc).

Scientists with political or profiteering interests IMO are not really scientists. Anyone worth their salt in research knows that the end result is getting it right regardless of outcome (hypothesis right or wrong) and that every angle has to be accounted for.

 

You've completely misunderstood me. I'm saying I'm the one who's being asked to accept the claims of "a random knowledgeable-sounding person on the internet" (meaning yourself and Michael Beverage), not you. You aren't a more reliable source to me than what I'm able to find out on the internet for myself. No offense, but i think you get what I'm saying. I think this clarification covers all your other protestations.

No True Scotsman?
But, since you bring it up, how easy is it exactly to get funding for research where the funding parties don't have some kind of political of profiteering intent?
.

You misunderstood my joke. I clarified my joke. You're still not happy. I don't know how to make you happy. The co-opting of #blacklivesmatter has featured prominently in public discussion lately, and I think that that co-opting is a worthy target of mockery. Can I go now?

You mean "the F**K YOU thread"?

 

No. You're missing my point that making any jokes in relation to Black Lives Matter is wrong. I don't give a shit about your reasoning?

If you were just talking about how the aforementioned #alllivesmatter /#bluelivesmatter hashtags were problematic we wouldn't be talking about this in the same way. But that's a different point entirely and your argument seems real fallacious since you somehow thought you using any kind of hashtag with zero explanation/context would come across like it was mocking something that's already a mockery?


Just the fact that you're still trying to defend any kind of reasoning for doing what you did is ...telling.
You most definitely can go now, though.

 

And I'm learning not to give a shit about your humorless, judgmental and self-righteous opinion. So that should work out.

 

So, no jokes at the expense of the men's rights movement, then? Wait here while I generate some outrage about your defense of MRAs.

 

I don't know why you would think anyone should be okay with you making light of any of this.

...Humorless, judgmental and self-righteous because I called you out for making jokes at the expense of an extremely important movement. Okay. This was never a personal attack towards you, either. I was just letting you know there really is never a place to make light of something like BLM yet you keep trying to make reasoning for such.

You seem to be intelligent enough to gather I've only been specifically talking about BLM...but...Then purposely misconstruing my words? Right. Yeah we're done here.

 

Be careful about over reading peoples sillyness here. It's a toy board and most of us are silly folks. Humor is important and making light isn't degrading. Someone got caught up with me recently because I talked about my 'tranny' name. The person had to teach me how tranny is derogatory missing the point it was a self referential joke and not knowing at all who I hang out with or what I am into.Be happy have fun.

 

Edited because walls of argumentative text are stupid.

 

How exactly am I supposed to gather you were specifically talking about BLM when you said "ANY [caps yours] movement"? I'm not "purposely misconstruing" anything. That's what you said.

So, either you're deliberately ignoring the fact that I said the joke wasn't about BLM or you think I'm lying about my intention with the joke. Either of those things is going to make any kind of communication extremely difficult here. Particularly if you think "ANY movement" means BLM specifically. But, I am starting you see where you wouldn't necessarily a get a joke.

And you didn't call anybody out. You didn't get the joke, and then chose to remain sanctimonious about a perceived usage that the user explained was not intended. This is all pretty much irrelevant anyway, because I don't really feel any subject is off limits for humor, nor do I feel this is some kind of hermetic environment. Is there a list of things somewhere I'm not allowed to make jokes about? Because no one gave me that list.

 

Yeah, this is leading down the locked thread rabbit hole. It's an interesting topic (or topics) but everyone of you has valid points and I think you've made em. If there's no getting thru by this point, I think it's time to do something else. You've all been very informative tho. Thanks for that!

 

But it's still better than accepting the word of a random person who offered no sources for their claims. I quoted sources and posted links. The only objections were a non-specific reference to cat advocacy groups. And if you think my Googling was "to support my position", I call that really dumb reading.

No, I found conflicting information and presented it, I explained why I thought the two sources were reliable (NPR, RSPB) and no one ever offered any objections to them. The fact that I've nothing better to do is absolutely irrelevant.

i hope you didn't come to that conclusion based on any kind of scientific analysis of data, because it's slightly inaccurate. And, again, there was no position to defend. I found contrary claims from sources I considered trustworthy, presented them and received no contradictions to what was presented.


And I'm seeing a lot more information using the parameters you suggested. This is the first I've ever heard of this issue, in any form, so I was questioning all the info/claims I received. I don't think that's a bad thing. I never claimed to be an expert on a subject I'd never heard of before based on a cursory google search.

And besides, how interesting is to hear people agreeing with each other anyway?

 

@boon velvet
I'm assuming you're a moderator, but I only see the three Admins listed on the site. Is there any list or way to identify a mod just so, ya know, I know someone isn't just yanking my chain?

Also, I'm assuming you're talking about both the hashtag and feral cat discussions? If so I posted my last comment before I saw your post.

EDIT: OK, I'm sure you meant both subjects, since they're off topic. Feel free to delete that last pot of mine.

 

@Odibex, you made some good and reasonable points in your last post regarding the kitties, and I am in a shit mood today.

Have a good weekend.

 

@Odibex
I think I've been seeing red because of real world events. I'm sure your intentions weren't to upset anyone and you stated as such.

on thread : seriously, fuck this world

 

@toothaction
As far as the hashtag convo goes, I would agree that that's going nowhere. I still think there might've been constructive discourse mined from the feral cat thing, since I think it's worthwhile to talk about how people gather information and form opinions on important issues. And I certainly hadn't reached the point of frustration on that one yet, but, I see Michael Beverage deleted his comment, so perhaps he had. I do feel like I got to say what I wanted, though. So no probs moving on.

Also, I wasn't implying that anyone needed to be staff to weigh in, but as you see from how I reacted, I got the impression from JP's tone that they were a moderator. That's just something I was asking for clarification on so I didn't goof up and post donkey porn while they were around. Or something.

And thanks for the rational input and kind words. I'll not soon forget.

 

You may not remember me, @Odibex , but to the opposite meaning of this thread, I'm still really appreciative of you contacting me out of the blue with that disability information a couple months back. Those same health reasons is why you don't see me around here much.

No, I'm not trying to mess with ya, @Odibex . What @toothaction said. Just looked like it was going straight down and I didn't want to see it get worse.

 

@Michael Beverage
@leili
Thanks guys. You're to kind. I'm used to having to have to do some explaining before people understand what I'm trying to communicate on the internet sometimes.

 

@boon velvet
Oh, sorry I didn't recognize you! I really hope things aren't progressing too terribly for you.

 

This all started with me being upset over dead birds, my gawd.
Let's please get back to giving a big FUCK YOU to the outside world and not our own community.
...and that's not me being bossy or angry or aggressive or insulting or anything, I just miss the silly banter.