Analgesic.Spectre

Wait, this was directed at me? 

Buddy I tried to help you but what?

now I can prove your a hypocrite

I love you.

Right now we should be focusing short-term and how to help the site now versus later. I am sure we will develop long-term strategies to help, but now we need short-term drama to increase activity so people can find our site and see what's going. Eventually intellectuals will flood within forums. Also

DebateArt.com subforum is just news and drama. Deep stuff is found throughout the website if you look hard enough

I know there used to be intellectuals, for I read some of their stuff. Like I said, the active members who immigrated here were not really "intellectuals," they were people who were close and passionate about DDO and wanted to come to DART. We need these people more than intellectuals. Intellectuals don't stay too long on the site and eventually leave. We need loyal, active members. Soon we will see a bunch of new members come to DDO.

I was just saying if you ever wanna talk intellectually that you could...I ain't a therapist

But do you think this promotes the kind of intellectual, worthwhile, deep, and drama free discourse you're talking about in your OP? Or the shallow, petty, drama-ridden, drive-by sort of flamewar you also describe. 

Nah, I still maintain it's not cool to go around judging people's whole lives from nothing but a few internet posts. And sorry, but come on, you could spot my quirkiness from Pluto. Anyone could see it. I don't think it really proves special skill in judgment of character.

You seem to sort of go around judging people you don't know for leading lives you know nothing about

I will be in your thread as much as I please. What are you going to do about it? Don't for a second thing you can chase me off your thread, I am allowed to be here.

Eh that post was only "emotional" by, like, Vulcan standards (live long and prosper).

As for irrelevant, I disagree -- you're talking about the quality of posts and discussions on this site, and I was talking about the quality of some of your own posts and what they contribute to discussions on this site. I think the kind of personal mocking you do can degrade rather than enrich discussion, and in fact create more of the very same petty drama and shallow discourse you're complaining about -- a complaint I think makes a valid point, btw. So I think it's pretty relevant. 

It's cool to see you care about the site a bit more than it previously appeared, though. I mean, before now I would've expected you to point and laugh at someone who had written as much text about DART as you have now in this thread.

No matter what I think of any of your posts, I do think people on the internet ought to have thick skins, and I'd rather have you around than not have you around. Dat controversy. Currently reading this baby. 

It may have been early enough that it was actually Mike who banned you. In the first few weeks of DART, he banned a few people without talking to them. This was before a moderation interface had even been coded. I can definitely understand the objection to being banned without notice. That's against policy now. But I'm not certain it was Mike. Can't even recall why you were banned. I think I remember a flamewar where you and Rash were revealing behind-the-scenes behavior about a member that... disturbed me. 

Funny how the ones who laugh, cackling sadistically in the seats, as they prod, throw tomatoes and abuse anyone who is passionate enough to take the limelight and care about the site or advocate an unusual idea at time are the ones Bsh1 helps and supports even punishing the guy on stage if they retaliate in a way that's less abusive.

I am not the type of guy you want to be fucking around with Spectre, but if I explain why that would get me banned.

Keep at it, don't cry about the justice system actually working for once if you go get backlash for it. Abuse Castin and anyone else who cares remotely about the site. Keep taunting and prodding us shitposting your way through your campaign against shitposting.

You're a sad troll to the community, out to drag us all down to your level of loathing anyone who tries hard at the site and then the next day you make the most passionate 'omg we aren't trying enough with post quality' that completely contradicts the whole 

>caring about an online site pahahahah

Attitude you mock others with.

Hypocritical bullying is the Aristocracy here. Don't mess with them, your rank means nothing to them.

They have full influence of bsh1 as he yearns for their acceptance.

Analgesic is free to insult and taunt users and tell them to not give a shit about the site while also showing she cares a deep amount about the site and its contents. 

If you so much as get caught smirking at the irony, kingladdy and REF will pile on you and make fun of you unless another of the clique does it for them.

Honestly Anal, the quality of your own posts is often to merely mock users for participating in a site you yourself attend and apparently care enough about to make a 3 paragraph thread describing your feelings about. You seem to sort of go around judging people you don't know for leading lives you know nothing about, but assume to be deficient. No offense. Being mocking and judgmental isn't explicitly against the rules or anything, and I certainly don't claim to make diamond posts myself, but all the same, I really don't think you're in a position to be judging others for post quality. 

But I was responding to your remark "at least you had enough non-idiot dickheads" on DDO. DDO had a much bigger population, so there were bound to be more users there who met with your approval. It's gonna take some time for DART to build up a bigger population. 

I think this is fair enough to say. Some posts are half baked skim responses to what people say. I have to admit my flaws, I do tend to do this, however it is the essence that I am simply helping the website and trying to get the popularity running so people post. There are so many dry spots during the day, so some drama and things really boost activity a lot. I think you are fair it is excessive, but some people crave attention like that, and some do it to simply get this site active 

To be fair, the last people on DDO were people that were forum, drama based people that wanted to continue the legacy of this website. I'm sure that intellectuals will come on the site by a year or so, but give it time. new website, and we already seeing a boom to a certain degree. not a boom you may like, but it is something that gives us hope. Plus Mike is the GOAT. He works hard on the site. I have very good people skills. I see frustration in people and can read it in an instant. I can start up convos and topics on this site. But I agree, some people lack social skills irl

If this is true, then I have some troubling thoughts now... I think he is a better mod to be fair. I have not been on bsh's bad side, but he got a ton of shit for his modding and kinda changed his philosophy. His bans now have been justifiable.

I don't think you'll get banned.

Your not irrational nor are you insulting anyone. I'm sure he will listen to what you are saying. You and him agree on Drama and stuff too with the same point of it being in excess

I hope your experience on the site get's better :)

If you want to talk to me, just let me know. I may be 15, but I have a brain and I can engage in chats always. I tend to stay here because my forum friends from DDO were here, but I am open to new people so just ask. i don't bite

*bites into skin*

I think that this is kind of a function of an inexact CoC and a moribund debate culture. You can have argument with people who hold one of a limited set of canned opinions anywhere online, and it gets tiresome once you realize that they absorbed these opinions through osmosis and then rationalized them post hoc. A red flag for this is people who just don't change their mind, and tick every box on an ideological checklist. Usually these people can't even adequately defend their ideas, and the result is the same boring conversation played out a hundred times. A forum full of people like this is almost like a cave full of automatons, endlessly reenacting the same scripted battles.

Intellectual exchange is only ever interesting when someone brings something fresh and original to the table, and defends their ideas not as some totem of identity but as rooted beliefs which they've cultivated through long debate and discussion. I think that you are like that, and I think that the DDO forums were successful because the debate segment of the site attracted people with this sort of mettle.

However, people are increasingly afraid to express controversial views online, and if I were a lone internet sojourner with 'heretical' views reading this site's CoC it would set off a whole bunch of warning bells in my head, even though they aren't really enforced in a way that is super oppressive. I would take a look at most of the debates on this site and raise an eyebrow. And if I made a debate of my own and it got accepted by someone who just can't argue competently (a common occurrence) then I would probably say 'screw it'. The CoC is easy to fix, but the debate problem is likely bigger, and more of a problem, because it's an issue of critical mass. The internet environment in which DDO built up an ideologically diverse group of competent debaters simply doesn't exist any more.

Personally, I like the idea that Mike floated a while ago about people being able to form 'private threads' which were invite only, and in which the thread starter acts as a sort of thread mod. It would be really helpful to have a private thread where the membership was curated to include only people who can argue complex topics standing on their own two feet, to create a sort of oasis for people to retreat too when the rest of it becomes too tiresome. These threads could in themselves act as draws, as people might join the site in order to join a given discussion and later start debating. Debate challenges could arise there without certain members either weighing down the discussion or accepting every open debate and then filling the thing with incoherent word vomit.

I've definitely had worthwhile conversations on DART.

But you haven't really made any criticism of the quality of discussion that I feel couldn't be made of any public forum. I never keep my expectations that high on the internet. It's important to be realistic. You're not always gonna get the Algonquin Round Table. 

A lot of the site's problems are probably due to it suffering from a pretty small community at present, because we haven't even started to advertise it yet. Mike says the site needs to spend a bit more time in the oven before it can handle larger crowds. I feel like some complaints about DART are down to impatience that it isn't becoming a polished finished product overnight. It's still pretty raw and it basically has only one guy working on it. 

Aww that's not nice.

So, you now know I majored in two of like the most useless things ever... 

I don’t think it’s the smartest idea to go around diagnosing people you’ve only interacted with on the Internet with specific mental illnesses. If they do have mental health issues, that’s going to be pretty counterproductive; the same if they don’t. Especially given that none of you (that I know of) are psychiatrists or psychologists with expertise in this sort of thing. 

As long as you don't think yourself to be immune, AS.  You are human too.

Maybe it's because you're confusiong sexual attractiveness with dating patterns, both are completely different.

To be honest I just threw some opinions and ideas in the air, but since I see you're a pretentious cock, I will do some effort (I have no much time, sorry) to analyse this thread.

Again, you're conflating things, seriously, You're asumming we're just animals that follow our instincts. So wrong. We're complex beings, there are several factors in play when it comes to find a partner for the rest of our lives, I mean to date someone, not just casual sex. 

Sexually speaking it's true that people are more atractive at their thirties according to the first study you presented, although this is not the unique factor for dating someone. For example, the studies of ONLINE DATING, which is what you presented, says that men increase their desirability as they age and reach their peak at their 50s, which demonstrates this is not about appearances. Or do you think otherwise?

I mean, try to put aside your clear misogyny and you will see this is pretty evident.

My last post was aimed to show my opinion and it was not a statement at all. So, why on earth should I present evidence or any sort of data to support my opinion?

I think that lower class woman gets a lot more fulfillment out of their lives than you give them credit for, precisely because her life is more than her work. It is tied up in community and family. Repairing fishing equipment and preparing fish to be cooked is also a lot more fun and fulfillinh than being a barista, fry cook, or cubicle rat, while also being much more limited in scope. Hell, fishing is literally considered a leisure activity nowadays.

Women had the option of becoming nuns or anchoresses, who often became educated and contributed to the larger culture. Just as common men could become monks. Abbesses could even vote in some pre-modern European elections. So yeah, woman absolutely had the option to not marry. In fact, it was considered quite admirable to sacrifice motherhood and sensory distraction for a rich spiritual and intellectual life, and women who did so were honored.

I don't think that people make good choices, left to themselves. Quite the opposite, really. I think that people generally take the path of least resistance, and that this causes them to suffer in the long run.

Well, I find a lot of traditional Indian culture to be profoundly diseased, so this probably isn't the best example for me, but I'll bite. What are the long term effects of these divorces? Can single women raise children which are as functional as those raised by a married couple? Will the exodus of woman actually reform the behavior of the men? I don't think that the answer to any of those questions is rosy, and furthermore I think that the availability of divorce perverts incentives by making marriage seem like an arrangement of convenience.

Is abuse in marriage bad? Absolutely. But to me the sensible way to tackle that problem is to stigmatize abuse in marriage, not to do away with marriage. I think that the Indian concept of marriage is terrible and has little to do with Christian marriage, so I obviously think that it should be reformed. Look at any map of India that maps abuse rates and you will see that the small state of Goa has drastically lower rates. The Goa states were ruled by Portugal for almost five hundred years, are more deeply Catholic than other areas, and some of the more barbaric Indian practices have been stamped out there.

When I was young my friends and I had memorable sexual encounters with MILFs (single mothers).

I mean, women are really hot in average at their thirties.

Maybe men tend to date young women because they're more fertile and the chances they get pregnant are higher. I tell you from my experience, women are attractive and experienced (this last is tremendously important when having sex) aged between 30-40. 

You've got to check the case of Tinder. I doubt it has similar results.

A lower class woman in the 1700s would be mystified by an 1900s banker's wife demanding 'the right to work', as she would live her life working alongside her husband, a partner in his trade. A fisherman's wife would mend nets, clean fish, and keep the books in order. A farmers wife would tend her share gardens and small livestock.

It was only ever rich women who felt 'shackled', and they weren't shackled by the 'patriarchy' at all.

They were shackled by a society which had made consumers out of them, which had robbed them of productive work and replaced it with comfort and large, opulent, and oppressively silent homes.

Mainstream feminism was often born out of the boredom of the well-to-do, not the struggle of poor women, because that struggle filled their lives with rich meaning. Just look through the early suffragettes. All of them are from bourgeois or higher social caste...

I have a "first cause" topic on this issue. 

The designer(s) of the program 

Everything you see has no independent existence. We're living in a virtual world. 

If it 'works in mice' it could 'work in chimps' to produce big-brained chimps.

I wonder if that's been tried yet...

Who knows: maybe one day, long after they are gone, we'll all remember the weeds of yesteryear with a sort of muted fondness.

That may have been so in the past but a wise man said "The human mind needs radical change, or else it'll fall into the same traps it historically has always fallen into."

I'm a bit busy to address your other statements, but regarding race... The idea of a racial identity has been occasional, though throughout history it's largely been more ethnic or culturally based.

The idea of racial identity, especially a white identity, is almost entirely tracable to Protestant-European colonists that saught to justify slavery.

In other cases, there was more fluidity. The most successful empires typically imposed cultural hegemony and assimilated/integrated conquered peoples. Ethnic based ones such as the Mongols usually failed. 

Something we are close to agreement on for once.  

Perhaps it is only your apparent pessimism regarding postive change I don't fully concur with.

You're absolutely right. It simply isn't possible for a person to spend so much time online without seriously impeding their ability to live a healthy, fulfilling, well-balanced lifestyle. Many internet addicts have a very difficult time admitting that: they've grown too attached to their online personas and communities, and they don't want to recognize the massive opportunity cost of all the time they've already wasted. But they'll have to come to terms with reality eventually. And I don't mean any of that in a condescending or demeaning way -- I'm a recovering internet addict myself. 

The question is whether the concept of 'nations' is optimal for humanity and the planet or if we'd all be better off without 'nations'.

How do you propose dealing with differences in IQ of races? Would you support establishing a hierarchy that places whites over blacks and other nonwhite races? Or would you prefer to let these differences show naturally without any discriminatory law?

The Africans sold for chattel would have been better off dead.

Ethiopia is an ancient Christian stronghold in eastern Africa.  Witch hunts used to take place all over the world.

Well, being kidnapped, enslaved and then segregated/discriminated against is a fairly high bar to match.

That, and I'm not sure how prideful one should be when colonisation essentially amounts to invasion

You know, I haven't the slightest idea. But I can't see the harm in a 50/50 black/white society split given the only difference being physical characteristics

I feel like you're glossing over some aspects of what you describe as anti-white sentiment. For example, black pride is a celebration of the challenges and oppression that black people in American society have overcome. White people in America in general have never faced the same adversity or challenges in comparison as a whole.

National hispanic month in the same vein is an acknowledgement of hispanic contribution to American culture as a minority.

As for being criticised for being a white dominant group, is it anti-white to recognise that a homogenous group in defiance of country demographics is problematical? Either other races don't wish to join in which case there's an image problem or candidates of other races are being rejected in greater frequency, in which case there is contribution to racial inequality