A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

[Laharl]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

Seems this thread has strayed from my original point.

I simply want to know why anyone would willfully appear like an idiot? Most the time, people don't like being regarded as a fool or an idiot in person, so why do they do it on the internet?

[Kilgamayan]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

It's not that I can't read them.

I choose not to.

Typing like that has a message all of its own to tell me. It says "Squeek, don't read this post. If this idiot can't even take the time to spell out words, whatever he's trying to say is obviously not worth reading."

I figured this out two years ago and have long been practicing the "ignore posts and usernames that look like utter garbage" mantra ever since. Sure, I think they look stupid, but I don't have any difficulty in ignoring them and they don't harm me in any way so I leave them alone. Live and let live.

I simply want to know why anyone would willfully appear like an idiot? Most the time, people don't like being regarded as a fool or an idiot in person, so why do they do it on the internet?

Because they don't care what people who form opinions based solely on something as superficial as grammar think of them?

[Laharl]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

Grammar is superficial?

Proper use of your own goddamn language is superficial?

I hardly think so. I expect anyone with a remote level of self-esteem to at least understand that they should be able to speak, write, and think past an elementary school mentality.

[DraikRoan]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

Seems this thread has strayed from my original point.

I simply want to know why anyone would willfully appear like an idiot? Most the time, people don't like being regarded as a fool or an idiot in person, so why do they do it on the internet?

Why are you still asking when you just answered it in your own 2 questions? Anonymity + Mass Communication = Complete Retard. I dont complain about the way people type because its just as easy to choose NOT to read something. What bugs me is when people use random curse words for no obvious reason, ESPECIALLY in real life where you hear everything around you constantly whether you like it or not. (Unless you cover your ears of course, but even then you would have to cover them extremely good to not hear anything at all.)

[Squeek]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

thyraxicmole, despite the fact that you won't be able to see this for another two days, I think I should reply.

1) I am a very arrogant person in so many ways, but grammar is just not one of them. Look, I am not a linguist. I am not a grammar nazi, freak, whatever. I hate most of the rules of English. If you want a real grammar nazi, you'd turn your focus to Guido. I am simply someone who points out to others, even people I call friends, their mistakes. Yes, I have friends in reality, and yes, I do this to them as well.

You honestly think I'm trying to put myself in a better light than the people I call my close friends? (By the way, I have the capability of calling people I've never even met aside from posts on forums "friends". Most of the regulars on these forums are my friends.) No. I am merely assisting my friends. Giving them just a nudge in the back and saying "you did that wrong". Can you honestly tell me that you've never once, NOT EVEN ONCE, criticized your friends for something they've done?

So, in summary, #1 states that you have misanalyzed my persona and personally, I think you should not pursue a career in psychology.

2) Emoticons are different. Emoticons aren't words. They aren't acronyms. They aren't anything in the English language. As such, there are no rules for emoticons. Put them wherever you want. Ignore punctuation with them. I know I do. Who wants to see =D.

What the crap is that dot doing there? Is that a mole on my face?

But, acronyms ARE in the English language. Acronyms ARE words. They stand for something. Usually, I mean, most of the time, they do actually stand for something, right? I mean, that's what an acronym is.

Now, say NASA for example. If I say NASA in a sentence, you know I mean National Aeronautics and Space Administration, but it's not like I'm going to say it, and it's not like you're going to interpret it as such.

However, when I DO say "NASA" in a sentence, subbing in its spelled-out form wouldn't change the meaning of the sentence. Sure, you might have to throw a "the" in front of the spelled-out form of it, but in the end, there's no difference.

"I hear NASA is gonna send a probe to Jupiter."
"I hear [the] National Aeronautics and Space Administration is gonna send a probe to Jupiter."

See? Same thing.

But "lol". It's not a word. It's an acronym too. It's three letters that represent three words. Just like we did with NASA, we also have to be able to have the sentence work with the acronym and the spelled-out words. Now, the problem here is that people have made a word out of "lol". It's not a word, I tells ya! If it were a word, it wouldn't be an acronym! It wouldn't mean "laughing out loud" if it were a word! It would just be "lol".

Even though you can pronounce "NASA" as "Nah-sah" instead of just saying each letter, it's still assumed that you mean "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" whenever you say it, and it's still an acronym. The same rules apply for "lol". It's still an acronym even if you pronounce it as "lawl" or "lowl". It still has to be able to be substituted by "Laughing out loud" whenever it shows up.

Again, this is different from emoticons. Emoticons are assumed to work like this: you make a sentence, then at the end, you show your facial expression that associates the way you would look as you said it aloud.

That sucks =p

That sucks =(

That sucks lol

That makes a huge difference. The first just means "I don't really sympathize at all, but I do kinda feel for ya." The second means "I'm sorry for whatever happened." This is just our way of doing things. You could also do it like this:

That sucks. =p

Which basically puts the sentence first, and then the way you look as you speak it later. But we went with a simpler method for emoticons, and it's been working out pretty well.

But the third... the THIRD! "That sucks laughing out loud". That sentence could be read as something (that) is sucking (like a vacuum) laughing out loud. It makes no sense, but neither does the original sentence.

This is the problem with "lol". It just cannot sit at the end of a sentence. It throws of the subject-verb agreement. It throws off the flow of the sentence. It kills the sentence structure completely.

Enjoy your time off.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

Grammar is superficial?

Proper use of your own goddamn language is superficial?

When you're in a community of people you'll never met or even know beyond some silly 100x100 image underneath their username and a few lines of text underneath their posts, yes. I would much rather judge people off their values and ideas.

I hardly think so. I expect anyone with a remote level of self-esteem to at least understand that they should be able to speak, write, and think past an elementary school mentality.

It's a good thing you're not in charge then, eh? What would you do, give them failing grades for the internet?

If all of this were real life - something that actually COUNTS - then you might have a point. But it isn't. The quality of someone's casual online communication isn't going to make or break someone's future. If they don't have problems outside of the internet, good for them, and if they do, then the internet isn't going to help them anyway (at least not as much as actual school would).

[Grandiagod]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

My post got deleted =(

Maybe I'll actually respond to Kilga though.

While the internet (which actually should be capitalized, but no one does anyway) is basically a cesspool of ridiculousness and porn, there is a certain level of intelligence that can be shown on it.

When you see someone post "i don't get u gaiz lol" the first thing you think is "He's either eight or another idiot." and then Rai tells him to kill himself in a hilarious fashion. Therefore, if you want to have a good time on this forum or any other that is mostly made up of elitist ******s. You have to portray yourself in an intelligent manner. While it may not matter in real life how people talk online, it does matter ONLINE.

Second, I'd rather people explain their values and ideas in a coherent fashion. I could agree with stem cell research but if I posted "u kno, i think stem sell reseach iz a gud thing bcauze it helps ppl get over dizease an stuff."

While my viewpoint may be noble and legitimate, I would look like a total moron.

[Laharl]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

Sigh.

"This is not real life."

Like hell. You're alive. You're interacting. It's real. It's in the confines of reality. It happens. Stuff can affect you and other people that you find on the internet.

Get over yourself by thinking that what you do online doesn't have any bearing on the "real" world.

[Grandiagod]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

Get over yourself by thinking that what you do online doesn't have any bearing on the "real" world.

Give me one example where the intelligence you've displayed online (or lack thereof) has affected you outside the online community you've displayed it in.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

Sigh.

"This is not real life."

Like hell. You're alive. You're interacting. It's real. It's in the confines of reality. It happens. Stuff can affect you and other people that you find on the internet.

That's your opinion. I don't share it. While I don't like to assume, I feel fairly confident in saying that I'm not alone in doing so.

Get over yourself

I find this amusing coming from the guy who not only thinks his opinion holds so much weight that he gets to demand other people use proper grammar, but that refuses to recognize that not everyone wants to treat the internet the same way he does.

by thinking that what you do online doesn't have any bearing on the "real" world.

I'll admit some of the the people I've met online have had bearing in my real life, but they're the exception rather than the rule, and the quality of the grammar we use(d) is/was certainly not an influence on our decisions. Rather, it was our interests, values and ideas, which I referenced earlier.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

Sigh.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061109/koddities/oddity_new_zealand_text

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilgamayan]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

Okay, that is the kind of thing I would take up the opposite stance on. Text-based communication like forums and instant messaging is one thing, but being taught that such "language" is acceptable in the real world is entirely another.

[Krazl]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

Maybe to make squeak happy 'lol' should be turned into its own sentence all the time. People could type out their original message and input the 'lol' where the smiley should go. The difference being that because 'lol' is not a smiley face, it must have proper punctuation before it.

That sucks =p

That sucks =(

That sucks lol

Would turn into...

That sucks =P
That sucks =(
That sucks. Lol.

"That sucks. Laughing out loud." Makes a whole lote more sense than the previous version. It still doesn't flow very well though

A lot of people don't really use it as an acronym and instead use 'lol' incorrectly as a laughing smiley face; as pointed out in Squeek's third example.

[Shashakiro]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

I don't consider "lol" an acronym, and it doesn't bother me at all that it techincally is one.

Honestly, the phrase "lol" is rarely, rarely, rarely EVER used as a real acronym to mean "laughing out loud". I use it to substitute for "heh" all the time, and I know plenty of other reasonably "grammatically intelligent" people who do the same thing. If you read "lol" as an acronym that means "laughing out loud", you really just aren't reading it correctly, because when used, it never really means that--sort of like when the word "decimate" is used, it never really means "to reduce by a factor of ten".

As for the news article Guido posted...wow, that's retarded.

[spyke252]

Re: A CT thread for those that aren't Critical Thinkers

What is the basic premise of a conversation? A conversation is defined as the transfer of thoughts or ideas from one person to another. (Sadly, I am at school and cannot get a quote from Wiki, internet is blocked)

As long as the audience understands what is being said, I believe the use in acronyms such as "lol" at the end of a sentence, "u" instead of "you", "fo rizzle" instead of "for real," etc.

However, talking in 1337 (Which originated as a sort of code for hackers? Check Wiki for me, ok?) causes trouble for the reader, usually resulting in the loss of understanding. (Apparently, as intended, if it did indeed originate as a code)

As for people sounding like idiots, I do agree. Typing "lyke dis" shows the lack of thought and time put into creating the post, so it can usually be assumed that the thought behind the post is not worthy of me taking the time to interpret what said idiot is trying to say. However, one or two minor mistakes (Such as putting commas after quotation marks... I still really do not understand that) that do not hinder the reader's ability to interpret a post, do not need to be looked at with scorn. And I doubt they do.
NOTE: Squeek's correction of words like "definitely" are not so that others can understand what they are saying, that I know of, who wouldn't understand "definately" to mean the same thing. I believe his corrections are for the poster, so that the poster realizes their mistake... as spelling "definately" in formal writing may make a professor believe that the person did not spend the time on his essay or whatever. Basically, the syllogism is

People who spend time/put effort on what they write must have a reason to write.
You put effort into your essay.
Thus, you must have a reason to write your essay, so I should read it.

The converse is true as well.

Seriously, compare the Garbage Bin to the Critical Thinking forum (Excluding the idiots in this thread.) There is a difference, as the audience is changed from those who want to learn, to those who want to relax.