Talk:New culture
From RationalWikiWiki
I should say, I only mentioned a new culture because Ace said I misunderstood RW's culture. Not sure if that makes a difference--Brxbrx 00:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- it's not actually about you--I really think there IS a cultural shift at play, between those who want the place to be a fun mobocracy where you can post cock pictures and those who want it to be serious. You might not have meant to point it out in that comment, but it's there. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 00:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the article makes it look like it's all about Brxbrx, when in fact this started much much earlier, even before Bricks registered at RW. -- Nx / talk 05:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree.. I remember ADK wishing that the site could be taken seriously by establishment sceptics, but bemoaning that that would be impossible as long as it maintained its childish culture (well, those are my words, not his — he might have expressed the point differently, but he definitely made it.) I'm not sure if this was before Brxbrx joined, but it certainly was before Brxbrx rose to his current prominence in the community. Maratrean 06:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- lol, prominence. I'll accept that ;) --Brxbrx 07:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- One thing that would help the site in terms of people taking it more seriously would be the departure of editors who have made up their own bat-religion. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 14:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- lol, prominence. I'll accept that ;) --Brxbrx 07:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is close enough to what I said. Though it was quickly dismissed as "oooh, whatever will teh neighbours think?" Now, it wasn't exactly "childishness" or "goofyness" that I am against there, it was more inane asshattery. Whether it be replacing people's signatures with porn or implying the site is "pro suicide", it's all equally disgraceful and an insult to that cadre of editors who have put a lot of work into the mainspace (and I've been trying not to make too big a deal over the fact that there's a bit of a dichotomy between those people and the ones doing the complaining, namely, that some of the biggest complainers have made fewer mainspace edits in three months than I have made in three hours, and yet assume their view is automatically equal if not superior to mine - the "I" and "mine" there being shorthand for the collective group that has ploughed a lot of fucking effort into the wiki over the last few months). Sure, slagging each other off is a very human thing to do, but the contempt some people have for others is poisonous and is increasingly visible.
- I do, however, object to ever being associated with the New Culture if that New Culture is one about more rules; I'm actually very much against more rules. More precisely I'm against overly-specific rules as that leads to arguments over wording, enforcement and conflicts. The more general a rule is, the more difficult it is to find a loophole - when people get around realising this, lawyers are going to be out of a job overnight. In a more rationalist sense, specific rules prepare for the known and (practically by definition the unlikely) while your rule set needs to be prepared to deal with the unknown, and the unknown unknown (which is far more certain to come up). But even more than that, the biggest, most edited and most squabbled over and laboured document on the site shouldn't be the rule book when so many high-priority articles are still stubs. Armondikov 01:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I'll probably get flamed to fuck now for saying that out loud, oh well. Armondikov 01:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- If the "Good Post" template worked here, I'd use it right now. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 01:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 02:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Brx means some weirdo new culture where there'll be no swearing and everyone has to be nice to each other. Ace McWicked 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, fuck that overrated shit. Armondikov 01:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, the best part about RW, in my opinion, is that is it both educational and in-your-face. We defeat people like Deepak Chopra with both the truth and humor/snark. I've never understood the mentality that RationalWiki can't be both professional and fun. Personally, I've always tried my best to have fun (like having block wars with SuperJosh) and stay focused on the topic at hand (like my Bradlee Dean article) at the same time. For those who think that RationalWiki having an institutional opinion against crankery is somehow contrary to its inclusive spirit, I say that there is a bog difference between being inclusive and being a zombie. Inclusive societies welcome all opinions, even though those opinions often clash and some opinions often prevail. Zombie societies believe in bullshit hippie concepts of political correctness and inoffensiveness as de facto censorshit so that nobody's feelings are hurt. In this regard, RationalWiki has always strived to be an inclusive society, but it would be a goddamn shame if, out of fear of offending people, we lost sight of who we are as a community and what we as a community stand for. Punky McPunkersen 12:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, so long as we understand the difference between "Sixpack Chopra" and "go burn in a hole you piece of shit". People don't posses the right to be offended when someone says "your beliefs are wrong because of x, y, and z", so molly-coddling certain belief systems isn't something we need to do. But that's not the same ball park as "you're a cunt". Armondikov 13:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's just it. See what me and Ace are bickering about? He just wants to flame people. Is that necessary, is that productive, and is that a part of the site's purpose? No, no, and no. We can refute pseudoscience and analyze fundamentalism et al without flinging poo at each other like a bunch of bored monkeys.--Brxbrx 02:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're undoubtedly correct, but when does the discussion end and when does the endless stream of not even wrong drivel and now creepy accusations change from expressing a contrary opinion to hectoring us in our own house? Must we tolerate that forever, particularly when telling him to shut up just gives him another grievance to collect and makes him talk faster and louder? Politely telling him he's not welcome didn't work. At some point it's appropriate to tell him he's a cunt and give him a good swift kick in the ass. If I'm wrong, I'll take an invitation to Maratrean's house where I'll hammer on about absolute shit he's not interested in, accuse him of being irrational for not give it credence, and accuse him of approving of female genital mutilation because he doesn't want to put up a sign up in his kitchen prohibiting people from encouraging it. People have been very patient with this guy. There are dense walls of text with them trying to make sense of his peculiar take on so many things. Nutty Roux 13:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't recall you ever asking anyone anything nicely, and you've just made things worse by acting like a little shit--Brxbrx 02:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- and you've just made things worse by acting like a little shit - and there's (part of) the rub. acting like a little shit on RW has been reinterpreted by some recently. There are those who seem to think that we can't have a serious site and a place where we can fling poo. Now, if the persistent poo flingers - which includes many of my hosiery - were to start flinging poo in main space then there would be some point in all this but winging about pictures of genitalia on users talk pages - hey, that's like moaning about Australian politicians swearing in parliament. That's the culture. What's more, it's the culture that many of RW's main space contributors stick around for - well, I do, anyway. Bob Soles 09:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't recall you ever asking anyone anything nicely, and you've just made things worse by acting like a little shit--Brxbrx 02:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, so long as we understand the difference between "Sixpack Chopra" and "go burn in a hole you piece of shit". People don't posses the right to be offended when someone says "your beliefs are wrong because of x, y, and z", so molly-coddling certain belief systems isn't something we need to do. But that's not the same ball park as "you're a cunt". Armondikov 13:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, the best part about RW, in my opinion, is that is it both educational and in-your-face. We defeat people like Deepak Chopra with both the truth and humor/snark. I've never understood the mentality that RationalWiki can't be both professional and fun. Personally, I've always tried my best to have fun (like having block wars with SuperJosh) and stay focused on the topic at hand (like my Bradlee Dean article) at the same time. For those who think that RationalWiki having an institutional opinion against crankery is somehow contrary to its inclusive spirit, I say that there is a bog difference between being inclusive and being a zombie. Inclusive societies welcome all opinions, even though those opinions often clash and some opinions often prevail. Zombie societies believe in bullshit hippie concepts of political correctness and inoffensiveness as de facto censorshit so that nobody's feelings are hurt. In this regard, RationalWiki has always strived to be an inclusive society, but it would be a goddamn shame if, out of fear of offending people, we lost sight of who we are as a community and what we as a community stand for. Punky McPunkersen 12:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, fuck that overrated shit. Armondikov 01:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- If the "Good Post" template worked here, I'd use it right now. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 01:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I'll probably get flamed to fuck now for saying that out loud, oh well. Armondikov 01:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree.. I remember ADK wishing that the site could be taken seriously by establishment sceptics, but bemoaning that that would be impossible as long as it maintained its childish culture (well, those are my words, not his — he might have expressed the point differently, but he definitely made it.) I'm not sure if this was before Brxbrx joined, but it certainly was before Brxbrx rose to his current prominence in the community. Maratrean 06:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the article makes it look like it's all about Brxbrx, when in fact this started much much earlier, even before Bricks registered at RW. -- Nx / talk 05:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
(undent)And that is unpleasant to many contributors already here - but it wasn't as recently as six months ago. Well, there wasn't the constant harping on we get nowadays. That suggests two reasons
- Those who used to keep quiet now complain
- Those who complain are relative newcomers.
I think it's actually a mixture of the two with the emphasis on the latter. Quite frankly, I feel that those who have arrived recently and want some sort of cultural revolution are showing a selfish attitude. We used to run a friendly site with a robust sense of humour which did a better job than most realise in being the place to go for a certain veiw-point and now, just because a few sensitive flowers get all prissy, why do we have to change? Why, even that view-point, the core of RW, is being criticised as not sufficiently inclusive, as being scientism. Any who find made up religions and giant bats farcical in the extreme are castigated as being boorish. For huge chunks of time, instead of either having fun or doing the serious work all we're doing is running to the Coop or voting again and again on standards. Why don't the Brxbrx and the Maras of this world change to match the environment they find themselves in rather than demanding that the environment changes to match them? Well, I have my theories about Mara but that's another tale.
So, yes, we're are in the middle of an attempt to change the culture at RW. Mara, one of the most vocal of those who call for change, has stated repeatedly that he's so persistent that he will achieve his desired culture in the end. I have seen him cheer when an 'opponent' LANCB'd. That's when the 'nice guy' mask slipped for me. Whether he, and those like him, are eventually successful, and to what extent, is another matter. Bob Soles 16:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)The problem for most of the complainers is that the poo flingers don't just fling their poo at each other, but also at people that don't want to have any poo flung (is that right?) at them. If they only flung poo at each other I'd get some popcorn and sit back, but instead everybody who says that they don't like it (excluding all of the old guard, of course) have a big target on their back. For me that's the problem and why I had to start dropping way too long blocks on Ace for it. --Ullhateme 16:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- {ec} Not everybody shares your sense of humor. Now that the site has grown, problems can't be resolved by patting each other on the back and saying "aww, it was all in good fun," especially when the problem is likely to start up again in a week. Just like in real life, you don't try and piss off people just for kicks. You consider the feelings of others, and if you don't, you're likely a sociopath. <extreme example>Ted Bundy didn't care about his victims' feelings. He was just having his fun.</extreme example>--Brxbrx 16:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Brx - your a hypocritical sanctimonious arse. You enjoy, and indulge in, pissing off people for fun far more than Ace.
- UHM - no one gets poo flung at them unless they ask for it. In this sense I include those who are deliberately provocative as asking for it. As a f'rinstance, Mara only got bombarded with pictures of penises when he decided to be a boor about a completely harmless little picture of a naked man. If he's have just been grown up about it instead of throwing a hissy fit designed to stir up tension then it would have faded into nothing. Bob Soles 17:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- In other words: If you get punched, you have to smile, otherwise you will be beaten into a coma. Seriously,that's messed up. --Ullhateme 17:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- In other words: If you go into an area where there are poo throwing monkeys a certain amount of discretion is required. Very few 'just join' RW, most lurk around for a while and it doesn't take long before some poo is flung. So, before entering the arena, even the newest of n00bs should know what to expect. to march right in and say "Oh, you poo throwing monkeys, how naughty you are, you should be stopped." Well, that's guaranteed to get a reaction. I, in my many, many incarnations, have never had poo thrown at me. As for this "getting beaten into a coma" or Brucks comparing poo throwers to Ted Brundy, FFS, get real. This is a web site. NO ONE GETS HURT. There's a little over reaction here. Sure Brucks likes to overreact because that's how he gets his jollies but lets keep some sense of proportion. Bob Soles 17:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ooops, my most humble apologies, I shouldn't have used FFS because of what the middle 'F' stands for. There may be children about and you might feel as if you've been beaten into a coma. Bob Soles 17:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok how about wiki language then? Reverting vandalism costs me one second. If my page is vandalized 60 times, I lose one minute of my lifetime. That's one minute I'm not willing to sacrifice so some drunkard can have a laugh. Also: Fuck, Fuck, Fuck, FUCK, FUCK. --Ullhateme 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- In other words: If you go into an area where there are poo throwing monkeys a certain amount of discretion is required. Very few 'just join' RW, most lurk around for a while and it doesn't take long before some poo is flung. So, before entering the arena, even the newest of n00bs should know what to expect. to march right in and say "Oh, you poo throwing monkeys, how naughty you are, you should be stopped." Well, that's guaranteed to get a reaction. I, in my many, many incarnations, have never had poo thrown at me. As for this "getting beaten into a coma" or Brucks comparing poo throwers to Ted Brundy, FFS, get real. This is a web site. NO ONE GETS HURT. There's a little over reaction here. Sure Brucks likes to overreact because that's how he gets his jollies but lets keep some sense of proportion. Bob Soles 17:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- In other words: If you get punched, you have to smile, otherwise you will be beaten into a coma. Seriously,that's messed up. --Ullhateme 17:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Delete
Like I said on the template, I see no significance to bricks' comment, at least, not enough to warrant an article based entirely upon it. Shall we have an article on every post MarcusCicero made about the site? JimJast? Maratrean? Delete, I say. Or write something better. Liveware Problem 03:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- So I'm the same sort of user as MarcusCicero? Gee, Blue, I'm really feeling the love...--Brxbrx 03:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- The choice of words is his but the concept is broader. Maratrean 09:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] pfff
Why can't I help but feel that everything I say is being misinterpreted? I understand that I may not be eloquent in the least, but can't someone at least take the time to try and decipher what it is I'm talking about instead of making sort-of strawmen, mis-characterizations, and fruitless mockery?--Brxbrx 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sob! Oh why does no body understand how it feels to be little me! Bob Soles 21:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- [1] Bob Soles 21:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't have audio right now. So I can't appreciate what I'm sure was a biting retort. However, I do believe that people are willfully misrepresenting the things I say. UHM seems to understand what I'm talking about, as does Nx on occasion. But people like you are more concerned with ZOMG GODWIN'S LAW!!!--Brxbrx 22:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I completely understand what you're talking about it, doesn't mean I don't find it silly. Ace McWicked 22:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's a good start. But maybe you could spend an extra minute explaining why it's silly in between posting onomatopoeias of laughter and dirty pictures. Sometimes you address points I make, but you rarely seem to follow through. Here's an example. Who knows, with a good explanation I might actually change my mind and become hip and laidback like you (in whatever fashion you find inoffensive. Maybe you can convince me to kill myself. Would you like that?).--Brxbrx 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now making suicide jokes? Nice one. Ace McWicked 22:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- No. It just occurred to me as I was writing that you may not want me to adopt your world view, and that you would either prefer having me as your enemy or simply have me disappear--Brxbrx 23:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't care what worldview you adopt. Ace McWicked 00:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- No. It just occurred to me as I was writing that you may not want me to adopt your world view, and that you would either prefer having me as your enemy or simply have me disappear--Brxbrx 23:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now making suicide jokes? Nice one. Ace McWicked 22:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's a good start. But maybe you could spend an extra minute explaining why it's silly in between posting onomatopoeias of laughter and dirty pictures. Sometimes you address points I make, but you rarely seem to follow through. Here's an example. Who knows, with a good explanation I might actually change my mind and become hip and laidback like you (in whatever fashion you find inoffensive. Maybe you can convince me to kill myself. Would you like that?).--Brxbrx 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I completely understand what you're talking about it, doesn't mean I don't find it silly. Ace McWicked 22:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't have audio right now. So I can't appreciate what I'm sure was a biting retort. However, I do believe that people are willfully misrepresenting the things I say. UHM seems to understand what I'm talking about, as does Nx on occasion. But people like you are more concerned with ZOMG GODWIN'S LAW!!!--Brxbrx 22:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- [1] Bob Soles 21:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] List is problematic
I submit that we would have an easier time making a list of people who do understand the New Culture. I'm fairly certain only Bricks and possibly Maratrean know what the hell it is. Liveware Problem 21:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Great. Now you're against me too. Actually, I sited you as an example of the "new culture" upon my first mention of it. The new culture means a user base that wishes to discourage trolling and flaming, and refutes pseudoscience et cetera with a bit of civility. Is that not something you desire? I assumed as much, seeing as how you're trying to establish a clear protocol for various parts of site politics that are prone to HCM. --Brxbrx 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You helped cause an "HCM", you moron. You were right there stirring shit, making trouble, fomenting conflict, and injecting yourself into things you still don't understand. You seem to live for negative attention so it's no surprise that you're now pushing for special legislation to address the grievances you've collected due to how unwelcome you've made yourself. You and Maratrean seem to be the full extent of your glorious "new culture." I'd love to see you shove your "new culture" up your ass sideways and take it with you when you fuck off and go hand out with children your age. Would you do that for me, Brx? Nutty Roux 22:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, when did I cause HCM? I'm certainly not saying I haven't done so - I probably have- but it'd be much easier for me to consider what you said if I had some context.--Brxbrx 22:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You helped cause an "HCM", you moron. You were right there stirring shit, making trouble, fomenting conflict, and injecting yourself into things you still don't understand. You seem to live for negative attention so it's no surprise that you're now pushing for special legislation to address the grievances you've collected due to how unwelcome you've made yourself. You and Maratrean seem to be the full extent of your glorious "new culture." I'd love to see you shove your "new culture" up your ass sideways and take it with you when you fuck off and go hand out with children your age. Would you do that for me, Brx? Nutty Roux 22:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Much better
Thank you Hans Johnson.--Brxbrx 02:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It makes even less sense now. Liveware Problem 03:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you purposefully being this obtuse? Hell, even P-Foster admits that there might be a new trend here.--Brxbrx 03:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, bricks. The article now does a Heel Face Turn in the middle, from classic Afikomenian satire to "The "New Culture" is focused on making the site more ... rules-oriented, and to suppress some of the fun and anarchy which are central to the site's ethos." Generally an article is not the best place to have an argument, as you might leave your readers with some cognitive dissonance. Liveware Problem 03:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, your whole take on what's evolved from that one retort of mine to Ace has been kinda disappointing. I assumed that you were just being bitchy because this article still exists. Sure, it's not quite coherent yet, but RA's edits improved it--Brxbrx 03:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Enormous amount of chat for a five-line article! But, yes, the shift started before Brix. For that matter I don't think you can call it a "shift" in the sense of a single movement. The site is constantly evolving in one way or another as new people join and old ones leave and this changes the majority view on the site. People who were part of whatever old majority existed find they are now not part of whatever new majority has developed and as a consequence tensions rise.--False Flag 20:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, your whole take on what's evolved from that one retort of mine to Ace has been kinda disappointing. I assumed that you were just being bitchy because this article still exists. Sure, it's not quite coherent yet, but RA's edits improved it--Brxbrx 03:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, bricks. The article now does a Heel Face Turn in the middle, from classic Afikomenian satire to "The "New Culture" is focused on making the site more ... rules-oriented, and to suppress some of the fun and anarchy which are central to the site's ethos." Generally an article is not the best place to have an argument, as you might leave your readers with some cognitive dissonance. Liveware Problem 03:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you purposefully being this obtuse? Hell, even P-Foster admits that there might be a new trend here.--Brxbrx 03:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Blue, you ruined it--68.230.64.189 20:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Liveware Problem 21:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Pole
Yay? TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 23:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are the opposite of DoggedPersistence. Maybe everybody else knows what that means--Brxbrx 01:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, it is obvious what it means, i just find the title dubious. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 01:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
