Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Animals are people too!

189101113

Posts

  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Raneados wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    A young gay boy is never assaulted at his school because of the omnipresent monitoring technology, and he subsequently graduates Valedictorian and attends a prestigious university instead of having his legs broken by bigoted douchebags.

    NIGHTMARE SCENARIO

    Goddamnit

    A gay boy is never assaulted in school because assault it is illegal
    Not because people know he is gay

    Why do you think being watched stops people from doing illegal things?
    All being watched does is make it easy to convict people AFTER they do illegal things

    Cameras don't prevent convenience store hold-ups

    Only because they're easily circumvented.

    As I've said, we have plenty of examples throughout history of increased government monitoring of the populace results in less criminality.

    You just have to make sure that the method you choose actually works. Again, the best evidenced method we have is very simple: hire more cops, put them on the street. This reduces crime, because people know they can't get away with it.

    oh hey you know how Britain has CCTV

    you know, thousands of cameras watching everything at once?

    well it doesn't work

    http://www.1in12.com/publications/cctv/ditton.htm

    Fair enough.

    I don't really care what mode of observation is effective, just as long as they are effective.

  • UbikUbik i am a god in a french-ass restaurantRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    And when people are hiding bad things, in all your examples, they are harming others, which is not covered by privacy

    The government and society cannot commandeer the individual to be agents of social change by forcing them to reveal intimate details of their life

    CleezusSig_zpsfa821add.png
  • ButlerButler 89 episodes or bust Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Alternatively, Chuck knows where Janice lives because, duh, Google. He tracks her down but is arrested when he comes within 300 yards of her home because of that tracking device that was put on him after the court proceeding which successfully convicted him thanks to the CCTV cameras in the elevators of the building he used to live in with Janice.

    NIGHTMARE SCENARIO

    Because of a lack of privacy, in other words?

    The Genius of the Daleks

    Latest upload: Chapter Five on 13th of March, 2014
  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    redhead wrote: »
    this is the problem with arguments on the internet

    i disagree with backwards name about this, but if someone had brought up the topic ("hey i think privacy is an inherently harmful concept, what do you think about that") in an actual real life conversation i would have been interested in talking it out and seeing where it went

    on the internet, most of the responses to any position that it's easy to tell will be unpopular are going to be from people who are sure they can crucify the poster for having that opinion. there's very little good-faith argument when people are reasonably sure that a) they're right and b) most people already agree with them, even though in actual conversation it can be interesting/illuminating to debate ideas even when you're pretty sure your opinion isn't going to change as a result. on the internet, though, the quickest responses will always be from people eager to tell the poster how dumb they are, and if the poster in question doesn't give up right there they'll probably end up making progressively dumber posts about it anyway.

    it's reaallly hard to get people on the internet to debate in good faith an idea they're sure they don't agree with or even think is dumb, but in an actual conversation that seems to be less of an issue. i'm not sure where exactly the difference lies, but it makes discussions like this one kind of painful to watch.

    this is a good post

  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Butler wrote: »
    Alternatively, Chuck knows where Janice lives because, duh, Google. He tracks her down but is arrested when he comes within 300 yards of her home because of that tracking device that was put on him after the court proceeding which successfully convicted him thanks to the CCTV cameras in the elevators of the building he used to live in with Janice.

    NIGHTMARE SCENARIO

    Because of a lack of privacy, in other words?

    I don't see a lot of people in this thread railing against google maps

    just trying to highlight an inconsistency

  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    redhead wrote: »
    this is the problem with arguments on the internet

    i disagree with backwards name about this, but if someone had brought up the topic ("hey i think privacy is an inherently harmful concept, what do you think about that") in an actual real life conversation i would have been interested in talking it out and seeing where it went

    on the internet, most of the responses to any position that it's easy to tell will be unpopular are going to be from people who are sure they can crucify the poster for having that opinion. there's very little good-faith argument when people are reasonably sure that a) they're right and b) most people already agree with them, even though in actual conversation it can be interesting/illuminating to debate ideas even when you're pretty sure your opinion isn't going to change as a result. on the internet, though, the quickest responses will always be from people eager to tell the poster how dumb they are, and if the poster in question doesn't give up right there they'll probably end up making progressively dumber posts about it anyway.

    it's reaallly hard to get people on the internet to debate in good faith an idea they're sure they don't agree with or even think is dumb, but in an actual conversation that seems to be less of an issue. i'm not sure where exactly the difference lies, but it makes discussions like this one kind of painful to watch.

    haha this is not a case of everyone but backwards failing to "debate" in good faith
    backwards is just as if not more guilty of this than most of the people that have posted an opinion on this

    if he said this shit in person at a party, I'd consider him just as idiotic and would tell him so to his face

    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • JordynJordyn Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Actually if I google my name, I don't find my address.

    I don't know who would be against maps.

    thumbsupguy-1.jpg
    JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
  • Ol' SparkyOl' Sparky Registered User
    edited May 2010
    Koshian wrote: »
    you stop at the bakery to get a bagel for breakfast, but they are out of plain bagels so you are forced to choose between a garlic chive bagel and a cinnamon raisin bagel

    nightmare scenario

    garlic chive

    fuck that sounds amazing

  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Jordyn wrote: »
    You seem to think that people only use privacy to get away with things and that's dumb.

    uh, mostly

    privacy is about controlling how others perceive you

    convincing people whether or not you are guilty of a crime fits into that basic principle

    we like privacy because it allows us to lie, to cover up our embarrassments, to maintain social status in the social realm, and to maintain perceived wealth and autonomy in the public realm

    of course, if people all just revealed their "embarrassing" secrets, then I wonder if they would cease to be embarrassing

    look at this forum, for chrissakes

    we're the goddamn frontline in the march towards the end of privacy

    we share incredibly intimate detail with people we hardly know

    as a result, no one is embarrassed about masturbating or weird sexual kinks or anything else, really.

    Isn't that part of why we like SE++? We don't have to be shameful or embarrassed all the time? It's because we don't keep things private here.

  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Druhim wrote: »
    redhead wrote: »
    this is the problem with arguments on the internet

    i disagree with backwards name about this, but if someone had brought up the topic ("hey i think privacy is an inherently harmful concept, what do you think about that") in an actual real life conversation i would have been interested in talking it out and seeing where it went

    on the internet, most of the responses to any position that it's easy to tell will be unpopular are going to be from people who are sure they can crucify the poster for having that opinion. there's very little good-faith argument when people are reasonably sure that a) they're right and b) most people already agree with them, even though in actual conversation it can be interesting/illuminating to debate ideas even when you're pretty sure your opinion isn't going to change as a result. on the internet, though, the quickest responses will always be from people eager to tell the poster how dumb they are, and if the poster in question doesn't give up right there they'll probably end up making progressively dumber posts about it anyway.

    it's reaallly hard to get people on the internet to debate in good faith an idea they're sure they don't agree with or even think is dumb, but in an actual conversation that seems to be less of an issue. i'm not sure where exactly the difference lies, but it makes discussions like this one kind of painful to watch.

    haha this is not a case of everyone but backwards failing to "debate" in good faith
    backwards is just as if not more guilty of this than most of the people that have posted an opinion on this

    if he said this shit in person at a party, I'd consider him just as idiotic and would tell him so to his face

    Yes and then I would blink once, and then turn back to all the people who aren't 43, boring, and balding, and resume my conversation.

  • FramlingFramling Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Icantstoptalking.png

    you're = you are
    your = belonging to you

    their = belonging to them
    there = not here
    they're = they are
  • alternatingAberrationalternatingAberration I am the milk man My milk is deliciousRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I don't think I've ever seen someone with opinions as bad as yours, backwardsname.

    xI8QS1g.jpg?1
  • UbikUbik i am a god in a french-ass restaurantRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Ubik wrote: »
    bongi wrote: »
    A young gay boy is never assaulted at his school because of the omnipresent monitoring technology, and he subsequently graduates Valedictorian and attends a prestigious university instead of having his legs broken by bigoted douchebags.

    NIGHTMARE SCENARIO

    you could just teach the douchebags that beating gay people up is bad

    yeah I think that's a pretty good option too

    everyone else in this thread thinks it's best just to keep gay people in the closet where they won't bother anyone

    much more civilized

    You don't get to decide

    Society can't force people to stay closeted

    Society ALSO CAN'T FORCE people to come out

    People don't have to run their lives based on your notion of "civilized"

    Right, this is the classical Western notion that individual freedom overrules all other forms of well-being. The problem is that we make concessions to this all the time, and then try to backtrack and make up post-hoc excuses for why it's not really an infringement of freedom, but that's disingenuous.

    In the real world, freedom is one of a whole array of forms of well-being. And, frankly, we're influenced and incentivized by innumerable variables in the world. Few if any decisions are truly voluntary. All our decisions are subject to pressure and influence. I don't like to work weekends, but I have to for my job. I can't afford to lose my job because then I'd be broke. It's not exactly voluntary, but it's not totally forced either. Why is it so hard for people to interpret the world on a gradient instead of as binary?

    Nothing is completely voluntary, and nothing is completely involuntary. It's all about where you are on the spectrum.

    Why people get so irrationally freaked out when government is the entity applying pressure (even slight
    pressure!) is baffling to me.

    I don't know what truly voluntary/ truly involuntary has to do with anything but my position is not limited to the government specifically

    Society AS A WHOLE does not get to dictate that, for example, the best way to live a gay life is to be out and to help educate others and show people "hey, now that I know a gay person, I won't be a bigot"

    Society can encourage people to come out and convince individuals that it is okay and safe to come out
    But Society cannot force people to come out
    And, in your world of no privacy, everyone would know the intimate details of everyone else at all times

    The world we have now, of privacy in individual matters, is perfectly fine and highly preferable to a life where there is no privacy at all

    CleezusSig_zpsfa821add.png
  • AntimatterAntimatter if you want to talk to me look elsewhere.Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    oh hey we're talking about security and privacy, awesome
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLakgUosAsM

  • FramlingFramling Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Ubik wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    yeah I think that's a pretty good option too

    everyone else in this thread thinks it's best just to keep gay people in the closet where they won't bother anyone

    much more civilized

    You don't get to decide

    Society can't force people to stay closeted

    Society ALSO CAN'T FORCE people to come out

    People don't have to run their lives based on your notion of "civilized"

    Right, this is the classical Western notion that individual freedom overrules all other forms of well-being. The problem is that we make concessions to this all the time, and then try to backtrack and make up post-hoc excuses for why it's not really an infringement of freedom, but that's disingenuous.

    In the real world, freedom is one of a whole array of forms of well-being. And, frankly, we're influenced and incentivized by innumerable variables in the world. Few if any decisions are truly voluntary. All our decisions are subject to pressure and influence. I don't like to work weekends, but I have to for my job. I can't afford to lose my job because then I'd be broke. It's not exactly voluntary, but it's not totally forced either. Why is it so hard for people to interpret the world on a gradient instead of as binary?

    Nothing is completely voluntary, and nothing is completely involuntary. It's all about where you are on the spectrum.

    Why people get so irrationally freaked out when government is the entity applying pressure (even slight
    pressure!) is baffling to me.

    I don't know what truly voluntary/ truly involuntary has to do with anything but my position is not limited to the government specifically

    Society AS A WHOLE does not get to dictate that, for example, the best way to live a gay life is to be out and to help educate others and show people "hey, now that I know a gay person, I won't be a bigot"

    Society can encourage people to come out and convince individuals that it is okay and safe to come out
    But Society cannot force people to come out
    And, in your world of no privacy, everyone would know the intimate details of everyone else at all times

    The world we have now, of privacy in individual matters, is perfectly fine and highly preferable to a life where there is no privacy at all

    I just stopped reading that post as soon as I got to 'classical Western notion' because I could tell right there that his head was far enough up his ass that he couldn't hear us anyway.

    you're = you are
    your = belonging to you

    their = belonging to them
    there = not here
    they're = they are
  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Ubik wrote: »

    Guess what? Hiring more cops does not reduce privacy at all

    Privacy on the whole brings more good than harm

    The good of people being free to order their personal lives how they see fit, in the way that is best for them, greatly outweighs any harm of hiding bad things

    See this is the thing. People define privacy however they want to, because they think privacy is "good," so anytime where privacy is reduced must be an instance where it wasn't REAL privacy. It's a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

    The invention of the police force is absolutely a reduction in privacy. You are now observed by the government where you were not before.

    Your actions are monitored, recorded, and you are held responsible for them where you were not before.

    How is that not a reduction in privacy? You are using a shifting definition of privacy to preserve its perceived "goodness." But if you're just using privacy to be synonymous with things that are good, why not just say "good" instead?

    People do this all the time with basic values and it's retarded. People never want to say justice or freedom or safety are bad, because they use those terms basically as proxies for "good." The problem is that they're not complete synonyms. It muddies our discourse. It makes a clash of ideas more difficult to attain, because it often precludes a true meeting of the minds.

  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus ha ha just kidding I'm Frog ManRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Yes and then I would blink once, and then turn back to all the people who aren't 43, boring, and balding, and resume my conversation.

    I've only ever seen this kind of pathetic personal attack coming from people like TFS.

  • JordynJordyn Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Jordyn wrote: »
    You seem to think that people only use privacy to get away with things and that's dumb.

    uh, mostly

    privacy is about controlling how others perceive you

    convincing people whether or not you are guilty of a crime fits into that basic principle

    we like privacy because it allows us to lie, to cover up our embarrassments, to maintain social status in the social realm, and to maintain perceived wealth and autonomy in the public realm

    of course, if people all just revealed their "embarrassing" secrets, then I wonder if they would cease to be embarrassing

    look at this forum, for chrissakes

    we're the goddamn frontline in the march towards the end of privacy

    we share incredibly intimate detail with people we hardly know

    as a result, no one is embarrassed about masturbating or weird sexual kinks or anything else, really.

    Isn't that part of why we like SE++? We don't have to be shameful or embarrassed all the time? It's because we don't keep things private here.

    Really?

    You think EVERYONE shares their sexual fetishes? You think they all share ALL of them? And it's possible they're lying, or saying they're into shit that's "cool" just to fit in.

    This is NOT a judgement free zone.

    And it's not a privacy free zone! How many forumers are on here that you only know by their handle? That you know NOTHING about?

    thumbsupguy-1.jpg
    JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
  • edited May 2010
    bongi wrote: »
    A young gay boy is never assaulted at his school because of the omnipresent monitoring technology, and he subsequently graduates Valedictorian and attends a prestigious university instead of having his legs broken by bigoted douchebags.

    NIGHTMARE SCENARIO

    you could just teach the douchebags that beating gay people up is bad

    yeah I think that's a pretty good option too

    everyone else in this thread thinks it's best just to keep gay people in the closet where they won't bother anyone

    much more civilized

    but those things aren't mutually exclusive

    i mean you could teach people that beating up gays is wrong and leave the gay person the right to stay in the closet if they want to

  • redheadredhead Registered User
    edited May 2010
    redhead wrote: »
    this is the problem with arguments on the internet

    i disagree with backwards name about this, but if someone had brought up the topic ("hey i think privacy is an inherently harmful concept, what do you think about that") in an actual real life conversation i would have been interested in talking it out and seeing where it went

    on the internet, most of the responses to any position that it's easy to tell will be unpopular are going to be from people who are sure they can crucify the poster for having that opinion. there's very little good-faith argument when people are reasonably sure that a) they're right and b) most people already agree with them, even though in actual conversation it can be interesting/illuminating to debate ideas even when you're pretty sure your opinion isn't going to change as a result. on the internet, though, the quickest responses will always be from people eager to tell the poster how dumb they are, and if the poster in question doesn't give up right there they'll probably end up making progressively dumber posts about it anyway.

    it's reaallly hard to get people on the internet to debate in good faith an idea they're sure they don't agree with or even think is dumb, but in an actual conversation that seems to be less of an issue. i'm not sure where exactly the difference lies, but it makes discussions like this one kind of painful to watch.

    this is a good post

    thanks

    just, like, to be clear, though, i think you've made some bad posts about this too ("gosh, being glib and straw-manning is fun!"). but that's sort of what always happens. someone presents an unpopular position, gets shit on for it, tries to remain reasonable about it for a while and then gives up and makes the same kind of taunting posts they were getting in the first place.

    alas, internet

  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Framling wrote: »

    I just stopped reading that post as soon as I got to 'classical Western notion' because I could tell right there that his head was far enough up his ass that he couldn't hear us anyway.

    Ho ho! You hear that, guys? Referring to the actual history of ideas is so pretentious it invalidates anything you say.

    God forbid any of you try to refer to John Locke or Adam Smith

    You'd just have your head up your ass

  • SwillSwill Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Yes and then I would blink once, and then turn back to all the people who aren't 43, boring, and balding, and resume my conversation.

    I've only ever seen this kind of pathetic personal attack coming from people like TFS.

    I know, I don't even look 43!

  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Jordyn wrote: »
    Jordyn wrote: »
    You seem to think that people only use privacy to get away with things and that's dumb.

    uh, mostly

    privacy is about controlling how others perceive you

    convincing people whether or not you are guilty of a crime fits into that basic principle

    we like privacy because it allows us to lie, to cover up our embarrassments, to maintain social status in the social realm, and to maintain perceived wealth and autonomy in the public realm

    of course, if people all just revealed their "embarrassing" secrets, then I wonder if they would cease to be embarrassing

    look at this forum, for chrissakes

    we're the goddamn frontline in the march towards the end of privacy

    we share incredibly intimate detail with people we hardly know

    as a result, no one is embarrassed about masturbating or weird sexual kinks or anything else, really.

    Isn't that part of why we like SE++? We don't have to be shameful or embarrassed all the time? It's because we don't keep things private here.

    Really?

    You think EVERYONE shares their sexual fetishes? You think they all share ALL of them? And it's possible they're lying, or saying they're into shit that's "cool" just to fit in.

    This is NOT a judgement free zone.

    And it's not a privacy free zone! How many forumers are on here that you only know by their handle? That you know NOTHING about?

    Compared to regular day-to-day interactions with people in the real world, there is much less that people here choose to keep private, and there is much less embarassment

  • UbikUbik i am a god in a french-ass restaurantRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Ubik wrote: »

    Guess what? Hiring more cops does not reduce privacy at all

    Privacy on the whole brings more good than harm

    The good of people being free to order their personal lives how they see fit, in the way that is best for them, greatly outweighs any harm of hiding bad things

    See this is the thing. People define privacy however they want to, because they think privacy is "good," so anytime where privacy is reduced must be an instance where it wasn't REAL privacy. It's a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

    The invention of the police force is absolutely a reduction in privacy. You are now observed by the government where you were not before.

    Your actions are monitored, recorded, and you are held responsible for them where you were not before.

    How is that not a reduction in privacy? You are using a shifting definition of privacy to preserve its perceived "goodness." But if you're just using privacy to be synonymous with things that are good, why not just say "good" instead?

    People do this all the time with basic values and it's retarded. People never want to say justice or freedom or safety are bad, because they use those terms basically as proxies for "good." The problem is that they're not complete synonyms. It muddies our discourse. It makes a clash of ideas more difficult to attain, because it often precludes a true meeting of the minds.

    A police force is not a reduction in privacy because there is no privacy in public (!!)

    In public matters, privacy doesn't exist (or exists to a far lesser extent)

    Just because you define privacy differently, doesn't mean I'm using "privacy" as a proxy for "good"

    CleezusSig_zpsfa821add.png
  • SwillSwill Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I choose to share things about my personal life in this setting because I am comfortable with the people around

  • JordynJordyn Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    There's less embarassment because of 1. Privacy! and 2. Being with similar people.

    When we all hang out together, there's still less embarassment than with strangers, and the people we don't know are okay with sharing because hey! We don't know them!

    thumbsupguy-1.jpg
    JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
  • UbikUbik i am a god in a french-ass restaurantRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    How is ANONYMOUSLY POSTING ON AN INTERNET FORUM a march towards the end of privacy?

    CleezusSig_zpsfa821add.png
  • JordynJordyn Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    People on the internet judge people just like the rest of the fucking world.

    Maybe not for sexual fetishes because we don't give a fuck about those.

    But go offer up an unpopular opinion and see how much you get judged for it.

    Oh hey lookit that.

    thumbsupguy-1.jpg
    JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
  • Kuribo's ShoeKuribo's Shoe Kuribo's Stocking North PoleRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    for instance, I sell poisoned milk to schoolchildren.

    xmassig2.gif
  • redheadredhead Registered User
    edited May 2010
    maybe part of the difference is that the actual conversations to which i'm comparing this tend to be closer to one-on-one, while on a forum like this one everyone participates at the same time

    this is fine for a lot of things, but when you have one person presenting an unpopular opinion it makes it really easy for them to get crucified without any actual discussion happening. in an actual conversation, someone would present an unpopular opinion and then argue it out with one other person. on a forum like this, someone presents an opinion and if it's unpopular, there's bound to be 10 people jumping on them for it, which makes it really easy for the discussion to descend into dumb stuff like taunting/trolling/personal attacks because there's one guy just getting mobbed.

  • FramlingFramling Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Framling wrote: »

    I just stopped reading that post as soon as I got to 'classical Western notion' because I could tell right there that his head was far enough up his ass that he couldn't hear us anyway.

    Ho ho! You hear that, guys? Referring to the actual history of ideas is so pretentious it invalidates anything you say.

    God forbid any of you try to refer to John Locke or Adam Smith

    You'd just have your head up your ass

    I went back and looked, and I was right, your point was retarded.

    you're = you are
    your = belonging to you

    their = belonging to them
    there = not here
    they're = they are
  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Ubik wrote: »
    A police force is not a reduction in privacy because there is no privacy in public (!!)

    There was privacy from the government though. There are plenty of arenas in life today where we have privacy from the government but not other entities, and we still freak out when government invades that privacy.

  • UbikUbik i am a god in a french-ass restaurantRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Ubik wrote: »
    A police force is not a reduction in privacy because there is no privacy in public (!!)

    There was privacy from the government though. There are plenty of arenas in life today where we have privacy from the government but not other entities, and we still freak out when government invades that privacy.

    Honest question, please name an arena in life where we have privacy from the government but not other entities

    And I disagree; The sphere in which the police operates was never private. Crimes, almost universally, are harm done to other people. Which is public. Which was never private. Which was prosecuted by society. And now by society through the government

    CleezusSig_zpsfa821add.png
  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Jordyn wrote: »
    There's less embarassment because of 1. Privacy! and 2. Being with similar people.

    When we all hang out together, there's still less embarassment than with strangers, and the people we don't know are okay with sharing because hey! We don't know them!

    But this group still has a social/status hierarchy and functions pretty closely with how social groups function in the real world.

    And, hell, a lot of us DO know each other, and hang out in real life.

    It's a mutual assurance thing

    We don't mind sharing these things with people because they're sharing in return

  • JordynJordyn Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    We don't mind sharing things we're not embarrassed of! Just like off the internet!

    But opinions that are unpopular, people will keep those to themselves. I mean there might someone here who thinks CAD is a great comic, but goddamn, they are not gonna tell us that.

    thumbsupguy-1.jpg
    JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
  • SnowbeatSnowbeat i need something to kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    i think the best counter-example is the goatmon debacle from a year or two back

    goatmon was basically an inoffensive poster, slightly annoying, but just kinda blended in. then he made some unpopular remarks or something and somebody went and dug up the fact that he was a bit of a furry (probably teefs). two years on, people are still making fun of him for that

    this is when non-privacy and sharing things on the internet isn't a good thing. it's also a prime reason why this is not a non-judgmental environment

    Q1e6oi8.gif
  • EdcrabEdcrab Registered User
    edited May 2010
    I don't know there's obviously truth to the idea of opening up to your social circle but even if other people talk about, say, their love lives it's no guarantee that everyone will feel comfortable enough to participate

    Privacy is relative and wait we've been here haven't we

    cBY55.gifbmJsl.png
  • DichotomyDichotomy Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    look all I'm gonna say is that if I didn't have my privacies I'd probably panic myself to death

    is that what you people want

    my blood on your hands

    0BnD8l3.gif
  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    OK, I will concede the point that SE++ doesn't fit my definitions

    I guess we are just a bunch of judgmental douchebags after all

  • edited May 2010
    i don't think i tell people on the internet more because they tell me more

    i tell them because i do not really know them

Sign In or Register to comment.