The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!

Wedding Cheese [chat]

1505152535456»

Posts

  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.

    It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.

    You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.

    And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.

    doing this also makes you objectively a douche

    Abdhyius on
    ftOqU21.png
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.

    It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.

    You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.

    And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.

    I think the pro-science crowd, when rejecting those methods, is doing so with a long-term goal in mind.

    Those methods work because people are generally poorly educated and reactionary. I would think that continuing those methods just because they work right now would reinforce the behavior that they'd rather discourage.

    I'm not convinced we'll survive long term if we continue to cede all effective means of influencing opinions in-the-large to the other side

    edit: not when coupled with an attitude of "every belief is equally ok!"

    Senjutsu on
    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Putin ruins his whole shtick by being way too obvious about doing it for the exact kind of attention he gets from internet people

    Nerd you do realize he has been linked to actual murders right? He's former KGB and not a very nice person at all.

    that's all real, sure, but wrestling bears and fishing for salmon with his hands and all of that is a series of a fairly silly publicity stunts

    Look when you're the iron fisted ruler of a country and still look nice, you'll do the shirtless fishing pose and tranquing wild cats saving reporters stuff, because you can Nerd. BECAUSE YOU CAN!

    Preacher on
    Shameless Link whoring updated Fridays starting 1/26/17
    http://exterminatorsassistant.blogspot.com/
  • DaxonDaxon Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Ahahahahahaha somebody just got banned from wow for 48 hours for using the name "Negrow"

    The guy was playing a worgen, and couldn't think of a good name.

    Daxon on
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Ludious wrote: »
    Aww are you guys having a hurf durf Atheist Jamboree? How cute.

    So are you United Atheist League or Allied Atheist Alliance?

    United Athiest Alliance

    SPLITTER

    We must all fight together!

    We are referencing the much better Life of Brian instead of that South Park episode, right?

    yeah, we are

    ludious is not because he sucks

    Abdhyius on
    ftOqU21.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Ludious wrote: »
    Aww are you guys having a hurf durf Atheist Jamboree? How cute.

    So are you United Atheist League or Allied Atheist Alliance?

    Wel it's not even atheism per se. Proper organised christianity is rather good at stopping the more kooky beliefs as well. A cardinal is going to tell you to fuck off with your ghosts idea.

    They would instead suggest an exorcism.

    Couscous on
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Putin ruins his whole shtick by being way too obvious about doing it for the exact kind of attention he gets from internet people

    Nerd you do realize he has been linked to actual murders right? He's former KGB and not a very nice person at all.

    that's all real, sure, but wrestling bears and fishing for salmon with his hands and all of that is a series of a fairly silly publicity stunts

    Yes but not really aimed at the internet. He's strongly courting the Russian people and playing on a sense of insecurity and a longing for an age where they were a much more feared global power. Yes, it's over the top, but he's a master of making it sincerely over the top.

    Thomamelas on
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Ludious wrote: »
    Aww are you guys having a hurf durf Atheist Jamboree? How cute.

    So are you United Atheist League or Allied Atheist Alliance?

    Wel it's not even atheism per se. Proper organised christianity is rather good at stopping the more kooky beliefs as well. A cardinal is going to tell you to fuck off with your ghosts idea.

    It's all those fucking schismatics fault

    screw you, Martin Luther!

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.

    It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.

    You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.

    And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.

    I think the pro-science crowd, when rejecting those methods, is doing so with a long-term goal in mind.

    Those methods work because people are generally poorly educated and reactionary. I would think that continuing those methods just because they work right now would reinforce the behavior that they'd rather discourage.

    Arch on
  • LudiousLudious I just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I got shouted down last night when I was in Uldum and said in General that the pygmies were racist.

    I'm sorry but their OOGABOOGAUNGABUNGAOOOOOO talk is just reeaalllllyyyyyyy crossing a line with me.

    Ludious on
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.

    It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.

    You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.

    And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.

    I think the pro-science crowd, when rejecting those methods, is doing so with a long-term goal in mind.

    Those methods work because people are generally poorly educated and reactionary. I would think that continuing those methods just because they work right now would reinforce the behavior that they'd rather discourage.

    I'm not convinced we'll survive long term if we continue to cede all effective means of influencing opinions in-the-large to the other side

    this really says all there is to be said

    Abdhyius on
    ftOqU21.png
  • YamiNoSenshiYamiNoSenshi A point called Z In the complex planeRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    putin_puppy.jpg

    I'm sorry, did you say something? I was too busy snuggling.

    YamiNoSenshi on
    Damn it, it's fucking noon. I demand to know if Yami shit on a desk yet.

    Watch me sometimes stream games.
  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2010
    Ludious wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    shut up, ludious

    shut up

    Wait, what?

    No. Why am I being told to shut up?

    you're doing that thing where you mischaracterize a line of discussion in a really silly manner

    like how you're mocking senj and abdhyius and whoever else you please with really lame south park jokes

    Nerdgasmic on
    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • RyadicRyadic Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    tumblr_lb3yb7nzCy1qer2pyo1_500.jpg

    Great site!

    Ryadic on
    steam_sig.png
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2010
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.

    It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.

    You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.

    And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.

    polite, reasoned discourse is really successful at winning over the people that science already has.

    it's similar to how reasonability and fairmindedness is really good at convincing moderate liberals to be moderate liberals. it's why conservatives and far-left libs objected to Jon Stewart's Rally For Reasonableness. They don't care much for reasonableness. If they did, they'd be moderate liberals.

    that said, i don't know that something like science is really well-geared towards shouting and cheap shots. what it could use though is more appeals to emotion and self-interest. Like, constantly pointing out that this stuff works and it enables every life in the first world to the modicum of comfort that they have. For some reason this was big in the 50s and 60s (PLASTICS MAKE LIFE BETTER) and then the post-modern era happened and we just kind of forgot about promoting the basic utility of modern thought.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • LudiousLudious I just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Ludious wrote: »
    Aww are you guys having a hurf durf Atheist Jamboree? How cute.

    So are you United Atheist League or Allied Atheist Alliance?

    United Athiest Alliance

    SPLITTER

    We must all fight together!

    We are referencing the much better Life of Brian instead of that South Park episode, right?

    yeah, we are

    ludious is not because he sucks

    I've never seen Life of Brian. I liked Holy Grail OK. Then I stopped being 15.

    Ludious on
  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2010
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Putin ruins his whole shtick by being way too obvious about doing it for the exact kind of attention he gets from internet people

    Nerd you do realize he has been linked to actual murders right? He's former KGB and not a very nice person at all.

    that's all real, sure, but wrestling bears and fishing for salmon with his hands and all of that is a series of a fairly silly publicity stunts

    Yes but not really aimed at the internet. He's strongly courting the Russian people and playing on a sense of insecurity and a longing for an age where they were a much more feared global power. Yes, it's over the top, but he's a master of making it sincerely over the top.

    I know, I didn't mean to imply that he only does it to be some kind of meme

    Nerdgasmic on
    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2010
    putin_puppy.jpg

    I'm sorry, did you say something? I was too busy snuggling.

    that night, putin strangled that dog and ate it raw.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.

    It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.

    You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.

    And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.

    I think the pro-science crowd, when rejecting those methods, is doing so with a long-term goal in mind.

    Those methods work because people are generally poorly educated and reactionary. I would think that continuing those methods just because they work right now would reinforce the behavior that they'd rather discourage.

    I'm not convinced we'll survive long term if we continue to cede all effective means of influencing opinions in-the-large to the other side

    edit: not when coupled with an attitude of "every belief is equally ok!"

    No, every belief is NOT okay.

    That is not what we are saying at all!

    In fact, abdhy and I both probably would feel better if people didn't have weird beliefs, but that doesn't mean that just because someone believes in jew lizards you get to mock them when you are attempting to argue their beliefs with them

    Arch on
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    tumblr_lbsnns5fRr1qer2pyo1_500.jpg
    ‘You’re right, my mistake. Russia has never occupied Holland. To date.’

    Abdhyius on
    ftOqU21.png
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Elldren wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    I was raised Catholic. Lapsing is just what we do.

    hi5

    Former Catholic's unite! My mother was a fairly lasped Catholic but in the last ten years she's gone back into the church and become one of those Catholics. She's put serious effort into finding out how my first marriage could be annulled by the church. Which would be surprisingly easy.

    Thomamelas on
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    this really says all there is to be said

    Man if you don't think there is a very real conflict going on between people who believe that there are things called facts and that science works and people who embrace ignorance and reject inconvenient facts, I don't know what planet you were raised on.

    Senjutsu on
    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2010
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Putin ruins his whole shtick by being way too obvious about doing it for the exact kind of attention he gets from internet people

    Nerd you do realize he has been linked to actual murders right? He's former KGB and not a very nice person at all.

    that's all real, sure, but wrestling bears and fishing for salmon with his hands and all of that is a series of a fairly silly publicity stunts

    Yes but not really aimed at the internet. He's strongly courting the Russian people and playing on a sense of insecurity and a longing for an age where they were a much more feared global power. Yes, it's over the top, but he's a master of making it sincerely over the top.

    I know, I didn't mean to imply that he only does it to be some kind of meme

    mussolini did the same shit

    went hunting shirtless and whatever else

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • LudiousLudious I just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Ludious wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    shut up, ludious

    shut up

    Wait, what?

    No. Why am I being told to shut up?

    you're doing that thing where you mischaracterize a line of discussion in a really silly manner

    like how you're mocking senj and abdhyius and whoever else you please with really lame south park jokes

    Mocking is a pretty strong word to use in this case, but you're doing that thing where you metamod, bee tee double you.

    Ludious on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Preacher, make a new chat thread in ten minutes.

    Thom, you are our pinch hitter if Preacher can't make it.

    Everyone else, go post in an on-topic thread or have some lunch or whatever. I don't want to see a new chat thread before 2:40 Central time.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2010
    central time?

    what is this?

    why not just measure time in like the ancient sumerian clock?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
This discussion has been closed.