The Scott Adams defense: since what I said was literally correct, context and connotation do not matter where I did not intend to communicate them. The reader is responsible if they misinterpret my message based on subtext they imagine.
The Scott Adams Defense: I don’t understand how words work.
See if you had asked me this like two weeks ago I would have been able to answer without freezing up and getting distracted just thinking about it. So instead of the detailed, sweet and cute response you’d usually get I just have to be all matter of fact because anything else is overwhelming to think about.
On Saturday I’m getting on a plane and it is going to take me to my girlfriend of six months who lives ~1200 miles away.
Or, as she told me to say, “i get to watch MONTE CARLO IN THEATERS”
Everybody please check this out and if you can, donate. Alex is an amazing professional illustrator, whose work includes everything from concept and product design for Valve software, to children’s book illustrations and even an iOS app or two. Places Source: rockethub.com
seriously - alex is one of this generation’s best character and concept artists, and she deserves all the help anyone wants to give her. Plus, those rewards are actually a really great deal!
I tried to sign up so I could contribute and the site spat me back out saying they were updating it… RocketHub, whyyyyy…
Yes, this is an excellent way of describing what I’m talking about! Thank you, NAS.
Edit: I’m referring to the first half hour or so; I haven’t had a chance to watch the rest. BET CAGING: FULL FORCE
Okay, having watched the rest I can say that it’s a very good discussion and that I agree with the majority of it. I’d go so far as to say this is an excellent explanation and discussion of my views on ethics.
I just wanna throw out that there are lots and lots of people who do believe that morality can be derived from objective, material facts.
For example, I think objective morality arises from our collective subjective experiences, from the subjective things that we nevertheless have in common. If you recall our conversation last time, as a secular humanist, I think morality can be derived solely from our shared status as human beings, in an elaborate Golden Rule setup.
It’s the same mechanism that allows us to say that something in art is “bad”; sure, it’s all about convention, but the convention itself can be a standard for objective judgements about things within its domain, in the context of art.
So our status as human beings has this domain of its own, under which we can derive our moral rights in the context of our interactions with each other.
That doesn’t demand the sort of cosmic “good” and “bad” that the pastor you spoke with insists is necessary. It’s perfectly okay to think that kind of ethical judgement doesn’t exist; its nonexistence does not preclude acting ethically.
yes, god yes, this a million times. This is the crux of the issue, and why I object to the comparison
If you wanna push that angle, I have to ask why you think having more time to make yourself clear makes you “idealized.” In face-to-face conversations I certainly give people time to compose their thoughts if they want it. Does that mean I’m letting them be disingenuous? Are they automatically being disingenuous just by striving for more clarity?
Because when it gets right down to it, I don’t care about how much a person stumbles when they’re getting what they think out of their brains. I wanna know what they think. If that takes time and revision, that’s cool.
Edit: And from the other side of it: People can lie to your face, too. Quite well, even.
Edit 2: When it comes right down to it, whether someone gives you an “idealized” version of themselves, hiding their flaws and emphasizing their merits, is a choice that they make. It’s not some inherent thing that leaks into all internet relationships. Honesty is a choice that people have regardless of how much easier it is to lie in a given setting.
Edit 3: EDITSTORM: And even if all of that is not true for you, even if you do feel that your online relationships are fundamentally different from your face-to-face relationships, that still doesn’t mean that’s the case for everyone else. How someone experiences a relationship is a personal thing. So again, it doesn’t make any sense to criticize other people’s relationships based on how you experience your own.
i meant i find real life relationships more fulfilling and people online only know an idealized version of me that i put out there and thus not the real me?
Okay well… Flip all the things I said about you, like, turnways or some shit. My point is still just that it’s a personal experience thing and judging other people for their preferences in this regard is ridiculous!
i don’t know, this might just be me but how i feel interacting with people on the internet FEELS different than hanging out with friends
like it feels like i’m exercising different parts of my brain when i do it.
also there’s the fact that i know i act different online than in real life because in real life i have anxiety issues that impede my speech a bit but online i’m able to have full textual confidence
Well, notice that the difference in how it feels is a difference in difficulty! I mean, if I’m reading rightly. You find it more difficult to talk in person than most, whereas the situation is flipped for most people.
I hope I’m not overstepping my bounds in saying that I think you could have just the same relationships in person that you have online, with enough effort from both yourself and the other people (which may or may not be what you want, either way is fine and totally your deal!).
The gist of it that I’m really trying to get at is that just because some people find it more difficult or different does not give us a reason to suppose that it is for everyone else. Criticizing other people for conducting serious relationships online, in person, or both based on personal experience is baseless, precisely because it’s an issue of personal experience.
Edit: Also, the reason there’s such an echo chamber about this topic on the internet is, gasp, it’s on the internet where a lot of people who have successful online friendships spend a lot of their time.
eeeeeugh I kinda hate all these emotional sweeping statements about online friendships. It’s not that I disagree with them, exactly. It just obfuscates the reality. I mean, I don’t have anything against online friendships, and I’m not saying they’re worse or ‘less real’ than rl…
Here’s the thing I don’t get about the whole “it’s through the internet so it’s different” thing: The internet is a monumental improvement over what came before. I don’t remember people giving other people shit about long distance relationships when all we had was letters and telephones (though maybe just because I was too young, but even then I’ve never gotten that impression from older people); now that we have way more robust tools to communicate over distances, suddenly it’s super different?
No, it’s not really. Long distance relationships are harder, yes, because of the limited… social bandwidth, let’s say, but that doesn’t make them fundamentally different. It just means you have to work harder at them.
I think the whole “it’s different” mentality actually stems from people who aren’t willing to do the work that the distance entails, and end up with shallow relationships as a result. And that’s okay, if it’s just not their bag, but it’s definitely not a foundation from which to criticize other people’s relationships.
I’m not really arguing with anyone in particular here so much as just spewing my thoughts on the subject. I welcome criticism if you’ve got any.