The Internet Mega-bias

  On the internet I’ve begun to wonder if in fact there is a rule for ignorance. Perhaps some sort of internet mega-bias. I’ve often found it funny that you need a license to drive a car but not to have a child or surf the internet. I know this is an old adage that has probably been joked about many times before I even knew about the inner bowels of the internet (which I likely don’t, I’m probably looking at the shoulders and thinking I’m in deeper).

  While in and of itself the following is a blanket statement I would err on the side of caution that all people reading the following try their best to agree with it:

“If you think you aren’t ignorant on the subject you are ranting about you most certainly are ignorant.”

  It’s in part I feel the nature of ranting, when we don’t understand something we begin to talk about it passionately. If you find yourself using name calling during your rant you are basically setting the level of ignorance in the discussion, the more you discount your ‘opponents’ argument the even more likely that you have no idea what you are talking about.

  I’m not about to feign that I’m immune from the issue either, there is not a single topic on this planet that I do not have some level of ignorance in. I don’t fully understand (and for a few of these examples I barely understand) the economy, astrophysics, commercials, psychology, philosophy, English, grammar, or even stream ecology. I’m willing to admit that, and I feel that is likely the first step to hearty debate instead of fruitless childish banter.

  If you are looking for very good examples of what incredibly ignorant banter looks like I’d suggest checking out the political forum of absolutely any entertainment site. Likewise just about any thread in the entirety of a site called Topix. There is something about it that seems to brood emotional drivel.

  There is something very interesting about the nature of communication, an inverse relationship that seems to come out as follows:

The louder you are is directly proportionate to how little you know.

  There are most certainly exceptions to this rule as there are with any rule in the universe of rules. That being the difference between impassioned speech and ‘decibel’ levels. As I’ve stated before people like Dr. Tyson and Dr. Pinker (two people I highly suggest watching speeches by) are incredibly impassionate about what they are discussing and yet they are not loud.

  Further clarification comes from what I mean by loud, when a person begins to talk to you in a manner that seems to imply that you are below them they are being loud. Even in conversations via text there are tell-tale signs that this is happening. Italics tends to be a very good indicator for the very savvy ranters of our world. Likewise when a person implies that your sources are some level of meek, while generally not providing any themselves and/or stating theirs are infinitely more reliable (which is the case likely because of Confirmation Bias and other factors I have no real understanding of quite yet).

  If you ever cite Wikipedia and the other person shoots that down, I highly suggest citing the sources the Wikipedia entry cites. Even in college this will take your grade from a B to an A and all you have done is left an area with a stigma for areas that don’t. Wikipedia is roughly as accurate (and sometimes more accurate) than Encyclopedia Britannica, yet see which of the two your professor or “Commander_Keen_39” will accept as legitimate.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
Wikipedia survives research test
Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia
Assessing Wikipedia’s Accuracy

  I know that might have felt like a bit of a runoff on the conversation but its to prove a point (and admittedly a bit of a tangent…I drift in thought easily), just because you don’t feel a source is legitimate doesn’t mean that it isn’t. You should instead try to provide more sources from places you feel are credible and discuss why you feel they are credible. Otherwise what is the point?

  This may in part be why I find myself debating less and less online. At this point most people feel the point of a conversation is to argue, and not in the literal sense of an argument, but in the more Hollywoodesque clash of the titans way. It’s a shame too that a source of such vast amounts of information would be blanketed in a thick layer of ranting banter.

  Generally speaking if someone responds to your points in an obviously demeaning manner, it is best just to ignore them. You cannot change the views of the truly ignorant because ignorance is bliss, to jump back on my Hollywood comment think of it like the movie Shallow Hall.

[after Mauricio broke Hal’s spell]
Hal: Okay, who do you think is the most beautiful woman in the world?
Mauricio: Wonder Woman.
Hal: Okay… let’s say everyone else in the world thought Wonder Woman was ugly.
Mauricio: It wouldn’t matter. Because I know they’d be wrong.
Hal: See! That’s what I had with Rosemary! I saw a knock out, I don’t care what anybody else saw!
Mauricio: You’re right. I guess I really did screw you, huh?

  So think of it like that. The person who just walked into your conversation see’s their Wonder Woman being called ugly. They will battle you because they feel there can be absolutely nothing wrong with Wonder Woman. Likewise if you manage to help them see the light most of the time it’s not for the better. Anyone who is that infatuated with Wonder Woman will not do something positive enough with their newfound information to offset the negative impact on them by the destruction of that veil of ignorance.

  Perhaps if you could convince millions of people in a flash that Wonder Woman was ugly you might make something happen. But those one on one bouts on the internet do nothing but sanction your energy and waste your time. At least that’s my thoughts on the issue…who knows maybe someday someone will write a long book on the wonders of the Internet-Mega bias :).

By | 2009-02-28T15:42:42+00:00 February 28th, 2009|Journal|1 Comment

Boomers Burgers

  Have you ever had a food that literally caused you to think about it later? In Bellingham, Washington the place that provides that food is a single drive-in burger joint known as “Boomers”.

  I cannot stress how utterly delicious this food is. Their shakes are mind bendingly delicious with real fruit in them, their burgers will haunt your dreams, their service is fast and friendly and you can even call ahead to have it ready when you get there.

  Likewise they possess the best waffle fries I’ve had in my entire life. This month was their 20th anniversary and all their burgers (even their half pound big boom) were 2.89. Even when they aren’t on sale the prices at Boomers are fantastic and in no way effect service negatively.

  About the only negative is that they are full 24 hours a day, which is hardly their fault, the food here will honestly blow your mind. Every other burger joint will pale in comparison once you have a burger at Boomers.

  Well that’s it for today…I just had to give this fantastic place a mention.

By | 2009-02-27T21:21:38+00:00 February 27th, 2009|Journal|1 Comment

In Response to Western Front

The following is in response to Removal of Go Deeper.

  We need to dig deep into this issue. To penetrate the problem of insecurity in our nation and surely our campus. If we don’t pound out a solution than we can be sure it’ll lick us outright. The sticky nature of our desire for equality leaves us quivering in exhaustion by the days end. But who gets laid out in the end? Are we not slipping off when we assume that being different makes us weak or insecure?

  So when sexually does ‘Go Deeper’ become a uniquely heterosexual activity? Does a lesbian lose all desire for penetration? Does a homosexual man lose the function of his penis? Does a bisexual fire lasers from their eyes? I’m trying to understand the flawed logic here. Our fellatious attraction to erroneous equality leaves the ‘normal’ folks in a tough spot.

  All chodes aside, when does it end? When do we stop pulling out and finally let it all go? Quit right now, stop treating people like they are six. This sort of change is just sloppy. I and everyone I’ve asked has thought that "Go Deeper" was (and is) clever and imaginative, if you are going to start putting your foot down why don’t you start with the La Rouche cult or the folks showering red square with high definition diced fetus posters. Insecurity is the worst STD to sneak its way into artistic expression likewise hypocrisy is the worst treatment.

By | 2009-02-26T18:47:21+00:00 February 26th, 2009|Journal|Comments Off on In Response to Western Front

How I would do Time Travel.

  This is the last topic on Time Travel for quite sometime I promise. This has nothing to do with Fatalism because I feel I’ve already explained why its absolutely positively stupid (to me at the very least). This is instead how I figure time travel would actually work and why it would not or should not create paradoxes.

  I picture a time traveler as someone who can separate themselves from reality, if I’m to understand that the universe really does ‘vibrate’ in some fashion than perhaps the time traveler would vibrate in a opposing manner so as to ‘separate’ from reality. Next we have some sort of function, device, or means that we send time either into ‘fast forward’ or ‘rewind’. In the case of fast forward you send time as it is into an accelerated fashion, or at the very least an illusion of such caused by the beings separation from time and space (or at least this series of time and space) and they can pop in at a future point. They ceased to exist the moment they separated from the timeline physically, one would assume that all their friends and family would wonder where the hell they went.

  When going ‘back in time’ what literally would happen is that all things would do their inverse, exhales would become inhales, matter splicing would begin to rejoin and all motion in the universe would flip into reverse, genes would repaid, cancers would degrade, and time itself would literally begin to reverse. We’ll consider the point that you hit the rewind as point A and the point that you end up at as point B.

  All things between point A and B would cease to exist. Essentially these things have no longer happened, you could even go back in time and kill your parents, you are not bound by the laws that they must be alive for you to exist because you have separated from time and space to go back. In fact technically you haven’t been born yet (in the physical sense obviously you exist). All that would happen is that you would not be born again.

   One would assume that you would stop yourself from doing what you did so as to not make you cease to exist if they too jumped back in time (because in this new timeline you began existing the moment you popped back in, that was essentially your birth, so now you are part of time). If we were to assume that multiple people separated themselves from the universe and were in a parallel existence of some kind the traveling of past and present would only be exclusive, in the sense that you could either go back or forward and you could only stop at one point. Think of it like driving a car, no matter where everyone wants to go you all end up where the car stops (assuming nobody hops out) likewise hopping out of a car while moving is likely to end your life.

  I’d like to work this out further so I was wondering if people could ask some questions about certain functions so I could explain them. I’ve likely not explained something that is important because it seems obvious to me.

By | 2009-02-25T19:35:10+00:00 February 25th, 2009|Journal|Comments Off on How I would do Time Travel.

The Time Traveler – Another case of Flawed Fatalism

  Today we look a bit deeper into the case of the time traveler that I made up yesterday. This is somewhat of a rehash but a bit of a deeper explanation on why Fatalism is Fatally Flawed. We first must establish a few things.

  Firstly the timeline that we are currently in is ‘the’ future. According to Fatalism it is the set of events that is already going to happen and thusly is unavoidable. Now I know some of you might be saying “but the mere knowledge of the set of events in the future immediately changes them” but we’ll save the millions of obvious problems with Fatalism and deal with this one ;).

  Now secondly we take into considering the individual who is at the end of time (well close to the end) and has all the information of history leading up to that point as well as the availability of time travel. He’s a smart fellow indeed, for those of you that think it would be a lady you can replace the male tones in this story with female, heck I think I will too. Guys are too busy killing one another to use time travel, unless it was for more killing ;).

  So this time traveler decides that she really likes President Kennedy, she has always been upset that he was killed off and decides that she is going to back in time the day before the event (any point can be used I’m just using day before for simplicity) and tells him that if he goes he will be killed and explains her time traveling tricks. Kennedy just happens to be a big fan of this sort of thing and decides to trust her and does not go on the motorcade and likewise he survives, paradox’s aside of how this might effect the future (you can change the story to put the women born before Kennedy’s shooting to fix any issues of birth) we now have an entirely different future than “the Fatalist Future” however you’ll find that this in no way negates fatalism.

  Because Fatalism does not entail that the future is unavoidable, it entails that a future is unavoidable. Which frankly is hardly a revelation, because if this ultimate form of freedom (changing history itself) does not get broken under the tenets of Fatalism than I can see in no way how Fatalism really entails anything other than stating the painfully obvious nature of history. It happened and thusly it has happened, yes…hard to argue with that. Circular reasoning masked in a blanket of shiny terminology is still circular reasoning, and likewise Fatalism is Fatally Flawed because no amount of altering the past, present, or future would ever cause it to be untrue which means that there is no set pattern of events that must happen in order for it to happen. It only requires that a set of patterns happen, which is inevitable since it’s sort of a necessity for time and space.

  So that’s it for today, just felt I should get this little bit out because it’s what I’ll be discussing in my class tomorrow to hopefully put the final nail in the coffin of this (to me) moronic metaphysical concept, I’m starting to wonder what the rules are for making a popular metaphysical view. “Take a completely logical point, attach a bunch of wildly unrelated or miscoded points, and slap on a grandiose conclusion.”

By | 2009-02-24T17:14:58+00:00 February 24th, 2009|Journal|Comments Off on The Time Traveler – Another case of Flawed Fatalism