Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A Scott introduced me to the word "numpty" which is someone who is an idiot.And now for something mostly useless, a digression on cussing.
Cussing and cursing is a fascinating topic, bound up with the threat we feel when our ideas are challenged, i.e., why we might punch a wall over somebody who is wrong on the internet. This is related to social convention and also to brains, evolution and brain disorders. On the lobbing cusses and curses, it's the attempt to give an emotion you have to someone else (not the xmas season sort of giving, exactly, because it's usually to make someone feel a negative emotion), and at times a shortcut or crutch if you feel you can't do it in more articulate ways. I always think it would be fun to freak people, and use nasty words from a few centuries ago:
Axwaddle (n. filthy or lazy person)
Chawbacon (n. an uncultured fool)
Dunderhead (n. thickheaded fool)
Lickwimble (n. nonspecific personal insult)
Nimgimmer (n. venereal surgeon; motherf*er)
Pecksniffian (a. sanctimoniously hypocritical)
Spado (n. eunuch)
Toerag (n. worthless person from the worst part of society)
Tosspot (n. bumbling fool; drunk)
Waghalter (n. person suitable to be hanged)
But if you used them, even if you did so feeling all the feels, the other person would not because the social convention is not agreed to. Doing so would just deflate cussing into fun, and what fun is that?
That is so because they are also not lodged deep in the brain, via culture. So they fail, even if the other person knew the meanings. In Gilles de la Tourette syndrome cussing suddenly emerges at random from people for no reason, something akin to a verbal epileptic fit, but firing the neurons in the brain that produce cussing. In dementia failing brains can also suddenly and randomly produce cuss words. The pathway in both these failings does not need the complex frontal cortex to work. This is all a reactionary emotion of anger deep in the brain, upwelling in out of control ways at times, and located in the primitive amygdala. It's something we share in evolutionary history going all the way back to reptiles. It has survival value because it arises fast and easily. Mess with a mother alligator's eggs and you will see some ancient emotion in action.
We have a feeling like somebody is messing with our eggs when our cherished beliefs are threatened, and we can have something like a Tourette syndrome attack, but provoked rather than a random brain mistake. Once you understand some of this stuff, that the origin of cussing is meaningless social agreement, and survival value misplaced, your own reaction cussing might be reduced. Possibly at a loss of some fun though.
/useless digression
I think chawbacon is my new favorite word. Toerag and tosspot I know I've heard used recently in modern terms from Brits.And now for something mostly useless, a digression on cussing.
Cussing and cursing is a fascinating topic, bound up with the threat we feel when our ideas are challenged, i.e., why we might punch a wall over somebody who is wrong on the internet. This is related to social convention and also to brains, evolution and brain disorders. On the lobbing cusses and curses, it's the attempt to give an emotion you have to someone else (not the xmas season sort of giving, exactly, because it's usually to make someone feel a negative emotion), and at times a shortcut or crutch if you feel you can't do it in more articulate ways. I always think it would be fun to freak people, and use nasty words from a few centuries ago:
Axwaddle (n. filthy or lazy person)
Chawbacon (n. an uncultured fool)
Dunderhead (n. thickheaded fool)
Lickwimble (n. nonspecific personal insult)
Nimgimmer (n. venereal surgeon; motherf*er)
Pecksniffian (a. sanctimoniously hypocritical)
Spado (n. eunuch)
Toerag (n. worthless person from the worst part of society)
Tosspot (n. bumbling fool; drunk)
Waghalter (n. person suitable to be hanged)
But if you used them, even if you did so feeling all the feels, the other person would not because the social convention is not agreed to. Doing so would just deflate cussing into fun, and what fun is that?
That is so because they are also not lodged deep in the brain, via culture. So they fail, even if the other person knew the meanings. In Gilles de la Tourette syndrome cussing suddenly emerges at random from people for no reason, something akin to a verbal epileptic fit, but firing the neurons in the brain that produce cussing. In dementia failing brains can also suddenly and randomly produce cuss words. The pathway in both these failings does not need the complex frontal cortex to work. This is all a reactionary emotion of anger deep in the brain, upwelling in out of control ways at times, and located in the primitive amygdala. It's something we share in evolutionary history going all the way back to reptiles. It has survival value because it arises fast and easily. Mess with a mother alligator's eggs and you will see some ancient emotion in action.
We have a feeling like somebody is messing with our eggs when our cherished beliefs are threatened, and we can have something like a Tourette syndrome attack, but provoked rather than a random brain mistake. Once you understand some of this stuff, that the origin of cussing is meaningless social agreement, and survival value misplaced, your own reaction cussing might be reduced. Possibly at a loss of some fun though.
/useless digression
I've disagreed with him plenty, and he's never been anything but polite, if a bit overly erudite, in his responses to me. I tend to avoid the pure political threads, though. The only time I see him being a bit of a bully is when somebody is stuck on seeing their opinion as fact, and keeps insisting on the error. For whatever reason, that tends to get super's motor revving.Super tends to be polite when you agree with him. He can be pretty awful when he disagrees with you. And sure, he does the over explaining bit but I'm a little shocked that you didn't see the nastiness. He could be a pretty big bully himself. I think it was reaffirming for him when a lot of people agreed with him. I think the difference is the new board hasn't banned or run off all the people that would push back on him and he's having to adjust.
The kind of person that is a 100% POS. To paraphrase RATM, born of a POS, still is a POS.I'm a bit concerned. I don't know the guy but I've read plenty of his posts and know he's struggling. What type of person wouldn't be concerned about another person going through that?
I think he had a difficult time distinguishing his own opinion from a fact and could get pretty nasty when someone else had a different opinion and he thought they were debating against something factual. He's not alone in having a different opinion of course. I certainly have plenty of them and most others do as well. I think the difference is many people don't take offense when people have different opinions, and although rarer, some people might even make an allowance that their opinion that they truly believe, might be wrong.I've disagreed with him plenty, and he's never been anything but polite, if a bit overly erudite, in his responses to me. I tend to avoid the pure political threads, though. The only time I see him being a bit of a bully is when somebody is stuck on seeing their opinion as fact, and keeps insisting on the error. For whatever reason, that tends to get super's motor revving.
I've heard tosspot and dunderhead (thankfully, not directed at me).I think chawbacon is my new favorite word. Toerag and tosspot I know I've heard used recently in modern terms from Brits.
"The Indians send signals from the rocks above the passProfanity or a lack thereof isn’t a measure of civility.
the main problem is that you dont know what is or isnt a fact because you rarely know what you are talking about. you are wedded to the idea that everything is opinion, because that's your justification for opining without knowledge. you dont get that other people can actually know things because we spend time learning. if you look at my posts, i tend to make factual claims about things i know and sometimes they arent fucking opinions. for instance boards of directors all over the world are filled with people just like hunter biden (as he appeared on resume): smart, trained professionals that arent in the industry. that is a fact. you dont know it, because you dont know corporate governance and that shouldnt be something to make you so insecure. it is a specialized field.I think he had a difficult time distinguishing his own opinion from a fact
because it is maga in microcosm. if people didnt feel a need to valorize their ignorance as an opinion as good as everyone else's, the country would be far better. we used to have respext for experts and that was when our politics worked fairly well. rush limbaugh started the degredation of knowledge and trump weaponized it.For whatever reason, that tends to get super's motor revving.
I spent years in Europe, living amongst Brits, Scots, Irishmen, Dutchies… I learned straight away the word “fuck” is used as almost every part of speech imaginable.
i mean that there can be noxious expressions but also noxious ideas. avoiding both require different strategies.Super,
Thank you for posting. It's good to have your input, even in limited form. Glad you are on the mend.
I believe all decorum is procedural and therefore substantive, which is a pithy way of saying that I do not understand your point. Please help me understand what you mean.
I'm fairly well left on most social issues, and even I don't think most people on the opposite side believe - or mean to say - that they are against DEI because of racial inferiority or that trans people are confused derelicts. There is at least a little nuance in there somewhere, and I believe decorum gives us air to explore whether there is more common ground than first appears or at least to better understand what the core disagreement is. That is what I believe the original thread creator is asking for. Now, on the fourth (third?) back-and-forth in a thread where there is no movement from a particular poster (<cough> Craig Neal sucks <cough>), my suggestion is to call it a day instead of continuing the interchange. But that's just me, I'm new, and you are free to disagree with my suggestion.
but what if someone says, i oppose affirmative action because black people are inferior. isn't fuck you an appropriate response?
Oh, for fuck’s sake…I’ve always said it’s the Swiss army knife of the English language.
Agreeing on occasion lets people know that you are not simply disagreeing for sport.I never understood why people were so against that but I didn't want to ask. I always thought people just got mad that I was disagreeing with them.
No. I'm not the type of person that would just take a position to antagonize someone, although if my opinion antagonizes someone, I'm not afraid to express it.
I do tend to express my opinions more often when I do disagree with someone just because I think agreeing with someone is mostly pretty boring. There's nothing to discuss if both people agree.
I'm now actively looking for an opportunity to use the term toerag .I think chawbacon is my new favorite word. Toerag and tosspot I know I've heard used recently in modern terms from Brits.