I'm not saying there's anything wrong with needing encouragement and getting off on the passion of others. But haven't you ever been rapt by a subject? That's what SHOULD happen in school.

If a class is so good that the teacher helps you find such rapture, you won't be the only one in class that finds it.

That's grad school. I really think the excitement is largely self-selecting, because most of the time it's the texts... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 9:08 PM on May 27, 2008

Bottom line: babies pop out of the womb as learners. They love learning.

ok, but not everyone is going to love shakespeare - that's all i meant. Yes, if we expanded education to seriously include all forms of learning, and didn't require classes... but on the other hand, sometimes it's the required class that turns out to excite a student who didn't know how much they'd like something. I feel like one part of the problem is the social agreement that... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 11:09 AM on May 28, 2008

My final claim is that we mostly have bad schools. So we usually end up with the 10%. In my mind, that's a fail (when we COULD wind up with the 40%).

Or we could teach something else that more people would love, or we could stop trying to make love/hate a distinct and absolute fact...
Some people will "love" it in college because of the awesome funny professor or the cute girl who's into it, and some will hate it because they... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 1:52 PM on May 28, 2008

While I think it's tragic that people have to work in cubicles, it sounds like you're linking education to vocation (correct me if I'm wrong). I would argue that's part of the "box."

no, I think I'm saying the opposite. i'm just saying what's the point of learning to love subjects for their own sake if then you have to forget it all and learn how to climb the corporate ladder. I'm just saying, the whole notion of education for its own sake... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 3:30 PM on May 28, 2008

Dislike -- if it's real dislike, not a stance -- is a feeling. One doesn't need a legitimate reason, and, in fact, a reason (legit or not) won't likely change the dislike. One dislikes something because one dislikes it. Because it gives one an unpleasant sensation. I don't understand how a sensation can be right or wrong. That's like saying feeling cold is wrong or feeling tired is right.

So then perhaps some people dislike reading and writing and... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 8:33 AM on May 29, 2008

grumbebee, I don't really know how I ended up on the opposite side of this argument from you, as in general I agree with what you're saying, except that, basically, I think that reforming schools to the extent that students can honestly choose any path and learn anything they like, and not need to "get the basics" at all, would require an entire restructuring of the way our society works.

Here's how I see a HEALTHY system working: teachers choose to... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 12:32 PM on May 29, 2008

ok, I don't know that we disagree - my point is that the goal of the american educational system is not to teach students to love reading or understand algebra. It is to teach them to become motivated, ambitious members of our society. They learn to follow instructions, compete with classmates, earn grades. Along the way, they learn to handle basic levels of reading, writing & arithmetic and gain familiarity with our shared cultural story. But this just allows them to become more... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 1:20 PM on May 29, 2008

it's not worth having as a post because it won't be a big story next week, and the readership here has already made clear their distaste for HRC. It isn't worth going through it every time something happens. Personally, I must suffer from the same tone deafness Miko suggests is at fault for Clinton here, as I just don't understand the uproar, and honestly that Olbermann video seemed liked a parody.

He is literally getting himself worked up into a crazy outrage knot... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 7:54 AM on May 24, 2008

Many of Clinton's more vehement supporters not only denied it, they bizarrely accused Obama and his supporters of doing the same or worse.

Like your previous comment, you don't seem to realize this is an opinion. Obviously Clinton supporters don't see it the same way. It is tough to read personality, motivation, intention and character from mass speeches and media reports; it is hardly surprising that competing versions come out... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 9:24 PM on May 26, 2008

Why is talking like Yoda "funny" in this post?

Talking like Yoda in every post funny is.

I think that's the real answer, because the original phrase wasn't even really yoda-esque:

Ze Frank asks when the first time you saw your parents as just being human was.

That's "Ze Frank asks when X was", not "Ze Frank, when X, he... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 5:54 PM on May 20, 2008

Just because subsequent articles revealed that the insinuation wasn't intentional doesn't render the viewer reactions moot.

well, it kinda does. 10 years later and in a different continent, you were squicked out by something that wasn't there for any of the original participants. That's kind of your problem, and you really can't blame the original participants for being "creepy" and "gross" when it turns out you projected those associations.
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 12:56 PM on April 25, 2008

I don't agree that the burden of communication is placed entirely on the recipient. Just because the intention of the piece was misconstrued doesn't negate the perception. The artist may not be a pedophile, but the skit struck more than a few viewers as sexualized, and that could be attributed to many factors, including the possibility that the artist completely missed the mark..

The skit struck youtube watchers ten years later and out of context as... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 5:42 PM on April 25, 2008

well, they aren't called "lobotomies" anymore, but brain surgery that includes severing, removing or destroying parts of the brain is still done to treat various things (OCD, epilepsy, etc). But it's never been an elective procedure.
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 11:45 AM on April 9, 2008

(that is, a doc wouldn't do it just to help you with your meditation - it's elective in the sense that you have to agree it's worth the risk to undergo it, but it has to be medically prescribable, and then it's up to you whether to live with the disease or the treatment)
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 11:50 AM on April 9, 2008

What about pedophiles who never act on their impulses and never molest a child? What should they be called?

Maybe we don't really need a whole vocabulary for thought crimes.
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 8:14 PM on April 3, 2008

When I ask where, she tells me "on another thread".

Fuzzy Skinner also pointed it out on this thread - not directly linked but yelled about :).

I have made it start again, myself. I turned it off too quickly yesterday when it was going through the eye-hurty phase (I am optimistic this is a phase).
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 8:12 AM on April 2, 2008

THere's an open thread on Obama & race, from less than a week ago. I don't see why that isn't the place for further discussion, for anyone who is interested in exploring the topic further. But the conversation there has kind of died down - because everyone's concerned about whether it can be posted to the front page! That kind of makes it feel like the interest is more in sensationalism than content...
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 1:12 PM on March 18, 2008

The excitement surrounding his candidacy represents, however, an intense desire of millions for a vitally new way of doing things -- for substantive political chance. The buzz around him is evidence of a growing rejection of the old political agenda, and raised hopes for something new.

Maybe it's just working out exactly what it is that would be different. I mean, Clinton in 92 was all about "change" too - (see here about... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 9:25 PM on March 18, 2008

And basically I'm freaking out that it's apparently abhorrent to say that the country is run by rich whites or that black men are oppressed - such a person must be disowned and repudiated in no uncertain terms - but it's totally cool to have a spiritual advisor who says that jews don't go to heaven

I was also kind of confused by how "radical" people were suggesting this speech was (as I said in the other thread). I... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 9:52 PM on March 18, 2008

Man, having any sympathy for Hillary at all is really making me aware of how hard it must be to be a conservative on this site. That everyone is yelling about MetaMan being a troll, but no one has called out people like fourcheesemac who have said far more offensive things about Clinton, is crazy. I like both candidates, but the unevenness of treatment here is astounding.

Yes, the thread has pretty much gone to shit, but it really isn't just... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 9:20 AM on March 20, 2008

Yeah, I'm not saying MetaMan is clean - some of his comments seem reasonable and others seem unfair or just nutty. But there are a lot of Obama supporters on the thread who have made very unfair statements about Clinton, and fourcheesemac in particular has been honestly just offensive.

I dunno, I really don't know why I keep going back - I always want there to be a way to discuss these things intelligently, and there just never is. And what's so ironic is that's... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 10:54 AM on March 20, 2008

Also, from the POV of someone without a dog in this fight, MetaMan kinda got unfairly treated from the start - he was called out as a troll long before he had said anything that was really over the line, and long after many Obama supporters had made very questionable comments about Clinton... It's not hard to see it as though he got ganged up on and struck back. - anyway - I'll leave it here.
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 11:07 AM on March 20, 2008

Ian, you have a surprising amount of faith in the MeFi servers considering the history...
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 4:16 PM on March 17, 2008

I do feel like people jump to conclude they're being trolled online more quickly than necessary...

Re-reading that Kaycee Nicole thread is really interesting—especially seeing how forcefully people defended the idea that Kaycee was a real person.

I never got to the point where it became clear that it was a hoax. I "know" it was a hoax because I've heard that it was eventually discovered to be, but in reading through... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 3:29 PM on March 10, 2008

ok - so it just used to be a google search connected on the front page? i guess i can go back to that via the "site:metafilter.com" thing, or go with the user page search if I have something more specific in mind.
In any case, thanks for the responses.
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 10:27 PM on March 2, 2008

jonmc, dnab, if you read some of the one or two star reviews of those books on amazon, I think you'll get a decent sense of how konolia might respond (eg, they mostly say the book is a sad story of failure, a man who was unable to control his homosexual urges and gave in to them, giving up his wife and family and turning away from true xtianity, etc)

To make homosexuality and fundie christianity go together isn't an easy task, and a book is very unlikely to be the... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 3:19 PM on February 18, 2008

Metafilter is lower-middle class at best. Lots of poor grad students and such here.

class is not your taxes this year. Class is the household you grew up in, your education level and your projected salary over your lifetime on this career path. Class has more to do with whether you have a passport and whether you think of paying someone else to cook or clean (ie, going to a restaurant, drop off laundry, etc) as indulgent or normal behavior, than... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 2:32 PM on February 15, 2008

Why not allow people to reactivate their accounts for themselves, too, then, jessamyn et al?

well, then what would be the difference between that and just signing out? I think the point of the disable button is that it really allows you to quit a habit that is sucking too much time from you.

If you have the kind of schedule where your responsibilities are specific to certain times/ places/ expectations, that's one thing, but... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 12:26 PM on February 14, 2008

i can't tell if you're being ironic or not, but, a)that's pretty cruel to the hungry, and b) 400 bags of cheetos is what, like a hundred bucks worth of cheetos? so if you've ever spent $100 on something fun instead of on feeding the hungry, you're basically just as culpable. (What it comes down to is systemic rather than individual issues of providing basics to the living yadda yadda)
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 12:00 PM on February 13, 2008

And I respectfully disagree with regard to your thoughts on equivalent culpability.

I think what pushes it over the edge for me is that Cheetos seem so barely in the category of food to start with that if I somehow had the opportunity to donate 400 bags of cheetos to hungry people, I'd honestly feel a little weird about it and maybe just sell them and buy some rice or something.

But anyway: while I appreciate your impulse... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 2:34 PM on February 13, 2008

And I think dnab's right about the discussion.

It has more to do with how polarizing a nature the dead celeb in question had than any "good job" on the part of posters here, I think.

It seems to be fairly polarizing - there's a big argument about whether he caused a 15 year old girl to lie before congress, and the fact that he voted for the Iraq war... And I can't tell if you all are serious about this being a... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 3:09 PM on February 11, 2008

I am bothered so many people favorited that. it is so easy to "confess" to the people who want to welcome you to their side - vegans converting to the hunters or vice versa - the self-reflection doesn't have to be deep when the audience is excited to hear that you've come around to see that they were right after all.

it was cliche. American college kids go liberal - it's what happens. If they were brought up conservative they have to go through some kind of... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 8:23 PM on January 29, 2008

Hm, in my secluded littled world, I've always wondered if non-Christians also celebrate Christmas? Obviously, I wouldn't expect it to be a celebration on Christ's birth, but what about family, gorging on food, travel, presents, etc...Do non-Christians also celebrate, too? Genuinely curious.

I grew up in an atheist/intellectual family in NYC and we always celebrated pagan xmas (& easter for that matter) - tree, stockings, big dinner, family... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 10:42 PM on December 25, 2007

"talk to your SO" is like preaching to the converted. It's good advice for people who have a good sense of how to talk to their SO, but then, they would have already been talking to their SO about it to start with. The people who turn to AskMe are the ones who are confused about how to proceed, the ones who want some advice or context on how to approach this conversation, the ones who may very well be bad at talking to their SO. So sure, communication is always the answer, except... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 12:40 PM on December 14, 2007

is there any way that some dinky treadmill moving backwards is going to keep you from skating off into the sunset?

forgive my ignorance, but why isn't the weight of the plane on the wheels (or the person on the skates) a factor in how much effect the treadmill has?
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 1:04 PM on December 12, 2007

well, just so long as someone youtubes it... I am still surprised the force of the weight is so small that everyone says it will be a totally normal take off & it's not even worth doing the math to factor in what the friction will be, since it's not really 'some dinky treadmill' but by definition one which is going back at the same speed that the thrust supplies going forward, so if gravity can cause any significant relation between the surfaces it seems like it would at least have some... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 5:13 PM on December 12, 2007

How would...? Oh forget it.

I think the underlying implication is, guys will express that they are enjoying you as an object of pleasure, rather than any sort of compliment which conveys some kind of respect, discourse, learning, or real appreciation of the person. That's why there is a difference between someone who comes up to you to say "wow, I love your outfit, you really look great" in a way that seems to convey "you must be really... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 6:13 PM on December 5, 2007

I've seen loads of guys talk in this very thread about the physical drives/related mental tendencies which are 'natural' to men, and the response hasn't been 'you can't say men have shared experiences due to their biology!', ...No woman here has asserted that this is wrong, that men are incorrect in thinking that they have commonalities, ... I would feel deeply absurd doing that if multiple guys coming from very different lives were telling me they felt otherwise.... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 2:12 PM on December 10, 2007

I don't think it's that "women are bourgeois imperialists", it's that the bourgeois imperialists, even the women, are bourgeois imperialists first, and their being women doesn't make them sisters... The basic point is the same, that just because you share a gender doesn't give you access to some basic "physical drives" or "related mental tendencies" or anything.
(Some of these issues were also talked about on this thread...)... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 8:38 PM on December 10, 2007

Obviously you don't think you're a "bourgeois imperialist". No one self-identifies as a bourgeois imperialist (except ironically or dismissively); to embrace the structure at all is to join the revolutionary class. I am not embracing the structure. The point is just that there may be other women - women who are not you - who identify more strongly with their class background or race or culture than with their gender, and would consider your... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 10:40 AM on December 11, 2007

Still, as long as sex is such an important characteristic in our culture

of course the original claim was that gender was a more important characteristic than culture - that the poster could relate better to women of other cultures than to men of her own. The counterclaim is just that that assumes the women of those other cultures feel the same way. If they have a different notion of womanhood, it may not be that simple.
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 9:48 PM on December 11, 2007

I worked as a telemarketer one summer in college. I quit so I could get a job as a stripper and regain some self-respect (not to mention make way more money). It is a terrible life, and I feel sorry for anyone who's stuck dealing with it on a regular basis.

But I lost my askme innocence the other day with that "passive aggressive gift" thread... guess I was in the wrong mood for it or whatever, but it really struck me the wrong way. Best to just duck out... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 11:54 AM on December 11, 2007

Kwine, I read the question and came to that same conclusion in two seconds. Sorry for sounding arrogant, but my (and your) conclusion seems, to me, to be as cut-and-dried RIGHT as an answer can be

I don't think that's arrogant; the question seems to start from that assumption, but is asking if perhaps there is some possible hole in the logic, some way that the equal and opposite forces left facing each other could be broken out of their eternal... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 10:07 AM on December 2, 2007

SOMETHING causes it (presumably environmental circumstances), and if that something was exactly repeated, the same decision would be made. Or if not, then that dialog is uncaused. Which is supernatureal.

Grumblebee, you could say it's "supermaterial", but that doesn't mean it's supernatural. Consciousness is a very weird part of nature. It is somehow caused by matter, and it can have an effect on matter, but it happens in the mental realm.... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 3:04 PM on December 6, 2007

mdn - I don't understand why you're making such a hard link between consciousness and free will. Couldn't we either have consciousness, but no free will, or both consciousness and free will?

I'm not making a link between consciousness and free will. I'm saying they're really the same thing. "free will" is just a concept that's gotten separated from the notion of a mind, but it's not useful as a stand alone principle... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 5:23 PM on December 6, 2007

I think consciousness CAUSES the body to go where it's going to go, in the sense that it's the immediate link in the causal chain, right before the body moving. And I think consciousness FEELS like it decides where the body is going to go. But I think that's an illusion.

If you agree that consciousness CAUSES the act, then I am not sure if we disagree. Are you then just disagreeing that consciousness is really YOU? In what sense can consciousness... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 4:45 PM on December 7, 2007

That's what I meant by a "link". Do you have any reasoning to explain why it's impossible for us to be "just along for the ride", to have consciousness but no free will? Because of course, if that is possible, they aren't the same thing.

As I said above, what would it mean to be "along for the ride"? Would the world be exactly the same if there were no minds in it? The whole idea that you are a puppet that just... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 8:47 PM on December 7, 2007

mdn, the way that you're interchanging the word "mind" with "consciousness" makes me think that you might not realize that they're different in the context of this "what is consciousness?" question. "Having consciousness" is not the opposite of "being unconscious" here.

well, it's a disagreement. I think the complex gears notion of activity is not appreciative of the actual activity of the mind. I... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 9:04 AM on December 8, 2007

ok, but "it wasn't me, it was my hormones" is already a spurious claim to me. Your hormones are part of you. You can inject different hormones and alter what you want and what you do, but that's just taking action to change yourself, a more extreme version of meditating or changing your diet.

It seems like you guys are advocating some kind of transcendental ego, and I'm basically going with the idea that you just ARE the whole mess. Whatever part of... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 10:35 AM on December 8, 2007

Oh, and, for fuck's sake, in a recent thread someone asking for advice on which medical tests to request from a doctor got diagnosed simultaneously with mono and leukemia by someone with a history of poor medical advice.

Good lord. Those comments are a perfect example of what's wrong - not the medical questions themselves but the people who jump in to answer the medical questions...

I dunno that it's so off target - when I was... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by mdn at 10:25 AM on December 6, 2007