« first day (1546 days earlier)      last day (34 days later) » 

3:00 AM
0
Q: How to talk to my friend without offending him

JenaI’m 12 and so is my friend. All I know is that his brother way 15 and that he died of food poisoning last month. I had heard about it from other friends but today while we were playing truth or dare over text I asked “what was the worst day of your life” and he replied “the day my brother died.” ...

 
 
4 hours later…
6:48 AM
morning :)
@ExtrovertedMainMan Just a reminder to the people that visit chat and were engaging with that post: 12-year-olds shouldn't be on SE, they're underage.
Next time, flags are appreciated :D
 
 
4 hours later…
10:45 AM
hi there. ouch, missed the underage! my bad... :(
@ArthurHv : FWIW, 'fond' means bottom, but in this case, it's more a word for 'fondement' (means 'base'). 'fond' is an extract, concentrated juice (ref. in French here and translated here)
 
11:08 AM
@OldPadawan Hence the reminder... it's easy to forget, it only jumped out at me while reading it a second time as well ;)
 
11:59 AM
:O
 
 
1 hour later…
1:19 PM
@Tinkeringbell Correction: 12-yo shouldn't acknowledge that they're 12 on SE. There's no actual moral/ethical reasoning that they shouldn't be here, imo. Only a legal one to protect the company - and on the internet, no one knows you're a dog.
(Morning.)
 
@Sarov No, the rule is that 12 year olds shouldn't be on SE, it's indeed a legal thing. That they still can be here and escape moderation by lying about their age is a different thing ;-)
 
@Tinkeringbell Absent context, 'should' implies moral or ethical, not legal. I can't think of any legitimate reasoning that they shouldn't, ethically or morally, be here. Can you?
 
"Don't break the law" is a matter of ethics or morality, I guess.
 
It's illegal to steal. Does that mean poor people should let their families starve to death?
 
Never heard 'should' interpreted that way before though.
 
1:23 PM
Should people always follow fascist regimes' laws to the letter?
Pretty sure it was illegal to harbor jews in Germany in WW2,
 
@Sarov ... there's an argument to be made here too about not having a family larger than you can provide for :P
 
@Tinkeringbell Okay, should the man starve himself to death, then?
 
Anyhow... It's against the rules for 12 year olds to be here, whether they're making it known or not, the rule still stands.
 
(Or woman or child or dog or...)
 
So, like I said, next time there's an obvious 12 year old running around, flags would be appreciated.
 
1:25 PM
@Tinkeringbell Never argued against that. Just against the statement that they shouldn't be here.
 
should can express duty or probability of things. It's ambiguous
"this should happen" may mean it's likely or that i think it has some moral duty to happen
 
From the dictionary:
> used to show when something is likely or expected:
 
True, but in this context I don't see how this could should be attributed to probability. :P
 
It's ---
 
@Tinkeringbell Awesome, thank you.
 
1:27 PM
yw :)
 
Unless '12-yos shouldn't be on SE' was meant in the same manner as 'dodos shouldn't be on SE'!
 
Idk I think many arguments can be avoided just choosing a different set of words to express the same ideas
 
Or maybe 'Really old people shouldn't be on SE'.
 
@ArthurHv 12 year olds aren't allowed on SE. There, better? :P
 
@Tinkeringbell It is indisputable fact I think Sarov would agree with :D
 
1:30 PM
Which is true from a probability standpoint but really problematic from a duty/obligation one!
 
Someone's being very pedantic today, I guess Sarov is bored again ;)
 
@Tinkeringbell Yeah that's better. :P
 
Let me give you another dilemma to think about :P
 
@Tinkeringbell Pscht. I'm always pedantic!
(If someone actually does have a legit ethical/moral reasoning for refusing 12-yos, though, I'd be interested to hear it.)
@Tinkeringbell ?
 
Last Saturday, I went to a showroom to pick out a veranda for my apartment, one that will be closed on all sides... something like typo3.verasol.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Producten/1._Veranda/… but with two of the sides like this typo3.verasol.nl/fileadmin/_processed_/c/7/…. They calculated it would cost around 12k
I also had someone make me an offer for a similar thing, through the internet... they just got back to me and said it would cost around 7k, but .... I'm not sure if I'll get the same quality from them. I just can't be, they don't have a showroom.
Which one?
 
1:36 PM
I mean, that depends on your own personal value-weights for money, quality, and risk.
 
Ugh, not helpful :P
 
Do you enjoy gambling and are low on money? 7k? Are you rich? 12k? Is quality really important to you? 12k. Is it okay if it's not great but serviceable? 7k.
 
Been doing those since yesterday, the calculations are still running :(
 
There's no way for me to answer this for you, sorry. #flag-as-opinion-based
 
The 7k would definitely fit the budget better than the 12k, but I hate gambling and since I plan on living there for a long time, I really do want a quality one XD
 
1:39 PM
If you want what I would do, 12k. Don't forget that it'll affect your resale value too, So you're not really losing a full 5k.
 
See! That's a point I hadn't considered yet. You are slightly useful at times :P
 
Wow I feel appreciated.
 
I had same thinking about my kitchen. I'll throw considerable money there because I imagine it will affect the resale value
At least to some degree
Also I want a nice kitchen
But heck those things are very costy very fast
 
Well yeah, esp. if you include all the appliances.
 
The veranda will end up being twice or thrice as expensive as the kitchen XD
 
1:43 PM
I imagine the kitchen is the most sophisticated room in most people's houses.
 
Nonetheless there is an enormous gap in how practical and clean it will be if I am not the one that will pose it
 
@ArthurHv Wait how will cleanliness be affected by the kitchen blueprints?
 
I mean clean on the fact that it's seamlessly integrated. Don't mean less greasy :D
 
Well, for example: My mom advised against a sink with very straight corners. A round one, or a square one with rounded corners, is just easier to clean!
 
Ooh.
 
1:46 PM
As are handles: On some, more dust will gather than others.
 
There is also that yea
 
Wait wouldn't round be easier to clean?
No corners to get into.
 
Yeah, my bad.
 
(Though our sink has a detachable tap head with a spray, so moot point.)
 
@Sarov It's more about e.g. limescale or stubborn dried food stains, that you can't as easily spray away ;)
 
1:55 PM
Spray hard!!! :D
 
splash everywhere and still see the stain afterwards? :D
 
Splash HARDER!!!
> このパッケージには、Microsoft Owin Security Microsoft Account の日本語サテライト アセンブリが含まれています。
Why is there Chinese in my project...?
 
You've been hacked.
 
By China?
 
Wouldn't be the first time the country did that, I guess.
 
2:05 PM
Depends what you mean by 'that'. I don't think this project is particularly worth hacking... :P
 
that's Japanese I believe
and by believe I mean I'm sure
Hi all
 
Really? ...Oh derp you're right.
Yeah now that I actually stare at it, I recognize some characters. XD
 
STARE HARDER!
 
But wai? It's already been identified!
 
STARE IT INTO SUBMISSION
 
2:08 PM
Hi @ava :)
 
Seriously... no manners, this bunch.
 
The... text, or Japan?
 
@Sarov Yes
 
Dozou yoroshiku onegaishimasu
 
2:09 PM
@Tinkeringbell I said 'Morning' before! It's a general-purpose greeting for all, past or future!
 
@Tinkeringbell henlo
 
@avazula GRATUITUOUS TIME OF DAY FELLOW NORMAL HUMAN
 
@Sarov Oh well then it's not really necessary to repeat it each day either? That's good to know, tomorrow I'll adjust accordingly ;)
 
@JourneymanGeek I BID YOU NICE AFTERNOON KIND SIR
 
The only Japanese words I know are contained in this clip youtube.com/watch?v=dNQs_Bef_V8
 
2:11 PM
@Tinkeringbell Not necessary, but is still polite. There's a 24-hour refresh on politeness, don't-cha-know.
/Turns Canadian accent up to 11
 
@Sarov Ehh, no. Nope.
 
Ya don't know! Well now ya do, then! Thar ye go, eh?
 
/me hands @Sarov some Tom Hortons and a mountie hat
 
Isn't all this awfully xenophobic
just asking
?
 
(I mean. I am Canadian, so.)
 
2:14 PM
ehh, we're making fun of sterotypes?
 
I mean it's interesting
 
Though I'm pretty sure I don't actually have the stereotypical 'Canadian' accent. Though I can mimic it reasonably-ish well.
 
I don't mean to attack you or anything. I just want to start a theoretical debate but
I am gay and never allowed myself for homophobic jokes. Am I stuck up
 
Ahh. Like, 'is it possible to mimic stereotypes without being xenophobic'?
 
The debate today is does belonging a community is making belittling it more socially acceptable
 
2:18 PM
I think it is.... stroopwafels have become a bit of a thing, they're stereotypically Dutch and still funny :)
 
There's also, like, a sliding scale, imo. Like, there's a difference between a joke that uses 'gay' as an insult and a joke that... I dunno, insinuates that gay men wear pink?
(Okay actually that might be a bad example given Nazi Germany, but...)
 
But it very much depends on what you're making fun of, and how you're doing it.
 
30 books burned. Is it censorship lmao
 
@ArthurHv I mean... this also has a point though. Scale is important but not all-important.
 
2:22 PM
@ArthurHv Each person has their own comfort level...
On one hand I'd rather not have folks tiptoe around eggshells
on the other, if folks say hurtful stuff... Having an environment where you can sound that off, and be taken seriously, and have people mindful of it is good.
 
@JourneymanGeek Yeah, that's the thing. I don't want an environment where I have to excessively censor myself to avoid hurting other people's feelings. But I also don't want an environment where people can't speak up when their feelings are hurt. And I don't see why these desires would have to be mutually exclusive.
 
They are not!
 
@Sarov I once heard an interesting podcast... something about rebels, revolutions... and how much people accept them. I guess most of the principles apply here too: It depends on what you're burning and cultural norms whether it's socially acceptable now, 20 and 200 years in the future.
 
@Tinkeringbell the context though...
"We have these books, and we find that they hurt people, and kinda want to set them on fire as a way to go "yeah, these books suck""
as opposed to "No one should ever read these books ever..."
 
Rather than telling people "Don't say anything that could be hurtful", tell people:
"Don't assume ill intent"
"Don't be afraid to speak up when your feelings are hurt"
"Listen and respect when someone points out their hurt feelings."
 
2:26 PM
and I'd argue in context that discussion of those books can be valuble...
 
I take for granted everyone have a different opinion on this matter. Because everyone is comfortable at different levels. With that being said
 
@JourneymanGeek Yes, so you're basically saying that given your cultural context and the time you're living in, right now you're not too bothered by it :P
Who knows what people will think 200 years from now ;)
Maybe this was the beginning of the end, maybe it was just something silly, maybe ...
 
@Tinkeringbell I mean, other than "I'm freezing and I need warmth and the only burnable thing I have is a book" its not that bad a reason
 
@Sarov You can't assume good intents when the 1000th neonazi in a row raise questions about ww2. Sometimes, people are playing fool and innocent, but aren't. Sometimes, it's innocent, but it's unfortunately not the first time you hear someone making a bad joke.
 
@JourneymanGeek Honestly, yeah, I can't say I really condone any book burning. Every single book ever written is going to be considered to contain 'unenlightened' content if you examine it far enough in the future. ...As much as I hate the Categorical Imperative, I think it applies here.
@ArthurHv "Don't assume ill intent as your first reaction"* I should have said.
 
2:29 PM
@ArthurHv that's the 'fun' part of moderation - working out who is who, and minimising the damage there
 
Yea and there is a thin line between moderation and censorship. Many confuse which is which. I like living in moderated environments. But of course I'm all for people being able to speak openly. There are just very precise things I don't consider acceptable at least not from strangers.
 
I don't think 'from strangers' really has a place in an overall setting, does it? Familiarity is subjective.
 
Yea it's true actually
I mean even if that was from my boyfriend of father some things just remain unacceptable to me
 
@ArthurHv Everyone moderates and censors their environments these days. Parents do it for their kids by picking ways to raise them, schools to send them too, playdates... As you get older you do it yourself by picking people you do interact with more often than others, allowing some to become friends and others to just remain strangers.
 
nods And anything that would be acceptable to Alice from Bob but not from Charlie... should probably be generally regarded as acceptable, imo.
 
2:33 PM
Which brings us to
 
@Sarov Not so sure about this one. If Charlie can be expected to have a totally different motive or 'subtext' than Bob, it can be that the 'same thing' from one person is an innocent joke, while from the other it's an attempt at gaslighting, for example.
 
Im gay, but I don't like communautary humour. I refrain from gay jokes. Even though there is lulz potential there.
 
Which is your choice to make, but probably not one you can enforce on others.
 
@Tinkeringbell Yes but I mean in an overall context. If Act A is okay from Bob because of B but not from Charlie because of C, then you should not have a rule disallowing A. But you might have a rule disallowing C.
 
@Tinkeringbell I don't really know. It's a sleepy slope. The problem is that I draw a line somewhere but everyone have a different ones. I think if it's just for the matter of giggles that's not worth belittling somoene's identity. So, in some settings, in some contexts, I find moderating them completely acceptable
 
2:36 PM
@ArthurHv Yeah, I think the "don't like" part is important there - it's a matter of taste, not ethics.
 
@Sarov Ah, sure. That makes sense, though then Charlie can argue that Bob does get to do A and he not... but that's a matter of 'driver's licenses' I guess.
 
nods Plus then you point out that Yes, A is allowed. C is not. Bob is not doing C.
 
@Sarov I would think that someone I've known for say... the last 20 years in person would have different okness levels than say... Tink - who I've known for less than 5 and only online :D
 
You're allowed to turn down the lights. You're not allowed to gaslight!
 
@ArthurHv I mean, there are 'gay' jokes out there that don't really belittle someone's identity.... For example, I once had a gay coworker say that 'I wasn't part of the target audience' (I don't know what the question was or what brought it up, but it became a running gag as he was also involved in marketing XD). It's a joke about him being gay, but it does in no way belittle his identity (at least, not to me!). I like that kind of humor.
 
2:39 PM
@JourneymanGeek Yes, but again, that's subjective and thus should have no bearing on a rules system.
 
@Sarov but social rules are subjective
 
But it's your choice, and I'm probably not going to be able to argue you into thinking otherwise (not trying to either, though I'm curious about your thoughts on the matter above and how they fit into your reasoning)
 
Yeah but there are levels of subjective. "I didn't kill him! I just stabbed him! Blood loss is what killed him!" Yeah okay but social rule still says you go to jail.
 
@Tinkeringbell Oh ok then I'm doing gay jokes :D But I was more like aiming at people painting us as the cliché. Admittedly it's something very 1990 to do tho
 
Going back to the 'is it okay to make racist-ish jokes about your own race' (or 'group' or whatever), thing... If we assume that it is okay... how does that relate to cultural appropriation?
 
2:44 PM
@ArthurHv Yeah, okay. I can see how some cliché's aren't funny, especially not when done by 'others' or 'outsiders'.
@Sarov I find cultural appropriation a hard thing to debate about... because the culture I have now didn't come to the point it has without appropriation.
 
Even my own views on this are a little muddied. I do think that it's (at least more) okay for a member of X to make X-ist jokes. But I also think a lot of 'cultural appropriation complaints are ridiculous. But if you extend that, and 'appropriate' the culture to the point where you identify it (but also to the point that others wouldn't identify you as it), then is it likewise okay or not to make X-ist jokes?
 
Can you exactly pinpoint me what you mean by appropriation ?
 
We have christmas trees from some early Germanic cultures, religious holidays off because of Christianity, and we eat pizza :P
@Sarov Ah yes, are you Christian enough if you don't go to church.... Some people will say you are, others will be convinced you'll burn in hell. Some will say it's okay no matter what church you go to, for others it'll have to be a specific denomination too....
In short, if you ever want to create in-fighting in a group, throw them a question like that :P
 
@Sarov The only extent to which it is more ok to me to make X-ist joke being X, is that you are visibly and publicly X making it obvious you are not first degree. The sad part is some gay people are openly and first degree homophobic.
They create differences like: oh I can't go out with him he is so effeminate (disgusted face)
 
Hmm. That honestly sounds like comments very straight people make too :P
 
2:51 PM
Yea. And frankly I would make no difference. I would straight tell them that's an offensive behavior. It doesn't matter you are gay or not. This is my point here
 
As in, I can't see if it's a joke or not, since there are people that value looks (length, weight) over character with other sexualities too.
@ArthurHv Ah, I missed that point then.
Yeah, the behavior itself can be offensive if you have other values.
(if you encounter someone that thinks the same about this, no one will likely bat an eye at such comments)
 
The point was it's not necessarily more acceptable to behave X-phobicly if you are X, which some people do.
 
Hmm... I have trouble seeing the particular example as any kind of phobicly I guess... I can see it as very judgmental though XD
 
I don't really know there are other examples. It's a fashionable thing to say in france I'm not from "le milieu" which is how we refer to gay circles with gay exclusive events/places etc. and form a community
It's another way of marking your difference and distancing yourself from the idea you are being gay. It's also better seen to say you are bi or pan and not completely gay
 
I guess it's mostly just my brain. I would say someone is 'phobic' if there's a real fear or hatred for a particular group of people that surfaces (quite forcefully) at every opportunity. This example just strikes me more as the kind of one-off, conversational remark you might make about potential dating partners, more a dislike than a true hatred.
@ArthurHv Ah, yeah... that's sort-of the danger of labels I guess. Once they come with certain stereotypes and expectations, some people may not want them anymore. :/
And instead of trying to change the stereotypes that go with the label, they just try to distance themselves as far from it as possible
 
3:00 PM
Well if you want to go that way - many people that beat up homosexuals are homosexuals in denial. Jealous kinda
 
Are there actual numbers on that? I haven't heard that one before... It makes sense, in a 'movie' kind of way (it's always how these things go in the movies, don't they? Someone uses violence and it later turns out the victim is just a reflection of their own inner demons...)
 
@Tinkeringbell It's interesting. I've heard it many times but never challenged sources. Let me check
Pretty funny. I find sources citing psychoanalysis work. But only in French lol
 
@ArthurHv Basically anything where you take on aspects of some culoture, and people get offended by it.
@ArthurHv Isn't... that just romantic preference?
 
@ArthurHv Those are completely different things though!
 
3:10 PM
@Sarov Yea i mean if you kissed a girl in your 16s and you had over 100 male partners afterwards you are totally not gay ;D
 
Depends on if you enjoyed the kiss! :P
I could see a legitimately bi man only dating men for any number of reasons.
 
@ArthurHv Hmm, okay, though I don't see numbers there for violence... the participants were asked how comfortable and anxious they were around gay men... I can speak from experience that if you are attracted to someone, things do get a bit awkward and uncomfortable, and no one needs to measure my penis circumference for that XD
 
E.g. misogyny. Maybe he just doesn't like being around women, despite being attracted to them. :P
@Tinkeringbell +1. If anything I'd say that's an argument against.
 
@Sarov Or sometimes that means women don't like being around him
 
@Tinkeringbell It's a shitty source but I can't manage to find anything more proved. I just have people making theories etc. it sounds very cloudy when I take a closer look indeed.
 
3:14 PM
@JourneymanGeek You win this round ;)
 
So I take back what I said but my belief is that you could indistinctly find violent people among gay, hetero or bi man toward any part of the community.
 
Oh, that's probably true :)
 
Hmm. I still think it's less likely, if only because of the 'other/tribal' effect.
 
@Sarov I don't expect people to have indistinct preferences, but expressing disgust of someone for that kind of reason is very loaded to me
Imagine if instead of effeminate I said black, would you still find that acceptable ?
 
Depends on the specific context and degree, I guess. Like, I have a friend who's stated that she'd never date a black man because she's not attracted to them. I don't see the problem with that.
 
3:22 PM
No, but that's also not the same as expressing open disgust
 
Dating someone is different from accepting them tho
 
Sure but again, context-specific. Say there's a religion that forbids brushing your teeth. Would it be racist to be disgusted by them?
 
Well I wuldn't want to kiss one of those folks, that's for certain :D
 
Disgust is out of place for human beings. You could be disgusted at their teeth though
 
I don't think the distinction is meaningful.
If you're disgusted at someone's teeth, hair, voice, words, clothes... you're disgusted by them.
 
3:25 PM
hm
 
If there is such a thing as a 'soul', we are incapable of viewing it, and thus incapable of being disgusted by it. And thus there's no distinction between being disgusted by Alice or by a viewable aspect of Alice.
 
I don't think that's the same
We don't equate what's visible from us
 
Like, I'm disgusted by smokers. Both because I believe it's unethical and because it's disgusting.
 
In a semantic sense, that's not the same.
 
Even if either of those were removed (whether they stop being harmful or stop being gross), I'd still consider myself disgusted by them.
 
3:29 PM
I don't like cigarettes and it disgusts me, but my boyfriend smokes. So I make a distinction that you don't that's for sure
 
Just insufficient disgust then. :P I'd never date a smoker.
 
My situation explains why the things are different though
Although I understand also your point
 
I really don't see how they are, though. We can't interact with 'X' directly, no matter what X is. X is just how we interact with X.
Obligatory "chairs do not exist".
 
We can make a distinction between X currently and the abstract idea of X that exists when we don't see it
We can make that distinction semantically at least
 
Yes but we can't actually conceptualize that abstract, nor have any thoughts nor opinions on it.
 
3:33 PM
I think differently. I think that when it comes to being e.g. effeminate or romantically interested it's exactly that abstract idea that counts. In reality the guy is a bag of proteins like anyone else
 
When I talk about Alice, I talk about the phenomena of specific particles that behave in Alice-like fashion that my brain has conceptualized into an aggregate 'Alice', based on all of the aspects of Alice that I have experienced.
 
:D certainly
I mean that layer exist, when the idea of things we do is limited by what we have seen
 
I thus don't see a meaningful distinction between that conceptual aggregate 'Alice' and specific aspects of it,
(Unless maybe you make the distinction that being 'disgusted by Alice' means you are disgusted by every last single aspect of Alice, in which case... dayum.)
We scared away Tink.
 
@Sarov "Alice" and "her teeth" represent different aggregates
 
Alice is the aggregate root, tho.
 
3:38 PM
we're not in a unix file system though
 
Or are we?
 
!!!
As long as it's not Window's.
Although given my psychiatric past I have my doubts I was released bug free
 
That is basically my point - Alice is the aggregate root. If you're disgusted by Alice's ___ then you're disgusted by Alice, because Alice is only made up of sub-aggregates; she doesn't have anything to her that isn't a sub-aggregate that you could be disgusted by.
And any distinction between those sub-aggregates would be arbitrary,
 
I don't say It's incorrect to say Alice disgusts you. My claim is much less ambitious. I just say /Alice and /Alice/teeth are different folders
Disgust between polite people don't belong the root level. But that's a courtesy you could say probably
Anyhow, it's not indistinguishable
 
Oh, well, sure? I was just saying that if Alice's teeth disgust you, then, semantically, you're disgusted by Alice.
 
3:47 PM
Hmm I'm not even sure that one
because suppose she has very hot lingerie tho
It will depend what wins
 
Well, either:
A) You take an aggregate of disgust/non-disgust
B) You're a combination of disgusted and attracted
C) Some combination thereof
 
SELECT SUM(feelings.disgust), AVG(feelings.attraction) FROM feelings INNER JOIN Alice ON feelings.seen = Alice.parts
 
Question is what the code will then do with those results. Simple subtraction?
 
@Sarov Nah, I was just lured away by dinner ;)
 
Also wait how are you using aggregates without groups? :O
@Tinkeringbell A likely story.
 
3:53 PM
Just finished the main course, now thinking about what I'll have for dessert
 
@Sarov We pipeline it to the Sex Driven Natural Intelligence
 
Oh, so just a black box?
 
Essentially
It outputs moves
 
Mines buggy
Go fix it? ;)
 
Now when you say 'buggy'...
Are we talking beetle or dragonfly?
 
4:03 PM
Ladybug of course!
 
Ladybug or ladybeetle? Those are often mixed up!
 
Definitely ladybug
 
Heh.
 

« first day (1546 days earlier)      last day (34 days later) »