INTENSITY²
Start here => M.O.-Introductions => Ask Away Threads => Topic started by: Player on August 24, 2013, 01:11:57 PM
-
delete
-
Delete?
-
(http://www.portlandmercury.com/binary/1dea/1250738793-463px-question_mark_alternate.png)
-
I like Backspace more, but that's just me.
-
Delete what?
-
Maybe this is the thread where we can delete all the questions we would ever like to ask Player?
Maybe Player doesn't like to play, or it could be Player likes playing too much.
-
Well it's in ask away so this must be the place to ask him how to score with scores of women :zoinks:
-
(http://static.neatoshop.com/images/product/40/5540/Cybermen-Delete-Doctor-Who-Poster_25848-l.jpg?v=25848)
-
ctrl+alt+del
-
The old butthurt delete.
Unskilled poster.
-
Can't we all just copy and paste?
-
It's amusing that this thread, which I thought would have been removed by now, gets more replies than other legit threads in this section.
-
What's a "legit" thread?
Seriously, mate, did you read anything here before joining?
-
Why lock this? What fucking difference does it make to lock it now? Lots of people have posted in it while all you said was "delete". I can copy and paste everything into a new thread that you can't lock, but what would be the point? Better for me to just unlock it.
This is I2. Not AFF, not WP. Consider me an unmoderator.
-
Glad to see this open again.
Player, it is time to embrace the culture of I2.
-
It's utterly pointless to lock threads here.
-
:laugh:
It's not pointless at all to keep them open.
-
I think we should remove the ability for members to lock threads. It doesn't fill any purpose.
-
The opening and closing game does provide some fun though.
It's the kneading of fresh meat.
-
Here here. I second that motion.
-
I will see your delete and up you 2 Daleks.
Exterminate. Exterminate.
-
My first impression is to disagree with Odeon and McJagger. There's nothing to prevent someone who wants to comment on a subject from starting another thread that isn't locked, correct? Locking a thread won't necessarily stop a discussion. So why not err on the side of giving members more freedom?
You two have a prejudice against locking threads as being cowardly. The recently locked threads earned a shrug from me. If they didn't, I'd just start new threads.
I half-recall one thread that's somewhere in the bowels of the forum by now. One of the regular members was having a personal problem and locked the thread after it was discussed because the member didn't want to be reminded of it. If anyone else can recall more, please join in.
I'm curious about your arguments against locking. I'll think about it.
-
I have a locked thread somewhere on here containing stuff I posted from outside and wanted to remember. Probably best forgotten.
-
Some real personal stuff, yes, I can see someone wanting to lock that after a while.
A new thread, just started, not sensitive, nor personal, and then locked, makes no sense to me. Why not let it derail and disappear into oblivion.
Some locked threads get a parallel thread on the same subject, made by someone else. And somehow those threads take longer to derail than threads not locked.
-
Glad to see this open again.
Player, it is time to embrace the culture of I2.
The culture here is very different that's for sure.
-
My first impression is to disagree with Odeon and McJagger. There's nothing to prevent someone who wants to comment on a subject from starting another thread that isn't locked, correct? Locking a thread won't necessarily stop a discussion. So why not err on the side of giving members more freedom?
You two have a prejudice against locking threads as being cowardly. The recently locked threads earned a shrug from me. If they didn't, I'd just start new threads.
I half-recall one thread that's somewhere in the bowels of the forum by now. One of the regular members was having a personal problem and locked the thread after it was discussed because the member didn't want to be reminded of it. If anyone else can recall more, please join in.
I'm curious about your arguments against locking. I'll think about it.
Why is the freedom of the one more important than the freedom of the many? Presumably the locked thread had more than that one member posting in it, so by locking it the member is actively limiting the other members' ability to express their meaning.
As for that old private stuff argument, if you don't want your stuff on the internet, then don't post it there.
If it was posted there without your consent and you didn't have anything to do with publishing it any way, then that's a different discussion, unrelated to the locked threads one.
-
My first impression is to disagree with Odeon and McJagger. There's nothing to prevent someone who wants to comment on a subject from starting another thread that isn't locked, correct? Locking a thread won't necessarily stop a discussion. So why not err on the side of giving members more freedom?
You two have a prejudice against locking threads as being cowardly. The recently locked threads earned a shrug from me. If they didn't, I'd just start new threads.
I half-recall one thread that's somewhere in the bowels of the forum by now. One of the regular members was having a personal problem and locked the thread after it was discussed because the member didn't want to be reminded of it. If anyone else can recall more, please join in.
I'm curious about your arguments against locking. I'll think about it.
Why is the freedom of the one more important than the freedom of the many? Presumably the locked thread had more than that one member posting in it, so by locking it the member is actively limiting the other members' ability to express their meaning.
As for that old private stuff argument, if you don't want your stuff on the internet, then don't post it there.
If it was posted there without your consent and you didn't have anything to do with publishing it any way, then that's a different discussion, unrelated to the locked threads one.
Surely if a thread is created by someone with the knowledge they can lock it at anytime in the future then isn't it unfair, or even tyrannical, to supplant the right to lock the thread? Perhaps that user would not have created the thread if the lock feature wasn't available.
Even if it is at the detriment of the majority, you have to stand by the original terms of the agreement because if not, then quite frankly, you've cheated a user.
-
It's amusing that this thread, which I thought would have been removed by now, gets more replies than other legit threads in this section.
All threads are legit. Except for the AFF threads in the Intensity subforum; those threads are no way legit.
-
I think we should remove the ability for members to lock threads. It doesn't fill any purpose.
If you do that please bring back the ignore feature back. I would much rather have that than to be able to lock a topic, :blonde:
-
I like to be able to lock threads as sort of indication that I don't want to talk about it anymore and I would like it to fallback into the board's archive. I only have used it in threads about personal stuff like when my dog Yoyo died and I wanted to lay it to rest after a week or so. I don't feel it's good for embarrassing thing or in debate threads as all it does is call attention to the thread so other member will start their own about it or show that your losing
-
Where would Player have read about not locking threads?
I think it is safe to say that he now knows. If he makes it a habit then yeah have a go at him because he is doing it to be an arse. If he doesn't then you know it was just a mistake.
Really, if you don't want a member to do something then it is a bit daft to give him the option.
Just sayin :tickle:
-
I agree with everybody.
-
I agree with everybody.
I couldn't agree more :zoinks:
-
I agree with everybody.
I couldn't agree more :zoinks:
i agree with you most of all
-
Where would Player have read about not locking threads?
He would have read about it in the already existing fight between the admins and bluegriffin, occurring in the locked AFF thread, located in the What is Intensity subforum.
-
Where would Player have read about not locking threads?
He would have read about it in the already existing fight between the admins and bluegriffin, occurring in the locked AFF thread, located in the What is Intensity subforum.
Thanks Jack. I didn't read that one yet. ???
-
:laugh:
-
:laugh:
Jack likes to laugh, and seems quite merry when she does so! :laugh:
-
Indeed.
-
I agree with bodie - how would he have known that we don't really like locking threads here?
You can't really criticise someone (especially a new person) for locking his thread, when we have given them the ability to do that
Also most people don't spend that long researching a forum and working out the "culture" there before they join/post
Especially for a forum mostly full of people with ASDs, it seems kinda strange to expect new people to "know" the unwritten "rules" and "culture" of the place
If we don't want people locking threads then why give them the function in the first place?
I could understand the response if he'd locked a thread he was having a big argument in and was clearly losing. That would show cowardice. But to criticise someone for locking the thread just because we don't "do that" here seems kinda daft
Who says when it's ok and when it's not ok to lock a thread?
-
I like to be able to lock threads as sort of indication that I don't want to talk about it anymore and I would like it to fallback into the board's archive. I only have used it in threads about personal stuff like when my dog Yoyo died and I wanted to lay it to rest after a week or so. I don't feel it's good for embarrassing thing or in debate threads as all it does is call attention to the thread so other member will start their own about it or show that your losing
I agree with Parts.
-
@ adam, who is to say when a thread can be locked, and when not?
Don't know. Too many locked threads are annoying. And too many side threads, on the same subject, to make discussion possible about the locked thread is annoying too. Not clear cut I think. Sometimes I am silly enough to just enjoy some break-ins in locked threads.
-
It says on the door about this place having few rules and a lack of moderators. It doesn't say anything about unwritten rules.
:GA:
:orly: it's a con
-
It says on the door about this place having few rules and a lack of moderators. It doesn't say anything about unwritten rules.
:GA:
:orly: it's a con
This place has multiple evil traps! :vortex: I was sucked in by the smilies!
-
It says on the door about this place having few rules and a lack of moderators. It doesn't say anything about unwritten rules.
:GA:
:orly: it's a con
No complaining it's against the rules :P
-
I like to be able to lock threads as sort of indication that I don't want to talk about it anymore and I would like it to fallback into the board's archive. I only have used it in threads about personal stuff like when my dog Yoyo died and I wanted to lay it to rest after a week or so. I don't feel it's good for embarrassing thing or in debate threads as all it does is call attention to the thread so other member will start their own about it or show that your losing
I agree with Parts.
you make a great point hyke. I now agree with you.
-
I think that completely removing your post is better - it makes the other people in the thread look silly :zoinks:
-
I agree with bodie - how would he have known that we don't really like locking threads here?
You can't really criticise someone (especially a new person) for locking his thread, when we have given them the ability to do that
Also most people don't spend that long researching a forum and working out the "culture" there before they join/post
Especially for a forum mostly full of people with ASDs, it seems kinda strange to expect new people to "know" the unwritten "rules" and "culture" of the place
If we don't want people locking threads then why give them the function in the first place?
I could understand the response if he'd locked a thread he was having a big argument in and was clearly losing. That would show cowardice. But to criticise someone for locking the thread just because we don't "do that" here seems kinda daft
Who says when it's ok and when it's not ok to lock a thread?
Good points all around, Adam. :plus: One exception: We give members the ability to insult other members' children, but that would be met with criticism.
I don't even know if locking threads is automatically considered a negative by a majority of members. I don't automatically see it as cowardly.
My first impression is to disagree with Odeon and McJagger. There's nothing to prevent someone who wants to comment on a subject from starting another thread that isn't locked, correct? Locking a thread won't necessarily stop a discussion. So why not err on the side of giving members more freedom?
You two have a prejudice against locking threads as being cowardly. The recently locked threads earned a shrug from me. If they didn't, I'd just start new threads.
I half-recall one thread that's somewhere in the bowels of the forum by now. One of the regular members was having a personal problem and locked the thread after it was discussed because the member didn't want to be reminded of it. If anyone else can recall more, please join in.
I'm curious about your arguments against locking. I'll think about it.
Why is the freedom of the one more important than the freedom of the many? Presumably the locked thread had more than that one member posting in it, so by locking it the member is actively limiting the other members' ability to express their meaning.
As for that old private stuff argument, if you don't want your stuff on the internet, then don't post it there.
If it was posted there without your consent and you didn't have anything to do with publishing it any way, then that's a different discussion, unrelated to the locked threads one.
Even if locking threads is cowardly, since when is there a policy of making hard rules against things that are cowardly? Why not just use the current system of callouts?
-
Great point. I agree.
-
This place just tickles me sometimes. A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.
McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you! :orly:
-
This place just tickles me sometimes. A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.
McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you! :orly:
ooo lala
-
delete
So what did you delete, anyway? :zoinks:
-
This place just tickles me sometimes. A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.
McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you! :orly:
If you prefer, we can talk about AFF. :zoinks:
-
This place just tickles me sometimes. A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.
McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you! :orly:
If you prefer, we can talk about AFF. :zoinks:
Or b00bz. Now that's quality conversation. :thumbup:
-
This place just tickles me sometimes. A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.
McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you! :orly:
If you prefer, we can talk about AFF. :zoinks:
Or boobs. Now that's quality conversation. :thumbup:
Or AFF and boobs. :P
-
This place just tickles me sometimes. A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.
Thank goodness you're here to help make sense of it. :nerdy:
-
This place just tickles me sometimes. A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.
McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you! :orly:
If you prefer, we can talk about AFF. :zoinks:
Or boobs. Now that's quality conversation. :thumbup:
Or AFF and boobs. :P
Nope. Just b00bz. I'm above AFF. :M
-
Even if locking threads is cowardly, since when is there a policy of making hard rules against things that are cowardly? Why not just use the current system of callouts?
Because Odeon said so. :mad:
-
My first impression is to disagree with Odeon and McJagger. There's nothing to prevent someone who wants to comment on a subject from starting another thread that isn't locked, correct? Locking a thread won't necessarily stop a discussion. So why not err on the side of giving members more freedom?
You two have a prejudice against locking threads as being cowardly. The recently locked threads earned a shrug from me. If they didn't, I'd just start new threads.
I half-recall one thread that's somewhere in the bowels of the forum by now. One of the regular members was having a personal problem and locked the thread after it was discussed because the member didn't want to be reminded of it. If anyone else can recall more, please join in.
I'm curious about your arguments against locking. I'll think about it.
Why is the freedom of the one more important than the freedom of the many? Presumably the locked thread had more than that one member posting in it, so by locking it the member is actively limiting the other members' ability to express their meaning.
As for that old private stuff argument, if you don't want your stuff on the internet, then don't post it there.
If it was posted there without your consent and you didn't have anything to do with publishing it any way, then that's a different discussion, unrelated to the locked threads one.
Surely if a thread is created by someone with the knowledge they can lock it at anytime in the future then isn't it unfair, or even tyrannical, to supplant the right to lock the thread? Perhaps that user would not have created the thread if the lock feature wasn't available.
Even if it is at the detriment of the majority, you have to stand by the original terms of the agreement because if not, then quite frankly, you've cheated a user.
You feel cheated when a thread containing the word "delete" is unlocked by the evil admins? Do you always check if you can lock a thread before starting a new one?
It's not an agreement, it's a check box, one that the software put there and one that we should have removed a long time ago.
-
I think we should remove the ability for members to lock threads. It doesn't fill any purpose.
If you do that please bring back the ignore feature back. I would much rather have that than to be able to lock a topic, :blonde:
I would if I could. The ignore feature doesn't work in SMF 2.x.
-
I agree with bodie - how would he have known that we don't really like locking threads here?
You can't really criticise someone (especially a new person) for locking his thread, when we have given them the ability to do that
Also most people don't spend that long researching a forum and working out the "culture" there before they join/post
Especially for a forum mostly full of people with ASDs, it seems kinda strange to expect new people to "know" the unwritten "rules" and "culture" of the place
If we don't want people locking threads then why give them the function in the first place?
I could understand the response if he'd locked a thread he was having a big argument in and was clearly losing. That would show cowardice. But to criticise someone for locking the thread just because we don't "do that" here seems kinda daft
Who says when it's ok and when it's not ok to lock a thread?
If I know, he must know. :asthing:
Seriously, there's no way he could have known, other than by spotting that other recent incident or reading old threads. But to lock a thread where his only word was "delete", where people didn't even have to derail the thread because there wasn't anything to derail? Why lock that?
-
It says on the door about this place having few rules and a lack of moderators. It doesn't say anything about unwritten rules.
:GA:
:orly: it's a con
NO, it's an admin conspiracah! :hitler:
-
Even if locking threads is cowardly, since when is there a policy of making hard rules against things that are cowardly? Why not just use the current system of callouts?
This is an excellent point. :plus:
My answer is "I didn't think of that. I just reacted on the spot"
The slightly longer answer is that there aren't any hard rules. This was a case of me being annoyed by a completely pointlessly locked thread and reacting. In retrospect, a callout might have been better. Maybe. Can't decide.
This is sort of better because it brought out the discussion in the open and that's important.
We have a culture that is largely about censoring as little as possible and moderating nothing unless we have to (or, in a few cases, using word filters and the like but that's just because admins are evil). The board, I believe (but check with McJ), was started not as a freedom-of-speech board but a place for spazzes to learn how to stand their ground and fight back, and if anything, this is a case illustrating that, being responsible for your words and your actions.
It is also about freedom of speech and where to draw the line, so IMO it's a good thing that this discussion happened.
That is to say, I don't have a clear-cut opinion but I like the discussion.
-
Who says when it's ok and when it's not ok to lock a thread?
If I know, he must know. :asthing:
You appear to lack Theory of Mind. Read this, it will help you! :nerdy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally-Anne_test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally-Anne_test)
-
Who says when it's ok and when it's not ok to lock a thread?
If I know, he must know. :asthing:
You appear to lack Theory of Mind. Read this, it will help you! :nerdy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally-Anne_test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally-Anne_test)
:autism:
But you already read it.
-
Even if locking threads is cowardly, since when is there a policy of making hard rules against things that are cowardly? Why not just use the current system of callouts?
This is an excellent point. :plus:
My answer is "I didn't think of that. I just reacted on the spot"
The slightly longer answer is that there aren't any hard rules. This was a case of me being annoyed by a completely pointlessly locked thread and reacting. In retrospect, a callout might have been better. Maybe. Can't decide.
This is sort of better because it brought out the discussion in the open and that's important.
We have a culture that is largely about censoring as little as possible and moderating nothing unless we have to (or, in a few cases, using word filters and the like but that's just because admins are evil). The board, I believe (but check with McJ), was started not as a freedom-of-speech board but a place for spazzes to learn how to stand their ground and fight back, and if anything, this is a case illustrating that, being responsible for your words and your actions.
It is also about freedom of speech and where to draw the line, so IMO it's a good thing that this discussion happened.
That is to say, I don't have a clear-cut opinion but I like the discussion.
yes, stand your ground.
-
You feel cheated when a thread containing the word "delete" is unlocked by the evil admins? Do you always check if you can lock a thread before starting a new one?
It's not an agreement, it's a check box, one that the software put there and one that we should have removed a long time ago.
Doesn't the fact that the lock button exists mean there is an agreement? I'm just throwing the argument out there - I personally don't care if this thread is locked or not.
Btw, I locked the thread because I couldn't just delete the whole thread :P . Seriously, people were beginning to make fun of my nooby ways - and then I saw that juicy lock button and pressed it.
-
Why did you delete your post?
-
Why did you delete your post?
I think it might have come across as trollish so I decided to delete it. It's the kind of thread which I'd consider creating if I was an established regular user of the forum.
-
Has the admin considered ever setting a post limit before a newb can create a thread (say like a 100 post limit) so they can adjust to the forum? Seems like letting newbs create threads is asking for trouble.
-
No worries. You're going to be just fine here. :laugh:
-
Has the admin considered ever setting a post limit before a newb can create a thread (say like a 100 post limit) so they can adjust to the forum? Seems like letting newbs create threads is asking for trouble.
This is a free speech forum. In general, nothing will be done to limit free speech unless it interferes with the operation of the forum.
-
delete
So what did you delete, anyway? :zoinks:
:zoinks:
-
You feel cheated when a thread containing the word "delete" is unlocked by the evil admins? Do you always check if you can lock a thread before starting a new one?
It's not an agreement, it's a check box, one that the software put there and one that we should have removed a long time ago.
Doesn't the fact that the lock button exists mean there is an agreement? I'm just throwing the argument out there - I personally don't care if this thread is locked or not.
Btw, I locked the thread because I couldn't just delete the whole thread :P . Seriously, people were beginning to make fun of my nooby ways - and then I saw that juicy lock button and pressed it.
Semantics. Yes, it's there, but its existence has caused more than one argument through the years. I wouldn't say it's an agreement. It's an omission and a glaring one at that, a testament to the community's inability to ever go beyond arguing. :laugh:
My main standpoint here is about not hindering anyone's right to post nonsense. I dislike censorship and loathe the kind of moderation exercised by some sites, where some little twat is allowed to control what I post. I can respect the need to remove offending content where minors are present but far more often it's just about that little twat's desire to grow a dick. And I fucking hate that.
When it comes to I2, the site is here to enable spazzes to stand their ground and fight back. You can't do that when threads are locked.
-
Why did you delete your post?
I think it might have come across as trollish so I decided to delete it. It's the kind of thread which I'd consider creating if I was an established regular user of the forum.
Trollish is fun because it makes people talk.
-
Has the admin considered ever setting a post limit before a newb can create a thread (say like a 100 post limit) so they can adjust to the forum? Seems like letting newbs create threads is asking for trouble.
Where would the fun be in that? :zoinks:
-
No worries. You're going to be just fine here. :laugh:
:indeed:
-
I'm sad I didn't think of starting a "delete" thread.
:-[
-
:hahaha:
-
I think that completely removing your post is better - it makes the other people in the thread look silly :zoinks:
That's why one always has to quote. Always. :soapbox: :rollingpin: :spitscreen:
-
I'm sad I didn't think of starting a "delete" thread.
:-[
Perhaps you could post "delete" several times in here (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,11276.0.html). That would make people curious. :P
-
Why did you delete your post?
I think it might have come across as trollish so I decided to delete it. It's the kind of thread which I'd consider creating if I was an established regular user of the forum.
Trollish is fun because it makes people talk.
I've noticed there is much trolling and narcissism on this forum. Why do so many aspies troll?
-
I've noticed there is much trolling and narcissism on this forum. Why do so many aspies troll?
Why narcissism is a more interesting question.
-
Why did you delete your post?
I think it might have come across as trollish so I decided to delete it. It's the kind of thread which I'd consider creating if I was an established regular user of the forum.
Trollish is fun because it makes people talk.
I've noticed there is much trolling and narcissism on this forum. Why do so many aspies troll?
i blame my narcissism on the chicks I've had sex with. Always telling me how good i am.
-
Why did you delete your post?
I think it might have come across as trollish so I decided to delete it. It's the kind of thread which I'd consider creating if I was an established regular user of the forum.
Trollish is fun because it makes people talk.
I've noticed there is much trolling and narcissism on this forum. Why do so many aspies troll?
i blame my narcissism on the chicks I've had sex with. Always telling me how good i am.
I blame your narcissism on skyblue1's constant flattery.
-
I've noticed there is much trolling and narcissism on this forum. Why do so many aspies troll?
Nice troll tactic you've got there, player. Trolling with a little malignant e-diagnosis? I'll bite.
It's not narcissism, dipshit. It's lack of theory of mind. :hahaha: Narcissists actually understand other people, and use that knowledge with self-serving intent.
Autistics live in their own bubble. What the hell do you expect? :zoinks:
-
Why did you delete your post?
I think it might have come across as trollish so I decided to delete it. It's the kind of thread which I'd consider creating if I was an established regular user of the forum.
Trollish is fun because it makes people talk.
I've noticed there is much trolling and narcissism on this forum. Why do so many aspies troll?
My guess is that it's an easy way to test conventions.
-
I've noticed there is much trolling and narcissism on this forum. Why do so many aspies troll?
Nice troll tactic you've got there, player. Trolling with a little malignant e-diagnosis? I'll bite.
It's not narcissism, dipshit. It's lack of theory of mind. :hahaha: Narcissists actually understand other people, and use that knowledge with self-serving intent.
Autistics live in their own bubble. What the hell do you expect? :zoinks:
Lol - the question does come across trollish doesn't it? :autism:
"Lack of theory of mind" is no excuse to justify it. According to Wikipedia, "Theory of mind (often abbreviated "ToM") is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own." Aspies struggle in the real world when you have to apply ToM quickly, as in a live conversation. But on internet forums, when you have time to digest information, you should be able to apply it pretty well. Not all aspies come across as cunts on the net - explain that? 8)
If aspies miraculously became good at ToM in real life, then we'd get different personalities. This forum would probably proportionally have more narcissists and sociopaths than other aspie forums I think. :P
-
I've noticed there is much trolling and narcissism on this forum. Why do so many aspies troll?
Nice troll tactic you've got there, player. Trolling with a little malignant e-diagnosis? I'll bite.
It's not narcissism, dipshit. It's lack of theory of mind. :hahaha: Narcissists actually understand other people, and use that knowledge with self-serving intent.
Autistics live in their own bubble. What the hell do you expect? :zoinks:
Lol - the question does come across trollish doesn't it? :autism:
"Lack of theory of mind" is no excuse to justify it. According to Wikipedia, "Theory of mind (often abbreviated "ToM") is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own." Aspies struggle in the real world when you have to apply ToM quickly, as in a live conversation. But on internet forums, when you have time to digest information, you should be able to apply it pretty well. Not all aspies come across as cunts on the net - explain that? 8)
If aspies miraculously became good at ToM in real life, then we'd get different personalities. This forum would probably proportionally have more narcissists and sociopaths than other aspie forums I think. :P
So you believe that autistics lack Theory of Mind?
-
So you believe that autistics lack Theory of Mind?
Good question. I accept that it is the scientific consensus. Personally, I don't feel like I lack it but I accept that I might based on my real life social interactions.
-
So you believe that autistics lack Theory of Mind?
Good question. I accept that it is the scientific consensus. Personally, I don't feel like I lack it but I accept that I might based on my real life social interactions.
The single consensus that I know of for autism is that the rate of diagnosis is radically increasing. There are a few problems with the Theory of Mind angle, and I don't believe that there's a consensus about it. I am behind on the literature, though.
-
So you believe that autistics lack Theory of Mind?
Good question. I accept that it is the scientific consensus. Personally, I don't feel like I lack it but I accept that I might based on my real life social interactions.
The single consensus that I know of for autism is that the rate of diagnosis is radically increasing. There are a few problems with the Theory of Mind angle, and I don't believe that there's a consensus about it. I am behind on the literature, though.
Actually you're right there is no consensus; it's the perception i get from literature/media I've come across about ASD. Do you believe autistics are deficient (better word than "lack" imo) in ToM compared to NT's? What do you think is the biggest problem with the theory?
-
So you believe that autistics lack Theory of Mind?
Good question. I accept that it is the scientific consensus. Personally, I don't feel like I lack it but I accept that I might based on my real life social interactions.
The single consensus that I know of for autism is that the rate of diagnosis is radically increasing. There are a few problems with the Theory of Mind angle, and I don't believe that there's a consensus about it. I am behind on the literature, though.
Actually you're right there is no consensus; it's the perception i get from literature/media I've come across about ASD. Do you believe autistics are deficient (better word than "lack" imo) in ToM compared to NT's? What do you think is the biggest problem with the theory?
As I recall, the basis of the supposition was a study that reported that autistic children lag behind their classmates in passing the Sally-Anne Test. Things got started there. The biggest problem is the lack of empirical support for impairment across the lifespan.
Correct me if I'm wrong about the history.
-
As I recall, the basis of the supposition was a study that reported that autistic children lag behind their classmates in passing the Sally-Anne Test. Things got started there. The biggest problem is the lack of empirical support for impairment across the lifespan.
Correct me if I'm wrong about the history.
An additional complication of theory of mind, in some autistics, is alexithymia. Can't imagine someone who can't understand their own feelings, being expected to truly understand others.
-
"Lack of theory of mind" is no excuse to justify it.
You're new here, and maybe don't realize how well the members actually get along. There's possibly some seemingly harsh things you've been reading, not realizing it's playful banter among genuine friends. There's some genuine harshness too, but everyone has their good and bad. You joined at a time when some people were very upset. You ask why are so many aspies trolls; why not ask why so many aren't? If you don't like the trolls, then avoid them. There's plenty of members who aren't.
-
I hope you stick around Player. this website while at times can be pretty harsh, is the best thing happening. I'm certain everyone gets along just well nice here, but at times do have arguments.
Just bust out the popcorn, watch. join in, or simply not give a fuck and do your own thing
I love the free speech here. you wont find many places for us aspies online to go to look at porn, talk about shit and let lose as it were
:thumbup:
-
"Lack of theory of mind" is no excuse to justify it.
You're new here, and maybe don't realize how well the members actually get along. There's possibly some seemingly harsh things you've been reading, not realizing it's playful banter among genuine friends. There's some genuine harshness too, but everyone has their good and bad. You joined at a time when some people were very upset. You ask why are so many aspies trolls; why not ask why so many aren't? If you don't like the trolls, then avoid them. There's plenty of members who aren't.
I hope you're right. I actually don't mind the insults banter as it's all fun and games. (Btw I could do with some practice if anyone is up for some in another thread or chat? :autism: )
Upset because of AFF?
When you say "genuine friends" - are these exclusively Internet friends or have people met each other in real life meetups and socialize outside of the net?
-
I hope you stick around Player. this website while at times can be pretty harsh, is the best thing happening. I'm certain everyone gets along just well nice here, but at times do have arguments.
Just bust out the popcorn, watch. join in, or simply not give a fuck and do your own thing
I love the free speech here. you wont find many places for us aspies online to go to look at porn, talk about shit and let lose as it were
:thumbup:
This is the most unique aspie forum I have come across.
-
Lol - the question does come across trollish doesn't it? :autism:
You're obviously a narcissistic troll. I like your style. :thumbup:
Lack of theory of mind" is no excuse to justify it.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm telling you that you're not really a narcissist, and neither is anyone else here.
According to Wikipedia, "Theory of mind (often abbreviated "ToM") is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own." Aspies struggle in the real world when you have to apply ToM quickly, as in a live conversation. But on internet forums, when you have time to digest information, you should be able to apply it pretty well.
Stop barfing Wikipedia like I'm a moron. :M
Not all aspies come across as cunts on the net - explain that? 8)
I'm still trying to figure out what being a cunt has to do with narcissism. Explain that first. :autism:
If aspies miraculously became good at ToM in real life, then we'd get different personalities. This forum would probably proportionally have more narcissists and sociopaths than other aspie forums I think. :P
Well, feel free to identify with those people if you like, but fuck you for painting the membership of autistic forums with your shitty brush. If you like to fancy yourself as a narcissistic psychopath, then you should read Fitzgerald. I think he's a motherfucker, but you might like him. Maybe you can assist him in spreading the word to all the NTs. I'm not saying there aren't autistics with co-morbid personality disorders, but to confuse or combine the two is a disservice to autism.
-
"Lack of theory of mind" is no excuse to justify it.
You're new here, and maybe don't realize how well the members actually get along. There's possibly some seemingly harsh things you've been reading, not realizing it's playful banter among genuine friends. There's some genuine harshness too, but everyone has their good and bad. You joined at a time when some people were very upset. You ask why are so many aspies trolls; why not ask why so many aren't? If you don't like the trolls, then avoid them. There's plenty of members who aren't.
I hope you're right. I actually don't mind the insults banter as it's all fun and games. (Btw I could do with some practice if anyone is up for some in another thread or chat? :autism: )
Upset because of AFF?
When you say "genuine friends" - are these exclusively Internet friends or have people met each other in real life meetups and socialize outside of the net?
Some keep it online. Some know each other offline. Some have met in person. Almost everyone has contact with other members outside of I2.
Jack is right.
-
When you say "genuine friends" - are these exclusively Internet friends or have people met each other in real life meetups and socialize outside of the net?
Don't pity me, but my friends are here. Guess that makes you my cool new friend. :laugh: You should stick around.
-
In other news, Llamas with hats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZUPCB9533Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZUPCB9533Y)
-
"Lack of theory of mind" is no excuse to justify it.
You're new here, and maybe don't realize how well the members actually get along. There's possibly some seemingly harsh things you've been reading, not realizing it's playful banter among genuine friends. There's some genuine harshness too, but everyone has their good and bad. You joined at a time when some people were very upset. You ask why are so many aspies trolls; why not ask why so many aren't? If you don't like the trolls, then avoid them. There's plenty of members who aren't.
Says the master troll. :hahaha:
-
Well, feel free to identify with those people if you like, but fuck you for painting the membership of autistic forums with your shitty brush. If you like to fancy yourself as a narcissistic psychopath, then you should read Fitzgerald. I think he's a motherfucker, but you might like him. Maybe you can assist him in spreading the word to all the NTs. I'm not saying there aren't autistics with co-morbid personality disorders, but to confuse or combine the two is a disservice to autism.
I think I touched a nerve with that comment. It's an insensitive comment but I've been led to believe this forum is not for the sensitive types :autism:
It's just an opinion I'm throwing out there to see if others might agree or not. From the replies I got it seems I might have got it wrong.
-
The narcissism is one thing, but calling the membership psychos is pretty trollish. Are you a troll?
-
"Lack of theory of mind" is no excuse to justify it.
You're new here, and maybe don't realize how well the members actually get along. There's possibly some seemingly harsh things you've been reading, not realizing it's playful banter among genuine friends. There's some genuine harshness too, but everyone has their good and bad. You joined at a time when some people were very upset. You ask why are so many aspies trolls; why not ask why so many aren't? If you don't like the trolls, then avoid them. There's plenty of members who aren't.
Says the master troll. :hahaha:
Says the master narcissist.
-
"Lack of theory of mind" is no excuse to justify it.
You're new here, and maybe don't realize how well the members actually get along. There's possibly some seemingly harsh things you've been reading, not realizing it's playful banter among genuine friends. There's some genuine harshness too, but everyone has their good and bad. You joined at a time when some people were very upset. You ask why are so many aspies trolls; why not ask why so many aren't? If you don't like the trolls, then avoid them. There's plenty of members who aren't.
Says the master troll. :hahaha:
Jack is not as :trollface: as :cbc:. >:D
-
The narcissism is one thing, but calling the membership psychos is pretty trollish. Are you a troll?
There aren't any bad people here. If there are, then no more than any other non-autistic site.
-
Everytime I read the title of this thread, instead of "delete" my mind says "Dalek" in a dalek voice.
-
Clicking the title makes me feel like I'm deleting something. :laugh:
-
I think I touched a nerve with that comment.
I cried so hard there was snot coming out of my nose. :hahaha:
It's an insensitive comment but I've been led to believe this forum is not for the sensitive types :autism:
Yeah, that's how intensity works. Everyone spouts a bunch of moronic shit and no one responds to it, because that would be sensitive. :tard: I shouldn't have deleted that post for you, angsty crybaby. :hahaha: You're the one being a cunt and you should apologize to me and my friends, for walking in the door and essentially saying we're evil.
It's just an opinion I'm throwing out there to see if others might agree or not. From the replies I got it seems I might have got it wrong.
No, you're not trolling the site. You're just a nice guy with an opinion. :orly:
-
Delete. :M
-
Dalek. :M
-
Silly show.
-
y0u 4r3 1nc0mp4718l3 y0u w1ll b3 d3l373d
d3l373
d3l373
d3l373
-
Yeah, that's how intensity works. Everyone spouts a bunch of moronic shit and no one responds to it, because that would be sensitive. :tard: I shouldn't have deleted that post for you, angsty crybaby.
It's just an opinion I'm throwing out there to see if others might agree or not. From the replies I got it seems I might have got it wrong.
No, you're not trolling the site. You're just a nice guy with an opinion. :orly:
This is the second time you've responded in this way so this time I'll bite your troll bait and respond by saying the following - You need to calm the fuck and sit down nigga. :finger:
If you don't like an opinion then fucking challenge it instead of resorting to cheap ad hominem attacks. Respect to Jack and sg1008 for challenging some of the points I made but you, like the cunty troll you appear to be, are just trying to win brownie points by playing some I2 prefect and demanding that I "should apologize to me and my friends". I ain't apologizing to you fuckwad, but I apologize to anyone else offended by the comments I made earlier.
-
You really can't afford to take a sockpuppet seriously mate.
-
Never believed in any type of absolution, so that makes apologies kind of weird and moot.
-
Yeah, that's how intensity works. Everyone spouts a bunch of moronic shit and no one responds to it, because that would be sensitive. :tard: I shouldn't have deleted that post for you, angsty crybaby.
It's just an opinion I'm throwing out there to see if others might agree or not. From the replies I got it seems I might have got it wrong.
No, you're not trolling the site. You're just a nice guy with an opinion. :orly:
This is the second time you've responded in this way so this time I'll bite your troll bait and respond by saying the following - You need to calm the fuck and sit down nigga. :finger:
If you don't like an opinion then fucking challenge it instead of resorting to cheap ad hominem attacks. Respect to Jack and sg1008 for challenging some of the points I made but you, like the cunty troll you appear to be, are just trying to win brownie points by playing some I2 prefect and demanding that I "should apologize to me and my friends". I ain't apologizing to you fuckwad, but I apologize to anyone else offended by the comments I made earlier.
Thank you for apologizing to my friends. :plus: You're alright, man. (Sorry, I can't really plus you.)
Welcome to Intensity2, Player. :2thumbsup:
-
You really can't afford to take a sockpuppet seriously mate.
He doesn't know it's a sock.
-
You really can't afford to take a sockpuppet seriously mate.
He doesn't know it's a sock.
The note is in a really small font. :P
-
You really can't afford to take a sockpuppet seriously mate.
He doesn't know it's a sock.
There are socks and socks. The I2 sock is a speshul sock.
-
You really can't afford to take a sockpuppet seriously mate.
He doesn't know it's a sock.
There are socks and socks. The I2 sock is a speshul sock.
It's a special sock for a forum of special snowflakes. :thumbup:
-
You really can't afford to take a sockpuppet seriously mate.
He doesn't know it's a sock.
I didn't know what a sockpuppet was until today. It seems a sockpuppet by definition is a liar, a fake and above all a coward.
Can't the mod expose "frank"'s other identity somehow? IP addresses for example?
-
You really can't afford to take a sockpuppet seriously mate.
He doesn't know it's a sock.
I didn't know what a sockpuppet was until today. It seems a sockpuppet by definition is a liar, a fake and above all a coward.
Can't the mod expose "frank"'s other identity somehow? IP addresses for example?
I'm still a bit new here, but I believe the point of the sockpuppet is that some members can access it, and will change the profile around and do goofball stuff for the lulz.
-
Can't the mod expose "frank"'s other identity somehow? IP addresses for example?
Yes, they can.
-
Can't the mod expose "frank"'s other identity somehow? IP addresses for example?
Yes, they can.
:laugh:
The bovine is amused by Jack's reply.
-
You really can't afford to take a sockpuppet seriously mate.
He doesn't know it's a sock.
I didn't know what a sockpuppet was until today. It seems a sockpuppet by definition is a liar, a fake and above all a coward.
Can't the mod expose "frank"'s other identity somehow? IP addresses for example?
I'm still a bit new here, but I believe the point of the sockpuppet is that some members can access it, and will change the profile around and do goofball stuff for the Besides, my asshole hurts.
:rofl:
Word filters FTW
-
You really can't afford to take a sockpuppet seriously mate.
He doesn't know it's a sock.
I didn't know what a sockpuppet was until today. It seems a sockpuppet by definition is a liar, a fake and above all a coward.
Can't the mod expose "frank"'s other identity somehow? IP addresses for example?
I'm still a bit new here, but I believe the point of the sockpuppet is that some members can access it, and will change the profile around and do goofball stuff for the Besides, my asshole hurts.
:rofl:
Word filters FTW
Is that what that is? I was wondering why it didn't show any edits, lol. lulz
-
lulz experimentally.
-
You really can't afford to take a sockpuppet seriously mate.
He doesn't know it's a sock.
I didn't know what a sockpuppet was until today. It seems a sockpuppet by definition is a liar, a fake and above all a coward.
Can't the mod expose "frank"'s other identity somehow? IP addresses for example?
I'm still a bit new here, but I believe the point of the sockpuppet is that some members can access it, and will change the profile around and do goofball stuff for the Besides, my asshole hurts.
[suspicious]The account is labeled as being a sock puppet. The sock puppet is a liar and a fake in the sense that any actor is. It's just for fun.
[/suspicious]There are no moderators here, except for the Modulator (which is different). I doubt the admins will expose Frank. Since you're new here, I'll let you know that you shouldn't expect the admins to solve interpersonal problems with other members.
-
Hey, we are actually very good at solving problems.
-
Hey, we are actually very good at solving problems.
So you'll make the mean Weeble be nice to me? (emo)
-
Hey, we are actually very good at solving problems.
So you'll make the mean Weeble be nice to me? (emo)
The Weeble is evil but I will do my best to *correct* her.
-
Hey, we are actually very good at solving problems.
So you'll make the mean Weeble be nice to me? (emo)
The Weeble is evil but I will do my best to *correct* her.
:thumbup:
-
Hey, we are actually very good at solving problems.
So you'll make the mean Weeble be nice to me? (emo)
The Weeble is evil but I will do my best to *correct* her.
:thumbup:
Perhaps a therapy session and a group hug would help while we are waiting for the weeble to enter?
-
:kumbaya:
-
Hey, we are actually very good at solving problems.
So you'll make the mean Weeble be nice to me? (emo)
The Weeble is evil but I will do my best to *correct* her.
:thumbup:
Perhaps a therapy session and a group hug would help while we are waiting for the weeble to enter?
:hug: :grouphug:
-
:kumbaya:
You big softie, you. :hahaha:
-
I think the word filter might become problematic, if someone's asshole really does hurt. It would be like a "cry wolf" effect!
:'(
-
That is why we have the shit digging thread, to help the victims of the word filter.
-
That is why we have the shit digging thread, to help the victims of the word filter.
The shit digging thread helps many people. :grouphug:
-
y0u 4r3 1nc0mp4718l3 y0u w1ll b3 d3l373d
d3l373
d3l373
d3l373
D' leet
-
Don't leave, n00b.
-
This thread is gold
-
:violin:
-
Welcome back. :)
-
Thank goodness you're back. :GA: Start yourself a new ask away thread, Player. This one really sucks. :lol1:
-
Found a free article about theory of mind that includes the Sally-Anne test (yes, some articles you have to pay for).