Looking around at this forum at present, I think this video is sorely needed. Something I am continuously surprised by here is that many new members, and disturbingly quite a few older ones, seem to have forgotten that most elementary quality of rational skepticism: supporting your claims.

It's easy to make assertions, and they're worth precisely as much as the effort it took to type them: bugger all.

If you can't cite something to support what you claim, then you need to learn to preface your sentences with a softener, like: 'I might be completely fucking wrong but, I think that....." rather than constructing sentences which indicate that your say so is the solitary authority on life, the universe, and fucking everything.

And if you think that continuing to offer further assertions to support your previous assertions is perfectly acceptable discourse, and that people have a cheek demanding your provide citations or sources, then you need to go and look up what rational skepticism means.

Spearthrower wrote: and that people have a cheek demanding your provide citations or sources,

I'm still in the abyss of despair from seeing someone here comment "this is a discussion forum, we're having a discussion, I don't need to back up what I say."

If that's the way these forums are going, we might as well close up shop.

Apparently the number of hits a youtube video has had, somehow counts as meaningful evidence now.

Sendraks wrote:Apparently the number of hits a youtube video has had, somehow counts as meaningful evidence now.

Citation.

Sendraks wrote:Apparently the number of hits a youtube video has had, somehow counts as meaningful evidence now.

Similar to the 'people on social media said that....' bollocks we've been offered by washisface so many times!

This site's discoursive integrity here is in free fall, and I think many people have forgotten how to hold these wool-weavers to account.

We've got people actively trying to derail difficult questions posed to them by appealing to the mods that their usernames are being 'mutilated' just because someone uses their first name or surname. That's beyond belief.

I value this site too much to let these folks destroy this place and turn it into another vapid soap-box for prejudice and ignorance.

Sendraks wrote:Apparently the number of hits a youtube video has had, somehow counts as meaningful evidence now.

So does, for example, posting random jpegs.

Sendraks wrote:

Spearthrower wrote: and that people have a cheek demanding your provide citations or sources,

I'm still in the abyss of despair from seeing someone here comment "this is a discussion forum, we're having a discussion, I don't need to back up what I say."

If that's the way these forums are going, we might as well close up shop.

There are assuredly a goodly number of newer members who who seem to think that discoursive integrity is achieved simply because they can formulate semantically correct sentences. All these different Gospels according to being promulgated. Enough. Let's employ the stated agenda of this website.

Spearthrower wrote:This site's discoursive integrity here is in free fall, and I think many people have forgotten how to hold these wool-weavers to account.

Too right. It tells you something that people are negatively comparing current members to Mick.

hackenslash wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:This site's discoursive integrity here is in free fall, and I think many people have forgotten how to hold these wool-weavers to account.

Too right. It tells you something that people are negatively comparing current members to Mick.

I'm noticing that there are a lot of people employing Jerome Da Gnome argumentation.

hackenslash wrote:So does, for example, posting random jpegs.

I've mentioned this before, but I can't see the random jpegs. All I see is a contentless post, which apparently, is what they are.

Its like people who post videos, loooong videos, and provide no analysis or summary of what the video is about. I've no interest in watching a video without a) first knowing what it I about b) knowing what the person thinks about the arguments presented in the video and c) what aspects of those arguments they would like to discuss.

And that the video has X many hits, does not in anyway give the video "worth" or provide a compelling reason to watch it.

There are One Direction videos that have been viewed millions of times. That's not a reason for me to watch them.

Sendraks wrote:And that the video has X many hits, does not in anyway give the video "worth" or provide a compelling reason to watch it.

There are One Direction videos that have been viewed millions of times. That's not a reason for me to watch them.

We've been reduced to clickbait.

HughMcB wrote:

Sendraks wrote:And that the video has X many hits, does not in anyway give the video "worth" or provide a compelling reason to watch it.

There are One Direction videos that have been viewed millions of times. That's not a reason for me to watch them.

We've been reduced to clickbait.

Still, compared to some people's actually typed contributions, this represent a significant improvement in quality! Which is depressing.

Good points are being made, but the way they're being made sounds like grumpy old men.

I suppose that's what makes this forum feel so homey for me....

ScholasticSpastic wrote::lol: Good points are being made, but the way they're being made sounds like grumpy old men.

I suppose that's what makes this forum feel so homey for me....

I was born a grumpy old man, and cultivate it at every opportunity!

Spearthrower wrote:

I was born a grumpy old man, and cultivate it at every opportunity!

I've met you. You're one of the most positive and energising people I've met.

As we're speaking of grumpy and YouTube, there's this:

Christopher Hitchens wrote: I have just been sent a link to an Internet site that shows me delivering a speech some years ago. This is my quite unsolicited introduction to the now-inescapable phenomenon of YouTube. It comes with another link, enabling me to see other movies of myself all over the place. What's "You" about this? It's a MeTube, for me. And I can only suppose that, for my friends and foes alike, it's a HimTube.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ecade.html

It's one of Hitch's more lightweight essays, probably casually scribbled down on a napkin between sips of wine during a boring dinner party. Still, as you'd expect, the writing is really, really, really good.

Sendraks wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

I was born a grumpy old man, and cultivate it at every opportunity!

I've met you. You're one of the most positive and energising people I've met.

It's a facade, underneath I am grumping.