Stuff I just don't understand, post here yours.

[ve4grm]

Computer stuff recently caught my attention. I'm basically illiterate in things more complicated than "insert CD, run install" and "press the reset button till it works fine again". I was considering try and look for some basic literature on programming but a) Uni is devouring my life, and b) I really have a hard time getting around all that wizardry and stuff.

Having a practically dead PC also doesn't help (one of these days I'll turn that thing into an oversized typewriter). It's also not that I need to know; but I tend to hold grudges against all knowledge that escapes my mind. It's an annoying thought that I can't seem to easily get rid off. It would probably help me know some basic things by next semester too, but it's very low on my current "To Study" list.

Honestly, and this is coming from someone with a hobby interest in coding, you would be better served looking into what I'd call advanced computer literacy, rather than programming. similar to how, if you wanted to be better at basic car maintenance, you wouldn't necessarily go train as a mechanic. There's intermediate info that will serve you better.

Coding is one of those skills that can be extremely useful, but not until you've dedicated a significant amount of effort to learning it. I fully support doing so if it interests you, but it feels like it wouldn't be the right choice at this point in time.

Rather, I'd focus on learning (some you may already know):

• File and folder management (copying, sorting, shortcuts, recycle bin behavior, how to set up and manage a shared or network drive, where programs save files to by default, how to not just keep everything on your f*ing desktop)
• How to quickly and accurately use a search engine (including differentiating good from bad results, filtering out keywords, etc)
• Intermediate browser operation (how to read a URL fully, how to edit said URL to find a different page that you know should be there but you can't find the link, how to clear browser cache, force a hard refresh, understand error messages)
• Basic network diagnosis (how to fix your wifi if it goes down, how to reset your network settings so it gets a new IP address from the ISP, etc)
• Virus/malware maintenance (what it means to have an infection, steps to remove it, trustworthy applications, when to ignore an alert)
• (Nearly) universal keyboard commands (Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, F5, Alt-F4, Ctrl-Alt-Del, etc)
• Basic hardware knowledge/terminology (What do you call the box that makes up most of your computer? What's inside it, in a broad sense? What do RAM, CPU, GPU, and HDD mean? What does each do (again, in a broad sense)?)
• How to uninstall and reinstall a program (especially how to do it without losing settings)

Knowing these things will give you a good base to build off of when trying to solve your own computer problems, trying to set up a new computer, basically anything you might reasonably do with a computer. And while coding is fun, and a knowledge of coding can make you better at these things as well, none of what I mentioned requires doing any programming.

[Aedilred]

Yeah, that's completely new to me, even as an urban legend. The hypothesis I've always been told is that people like getting buzzed, and thus alcohol was constantly being discovered and retained everywhere. But as a liquid storage? No, that wouldn't really make much sense to me. People settled next to rivers so they didn't need to worry about that. I'd have to dig into population centers established away from fresh water sources to see what they did, but for much of human civilization, those were quite rare, I'd imagine. If you didn't have a river handy, and wells were not in the cards, you found somewhere else to settle.

Thinking about it, maybe mining communities? I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but at least now I see what you're suggesting. I suppose I can't completely discard the possibility that if they had to import hydration, they might import beer over water in part because it might have traveled better, and already had distribution networks. That said, carrying water with donkeys was (and in fact, is!) a thing, so water was definitely moved around too.

Grey Wolf

Safely storing water doesn't make a lot of sense, but safely drinking water does. When you have a city on a river, the water gets polluted and people who drink it get sick. Although the people who get credit for working out that drinking bad water makes you sick lived relatively recently, some elements of the correlation were twigged millennia ago, including that drinking urban river water was, even if considered to be safe, nasty.

And as you say, while storing clean water isn't a problem ipso facto, storing it for the purposes of transportation is, if you don't have an aqueduct to hand. Brewing not only allows you to store the water safely for transport but also kills a lot of the bugs in it, meaning that in areas with dodgy sanitation, drinking beer is safer than drinking water. By the start of the early modern period this was basically an article of faith in England, which was both notoriously ill-supplied with aqueducts (having fewer extant Roman ruins than Latin Europe) and infamous for its high volume of beer consumption. This may have been a contributory factor to the explosive popularity of tea in England, another "safe" drink introduced in the 1660s partly because the new Portuguese queen couldn't drink the water and didn't like beer.

With all of that said I don't think this is the reason why alcohol was invented. But it might be a large part of the reason it became so much more popular and widespread than any other drug.

[Vinyadan]

In general, I have seen city rivers as a way to carry away waste and to allow irrigation and transportation, rather than as source of drink water. Rome is probably a very good example, since it had a few rivers running through, but used aqueducts, even before it got really huge: the first one was built in 312 BC (around 30,000 inhabitants). Instead, the cloaca maxima, built before 509 BC, dropped the city's waste into the Tiber river. But it is fairly obvious that that water was never safe to drink, given that the forum boarium (the cattle market) was placed in a way that assumed that herds of animals would cross the river. In the Middle Ages, the butchers threw their waste into the rivers, which is why the Ponte Vecchio in Florence was decreed to be their seat, so that they could have a direct drop, and the streets would stay clean. People knew that there were other cities upstream, which did the same thing.

Water springs were more relevant in choosing where to build a settlement, compared to mere streams, because they were safe, since they could not be contaminated upstream. This is still visible on the mountains, where there are a nice lot of streams, but villages are built around springs and wells.

And, of course, once you have safe wells, you don't need to use alcoholic beverages to have safe drinks. Another thing that was often used in antiquity and middle ages were cisterns. They collected rainwater. This had the side effect of storing water. Rich people had an impluvium, a basin surrounded by roofs in which the water would collect. The impluvium had a porous basis, that filtered the water, while it was collected by a cistern beneath. The good thing about wells and cisterns is that they could be private property, while an aqueduct needed the State to be built and mantained. Water cisterns are also a common find around temples and places of pilgrimage. I also remember a medieval tower in Southern Italy that had a cistern at its base, and I guess it wasn't a special case.

So I don't think that wine was found as a way to have something safe to drink, more like something to keep you happy.

[2D8HP]

Why do Imperials use 6'4'' instead of 6.3 ft or 76 in.

Also, are "foot" and "inch" supposed to be pluralised or kept singular.

Outside of personal height, that's exactly what people who work with measurements do - they almost always stick with inches.

I finished my apprenticeship before laser measuring tools became common, and I now mostly work alone doing repairs, so things may be way different in construction now, but from my experience it depends on the ages of the Journeyman who you worked with as an Apprentice.

The oldest plumbers would use both feet and inches for every measurement 13 inches and longer, which was also the practice of most steamfitters, while the younger ones who learned from middle-aged and younger Journeyman would use inches almost exclusively, up to usually about 100 inches, it kind of depended on whether you started when "6 foot folding rules" were more common, or when increasingly longer (and heavier) tape measures were more likely to be used (since the rulers are less likely to stretch, the Steamfitters still used them more)..

A common compromise was "everything more than three feet" would be in both feet and inches, but still confusion would happen, such as when I had to ask a relatively young Journeyman "how long" multiple times (because it was noisy), till he finally shouted, "Nine six!", upon which I cut the pipe to be 9' 6" (nine feet and 6 inches) long.

He wanted 96".

[Peelee]

A common compromise was "everything more than three feet" would be in both feet and inches, but still confusion would happen, such as when I had to ask a relatively young Journeyman "how long" multiple times (because it was noisy), till he finally shouted, "Nine six!", upon which I cut the pipe to be 9' 6" (nine feet and 6 inches) long.

He wanted 96".

Better to hear 9'6 than 96", you can always cut it down.

[Lord Joeltion]

*Helpful advice*

Out of all that list, I think I'm confident enough to believe I could score at least a 51/100. Basic stuff it's not a problem, I manage myself fine around computers on a regular day (plus, my job/career requires mastery of search engines as default - which tends to be the most complicated stuff to fully grasp). It's the deep stuff I wanna learn. Bewcause I know that, eventually, some technical knowledge on informatics/programming/whatever would come very handy in my business, since my work relies on at least understanding technical language, if not fully grasp a concept.

For instance, I know a lot stuff about medicine and science in general. I can grab any phisics book (not the most advanced ones obviously but those you would find on any bookstore) and read them without further issue. I mean, I never took an actual course in physics other than school, but I can understand but the most advanced ideas and complicated knowledge*. I can't do Math anymore even if my life depended on it, but Math theory is not a total mystery for me. Which is only natural, because I've been reading all that stuff since I was almost a little kid.

But anything regarding real computer knowledge is beyond me because I'm utterly illiterate. And it hurts my pride cause it should be easy, given my background. I'm so illiterate I wouldn't even know where to start. And again, it's not as if my progress would depend on it, but it would be very handy. It's like being a Thief and having spent zero points in Acrobatics. Not essential, not too detrimental, but cool to have.

*A close friend of mine is a professor, and the only one who can talk those things with (but isn't a professor/student too) is with me, for instance.

And as you say, while storing clean water isn't a problem ipso facto, storing it for the purposes of transportation is, if you don't have an aqueduct to hand. Brewing not only allows you to store the water safely for transport but also kills a lot of the bugs in it, meaning that in areas with dodgy sanitation, drinking beer is safer than drinking water. By the start of the early modern period this was basically an article of faith in England, which was both notoriously ill-supplied with aqueducts (having fewer extant Roman ruins than Latin Europe) and infamous for its high volume of beer consumption. This may have been a contributory factor to the explosive popularity of tea in England, another "safe" drink introduced in the 1660s partly because the new Portuguese queen couldn't drink the water and didn't like beer.

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of travel and as an additional source of fresh liquid on overpopulated* areas, not big storing facilities to outlast Winter (except in Russia). I thought water wasn't transported along distances that required more than a day of travel before we invented better health measures.

*My gut tells me a landlord/gov/chief would prioritize water for crops/animals rather than people. Which doesn't need to be the case if alcohol was more of a recreational thing instead of an hydration source.

[Aedilred]

And, of course, once you have safe wells, you don't need to use alcoholic beverages to have safe drinks. Another thing that was often used in antiquity and middle ages were cisterns. They collected rainwater. This had the side effect of storing water. Rich people had an impluvium, a basin surrounded by roofs in which the water would collect. The impluvium had a porous basis, that filtered the water, while it was collected by a cistern beneath. The good thing about wells and cisterns is that they could be private property, while an aqueduct needed the State to be built and mantained. Water cisterns are also a common find around temples and places of pilgrimage. I also remember a medieval tower in Southern Italy that had a cistern at its base, and I guess it wasn't a special case.

So I don't think that wine was found as a way to have something safe to drink, more like something to keep you happy.

Wine, I think probably you're right. I wonder about beer though. It's believed to be somewhat older and it's interesting that the popularity of beer in Europe historically corresponds roughly with the areas without substantial classical infrastructure. Italy, Gaul, Iberia, Greece, Anatolia and North Africa all retained working aqueducts, and developed (or retained) wine cultures where drink was largely recreational. On the other hand Germany, Bohemia, Britain and Ireland, where Roman influence was much less pervasive or largely absent, developed beer-drinking cultures where beer was drunk not just for fun but also as a hydration standard.

Not, it must be admitted, that the English really drew the distinction. As early as the 12th century the national English characteristic was considered to be "drunkenness" and little has changed.

*My gut tells me a landlord/gov/chief would prioritize water for crops/animals rather than people. Which doesn't need to be the case if alcohol was more of a recreational thing instead of an hydration source.

I know in Mesopotamia and Iran they developed irrigation canals very early to cope with the crop hydration issue. I suspect there isn't a straightforward answer. As with most things it wouldn't be surprising if the reason for its development was entirely different to the reason for its popularity.

[AMFV]

I finished my apprenticeship before laser measuring tools became common, and I now mostly work alone doing repairs, so things may be way different in construction now, but from my experience it depends on the ages of the Journeyman who you worked with as an Apprentice.

The oldest plumbers would use both feet and inches for every measurement 13 inches and longer, which was also the practice of most steamfitters, while the younger ones who learned from middle-aged and younger Journeyman would use inches almost exclusively, up to usually about 100 inches, it kind of depended on whether you started when "6 foot folding rules" were more common, or when increasingly longer (and heavier) tape measures were more likely to be used (since the rulers are less likely to stretch, the Steamfitters still used them more)..

A common compromise was "everything more than three feet" would be in both feet and inches, but still confusion would happen, such as when I had to ask a relatively young Journeyman "how long" multiple times (because it was noisy), till he finally shouted, "Nine six!", upon which I cut the pipe to be 9' 6" (nine feet and 6 inches) long.

He wanted 96".

From what I've seen it depends on what you're working on. If you're laying out, then it's feet-inches, if you're cutting something to fit into a measured space then it's straight inches, even if it's like 15'. If you're dealing with surveyors then it's decimal inches, which is an absolute pain in the neck.

Better to hear 9'6 than 96", you can always cut it down.

Yeah, but if he's already had to tell an apprentice something multiple times, that is a surefire way to piss off a journeyman.

[Peelee]

Yeah, but if he's already had to tell an apprentice something multiple times, that is a surefire way to piss off a journeyman.

Yes, but less so than cutting 96" when they wanted 9'6.

[AMFV]

Yes, but less so than cutting 96" when they wanted 9'6.

It's just as easy to cut a 12' piece of scrap to 9'6" as it is to keep cutting down the 9'6" board to 96". I mean unless you only have one board on site, and that should never happen. Although I guess the 9'6" one might be more of a pain if you only had a bunch of 16' boards, since you don't want to cut up more of those than necessary.

[Peelee]

It's just as easy to cut a 12' piece of scrap to 9'6" as it is to keep cutting down the 9'6" board to 96". I mean unless you only have one board on site, and that should never happen. Although I guess the 9'6" one might be more of a pain if you only had a bunch of 16' boards, since you don't want to cut up more of those than necessary.

If you cut a 96" piece and the person wanted 9'6", you don't have a 12' piece of scrap, you have an 8' piece of scrap. Even if the piece it was cut from can still manage the 9'6", you made a lot more waste than if the person wanted 96" and you cut 9'6.

That's all I was saying.

[2D8HP]

[...]Yeah, but if he's already had to tell an apprentice something multiple times, that is a surefire way to piss off a journeyman.

Yes it did (which is why I remember it).

Yes, but less so than cutting 96" when they wanted 9'6.

True.

It's just as easy to cut a 12' piece of scrap to 9'6" as it is to keep cutting down the 9'6" board to 96". I mean unless you only have one board on site, and that should never happen. Although I guess the 9'6" one might be more of a pain if you only had a bunch of 16' boards, since you don't want to cut up more of those than necessary.

A board?

I suppose, but it was a nominal 10' long cast iron pipe I was cutting (made in Texas by Tyler so usually 10' 0 -1/2", unlike the one's from the A, B & I foundry in Oakland, California which were usually closer to 10'), so I had to take a little longer to cut off 5-1/2" of scrap, than it would take me to cut the pipe closer to the middle with the snap cutter (we didn't have a chop saw on the job). I used to make those cuts dozens of times a day, now it's just a couple of times a year.

If you cut a 96" piece and the person wanted 9'6", you don't have a 12' piece of scrap, you have an 8' piece of scrap. Even if the piece it was cut from can still manage the 9'6", you made a lot more waste than if the person wanted 96" and you cut 9'6.

That's all I was saying.

And 8" of 5" nominal diameter cast iron pipe is heavy to lift into the dumpster!

Oh man, I would not last long doing that work now!

[AMFV]

If you cut a 96" piece and the person wanted 9'6", you don't have a 12' piece of scrap, you have an 8' piece of scrap. Even if the piece it was cut from can still manage the 9'6", you made a lot more waste than if the person wanted 96" and you cut 9'6.

That's all I was saying.

True, but you don't have just the one board or the one pipe, unless you're working up on the top of a scaffold or something and then it's worth clarifying what size you want. And an 8' board can usually be used somewhere else, I suspect the same is true of pipes, it'd be a waste if he cut it down to less than two or three feet.

And if you're up on top of something, then the journeyman will be very pissed off, because somebody has to climb down and get another board to bring up, or alternatively you can have a laborer tie it to something and bring it up that way.

Yes it did (which is why I remember it).
A board?

I suppose, but it was a nominal 10' long cast iron pipe I was cutting (made in Texas by Tyler so usually 10' 0 -1/2", unlike the one's from the A, B & I foundry in Oakland, California which were usually closer to 10'), so I had to take a little longer to cut off 5-1/2" of scrap, than it would take me to cut the pipe closer to the middle with the snap cutter (we didn't have a chop saw on the job). I used to make those cuts dozens of times a day, now it's just a couple of times a year.

True enough. To be unfair though, while you might have to cut dozens of pipes, I've had to cut hundreds of boards in a day, so beat that with your plumbing stuff...

And 8" of 5" nominal diameter cast iron pipe is heavy to lift into the dumpster!

Oh man, I would not last long doing that work now!

Not to mention that they'd probably give you your walking papers for wasting that much pipe. Or for just throwing it away. Hell, on some jobs I've worked you could get laid off for throwing out a piece of 2 x 4 more than two feet. Which is considerably cheaper than the pipe.

[2D8HP]

True, but you don't have just the one board or the one pipe, unless you're working up on the top of a scaffold or something and then it's worth clarifying what size you want. And an 8' board can usually be used somewhere else, I suspect the same is true of pipes, it'd be a waste if he cut it down to less than two or three feet.

And if you're up on top of something, then the journeyman will be very pissed off, because somebody has to climb down and get another board to bring up, or alternatively you can have a laborer tie it to something and bring it up that way.

He was on top of a scissor lift.

True enough. To be unfair though, while you might have to cut dozens of pipes, I've had to cut hundreds of boards in a day, so beat that with your plumbing stuff...

I can't with pipe, the closest I've come was with all-thread hanger rod

Not to mention that they'd probably give you your walking papers for wasting that much pipe. Or for just throwing it away. Hell, on some jobs I've worked you could get laid off for throwing out a piece of 2 x 4 more than two feet. Which is considerably cheaper than the pipe.

Nah, the wastage was really high on most jobs, on the theory that material was cheaper than labor, but some other jobs it was the opposite, with material scarce, and most time spent fruitlessly scrounging.

Both ways were daft, and extremely inefficient

[AMFV]

He was on top of a scissor lift.

That does make it considerably funnier.

I can't with pipe, the closest I've come was with all-thread hanger rod

True, and it only takes somebody a few seconds to zip a board, depending on how accurate the cut needs to be. Which is actually one of the harder things to learn in carpentry, since there are times when things need to be accurate, and times when things need to be fast.

Nah, the wastage was really high on most jobs, on the theory that material was cheaper than labor, but some other jobs it was the opposite, with material scarce, and most time spent fruitlessly scrounging.

Both ways were daft, and extremely inefficient

There's gobs of waste as a carpenter, but you still get yelled at for cutting down sixteens or throwing away anything longer than three feet. It's like a weird principle thing, like "no sitting even if you're trying to get at something where sitting is the best way to get to it".

[Honest Tiefling]

Wine, I think probably you're right. I wonder about beer though. It's believed to be somewhat older and it's interesting that the popularity of beer in Europe historically corresponds roughly with the areas without substantial classical infrastructure. Italy, Gaul, Iberia, Greece, Anatolia and North Africa all retained working aqueducts, and developed (or retained) wine cultures where drink was largely recreational. On the other hand Germany, Bohemia, Britain and Ireland, where Roman influence was much less pervasive or largely absent, developed beer-drinking cultures where beer was drunk not just for fun but also as a hydration standard.

This is probably a factor in most cases for the culture, but the issue of getting grapes to grow en masse in the colder regions is also probably a factor. I would greatly suspect that colder climate grapes are relatively new, and you can't just stick any variety of grape anywhere and get something worthwhile to make wine from.

[Mr Blobby]

However, Europe's climate has fluctuated over centuries. There were, for example descriptions of vine-growing in England during the 'Medieaval Warm Period' of c1200. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

If true, Tiefling's hypothesis doesn't hold up...

[Honest Tiefling]

If true, Tiefling's hypothesis doesn't hold up...

Still would, since the warm period ended before the end of the Western Roman Empire. I mean, Mister Kingy-Pants might still propagate a culture of wine drinking because he could afford it and rub it in other people's faces (as you do when you are a monarch) but wouldn't apply to the vast majority of people.

In fact, I would actually assume that the warm period would decrease the chances of cold climate grapes being developed early on...Because why would you need to? So those crazy barbarians can grow grapes?

[Mr Blobby]

If I remember correctly, it's all about 'the Frost line'; aka the point where the area would reasonably expect at least one serious spell each winter [vines hate frost]. Therefore, if said line moved east/north during a warm climatic period, some areas would become viable. Admittedly, it would then require it to last long enough for people to notice *and* somebody with experience to comment 'hey, I think we could grow wine-grapes here...'

So I'd hold the lack of experience and culture of winemaking was more a hindrance than the lack of irrigation. It was the Romans who introduced winemaking to the UK, for example.

[Honest Tiefling]

If I remember correctly, it's all about 'the Frost line'; aka the point where the area would reasonably expect at least one serious spell each winter [vines hate frost]. Therefore, if said line moved east/north during a warm climatic period, some areas would become viable. Admittedly, it would then require it to last long enough for people to notice *and* somebody with experience to comment 'hey, I think we could grow wine-grapes here...'

So I'd hold the lack of experience and culture of winemaking was more a hindrance than the lack of irrigation. It was the Romans who introduced winemaking to the UK, for example.

1) Vine isn't a biological term, just a name for a type of plant with similar structures of unrelated species. It took me a minute to google a vine capable of surviving up to 30 freedom units. Also, the bane of my life, english ivy, can withstand negative temperatures because it hates me.

2) What you said still doesn't contradict what I said, since they couldn't grow grapes in the periods that the beer making cultures would have taken root as the warm spell ended before the decline of the Western Roman Empire. If all of the grapes are dead because of frost, that beer sure looks tasty, don't it?

[Mr Blobby]

#1: 'Vine' as in 'grapevine' aka 'Vitis vinifera'.

#2: Your original statement was in effect 'regions too cold to grow grapes'. My reply was that is was more complicated than that, due to the fact climate is not static. That the knowledge and experience of grape cultivation / wine production was needed too.

[Vinyadan]

Even in Roman times, alpine valleys would have benefited from such resilient vines. And yes, I think that the cold-resistant one are fairly new: AFAIK some of the best ones come from the New World, and may have been outlawed in some regions because of slight toxicity.

If many areas outside Rome took a while before they got around making wine, it probably depends on lack of qualified workers. I can't think of a way to attract them from Roman territories. Inside the Empire, not everyone had the right to grow and make wine. Probus allowed Iberians, Britons, and Celts to do it in the third century AD. Earlier, Domitian had forbidden or limited the production in certain areas. So there were legal conditions to the spread of viticulture. I am not sure of when or where wine got outside the old Empire; apparently, vines were grown along certain rivers (e.g. Bodrog) before the Magyars settled there.

Probably, a big advantage for beer is how cheap it is, compared to wine. I assume that it was like that in the past, too. So Mesopotamians drank both, but beer was much more frequent. But in areas where no wine can be made, beer and certain spirits are probably the only option. So e.g. high valleys in the Alps make spirits out of flowers, and Karelia makes beer.

[Mr Blobby]

There is another advantage: beer is made from staple grains [barley, wheat] which are quicker to grow than grapevines [I believe it's 3 years before first harvest] as well as being 'dual-use' aka in times of poor harvests can/were be diverted to bread production instead.

Two explanations of expansion of wine-growing in the late Empire I've seen is #1 Christianity and #2 taxes. It goes that to celebrate the Eucharist requires wine, and as trade routes became increasingly out of gear 300 AD onwards it meant that churches needed to find local sources. Inter-province trade taxes also got ruinously high in later years, so in the now-Romanised provinces they may have in effect said 'sod this high priced stuff from Italy... why don't we simply make it ourselves?'

Don't know if that's true or not, but from where I'm sitting seems a likely an explanation as any.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

I don't understand why so many people in pop culture oriented communities are so frequently sad and angry at other people.

I don't understand why people use terms like "normie" or "casual" in a derogatory way. I don't understand why people call some vaguely defined group of others as "dumb". I don't understand the seemingly inherent correlation between online anonymity and extremely rude behaviour. I don't understand why many gamers want to distinguish their art as "legitimate", but only while denigrating other forms of expression. I don't understand how it got so bad that people online have been trained to perceive any difference of opinion as a prelude to a personal attack. I don't understand why the simple act of being contented with someone enjoying something seems to elude so many of us. I don't understand why it's so hard to be nice. I don't understand why I care so much about a few bad apples.

[Peelee]

I don't understand why so many people in pop culture oriented communities are so frequently sad and angry at other people.

I don't understand why people use terms like "normie" or "casual" in a derogatory way. I don't understand why people call some vaguely defined group of others as "dumb". I don't understand the seemingly inherent correlation between online anonymity and extremely rude behaviour. I don't understand why many gamers want to distinguish their art as "legitimate", but only while denigrating other forms of expression. I don't understand how it got so bad that people online have been trained to perceive any difference of opinion as a prelude to a personal attack. I don't understand why the simple act of being contented with someone enjoying something seems to elude so many of us. I don't understand why it's so hard to be nice. I don't understand why I care so much about a few bad apples.

It's a form of elitism, I think. They spend a large amount of time, effort, and/or money on a thing, and then think they have more right over enjoyment of said thing than others who have not made similar investments.

As for why you care about a few bad apples, that's something I think we all do; the voices that cry fowl also tend to cry the loudest, so even a community that is largely positive can be perceived as negative if a small population of naysayers overwhelm the others in volume. If a few bad apples can spoil a bunch, then caring about a few bad apples can make sense.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't understand why so many people in pop culture oriented communities are so frequently sad and angry at other people.[...] I don't understand why I care so much about a few bad apples.

It comes down to human nature. An anthropologist will be able to explain more and better (Dumbar's number will surely be involved), but in layman's terms, humans tend to define themselves by dividing the world in two "us" and "them". "Us" is a complex group with good people with good intentions, which occasionally makes mistakes, but they are trying, they really are. "Them" are universally bad people who just want to bring down everything that is good, and any thing They do that betters the world is really a plot to make things better for Them but not for Us.

This tendency is universal throughout all of history, as far as I have seen. Politicians of all stripes have abused this for their own ends as far as history records it, certainly. It is a form of simplification: when one is going on with one's everyday life, struggling to make it through (and throughout most of history, most people have struggled to make it through each day), one does not have time for nuanced consideration. This simplification of reality allows one to belong, and we are social creatures that yearn at our most basic level to belong. This makes it easier, and thus most people choose, probably unconsciously, to make use of it.

Grey Wolf

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

It comes down to human nature. An anthropologist will be able to explain more and better (Dumbar's number will surely be involved), but in layman's terms, humans tend to define themselves by dividing the world in two "us" and "them". "Us" is a complex group with good people with good intentions, which occasionally makes mistakes, but they are trying, they really are. "Them" are universally bad people who just want to bring down everything that is good, and any thing They do that betters the world is really a plot to make things better for Them but not for Us.

This tendency is universal throughout all of history, as far as I have seen. Politicians of all stripes have abused this for their own ends as far as history records it, certainly. It is a form of simplification: when one is going on with one's everyday life, struggling to make it through (and throughout most of history, most people have struggled to make it through each day), one does not have time for nuanced consideration. This simplification of reality allows one to belong, and we are social creatures that yearn at our most basic level to belong. This makes it easier, and thus most people choose, probably unconsciously, to make use of it.

Grey Wolf

That's a very helpful and thoughtful reply. I appreciate it, but it doesn't address the major thrust of my confusion.

Everybody sees the world in terms of this binary "us" and "them". No one is exempt from it. So why is it that some can show the simple to dignity to not express it in such toxic, unhelpful ways and others succumb to it?

For example I definitely perceive the world as "us" and "them", I'd be lying if I said I didn't. But I try my hardest (not always successfully) not to let it get the best of me. Not anymore, ay least.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's a very helpful and thoughtful reply. I appreciate it, but it doesn't address the major thrust of my confusion.

Everybody sees the world in terms of this binary "us" and "them". No one is exempt from it. So why is it that some can show the simple to dignity to not express it in such toxic, unhelpful ways and others succumb to it?

For example I definitely perceive the world as "us" and "them", I'd be lying if I said I didn't. But I try my hardest (not always successfully) not to let it get the best of me. Not anymore, ay least.

I did address it, kinda. It comes down to the effort involved. To see Them as equal to Us takes effort, and most people can't be arsed because they have other things in their minds. Path of least resistance, in short.

Also, still appropriate, so I'll steal it from the other thread were I answered you the same:


(link to the source)

And Peelee's recommendation:

(link to the source)

(Be sure to press the red button for the extra punchline)
(Also be sure to hover over the comic for the other extra punchline)

Grey Wolf

[Mr Blobby]

I remember once reading that Us vs Them mentality may in fact be ingrained within human nature, a product of when we were nothing more than tiny communities of hunter-gatherers eking out a precarious existence. That we invariably of two minds when encountering 'Them'; half of us seeing them as a threat [want to take our stuff] the other seeing them as an opportunity [sexual partners not related to Us, chance They have stuff we don't]. Then the next question is 'Who is the stronger? Us or Them?'

This writer [can't remember who at this moment in time] put this aspect as the cause of many... issues in human history.

[2D8HP]

....I don't understand why many gamers want to distinguish their art as "legitimate", but only while denigrating other forms of expression....

Because it's fun..

Really that's why, loudly proclaiming "Megadeath ruler, Slayer drools" (or whatever) is fun.

Especially when to non-fans there's little discernible difference.

It's when what's argued is actually important that it becomes less fun.

...I definitely perceive the world as "us" and "them", I'd be lying if I said I didn't. But I try my hardest (not always successfully) not to let it get the best of me. Not anymore, ay least.

Where's the sport in that?