If you want to discuss something seriously, /dis/ is your place

Search /dis/ threads

Password  (for post and file deletion)

Apr 1Progress! At long last, we have the beginnings of a functional combined site ready to preview publicly. Feel free to take our new beta area for a test drive and point out any bugs you see.
Mar 31With the Merger coming up soon, we have created an official steam group for the combined sites. It can be found at http://steamcommunity.com/groups/PonychanSteam

No. 76077 [View]

So, occasionally I go out to search for articles with dissenting views. You know, the whole "trying to be rational and reduce one's biases" thing. It's not hard, there are plenty of articles. Most are smarmy, but that's another story.

What I've been wondering is...does this really help? It feels like all I'm likely to do is just become much more entrenched into my own views than otherwise, and intolerant towards others (e.g., "Oh, this argument again."). I'm starting to wondering whether what I'm doing really has the objective that I think it has. Whether this really is the best way to challenge one's own views.

I don't have much of a point here, I just wanted to ramble this out and it seemed appropriate to put here.
1 post omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76080
File 138350882451.png - (68.13KB , 264x196 , Twilight - What a funny story, Shakespeare!.png )
> It feels like all I'm likely to do is just become much more entrenched into my own views than otherwise, and intolerant towards others

You hit the nail on the head there when it comes to people arguing on the Internet. The reason that a lot of people will be smarmy when expressing their views is because they see their perceived truths as self-evident. I don't think anyone is entirely exempt from this - everyone has some breaking point where they'll start ridiculing the opposing view because they just find it too ludicrous. Nothing inherently wrong with that, although it doesn't exactly lead to a good debate if that's what you're looking for.

As for challenging your own views... Well, it's certainly one way of doing it. Thing is, most people who express opinions on a subject have little to no idea what they're talking about, or are simply bad at expressing their views. If you truly want your views to be challenged, you have to look for that rare individual who knows about the subject and won't mock opposing views. You're unlikely to find these in blogs and whatnot, but more so in any kind of professional work. Paid writers, whether they be authors of books or articles are generally more, well, professional in my experience. I think what you're doing is a good idea, but you have to be prepared to sift through the dregs in order to get to the good stuff. And you have to be able to distinguish the two so you don't dismiss an entire point of view based on a couple of people who think they've got the whole world figured out and decide to be dicks about it.
>> No. 76086
In addition to the above posts, I'd like to add that it's always worth getting supplementary information from someone who has direct experience with the topic at hand. If someone makes a statement about the economy, see what financial advisers or business experts say about the same subject. If someone makes a statement that draws from psychology, see what actual psychologists say. Someone can be basing their opinions on facts, but still be missing extra pieces of contextual information that would put those facts in a different light and lead that person to a different conclusion if they knew about them. Someone with firsthand knowledge of the subject is more likely to be familiar with these subtleties, disagreements within the field, and some of the more common misconceptions held by those outside of the field.

You have the right idea, though. Short of going out and experiencing the unknown for yourself, the only way you can broaden your own perspective is by borrowing from the perspective of others, and this won't accomplish much if the only perspectives you look at are the ones that align with your own. (But examining the opposition won't work either if you look only at the dumb opposition. Find some smart opposition.)

Also, it's fair to say some opinions are just bad opinions. Though new information can always shed new light on a subject, and new information could potentially come from anyone, it's not wrong to conclude that a certain stance is illegitimate until you actually see this new information.
>> No. 76090
File 138358291835.png - (23.35KB , 150x134 , twilight_sparkle_cloth_pattern_by_sorata_daidouji-d48c5sg.png )
>So, occasionally I go out to search for articles with dissenting views. You know, the whole "trying to be rational and reduce one's biases" thing. It's not hard, there are plenty of articles. Most are smarmy, but that's another story.

"Reducing one's biases" is one way to put it but there is a more precise way to think about it. Understanding and controlling you biases is better. A good way to think about it is that if you practice reading things that dissent with your views and you get independent evidence that you can restate another persons position correctly (from them or someone else), you have learned that skill.

One's biases are the emotional energy that we use to be passionate about what we do. So the goal is to make sure that your bias reflects reality and then you channel the emotions that way. The dirty secret is that if you are sure about your bias reflecting reality you can let it direct your passions without guilt Within reason. You can still end up looking like a bully or more if you "do it wrong". "Debiasing" is a little misleading as a term because effectively what one is learning to do is reassign some biases appropriately, remove some, and even use appropriate ones. Being biased towards 2+2=4 is not a problematic bias. You are debiasing with respect to an inappropriate bias. Everyone is biased and what matters is if the bias is correct or not. The trick is that you have to know how to take new information into account to correct mistakes or change your positions in places where you learn you were not consistent with reality.

>What I've been wondering is...does this really help? It feels like all I'm likely to do is just become much more entrenched into my own views than otherwise, and intolerant towards others (e.g., "O

No. 76052 [View]

Que. boy, 12, pleads guilty to hacking government websites! [www.torontosun.com]

The boy was hired by Anonymous (or at the very least a branch of the formless 'organization') to hack in their name in exchange for Video Games and did nothing as the boy was eventually tracked down and arrested. Instead, they are slinking back into the shadows and letting a 12 yo take the fall.

This has the same feeling of using children as human shields and African Warlords using children as soldiers. While it is not so dramatic in the loss of life, to use someone so easily influenced in such a manner is despicable in my eyes.

This is my problem with secretive anonymous shadow organizations. There is no accountability, no one to keep the rest of the members in line, no one capable of breaking the silence to bring their own members to justice.
3 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76059
File 138317334162.jpg - (26.12KB , 530x479 , mlfw7529-das_kinda_sad.jpg )
>did it in the name of Anonymous
It's all about educating kids on when it would be a good time to ask to use your friends computer to do your dirty work or when it is a good time to never take requests from anonymous unless you own your own router, are able to change your IP address, and preferably have two drivers license and instead tip them off for free cash.

Also, how do you expect accountability from an anonymous hacker group? As everyone else has said, there is no real Anonymous group, let alone faction. its more like a posse or a coup that forms when conditions are right and enough people ask for it anywhere that shit begins to happen.
>> No. 76060
File 138317832267.jpg - (267.40KB , 1024x768 , Anonymous-2011-movie-poster.jpg )
>did nothing as the boy was eventually tracked down and arrested
What were they supposed to do? How were they supposed to know to do it?

Instead of what?

> letting a 12 yo take the fall
You mean take responsibility for his actions? Why shouldn't he take responsibility for his actions?

>This has the same feeling of using children as human shields and African Warlords using children as soldiers.
thats quite frivolous of you, but perhaps its better to remember that he's involved in the Canadian justice system, not the US one - so he probably stands a significantly less chance of being raped by the guards. He might even be re-socialized. Certainly he wasn't running around with an AK high on khat running the risk of being gunned down. Its a stretch to say it 'feels' like that I think. A pretty big stretch.
>> No. 76070
File 138330525443.png - (170.93KB , 329x331 , Pffffffsh.png )
Maybe that's because the evil, Bond-esque organisation that the media likes to paint Anonymous as doesn't exist. It's a bunch of individual people with too much time on their hands. It's no one's fault but his own if this kid got talked into doing something stupid - he's as much a part of "Anonymous" as any of the people that did or didn't talk him into it. It's not exactly a collective, it's just a bunch of neckbeards that occasionally agree on doing some activism for whatever inane reason.

But other people already said that, so whatever.

File 138080530340.jpg - (30.45KB , 300x424 , obamacare90.jpg )
75676 No. 75676 [View]

Obamacare is now live.

What do you think about it, if you live in the US? Or outside the US can comment too, sure.

Any questions? Are you ready for the DEATH PANELS
49 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 76066
Take a quiz.

I got 4/5 right. You? missed number 3

>> No. 76067
How do people get questions 4 and 5 wrong, it's simple math?
I got everything else wrong, but at least I got those right.
>> No. 76068
Its funny to see people try to justify their wrong answers on 4 or 5 in the comments ^^

File 138248631770.png - (360.98KB , 900x741 , ibuki_poke_by_ninjaninjanoob23-d3f311r.png )
75998 No. 75998 [View]
I think /dis/ is full of psuedo intellectual tryhards.


Last edited at Tue, Oct 22nd, 2013 16:58

8 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76045
File 138290716990.jpg - (53.69KB , 500x500 , 4ebbcf2884d8349c7395ebf3c7ac7772.jpg )
God damn it Flutterguy, I've told you so many times to stop responding to my posts.

>That people here just pretend to engage in intelligent discussion or that they pretend to be smart
>> No. 76050
File 138294782471.png - (27.82KB , 218x183 , get that dick out yo' mouth.png )
cagey-chan, get that dick out your mouth, I can't hear you.

Though yeah, that's why I kinda don't post here anymore.
>> No. 76051


File 138279593311.jpg - (37.69KB , 480x369 , dollarcoin2.jpg )
76033 No. 76033 [View]

Simple question: do you consider economics to be a science? Why or why not?
8 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76044
>I think you mean algebras or algebraic structures or something like that, because there's only one arithmetics and it's fairly well delineated.
No, there are many.

>> No. 76047
File 138291276173.png - (22.17KB , 150x129 , i__m_sorry__what__by_maximillianveers-d3i53vg.png )
It would be better to say that science can be applied to economics.

A simple outline of the scientific process
1. Identify a phenomena that you want to explain.
2. Using what we already know about the phenomena and the observable reality that we have, create a rational, logical explanation for that phenomena (hypothesis).
3. Identify features of the world that would be real as consequence of the hypothesis being true.
4. Design an experiment to detect those features and make sure you know what the world would look like if the hypothesis were not true (null hypothesis).
5. Run the experiment.
6. Rename hypothesis to theory if explanation is confirmed by other humans, and it generally leads to the discovery of more new parts of reality.

>> No. 76048
I'd say its no less science than psychology.

File 138232338602.jpg - (76.07KB , 640x960 , image.jpg )
75982 No. 75982 [View]

I think religion is a safety blanket for the unknown
24 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 76030
File 138273208953.png - (11.96KB , 162x108 , 104 t.png )
>> No. 76031
Sounds about right, OP. It sounds more like a neutral statement than a cynical one to me although the picture you posted with it probably did give off the cynical vibe to other people. For ages people have come up with ways to explain the unknown that makes sense to them, whether it's discovering fire, encountering a new wild animal while on the hunt for food, how people became ill, etc.
>> No. 76046
File 138291131086.png - (17.76KB , 150x110 , twi__s_first_instrument_by_fethur-d3wqhzv.png )
I think religion is a lot of things and these things involve psychological requirements that need to be met as a result of the way that we have evolved and how we operate psychologically. Full disclosure, I am a weak atheist. I do not believe in the supernatural claims of any religion that I have encountered because I have not found the evidence personally convincing, and that is not the same as saying there are no Gods or higher powers. I assess claims on a case by case basis and who knows, maybe I'll get convinced by something someday.

I think that insofar as we don't like lacking explanations for phenomena that are important to us, religion can function as a way to be more comfortable with what we don't know. We create concepts which are cognitive tools. An "unknown" has no handles, nothing to interact with or grab with mentally speaking. If we give something an explanation, even a temporary one, it can be filed away and used personally and socially speaking.
I don't like it when particular religious groups and individuals have problems letting go of some of these concepts when they turn out to not reflect reality. Any actions they take based on the flawed concepts will be error prone and such errors can affect me. It's socially touchy but there are plenty of examples of religions changing their view of things as we learn more about the world. In the end a concept is only as durable as it is useful. That is a shelf-life in my view.

I also think religion is a cultural narrative and an outlet for our need to interact with one another as a function of being social primates. It's common for us to create stories around the groups that we divide ourselves into. The older the group the more complicated the story due to there being more historical events. Extra meaning added to a group can bind individuals together more tightly because there will be more concepts for individuals to interact under. It adds richness and diversity to the group experience. We tend to learn things easier when there is a story involved that places us in a context with others and our environment.
We seem to use these stories to get ourselves oriented as a group when

No. 75995 [View]

(I'm too lazy to get the image for it so someone else can)

The World has reached the UN's goals for reduction of people living in abject poverity and those without clean drinking water five years early.

In 1990, the UN wanted to cut in half the number of people living in extreme poverity (those living on less than $1.25 a day) and the number of people without clean drinking water. The goal was set to have this happen in 2015. In 2010, the goals were meet.


Prof. Stephen Davies explains that this is due to the world growing to accept free market and open trade. Does /dis/ share in his sentiments?
3 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76006
Now aren't you doing the same you accuse him of?

>He seems to simply just attribute it. I don't see much support or data he's provided that ties his claim to reality.

This is the UN, as much as they bumble around they aren't complete idiots. I'm sure they are adjusting their figures to the shifting dollar and calculating in inflation and whatnot.

Now, the proper thing to do is to bring up counter-evidence to Professor Davies' hypothesis. Can you prove that it was not the expanding free market and open trade in India and China which lifted people out of poverty?

A. Gary Shilling agrees with Professor Davies in this article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-17/india-s-accelerating-shift-toward-free-markets.html
>> No. 76008
File 138254710391.png - (497.84KB , 1600x1731 , 1382883094.png )
I don't find that video convincing.
That man takes a complex problem that is influenced by a lot of things, then takes something that is probably one of those things and claims that the change in problem we see has been caused by the thing he choose to single out, but provided zero evidence for it.
Correlation does not mean causation.

>Now, the proper thing to do is to bring up counter-evidence to Professor Davies' hypothesis. Can you prove that it was not the expanding free market and open trade in India and China which lifted people out of poverty?

Excuse me, but shouldn't you be showing evidence that Professor Davies' hypothesis is true rather than asking him (if you're not a guy: sorry, I assume you are as most people here are) to show evidence that it is untrue?

Last edited at Wed, Oct 23rd, 2013 09:52

>> No. 76032
>Now aren't you doing the same you accuse him of?

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertions. We should not, by default, accept anything and everything anyone says without support only until we have enough to build a case against it. Were we to do that, I could tell you that jupiter, the position of the sun in the universe as it relates to the position of other stars, or a flying spaghetti monster are responsible for the things this man attributes to 'free market' - and you'd have to accept them all until you could build a case against them. Its not how it works, for good reason, as >>76008 points out.

>This is the UN

As best as I can tell, this person is not from the UN. He's a from a 'conservative and free market think tank' called the IEA. The goals and comparisons of how they measure up are pulled from the UN.

> I'm sure they are adjusting their figures

Are you? Because I can't find where their figures are adjusted. If you are so sure, help me to be so sure by showing me where. If you cannot, then why are you so sure if you don't know for sure?

File 138174665443.png - (11.60KB , 489x254 , corpgovbff.png )
75894 No. 75894 [View]

What role do you think corporations should have in influencing and running governments?

Is such a relationship fine, or perilous? Why?
33 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 75991
>That's a fictional horror story with no basis in fact.

It would be completely fictional, except that it really happens.

Here is a judge found guilty of being bribed to throw more juveniles in jail, by the jailing corporation.


AKA the 'kids for cash scandal'
>> No. 75992
>What role do you think corporations should have in influencing and running governments?

I'm for erecting a legal wall between them and killing those who decide to cross it.

Last edited at Mon, Oct 21st, 2013 18:27

>> No. 76002
Huffington Post has quite a detailed collection about privately run prisons, detailing what for profit incarceration 'services' are and how well they don't perform.


>"the company that runs the prison, Management & Training Corp., threatened to sue the state. A line in their contract guaranteed that the prison would remain 97 percent full. They argued they had lost nearly $10 million from the reduced inmate population."
Crime pays - and if it doesn't, you might get sued.

YSI = youth services international, a private corporation running juvenile detention

>"Those held at YSI facilities across the country have frequently faced beatings, neglect, sexual abuse and unsanitary food over the past two decades, according to a HuffPost investigation that included interviews with 14 former employees and a review of thousands of pages of state audits, lawsuits, local police reports and probes by state and federal agencies. Out of more than 300 institutions surveyed, a YSI detention center in Georgia had the highest rate of youth alleging sexual assaults in the country, according to a recent report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics."

File 138229800034.jpg - (49.30KB , 480x633 , big_201221520573256.jpg )
75975 No. 75975 [View]

Last edited at Sun, Oct 20th, 2013 13:03

2 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 75978
Thank you, I really wanted a migraine.

There's two sad truths in this.

One: At least one person on that website is serious.

Two: At least one person reading that website will think it is serious.
>> No. 75980
File 138231378019.png - (16.34KB , 127x150 , twilight_is_happy_for_an_unknown_reason_by_mrlolcats17-d4j29dx.png )
I'm familiar with this site. It's an example of satire so pointed that it is a literal example of Poes Law [en.wikipedia.org], ...an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.
I was unaware that landoverbaptist.org had a fourm associated with it, but the main site is not an actual religious group. It's a parody.
>> No. 75985
Guys I can't find anything in the Bible about ponies

File 138148222196.jpg - (77.54KB , 612x612 , zzz.jpg )
75842 No. 75842 [View]
What do you think of Transexuals. Pic related. Transexual.
13 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 75948
I have an arguement of a similiar nature.
A person's gender forms such a miniscule part of their personality that a person who bases so much of their identity on it is only serving to reinforce those gender roles they're rebeling against.

I don't understand it, and this is why I have such a hard putting up with transexuals or gay culture. I don't care what sexual practices people like in private, but to form such a small aspect of life as sex as the core of their identity, exaggeratedly act in a stereotypical manner, and go out of their way to make sure other people are aware of this is far beyond proper conduct. But whatever anyone else does is their own issue, not for me to worry about even if I disapprove, I suppose.

Although it must be said, I have met a great deal of transexuals and homosexuals who were not like this, and I have very little issue putting up with them. If I invited some friends of mine to go for a trail ride, and one of them asked if he could bring his boyfriend along I probably wouldn't bat an eye (so long as it was the same sort of thing as when a guy asks to bring his girlfriend along - you expect them not to be making out on the horse the whole day infront of everyone.). On the other hand, if I ask someone to stop flirting with me, they should stop flirting regardless of if they're male or female. It just seems like there's an awful lot in my experience of LBGT people who expect that they can get away with allot more than straight people can (and in my opinion oughtn't do either), and other people defend them if you call them out on it. I've certainly met by far more of this sort than not - although I'll fully admit that may only be because they were the only ones I was aware of.

MC Buffalo, your arguement only applies if you're making the case if there were a seperate catagory of transwomen and ciswomen. Which while I agree there is, as far as I understand it they want to be or see their image of themself as ciswomen themselves. Thus any a
>> No. 75974
I hate it when people think they have an idea of what a transsexual and transgendered person is after seeing them on tv. Most of that shit is usually actors and actresses pretending to be a negative stereotype.
I also hate it when people don't talk about FtM trangendered people and FtM transsexuals as well. They go through some hate as well, but most people assume it's alright since "she" is a girl who is "lesbian"
I also hate it when guys make fun of MtF trangendered people and transsexuals by calling them traps and hating them so much, even to the point of murdering them.
Sorry about my angry rant.
>> No. 75979
>A person's gender forms such a miniscule part of their personality that a person who bases so much of their identity on it is only serving to reinforce those gender roles they're rebeling against.

Maybe transsexuals aren't rebelling against the idea of gender roles in general, but rather, against the idea that you have to be a specific sex to have any of those roles apply to you.

Realistically speaking, there are certain things that separate men and women, and not just biologically. Any time there's a term that a group can use to distinguish itself from other groups, there's certain traits that then get associated with that group. Sometimes these traits are created by people within the group, sometimes they're created by people outside the group. Sometimes they're common traits, sometimes they're unfair stereotypes, but they're always there, and they're always connected to someone's identity as part of that group.

But every person within a group is also an individual, with their own unique traits, who can make their own decisions. A person may not believe in God, and they may identify as an atheist, but this does not exclude them from basing their morals on lessons taught in the Bible, or even from going to church. Being white does not exclude a musician from creating hip-hop, and being black does not exclude a musician from making country music, even though neither of these occurrences is common among musicians of those cultural backgrounds. Similarly, just because someone is physically male does not exclude them from identifying more with women as a whole and being more interested in things that are more commonly associated with women, style of dress probably being the most obvious one. (It's not the only one, but the other traits are more subtle, numerous, and up to debate, and probably differ from transsexual to transsexual. It's more how it all adds up, rather than there being one or two big things that concretely

File 138194710375.jpg - (100.67KB , 898x621 , the end of the world is neigh.jpg )
75931 No. 75931 [View]
I've noticed that in a lot of in a lot of films, television shows,(both animated and live action), music, whether religious or secular, the human race seems to be extremely critical of itself Some examples that come to mind:
Peace on Earth [www.imdb.com]
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Most Western religious doctrines seem to preach that humanity is evil by default
I remember a Courage the Cowardly dog episode [courage.wikia.com] that had this kind of message, and I'm sure there are many others
Most post-apocalyptic stories tend to have a similar message

My point being, why do you think this is so commonplace? Despite our improvements health, science, technology, etc, and in how we treat others, we don't seem to be very optimistic about the future. How much of this mindset, and of the do you think is warranted?
4 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 75958

The easiest thing of all is to pretend that problems don't exist.
>> No. 75959
Ya, but that doesn't carry with it the feeling of accomplishment without the equal amount of work that comes with it.
>> No. 75963
I think there are a few different concepts that look similar that you're mixing up.

>I've noticed that in a lot of in a lot of films, television shows,(both animated and live action), music, whether religious or secular, the human race seems to be extremely critical of itself

In the west, and in some other parts, we carry on a lot of traditions and ideologies that are born from our christian and puritan roots. 'Original Sin' and 'Inherent Damnation' are two such concepts, however I don't think these should be confused with dystopian future art and stories, even though sometimes they are tied together. I think they're very different things with similar shades of gloom at times.

>My point being, why do you think this is so commonplace?

Dystopian future predictions have not always been so commonplace, but it seems our vision of the future becomes more and more dystopian at some point in recent history. Probably somewhere in the 1900's though certainly some people have had glimpses of possible futures that were dystopian and tried to share these visions before. Most cultures which were indigenous were often able to see such a future with stark and brutal clarity as their homes, way of life, their land, and their culture were consumed by ones with money, industry, and alien (to them) forms of greed.

File 138215428923.jpg - (15.62KB , 350x300 , freedoms-internally.jpg )
75961 No. 75961 [View]

If man and a woman get married, and then one of them gets a sex-change operation, would they still be considered married in a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage?
>> No. 75962
Without any kind of statute book, that's a difficult question, I wouldn't even be so sure if every state would handle it equally.

Sorry that I really have no satisfying answer for that. I suppose you need to ask a lawyer.
(Since I don't live in the USA and thus, not tolerating same-sex marriage is a completely alien concept... not very surprising I guess)

File 138174653259.jpg - (36.81KB , 300x388 , peak_oil_bbyu.jpg )
75893 No. 75893 [View]

What do you think about peak oil?

Do you think we have already hit it? Do you think it is yet to come? Do you think there is no such thing as peak oil, and we will continue drawing it from the earth at an ever increasing rate because of reasons?

What impact do you think peak oil has or will have?
10 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 75941
>There are lots of sources, but they're all negligible compared to fossilized plant matter, which is non-renewable on a human time-scale.

That is sort of what I am getting at (I'm also coming into this late). There is objectively a peak-oil if what we think of as oil only gets made really slowly.

I was mostly responding to arguments like,
Which really sound like what they used to say about whales being an unlimited resource. The number of fields does not matter. They don't go on forever and the get filled, not at all from our perspective.
Otherwise it make sense that they won't extract what they don't think will be in demand.

>> No. 75942
As far as I'm aware "peak oil" is not "oil production ceases" but rather "oil production stops increasing". Honestly I haven't given the issue much thought.

Last edited at Wed, Oct 16th, 2013 21:38

>> No. 75944
>Much of that is unconventional oil, like tar sands. Conventional oil production has been generally flatlined since 2005 and appears to have peaked during that year. http://www.oilprice.com/uploads/AB695.png

>And if we look at prices, we see a big fluctuation in oil price kick off at just that time. http://www.countercurrents.org/worldoil-supply-and-brent-oil-price.png

Those both look scary, but I am not easily scared. First off, neither of them have sources to show where they got their data from. Secondly, they are easy to explain if you look at the current state of the world.

First off, lets look at the first chart. It does look very solid, production flat lined at 2005 and 2006. But what also happened in that time? First off, Hurricane Katrina shut down a lot of Gulf Coast oil production and oil refining. It took a long time for it to recover and the following hurricanes didn't help.

There was then a drop in US Production when Obama took office and no further oil drilling was permitted on Federal Lands, including offshore.

Additionally around that time there was growing unrest in the Middle East as well as the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. These were followed by the Arab Spring which caused a lot of production slow down in the area.

File 138132709939.jpg - (8.89KB , 221x228 , Sad appelbloom.jpg )
75817 No. 75817 [View]

Hello everyone, I am new to Pony Chan but not to the fandom so bare with me. I just finished waching the last Youtube video posted by TheMovieBrony. To those who don't know. This YT channel was created to show off the fandom's fan made videos (but you're all probably familiar with it at this point). Ultimately, he or she passed on his or her sires to jhallar because he or she is no longer apart of the fandom due to work and graduating school. Thankfully, it continues to this day. For some reason this is making me worry. Do you believe the brony fandom will die? If so, can it be saved?

Last edited at Wed, Oct 9th, 2013 06:59

22 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 75924
File 138188282435.jpg - (13.16KB , 150x170 , image.jpg )
>>75817. Let me answer your question with a question: with the fandom being a big as it is in only a quarter of a decade, why would it die?
>> No. 75935
A request to know why the image was banned is reasonable, but take additional comments to /meta/ if you want to complain some more. The subject is now dropped here and I will rerail the thread myself.

The image was deleted because it was reported on and we have deleted that image for associated drama before. It's trollish use is considerable since it is an image of the creator of the show with something rather inflammatory between the quotation marks. Depending on the particular use it has run afoul of many of the rules. In this case it's mere existence is enough for me,
>Do not maliciously impersonate others, and do not sockpuppet (#3).
I have zero problems assuming that the creator of the image is maliciously impersonating Ms. Faust. I have no problems deleting an image that is de facto libel as a fundamental part of it's existence when it gets reported.
Appeals to censorship will not be effective because censorship only has to do with the relationship between a government and the speech of it's citizens. Censorship does not have to do with groups of citizens choosing to mutually regulate their individual communities.
>> No. 75937
File 138195545216.jpg - (53.29KB , 569x550 , google trends MLP FIM brony.jpg )
Here is an interesting way to look at it. I put a couple of terms into google trends to see what would happen. Remember that this is only the patterns of people using these terms in google.

*my little pony (the older term so it will get more use)
*friendship is magic (the G4 series only)
*brony (our fandom)

While I am having trouble getting google trends to let me size the graph you can see that interest in "my little pony" is on the rise and may still be rising despite the recent dip. This pool includes possible new bronies as the curious wonder why my little pony is suddenly more popular.

Friendship is magic and brony display different, similar behavior and are more relevant to the fandom. FIM is the name of the new show only so people who are not related to the fandom at all are likely to just use "my little pony" and not "friendship is magic".
FIM and brony seem to have grown and quickly reached a value that is only slowly declining if it is declining. This is more likely related to the long term behavior of the fandom.

File 138177810487.png - (36.89KB , 856x484 , bumretch.png )
75903 No. 75903 [View]


Not really a #discussion because I'm not legitimately sharing an opinion of my own nor saying something that opens up good discussion, but:

Here's another of those empty and slightly annoying "American traditions."
>> No. 75907
File 138178676194.jpg - (21.41KB , 394x406 , 5166465451_ded900eaf8_z.jpg )

> Here's another of those empty and slightly annoying "American traditions."

That sounds like an opinion being shared to me.
>> No. 75909
It's a Federal Holiday, like Labor Day

Aka, nobody cares, and we shouldn't care till we can reopen the governent

Delete post []
Report post

[0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]