I know it's often used by conspiracy theorists, but the thing about it is that you can usually ignore them. Looking past conspiracies & free speech, it's actually quite similar to Google+.
I joined Minds on the suggestion of a couple of G+ refugees, along with MeWe and pluspora. Minds I find almost impossible to navigate to find people or topics of interest to me, or to find people who respond to my posts. Most of what I do see is pretty much arrogant libertarian screeds and memes -- not that I have a problem with libertarians as such, but these get boring.
Christian Nalletamby > I just found out they had > members of Mensa there:
By "Mensa," are you referring to the high-IQ society known as "Mensa International" (see https://www.mensa.org/)? If so, this revelation is news to me.
When I was in elementary school, I was admitted to the "MGM" (Mentally Gifted Minor) program, which, IIRC, had similar requirements (see https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED071255).
Although there exist people in such programs with markedly different views, they usually have some interesting methodology of reasoning behind their views. (Personally, I am somewhat more tolerant of apparently insane people capable of demonstrating extremely high intelligence than of apparently insane people incapable of doing such--if only because I have occasionally found analysis of their reasoning to be rather interesting from a psychological viewpoint (psychology, together with English, was one of my 2 fortes in college).) mensa.org - What is Mensa? | Mensa International
Linda Tewes I remove my comment, she seems to be a genuine PhD in Robotics, rather open-minded. So open-minded, that she shared that Infowars story about "new research giving evidence that vaccines causes Autism". That made me react harshly. Yes, she is member of Mensa International, on her CV. Let's hope she learns more about Infowars...
Christian Nalletamby > Yes, > she is member of Mensa > International, on her CV.
Ah, so my suspicions have been vindicated.
That discovery changes the picture dramatically for Minds. Although usually I cannot tolerate social network services with a high percentage of arrogant people with insane conflicting viewpoints, if some of those people have a sufficiently high IQ to justify their arrogance, I might be willing to investigate the reasoning behind those viewpoints, if only to satisfy my curiosity regarding the psychology of highly intelligent people with insane opinions.
Linda Tewes > He meant that > sarcastically, I think.
You might want to do your research before jumping to a false conclusion next time.
Christian Nalletamby How am I supposed to make an informed reaction if you first state that the contributor of the snapshot of an anti-vaccine post (which has apparently been mysteriously deleted) is a member of Mensa International on her C.V., implying that he did not mean it sarcastically, then turn around and say that the comment was sarcastic? It is impossible to make an informed reaction on the basis of misleading implications.
Had you not stated that she was a member of Mensa, I would not have concluded that Linda Tewes's statement that he had made the comment "sarcastically" was a "false conclusion," and this situation would not have happened in the first place!
I do take back my comment that Linda Tewes's conclusion that his comment had been made "sarcastically" was a "false conclusion," since you just now turned around and said that it had been made "sarcastically." In light of your new information, which you had not revealed before, apparently, Linda Tewes's conclusion was, in fact, true.
However, I would not have made that comment in the first place if you had not stated that the contributor of the snapshot of the anti-vaccine post was a member of Mensa. Your comment implied that his comment was not sarcastic.
What is the basis for your claim that the contributor of the snapshot of the anti-vaccine post is a member of Mensa International and yet his comment was sarcastic? The entire premise that his comment was sarcastic was based on the assumption that that contributor was not a member of Mensa, since he specifically mentioned "Mensa." Therefore, since you yourself stated that she was a member of Mensa, I had no choice but to conclude that the comment was not sarcastic.
Also, why has the snapshot of the anti-vaccine post apparently been deleted (I can't seem to find it in this thread anymore)? It is very difficult to conduct a discussion of this nature if the basis for the discussion itself has been deleted!
Could you please re-post that snapshot of the anti-vaccine post in this thread again for reference? Otherwise, it is extremely difficult for anyone else to understand what this discussion is about! That snapshot is what led to this whole apparent misunderstanding in the first place!
If you had not posted that snapshot, which referenced the author of the depicted anti-vaccine post as a member of Mensa, I would not have thought that the author was a member of Mensa, and this entire misunderstanding would never have happened in the first place! Because of that apparently misleading snapshot, I thought that the author of the depicted anti-vaccine post was a member of Mensa. Then Linda Tewes stated that the reference to Mensa had been made "sarcastically," and you replied that the author was indeed a member of Mensa, implying that the comment had not been made sarcastically.
This is the reason that I then stated that Linda Tewes's conclusion that the reference to Mensa had been made "sarcastically" was false. But then you mysteriously claimed that it had in fact been made sarcastically.
Therefore, on the basis of your new claim, I then took back my claim that Linda Tewes's conclusion that the reference to Mensa had been made "sarcastically" was false.
However, your basis for your claim that the author was in fact a member of Mensa, yet somehow the comment had still been made "sarcastically," still does not make any sense to me.
How is it possible for that author to be a member of Mensa, yet also for that comment to be sarcastic? The entire point of that apparent sarcasm was supposed to be that that author was not a member of Mensa.
New comments on this blog are moderated. If you do not have a Google identity, you are welcome to post anonymously. Your comments will appear here after they have been reviewed. Comments with vulgarity will be rejected.
It’s a haven for conspiracy theorists.
ReplyDeleteI know it's often used by conspiracy theorists, but the thing about it is that you can usually ignore them. Looking past conspiracies & free speech, it's actually quite similar to Google+.
ReplyDeleteKerry Jeon Yes, Google + is shutting down in April, if that's your question.
ReplyDeleteI joined Minds on the suggestion of a couple of G+ refugees, along with MeWe and pluspora. Minds I find almost impossible to navigate to find people or topics of interest to me, or to find people who respond to my posts. Most of what I do see is pretty much arrogant libertarian screeds and memes -- not that I have a problem with libertarians as such, but these get boring.
ReplyDeleteKerry Jeon improved G+ for GSuiters that pay the minimum 5 per mth... no more free G+
ReplyDeleteShelenn Ayres and no longer public.
ReplyDeleteKerry Jeon G+ is closing down for normal consumers in April, and there will be no replacement for it from Google.
ReplyDeleteChristian Nalletamby > I just found out they had
ReplyDelete> members of Mensa there:
By "Mensa," are you referring to the high-IQ society known as "Mensa International" (see https://www.mensa.org/)? If so, this revelation is news to me.
When I was in elementary school, I was admitted to the "MGM" (Mentally Gifted Minor) program, which, IIRC, had similar requirements (see https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED071255).
Although there exist people in such programs with markedly different views, they usually have some interesting methodology of reasoning behind their views. (Personally, I am somewhat more tolerant of apparently insane people capable of demonstrating extremely high intelligence than of apparently insane people incapable of doing such--if only because I have occasionally found analysis of their reasoning to be rather interesting from a psychological viewpoint (psychology, together with English, was one of my 2 fortes in college).)
mensa.org - What is Mensa? | Mensa International
Benjamin Russell He meant that sarcastically, I think. The screenshot is of an anti-vaccine post.
ReplyDeleteLinda Tewes Oh, that is unfortunate. Perhaps because I was born into a Japanese samurai family, Western sarcasm often escapes my understanding.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Russell Riiight.
ReplyDeleteLinda Tewes Really.
ReplyDeleteLinda Tewes I remove my comment, she seems to be a genuine PhD in Robotics, rather open-minded.
ReplyDeleteSo open-minded, that she shared that Infowars story about "new research giving evidence that vaccines causes Autism".
That made me react harshly.
Yes, she is member of Mensa International, on her CV.
Let's hope she learns more about Infowars...
Christian Nalletamby > Yes,
ReplyDelete> she is member of Mensa
> International, on her CV.
Ah, so my suspicions have been vindicated.
That discovery changes the picture dramatically for Minds. Although usually I cannot tolerate social network services with a high percentage of arrogant people with insane conflicting viewpoints, if some of those people have a sufficiently high IQ to justify their arrogance, I might be willing to investigate the reasoning behind those viewpoints, if only to satisfy my curiosity regarding the psychology of highly intelligent people with insane opinions.
Linda Tewes > He meant that
> sarcastically, I think.
You might want to do your research before jumping to a false conclusion next time.
Benjamin Russell Linda Tewes was right!
ReplyDeleteIt was sarcastic.
Christian Nalletamby Thank you.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Russell You owe me an apology.
ReplyDeleteChristian Nalletamby How am I supposed to make an informed reaction if you first state that the contributor of the snapshot of an anti-vaccine post (which has apparently been mysteriously deleted) is a member of Mensa International on her C.V., implying that he did not mean it sarcastically, then turn around and say that the comment was sarcastic? It is impossible to make an informed reaction on the basis of misleading implications.
ReplyDeleteHad you not stated that she was a member of Mensa, I would not have concluded that Linda Tewes's statement that he had made the comment "sarcastically" was a "false conclusion," and this situation would not have happened in the first place!
I do take back my comment that Linda Tewes's conclusion that his comment had been made "sarcastically" was a "false conclusion," since you just now turned around and said that it had been made "sarcastically." In light of your new information, which you had not revealed before, apparently, Linda Tewes's conclusion was, in fact, true.
However, I would not have made that comment in the first place if you had not stated that the contributor of the snapshot of the anti-vaccine post was a member of Mensa. Your comment implied that his comment was not sarcastic.
What is the basis for your claim that the contributor of the snapshot of the anti-vaccine post is a member of Mensa International and yet his comment was sarcastic? The entire premise that his comment was sarcastic was based on the assumption that that contributor was not a member of Mensa, since he specifically mentioned "Mensa." Therefore, since you yourself stated that she was a member of Mensa, I had no choice but to conclude that the comment was not sarcastic.
Also, why has the snapshot of the anti-vaccine post apparently been deleted (I can't seem to find it in this thread anymore)? It is very difficult to conduct a discussion of this nature if the basis for the discussion itself has been deleted!
Could you please re-post that snapshot of the anti-vaccine post in this thread again for reference? Otherwise, it is extremely difficult for anyone else to understand what this discussion is about! That snapshot is what led to this whole apparent misunderstanding in the first place!
If you had not posted that snapshot, which referenced the author of the depicted anti-vaccine post as a member of Mensa, I would not have thought that the author was a member of Mensa, and this entire misunderstanding would never have happened in the first place! Because of that apparently misleading snapshot, I thought that the author of the depicted anti-vaccine post was a member of Mensa. Then Linda Tewes stated that the reference to Mensa had been made "sarcastically," and you replied that the author was indeed a member of Mensa, implying that the comment had not been made sarcastically.
This is the reason that I then stated that Linda Tewes's conclusion that the reference to Mensa had been made "sarcastically" was false. But then you mysteriously claimed that it had in fact been made sarcastically.
Therefore, on the basis of your new claim, I then took back my claim that Linda Tewes's conclusion that the reference to Mensa had been made "sarcastically" was false.
However, your basis for your claim that the author was in fact a member of Mensa, yet somehow the comment had still been made "sarcastically," still does not make any sense to me.
How is it possible for that author to be a member of Mensa, yet also for that comment to be sarcastic? The entire point of that apparent sarcasm was supposed to be that that author was not a member of Mensa.
Linda Tewes YouTube is filled with conspiracy theorists too and you are not using it?
ReplyDeleteKerem Go Very seldom. I don’t surf, post or comment there.
ReplyDelete