The Chapo Guide to Revolution -
A Manifesto Against Logic, Facts, and Reason
|
Monday, 2 February 2015
quote [ Or not. You know. Whatever, man. That's just like your opinion. ]
|
Comments
 |
notasockofsteele said @ 10:08pm GMT on 2nd Feb
[Score:1 Testing_Sub_Mod]
steele, you're the best!
|
|
steele said @ 10:09pm GMT on 2nd Feb
[Score:1 Testing_Sub_Mod]
gasp! Why thank you, notasockofsteele!
|
|
HoZay said @ 10:18pm GMT on 2nd Feb
[Score:1 Testing_Sub_Mod]
I believe +1 JOE_CAM has been nominated already?
|
|
steele said @ 10:25pm GMT on 2nd Feb
Yeah, but I think it was the same person both times and there never seemed to be much support behind it... Also I'm not sure about making a mod about a specific person. Something fictional like "Like Zorro" I think would be a okay, but a mod for a specific person also kind of encompasses all the behavior of that person.
|
|
b said @ 10:51pm GMT on 2nd Feb
Allow me to vote against a Joecam mod.
|
|
arrowhen said @ 11:39pm GMT on 2nd Feb
I'm very much in favor of a JOECAM mod.
JOECAM's been gone for, what, two years now? Three? And just about every mention of him on the new site has been some variation of "JOECAM would love this stuff!" I'd argue that at this point a "+1 JOECAM" mod wouldn't really be about the person who used to go by that username, it would be about the folk hero that he's become. JOECAM is a major figure in our community's mythology, a personification of some of our most important community values -- passionate enthusiasm (he doesn't just like this stuff, he loves it!) and eclectic curiosity (he loves all kinds of stuff, from dickgirls to pictures of abandoned buildings and everything in between.) I wouldn't want to see any other mods about specific people (no "-1 a_friend" or whatever), but I think JOECAM is a special case. Plus I think it would be neat if somewhere down the road people were invoking his name to express appreciation for the kinds of posts that make this place so special without even knowing that the name used to refer to a real guy. |
|
steele said @ 11:56pm GMT on 2nd Feb
And every reason you just listed as for, is in fact, my reasons against. You guys are romanticisizing a memory of a real person. And that's fine for what it is, but by wanting to make him a mod you're solidifying that folk hero aspect and ignoring the fact that he was more than a guy who just "loved stuff." He was a real person with real behavior and issues and not everyone got along with him.
|
|
arrowhen said[1] @ 12:59am GMT on 3rd Feb
[Score:1 Underrated]
I disagree that we're romanticizing a memory of a real person; I think we're creating our culture's folklore, celebrating our community's values by personifying them into a mythical character who happens to be based on a figure from our history.
I don't think anyone is ignoring the fact that he was a real person with real behavior and issues, I just think that because we're all real people with real behaviors and issues who don't all get along, when someone isn't here any more to participate in our day-to-day process of being real people with issues, etc., it's perfectly natural for their "real personhood" to fade into memory. And sometimes when that happens, the person's legacy remains behind and takes on a life of its own. |
|
sanepride said @ 1:21am GMT on 3rd Feb
Bravo.
I could certainly understand the obvious issues with mods named after current contributing members (with the possible exception of lilmookie ;)). Former members who left an enduring legacy on SE are a whole different matter. To steele I might ask- if taglines can specifically refer to such people, why not mods? Besides the great JOECAM, why not a +/- 1 madpride mod? Or for that matter the appropriate mods for longhair, aktung, or the enigmatic bosco? Who is actually harmed by such tributes? |
|
steele said[1] @ 2:01am GMT on 3rd Feb
[Score:1 Underrated]
He has a tagline. That's good enough for me. Taglines originally were taken and added when they were conceived. They're a random tidbit of our history taken out of context as amusement. I consider mods to be much more of an everyday tool for shaping the site's direction.
No personal attacks. I'd amend that for positive or negative. You want to make a mod about yourself? That's fine. But referencing another person is crossing a number of lines. Not to mention not giving them a say in the matter. I did amend it :) I wonder how willing you guys would be to make a mod of someone that's been demonized instead of romanticized. In my mind it's the same issue. |
|
lilmookieesquire said @ 2:05am GMT on 3rd Feb
[Score:1 Underrated]
-1 Steele's_No_Fun
|
|
steele said @ 2:07am GMT on 3rd Feb
My No_Fun is huge ;)
|
|
lilmookieesquire said @ 4:57am GMT on 3rd Feb
+1 terrifying
|
|
soon-to-be-bannedpride said @ 2:23am GMT on 3rd Feb
[Score:1 Funsightful]
fascist
|
|
lilmookieesquire said @ 1:44am GMT on 3rd Feb
SAY MY NAME BIIIIIITCH!
*cough* sorry. Sorry about that. |
|
bltrocker said @ 2:43am GMT on 3rd Feb
+1 ArtisAnal Soap
|
|
lilmookieesquire said @ 4:57am GMT on 3rd Feb
+3
|
|
steele said @ 1:44am GMT on 3rd Feb
I disagree that we're romanticizing a memory of a real person;
That is literally what you are describing. You're ignoring all the "real personhood" and instead picking and choosing the things you prefer to remember. Being able to describe the process doesn't make it right. And as someone who remembers the guy in good and bad, it's pretty fucking disconcerting. |
|
arrowhen said @ 5:06am GMT on 3rd Feb
[Score:1 Good]
I remember the guy too. Probably not as well as you -- we only exchanged a handful of comments over the years -- but I do remember him. What I'm saying is that that JOECAM and the one that people talk about when they make "JOECAM would have loved this stuff!" comments in posts that appeared long after his disappearance are two different people. One was (is?) a flesh-and-blood human being, the other is a myth, a story that was born out of a small subset of our memories of the man but then went on to have a life of its own, as stories are wont to do.
And stories, of course, are often more about their tellers and listeners than they are their characters. When we tell ourselves the myth of JOECAM, we're telling the story of the SE we want to be. JOECAM "loves this stuff" because we think loving this stuff is important. It has no more to do with picking and choosing our memories of JOECAM the man than telling stories of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor has to do with picking and choosing memories of the various historical figures purported to be the origin of the Robin Hood myth. |
|
steele said @ 2:04pm GMT on 3rd Feb
Look I get exactly what you're saying.
So here's the crux of my response to that: What I'm saying is that that JOECAM and the one that people talk about when they make "JOECAM would have loved this stuff!" comments in posts that appeared long after his disappearance are two different people. To you. There are plenty of other people on this site besides you that haven't bought into your mythological version. As a matter of fact, some quick SQL querying reveals that joecam has only been mentioned by 21 people (including me) on this site since we started almost a year ago. Only 9 of them mentioned him more than once. We've had over 28200+ comments so far and he hasn't been mentioned in more than a handful of them by the same people. You, sanepride, and bones, quite literally make up 38% of the times he's been mentioned. And looking at it now, all of bones' mentions took place in that avalon game. How much you want to bet that if I were to filter out all the mentions from that game the number of people mentioning him would drop considerably? You are romanticizing him. Not everybody. You and a handful of other people. |
|
arrowhen said @ 7:38pm GMT on 3rd Feb
Nah, if I'm romanticizing anything it's the community. Wouldn't be the first time.
I think it's interesting that you say he's been mentioned by "only" 21 people. That's a small percentage of total users but a pretty good chunk of our active, full-time regulars. I'd be curious how many different people have used the phrase "JOECAM would have loved this stuff" or some variation. |
|
steele said @ 8:06pm GMT on 3rd Feb
[Score:1 Interesting]
I say only because we have comments made by 500+, they're just not active at the same time. There's a lot of people that will make comments, then drift away for a few months and then start all over again. And again, that Avalon game is where the majority of multiple mentioners are coming from. In the beginning there were also a number of comments asking if specific people including him had made it over to the new site.
Ignoring the Avalon stuff and this post, JOECAM was mentioned in the content of 3 posts, and in 5 comments with "love", including the aforementioned mod comment by Bleb. 2 more by mookie, one by you which was a link to some speech thing, and one by Tirade. Everything else was Avalon and just happened to have JOECAM and love in the same comment. |
|
arrowhen said @ 8:41pm GMT on 3rd Feb
Hmm. I'm probably remembering similar comments from the old site, too.
Anyway, I find "we have comments made by 500+, they're just not active at the same time" way more interesting than the JOECAM stuff. While you're taking requests for custom searches, how many members have 100+ comments? |
|
steele said @ 8:56pm GMT on 3rd Feb
[Score:2 Informative]
I've gotta retract that 500+. It's more like 350+ I was grouping by the wrong field.
55 have 100+ comments. 85 have 50+ comments. 125 have 25+ comments. I may be off by one or two on those. |
|
lilmookieesquire said @ 11:49pm GMT on 3rd Feb
I deny everything.
|
|
sanepride said @ 2:18am GMT on 3rd Feb
This discussion is reminiscent of the debate that preceded the passage of the Martin Luther King holiday, signed into law by Ronald Reagan. Needless to say there was plenty of opposition from Reagan's own party, with leading opponents decrying a federal holiday in honor of a man they considered a communist and moral degenerate. Reagan, in a rare moment of non-evil lucidity, responded to the effect that the perception of the man was more important than the man himself. And while it pains me to use Reagan as a positive example, I think his reasoning should apply here. As for JOECAM in particular, I recall some rather unfortunate political commentary and some lackluster contributions, but the guy was easily one of our most prolific posters of usually interesting photographic subjects, and when he disappeared there was a palpable void and certainly a mystique. Really I don't care one way or the other on this specific instance, but I find your objections silly.
|
|
bltrocker said @ 2:41am GMT on 3rd Feb
Hold up. You're saying that this community is not allowed to grow a mythology through non-hurtful means? I don't mind having or not having a JOECAM mod under someone's control, but for a Campbell/monomyth enthusiast, that seems hypocritical to me. Legendary characters galvanize communities, and I don't think ignoring someone's flaws as they fade into the sunset is always a bad thing.
Rick & Morty: king jelly bean |
|
steele said @ 3:11am GMT on 3rd Feb
You guys can grow whatever you want. I haven't said a damn thing until now. But I'm not going to build it into the site. You say non-hurtful, I again point out that depends on your experiences with him. Also, he's not here to defend what the people here are making of him, positive or negative. A mod can just as easily be redefined throughout time by how it's used. People are romanticisizing their memories of him, should I be expected to delete the mod if use of it swings the meaning the other way?
|
|
sanepride said @ 4:50am GMT on 3rd Feb
It's weird and kind of touching that you think of JOECAM or anyone else on SE as an actual person. I on the other hand have no actual proof that anyone on this site exists IRL. Except myself of course.
|
|
steele said @ 2:46pm GMT on 3rd Feb
[Score:1 Underrated]
I blame books. Over the years I've gained a lot of attachments to fictional characters.
|
|
arrowhen said @ 5:08am GMT on 3rd Feb
But... if we don't exist, how can we get off your lawn?
|
|
sanepride said @ 6:08am GMT on 3rd Feb
Get off my virtual lawn.
|
|
midden said @ 7:00am GMT on 10th Jan
WWJD?
|
|
Ankylosaur said @ 10:22pm GMT on 2nd Feb
Are underscores required? because you have stock mods with spaces in them.
|
|
steele said @ 10:26pm GMT on 2nd Feb
Underscores aren't required. That was just me testing while still in programming mode.
|
|
midden said @ 6:57am GMT on 10th Jan
[Score:1 Funny]
As a regular multi-platform Maya user for the past 25 years, I_always_use_underscores_and_no_special_characters. And plain text .txt files, damnit. If you want to work on a Mac, render on cloud based *nix and deal with brain-dead Windows file servers, just pretend you are always working in the terminal and life will proceed more smoothly.
|
|
ENZ said @ 10:44pm GMT on 2nd Feb
Great, now I'm at a complete loss of all the useful mod types I've thought of or seen people suggest in the past decade.
|
|
milkman666 said @ 2:42am GMT on 3rd Feb
+1 Butthole
|
|
steele said @ 11:01pm GMT on 2nd Feb
0 meh was a useful mod back when I was running egosurfers...
|
|
ENZ said @ 3:36am GMT on 3rd Feb
Ok, I got one. +1 c'est la vie. For things that aren't shocking enough to warrant a +1 WTF, and have a dark humor to it where a +1 sad wouldn't be applicable.
...or am I misinterpreting what this whole thing is about. Are these mods that everyone can use, or does everyone get their own personal mod that only they can use? |
|
steele said @ 3:48am GMT on 3rd Feb
No, you got it. There's still two slots available for the subscriber only mods. In addition to laz0r, funsightful, and sad.
|
|
Jodan said @ 4:31am GMT on 3rd Feb
Neat
|
|
sanepride said @ 4:52am GMT on 3rd Feb
I think 'neat' is adequately covered by +1 good and +1 hot pr0n mods.
|
|
arrowhen said @ 5:08am GMT on 3rd Feb
[Score:2 Testing_Sub_Mod]
I just mod everything Good because it's at the top of the list and I'm lazy.
|
|
Jodan said @ 4:19am GMT on 4th Feb
That makes sense. Good is a subjective thing. If everything is labled as good that must mean that ones existance is good therefore one must be having a good day. This is good, but not great.
|
|
arrowhen said @ 7:24am GMT on 4th Feb
By that logic, does your mod mean you're boring?
|
Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment,
then click the reply link on that comment instead]You must be logged in to comment on posts.
Here's the rules:
You can only do it once per account, so make it good.
Personalized mods can be +1, 0, or -1.
When used within an post your mod becomes available for use in that post by everyone making +10/-10 or +5/-5 [Your Mod] possible. this includes comments.
In order to keep the sidebar somewhat clean try and keep the visible size of your mods to between whatever space of about 15-20 characters.
I'm not saying to keep them SFW but keep in mind you'll be expected to be responsible with your mods about what posts you use them in if they are NSFW.
No personal attacks. positive or negative. You want to make a mod about yourself? That's fine. But referencing another person is crossing a number of lines. Not to mention not giving them a say in the matter.
You can be childish but refrain from being total assholes, please.
I'm retaining right to final veto, so rather than automating the process PM me to let me know what you would like your mod to be. I'll allow some experimentation and playfulness as long as it's not too disruptive, so if you've got an idea that you're not sure about, feel free to bring it up to me in your PM. I'll be happy to work with you.
We also still have 2 open slots left for the sub only mods. Just throwing that out there.