(I know this is ages ago, but I haven't been on Hubski for a while, and I hope you don't mind me replying still).

If there are humans who have trouble telling members of another human race apart, as Europeans in various parts of the world do with Asians and vice-versa, then I doubt that alien observers would be sensitive to "how different we all are."

You completely misunderstood me. I'm talking about people as individuals. We aren't a hive mind; we have behavior sets distinct to each and every person.

And if you're going to argue that way about religion, then I'd say what if aliens had no concept of religion at all? That we wouldn't meet an extremely secular and scientific race where all beliefs are defined by empirical data?

I could argue the same thing. It's how an outsider would look at things, not you as a human sees everything. Your view is just as "humanly" biased as mine is. And they would realize that we were sentient. Math is the universal language, and even if they see our work in that field as elementary and basic, it's still evidence of intellect.

I don't think that they would see a religion revolving around gluttony. Advertising is not similar to evangelism (evangelism has an implied element of teaching) and uniformity doesn't point towards a religion. There's also a lack of large and frequent gatherings, religious texts, nor grand structures, which are hallmarks of a religion. A religion is much more complex than what you'd see at a fast food restaurant.

I think what an outside observer would think would depend on the range of their sight, so to speak. But either way, I don't think they could make many conclusions about our race as a whole. I think they'd recognize that we all have a sense of identity because of how different we all are. They'd realize that we are sentient life forms, and that that's all they could figure out with a quick glance observation. Assuming we were meeting an intelligent observer.

Right, and we get his point now. I just think he really should have made an effort to do that in his first post, because that sort of comment garners this sort of response.

I guess my question is, do you still get that feeling here? Because I don't notice it. But I'm also a guy.

Hey, mind taking a step back a little? I'm not really for arguing on the internet.

No, I can browse the discussion and I don't expect him to repeat himself. Now, mind explaining what you want me to look for or do you just want to keep trying to pick a fight?

Well from this thread, it seems like kleinbl00 was being hostile. I thought his originally comment didn't appear very thoughtful (again the "It's stupid, I hate it, fuck that" thing), and Velociraptor posted a video that I thought was meant to be humorous. I understand that kleinbl00 would take offense to that, since the person he is being equated to is cast in a bad light, but he responds with:

I'm not interfering with other people's business and causing a scene over a dollar - I'm lodging an academic objection to an institution I take exception to. It's not at all related, it's just that you lack the attention span to see the difference.

It's just that "That's stupid, I hate it, fuck that" isn't an academic objection. And we don't lack the attention span to see the difference, just that kleinbl00 didn't take the time to actually make a stance and really differentiate himself.

I don't know what you were referring to about who has commented on this discussion, how much, etc. Maybe I'm just missing something.

I think StephenBuckley has a point though. Kleinbl00 didn't really enunciate his stance in his post very well, and it made it sound like he only tipped because he had to (with the implication that he doesn't tip very well either). If you want an academic and intelligent discussion about something, you really ought to post something beyond "It's stupid, I hate it, fuck that".

So women are likely to leave after seeing one offensive comment, but not men?

Edit: I feel like my post sounds almost confrontational. I sincerely don't mean it to sound that way (sorry if it does).

Well I could understand why it'd hurt, but I wouldn't say that it'd be reason to leave a community and never come back. One bad apple doesn't ruin the batch.

Also, just someone telling you that your comment was stupid doesn't explain the gender gap between users (Laurelai was saying how many women leave after being offended). I'm sure people tell males their opinions are stupid as well, but apparently we've stuck around.

Never knew the backstory to TITS OR GTFO (yeah I read the backstory to thenewgreen's comment), but I couldn't imagine something like that here. I guess I sort of just thought that Hubski was sort of a haven from that sort of thing.

Do you get that sort of vibe here? I haven't noticed it, and I surely hope I'm not that ignorant that I don't see it at all.

I don't know if I'd believe that. Why would someone leave just because one person out of hundreds made a comment that was offensive to them?

Hey, I thought the video you posted was funny, but this goes too far. Those attacks on kleinbl00 were just unnecessary.

The one that instantly comes to mind is The Book Thief by Markus Zusak. The ending was amazing. And it's told from what I found to be an extremely interesting perspective.

My eyebrows. That seems really stupid, because I should be able to just trim them. They're really big and thick. And I want to trim them, but my dad has them too and he's like "yay genetic heritage" when he mentions it. He's the first born; I'm the first born, his dad was the first born, and we all have it. To him, it's like a sign. (Also, we're Chinese, so that's why that stuff matters to him).

Also my weight. I do a good job of hiding it in the winter, but I'm always so self-conscious in the summer. I've been trying to exercise more recently though.

I'm also really afraid that people won't/don't like me. Kind of tied in with that, I'm afraid that I care much more about people than they do about me. Like considering someone one of your closest friends when they see you as an acquaintance or something. I mean, maybe not such a dramatic difference, but you get what I mean.

The list goes on, but it's probably starting to get boring now. The really interesting thing is that I'm apparently really good at hiding all of this. I'm at college, and I don't know what my friends here think, but my friends from high school have told me how they're jealous of my confidence and self-esteem. Except it's just that I don't really ever let these things show.

Just because marriage was historically the transfer of ownership doesn't mean it's true today. That definition simply doesn't hold in the modern world.

I don't see what's wrong with marriage. I want to get married. I don't see it so much as enslaving my SO but rather a promise to commit to each other, even through shitty times. And hey, what's wrong with a celebrating that?

Sure, marriage isn't necessary. Two people can be together without being married. But it isn't slavery. Not today. I don't think your arguments against marriage really hold, and I don't think we need to demonize it.

I feel like comparing Rome, Great Britain, and Spain to Facebook, Apple, and Google is like comparing to apples and oranges. They have nothing in common other than the fact that they're big. The empires fell because they're trying to force a common lifestyle over a large group of people. When you try ruling over people against their will, then the resistance from the people eventually leads to the collapse of the empire (I'm oversimplifying, but still...). Google, Facebook, and Apple, on the other hand, don't try to force anything on anyone. They offer a service, and people decide to use it.

The comparison to Ford, Microsoft, and Kodak is perhaps more apt, but really only works well when compared to Apple. Ford stopped being a superpower because so much competition arose in the auto industry. I think in the end, Apple will face a similar situation.

Facebook, Google, and Amazon, however, are completely different than anything the article has discussed. All three of them are based pretty much completely on the internet. I think that creates a completely different dynamic that we probably don't actually know too much about because the internet hasn't really been around that long (relatively).

I don't think Google or Amazon will be falling any time soon. Survival on the internet seems to depend on adaptability to meet the needs of the consumers, and both Google and Amazon seem very adept at keeping up with what we need. Both provide a rather large range of services, and they also do it extremely well. Unless a company can be more all-encompassing and perform better than Amazon or Google, then people won't want to switch.

That being said, I do think Facebook will be the first to go. It only does social media - Amazon and Google on the other hand both have their fingers in a ton of pies. Facebook provides only one service, and not particularly well anymore. I think the primary reason people still use it is because everyone's on it. Why switch to a different social media network when nobody else has yet?

I wrote hard, and I created beautiful art.

Beautiful art that took seven years to perfect. Beautiful art that sold less than 100 copies. That brought me enough money to fill my tank. Once.

Also, I wasn't so much suggesting that you change your style, rather that you shouldn't adhere to strongly to your current style because styles tend to develop as we write more. (I wasn't in any way suggesting that you should have punches. It's a novel, not a rap or a speech.)

Which is why I brought up the time. I think it's better to write more than it is to keep editing and working on something we've already written. I think it's good to set something down for a little while and let it marinate before working on it again, when you can approach it more objectively and you're not as stuck on certain ideas that you had.

Of course, you're free to think differently.

I think I was just trying to say that you should keep writing, be open to what everyone says, always look for ways to improve, and don't place too many expectations on what you make.

If you don't expect your work to be the best, then you haven't failed yet - it's still a work-in-progress.

Okay, I'm 18, so know that my answers are from a limited experience.

1. Here's how I'd imagine the conversation would go: "Whoa, what happened to your eye?" "Nothing." "Huh, well are you all right?" "Yeah. Peachy." "Hey, I noticed that bracelet you wear is missing. What happened to it?" "Hm? Oh, I must've lost it or something. It was a stupid thing anyway." "Oh. Pity. I've always liked it."

The idea would be to not force him to tell me anything. He'll tell me when he's ready. And at the same time I'd try to hint that I'm okay with his sexuality (that's what was implied, right?) without explicitly stating that I know because he might not be ready for me to know.

2. Reply with the email: "Sorry, someone thought it would be funny to send that last message to all of my contacts. It wasn't."

3. One of two things: 1) Blow it off, pretend it didn't happen, or 2) overexaggerate how offended I am so it passes off as a joke. Is that passive aggressive? Crap.

3.2. Apologize. Maybe make up some dumb excuse, like that I was having a shitty day or something.

4. Get up. Keep playing. Continue to kick ass.

5. If they're driving faster than me, I wouldn't care.

5.2. I hate slow drivers. And that's an understatement.

6. What would I actually do? Nothing. What do I think I should do? Gather the people who like it and have a go at it. Organize the thing without the endorsement of the club, then donate the proceeds.

7. Nope. No pie for them.

Yay procrastination!

Yeah, being honest with myself, I do. For example, I've been playing piano for almost 13 years now. But there are some people that are just as good or better but with half the amount of experience. I've found myself practicing less, and I was giving the excuse that I was just too busy to practice, and that's why I'm not as good as them. It's not that I'm not as talented, I just don't have the time.

I think a lot of people do this. We don't study for tests because we're afraid we'll fail them anyways. We don't ask out that guy/girl because we're afraid they'll reject us. At least then we can look back and tell ourselves we could have done it, instead of realizing we weren't able to.

I actually realized all this when thinking about New Years' resolutions. At least I figured that out.

I appreciate the response and clarification. I've never really taken any economics classes, and it's difficult to piece things together with just Wikipedia. Thanks.

I think the reason many of us don't let ourselves chase our dreams is because we're afraid to fail - we'd rather hold onto our dreams than watch them fall apart.

I guess I'm pretty fortunate because most of the Christians I know are prettying accepting of the LGBT community.

It's interesting though how those Christians that are opposed to homosexuality quote Leviticus and justify their beliefs with it. Leviticus also bans the consumption of shellfish, yet I don't see any movement vehemently opposed to that.

I think we'll see a shift within most churches soon. Many leaders of the church recognize that anti-LGBT beliefs tend to drive away more members than it keeps, especially among younger generations. I think we were raised to be more tolerant of sexuality than the generations that preceded us, and as we "take over", how everybody views and treats the LGBT community will change.

Couldn't you argue that a lack of copyright would also stagnate creativity? Why would I create if people could just steal my hard work? How could I make a living off a book if I couldn't stop people from posting pdfs of it on the internet?