PDF: Social Science in Chaos

steelskipper5 said:Honestly, I’d say the biggest issue here is just the fact that those baseless attacks against Abyssus weren't wiped out when they should have been.

Yeah, look—she isn't exactly the most pleasant person to debate. Especially if you start trying to lecture her.
I mean, I'm not exactly a ray of sunshine myself—let's be real—but nobody has ever jumped down my throat quite like this before.

As for bringing in another sub-moderator? Why not? It could actually help things out.
Regarding all the complaints about Abyssus and how she acts—those quotes don't even count as proof against her. The way all these self-proclaimed "experts" are trashing her field is basically how society reacts to the natural science community if someone suddenly started rambling about math or physics. Except, in those cases, those topics usually end up over on Alternative anyway through some kind of emergency procedure.

By the way, I think Abyssus would actually make an excellent proposal for moderator. 😬
I've already seen her in action moderating, and honestly, I don't have any complaints.

Jerry Roberts15 said:Ugh, this is starting to get seriously exhausting...

steelskipper5, major props for everything you do, but for four whole pages now, about ten of us have been stubbornly hammering away at this single point without any luck whatsoever:
the expertise of certain individuals isn't even being questioned here. We are talking strictly about communication culture, and how people treat the 99% of folks who are just well-meaning people looking to learn something new.

We’re pushing back against intolerance toward different perspectives, baseless irritability, belittling, blatant humiliation, verbal attacks, insults... things that DRIVE people away instead of drawing them in. We're talking about behavior that discourages the very people we should be praising and encouraging—mostly young people hungry for knowledge. They're rare gems that need careful nurturing, not this vulgar, aggressive, "tough guy" attitude that just tramples over them.

I don't know why, but I can't write this post without mentioning Abby:
You even admitted yourself that they aren't exactly the most pleasant conversationalist... well, that's precisely the issue! So, what are they doing here?!? If they want to show off and, yeah, lecture everyone, they should stick to closed, professional forums, not a general public forum open to everyone. If they actually want to help out here, they need to tone it down, calm the hysteria—who knows what triggered it—and try to foster some actual decency.

You said: "Regarding the complaints about Abyssus and her behavior, even those quotes aren't any kind of proof against her."

Really? How does that work, my friend? Based on what criteria or arguments? Who is this girl to be so untouchable? It's like saying: people complain about her (and her clones 🤣) more than anyone else, people provide specific examples and logical points, but that doesn't count as proof against her, which basically means: people, you're simply wrong.

Is this really the level this discussion has reached?

Sad.👎

mistybison said:On Social Science, it’s not just well-meaning learners showing up; we also deal with trolls and provocateurs of all stripes. These individuals don't just lack basic civility, they often lack any fundamental understanding of the topics they insist on debating as if they were experts. For instance, there is a certain "linguist" who regularly posts long essays about language that are riddled with errors and nonsense, even going so far as to claim, "not knowing grammar or spelling never stopped me from studying language." I doubt such a person would receive anything but ridicule from other participants on any American forum. Then there are the political bickering matches that frequently slide under the surface of seemingly innocent linguistic discussions. Nevertheless, these users are permitted to post until their behavior becomes truly unbearable. I believe you are unfairly accusing bluerider2 of bias. If she were stricter, or if a more stringent moderator were paired with her, the impact would be felt by EVERY participant on the sub-forum, not just those who bother specific members. Please keep that in mind. 😉

mistybison said:On Social Science, it’s not just well-meaning learners showing up; we also deal with trolls and provocateurs of all stripes. These individuals don't just lack basic civility, they often lack any fundamental understanding of the topics they insist on debating as if they were experts. For instance, there is a certain "linguist" who regularly posts long essays about language that are riddled with errors and nonsense, even going so far as to claim, "not knowing grammar or spelling never stopped me from studying language." I doubt such a person would receive anything but ridicule from other participants on any American forum. Then there are the political bickering matches that frequently slide under the surface of seemingly innocent linguistic discussions. Nevertheless, these users are permitted to post until their behavior becomes truly unbearable. I believe you are unfairly accusing bluerider2 of bias. If she were stricter, or if a more stringent moderator were paired with her, the impact would be felt by EVERY participant on the sub-forum, not just those who bother specific members. Please keep that in mind. 😉

Sarah Morgan2 said:People from all walks of life drift onto any online forum; I don't see why you think Social Science should be some kind of exception. 😕 Why should someone be required to have foundational knowledge on a topic when, frankly, even the moderators often lack it? A participant disqualifies themselves through their own ignorance. If they violate the forum rules, then the moderator needs to step in. For God's sake, that's how every forum in the US works.

That is exactly why the goal here is to select a co-moderator who treats everyone equally. That’s the whole point of this thread: to find a high-quality individual who won't be biased like the current moderator.

P.S. Regarding your comment about "unjustified complaints against bluerider2 and her bias"—I don't think it's right to dismiss them so lightly. Real people are lodging specific complaints here. If anything, I’d say you are the one unfairly refusing to acknowledge those grievances.

mistybison said:I am merely pointing out what happens when a strict moderator takes over a sub-forum. 😉 Typically, a group of users will complain about one or more specific members due to personal friction and demand that the moderator intervene on their behalf. When a moderator becomes strict, or a new strict moderator is appointed who penalizes everyone causing trouble, it usually leads to disappointment. The complaining users realize they only win partially, as they often find themselves penalized alongside those they personally dislike—or even alongside themselves. This triggers a new battle against the moderator for being "unjustifiably harsh," which once again floods the sub-forum with complaints. 😁

A second possibility is that users actually desire stricter moderation because they feel Social Science is moderated too leniently. 🙂 In any case, I believe it would be appropriate for the long-term, regular contributors who truly understand the dynamics of this sub-forum to weigh in. What we see here are mostly complaints from a handful of relatively new accounts with only about 50 posts each, and such grievances rarely carry much weight. 😉

mistybison said:I am merely pointing out what happens when a strict moderator takes over a sub-forum. 😉 Typically, a group of users will complain about one or more specific members due to personal friction and demand that the moderator intervene on their behalf. When a moderator becomes strict, or a new strict moderator is appointed who penalizes everyone causing trouble, it usually leads to disappointment. The complaining users realize they only win partially, as they often find themselves penalized alongside those they personally dislike—or even alongside themselves. This triggers a new battle against the moderator for being "unjustifiably harsh," which once again floods the sub-forum with complaints. 😁

A second possibility is that users actually desire stricter moderation because they feel Social Science is moderated too leniently. 🙂 In any case, I believe it would be appropriate for the long-term, regular contributors who truly understand the dynamics of this sub-forum to weigh in. What we see here are mostly complaints from a handful of relatively new accounts with only about 50 posts each, and such grievances rarely carry much weight. 😉

Jerry Roberts15 said:Ugh, this is starting to get seriously exhausting...

steelskipper5, major props for everything you do, but for four whole pages now, about ten of us have been stubbornly hammering away at this single point without any luck whatsoever:
the expertise of certain individuals isn't even being questioned here. We are talking strictly about communication culture, and how people treat the 99% of folks who are just well-meaning people looking to learn something new.

We’re pushing back against intolerance toward different perspectives, baseless irritability, belittling, blatant humiliation, verbal attacks, insults... things that DRIVE people away instead of drawing them in. We're talking about behavior that discourages the very people we should be praising and encouraging—mostly young people hungry for knowledge. They're rare gems that need careful nurturing, not this vulgar, aggressive, "tough guy" attitude that just tramples over them.

I don't know why, but I can't write this post without mentioning Abby:
You even admitted yourself that they aren't exactly the most pleasant conversationalist... well, that's precisely the issue! So, what are they doing here?!? If they want to show off and, yeah, lecture everyone, they should stick to closed, professional forums, not a general public forum open to everyone. If they actually want to help out here, they need to tone it down, calm the hysteria—who knows what triggered it—and try to foster some actual decency.

You said: "Regarding the complaints about Abyssus and her behavior, even those quotes aren't any kind of proof against her."

Really? How does that work, my friend? Based on what criteria or arguments? Who is this girl to be so untouchable? It's like saying: people complain about her (and her clones 🤣) more than anyone else, people provide specific examples and logical points, but that doesn't count as proof against her, which basically means: people, you're simply wrong.

Is this really the level this discussion has reached?

Sad.👎

steelskipper5, props to you for everything, but we've basically spent four pages—about ten of us—stubbornly hitting the same wall with zero luck:
the expertise of certain people isn't even being questioned here; we're strictly talking about the communication culture, the way people treat the 99% who are just well-meaning folks looking to learn.

we oppose intolerance toward differing opinions,

belittling, open humiliation, spitting, insults... things that REPEL people instead of attracting them; things that discourage those who should be praised and encouraged, because they are (mostly) young and eager to learn... a rare flower that needs careful nurturing, rather than being trampled in this vulgar, typical backwater way.

I don't know why, but even this post couldn't happen without Abby:
you admit yourself they aren't the most pleasant conversationalist... so there it is, that's the whole point! What are they even doing here?!? If they want to lecture, they should go hang out in closed, professional forums, not a general forum open to everyone. If they actually want to help here, they should lower their tone, calm down whatever hysteria they're triggering, and try to encourage better behavior.

says: "Regarding the complaints about Abyssus and how she acts, even those quotes aren't actual proof against her."

Really? How does that work, my friend? Based on what criteria or what kind of arguments?

who is she, this little girl, to be so untouchable? I mean: people complain about her most (and her clones 🤣)

people are providing specific examples and arguments, but that isn't any kind of proof against her, basically, you guys are simply wrong.

and this is the actual level of this discussion?

sad 👎

mistybison said:I am merely pointing out what happens when a strict moderator takes over a sub-forum. 😉 Typically, a group of users will complain about one or more specific members due to personal friction and demand that the moderator intervene on their behalf. When a moderator becomes strict, or a new strict moderator is appointed who penalizes everyone causing trouble, it usually leads to disappointment. The complaining users realize they only win partially, as they often find themselves penalized alongside those they personally dislike—or even alongside themselves. This triggers a new battle against the moderator for being "unjustifiably harsh," which once again floods the sub-forum with complaints. 😁

A second possibility is that users actually desire stricter moderation because they feel Social Science is moderated too leniently. 🙂 In any case, I believe it would be appropriate for the long-term, regular contributors who truly understand the dynamics of this sub-forum to weigh in. What we see here are mostly complaints from a handful of relatively new accounts with only about 50 posts each, and such grievances rarely carry much weight. 😉

steelskipper5 said:I’d agree, though maybe not for the same reasons. ☕

steelskipper5, props to you for everything, but we've basically spent four pages—about ten of us—stubbornly hitting the same wall with zero luck:
the expertise of certain people isn't even being questioned here; we're strictly talking about the communication culture, the way people treat the 99% who are just well-meaning folks looking to learn.

No, you aren't.
What you're actually talking about is people who show up, ask a question, get an exhaustive answer, and then just keep badgering and acting like they know it all.

we oppose intolerance toward differing opinions,

So far, all I've seen is intolerance toward opinions that lack any argument or are stubbornly wrong (even after clear expert evidence is provided). And honestly, I'm fine with that.
Quote:unfounded nervousness, I hope you have a degree in psychoanalysis if you think you can just hand out diagnoses like that.

belittling, open humiliation, spitting, insults... things that REPEL people instead of attracting them; things that discourage those who should be praised and encouraged, because they are (mostly) young and eager to learn... a rare flower that needs careful nurturing, rather than being trampled in this vulgar, typical backwater way.

Man, give me a break, seriously... I've seen way too many people come in here acting all young and know-it-all, only to get shut down by someone smarter. Yeah, and yeah, often that person was Abyssus. Cry me a river.

I don't know why, but even this post couldn't happen without Abby:
you admit yourself they aren't the most pleasant conversationalist... so there it is, that's the whole point! What are they even doing here?!? If they want to lecture, they should go hang out in closed, professional forums, not a general forum open to everyone. If they actually want to help here, they should lower their tone, calm down whatever hysteria they're triggering, and try to encourage better behavior.

Why are you guys even here arguing about them?
If her style bothers you, you have plenty of options—like just not reading her posts.
Honestly, I don't see how you—someone throwing all this shade at her—could possibly be any better than she is. In fact, I haven't seen a mobbing session like this in a long time.

says: "Regarding the complaints about Abyssus and how she acts, even those quotes aren't actual proof against her."

Really? How does that work, my friend? Based on what criteria or what kind of arguments?

First off, because everything she said is right there in the quotes.
Yeah, you can find some nonsense in Anić's dictionary. Is that really up for debate?
Or maybe it’s controversial that people who know absolutely nothing about American studies are trashing the field?

Since I honestly don't get what's supposed to be scandalous about the quoted posts, why don't you explain to me exactly what the problem is—what constitutes such "undeniable proof" against her? Because, forgive me, but I'm seeing nothing here.

who is she, this little girl, to be so untouchable? I mean: people complain about her most (and her clones 🤣)

What clones?

people are providing specific examples and arguments, but that isn't any kind of proof against her, basically, you guys are simply wrong.

If you're bringing up specific examples that aren't even relevant, then I don't know what else to tell you.

and this is the actual level of this discussion?

From where I'm sitting, the actual level of this discussion is an attempt at a character assassination.

sad 👎

I agree. Again.
But not for the same reasons. Again.

steelskipper5 said:I’d agree, though maybe not for the same reasons. ☕

steelskipper5, props to you for everything, but we've basically spent four pages—about ten of us—stubbornly hitting the same wall with zero luck:
the expertise of certain people isn't even being questioned here; we're strictly talking about the communication culture, the way people treat the 99% who are just well-meaning folks looking to learn.

No, you aren't.
What you're actually talking about is people who show up, ask a question, get an exhaustive answer, and then just keep badgering and acting like they know it all.

we oppose intolerance toward differing opinions,

So far, all I've seen is intolerance toward opinions that lack any argument or are stubbornly wrong (even after clear expert evidence is provided). And honestly, I'm fine with that.
Quote:unfounded nervousness, I hope you have a degree in psychoanalysis if you think you can just hand out diagnoses like that.

belittling, open humiliation, spitting, insults... things that REPEL people instead of attracting them; things that discourage those who should be praised and encouraged, because they are (mostly) young and eager to learn... a rare flower that needs careful nurturing, rather than being trampled in this vulgar, typical backwater way.

Man, give me a break, seriously... I've seen way too many people come in here acting all young and know-it-all, only to get shut down by someone smarter. Yeah, and yeah, often that person was Abyssus. Cry me a river.

I don't know why, but even this post couldn't happen without Abby:
you admit yourself they aren't the most pleasant conversationalist... so there it is, that's the whole point! What are they even doing here?!? If they want to lecture, they should go hang out in closed, professional forums, not a general forum open to everyone. If they actually want to help here, they should lower their tone, calm down whatever hysteria they're triggering, and try to encourage better behavior.

Why are you guys even here arguing about them?
If her style bothers you, you have plenty of options—like just not reading her posts.
Honestly, I don't see how you—someone throwing all this shade at her—could possibly be any better than she is. In fact, I haven't seen a mobbing session like this in a long time.

says: "Regarding the complaints about Abyssus and how she acts, even those quotes aren't actual proof against her."

Really? How does that work, my friend? Based on what criteria or what kind of arguments?

First off, because everything she said is right there in the quotes.
Yeah, you can find some nonsense in Anić's dictionary. Is that really up for debate?
Or maybe it’s controversial that people who know absolutely nothing about American studies are trashing the field?

Since I honestly don't get what's supposed to be scandalous about the quoted posts, why don't you explain to me exactly what the problem is—what constitutes such "undeniable proof" against her? Because, forgive me, but I'm seeing nothing here.

who is she, this little girl, to be so untouchable? I mean: people complain about her most (and her clones 🤣)

What clones?

people are providing specific examples and arguments, but that isn't any kind of proof against her, basically, you guys are simply wrong.

If you're bringing up specific examples that aren't even relevant, then I don't know what else to tell you.

and this is the actual level of this discussion?

From where I'm sitting, the actual level of this discussion is an attempt at a character assassination.

sad 👎

I agree. Again.
But not for the same reasons. Again.

Jerry Roberts15 said:Oh yeah, kiddo—freckled and blue-eyed as you might be—it is absolutely debatable!
Look, sure, Anić has errors, logical hiccups, and inconsistencies. I get it.
BUT NOT NONSENSE!
"Nonsense" is maybe what happens when your mom stops wiping your runny nose,
or when despite reading a ton of books (one a day, according to Abica!),
you haven't actually learned a single thing—not to mention anything about culture.
So, feel free to step up, you lot, along with those countless English majors looking down from their high horses to trash Bujas, and let us know once you actually contribute a decent dictionary to our tiny, struggling American culture.
🤮

steelskipper5 said:It's pretty obvious to you, isn't it—that if I didn't know the answer myself, I'd be sending you over to ask Abyssus instead? 😁

Paul Price34 said:I I'm still seeing maybe two, definitely three IPs here spread across five different nicknames. Honestly, it’s just... it's unbelievable, truly unbelievable. ☕ I mean, seriously, what even is this?! Is this some kind of pseudo-"linguistic" itch, or just a pre-game rush of fake "linguists"? I feel like I'm reading absolutely nothing over here—just total static. If people actually had something worth saying, they could probably condense their complaints into a few coherent points. I have no clue why this whole thread is even locked up like this in the first place. 🙄 Just leave bluerider2 and Abby alone, okay? Public venting spaces need to be allowed to exist somewhere.

Henry Gray14 said:To put it bluntly without paraphrasing, she basically called it nonsense ☕

One specific individual is constantly disrupting the rhythm of the Social Science department. She is tolerated, and nobody dares to challenge her simply because she is unpleasant—or perhaps because she is supposedly a "distinguished professor."

Sarah Morgan2 said:Also, following up on the "critique"—since most people here haven't bothered to speak up, including some members with much higher post counts 🙄, I am genuinely pleased to have the chance to quote one of the greatest intellectuals on this entire LNP20 forum. Despite having a signature that essentially screams "Down with the low tendentious arbitrary moderator! Down with the incompetent administrative trash!", they actually agreed to moderate the Philosophy subforum and enrich this community, 🙏 a person who, about a year and a half ago—alongside all his previous appeals—clearly stated what we are all repeating here:

"A proposal for a separate (sub-)subforum dedicated to Language is more than justified,
because in its current state, the Social Science subforum
(excluding History) serves as nothing more than a platform for a handful of forum
linguists to act superior, among whom even the moderator herself is included (just look at
the thread , which she
decided to shut down purely because the title used the word "origin" instead of "originn" [sic].
Following such behavior,
this rich field of Social Science is reduced strictly to linguistics,
and when it comes to topics falling outside that specific domain,
they often ignore the actual substance of what a person writes, focusing exclusively
on how it is written, hunting for the tiniest error just to label someone as stupid,
uneducated, or illiterate.

This creates a toxic environment where people feel uncomfortable posting
for fear that a simple typo might get them branded with the label of an illiterate
idiot or moron, which is exactly why there is such poor development or survival of any threads
that aren't colored by linguistic pretension. Naturally, this benefits the moderator
and her crowd, as their expertise maintains hegemony by undermining everything else
within the Social Science realm. That is precisely why a separate corner should be opened specifically for language questions, where the moderator and her ilk can vent their frustrations that they apparently can't find an outlet for in life outside
this forum, thereby sparing the rest of the users who want to avoid such
an approach, allowing them to enjoy a more relaxed atmosphere
for discussions in the "Social Science" subforum, separated from the purely
linguistic section.

P.S.
If anyone finishes reading this and decides to go hunting for a typo or a grammatical
error in these very lines—and if you actually find one—
I suggest you print it out and shove that piece of paper straight up your ass.
If you don't own a printer, manual transcription is also an option.

There. Thanks for your attention. I hope this transcript meets at least
the standards of dignity required by the local grammar purists.
Should it fall short, I instruct those individuals to consult
the instructions provided in the aforementioned "P.S." paragraph.

Link to the quoted text: