PDF: Social Science in Chaos

Tyler Grant76 said:😍 I guess everything's been said. Let's just go ahead and vote for the new moderators. 👋 👋

Sarah Garcia46 said:

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."

I will say this again: the writings and influence of Paul Price34/Dementia are passing by here almost unnoticed. Can we truly move forward without clarity? Define his exact position and role within the Social Science department, and then you will have the key to everything. Until that is done, this entire discussion is futile.

Jerry Roberts15 said:👍
Sarah Garcia46 + Colbert + maybe someone else from "other circles"

Plenty of work to go around, I reckon ☕

Sarah Morgan2 said:I’d actually nominate you too. Honestly, I hadn't realized until now just how much of a grip you have on the English language, or how much care and precision you put into helping the folks here who are actually interested in learning. 👍

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.
🤮

So, please—feel free to all chime in, along with those countless English scholars perched on their high horses looking down on Bujas—just let me know your criticisms once you've actually gifted this tiny, increasingly pathetic American culture an actual dictionary.
🤮

Jerry Roberts15 said:Thanks, but unfortunately, other obligations this week—and honestly, for months to come—won't let me commit to even this little "engagement."

Besides that, I don't really have much experience with this kind of communication—or lack thereof. My past attempts haven't exactly been anything to write home about. 🤣Anyway, I’d be more than happy to nominate you too. It feels like you have this massive bird's-eye view of all the different topics and sub-forums around here. Plus, I get the feeling that—much like my colleague Sarah Garcia46—you actually know people deep down. You've got a knack for reading the room and seeing exactly how everyone operates.

Good luck! 👍

Sarah Morgan2 said:Since people here constantly harp on about how we never provide "concrete evidence" regarding the inappropriate behavior—specifically the insults that bluerider2 lets slide for her inner circle of friends and colleagues—I figured I’d step in. Since we've already pivoted to a more review-style tone, and I really wanted to spare everyone from wading through this entire swamp of blatant nastiness, I'll just drop a small, seemingly insignificant slice of the material here. I’m asking the moderators to weigh in: is this kind of thing actually allowed, or is this still not considered a "concrete example" enough for you? Fine then, you asked for it: 🙂

steelskipper5 said:Who are you to even talk about culture? Seriously. ☕

So, please—feel free to all chime in, along with those countless English scholars perched on their high horses looking down on Bujas—just let me know your criticisms once you've actually gifted this tiny, increasingly pathetic American culture an actual dictionary.
🤮

As far as I know, a newer version of Bujas's is currently being worked on.
Look, if Bujas's vocabulary is barely mediocre—which, let's be honest, I think is pretty obvious—then there’s really no need to go out of my way to prove it. Just because we don't have anything better to work with doesn't mean Bujas is actually any good.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter—it’s still the best one we've got.

steelskipper5 said:Honestly, it’s kind of cute seeing all this mutual support and constant ego-stroking happening within this loud little clique of bullies.

steelskipper5 said:Honestly, it’s kind of cute seeing all this mutual support and constant ego-stroking happening within this loud little clique of bullies.

Jerry Roberts15 said:Exactly! 👍

PS: mediocre = good. It could be better, sure, but it’s a solid C+ leaning toward a B-, especially considering the circumstances and the environment it came out of... the same goes for Anić, so it isn't just pure nonsense & stupidity, but rather the absolute maximum a person could offer us at that moment, with the best intentions possible.

Sarah Morgan2 said:oh steelskipper5, 😍 You won't believe this, but people actually can support and value one another without needing to belong to some specific clique or tribe. Maybe once you've gathered enough life experience and reached a certain level of maturity, you'll realize that at a certain stage of consciousness, an individual can feel secure and happy without falling into mindless herd mentality. You can exist as a self-aware, free individual. Don't get me wrong—I'm not judging tribes, nor am I questioning your need for them. Growth has to start somewhere, but there is a ceiling to what tribalism can achieve.

P.S. Since I’ve noticed you have this undeniable urge to jump into every debate—even though 99% of the time you're just here to spam—I’m going to use this opportunity to teach you a little lesson based on something you told Jerry Roberts15 in a previous post. You actually asked him for a psychoanalyst's degree just because he pointed out some nervousness in certain wannabe linguists. Look, steelskipper5, you don't need a PhD to diagnose someone being nervous. Logically speaking, you clearly confused neurosis with simple nervousness, but then again, what's a few misplaced letters to a future linguist? 😍

Maybe you'll finally get it—once you've actually picked up enough life experience and some actual maturity—but there’s this specific level of consciousness where you can feel secure and happy without having to follow the herd. You know, just existing as a self-aware, free individual.

Don't get me wrong—I'm not out here judging clans or trying to dismiss why you feel the need for them. I get it, really. Development has to start somewhere, and if that means sticking to a clan-based approach for now, fine. But let's be real—that kind of structure isn't going to be the final destination for actual progress.

P.S.—since I’ve noticed you clearly have this massive need to jump into the discussion—even though, let's be honest, 99% of the time you're just here to spam—

I’m going to take this opportunity—since I’m actually posting here—to give you a little lesson on something you said to Jerry Roberts15 in one of your previous posts. You actually asked him for his psychoanalyst credentials just because he pointed out some nervousness in certain wannabe linguists. Look, steelskipper5, you don't need a fancy degree to diagnose someone being nervous. Obviously, logically speaking, you've totally confused neurosis with mere nervousness—but then again, maybe for a future linguist, that's all just a few insignificant letters anyway. 😍

Jose Cruz9 said:He probably needs someone from the LJES to back him up with the argument that we’re all just animals—that it's perfectly fine to band together in clans, just like they do. After all, we aren't any different. We are essentially animals.

It is quite interesting how we have "experts" here who feel entitled to judge someone's work, even when it isn't unprofessional at all. They just decide whether to label it bad or good based solely on what serves their own interests.

steelskipper5 for moderator? That sounds like a perfect little corner for the hooligans... I can see him holding his own with them if he ever had to.😉

steelskipper5 said:I don't see what that has to do with this discussion—it’s not exactly clear to me, I guess.

Maybe you'll finally get it—once you've actually picked up enough life experience and some actual maturity—but there’s this specific level of consciousness where you can feel secure and happy without having to follow the herd. You know, just existing as a self-aware, free individual.

Maybe one day—if you ever actually manage to rack up enough experience, knowledge, and basic maturity—you'll finally realize that this whole "level of consciousness" thing is usually just New Age garbage.
Maybe you'll finally realize that people like this—well, I guess you might actually get it eventually. Look, let’s just call it what it is—an ad hominem attack. It's the oldest trick in the book when someone runs out of actual arguments. Instead of tackling the point I made—you know, the actual substance of the discussion—they decide to just go after me personally. It's lazy, honestly. If you can't beat the logic, just try to bruise the ego, right? Typical. These outbursts are just killing any chance of a constructive discussion—honestly, it's happening here and it's happening over on the Social Science boards too.

Don't get me wrong—I'm not out here judging clans or trying to dismiss why you feel the need for them. I get it, really. Development has to start somewhere, and if that means sticking to a clan-based approach for now, fine. But let's be real—that kind of structure isn't going to be the final destination for actual progress.

Mmm, those projections are looking pretty tasty.

P.S.—since I’ve noticed you clearly have this massive need to jump into the discussion—even though, let's be honest, 99% of the time you're just here to spam—

Who's talking about what... 🤣

I’m going to take this opportunity—since I’m actually posting here—to give you a little lesson on something you said to Jerry Roberts15 in one of your previous posts. You actually asked him for his psychoanalyst credentials just because he pointed out some nervousness in certain wannabe linguists. Look, steelskipper5, you don't need a fancy degree to diagnose someone being nervous. Obviously, logically speaking, you've totally confused neurosis with mere nervousness—but then again, maybe for a future linguist, that's all just a few insignificant letters anyway. 😍

Look, I’m not going to use this as an excuse to nitpick your little "typos" or whatever. I just want to be clear—I know exactly what I said, and I really don't feel like getting bogged down in some long-winded explanation here. Honestly, if I did go off-topic even slightly, you’d probably just jump down my throat and claim I was spamming anyway.

Look, maybe I’m crazy—but I’m definitely not an idiot.

steelskipper5 said:I don't see what that has to do with this discussion—it’s not exactly clear to me, I guess.

Maybe you'll finally get it—once you've actually picked up enough life experience and some actual maturity—but there’s this specific level of consciousness where you can feel secure and happy without having to follow the herd. You know, just existing as a self-aware, free individual.

Maybe one day—if you ever actually manage to rack up enough experience, knowledge, and basic maturity—you'll finally realize that this whole "level of consciousness" thing is usually just New Age garbage.
Maybe you'll finally realize that people like this—well, I guess you might actually get it eventually. Look, let’s just call it what it is—an ad hominem attack. It's the oldest trick in the book when someone runs out of actual arguments. Instead of tackling the point I made—you know, the actual substance of the discussion—they decide to just go after me personally. It's lazy, honestly. If you can't beat the logic, just try to bruise the ego, right? Typical. These outbursts are just killing any chance of a constructive discussion—honestly, it's happening here and it's happening over on the Social Science boards too.

Don't get me wrong—I'm not out here judging clans or trying to dismiss why you feel the need for them. I get it, really. Development has to start somewhere, and if that means sticking to a clan-based approach for now, fine. But let's be real—that kind of structure isn't going to be the final destination for actual progress.

Mmm, those projections are looking pretty tasty.

P.S.—since I’ve noticed you clearly have this massive need to jump into the discussion—even though, let's be honest, 99% of the time you're just here to spam—

Who's talking about what... 🤣

I’m going to take this opportunity—since I’m actually posting here—to give you a little lesson on something you said to Jerry Roberts15 in one of your previous posts. You actually asked him for his psychoanalyst credentials just because he pointed out some nervousness in certain wannabe linguists. Look, steelskipper5, you don't need a fancy degree to diagnose someone being nervous. Obviously, logically speaking, you've totally confused neurosis with mere nervousness—but then again, maybe for a future linguist, that's all just a few insignificant letters anyway. 😍

Look, I’m not going to use this as an excuse to nitpick your little "typos" or whatever. I just want to be clear—I know exactly what I said, and I really don't feel like getting bogged down in some long-winded explanation here. Honestly, if I did go off-topic even slightly, you’d probably just jump down my throat and claim I was spamming anyway.

Look, maybe I’m crazy—but I’m definitely not an idiot.

Sarah Morgan2 said:I remember reading that, but that appeal was completely ignored by the moderator, just like most others. 🙄

Given the current circumstances, I think Sarah Garcia46 is the best choice for a sub-moderator/linguist. In fact, she’s been warning us about the critical state of the Social Science sub-forum for quite some time (as her quote above shows). This proves that beyond her undeniable expertise, she possesses the character and the sensitivity required for an urgent resuscitation of Social Science.

That said, I won't stop looking for a high-quality sub-moderator who could also elevate other areas of Social Science. For now, we only have our fellow forum member Lila_sun.