|Jiggy RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32|
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Bob Bob Bob wrote:I'm not sure if all of you are just out and out lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard than I do.At the risk of giving you advice you didn't ask for, I'm going to say that "a number of people have had experiences that I don't seem to have had, they must be lying" is pretty much never the right answer, in any context. What it actually means, particularly if you want to maintain a reasonable level of intellectual honesty, is that it's time to re-examine your own biases, particularly your confirmation bias, to see if they're interfering with your ability to accurately assess what's going on. Sometimes you'll find it is. Many times you'll find that it's not. Either way, the re-examination is worth your effort, and will hopefully keep you from dismissing valid experiences that you just don't happen to share.
I agree that people should check their biases and verify their information/conclusions.
So, hypothetically, let's say that Bob Bob Bob (hereafter abbreviated as "BBB") decided to go ahead and do that. Suppose that he went and "did the homework", and discovered that (for example) condescending or insulting "rogue-is-weak" posts were, as an objective fact, vastly outnumbered by polite/respectful "rogue-is-weak" posts.
Suppose that, having discovered this to be a fact, he now encounters someone asserting the opposite.
What is he allowed to say now? Is he allowed to question whether that person is "lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard"? Or if not that, then is BBB at least allowed to instead insist that the other person perform the same fact-checking that BBB did?
Does there ever come a point where a person has done enough fact-checking that they can assert that forum behavior is X and call into question the validity of claims to the contrary?