Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for gamers and technology enthusiasts, with unique means of rewarding content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Raffle Tickets


About TCK

  • Birthday November 23

Extra Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    East of Mississippi
  • Contributed
    $20 (US) to Open Carnage

Computer Details

  • Central Processor
    Intel Q8200 quad core 2.33GHz
  • Graphics
    ATI AMD Radeon HD 7700
  • Memory
    8 GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 400MHz
  • Operating System
    Windows 8.1

Recent Profile Visitors

24,774 profile views
  1. It was reached after your insistence on digging your heels deeper and deeper into particulars and semantics without making any other rebuttal. The cause of that seems to be your assumption that your arguments need no further defense past simply being stated. Notice how your first instinct is an attempt at belittling me for using colloquial vocabulary (despite the fact that it conveys meaning just the same as if I had taken a refresher course on statistics and whipped out my textbook), yet you make no assertions to contest a valid method of developing probability. All you contest is the order of the sarcastic example, and you're incorrect even there, but I was pretty drunk so maybe I was unclear by saying "observation" twice. You witness a bear shitting in the woods. This happens several times. You never see a bear shit in the city because, well, bears don't live in cities. Someone asks you, "where is bearshit most often found?" You would answer what? We are built to develop a sense of the probability of anything we've experienced happening again. The internet is a great tool that can give your experiences a global breadth. The downfall of it is when people form emotional attachment to their conclusions, leading them to cling to obsolete conclusions (either through confirmation bias or outright denial) rather than adapting those conclusions or forming new ones. I often witness women at work stand and talk to each other when they should be doing something else. In my memory there have been 2 female employees to whom this did not apply, and 1 male employee to whom it did. You likely presume (based on your own developed sense of probability) that someone who expresses a desire to group people by certain traits is experiencing a bigoted state. It is my absolute assurance to you that no emotion is involved in (or arises from) my conclusion that women (on average) are more focused on interpersonal dynamics (jargon for "gossip and drama") in the workplace than men, and I neither feel nor exercise any emotion toward either them or the situation when I must (as their manager) ask them to return to their work. Now, we keep employees who want to do their job, and if they are standing and talking then I generally know that they are simply involuntarily distracted. If an employee has reached the point where I can tell that they are not experiencing an involuntary distraction, but rather seeking distraction (which usually is not in the form of socialization but in the form of literally standing doing nothing, a trait that has manifested equally frequently in men and women in my experience), I realize that they do not want to do their job and I simply fire them. There is no point in mixing feelings with business. In addition, there have been 8 women whose actions have at one point or more resulted in dramatic or emotional circumstances which required managerial intervention. There have been 4 men in the same vein. The ratio here is closer but you must also consider that we employ about three to four times as many men as women (not by discriminate selection but by applicant availability) which is a fact that really elevates much of this. I mentioned using the internet to widen the scope of our experiential understanding. It stands to reason that I've read others whose experiences match mine; but I actively seek opposition to my presumptions. So far I cannot find any to these that is not emotional.
  2. Interestingly enough, in the last few debates I (or others) have attempted with you, you reject most causation-related evidence. Additionally, I don't believe that correlation or causation are either words which modify observations in terms of being factual. An observation that bears shit in the woods is correlative, as bears would shit just as often in the city if not for the fact that they live most often in the woods. Does this affect the subsequent observation that bearshit is most often found in the woods? If we move past that, you might have a compelling argument when concerning an individual experience but it's easy to see how one could use modern technology such as the internet to research and improve one's own development of probability (whether through reading studies or through making the net of experiences more widespread). The concept of altering a prejudgment completely invalidates it as prejudice, and I'd be extremely interested to see that contested.
  3. I don't get why social politics are so popular nowadays. I've gotten to the point where I know what I believe, I make judgments and presumptions based on it, and I alter my beliefs accordingly based on my observations compared to my initial judgment or presumption. That's what natural selection is all about. Presumption allows me to try to predict the future and when it fails, I try to presume better next time. It's important to note the difference between assumption (a baseless prejudgment) and presumption (a prejudgment based on previous experience). I don't let details like causation come into play for me anymore; correlation is enough. Being a woman may or may not be the cause of many differences I observe in women, but regardless of cause the correlation exists. A great example is in selecting a new shift manager at work, which is partly my job at this point: it's not that I view women as inherently incapable of management, it's that each woman or girl in my workplace (except one) has individually and independently invalidated themselves in my eyes for the position for similar reasons as mentioned by Solaris. They seem to be more interested in drama and gossip than in making the workplace efficient. That is not to say it is limited to only the women there, one of my closest male friends struggles with "talking shit" about people who make mistakes that make his job harder (a bit more work-related than the gossip/drama of which the girls are guilty but gossip/drama nonetheless); but men, on average in the workplace, seem to be more work-minded. My point in that paragraph being, do I care what causes this to happen? All I care about is the correlation that allows me to say to myself, "this seems to be the case with a lot of women," and that in turn allows me to formulate a way to deal with it ahead of time, if I see it approaching in the future. I was speaking to a girl who wanted to be shift manager and it got the point where I decided it would be professional of me to be flat with her - I told her what stopped me from promoting her, and that the only way she would be reconsidered is if she cut the gossip and showed that she could maintain professionalism for an extended period of time. No mention of her being female and that's the way it should be; actions are the judges of results and if there end up being no female managers as a result of correlation, it will simply be the result of that correlation.
  4. I already heard my password was secure when this site said to enter my passwords to find out if anyone has found them out.
  5. Might have just shot themselves in the foot. Isn't their main fanbase young girls with emotional issues who see the doctor as a father figure?
  6. I would say that accepting information from a foreign source is (while potentially only a technicality) worth looking into; but the fact that Russians held "damaging information about Hillary Clinton" proves to me that we would be no better off if he had not been elected. What is she involved with that would give them such information? Why were we given these candidates? I think I'm having a flashback from my election PTSD.
  7. I don't understand. Who walks into an establishment labeled "vegan" and doesn't expect at least one or two fucking insane people inside?
  8. I feel that. Fucking Rocket League.
  9. A bittersweet moment - promoted from Shift Manager to Assistant Manager and told by the GM that I'm taking the store from him in about a year. The promotion gets announced in about 3 weeks at the next staff meeting. The downside is that one of my best friends has worked here for about 8 months longer than I have, and was an SM about 6 months sooner than I was (he was promoted mid-December, I was promoted at the end of May). As good as that makes me feel about the quality of my management, he was expecting the AM promotion and he's quitting now that I'm getting it (not that he's upset with me, he's upset with the GM for giving him false hope).
  10. What kind of a fucking idiot "hacker" uses a third party email provider?
  11. Yet more tangible evidence to back my motto: fuck the federal government.
  12. I spent $500 on this one... in January 2010. Upgraded the GPU twice since then for $160 a pop, and I may have put in another 2 G of RAM but I don't remember. Swapped the HDD out but that was a lateral move, only because the original failed. All I play now is Rocket League and it runs that at a comfy 75 FPS (though I cap it at 60 because this room gets hot) so it does what I need but I'll end up getting a new one soon since it could be smoother. 144 Hz is almost an unfair advantage in RL, I'm springing to make sure I can reach it. Like Solaris said, I buy processors to last. This Intel Q8200 quad is still kicking so why worry yet?
  13. "Hey this isn't the best idea to do... LET'S MAKE IT ILLEGAL!" It never fucking ends. It's like South Park is hardly a satire anymore. How about you parent your kids the right way and leave everyone else to do what they do? If their kids turn out shitty, guess who's to blame? Not you. All his observations are correct, and in recent years I've had to self-discipline from becoming overstimulated so I can function at work and in public. Doesn't mean you get to tell everyone else that your healthy life choices are mandatory. Like the article says, it's not smartphones specifically, it's the internet; kids shouldn't be publicly expressing themselves on their own until a certain age, nor left to wander through literally almost all known information unsupervised.
  14. It's time. Napalm. Send it all.