TL-DR (Too Long - Didn't Read)

A person told me the other day that my problem with regards to the forum was what some refer to as: TL-DR (Too Long - Didn't Read).

They said that many young people don’t want to ‘waste’ time on long posts. If they think it's too long they might read the first line - then ignore the rest.

Yet they still might then post something even though they didn’t read 90 to 99% of what was posted

They also believed that many people that come to the forums just didn’t have a collage graduate level education so were not used to having to read long explanations that were not always very easy to follow and that also many have only ever be used to sound bites and so cannot deal with anything else.

**

(Have you already gone?)

**

The thing is I’ve known since I came here that some of my posts can be over long and over detailed in fact I’ve even pointed it out on many occasions and I’ve also given the reasons for doing it.

In fact, a lot of the reason I do are those highlighted above -

That too much of political debate, especially in the US, is sound bite or slogan based

And this is because many political pundits presume people who might not have a College graduate education are incapable of having an intelligent debate because they haven’t the capacity to take in long articles or long words.

I’m more optimistic and have more faith in any person’s ability to think intelligently and rationally for themselves whatever level of formal education they might have received.

I’ve always wanted people to be able to discuss there own political views here not just scream slogans at each other or pre-written (or increasingly recorded) sound bites and it was for that very reason that I’ve tried to stop people just posting links or cut/paste posts - to quote from the Politics Forum Guidelines -

“As often stated this is not a bulletin board it is a place to debate politics.


For that reason cut and pasted articles or links should be used sparingly and more as a way to highlight a persons viewpoint rather than as a replacement for a persons viewpoint”

**

That was why the recent thing about me supposedly calling Rat a Nazis was so important and should have been instructive – it was clear from the moment I read the replies that many of the people making the accusation had not actually read the post.

I was ill at the time and didn’t post a correction straight away and when I was ready to the thread had to be re-posted as it had been deleted.

It was easy for me to point out exactly why they hadn’t read what I’d said, and when I did explain, some had the grace to admit it…others however did not.

Over the years here I’ve banged on and on about how sound bite and slogan politics is not political debate it is all about trying to limit debate.

I remember here when any criticism of Bush’s policies were answered with the accusation of ‘anti-Americanism’, and it was obvious many of them hadn’t read the ‘offending’ posts (quite a few told me to get out of the US even when I clearly said I was in the UK) the same thing carried on when the Iraq invasion came up and anyone opposed to it was ‘aiding the terrorists’.

Many of these didn’t seem to have their own opinion and in lieu of one depended on the slogans and sound bites of others to fill the gap and many didn’t even read any alternative view.

In my view that was the attitude that led directly to the Iraq invasion and the fuck up afterwards.

Because if people don’t even read what each other are saying then political debate is finished and it comes down to who shouts the loudest or hits the hardest.

Or in the internet age who posts most frequently in as many threads as possible, all pushing the same simple messages through sound bits and slogans.

In 2001 - 03 people were literally hounded out of US dominated forums for giving an alternative view, I was.

Hell they tried to do it here until they came up against Skip.

Debate isn’t just about shouting your own opinion it is about listening to alternative viewpoints and rationally giving your view on them. And I’m sorry to say that often means doing some research, reading through what has been presented and thinking about it rather than just reacting to it (because immediate reactions are usually nothing more than slogans or sound bites).

It often takes me days to reply to something because I’ve gone off to do such research – read books, articles, consult friends etc.

Other times it is about what was said here in these forums and I remember a lot of what people say because I read it and that makes it a lot easier for me to go and find the right quote.

**

I’ve also tried to explain why just making an opinion on something you think has been said without reading the actually words (and there meaning) can be politically dangerous.

Everyone from the far left to the far right uses ‘freedom’ as a slogan and often slips it into their sound bites. But many people have found themselves without liberty or life because they didn’t think about or care about the meaning behind those sound bits. I mean what can be bad about ‘freedom’.

The neo-liberal’s shouted about how ‘free markets’ would create ‘free people’ and many people fell for it because they didn’t actually look at what was being proposed. They read headlines like ‘Chilean economic miracle’ and accept it and don’t go on to find out about the economic and human suffering that supposed ‘miracle’ caused (murder, torture, unemployment, lower wages, greater economic and social inequality etc. Try reading A Brief history of Neoliberalism by David Harvey)

My point being that if people get nothing more than sound bits they don’t learn anything else and they never test their idea, never have them challenged and never have to think too deeply, because they never have to explain anything beyond the simplistic and inane and can therefore never move on beyond the simplistic and inane.

**

I wonder how many people read all the way to here.

 

supposed to be a semi-colon, not a hyphen.

i.e. tl;dr

 

Well I started to read it, but it was too long to finish.
Just kidding. I did read it all and most people are guilty of sound biteitus. You can't completley blame them because of the conditioning they have been to exposed to for the better part of,or all of there life. The tv is a major contributing factor in this and so is the so called fast life people are used to. Fast food, fast money, fast travel, fast news. Everybody wants everything now, no time to wait or think about whether they really need it or understand it.

Advertising works on most people and the government and media is quick to use it. If you hear something enough times it has to be true. "You are either with us, or against us", "insurgents", "USA,USA,USA", "change". It's called propaganda and it works whether it is the Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany, the United States or anybody else using it. Advertising is called overt propaganda, government uses it too but it is called covert propaganda. People believe it because if somebody influential says it they listen to it. After a while they don't hear it anymore, they just think it. An athlete selling you a pair of shoes or the president giving you the 'facts'. People will buy them both time after time.

Take 24 hour news channels and compare the story to what you would read in a newspaper or online. The news channel is maybe 30 seconds about what happened and then if it is a big story they get talking heads to talk about it without adding many more facts than was originally placed in the 30 second sound bite. A print version usually goes into a lot more detail about the story but doesn't use the editorial talking heads. In order to read a printed article it will take you longer than 30 seconds but you may gleam more background out of it. Most people get their news from radio and tv and won't read up on it, let alone take the time to read about it from several differing points of view. Fast, Fast, Fast is the name of the game. How many people would go to such extremes as to get the news from other sites such as the bbc, russia today or al-jazeera? The majority's idea of different views are limited to CNN or FoxNews.

The education system is the prime influence in most peoples way of thinking, and it is set up to regurgitate what the teacher told you. It is all about memorization not critical thinking. Nationalization is also a big factor in the education system. It helps to create the false idea of different points of view, by pitting one people against another on a country by country system instead of on issues. Divide and conquer on patriotic lines by making the government always have an enemy. The Nazi's, then the commies, then the terrorists. If the government doesn't have a common enemy for the masses to be scared of, they might actually start to wonder about the government and whether or not it is acting in the peoples best interests or not. If they have a boogie man to blame everthing on the people feel better and rally behind the government to protect them.

Who will be the next boogie man after the war on terror? Perpetual war with brief interludes of calm where they can come up with the next enemy to rally behind. Ever wonder after the cold war was over why the US government and major thinktanks were already saying that the biggest threats to nation security would be rogue states and terrorists, thus the reason to keep feeding the military machine? Is their intelligence that good or were these enemies already picked? Just needs a match to set it off.

 

i also read the whole post, as well as Dave's.

Part of the problem in debating on a forum is that you have all different levels of knowledge:

Some folks have just discovered forums, and want to post and make friends and such, but they aren't that 'up' on the issues.

A lot of times, if i post just an article, it's because i agree with it, in it's entirety, but would like to discuss it with other folks that might have a different take on it.

Some of the folks are just here to see what the general consensus is regarding this, that or the other, and might only want to post a quick opinion to a thread, to see the responses and the other side of the coin, so to speak.

Some of the folks have more knowledge than the law should allow ( ! ), and when THEY post, us lesser beings sort of scatter...

Anyway, is the whole point of this thread to speak about super long posts and the fact that a lot of folks will just speed read their way through? (i don't personally fault anyone for that ~ time is limited for most.)

If what you're saying is that folks that don't read the complete original post shouldn't post to the thread, well, you might need to put that little rule in the Forum Guidelines and the User Agreement.

Until then, anyone can post about anything, regardless of whether they know the first thing about it, with their personal opinion, which they don't HAVE to base on facts.

And let me ask you something ~ if a person is wanting to be educated about politics (or whatever), wouldn't a forum be the perfect starting place? If your opinion is just a bunch of malarkey, wouldn't you want to know it? Wouldn't being called on it spur you on to do some research of your own?

i truly think it might serve all of us better to understand that the only STUPID Question is the one someone was too afraid to post...

 

The OP should be allowed to be extended out to make a point. If you want to participate in a thread, show a lil respect and read out the entire OP.

Part of having a great discussion is bringinging yourself out of your own comfort zone. referencing diferent points of view. and respecting somebody else's view. It is a community in here.

 

I read the OP this morning and something about it bothered me, though I couldn’t put my finger on it, so I didn’t reply immediately.

After some thought, I’d like to say, first, that I do think that TL-DR does exist, and is a legitimate complaint. It’s the writer’s obligation to write in a manner which holds the reader’s attention.

It’s also the writer’s obligation to write with the audience in mind. Internet forums haven’t been around for very long, and this is a new medium of communication to which you are applying old rules.

The medium is the message. TL-DR exists, not because people are dumbed down, but because you are applying the old rules to a new medium.

I’m thinking now of a great teacher I had in a class about behavior modification in children. The professor walked in, went to the podium and said two sentences: “NEVER punish a child. Your thoughts?”

Well, that statement led to a heated debate. Some agreed completely, and others questioned how a child would ever learn right from wrong without punishment. After we had gone around in circles for a good half hour, the professor cut the debate and said “You should never punish a child. However, you must apply discipline.”

He then taught us that discipline meant “to teach” while punishment meant “to pay”. It was a very useful teaching technique.

But would this method work on an internet forum? Probably not. There is nothing wrong with the method, but ineffective when applied to this medium. The same goes for TL-DR. It might be wonderful for an op ed, but not necessarily the best for an internet forum.

 

I have a professor this year who does nothing but lecture each class. We sit down, take notes furiously as he speaks to us. He doesn't ask questions to the class, instead his style of communicating a message of learning is to speak, ask rhetorical questions to himself and that's it.

From September to tomorrow, we haven't had any testing, any assignments, it's all been lecturing, 3 times a week. We've got our first exam Monday and I feel like I have to go back and re-learn everything he's been lecturing on.

Why? Because I was passively listening to him for 3 months. There was no active engagement. I believe Balbus, that people were actively listening and reading your posts when you made comments about Rat and Nazis, I just think that you were perhaps misunderstood. I know that a lot of them *did* read your original posts and at the very least, there was dialogue.

When we passively listen to someone up on a soap box, there is little chance to reciprocate dialogue. One gets the impression that the person doesn't even want to know your opinion - and perhaps that is why some people tune out and turn off when they see a lengthy post - it's as if they just want the opportunity to express themselves.

Again, it's a misunderstood assumption that you're interested in debate by saying everything you have to say in one big long post.

 

just because you are building what you want to, doesn't mean it will be used as that.

you can be as specific in language as you want, if you are not communicating, with your listener, they will not hear.

there is MUCH to be said for succinctness

sometimes, you just can't be succinct, great, but elaborating over several posts also has much to be said for it, so does using the glorious gift of the hyperlink.

 

I'm guilty of TL-DR...but mostly with people here or on other forums where I know their over-arching point of view beforehand.
I know if I responded to a long post they would not always reply with the same degree that I had. So, why bother?

I don't think young people are the only people guilty of TL-DR...
Many people just don't bother to read long posts because they are boring.
Too many points that could be right or wrong and too many personal opinions that take too long to break down and figure out to see if they have any merit.

Neither does it have anything to do with how much education you have.
I know people that have a degree in political history, but still parrot slogans, soundbites et al...and are basically thick headed partisans to their political opinions.
It does not mean they are fair or balanced or could give a better response than a person with understanding of a 4 year old.
It depends on the person IMO.

Saying that it depends...many people sway between being on point to wildly paranoid and have no point at all, regardless of their age or education... (guilty).

(BTW:I am glad you are more optimistic)

Balbus, I do sometimes give up on you because your posts are too long and meander too much.
But, perhaps beacause your opinion is too middle of the road.
I'd rather talk to someone who has a faintly wild POV...simply because there is more to work with (as long as they are not smoking crack or parroting something David Ike or Infowars would say).
Also, you never seem to think enough is enough.
Sometimes a person has nothing more to say.


tl;dr
888chan is (hopefully) the cure for the common *chan

http://888chan.org/

 

Perhaps a lot of people give up on your posts Balbus because they go from chiding people about responding to your calling Rat a Nazi, your anti-Bushisms, to criticising the same people for not understanding Chilean economics. You are all over the place.

 

Daveht

Thanks, I agreed with most of what you said.

**

Fyrenza

Until then, anyone can post about anything, regardless of whether they know the first thing about it, with their personal opinion, which they don't HAVE to base on facts.

I do think people should be able to back to what they are saying with some rational, reasonable argument otherwise they can’t be a discussion. Otherwise it is just someone shouting a belief, a religious viewpoint that cannot be disputed.

And let me ask you something ~ if a person is wanting to be educated about politics (or whatever), wouldn't a forum be the perfect starting place? If your opinion is just a bunch of malarkey, wouldn't you want to know it? Wouldn't being called on it spur you on to do some research of your own?

The exact point I made on the forums for years, but only if someone is willing to debate is that possible.

i truly think it might serve all of us better to understand that the only STUPID Question is the one someone was too afraid to post...

Yes yes yes



**

Depoisoned

The point you seem to want to make is that its all down to people “applying the old rules to a new medium” and you point out what probably wouldn’t work but do you have any ideas as to what would work?

Maybe that should be a line of enquiry and debate?

**

Gardener

OH bitchy

But rather than just a ‘suppose’ can you actually give an example that I can comment on? I mean for a start I didn’t call Rat a Nazis, in fact I’ve said expressly that he wasn’t, isn’t.

It doesn’t really inspire confidence in your comment does it if you can’t seem to get some simple stuff right?

Maybe you should read posts more carefully in future?

(meow)

 

Aris

I have a professor this year who does nothing but lecture each class. We sit down, take notes furiously as he speaks to us. He doesn't ask questions to the class, instead his style of communicating a message of learning is to speak, ask rhetorical questions to himself and that's it.

From September to tomorrow, we haven't had any testing, any assignments, it's all been lecturing, 3 times a week. We've got our first exam Monday and I feel like I have to go back and re-learn everything he's been lecturing on.

Why? Because I was passively listening to him for 3 months. There was no active engagement.

I knew a lecturer that gave these clever and cheerfully breezy lectures it was only later that you realise nothing much had been said and few insights given. I stopped going as my time in the library was more productive.
Another lecturer was more like the person you describe, you came in and before you bum hit the seat she was away intoning the information.
But as she pointed out she had a lot of ground to cover and the lecture was to impart knowledge the tutorials were for the debate of that knowledge.
And every lecture came with a bibliography, she told you to go away read the lecture notes and if you didn’t understand any of it then you should hit the books to find out why. You where not meant to accept things passively but to be active in working out there meaning.

(as an aside – This was a few years ago now so maybe things have changed – but friends of mine that went to study in the US were amazed that they didn’t just get a book list but were told the chapters even the paragraphs to look at)

Anyway this contrast in lecture styles taught me a valuable lesson - not to mistake entertainment for elucidation. Just because you enjoy the way someone says something doesn’t mean that what’s been said is any good.

**

When we passively listen to someone up on a soap box, there is little chance to reciprocate dialogue.

What? That’s the point of the reply facility, its whole point, it’s why it’s there, it’s so people have a chance to reciprocate (to reply) to what has been said ‘up on their soap box’.

**

One gets the impression that the person doesn't even want to know your opinion - and perhaps that is why some people tune out and turn off when they see a lengthy post - it's as if they just want the opportunity to express themselves.

Now that would only be true if the person posted something but would not defend it or is unwilling to talk about it? So should we target for censor those people that seem unwilling to talk about something they have said even when expressly asked to do so?

**

Again, it's a misunderstood assumption that you're interested in debate by saying everything you have to say in one big long post.

LOL – I don’t think it would be possible for me to say everything I have to say in one post, however long. And only an all knowing god could know every angle and anticipate all questions before hand and I’m very mortal.


**

 

Odon

I know if I responded to a long post they would not always reply with the same degree that I had. So, why bother?

Are you saying that’s what I do?

**

I don't think young people are the only people guilty of TL-DR...
Many people just don't bother to read long posts because they are boring.
Too many points that could be right or wrong and too many personal opinions that take too long to break down and figure out to see if they have any merit.

LOL – lets see issues and policies that could be seen as right or wrong and a bunch of opinions that may or may not have merit. Sounds like politics to me.

Are you saying politics is boring?

Or are you saying that if something seems difficult give up?

- oh banging rocks to make tools seem like hard work lets just stay in the trees -

**

(BTW:I am glad you are more optimistic)

Thank you.

**
Also, you never seem to think enough is enough.

Guilty – but when is enough, enough?

I mean I could argue that…………(several months later)……………………..(the world ends and balbus doesn’t notice)………..(several months later)…….and so in conclusion…(balbus looks up and wonders where all the people have gone).

**

 

Not at all, infact you are the complete opposite.
Sometimes I worry about ME not responding to the same degree - I do try.
It's just when all somebody has to say is: You're a sheep...you swallow what the gov' say...you work for the CIA et etc etc.
Nothing really based on what has been said, just a cookie cutter response...seemingly with no thought behind it.

No, I love politics.
Perhaps I should have said: I...rather than: Some people.
I sometimes look at long posts and can't always be bothered to pick them apart to find if there is enough to look up, have an opinion on or/and it is just not all crazy talk.
Perhaps you can tolerate (for e.g) conspiracies about some black people being tools for the zionist cause...but I can't .
Perhaps it is the nature of politics...but there are limits.

I have gotten into too many long winded discusions with people who have lots to say, only to discover they were just wanting to regurgitate there opinion and not respond to what is being said (I think Ari' made that point).

"One gets the impression that the person doesn't even want to know your opinion - and perhaps that is why some people tune out and turn off when they see a lengthy post - it's as if they just want the opportunity to express themselves.

Now that would only be true if the person posted something but would not defend it or is unwilling to talk about it? So should we target for censor those people that seem unwilling to talk about something they have said even when expressly asked to do so"

I agree with your response, and if somebody is new to me I endeavour to make the effort.
There are only so many hours in the day though.
There are some people , you just know, through experience, just want to tell you something, rather than listen.

There are enough people out there to bite on any particular subject; they can (and do) go on and on about it for all eternity.
But, sometimes the best policy is to give up.
I'm just saying, the shorter the point the less likely it is to end up with me not caring.
I don't mind if it ends up being a long convo', just I don't wish to have to start off having to respond to a long post - however articulate it is or however good / bad indifferent it might be.
I must say, most of the time I can make it through your long posts though.
But, I do agree with Gardener to a certain degree...e.g?
Well I remember seeing a few posts were you drag up ancient posts and put together all manner of strands all in one post.
You may consider it a good thing...to me it seems too convoluted.
Sometimes it is not always possible to know what you are talking about if I have not been aware of what has been said by you before.
IMO it should be possible to know what you are talking about only on what you are saying in the here and now (if that makes sense?).

I don't post half heartedly, neither do I post with out atleast having a go at reading something all the way through.
If it looks too much of a mountain to climb - I don't take the first step.
I do understand what you mean about: Slogan based debates...
I try not to do that - but have seen it a lot.

Exactly

 

I'll be brief with you, because you don't afford anyone else that courtesy: your posts are too long, too wordy, and so completely centered on YOU that they are tedious and difficult to read. You have no sense of your audience, much less your medium. You tend to assume nobody understands, yet fail to appreciate that not everyone shares your tautology.

To wit: you started a thread about yourself. Your main point is that everyone has somehow failed to live up to your standard. I read your whole OP. And from now on, I'm going back to skimming.

 

maryjohn

I'll be brief with you, because you don't afford anyone else that courtesy:

You mean I think so little of people that I read their posts and have so little courtesy for them that I think long and hard about what they’ve said and sneeringly take a lot of time and effort in giving them my best possible reply, oh I’m so despicable.

**

your posts are too long, too wordy, and so completely centered on YOU that they are tedious and difficult to read. You have no sense of your audience, much less your medium. You tend to assume nobody understands, yet fail to appreciate that not everyone shares your tautology.

You are entitled to your opinion.

But what do you mean?

**

In what way are they ‘too long’, you don’t like anything written that go on for…what a couple of sentences, a paragraph, a page? Is you reading material limited to the back of a cereal packet?

My stance is anti-slogan, anti-sound bite you’re stance seems to favour them?

**

What is too wordy?

Is it the length of the words or there obscurity? Oh no it can’t be the second anyone that uses conflating when they could have used fusing isn’t worried about obscurity. So you don’t like long words? Actually I’m dyslexic and it actually takes me longer to read and write stuff than most ‘normal’ adults and so maybe I do take more relish in words than other people.

**

How can any post based on a person’s experiences and opinions not be based on them?

What am I supposed to do channel the spirit of someone else?

**

What do you mean I have no sense of my audience?

Am I on stage, in a play, on television, have I turned into an actor?

**

As to the medium, do you mean the written word or the forum (where people post things they have written)?

Well I’ve never claimed to be a good let alone great writer so I’m unsure what you are getting at.

**

You tend to assume nobody understands, yet fail to appreciate that not everyone shares your tautology

Well if they have understood they have understood if they haven’t they haven’t. If they have they have and if they haven’t I try to help them.

I mean if you describe an orange and someone says – ‘oh you’re talking about a banana’ – do you just say yes?

As to ‘my tautology’ again what are you saying, are you talking about the way I say things or that I’m saying something in that way, either way it doesn’t make sense within your sentence. I mean ‘share my tautology’ you what? Do you actually know what you’re trying to say?

**


To wit: you started a thread about yourself. Your main point is that everyone has somehow failed to live up to your standard. I read your whole OP. And from now on, I'm going back to skimming.

I started a post about the supposed phenomena of - tl;dr – (thank you to the person that corrected the way its said, noted no hyphen).

I used myself as an example because it was said to me and I’d not heard about it before, are you saying that you want a forum rule stating that on-one is allowed to use personal experience in their posts?

If you had actually read the post you would have seen that I have more faith and confidence in peoples standards, I’m an optimist. I believe people can make mistakes that lead to misunderstandings and I’m optimistic people can learn from such mistakes, I do and have made mistakes here and admit them and try not to let them happen again, wouldn’t you do the same?

Go back to skimming if you wish and I’ll be here and happily pointing out when you make such mistakes so you can hopeful learn from them.

Regards

Balbus

 

Odon

I agree with much of what you say.

If you want to know more just ask.


**

 

Oh, please, do go on.

 

You don't need to be a stage actor to have an audience. anytime you engage in speech directed at someone who cannot or will not interrupt you, you have an audience. In this case, you have an audience geared towards reading more than one thing at a time. We browse various sites, chat, and post on forums.

you basically solicited criticism, so don't get mad now that I've given you some. I find your posts long winded, redundant, and presumptuous. I skim because it's generally a waste of time to read every word. We are talking about this because you brought it up, while not being shy to remind us of your "college graduate level" education. twice.

Do colleges no longer teach parsimony?

 

There have been time's when I read a post that was rather long and dry but had a heading that read something similar to "Bush is a Nazi"(example only)

At the end of these long diatribes or posted under the link will be what that poster interpreted as the meaning of the essay, again this is completely fine and doesn't in the least upset me however wrong I may or may not believe they are.

What does bother me is when I read their long link's then read their comment's about the link's and it becomes obvious that they themselves did not read the link.

I find this time and time again in the conspiracy section although I'm sure it happens everywhere.

Anyone else ever notice that?