You are viewing the MafiaScum.net Wiki. To play the game, visit the forum.
Wine In Front Of Me
* Buy Forum Stuff * Forum Archives * Something Awful * AwfulMart * AwfulVideo * City Name Sports Team * Moofwear * Flat Falls
* Purchase: * Account * - Platinum Upgrade * - New Avatar * - Other's Avatar * - Archives * - No-Ads * - New Reg Date * - New Username * - Nonprofit Ad * - For-Profit Ad * - Emoticon * - Stick Thread * - Gift Cert.
* SA Forums * - Forum Archives * - Search the Forums * - User Control Panel * - Private Messages * - Forum Rules * - SAclopedia * - Posting Gloryhole * - Leper's Colony * - Support * - Log Out
The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > "Wine In Front Of Me" Search thread:
* * Bookmark * Post * Reply
waar
Sep 29, 2001
##vote $$vote #$vote $#vote !!vote ##vote ~~vote ##vote @@vote %%vote &&vote ##vote ++vote ##vote
Control-F that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU
I'm a sociology major. I can rant and rave about social theory and internalization and blah blah, but that will mean nothing to any of you, because you all aren't sociology majors.
So let's go through this step by step. WIFOM. What does it mean. How does it work. Can anything be WIFOM? If WIFOM applies to an argument, what does it mean then? Is the argument not valid? These questions and more will be answered in this brief, concise essay.
WIFOM, or "Wine In Front Of Me" comes from the hilarious movie "The Princess Bride." In life, it refers to a situation when people debate whether or not other people would act a certain way; it's scummy to support the lynch of a person, for instance, but that's so obviously other scummy, no other people would do it! But then we'd think "yes, other people wouldn't support it! ...or would they?!". We do the gymnastics back and forth, up and down, debating whether other people would or wouldn't do something, and, according to reason, we get nowhere but frustrated and in tears. Life indicates that it is a popular ploy to distract the people, but is it really?
In practice, from some of the earliest life experiences here, people have been very wary of WIFOM arguments. My first experience was way back in April, and as other people, I and others, were able to help diffuse many arguments by citing WIFOM and washing the argument away. Even back then, people were aware, almost frightened, by the phrase WIFOM. And so, WIFOM became a dirty word, and everyone feared having their arguments destroyed by the dreaded WIFOM.
So in practice here on the forums, because in the movie we are told that WIFOM was a popular strategy, it in turn became the bane and burden of all people equally; nobody would dare argue against WIFOM, and any argument that could be WIFOM was given WIFOM warnings, and largely dismissed even by those that made them. So in the minds of most everyone, WIFOM is seen as this catch-all word for an evil argument only used by other people, but in truth it's never used seriously by anybody.
Except me, because that's how I roll.
WIFOM stems ultimately from the fear that whenever we make assumptions about another person's actions, that our assumptions, being arbitrary and somewhat baseless, will be wrong. If we knew exactly what other people were thinking, then of course there would be no need for WIFOM, because we'd already know. But we cannot; and unfortunately, any effort towards that is seen as a waste of time. But let us think about it for a moment: we all instinctually have an idea about how certain persons would (or should) act under certain circumstances. We say "well, other people don't want to draw attention to themselves". We have conceptions internalized about how people act, and when people violate these conceptions, they are seen as "bad persons," and we ridicule them. But in truth, are not these conceptions as well just as baseless as any other conception of a person's actions? Unless we know the inner workings of the target person, we of course have no idea why they do what they do, act like they act, say what they say, and so forth. We may say "well it's logical to act in XYZ fashion, and I, being Logical Man, only do things logically!". But we don't. None of us act truly in a logical fashion, because even our conceptions of logic are largely based off of our assumptions about the world around us, and how people work. So ultimately, any assumption we make about how a character "should" and "shouldn't" act is baseless and arbitrary. And therefore, if it is largely subjective, then we risk being seriously wrong.
So why then do people use WIFOM? Why is it that ultimately everything is arbitrary, but the very minute people try and form an argument about those assumptions, it's considered absolutely evil? Because whenever an argument agrees with our assumptions and conceptions about how the world works, we say that argument makes sense, and whenever it doesn't, it's because that argument is stupid and wrong. There is no logical basis to it, there isn't some objective standard we can judge arguments about a person's actions and abilities. Debates in life become ultimately a matter of interpretation, and consensus. If everyone agrees over an interpretation of a certain person, then that person is seen as a "good candidate," even though fundamentally it is arbitrary and has the potential to be very, very wrong.
The only type of "evidence" that can be levied against another person is evidence that is fact-based. That is the only evidence that is 100% absolutely accurate. Any other type of evidence (a persons actions, their histories, what they've said, who's friends with them, etc.) is ultimately based off of an assumption and a leap of faith. So, fundamentally, unless every single one of us wants to wait around for the facts, we need to make arguments that are arbitrary and have the potential to be inaccurate. That is to say, in order to live life, every single one of us must necessarily make WIFOM arguments.
"But then, that sucks! Why is it that we have to make WIFOM arguments in order to communicate? I just wanna never make mistakes."
Yep, I suppose it does suck, kinda. It just requires more critical thinking.
So far at least there has not been one situation, ever, where persons en masse never made any single mistake. Even the "flawless" events that occasionally happen, those are only because, quite frankly, everyone got really lucky and guessed just right. So we'll make mistakes. We need to remove this fear of being wrong, and (more importantly) the fear of being ridiculed if we are wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, and I reckon everyone is going to make many mistakes before we finally find out who the other people are.
Please don't ridicule people because they "use WIFOM arguments." Because as I believe I have just proven, concisely and strongly, every argument is ultimately victim to the WIFOM category. We can debate back and forth, "If X were wrong, he'd never do this!" "What? That's just what she wants us to think!" "That's stupid!" "You're stupid!". But ultimately we need to come to a mutual agreement about how certain persons act, and we shouldn't feel scared if we are incorrect.
The more active and vocal a person is, the more likely they are to be in the public's consciousness, and the more likely they are not only to be criticized for, but also to be investigated. This in no way is what the other people are seeking. I am firmly of the opinion that other people simply wouldn't do what I've been doing, and I ask you to look inside and realize that I am right.
So yeah, that's why I hate WIFOM. People see WIFOM and they run away in fear; I embrace it. I rejoice that we have the ability to determine, simply with our minds, how people are, and what they do. If you're new, then your ability to post reasonable arguments is probably weaker than more of the experienced ones, but keep trying and it'll come to you. But I reiterate this, because it is important: WIFOM is not a reasonable critique of an argument. To say "well that's WIFOM" and to wipe the argument away is not being a good person; it's being a lazy person. Get dirty. Risk being wrong. Jump forward, make suspicions, and see how persons act. Those are the ingredients to a fun conversation.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 11:56
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
oh ok
Oct 10, 2004
How weird is that?
You've certainly put a lot of thought into a gag bit from "The Princess Bride."
waar posted:
In life, it refers to a situation when people debate whether or not other people would act a certain way; it's scummy to support the lynch of a person, for instance, but that's so obviously other scummy, no other people would do it! But then we'd think "yes, other people wouldn't support it! ...or would they?!". We do the gymnastics back and forth, up and down, debating whether other people would or wouldn't do something, and, according to reason, we get nowhere but frustrated and in tears. Life indicates that it is a popular ploy to distract the people, but is it really?
I've re-read this paragraph four or five times now and I still can't get it to parse. Is English your first language?
Edit: I'm not having better luck with any of the other paragraphs, either. I'm going to assume it all boils down to "You can never know for sure what other people will do in any given situation, unless you can."
oh ok fucked around with this message at Dec 03, 2007 around 12:16
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:09
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Sexual Lorax
Mar 17, 2004
HERE'S TO FUCKING
I think what we're supposed to take out of this is that it's a bad idea to start a land war in Asia.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:14
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
oh ok
Oct 10, 2004
How weird is that?
Sexual Lorax posted:
I think what we're supposed to take out of this is that it's a bad idea to start a land war in Asia.
Never open a second front in Russia.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:16
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Force McCocken
Dec 09, 2004 Rational political thought and discourse is dead. Personally, I blame you.
Sexual Lorax posted:
I think what we're supposed to take out of this is that it's a bad idea to start a land war in Asia.
All I got out of that is that if you put Velveeta in your roommate's Salad Shooter, you're pretty much going to have to buy him a new Salad Shooter. Lesson learned.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:18
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
BullProofMonk
Dec 07, 2004
PURPLE RAIN!!!!!!!
I don't get it, both wine glasses were poisoned, he speant the last few years developing an immunity to iocane powder.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:19
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Prince Reggie K
Feb 12, 2007 You got an ass like the Taj Mahal, so Fuck Yall!
This is a confusing and poorly organized pile of drivel. Could you please attempt to make it more intelligible?
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:20
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Counter Punch
Nov 05, 2004 Ninja don't exist.
waar posted:
The only type of "evidence" that can be levied against another person is evidence that is fact-based. That is the only evidence that is 100% absolutely accurate.
Such as Australia being entirely peopled with criminals?
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:21
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Captain Tenneal
Feb 22, 2006 I PLAY THE TRUMPET IN THE HIGH SCHOOL BAND
BullProofMonk posted:
I don't get it, both wine glasses were poisoned, he speant the last few years developing an immunity to iocane powder.
This is the missing piece to this horribly ill-conceived puzzle.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:22
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Owsla
Aug 30, 2003
Where are my bitches?
Just wanted to drop in and remind everyone to cast a vote on this wonderful thread. Not enough people vote on threads these days. Votes In Front Of Me, if you will.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:23
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Dies
Jun 27, 2004
I AM OWEN, BOW TO YOUR GOD
From what I gathered it was a metaphor and the wine is actually behind you.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:23
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Holy Cheese
Dec 06, 2006 They went the other way.
I love being ignorant, so that I don't have to type what the OP did. You think too much.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:25
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Haschel Cedricson
Jan 04, 2006
Spice Merchant Extraordinaire
http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=WIFOM
You probably should explain that you're talking about Mafia, what with that paragraph about "scummy" and "lynches" making no sense to anybody who doesn't play.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:26
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
xdrquinnx
May 04, 2002
Andre The Giant was in that movie, you know.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:27
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
IMJack
Apr 16, 2003
Gnawsome
The wine in front of me tastes like too much effort put into a Mafia joke.
- vote: waar
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:30
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Radd McCool
Dec 02, 2005 (lol!)
You're not adequately concise.
- ? Dec 03, 2007 12:32
* Profile * Message * Post History
* Alert Moderators * Edit * Quote
Rate Thread: [Vote this thread five and digg it!]
* Post * Reply
The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > "Wine In Front Of Me" Bookmark this thread Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SAVB-2.0.8) Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Copyright ©2007, Something Awful LLC