Preconceived Notions About MTS Members

[ElementMK]

Are you ever shocked to discover something about a MTS member that didn't fit with who you thought they were? "Judging a book by its cover" seems to be an inevitable thing.

This keeps happening to me in feminism or homosexuality threads. Who is male? Who is female? Does it matter? Not at all, but I wonder just the same.

On the other hand, I may learn something about someone (such as speaking English as a second language) that makes their posts a little more understandable. Luckily, I haven't had any notions that damage a person's point of view (They're gay! How would they understand the struggle for gay rights?).

Is it avoidable to judge a book by its cover? Should we take time to ask about a person's background in a debate? Is one's gender/sexuality/age/location important in a debate, or should we view all opinions neutrally?

[whiterider]

In the ideal debate, it wouldn't matter at all. Everyone would explain the logic behind their opinion in terms which could be understood, if not agreed with, by pretty much anyone. Where an opinion wasn't entirely based in logic, they'd explain the personal experiences or beliefs which made the logic make sense.

But we have never had an ideal debate... so yeah, it's useful to know a little about a person so you can more easily see where they're likely coming from with their arguments, and so you can guess at the assumptions they make without even realising they're doing so. It also helps if you know the person well, as you start to see the patterns and principles underlying their beliefs - I've known HP for four or five years now and I've heard her views on a lot of things, so when I read one of her posts here now I generally think "Mm, yup, I'm not surprised you see it that way". But that said, that kind of familiarity can cause you to make assumptions - so maybe it's actually better to debate with someone when the only information you have about them is what they've let on in the course of the discussion.

That, and their taste in nicknames.

[pinketamine]

As whiterider said, in an ideal debate it would not matter at all. I anyway confess that I sometimes check the profile of a member if he or she shows an opinion that surprises me or if I find it specially interesting (sometimes I check it too if the total opposite happens).
English is not my native language, and I think this is important too, because sometimes I find it more difficult to make myself clear, so sometimes I check where the person who writes is from, for having it as a reference.
Anyway, I try not to assume the opinion that someone will have about a topic, and I try to just to think about what people write and that's all.

[Rectos Dominos]

There have been a few posters I thought were from a different gender but I never thought of them any different same goes for homosexuality, race, religion, etc.

I always get a little surprised if I see a Non-American poster unless it had been said or implicated before I checked. I am not American BTW it's because of their population.

[unalisaa]

Yeah, I'm curious. Of course I am. But most of the time, people's backgrounds are entirely irrelevant to whatever is being discussed, and in some way, I'd prefer not to know -- it could distract me from the argument at hand.


But we have never had an ideal debate... so yeah, it's useful to know a little about a person so you can more easily see where they're likely coming from with their arguments, and so you can guess at the assumptions they make without even realising they're doing so.
I'm inclined to disagree. While this can be helpful in some circumstances, I think people should be judged solely on their argument and whatever personal information they've brought up to support it; if they're not capable of making what they meant clear, that's entirely their responsibility. Additionally, asking questions instead of looking it up and making assumptions often sparks new debate. Being asked "why?" when you tell others about a gut reaction can be incredibly eye-opening.

That said, forming an opinion about forum regulars is inevitable. There's the person I generally agree with, there's the one with the weird sense of humour, the one whose views I always object to, etc.
It's cool to know stuff about people, but as much as possible should be ascribed to their person as opposed to their background, which is why I say that I'd rather not know than risk not holding them responsible for their opinion.

As for ESLs, I tend to err on the side of idiosyncrasy and judge thereafter.


I always get a little surprised if I see a Non-American poster unless it had been said or implicated before I checked. I am not American BTW it's because of their population.
Oh, totally. Everyone's an American until proven otherwise. I do this as well. It probably has something to do with the fact that even non-Americans use American terminology when talking about everyday life because "otherwise no one would be able to understand me! They're all Americans! How would they know about life in [Buttcrack]?"
It's interesting, really, how the majority of the world uses the US as a common frame of reference. Everyone's seen a film or read a book that took place in the States, so everyone will know what you're going on about. What makes more sense? "I'm in my penultimate year of high school?" or "I'm currently in 2.g in STX?"

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i dont tend to care about how people see me, either way.

as far as others go... i realize that the same person i clash with in one topic, may be the same person i agree with whole heartedly in another. people are dynamic, and i really dont see any situation where someone could be branded as entirely good or entirely bad or entirely anything.

[kattenijin]

... i really dont see any situation where someone could be branded as entirely good or entirely bad or entirely anything.

We are all entirely simpathetic, similar, simplified and simian. :P

(Sorry, it needed to be done)

((Actually, I'm not sorry at all! :P))

[Rawra]

I don't know why on most sites I register, people tend to think that I'm a male... I've never been able to say who's male or female, as long as they don't say it themselves.

[Mistermook]

People don't recognize that I am an alien from the future all the time on the internet. I was having a conversation with my robot the other day about how this was so very sad, and debating on whether or not it made for a case for killing all humans and moving on to the next planet.

[iCad]

You too, Mistermook? Wow, I thought I was the only one...

No, seriously, in a "real" debate it wouldn't/shouldn't matter, and in a face-to-face situation there wouldn't be any ambiguity, at least not about things like gender. So in online discussion of serious topics in general, I find that it can be helpful to have some info about the person I'm talking at, just to have a bit of frame-of-reference. So, I'll look at profiles, though of course not everyone has filled theirs out.

As for me, on this site people are female until proven otherwise, but it seems to me that there is quite a large UK/Europe/Canada presence here, so I don't assume that everyone is American like yours truly.

[appelsapgodin]

as far as others go... i realize that the same person i clash with in one topic, may be the same person i agree with whole heartedly in another. people are dynamic, and i really dont see any situation where someone could be branded as entirely good or entirely bad or entirely anything.

You know, I've been thinking about this a bit. It is true that it is usually like this on forums. I think that proves that forums are not alike real life, maybe that is good, maybe it isn't.. it does make people don't fight a lot. I do think it's a false ideal, but it works like that.

Let me explain. I like members on this forum, I'm indifferent about a lot of members, because i hardly interact and there are also a few whos views on say homosexuality or relegion make me sick to my stomach.

So, I was thinking, what if this was the real world, and say we were not on a forum but in a bar, and we wouldn't be forum-members, but regular clients.

What if in that bar one day a person would tell me I would go to hell for being bisexual, that all gays are dirty and should be convicted, that being gay is wrong in the eyes of God, etc etc. If that happened, then would I be drinking a beer with him the next day and chat happily about a car we both like or something?

I'd think not.

So honestly, there are persons around here I will always ignore, or hit the dislike button for, even though I agree with their opinion, who i won't help out even though i know the answer to their inquiries. Just because I dislike them for opinions in other treads.

Unfair? Weird? Maybe, but I think they should just be happy that we aren't in a bar and that I am not in the position to start a bar-fight with them and hit them over the head with a stool. Because that probably is what would have happend in real life.

Edit: I would like the folks who disagree with me to explain what is flawed with my thinking here. Are you in real life really going to be nice to a person one time, while another time your opinions totally clash? So a black member here will be friendly with a KKK supporter as long as they don't talk about skin colour? I really don't believe that.

[whiterider]

I was friends with a homophobe for several years - not close friends, but we were part of the same group. I knew he was a fucking idiot and he knew I thought he was so, but that didn't mean we couldn't enjoy a conversation on a different topic, although we couldn't ever have become much closer than that, and I wouldn't have chosen to spend time with him specifically.

But more to the point is that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean disliking them. I don't know a single person with whom I agree on everything, and I've had both fearsome debates and arguments with many of my friends on many issues. I'm still very good friends with them, and I still agree with them on other issues. Of course, that's harder if it is someone who's abusive and judgemental - but those people are by far the minority, even on the internet.

[mustluvcatz]

Edit: I would like the folks who disagree with me to explain what is flawed with my thinking here. Are you in real life really going to be nice to a person one time, while another time your opinions totally clash? So a black member here will be friendly with a KKK supporter as long as they don't talk about skin colour? I really don't believe that.

Hmmmm.. I think I see what happened here..


So honestly, there are persons around here I will always ignore, or hit the dislike button for, even though I agree with their opinion, who i won't help out even though i know the answer to their inquiries. Just because I dislike them for opinions in other treads.

Maybe it's not exactly what you said, just that they dislike you for your opinion in this thread? You pretty much admitted to doing the same thing you know.

Note, I don't have much to say about what you actually said. Except for the part about being nice to someone one time and clashing over something the next time. Yeah, happens all the time- disagreeing with someone doesn't have to mean you dislike them.

[appelsapgodin]

Hmm, sorry indeed my fault.. I frequent another forum where they do use a dislike button and not a disagree, so indeed, there is a slight difference here... let me blame it on the fact it is the middle of the night for me. Honestly I think the buttons are a bit stupid, because ofcourse people are going to abuse them by doing what I said earlier on, agreeing on their own posts etc.)

But I also wanted to tip on the fact that people on the internet in forums give their opinion much more free and without boundaries sometimes, because they know they are anonymous in someway. So they will say things about religion, or gays or anything else that they would never say like that in real life because the repercussions are less severe.

Here I mostly just put the people who's opinion I cannot stand on my ignore list, so I do not have to see their posts. Which makes I don't feel the urge to respond to them.

[Oaktree]

appelsapgodin: Do you mean you don't have any friends whose political or religious views conflict with your own? To put it another way, if that guy in the bar said that he believed in god and that he interpreted the Bible as saying that homosexuality is wrong, but that he was polite and understanding towards you and fairly non-confrontational in his mannerisms, you would still start a bar fight with him? I'm agnostic and have some strongly Christian friends, but it doesn't prevent me from being friends with them. I simply avoid the topic of religion most of the time and remain polite when the topic does come up. I'm strongly libertarian, but I have liberal and conservative friends. There are a number of topics that I don't agree with some of my friends on, but I can still be friends with them.

As to hitting the disagree button on things that people you dislike say, that's your prerogative and the buttons aren't that big a deal, but I think that it's strange to hit "disagree" when you actually agree. It is possible to have some beliefs in common with someone you dislike, or even loathe. By undermining those people when they are arguing for the same thing you are, you are undermining your own position.

[Rawra]

Sometimes I wonder where would stupidity stop? I mean, I told some guys in a chat that I'm Lady GaGa and they went : "OMG OMG, I can't believe this! Can I have your e-mail, can I have your phone number?". But stupidity does have its funny part, eh? I gave them my boyfriend's number, and he was very surprised - "Some English dudes thought I was Lady GaGa". Heeeeey, I didn't have anything to do with it... *looks around*... Now did I?... *runs to momma*

[vhanster]

Well, as long as the participant of the debate could contribute a fair, unbiased, un-spammy, argument, do we really need to know whether or not they're female or male, American or not, etc?

[appelsapgodin]

appelsapgodin: Do you mean you don't have any friends whose political or religious views conflict with your own? To put it another way, if that guy in the bar said that he believed in god and that he interpreted the Bible as saying that homosexuality is wrong, but that he was polite and understanding towards you and fairly non-confrontational in his mannerisms, you would still start a bar fight with him? Yeah, but that's the thing, isn't it. People on the net feel safe in their anonimity and in debates like that they aren´t non-confrontational in discussions about religion and homosexuality. The example you give would be one of the persons that I have no bad, nor good feelings about. So when in a bar they would spare me their opinions, as I would spare them mine and we wouldn't waste our money or time on buying eachother beers. The kind of people I mentioned usually get banned on a board, but sometimes a few keep hanging around and you're just annoyed, so you hit the ignore.

[whiterider]

Not so. Some people aren't polite and non-confrontational on the internet - some are. So would you feel the same way about those who are?

[appelsapgodin]

I think that in real life and on forums you never really care about the 13 in a dozen opinions.

[Purity4]

RE: Applesapgodin. Are you in real life really going to be nice to a person one time, while another time your opinions totally clash?

Yes. I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of topics, but if I only chose to interact with those I only agreed with on everything, well, I'd be a lonely hermit with no friends and would never speak to any family members, ever.

When I was 20, I met a woman who rented in the same apartment building as I did when we both took our dogs out to the fenced-in pet run section of the building. Over the months, we chatted briefly while our dogs played, and we got to know each other over cigarettes neither one of us should have been smoking.

We both eventually moved to different places, but we stayed in touch over the years. We grew very close and I considered her my best friend. We were able to share our thoughts and opinions on just about everything, even when we disagreed. For example, she was a very spiritual Christian and I was Agnostic, formerly Christian. She believed in Angels and that her dog was an angel sent from heaven as her guardian, her own personal guardian angel, and I don't believe in angels. She was in an abusive relationship when we met. She thought her dog was there to protect her through that, and later, when she was with a kind man, she thought her dog was still her guardian angel to help her cope with her impending death. We were friends right up until her death, when I was 27 and she was 33 and I still miss her and her goodness 9 years later. Our differences brought about soul-searching discussions for both of us, and brought us closer together, and we always loved and respected one another.

[appelsapgodin]

Great way of twisting my words. Of course we are friends with people who have slightly different opinions, but I am talking here about the few that we clash with big time and that in that regard discussions and forums on the internet are different from the ones in real life.

[Raindrops757]

This is an interesting debate. I think it's possible to be friends with someone, even if you have a hugely different opinion on one particular subject - like if you were a Christian and your best friend was an Agnostic, so long as you respect each other's points of view. Maybe in some cases, this can happen and it's never even an issue. I know I've had friendships like that. But, if your opinions are different and you express them in a way that means you offend one another, that's when the real problem comes. Like, if someone was blatantly racist or homophobic, especially towards someone else, then it might be hard to like or respect them, even if you are discussing something different with them. Maybe it just depends on how tolerant a person you are and how offensive you find them?

[Purity4]

Raindrops, I see the point you're making. Simply disagreeing with someone, though, is not at all like being an ass about it. If someone is so antagonistic and abusive in how they communicate their thoughts, they would be regardless of whether you agree with them or not. I know people like that. You can even agree with them and they'll still be unpleasant to be around.

[appelsapgodin]

Sometimes I think on the net we can in discussions also have a bit of the 'English not my first language' problem. Which makes your words sound a lot more harsh than maybe meant. (I think this might have happened a bit to me here.) Because what I was thinking of was alike what raindrops explains here, but she manages to make the point far more profound.

[kiwi_tea]

I come to the conclusion that this person is a liberal-minded, agnostic, feminist stay-at-home British mom who loves to make custom content and host a website called http://www.modthesims.info with Delphy

I still believe they're shape shifting reptilians, like all the other world leaders.

[whiterider]

Man, even the misconceptions are flattering - you'll go far in this world, Extensa5420 :p .

[vhanster]

There is no person in this world who has unbiased opinions.

So? biased or not, opinions are never wrong.

[Tempscire]

So? biased or not, opinions are never wrong.
They can be. Opinions aren't sacred things removed from the bounds of reality. If my opinion is that playing in traffic is totally safe, my opinion is wrong. There are people who opine that To Kill a Mockingbird is racist, which is demonstrably false (if only they didn't opt to wallow in their ignorance and presumptions), ergo their opinion is wrong. Opinions should be scrutinized just as closely as factual declarations.

[whiterider]

I disagree. Opinions can never be proved wrong, or right, but I certainly believe that they can be either of those. They are never, however, totally invalid - at least, very very very rarely.

[appelsapgodin]

Opinions can be based on misconceptions. So, then the opinion isn't what is wrong, but the conception it is based on is. Cause and consequence and all that.

[wickedblue]

Opinions are not wrong; assuming that the person stating the opinion is aware that it is an opinion that is based on their perspective in the world (bias) and that other people have different experiences (biases) and that their opinion may vary.

It's when opinions are spouted in a way that are absolute fact and/or they use their opinion to affect national policy that it starts to become an issue.

For example: Person A and Person B are both conservative Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin. That is an opinion and one they are each entitled to.

Now, Person A, though they believe that it is a sin in the eyes of the God they worship, they have friends and family who they love and admire and do not judge for their sexuality and may even ally with the LGBTQ community to gain equal rights and privileges for them. That person is respectful with their difference of opinion. They understand that not everyone shares their opinion and that those opinions are just as valid as the one they hold.

Person B, however, believes that it is a sin and uses that opinion to demonstrate acts of intolerance toward the LGBTQ community and most likely votes against policy that will give them equal rights and privileges. That person is not respectful. This person believes that their opinion is the only right opinion to have and that everyone who disagrees is Wrong and Going To Hell.

Tempscire, in your example of playing in traffic, there is evidence to support that playing in traffic isn't safe but it's entirely possible that someone has an opinion that it is safe because they've never experienced or witnessed any of the negative consequences of playing in traffic. That doesn't mean their opinion is wrong; it's just not going to be popular among anyone that believes the evidence that it is not safe. Which is just fine for them but would present an issue if they held this opinion in spite of contrary evidence and were to put children at risk and/or garner support to affect national policy based on their faulty anecdotal evidence.

And people that believe that the book To Kill a Mockingbird is racist are not wrong for having that opinion. It would be wrong though, if they were to try to ban that book from libraries because of their opinion.

[Oaktree]

Technically speaking, everything that we speak of is belief/opinion. In one of my philosophy classes, the professor said that we can't state fact, as fact is what there is, while what we speak of is belief about fact. Essentially, there is the fact that the grass is green, but when you say that the grass is green, you aren't directly projecting the greenness of the grass. You are projecting the idea of the greenness of the grass. In some sense, pointing out that we don't state fact is rather oblique to the point, but we do have to keep in mind the fallibility of human sensory and cognitive processes. This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as truth, it just means that getting to it is rather difficult.

[ElementMK]

See, this is why no one likes philosophy; science always beats the wonder out of it.

WITH SCIENTIFIC FISTS.

[Oaktree]

I'm studying both science and philosophy. I think the two blend very well. The question of knowledge sort of steps on the toes of science because, if we can't have knowledge, what are we doing trying to find it, but philosophy is sort of a meta-subject for a lot of fields of human interest. One of the most important aspects of science is justification. Philosophy is all about justification.

[Tempscire]

And people that believe that the book To Kill a Mockingbird is racist are not wrong for having that opinion. It would be wrong though, if they were to try to ban that book from libraries because of their opinion.
There's a difference between having an opinion and trying to make others share that opinion. My point was limited to simply having an opinion, which is a different kettle of fish, and yes, in that example, the people are wrong to have that opinion because their opinion is supported by nothing in reality. TKAM is not racist literature; those who think so, few though they are, either haven't read it or have totally missed the point. On a tangential note, not all opinions are created equally. If someone hasn't read the book, their opinion may not necessarily be wrong, but it certainly won't be worth as much as that of someone who has.

Opinions can be based on misconceptions. So, then the opinion isn't what is wrong, but the conception it is based on is.
If B is based on A and A is wrong, then B is also wrong. You're unlikely to develop an accurate hypothesis based on deeply flawed data or assumptions. Causation and all that.

[wickedblue]

You are still arguing that an opinion is wrong because you don't see it that way. Just because when you read a book and interpret it one way does not mean those who read it and interpret it in a different way are wrong. It's an opinion based on their interpretation and perspective.

[Tempscire]

You are still arguing that an opinion is wrong because you don't see it that way. Just because when you read a book and interpret it one way does not mean those who read it and interpret it in a different way are wrong. It's an opinion based on their interpretation and perspective.
Yeah, sure, and a lot of things boil down to matters of taste, etc, etc. That doesn't mean it's impossible for an opinion to be flat-out incorrect. (And in the case of TKAM, it's not like I'm arguing about possible metaphors that I read into a description of a tree or something. It's flat-out not a racist book.)

Would you be arguing about the validity of a bigot's opinion that gays are all God-hated sluts or that blacks are all ignorant thugs? They are not wrong, their opinions are not wrong?

[wickedblue]

It's flat out not a racist book - In Your Opinion

There are people that read the same thing and see that it is racist- In Their Opinion

You could have a discussion about the evidence that support both opinions and there is possibly faulty evidence for either case but it is still opinion based on personal perspective.

The same applies to the other examples you brought up. I'd argue for evidence of their claim and would discuss any faulty evidence brought forth but it is still their opinion and my opinion may differ but that doesn't make it right or wrong, it just makes it a difference of opinion. Now, if they were to see their opinion as absolute fact and use that opinion to discriminate, that would be a problem. Even when I disagree with a person's opinion, they are entitled to it. Just don't go around oppressing people because of your opinion.

[Tempscire]

I'd argue for evidence of their claim and would discuss any faulty evidence brought forth but it is still their opinion and my opinion may differ but that doesn't make it right or wrong, it just makes it a difference of opinion.
I think we'll just have to settle for a difference of opinion of opinion. ;) I take the tack that faulty support = faulty conclusion, whether dealing in logic and fact or feeling and opinion. As I alluded to earlier, I wouldn't argue that every opinion could be judged as correct or incorrect (and I can definitely think of situations in which there isn't a "right" answer but in which people differ based on their own POV), but I think there certainly are issues in which the opinion is wrong-- those when the evidence completely contradicts the opinion held.

Disclaimer: a lot of this attitude of mine stems from frustration with people who feel that because something is a matter of opinion that they can't be argued with or challenged in a thorough way, simply because it's an opinion; that all opinions are removed from logic and relocated to the "gut" (truthiness). Or that in a matter of opinion versus opinion, all opinions are equal because, hey, they're just opinions, when in fact, no, not equal at all. (e.g. Many of those who call TKAM racist and try to get it banned haven't actually read it, therefore they are not authorities on the racism within the book, therefore their opinions should hold less value than those who have read it.)

In conclusion, I just used the word "opinion" way too many times and now it no longer looks like a real word to me. :) Whew.

A "fact" is merely a widely approved opinion. The fact that the sky is blue is an opinion, because people agree with it and they have evidence why the sky is blue so other people are convinced that the sky is blue. ...Understand my point? It's all about rhetoric. [emphasis added]
No. Absolutely NO. Do you not see the contradiction is likening a fact to an opinion?

And that's exactly the kind of attitude I railed against in my reply to wickedblue. Maybe when you're having philosophical debates a la Socrates you can play around with the idea of facts as opinions, but in the real world, this is the kind of thinking that makes people believe Joe Blow, high school dropout, is just as authoritative as Dr. Expert, PhD. Facts are not opinions. They are the opposite of opinions. They are based on evidence, whereas opinions tend to be based on "this kind of seems right to me."

We don't say the sky is blue because a bunch of people got together and agreed that all their opinions matched up. It is an observation, with further evidence to explain why it is blue-- or rather, to approach this from the scientific perspective, which is how facts like "the sky is blue" are established, it is perceived by humans to be blue because the molecules reflect the light that falls into that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum blah blah blah etc. It is no one's opinion that what we call "blue" light is that with a wavelength of around 475 nm.

__
This whole discussion should probably be taken to its own thread, though...

[wickedblue]

I certainly understand the frustration of dealing with people who stubbornly dig their heels in and refuse to listen to opposing viewpoints because "it's my opinion".

It is my opinion that all people would be better off if they listened to opposing viewpoints and opened their mind to learning from them. That's one of the greatest gifts we have as humans; to be able to listen and learn. It's a damn shame so many are content to never learn. But it's their right to do so.

And again, with your book argument, I agree with your point yet, it's still a matter of opinion. It isn't wrong for people to view that book as racist; it is their interpretation. They have crossed the line though when they try to get a book banned. That's the same for any book. There are a lot of great books that are valuable reading material but groups form to attempt to get them banned. Hell, even if the book isn't valuable reading material, it's still not anyone's place to block my access to reading that book. They do not have to like it or understand why anyone would want to read it and I will respect their opinion but they are wrong in their attempts to restrict freedom.

People disagree on literature all of the time. That's actually one of the wonderful things about books.

[Purity4]

Although it's completely off the topic of the thread, I completely agree with Temscire's last few posts. An example of this would be when my mother tells me it is of her opinion that I must not be comfortable being braless and the fact is, I am more comfortable braless, and she counters, well my opinion is you couldn't be. Her opinion is wrong.

[Oaktree]

An opinion, or belief, can be wrong if it is attempting to make a statement about objective reality, but does not line up with it. Saying "I think that 1+1=3" is falsifiable, so it can be proven to be a wrong opinion. Some opinions are a matter of taste, however. If you say "I like strawberry ice cream," you are making a statement about your mental state, not about the world around you. Assuming you are not lying about your tastes, your opinion is correct when you make that statement. To put it simply, when you try to make a statement about things outside of yourself, you have to justify it. If you make a statement about your personal feelings, your statement is taken as the justification for it.

[ElementMK]

The reason I started this thread was because of an actual discovery at MTS: Pare321 is a member I find myself agreeing with very frequently. In fact, I found that she could often sum up my thoughts about a topic better than I ever could. After a while, I started to assume that Pare had similar traits to me: A guy who was probably close to my age. Furthermore, I found I was associating some of these traits with myself, so I figured she was straight and from my part of the nation (northern).

But, as you can guess, I was completely wrong in every assumption. The only thing I got right was that she lived in the United States. Frankly, I blame all of these assumptions on her avatar; it's easy to side with someone showing off Tentacool.