Reply to tim wood I didn't have anything to do with the decision to lock the thread, but I do see Street's reasoning here. The OP asks why able bodied men are mistreated in academia, yet he provides no evidence that they actually are. It would seem the way to unlock the thread has been laid out for you, which is to provide the evidence the OP takes for granted but does not provide. What is the argument for not providing proof for what is assumed in the OP? That everyone should have the right to say whatever they want and not be required to offer some amount of factual support for it? Why would a forum that allows unsupportable factual assertions be better than one that doesn't?
I don't ask these questions rhetorically, but if I'm being asked to build a better forum, I can't see how allowing a free for all of unsupportable factual claims will benefit anyone, especially after the person making the claims has been given a chance to provide the factual support needed and then ignored it.
The only counter I see to what I'm saying here is that there might be some value in allowing people who make unsupportable (or false) claims to be kicked around a bit so that their error can be clarified to all who may come here for information. The flip side of that though is that some never allow themselves to be corrected and they keep on saying the same false information, and, as in this case, don't even make an effort to prove their facts are correct.
StreetlightFebruary 03, 2021 at 17:38#4964300 likes
It was a poor quality thread whose single bit of substance was a loaded question asked without substantiation. I gave time enough for some to be forthcoming. I wasn't even the only one to ask. None was proffered. There's nothing else to say. If someone unlocks that thread, it won't be me.
UglydeliciousFebruary 03, 2021 at 17:42#4964320 likes
Interesting, I wanted to comment on the "Why does academia dislike men" with an article I read in graduate school about shifts in ways boys are treated in the classroom. I haven't gotten around to digging up the the article, but I see why that thread would be locked. The phrasing of the question and the subsequent contribution to discussion by the OP seemed in bad faith. There actually is an interesting question in there somewhere, but that OP didn't start off the discussion in such a way to explore it.
I wish I could find the articles I read in graduate school, but alas it was long enough ago and now is locked behind a paywall. From my recollection, there is data to support that in elementary schools at least something is going on in terms of how boys and girls are disciplined differently. The context however, was a goal to suss out how to meet the different needs of children and address unconscious biases in the predominantly woman dominated field, where the bias (some studies indicate) leans toward fulfilling the needs of girls while not reaching boys. There has been a lot of change over the last 50 or so years for girls in education in positive ways, the case is not entirely the same for boys (or atleast the research did not show it was, when I was in grad school). This is obviously very different than institutions of higher education, which the OP was talking about, but as an elementary educator it is the pool of knowledge I draw from.
Anyway, it's an interesting topic but that thread was not doing it any justice. I don't mind if it stays closed and someone else more well-meaning can re-ignite that topic in a more substantive way.
StreetlightFebruary 03, 2021 at 17:43#4964330 likes
Anyway, it's an interesting topic but that thread was not doing it any justice. I don't mind if it stays closed and someone else more well-meaning can re-ignite that topic in a more substantive way.
Reply to tim wood
That kind of censorship doesn't exist here, even though there's no question where most moderators sit on the political spectrum, they debate and argue with positions they don't like just like everyone else. They don't just delete people's posts because they don't like what you said and I think the thread you're referring to is low quality as it was closed for.
CiceronianusFebruary 03, 2021 at 19:41#4964620 likes
I'm ashamed to admit my only feeling regarding the thread was one of satisfaction, that I was able to mock its premise just before it was closed. To those who think to renew it, I give warning:
You say a thing which is contentious, provocative and implausible in an OP and don't evince it. You make a bad OP. That might get closed regardless of what it's about.
That said, I'd be more inclined to close a thread that had a poorly researched offensive opinion as its OP quickly, or a thread which restates a terrible media talking point; like academia[hide=*](under the aspect of "post modern neomarxism"/"cultural marxism"[/hide] bias against blokes; without evidence. Because at that point it's kinda hard to tell from trolling.
If you wanna make a thread with a spicy take on something that attracts a lot of shitposting, try and bring a sufficient heap nuance and evidence to get your spicy take treated as something other than a shitpost.
That’s interesting, and had the topic remained open someone may have come along to explore it. We’ll never know now, but at least we’re secure in our little safe space.
Reply to tim wood the simple matter of fact when dealing with “to moderate or to not moderate” is that something that is not offensive for one person is offensive for another (or group). This is subjectivity. While speaking of abortion for example as a white male living in a very western first world country this may not be in any way offensive to them but posit the same topic to an oppressed third world woman that lives in a strongly religious community and the picture changes.
Another issue is majority vs minority. It’s the old argument of “pick on someone your own size!”
In an ideal world minorities are equally vocal and equally represented and therefore in a strict sense of debate censorship should not be required as the both parties are equally equipped to defend their views. However this is the nature of minorities: they are few and far between so the pace of an argument as well as the capacity for equal opportunity to retort is severely distorted or skewed in favour of majority.
Usually it takes “living in ones shoes” to really appreciate the full spectrum of conditions faced by said minority. It’s difficult to relate to a state of being that you have never yourself experienced. This means that the majority is always somewhat priveleged as their is a general tendency for their views to be valued more. This is where moderation attempts to stabilise these inequalities. Some will say it’s fair and warranted moderation while others will believe it’s unnecessary censorship but really it’s a matter of “is there a potential for a large group to ‘gang up’ on a smaller one?” Where a dozen voices drown out the singular /few.
The irony being that in truly egalitarian world the very need for moderation is abolished yet moderation is used to establish a more egalitarian world. See the paradox?
PhilosophimFebruary 03, 2021 at 20:14#4964720 likes
I was the OP in the "homosexuality" thread that was closed. I did not see the follow up thread until much later, so did not get a chance to reply there. I wanted to note I supported the moderator that made the decision. We had a whispered conversation, and I understood his stance and how my post could come off the wrong way.
The mods here do a good job. Its on us to write our posts in such a way that fits the environment of these forums. I made a mistake in my presentation of the post. It was made hastily during a lunch break after a previous discussion I had with someone. As such, it was presumptive and with loaded language. If I had taken the time to edit it, and given space from my related immediate discussion, I could have written it in a more appropriate manner.
But regardless, even if the mods decide certain subjects are not to be brought to these boards, that is their decision and right. It is a privilege to use these boards and speak with others here. I do appreciate those who defended me, as that post was not intended to be offensive, but it is ok if the moderators make that call that it is.
"It seems like men are not welcome anymore in educational institutions such as universities and so on. This is especially true if you are a fit, healthy male."
Just based on personal experience, this rings false. The majority of my faculty, including me, in every university I worked at, fell into this category. I, nor any other fit, healthy male that I know of ever felt discriminated against. But in any case, yes, if you're going to present what sounds like a political polemic, back it up with evidence or don't bother.
CiceronianusFebruary 03, 2021 at 21:40#4964950 likes
I'm certain fit, healthy males are the subject of dislike, if not loathing, not merely at (or did the poster mean by?) educational institutions, but at other locations as well. Perhaps someone, having done appropriate research, will start a thread inquiring why fit and healthy males are disliked at corrugated container plants or breweries--places I worked at when I was fitter and healthier, and much younger than I am now and was disliked, though I always believed it was due to my ineptness. Or for that matter at law firms. There are fit, healthy lawyers I heartily dislike, God knows.
UglydeliciousFebruary 03, 2021 at 22:14#4965030 likes
I'm certain fit, healthy males are the subject of dislike, if not loathing, not merely at (or did the poster mean by?) educational institutions, but at other locations as well. Perhaps someone, having done appropriate research, will start a thread inquiring why fit and healthy males are disliked at corrugated container plants or breweries--
It would be interesting to explore when, if ever, healthy, fit males are “liked”... It might only be amongst themselves, in selected company, but that can probably be said about the unfit ones, as well disabled males, and non-male people.
Educational institutions like who they can extract value from, it has been a tricky business for the value of fit, healthy males since rape and assault have been brought to the forefront of late, but I suppose we wouldn’t really categorize them as healthy? The social phenomena of accountability has shed light on much abuse of power, and it is always worth discussing the concepts of power and powerlessness, and how cultural and societal shifts interact with those concepts.
My hunch is that corrugated container plants probably like most the fit, healthy males who benefit the company most, the most irreplaceable, and who works in the interest of the plant. The rest are probably looked on with indifference. One argument for collective ownership I suppose, but then I guess I’m ascribing human characteristics to a non-human entity “the factory”.
I was the OP in the "homosexuality" thread that was closed. I did not see the follow up thread until much later, so did not get a chance to reply there. I wanted to note I supported the moderator that made the decision. We had a whispered conversation, and I understood his stance and how my post could come off the wrong way.
The mods here do a good job. Its on us to write our posts in such a way that fits the environment of these forums. I made a mistake in my presentation of the post. It was made hastily during a lunch break after a previous discussion I had with someone. As such, it was presumptive and with loaded language. If I had taken the time to edit it, and given space from my related immediate discussion, I could have written it in a more appropriate manner.
But regardless, even if the mods decide certain subjects are not to be brought to these boards, that is their decision and right. It is a privilege to use these boards and speak with others here. I do appreciate those who defended me, as that post was not intended to be offensive, but it is ok if the moderators make that call that it is.
You seem quite reasonable and articulate to me, if a bit scycophantic. I imagined, because I only had the option to imagine, someone very different.
Deleted UserFebruary 04, 2021 at 00:29#4965510 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
UglydeliciousFebruary 04, 2021 at 00:53#4965620 likes
"This language is so fucking vile, for fucks sake. 'Effected by homosexuality'? Like what, a fucking virus? Does anyone speak of being 'effected by heterosexuality'? Fuck right off. This is why we don't allow threads 'considering homosexuality as a defect', because it leads to utter fucking trash like this.
And I said it once and I will say it for the last time, you want to continue this discussion I will remove you from this fucking forum without blinking I do not give a shit who you are."
For what it’s worth, the language “effected by homosexuality” is vile and I won’t fault anyone who has a visceral reaction to it, even on a philosophy forum with high discussion standards. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. :shrug:
StreetlightFebruary 04, 2021 at 01:02#4965660 likes
The thing I'm most annoyed about is being called out for the lack of possessive apostrophe. The fuck for whose sake it was deserved better.
Seems that everyone is so eager to jump on the politically correct bandwagon that they don’t even think of explaining themselves. What fantasy world do you live on where being gay is a complete non-issue that no one is effected by?
UglydeliciousFebruary 04, 2021 at 01:03#4965680 likes
What fantasy world do you live on where being gay is a complete non-issue that no one is effected by?
Are you talking to me?
UglydeliciousFebruary 04, 2021 at 01:08#4965710 likes
Oh I see, I live in the world where “being gay” is exactly that: being. It isn’t something external that happens to you. It is part of some people’s being, just as some people are heterosexual rather than having heterosexuality happen to them. Or are you suggesting sexuality is an external force that acts upon our being rather than manifesting from our being? I suppose a case for all sexuality being socially constructed is fair to make, but it hardly seems that was the point that set off the person who said “fuck” a few times on an Internet forum.
I’ll go on to add, it is not my opinion that negative social stigmas faced by gay people for their gayness are effects of being gay. It isn’t the “being gay” that causes negative stigma, it’s rather more something wrong with the people who employ their agency to stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality. The more appropriate question is then in regards to those “effected by homophobia” as I don’t believe phobias are inherent parts of being.
I hope I’m being clear. For a second I thought you had misread me.
@tim wood. Mr. Wood, when the moderator uses such vile language and threatens exile or banishment, he is motivated by moral indignation, THE enemy of philosophy, never by pedantic considerations like “quality of OP”, or “lack of evidence”, etc, as you justly point out...
...and that indignation is directed against those who dare suggest that any class of human being is less equal than any other. No doubt about the equality of all human beings may be countenanced by anyone, and the correct response to such doubt is outrage by (almost) everyone, and threat by those who hold the power to effect that threat.
In previous posts in various threads I have attempted to explain the source of this phenomenon, reveal its roots in the origin of philosophy, and argue that nothing has changed since Socrates was put to death for the corrupting of the youth of Athens.
Let me just point out that, as I speak, a debate is being raised in the States about whether transgender students should be allowed to compete in sports according to their “gender”, or their “sex”, things that were synonymous until yesterday. There is an ongoing war between the traditional concept of nature, and the new one based on advanced egalitarianism...
...but he who espouses the former will be subject to censure...in society at large, but also particularly in this forum.
I was listening to my car radio for a change, I usually stream music, but I was flipping through channels and came across some guy screaming that BLM is a domestic terrorist group, and it got me really upset and incredibly pessimistic about humanity and then and I was like I have a dream today that all the people will join hands and sing in the words of the old negro spiritual free at last
free at last.
Gus LamarchFebruary 04, 2021 at 01:38#4965820 likes
Mr. Wood, when the moderator uses such vile language and threatens exile or banishment, he is motivated by moral indignation, THE enemy of philosophy, never by pedantic considerations like “quality of OP”, or “lack of evidence”, etc, as you justly point out...
...and that indignation is directed against those who dare suggest that any class of human being is less equal than any other. No doubt about the equality of all human beings may be countenanced by anyone, and the correct response to such doubt is outrage by (almost) everyone, and threat by those who hold the power to effect that threat.
In previous posts in various threads I have attempted to explain the source of this phenomenon, reveal its roots in the origin of philosophy, and argue that nothing has changed since Socrates was put to death for the corrupting of the youth of Athens.
Let me just point out that, as I speak, a debate is being raised in the States about whether transgender students should be allowed to compete in sports according to their “gender”, or their “sex”, things that were synonymous until yesterday. There is an ongoing war between the traditional concept of nature, and the new one based on advanced egalitarianism...
...but he who espouses the former will be subject to censure...in society at large, but also particularly in this forum.
The reflection of totalitarianism that arises from decadence and indecency is also visible in the attitudes of the "moderators" of this forum. It permeates everything.
"- But it is obvious that you can think differently! Exclaims a moderator. - Different from the others! Exclaims another, while everyone burst out laughing..."
I think it’s that murder in general is not politicized, whereas things like capital punishment and abortion are. No politicization no need for political correction, basically.
I’ll go on to add, it is not my opinion that negative social stigmas faced by gay people for their gayness are effects of being gay. It isn’t the “being gay” that causes negative stigma, it’s rather more something wrong with the people who employ their agency to stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality.
I’m very confused how this statement of opinion comes off as “I think you did this”. Can anyone help explain it to me?
deletedmemberTBFebruary 04, 2021 at 03:12#4966190 likes
Just as a point of interest and perhaps, an additional perspective on the notion that moderation is "necessary"...
Way back in the olden days, there existed a Yahoo Group entitled AlasBabylon. It was a bunch of peak oil theorists, baby boomers, doomers, and know-it-alls. :yum:
The creator, owner, and sole moderator was Scott Meredith.
One time over period of 5? or so years, I witnessed Scott impose some moderation. It was in a very extreme case.
Otherwise, the site was UNMODERATED.
It never burned down while Scott owned it. Apparently [?] the members felt a bit of personal ownership in the place.
It seems to me that the one of beautiful benefits of knowing a thing to be true is that you never have to expend any more precious effort or expense on research or investigation into it. It seems that when the "case is closed", it is CLOSED, Jack. The only thing that might remain is to inform all the ignorant souls who have been denied or otherwise deprived of this knowledge.
I’ll go on to add, it is not my opinion that negative social stigmas faced by gay people for their gayness are effects of being gay. It isn’t the “being gay” that causes negative stigma, it’s rather more something wrong with the people who employ their agency to stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality.
— Uglydelicious
I’m very confused how this statement of opinion comes off as “I think you did this”. Can anyone help explain it to me?
stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality.
This may be an oversimplification and seem unappreciative of the more subtle points you’ve brought to light, but if it’s a reasonable interpretation, it’s unclear how the offending statement expresses what you seem to believe it expresses.
By way of example I’ll try to illustrate my confusion. I have an astigmatism. I realize that the astigmatism is not something external to me and that it’s part of my physiology. I’m even willing to accept the idea that it ‘manifests from my being’ though I’m not entirely sure what that’s supposed to mean. Sounds profound so it must be gloriously virtuous.
The astigmatism affects my vision, the effect of which makes things look a little blurry. I don’t believe that I would be stigmatizing myself if I were to say that my astigmatism affects me, even though astigmatism is normally regarded negatively. I sometimes joke that I prefer a soft-focus on life, incidentally, like old films where they blurred the lens for closeups in order to make actors look better. Perhaps the effect of being affected by an astigmatism is aesthetic enjoyment? That’s not so vile, is it?
I bet you are only affecting that you were effected by affecting.
I know you're joking, but this is serious: he wasn't effected by "affecting'' he was affected by "effecting'. But it was merely an affectation in any case. And unlike some of those above, I'm not joking.
@Janus. For my part, I was thoroughly entertained by this word-play, and especially since it was participated in by someone who might one day “virtually” cut my throat.
I would rather see him enjoy himself in a controversial thread than bring the hammer down.
Comments (44)
I don't ask these questions rhetorically, but if I'm being asked to build a better forum, I can't see how allowing a free for all of unsupportable factual claims will benefit anyone, especially after the person making the claims has been given a chance to provide the factual support needed and then ignored it.
The only counter I see to what I'm saying here is that there might be some value in allowing people who make unsupportable (or false) claims to be kicked around a bit so that their error can be clarified to all who may come here for information. The flip side of that though is that some never allow themselves to be corrected and they keep on saying the same false information, and, as in this case, don't even make an effort to prove their facts are correct.
I wish I could find the articles I read in graduate school, but alas it was long enough ago and now is locked behind a paywall. From my recollection, there is data to support that in elementary schools at least something is going on in terms of how boys and girls are disciplined differently. The context however, was a goal to suss out how to meet the different needs of children and address unconscious biases in the predominantly woman dominated field, where the bias (some studies indicate) leans toward fulfilling the needs of girls while not reaching boys. There has been a lot of change over the last 50 or so years for girls in education in positive ways, the case is not entirely the same for boys (or atleast the research did not show it was, when I was in grad school). This is obviously very different than institutions of higher education, which the OP was talking about, but as an elementary educator it is the pool of knowledge I draw from.
Anyway, it's an interesting topic but that thread was not doing it any justice. I don't mind if it stays closed and someone else more well-meaning can re-ignite that topic in a more substantive way.
That would be very welcome.
That kind of censorship doesn't exist here, even though there's no question where most moderators sit on the political spectrum, they debate and argue with positions they don't like just like everyone else. They don't just delete people's posts because they don't like what you said and I think the thread you're referring to is low quality as it was closed for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGkBWYDmrM
You say a thing which is contentious, provocative and implausible in an OP and don't evince it. You make a bad OP. That might get closed regardless of what it's about.
That said, I'd be more inclined to close a thread that had a poorly researched offensive opinion as its OP quickly, or a thread which restates a terrible media talking point; like academia[hide=*](under the aspect of "post modern neomarxism"/"cultural marxism"[/hide] bias against blokes; without evidence. Because at that point it's kinda hard to tell from trolling.
If you wanna make a thread with a spicy take on something that attracts a lot of shitposting, try and bring a sufficient heap nuance and evidence to get your spicy take treated as something other than a shitpost.
That’s interesting, and had the topic remained open someone may have come along to explore it. We’ll never know now, but at least we’re secure in our little safe space.
Another issue is majority vs minority. It’s the old argument of “pick on someone your own size!”
In an ideal world minorities are equally vocal and equally represented and therefore in a strict sense of debate censorship should not be required as the both parties are equally equipped to defend their views. However this is the nature of minorities: they are few and far between so the pace of an argument as well as the capacity for equal opportunity to retort is severely distorted or skewed in favour of majority.
Usually it takes “living in ones shoes” to really appreciate the full spectrum of conditions faced by said minority. It’s difficult to relate to a state of being that you have never yourself experienced. This means that the majority is always somewhat priveleged as their is a general tendency for their views to be valued more. This is where moderation attempts to stabilise these inequalities. Some will say it’s fair and warranted moderation while others will believe it’s unnecessary censorship but really it’s a matter of “is there a potential for a large group to ‘gang up’ on a smaller one?” Where a dozen voices drown out the singular /few.
The irony being that in truly egalitarian world the very need for moderation is abolished yet moderation is used to establish a more egalitarian world. See the paradox?
The mods here do a good job. Its on us to write our posts in such a way that fits the environment of these forums. I made a mistake in my presentation of the post. It was made hastily during a lunch break after a previous discussion I had with someone. As such, it was presumptive and with loaded language. If I had taken the time to edit it, and given space from my related immediate discussion, I could have written it in a more appropriate manner.
But regardless, even if the mods decide certain subjects are not to be brought to these boards, that is their decision and right. It is a privilege to use these boards and speak with others here. I do appreciate those who defended me, as that post was not intended to be offensive, but it is ok if the moderators make that call that it is.
@tim wood, closing the thread was a good call. @StreetlightX:up:
Just based on personal experience, this rings false. The majority of my faculty, including me, in every university I worked at, fell into this category. I, nor any other fit, healthy male that I know of ever felt discriminated against. But in any case, yes, if you're going to present what sounds like a political polemic, back it up with evidence or don't bother.
It would be interesting to explore when, if ever, healthy, fit males are “liked”... It might only be amongst themselves, in selected company, but that can probably be said about the unfit ones, as well disabled males, and non-male people.
Educational institutions like who they can extract value from, it has been a tricky business for the value of fit, healthy males since rape and assault have been brought to the forefront of late, but I suppose we wouldn’t really categorize them as healthy? The social phenomena of accountability has shed light on much abuse of power, and it is always worth discussing the concepts of power and powerlessness, and how cultural and societal shifts interact with those concepts.
My hunch is that corrugated container plants probably like most the fit, healthy males who benefit the company most, the most irreplaceable, and who works in the interest of the plant. The rest are probably looked on with indifference. One argument for collective ownership I suppose, but then I guess I’m ascribing human characteristics to a non-human entity “the factory”.
There are other topics like Is Murder Really That Bad? that are not locked or deleted.
Many feel that murder is more morally repugnant than homophobia or sexism in academia (or far-right rhetoric?), but not our high principled mods?
Quoting Philosophim
You seem quite reasonable and articulate to me, if a bit scycophantic. I imagined, because I only had the option to imagine, someone very different.
For what it’s worth, the language “effected by homosexuality” is vile and I won’t fault anyone who has a visceral reaction to it, even on a philosophy forum with high discussion standards. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. :shrug:
Seems that everyone is so eager to jump on the politically correct bandwagon that they don’t even think of explaining themselves. What fantasy world do you live on where being gay is a complete non-issue that no one is effected by?
Are you talking to me?
I’ll go on to add, it is not my opinion that negative social stigmas faced by gay people for their gayness are effects of being gay. It isn’t the “being gay” that causes negative stigma, it’s rather more something wrong with the people who employ their agency to stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality. The more appropriate question is then in regards to those “effected by homophobia” as I don’t believe phobias are inherent parts of being.
I hope I’m being clear. For a second I thought you had misread me.
...and that indignation is directed against those who dare suggest that any class of human being is less equal than any other. No doubt about the equality of all human beings may be countenanced by anyone, and the correct response to such doubt is outrage by (almost) everyone, and threat by those who hold the power to effect that threat.
In previous posts in various threads I have attempted to explain the source of this phenomenon, reveal its roots in the origin of philosophy, and argue that nothing has changed since Socrates was put to death for the corrupting of the youth of Athens.
Let me just point out that, as I speak, a debate is being raised in the States about whether transgender students should be allowed to compete in sports according to their “gender”, or their “sex”, things that were synonymous until yesterday. There is an ongoing war between the traditional concept of nature, and the new one based on advanced egalitarianism...
...but he who espouses the former will be subject to censure...in society at large, but also particularly in this forum.
I was listening to my car radio for a change, I usually stream music, but I was flipping through channels and came across some guy screaming that BLM is a domestic terrorist group, and it got me really upset and incredibly pessimistic about humanity and then and I was like I have a dream today that all the people will join hands and sing in the words of the old negro spiritual free at last
free at last.
The reflection of totalitarianism that arises from decadence and indecency is also visible in the attitudes of the "moderators" of this forum. It permeates everything.
"- But it is obvious that you can think differently! Exclaims a moderator. - Different from the others! Exclaims another, while everyone burst out laughing..."
Ive wondered this myself. Could the Mods weigh in on this comment?
I think it’s that murder in general is not politicized, whereas things like capital punishment and abortion are. No politicization no need for political correction, basically.
Would you mind explaining how I did that?
Indeed
I’m not accusing you of doing anything. I don’t know who you are? I really must be being very unclear tonight, probably time for bed.
I’m very confused how this statement of opinion comes off as “I think you did this”. Can anyone help explain it to me?
Way back in the olden days, there existed a Yahoo Group entitled AlasBabylon. It was a bunch of peak oil theorists, baby boomers, doomers, and know-it-alls. :yum:
The creator, owner, and sole moderator was Scott Meredith.
One time over period of 5? or so years, I witnessed Scott impose some moderation. It was in a very extreme case.
Otherwise, the site was UNMODERATED.
It never burned down while Scott owned it. Apparently [?] the members felt a bit of personal ownership in the place.
It seems to me that the one of beautiful benefits of knowing a thing to be true is that you never have to expend any more precious effort or expense on research or investigation into it. It seems that when the "case is closed", it is CLOSED, Jack. The only thing that might remain is to inform all the ignorant souls who have been denied or otherwise deprived of this knowledge.
I will attempt to. In a previous post you wrote:
Quoting Uglydelicious
Presumably you consider it vile because this brief statement has the effect of:
Quoting Uglydelicious
This may be an oversimplification and seem unappreciative of the more subtle points you’ve brought to light, but if it’s a reasonable interpretation, it’s unclear how the offending statement expresses what you seem to believe it expresses.
By way of example I’ll try to illustrate my confusion. I have an astigmatism. I realize that the astigmatism is not something external to me and that it’s part of my physiology. I’m even willing to accept the idea that it ‘manifests from my being’ though I’m not entirely sure what that’s supposed to mean. Sounds profound so it must be gloriously virtuous.
The astigmatism affects my vision, the effect of which makes things look a little blurry. I don’t believe that I would be stigmatizing myself if I were to say that my astigmatism affects me, even though astigmatism is normally regarded negatively. I sometimes joke that I prefer a soft-focus on life, incidentally, like old films where they blurred the lens for closeups in order to make actors look better. Perhaps the effect of being affected by an astigmatism is aesthetic enjoyment? That’s not so vile, is it?
Your affectation for effecting conundrums is effectively unaffecting. :razz:
I forced it. :zip:
I like thinkers sense of humor, especially when it is processed through the mind of an attorney.
I know you're joking, but this is serious: he wasn't effected by "affecting'' he was affected by "effecting'. But it was merely an affectation in any case. And unlike some of those above, I'm not joking.
I would rather see him enjoy himself in a controversial thread than bring the hammer down.