Has this site gotten worse? (Poll)
I've been a member here a long time, but I post only very occasionally. My perception is that the level of discourse on this site has declined. I'm not sure if it's recent or if it's been happening for a while. Is this true? Or did my perspective change? If it's true, what can be done to improve it?
(I'm treating this site as continuous with the previous one that got bought out a while back)
(I'm treating this site as continuous with the previous one that got bought out a while back)
Comments (223)
I don't know what my perception means for myself. I had certain interests when I started here, they have changed. I reacted in certain ways when I started, I have changed.
What you look for as a helpful discussion probably is in motion over time. What do you wish to see more of?
Because her leaving was so ugly, the moderators moved the Shoutbox out of the mainline discussions and into the Lounge. That took a lot of energy out too. It was the place where everyone got together to gossip and complain and it showed up on the front page. Now, most people don't even look at it. It goes for days without a comment. I understand why the moderators moved it. They thought there was too much disruption, and they were right. Still, it took some of the life out of the forum.
Whatever the reason, some people have backed off a lot. They still comment from time to time, but less often. @StreetlightX and @fdrake don't comment nearly as much as they used to. I think @apokrisis is still around somewhere, but he hardly ever comments. They, along with TimeLine were strong voices for science from astrophysics to genetics to statistics. Now we're left with a bunch of half-assed, dipshit, pitiful pseudo-science. Yes, I'm talking about you.
There are other voices that have slipped into the background more. @ArguingWAristotleTiff is still around but sticks mostly to the Lounge. @Bitter Crank still comments but less. He has always been our Marxist rabble rouser with the credentials and experience to stand behind it. @Noble Dust is still around, but he only comes out when I say something bad about @Phillip K. Dick. And yes, I miss @S.
I'm not sure, but I think a lot of the moderators have stopped commenting as much. Comments about moderation have dropped off. In general, some of the spirit has gone out of the forum. I think some of the quality of the discussions has gone down too. I still love the forum.
For a while I felt like I'd said everything I had to say, but I've found some new things to be interested in.
It's still a good thing.
I do like a heated discussion every now and then. Haven't had one for a while. The last one was when I told a hard core marxist that I didn't think Marx had much to offer about how to solve the problem of global warming, The door was slammed and the welcome mat was snatched away.
quote="T Clark;536857"]He has always been our Marxist rabble rouser with the credentials and experience to stand behind it[/quote]
I lately haven't been as interested in rousing the rabble on behalf of Uncle Karl as I used to be. Old age, I suppose. I haven't felt the desire to participate in discussions as much as I used to. Old age, I suppose. Hey -- now that I have it, old age is a good excuse for doing and not doing all sorts of things.
I have been reading a lot; old age has not interfered with that, thanks be. Two books: The Secular Enlightenment, is pretty good but is fairy demanding, The other, The Metaphysical Club, is about late 19th Century American thinkers like Pierce and James, et al. That's good too, and requires careful reading. Finished a couple more books on WWII. The current book I am reading on WWII is Sheer Misery. It's about the awful physical experiences of war --horrendous sound, stench, terror, fatigue, hideous food, filth, pain, heat, cold, dysentery, etc. Quite interesting. For relief I read the Hail Mary Project by Andy Weir [The Martian] Excellent alien encounter out around Tau Ceti. Definitely a good read.
I really should do something about the yard -- it looks terrible, but deep down I don't give much more than a rat's ass about it. I should get more exercise, eat more dark leafy green vegetables, spend money more carefully, and all that.
:cool: Looking forward to reading it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I hope you know I wrote what I wrote with affection and respect.
"The Metaphysical Club" sounds interesting. If I keep calling myself a pragmatist, I should read more pragmatists.
That's exactly how I took it. And the same for you.
Yes, pragmatism; good thing.
Turns out I can read "The Metaphysical Club" free on Kindle Unlimited. Yay.
Where some see coincidence others see consequence. Seriously though, they probably helped to simulate interesting and good quality topics.
I've generally tried to be supportive of moderator's decisions, with a couple of exceptions. All and all, I think they do a pretty good job. Also, as I noted, the moderators often have interesting things to say in their own right. It seems like they've backed off from that some.
I use it fairly sporadically, but will say that it was better when Wallows and Terrapin Station were still here. Having contributed to its decline, I will say that it will just get better now, more or less necessarily.
Terrapin Station brought me up to speed about many different kinds of arguments that I was not aware of before he made them.
On the other hand, there was little I wondered about that he wondered about.
People are interested in different things.
I just found for him to be fairly amicable. I could never really wrap my head around what he was on about, though.
Maybe he will come back and tell us.
Wallows is still here as @Shawn.
Yep. What we really need is a real, separate shoutbox in a little box at the side, as in the old forum and a few alternative forum platforms. We can't implement that here and my feeling is we just wait till the time comes to make the move to Discourse or whatever.
As I said, I understand why you did it, but it hurt. It would be great if you could figure out a way to bring it back.
Haven't been able to find a good sci-fi book lately. Thanks for mentioning.
His dramatis personae are interesting; two of them are quite novel. One of the most interesting is a vacuum cleaner (a little robot taken over by an AI). The AI needed a disguise to get into places he wasn't supposed to be, the better to spy on his masters. Never mind how an AI would fit into the small circuits of a robot vacuum cleaner. It is fiction, after all. The little robot ends up on board a space ship and makes himself useful (above and beyond vacuuming). The other very interesting character is a Russian space explorer whose mind ends up being uploaded and used for various purposes.
Morris's fiction avoids ghastly monsters. I like to keep really ghastly imagery out of my head, because it can fester. I could stand Cormak McCarthy's book The Road, just barely, but not the movie. It took me years to get over Alien and it's sequels.
It did hurt and I didn't give up without a fight to get it back on the main page.
The threads were held together with the glue of a community and that is not present as of late.
I wish for the day when the shout box is given a chance. It's very difficult to talk on an intimate level with members you have only debated.
I too miss @S and have said as much.
Maybe I have said too much but that's the thing, I never had to worry about it before but now?
It's rather easy to feel dismissed.
That's my two cents so take it for what it is worth
Tiff
I know, was surprised they made a movie of it. I don't mind a good monster story as long as it's not too monstery. Didn't recently make it far into To Sleep in a Sea of Stars, for instance. Morris looks good.
I agree. I miss it.
Anyways, I propose a solution. Temporarily put the shout-box back on the front side. Maybe some of the glue and vigor will return, and if it does they can then hide the shout-box again.
Yes, me-ism died. It's now rugged individualism with a shotgun under your bed.
I've put the Shoutbox back on the main page, in a new category (currently closed to new discussions) called "Symposium", and pinned at the top.
I blame Covid and the lockdowns. It's sucked the energy out of me.
Discussions should be less politicized and more balanced between the political "right" and "left". People shouldn't be attacked for criticizing Marxist political philosophy, for example. Otherwise, the forum becomes a generally left-wing to far-left enterprise and there is no real dialogue.
Also, I don't seem to find any info on where this forum is located or who exactly owns or controls it. Does anyone know?
[quote=hypericin]Has this site gotten worse?[/quote]
Or...have you gotten better?
I'm betting on you having improved in which case this site ain't no longer going to be of any benefit to you. You've graduated from this forum sir/madam, Congratulations! It's time to look for greener pastures. Good luck and do drop by when you feel like it and share your new-found knowledge/wisdom with your poor cousins (us). :smile:
Quoting 180 Proof
Our loss, not yours!
I have looked at the shoutbox several times while it was in the lounge and couldn't make much sense of it all. I read how some people seem to view it as central to the forum. I am a bit confused because it just seems to be a disjointed jumble, so what is the shoutbox meant to be, or is it just for people to say anything about anything?
Just a place for casual talk.
This definitely might be a factor if posts are of poor quality but then there's this paradox: if one must make quality posts, one must be an experienced poster; if one must be an experienced poster, one must, at one time, be a beginner; if one is a beginner, one usually makes bad posts; conclusion: if one must make quality posts, one (at some point) makes bad posts! :joke:
I don't know, but we do get these types of threads every few years. On the old forum too. So, it could be a "remember the good old day's" phenomenon. Then again, if you look at discourse in general, e.g. compare a 1970's U.S. celebrity interview with one today, there can be a clear decline in some quarters over time.
You may, quite possibly, have been right about this all along.
I love the place except for ungrateful cunts.
This is great. Thank you.
Not to contradict you but take a look at :point: Irrationalism (Britannica)
[quote=Britannica][Irrationalism is the position] that reason is inherently defective and incapable of knowing the universe without distortion...[/quote]
and also :point: Criticism of Rationalism (Wikipedia)
[quote=Wikipedia]... Arthur Schopenhauer, describes the world as not organized in a rational way[/quote]
Try defending Irrationalism without using rationality.
What is even more ironic are those that use rationality in religious discussions abandon it in political discussionsand vice versa.
I hadn't thought of that. That may be true.
Well, that's the catch isn't it? Rationalism recommends irrationalism, if not everywhere, at least in some areas where millennia of rational inquiry has nothing to show for it. Just saying.
You're right about needing to avoid a Facebookization of the forum. I second that but with a certain amount of guilt I must say; after all I could be one of the people involved in this most undesirable transformation.
What areas are you talking about, specifically? Why would rationalism/irrationalism work in some areas and not others? What makes these areas different in why one works and the other doesn't?
I plan to start a new reading group discussion group.
Did you read the links I gave? I'm not completely sure about this but to be fair to irrationalism, rationalism hasn't much to show for its roughly 2 millennia old reign. In some circles, that would be considered a monumental failure, no?
Look at these threads in this forum itself,
Does philosophy make progress? If so how?
Is there something like the [sic] progress in philosophical debate?
Can the philosophical mysteries be solved at all?
Just the tip of the iceberg of threads on philosophical "progress."
I guess some philosophers simply gave up on rationality in utter frustration and wanted to try something new à la alternative medicine which has a similar reason for its popularity which is failure of allopathic treatment regimes and that "something new" is irrationalism.
What about us grateful cunts?
Quoting Valentinus
I was thinking about Terrapin Station the other day. I remember some good conversations. I looked him up to see if he was still around. He's banned.
:up:
What about us just cunts? :rofl:
Again, I'm asking for specifics. It seems that irrationality has been the dominant form of thought for most of human existence. In what areas has rationality failed where irrationality has succeded? Rationality includes the idea that you might not be right, and that you can only be right after making all possible mistakes. Have we made all possible mistakes? If not, then how has rationality failed?
Quoting TheMadFool
What about scientific progress? Has the progress of ethics been based on irrationality (racism) or rationality (inclusiveness - and understanding that we are all human beings of equal worth)?
Quoting TheMadFool
Seems to me that these "philosophers" are just impatient and want to declare that they have the answers without having had to work at it.
I love the place except for the dicks with delusions of grandeur that believe that us cunts should be grateful to them.
:lol:
Quoting Harry Hindu
:up:
I know he's still around; he passed through the main philosophy discord I frequent. He got banned there too.
I think it has stayed the same with compared to the old Forum. And it hasn't died, that's for sure. (The old site had a strange death, you know. Odd story.)
The thing what I like is that when newbies ask the classical questions about math and logic, there are those who take the time to give good answers to them and try to educate people. And I really like the comments of people like @fishfry and @jorndoe and others in math & logic. One old member I think isn't around is Moeblee, who also commented in the math section of the old PF site. I've always been fascinated by the incompleteness results Gödel and Turing, and nice to see the topic has stayed popular. I think there's still something very important there for us to find out.
Of course then it's nice to discuss the current events with the gang. Usually what things are discussed, what especially create a heated debate, do actually tell something about how things in the World are going. Later some threads are nice to view in hindsight. A classic in these cases will be the coronavirus -thread, the long Donald Trump -thread, the brexit -thread and, one of my favorites, something you might not think to find in an Philosophy Forum, the cryptocurrency -thread. I'll definately buy bitcoin if that thread is not commented for six months. Active discussion on that thread means that bitcoin is topping (or at least, has been so).
What I don't get is the antinatalism threads...
Even if you believe in antinatalism, how can you expect to convince anyone not to have children? It seems like it's just a way to look down on breeders. It was better when that was just something that Lesbians said about straight people. There's no reason to make a dig from the 1990s into an actual political philosophy.
What I am saying, though, is that it was cooler when it was just a snide remark that you'd hear a character played by Janeane Garofalo say in a film about a set of people who spend all of their time in an offbeat coffee shop and are going through some sort of quarter-life crisis or another. Imagine what Philosophy would be like were we to seriously consider the implications that the video game, Space Channel 5, for the Sega Dreamcast had for Critical Theory. Some people just took the nostalgia for the 1990s too far.
Fair bellwether. It topped (unless it makes a miraculous recovery) just about at the most recent post there a month ago.
But notice the longer term discussion activity compared to Bitcoin price movement.
The thread was active three years ago in December 2017 - January 2018, where we got basically the first 9 pages. Then, uh, I waked the thread up a year later...which just brought few comments and didn't spark much interest. But then the thread started in earnest on page 9 again for the last three pages from six months ago until a month ago. Now compare how this "active interest time" of this thread compares to when bitcoin has had a vertical rise, then a sharp fall yet coming down to a lower level that luckily is higher than the "bubble started".
OK, I admit the statistics aren't there yet, but I'll say that the thread is a genuine "canary in the coal mine" -indicator as it didn't "sound the alarm" in the summer of 2019 when prices were going up. Now if the thread stays silent, will Bitcoin consolidate on a lower level (yet higher than before the last uptick)? :razz:
Thank you.
Spoof a ledger transaction and make money!!!
Or just wait until the ledger system gets so obfuscated by spoof transactions that it halts the whole system and forces it to centralize.
Anyway, what I really miss from that site was the debate section. It was full of seemingly knowledgeable participants on several different topics. And the structure kept all the BS comments at bay. I learned a lot from those debates. I think people now are more easily triggered, and less polite, which is something I value. However, I think the most valuable posters are probably ones that were at the old site as well. And I’m sure in all that time their knowledge/understanding has increased. So they’re probably making even better posts now than they were.
That surprises me; I would have thought you would value people being less easily triggered and more polite...
I'd also like to see the debating option used more.
Lol, that’s what I meant.
No surprise you’d be the one to catch it, with your acute [s]obsession[/s] attention to language. :joke:
I certainly feel like Trump's election fucked up the vibe a bit too - or maybe even more than a bit - a few years ago. Speaking generally, posters and mods became more annoyed, less charitable, less willing to discuss contentious issues from a spirit of lively disagreement. Of course this idealized pre-Trump state of affairs is probably a fiction of my imagination, but I don't think it's crazy to assume there's some truth to it. In fact, to some extent I think we're still living in the highly polarized context that emerged with his clownish presidency.
But lately I've missed this place and the people who contribute here, some of whose posts I've been reading for around 20 years now dating back to the old PF (damn!). Some very intelligent, very high quality people frequent these boards and I wish I had the time and the energy to be more involved in the discussions.
Anyway, I just returned so I can't form a solid opinion on whether the forum's gotten better or worse just yet (from my biased perspective, of course), but so far it looks pretty good.
...and my acute obsession with triggering and being impolite...
I heard it receives some of its funding from the New Internationalist.
I appreciate your honesty. Times have been hard, I can subscribe to that. I know that you have been moving as well. I hope it all worked out for the best.
About the subject. I've been here for 3 months now. I find it easier to talk about science than religion. I noticed I get easily upset when talking about absolute truths. I spend a great deal of time reflecting on myself, this website being the mirror. It's good.
Quoting Jack Cummins
From my 20+ years of internet experience I can say this site is high quality. I haven't experienced any technical or ethical issues thus far. Forums are made for discussion and I think we're doing pretty good.
Maybe we can do a ZOOM group debate with the next guest speaker. It has to be someone skilled, not only in writing but in spoken dialectics as well. Could a moderator respond whether that's possible and desirable? Thanks
My understanding is it is supported by the Rockefeller Foundation under a subsidiary of the Fabianism and post-modern Marxist funny handshake collective.
Perhaps. I have noticed that for the past few years I've posted more to politics-related discussions than philosophy. I guess after 15 years of being here/the old PF I've run out of stuff to say.
He admits to being from Moscow.
His favourite quote is:
Wake up, Sheeple!
I hear you mentioned Zoom and I am sure if a speaker was introduced in that way a lot of people would be very pleased. However, the introduction of Zoom on this site is my worst fear. That is because I don't want to end up engaging sitting on my unmade bed, in my cluttered bedroom. It is all very well for people who can appear in their designer homes. Also, speaking on Zoom might appeal to some, but not everyone.
I know that you are only speaking of Zoom as a possibility for the speaker, but once Zoom is introduced it tends to become the dominant mode. Most groups I would like to do, like art and creative writing are often only available by Zoom, and I wonder to what extent this will continue beyond the pandemic. So, if Zoom was introduced on this site I think that in time most of the discussion may take place in that way, as that is the way life is going.
But maybe I'm drawing the wrong conclusions here. You tell me
Very interesting. If true, then that would make it a left-wing enterprise, wouldn't it? And how come there is no info on it anywhere?
If I were to recommend moderators to improve on one thing, it would be to clean up the place. There are far better places for evangelical nuts, racist apologists, and people who don't even know what philosophy is. 4Chan-like forums and Reddit threads dedicated to that kind of stuff, instead of clogging up this place.
Everybody does. But, for example, if people want to subscribe to something, they would like to know a bit more about it. I don't think it should be a secret.
You are 100 percent right. You don't know who's watching. My brother lives in Hong Kong. If I were living there, I'd probably do everything I can to keep my identity hidden.
I don't think anyone mentioned "billions" or "Hamas". Not me in any case. All I'm saying is when you subscribe to something, you'd normally like to have a fair idea of who you are dealing with.
Besides, I think as a matter of courtesy, online forums ought to provide some info about location, ownership, etc. to members. I'm not talking about bank details. Just to say, "we are based in Oxford, England", we're sponsored by "so and so" or whatever, and that's it.
You can find info on reddit and many other forums but not on this one.
I do believe that you have raised some important questions on to the site. However, all your questions about ownership are making me wonder if you are wishing to seek to scrutinise it so much, rather than appreciating it for what it is.
First off, I concede that rationality is the best tool at our disposal - it's made all the difference! We owe rationality for the massive transformation we've undergone from savages to civilization in the blink of an eye in terms of geological time. However, if only as an exploratory enterprise, it would do us a whole lot of good if we begin looking for alternatives that are as good as rationalism or better or if neither at the very least enriches our lives by offering us radical, more truthful, more useful perspectives to examine our world with.
I know it sounds rather foolish to hope so much from a state of mind (irrationality) that has proved to be the undoing of many lives past and present but such things happen not necessarily because there's something wrong with irrationality itself but an error in the in the way we wield it. We need to draw a distinction between a tool and the skill in using it for the fault may lie in the latter than in the former.
You asked for specifics and I refer you to the philosophical universe if I may call it that - every thesis has an antithesis. Tell me, is this a sign that rationality has succeeded or does it make philosophers want to rethink their strategem? Mind you, I'm not claiming rationality should be immediately done away with, rather I mean to point out that it won't hurt trying out other avenues; we're stuck anyway, right?
Quoting Harry Hindu
I'm afraid racism and other problems that plague society are still as virulent as they were centuries ago, they're like dormant volcanoes that can erupt at any moment and the "progress" you mention will be reversed faster than you can say Jack Robinson! I don't call this progress. Au contraire, the better situation that we find ourselves in can be more appropriately ascribed to reliance on allegedly irrational systems like religion and the like. So much for ethics and rationalism.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You might be right. It's hard to tell the difference between someone who's tried faer best and failed and someone who's not tried at all - as far as results go, they're indistinguishable.
@jamalrob's the boss. We're sponsored by the users who donate. The software is provided by PlushForums which is based in London.
It is interesting to hear that you feel that you could not express your opinions except as anonymously. I am not anonymous and even have my photo on display, because I feel that I have so little platform of any identity or expression of ideas at all. It is such a contrast of experience.
I don't harken back to the good old days when the front page of the forum was filled with he said/she said remarks and constant bickering over policies, but I do see some value in those free for all days in that it enabled us to better know one another. I think of those I consider friends here, and it is true those were formed a while ago when the sandlot was a little less monitored.
So, I welcome the return of the Shoutbox to front and center, but also realize these things do need to be checked at some point because one or two people can really derail things quickly.
.
It's as other have said, I used to belong to a very nice community of about 7 or 8 people. I guess that lasted for a bit over a year. Inevitably someone says something stupid or irresponsible and it all fell apart quite quickly. I tried to bring it back, but I couldn't: life and all.
I go back once in a blue moon to see it, I think at most I recognize 2 people all of which joined after me. The quality itself has not changed much, I don't think. But site format too much for my taste. If people you recognize don't remain, it's only normal to see these things as "deteriorating".
And maybe in some respects it has, but overall it's similar. Being invested in a place will shade the colour of your glasses. How can it not?
That's interesting. Also a bit worrisome if it happened to me, not that this applies to you at all.
I'd be afraid that there's nothing new that I could learn in philosophy. But there's so much in the tradition. I guess it could also happen that no new topics are of interest to me, then I could see that not being something that would bother me.
The people who built and maintain this website need to be able to feel safe. That is my opinion.
Quoting Book273
Thanks for sharing your story. Be wise and think twice :victory:
Quoting Jack Cummins
Don't worry, they're very democratic here. They held a discussion first before inviting the latest guest speaker. Let's not Zoom ;)
OK. I suppose that's better than nothing. Thanks.
I was just asking because I noticed there is no info anywhere and I thought someone here might know. But it isn't a big deal to me.
Despite what I said, I think that it is right to question any site we are logging onto and writing on. We need to question what we are getting involved in rather than doing everything blindly.
I tend to agree with that. But if the site owners don't want to tell us there isn't much we can do.
If we press them they can always give us false information if for whatever reason they think it's unsafe to disclose who they are.
Or couscous for that matter. I've always felt it's a waste of time.
I strongly endorse blaming Donald Trump for everything bad that has happened in the past 5 years.
I think that we have to go beyond any potential paranoia about the site. Each one of us comes with our sets of values, and shortcomings. As far as I can see, this site tries to be as fair and open towards diverse ideas, as possible. What more can we ask for?
However, as I have just looked back as I am writing this, and I think that some people would like it to be less open, so, in that sense, I don't know what to say, and it all goes back to biases, and the social and political construction of ideas. I appreciate this site for what it is now, but I am aware that at some point, I may feel attacked to the extent where I feel a need to withdraw from it, in order to retain a sense of personal integrity and right to retain my own ideas, as a free human being.
I, on the other hand, have posted much less often on political discussions. Part of my lower blood pressure, greater peace strategy.
Someone did mention it but the thread got deleted. I'm guessing they're leaving this thread because Banno &co are mocking the idea that there is funding from left wing organisations, making it all seem silly. I don't know. EDIT: it would look suspicious if the mods deleted this thread now.
*shrug* You can mock all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
On the forum here, what you see is what you get. There isn't much in the way of infrastructure. There are King Jamalrob and Queen Baden and then all the little princes and princesses we know as moderators. The whole thing is run on an old IBM 486 sitting in a puddle of water in Jamalrob's basement in....Moscow!! If you contribute $10, that will double the budget for this year.
And yes, it is a pretty left-wing, or as we like to say "good," operation.
To be quite honest, the impression I got soon after joining was that this forum does have a left-wing bias, just from the way I was attacked for pointing out inconsistencies in Marxist theory. I thought that was rather strange on a philosophy forum. And it does list marxists.org under "Other sites we like".
There doesn't seem to be much political balance there. I could be wrong, though. Or maybe these days philosophy in general does come with a leftist slant ....
Sounds like a sensible proposition.
I have no definite idea of how long I wish to be part of this forum. However, I can say that it has played a significant value in my life in the last few months. I don't know how I would have coped with lockdown isolation without it. I continue to read and write on it, but with certain reservations when it becomes a field of attack.
I have woken up and found that people are having all kinds of fierce arguments on threads which I have created. I have experienced mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I have felt annoyed, but, at the same time, felt glad that people have even logged into threads which I have written because they are my biggest contact with other people and the real world.
So, I see my participation with the site as being a potential source of stress, but also the best means I have of communication with other people. I will juggle this in my choice about engaging on this site on a longer term. I am here for critical analysis, but get put off when it gets so petty, but try to rise beyond this.
I can't disagree with that. However, I think people might be more inclined to say "thank you" if they're allowed to criticize any system including Marxist political philosophy without being branded "Nazis" or "idiots". I don't think that would lower the intellectual level in any way. On the contrary, it might stimulate analytical thought even on the left.
I'm afraid rising beyond it is the only way. With a bit of luck it toughens you up and makes you more philosophical, too.
The forum is left-leaning and all woke and stuff from the top down. It wears it's heart on it's sleeve. It doesn't try to hide it. That does lead to certain subjects being resisted, which sometimes bothers me. I don't spend much time on political subjects anyway. People love to talk politics here, but discussions of real political philosophy are rare.
Quoting Apollodorus
Discussion subjects are generally chosen by members, not administrators or moderators, so it's not policy, it's the voice of the people. I haven't been impressed with the quality of the more conservative political discussion here, but I can say the same of political discussions in general on the forum.
To my estimation, the political debate is often more in the vein of political science than political philosophy. I'm mostly interested in relatively obscure theory, and, so, that's probably a reason, but people don't often seem too interested in talking about actual political philosophy. There's that and that it often amounts to kind of a lot of venting.
Sometimes, it's pretty good, though.
Your discussions are some of the best on the forum. I like the way they are all connected and, taken as a whole, paint a pretty clear picture of the things that matter to you. A consistent intellectual vision which includes a strong dose of curiosity is an effective tool.
As for squabbles, you may find them frustrating, but I think your threads have fewer than most. You should take that as a sign you are doing something right.
I don't know you're on about. Everyone agreed with you in that discussion about the SPD's alliance with the German military. Besides, no one here knows anything about the far-Left and everyone just takes my idiosyncratic theories for psychobabble.
Though @Jack Cummins is right that I ought to stop griping about hipsters and the ostensive intellectual superiority of left-wing obscurants, it does make sense that I do as they took over the movement that I was formerly a part of.
Though I do, personally, feel slighted by that cut throat politics have been taken for Egoism and that any person whatsoever is let to engage in them via a rather vapid chic, in order to have any place whatsoever in any politics that I agree with, I don't really have any other options but to critique them in such a manner that admonishes the social capital in they have secured.
Being said, there's no real reason for me to go on about it here, though. I'm just kind of avoiding the mensa mind game it would take to get this across to r/Anarchism or r/CriticalTheory, as The Anarchist Library is, to some extent, their kin, if you will, along with Anarchist News.
I'm not talking about the SPD's alliance with the German military at all.
I'm talking about this:
Marxism - philosophy or hoax?
But I do agree that much of what you're saying sounds very much like psychobabble. Whether it's intentional or not I cannot tell.
My thread on that ramble from Nihilist Communism may be fairly arcane, but there is actual theory. I actually kind of make a fairly conscious attempt at being somewhat explicitly clear. It's kind of funny to me.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE HERE.
Your participation here is not obligatory.
I feel as if you fail to understand my paradox. Because there was nowhere else to do so, I had to use the forum to leave a set of points out there for someone on the internet to find. Having done so, I've been trying to figure out how not to have my entirely sensible ideas appraised negatively so that I can leave. That half of this forum intentionally produces a somewhat hostile social environment for me in an attempt to convince me is precisely what keeps me here. If the general attitude towards my person within the field of Philosophy online expresses a certain degree of animosity, it is likely for such sentiments to carry over into the real world. You can always just destroy my life and career because of that I was critical of an intellectual trend, though.
You want recognition for what you think are obvious truths, fluently expressed. You assumed folk who were attracted to a site like this would agree with you, but instead found them contrary and difficult; they had the effrontery to critique your wonderful, erudite opinions.
Same as ever other member.
Well, that amounts to an admission that you're using the forum for your own agendas like you did with some of my threads.
As for you "leaving a set of points out there", you needn't bother because most of that stuff is totally incoherent and hardly makes sense to anyone. No offense, but you seem to have issues that can't be resolved on an online forum.
Fuck sake, who's agenda do you expect folk to follow?
I have a need to put information out there in the world. I have information that needs to somehow get to some other people in the world out there somewhere. It's out there now, and, so, I don't really care.
Quoting Banno
What is an absurd demand of any community is to expect for it to let you cultivate social capital via a set of social ploys or whatever. What is not an absurd demand is for it not to intentionally produce an environment that is hostile to you. No one here knows anything about the far-Left, anyways.
The Anarchist movement would not have let me moved on with my life without my having created a record of my reasons for leaving it. Though doing so has been an implicit purpose of my commenting here, I have made a conscious attempt to stay within the relevance of the original posts, though, have only do so successfully, being honest with myself or with everyone else. Despite what nuisance this may have been, having been already done, I'm just trying to leave well so that I can engage in my creative pursuits. Inevitably, I will eventually just bail, but it could be preferable for everyone otherwise.
I apologize for hi-jacking your thread to talk about crypto-vanguardism within the Communization current. As I thought it was actually about political conspiracy, I did genuinely think that my doing so was within its topic.
It's all good. I'm kind of just trying to take things easy now.
So... to leave the anarchists you have to play by the anarchist's rules.
That makes sense.
In the beaten way of an explanation, I will try to explain this again.
The Anarchist Library, regardless as to how well written or theorized anything that I put forth is, will just simply not publish me. The Anarchist movement has been making a conscious and deliberate attempt to cover-up what my ideas are because those who, at least, attempt to arbitrate it, believe for them to run counter to their own ideas. They have also been making a conscious and deliberate attempt to cover-up my reasons for leaving it. Even though I would prefer to be able to let them save face in the eyes of the world, I can not let them play spin control as they have, as it often relies upon spreading rumors about me that are detrimental to my person.
I have been institutionalized twice and diagnosed with psychosis, and, so, I may only imagine that some of these things are happening. In so far that they have been, however, I do have to alleviate what plights they have created for me.
Were I to post on r/Anarchism, should I put any of this well, my thread will merely be buried, and, should I do so otherwise, I will merely incur a certain degree of wrath. I have already attempted to do that.
In order to get what set of points across that I have to on r/CriticalTheory, I will have to encode the information that I have to get out there as theory, thereby defeating the purpose of doing so, as it is information that I need to be commonly understood.
That has left me with only this forum. Though I have, to some extent, attempted to remain on-topic, @Apollodorus is correct to assume that I do have another purpose. I already have the record that I need, though, and, so, what I have been trying to explain is that I have no reason to continue to engage in such things and would just kind of like to leave well now, since not too many people seem to be too terribly interested in chatting it up about my other ideas.
Apologies or whatever. I think that everything ought to be able to go well now, though. I don't know. It's not really all that much of a deal for anyone but me.
It's no big deal. I was just trying to help you because your statements seemed to display some psychotic or manic features apart from the fact that they distort and misinterpret historical facts. That's why I told you that you need to understand yourself (and your issues) before you understand others.
You were serious? I thought you were having a quiet mock there yourself so I had a riff on it.
The people who post here seem to be from a very broad range of views. There's the usual mix of cranks, monomaniacs, untheorized hopeless cases, educated smugnesses, political bores, insightful gems, helpful thinkers, wannabe gurus and the curious ignorant (I am in this latter category).
This thread has taken an....odd turn.
My fault? If it is, sorry.
No, not your fault. The talk about conspiracy theories related to the forum just has me shaking my head.
No offence to Jamalrob, but the forum would be the most low-rent, third-rate conspiracy I can imagine.
That's just what he wants you to think...
Yeah, the first five or so posts sounded so "old timer's bitter nostalgic sorrow". There are dynamics in this forum these days, too. Banno; Apollodufus; GMBA; all add some flavour to the thought, not just the straight goods, for those who love drama. I only listed these three because I can't remember others' monikers; please don't be offended that I left you off the list. You are just as saucy as the rest of us, whoever you are reading these lines.
"Bias" means any text that disagrees with the right.
They just don't get critique.
Anti-group-think group-think, maybe that’s a thing?
:100: YYYYYYYYYYES. This entire post bears repeating (and can't be repeated enough as far as I'm concerned).
OK man, I'll repeat it.
But I think that the vast majority of the people here are influenced by the current environment, be it social, political or economic. And it will show. Especially with the topics that make people mad and bring on the ad hominem attacks towards your fellow PF members.
The fact is that few topics that aren't directly philosophical won't get much debate if it isn't something that the public discourse is debating about. We are not so special, unfortunately.
Of course, it rarely changes minds. But for others who might be looking at this site, it could be helpful in this negative sense.
Big Hummus would like to have a word.
Quoting 180 Proof
There's a lot of bullshit here, but there always has been. There are also plenty of interesting threads. Why worry about those that don't have much to say or just bang the same old gongs. They give us a chance to feel all superior. I know for me they also give me an opportunity to argue against positions I think are wrong-headed while staying civil and respectful. I need work on that. I can avoid discussions of anti-natalism, free will, Israel, relativity denial, the effects of quantum entanglement on haddock catches in the Bay of Fundy, and anything else that annoys me. I can also start threads of my own.
I don't see much in the way of "evangelical nuts" here. And what you are calling "racist apologists" also include needed criticism of the social justice movement and other similar ideologies. Moderators are pretty quick to crack down on posters who go over what they consider the line to the point that reasonable argument is often shut down or never starts.
PS: A 1,000 bucks donation gets you an insta ban of a user of choice, no questions asked.
Quoting Baden
Not bias so much as good advice.
No! You were right the first time. I was just seeing how far I could troll Apollodorus. I was starting to think he might have been counter-trolling me. I had to turn against you and Banno to try and maintain the pretence. All over now. Or is it?
Yeah. I think I agree with you. But I'm not sure. Social media is an echo-chamber. That's OK to an extent. But I also want to be exposed to not-me. So this forum serves that function pretty well. But then it's a philosophy forum, and I am the first to admit am an elitist snob and want to see proper philosophy done. I suppose what I'd like is to have the clever top tier of right wing capitalist pig dogs posting on here. But they don't care about philosophy, indeed they are anti-philosophy (philosophy is an inherently left wing liberal elitist activity), they are too busy ripping people off, not paying taxes and persuading savages to vote for them otherwise commies like Jeremy and Bernie will take over and outlaw tax havens.
Yes. I agree with this as well. I dunno. It is possible to ignore the bollocks. And sometimes it turns out not to be complete bollocks after all, and those moments are valuable. There used to be more evangelical nuts than now. We're getting the 'culture wars' coming up more now. It's interesting in a way. I like to meet people rather than caricatures, and this forum provides an opportunity to do that.
I would agree compared to the days of the old place. Here, I'm not so sure.
I think lots of knowledgable regular posters becoming less active has had a big impact, more so than outright change of policy compared to the early days of of this forum.
That's actually a pretty good idea. I suppose that I'll just have to organize my thoughts.
agreed. Very much. My experience is carbon copy.
Quoting Christoffer
Caveat emptor. Applied, of course, to the situation.
For a short time I participated on a Forum on the Internet, a philosophy forum, that was heavily moderated. Consequently the posters who catered to the moderators' PERSONAL preferences survived, and all else were turfed out. I joined after the turfing out. There was no life there. Intelligence, yes, but no life. A post came on the ENTIRE SITE once every two weeks. They only posted things that they knew everyone would agree over. It was lifeless.
There are no arguments between Plato and Socrates; there are no arguments between Bullwinkle and Homer Simpson. But there are arguments between Plato and Bullwinkle.
What I mean is that weeding out, so to speak, can lead to lifelessness.
There is another site, where the weeding out has not happened at all, even the slightest way... and it's cannibalism there. Some of their users are posting here, too: Johndorn, GMBA, 180 proof (please correct me if I am wrong) and Appolodufus (he neither denied it nor confirmed it when I put it point blank to him that he was a user on the other site). I totally abandoned that site. Fooloso4 also posted there, but all my admiration goes to him, he's not one of the cannibals; he only posted there because apparently he is friends with the site owner there and F4 out of the kindness of his heart raises the average readability of the site. 180 Proof is not one of the crazies, either, but he can become (as can I and have been) cannibalistic.
So this is the middle-of-the-road of sites, between no moderation and supermoderation. I like this site of the three the best.
How much to ban a moderator?
The forum definitely has a lefty point of view. I don't see that as bias. It's out in the open and impossible to miss. Agendas, but no hidden agendas. I'm lefty too, so it's not an issue for me.
This is not a good place for me to talk politics. I like to have those discussions on conservative sites. Those are the places I've really learned to deal with fractious issues while showing respect. It can really change the tone of a heated argument. It doesn't often change people's minds about political issues, but it can change minds about the people we disagree with. If conservative people came here with that kind of attitude, I think they could find it a valuable site.
I have no idea what this means, but I like it.
Quoting god must be atheist
I agree.
I haven't been here long enough to notice this trend. At first, I was quite apprehensive about posting here, because it seemed that being cool and readily and creatively dishing out ad homs left and right was the way to be. That is, that's it's not enough to make one's point in plain language, but that one has to be able to wrap it up as something cool, insider humor, insider insights, along with a measure of ad homs. And that if one cannot keep up with this style, one just isn't cool enough for this forum.
Are you serious about this, or not ...
That's the cool style I'm talking about above.
I think you're right.
I take it you are referring to Online Philosophy Club and Philosophy Now Forum in that order. When I was a moderator at Online Philosophy Club I would make sure that new topics were reviewed and approved within two days. The policies on who could approve posts changed at about the same time I left. I agree that when I was there things there could be a bit stilted. The Philosophy Now Forum is a cesspool. I left once it became clear that it was not a place for reasoned discussion. I am not friends with either site owner. But thanks for the kind words.
If I have to compare how it is run now from the way PF was ru, I think the standards on PF were a little higher, but maybe I am wrong, that was after all 10 years ago and you remember only the posts that impressed you.
On the whole though I feel the place is still similar in that it has the occasional very knowledgeable thread the occasional off beat but very interesting idea an the usual groping around in the sandbox to find something to latch on to. There is nothing wrong with that, I came here way back in 2003 or 20004 because of a thread about nothingness and I still see it come up sometimes. I think the place is still a good way to sharpen one's argumentative skills and acquire some basic knowledge about various philosophical arguments. I still find it helpful that hardly anything catches me completely off guard because there has been one post or other about it in PF and one of the savants of the different traditions has commented on it.
What I do notice is that the tolerance towards sharp debate has gone down. It is a society wide trend I feel so nothing different here than in reel life. The ad homs and the snide remarks were all there back in the day as much as now, but the hurt or indignation against them was less. Attacks could really be vicioius but if there was some substance behind it, no worries. It was also recognized, sure debates can get mean, but principle of charity, in the end we do not mean bad. I think people's souls have grown more tender. It is a shame because I think such an attitude is beneficial. The acceptance that we all cross the line sometimes leads to a mutual recognition of fallibility. There were some posters who I had really mean altercations with but think back of with fondness. A debate is not a safe place. that recognition I think would be useful. that does not mean a license to disrespect, but disrespect with high level of substance should be tolerated and eaten. A debate is a battle and the scars of war is what makes us veterans. Of course, plain disrespect without substance is 'crime of war' and leads to dishonorable discharge.
This is what I like most about the forum.
Good post.
Actually, that's a lie.
This was your "question":
Quoting god must be atheist
And this was my answer:
Quoting Apollodorus
Obviously, the answer is NO.
And yes, Philosophy Now is a cesspool, like you said. I call the participants cannibals, and their interaciton, cannibalism.
Good to hear from you, Toby. I suspected you were lurking back there somewhere, in the shadows, watching, waiting.
I'm want to start a thread about declining standards in this topic or that topic on occasion; I hope that such help to push up quality by pressing the mods to be a bit more active on occasion. I agree that the quality of the posts is much the same as of old, so far as one might ascertain given one's natural preference for recalling good discussions of the past. (No criticism of the Mods intended here - I would make a dreadful moderator; I'd ban every second poster, rendering the forum silent.)
I do not think that we have as many members of the very highest standard as was once the case. They've moved on or been lost, and not replaced.
Quoting Tobias
Now that you have drawn my attention to this, I think you are quite on the mark. So the question arrises, why should this be so?
Well then, the "evil one" is in good company.
Well, he didn't complain at the time, did he?
To me, "I have a bit of spare time to engage in discussions here" means HERE not THERE on whatever forum he imagines to have seen me.
And I also added:
Quoting Apollodorus
If that isn't clear enough, I don't know what is.
...those who do not respond to the criticism, but instead to the criticiser. Yes, that was apparent in several recent threads - the one on Reincarnation, for example, and the "Anthropic Principle meets consciousness" thread; The accidentally resurrected "Tragedy of the Commons" is also infested.
If you don't know what is, how is it my fault?
Well, if they can't be sure and they can't know, then what's the point in asking?
If you don't understand, why should I?
He asked a question, I replied, and that is that.
How is it my fault that he imagines to have seen me on another forum???
He, I, did not imagine. I saw similarities, but I did not imagine you were the other person. that's why I asked.
Quoting Apollodorus
That's precisely the point of asking. If you say yes, you were, then I'm pretty sure you were him. If you say no, you weren't, I am pretty sure you were not. But you said neither. So the point of asking is to gain information, which you denied to give.
Quoting Apollodorus
When did you add this? It was not there in your answer for a long time. The addition must have come at a later edit.
And again, I did not imagine you to be anyone but yourself. I ASKED if you were also the same person.
This is similar to when you go to a class reunion. "Hi, aren't you so-and-so??" that people ask each other not having met for twenty or forty years. You have a feeling, but not KNOWLEDGE or imagination that the other person is so-and-so. This is asked then, are you so-and-so.
And your answer was evasive. I asked you a straight question; you did not say yes or no. You said you have a busy schedule with work, or something to that effect, and you come here when you have the time. Well, you did not say that this has always been the case. And if it has always been the case, then chances are that in the past you also had some free time to post between busy times, since the job has presumably not changed. And if the job did change, then there is no disclosure of the past.
This much on being evasive.
Apollodufius, you are just out of your depth in this forum. You are tearing your hair out in desperation to show us you are right, but no, we don't take your arguments riddled with holes and ill logic at face value. Sorry. Our response to your posts will not change, as long as you keep posting in the same vain vein.
Geez - you and Synthesis - it's nothing but hell in a handbasket, when I was a boy, kids these days.
Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier wine?
Global socio-economic crisis. People's energy and attention are more focused on making ends meet and making it through the day.
Taking ad homs and snide remarks in stride requires a measure of social and material comfort and security in one's life.
It's similar as with humor. I don't know if there's a study on how well people indulge in humor under acute and chronic duress, but there should be such studies. Common sense says that when one's life is hard (socially and economically), one will be less able and willing to indulge in humor.
Quoting Banno
Not all ad hominems are fallacious:
[i]Valid types of ad hominem arguments
Argument from commitment
An ad hominem argument from commitment is a type of valid argument that employs, as a dialectical strategy, the exclusive utilization of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true. This usage is generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage or in pre-20th century usages.[30] This type of argument is also known as the ex concessis argument (Latin for "from what has been conceded already").[31]
Ad hominem arguments, testimony and authority
Ad hominem arguments are relevant where the person being criticised is advancing arguments from authority, or testimony based on personal experience, rather than proposing a formal syllogism.[32]
An example is a dialogue at the court, where the attorney cross-examines an eyewitness, bringing to light the fact that the witness was convicted in the past for lying. This might suggest the conclusion that the witness should not be trusted, which would not be a fallacy.[33] Related issues arise with arguments from authority. If a witness claiming to be a medical expert asserts, on the basis of their expert knowledge, that a particular product is harmless, an opponent could make the ad hominem argument that the witness' expertise is less than claimed, or that the witness has been paid by the makers of the product.
More complex issues arise in cases where the conclusion is merely probable rather than deducible with certainty. An advocate for a particular proposition might present a body of evidence supporting that proposition while ignoring evidence against it. Pointing out that the advocate is not neutral, but has a conflict of interest, is a valid form of ad hominem argument.
/.../
Criticism as a fallacy
Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[34] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.[38][/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Valid_types_of_ad_hominem_arguments
Yep.
We are more or less compelled to move with the zeitgeist, no? When I started posting in PF, for example, I didn't take sexism particularly seriously. Now, I do, and I think I should.
My sociological explanation would go somewhere along this line: there are two mutually reinforcing trends with us since the 1960's. The first is democratization / emancipation the second is a culture of authenticity. These trends mutually reinforce each other.
Democratization has given many people the chance to speak out and raise their voice. Awareness rose that by and large our western consumer culture was based on all kind of hierarchies. Increased welfare, increased schooling and increased means of communications meant hitherto marginalized groups who suffered the most from these taken for granted hierarchies such as the working class, women and ethnic minorities gained more access to the discourse (sorry Banno ;) ) Rightly so, they occupied their spot in the market place of opinions. Their was a conservative backlash against it, it becomes visible especially now, but the traditional 'left' was sensitive to this development. It led to a questioning of the approach taken by the educated to the uneducated. Many are now sensitive to the idea that what they argue for is tinged with all kinds of prejudice and become hesitant. The idea emerges that what is being said is not 'fact', but opinion, at least the people bringing forth 'facts' shun from stating them as such.
Their authority dwindles for two reason. A. they were part of the same system of marginalisation therefore lost credibility. B. they feel uneasy donning the mantle of authority because they know they were. Democratization radicalized into identity politics. Everybody, not just the 'traditionally' marginalised groups, is a victim of one thing or other. (I was a little boy with glasses, not good!). That means everyone's sensitive spot must be taken into account leading to pussyfooting in debates.
The second reason is the culture of authenticity which I would relate to 1960's youth culture as well. Enlightnement liberated us from the church. The second world war, Vietnam and the environmental crisis liberated us from the idea that tradition and science make us moral. The source of morality can therefore not be found within a community but has to reside within oneself. The result is that everyone is a unique individual who is deserving of being loved and cherished and not hurt. Everyone reaches morality his or her own way, be it through community activism, boy scouting, LSD or free love. Since there is not one path to morality and 'knowledge' but many and since each individual is 'worth it', each individual feels free to claim his or her space, wherever and whenever. Why would the seat of congress not be occupied by a shaman wearing bull horns? He is at least, authentic and less corrupted than the satanists at the top.
The traditions reinforce each other. The top (the well educated holding higher social positions) become less self assured while the bottom (those that do not, and yes I am aware of the connotations of this metaphor, but I do not know how else to tell the story, no value judgments are intended) become more self assured. Established but often tacitly accepted rules of argumentation are called into question, or worse, not taught anymore. Equal worth becomes equated with equality of each opinion. The fallaciousness of that equation gets lost. So when someone is argumentatively butt kicked we do not accept it anymore. It is not a loss to a better opponent we have to accept, according to the rules of the game, but an unwarranted attack on our individual or group identity and self worth.
As for my own normative position on this (not that it matters but anyway) I hold the first trend to be a necessary correction of systemic inequality. The second trend though I think is pernicious especially coupled with the first one, because there is a tension between the two. The legitimation of self assertion it brings might well lead to new hierarchies and undermine democratization eventually. People flee into mysticism, others, feeling threatened start clamoring for a restoration of old privileges..
Thanks for that. I'd never seen it before. Linked below.
And people say this isn't a legitimate philosophy forum.
:scream:
Quoting T Clark
You have seen the Bruces, haven't you?
Who's, then, matters? A rhetorical question, of course. We are each obliged to act despite not having sufficient grounds for acting rationally. Hence we adopt various heuristics, often post hoc, to justify our actions. And because this is an act of justification, it is necessarily a social act; we reach for the very same excuses used by those around us. Hence @Baden has been led by the zeitgeist to recognise sexism when he sees it. And the forums are better for it, one supposes, if the result is member diversity.
Sometimes folk are wrong, you and I included. It matters that we draw attention to each others inconsistencies.
I have heard the song, if that's what you mean. I find the Bruces sketch itself deeply offensive as a reflection of rabid Australaphobia.
I linked to the philosopher's football match in a previous post, but the link has been shut down.
I thought they actually were the members of the philosophy department of the University of Wooloomooloo, Bruce.
Not sure if compliment or insult. (Based on past interactions with you, I'm guessing compliment; if so, thanks!)
I have noticed that you have posted less in the last few weeks and it really did make me wonder if it was because you thought that the site had deteriorated recently. I have noticed that a number of members I have seen on the site have previously not posting in the last month or so. Of course, it may be that lockdowns are easing and that you have better avenues for ideas.
One of them is that I generally felt that most interactions here were emotionally negative already, and many people (elsewhere in my life) were advising me to stop reading or posting here for the sake of my own happiness. But I felt obligated to myself to continue seeking constructively critical input on my own philosophical writings, which is what kept me coming back despite that advice. Then the admins here asked me to stop doing that, so I had much less reason to visit. (I discovered that /r/philosophy is a much better place for that, anyway).
But on top of that, my schedule IRL has changed a lot in recent weeks, and I just don't have a ton of time to engage on forums for fun. I was still reading here, just not posting much, for a while, but ended up reading even less over time.
And then a week ago some computer troubles lost me all my bookmarks and recent sites, and because of that I forgot this place even existed until just now.