The terms of the debate.
Quoting Agustino
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1104/father-richard-rohr-at-science-and-nonduality-conference#Item_98
If I was an active moderator, this would be a clear instruction to delete every post by the gentleman from the thread, for being off topic. But that was the bad old days...
I'm not wanting to start a campaign here, but rather to solicit some views and analysis on the terms of debate as a concept. It is probably well understood by most that guidelines and moderation are sometimes necessary; that a free for all is a free for none. It is also widely accepted by philosophers that any concept can be held up to examination, but only on the condition of taking language in general to be, if not non-controversial, at least held in abeyance.
I hope it is already clear that there is a difficulty in framing a debate on how a debate should be framed, and one can see connections perhaps with post truth, political correctness, fake news, media bias, opposition and protest, and other current controversies.
Here, discussion is ordered into topics and threads, and it is sometimes a delicate business to hold to the thread of a thread because the snakes of philosophical thought are so intertwined, that questions of the fundaments, ontology, realism/idealism, concepts of mind, knowledge, language, seem to be related to every conceivable topic. Nevertheless, the mere happenstance that we order our discussions gives rise to the notion of on- and off- topicality. It is fundamental even to a current affairs programme...
Off topic material stifles debate, by turning every discussion into the same discussion, of everything and nothing. The thread linked above illustrates this. But hopefully, this thread will not be diverted too much into a debate about that thread, nor about the state of modern politics. Rather, I am hoping to look in a more abstract way at how our conversations need to be ordered to maximise freedom, given that absolute freedom is both impossible and undesirable. In this sense, it might be better classified under politics, or metaphysics than feedback, but I feel that the latter classification best communicates the particular knottiness of a discussion about discussion.
I'm not talking about Father Richard Rohr at all... as I made abundantly clear:
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1104/father-richard-rohr-at-science-and-nonduality-conference#Item_98
If I was an active moderator, this would be a clear instruction to delete every post by the gentleman from the thread, for being off topic. But that was the bad old days...
I'm not wanting to start a campaign here, but rather to solicit some views and analysis on the terms of debate as a concept. It is probably well understood by most that guidelines and moderation are sometimes necessary; that a free for all is a free for none. It is also widely accepted by philosophers that any concept can be held up to examination, but only on the condition of taking language in general to be, if not non-controversial, at least held in abeyance.
I hope it is already clear that there is a difficulty in framing a debate on how a debate should be framed, and one can see connections perhaps with post truth, political correctness, fake news, media bias, opposition and protest, and other current controversies.
Here, discussion is ordered into topics and threads, and it is sometimes a delicate business to hold to the thread of a thread because the snakes of philosophical thought are so intertwined, that questions of the fundaments, ontology, realism/idealism, concepts of mind, knowledge, language, seem to be related to every conceivable topic. Nevertheless, the mere happenstance that we order our discussions gives rise to the notion of on- and off- topicality. It is fundamental even to a current affairs programme...
Off topic material stifles debate, by turning every discussion into the same discussion, of everything and nothing. The thread linked above illustrates this. But hopefully, this thread will not be diverted too much into a debate about that thread, nor about the state of modern politics. Rather, I am hoping to look in a more abstract way at how our conversations need to be ordered to maximise freedom, given that absolute freedom is both impossible and undesirable. In this sense, it might be better classified under politics, or metaphysics than feedback, but I feel that the latter classification best communicates the particular knottiness of a discussion about discussion.
Comments (54)
Okay, I agree with that fundamentally. However, how do we decide what is and isn't off-topic? For example, in the Father Rohr thread, talk of women's underwear is off-topic - clearly. But is talk of New Age off-topic? Clearly, to my mind, it depends on how the thread evolves. If "New Age" is off-topic, then it should have been deleted the first time it appeared in that thread (and that wasn't even one of my posts in fact). There was a discussion going on in that thread about New Age long before I actually commented on it. So if a thread is like a river, then that river has sub-streams which come and join into it. What I said belongs to a sub-stream - it's not directly relevant to the video, but neither is it completely irrelevant to the topic. To someone who has watched the video, they could say "uhh I think Rohr is New Age", or "I don't think Rohr is New Age", and then they could discuss what bearings, if any, New Age has on Rohr or whatever they want.
For the record, I've now excised @Agustino from the discussion. That also meant excising other's in-discussion complaints about him valid as they may have been. Safest thing is probably not to engage with anyone who is off-topic (in an unacceptable way) as your responses to them need to be binned along with their posts.
On the other hand, I think it is fair that whatever path a thread may go down, it ought to remain open to people to engage with. That is, the criteria ought to be 'public robustness', as it were: to what extent does this 'sub-debate' invite contributions from others to participate and further the discussion? If the digression happens because two people are bickering over some tangental debate that no one but the two people discussing can possibly have a stake in - well, that's a matter of dragging down the quality of public discussion. That kind of derailment pleases no one, and is generally another name for a shit-fight.
But that's just my take.
Yes, as in this case, the fact that the conversation took a different turn wasn't the primary reason for the deletions, but the nature and tone of that turn was. Speaking of turns, let's bear this in mind.
Quoting unenlightened
I look at off-topicness as a necessary evil. It's bad because its digressive, wastes time, and distracts from the overall flow of the thread. It is necessary though, because the points of disagreement, and misunderstanding are usually not within the scope of the subject of the thread, though they manifest as disagreement in the subject of the thread. So if we adhere to the subject, we will just have people talking past each other, restating their own opinions, over and over, without getting to the root of the disagreement, what causes the difference of opinion, concerning the subject.
Of course it happens that one fundamental disagreement, one root cause, will manifest in a difference of opinion on many different subjects, so we might keep revisiting that fundamental issue. The goal might be to find one of these related subjects where there is agreement of opinion, and then bring that agreement down to bear on the fundamental disagreement, determining where the inconsistency lies.
Well that's my op exemplar thoroughly undermined. What shall we talk about now? Do you like fishing?
I think we all know what a shit-storm looks like. The topic is still worthy of discussion.
No we don't all know that. It is exactly the distinction between a vigorous debate and a shit storm that constitutes the topic of this thread. Moderation is inevitably controversial, and inevitably develops or degenerates inside the very practice that it regulates.
Your moderating response to this thread illustrates that fact, and in so doing illustrates the very danger I was trying to indicate. Clearly, the rules have changed as a result of this thread, because the exemplar thread had already been brought to moderators attention and no action was taken.
I think your action was premature as a clamp down, and overly tardy as routine; it makes it more difficult for me, and probably others, to speak to the subject freely.
Quoting unenlightened
... but unfortunately, you responded as if I had. So, what does a shit storm look like, and how can we all avoid contributing to them?
My moderating response was to the fact that the shit-storm didn't clear itself up, which yes, you did bring to my attention. But it wasn't because I thought you were requesting action as you made clear you weren't.
Quoting unenlightened
What I'm concerned with is what makes it easy for people who write OPs to have their OPs talked about and what facilitates those coming to an OP for the first time getting involved with it. Yes, I could have done this earlier when you mentioned it in the mod forum or later if it went on more, but every moderator is going to have a different point at which they decide enough is enough. There are plenty of other examples of this sort of thing in the forum for those who want to look. I didn't consider that particular discussion crucial to this debate.
Quoting unenlightened
I don't think it's that complicated. A barrage of traded insults (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) that goes on for several pages of posts is what I would term a "shit storm". They sometimes clear up, they sometimes don't. Reporting posts that piss us off and ignoring provocateurs are two ways of avoiding them. Even a quick trade of insults and then directly back to the matter at hand can work.
Anyway, I took your OP to be about something beyond that. As you said yourself:
Quoting unenlightened
What constitutes "vanishing"? If the originator must be present in order that the thread topic be followed, then why not leave the judgement of what is acceptable discussion, to the discretion of that originator? If that originator believes a particular post is not conducive to good discussion concerning the stipulated subject, then notify the poster to stay out, or start a new thread. That's common practise by some already.
From a staff perspective, that's just hypothetical. It's down to the staff to make that judgement, notify members, and take any action deemed necessary. The judgement of the originator doesn't have the same standing, and they are unable to take action in the ways that staff can, although they can flag any posts they think ought to be flagged, and we encourage them to do so.
This forum doesn't have an anarchic set up. In practice, what you suggest isn't how it works, nor should it be, nor likely will it be, in my opinion. Taking the originator's expressed views [i]into consideration[/I] is one thing... although sometimes they don't express any further views for a long period of time, or at all - which is what is meant by "vanishing" - so, in those cases, we could go no further than making assumptions, such as how they'd like the discussion to turn out, or whether they even care. But if/when they [i]do[/I] express their views in that way, we don't have to act accordingly, nor should we necessarily. Blind obedience would not be ideal.
This place is moderated based on a similar assumption to the old place, which is similar to what you'd expect of an academic journal - meaning that it is more about editorial standards and what the readership would expect than the opinion of the originator, which might conflict with that.
Indeed. But how can I remain abstract, when you are being so practical? I don't disagree with your decision, as the op makes very clear. But you have cut my Gordian knot, and I can no longer untangle it. My discussion has been shut down with a mandated agreement, and I am left with the half-discussion of your moderating decision, which is indeed not complicated.
Quoting Thorongil
Inclinations vary. One of the differences between myself and Paul at the old site was that he was fairly tolerant of flaming, and I was considerably less so. Here, I have taken a back seat, and the tolerance of flames, and other things is greater - so it seems to me. I come across a deal of stuff I would intervene in if I was still intervening.
It is generally the case that whatever is accepted becomes acceptable, so I think the terms of debate are important. If moderating is loosened, discussion becomes more informal, which might be pleasant, but it also becomes potentially more unpleasant, and the failure to suppress aggression risks alienating a whole swathe of voices. Again compared to the old site, for example, I think this place is uncongenial to women. I see that as a failing.
That is to say, tolerance in one direction constitutes intolerance in another, at least in the sense that one man's meaty discussion is another man's poisonous atmosphere. That there is no issue for you simply places you amongst the meat-eaters, It doesn't indicate that they should prevail.
We never had a lot of women members, either here or there.
Not if you're a moderator, which he is. A moderator who doesn't read what he doesn't like wouldn't be a very good moderator, since what you don't like to read - and unenlightened has referred to flaming, for example - may well be what needs to be moderated. But how would you know if you don't read it to find out?
Alas, I must congratulate you, despite not agreeing with you. You twisted the rest of the moderators hands and changed the rules of the forum almost single handedly, without doing anything yourself. The foresight alone is admirable :)
But, let's stop really being so complicated about this, with all our talk about rules, precedent, clear moderating rules, bad facts, and bad law. The problem most often comes down to someone. Get rid of that someone and we no longer have all these complicated problems.
The reference was made to Paul and how he handled things. He not only didn't have rules, but he expressed a disdain for rules. What he did was sort of decide, based upon what he thought was right and wrong, and just banned people unapologetically.
Do that.
Quoting Thorongil
"If you don't like it, go somewhere else." I don't like this attitude, and I don't find it interesting, but if I ignore it, I legitimise it. It's very simple for someone who is unbothered by bad behaviour, and to an extent it is good advice to ignore it, up to a point.
But 'it' is not that simple. We have moderators deletions and bans because one has to read stuff before one can decide it is unlikeable or uninteresting, and one clearly does not want discussions to become dominated with unlikeable and uninteresting stuff, because one loses interest in reading or contributing anything at all. That this happens was demonstrated in the shout box by a poster removing his link rather than have to read the vitriol that ensued.
How odd, to call for us to stop using a whole lot of terms that you have just introduced for the first time.
Paul had lengthy guidelines both for posters and for moderators, and there was a good deal of discussion of them and some amendments were made. One of the complaints moderators frequently heard was along the lines of 'why have you deleted my post when there are all these other posts that are just as bad?' The usual response was that moderators don't see everything, but it is nevertheless the case that what is allowed to pass sets the tone for others as to what is acceptable and so increases. Keeping the tone overall moderate is important, and letting things slide and then banning is a really poor policy.
Quoting unenlightened
No, you just ignore it. And why should I care if you don't like my attitude or find it uninteresting? You're just emoting here. But I think I know why. You'd like to be able to wield the power to delete and ban whatever and whomever doesn't meet your own subjective criteria for being "likable" and "interesting," and you're butthurt about not being able to do so. Once again, tough nuts. If I were a mod, I wouldn't delete anything short of non-joking threats of violence and spam. That would be "maximum freedom," to borrow your phrase. A thread gets off topic? Create a new thread for it. I've seen that happen here before actually. Creating essay length threads complaining about how you can't be as authoritarian as you'd like to in one small corner of the Internet is to be really petty.
Quoting Thorongil
Well that's just butt stupid. I do have that power, but have decided I don't want to exercise it any more.
Quoting Thorongil
It's rather a shame you don't take your own advice and stop reading my posts, and making petty complaints about my petty complaints. That's the thing with trolls, they won't stay under their own bridges, but have to invade everyone else's with their contradictory and hypocritical comments. You have no insight, nothing to say on the topic, but here you are again making your usual dismissive and vacuous remarks. You do understand that what I am doing here is troll baiting, don't you?
Value judgments over other people's characters generally don't help.
I said that one needn't read someone's posts if they don't want to. I wanted to read your posts in this thread, so I've responded.
Quoting unenlightened
How typical. Just label someone a troll if you disagree with or don't like them.
Thorongil likes simple solutions, so here's a simple solution: don't leave it until a moderator comes along and takes moderator action, but instead take action yourself. If you notice that you're going off-topic in a way which is likely to be found objectionable, then just stop it, and take it elsewhere if you want to carry on the digression. But try to do so in a way which doesn't cross the line. If you have difficulty noticing this sort of thing, then perhaps put more effort in. The staff aren't the only ones who can edit comments, you can do so too - your own. So do so if you think you've gone too far. I don't just moderate others, I moderate myself sometimes too. This applies to me, just as it applies to everyone else.
If I'm stepping into someone else's discussion then, albeit unsuccesfully at times, I will try to stay within what I perceive the author to be interested in.
If I were to introduce something, then it seems that the relation would have to go "downwards" -- meaning, the OP sets what is most general and topic for this discussion, and we can introduce things that are more specific, but it wouldn't make much sense to go upwards in generality (at least, generally speaking).
The original intention was much wider than just this board. There is an ongoing global issue about freedom of speech; the backlash against political correctness, the triumph of lies and propaganda, and the stifling of debate through the undermining of its value as a means of establishing truth.
My thesis is that freedom of speech requires moderation. Without moderation, there is no freedom but the dictatorship of the trivial, aggressive, and hysterical. WRT this forum, the only way to manage with a minimum of moderation is to have a consistently intolerant program of moderation, such that folks learn quickly what is and is not acceptable. This, you will appreciate, is my inner Augustino expressing itself. Liberal socialists need to toughen up.
One has to make judgements of character; how else does one select moderators, politicians, spouses or employees? Having said that, expressing such judgements is almost always off topic in the threads.
This particular thread is concerned with the character of the forum in general, established by posting habits and moderating habits, but more generally with the character of debate in the world at large.
Look at this, for example:
Quoting Thorongil
Quoting Thorongil
How can one have a sensible conversation about anything with this sort of nonsense littering up the thread? I'd far rather have some adverts. And of course there will be more where that came from.
He kind of has a point, you know. If you had've ignored his original comment, then it might've stopped there. But you replied, and then he replied, and so on, and so there were more of those sort of comments "littering up the thread". You've called him a "troll" and have accused him of talking "nonsense". He's called you "butthurt" and "petty". Neither are particularly productive, it seems to me. And before somebody calls me a hypocrite, I am aware of my own shortcomings - I'm only human, like the rest of you. (Except I'm really an owl).
And besides, aren't we having a sensible conversion nevertheless? Some of us are, anyway.
Do you really think so? I thought he might have a point too, and that is why I responded. I'm quite amenable to having differences of opinion. There is the principle of charity that wants people to have a point, even if it's mistaken. It takes a few exchanges to really bring out that there is no point, only a desire to disrupt and humiliate.
[I]In a sense[/I] and [i]to some extent[/I], yes. But then, so do you, and so does Benkei. (As well as others. Hopefully I have one too (Who am I kidding? [I]Of course[/I] I do)).
You know who else has a point? John Stuart Mill with regards to toleration. I am also amenable to having differences of opinion, as well as differences in attitude, values, beliefs, and writing style. But there is and should be a red line, and you cross it at your peril. Some people find that out the hard way, like Milo Yiannopoulos. He got fired and his publisher cancelled the publication of his upcoming book. I wouldn't want to see a similar thing happen here with certain members who I like having around getting themselves banned for not reining it in.
Here's to fruitless threads!
No, wait, that's cider.
Are you saying that it is inappropriate for the originator of a thread to tell participants that they have stepped outside the bounds of the topic, as many presently do?
No. If that's all you meant, then I misunderstood. You asked, "Why not leave the judgement of what is acceptable discussion, to the discretion of that originator?". My reply is that sometimes that's not enough, and so sometimes staff should intervene.
Yes, I suppose so, except where staff should step in. Like I said, the readership are important too. They will expect a discussion to relate to the title and opening post, and not veer off prematurely into some distracting and unwanted tangent - regardless of whether the creator of the discussion is okay with it.
:-|
Reads a lot better.
The subject is governance. The feedback I am giving is that the governance of the forum, like the governance of many places in the world is failing. I notice that people are confused about the subject, are tending on one side to hasty reactions, and on the other to hasty dismissals.
There are those that are happy with the regime, who think any discussion is fruitless, petty, whining, or some such, and are happy to contribute their views, which they presumably think are fruit of some kind. Then there are the moderators themselves, who are obliged to consider my criticisms but seem to be inclined to destroy the evidence and 'sort out' the problem, rather than to actually look at what the problem is.
The thesis that it is fruitless to consider what is fruitless is one that I dismiss without argument as being contradictory and fruitless. However, given that it is an honest view, it seems that it needs to be expressed, and addressed in some way, if only by pointing out the contradiction.
My wish for the forum is that it should be more interesting and readable, and more significant than the comments section of a youtube video. This requires governance, it doesn't happen on its own. Such governance needs to be in the interests of, and acceptable to, the averagely interesting and readable contributor. (excuse me for stating the blindingly obvious, but in the circumstances it seems I need to start from first principles).
So this particular little thread started to become part of my thinking when I noticed that a respectable if sometimes irritating member had posted a quite interesting video, and then, as a result of negative comments made without even watching the video or knowing the speaker from elsewhere, had withdrawn it. This example of the good being driven out by the bad made me realise that personal attacks, ridicule, browbeating, and the proliferation of nonsense act as negative moderation themselves.
There are immoderators active on this site weeding out the good posts and posters, and encouraging the bad. I do not moderate on this site, but I still philosophise, and so I have been thinking and posting about the issue, relating it to current affairs, and doing my best in my own posts to encourage folks to do some thinking about what is going on. It's an uphill battle.
The problem, then, is how to raise the tone of debate, how to prevent good posters from being discouraged and silenced, how to maximise freedom, given that laisse faire does not lead to the desired result, but to the degeneration of the site. So this means we have to reach some sort of consensus about what makes a good post and what makes a bad post, and this is not all that easy, because, as I pointed out above, someone can honestly think that this discussion is fruitless, and they might be right, so I ought to at least consider it.
And as I am getting it from both sides, as it were, from the moderators 'everyone knows what a shit storm is' and from the immoderators, 'this is an essay length petty complaint', I have considered it, and concluded that both sides are wrong. This is an important and timely issue, that people don't want to go into because it is so intractable, and because it reflects upon the posters and moderators themselves. It is a painful topic.
So to continue the story, I persuaded the poster to put the video up again, which he did in a new thread. And what ensued was the sequence now deleted and characterised as a shit storm, in which I took no small part by way of calling out what I saw as bad behaviour being repeated at some length, intimidating the op and preventing intelligent discussion. Since I do not moderate myself, I drew this to the attention of the staff, and no action was taken, until I started this thread, using that thread as an example to illustrate the current debate. And then the shit storm was quickly excised.
This is unfortunate, because although it was unpleasant and very much off topic, the shit storm brought out various issues, and illustrated some of the difficulties that an ordinary poster faces when moderation is lacking. And this is another illustration of the difficulty of moderation; from my point of view, the shit storm was a valuable illustrative sequence that ought to have been preserved in order to be criticised and understood (or perhaps as an awful warning).
Now one of those issues, which has come up here as well, is 'just ignore it'. Well, no. We have been doing that and so have the moderators, and it does not go away, but proliferates. Engage, ignore, report, moderate, withdraw. there is I think no clear rule to be made as to what is best to do in every circumstance, But I am quite sure that ignore as a general policy does not work.
I suppose that the nearest I can get to a policy to recommend is something like this:
For ordinary members, ask yourself if your post is making a positive contribution, does it encourage philosophical engagement or add interest for others, does it clarify or confuse, does it indeed say anything at all useful or amusing to others.
And for moderators, they have to ask broadly the same question of their intervention. But for moderators there is also a matter of proportionality and consistency.
Paul, in his finite wisdom suggested that the person to bear in mind in all this is the silent reader, who is interested in the topic. They are not, in my imagination, interested in personal remarks, amusing insults, the pronouncements of thoughtless ignorance, and so on.
But the point is, one cannot simply accept some formula, one has to keep questioning oneself, Am I making a contribution, or am I just being irritating. One has to examine this carefully, because, and I hope this is a case, sometimes being irritating is a valuable contribution.
I'll shut up now, having hopefully irritated almost everyone.
Isn't that what we're already doing, and what @Baden did before he decided to delete those posts? You just disagree with the decision he made. But then someone is going to object to most every decision. That's just life.
We agree on the moderating decision except for the timing (right?). I understand your concerns and I think I already made it clear I didn't intend to spoil your discussion. I didn't know you wanted to do an exegesis of the other thread at the time. Oh, and when I said that everyone knows what a shit storm looks like I wasn't belittling your efforts. Everyone does know what one looks like, in general, but that doesn't mean picking one apart couldn't be enlightening.
I agree, I find the amount of "loose talk" is increasing. Being a serious philosopher, I think loose talk is garbage and detrimental to the site.
Quoting unenlightened
Again, I agree, as much as I have always been one to buck the authorities, I've come to realize that governance is necessary.
Quoting unenlightened
I don't believe that this discussion must necessarily be fruitless. I believe that it is one which must be had, but since it goes to the deepest philosophical levels, it may end up being fruitless, as many such discussion are. Ironically this is the topic of some of those deleted posts. Agustino claimed that the way to bring out the goodness in people is to religiously enact laws of governance and oppress them with authoritarian forces, making them into moral individuals. I claimed that this only drives them away from your reliion, and the only true way to bring out the good in people is to culture the desire to be good.
Quoting unenlightened
Obviously then, what is needed is a balance. This is because each individual is different. Some individuals just need to be encouraged to do what is good, and having that desire, they will do so, so long as they are not interfered with. Others have no such desire. They cannot be "cultured" to bring about such a desire because this is a long term principle which must be applied at childhood. These people must be dealt with in an authoritarian way. At the ripe old age of most posters, it is impossible to change their personality, so moderators are really forced with the issue of judging character.
Quoting unenlightened
Finally, it is quite evident that most likely, some participants are incapable of making such judgements, as am I being irritating, of themselves. How can I ask myself am I being irritating when I have no regard for what irritates another. Furthermore, and this is the real problem, there are some members of society who have an innate desire to be irritating. It's that childish emotion, which was never overcome in maturation, of wanting to be the centre of attention. And this may incline one to stir the shit pot, create the shit storm, all for the sake of naught.
That's the issue which I believe must be dealt with, intentional disrespect. It's very difficult too, because you mentioned humour, and it usually first appears as humour. There it lies substantially undetected disguised, where it festers, then it explodes when poked. I think that the use of humour in a site like this should be thoroughly examined, and perhaps limited to particular threads where it might be encouraged. Sure, proper use may lighten things up, and provide brief amusement, but one can never be sure of what lies underneath, and the negatives may outweigh the positives. In general, I think that in philosophical discussion there is no real need for humour, and it might be deletable as a matter of principle.
There's also the problem of a bunch of 14 year old trolls holding real political sway. Things like pizzagate, and "the punching game" things I've heard expressed by people that take them very seriously, and make them more sympathetic fear and hate mongering. "Triggered" is the new big catch phrase for upsetting people. People talk about a lack of "freedom of speech" when censorship has never been as lax, and it has never before been as easy to get your voice out there to a wide number and range of people internationally.
It's really easy to start to become disrespectful. It's really easy to become more concerned with the imaginary audience than the person your actually talking to, and it's really easy to think your sides got it all figured and everyone that disagrees are wrong in horrible ways.
We do want interesting, engaging, thought provoking material, but what that is for me is not what it is for everyone else, and making it this way for the "audience" can only really be making it this way for me.
Everyone's got a magic cheat code, that if you press the buttons in the right order, you'll invoke their ire... so if we want less of that, then we should attempt to not do it to others, nor express it in ourselves. Not that anger, or nemesis is an evil goddess, but if our times are marked by an excess of her presence, then perhaps it would be good to operate as a counter balance.
There also the thing that we're entertaining ourselves here, so that we may find it more objectionable for someone that isn't as entertaining to be annoying or obnoxious than when it's someone we find entertaining, so that we're ready to forgive them, and punish the bore. This is fine, if that's what you're doing, but then what's important is how entertaining you are, not how disruptive, or civil. At the very least, it's a definite factor. Volume is significant here. Too much of a good thing makes it less good, and even bad things can be good in small doses.
I watched the video when it was first posted in the shout box before the removal, t'was alright. Was that beard comment removed though? That was great.
My preference is to ignore it until it goes away. That usually works for me... well... until they find me...
Is it really possible to ignore that thing which invokes your ire? If it were, then how would it invoke your ire?
I don't disagree with that decision, as I have already said. And since the decision was made after I started this thread, it is not the case that "we're already doing" it. It is also not the case that this thread is just my disagreeing with a decision. But apart from that, I entirely agree - it is indeed life.
Perhaps I should have emphasised above where you quoted me that not responding, and not intervening should also be questioned, and at the moment rather more so. I do know that moderators always get stick, and it requires some resilience to look at oneself squarely and decide whether the stick in each case is merited.
Quoting Baden
Right. It kind of derailed this discussion a bit, and also made it look like a narrow personal campaign, which it isn't. But let's move on.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Thanks MU for actually engaging at last, and for some words of support. It's not just the delusions of my age addled brain, then. I think part of the problem is that the site is growing, and the informality that worked fine with members of the old forum, who knew each other, the form, and the boundaries from experience, does not work so well when there are many new members. One can take abuse from one's friends that one finds offensive coming from a stranger. It follows that now there are more strangers, even friends need to be more polite, to set the tone.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In the end, or perhaps quite near the beginning, there are those that need to be got rid of. But most people learn from the environment. Having one's pearls cast away is a sobering experience, and most people will anyway adjust their tone to conform as best they can to what is going on around them. So the more one is intolerant of bad behaviour, the less one will see it. And unfortunately, vice versa.
Yes. It is necessarily an act of empathic imagination, but actually not only that. Because I can ask you what you find engaging and thought provoking, and what you find button pressing and off-putting. And while tastes and tolerances and empathy vary widely, there is, I think, a wide (not universal) consensus, despite the protestations here-above, about what we want to see more of and what we want to see less of.
It is really possible, but it requires practice. A large part of ignoring ire-provoking people, places, things, and actions is avoidance. Avoid by thinking about something else. Avoid by registering one's reaction, but not ruminating on it. Avoid by understanding what it is about the thing that is ire-provoking, accepting the uncorrectable reality, and moving on.
This all works best when one is not in a state of intense ire to start with.
So recognize what causes the ire, and prevent it before it builds, because then it's too late. Some people are sensitive, and sometimes it may be just a matter of reading one sentence and it's already too late. How would you know which sentences to avoid? I guess it's a matter of knowing which individuals to avoid. But if certain individuals just make a habit of provoking the ire of others, why not ban them? It's the easiest method of avoidance.
Well, the possibility of being banned is part of the deal when joining a forum like this. So, if some people want to play the role of a demon with a trident and just keep sticking it into people to see them flinch, then ban them back to hell.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This I know all to well. In the past (before PF or TPF) I was in a bad state and often experienced a state of really intense ire before I could do anything about it. There are, sadly, quite a few people in this bad state. "Self-help" doesn't always deliver salvation. Major life changes which I didn't engineer gave me new life circumstances which solved my problem.
I tend to believe that self-help has a limited success. What is really successful is what you describe, major life changes. And, most often these cannot be engineered because it is far too complex to determine what is needed, and even if that were properly assessed, to bring it about would require a large amount of manipulating others. Even if one could determine the required major life changes to rescue oneself from the "bad state", most I think, would not choose these changes.