Re Phobias and isms as grounds for banning

Quoting baker

For example, if a poster were to express a very negative view of, say, New Age, would that make them a New-Age-phobe, and thus, bannable (instantly)?

Don't be bloody ridiculous.

Reply to Baden A while back, a poster was instantly banned for declaring to be a misogynist. From the discussion that ensued among the moderators, it seemed that other "phobias" and isms could be bannable offences as well.

Reply to baker You are allowed to disagree with a person's beliefs. You are not allowed to disagree with a person.

Quoting baker

For example, if a poster were to express a very negative view of, say, New Age, would that make them a New-Age-phobe, and thus, bannable (instantly)?

As a general matter, we don't render declaratory judgments, meaning there must be an actual case in controversy for us to rule. That means we don't entertain hypotheticals and then declare some sort of binding precedent. What we do is when there is an actual case, we read the rules and we interpret them, relying to some extent upon the way they were interpreted before.

To do otherwise would result in our continually responding to "what ifs," which we don't have time for, and which often wouldn't be helpful anyway because actual cases have all sorts of nuances that have to be considered.

:100:

Reply to Hanover Reply to Baden

What if someone says, flat-out, "I hate New Agers" or "New Agers are stupid, worthless people"?

Quoting baker

What if someone says, flat-out, "I hate New Agers" or "New Agers are stupid, worthless people"?

Here

Reply to baker

See above. But if there's some specific group you actually (not hypothetically) wish to express hatred towards and you're worried you'll get banned for it, feel free to run your proposed comment by us and we'll apply a common sense interpretation of the guidelines to it.

Reply to baker
Go for it baker, it sounds like Baden has challenged you. Express your hatred, maybe you'll get banned, and maybe not. It seems kinda like Russian roulette, a lot to lose in comparison with what you might win.

As purposefully inflammatory as this topic may be, it can extend to many thought provoking avenues. Just because "New Age" or let's be honest if I spent $50 and registered a brand new religion with my government revolving around say.. the idea that every toy we once owned and played with but discarded is now a god and keeper of our original soul and must be worshiped (and perhaps marked up 300% tax free)... what makes that any different from discriminating against a major religion such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism? Because there's more people and therefore for that simple "nothing to do with anything truly divine" reason, it must be paid attention to to avoid backlash? Is that right? Is that moral? Is that what religion has devolved to now a days, closet atheism that only has any meaning because of the humans that follow it? Or perhaps was that all it ever was? These are valid questions I believe OP, if not unintentionally, asks us and forces us to ask ourselves.

Google Definitions

etc.

/?t?s?t?r?/

adverb

used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included.

"protect seedling from damage caused by feet, lawnmowers, pets, etc."

Reminds me of metaphysics which I consider to simply be a synonym for miscellaneous.

One thing's for sure though: violence-promoting and inequality-perpetuating beliefs and the people who're vectors of dangerous ideas aren't welcome in this forum. Most ideas that are a big no-no at present had their...er...moment in the past. Quite possibly it's some kinda cyclical process:
Phobia [math]\rightarrow[/math] Acceptance [math]\rightarrow[/math] Phobia [math]\rightarrow[/math] ? Back to square one that is. Anicca! Unfortunately, nothing new. Same old, same old!

Quoting Baden

But if there's some specific group you actually (not hypothetically) wish to express hatred towards and you're worried you'll get banned for it, feel free to run your proposed comment by us and we'll apply a common sense interpretation of the guidelines to it.

I'm not too keen on expressing hatred, nor on taking up the time of the moderators, however,
Where is the dividing line here at this forum, between the acceptable and the bannable?
Between the acceptable and the reportable?

From seeing what posts are allowed, it's clear that it's not hatred or love alone that would be the deciding factors for a ban.

Sympathizing with Nazis gets you banned, but not sympathizing with Communists. How about sympathizing with, say, Stalinists?

Misogyny is a bannable offence -- but only if declared by men?
General misanthrophy is okay, but not misogyny or misandry?

Hating Muricans is okay, hating Africans is not okay? How about Asians?
Hating blacks is not okay, hating whites is okay?

And so on. Where's the line?


Quoting Baden

But if there's some specific group you actually (not hypothetically) wish to express hatred towards and you're worried you'll get banned for it, feel free to run your proposed comment by us and we'll apply a common sense interpretation of the guidelines to it.

And it's kind of too late for that anyway. Given the discussion between moderators after that poster was instabanned for misogyny, I've thought of many posts already made that would qualify as bannable offences. A general atmosphere of uncertainty as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

Schopenhauer:The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

Test: I agree.

Reply to baker I compared the manitoba coronavirus response to germany pre-wwII, not as a sympathizer, but looking to see if anyone had experienced germany, as I had not. The OP was deleted and I was warned with a ban if I continued that line again. I am not really sure why though, I was not promoting anything, just looking for feedback from multiple sources. I was not expecting the slap-down.

Quoting baker

And so on. Where's the line?

Quoting Hanover

As a general matter, we don't render declaratory judgments, meaning there must be an actual case in controversy for us to rule. That means we don't entertain hypotheticals and then declare some sort of binding precedent. What we do is when there is an actual case, we read the rules and we interpret them, relying to some extent upon the way they were interpreted before.

To do otherwise would result in our continually responding to "what ifs," which we don't have time for, and which often wouldn't be helpful anyway because actual cases have all sorts of nuances that have to be considered.

Reply to emancipate

To state (by proxy) something bannable through a famous philosopher's words gives you no protection from banning. Whether that philosopher be Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Aristotle, Nietszche or whoever. All would have been banned themselves for espousing Nazism, sexism, slavery, and/or misogyny if they chose to do so here. Neither being famous nor hiding behind someone famous gives you protection from the rules. We're fairly equal opportunities on that score. So, thanks for the test. You're banned. Do I get an A?

To put it as simply as possible, you don't get to say bannable stuff just because a famous philosopher once said it. And there's hardly anything a famous philosopher hasn't once said, so that should have been obvious.

It is surely obvious that there is no line. What is unacceptable is defined by folks not accepting it. What folks will not accept varies. What is accepted by a member in good standing may not be acceptable as a first post; what is unacceptable to me may be acceptable to you, and may be acceptable to me too on a good day.

Nevertheless, the community develops an ethos through moderation and complaints and discussion of moderation. Consistency evolves rather than being laid down in statute.

It is the concern only of trolls to know exactly how much offence they can give before they are ejected.

Quoting unenlightened

It is the concern only of trolls to know exactly how much offence they can give before they are ejected.

And of the naive who think discussions are about arguments, and not about the social power hierarchy.

Reply to baker A nicely judged comment, if you don't mind my saying so. :hearts:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting unenlightened

It is the concern only of trolls to know exactly how much offence they can give before they are ejected.

This nails it.

Reply to tim wood

Couldn't care less. I'm not censoring Schopenhauer. You can quote him to show what a complete dick he was re women or even to twist yourself into a pretzel defending him because you can't accept that he said what he meant and meant what he said. Doesn't matter. The point is where you say "I agree with X that Y" (where Y is a prima facie bannable statement as per the rules on this site in this current time) then that is equivalent to saying "I agree that Y" which = "Y" = bannable = ban. The "with X" part is irrelevant as is who X is.

Ubanned @emancipate because he came back in sockpuppet form to say he wasn't being serious. Fine, just remember we're not mind-readers. If we don't know your posting history, we're likely to take what you say at face value.

You guys are heartless. How long do they have to wear it?

Quoting baker

Misogyny is a bannable offence -- but only if declared by men?
General misanthrophy is okay, but not misogyny or misandry?

Hating Muricans is okay, hating Africans is not okay? How about Asians?
Hating blacks is not okay, hating whites is okay?

And so on. Where's the line?

There is no line - how can there be? Determining what is acceptable to a site by mods is not a science but an interpretive art.

What are you really getting at? It appears you are looking for rigid categories of unacceptability because your sense of fairness has been pinged by mod decisions. You've noticed that some objectionable ideas are allowed and some are not and there doesn't seem to be a measurable line for determination. I think this may be unavoidable. I recall Emerson's aphorism - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Reply to praxis

:lol:

Reply to Baden How dare you ban my sockpuppet (joke).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to emancipate

:smile: :up:

Reply to baker

In defense of the mods, they’ve made some tough decisions over the years, before your time, including banning regulars and former mods. The amount of energy you’re expending on this feels pretty childish in that light. The mods aren’t perfect but they’re doing their best.

Quoting Hanover

As a general matter, we don't render declaratory judgments, meaning there must be an actual case in controversy for us to rule. That means we don't entertain hypotheticals and then declare some sort of binding precedent. What we do is when there is an actual case, we read the rules and we interpret them, relying to some extent upon the way they were interpreted before.

To do otherwise would result in our continually responding to "what ifs," which we don't have time for, and which often wouldn't be helpful anyway because actual cases have all sorts of nuances that have to be considered.

Isn’t this a summary of the judicial philosophy of the Supreme Court of the United States of America?... but the members of that court have no individual fiat: they must vote as a jury, and convict only according to a majority opinion. In this forum however, each member of the court has the power to impose capital punishment non-unilaterally.


Quoting Baden

To state (by proxy) something bannable through a famous philosopher's words gives you no protection from banning. Whether that philosopher be Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Aristotle, Nietszche or whoever. All would have been banned themselves for espousing Nazism, sexism, slavery, and/or misogyny if they chose to do so here. Neither being famous nor hiding behind someone famous gives you protection from the rules.

Let’s fill out the list a bit: Plato, Zeno, Epicurus, Epictetus, Lucretius, Cicero, Seneca, Maimonides, Ariovistus, Marcus Aurelius, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Pascal, Tocqueville, Kant, Hegel, Weber, etc, etc, etc...not to mention the philosophers better known under a different title, like “epic poet” or “play-write”, who were really philosophers, like Homer or Vergil or Milton or Shakespeare: THOU SHALT NOT AGREE WITH ANY SENTIMENT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS THAT IS NOT APPROVED OF BY THE OPINION OF ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE PHILOSOPHY FORUM’S MODERATORS, UPON HIS JUDICIOUS REVIEW OF YOUR STATED SENTIMENT.

What Mr. Baden doesn’t recognize is that there is a distinction between being famous and being great...

That’s what I was trying to reveal in my story: a tale of a man who wants “to be like Mike,” like the popular man he encountered at university. My protagonist is a selfish opportunistic soul who thinks greatness lies in how many “thumbs-up” he can get; how much money he can get out of that to enjoy gustatorial pleasures like steak dinners and cigarettes he doesn’t have to roll...

...he eventually gets “banned” by a judicial court for not just espousing, but actually acting out on his “insensitive” opinion. But his actions are really the result of jealousy, not racism: he envies the Kenyan runner’s fame.

I wrote this story, in part, as a test: to see how a misogynistic and racist fiction would be acceptable to the tyranny of moderation here, and—lo and behold!—it was accepted!

But why was it accepted? Why was I not told by Mr. Baden, “Your story is too full of racist and misogynistic sentiments; therefore, I must reject it,” or, “You’re banned: for racist and misogynistic content”? I dunno...

...but my advice to you, dear reader of this post, is that if you want to express an opinion that might be construed as racist or sexist or misogynist or—whatever—in this forum, just be sure to couch it in a fiction: then it will be overlooked.

THOU SHALT NOT AGREE WITH ANY SENTIMENT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS THAT IS NOT APPROVED OF BY THE OPINION OF ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE PHILOSOPHY FORUM’S MODERATORS

No, not "any" sentiment, just the racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. ones. This isn't complicated at all, just don't post hateful/prejudiced BS and you're fine, same as virtually any other forum or board. Not exactly rocket science, and certainly nothing worth two pages of whining about it.

I swear, threads like these are just for people who enjoy complaining purely for the sake of complaining.

Quoting Seppo

just don't post hateful/prejudiced BS and you're fine, same as virtually any other forum or board.

But that’s exactly what I did Seppers: I wrote a story that contained a lot of that sort of stuff: racist/sexist/homophobic sorta stuff...

...now I see that you have been on here a lot less time than me, so you may not be as familiar as I am with the parameters here, and I guess you will not have the same problems I’ve had with the mods here, so that it is to the credit of your continuity— but if you were to somehow express an opinion that—well, I can glean from your post that that won’t be the case!

Reply to Leghorn

No, you didn't (obviously we both know and understand the difference between "writing a story" that mentions bigotry vs. writing bigoted posts), and no, this is not worth arguing or complaining about. Its not complicated, its not confusing, and its the same as the posting rules or terms of service on any similar website.

Might as well start a thread complaining about the fact that you can't urinate on people at the grocery store. Some websites won't let you do the racism, get over it.

Quoting Leghorn

...but my advice to you, dear reader of this post, is that if you want to express an opinion that might be construed as racist or sexist or misogynist or—whatever—in this forum, just be sure to couch it in a fiction: then it will be overlooked.

This isn't good advice. The advice I'd offer everyone, specific to the question of misogyny, is that you shouldn't post misogynistic comments on this site or you'll be banned. The advice that you should express your misogyny in a way that avoids immediate detection is not what we're looking for here, so if that is your objective, please leave. You're not welcome here.

Should you post stories or present posts that are ambiguous enough that it remains unclear what your objective is, I'm sure you can for some period of time remain unmoderated, but all the moderation team can do is to try our best to enforce the rules despite posters' best efforts to avoid detection.

The worst most dehumanizing thing you can do to a person or group of people is outlaw their progression toward your own whilst not just believing (which could be random irrelevant fiction) but simultaneously and publicly continuing to call them inferior or lesser by proxy of moral high ground (which now becomes real world fact).

Is this relevant? The real question is if it's not what is going on between the ears of those who wish to suppress it.

Reply to Leghorn

:lol:

The protagonist comes across as an idiotically comic figure and as much an object of ridicule as some of the PC stuff satirised.

As for the rest, I don't know how to make it simpler for you, but let me try again: You are not allowed to be a racist, sexist (etc.) here just because a "great" philosopher once was. Maybe you need to learn to think for yourself and not outsource your moral choices to people you think are "great". Good luck with that.

Oh, and I can only ask that entrants into the competition, as a matter of basic courtesy, offer a genuine piece of work that they stand behind, and not something intended to trick the reader into sympathising with some abhorrent idea. Though again, the story is not subtle enough to do that, being more like slapstick silliness. So, no real harm done, I think.

Quoting Tom Storm

There is no line - how can there be? Determining what is acceptable to a site by mods is not a science but an interpretive art.

Surely there are principles.

What are you really getting at? It appears you are looking for rigid categories of unacceptability because your sense of fairness has been pinged by mod decisions. You've noticed that some objectionable ideas are allowed and some are not and there doesn't seem to be a measurable line for determination. I think this may be unavoidable. I recall Emerson's aphorism - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Watch it, you might get banned, and not having seen it coming!

Quoting Seppo

No, not "any" sentiment, just the racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. ones. This isn't complicated at all,just don't post hateful/prejudiced BS and you're fine

LOL.

I once posted a couple of posts where I expressed my concerns over the safety and effectiveness of the covid vaccines. From this, a prominent poster and a moderator accused me of being an anti-vaxxer, and the moderator even went on a crusade against me for it. Repeatedely accusing me of stances I don't hold.

So much for not posting "hateful/prejudiced BS".

Reply to baker

That sounds like having an argument, not being moderated. Being moderated is where we edit or delete your posts. If you're saying you can't handle being criticized then why are you here?

Reply to Baden I wasn't being criticized. To criticize me, they would have to refer to something I actually said, a position I actually hold. Instead, someone in a position of power accused me of things I didn't say, and insisted in it, not listening to me at all.

Reply to baker

Ok, if you can't handle other posters [s] criticizing you [/s] not listening to you, misunderstanding you, and/or strawmanning you, you're in the wrong place.

If you feel a mod is deliberately trying to intimidate you on the basis of being a mod, that's something you can report. But so far, it just sounds like a regular day on TPF.

Reply to Baden So this is a place where might makes right? That's what you, as moderators, really believe in?

Reply to baker

Now, you're strawmanning me. The way I deal with it is to challenge you to quote me where I said that rather than whine about it.

And to point out >>

Quoting Baden

If you feel a mod is deliberately trying to intimidate you on the basis of being a mod, that's something you can report.

You're free too to not listen to a mod on anything other than moderation, to accuse them of things they didn't say etc and they'll just have to put on their big boy pants and handle it. It's only when the behaviour of the mod or the poster becomes intimidatory or deliberate trolling that there's an issue with that kind of stuff. It's not that might makes right or might makes wrong, it's that might should be irrelevant in anything except a moderation context. So, mods get to argue as if they were posters too. Otherwise, we'd hardly be able to get anyone to be a mod.

Quoting Baden

Now, you're strawmanning me.

No, it was a genuine question seeking clarification. You didn't need to assume evil intent.

The Boss of this forum once said words to the effect that we should stop pretending that this forum is a democracy. So ...

And to point out >>

If you feel a mod is deliberately trying to intimidate you on the basis of being a mod, that's something you can report. But so far, it just sounds like a regular day on TPF.
— Baden

Interesting.

Quoting baker

No, it was a genuine question seeking clarification. You didn't need to assume evil intent.

I don't think strawmanning is evil. It happens all the time. That's part of the point. As are misunderstandings (I took your question to be rhetorical). Quod et demonstratum, I hope.