We Need to Talk about Kevin
Quoting Michael
In case you haven't noticed, I have resigned my position as moderator, partly in order to be able to speak more freely in public about the functioning of this little virtual society.
First some facts - get used to 'em. The site owner makes the rules. If the site owner forbids talk of potatoes, and you mention potatoes, expect to be moderated, and/or banned. If the site-owner forbids talk of potatoes, but lets me get away with talking about potatoes because he's my mate, or because he hasn't noticed because I always use the term 'spuds', that doesn't entail that he has to let you get away with talking about potatoes, or about spuds, or about pommes de terre. Think arbitrary dictatorship, not liberal democracy. Rights are limited to the right to take your pearls elsewhere.
However, our esteemed and honourable beloved leader in his infinite wisdom has decreed that there shall be a feedback section, in which there can be, to the extent that he finds congenial or acceptable, discussion of the rules, and of the acceptable conduct of ordinary members and even of the decisions of his private army, the moderators. You may have noticed that recently the limits of that extent have been reached a few times.
Accordingly, it is with some caution that I venture to begin yet another discussion of the right conduct of discussion, and in order to avoid early curtailment, I urge caution on all participants.
Kevin, for those who do not know him, is a fictional character, who murders his sister and father before going on a killing spree at the school he attends. A very naughty boy. So I am using Kevin as a stand-in for any member that you or I might want to mention in feedback as having been naughty in some way. I do this because, in the philosophy sections, it is not generally acceptable to make personal remarks; some call it flaming, and some call it ad hom, some slander. And it seems that although feedback is rather more liberal in this regard, there are still limits, though what they are is not entirely clear to me.
Kevin is a very naughty boy indeed, and everyone except Kevin agrees the he must be banned. But most posters, even the naughtiest, are not as bad as Kevin, and not everyone will see the need for discipline.
But even in Kevin's case, in order to discover that we all agree, we need to talk about Kevin.
Accordingly, in his infinite wisdom, the Site Owner has provided a space for the administration to have a conversation about Kevin in private - particularly in private from Kevin himself. Which is fine for them, but what about us?
We can, in theory, each let the administration know, privately, how we feel about Kevin, but in practice we don't, and ideally, we should have talked seriously about Kevin before he went on the rampage. Because we don't talk about Kevin, we don't really have any idea how many members we have lost because of his naughtiness. Because, as I mentioned at the beginning, the one inalienable right, is the right not to contribute.
So here, eventually, and in coded language, is a very simple question about this feedback forum: Are we allowed to talk about Kevin here? Are we allowed to say he is naughty?
Given the universalist pretensions of philosophy, it should be possible - in theory - to discuss anything whatsoever, from the value of racism to the limpness of unenlightened's penis, in a civilised and suitably erudite manner, but it turns out not to be, because philosophers have feelings and sensitivities, and even the least Kevinish of us can get upset and annoyed. From the outside of the magic moderating circle, (and actually from the inside too), one does not really know how many complaints have been made, how seriously, and how many folks have just moved on, and how many are struggling to maintain a discussion in the face of Kevin's naughtiness. For moderators and members alike it is easier and safer and stirs up less controversy to do nothing.
Spoiler warning.
In case you haven't noticed, I have resigned my position as moderator, partly in order to be able to speak more freely in public about the functioning of this little virtual society.
First some facts - get used to 'em. The site owner makes the rules. If the site owner forbids talk of potatoes, and you mention potatoes, expect to be moderated, and/or banned. If the site-owner forbids talk of potatoes, but lets me get away with talking about potatoes because he's my mate, or because he hasn't noticed because I always use the term 'spuds', that doesn't entail that he has to let you get away with talking about potatoes, or about spuds, or about pommes de terre. Think arbitrary dictatorship, not liberal democracy. Rights are limited to the right to take your pearls elsewhere.
However, our esteemed and honourable beloved leader in his infinite wisdom has decreed that there shall be a feedback section, in which there can be, to the extent that he finds congenial or acceptable, discussion of the rules, and of the acceptable conduct of ordinary members and even of the decisions of his private army, the moderators. You may have noticed that recently the limits of that extent have been reached a few times.
Accordingly, it is with some caution that I venture to begin yet another discussion of the right conduct of discussion, and in order to avoid early curtailment, I urge caution on all participants.
Kevin, for those who do not know him, is a fictional character, who murders his sister and father before going on a killing spree at the school he attends. A very naughty boy. So I am using Kevin as a stand-in for any member that you or I might want to mention in feedback as having been naughty in some way. I do this because, in the philosophy sections, it is not generally acceptable to make personal remarks; some call it flaming, and some call it ad hom, some slander. And it seems that although feedback is rather more liberal in this regard, there are still limits, though what they are is not entirely clear to me.
Kevin is a very naughty boy indeed, and everyone except Kevin agrees the he must be banned. But most posters, even the naughtiest, are not as bad as Kevin, and not everyone will see the need for discipline.
But even in Kevin's case, in order to discover that we all agree, we need to talk about Kevin.
Accordingly, in his infinite wisdom, the Site Owner has provided a space for the administration to have a conversation about Kevin in private - particularly in private from Kevin himself. Which is fine for them, but what about us?
We can, in theory, each let the administration know, privately, how we feel about Kevin, but in practice we don't, and ideally, we should have talked seriously about Kevin before he went on the rampage. Because we don't talk about Kevin, we don't really have any idea how many members we have lost because of his naughtiness. Because, as I mentioned at the beginning, the one inalienable right, is the right not to contribute.
So here, eventually, and in coded language, is a very simple question about this feedback forum: Are we allowed to talk about Kevin here? Are we allowed to say he is naughty?
Given the universalist pretensions of philosophy, it should be possible - in theory - to discuss anything whatsoever, from the value of racism to the limpness of unenlightened's penis, in a civilised and suitably erudite manner, but it turns out not to be, because philosophers have feelings and sensitivities, and even the least Kevinish of us can get upset and annoyed. From the outside of the magic moderating circle, (and actually from the inside too), one does not really know how many complaints have been made, how seriously, and how many folks have just moved on, and how many are struggling to maintain a discussion in the face of Kevin's naughtiness. For moderators and members alike it is easier and safer and stirs up less controversy to do nothing.
Bob Dylan:Too much of nothing
Can make a man ill at ease
One man's temper might rise
While another man's temper might freeze
In the day of confession
We cannot mock a soul
Oh, when there's too much of nothing
No one has control.
Say hello to Valerie
Say hello to Vivian
Give them all my salary
On the waters of oblivion.
When there's too much of nothing
It can 'cause a man to weep
He can walk the streets and boast like most
Of what it's like to keep
But it's all been done before
It's all written in the book
And where there's too much of nothing
Nobody should look.
Comments (316)
But to address your point, what is it? That we should have a public "Trouble threads/posts/posters" discussion? I suppose we could, but then how many members will feel comfortable expressing their grievances publicly? I don't know about @jamalrob, @Baden, or the other mods, but I won't delete such a discussion if you posted one. Although I'm certain it'll turn into a game of insult tennis and so a lot of offending posts will end up in the trash.
By hypothesis, that is everyone's thought. The question is though, are you allowed to say so in public, remembering that Kevin is reading this thread, as you can see by the response below yours. (All that hyperbole wasted. :( )
Quoting Michael
God, no. I am alas pointing to a problem, not to a solution. I'm hoping that if we look at the problem carefully, from the pov of members and admin alike, and without leaping to a policy conclusion on page one, then that may lead to an improved understanding all round of how to deal with things. For instance, it should be noted at once that there is not a lot of point in an ordinary member remonstrating with Kevin, but there is possibly some point in remonstrating with moderators about Kevin. "Dear moderator, you seem not to have noticed, but several of us are quietly bleeding to death." There might be some way to make this a bit easier than it is. The ideal would be to have a thread that we peasants could post to but not read in which we could have a long and detailed rant about all the many Kevin's that are infesting the site and ruining our insightful discussions. That way it would be clear - assuming it was used by many, occasionally, and not just me, all the time - who was a Kevin in the fevered imagination of another Kevin, and who was a real bloody Kevin.
There is also a direct question there as to what the rules of the feedback forum are. My inclination would be that it is a place to moan about moderators, but not about ordinary members. That's fair isn't it, considering they have a place to moan about us? Mind you, the standard complaint is likely to be that you deleted my harmless and amusing comment while ignoring Kevin's mass slaughter of the members, so there would have to be some flexibility. But this does not anyway solve the problem of Kevin.
Unfortunately the software doesn't allow for that. The closest we can do is PMs.
Online forums of every type attract large numbers of detractors wearing rings of Gyges. There is a scenario which is worse than losing members: a dog-eat-dog environment which reduces all members to the lowest common denominator in terms of behaviour.
In my opinion, given the nature of the problem, a public complaint thread would be counter-productive.
I have no objection.
To anything? That's problematic. :D
It would be were it the case. ;)
Overcoming others requires strength, overcoming oneself takes greatness.
- Tao Te Ching
If I (for whatever my part-time contributions are worth) am reading between the lines correctly (no small feat, if successful), then I'm still a bit puzzled. Is there too little freedom of expression on this site, from its ownership? Or is there too much expression (of potentially dubious nature) allowed by moderators and taken by certain members? Or perhaps both? Not being sarcastic here. Just asking questions. And perhaps they are rhetorical questions because to answer them might be too blunt or accusatory. Which I would understand, if that were the case. (BTW and FWIW... I do wish to commend unenlightened for his transparency, and surrendering the post of moderator.)
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting Hanover
So I am assuming that "Kevin" refers to at least one actual flesh and blood member (if not more), in addition to being a composite of undesirable qualities similar to those I described here recently. And if there were a scenario where EVERYONE was in favor of banning said person then I suppose the outcome would be clear. But I can't recall any recent thread or issue of any significance that had complete agreement, fortunately or unfortunately. And banning is permanent. Now, "correction" or "reproval" by moderator(s) would be a different thing, of course. How does one person tell another not to act like a douchehead WITHOUT acting like a douchehead themselves? Tricky question (pardon the vulgarity).
To put it bluntly, the concern in banning an outspoken, offensive, and perhaps longtime member is that it will make a fecking martyr of that person. So we will all endure long winded speeches before the fact, and stern judgments after the fact. His or her name will be brought up reverently by supporters as some kind of hero who gave their all to the cause of truth and philosophy. This is based on past occurrences, and would undoubtedly be worse this time if it occurred. At that point, I would probably lose interest in this site, despite my wishes otherwise.
Before this site becomes a virtual version of the battle at Charlottesville, those with an excess of attitude (who have no time or respect for whomever they deem "fools") best get off their high imperial fat horses before they fall off and shatter like Humpty Dumpty. Let's talk like different (and differing) equals, rather than fighting like high-minded superhero warriors. Hopefully, it is not too late for that.
This.
Whining is actually a sign that the most important ingredient to good morale is on the scene: people care. They have some hope. They have expectations that the universal arc is aimed toward goodness (to mangle MLK's saying).
My experience is also that good morale isn't something you can engineer. If the stars are right, it's there. On the other hand, good morale is fairly easy to destroy. Just treat people like things you can engineer.. that's usually the first good step toward demoralization and apathy.
So let's go to the person who's preaching apathy. Tell him wrong. It's likely that his apathy is a coping mechanism. You're telling him to make himself vulnerable. And what's the carrot supposed to be?
I realize now I'm not talking about this forum. I don't give a fuck about this forum. I'm talking about the United States.
Telling someone not to make a mountain out of a molehill is not preaching apathy; it's preaching perspective. I'm not suggesting that you were wrong in your anger about certain posts, and I'm certainly not suggesting your response to others during that discussion was at all appropriate, I'm only disagreeing with you to the general proposition that the appropriate response to every wrong is to file a protest. Some things actually don't matter all that much.
That's true. I spontaneously intuited that as a youngster working in a man's world. I asked my father what to do. He told me to laugh and tell a funny joke about men. I followed that guideline with quite a bit of success. To some degree you can shape the world. I can cast you as the latest in the long line of sexist men, or i can have it that we're just telling silly jokes.
There's one case where deflecting through joking doesn't work and your best bet is to start acting like a man so you fall off the offender's radar. Do you know what I'm talking about? Do give me some more hints on how to deal with sexism. How do you think I should factor in my intensively sexist upbringing? If I become a massage therapist (which I did), how should I handle it when men want to check and see if I'm a prostitute? What would you do? I'm sure that after working and living in this world for several decades as a woman, you must have all sorts of fascinating tidbits.
The starting point for all of this was a comment I was making about the Lee statue. The effects of apathy.
I never provided you the first hint, so I don't know why you ask that I provide you more. What I said was: "I'm only disagreeing with you to the general proposition that the appropriate response to every wrong is to file a protest." Of course, had I said, "I'm only disagreeing with you to the specific proposition that the appropriate response to sexism is to file a protest," then your comment would have made sense. Instead, it's a troll, designed to inflame the conversation and designate me as an attackable sexist.
Quoting MongrelI really don't know how you should best deal with the unfortunate issues you have faced growing up, but I don't think expressing hostility toward me will serve any purpose. It won't offend me, change my behavior, or change my opinions. I'll just think to myself, "Wow, she's hostile."
I don't think the appropriate response to every wrong is to file a protest. And I didn't file any protests. I mentioned in the thread about Lee's statue that the effects of apathy about Confederate statues is like the impact it has on me that the moderators don't do anything about Agustino's sexist remarks. My point is that it effects the way I look at the whole forum.
Baden happened to see that comment and told me I should have notified a moderator earlier and that if I had anything else to say I should start a thread in the feedback forum.
I started the Sexism thread merely to tell him that I had talked to unenlightened and that nothing happened.
Subsequently BitterCrank dropped by to let me know I was wasting my time trying get anything done and that I should grow thicker skin. I told him that I wasn't trying to get anything done. I was just responding to Baden in the way he told me to.
You actually could have read all this.. if you were interested. The point is, I was surprised that a crowd of offended men showed up to make it into a mountain. I'm not even slightly surprised that you condescend to me like you think I'm a 19 year old spring chicken.
You are actually part of the problem with this forum.
Enter the "too much of nothing" problem mentioned by Dylan.
I can sympathise with the trouble of the moderators. They have been put in an impossible situation. If they ban Kevin it will be a disaster. If they don't ban Kevin, it will be an equally big disaster.
So they have chosen the wisest move, undertaken by the wisest among them, who of course claims to lack wisdom (how else could he be the wisest?).
To step down, because stepping down should be taken as a major action - a way to attract attention and to portray oneself as a martyr. This is required to create a fictional character who "everybody wants to see banned", for if we were to deal with the reality, it would be an entirely different story. But at least in fiction it is possible to consider whatsoever we want, for if anyone will accuse us, we will pretend it's not who we're talking about!
Of course, the claim being that if we discussed without any mask, there would be big fights, and naturally! For the truth is quite the contrary to the fiction - not everyone wants to see Kevin banned. For if the name of Kevin was Thanatos Sand or John Harris, he would've already been banned. In fact, that's why Harris is no longer around @Noble Dust. But that is not the name...
First this fiction of a common interest is necessary. Otherwise, how to get rid of Kevin? He has shown that he is in fact very dangerous. That is why it is now necessary to get rid of him. All his life on the forum he has fought against oppression, against the imposition of our views and for openness and justice. He has fought for the minority - at the time, he was fighting alone. But now, many have joined him! In fact, he was just about to change the guidelines or cause us to lose all authority and respect for not obeying the will of the community. That's why we had to close the vote by force. We had to put an end to the thread. It was absolutely necessary. It had to be locked.
Harris wasn't an enemy. He was a great tool to us. If it weren't for the intervention of people like him, we could never have closed it. Through his sacrifice (we did have to ban him), he has provided the necessary path for escape. For this voting is truly a scary thing. Today it is the guidelines, tomorrow it will be the moderators - and soon we will lose all control. Who knows who will become moderator, and what they will ask to do?! We will no longer be able to impose our own policies, made in the image of our own will - we will have to accept the will of the community, or else have no legitimacy. Do you want us to become like old PF?! Everyone will move away! It will be just us putting out rules that we ourselves follow and no one else!
But my God! How can we get rid of Kevin? He has asked us publicly to delete all his posts and remove any trace of him if we ban him! Can you imagine? Removing his thousands of posts, not to mention all the replies addressed to him and all the people who have quoted him? My God - half of our forum and reputation we have built with the search engines! Not to mention the work required! And we cannot deny him even this right, poor person, we ban him without reason, and not even his last wish we don't grant?
And not to mention that if we get rid of him, the people who appreciate him are still around. My God! What will they do? Either they will leave, never to come back! Can you imagine? We will lose so many members... not to mention that if they were to remain, they will cause even more problems. At least now, it is a little bit controlled, but if we give them this reason, what will they do?
At least, let us try to keep the members, and keep them civilised. First we have to create a fiction, this is the only way. The wisest amongst us knows we cannot talk openly about it. First it is required to create a false consensus and deceive the people... We must invent the reason - that imaginary ghosts are being driven away, in fact, so many of them, that they outnumber the people who remain! As it even says - who knows how many? We can pick whatever number it fits!
And my God! If we don't get rid of him, how shall we sleep? For he has already earned the respect of some of our members, and he is day by day winning the respect of more and more. And his ideas are very radical - we have to get rid of him! Soon the voting will not be about guidelines anymore - we'll be asked to vote on our own chairs - I mean can you imagine? To live in a community where we're not here by divine fiat, but we're actually here because we represent our members, and they want to be moderated by us? That is a horrible thought! To be at the mercy of the electorate! How low have we fallen?
Now we're all trembling around the ban button, not knowing what to do... To press or not to press? And who will take responsibility?! There is a crazy one amongst us, but we cannot let him press, regardless of how willing he is. For it will be truly disastrous! He does not understand our great difficulty... He is like a bull ready to jump over the cliff.
It most certainly is. I have no further comments.
I generally don't like right wing fascist types, judgmental reactionary Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, or Hindu fanatics, and so on. I've had some very unpleasant run-ins with these people. However, people become reactionaries for a reason. There are factors, causes, predisposing factors, strengths and weaknesses, and so on -- just like there for people who become contemplative monks, social justice warriors, or double plus liberal politically correct nit-pickers extraordinaire.
There's nothing about my life that a right wing racist type would like--or if they were in power would tolerate. Still, I think I have some sense about what makes them tick. Some of it is quite understandable. Most of these right wing types are not members of the 1%, the haute (or even petite) bourgeoisie, the ruling class, or anything like that. They are mostly disappointed white working class men who can not fulfill the role that they expect of themselves and that a good share of society expects of them. Do they have anything to be disappointed about? Sure they do. Does that make it OK to be neo-nazi, reconstructed KKK, or white supremacist? No.
A better response to the "alt-right" or whatever one wants to call it, has to be found by the left. Just tangling in the streets isn't going to result in anything better over the long run. Shutting the opposition off is a short-term feel-good event -- not a good long range policy.
This is very true. I've worked in a few places with great morale. Sometimes one can name some factors: new urgent cause to work on, new place to work, all sorts of psychic income, etc. But then, one can also see why morale drops: psychic income falls; the new urgent cause goes stale; the new place to work starts resembling every other work place. The race for a cure is replaced by a treadmill of same old same old.
One sees recurrent good morale in the United States -- not universally, by any stretch. Immigrant morale is up, displaced worker morale is down. Economic expansion beneficiaries are happy, economic expansion (or contraction) victims are not happy. The minority who are financially secure have good morale, a lot of those hanging on to solvency by their fingernails are not doing well in the morale department.
I used to think that too. The statue says "Feel defeated." It just doesn't say that to everybody. The ones who can't hear it... just every blue moon a Sojourner Truth will come along with the ability to open up some ears.
Anyway... I'm done with this forum. I actually wish you the best, dude. That was an awesome science fiction book you advised. I've since passed it on to my multitude of brothers. They liked it too.
Bye.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Morale is a fragile and curious affair, and nothing is more damaging to morale than an attempt to manipulate it. I hope I am not doing that, but on the contrary attempting to contribute to morale by trying to face our difficulties and find a way of communicating about them. I do not experience this forum, or the old forum as a treadmill, but rather as a learning centre, where I have learned, not only a great deal of philosophy and new understandings of what I already knew, but also about myself and how I can survive, and thrive and contribute to a community of the willing.
Excuse me, I'll have to come back to this later.
Quoting Mongrel
I'm so sorry. For you, for the ignoramuses of the forum, including myself. I'm crying.
Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?
Someone was asking for evidence.
This is true. The Confederate memorials were generally erected well after the civil war during times when the erectors felt like change agents needed to be reminded who was in charge (i.e., white folks in the big house).
The statue may represent Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, John C. Calhoun, or scores of other Confederates. Whatever the virtues of the individuals (and they did have virtues) erecting a statue of Jefferson Davis shortly after the SCOTUS Brown Vs. The Board of Education decision was clearly not about Davis, and was about segregation vs. integration.
OK, just to make it clear, please note that I'm moving leftward not he monuments and statuary problem, at least partly because of opinions expressed here I earlier disagreed with.
Kevins, no apostrophe.
Quoting unenlightened
No, apparently you need to talk about Kevin and are so desperate to talk about him that you have created a thread nine miles long expressing your thinly veiled contempt for him, a contempt so unquenchable that you have requested a thread be made solely in order to bitterly complain about him. You aren't fooling anyone.
You could and ought to just ignore him, as someone else in this thread suggested, but that would require giving up the pleasure of unearned moral superiority.
The solution to that problem, anyway, turned out to be quite inexpensive.
Have I offended you, or are you a gratuitous shit merchant? I am doing my best. Clearly it has been and continues to be inadequate. Perhaps you can help?
It's not so much that I feel offended, but that I find you to be a rather offensive and offense-taking person. I've never reported you or anyone else. I haven't asked a mod to ban anyone. I only just now discovered in this thread that John Harris was banned. I thought he probably would be, but I never called for it and never reported him. This, despite the fact that I've been subject to some rather nasty abuse by him and others over the years. It's the Internet, and I'm able to take things with a grain of salt and move on. Why can't you? What does your time on this forum really mean, in the grand scheme of your life?
Quoting unenlightened
I did. I said you need to ignore Kevin, as several other people have suggested you do.
Well yeah, clearly from that member that told you to fuck off. That member is literarily quite deluded, and has proven to be someone who lives in their own hateful world, totally unaware of what exists around them. And this isn't even the first time!
And I've treated this member very nicely. I've conceded a lot of ground that some people have suggested that I shouldn't have conceded. I said that I apologise if any of my remarks offended the said member even though the said member had no real reason to feel offended. However, the said member hasn't returned the cordiality or ever attempted to excuse themselves for making completely outrageous claims. This is the kind of person who literarily thinks - listen to this please - that everyone else thinks I'm a sexist. This is the kind of person who thinks I want to take away women's voting rights! Literarily! This kind of person thinks if I had power, I'd force them to live at the periphery of society or something :s And it seems that this person actually believes these things about me! This person ain't saying them merely for rhetorical effect.
Now let me show you what I actually sent to another member by PM in a private discussion. So that you will see how utterly nasty I am:
It actually turns out that I'm the opposite of the kind of person this deluded individual is trying to portray me to be. And everyone who knows me knows that this is true. I respect and love women, I have women friends, and I have absolute respect for them. How anyone could say that a rhetorical remark I made about "women on TV" as an example of our lust and wrong values in society counts as sexism is utterly beyond me. How anyone could think of me as a racist, homophobe, etc. is also beyond me.
And now because this person is threatening to leave or I don't know what they're threatening if the house isn't arranged as they like it, I don't think any of us should feel bad about it. They should be willing to look at things from the perspective of others, and be apologetic where they deserve to be apologetic. Concessions and cordiality cannot come just from one side.
Quoting unenlightened
Excuse me unenlightened, we all know that this isn't the first time you've tried to pull off a shameful public stunt to get rid of me. Who do you think believes you now? Probably even you yourself have stopped believing in it.
I don't think that is a good policy, for two reasons. 1. It can't be done; some people are more tolerant of abuse than others. Typically it is a learned male trait to 'take it like a man', so it disadvantages half the population at a stroke. 2. Kevin is contagious: call me a dick and I'll likely call you one back, and when people who like to call other people dicks find that they can call people dicks, you end up with threads full of dicks calling dicks dicks.
You have to understand that in theory, and in the old forum in practice, it was my business to deal with Kevin. I hope you are not suggesting that we have an unmoderated forum?
But this is not an invitation to become fuck buddies, I am happily married - well, happily, I am married.
There are no flesh and blood members here. We are all emotionless inhuman, fictional characters, which we have created ourselves, no feelings, no sensibility, characters. This is no Facebook, we have no faces.
.
So tell me unenlightened, if there is an extremist around who cannot bear to have conversation with those who disagrees with them, and actually - through the statements they make - show that they have an utterly false view of the world, should we peddle to their insecurities? If so, why? If they want to leave, that is fine - nobody can keep them here by force if they don't want to. But this is a philosophy forum where you have to meet with and discuss RESPECTFULLY with people who are different from you. I have shown that I am interested to and open to discuss with such members. But I don't appreciate when they spread false information about me, when they are persistently judgemental, and show no willingness to frankly talk and work together on issues. I've earned the respect of the people that I have earned it precisely by being open to rational conversation and listening to their views respectfully, even when I disagree. And I disagree with most people here more often than not.
But take someone like Bitter Crankus. I highly respect BC and if I was the owner of this forum, quite honestly BC would be a moderator. And yet I disagree with him on most everything.
Heister Eggcart is also someone I very frequently disagree with, but I've learned a lot from interacting with him on the forum, and have found his presence valuable. I don't think we've ever "fought together" with ill feelings, or hatred towards one another.
Females today are not fragile little creatures needing your protection.
Quoting unenlightened
No, but I would be as hands off as possible. I requested this before, but there really needs to be an ignore feature on this forum. That's a pretty glaring oversight by its makers. Nonetheless, it is still possible to ignore users you don't like, so I still have a hard time feeling sorry for you.
(Y)
BC would make a good moderator. Not so much for his philosophical expertise, but for his social and communication skills. We agree about something again, how annoying!
Quoting Sapientia
It's not obligatory. I am interested.
This is enormously underrated, I find. Inasmuch as philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, he's far wiser than most of us.
Is that any excuse for murdering? "I don't mean to murder, it just sort of happens every time I pick up a gun". If Kevin can't go to the keyboard without typing something bad, there's a problem.
That's a big "if" you got there - an exaggeration and a hypothetical hardly worth considering. It illustrates my point that Kevin isn't as bad as some might lead you to believe. If any Kevin, whether this one or that, types something bad, and you notice it, then go flag it. Until then, you're just making noise and jumping the gun, and that's something I'd rather not hear about. I've heard more than enough already. Come back with something fresh and concrete, preferably in private, and I'll lend you an ear.
Actually it wasn't the fuck off bandit. It was a humorless he whom I had hassled by suggesting that he should meet my equally humorless sister. I had also suggested that humorlessness was an early sign of alzheimers. He was aghast.
Hey,I'm just following the conversation. I haven't a clue who Kevin or the other Kevins are, or the petty squabbles and mudslingings (which have no place here anyway). For all I know I could be the one and only "Kevin".
But if Kevin's a murderer, then Kevin's a murderer, whether he means to be a murderer or not.
Suppose we're all fictitious characters here. We put on an act, and this is who we are at tpf. MU's not the real me, who I am in real life, and Sapientia's not who you are in real life. Kevin is murdering at tpf. Is this part of Kevin's act, or is Kevin a bad actor and he's allowing his true self to show through? Either he's a bad actor or he's acting badly, what's the difference?
I've been doing plenty over the last few days, and I have a trip to prepare for, so no, I have no objection and no, I won't be talking about Kevin today.
EDIT: I did read the discussion just now though and seen as some unfortunate stuff has happened I may have to weigh in after all.
2) Nobody should be telling women how they should feel about sexism. If you can't walk in someone else's shoes, don't tell them which ones to wear.
3) @Mongrel What can I say? I don't blame you. I hope you'll change your mind.
4) Anyone got a lonely planet guide to Shanghai I can borrow?
You a sexist? NO! Who would have thought such a thing? You might, on one or two occasions, been just a teensy bit sexist. I don't know, maybe you once rendered a woman invisible or something. She was probably quite annoyed by suddenly not being something to see, I suppose.
Any way, who am I to talk?
BTW, Small high minded groups that are mostly male generally worry a lot about there being no, or so few, women in their group. "Oh, we're driving women away." "Marx was a sexist, you know." "Males always dominate the conversation, which oppresses women." and so on. Once I brought a woman-friend of mine (co-worker, so don't start any rumors) to a meeting to get her judgement about the socialist group I had been telling her about. Her summary about the socialist group probably applies here too: "It's just a bunch of heady males." She could be a bit heady herself, so she was pointing more toward "Males just don't communicate the same way women do." This is true -- we don't. And equally true and not better, "women just don't communicate the same way men do."
So here we are with one, two, or three women, which embarrasses some here because we should, they think. be 50/50. The fact of the matter is, the heady males mentioned earlier weren't attracting a whole lot of other heady men to the group either. We're doing well to have as many heady males here as we do, so we should not wait for hundreds of eager philosophers (50% penises, 50% vaginas) to beat the door down next week.
By comparison, there are some gay posters on Tumblr that have 40,000 followers from the Tumblr platform. I don't know how they do it; I've been working on my blog for 7 years and haven't quite cleared 5,000 followers. (In fairness, most of anybody's followers are dead accounts which have long since been abandoned since they "followed" somebody.)
Anyway, good call to ban 'John Harris' or whatever he or she is called. Must be a very lonely person.
As Ludwig Wittgenstein the Wise said, that which ought not be discussed out loud must be stewed over in silence.
Damnation by faint praise.
Quoting Thorongil
That's more like it.
>:)
Why, everyone says you're a wise guy! :D
He was also quite anally retentive.
It's rare to encounter a Kevin who literally can't go to the keyboard without typing something bad, and they don't last long. That isn't true of any Kevin that I had in mind.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Sure, but I don't think that Kevin's a murderer. Not the Kevin I know, anyway.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
¯\_(?)_/ ¯
To those people who are still insisting, some via PM that I have something personal against Mongrel, let me clarify one last time that I have no ill feelings towards Mongrel and even feel sorry that she has decided to not take part in the forums anymore, but I do respect her decision.
I have a long history with Mongrel on these forums, and for most of that history our interaction has quite frankly been good and enjoyable. Mongrel is a person who can be quite witty, and enjoyable to talk to in a casual manner. If I met her, I think I'd actually get along with her very well to tell you the truth (she's different than some other people here who I actually don't think I'd get along with very well at all).
I remember even today the many times she has playfully mocked me with regards to Mongolia and straw dogs, the entire "Bilo" thing, the three word poems, and so on so forth. Maybe these don't ring a bell to many people, but Mongrel sure remembers them, and I remember them as very funny and positive interactions.
In addition, I should also mention that I've heard around that Mongrel works or worked in healthcare taking care of ill and dying people, something that I think takes a lot of courage to do and is extremely admirable, and quite frankly something that I myself probably wouldn't be capable of doing. So I have a lot of respect for Mongrel as a person.
As Baden has said, I don't have any right to tell any woman how they should feel about sexism, which statements they should find sexist or not, and so forth. And in that regard, it is excellent that Mongrel wanted to talk about sexism openly, although it is lamentable the way she has chosen to do it, and quite frankly not very productive.
It is true that in my opinion Mongrel is an extremist when it comes to issues of sex, religion, and the like. This makes her become resentful and even though she's fighting for something good, she ends up causing a lot of harm unwillingly. Over the last months I haven't engaged with her at all pretty much, but she would come from time to time, just to say something mean in response so something I had said. It appears to me she gets very easily offended around those topics and isn't capable (or willing) to consider or accept hearing different views and opinions. This is unfortunate since this is a philosophy forum after all, and it is unavoidable that there will be people here holding a multitude of views, and it wouldn't be fair to expel those people simply because their views are not acceptable to one (or a few) persons.
I do not know nor understand why Mongrel takes such an extremist approach to these issues, but then I cannot know what kind of men she had to deal with through her life or what she went through and it's not my business either.
Frankly I'm disappointed to see that Mongrel has decided to slander me and viciously and cruelly state some very violent and untrue things about me in the forums. But I do understand she may have felt offended by things I've said, even though they were not intended in the way she interpreted them, and I have apologised to her for it. I truly am sorry, but I cannot accept that those things were as she interpreted them to be, since that's just false.
Nevertheless I have forgiven Mongrel despite the unfair treatment she has given me, and I wish her all the best, and hope that she can find a place where she will feel better. I think we're all willing to welcome her back if she ever wants to return, she's been with us for a long time, and I think she's been a great person for the most part. I also think sometimes we should discuss issues of sexism fairly and openly, without condemnation and hatred, and it's good she attempted to bring the topic up. So I'm not happy to see her go, but it's her decision and she knows better what the good thing for her is! Anyway, goodbye Mongrel, and all the best!
Well we agree about being as hands off as possible. In fact all the mods agree about that, because modding is tricky, thankless and tediously time-consuming.
But I have no idea why you think I want you to feel sorry for me. I am, strange to say, completely un bothered personally by all this. Mods are in the business of being unpleasant to people by editing or silencing them, or by standing in judgement and giving stern warnings. So they take a level of crap in private and in public that would be intolerable to the delicate. Over the years in the previous forum I have manage to arrive at sense of personal security that allows me to be quite sensitive and yet more or less immune from hurt. It is a condition of being eager to learn and change, but unattached to what has already been learned.
So this is what I am doing with this thread: I am trying to minimise the moderating, in the same way that one might try to minimise the housework. But this cannot be done by letting everything get into a disgusting mess, rather one has to clean as one goes, show the drunks the door, sternly order the children to behave, and ask folks to take their muddy boots off as they come in. It's not the most exciting topic in the world, but if I can get folks to think about their own behaviour, and that of their fellow guests, then not only will it save some housework, but the party will be more fun.
I think it's been a bit too rowdy here of late, and some people seem to have left as a result, which is a shame. Wipe up the vomit, calm down, and carry on with care and consideration.
At Titus Andronicus shows, Patrick Stickles makes this little speech about how not everyone has fun the same way, and asks the crowd to be aware of people around them if they want to get slammy. (I'm paraphrasing.) You can be punk and still be sensitive.
Why shouldn't men argue with women over the merits of sexism? Men can be the subject of sexism too. Sounds like a double standard to me. Women shouldn't be placed on a pedestal just because they're a minority on the forums.
I've never understood the concept of ignoring users. You shouldn't be able to just selectively ignore an opinion or person you disagree with - then you're just turning an anything goes discussion forum into an echo chamber.
There are no "merits of sexism" that are recognised here. Period.
You misunderstood me. I'm just saying that men should be able to dispute allegations of sexism women may make. Just because a woman says it's sexism doesn't necessarily make it so. Your previous post insinuated that women should not be challenged if they determine a post or person to be sexism because men cannot empathise with such a viewpoint, but that's an absolutely bizarre thing to say. Men can be victims of sexism too. We should be able to question the legitimacy of such claims.
If a woman was deemed sexist she would be given grounds to defend herself and her actions. But what you're saying is that a man shouldn't because the woman is always right.
If I'm misinterpreting what you originally said please do correct me.
You do show good technique, reframing a horrifying tragedy to a dance party. However the effort doesn't indicate immunity.
I said:
Quoting Baden
Hope it's clear now.
I did say 'more or less', but I suspect some people mistake my caring deeply about how things are for being hurt. One can be unhappy about things without being hurt.
Understood. Poor phrasing and reading comprehension on my part. Apologies fellows.
But who gives a fuck about the United States, other than as a potential threat now that we are under specific circumstances?
I don't understand how someone can be "silenced". It's an online forum! How do you "silence" someone? I suppose by banning them perhaps. Otherwise they only remain silent if they want to remain silent.
I don't know what the dispute was, that disillusioned or discouraged you, so of course I'm not in a position to disagree with you or judge your objections.
...but I can say this:
Of all of the forums that I've ever participated in, this is the only one with genuinely effective moderation, ...and with moderation that isn't abused.
1. I've been on forums where (regardless of whether there was nominally moderation), even the worst behavioral abuses were gotten-away-with.
2. I've been on forums where evidently any longtime participant could be a moderator, and usually abused their authority in order to win arguments that they started.
In fact, before this forum, those two kinds of forums were the only kind I'd encountered.
So, I repeat:
Of all of the forums that I've ever participated in, this is the only one with genuinely effective moderation, ...and with moderation that isn't abused.
Michael Ossipoff
I should add that I once received a murder-threat, from a "moderator" at a Spiritual forum. Of course there were no consequences to the perp.
Michael Ossipoff
"Less inclined to speak" which you put entirely on them if you want, but the circumstances matter.
:-O You should've threatened to put the cops on him. Then he may have turned from that big loud-mouthed dirty boy into a whimpering coward, like in this very recent example >:O
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
That's not the same as silenced. It's their choice not to speak anymore if that is the case, no?
Just to be clear, you would also say that, "Nobody should be telling men how they should feel about sexism," right?
I'm not at all discouraged. But thank you for the endorsement of the regime, with which I totally agree. There is a tradition inherited from a previous site of quality moderation and generally friendly and insightful members. Long may it continue. If this thread appears critical, it is only because eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
I think the line of the left is that since sexism is used against women (or at least used to be used against women) more frequently than against men it would be an equivocation to say "nobody should be telling men how they should feel about sexism". Not that I agree with their position, but that's what I think people on the left generally think.
Hey, I was John Travolta on the floor, back in the day. And despite being drunk, I never knocked people down (bounced off a few and fell down myself though), nor did I throw up on anyone. The bouncers threw me out anyway. I think they were jealous of my moves.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I love the moderation, and the moderators ... honestly. Keep up the good work folks!
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Probably that Moses... whatever the fuck his name was. He threatened me over at pf, in a PM, and Streetlight dealt with him for me. Thanks Street. Now there's a good reason to ban someone if there ever was one.
Sure. The question is whether we as forum members give people reasons to continue speaking or reasons not to.
For example -- note I am not attributing anything to you here -- the "logical content" of the following is the same:
"I respectfully disagree."
"Only a moron would think that!!!"
Both are ways of saying "That's false" but one contributes to the health of the forum and one really doesn't.
My point has only been that we should be mindful of not only the philosophical import of our words, but their effect on the health of the forum. It's a matter of faith, perhaps, that the latter would also lead in the long run to better philosophy.
Unfortunately such replies seem to be quite common here many times.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I agree.
No worries
I hadn't really thought about it because it usually doesn't go in that direction and I don't expect it to be a problem. Is it a trick question or something? If so, let me know, and I'll come up with a better answer.
Dare he post the obligatory +1?
One thing I should have done was, I should have sent a copy of the threatening post to the company that hosts that forum.
...especially given that the threat was from one of their moderators.
I guess I was too lazy to deal with it. But one should report such things.
Michael Ossipoff
I think in today's world, especially on college campuses in the US, I can imagine it can go that way, precisely because so much of sexism is focused on women's issues in our culture, and men are viewed as the culprits and the sexists very often. So it is absolutely possible that men will be labeled sexists as a form of bullying, even when they're not.
Only a moron would think that!!!
>:) >:O
(Y) Yes, that is well said. Thank you.
As I mentioned, "objecting to tone" may be a type of red herring fallacy (as listed here: These descriptions of fallacies are helpful for tactics to avoid. Though i have committed most of the mistakes at least once. It is so embarrassing to have your spouse call you out on a motte-and-bailey fallacy. :-# ) Tone-policing may sound like the mating call of the loser. But even though one can't win the argument by complaining about sarcasm, mockery, or arrogance, those things can weaken one's argument. This seems to be a bleeding gladiatorial age we are living in, from sports to politics to singing contests. There is however evidence of many great minds and deep hearts on this forum on a daily basis. Those qualities defeat our shadow-selves.
All things are possible, and most of them happen. Men suffer rape and domestic violence too. And it is certainly not an improvement on women suffering them. Black people can be racist and poor people can be rapaciously greedy. Even retired philosophy forum admins can make an intemperate post (Sorry about that, mods). We are all sinners.
Nevertheless, there is a question of power and capacity. In a white dominated society (dominated by sheer numbers and by status) the prejudices of black folks do not prevail, the prejudices of white folks do. And in this forum, the combined prejudices of every single woman, even augmented by such powerful voices as my own, are not going to seriously harm or inhibit anyone.
Minorities need special consideration, whether they are right wing special snowflakes, or females or the religious. White male leftwing atheists predominate here, and especially in a philosophy forum, they, we, should welcome and nurture otherness of culture and background to challenge our preconceptions. Which is not to say we should put up with any old crap and abuse.
Well that depends what you mean, but I suppose that would hold true on a macro-scale, though even in such a society there would be places where black prejudice dominates at the micro level. The ideal is to have no prejudice dominate, that's what we should be looking to approach.
Quoting unenlightened
Well that depends how they are used. It's not very difficult at all to slip into a "police-state" kind of place that simply eliminates any kind of dissent based simply on labels of sexism - "because one (or multiple) woman said so and we can't question how women feel about sexism". There needs to be a degree of rational discussion - it seems to me that you presuppose that we have to take special care of minorities because we can't have rational discussion about the issues to decide what is right/wrong. But who took "special care" of me for example? I'm a minority here with regards to religion AND politics. As far as I remember, in the very beginning I fought for myself, and because of that more religious and conservative people have spoken up.
Quoting unenlightened
I agree.
Interesting story. Yes, no doubt some concepts - like that of a princess in Western society - seem to be associated with white people. Is that a problem? I don't think it's anymore of a problem than the fact that in India a princess is associated with a dark-colored woman, and in China with an Asian-looking woman and so forth. It's absolutely normal in other words. It's based on the local culture.
To follow on this, one thing that intrigues me is that the child thought that the princess had to be white. Because my best friend in school, for example, was darker colored in terms of skin color, and in art class, when we were asked to draw a human being he drew a man (darker colored one) and I drew a man too, but lighter colored one. And I distinctively remember the moment, caused it made me remark that we each drew a similar skin color to our own. Instinctively we both drew ourselves when asked to draw a human being. I think it's more the concept of princess that is associated with "white" because of all the children's stories such as Cinderella, etc. where princesses are always portrayed as white in the West.
I just found this thread today and all you have to do is ask. There are people around the forums that are pretty good at gauging the 'vibe' so to speak of the balance of the forum. If an admin is curious just have @jamalrob send a PM asking what's new, who's leaving and why.
It just takes a bit of small group communication, which by the way is the hardest form of communication.
Back to page one ;)
Before she left, I asked her to please stay and she said okay. Then I got another message that she had to go, I wished her well and told her this will always be her home.
Another strong woman, a moral woman and such an empathetic soul, I still had much to learn. I asked who it was over or what happened and she just said it was time, not sharing the whys.
Not only is this rude but I think it is completely uncalled for. (N)
It is human nature for everyone reading this thread to think and ponder for a moment if they are the "Kevin" in the story. So a LOT of people would think they were you and not member X or member X and not you. My point being that without being vulnerable to brutal honesty, that veil that protects the innocence of member X, also shields the rest for understanding.
You are right in that we "are not fragile little creatures" but I can tell you that losing one lady is a HUGE loss when we have less than five ladies regularly on the boards. (N)
Thank you~
I never complained about you sweetheart >:O >:O >:O
Nor I of you. I tell you my issue to your face, in real time, so we are on fair footing.
Now get off of my foot! :P
It's not fair that you ask me to get off your foot when the only off is off the edge of the cliff - that's not very caring of you... >:O
Well, I'm not in favor of gender quotas either, so this doesn't concern me.
As could be argued your posts in this thread are, given its hitherto settled nature.
10%, at best, of the active members being women in a place that was intended to be in some regards a safe space in which everyone agreed that women get the short end of the stick? Really?
Most of the vocal disagreements and harsh treatment of women, person to person anyway, was largely to do with threads specifically on patriarchy and rape culture, which some (all?) of our Troskyist and Leninist members unsurprisingly did not give a crap about.
So, we took in the active women as part of the administration, if they wanted to come. 3 did. Luckily they represented diverse views as well, and they advised advertising this and numerous other democratizing features we adopted (voting on all actions of moderation, post deletion required at least three votes, banning required a separate thread, discussion, a devil's advocate -which was usually me if anyone cares-) as a sticky on the forum.
This lured out several women we knew were there and who read stuff, since they spoke about it privately or referenced it to other moderators, but didn't engage usually. After this we saw a brief surge of their engagement (IE, two more women became active posters than before). Eventually they returned to lurking, and all of the women administrators eventually left due to individual dramas with other mods and admin. Having to debate about the debates was tiresome, but we wanted to be ideologically consistent with our user base. (one however left because she accused another poster of stalking her)
At this point, we asked for private messages on what we were doing wrong from the women members of the group, why did they choose not to engage despite demonstrably being interested, and engaging in private debate with other members through PMs?
Several of the women who had received moderator action by accusing people of being rapists, of course said that we were doing something wrong by silencing their voices or disagreeing with them.. These were summarily ignored (obviously after debating with other mods, we were inspired by Gosplan after all). Besides that, we received only one useful bit of feedback, which was this (paraphrased):
Women are encouraged to be passive, and are often talked over by men without them realising it. Of course these men deny it later. This place is no different. Do you expect women to find it easy to express themselves and their ideas in a public forum? Especially when we know that there is always the chance that one of your more extreme members will not just dismiss our concerns, but attack us as ideological enemies?
I've had no idea on what to do about that since.
As for it being a man's world, and women don't want to be attacked and spoken over, even on an alt-left forum, full of people that accepted hardline thirdwave feminism? Where you guilty of it, unconsciously? Was it just like a couple people?
What could be done about that, other than shut up, and don't disagree? Or don't disagree without gushing apology and kid glove kindness, as to not force them into silence...
I've probably done it more times than I can count Wos, but I try hard not to use any of the implicit biases I have. I don't think the spirit of that message we received was an injunction to treat women differently, on the contrary, it was an injunction to try harder to treat them the same. Whenever we saw harassment and trolling in rape culture or patriarchy threads, we tried to treat it like any other case of moderator action.
Regardless, we had a group of informed women who could've provided us invaluable insights into the reality of their treatment, but we couldn't get them to come forward even privately to suggest anything we could do as admins to get the number of active woman posters up.
I just think that it's the subject matter, can't do much to inspire interest and engagement when it just isn't there.
I think we had interest, given that there were private discussions of issues raised on the forum between lurker-women and some of the staff. I suppose the distinguishing feature is the trust they had for their friend, but no trust in the general environment.
You said you had only 10% women, if you look at a creative writing poetry, music, or romantic fiction forum (not because those are the go to girl topics, but because of my own experiences with them), you will find a far greater balance, the latter most one being like 70% women. When only 10% are women, that means little interest, in my eyes.
Men act differently in a group of 90% women, and women act differently in a group of 90% men, than they do given other balances, of say 50/50, or majority of their own gender, or even exclusivity of the other gender, which is why girls and boys clubs exist, and exclude the other gender in the first place.
Makes sense. Doesn't it feel disappointing to you that 'the odds were in our favour', so to speak, but we still failed to have many active woman posters?
This is familiar territory. I was a member of a socialist group for many years. We held face-to-face meetings and discussion groups. This was before the Internet, for the most part. Except for Lila and Jane, two senior citizen socialists who had been card carriers for a long time, we were an all male group, and we were all white. A few women and fewer blacks visited the discussion group, but rarely stayed around to become part of the group.
What were we doing wrong?
We weren't doing anything wrong.
Women and blacks didn't want to spend a lot of time in a group where they are always outnumbered by white men. Fact is, most people found us rather dull. There are some, but not very many people who are interested in socialism. One woman characterized the group as "a bunch of heady males". True enough.
Socialist groups in the US are on the fringe. All sorts of groups on the left fringe (maybe the right fringe too) have similar experiences of not being highly successful in recruiting a broad demographic. The fringe feminist groups in Minneapolis had similar experiences with women.
A more or less serious philosophy forum on the internet is also a fringe group, and only some kinds of people are going to be attracted. Most people who visit this site (male or female, gay or straight, theist or atheist, liberal or conservative) are not going to stay on and become active participants. Our deficiency here is that we are a philosophy forum, My socialist discussion group's deficiency was that we were a socialist discussion group.
Ideologically focussed women, or ideologically focussed conservative theists, are probably going to find a lack of like-minded posters disheartening. It can't be helped.
Quoting Bitter Crank
As long as you can objectively assess your own behavior and label it benign, then nothing is wrong.
Right?
Quoting Bitter Crank
BC, with all due respect, what you said here sure does sound like 'it happens and it cannot be helped'. And maybe that is true SOME of the time but there are cases in which it could have been helped.
I have invited five ladies here to TPF. Three of the five had accepted invites and joined our old place but they were overwhelmed with what looked like the infinite number of threads that were active. They said hello in the Lounge and were warmly welcomed by myself and The Mayor Of Simpleton welcomed them because we both tried to keep up on that thread. The sudden lack of the Mayors presence here should have been an indicator that things were 'off' but that is just my read.
My suggestion is simple and can be achieved which is to be able to say:
"Relax, this is a safe place."
And before someone says that I am asking for that motto to be applicable here because of any female fragility, it is not. I am talking about safety in the expression and respect of that persons position, that allows and encourages the inclusion of 'emotional vulnerability' which is vital to the pursuit of wisdom regardless of gender.
Thinking that one has to remove the possibility of harm in order to make vulnerability possible is to vastly misunderstand something.
I don't think that it's completely uncalled for. I think that one of the benefits of this place is the freedom to point out home truths and not have to sugarcoat everything that we say.
I value this quality of frankness, evident in members such as Thorongil, and do not approve of what appears to be an attempt to guilt trip him into changing his ways to suit your liking - not that I believe it has any real chance of success, which again is something I find admirable, as it shows courage to stand one's ground, on principle, in the face of such condemnation.
Your probing search light piercing the shadows is always so... revealing. Damn it.
Well, we did try very hard to figure out if we were doing something offensive. We weren't, we maintained, being offensive, and I think that was correct. What we were doing, however, was behaving the way somewhat (maybe not so 'somewhat') competitive males behave: We were eager to lay out our political views before each other, and CONVINCE everyone else. Maybe many women find that sort of discussion a bit too... rough, or not collegial enough, or something. There are, though, plenty of women who engage in political debate with as much gusto as men, and they do just fine. They can pull out a vorpal sword and cut across neat theory with the best of the guys.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Well... some of the time yes, some of the time no. In the tradition of socialist organizations, we weren't trying to reach a collegial consensus, we were engaging in "speech to persuade" or "speech to get everyone to conform to the principles of the party". I suppose there was a feeling that this kind of discussion leads one to conform to the party line, or the gulag is next. Who would not like to send Donald Trump to a gulag in the Aleutian Islands or a political reeducation camp in a Northern Minnesota Swamp or a Louisiana Swamp, for that matter--one with lots of alligators, clouds of mosquitos, and just crawling with venomous snakes?
Political parties are supposed to have specified platforms, and we did--actually humane, democratic DeLeonist socialist principles. These had been developed over a century and a half by the Socialist Labor Party and the New Union Party.
A famous poem celebrating laissez faire interaction:
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.
(Fritz Perls, 1969)
Apologies to Fritz Perls (source long since forgotten) less laissez faire:
I did my thing and you did your thing.
I was not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you were not in this world to live up to mine.
And IF, because I was busy doing my thing
and you were equally busy doing your thing,
the world went to hell,
It could not be helped?
I suppose we could require gender-neutral language, a la Sweden, which is trying to replace gendered pronouns. Gender neutrality might help, but I find such practice repellent. We could use gender neutral language: refer to one's self as a person, not a man or a woman; refer to interactions of persons, rather than interactions of males and females, and so on.
But de-gendered language flies in the face of a highly impertinent reality: Humans, like all other animals, (many plants, for that matter) are gendered, and gender is a central part of a person's being. I don't believe gender can be waived by dismissing it as socially constructed. Sex, gender, erotic activity, reproductive behavior, physiognomy, language, -- our bodies our selves -- and so on are all intrinsically gendered.
But I still say "he" and "she" when I think that it's appropriate, which is very often, and have no intention of changing my ways.
It is not removal of harm as it is a degree of respect of one another's positions without fear of personal attack.
Which is probably why women aren't going to be as interested in philosophy, the hard sciences, or political groups, because they're all about brutal attacks of ideology. They're intellectual blood sports.
I don't think that it says anything negative about women for not being interested in them, and I think that women should definitely be encouraged and welcomed in them, but to fundamentally alter their very natures, destroy them, transform them into something else entirely in order to market better to female sensibilities over male ones, as if there is no difference at all, or female sensibilities are always superior, in every single imaginable context is not valuable, nor desirable.
Yes, that's exactly how we should operate. If you're unsuited, then you're unsuited, regardless of your gender. In the case that you're unsuited, you could either work on that or find another hobby.
I'm definitely all for welcoming women, and would like to see more of them as much as anyone else does, I in no way think that they can't be as good, or offer differing perspectives and experiences that are fundamental, and requisites to a fuller deeper view, but I just don't like the explanation that the reason there already isn't a 50/50 split ratio is because there is something wrong with anyone or anything necessarily.
Quoting Wosret
Yes, that explanation would be bogus.
Indeed, it's alls about the content, and not the form.
Time will flesh that out, it always does.
I am so glad I have found my lifelong hobby and interest in Philosophy~ (L)
What nonsense. Women are interested in these things but they're not interested in discussing them in the format that testosterone fuelled apes like you dominate and equate rational arguments with "brutal attacks" and "blood sports". Bloody hell.
What nonsense. Women are interested in these things but they're not interested in discussing them in a format that tends towards aggression. The fact that you equate rational arguments with "brutal attacks" and "blood sports" is an indication to how you approach discussions as a fundamentally adversarial process, which isn't a necessity.
Which approach do you prefer?
Notice how you've actually called me names? Attacked me personally, while supposedly being all for the precise opposite of that?
When people start getting accusatory, and saying that a victimization is taking place, and start to go on a witch hunt for the oppressors, then maybe they really need some damn good evidence of witches, and their evil deeds? Not just self-righteousness, and a deep need to be the good one, that puts pitch forks firmly into their hands?
You can disagree with my characterization, as you exaggerate it to a point I rarely attain in every exchange.
My dear Sapientia, I will consider your unsolicited advice, Thank you.
My unsolicited advice to you is to: take care not to overate your own advice.
Why not just ask me to leave Sapientia?
Oh but that's quite impossible, my dear Tiff.
I imagine it is. What a burden in life, eh?
Why would I do that? I do not want you to leave. I will ask you instead not to read things into what I say and then jump to conclusions based upon your own imaginings. If my comments were intended to be about you, then I would have mentioned you by name. A little less paranoia wouldn't go amiss, my dear Tiff.
I have been quite open, for quite a long time now, about my lowered estimation of the value of philosophy. Hence my unsolicited advice. It's nothing personal at all.
I am afraid I am going to have to go on being me and you being you.
Just remember when you speak on an authoritative thread such as this, you are part of the staff holding the moderator position, not just another member of The Philosophy Forum. You see, that key of responsibility in being a moderator, which, un gave up so he could freely speak on threads like these, holds any key holder to a higher standard of conduct.
Any disagreements?
Quoting Sapientia
But in the process of you lowering your estimation of the value of philosophy and offering unsolicited advice, it makes me question the purpose of your responses, especially when you could give a flip as to how your responses are received.
It wasn't a lecture it was unsolicited advice.
Sure sounded like a lecture, but whatever you say.
I have filed your "unsolicited advice" in my "special cabinet".
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yes, well, now you know. It is as I said, and I have nothing further to add.
But your adding unsolicited advice at every turn has a negative effect that subtracts from the love/pursuit of wisdom.
Would that be your moderator folder?
Read again. I gave you two versions. From your reply I surmise you prefer the second option, which was my point.
Hello Kevin. I wish it was nice to meet you. But it isn't. It's petty unpleasant. You lower the tone of the discussion and exemplify what I have wanted to bring to the fore. This forum is sexist, full of macho posing, competitive foulness, and locker room talk. Locker rooms are segregated, and you are doing your best to keep the forum segregated. I think you should stop being a moderator and moderate your own behaviour.
I kind of agree... :-O
fdrake, the exchange was sincere on my behalf and I do appreciate you asking because I have tried to always speak directly with someone I have a difference of opinion with such as Sapientia. It wasn't that long ago that I began to feel a condescending attitude being expressed lavishly over myself and other longtime members and asked politely in thread to tone it down, which was met with more of the same condescending attitude and I walked away from the thread instead of resorting to what is happening here. Within 24 hours, on a completely different thread, my post was met with another snarky reply directly to me.
I cannot tell you how many snarky replies I posted and then immediately deleted it because I felt that it would be inappropriate as a member, to speak that way to a moderator. I believe there is a level of respect that comes down from the top being the owner, then the administrators, to the moderators and finally to the members. It sets a precedence as to how the owner wishes the forum to operate in spirit and in actual application.
Thanks for the clarifications Tiff. I usually have difficulty telling parodies, sarcasm and ironic chatter from the real thing, so it was a request for clarification as well expressing a desire for some bickering to stop. In my experience if there are a few active posters showing contempt for the forum's staff it ends up being very unpleasant for everyone. Members get frustrated with the toxic environment, since public conflict between staff and member groups quickly becomes an institutional problem.
Though, I think my experience with administrating a leftist discussion forum is a bit different from leading a general purpose philosophy forum. Specifically because people here don't seem to know how to be cruel to each other creatively (no one knows seppuku like the academic left), and there aren't so many preformed ideological cliques and entryists attempting to subsume the group to a particular method of thinking. For example, I find it unlikely that a group like the Platypus affiliated society or terrorist fantasy organisation Leading Light will join the philosophy forum en-mass and try to make it an advertising platform. In contrast, the people who advertise their own philosophical systems on this site are just individuals and very easy to ignore if reading that kind of thing isn't up your alley.
What you express is very true and I know that for myself, it is the very reason I always try to address a concern such as this, in private with another moderator or if necessary an administrator.
Sup Kevin, you're responsible for my good buddy taking off, sure we had our ups and downs, closeness, and falling outs, but who can stay mad at me? She fucking hated you though, and you were a big contributing factor in her leaving. That's just a fact. What actual female contributors has Sapientia made leave because of clashes of values and ideologies? How do you know what the women want out of their philosophy, do you attract them to the forum, or scare them outs?
Now, I like you great, this isn't a personal attack, just a fact check.
I've defended you lots of times, and I hope that you don't think I've ever disrespected you, we's tight.
I've never felt disrespected by you Wos and you have defended me more times than I can count and I Thank you for that. I feel emotionally safe with you, always have.
Quoting Wosret
I can also fact check part of this for you. unenlightened has been someone that I have expressed my concerns to over the last decade. I am not going to leave as a result of the clash I am having with Sapientia, regardless of his condescending attitude towards me and it may even be towards the discipline of Philosophy, I don't really know.
I know that you have a great relationships with him, and I would like to think that I do as well. I am a competitive person, but not unreasonable, so I may annoy him from time to time, but I don't think that he disrespects me, nor I him. Maybe that was an uncalled for comment, I just couldn't help myself, because this one time, mommy and daddy didn't get along, and then mommy left over it, and I have a sore spot for that happening...
I just want to say, are we sure that we want to conclude that the reason there isn't a 50/50 split of the sexes with contributors is because we're all just fuckers? Well, not the one pointing the finger surely... I've mastered the whole hand point, so that none are ever pointing back at me.
Anyone is entitled to hate me, and every staff member is likely to be hated by some. I'm really not interested in justifying my own posting habits here, (though if you have a specific complaint about my posts I'd like to hear about it) or claiming to know 'what the women want', as though that is even a thing. But I am giving feedback about the general conduct of the forum, that it is unbalanced. And to find a moderator being contemptuous of a female member in a thread about the more than somewhat male bias of the site deserves to be called out with some vigour. It is unacceptable.
It is the nature of philosophy to cut deep, and it is a requirement for a philosophy moderator to have a steady hand and not stab wildly. I am not so certain of my superior virtue as my history of modding might suggest; I did my best, and came to appreciate the difficulties from the inside. Now, I will do my best from the outside to be a member supportive of the good functioning of the site as I see it. I aimed for grace under fire, and a sharp scalpel, and the avoidance of sword fights. I'm still aiming at that, and missing the mark at times.
This is a shit-stirrer's thread, isn't it? I stir the shit and watch who vomits. But I do it with care; can you believe that?
I don't really know, there is surely a male bias, based on the demographics and numbers alone, and not at all based on any male's opinions, sensibilities, favoritism, or discrimination. That's all male bias, because it a male doing it, and it is biased. The only way to defeat that bias would be with female numbers, and equalization. We want more women, more women is the only cure. Being enemies and friends of women is just more male bias. That's all I'm saying.
I was reactionary, and was in the mind of thinking of being accused of being like some mocho neanderthal, and that's not cool, not cool at all. That ain't hows I sees it at all.
I'm trying to think hard, and speak carefully this time, all I want to expound is that we all agree that there is an imbalance, and that that is unfortunate, and impoverishing, and undesirable. I am merely reacting to the notion that it's anyone's fault, that there can be other explanations.
I like Sapientia, but I argue with him all the time, that "higher caliber" stuff was a bit much, I guess that I just believe that women are strong, and don't like to see dudes coming to their defense, and stealing their strength. Doing things for people that they can do for themselves isn't helping them, it's robbing them.
I agree that abuse, or a jagged edge is definitely in need of sharpening, and we don't want to be cutting for the sake of violence, but remedy. I just felt like we're all kind of being attacked and called dicks here, maybe it wasn't was you said, I think it was probably Benkei, I misspoke, not you. I blame him.
Well hello to you too, Kevin, and hello also to your unearned moral superiority, which has once again made an appearance alongside you.
One day, Kevin, I hope that you will be able to shake off those blinkers which obscure your vision; and I welcome the day, if it ever comes, when you are able to cast judgement over such matters with the impartiality that you so demonstrably lack. But you are, after all, unenlightened, are you not, my dear Kevin?
In particular, and especially, your allegation that I am doing my best to keep the forum segregated is false and outrageous.
Your judgement is not only clouded and swayed by gender - an irrelevance in terms of conduct - but, as I suspect, it is willfully so. There is a reason why you chose to single out my comments, made in retaliation, and pass over in silence those of my interlocutor. That reason is the same reason why I do not especially mourn your dramatic resignation from the team of site staff.
I do not care for your hyperbolic, one-sided, verbal lynchings, and I will not permit them to drag me down to your eager satisfaction. You wish to characterise myself and others - [i]male[/I] others - as dastardly villains, whilst venerate others - [i]female[/I] others - as saints, or rather, damsels in distress. It is all so superficial and sexist, and the worst part of it is that you seem to think you're combating sexism as opposed to succumbing to it.
For what it's worth, I don't think this forum is sexist, or that Sapientia has misbehaved with regards to his behaviour in this thread. People tend to take some things way too seriously. Just because a man disagrees with a woman in the same way he disagrees with other males on the forum does not suggest to me that he is sexist.
Furthermore, I, and I'm sure other members of the community too, didn't feel that this thread or your resignation were done with peaceful intentions. I had written quite a snarky reply to Tiff actually when she had re-opened this thread, because she clearly did not understand the context of the thread and was misinterpreting what happened, but decided not to go down that route. I'm sure if I had posted that, some people, not going to mention who, would have said I'm sexist because I tried to "shut down" a woman or something of that sort - basically the same that was said to Sapientia :s
But regardless, there were a couple more threads related to this one Tiff that you should probably have a look at so you can better understand the context in which this thread arose. I very much doubt that unenlightened's intentions were as "peaceful" as he made it out to sound, or that "anyone" can be Kevin. I get you could receive that idea just from reading this thread, absent the context in which it arose. I think there was quite a specific Kevin that he had in mind, and this thread was just part of that.
If you ask me, I think the moderators should have locked this thread up when the discussion was finished, precisely because it can be so easily misinterpreted by someone at a later date, who does not understand the context in which it arose.
Indeed. I always used to cut Tiff some slack and go easy on her, because she was always so cloyingly nice and cutesy-wutesy. That was favouritism and partiality in action. I was never truly comfortable with that situation.
Then she enters the fray on gun control - a subject I am passionate about, as she is - and I let rip, as I would with anyone else, so as not to discriminate, as is only fair. I even admittedly perhaps went a little overboard. And ever since then, she has noticeably been taking even innocuous remarks of mine as subtle personal attacks. Suddenly, a joke to bring some light to the doom and gloom becomes a trap: an offering of tainted meat. Apparently, it's all secretly about her, unbeknownst even to me. And I thought [i]I[/I] was the one with a big ego.
Quoting Agustino
Is TGW's ghost haunting you?
I kind of agree, too. 8-)
Perhaps. Why? Did he hold similar views?
You are amiss in thinking this stems from the gun control discussion as the condescending attitude you liberally use with forum members spans more than one one topic.
You may well have had a bee in your bonnet long before that encounter. I accept that, with marked indifference.
Yes Sapientia, your attitude changed, followed by a marked change in your behavior. To which I did follow the forum protocol and converse with the administration asking for moderation, so I am glad that you are aware that others noticed more than just me.
The "Bee in my Bonnet" is not the way you as a fellow forum member treat others in a condescending attitude, it is when you are a moderator with that same condescending attitude towards forum members that is unbecoming of a leader.
Odd. You begin your reply with an affirmative, as though you are agreeing with me, yet you've changed the subject in a transparent attempt to turn the tables. I was talking about you, not myself. Your behaviour, not mine.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Are you going to finish that sentence?
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Ah, never mind, upon refreshing the page, I see that you've caught your breath enough to continue your reproachment.
I suppose this is the part where I admit to some alleged wrongdoing so that you can walk away feeling righteous and vindicated. I suppose you'd like that, wouldn't you?
You claim to be a fan of Nietzsche. I wonder what you make of the following:
There are indeed times when principles may conflict with what might be considered good practice, which may result in a dilemma whereby only either the one or the other may reign predominant. I can envisage a leader striding forth down either path, based on what seems right at the time, rather than being dragged by the chain down the path of public demand - also known as the [i]hoi polloi[/I]. [I]That[/I], one might argue, would be unbecoming.
The average interlocutor.
I didn't expect you to be thrilled by my complaints. I do expect the moderators in general to respond carefully to reasoned and evidenced criticism. I criticised your posting behaviour in a particular case and a particular circumstance. What I wish, is for you to stop moderating, and for the other moderators to take stock and make an effort to change the ambience of the forum. I do not deny being sexist, I am a product of the culture.
source link.
In the end, I am not speaking for women, I am speaking for myself. The lack of women is merely a symptom of a cultural one-sidedness that excludes people like me - by which I mean people like I would wish I was, and like to blame people like you and Agustino for not being more so. My verbal lynchings - really? - No, actually, I manage to sustain an uncomprehending and passionate disagreement with Tiff about gun control, and a mutually respectful and friendly relation. So I know it can be managed differently. Will you engage with the topic at all, will you read the article , consider the evidence, and present at least something a little more substantial in your defence?
Moderators facilitate discussion, they don’t lead discussion. It strikes me as more appropriate for a leader to express condescension, as it exerts dominance and in so doing may help to fulfill the goals of their leadership by keeping followers in line [I’m thinking of a drill sergeant barking at boot camp cadets], than for a moderator.
What are you following that a moderator leads?
War remains the most male-dominated form of conflict, both in its population and its combative methods. The solution to make war more "gender friendly" is to employ greater decorum (Y) .
Some activities are conflictual by nature. Dialectics and philosophy seem to be of this nature, though not in all regards.
Philosophy as the love of winning, rather than the love of wisdom?
I think that we can actually do without the second one. I think that one neuron can change the whole brain, I believe in that power, and think that we can be confident and steadfast in our harmonizing tune, believing in its truth and goodness, and not at all engage in strong negative recruitment, in the silencing and suppression of dissent, but seeing it as highly valuable, if we believe in more than just the selfish fulfillment and adoptions of our tune, but know that we're all in this together, and we steer the world towards greener pastors, or off a cliff.
Philosophy is the love of the pastor, and not the cliff.
I agree. Furthermore, in discussions a moderator is subject to the same guidelines as everyone else and shouldn't under normal circumstances* moderate their interlocutors. You can report a moderator or ask that a moderator be moderated in the same way as you would any other poster by flagging their posts or by sending a PM to another mod. In other words, moderators as posters, are not leaders in any important way, and they don't have a special set of guidelines to operate under. So, in this capacity they should be treated like other posters. When it comes to moderating decisions, they obviously can't be because they have powers other posters don't have. In these cases, the feedback category, or again a PM, can be used to complain about moderators' actions in their capacity as moderators. Of course, the feedback category can be used for just about any complaint anyway - we leave it fairly open, but the more specific the complaint is, the more easy it is to understand and deal with.
Obviously, the above won't fully satisfy those who feel the moderating team is biased towards itself, but the ultimate arbiter of disputes that any member feels are not being dealt with fairly is @jamalrob. So, if all else fails, members can appeal to him directly.
(*Exceptional circumstances may include instances of racism, extreme flaming etc when the decision is very obvious, the action needs to be taken quickly, and there may be no-one else on duty to do it.)
As far as sexism is concerned, I think we have made some progress but I accept not to everyone's satisfaction. Some would probably consider the self-referential faux flirtation theme in the Shout box sexist, for example. Maybe they're right, but not clearly so in my view. I see it as more of a parody of sexual behaviour, and though it may have a fairly short shelf life, generally harmless. All of this is open to discussion anytime, of course. I only ask for specifics and suggestions of how to deal with them.
You went further than that, for example, claiming that the forum is sexist, and your criticism, in full, was certainly neither reasoned nor evidenced, for example, the part that I emphasised in my reply to you.
Quoting unenlightened
I do not find that excuse acceptable, and I reject the false implication that we have a sexist culture here on the forum. You are responsible for your own behaviour, as I am responsible for my own. We can exercise our own will and judgement, we are capable of self sufficiency, and we can steer our own behaviour in a direction of our own choosing.
Quoting unenlightened
And where is your evidence for this? The very high number of male members and the much lower number of female members is certainly not anywhere near enough to warrant your claims. As far as I can see, this is merely unsubstantiated opinion and jumping to conclusions - conclusions which are suspiciously in line with your agenda, namely to peddle the myth that the forum is sexist, and to unfairly recriminate members who grind your gears because they are more forthright and less polite than you can stomache. Let's be honest, this is a rather elaborate and frankly embarrassing stitch up of your own design.
My oh my! How appalling. An expletive! Is this evidence of a double standard?
Perhaps you will disagree, since you are not a moderator and I am. Yet, as a moderator, my job is to moderate in accordance with the guidelines. I myself can also be moderated accordingly, and I have no objection to that. However, I have very rarely been moderated in the last two years since I became a moderator, and I cite that as evidence towards my suitability for this role. I am also, I would venture to guess, one of the most proactive moderators when I am online - which, of course, I am very regularly, as has been the case for years -
mainly due to very frequent minor edits that I make here and there, but also in part due to occasional moderator action of a more serious nature.
Who are you to say "longstanding member" as though you have some sort of entitlement over everyone else? I have never enjoyed reading anything that you write and whether I consider you to often say inappropriately oblique comments nuanced with a form of moral superiority or whether I think you are superficial, all I do is simply avoid you.
Is this too snarky for you? Are you going to complain?
Freedom of speech is a symphony orchestra and not some random person playing the xylophone in the corner of an obscure city street. Any regulation is only necessary when it clearly demonstrates incitement to discrimination or hatred, and not when you feel like there is some condescension.
I admit that I can come across as condescending. I have admitted as much in the past. Sometimes I think to myself, "This is something I should work on", and other times I think, "I may express myself as strongly as I like, so long as it is in accordance with the guidelines, so take it or leave it".
It would be nice if Tiff was modest enough to, for once, admit some of her own vices, instead of being so quick to point out the perceived vices of others, with the expectation of submission.
The guidelines and rules are to enforce a minimum level of decorum. Certainly you can do better than that?
I personally don't think you're a very effective communicator and it stems from the fact that you think you don't need to take other people's feelings into account when expressing yourself but expect them to accept the way you express yourself. Or consider "being frank" important but how you do that a "stylistic irrelevance". There's a lot of ways to get your ideas across; being frank and not caring about how you come across to others is not very effective and you will indeed end up in a "bloodsport" with a lot of people where most of the time it isn't necessary.
Define "decorum" - is it the same decorum the pigs decided it to be in Animal Farm?
Quoting Benkei
I personally think he is. What happens then?
I said in some regards, philosophy, just like war, is conflictual by nature. Not in all regards, but in some it is. If you cannot stand to take part in the battle of ideas - and it doesn't matter why - then perhaps philosophy is not for you, just like a career in the military is probably not for you if you don't like conflict - your gender for that matter is irrelevant.
Quoting unenlightened
Not everyone believes that war is madness. What would you say, for example, to a general with a career in the military? Would you tell him that he's wasted his life fighting for the wrong things, and being engaged in the wrong profession? I think the military and war can have their value.
Quoting unenlightened
What does that have to do with anything? I think might and right are two different things. But yes, might is required to make right in this world at least. Might is required to restrain criminals, keep evil at bay, etc.
Might may be necessary to do right some of the times. Right is the end, might may be the means, depending on circumstances. For example, if I am a millionaire and build a children's hospital, I do the right thing, but what enables me to do it is the might of my money. Without that, I couldn't do anything.
In this world, without power, you cannot do right - nor wrong for that matter. Power is just the enabler.
I don't think I'm going to comment on the specifics of the debate, as regards individuals, but I'll think about what everyone is saying. Generally, I don't think this forum is sexist, and certainly not coming from any of the mods, but I do think there's a gang mentality that crops up sometimes, and that could be so macho as to be unwelcoming to women. I'm not sure. (I personally find the platitudinous anti-American prejudice on the forum more annoying and destructive than any locker room talk, but maybe that's just me)
Quoting Baden
I don't know if this is part of what @unenlightened has been criticizing, but in my opinion it's a sick culture that would judge that to be sexist. Assuming, as seems apparent, that those on both sides are comfortable with it and give as good as they get. That could be a bad assumption, of course, but I don't have any reason to think it is, as yet. It's confined to the Shoutbox, which is a social space and will have some of the natural features of social interaction. But then I would say that, because I've been involved in it.
I don't know what to do about any of this, if anything, because at the moment this thread seems to be just a mess of confusing bitching and bitterness.
I tend to agree with the sentiment, so I don't really want to argue about it, but you have to admit you can be pretty frank yourself: e.g.
Quoting Benkei
If @Sapientia had said that, he may very well have caught flak for it. Maybe my point is only that we all have a bit of Kevin in us that we need to be aware of.
I totally agree I can be blunt. I also don't have an issue with Sapientia on a personal level as the way we communicate tends to be similar so there is no static on the line between him and me. But as a consequence I think I recognise quite easily the areas of improvement and I've been very active in the past two years trying to improve my influence in the work environment through communication skills. It's more difficult for people who think facts and veracity are by far the most important (like me) and I (and I think Sapienta as well) need to be reminded regularly that not everybody thinks the same and reaching those people require other "stylistic" approaches. It's a bit of tact, part inspiration and a lot of shifting gears in how we talk to others.
If someone says, "wow, that's way too blunt" I can defend myself or I can say "Oh, sorry about that. what part did you take offence with?" The first tends to be our automatic reaction (Westerners tend to be argumentative) the second is probably much more conducive to a reasonable conversation. So really I just want to urge Sapientia to try different approaches because in my experience it does pay off.
That's fair enough.
Quoting jamalrob
Do you then think that I am sexist because I propose that it is, as I am being officially told above? I'm sorry to be so much trouble, but the fence has become too sharp to sit on without getting a stake up the arse. I have dared to be explicitly critical of a moderator in feed back, alongside and connected to a general concern. Personally, I think this sort of ad hominem response is rather pathetic and brings the forum into disrepute. But it is not my business fortunately, it's yours.
I would ask you to justify your opinion, given the gender imbalance of the forum, the total absence of female staff and the general state of academic philosophy which google will quickly tell you about, not to mention the universal gender pay gap and... oh, really, I can't be bothered. Dream on bro.
Better than what? A minimum level of decorum? Yes, I'm sure I could. But I prefer to express myself in my own style, as I am permitted to do. I value the freedom of expression we have here.
Isn't it non-profit?
Quoting unenlightened
I personally would expect such a gender imbalance in philosophy, just as I'd expect one in war for example (although in war it would be even more imbalanced than here generally, just cause war is a lot more conflictual). Men and women are different in some regards, so it's only natural that there will be some activities which are liked, in general, more by men than by women, and the other way around too.
Quoting unenlightened
I agree, just like the total absence of conservative or religious staff. I voiced this concern already, and I was told we're free to have a religious staff member, but it seems we haven't got one yet.
Notwithstanding the condescension coming from me towards longstanding forum members such as yourself, but you can take your high standard and gently place it in a little box, gift wrap it and send it via post back to yourself. So, what if the rules were that all TPF members are equal, but some are more equal than others?
This is about content, not about emotion. I personally meant none of that about Tiff but it was my attempt to convey the freedom we should have to speak as we are and show more relativity to the art of communication. I have been attacked by members here and have been approached by mods asking me if I want some support and I have refused because I will defend tooth and nail their right to speak with condescension. As I said, the only time moderation is necessary is when there is a clear demonstration of this "racism" where incitement is visible. How people respond on an emotional level is irrelevant.
Quoting unenlightened
There is no reason why any particular forum open to all will have or should have a 50/50 male/female participation rate. This is a voluntary organization. There are no material benefits to be derived from participation, and no one is being deprived of material benefits by not participating.
I consider the level of decorum maintained by participants and moderators, to be eminently satisfactory. On only a few occasions have I observed unsatisfactory decorum from only a few participants. Adults should be, and generally are able to tolerate the occasional lapse of decorum without requiring restorative medication.
Quoting Agustino
Yes. I find conflict (vigorous, even heated, debate and discussion) between individuals holding different views to be far more interesting than a feast of concurrence by mild mannered Caspar Milquetoasts. Adults should be, and generally are able to tolerate conflict in debate and discussion. I can live with unenlightened thinking we should have gender parity.
Quoting Agustino
Clearly, there is a difference between WWII and our war on Iraq. I don't think the war on Iraq was madness: it was stupidity and arrogance justified through subterfuge for goals which were at best half-baked.
Stop worrying. Be happy people, god damn it.
I've noticed that.
Military-industrial something that doesn't care what we say? :D
It's funny that you would say something like this, being as skilled in the use of rhetoric as you are.
Quite obviously it isn't despite your repeated attempts to try to make it so. If it was, your condescension would be absent and emotions wouldn't be rising to a boiling point when all I'm suggesting is a bit of forbearance on the one hand and compassion in the other.
There's also a difference between defending a person's right to being a dick and having a preference that he doesn't act like one. I might have the right to call you a cunt, but let's not pretend that it's preferable.
Quite obviously? Ok, wait, I said:
Quoting TimeLine
And you said:
Quoting Benkei
Gracious, so now philosophy is not about content, but about emotion? Whilst at this stage the only emotion I am conveying is laughter, if it is obvious, then why is stating the obvious so difficult for you?
I am not at "boiling point" by the way and that is merely your imagination projecting notions of what I apparently appear to be, hence the point of being relative. A person from some part of the world who has a different culture to you, that may be young, that may view cursing as a normal part of their day-to-day, may attempt to convey a philosophical point - albeit does so differently and with difficulty - should not be excluded because they fail to articulate themselves with "decorum". You should be smart enough to read through that and see what it is they are trying to articulate.
Quoting Benkei
You still have not answered the question. What is this decorum? You can call me a cunt and I can get offended but I will still defend your right to say that; but to say that all women are cunts and articulate justifications for it is a different story. What more do you want? How far does it need to go in order to please you?
Thanks. I personally think that I am as well, and I think that Benkei must have meant something else, like being a people pleaser, although that wouldn't be true either: I can be when I want to be. That's how I earn a living.
Pleasuring people for a living is supposedly the oldest profession. No wonder you get cranky at times.
Whether or not it's effective is relative. Effective at what and [I]in what way[/i]? If the goal was succinctness, then it would not be as effective. It's more poetic, but that just ain't my style. I can be eloquonent and poetic when I want to be, but I prefer to get straight down to business with a straight-talking no-nonsense kind of language.
I totally agree as well. I've seen it. So there's an element of hypocrisy here.
Quoting Baden
Fair to an unspecified degree which may or may not be enough.
(Westerners tend to be argumentative?! No we're not. Prove it!)
You could take a stab at converting me. :D
>:O
As I understand it, rhetoric attempts to paint a persuasive picture that resonates with a particular audience by aligning values and/or purposes. Like logic, it can be an effective tool in argumentation: not just to persuade, but also to aid in the understanding and appreciation of an argument.
I have a dream that one day the sons of those who speak frankly and the sons of those who wax poetic will be able to sit down together at the table of philosophy.
I have a dream that one day this forum will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "This may all be pointless".
Quoting Sapientia
It's fair enough to offer advice on effective communication. And it's fair enough to disregard it. I'm all for people getting along but I'm also all for people being themselves. Even Kevin, as long as he doesn't kill anyone (or piss them off so much that they kill him). We may even need Kevins - as long as they're not racist, sexist or trolling Kevins or some-other-way-obviously-unsuited-to-the-forum Kevins - to keep us on our toes. Maybe a verbal dance with a Kevin helps us to perfect our tango. Maybe, though we do wish Kevin would check himself sometimes, we recognize he may bring out as much of the best as the worst in us and if he were absent in every way in all of us, there would be a little less spark in our engines, a little less juice in our marrow. Don't get me wrong, I'm not glorifying Kevin, Kevin can be a right pain in the ass, just putting the lad in context, just staring into a bubbling cauldron and wondering if what makes it toil and trouble is also what makes it potent and keeps the magic alive.
I'm also all for listening to complaints, the complainants have their place in the mix too, but rather than simply stir, suggest us a new recipe that we can cook.
Anyway, as you can probably tell, I'm hungry. Time for breakfast. And Kevin is not on the menu.
If he stabbed you in the right way, he could turn you into an angel, and you might have a chance at becoming a saint (but probably not).
Fair to the power of ten divided by the sum of the square route of perhaps.
Maths is not on the menu either. More like Red Hot Chilli Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex(ism) Magik. 8-)
Ever hear Harry Nilsson's musical story of Oblio and his dog Arrow who lived in The Land of Point? It's about Oblio a pointless child who, unlike everyone and everything else in The Land of point-- didn't have a point. He was finally exiled to the Pointless Forest -- except that when he got there, he discovered that everything in the Pointless Forest had a point.
And so on to the pointed end of the story, which may or may not have had a point.
Since the word philosophy didn't appear in your previous post "this" didn't seem to refer to it but to the discussion. Even so, the point stands, you're the one getting emotional, not me, so you're undermining your point through action. The fact that I say it is emotional doesn't preclude content, so you're attributing a position to me that isn't mine. Apparently you need an adversary but I'm not him.
As to the standards, I've already said forbearance and compassion. If that's too vague for you I can't help you.
What else could we be possibly talking about? The name of this forum is called The Philosophy Forum. It is a forum for ordinary people talking philosophy. The content will be philosophical.
Quoting Benkei
No, I don't need an adversary, you made a statement and I responded. That is three times now you have pretended I - me, the personal me - is doing something that she is not, falsely attributing emotions to me, which is nothing more than an ad hominem and your way to justify a non-argument. Your imagination precludes the very problem and you set the standards because your so-called "decorum" is to make your little bourgeois idea of forum etiquette suitable for enough for you.
Your etiquette? Your decorum? Like starting a forum post and writing this?
Quoting Benkei
Wait, didn't you say:
Quoting Benkei
Right. So, it's ok for you to start a thread and say that, but we - us little people - must show, what, you forbearance and compassion?
I personally do not want to respond to you because I am afraid of drawing you into a possible guilt by association if everyone starts to get angry with me.
Nevertheless, for me, I have never seen you say or do anything wrong and the emotions here are the petitions made against you by persons who I feel expect everyone to behave as they would and not as everyone should, which is by being themselves still subject to forum regulations. I would not want you to be anyone else, just as much as I would not want Agustino or Hanover or everyone to be subject to apparent unwritten rules of 'decorum'. It is just so Orwellian.
There are only several things I am dedicated too; anti-racism, freedom of speech and women/children' rights. Anything that may disturb that will disturb me.
Quoting TimeLine
Notwithstanding the condescension you show towards me and other long time forum members. Your words not mine. Or is condescension not emotion in your vocabulary?
Quoting TimeLine
In regular English "this" refers to something that came before and the word philosophy wasn't in your comment whereas the contents of the thread were. You'd expect you'd be talking about what is in this thread not "philosophy" at large. You were being unclear, in my view. I was happy to accept it was about philosophy it just didn't change much about my point. Instead I get a value laden rhetorical question back, which is once again emotional. There is no speaking without emotion unless we're conversing in algebra.
Quoting TimeLine
What's the title of that thread? Context matters. And in that context it fits perfectly in what I've been saying here.
Quoting TimeLine
Where did I speak with condescension towards you that warrants the label "little people"? I'm not in this conversation to put anyone down, I've given particular advice to Sapientia as he has repeatedly indicated he thinks form doesn't matter. I think it does and have tried to argue why and how that's a win-win for everyone involved. Did that come across as an attack in your view that we're having this conversation? If so, I think that would be for Sapientia to take up.
More generally, I think the forum could do with more forebearance and compassion as these combative attitudes make most conversations here just go round and round (talk about the futility of philosophy indeed). This one is heading towards it as well. You don't have to agree, you don't have to implement it. I personally can take whatever people throw at me so this issue isn't even about people being forebearing and compassionate to me.
Finally, I've never claimed consistency myself and even said I can be blunt even when recognising I can do better. Even so, my personal actions have no bearing on my argument here. Assuming you just committed a fallacy, which one would that be?
This is pretty great. And aren't we all Kevin, at least a little bit? There's an "excess" that makes an individual an individual. Take out all of the Kevin and somehow it's all grayly safe and safely gray. Or shall I sey "grey"? (Also the anti-anti-Americanism was nice.)
The context here is what you expect of others and how you actually apply yourself, therein the hypocrisy. If someone started a thread about suicidal thoughts before you make a joke of it, I hardly call that:
Quoting Benkei
And I doubt Martin Luther King would either.
Quoting Benkei
Well, this shows your lovely character of compassion and forbearance, right, by being condescending. No, condescension is an attitude of patronizing superiority, what you exemplify above.
Quoting Benkei
How is it that you speak of context and yet you are unable to ascertain that the discussion in this thread together with what I said vis-a-vis content - being philosophical - was not somehow the subject of concern? Ok, without being obtuse (your favourite word, right?), let me move on to the latter part and ignore the nonsense of my lack of clarity as I attempt to dissect what it is that you are attempting to convey, which is that last sentence that there is no speaking without emotion unless we're conversing in algebra.
Indeed, when I say define or explain yourself, think of it like this; what would happen if we began to regulate emotions? What would that look like? Everyone here is different; what you may find offensive, I don't at all; so what happens then? We have no right to put demands on how other people should behave, it is situational and requires situational relativism, and whilst you can and have the absolute right to profess what you feel to be an ideal mindset and attitude in approaching philosophical discourse, how this can be approached will remain ambiguous. It is the reason why you cannot clarify yourself.
Quoting Benkei
If you post on a public forum, than you contractually allow other members who have signed and agreed to the regulations to respond accordingly. Are you saying that I am not allowed to contest your advice that I disagree with only because it was not directed to me? Whether you are or you are not putting people down, that is of no concern to me, but what is of concern is that you think that "form does matter" which I think disregards the liberty to be as you are and lacks cultural and situational relativism. Is that so hard to understand? Instead, I have received very little in substance or intellectual matter from you, save for that one sentence as mentioned previously.
This returns back to the underlying point about assumptions of behavioral etiquette; I have not at all been emotional or confrontational, but you took what I said personally and that is your flaw, your problem because the content of what I am saying is relevant. How you feel about that approach is of no concern to me. I never called you a dickhead or the like to become subject to criticism, I just pointed out errors in your opinion. Why is that wrong?
Quoting Benkei
There is no "combative attitude" as that is all dependent on how people choose to react; we may have emotional attachments to our beliefs or worldviews, but it does not mean that those emotions themselves are justifiable just as much as the beliefs themselves. People can be passionate for what they believe in and we have no right to stop them from expressing themselves, however which way they may attempt to articulate it. If we were to apply your compassion, we should overlook the emotion and reach in to find the content and go from there.
Only when it crosses the line; i.e. freedom of speech vs. hate speech, that regulation becomes a necessity, comparatively when posters here start inciting terrible or extremely nonsensical suggestions that ultimately merit deletion. What I consider a joke you may consider offensive. The only thing we can do is try to understand one another as best as we can and not to suggest that either you or me or Saptientia can be "better" people, which renders back to the point of why I said "little people". To purport that "decorum" is required lacks the very relativism that I am a proponent of.
Have you considered it was a straightforward question?
Quite obviously this is going nowhere. I ask you to refrain from judging my character as you don't know me. We can talk about my actions but not this.
Yes. But clearly you have intentionally ignored everything that I wrote to try and outmaneuver the intention of my point against you, which is that you have no right to ask of others what you yourself refuse to do.
It leads to only one point. This discussion is over.
Quoting Benkei
I assumed that you refused to actually read what I wrote considering that what I wrote was actually in good faith and had not attempted to judge your character. You interpreted this incorrectly and yet you say:
Quoting Benkei
I have not interpreted what you say in a negative light. I am ameliorating your question by providing possibilities vis-a-vis interpretation. It appears to me that you are projecting your own "negative light" onto me and that merits the end of this conversation because clearly you are misinterpreting me.
I will apply my own beliefs that when a discussion is going no where, it ceases to exist. But I am happy to wait until you find suitable technology to assist you to write better.
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
Can you not see that you are asking me to apply some principles of charity, that verifies that you are judging my character, which you yourself ask me not to do?
I don't think a week can make you see what you refuse to. All I can say is, ignoratio elenchi.
The key word there is "seems", and you don't seem to have taken on board my point about effective communication being relative or context-dependent. My writing style is a conscious choice, and it is not a result of ignorance. It is effective at communicating [i]what[/I] I intend to communicate, [i]the way[/I] that I intend it to be communicated.
You are judging my writing style in accordance with some [i]other[/I] standard that you have in mind, and you are giving the misleading impression that it is the only standard that counts or matters. The desired result in your standard seems to be that people be pleased with what I say, due to the way that I have said it, but once again, that is not a priority for me. I prioritise content over your preferred style, my preferred style over your preferred style, and, like Timeline, content over emotion. Also factored into this is freedom of expression, which I previously mentioned.
I am quite content to be associated with that particular comment, consequences be damned.
No, that's a misrepresentation. You have misunderstood. It's not that it doesn't matter, it's a matter of priorities.
Quoting t0m
Yes, pretty great, I agree, and I think that J.S. Mill would also agree.
:D
I for one can see it, and I think that it's a point worth bringing attention to.
When it's too sedate sparks may be useful to rev things up, as Baden may be suggesting:
Quoting Baden
When things get out of hand more decorum may be appropriate to rev down.
If I'm not mistaken, the topic has focused on personal responsibility and not enforcement through moderation.
Quoting TimeLine
The existence of this topic would seem to indicate that emotion is relevant. To suggest otherwise is rather literally Kevinish, in that the character in the film is severely sociopathic (emotionally deficient). Kevin could kill without without feeling and had no regard for the effects of his actions on others.
A true Kevin would be incapable of consciously attempting to regulate the emotions of others. For the non-Kevin's, it couldn't hurt to try.
A combination of the regulation of behaviour and the behaviour of regulators. There are some smug and rather hypocritical elitists that have previously made it clear that moderators should approach their position with more decorum. I say that moderators - indeed everyone - can be however which way they like and they are in no position to present themselves in some particular way; their only responsibility is regulating the content and not the effect a post can have on a personal and emotional level (clearly since how this emotion is assessed is ambiguous), unless it crosses the line. The forum rules explicate that line, so if someone states that "all women deserve to die" then that merits moderation and a warning or a ban, but if someone is saying, "that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard" then any emotional response that comes of that is no longer of concern.
I have had complaints against me from these "longstanding posters" who write with more exclamation marks and emoticons than they do with words and have no sense of humour and I get that, but to expect me to "behave" the way in which they want me to is none of their business. I just avoid them where necessary and they can do the same to me. The reality is that each and every single one of us is different because we each come from different cultures, we are different in age, education level and above all we have different beliefs; if someone is right-wing or deeply religious, and the moderators are not, the risk will be silencing their beliefs despite the fact that it might be profoundly stupid according to me.
The only "decorum" we each have a responsibility to give and is necessary is relativism, recognising these differences and being objective in our approach. I don't give a shit if you are upset because I disagree with you, for instance, or have a different belief to me; show me why I am wrong and we'll go from there. Why are you finding that so hard to understand?
Quoting praxis
Again, according to who? It is not relevant to me, so are you saying that I am irrelevant?
Quoting praxis
Non-Kevins can go suck on a lolly for all I care.
I can show, that is, you will see if you will look, that your attachment to objectivity is an emotional one, that your not giving a shit is an emotional stance. The amount of ad hominem arguments in this thread is a illustration that claims to objectivity and the identification of indifference to others with some kind of clarity or commitment to truth is unsustainable. The fact is that everyone here is a sensitive little flower who hates being told they are a crap poster or crap moderator, or not objective.
Indeed it is precisely because emotions are the master of rationality that it is most important to have consideration for the feelings of others and sensitivity to one's own. The nature of moderation in particular, and philosophy in general is that it always involves judgements of those things that people most closely identify with - their words. It is simply the case that people are hurt when their posts are deleted, and when their arguments are defeated or their positions belittled. The only way not to be hurt is to have contempt for one's critics, but this is an emotional response, that prevents further communication or learning.
Thus decorum and sensitivity to the feelings of others is the supporter of rational discussion and objectivity, and not at all the enemy.
As others have pointed out, you contradict yourself. For example:
Quoting TimeLine
If a non-Kevin is an individual who possesses the capacity of emotional intelligence and has the inclination to use this intelligence to consciously attempt regulating (generally stimulate or calm) the emotions of others in pursuit of a rational and perhaps mutually beneficial goal, regardless of the prevailing latitude in official rules, this individual would be behaving responsibly. Behaving responsibly in the pursuit of a rational goal may generally be characterized as mature. Given the context, it's unreasonable to imply that non-Kevins are immature.
One of your primary claims is that content is relevant and emotion is irrelevant. Yet with this statement you sacrifice content, suggesting that the conscious application of emotional intelligence is immature, which is clearly false, and favor an expression that is designed to produce an emotional response.
Ok, what part of this do you not understand?
Quoting TimeLine
Where exactly have I said that I believe we should somehow remove ourselves from our emotions or that objectivity lacks emotion? Indeed, on the contrary, I am saying that we are highly emotional and that is the reason why we should apply an objectivity in our attitude, but ultimately we each are different from one another, we each have different beliefs, different customs, we are of different age, different environments and that would mean that we each have very different emotions. It is like multiculturalism only we require cultural relativism for it to function adequately; we cannot have some European form of governance that holds transcendental values and minimises differences into a system of idealist power that values ambiguous principles and not normative interests.
This is common sense and the fact that I am repeating this is disturbing to me. Oh wait, is that too emotional for you, my little sensitive flower?
Quoting unenlightened
That is what relativism offers, but how we are capable of this is dependent on the individual and again goes back to considerations of age, education level, language barriers etc &c., and I have met some highly intelligent and insightful people who lack all the expected qualities that would mark them as such.
I have met some of the most brightest kids, so profoundly intelligent but incredibly disadvantaged and so do not have access to the language - the education - they need to articulate themselves. Do we just let them fall through the cracks by cutting them off or shutting them out because they fail to reach the standards we set? A young man once said to me: "So fucking you know what, fuck, the government is fucking creating policies and shit that most fucking people prefer, but it doesn't fucking mean that these policies are good for the fucking country." I don't like swearing and hearing it can make me emotional (frustrated), but if I had no relativism I would refuse to translate that and will instead see a failure of "decorum" that overlooks the substance in the comment neither will I appreciate the mind of someone who is trying to articulate a good point in their own language or form. I should overcome the emotions wrought by these expectations of decorum (which is actually my failure) and appreciate the content and by doing so return by giving them comments that may assist them to understand how best to explain what they are trying to say. That is my responsibility and that is the best way of influencing them to learn and develop.
Where is the understanding, the "compassion" for those who fail to articulate themselves adequately because of a number of social or environmental factors? Instead, all I see is a form of elitism that demands "decorum" for the most selfish of reasons. And yet you say:
Quoting unenlightened
No, it is about your emotions that only you can regulate. Relativism is the best that you can offer because it is about content, not about decorum. How am I supposed to know how you feel, and if I tell myself that you might feel a certain way, all I may be doing is projecting and perhaps even ultimately restraining the liberty to say what I want to say. What one person gets offended about, another person may find normal. It is thus too ambiguous to focus on other people' emotions.
How dare you believe that you have the capacity to regulate another person' emotions. Can you not see how elitist and arrogant that is? IF you are in possession of emotional intelligence, the ONLY person' emotions you can regulate is your own. Who are you to tell others that they should characterise a certain "responsible" character when all you appear to be expecting is everyone to be just like you?
It is easy to be emotionally intelligent in an environment where everyone is the same.
The seal of authority always deceives people in thinking they have more control than they really do, and they can pull more levers than they really can. So when that seal disappears, impotence makes itself known. Authority blinds its possessor, just like a snake hypnotises its prey before it eats it.
Nicely said, in a sort of disturbing way.
This is usually the part where someone points out that that's sarcasm and makes a big hoo-haa about it.
No! Bad Timeline! You must behave as we want you to behave. (N)
I can see how elitist and arrogant the strawman version of me that you've constructed is. The actual language I used is: "it couldn't hurt to try" and "attempt regulating." Once again you appear to sacrifice content for emotional impact, in this instance by employing an obvious fallacy.
Your claim that content is important and that attempting to consciously navigate the emotions of others is too ambiguous an undertaking to consider is unsound for the simple reason that emotions can either assist or stand in the way of the communication of content. It's really not as difficult as you suggest. Of course if content isn't so relevant that's another matter.
Your example of the bright but inarticulate youth is somewhat misleading in that it was about vulgar language, and not directed at an individual who might take it personally, such as a personal attack towards an individual such as yourself. I imagine you would have had the presence of mind to deal with it if he had been aggressive towards you personally. Your write:
Quoting TimeLine
I assume your comments were of a nature that would not intentionally elicit a negative emotional response that would in all likelihood inhibit communication. That would have been counterproductive and irresponsible.
Forgive me, but I somewhat confused. I thought you were all for emotions? So, are you suggesting that you agree with me and an analysis of content rather than emotions is more valuable?
Quoting praxis
No, you are being misleading with this red herring by diverting the attention away from the problem and I have already provided reasoning vis-a-vis what may elicit regulation or what crosses that line; if a person calls me stupid, my theories idiotic, that I am a mindless drone or however which way they express themselves, so be it, it is my responsibility to reason why they are saying it and suggest alternate routes in the discussion. If that is impossible, then I ignore and move on.
It is easy to fall into a trap that speaks of the benefits of holding transcendental values and idealist principles of decorum - just like sacrificing our privacy in the name of security - but if we set such a standard then what we are essentially doing is generalising the multivarious community that we have and creating the 'Other'. In our world it would be ideal to communicate with likeminded people in a likeminded manner, but we reduce the likelihood of experiencing the vast array of minds and normative interests that exist out there, thus stifling knowledge.
If a person incites vilification or personally threatens then it is the content that is in question and regulation there becomes a necessity. But we don't need to minimise differences; when we form this characterisation of "decorum" it enables people to form a set image where they can potentially commit vilification but with "decorum" by speaking in a very articulate and professional manner. It is content that is important. In the end, I am only responsible for my own emotions and all I need to remind myself is that relativism is the key that keeps me in check, that neither my personality nor my beliefs are perfect and so ultimately apply the Socratic the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
How naughty of me...
[hide="Reveal"]
1 :a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a :a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
Quoting TimeLine
If TimeLine's reply quoted above is what "sarcasm" is intended to be and do, it would seem counterproductive to be used by those who wish to have fruitful and productive discussions.
I personally wouldn't categorize the quote above as "sarcasm". I categorize that as condescending.
Definition of condescending : showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others
Oh were you waiting for me?
At the very least you have read the difference between the two terms: sarcasm and condescending, so we are all able to use them accurately.
Yes. I'm filled with a great sense of achievement. Are you?
If, then at least until someone stops you.
@fdrake No, I am not a member of the forum staff but yes I can back down, as I have never been looking to win. Thank you for your moderation.
O I thought you were a staff. Sorry. But thanks!
I do wish to put this clash of egos to rest and try to move back to us walking on the same absurd side of the street that we once walked down together. I wish to call you my fine feathered friend again. My efforts will be focused on that and we will see where that takes us.
I actually agree with you on everything except for a couple of absolutist positions you seem to hold, namely that content is relevant and emotion is irrelevant, and that we are only responsible for our own emotions.
When someone expresses condescension in this forum are they expressing their value of content or their value of emotion? If for whatever reason a person was conditioned in such a way they got a little dopamine hit whenever they put someone down, regardless if it interfered with the exchange of content, they might persist in this behavior because it feels good. In some situations at least, it would be all about the feeling and not the content. There are other reasons, of course, perhaps tactical in nature, to express condescension in this forum.
About only being responsible for our own emotions, I can appreciate relativism, but I don't believe it offers a carte blanche pass. If we're not sure about someone we can be cautious until getting to know them better, if we care to. The emotional landscape is not as dark and unnavigable as you paint it.
One of them (Tiff or Sapientia) is a staff and the other one is a rod. If they are not careful as they walk through the valley, they might both get the shaft, which will definitely not be comforting.
I'm of the opinion that public discussion of moderator activity serves no philosophical purpose, offers nothing but drama to the forum, and results in hostile interactions between posters. To the extent someone has an opinion about moderator action, he can share it privately with the moderator, but there is no added value to having the grievance aired for public debate. If Bob thinks I suck, Bob telling me may set me straight, but I really don't need to hear what Mike thinks of Bob's grievance.
If my boss called me to the carpet for poor performance, I think it would be destructive for him to offer a public reprimand and then allow me a public reply and then to open it up to the floor for public debate.
We're a philosophy forum, and it seems a stretch to suggest that philosophy includes hearty debate about forum rules. Or, put another way, if all the words in this thread were never spoken (including my own words), this forum would be a better place.
No, being condescending would be saying something like don't you know how to read? since there is a reason for that response of mine to unenlightened.
Quoting unenlightened
Hence the...
Quoting TimeLine
So, what you think matters very little, my sensitive little flower. Or is that too condescending for you?
Indeed it would. And yet this is how the law works every day of the week, except Saturdays and Sundays, and it is fundamental that justice must be seen to be done, and not done in private or secret. Just in case your boss happened to be a serial abuser of his power in some way, as very occasionally happens, I have heard, then it would be constructive to bring such out into the open. There has indeed been a deal of unpleasantness in this thread, and there is bound to be unpleasantness when a complaint is made in public. Lawyers, police, and moderators deal in unpleasantness.
But my original post was about this very question.
Quoting unenlightened
And the very first response was prophetic.
Quoting Michael
In the normal course of events, when there is a thread room brawl, one calls the mods with the flag system, or for something a little more subtle or complex, with a pm. But here in this very thread, I found a moderator brawling. I remonstrated publicly, I think I also flagged the post, but I may have forgotten to.
At this point, you are all tarred with the same brush, precisely because it is all public and you have all seen it and found it acceptable for a fellow mod to be openly insulting to more than one poster. Fuck you all therefore. Destruction is now necessarily what I am about. It will be my own destruction on this site no doubt, but that is no longer any great loss to me.
I don't think it's desirable for a mod to be involved in an exchange of insults with fellow posters. I don't condone it. But in our capacity as posters, we mods do sometimes get into conflicts with other posters. I don't think any of us are immune from that. The difficulty is sorting out where to draw the line, and it might take some time for us to work out what to do on that. Anyway, the "fuck you" part is fine. It's feedback. I'd appreciate some patience though.
"Moderator conduct:
In discussions, a moderator is subject to the same guidelines as everyone else, and shouldn't, under normal circumstances*, moderate their interlocutors. You can report a moderator or ask that a moderator be moderated in the same way as you would any other poster: by flagging their posts or by sending a private message to another moderator. In other words, moderators, as posters, don't have a special set of guidelines to operate under. So, in this capacity, they should be treated like other posters. When it comes to moderating decisions, however, they are not like other posters, because they have powers other posters don't have. In these cases, the Feedback category, or, again, a private message, can be used to complain about moderators' actions in their capacity as moderators.
(*Exceptional circumstances may include instances of racism, extreme flaming, etc. When the decision is very obvious, the action needs to be taken quickly, and there may be no one else on duty to do it.)"
There's very little we delete in Feedback (and other off-topic) discussions. As far as I can see, Sap's passive aggressive insults are no worse than those of non-mods (which also haven't been deleted). It's really only the egregious stuff that gets removed.
When we made emotion relevant in this thread, it only led to disarray and conflicting opinions that choked the point the initial OP was intending to make. The moment the content was objectively clarified based on the overall content, it settled into what became a guideline. Is the guideline formed to control the emotion? Perhaps. Perhaps we can congratulate emotions for enabling content to prevail, but in the end, content prevails.
Quoting praxis
There is nothing else you can do; you can caution someone that you don't like their approach and they may realise that and work around your feelings, but what one considers condescension another may not and I am not going to walk around egg-shells because such-and-such will find it mean or because people will consider it bad. I say what I want, within reason. And I totally get why:
Quoting unenlightened
If you're disgruntled to the point where you feel you offer nothing but poison, at least have the maturity to realize you offer nothing but mutual misery to yourself and this board and simply leave voluntarily. Keep in mind that this assessment is yours, not mine, but if you've observed something so unacceptable that you believe your integrity forbids respectful contribution, why remain? Will the blaze of glory of the termination you predict offer you great joy as opposed to your offering a simple tactful farewell?
Don't misunderstand me though. I think you're dead wrong in your assessment of this board, its mods, your own ability to continue to contribute as a poster, and I believe your decision to resign as a mod was a loss to this site and was an unnecessary gesture to make us realize the extent of your objection to the way a prior poster was handled. Whatever you romanticized about the impact of your resignation has been lost by your now sniping on the sidelines with "fuck yous."
You want constructive criticism? Stop being pissed off and come back into the fold. Despite your assessment of how bad we suck, I'd suggest you consider how many other boards have mods so tempered that they'd tolerate an ex-mod quitting and then lurking around and telling the others to fuck off.
? Are we in an episode of "House of Cards" now? We need to talk about Kevin (Spacey). Actually, we do need to talk about him. But not here. Carry on.
Whatever I'm doing, it's not lurking. I'm not pissed off either. And I don't want to come back to the fold because I'm not a sheep. I'm taking a stand for what I think is right, and doing it publicly and I'm fully prepared to take the consequences. Is that the limit of your ambition - to be not as bad as a lot of other places on the internet? Again, rather than address my criticism, you choose to denigrate my character. Again, fuck off with your 'romantic', your 'lurking'; it's ad hominem bollocks. The substance of your reply isQuoting Hanover which thought you are fully entitled to express, but argument ,analysis, and evidence would be more persuasive, to me at least, than patronising innuendo.
People may be equal, but their ideas aren't. Were we discussing people or ideas on this forum?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
-E. Rosevelt
I've been following the spat between @Sapientia and @ArguingWAristotleTiff for quite a while and have spoken to them both about it by PM. I see it mainly as a personal issue between two people who have known each other for a long time. As a moderating team moderating ourselves, we could disallow that type of thing when it involves a moderator or we could make it clear that a moderator is subject to the same guidelines as other posters and not step in unless the guidelines are breached. We've taken the latter approach with the hope that moderators would of their own accord be as productive as possible in their relationships with other posters (knowing that not one of us has lived up to that all of the time). I'd still like to hear a more focused argument from you about where we are going wrong and what exactly you think we should do about it.
I am absolutely not asking for anything in this thread to be deleted. In this case it would amount to tampering with the evidence and a cover up. What I would like is thoughtful, considered responses rather than more bickering and insults from the mods. Believe me, I know what a trying, thankless task it is dealing with bloody philosopher-posters, and you all have my sympathy, and gratitude. But you also get my stern criticism, I'm afraid.
-E. Rosevelt
I don't agree with Eleanor. Oscar Wilde said, “It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible....”
Baden, it's not a "spat" and I have in thread attempted to begin the healing with Sapientia, in my wanting to find our way back to where we were but his answering my in thread overture in private is an indicator as to where Sapientia sits on this healing process.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting Sapientia
For his PM is quite different than this note to everybody in thread.
If it is okay for moderators to speak in a condescending attitude towards the members, then it is what it is.
And Sapientia is quite right in saying that " it's almost as though the less we speak, the faster it flows".
The less we speak..... :-x
Ok, I'll have a go.You'll have to excuse a bit of pontification.
Moderators should be drawn from the best of the members, both in terms of their philosophical knowledge and clarity of posting, and their behaviour in terms of the guidelines. Generally, I would be looking for posters who defuse rather than escalate, for grace under fire. I have to confess that this does not come all that naturally to me, personally, but it is of paramount importance. Editing and deleting and banning are the enforcement procedures, which obviously should be carried out according to the guidelines and as fairly and transparently as can be managed.
However, the more important role of the staff is to lead by example and set the tone. As such, it is no defence at all to say that a moderator's posts pass the minimum standard below which they would be deleted, let alone that they would be deleted if they were not in feedback. If the best of us barely pass muster, the rest of us are really in a mess. And I fear this is what is happening.
Moderators should be uncomfortable; they should worry about their own behaviour, and that of their fellow mods. They should not be complacent, and they should not be sheep huddling in a fold. I don't know what discussions you have had in private about all this if any, and don't need to know. But this is the essence of my complaint, that I hold the staff to a higher standard than the members, because they ought to exemplify the best of us, not the minimally acceptable. That way leads to degeneration.
And now, let us pray ...
For the record, I told Tiff that I would have no objections to it being shared publicly, and I wish that she'd have done so alongside her own comments so as to put things in proper context.
I'm not sure whether the part about "no animosity" has registered, but whatever. I'm tired and I don't want to expend anymore energy on this.
There is a difference between saying something is "OK" and simply not legislating against it. Society doesn't consider it's "OK" to cheat on your partner, for example, but there's no law against it either. Because we don't legislate against condescension doesn't mean we think it's a good thing. What is your suggestion? Can you give us something concrete to work with?
Or
You will have to work things out with Tiff as you see fit.. You should be yourself, and not sacrifice any part of yourself. So too should Tiff be true to who she is. On the other hand, Striving "towards neither affection nor animosity, but rather stoic indifference" might not be the most felicitous approach to working relationships.
Well, as I said before, I am making a personal effort in that direction. And I think the moderating team in general are concerned about their behavior. As for @Sapientia, he's been with us since the start of TPF and though he's always been very frank and blunt he has not been the subject of complaints up until recently and has done his fair share of carrying the moderating load. I would ask that moderators be judged in the context of their entire contribution here. Also, we've, many of us, on and off the mod team, been friends for, what, close to ten years now? More? There is a personal element of wanting to maintain and repair relationships without breaking them irreparably, that's true. I don't see that as "huddling in a fold", I see that as being human. So, I hope the conversation here will lead in a positive direction, and for me that would involve a greater understanding of respective grievances and no one leaving or permanently breaking a friendship.
There will be no working out and no ongoing relationship of which to speak. That is how I currently feel. It's just not worth the trouble.
Well that didn't last long...OK, I need a break. Food for thought all.
Quoting unenlightened
I now realize you're a waste of time and regret having engaged.
Actually, no. I'm asking for feedback, but presenting it to the masses is having no beneficial effect, and romanticizing this as some sort of civil rights protest is immature at best. At best we have a customer who's unhappy with his service. The complaint has been heard and taken seriously, but standing on the table screaming your soup was cold isn't only inappropriate and disrespectful, it is more wrong than the wrong you seek to remedy.
I lack the power to ban, but telling others to fuck off, despite how super duper justified you feel, would get you thrown out of my establishment 100% of the time despite all your other wonderful qualities.