Bannings
Considering the recent frequency of discussions querying banning decisions, we've decided to create this single discussion as a means to announce and give reasons for all bannings (except obviously uncontroversial ones of spammers, short-term trolls etc.) and to allow you to give whatever feedback you want on them.
If you think this is a bad idea, blame @unenlightened, as it's his. If you think it's a good one, the mod team is happy to take credit for implementing it.
If you think this is a bad idea, blame @unenlightened, as it's his. If you think it's a good one, the mod team is happy to take credit for implementing it.
Comments (2355)
We have this one banning thread to stop people from posting "Why was [loser] banned?" discussions.
Well, I suppose that's an inappropriate question here, if this thread is to address specific bannings only. Perhaps we'll find out, someday.
Seriously though, there are guru-wannabe members like skyblack who are in no danger of being banned for low quality.
Do you guys read the posts on this forum? There's a lot of mezza-mezza stuff and a reasonable amount that is interesting and worth responding to. Then there's maybe 5 or 10 percent that are really great and 30% that's pure crap. Not talking about you Banno. It's the other guys - yes, I'm referring to you. And about 15% of the members contribute that 30% crap. And that's a pretty good ratio. There's plenty to read and respond to. It's fun and interesting.
Quoting unenlightened
Eastern philosophy is still philosophy. I consider myself as the true guru of the Philosophy Forum.
Well you are my guru of course, but that and our sexual relations have no place in our discussions here (outside of feedback).
If you highlight text and then push the "quote" button that shows up, it will show up in your post with a location tag. Then we can tell to which specific post and text you are responding to.
Alternatively, if you push the arrow "reply" button on the bottom of the post you want to respond to, it will put a tag in your response showing which post it comes from.
Either one of those will make it easier to keep track of the conversation.
He exposes the bear necessities that will put our minds at ease. What’s not to like?!
And also our resident Mystic
With thoughts so utterly twisted
It's bad grammar he likes
While philosophy's shite
And the mods want Jesus delisted!
He got banned?
It seems so, when you check his profile. He seemed to be seeking banishment.
Yes. Look at the post history. 145 posts of mostly insults and shitposts in one day. We even warned him, he insulted someone afterwards.
A troll of the axe grinding variety I suspect.
:chin: Nope.
Such deep self-realisation.
The politest thing I can say is... Fuck it, I give up.
Lol, it was a good call. The language barrier helped disguise the lack of philosophical value I think. Even ignoring the grammar and structure the ideas being expressed were wanting, and delivered in an obnoxious evasiveness.
Don’t give up until you take care of Bartricks. Then you may lay down your sword
The politest thing we could say in response to the demise of a sincere person who was doing their best is nothing.
I can agree that there is a constructive point to the mods explaining what kinds of content aren't going to make the cut here. Maybe there's a point to recording for history that a particular member has been removed. Dubious, but arguable.
Beyond that, this thread where we all say snotty things behind the backs of those who can no longer defend themselves sets a very poor example from the top.
It baffles me that the intelligent people assembled here can't see the irony of looking down our snooty noses at low quality content by others, while we create the lowest quality content thread on the forum.
It's also quite odd that the mod team itself is often one of the primary generators of low quality content.
It's interesting that you consider yourself an authority on the subject of philosophical value.
You’re a self declared asshole who wears his inconsistency like a badge of honour, who cares what you think of anyone? Or anything?
You excluded your opinion from consideration when you confessed to purposely acting like a jerk and fucking around.
The reason why this thread exists is precisely to have a place where the mods can explain bannings and discussions can take place around reasons for doing so. If the comments are insulting or snooty then that is perfectly in line with all the other threads and comments. This is the internet…people talk shit. Thats not a mod trait or a thread trait thats a human trait.
You’re just making it about the mods and quality of character of posters because you were scolded early on for your own posting quality. That is a particularly petty projection on your part, and obvious.
I didnt make a claim of my authority on philosophical value, you made that up. All I did was make a judgement about someone elses philosophical contributions, which is what we all do here when we engage and what you are doing right now. (Passing judgement on the philosophical value of mod posts)
Do you know why I didnt call you out for claiming authority on philosophical value even though I could have used the same semantic strawmans you did? Intellectual honesty. Thats the difference between you and I, I’m engaging honestly and you engage in service of your bruised feelings, mental masterbation and ego.
And what's even worse, is that I'm the only fucking around jerk on the forum!!! Shame, shame, controversy, food fight, M E L O D R A M A!!!!!!
No wait, sorry, I meant philosophy forum.
We find agreement! Yes, all the other threads contain insulting snooty comments too, often by the mods . Yes, this is the Internet. Not a philosophy forum.
This is hilarious!!!! Thank you so much, I literally just broke out in laughter. I see a big career in stand up comedy in your future...
I don't feel she was necessarily doing her best. She posted too much to be taking much time over her responses imo, didn't listen, and didn't seem to really care about any one's views but her own.
Whoops, I did it again. :yikes:
Exactly as I said:
Quoting DingoJones
Quoting Foghorn
Exactly as I said:
Quoting DingoJones
This is a philosophy forum is on the internet, and you know that but pretended that you didnt so you could make a dig about this forum. Thats dishonest.
Quoting Foghorn
And this little gem wasnt on my list but Ill address it anyway.
This is an ad hom, you take a cheap shot rather than engage with the specific criticisms I made.
Your response to the criticisms was to immediately display the accuracy of those criticisms.
Pretty weak, and its kinda sad that I’m funnier not trying to be than you are with your best effort. You’re welcome for the laugh, maybe take some notes.
Ok, you have every right to say what you wish, and as a mod do what you wish. This is not being debated.
I'm just trying to help you see what kind of message you are sending to those you are attempting to manage. You're just making your work harder by repeatedly modeling the very behavior you'd like to see less of.
If you don't give a shit about that, well, ok, you have a right to that too. Just saying, in that case don't expect users to give a shit either, which equals....
More work for you.
Yes, we do have a right to make a joke. Feel free to do the same. Even at our expense.
I don't take you seriously because you don't take either yourself or this forum seriously. I'm just joining a work in progress, trying to fit in and be one of the gang.
Unfortunate overlap with the convo here but he insisted I was a liar and wouldn't cooperate until I admitted it. Probably, he really believed that and there wasn't much point in trying to convince him otherwise.
This is something that has always bothered me. If it's important that the person be kicked out in order to maintain the quality of the forum, so be it. Gloating once it's done is stomach-turning. It's especially distressing when it comes from moderators.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Thats fair. I dont take many things seriously, life is a tragic comedy.
Anyway, you can not be taking me seriously and still be honest. You aren’t being honest, thats a choice you are making. Even if you just insulted and mocked me that would be preferable to dishonesty. Dishonesty is poison to discourse, you the poisoner.
I'm not in the slightest. It's a simple request that almost no-one argues about and we shouldn't be expected to waste our day on someone who won't go along with it.
He had that suicide by mod vibe.
That's a term?
:rofl:
What I find distressing is low quality posters carelessly spamming threads with their random thoughts. You may be right that it's in bad taste to say anything negative about them when they're gone, but that I'm less concerned about. We have different priorities, I guess.
It wasn't just mods. He's absolutely convinced he knows what's going on in other people's heads. Just that in the case of mods it prevented him from doing what he was asked.
I'm guessing not for the first time.
It should be lol
You can see it coming a good ways off.
@DingoJones is the main perpetrator of this
…you might be right. I feel like I only do that about people who have shown themselves to be the degree of prick not deserving of courtesy but you’re right its pretty petty. I should re-evaluate my actions, thanks for pointing that out.
I just went and looked through @Iris0's posts, such as they are. Generally they seemed on target and reasonable. It was certainly clear that she felt strongly about the transgender issue. She expressed herself harshly, but she made good points. I didn't see anything that stepped over the line.
I think this is just one more sign that strong feminists are not welcome here on the forum.
Especially when it occasions that one of those people later returns and can defend themselves.
Only if you equate feminism with transphobia.
Only one person has ever been unbanned and it wasn’t him.
Sure, he wasn't banned for low quality.
He's just trying to provoke a response. The idea that Iris was banned because she's a feminist is one of the stupidest things I've heard claimed on this thread.
The fellow I was thinking of has been banned at least twice.
I don't think she was banned for being a feminist. I think she was banned for forcefully expressing a reasonable feminist position that wasn't in line with the forum's orthodoxy.
On the other hand, the claim that @Iris0 was banned for low quality posts is ridiculous.
I couldn't see any feminist approach to Iris's comments and she didn't really make any arguments. She just kept saying that transgender people offended her sense of being a woman, and she just kept writing repetitive posts, and not taking on board anyone else's point of view at all. If she had not been banned I wonder if she would still be writing on the thread right now.
Also, even before she launched onto the particular thread, she was writing so many comments on other thread discussions, just as a couple of others who got banned recently were doing.
Why, that NEVER happens here! I'm shocked--shocked!--to hear such a thing.
Her comments made sense to me. I can understand why a woman would be upset by the way the definition of the word "woman" being changed without a thought for the implications for women in general.
Quoting Jack Cummins
As @Bitter Crank noted, if repetitive posts were a good reason for banning, the tumbleweeds would be blowing through the empty streets of the Philosophy Forum. I also didn't see anyone else "taking on board" her point of view.
She'd been here for less than a day for goodness sakes.
Second, the consternation over having a banning thread is bizarre. This thread exists for transparency - the other option being that we ban people entirely on the sly, and/or have discussions of banning pollute threads which should be on topic.
The admins just dislike weird grammar and odd styles of articulation and such has been banned here many times. Also, the number of posts there are, she did what, 113 in 1 or 2 days? I don't personally believe these things merit a ban but considering who gets banned and who doesn't, these things seem to all be factors. A "high quality" post might just be one that has proper punctuation and grammar, on-topic and etc. Plenty of posters go against what the admins believe on a regular basis without being banned.
The bad grammar didn't help but the deciding factor was low quality lazy posts with little or no attempt to address arguments put to her and some bizarre efforts at taking offence. I'm not going to pretend we can achieve absolute consistency here, so you might be right that posters who use better grammar and punctuation or post less frequently, but equally lack substance, more easily fly under the radar.
Baden banned her for low quality, and I would probably have done the same had I been paying attention, and that's despite the fact that I agreed with some of her points. The point though is that it's not the point someone is making that matters (within limits), but how they make it. Iris didn't argue carefully or treat the arguments of others with respect.
For the record, I personally have a lot of sympathy for the several feminists who have been accused of transphobia. It's a complicated issue and I think we need to see how it plays out rather than enforcing a way of talking about it as if it were as clear-cut as racism and sexism. There isn't even a consensus among trans people.
Others on the staff may be more liable to shout "transphobia" than I am, but there's a diversity of opinion, not a politically correct tyranny.
Okay, I didn't get the notice and my guess is @hyena in petticoat nor @Ladybug or @Caldwell got it either.
Hmmm... :chin:
Becareful whom you paint with the wide bush of assumption, especially when it comes to what does or does not make someone feel welcome.
I haven't read any of Iris's post but I do have faith in our proven leaders, with whom I don't always agree with but the bottom line is that I have seen the job of administration and I don't want to have that responsibility.
Until I do?
My trust is in those who do and I Thank you for giving of your time to us.
Tiff
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Tiff. Do feel free to smack us into line though as you see fit.
Fair enough. I thought she (?) indicated she was. Any reason for your opinion on this?
Oh I didn't know they claimed femininity.
Notice my protocol pronoun use?
Quoting Iris0
Definitely did, but I thought maybe you knew something I didn't.
I suggest that any moderator who is inclined to ban someone first publish his thoughts here, and invite the forum to weigh in on his opinion before he take action.
No.
Even I, who has taken strong exception to some of the moderator's recent bannings, think that is a terrible idea. I'm sure others will point out that the forum is not a democracy.
This isn't a fucking democracy.
Most folk here can't recognise a decent argument when it's right in their faces. Putting mod powers in their hands would destroy the forums. We need to dissuade mediocrity, not encourage it.
Even better. :party:
It is the character of a tyrant to consider opposing opinions to be the work of those wishing to take away his powers.
That seems to be a point that is repeatedly missed.
I was referring not to the opinion of the person banned, but rather to that of the other members who oppose it.
I don’t disagree that there should be guidelines. But the nature of guidelines need not consist in the potentially arbitrary rule of an oligarchy.
I agree, but the moderators still have the responsibility to provide fair, reasonable, and consistent decisions.
Quoting Todd Martin
Yes. Baden et. al. are all-powerful rulers over a tiny, tiny kingdom.
I was threatened with a ban several months ago for espousing a very doctrinaire opinion of ancient philosophy which, however, collided with a very recent opinion that is against “homophobia”...but I wasn’t scared of anything.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544736
As the old saying goes: "It's often better to ask for forgiveness than permission." But maybe, instead, first bans should be temporary – a "cool-off period" of a month(?) – then this thread, or another like it, is polled (requiring a majority / supermajority approval) before a banned member is unbanned; and, if necessary, [the second ban will be permanent. Is that fair enough for you?
You speak like a member of the oligarchy...are you?
I feel like Joe Manchin: yes, I think your proposal is an improvement, and I would vote for it...whoops!...forgot this isn’t a democracy!
(Btw, pardon me, but eff Joe Manchin. That cunt claims he wants to "protect the rights of the minority party in the US Senate" by preserving a 90 year old procedural rule used to suppress the rights of minority citizens particularly in the old Confederacy. The jim crow filibuster is the hill that good old boy chooses to die on – well, with any luck, it will kill him after the Dems gain 1-3 senate seats in midterm elections next year.)
Actually, since it's a private forum, they can do what they like.
And I like what they do. Mostly. If anything I'd like to see more bannings.
But if you don't then you are welcome to go elsewhere.
You're in a club owned by jamalrob and we're the bouncers.
As a former NYC bouncer myself, I commend the TPF staff for your incredible restraint tossing out the douches & the rowdies. Back in the day, my crew wasn't ever so ... 'genteel'. Anyway. No blood, no foul, right? Just one patron's two bits. :up:
I do think there's a "type" recently that gets banned sooner or later. It's posters who think everybody else are (is?) stupid and believe they're capable of judging discussions from an elevated, enlightened position. Invariably that's a precursor to a lack of self reflection and that translates to unexamined positions and bad argumentation.
:100:
...doesn't break my heart.
He said he was looking to disseminate his “own personal metaphysical persuasion”. I asked him how he knew I wasn’t looking to disseminate my own.
I shed the loudspeaker; all I’m left with is the chick-en.
Ah say, son...A leghorn is a type of chicken. It is my understanding they came originally from Legorno in Italy. Thus leghorn.
Roger that.
Was it the OP itself that was offensive, or something he posted within it?
The whole thing.
There was a racial element to it and not going to give oxygen to banned racists.
"In light of globalisation, race mixing between Caucasian and non-Causcasian groups is increasingly encouraged. The mixing of historically distant racial groups is considered beautiful, especially when viewed through a postmodernist lens where it is thought of as a necessary genetic ‘purification’ to rid the underclass of their genetic inadequacies inside those complex societies. But, science tells us that the offspring of this racial mixing process are likely to have different set of strengths and weaknesses relative to their native ancestors, with a high degree of creative intelligence not being one of them."
...
"Academia is an example of where such changes are occurring because it is realised that this new population will not be able to participate in it at the rate of their forefathers because they will not possess the historic level of intelligence required to 'achieve' in the historic sense."
:vomit:
It's not true. I do creative listening all the time every day.
Already regretting my promise not to talk smack about our dear departed members.
Did he offer any evidence for this?
He was certainly creative in either leaving out the indefinite article where it was needed, or failing to make a certain noun plural.
I don't understand why John Locke was writing threads because he didn't write any replies to anyone's comments. This meant that he was not really involved in any dialogue or interaction on the forum.
He was not alone in this. There is this type of poster who are only interested in their own topics (if even that).
Quoting 3017amen
If you want to ad hom, try a simple "fuck off" and then be done with it. I can respect that at least.
I'm not in favour of bannings in general.
Tim wood and 180 proof have both thrown plenty of sustained vitriol at 3017.
In general 3017 was pretty calm. And defending yourself from vitriol Is fair game. Context is very important.
If your reading 3017 amen,your better than the mods and those two I mentioned. Keep up your good work.
Thanks. Will do.
Fuck off.
There,respect that!
:lol:
Jokes aside, it's a modded forum. That won't change. But you can report posters that you feel are out of line too. That's the best we can do for you.
I wouldn't report posters for ad hom or spicy language. That's not the way I am. I have never called for anyone's banning.
The point is you would have kept amen if he had just swore?
And there are many on this forum engaged in spicy and sustained emotional back and forth. 3017 not really so. Defense is a natural instinct,no?
A difficult call, I gather.
Well done!
All you who say nothing on the above vitriol are what?
With respect,that doesn't make sense. How can someone be on the radar for two years?
And what was the ban,for post quality or ad hom?
A consistent decent explanation would be nice.
Oh, I agree - he should have been banned long ago... just on the basis of post quality.
Or is that not what you meant?
He needs all his energy,he's on the verge of tanking his second debate!
Still inconsistent. And double standards.
Two years!
Our loss, his gain.
We tend to make a distinction between behavior that's uncharacteristic and/or borne of frustration and what appears to be a modus operandi.
OK. But there are posters whose modus operandi is a lot of ad hom and emotionality.
3017 wasn't like that.
Bottom line,that's inconsistent.
It seems to me being a confident theist puts one on the radar.
And do you not take account of defending oneself against the invective of others?
Yes, but when, for example, your first post in a thread involves calling someone childish names, you don't get to use the 'defending yourself' excuse.
Come on. There is extensive history between 3017 amen and 180 and you know it.
This is just excuses. I've seen much worse calling of names.
You guys really can't be this biased?
There is. I wouldn't expect you to have the balls to be consistent anyway.
Yes,low courage.
I'm happy to discuss moderation choices if you have something that resembles an argument. So far your comments here do not invite any sort of discussion.
Think about what you want out of this conversation and reply accordingly (or not). I'll interpret any further comments along the lines as above as venting and not actually about moderation decisions. I'll happily ignore the former.
:strong: Amor fati!
You wouldn't change your current stance no matter how a person approached you.
And that's the point. Think about it.
Moderator random.
Because it is unfair and unreasonable for the members who suffered those abuses and attacks out of the blue, to keep quiet and play saint, and show the initial attacker, kindness and compassion. Even Nietzsche wouldn't approve it.
We want to discuss philosophy, not getting attacks and abuses thrown at us by emotionally volatile and self centred members who are not interested in genuine philosophical debates, but parading here for some other shady purposes and motives. I am with Protagoras on this issue by the way. 3017 amen has been decent, calm and has never started attacking other people from his side from my knowledge and memory. The ban was a shock to me. Just my 2 cents ...
P.S.: Like yous, I don't take seriously FUCK OFFs as personal attack or abuse, when uttered in right context. :D
If others feel the same way,say it by post here.
The irony of a forum full of people debating and talking about ethics, empathy and human rights,and then only two people showing any courage to say," hey this is not right. We can see he wasn't an emotional poster".
Or are all your ethics abstract?
It's how you treat issues like this that expresses your character. Otherwise you are just talkers and echo chamber partisans.
Quoting Protagoras
I will second the above. I will call him a 'good' guy.
Quoting Protagoras
The above is a good post.
Exit...pursued by bear!
That's the important one IMO. A process was followed. Members are lucky there is a process at all, and even luckier there are volunteer mods to enforce it. There needn't be.
I have a lower tolerance for low quality posters in certain areas than other moderators, which means I often don't propose a potential ban anticipating that but I will quickly ignore those posters as I'm still part of this site for fun. And reading crappy posts just to moderate them isn't my idea of fun. So I miss plenty of stuff "going wrong" on this site.
And I tend to not touch Philosophy of Religion with a ten foot pole since I think it doesn't have a place on a philosophy forum. Other moderators clearly disagree.
If you think certain behaviour is banworthy, let a moderator know via a private message. It doesn't necessarily result in a ban for obvious reasons, but reports are always discussed by the moderators.
I'm not really surprised that @3017amen was banned. His posts were generally not very good and were rarely responsive. On the other hand, his contributions are as good or better than lots of other more popular members.
As for his civility, or trollishness, or whatever, he treated people at least as well as you do. And no, I'm not proposing you be banned. You are a valuable and entertaining contributor to the forum. And the little kid is cute.
By the way, you are on their radar now. Seriously.
:snicker: <— something like that.
What courage does it take to speak up for someone banned? Answer - none. People do it all the time. Actually, I'm a bit jealous that you're going at it so hard. That's usually my gig.
Correct. We put the thread here partly for that purpose and also just for transparency. Not as a honey trap.
It takes courage to stand up for what is right.
Your flippancy and excuses express your character.
@T Clark
Transparency! You brook no debate.
How many decisions have you changed over the years?
One.
Speaks for itself.
This thread is a show event,where idiots get to throw tomatoes like cowards.
It's just a forum, and one you don't seem to like very much. The worst that can happen is that you get banned. It's not courage if you risk being mauled by an arthritic, toothless dog.
It's just a.....
Principles and integrity man.
The courage to stand up to arthritic old dogs!
You may be overlooking the possibility that, at least on some level, 3017 wanted to be banned and it was another death-by-mod scenario. He didn’t come out of that recent very public debate looking like a champ, quite the opposite. And I’m sure he knew what ignoring mod warnings would lead to.
No. He was making new threads and people like myself and some others thought 180 scuttled that debate.
Some people ignore mod warnings because they don't take kindly to threats which don't make sense and are inconsistent.
Nevertheless, I think it’s fair to assume that he knew what the results would be.
Most likely.
But your possibility doesn't fit.
Why shouldn't one stand their ground if they know they are being wronged?
Because people with real courage pick their fights and risk something important. Life is full of little slights and disappointments. When this is all over, you won't be a martyr, you'll just be another member of the Boys in the Banned and you can read bad things about yourself in the "Bannings" thread from your perch in the afterlife.
As I said,the way you talk here expresses your personality.
You can talk about real all you want. I don't see much from you apart from abstract talk.
The fact you talk about martyrs expresses you know little about principles.
Me thinks you have watched too many dramatic films.
Courage is in everyday things,and being consistent in those things.
We can think all sorts of things. The point is that it’s possible he’s not as shameless as he appeared to be.
We can think all sorts of things but your particular thoughts are valid?
Read my previous reply.
The excuses some make!
Is it possible the mods are woefully biased? Is that a valid thought?
I have no vested interest in whether or not a moderator is acting in accordance with the forum rules because through time and circumstance I have witnessed their actions and have rarely disagreed.
One way I familiarize myself with what is considered "fair play" when I come on board anywhere is to read the exit interviews or in this case the banning thread.
It usually works out and if it doesn't, I do pay attention to "warnings" issued by whomever is managing the place and if I feel like I am being treated unfairly I speak up. I promise you I do AND have decades of back and forth between management and I BUT I am still here.
I've spoken up LOUDLY throughout the years and will continue to do so.
First thing I do is flag a post.
Second thing I do is fire off a PM to at least one administrator and two moderators. That way I know that they know, that I know, that they should at least take a look at what I submitted because CONTEXT does matter.
Third thing if necessary is to write a PM directly to @jamalrob especially if it is about Baden or a moderator. :up:
Anticipated result?
Meh, much like life it is a 50/50 crap shoot if there is going to be any action taken that I am aware of however I do know that it is addressed in the Moderator forum, which is what I think @Benkei meant about a member having been on the radar for two years. Which is about as fair of an outcome we can reasonably expect.
Frankly two years on the radar goes a long way in confirming that bannings rarely happen and when they do, they are not decided on a whim.
The bottom line is: this is not MY forum and I shall try to conduct myself accordingly as a guest. I try to be the kind of guest that you want to come back because of the homemade hot appetizers, two bottles of wine, warm spirits and a sassy attitude that is who I am, wherever I go.
:up:
It’s probably not the place for us to try validating our thoughts here.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, I liked 3017 and wish he were not banned.
We can both agree on that!
There are cases where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
If you do not agree with a decision make your case and move on.
Not really. Your interest appears to be unwavering support for whatever management does in this context. You mention 'rare disagreement' but I suspect that it's rarer than advertised, and incidents of rebelliousness outside the forum are completely irrelevant.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
First page, three years ago, I stated the above.
I'm not sure what you are referring to but I would be happy to follow any hyper link you wish to provide and review my positions.
I'm willing to let the record speak for my contributions over the past as well as current. :flower:
Your comments in this topic have been few over the years and contain not a single objection that I could find, even when your beloved S was banned. Nothing wrong with that, I just didn't like the self-portrait that you painted of yourself. It rang false, at least as it pertains to this place.
So you either believe the mods are near infallible or that they don't listen or care for any objections...
And the mods favorite method of disingenousness and near gaslighting. Tell the poster objecting they haven't raised any valid objections,then ignore any further discussion.
Transparency and accountability my ass.
And yet they preach about politics and human rights!
If you think it's not interesting who shows up and contributes to this thread, then you shouldn't be interested in Tiff's comment, nor should you be interested in making any response to it, let alone this one. Perhaps your praxis is passive-aggressiveness, though.
[irony]Yes. I agree completely. Unfair forum moderation policies constitute human rights violations.[/irony]
Try reading what I wrote.
It's the way you treat people in everyday life that expresses your character.
And if as a mod you can't be just, then sorry I can't take your talk about human rights seriously.
Nor your talk Mr Clark about "courage".
I'm starting a pool on @Protagoras - how long before he is banned. I put $5 on noon tomorrow EDT. Anyone want to throw in a few Euros?
Interest varies in intensity and focus. For instance, I'm strongly interested in truth. Truth isn't limited to any particular topic.
I don't need a wager to know you are a conformist.
On the contrary, Clark boycotted the forum for a long period in protest of a banning, if I recall correctly.
So what's his problem here then?
Well, his-her (@praxis ) obviously is that. But clearly it's more than that. Did you know he-she loves yellow turds? We were talking about it yesterday. Apparently he-she subscribes to the philosophy of the turd, But besides all that it seems attempts at bullying behind anonymity seems to be another practice of our praxis. Wherever there is turd to be stirred, you will find our praxis practicing the art of turd stirring.
He's a born contrarian. :razz:
If your contrary to everything you stand for nothing.
I was kidding of course. T Clark is one of a rare breed who possesses strong principles AND a good sense of humor.
Well,its not on display here.
Not a boycott. I just didn't want to hang around with you guys for a while.
:up:
Good. This time I managed to bite my tongue long enough and you came to the rescue.
Touché! Touché! :clap:
:up:
Easy money if we could bet on that.
Not surprised. Too bad. I kind of liked her.
You have apparently discovered the secret to longevity.
Being ignored for mindlessness.
He said, with pride.
:down:
It bothers me when members ridicule people who have been banned, which is a common blood sport here on the Bannings thread. I'm sure it's humiliating for them. Most of them are sincere. Most, but not all, don't belong here
As I'm sure most people agree, it was clear from the start that 1 Brother James was not long for the forum. His ideas were no more "nonsense" than many others here. We have a lot of anti-science and pseudo-science posters. Explanations of how consciousness is the result of quantum entanglement between neurons and waves emanating from the planet Kuzbain abound here. There is some controversy as to whether the correct spelling might be "Koozebane."
What bothered me most about 1B James was the fact that he didn't come here to engage in discussions with us. He was just using the forum as a loud speaker to blast out his ideas without explanation or analysis. He was a preacher, not a philosopher.
Was there something in particular you liked about 1 Brother James, or are you commenting just on basic principles? Not disagreeing. Just curious.
Yeah I agree - that shit annoys me, but I was just informing you that @hope most probably wasn't a young lady in a schoolgirl outfit.
I think I just have a higher tolerance for strange people with strange views. I get the clutter thing, but he did attempt to explain himself when you challenged him on his weirdness.
Speaking as a person who has spent an inordinate amount of time earnestly studying Time Cube (intro vid), I don't think this is a question of bizarre idea tolerance. Would you want to go on a philosophy site if it looked like a "my weird poorly written pet theory" site? I mean there's place for both of them - but I think we try to be the former and not the latter.
I think if we don't enforce a minimal bar on that stuff, it goes the way of reactive weirdness, and the discussion that keeps the community going and attractive turns into a freakshow; nice to look at from a distance.
Generally, you get banned if you push a particular moderator's buttons. I could see how he would.
When you become a moderator, you take an oath never to admit you're wrong. I know that's true because @Hanover told me.
Oh come now, like we're all so drunk with power that we just can't wait to get the final revenge on insolent posters by clicking the ban button and sending them off spinning into cyberspace (this might be a good plot for the next short story). In truth, we're all just dedicated volunteers trying to maintain standards, which I think we most certainly did here with this banning.
Brother James did not particularly push anyone's buttons. He just posted well below standard with cluttered, rapid fire, vague, self-aggrandizing statements that he was likely cutting and pasting from some larger work he's put together over the years. He was selling some theory he arrived at and he was more interested in showing it off than debating it.
And I also don't think this thread is a ridicule thread. It's a discussion and explanation thread. I wish Brother James well and am sure he can maintain a following without us.
No, you can stay.
There's all sorts of weird, interesting weird, boring weird, stimulating weird, exhausting weird. You don't get banned just for being weird.
Thank you brother.
I've been trying to get @unenlightened to join a Masonic lodge. He says it's too 'psychological'.
I must be lacking in very important and fundamental neurotransmitter levels, or should I say, experiences. Too bad we don't have relationships with reality that allow or even guarantee such rich and esoteric states. The medications find their appropriate use when I need a re-lease from reality if the former holds true. Though, the philistines look for new memes to enrichen the plebians' life that the moderators laugh at their struggles with glee.
@Baden knows about this all too well, as he's in the Chocolate factory nowadays instead of drinking in the belly of the day. :party:
No you're not.
I forgive you for doubting my virtue. :halo:
As I noted in my post, 1B James was not here to philosophize, but to preach. He was spreading the word with a fire hose. That's a good reason to ban him. As I also noted, his ideas are no more unsupportable or unsupported than many other posters here.
Quoting Hanover
@The Opposite's post was unnecessarily disrespectful to @Hope. The only reason I responded was because he made his point in a response to one of my posts. I didn't like that. More generally, people often do use this thread as a way to give a final slap in the face to someone they don't like as they are escorted from the establishment.
Do you have little holes in your palms? Or any 6's on your scalp?
Nope. :halo:
@Prishon could have been a really good part of this community. I've said it before. I'll say it again. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
I include you in that @Banno and @Gregory
I'll send a PM to @Bitter Crank and tell him what I really think of you all.
I don’t think his posts were much worse than some people I can think of, but he made them too often.
Anyways the guy seemed to think that bans are rare collectibles and badges of honor, so I’m sure he wouldn’t mind.
As I said, I'll keep my thoughts between @Bitter Crank and myself.
Dont worry... :smile:
As I said, I'll keep any additional thoughts between Bitter Crank and myself.
Well, maybe too many posts. He certainly liked to raise questions, some of which had merit. Too bad.
There have been bannings that made a lot more sense than this one.
If not, there is something seriously wrong with the moderation on this site.
PS: Turns out he was warned, so fair is fair.
1. Change your thumbnail to an image of a bird.
2. ??????????
What profile is that? Was he a moonatic?
That's a good idea. There is a way. It's self-discipline. For instance, I never call upon the mods or admins to ban anyone. I just ban them myself. I have quite the list:
Synthesis, check;
3017amen, check;
Apollodorus, check;
TheMadFool, check;
Counterpunch, check;
Prishon, check;
baker, check.
As you can see, I banned Prishon already, and that was some time ago. I don't know who, if any of these people are still around because I didn't wait for the site to ban them. I just ignore them. I know people ignore me. That's cool.
I really like your idea so I may try to limit the number of comments and topics per day, to 10 and 1. That might be difficult but it also may force me to spend more time thinking about what is important to me, and then articulate it better. The difficulty will especially arise when I am asked questions. I always feel compelled to answer. That feeling itself might be a failing that self-limitation would help with.
I will take this under advisement and seriously consider it. Thank you for sharing. If I don't respond to questions, I don't intend to be rude. I may just be practicing restraint. Likewise if I seem to "fall off the radar."
Anyway, I do appreciate the presence of mods and admins, whether I agree with any specific decision or not.
I was sensing manic phase. Did you get that?
Yeah, or some addition to his, um, intake. I still feel a bad though, because as he said himself, some of it -- and maybe all of it -- was just excitement to be here. Whatever it was, something switched off whatever self-control he had. In the Shoutbox he mentioned that he had been cautioned about his posting. I'd guess how he responded in PM to the mods was a little more revealing of his state of mind.
It still seems to me that the need to do something about someone like him is more a function of the forum software we use not supporting killfiles. Individual posters can ignore who they like, but the mods are right that it shouldn't be an expectation of participants here to have to do that. The site itself degrades. On the other hand, if filtering were possible, that policy could change and the mods wouldn't have to worry nearly so much about this sort of thing. Prishon is gone, at least in part, because of a technical limitation, and that's too bad.
Maybe there should just be a posts per day limit, but if it can't be automated, that too is a bunch more modding and an even swifter ban.
(Maybe @SophistiCat's plugin could be made official and @Michael could keep it working.)
Interesting questions for a new member.
Let me ask you this: do you think he has the sense to slow down?
If you're on Chrome install the Custom JavaScript for Websites 2 extension. Go to https://thephilosophyforum.com/ and click the CJS extension icon to open the extension. Ensure the host dropdown shows https://thephilosophyforum.com/. Add the below line(s) (changing the names as required), then click Save.
If you're on Firefox install the javascript extension. Go to https://thephilosophyforum.com/ and click the JS extension icon to open the extension. Add the below line(s) (changing the names as required).
Chrome:
Firefox:
I thought that the problem was that he wrote some posts which had some deeper discussions and some which were really shallow. To some extent, I think that we all write some posts which are better than others, but the way he was writing on so many threads and churning out new ones was probably affecting the whole dynamics of the site. The point at which I thought that this guy is likely to get banned was when he wrote a thread called, 'Is the mind like a marshmallow?'
I agree with you on the affect site wide. In the last couple days it has given me pause if what I was contributing was even worth it as everything seemed jumbled.
Well that's just fine. Is this info stickied somewhere? (I could have missed it because I wasn't looking for it.)
Although @SophitiCat's extension does still work (for some reason I thought it was removed), and that's more user-friendly.
Instead of having to create a posting governor that automatically limits posting as some have suggested, a reduction and improvement in posting should be achievable by simply being asked. I know some have speculated other issues might have been at play with his mental state, but that's not really something any of us can assess remotely nor can we be excepted to provide special accommodation for it.
I think he was another iteration of Marco, the Man With a Thousand Usernames.
So far as I know, everyone banned in the last few days was Marco.
I banned him for saying something to signal he was Marco.
Except that he was great! Can you get him back or send me his email?
He might, for he liked it here and was making his way around; he didn't know about the Lounge and its threads, so he wasn't Marco or anyone who had been here many times.
So, did you can him for signalling that he was Marco, or for being Marco? Just curious about how the burgermeisters on here view these things, based upon the apparent idea of bannings being permanent and irrevocable. Would you have not re-banned him if he had not so "signalled", even if you knew it was he? What if a banned member "reincarnates", and behaves in an utterly different manner? Will he be summarily re-banned based upon the original banning, or does TPF offer the possibility of redemption?
Quoting SophistiCat
This begs a question: might it be thought that "Prishon" was another avatar of said "Marco"? I must say, the notion occurred to me almost immediately that "Graveltty" might in actuality be "Prishon" with a newfound discipline, mostly because of the whole "physics" thing, but also...uuhhh...general tenor. I was even considering this before the 'Graveltty' banning; I dropped the name "Prishon" in my very last reply to "Graveltty", to see what type of reaction I might receive. If this is true, I hope that if he reincarnates again, he devises a less wierd username...like, maybe, "Joe".
No. We tried it once and it didn't work.
Was it TheGreatWhatever? If I recall correctly he was banned twice. (Back when the old forum was online.)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/409000
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/175428
Ah. So, what type of criteria can result in a "banning"? I just want to know as an aide in keeping a lid on those of my own inherent opinions (I have some strong, fairly "non-P.C." ones) which might amount to liabilities...especially in view of the turbulence of the emotions which I am experiencing at the instant stage of my life.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines
Flaming is insulting someone in an online discussion, and is much older than social media. As practiced here, I consider it an attempt at bullying rather than arguing and I have a very low tolerance for it. Call your opponent's position 'stupid' all you want; call them 'stupid' and your post may very well be deleted.
A 'sockpuppet' is an account you pretend is not yours. In this case, as none of us are public figures, that would mean a secondary account. If I created an account to constantly chime in agreeing with Srap, that would be a sockpuppet, or if I were banned and returned under a new name every five minutes or so.
But it can still get you banned.
The way I always understood trolling is to say something you either don't really mean, or about which you don't really care, simply to get a rise out of someone. Others call it "stirring the pot." It's like the kid on the playground who foments discontent for his/her own amusement. The troll often thinks of their self as witty or smart for having done so. They pat themselves on the back, or, quite possibly, they "pat themselves" (if you know what I mean) rather than looking at porn like normal people do.
Wikipedia is your friend:
Quoting Wiki
Yes.
Quoting Varde
Either can destroy a community we intend to preserve.
Send him a PM. If they are invested and believe it was a mistake... Might consider it. Otherwise, doing something indistinguishable from impersonating a banned member who is currently sockpuppetting up the site on a 1 week old account - that's a suicide by mod.
The internet is a great big place and not everyone comes here with the purest intent, so we have to police it for those who are here and want a quality place to visit.
The rules are pretty clear and getting banned takes some amount of intentional effort. We've not really had anyone surprised by their ban.
Signalling that he was Marco and behaving like Marco. If we weren't currently being bombarded by Marco sockpuppets, I would not have banned them.
We've offered redemption before when contacted, but only once. The poster had built up quite a lot of good posts and was generally very nice, then they went off on someone with every prejudicial and sexual profanity under the sun on an off day, then they asked to get back in. We let them. They've been fine since.
Ah, the rare cannibalism amongst trolls is a sight to be seen.
Oh, yes. This makes sense. I think that my own conception about this term involving "surfing around for opportunities" was influenced by the sense of "trolling" as a fishing term, wherein a line is dragged behind a moving boat in search of hungry fish.
Quoting James Riley
Hahaha, oh yeah, I know what you mean. I've "patted" myself a few times in my life, thank you very much...although it concerns me that this has grown more infrequent over the years.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
...and a good friend at that. I turn to Wikipedia for the quick synopsis of everything, but I never though to reference it for this term. I guess, since I have never used social media (no interest, and I disdain artifice in general, anyways) or have used online forums until recently (which I only started using when I decided to learn Latin), I never though it important enough for me to bother.
As a former fishermen, that too was my perception at the beginning. Then I remembered the troll that hid under bridges and fucked with people. But "baiting" people, like fish, brought me back around. So there is a little bit of both in the definition.
Ah, good. Well, nobody has to really worry about me "trolling". I prefer my violence to be physical too much to enjoy the "virtual" brand. To myself, there is no worse feeling than wanting to grab someone by the lapels, and be prevented from doing it by a computer screen or a telephone line (I've experienced the telephone version many times in my life).
Ha! Wait till you are an old man. I guess that's why Col. Colt came along. :wink:
Quoting Michael Zwingli
For what it's worth, I was a strong supporter of Marco in his original iteration, the name of which I can't remember. You can go back and see how several of us tried. That being said, he has not just been resurrected once, or twice, or a few times. I've lost count. At least 10 I think. He clearly has some problems and he's taking it out on the forum. From the things he's said, this isn't the first on-line community he has disrupted.
Whatever my thoughts on the original banning, he clearly does not belong on the forum. He's the last person who should be unbanned.
Although racism or similar sin may be the harshest judgement, based on my observations, the most common reason given for banning is "low quality posts." That's what Marco was gotten for. That standard is much less definitive and is open to wide interpretation. Some people think the moderators are too quick to judge.
Reason:
Quoting Michael Zwingli
I'm asking this out of curiosity. Don't worry, I'm not going to go into one of my rants. Was he banned for a pattern of behavior or just this one post?
One post. See:
"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."
If there were some subtelty or ambiguity a pattern of behaviour would probably be necessary to make a judgement but there wasn't in this case.
As I wrote, I wasn't arguing. Just curious.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
How you could read that as not adopting and supporting sexism is beyond me.
:cool:
" . . . there is a certain European ethnicity . . . which I hold deep and intensely felt prejudice against. Never mind which, and never mind why."
I want to know which, and I want to know why. But I also thought that could easily run afoul of forum protocols. While I hold deep and intensely felt prejudice against certain cultural activities, like FGM, I distinguish that from ethnicity and other immutable characters, like sex, etc.
You'r weird.
From my read, the bolded qualifier is an espousal in the form of an implicit norm (or duty):
"I am an unrepentant misogynist. For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous." — Michael Zwingli
Wow. Did you just espouse transphobia?
Thought crime! Banned! Cancelled! :grin:
Contrary, I distinguished it. :smile: I get what you are saying, but I think being what one is, while changing another's perception of what that is, is to remain immutable.
Real men are secure. Baby men are misogynist.
Not that I will miss him, but I don't think his general attitude was against forum rules,or expressing such extremist beliefs. If the rules means that even one single post referring to such issues can cause ban. Then ok.
In general though, I think that treating racists like that is one big cause that we keep having them all around us in societies. Of course not the only one, but it's like we "spill water to the ride" , making it keep turning.
When you close the door in such way to a person like that, you just make him more "angry" and so more vulnerable to his idiot beliefs as to keep supporting them.
Maybe some people just need a push as to change and maybe in some cases (maybe not many but still some), reasonable conservation (as for example in such forums) is that push as to help them change their attitude.
I would not mention that, if from his general posts had that kind of rhetoric and seemed like a fanatic. But it didn't seem that way with him.
Anyway it's only my opinion. Not a judgement as to tell you "how to do your job".
I see this as more the weak link. The post did "adopt and support" the bannable view. But I think of espousing more as trying to force your views on others in a way that is unreasonable.
I'm not familiar with the guy and his post history. But it struck me more as a posturing than an espousing. Even a note of self-mocking.
The judgement call is whether delving into his views for more context is worth the bother. On something as low stakes as an internet forum, rough justice is justice enough. :wink:
Thought crime! Stereotyping, ageist and offensive to cis-males who identify as anxious.
(There is no escaping, is there?)
Espousing: adopting of embracing
Advocating: promoting
The rule is espousing, not advocating.
The self-disclosure is a clear example of espousing.
I was using Zwingli’s own persuasion technique in an effort to counter what he was promoting.
Don't really want to venture into your self-made linguistic quagmire tbh as the matter is fairly straightforward. We don't want sexists, racists etc here. Zwingli is an avowed and (apparently) proud sexist. Therefore he is not welcome here. I don't think the guidelines are unclear and I don't find your attempt to parse this out very informed.
I'll admit that had it been Jewish people he hated because they'll never measure up to regular people and he further claimed he was unrepentant in that belief and any suggestion otherwise was absurd, I'd hope he'd be summarily banned. If he weren't, I'd feel unwelcome here.
So, think that one through guys, and realize mean spirited hateful statements have consequences beyond what you might think. This isn't the boys locker room. Everyone is welcome here. Excusing his conduct might seem kind hearted to him, but it wouldn't be to many others.
Boringly, we mods are not in the business of reforming anyone. Just enforcing the rules.
:up:
It would be good though if a forum like that could be in such use for some people.Even unintentionally. Not as that to be forum's goal of course . Just by not being that "technocratic".
Rules as laws should be forced and read under their general spirit not by the book. But anyway it's only my approach.
And I was joking - with the intent of demonstrating that cancel culture is indeed a slippery slope where no formula of words can escape criticism.
The forum generally lacks the misogynist spirit, fortunately.
Sexist: I'm a sexist!
Mod: [Bans sexist]
Amusing that this becomes a topic for debate. But do go on, folks...
You didn't get the point. As usual.
You definitely demonstrated that slippery slopes can be funny.
Thankfully.
There aren't enough women here for this matter to really become clear one way or another.
Espousal does not require unreasonableness. But if the view espoused is unreasonable, that's another matter.
I have to say that most of our long time members are keenly aware that there are females among us.
Having said that: I never really cared or wanted to know what a misygonistic person was and we'll, it didn't serve me well.
Now that it has been pointed out to me by my divorce attorney, I am beginning to have a dislike of the personality.
Rant over
No, because fuck misogynists. Clear enough?
So by that logic, it wouldn't be justified to ban for racism someone who said this either.
I don't relate much to your idea of justice.
So deleting their posts could make them change their minds but banning them will make them worse? Sounds like a hopelessly gerrymandered argument to me. Is it just a random thought you've had or based on something?
Distinction without a difference.
So you want the mods to vigilantly moderate self-professed sexists, or whatever-ists, in good service to society? Banning is much easier, and it sends a very clear message.
I was almost persuaded by that line of thinking, but after some reflection, no. When he said: "if he is any kind of man" I was transported back to a day when any kind of man would have done exactly what Baden did.
We're fairly limited in the good we can do society but I do think providing a moderated discussion space is some kind of good and an achievable one as opposed to the fantasy we can or should try to reform bigots by being nice to them.
Sorry to hear that, TIff.
If they are not constantly posting offensive material, and when they do post it it is deleted it might lead them to rethink their position. Total rejection, in the form of banning, and for just one offense, would, it seems to me, be more likely to just make them angrier.
Quoting Baden
Obviously not; in your view...
Quoting Baden
By being firm with them, but not rejecting them utterly.
Quoting praxis
Admittedly banning is easier, but I think deletion of offensive posts would send an equally clear, and more compassionate, message.
Quoting James Riley
To me this amounts to " You think you're a man; I'll show you what a man is"; in other words playing the same game in reverse.
Anyway, I'm not the moderator here, so what I think doesn't really count.
Quoting Baden
If they're angrier elsewhere, it's not the mods' problem.
"espousing: 1. adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life)." (Online dictionary.)“
It couldnt be more straightforward! He declared sexist belief, a belief he has adopted! Also is he not supportive of his own belief?!
Its simple, plain english. So for the love of Oprah and for the sake of baby jesus would you fucking morons quiet you stupid fingers and shut up about it already?!
I cant believe you idiots are STILL arguing about this.
So so dumb.
No, of course it's not if they don't care about it.
Exactly, and not going to be guilt-tripped into indulging the premise either.
Of course moderators have to make their own call, and I'm not trying to "guilt trip" anyone; everyone has to make up their own minds when it comes to such issues. I'm just expressing my opinion about how I think I might handle it if I were a moderator, which I'm not, so...
Truth need not tip it's hat to BS.
Such posts would be seen and they would offend. Don’t you care about that? They would also promote bigotry, and by allowing them the forum could be perceived as supportive. Does anyone follow up on what posts are deleted? My own posts could be deleted and I wouldn’t know.
Of course not; that's why I said it should be deleted.
They've already been seen by the time the member is banned for them. I don't think offense is the real issue; it's the actions that such views support which count. How would bigotry be promoted if bigoted posts are deleted? Deleting them is not "allowing them". Also if someone bloody-mindedly persisted in posting offensive material, then of course they should be banned. I just don't favour the 'one strike you're out' way of dealing with bigotry.
Allow me to clarify. You said:
Quoting Janus
When I said that truth need not tip it's hat to BS, I meant that if X kicks a man when he's down, and Y beats X to stop the kicking, then yes, both are acts of violence. So what? It's not the same game. Y is righteous for stopping X, just like Baden was righteous for banning. So calling it the "same game in reverse" is fundamentally untrue. Truth need not tip it's hat to BS.
Does Y need to "beat" X or just restrain X? I'm not arguing that, if the choice was only between banning and not banning, with no other option, that banning would not be preferable. Deletion is another option, which restrains the person, while rejecting the material and not the person.
My point was, it's not, as you said, "the same game in reverse." One side is right and the other side is wrong. You've already stipulated that it is the site's prerogative on how to be right.
I sure wouldn't want to police bigots in the hopes of reformation. It's not a matter of whether Y needs to beat X or not. It's his choice to take him out for tea and explain the error of his ways, or not.
Fair enough. I propose two strikes for the repentant misogynist and one for the unrepentant.
Man, I've come across quite a few oblique, or casually, racist comments across several threads but I stay critically engaged anyway to expose and ridicule them until you Mods judge they should be banned (mostly you all don't ban them, or maybe you give warnings, idk). I've been accuse by some of these members of "reverse racism" or "anti-white prejudice" for my clear anti-racist stands with respect to police violence in the US, etc. I give at least as good as I get, but I don't report; from my nightclub bouncer days, I still love 'punching' assholes (i.e. curb-stomping racists, misogynists, antisemites, fascists, et al). Keep on keepin' on, Baden! :up:
thank you
What if a woman on here said:"I am an unrepentant misandrist. For me, the concept that a man should be considered the equal of a woman, if he is any kind of woman, is simply fucking ludicrous"?
Now of course, I am not denying there would not be any difference, given that women obviously have not been treated fairly in this patriarchal society. they have been, and in ways still are, the oppressed class.
Anyway, I've said enough on this. All I was expressing is the idea I have that a less rigorous approach might be, all things considered, better. But I'm not a moderator and I don't know how much effort is required to carry out the task.
:rofl: :up: :death:
Probably should have lead with that. I tried to parse the rest of it, but dinner's on and a quick skim didn't reveal any distinctions with a relevant difference. Enjoy the evening.
I will when the evening comes. It's morning here.
One of the most salient characteristics of philosophy since its inception in Ancient Greece was the banishment and putting-to-death of its adherents. These persecutions of the philosophers were based upon their perceived transgressions of the community’s laws. For example, Socrates was condemned to death by a jury of his peers for corrupting the youth by teaching the existence of gods other than those sanctioned by Athens.
Now, we don’t persecute ppl anymore—at least in the “free” world—for believing in and espousing the wrong god, and that is a good thing for philosophy; but we do persecute them for other transgressions, ones peculiar to our day and time. Every society, in all places and times, has its forbidden topics. In Ancient Greece you couldn’t talk about the possibility of gods other than Zeus or Hera, etc; in modern liberal democracies you can talk about any god you will. In ancient societies it was a given that women and men are unequal (and it was surely scandalous when Plato, in his Republic, suggested that women ought to serve in the military); in the modern dispensation, that possibility is anathema to thought, and you could lose your status in society, or your job, by giving it voice.
The speech that the rulers of this “philosophy” forum have deemed to be forbidden is the same speech that is censured by liberal society throughout the world: anything “sexist, racist or homophobic.” Speech has not been given freedom: the reins that restrict it have just been changed. Is it obvious that women and men are equal? Is it patently clear that there is no essential difference between the races? Is the acceptance of homosexuality good for society? Should ppl be allowed to alter the genders they were born with? We may never know the answers to such questions, for we are prevented by means of threats from even asking them.
Philosophy is the UNFETTERED love of wisdom, and that means asking ANY question, however forbidden it be. Socrates wasn’t prevented by Athens from pursuing philosophy, nor are we by Modernity. The advantage we have over the ancients is that whereas we may be kicked out of a forum or lose our job, they could be banished from their country or put to death; the disadvantage to us is that we lack the full diversity of phenomena that they had access to.
Being banned does not lose anyone their job. They aren't killed. They're just told they are not welcome in our house. I don't consider that persecution or even censorship. I've had disagreements with the moderators in the past about particular bannings, but never on the principle behind them.
That pretty much sums up what I’m saying.
Philosophy is never welcome in any “house”, for houses always have rules, and philosophy is unfettered by rules.
So the fact that philosophers and certain web-browsers are both unfettered by rules makes them equal?
Nuff said.
Thumbs up to the ‘one strike you’re out’ policy of unrepentant misogynists. Thanks for the exercise in futility.
Long live the heterogots!
So, the person in question was given a chance to repent? That was not how it appeared to me. My point was at least they ought to be given a second chance. If the person in question was given a second chance and remained unrepentant, then I have not understood the situation.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
If he’s as influenced by social dynamics as you’ve suggested, it’s likely that he would have been compelled to remain consistent with this statement.
The person pre-empted his repention. He outright declared he'd never change. No chance given to repent, because he ab ovo rejected the notion. What do you do? You can't piss against the wind. You can't offer redemption to outright atheists. You can't offer probation to self-confessed serial murderers. You can't offer chocolate ice cream to highly diabetic people.
Seems to me it’s fairly easy to get back on the site anyway, under a different name. That’s been pointed out several times. So if the person banned really wants to get back in, it’s realistic to assume they will.
And realistically speaking, likely they cannot change their ways and will get banned again. You aren't a cordial debater otherwise only to lose it totally at one specific issue.
I wonder which person out there holds the record for total cumulative amount of bannings...
Indeed, but a question was not asked. On the contrary, equality was ruled out absolutely. Thus it was the love of received dogma and prejudice, not the love of wisdom, that was censured.
In this thread we debate what constitutes excretion in the debating chamber. But when it happens, someone has to clean it up, and the cleaners are the rulers as they should be everywhere.
And now with that post you think yourself better than a racist. Nice.
Take it easy you little babe dictator, or just take your pills.
Do you all realize that bans in cyberspace are equivalent to capital punishment in the real world?
Bye, bye avatar. RIP all banned ex-forum members! :death: :flower:
If they were being banned from cyberspace instead of a singe forum. More like being banished from a community.
But this one I just found funny:
Quoting Janus
If we’re concerned about the effects of the forum on individual lives maybe we should start banning any pessimistic users or threads eh. Wouldn’t want it to affect people, their partners, family or society.
I've shared my view previously, that people's bad ideas should be addressed and refuted rather than banning or hating on the person infected with such bad ideas.
Also, its kind of hypocritical in my eyes, that intolerance is ok as long as its only toward people with certain ideologies. Eg, its ok to express intolerance or be inflammatory toward republicans or religious people, or anti-vaccers etc here, up to a point. What is it that makes one form of intolerance less bad than any other?
Are you saying that the expression of dogma and prejudice is not allowed in this forum? that if Zwingli had instead said, “I’m an unrepentant animal hater. The concept that a beast is equal to a human being is absolutely ludicrous,” he would have been banned?
He would on my watch. I always used to ban unrepentant sinners.
But it's difficult for me to mourn the loss of someone who insists on flaunting his prejudice. There's something showy, if not exhibitionist, in such posturings.
You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace.
Up to a point I agree, but see the guidelines:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines
This won't change.
I think he thinks himself smarter than those who debate the banning of an unrepentant misogynist, to be precise.
One can hate women or white folks. Making their lives impossible or like a stay in hell is something completely different.
:rofl:
Quoting unenlightened
:100:
:up:
Only in my dreams, alas.
I would think our friend Marco would be at the top.
I think banning people for low quality posts is just a way to allow removal of aggravating people. Driving while annoying.
People have been banned for posts that are less offensive than the one in question.
Hey.... It was just that once.
It's the difference between living with your spouse and prostituting him/her.
:naughty:
Well, he ain't around, no posts by him anywhere these days, so either he has been banned or found for himself a forum better suited for his values.
Doctor's office.
Doctor (looks at the patient, then says), "Sir, you've got to stop masturbating."
Patient: "What?? Wh... wh... why, my god, why?"
Doctor: "Because now I want to examine you."
My point was not to ban anyone at least not on the strength of one outburst or statement. Delete offensive posts was my suggestion; reject the idea, not the person. So, your objection is misdirected.
Yeah, 'making a rule' isn't the same as 'trying to justify making (that) rule'.
Plenty of Little Heideggers in the world, though, and Little Hitlers for that matter.
Yeah, I call mine that too. It's the half-hearted salute. And it's always invading somewhere. And it's crap at painting.
No, but you can be Pilate...as long as you wash the blood off your hands.
The hates women guy was Jesus? Tell me more. [Breaks out popcorn].
It's amusing how up in arms the self-righteous become.
Did you read the context in which MZ expressed his misogyny? There was no intention to treat him charitably even before he expressed his misogyny. He was hunted after the moment he admitted to holding secret prejudice.
What exactly is so shameful? Many members here who disagree with the specific ban support their opinion with reasonable arguments, which are about that he was banned for a specific post . And that his general attitude wasn't fanatic. Also the main objection was that he didn't have a chance to explain himself.
Not even one single member supported his views of misogynism, they just found the banning too much for the specific person.
So what exactly should they be shamed about and you use such heavy, offending words? That they just have some objections on mods decision? Is Democracy a shame??
And as to close, it's not that I will miss MZ, not even considering him as a high quality poster as to be honest. But I just found the banning too much.
Yeah of course is under the mods judgement and you can't accuse them since even one post can send you out. But give the rest of us the chance to express our objections. Should we kneel down to Mods and kiss their ring, even if we disagree with them? That is what would make us "brave" and not "cowards"?
The only shameful thing here in my opinion is the way that some attack with such offensive words to other members, who just have different opinion and NOT supporting misogynism of course. Is that how you "support" equality? Anyway. So be.
...what the Enlighteners did not envision was that philosophy herself would, through this process, become a prejudice. Now everyone has their own personal “philosophy”, and it’s almost always just some version of what is popularly held to be true. Extending reason to the people has not resulted in elevating the people, making them more reasonable and removing their prejudices; it has instead merely replaced their old prejudices with new ones—ones as equally opposed to true philosophy as the old ones were...
...in ancient times it was a prejudice that women were inferior to men; in modern times it is a prejudice that they are equal.
Many questions follow: What have we learned from this shameful debacle? How can we improve ourselves? Will PF ever recover? Who will make the womenfolk iron our shirts now that our lord and saviour is no longer with us?
Good. Proud misogynists forfeit that chance. And if anyone is offended by the way misogynists and their apologists are spoken about, good. That we are not a safe space for delicate snowflakes who want to hate women who compose our community is lovely.
What if he rises again in three days? Has it been three days yet? :chin:
What is not good though is offending others. Rephrasing their objections about mods decision by calling them "misogynist apologists". As if anyone supported that view.
Sorry my friend but I don't find that so lovely.
Your opinion.
Why, we'll bury him again, good sir. Along with all apostles we root out, and we'll do so mercilessly and with heaping sods of mockery and disdain, for none of these are men; they are but sad urchins so insecure in their physical and mental fortitude that the notion of a woman of even the minimal moral and intellectual qualities wanted to dwarf all that they are sends them quaking, tiny-booted, back to the foetid basements of their souls from whence they scream absurdities they insult to call "philosophy". No, we shall not listen nor shall we mourn them; no sir, no more than the vector flea whose disease dies with it!
:up: My message to Zwingli and his ilk. :point:
"You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!"
Oh no, can't resist...
Oompa loompa doompety doo
I’ve got a perfect puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you’ll listen to me
What do you get when you boast of your misogyny
Hating as much as an unrepentant clansman
What are you at, getting terribly bigoted
What do you think will come of that
I don’t like the look of it
Oompa loompa doompety da
If you’re not misogynistic, you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do
:lol:
I’ve got an obvious puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you aren't dumb you’ll listen to me
What do you get when you split semantic twine
Batting strands about like a hair-brained feline
What are you at, it's misogyny you idiot
Why do you think you should bring it up, that
I don’t like the look of it
Oompa loompa doompety da
If you’re not pedantic you will go far
You will live without misogyny too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do
'Tis sad indeed what has become of jamalrob. But ne'er fear the tyrant shall be deposed one day and in his place we shall install the fairest and most equitable of democracies... ruled over with an iron first by me.
Nice try but meh... Try an Oompah song though and you might pass muster. :strong:
Intolerance of espoused^^ intolerance? Fuck yeah. 'Pissing on the floor or furniture' (though not on any other guest in particular – well, in any 'civilized' saloon, toss 'em out the goddamn door!) :fire:
i.e. assholery^^
But that was a test. The banned cannot return his everlasting gobstopper, and you will never say, “So shines a good deed in a weary world.”
Just as well.
Would that the gobstopper had fulfilled its employment, our martyr may never have been banned. :cry:
:rofl:
I missed some entertaining stuff while I was asleep.
Now, would one of you tiny-booted muttonheads pass the mustard?
Yes, it's quite surprising. I think we, the staff, have a loose convention whereby it's the banner who is responsible for closing the thread. Baden might be leaving it open to catch some more misogynists.
Not for those that have been on the forum for one or two days.
For those with over 10k posts and years of participation, that may be the case...
Ah ok. So we should just delete any posts that seem pessimistic. Wouldn’t want it affecting people, their partners, or society after all. Gotcha.
My objection is to the idea that mods should be responsible for the societal and personal impact of the site. That’s ridiculous.
I highly doubt that. A specific individual comes to mind.
I haven't said that pessimistic posts should be deleted. What is to be deleted is up to the mods. I also haven't said they are or should be responsible for " the societal and personal impact of the site", I was just pointing to possible negative effects of such a rejection and advocating a bit of compassion.
All I was suggesting is deletion of offending posts (with of course a warning) rather than immediate banning in all cases; of course if the person persists in producing offensive posts then that would be another matter. What's "ridiculous" is putting words in the mouth of others..
It is hypocritical only for those who profess tolerance for all. No one here lives up to that, as far as I can see, though some claim it. Which is far worse than being honest in my opinion. Would you be tolerant of someone trying to rob you? Or are you just another person who claims tolerance for all, until someone inconveniences you enough (like everyone else)?
What makes some kinds of intolerance less bad than others? Many things. For instance, how harmful is the object of intolerance. I doubt you think intolerance of animal cruelty is as bad as intolerance of the existence of Jews. One is harmful one isn’t. And that leads to another difference: Accuracy of facts the intolerance is based on. Anti semites will claim that the existence of Jews is more harmful than animal cruelty, and will base their opinions on that. And they would be wrong, and their intolerance misplaced and unacceptable.
“You shouldn’t be responsible for societal impact”
“But watch out, doing this will cause have a negative societal impact, so you shouldn’t do it”
Quoting Janus
It’s rarely in all cases. This is an exception, understandably because the banned member openly said he breaks a rule.
I think they are being compassionate to the female philosophers on the site. Perhaps you could be more compassionate to the moderators; it is thanks to their unpaid efforts that the site is not overrun with conspiracy theorists, proselytisers of all flavours, haters of various sections of the membership, trolls and idiots. They get far more criticism than praise or thanks, and willingly subject themselves here to the public complaints of the very people they work to keep the site bearable for - the contributors. They are not perfect, but if you find a better free site for philosophical discussion I'll join you there.
Exactly. The moral vacuity of those who would like to see "compassion" extended to bigots while having nothing to say about a full one half of the population for whom their being lesser-than is 'just another opinion' could not be a less compassionate stance. Compassion is excizing cancer not sympthizing with it.
Want to start a thread on this topic? I think I was talking more about the spirit of intolerance. Hatred based on difference of race, sex, ideology. Hatred is an infection, and I think all forms of hatred are rooted in ideologies. But yeah, I'd prefer to get more philosophical in a philosophy thread.
There are two types of people in this world: the righteous and the wicked.
And it is invariably the righteous who determine who is in which group.
Quote from the publication "Murphy's Law" cca 1975
:up: The impulse to protect the aggressor here puzzles me too.
Quoting jamalrob
Wanted to give a little warning before closing as it had become popular. Then it became funny. Will close soon and try not to steal the last word. :smile:
I hate to be bound by convention, so locked. :cool:
As far as we know, Pilate never masturbated in public. You're thinking of his great friend in Rome, Biggus Diccus.
Well, better late than never.
He has a wife you know...
So I've heard. I love the Romans in that movie, and particularly the "Romanus eunt domus" scene.
If you’re not a returning banned member you will go far
Doompety doo!
You forgot about all the secret bannings. They banned T Clark and he had to sneak back on.
Agreed.
Sorry, it was a joke. I am the Philosopher Formerly Known as T Clark.
You got me.
Wow, a bit surprised. He treated me quite well when I got here.
He's a smart guy, no doubt. But that kind of rhetoric is not conducive to anything, outside of getting people mad....
Oooo. That hurts. As much as anyone @streelight represented what is best in the forum.
How do you figure?
No. He didn't.
Unchecked hatred and bitterness are what is worst in any public forum anywhere.
Oooo. That hurts. As much as anyone Streelight represented what is best in the forum to me.
I have no representatives.
I agree. In addition, he was one of the top two or three forum members in his understanding of and interest in science. I always felt like I could count on him to set things straight when most everyone else was talking through their pseudo-scientific hats. I still go back and reread some of his old posts from time to time when I have a question.
I take it this was not a unilateral decision on your part?
I agree. While I didn’t appreciate his anti-theistic posting and general rhetoric, I figured it was something I’d just ignore.
Whether it was ban worthy is outside of my jurisdiction. Probably not an easy call to make.
I say this to let everyone know this was a difficult decision, made over a long period of time, with plenty of prior warning.
A person who has been here for 7 years? No, it cannot possibly have been an easy choice at all, clearly we've lost a good contributor here.
However, the bit that I have seen and have spoken to him, he must have known that his way of talking to people is hardly adequate, especially on a consistent basis. Everyone will have a bad day or get mad, the issue is the frequency of the matter.
In any case, it's a loss that must have been discussed thoroughly.
Most bannings of real people. Any of particular note.
"Real people" as in not socks? That's strange, cause whenever i happen to see a notification it is usually about socks being banned. In any case, so the fanfare isn't strategically decided?
We ban lots of spambots and adbots.
Ah, some of them averaging 100's of posts, it seems.
The reason i ask is because of this member , https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/720/deletedmemberzc
evidently an ole timer, and not a word was spoken about it by anyone. From multiple posts everyday, this fella suddenly stopped. Naturally one will wonder. Thanks for the responses.
I don't know why they were banned. That one looks like a requested deletion rather than a punitive banning, though. I don't recall that person ever breaking rules or being an arse.
Maybe some arses are liked more than others. Or perhaps they are strategically useful, and therefore pampered and encouraged, it seems.
In any case who knows what goes on behind closed doors and nor is it that important. Just happened to see this and decided to check on the well being of the central committee members, and say hello so to speak. Bye
Yes— but couldn’t help himself.
He contributed to the forum, and it’s unfortunate.
On the other hand, how one conducts oneself is equally (if not more) important than knowledge or logical correctness, in my view. So for all the talk about how intelligent he was, he was far from wise.
Makes you ask: What good does all this reading and studying do when you’re constantly angry, hostile, demeaning, and vulgar?
I look at great teachers like Chomsky, Sagan, Zinn, etc. — their actions speak for themselves. Perhaps Street was like that in person — in which case he’s one more victim of the online disinhibition syndrome.
I’d argue if a philosopher isn’t thinking about politics, he’s hardly a philosopher at all. Here I echo (and agree with) Aristotle.
I can confirm that this member asked to be banned.
I agree. And one can speak and write coming from a perspective of being angry at something or someone, it's allowable and even normal - on occasion.
That's a far cry from being bitter, vengeful, provocative (in the negative sense of the word) and insulting. That does not achieve anything, if rational discourse is the goal here (at least a good deal of the time.)
Quoting Xtrix
It's a good question. I suppose (guess actually) to feel superior to someone else, in some manner.
Again, sad, but, it is what it is.
I agree, and remember a conversation where he actually scoffed at the very concept of wisdom. Granted it's a tricky one. I wish Street no ill will and all the best in his non-forum life.
[irony]Thank you for your insightful comments on wisdom.[/irony]
The quality of posts on the forum has gone way down over the past year or longer. I could put up with a lot of vituperation if it meant there was some meat to chew instead of the pap we have been getting recently. There are a lot of useless, lame, insipid posts made and threads started these days. Multiple threads started one after another by people with nothing to say. One sentence OPs. People dropping into ongoing threads just to make pointless, irrelevant comments so they can hear themselves talk. The usual suspects making insubstantial snarky comments.
So, I will continue to miss @Streetlight
I’m not sure where irony fits in here. Sarcasm, perhaps?
In which case all I can say is: I never said *I* was wise. I struggle with my temper and lack of patience as much as anyone.
Still, I think the question stands.
:up:
Irony - "The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning."
Quoting Xtrix
You never said you were wise, but you pontificated on another's lack of wisdom.
“Pontificated” is an odd way to interpret me there. It’s just plainly true that he acted unwisely, to the extreme in fact, over and over again and even after multiple warnings.
No one is asking you not to miss someone you clearly have attachment to. But let’s try not to make things up in the meantime.
:up:
I heard it through the grapevine how the toothless "make up" imaginary meat to chew on. I suppose it is like having imaginary friends eh
I always held out for the hope that he would have a sensible debate that didn't turn into vicious attacks, insulting rhetoric, and automatically dismissive stance against interlocutors, but that rarely happened. Shame, because he had the potential to stick to the debate and be more constructive.. But it seemed like extreme self-importance and arrogance got in the way of his own argumentation. That's my sense anyway interacting with him over the years.. We mainly got out of each other's way though.
Quoting Xtrix
Pontificate - "To speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way."
I stand by my characterization.
Pointing out a truism isn’t being dogmatic, nor pompous.
The reality is that you’re upset he was banned, and you’re looking for a fight.
Also unwise. But I do similar things often, so I don’t hold it against you.
Yeah— it’s unfortunate. Personally I found most of it funny, even at my own expense. Pretty predictable.
You're trying to sound all reasonable instead of smug and self-righteous, but if you were really wise, you'd just shut up and let me vent. But I guess it's important for you to get in the last word.
No.
If you want to vent, don’t make things up about me in the process.
I didn't make them up. I mean what I say and I think your words justify my characterization. I understand you disagree.
I have no problem with the decision the moderators made. I know it was hard. You've all known him longer than I have. I'm just furious with people who have contributed much, much less to the forum than he did pissing on him now that he's gone.
Dude, he had some good information sometimes.. and when focused on a source text, could lead some constructive debates... but that guy pissed on everyone when he was here. And I have been here longer than him.. I will give him a positive though.. he seemed to be a fair moderator. He didn't seem to abuse his power.. At least as far as I know from my limited view.
Quoting Paths
Quoting Moliere
Quoting praxis
Quoting Manuel
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting Maw
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting schopenhauer1
Agreed. Let's bring back Street!
Was there a specific comment or thread that broke the camels back to get him kicked out?
I bet it was his discussion with @180 Proof @baker and @Tate in the roe v wade thread
Hope he works through whatever his issues are.
I am just surprised he wasn’t done away with years ago tbh. Being knowledgeable is no excuse for open and untamed bigotry and bullying directed towards anyone who happens to share a different opinion.
I think - not sure - he voluntarily requested account deletion. He banned the forum, not vice versa. As far as I know.
Quoting I like sushi
:ok:
Quoting coolazice
Exactly! But mods cannot be expected to go through every post of a long term and prolific poster forever; this decision is long overdue, and has been delayed because of the one in six excellent contributions.
Quoting Monitor
No. Flaming, insult and ridicule is an effective means of censorship as coolazice attests, and its removal is essential to free discussion.
One cannot know how many contributors have been put off posting by the many gratuitous insults he made. But I know of another intelligent poster who has expressed such a sentiment as I quoted above. How many have read such posts and not even bothered to sign up to the site is anyone's guess. I have avoided him as much as I could, so the world has missed some of my pearls because of his flaming. That's three posters already.
I appreciate that... I am of the rather thick skinned school when it comes to debating. I think there is a tad too much concern for the feelings of anxiety at receiving a harsh remark, but that is me. Of course there are limits to everything and they lay differently with different people. I am sorry you felt intimidated.
If he was more thick-skinned it might have played out differently. Maybe after several months of therapy he will learn or maybe not. Either way good riddance!
Yep
Quoting I like sushi
:100: yep
He sure read a lot of books, but didn't seem quite able to use any of them to aid his own well-being or guide his behavior. Thoughts and prayers. :pray:
It wasn't just flaming, it was bigotry too. The worst posts have been deleted, so your commentary might not be fully informed. Also, I think it's fair to say that almost no one would object to this decision if @Streetlight wasn't a great contributor in other ways. But we don't give out licences to break the rules to anyone. First and foremost, we try to do what's good for TPF. And it's not good for TPF to allow consistent disruptive invective from anyone or to allow anyone to ignore mod warnings.
Also, I hope no one thinks that this type of thing:
[quote=Streetlight] I take it for granted that Christians are vicious, vacuous, shells of human beings who actively ruin everything around them when they are not busy raping children or defending those who do.[/quote]
is acceptable. If you do, please do us all a favour and leave now.
No, we don't babysit posters. They follow the rules or they get banned. It's that simple.
:100:
@Streetlight is banned...
Yes? Diogenes the Dog, when reminded that the people of Sinope had sentenced him to exile, responded that he had sentenced them to remain in Sinope.
I hear you, but, despite his contributions, he seemed to have burnt a number of bridges along the way, and you have to expect those affected to voice those experiences as well. This thread won't always be limited to eulogies.
This brings up a more general moral principle.. How much leeway does one give those who possess a lot of information about X?
For example, from what I've read, Albert Einstein was a pretty nice dude. Clearly, his immense amount of knowledge and expertise advanced our whole understanding of physics how the universe works. What happens if instead of being a nice guy, he was an immense douche to everyone who disagreed with him? My guess is his contribution to the field of knowledge in general would give him a pass.
But contributing some academic-minded posts to an internet philosophy forum and being a douche to anyone that disagrees with you? Probably not so deserving of a pass.
But even more to the point, having proprietary knowledge in and of itself should not give you a pass to do what you want.
One more point.. in a philosophy debate setting like a philosophy forum, it is not enough just to be well-read, but to also be able to interact with the minimal guidelines of decorum, as it completely dissolves the spirit of philosophical inquiry if you aggressively dismiss the interlocutor and never actually engage in the debate itself.
Ok see this is a good example. If you really felt that way you wouldn't have had to come up with a way to not-so-slyly call anyone who thinks the world, let alone intelligent debate, is better off without filth (not calling anyone filth just speaking about conduct and mindset) chickenshit.
Some people just don't like garbage, dude. That's not towards anyone, at all- other than behaviors. A simple "I disagree" will do, it doesn't have to be "Well knowing you I understand why you think that". If I'm already wrong you don't have to imply I have some deep, internal problem on top of it. Eh, some do. Don't you guys call that ad hominem or something? How does that advance an intelligent discussion? A political or business endeavor, certainly. But not a debate. At least not a real one with participants seeking knowledge and insight.
To his credit I think he is confusing Christians with "Christians". Most do. I know I did. And how. That's gonna have to be a story for another day though.
I'll miss Streetlight's posts. Even some of the angry ones. There is plenty to be rageful about in this world and his vitriol resonated at times.
But I understand we are not islands, and this is a social space.
I consider Street a friend, and a positive influence on my own thinking, and it made me sad to see so I felt the need to say something.
et al
I had not noticed Streetlight's banning, because I generally avoided his posts. Yes, he was a very knowledgeable fellow and his posts were well written. He wasn't always corrosive. Still...
He seemed to be driven by an ill-willed animus toward the western establishment--which is understandable--but it had no bounds. Unbounded hostility has distorted my thinking at times, so I have some understanding of how it works. Unbounded hostility comes from neurosis or leads that way (probably both, in a tail-chasing circle). For one's own mental health, one does well to derail it.
He asked to be banned? Odd, but maybe that was a self-intervention he needed.
Streetlight did not ask to be banned. That was someone else.
I assumed he was in the middle of a crisis because the last time I felt that way, I was.
I don't think it's appropriate to psychologize someone who's not around to defend themselves.
If you see any members called "deletedmember" + some combination of initials, that means they requesting banning or membership removal. Otherwise, it was us that initiated it.
I don't know what you mean.
Once anger gets the better of humor and one's sharp wit dulls to nothing but bitter vitriol, you're no longer a gadfly – just a bore (à la mean drunk). Good riddance; and good luck, comrade.
:death: :flower:
Agree. He is one of the reasons I lost respect for this forum.
Dogs bark, and the caravan goes on, straight into hell.
He's not your comrade and you're not his, and you know it.
Here here..
His special treatment came from an idea I raised that if a person is knowdgeable in specialized areas, people often give that person a pass to act like an arrogant prick.
Example: I know X thing that makes you money. My specialized knowledge is necessary for your company’s doing well. I can therefore act XYZ negative ways against others because I wield this knowledge with impunity. The thing is he rarely used the specialized knowledge in such a useful way, so isn’t even that close an analogy.
I can remember for example he ran a long thread on Wittgensteins PI and got a lot of in depth debate about passages therein. That raised his stock amongst the literati in these parts. For every one of those, he had 10 times more negative impacts towards posters even slightly different in interests and takes.
As someone else pointed out, his focus moving from philosophy to politics marked a significant shift in his tone.
He was always arrogant and dismissive but yes, his aggression got worse over time it seems.
Yet again, back to the Brokeback Mountain fantasy thing.
Perhaps if you focus better you can post something actually lived and offering that kind of value.
So be it.
But who’s the fool and who is suffering the fool? The Arrogant Bastard’s eternal [s]dilemma[/s] contradiction.
If you define a fool as anyone Street flamed, or every member of every group he made bigoted comments about then yes, but that would be foolish.
I notice you allow some people to write insults and harass others. It is one reason I don't like using this forum as much.
To quote our rules:
"A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted)."
This rule was followed closely here. If we did fail to follow this rule, it was in extending leniency in the hopes we could gain compliance, but we couldn't get that to happen.
Anyway, where you arrived at the conclusion @Baden acted unilaterally, I don't know. I'm not here to defend him, but I'm also not going to pretend that I and the other mods weren't as much a part of the decision as he was.
I don't want to derail this thread too much, but
Is an excellent question. In my view, Einstein could have still contributed by submitting papers, as his work and theories can still be appreciated even without having to deal with him personally. But we certainly draw a line even in these cases-brilliant professors who sexually assault their students, for instance will get fired regardless of how "good" their work is. In an online philosophy forum, where the quality of discussion is in part affected by the language people use (especially if such language can affect whether people want to engage, the quality of their engagement, etc), I don't think its unreasonable to ask people to be mindful of how they interact with each other. Furthermore, there are plenty of ways to word specific sentiments or express disagreements that don't come off as bigoted, fallacious, assholeish etc. There's a clear difference between saying
and
Note how one facilitates conversation, debate, and understanding (which I would hope is the point of posting) and the other doesn't. In my opinion, allowing blatant disregard for the rules of logic, fallacies, and common decency (I realize this is a fuzzy term) will hurt the quality of any philosophical community.
This bothers me. If it is fine to put up with bigoted language as long as we "agree" with it, in my opinion, we have no right to criticize others for standing by when someone says something racist, sexist, etc. In this case, popular bigotry gets a free pass because more people "feel" the same way and agree with the sentiment.
Huh? I know Unenlightened, I value his contributions, I like his posts. I did not know he felt that way. I was genuinely sorry he felt intimidated, I had not guessed and it made me think... Perhaps you jump to conclusions just a tad too quickly? And honestly, your contribution does not display 'intelligent debate' in my book.
Quoting Baden
No, I do not think it is acceptable. I would support those who would speak up against it. It is also such an overt generalization, simplistic, silly, it simply refutes itself. I do think, but that is my attitude in general, that such things are better settled in debate. I do see a trend of people being overly thin skinned. I remember days gone by when Baron Max, Black Crow, Gassendi1, 180 Proof and yours truly were at each other's throat viciously. We would all be tossed out by today's standards. I am a dinosaur and I sound like one, but times really did change. I am European, used to much more rigorous prohibitions against insult and hate crimes than there are in the States, but we became much, much more sensitive today then we were some time ago. Probably a sign of a much more polarized and volatile society...
With this I wholeheartedly concur.
You're referring here to what he said about Christians. That tells me all I need to know about you.
I fite you.
:naughty:
:naughty:
I just had to say what I felt.
One of the important lessons I’ve learned here is when to walk away from an argument without having to have the final word.
What about the zero in a thousand, like most every contributor on TPF , including you and @Baden. we should ban all of us :joke:
Exactly. If @Baden and Co had worked a bit harder, maybe @Streetlight wouldn't have bitten the dust.
Lol!
I was thinking the exact same thing. Thought I misread it.
As they say, son, in civilized parts that dog just won't hunt.
:up:
Like how crime is the price of capitalism.
Like how homphobia is the price of Christianity/Islam.
These are what I've dubbed The Siamese Twin Conundrum: Keep one, keep both; Lose one, lose both!
Quoting Agent Smith
will only hold true, as it indeed does, when the undefinable experience which we call life, is attempted to be boxed and organized into words, language, concepts, theses, popular/unpopular narratives, and then into organizations. These organizations (most kinds, if not all), as can be seen, are in the business of serving capitalistic motives/masters.
But when the above is observed to be true, as it is (so simple a caveman/woman can see it), and one strikes at the foundation of the word (or at the root of human thought- either one will do) then the entire house of cards will fall. But that's dangerous for the person as well as for "society". The price of alone-ness, and/or poverty (of all kinds) may be too much to handle. Therefore one welcomes the compromises, the hypocrisy, the double standards, and the rather comedic appeals to righteousness (several on this thread) when it suits one's purpose.
Otherwise, a lover of wisdom, if there is one, will be quite content, in understating/experincing the undefinable behind the word, and in understanding the word is not the thing : therefore rejecting the entire edifice, can easily stay with "one", (instead of "both")
Funny how taking an impersonal position on a subject, a position that was for instance also taken by John Stuart Mill to name one, immediately leads to judgments about my personal character...
I am not against the banning per se. I trust Baden's judgment, he explained it and is an excellent mod. I am also not here to make enemies. The banning of a prolific and long term poster is a cause for discussion. Not a subject to be scared of in a philosophy forum I would think.
Personally I had friendly and helpful interactions with him. He spoke passionately with me (via PM) about continental philosophy, especially deleuze, and I consider it a real shame for the forum to lose someone who can contribute to those types of discussions.
If this was a democracy I'd vote clemency.
:lol: I like that.
I'm glad I made you go :lol: All comedians go to heaven!
[quote=The Dalai Lama]Theoretically possible...[/quote]
One shouldn't assume the flaws in language imply imperfections in reality. That would be, to my reckoning, sawing off the very branch one sits on and lectures the world. We're, in a sense, projecting our own shortcomings onto the world.
On the contrary. It was said , the flaws are in the very real imperfections in oneself, Language is doing what it is supposed to do. Language is a trivial matter, simply a tool. Just one link in the chain.
So, It is when one loses sight of these real imperfections within oneself, tires to conceal one's own shortcomings by the cunning use of language (weaving supporting philosophies), or any/all tools available in said edifice : always on the defense of one's fragile house. then it may serve well to do a reality check, as suggested in previous post. That being said,take it easy.
We are the lovely people for whom the intelligent perform - you guys have to have an audience don't you.
I see, like the Delphic Oracle once warned her clients - the citizens of Delphi - temet nosce (know thyself).
That out of the way, as you so rightly pointed out, language is just a tool and how good/bad it is as one reflects upon its creator's (us) ingenuinity/stupidity. Let's stop shifting the blame and own up to our own (silly) follies, oui?
Hats off to you sir/ma'am, as the case may be!
Yet, if you consider the silliness of the people listening to said oracle, isn't it funny? They are listening to an outside source when you are the book you want to read? I suppose it has to do something with an absence of integrity, and fortitude. We are not going to start psychoanalyzing this your way and sound ridiculous, in our worship of quack/codpsychology in support of our shortcomings. That is the same sh**, right?
Quoting Agent Smith
Agreed. It will sound much more authentic and sincere if i will take the liberty of changing your last sentience to be read as - "i will stop shifting the blame and own up to my own (silly) follies, oui?". Doesn't it sound better? Now the measure of this insight is obviously going to show in conduct, both in public and in private. Now that will remain to be seen.
Quoting Agent Smith
What do ya say, shall we call it a day now that the point is clear and school is over? But see, got ya to speak, instead of your usual emoji. Ciao
I like the way you think! However, you're paying a price which some may not be willing to. What that is exactly is for you to find out monsieur.
All I can say is this: It's not that simple. :grin:
Too bad, life would've been so much easier if it were, si?
I assume this is irony, but I'm not sure where I suggested that the mods are not hard-working. I'm simply pointing out a technological mechanism which exists on Facebook which doesn't exist here. If the mods don't want it, fine by me. Just thought I'd mention it.
Definitely gonna think more before I post. Which is good. I think.
True, but the shame is Streetlight's only, for the absence of restraint required to restrict oneself "to those types of discussions".
Erm ... where are you?
No, that doesn’t appear to be the price. The price seems to be not being over-the-top hostile and bigoted. A very low bar, actually.
So I ask anyone to enlighten me please: was Streetlight an atheist scientist, or a religious person? For the life of me, I can't remember at all.
I read four pages about his banning, and from that I learned: he was angry, he turned political, he was feisty, and he had been well-versed in academic philosophy. But none of these tell me about his basic belief system.
I know I've encountered a few fanatic political fanatics here, mainly those of the extreme left. I am a lefty myself, but these guys were insanely leftists. I can' t remember the user name of any of them.
:up:
Hurrah! A tedious arrogant rude and contemptuous fool.
Is that an Action Bronson reference?
I would like to suggest that posters keep the first sentence of my post in mind as you write, but also, don't forget the second sentence. A fine balancing act which few have mastered and fewer know about. Bonam fortunam, good people! Keep postin' but be mindful of the rules!
Some of us would not want to lower ourselves to that level.
That's the attitude! Atta boy!
:down: I find this metaphor totally inappropriate and very bad taste.
People who leave this or any other place may be very "alive" and happy!
Clark must be on vacation or something - he hasn't posted on the shout box lately. But then, hardly anybody else has, either. Everybody on vacation? In bed with Covid? Joined the Ukrainian army? In D.C. to advise JB? Exploring the sewers of Paris?
Did you warn Jackson at least once, or did you simply ban him?
I was looking for an online philosophy forum where people took philosophical methodology seriously, and I wasn’t finding it from some groups on facebook. I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of avoiding fallacies, basic stuff like that. Of course it doesn’t mean people have to get banned, they can be warned, have it explained why their argument is inappropriate, etc. But at the end of the day posts that discourage sincere contributors from engaging will hurt the quality of the forum in the long run. I applaud the mods for, in my view, trying to make this forum a place where philosophy can happen.
Yes, he was warned.
"Well it's simple gay people are nasty plane and simple, sure a few of the woman might not be but I'm talking like 1% of the gay community
And so naturally a bunch of guys that like to get phucked in the azz by other guys and seek this kind of thing out via the night club party seen are going to be the scum that infects the nation"
Oh, the irony...
Quoting MAYAEL
So I assume that mom was a homophobe as well.
:lol: Exactly.
This does not sound like MAYAEL. I've interacted with him a few times. So, I'm not sure why he would write something like this. Maybe he was drunk when he wrote it. Or he was just stressed out over the news of diseases over and over again that he's taking it out on certain segment of the population.
It's a pretty serious offense though, whatever the reason. "Scum that infects the nation" is violently dehumanizing.
That, in a nutshell, is what motivates (some) mass-shooters! Sad!
I agree. I wonder if his TPF account was hacked?
Quoting jgill
I've just spent some time looking at MAYAEL's posts and it's clear to me that it's the same person. The same spelling and punctuation mistakes.
I hope this isn’t too silly of a question but why would anyone bother to do that? :chin:
What does aggression mean in terms of forum policy?
Aggression seems pretty standard in debates.
I feel shy questioning you Dear Leader, but I really want to understand :lol:
really?
I wanted to prevent the Salman Rushdie discussion from degenerating into insults like the Ukraine thread did, so when Adamski started getting aggressive towards Hanover, without cause as far as I could tell, I sent him a PM asking him politely not to.
He completely rejected my request, so I reiterated that he was being too aggressive and said I wasn't going to discuss it further.
He responded with this:
"You know what,you do you and I will do me.
This is a new level of cowardice from you.
A "discussion forum"!"
This is always a sign of a problem member. Not only that but he's pretty clearly a returning banned member, as he mentioned Streetlight and the Ukraine thread and said things that suggested he knew me.
As to what I mean by "aggressive", it was the accusations of ignorance, evasion, and "mealy mouthed" something or other. It wasn't ban worthy in itself, but the bad attitude in the PMs and the fact that he was probably a returning banned member combined to provoke my ban hammer.
After initially putting on a good show of being polite and reasonable--including in the email he sent that persuaded me to invite him to the forum a couple of days ago--he quickly began to turn nasty.
I'll make this one comment, then I promise to shut up. Don't get all excited, I only mean for this thread and this instance.
Adamski was much, much less "aggressive" toward Hanover in the Rushdie thread than I was.
Maybe true but you tell better jokes.
Its weird from my perspective that one person can be highly aggressive, I'm thinking Xtrix, and become a moderator. And then another is banned for aggression and bad attitude.
Quoting Jamal
:up:
Meh.
Xtrix is a good mod and I haven't noticed anything untoward in his posts.
He was pretty maniacal before Streetlight left. Streetlight was a bad influence.
I'm thinking of leaving this forum because of Xtrix. He is authoritarian, he is patronizing, he acts in bad faith. And now that he's a moderator, we can't do anything against that.
I searched for when he said "kill yourself", and found several hits, not just one, e.g.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
He tells people to kill themselves. And he's getting away with it.
I disagree with pretty much everything you say except for this. Yes, Xtrix shouldn't be a moderator.
Quoting Tate
Interesting.......
Nah, he's like Streetlight in that he loses his mind if you disagree with him. Hopefully he'll grow out of it soon.
Being aggressive isn't acting in bad faith, but speaking of it, do you believe that you always act in good faith? You seem rather trollish at times and that makes it harder to take your criticism seriously.
:up: Mea culpa too.
I do lose my temper occasionally; I don’t deny it. There are some topics and some people I find particularly difficult. I don’t recall any instance of you being one of them, so I wonder what you’re referring to.
In terms of being a moderator, I try to be fair and discuss almost every move I make with other, more experienced, moderators. Even if I wanted to abuse the power, I couldn't do it.
Quoting Tate
I never got along with Streetlight, and don’t consider him an influence in the least. Nor has my style changed since he’s left.
If you’re going to make things up, try harder. Quoting Tate
Nah, you’re just still upset that I (and everyone else) called you out on an irrelevant and snarky post you made last month that you then cried about for a week, playing the victim of injustice. So your input here is warped and, quite frankly, worthless and easily ignored.
Quoting baker
See above. Another person whose feedback I will readily ignore. You are one of the most posturing, condescending posters on this forum, and have been for years. You don’t listen to a word almost anyone says — you care solely about contradicting. Take a long look at your comments and it’s very easy to demonstrate. If you’re thinking of leaving because of me, I consider that a merit.
Quoting baker
I've never told anyone to kill themselves. I was very clear about that in the thread you're quoting. Within the context of believing life is not worth living, is nothing but pain, etc., it's a legitimate question -- why not kill yourself? In fact it's a question that the psychiatrist Viktor Frankl would often ask his patients.
This is a good example of why your leaving this forum would be a deliverance, in my view.
I beg your pardon, and I know this is playing right into the criticisms being leveled at me, but given my (mostly recent) history with the three of you, your opinions about my moderator status is worth about as much as Trump's opinions about the FBI raid.
Drag NOS in here too, while you're at it. More fair and balanced criticism, I'm sure.
Lastly, for context:
Quoting Xtrix
Eh, we all die at the end of the novel anyway.
Many were deleted. A lot of really bizarre stuff, claiming he’s God, etc. Was warned but kept at it. Could be a mental health issue (and I’m not saying this jokingly).
Anyway — it was clear cut.
I thought he might have been AI. Reads like some of the stuff from Sokal.
:rofl:
He could be God for all we know. To untrained eyes good sometimes appears to be evil and vice versa of course. There's this Buddhist tale in which a man, because of his bad karma, sees an ugly, mangy dog with a wound infested with maggots instead of God; bad karma manifests as maya (illusion). :smile:
:rofl:
Nothing thing about me without me. Seems rude to talk behind his back.
Stressful, stressful! Take it easy mods!
Oddly we don't ban misanthropes; homophobia, misogyny, misandry, etc. are all implied.
Here's me thinking that wanting a nuclear war should suffice on pain of stupidity...
I have debated with Bartricks in some threads. I am sorry if my arguments or behaviour were one of the causes of his disruptive attitude.
I have never written in Bannings thread because I understand that every member must respect the rules of the forum, and even after notice him, he keeps the same attitude, is understandable de banning.
Nevertheless, I will miss him because I interacted usually. My feelings are weird...
Incidentally, he had been warned about it twice, once around the time he joined, and again recently.
Understandble. I comply the resolution. :up:
Is banning someone as difficult as firing someone? I guess not, when the person is Bartricks.
Normally I consider the celebration of a ban unseemly, but in this case I encourage it.
Nice epitaph.
He was completely nuts! Do you know if he really is a lecturer with REAL human students.
If he is interacting with real human students :scream:
And it is. It reflects badly on those who participate.
You’re just lucky they don’t ban for self-righteous
twat-ness.
Celebration of the banning of a bad actor like Bartricks reflects badly on no one.
I can't believe you said that about Tclark! :fire:
I wished to engage with Barticks at one stage because I saw that he did have some interesting but unusual ideas. However, what I found was that he insulted me so much, with his sense of superiority, or ignored what I had said. For this reason, even though the forum may be important for diverse viewpoints, I felt more relief than sadness in discovering that he had been banned.
Hey @Jamal!! Hey @Baden!! DingoJones is being mean to me.
I know!! It's terrible!!
Excitable Richard.
‘Bad actor’. Big deal, so he was obnoxious. Personally, insults get my competitive juices flowing and seem
to bring out my best arguments. Maybe we should use a metric like ‘percentage of insults to arguments’ to decide who gets booted, to make sure our delicate sensibilities don’t blind us to whatever substantive contributions are intertwined with a nasty delivery.
Lol, well come on. He NEVER misses an opportunity to express his self righteous condemnation of other posters, especially mods.
Obnoxious doesn’t cover his behaviour. The bad acting was also utter lack of engagement bordering on proselytizing, disruptive influence on all discussions he was involved in and completely disingenuine.
His “interesting” ideas we're all based on the same basic fallacy he couldnt recognize.
The only reason he lasted as long as he did was because of idiots like you who thought they found a sparring part er rather than a troll with a personality disorder.
Whoa whoa whoa champ, when was I mean? You got a problem with being a twat? Kinda sexist. :chin:
[whisper]Hey @Joshs, I don't think DJ likes you.[/whisper]
:rofl:
He was bloody dreadful. Incapable of taking on any fresh arguments; putting up a pretence of using logic while failing to have even a basic understanding of the formalities; resorting to insults in every reply. Genuine oxygen thief.
Quoting Jamal
:rofl: :party: :party: :party:
Quoting T Clark
:roll: :rofl: :party: :party: :party:
Thank you very much for your support!
So he made coherent arguments that you were convinced were always incorrect? Sounds like a typical TPL interchange.
Quoting DingoJones
Never underestimate what you can learn from trolls with a personality disorder. Or what you can teach them.
Have you noticed that those most eager to jump on the
‘pummel Batricks’ bandwagon share some of his uncivil
tendencies? Maybe a bit of projection going on here? Just remember what goes around comes around.
Hats off :up: :100:
I remember you also took part in his thread about recognising greatness. I think it is an original topic and his arguments were well defended.
Or probably is just my own view because I have personality disorder :smile: :wink:
His arguments were not coherent. They were at times internally consistent but all based on logical fallacy.
You just can’t be paying attention if you thought Barts posts were indicative of the normal discourse here.
There is being cheeky or abrasive, and then there is vacuous trolling.
Quoting Joshs
Maybe the first one encountered, but I learned nothing from Bart, and Bart never learned anything from anyone that I saw. So what are you talking about?
He can be a toad sometimes. He does know a lot about hazardous waste, tho.
Whose pummelling the guy? This is a thread about bannings, we are discussing the banning of Bartricks.
Besides, you like it when I call you an idiot. Gets your juice flowing, right?
My goodness, I think you might be right.
No, he didn't.
"There but for the grace of god...'
Doubtless. We're better at it.
According to DG he did. Otherwise how would he know they were false?
You don’t know what “projecting” means. Look it up. It doesnt just mean identifying traits in others that you yourself possess, its attributing traits to others based on your own possession of them. Attributing traits based on the other person actually having those traits is just being accurate and rational.
Anyone got a pair of dunce caps for these chuckleheads?
Really? Is that what this has come to? Quibbling about word meanings. Let's get back to the vituperation.
Quoting DingoJones
Ah, yes. That's more like it.
Quoting DingoJones
Doesn’t bother me. Always nice to learn what buttons set someone off.
Well Clark, the end game of quibbling about word meanings was an insult (couple of dunces I implied) so it was still in the right tone I thought. Sorry, word meanings was the only way to lump you two together since “idiot” only describes one of you. Ill do better, scouts honour.
I sincerely hope neither of us is bothered by this exchange. Im just goofing on ya a bit cuz you think Barticks was a worthwhile poster. You’re begging to be made fun of there, like the flat earther website that says they have members all around the globe.
Good analogy. They look good, sometimes even healthy, but they mostly end up on your shoes.
That'll be three fiddy.
Quoting DingoJones
I’m just pissed off because I wasted half an hour writing a response to his ‘greatness’ OP and now he won’t answer it.
He wouldnt have anyway, thats his trick. Discourse with Bartricks was an illusion imo
He would have ignored anything he didnt directly use as a vessel for insult. You were just the latest hopeful to begin a lesson that ends with you realizing you’re wasting your time you just never got the chance cuz he got banned. Good riddance.
Gassendi1 his name was. He was a prick but I learned a lot from him. He really added argumentative quality to the forum as well as knowledge of hard nosed analytical philosophy, something that the forum lacks nowadays.
Quoting T Clark
Agreed. A banning is never nice and no one likes to be ostracized. It is sad for the person to whom it happened Being gleeful about a decision which is needed perhaps, but sad anyway is not very nice. He is not in the position to defend himself as well.
Quoting Joshs
Indeed. When I interacted with Bart, which wasn't very often, he puzzled me because I did see him make some points which made me think. He was unpleasant to me sometimes as well though and I found it odd. Why would he? But then again, why would I care? The forum is a lot like life and I do not think we should be too squeamish about posters who sometimes debate in a harsher form. Sometimes attitudes cross the line, but sometimes we might also ask posters to develop a thicker skin and not take every incivility too sensitively.
Oh, shut up.
I guess you do score extra points for being both concise and to the point :rofl:
He explained.
:up: :up:
@Bartricks – gfy, D-K troll! :victory:
I thought he was making a turn-about, and now I see why, because he got a warning.
But I also agree with the on-grave-jumpers-and-spitters, he was a veritable troll and a highly aggravating sparring partner.
He was good at two things: 1. Insulting others. 2. Pulling them into an argument. 3. Keeping them in the exchange of (false) ideas.
I shuffle around the set like Mr. Rogers.
Chances are low that I will get banned for my sweaters being improperly buttoned.
For your viewing pleasure:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7115/banning-bartricks-for-breaking-site-guidelines/p1
He deserved to be banned and he was banned. That's it.
I respect your decision.
Not to give @Benkei free popcorn? Yes, he doesn't deserve it. He'd spit in your face and tell you it's raining, that fella.
I was thinking more along the lines that it would be good to stop the party sooner than later.
Going to leave that to @Jamal. There were some fairly amusing moments there among the chaos but I expect yes, most have had their say.
Y'all be full of shit, was his guiding motto as it appears.
Yeah, you think your more logical because of your IQ.
:chin:
To be fair, I criticised him for both his personality and for his inept arguments.
Can we go back to arguing for locking this thread again? Second last post before the mods lock it wins. - on the assumption that the last post will be @Baden saying "I locked the thread".
You can't criticize personalities online, only attitudes. And it's not like we're talking about Donald Trump either.
On this I only agree.
He would disagree with parts of that, but those are my reasons.
I think some folks get to a stage where they have typed everything they wanted to type about and have received all the answers they are likely to receive from the members of TPF. I think they reach a saturation point and need a break from TPF to recharge and assimilate what has been offered to them. But I have noticed that many, if not most, come back after a while, so why 'burn yer boats,' in the way Olivier5 seems to have done? Why not leave in a dignified manner, if that's what you want to do.
I figured if I was meticulous enough with my argument and wording I would be able to at least make Bart unable to reply. A little personal challenge. But, the man is a Master at trolling.
The way he balances reasonable statements with nonsense, the way he manages to find the smallest inaccuracy in your wording to write an essay about, the way he commits a different fallacy each reply so that you can never pin him down, the way his insults are (almost) never actually ad hom. Masterclass.
As a rule, I don't comment in the 'Bannings' thread [*]
What thread are you talking about? Is there a link to the examples of the alleged trolling?
It's unfortunate when a long-term poster is driven to the point where they don't care about being banned.
It is similar to the strong feeling I had when I wished my account to be deleted.
That was a result of the toxicity of the 'Ukraine Crisis' thread; also a general dissatisfaction with TPF and other personal reasons.
We can all be idiots at certain times...and being called one could/should be a wake-up call.
Unfortunately, the account of this particular episode sounds immature and childish.
Re your: 'He would disagree with parts of that, but those are my reasons'
[*] one of the reasons I don't comment is that when a person is banned they can no longer respond.
Sorry to see @Olivier5 go.
If you are reading this, I wish you all the very best. Take care.
Find the joy; follow the dance and music wherever... :flower: :sparkle:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13850/why-is-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-so-hard
I don't think he specified which posts he considered to be trolling. His point was that anyone arguing that the hard problem of consciousness is not actually a problem is trolling and should stop posting. He was at risk of derailing the discussion and turning it into another flame-war, so I deleted the post. This led to him posting the same thing, only worded differently, whereupon I asked him to stop, whereupon he called me an idiot, and so on.
There have been many discussions derailed by heated exchanges between 2 strong-willed characters whose personalities/beliefs have clashed.
I note this exchange on p23 of a long discussion:
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Isaac
Again, I see a mirror of what transpired in the 'Ukraine Crisis' thread.
Again, @Isaac seems to remain your favoured one, no matter all previous complaints against him re misrepresentation and more.
A real pity that it came to this. A permanent banning.
However, @Olivier5 is well out of it :sparkle:
Olivier was a little high strung (much like you). He would completely flip out sometimes, especially in private conversations.
I for one will be enjoying a few drinks and perusing his past works.
I have a feeling they are likely to increase in value.
As I said:
Quoting Amity
Not me. I'm always a frickin genius!
I thought you were off grid somewhere in France.
@Olivier5 was ultimately banned for refusing moderation. He only has himself to blame. This has nothing to do with @Isaac or any one else.
That would seem to be a culmination of unfortunate events, including others.
It seems that he couldn't respect the decisions and judgements of @Jamal.
And so, the sword falls...justly or otherwise...
Tu me manques @Olivier5 but we dance on :cool: :sparkle:
Or the rest of the mod team from what I've gathered. And it is just imo that those invited here do so under the condition that they follow moderation. At the same time, I do, of course, respect your right to defend him and bemoan his banning.
Is this related to that one thread or over a period of time?
The whole team?
We need one of those signs:
The boss is not always right. But he's always the boss.
A generalised insult against the whole team by PM.
Oh shut up.
Lol. She asked me!
:lol: Oh, what I wouldn't give to read that...
He is right, of course, you are all idiots. Every last one of you. Who else would take on this thankless job? Except. Maybe. No...
Quoting unenlightened
Indeed.
:grin:
Eejits all :roll:
[s]He'd received two warnings and not improved. He stuck around for three years after his first warning, 6 months after his second. If anything we should have acted quicker.[/s]
Redact this, it's about Bart. I am derp.
Is that better or worse than being twerp? :chin:
Oh shut up.
Creative dumb.
:zip:
I, too, will miss Olivier5.
Which thread?
Hi Wayfarer and Welcome Back :sparkle:
@Olivier5 was a good all-rounder. He appreciated you and your creativity; including songwriting.
He posted your 'The Reason Why' in his 'Deep Songs' thread; a place to share life, light and love. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555476
You and I are everlasting lovers
And I know this love will never die
We will drift like clouds across the sky
And watch the world spin by
A lover's paradise
You and I have always loved in freedom
And I know this freedom is so rare
So I say that you can go or stay with me
You are the light that ends the night
You are the reason why
Yesterday my life was very empty
All my dreams were shadowed in despair
When you came you reached into my soul
You melted me like snow
in springtime's warming glow
You're the one that I have always wanted
And I know you've ever needed me
So I'll stay forever in this ecstasy
You are the light that ends the night
You are the reason why...
(composed and written by ?Wayfarer)
A love song to Sophia, the spirit of wisdom.
Elizabeth Carthew Vocal, John Morrison drums, Natalie Morrison bass, Jonathan Shearman © composer and piano.
https://soundcloud.com/jonathanshearman/the-reason-why-1
I know it. Keep up the good work :up:
I too celebrate what Olivier brought to TPF.
It's good that any banned poster's comments can be read.
It can put any judgements/decisions into perspective.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comments/7108/olivier5
Most unlikely. Even if he did, that would be an instant re-ban.
Well, you're forgiven, just :wink:
It was 2 years ago...
If it was Bartricks, he was sneaking back into the party with a loudspeaker announcing "I'm sneaking back into the party!"
Jamal runs the invite requests by us in the mod forum. It keeps numbers more manageable and spammers out but offers no other guarantees.
I did not mean to insinuate anything about vetting; Just curious about what looked interesting.
River running free, you know how I feel
Blossom on the tree, you know how I feel
It's a new dawn
It's a new day
It's a new life for me
And I'm feeling good.[/quote]
:death: :flower:
Knowing that he is generally good-natured, I would not have banned him just for that had it not come after years of warnings and suspensions, and several private conversations. I had to delete many of his low quality comments every day. The staff discussed his case several times and we were generally in agreement.
We went out of our way to keep him here, but he just couldn’t do what we asked him to. I even created temporary suspensions primarily so that we didn’t have to ban him.
The forum is not a chat room. Outside of the Shoutbox and the Lounge, posts should be substantial and relevant.
A sad day at TPF. Another old timer bites the dust, and it feels bad. I respect it, though.
I appreciate the effort. I don't envy you the balancing act you have to perform.
Yes, I should underline that I echo this sentiment.
I will miss him too, because he was distinct and unique. I think that he probably just got carried away at times, probably as a result of not having enough outlets to express himself.
If Virgil was Dante's guide, Agent Smith was our Jiminy Cricket...
I sometimes (but more often not) enjoyed interaction with Agent Smith. I completely agree that flagrantly causing extra work for the moderators is intolerable, and that's a principle with no exceptions regardless of the rationale.
I thought his posts had some low-quality problems, but he generally had good intuitions and observations that he shared with deep honesty and curiosity.
He could be annoying sometimes, but I never saw anything with toxicity or anything like that. For that alone, I think most of us could learn something about attitudes online.
I wish him well on his future knowledge journey.
I do think that his banning will probably be more of a loss to the site than anything. Of course,I am sure that he had his bad moments, as we all do and wrote posts which are not one's best. Standards are important, but it does depend how they are seen and whether it is simply measured according to academic ones.
As it is, many users on the site are alone in rooms, reaching out to other people, so I do wonder if this needs to be taken into consideration rather than the site emphasising quality in every single post. As it was, it may be that Agent Smith did write many posts and threads which were of quality and it seems sad that such a significant contributor Is excluded forever more. I am sure that some of his posts were a challenge for moderators, but it may be that only keeping those who conform to the norms and standards are about maintaining the bland and status quo in philosophy, rather than being open to innovation and creative expression and juxtaposition of ideas.
I think the main problem is that there was an overweight of low-quality posts and just single-word / single-sentence contributions without the necessary depth required by this forum. "Low-quality" can be ok in moderate numbers, especially in a rapid back-and-forth discussion, but if the majority amount is only that, then it is understandable a ban is an outcome as it's one of the forum's main rules. As Jamal says, this forum is not a chat room, it requires a bit more effort in discussions.
I do agree with you, but it probably also remains an issue for the site in general, where many write such short posts, with one line remarks and emoticons. It isn't an academic site, but, sometimes, there seems to be so much which is shallow and lacking in philosophical depth in discussion. It is so complex on a site which is neither a chit chat one or one of formal academic philosophy, and Agent Smith's contributions may draw attention to this dilemma.
I agree with this, but I think the moderators have done a good job making a place where the rules are not so tight or enforced so strictly that they exclude non-standard approaches to philosophical subjects but not so loose as to allow low-quality writing to overwhelm the good stuff. I don't think it's an easy balance.
I think it's more of a loss to him than anything - and I don't mean that in a dismissive way. TheMadFool/Agent was one of the oldest members of this forum (not sure if he was on its predecessor), and he spent most of his waking life here, as far as I could see. That's going to be a big hole to fill.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes, that's what I was thinking. But the owner and administrators of the forum would like it to be more than just a social club (yet it is that, too). There are other places that are more suitable for that purpose.
I just hope that he is okay. I know that you say that there are many social clubs, but today I tried to join art groups in the local library where I have moved to and, I was turned away because they were oversubscribed. All, I could do after joining the library, was get out books and found myself looking at the philosophy section, as if I don't have enough books. So, many of us are thrown back alone, with nothing more than online interaction. I am sure that Agent Smith would not wish for a lengthy postmortem on his future, but l just hope that he doesn't just see this banning as 'failure' and finds new openings for his expression of ideas, online, or in real life. It is likely that many here will remember his presence and I certainly valued his contributions.
(No implicit criticism intended by this question.)
The policy is that bans are permanent. There has been only one exception that I can recall. If you’re asking if the platform allows a ban to be reversed, yes it does, because bans do not actually delete the user account.
We introduced temporary suspensions about a year ago. Agent Smith was suspended for a week, then again for two weeks, and lastly for three weeks, the reasons being explained to him at length in private messages. He was told that the third suspension would be the last and that the same posting behaviour thereafter would result in a ban.
One of the basic building blocks of human experience is loneliness. It is common and it is painful.
I've done that often enough -- if one can call a run of the mill gay bar a "cabaret". It can help for a while, unless the bar's atmosphere is condensed alienation -- in which case, flee.
I didn't think Smith was a problem -- he didn't bother me.
Note that the majority of his posts and discussions were deleted, so most people never saw them.
That's a surprise. I would have guessed someone more recent.
Well, Inspector @Wayfarer worked it out. I had no idea.
Kudos to the man down under. :cool:
This member has joined numerous times under different IDs. 'Hoo' was one I could remember, so I looked up the member info for that name and found he had been banned. As a Mod, I was then duty bound to act - which I took no joy in. But rules are rules.
What surprises me is the person I have in mind has a graduate degree in physics and has reappeared on several occasions in various lively personas. Not a math person like me. Oh well. Good work, Inspector.
We had a really good conversation on something I hardly ever get to really think about here.
You know just from the style of writing or?
Yeah, he had some interesting angles going, so it is a pity.
Personal correspondence. I was convinced of his credentials. But I could have been mistaken. He was from the Netherlands.
Oh, ok.
Looks like the original @Hoo was banned seven years ago, in our first year, but I see no problems with their posts and can’t see any mod discussion about banning them.
Mysterious and unfortunate.
Hoo had over 20 sockpuppets though. Some of them are probably mentioned somewhere.
Well, that is mysterious. Hoo was the first to be banned and I don't know how many of the rest were banned just for sockpuppetry.
I'll just say I would be fine with un-banning the member for now? Unless?
Not knowing why he was banned isn't a justification in itself for unbanning.
I'll accept the decision either way, of course. I don't want the responsibility.
Only mentioning thoughts.
So far, as far as I'm concerned there's no issue over the decision, returning banned members get rebanned. Otherwise, why ban anyone? The fact we both liked his present incarnation is irrelevant. Having said that, I am also curious because none of his sockpuppets I've checked so far seem to have written anything objectionable either.
I'm done sleuthing though. If someone else wants to look for evidence he was originally banned by mistake or whatever, feel free.
I've been reading some of his earlier posts and when he moves away from purely philosophical banter they read like a novel, fascinating at times. I wonder, did this guy get a PhD in math eventually? He sounds very distracted from the intensities those programs normally exhibit. In his later incarnations on TPF did he ever get into math discussions?
I don't know (there may have been but I only remember there was nothing objectionable in what I saw) and I don't know why he needed twenty different accounts either. Baffling.
Is it possible that Chat GPT or other similar program hacked into TPF and created Hoo and a chain of sockpuppets including all their discussions, posts, and other members responses to them just to undermine Green Flag's membership? It's my understanding that Dominion Voting Systems is a major sponsor of AI research.
Quoting Jamal
Well, in that case, I'll add my 2 cents. Somewhat sad to see him go, honestly. Now I don't have a clown to laugh at whenever I visit. Maybe he'll find a different community with like minded people, so they can all feel superior to each other.
We now have the "suspended" role, which can be used to stop someone posting. This can be imposed instead of banning the account, allowing someone to avoid asking to be banned to avoid posting.
We do need @green flag to stop creating sockpuppets though. We can use the "suspended" condition instead. Creation of sockpuppets remains against the rules.
I'm glad. Welcome back @green flag.
Quoting fdrake
I'm glad about this too.
Actually he didn't say he asked to be banned. He locked himself out of his own account several times then came back as a succesion of sockpuppets. He was then banned for multiple sockpuppetry. So, we didn't make a mistake but seeing as he wasn't banned for content and he explained the sockpuppetry in some detail, and also seems a very good poster, we're all happy for him to come back if he wants.
I misread, apologies.
:cool: :up:
"Sockpuppets: You may be banned. The onus is on you to explain to us if you are using the same IP for multiple accounts."
I very much appreciate those who make this place possible understanding and forgiving my eccentric comings and goings. It really was as simple as me getting addicted to this site and putting off real world responsibilities, and then being too proud / embarrassed to ask others to manage this for me. In my own view, it was a small thing, since I wasn't (in my eyes) violating the spirit of the rules but only treading equivocally on its letter. But I should have been more sensitive to how it would look to others and have taken more trouble to color very definitely within the lines.
Quoting T Clark
Thanks, T. It's beautiful to see such kindness despite our temporary clash of ideas right before I was banned.
:smile: :up:
Back in the saddle. Great! :cool:
@fdrake @Baden :cool:
Thanks!
What I don’t get is the hatred for sock puppets.
[hide]
Yeah, me either. I'm actually a sock puppet for @Baden. As a moderator I don't want to overwhelm people with my wisdom, sophistication, and wit, so I created T Clark to represent my better self. [Edit] Kappa.
Why do people create sock puppets? What are they for?
It's a deviant sexual thing.
How could anyone not appreciate this, a Sach's Puppet? :smile:
Typically it's a moderator slang referring to a banned user who re-joins under a different ID - hence the whole kerfuffle in this case.
:lol:
I think that's a pity. I had one or two early 'insult fests' with him, when I was 'newer' to the forum but I did find him very knowledgeable in topics like neuroscience etc.
Was it not possible to go for a 'suspension style' cooling off period?
It was possible, but that’s not what I chose to do. What I saw of his posts did not make me think a suspension would be the better choice.
Would you consider a more democratic system of deciding SOME CASES of who gets banned?
For example, If your membership has survived a 1 year probation, then you gain a right to appeal a ban and it's gets put to the vote of all current members who have been members for at least 1 year and who post at least (say) 4 times a month?
Do you prefer the current monarchistic (Jamal) and the aristos (we arra mods! we arra mods! we are, we are, we arra mods!), approach?
Don't worry, I am not trying to start a TPF revolution from my keyboard, :scream: I am only asking! :halo:
:down:
Quoting universeness
:up:
:chin:
My apologies your Kingship!
They have an intimate relationship but are not one and the same, I think.
I'll let the moderators make the judgements about banning, but I strongly disagree with your judgement about the quality of his philosophy. I think he brought something valuable to the forum. Again - that's not a criticism of this decision.
For the record, you are also often uncharitable and frequently insulting.
I more or less agree. I found his unpleasantness easy to ignore. But he pretty much asked to be banned in his last post, and he robusty refused moderation.
As I said, I didn't question the decision, but I often found his posts interesting.
That quote alone earns a banning.
No loss at all, as far as I'm concerned. My opinion of him was a particularly low one.
I normally find some redeeming feature in a poster, but I could not, in his case.
Ranting on someone who no longer can post here...
Pretty humble from your side.
What do you mean? I also ranted at him when he was here as a member, especially when he made little sense!
Thanks Javi. There is a lot of mean spiritedness here and It's good to see you pointing it out.