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 (2446)
I appreciate that you have started using the suspension prior to banning in some cases.
:up:
I also want to use your iconic thumb.
It is in the public domain. Actually, it's probably not, but you're welcome to use it.
:lol: How mean spirited of both of you!
Worse, self righteous.
If you were mean spirited to their face, its really nothing more to be mean spirited here when they get banned.
Its like not speaking ill of the dead…if the dead was a prick that doesnt change just because people want to pretend they weren’t for a few days.
Ignore the behaviour police, good riddance to a moron.
Absafragginlootly! :up:
I guess you don't understand the meaning of the phrase.
Ah, yes. I believe you sang that song before:
Quoting DingoJones
Well, geez, I have to be true to my calling.
I've done a citizen's ban on you, by the way. I talked to you about your behavior and just couldn't get through to you. So, don't whine because I won't be able to hear you and you brought it on yourself. You committed suicide by citizen.
Just wanted you to know I did recognize and appreciate your reference.
:rofl: What phrase? Self righteous?
No fight involved as no contest imo. Dr Strangelove is under cover so he don't care anyway!
Stop. I am the law.
Too bad. He didn't show up often, but when he did, he usually had interesting things to say.
Sent Private Messages. The messages were between him and another Mod btw, but it was raised in the mod forum.
Always sad to see an old-timer go.
No criticism of moderators intended.
What have you done with the real T Clark?
Two answers. Pick one.
Answer 1 - He is on vacation on Cape Cod, where the internet has not been installed yet. I'm just filling in.
Answer 2 - Buzz off fuzz nuts.
:chin: ….option 2.
Good choice.
Nice Paisley reference.
:scream:
The question is, is @TClark related to these earlier Clarks?
"In 1755 James and Patrick Clark began a loom equipment and silk thread business in Paisley, Scotland. In 1806 Patrick Clark invented a way of twisting cotton together to substitute for silk that was unavailable due to the French blockade of Great Britain. He opened the first plant for manufacturing the cotton thread in 1812. In 1864 the Clark family began manufacturing in Newark, New Jersey, U.S., as the Clark Thread Co."
We can all probably trace our ancestry back to a Paisley buddie, who has an ancestor from Ireland, who has an ancestor from Africa. I have not heard or used the term 'radge' for too many years. It's a brilliant word! :grin: Going out for beers tonight and I now intend to call everyone I meet, a radge, even the quiet, unassuming, gentle looking folks! A&E! Save a space for me!
You must have missed when I called you a radge here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/752675
Well, you directed it to Baden and since I had just posted a brilliant, but angry Hazel O'Conner song, I probably didn't recognise it and assumed you couldn't spell 'rage.'
@introbert, I don't disagree with the decision but I do wish you well. I think you were sincere in your efforts.
:100:
…to your Scrabble arsenal. Arsenal as in the weapons you can bring to bear against your opponent. Armoury being where you keep your weapons safe. Jesus Christ Baden get your shit together. :wink:
:starstruck:
Unlikely. There are a lot of Clarks around. I did like to wear paisley shirts in the 1960s. By the way, if you want to tag me, you have to write it @t clark, with a space between the T and the C. It doesn't show up as a drop down choice, but it will work.
Quoting Jamal
Thank you. Thank you very much.
From his profile: "Invited By Jamal"
Hmm. :chin:
Definitely makes one wonder who was out of line or otherwise in an unclear mindset first.
@ "T Clark" also works I think. Remove the space between the @ and the first ".
@T Clark
We usually invite people on the basis of an email which can't be considered entirely predictive of suitability.
(And the emails get run by the whole team anyway).
I don't think anyone expects perfection. Even if the only effect is to keep Marco out, it's a success.
Alas, he had some interesting things to say.
Not a criticism of the moderators.
When was he first banned?
Shameless recidivists – too good for Reddit and not good enough for TPF – what are they gonna do? :smirk:
Presuming this thread is locked and unlocked for a set period implying discussion is encouraged if not warranted or vaguely allowed for purposes of vanity..
What made you draw such a definitive conclusion? Surely you've heard the popular phrase oh I like/dislike "X" because "X reminds me of Y" and so on...
I think that times are changing.
He would not feel so all alone
When everybody must get stoned.
Oh, the horror!
Quoting Tzeentch
You can be anti-left, for example, if you do it reasonably.
Happy new year!
Here are just a few from the first page of his comment history:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
He almost never posted anything substantial or engaged in good faith, even if one was polite. But as mentioned, a response of “boo hoo” to dead children should remove all doubt about the kind of poster he was.
Good decision indeed.
Insults of the same level as
Quoting RogueAI
Quoting RogueAI
?
Plenty of leniency on that thread, for everyone. The difference is that you, for example, don’t have a long history of nearly exclusive trolling/negativity.
A quick perusing of his comment history speaks for itself, and anyone can look.
Yes, Merkwurdichliebe didn't seem any more insulting than anyone else in that thread. Also, I'm not a moderator. Moderators should rise above the fray, don't you think?
Quoting Mikie
I hadn't interacted with him much. I figured there was more to it than just what I saw in the Israel thread.
I do. Which is why I hold myself to a saint-like status and never lose my temper. Can’t speak for the other derelicts.
Yes, I agree. The lounge should be the proper place for that if it's really unavoidable that that thread must be made. This is a philosophy forum.
(In the past, I opened a few threads the nature of which should be suspect as to their proper places. If the moderators moved them to the lounge, that's where they should be).
That or Michael's "Why be moral" thread featuring specific examples of baby killing was a bit more convincing than he anticipated. :chin:
garbage poster
May I humbly suggest that every site inhabited by humans needs a waste disposal system. If we did not have the controversial threads, the controversies would infect all the philosophical threads more than they already do. But there is no reason why we should put up with people who only come to use the facilities and never entertain us with some pleasantries at the very least.
Most philosophers up until recently were very much involved in current events, so, it is a crucial topic to cover because it is important and part of the tradition.
Of course, the risk is much higher in that people will be nasty and the like, but that should be navigated, as is done here.
Not addressed to me I know, but, thanks for the clarification. :up:
And happy 2024 to you and yours, am looking forward to exchanging books and ideas on mutual interests.
Anti-philosophy! That sounds like very good reason for banning from an explicitly philosophy forum, to me.
I imagine most of our regulars are anti-philosophy in a technical sense. By and large regulars seem against system building and metanarrative spinning. Or are language radicals or positivists, believing that philosophical questions are close to being meaningless.
By my estimation we're a group of people who either aren't doing philosophy or don't wish to be doing it.
Yep.
This is something I’ve been saying many times. I get that threads on politics generate a lot of animosity, but this is a philosophy forum. That should mean that discussions about politics, society and conflicts at least follow an ability to formulate criticism and arguments by a certain standard of internal logic while maintaining a tone fit for proper philosophical discussion. When some just utter emotional outbursts and present arguments that would fail any other thread by the forum’s standards, I fail to see the point of such discussions. They usually just end up being the same people throwing the same shit repeatedly at each other for hundreds of pages while alienating anyone else who tries to enter the topic.
So, sure, a higher bar of tolerance may be needed, but it sometimes feels like that bar went through the roof and people trigger each other until someone snaps and goes too far or create a repeating cycle of bs posts that just goes on forever. Maybe lower the bar slightly and demand a bit more effort when participating in those types of discussions? In the case of the Israel-Palestine discussion it just feels like a perfect example of neither side listening to the other, both handling facts and knowledge like weapons to win an argument without regards to their validity or caring to accept the level of validity of the other side’s presented facts.
Philosophical discussion generally favors discussion to grow knowledge in all participating parties. It demands a bit of an open mind on the counter arguments to one’s own convictions. And I believe that having a slightly lower tolerance for these threads spiraling out of control and focus people towards holding a discussion rather than a brawl would be in everyone’s favor, especially important for those who want to learn and grow their understanding of certain topics related to on going conflicts and problems in the world.
I think that very much depends on what you would count as "doing philosophy".
It does.
:100: :grin:
I confess to be one of the perpetrators of posting and continuing threads that aren't philosophical, but political. The reason is at least to me obvious: people in the forum are more aware about global and political issues than average and there are intelligent people that do not share my political views. For me this forum is like a canary in the coal mine of sorts. It is also that others provide good links and other useful information. And lastly, you do also get good responses and other viewpoints!
And as being interested in the philosophy of mathematics, this forum was genuinely helpful for me: you can express your amateur ideas and if they are incorrect, you will get corrected. I remember years ago when in the university going to a teacher in the mathematics department and asking about issues and he seemed horrified that a total stranger from another faculty came up to him and asked about the philosophy of math (obviously some kind of crank!)
Quoting Christoffer
That would be the objective, I guess.
I have a script that replaces the words "Israel", "Palestine", and "Hamas" with random words. Makes it easy.
My New Year's resolution is to stear clear of the political threads. I don't think it's philosophy per se, but I do think it belongs here, but I don't think it adds a whole lot to whatever my reason is for being here. The threads tend to create bad feeling, accentuate our closely held personal differences, do nothing to cause reconsideration of our views, and generally piss each other off. I can find animosity all around me. I don't need to come here for that.
And this isn't a lecture to others. I can be as hostile as anyone else,. I just happen to be right when everyone else is wrong so it's justified.
Given that knowledge is often defined as justified true belief it then suggests that there's such a thing as unjustified true belief and justified false belief. So your claim here is a non sequitur.
There's some philosophy for ya. :joke:
viz.
Quoting Christoffer
Not just an internal logic, but especially a tone and demeanor.
Very good logic. We are all right therefore we all agree.
I think this forum makes a very good distinction between the philosophy of religion and religious debates themselves.
That's a good example.
It is a good example, consistent with the adage not to discuss religion and politics.
Will you give up acting like a lawyer at a philosophy forum?
Not the threads/topics themselves do this, but the adversarial approach to interaction with others, as if this was a courtroom and the whole point was to win a debate before a judging audience.
... in polite society.
I was actually joking but as you asked I quickly threw something together. Requires this extension: https://www.tampermonkey.net/
Applies to "Israel", "Palestine", "Islam", "Jew", "Muslim", and "Hamas".
Example:
Could also just have it use the same word or phrase for every replacement, e.g. "Michael is awesome"?
I sometimes wonder whether this is actually the point of those "discussions". To verbally and vicariously extend and participate in the war that is being discussed. That not listening, not engaging fairly is a virtue.
I just discovered, while reading up on [i]Die Kuns, Recht zu behalten[/bli], that there are textbooks teaching argumentation in law that instruct lawyers to use what in philosophy is known as informsl logical fallacies.
The secret is to be dead inside.
Hm. Perhaps it's just a bit of projection on my part, but I feel him to be but a victim of the lustful, buxom charms of the temptress' bosom that is alcoholic beverage.
Oh well. What's done is done I suppose.
Understandable and reasonable decision. There is no place for toxicity, derogatory languages or the swearing directed towards the individuals in Philosophy. We can disagree with, demand evidence and proofs, and reject the opinions, views and points of others.
But I understand that, still all of us are expected to have respect, the good spirits and basic manners towards the fellow members whoever they are at all times.
This is somewhat implicit for criminal defence lawyers lmao
I predict a rapid escalation of this stuff over the coming months.
Thank you for the heads-up. :smile:
I think political threads need some extra eyes up until at least after the US election. You mods are pretty good at keeping this forum clean from the overwhelming BS found everywhere else online, but I think these months before the election may go extreme. A fusion of fake AI media, coupled with the downfall of X (Twitter), the bad algorithms of Meta, and an extreme escalation of polarization among even people outside of the regular extreme groups globally. With a world standing on the edge of a sword, internet is going to be flooded with extreme stuff and it would be important for a place like this to survive its level-headed discussions on all these complex situations.
Yeh, it's good that we're invitation-only.
Thanks, Marco.
:up:
Moving from shaky premises is acceptable (read: reasonable) when we can't be sure one way or the other. Like when there's, for instance, disputed facts, the subsequent argument tends to get back-engineered to determine the reasonability of hte premises. This is why lawyers can get a superbly well-founded rep. for massaging the facts.
But if you can show (as tends to be the case in cross-exam.) that the premises are unlikely enough to make the subsequent story inherently unlikely(eg. claiming one felt a certain level of threat that is implausible to support a self-defense argument), that story tends to be reject as unreasonable.
I personally am not happy when people are banned, but I think this was a correct thing to do. Low quality. And if this kind of forum is left without supervision, then it comes very quickly so hostile that those who enjoy the forum simply leave.
Ehhhhhh
Farewell, @Vaskane, alas all too neuro-typical in some rather reactive ways.
He also beat up the little girls and boys in his classes as a school teacher (even to the point of knocking one of them unconscious).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer_incident
I have a particular disgust for child beaters so I will never like Wittgenstein as a character (even though he may have reformed). Anyway, yes, not the place for this and we have already had the personal faults of Descartes and Heidegger (among others probably) dissected on the site.
Ww dissected the fact he dissected dogs alive.
I prefer @Hanover's version.
I'm glad you clarified actually. One less evil philosopher to be concerned with.
And on that note...
I don't know about other threads, but in the Eliminating Decision Problem Undecidability it was clear how difficult it is for many to understand the Undecidability results. This simply happens because in general, we don't actually understand all the impact of these results. Many even academic people can misunderstand them and also there is also true nonsense about them out there. So in fact, these kind of threads do have a value. Unfortunately when people don't get the message, it's far too easy especially in a forum where everybody is anonymous (and hence you cannot know what the qualifications/knowledge level of others are) to insist on your view even if shown to be mistaken.
I'll tip my hat to @TonesInDeepFreeze and @tim wood for trying to explain to him, but when somebody doesn't understand it, the result can be that tempers rise and as you said yourself, "This isn't a particularly productive discussion".
I still do appreciate the willingness of people to correct others mistakes and give effort to it.
Being very rude about the pseudoscience you're peddling.
Quoting fdrake
Makes me think of Feyerabend’s definition of a crank.
By this cranks would make great politicians. Yet a politician considers and adapts the message to whom he or she is talking, a crank doesn't.
I'm not making modding decisions based on exegesis of Feyerabend. But discussing it would make a good thread elsewhere. Make it? I'm locking this again now.
He won't mind too much:
Quoting Deleted user
Ah well. Can't win 'em all. Glad it wasn't me. :lol:
...not so much.
It’s unbelievable it took this long. Guess I can take him off my ignore list.
Quoting Jamal
In what thread did this happen?
The mods already warned him in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15408/rules/latest/comment
But Lionino couldn't control himself, and I will miss him. I had good and interesting exchanges. It is difficult to meet an Iberian neighbour on the Internet, by the way.
On the other hand, there is a plethora of venomous far right keyboard warriors on the internet.
Quoting ssu
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/945354
I find it interesting that some people's defense of racist, homophobic, transphobic and fascist opinions and posts usually comes in the form of defending it for being conservative, right wing opinions.
Either conservatives and right wing people are really just all of the above, or they're so politically and ideologically confused that they can't see the difference between that and true conservative and right wing politics.
Beyond the historical extreme outliers of right wing ideologs, I thought conservative and right wing views were mostly about pro-capitalist, pro-market, family values, keep traditions type of an ideology. So, either right wing conservatives have collectively become totally delusional and there's almost no actual conservative right wingers left, or they've all just become racist, homophobic, transphobic fascists?
Why do conservative right wingers let themselves be represented by immoral haters and fascists? It's like having a large dinner with friends and one is just screaming racist remarks over and over and when someone wants him silenced, everyone is just, "just let him be, he's a friend too".
I wish the real conservative right wingers could just get their moral compass straightened out and distance themselves from this stuff.
But whatever, glad another is gone. Good job cleaning up.
Yep. I think he wanted to be banned.
But he was ultimately being anti-U.S., which is curious. He complained that "Burgerland" (the U.S.) exports "georgefloydism" and "sodomy," and this was construed as racism and homophobia. Is it racist to oppose the exporting of "georgefloydism" and homophobic to oppose the exporting of "sodomy" (LGBTQ+ agenda)? Certainly not in the U.S. In the U.S. this would be seen as an ideological claim, not a factual claim. In fact there are many Black people in the U.S. (and particularly Minneapolis) who oppose everything about the George Floyd movement, and there are even LGBTQ+ individuals who oppose the overt exportation and inculcation of that agenda.
But Lionino decided to use TPF as a place to come when he was angry, as opposed to a place to avoid when he was angry. That makes all the difference.
Many thanks.
What one never hears is that the story is much more complicated, as indicated by things like Liz Collin's "The Fall of Minneapolis" and Radley Balko's response. Glenn Loury and John McWhorter have discussed this issue at some length (link).
But if he means extreme identity politics and the exportation of LGBTQ,then as you alluded to,that is a legit US position. Also something I fully endorse with caveats and nuances.
I think Lionino could be defended. After all, an inflammatory style is not against the rules on TPF. I think Lionino had a way of highlighting a left-leaning bias on the forum. At the same time, I don't expect a forum to be perfectly objective, and TPF is better than most. What is needed though, is a clear line so that the bias has a measure of transparency. We conservatives are accustomed to wrestling with one hand tied behind our back in progressive spaces, but clear guidelines are helpful in setting expectations.
(I messaged Lionino 2 months ago encouraging him not to get impatient. I think he made a choice to flirt with being banned.)
I hear you,but one has to read the room.
Although I do understand just going out all guns blazing!
It's a sign of the late times that natural morality and eternal values are oppressed in western "progressive nations",so the religious are unjustly impeded in their freedom of speech.
But only the brave is what I would say!
And people deep down know that certain moral principles are eternal,this is why they have to obfuscate and oppress legit religious views.
Is it left-leaning to ban homophobia, transphobia and racism?
It's remarkable that being respectful in not promoting or doing such is considered "left-leaning". What does that make the right and conservatives? If you reduce actual living human beings down to categories of ideology and "agendas", then how is that different from when other certain historical movements did the same?
The proof is in the pudding, and if the pudding smells bad then throwing it away is not a political leaning, it's just basic human decency.
Suffice to say it isn't just his current remark which got him banned, it's a whole history.
Right, and Lionino would have probably returned and said something even more provocative, which is why it isn't worthwhile to defend. Or like says, there are probably more provocative things that have already been deleted.
It is left-leaning to simply assume that something is homophobic, transphobic, or racist, which is precisely what you are doing in failing to address the arguments at hand. The left is exceedingly accustomed to using these labels to shut down speech and debate.
I mean this is the reality,liberals are soo quick to stereotype and label any dissent as phobic of their pet theories. And thus a crime and thus shut down. Totally totalitarian.
@Christoffer @Leontiskos
For sure it's a great topic.
Might start a new thread tommorows.
I'm not interested in discussing it with them at all, I just remarked that the decision to ban him has nothing to do with the forum being left-leaning or censorship as is being implied. But rather that he showed a failure to behave respectfully.
:up:
Now closer this thread.
If the Rules and Guidelines can be updated with 2 strike rule instead of 3, I think it would be worth it for members. If people scream for earning an infraction, then just refer them to the Policies/Rules and Guidelines of the forum...
19 days ago I privately asked him to reduce his posting rate and to stay on topic when he did post, as it seemed to me that he was dominating the forum too much, by posting everywhere and so often (he had posted 2000 times in two months), disrupting several discussions. I said I would implement a temporary suspension if he did not comply (this prevents someone from posting but allows them to send PMs) but he said he would just refrain from posting entirely for three months. A strange response, but I said okay. Some hours ago he started posting again and sent me a PM to admit to breaking his promise, and I suspended him. He responded to that with private insults and I banned him.
It was clear to me that while he was knowledgeable in philosophy, his attention-seeking behaviour and apparent need to be heard on every topic was not good for the forum. And if he had really wanted to stay here and cooperate he would have ridden out the suspension and refrained from sending me unpleasant messages.
A really sad day. I lost a Hispanic friend on the forum.
I had several PMs with him, talking about a lot of different things. He was a very active user, and I wondered why he hadn't posted anything for the past weeks. I didn't ask him because I think there is some break or holiday in Argentina, so I thought it was just that.
I didn't know you asked him to behave once, and I am sorry he responded you with bad manners. I honestly believe he is a good person, but he might not have understood how TPF works, and it is true that 2K posts in just a few months is a lot.
When I saw he posted a lot of threads continuously, I thought: "mods would ask him to behave. Otherwise, he could be banned."
Sadly, I was right. :broken:
If these really interesting members would slow down their posting, I believe they would remain here.
Furthermore, he is a professional philosopher in Argentina and has written interesting books. I think he could have been a great user.
I will miss Martín (@Arcane Sandwich).
... and it's an average of 33 posts a day ... so possibly part of some relapse into methamphetamines. And I say that out of concern and not insult.
Philosophy can be a dangerous mind game at times and injuries do occur.
I'm sorry @Arcane Sandwich was banned, but I'm glad you gave him a chance to work things out before he was.
:up:
I'm curious, what books?
I wouldn't say it's quite out of the realm of possibility javi was merely entranced by words and stories that were, shall we say, a tad less than factual. You'd be surprised how mundane and simple the things are for some to get entertainment from (ie. claiming to be someone else in order to gauge a reaction. philosophers are natural psychologists, though not necessarily ones beneficial to the well-being of humanity..).
A condescending and insulting way of putting it. It makes you look like a pompous prig.
He communicated to me several papers, published in English and Spanish, mostly on quantification and individuation, which he was able to defend at length. He is a competent philosopher.
Unlike others hereabouts.
But his banning was perhaps inevitable. A shame.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comments/4660/gregory
As it says in the guidelines, this kind of thing is not tolerated.
This is a philosophy forum. There should be a reasonable tolerance for off-beat or even strange views.
What exactly was the big "misogyny" scandal here? The "Women corrupt men" comment, or the jab at a popular radical feminist viewpoint?
Reasonable tolerance... here? Uff...
I'm still waiting for individuals who rejoice in the genocide in Gaza to be banned. But I suppose making weird and incel posts about women is worse than endorsing the eradication of an ethnicity.
You know the famous guidelines...
I generally agree with this. Of course I also agree that there's a limit to that. I think most people agree that there's a limit to what kind of speech can be tolerated, it's just a matter of disagreeing on where the tolerance should end.
I probably wouldn't end it where they chose to in this case though. But that's just me. Every forum owner / moderator team has their own prerogative to foster the community they want to see I guess.
When someone writes that “women are a disappointment,” “a waste of time,” or that “hopefully there won’t be any female humans in 10,000 years,” that’s not an “unusual perspective” – it’s clearly misogynistic. Such remarks undermine respectful exchange and create a hostile environment that excludes and harms others – exactly what Popper warned about: if we tolerate unlimited intolerance, we destroy the very space in which tolerance can exist.
Philosophy thrives on the clash of ideas, not on the degradation of people.
I guess I missed the full extent of everything he said. I didn't realise he was hoping for their extinction, what a bizarre idea.
:100:
Welcome to TPF.
:up:
Imo the one where he hoped every woman would die
@Merkwurdichliebe was banned for that.
Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing.
Quoting fdrake
I don't think that's what he actually said, though.
It's a pretty silly yet common view among radical feminists that men are superfluous, and I think he was mirroring some of that.
Strange? Sure. Worthy of a ban? Not so sure; at least not an outright one.
But what if someone produced an antisemitic rant? Would you be ok with just ignoring it?
But what about when some of you justify the nuclear attack on Japan? Would I be ok with just ignoring it too?
A 'double standard' for free speech, huh.
He hoped for a future without women. It is not the exact same thing. The difference doesn't matter much.
Quoting javi2541997
The state of public discourse matters unfortunately. We've had lots of discussions that will almost certainly be looked back on as adjacent to hate speech, or enabling genocide, just because that's where the state of public debate is at. Gender, Palestine, climate change, all fucked.
I think this touches on a crucial question: Is free speech a value in itself, or a means to an end?
In the U.S., there's often this almost sacred reverence for free speech as an absolute principle. But I’d argue that speech is only valuable insofar as it sustains the conditions for open, inclusive, and rational discourse. Once it begins to actively undermine those conditions – by dehumanizing people, inciting hatred, or flooding the space with bad-faith noise – its “freedom” becomes self-defeating.
For example: should a philosophy forum tolerate someone saying “I hope women no longer exist in 10,000 years”? Or “Blacks are genetically inferior”? Or “The Holocaust didn’t happen”? These aren’t edgy thoughts. They’re acts of exclusion. They don’t provoke thought – they shut thought down.
Take a practical case: imagine a female newcomer logs into this forum, excited to engage with deep philosophical topics, and then stumbles across a thread where someone writes “Women are a waste of time", “They make terrible friends and even worse girlfriends." or one of the other. That’s not just distasteful – it’s a message loud and clear: "You’re not really human here. You’re a problem to be explained, not a person to be heard."
Free speech isn’t sacred. It’s instrumental. And if it’s used to destroy the conditions that make real discourse possible, then drawing lines isn’t just justified – it’s necessary.
:up:
But antisemitic hate speech is illegal in Germany, right?
Quoting javi2541997
I guess we could talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki elsewhere if you want. Talking about the morality of events in war isn't the same thing as outright bigotry.
My point was not backing Gregory but protesting that there are folks who are also toxic like a rotten swamp.
Even though it is complex to moderate a website where different people with mixed opinions can post, I think it is not the right thing to draw a scale where the tones represent the topics or opinions that are more or less tolerated.
Since he wished the death of women, that's obviously a 'red flag' for someone who wants to interact with others. But I also received replies such as "your country should have never existed" because of the colonisation of America. Topics where our emotions are out of control. I guess the intelligent way to act is to ignore those kinds of comments, but I understand that some can't just let it go.
Oh, I can almost hear the sad violins in the background.
Anyway; women need to be protected from weird opinions?
Come now.
Honestly, if people were spamming the forum with weird nonsense I'd see the point, but Gregory shared one weird opinion when half the forum was dogpiling him.
A warning would have been enough.
Yes, exactly -- they take a different approach than the somewhat more rigid ideas of US "free speech." And I respect that. I'm using "respect" to mark out an attitude roughly like, "Yes, this approach makes sense, and the reasons behind it must be taken into account in any decent discussion of the question." So "respect" would also apply to the US reasons for permitting anti-semitic speech.
Oh no, and who are those toxic individuals so we can do something about them?
Good post. I’m not used to seeing anger from you. You do it well.
Once here on the forum, there was an entire thread about how good it would be if we could figure out a technological way to get rid of men so that there would only be women. That didn’t seem to raise much of a ruckus with anyone. No one was banned, the thread wasn’t even removed. I doubt things would be different if it happened today.
.
Quoting T Clark
Because I am shy.
It’s funny, this is exactly the argument people use when they want people to stop talking about issues that go against those in power. Every tyranny there has ever been has used this exact same argument.
Of course they have. But they lie and distort what is going on under their tyrannies, so that criticisms of the regime are vilified as "dehumanizing" and "bad-faith noise" that criticizes a "rational and open" government. That doesn't make it true. Let's not get distracted by "false equivalence" strategies, which will always be yapping at us.
Quoting fdrake
As I noted in my response to Jamal, an entire thread here on the forum proposing that the same thing should happen to men did not receive any complaints except from me. If it happened again today, I doubt there would be any difference.
tyranny of tolerance
When you give them an opportunity, the people in power are the ones who get to decide what “sustains the conditions for open, inclusive, and rational discourse.” That’s why you don’t give anyone the opportunity. If that leads to a somewhat rigid set of rules, that’s the price you pay.
I don’t know what that means.
It means that if we want an environment without racial, religious, or sexual intolerance, we have to be somewhat intolerant of it.
Javi, I would never be able to fall asleep knowing that there are toxic elements among us. Perhaps we need an Inquisition into the matter? :chin:
Yeah, perhaps mate. But I would ask the Rota Inquisition court to act in a less malicious manner than Jews do in Palestine.
When speech dehumanizes or systematically targets others, it's not freedom under threat—it's the very space in which freedom and dialogue can exist. As Popper warned, unlimited tolerance of intolerance will ultimately destroy a tolerant society.
And like Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, those who see truth as a tool of power aren’t seeking dialogue—they're seeking dominance. That’s not dissent. It’s the dissolution of discourse.
And the people in power are the ones who decide where that “certain reasonable point” is.
A long discussion of freedom of speech probably doesn’t belong in this thread. I’m going to leave it at that.
In Palestine? What is Palestine to you? So you support the war but want it less vicious?
You could leave the rest of the sentence as a wildcard, since what you wrote up to that point is a truism (or at least that is what it is meant to be). This "universal acid" style of rhetoric can be applied to anything, but that is what makes it unconvincing.
Can you not find any positive things to say about misogyny?
But what is the point of saying it? "I'm not disagreeing with the people in power, I'm just saying they have all the power"
So Jamal is suppressing misogynistic speech to consolidate his power?
Apparently we're only allowed to discuss ideas here that people have positive things to say about. ¯\_(?)_/¯
Whenever a user is banned, we all discuss whether the decision was legitimate or not, the reasons for the banning, and how the banned user could have acted to avoid his/her banning.
But what I like the most is that here you can see some folks (myself included) wishing for the banning of others. If you ban him for this, you should also ban the other for that, hehe.
Two weeks ago it was @Arcane Sandwich; now it is @Gregory.
This works like throwing a token in the roulette. Who will be the next of us to be tagged as 'banned'?
I just think, like T Clark, that there are worse things than allowing speech that may hurt feelings.
And you feel the same way about racist speech?
If it is purely racism in the narrow sense, based on skin-colour, then I would say sure forbid it, but if it's about ethnicity and culture, then I think we should be able to discuss that.
The problem is the definition of what is racism has become so wide, that it typically also has come to include restricting speech about culture and the like.
And I think that is the point, that these things tend to shift and expand further than the original goal that may have been perfectly benign initially.
It's not that complicated. Don't accept intolerance.
By Hecuba, may I be boiled alive, consumed by ferrets, and my bones ground into powder and blown up an ass's arse before I should parly more. I will but bow to that bright orange star of hope and greatness that is god emperor Trump! :sparkle:
Personally, I think this says all that needs to be said. I'll close this discussion now but if anyone wants to start a discussion about this aspect of the guidelines, feel free to do so in the Feedback section.
Understandable. I think we all expected this sorrowful end. Don't you?
Honestly, I believe that @karl stone was like a preacher in the desert. His ideas are good and revolutionary, but I think he is sending the message to the incorrect audience. If I were him, I would have already started a campaign. But, for unclear reasons, he decided to share his ideas with us. The first time is nice, but the rest can be unbearable, and I guess this is what caused the banning of @karl stone. Whenever we ignored (or even criticised) his 'Magma Forever' theory, he took it personally.
Instead of redeeming himself, he kept the same attitude. Now, I would like to ask @karl stone: Who is the shepherd and who is the lamb? This can answer many questions. He either felt like the shepherd or the lamb.
Descanse en Paz. A really picturesque member.
A crime we used to call 'being a broken record'. A crime we used to call 'being a broken record'. A crime we used to call 'being a broken record'. A crime we used to call 'being a broken record'.
He doesn't come close to breaking that record.
Mikie is quite intolerant ;)
Who? Lol. :lol:
What he say? You know, replace "Group X" with, I dunno, peacocks or something. Like, give us some context at least. Was it just an illogical screed or part of a relevant discussion? Not that it matters, sure, I for one trust your judgement entirely, just, you know, for the sake of accountability, public discussion, to pacify the naysayers, and whatnot. :smirk:
He wrote an OP expressing his belief that race and aesthetics are connected: Northern European people are better than others at producing beautiful works of art, and Northern European women have a greater range of facial expressions than sub-Saharan African women and are thus more aesthetically inspiring.
And without stating it explicitly he implied that this greater aesthetic ability of whites was connected with higher IQ.
Then he went on to speculate that the hostility to immigration in Northern Europe is partly attributable to these differences and that whites are responding to an aesthetic degradation caused by the influx of non-white people.
He presented all this dishonestly: bigotry masquerading as innocent intellectual enquiry.
I’m not looking for an argument or even an explanation. I’m just curious. Is expressing the opinion that white people are more intelligent as a class than black people cause for immediate banning?
Yes.
Thanks
Quoting Jamal
Aren't there multiple studies showing that, for example, Asians have a higher mean IQ than other races? Wikipedia catalogues the general issue of race and intelligence.
As I noted, I’m not interested in starting a discussion on this issue. I had a specific question I wanted an answer to and I got it. I’m done.
Fair enough.
This is a rather pervasive cultural issue. An acute example of it was the conversation between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein that I have referenced. The issue is becoming more pervasive because a goal of "colorblindness" is being abandoned within the culture for various different reasons.
It's just not very philosophical in any way, shape, or form. Evolution (or any other form of physical being) is set in stone. Sure, maybe I'm taller than you, maybe I'm not. Okay. And? All that can be derived from there is a pissing contest. At least, that's all it ever devolves into. Can you not see that?
It may be the case that at a given time, one race performs better on "x" measure of quality -- income, # of patents, height, IQ, longevity, etc. IF we use some measure to determine who is superior, I believe we will find different groups of people at different times and places performing at superior levels. Who's up and who's down will change.
However, the whole topic of racial superiority is out of bounds on this forum -- and that's a good thing because we who are superior don't want to waste time discussing the matter with you who are inferior.
Whether I was wrong to do so, I interpreted @T Clark to be referring to innate racial differences.
You understood me correctly.
He returned after years missing only to be banned. This is what I call a real "plot twist."
He told me to "ruck off". So, I suppose he lost his temper, but I grant him the decency of some self-censorship.
Are you sure you didn’t just ban Scooby Doo?
Well done.
He would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
@daniel j lavender wasn't a new member per se.
I was just getting ready to start discussing the pro’s and cons of Everythingism versus Nothingism with him. I’m not sure that would have enriched our experience much.
I want people to know there's no room here for that kind of crap any more.
"That kind of crap" needs to be defined. What did he do? What are we not allowed to do?
After @Deleted user's banning and the sudden closing of the "Bannings" thread, I PMed a mod. This is part of that exchange:
If TPF has a rule against something, then they should say what the rule means. My interaction with the mod ended with something like, "Lionino was banned for breaking a rule, and we refuse to say what it means to break that rule." The mod suggested that I make a feedback thread inquiring into what it means to break that rule.
Again, TPF can have a bias, but that bias needs to be transparent. In ' thread we saw users and mods making odd claims to the effect that every form of critique of the homosexual movement must be "bigotry" or "bad faith." That could be a possible candidate for what the rule means: "Anyone who says that homosexuality is in any way inferior to heterosexuality will be deemed a 'bigot' and will be banned." That seems like it would be a poor rule, but at least it would provide this vague notion of "homophobia" with a bit of clarity. The same holds with "transphobia" and all the rest of the "phobia" pathologizations.
What does the rule mean? How does one break it? How does one avoid breaking it? If these questions continue to be avoided then there is a fairly severe problem regarding impartiality.
(I think TPF needs to be more transparent. It needs to say, "We are a philosophy forum where certain topics are allowed and certain topics are not allowed; where certain positions are allowed and certain positions are not allowed. The topics that are not allowed to be discussed are A, B, and C. The positions that are not allowed to be taken are X, Y, and Z.)
Stop posturing Leon.
Could you describe the nature of the crap?
I did. Low quality and obnoxious.
Quoting apokrisis
Jamal, I have to admit, I also find the rules lacking clarity. It seems like there is a lack of checks and balances within the admins. I am not sure how you guys have it setup, but I would appreciate it if you could either explicate or refer me on the forum to what constitutes a banworthy offense. These reasons you give are super vague.
Does the offender get a fair reprimanding warning before banning them?
Likewise, can we implement a notification system for censored posts? I know you've silently censored some of my posts and it would be greatly appreciated if the mods gave them a notification of offenses committed and authoritative actions done to resolve it.
To exclude or demean others is to abandon reasoned inquiry for dogma or prejudice. You are lucky you are still here.
:up: Yes please, thank you. If you're going to be obnoxious, you gotta have some class.
Still, what people need to remember is at the end of the day, this is somebody else's house. He can make the rules, fair or not, and he can enforce them, selectively or not. If you get too comfortable you forget the reality of the place you willingly choose to frequent, that's hardly anybody's fault but one's own.
I think it's $50 a month to get a PlushForums subscription and maybe under an hour of work total to get an identical setup to this forum of your own going. No one can stop you from doing so if you so desire. Not me, not Jamal, nor any other site or staff member.
At the risk of adding to what I suspect might simply be a bad day or week, I feel a question at least on a few member's minds might be: Are you just having a bad day, @Jamal? Or has this been brewing for some time? :chin:
To some of us, this is much more than a website to waste time or "shoot the shit" on. More than a casual hobby or past time but an active part of one's life and between some of us almost like a club of distant pen pals (I'm trying to avoid saying "like a family" because that's simply not accurate for the majority of posters). My point is, participation on this site is important to some people more so than you might think. We're all real people with real lives and real feelings. Please remember that @Jamal, and if you ever want someone to talk to, particularly a stranger you won't ever have to meet or talk to ever again (you'd be surprised how almost natural it is to open up to someone like that), private message me anytime. :smile:
What do you think follows from this? That I should never ban anyone? On the contrary, it is because I want to maintain and improve the community that I have to get rid of members who make the experience of being here worse.
I must say that personally I would take no offence at all to that response. It’s probably even fair.
But then I’m guilty of enjoying the knockabout character of the debates here. I happened to stumble on an old thread the other day and remembered how much I miss The Great Whatever and even StreetlightX.
The modding here is relaxed so other things may have weighed heavier. But for my part, I don’t see any great reason for the ban.
If you think Harry was in the same league as The Great Whatever and StreetlightX, I can only assume you didn't interact with him much.
Personally, I am content to ignore when it seems necessary, and I'm like apo in not being concerned by the "knockabout" character of this site, but I can also see that I may well feel differently if I were the creator and financial sustainer.
I think you do a great job in providing an enjoyable resource Jamal.
And i echo the others saying you are doing a good job. :up:
Our eyes coincide.
If you behave, there will not be any problem.
I met wonderful people here, like @Agent Smith and @karl stone, but it is true that they behaved weirdly, and the result was their banning. It hurt me, but I understood that we should respect the place if we want a harmony amongst us while we are interacting.
The banning tool is complex and often not welcomed, but it is necessary. Even the Principality of Sealand –where only two lads live–, has rules, standards and all. Why should the absence of righteousness be tolerated here?
Yes. I do my best to make my obnoxiousness high-quality.
Yes, I think that’s the motto of the justice department and ICE here in the United States.
Vanilla ICE! Clarky, this is my favourite flavour. :razz:
I am not posturing. Stop insulting me.
A TPF search for "blah blah" yields 608 results.
I never read the guy's posts, but his quality seems to have been consistent for quite a long time.
Quoting Jamal
If we are not allowed to question the sexual ethics of Western Europe, then we will not question the sexual ethics of Western Europe. But that sort of a rule should be made explicit. I don't see how those who question the sexual ethics of Western Europe can simply be threatened or banned for "abandoning reason." There are lots of people from other regions of the world on TPF.
As I've said elsewhere, were I running this forum there would be far fewer members and more esoteric threads, which would be much less fun. That the forum exists at all is quite astonishing.
It's Jamal's forum. He will do as he sees fit. The most we lesser creatures may do is to be grateful we are permitted the occasional whinge, as in this very thread. And if you don't like it, there's the door.
Language is the house of Being, so he don't belong in the house?
I love how you like stirring the pot. :smirk:
Damn, I did not know. The exchanges I've had with him were serious and substantive, but I didn't read all his posts or follow him at all. Good to know.
All in all- and yeah it sounds like I'm being a "teachers pet" - you folks do a fine job moderating here.
:gasp:
Yes. (Right click on top site logo -> Open in new private window [you will be not logged in and so can see what non-members see]).
Banning is a difficult decision -- I believe you mods always give warnings to possible infringers? -- and I'm grateful that you and the other mods are keeping an eye. Thank you.
(I don't see the need for more specific TPF rules. The picture of what's inappropriate is pretty clear.)
Yes. You don't have to be signed in to see it.
Thanks.
Perhaps not as astonishing as you finding yourself as always its heliocentric centre. The mass around which it revolves. The reason it runs. :wink:
Quoting Jamal
Quoting Manuel
I kinda want to comment on all these things at once...as i think this site is pretty exceptional in terms of achieving what it's designed for: I understand a lot of the purpose of the site is to enable as many people as possible to participate in philosophical discussions. This site achieves it in the fallowing ways:
1. The way that "philosophy" is defined is not at all strict, discussions on politics are allowed, discussions on raw logic puzzles are allowed, discussions on religion are allowed...pretty much everything is allowed. This is super rare for any message board.
2. There's no pressure to understand any particular body of thought as it relates to philosophy. We are all coming from radically different directions in understanding.
3. the rules are so flexible that it allows the moderators to use discretion in cases where people members are consistently being a PITA, and they're clear enough they give you a good idea of what flies and what doesn't.
In philosophy, we should be able to argue with each other: and you absolutely can do that on this forum if you avoid descending into bland insults and you don't post with the intention of winning converts or besting someone in an argument. I've realized on here, the second one will absolutely get you banned, as it puts you in a frame of mind where you want to control the other users. Let the moderators do that. More than once, I had to accept that I had previously made a false assumption about what someone was arguing, and I believe that will save you if you want to stay a member here.
However, that being said, I still think internet discussion itself is kinda doomed to have poor quality overall. It's harder to empathize with the person you're talking to, and it's hard to understand what kind of response your post is going to get. It's like the whole thing is designed for flaming. I'm personally finding on here that I'm regularly talking past people, and this isn't entirely their fault...and it can't be entirely my fault either (especially if it isn't their fault...)
As for Harry Hindu, it did seem like he really needed to "win arguments", and i think this was the reason he went overboard and ended up getting on the bad side of the moderators. Sometimes I couldn't help but to feel very angry at him, so i'm not particularly mad about the decision. I personally did not try to push him into getting banned (probably the most effective way to do that is send the Mod a message, which i did not do), even though in our final toxic exchange, i did point out that he was trolling and insulting me directly to him. It really sucks arguing with someone who lavishly praises empiricism, but rarely backs up their posts with any kind of external evidence. I had a much more interesting talk with Philosophim about this subject (of objectivity and empiricism) in the same thread, and clearly Harry wasn't reading any of it or thinking about it.
You left out one— this is the most active philosophy site I’ve ever seen.
I think if the site has a value, it is to encourage critical thinking. Philosophy is not about establishing answers as much as learning how to think about questions. Good answers may be a by-product. But better habits of thought are of general value.
And the more cosmopolitan the thought styles, the more one would have to get out of one’s comfort zone to engage.
So yes to the variety of subject matter allowed. But also yes to even the different ways of arguing that people bring to the table.
It is then up to the mods where to draw a line between creative friction and disruptive or blinkered responses.
@Harry Hindu has been discussed previously on the mod forum. This was not unexpected by any of the team and has nothing to do with @Jamal's or anyone else's mood.
Thank you and others for the support.
Quoting Leontiskos
Questioning the sexual ethics of Western Europe is one thing; stating that gay people are degenerate and immoral (or that they behave immorally) is something else. Debating sex and gender is one thing; denying the identity or dignity of transgender people is another.
We won't tolerate intolerance. We want to ensure we have a shared foundation of mutual respect and the equal dignity of all participants regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Well, I say we don't tolerate intolerance, but in reality sometimes we do. I am inclined now to be more strict.
Jeez. And that guy knew how to write and read proofs.
I think I'll be staying in the Shoutbox for a while. Juust in case. :eyes:
You have one thing the crackpots don't have, which is humility. You don't claim to have all the answers, so don't worry.
I noticed that @Pieter R van Wyk’s account has been deleted. Are you deleting all accounts for banned people now or was that a request by him?
For example, if you fill your posts mainly with quotations from a book you have written, and mention that book in every post, that counts as self-promotion. But in fact, Pieter was banned not just for self-promotion but also for evangelism and crackpottery, since he appeared to believe that his book held all the answers.
Generally, putting links to your work in every post is the main thing we don't allow.
Site guidelines
There is a large number of bright interesting people here.
I don't usually do it unless I'm asked to do so but on this occasion I wanted to remove as many traces of him as possible without actually removing his posts, which woud be unnecessarily destructive.
He's an adult who told us what he wanted. I'm not going to infantilise him.
You are rude, Michael.
What proof do you have of any of this? Even if legal proof is available (which it's not). You would still have no idea that his understanding of the things you consider the boundaries of fact and fiction are the same as what you consider standard.
Like a ripple in a pool of dark. We splash upon what we see, never knowing what it may reach, or what affect it may truly have.
Admit it. You just wanted to blow off the steam you couldn't elsewhere. Go on, no shame.
Proof that he's an adult or proof that he told us that he wants to be banned?
This is the proof that he told us that he wants to be banned, from the discussion I linked to above:
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
And this is the proof that he's an adult:
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
I don't understand what either you or javi2541997 are expecting of us. For us to refuse to ban someone who asks to be banned because we clearly know better than them what's best for them? That would be incredibly condescending.
I expected that you would have given him the opportunity to calm down and reflect about his words. Perhaps, he might have thought it twice, and the situation would be different.
Well, I know I have to carry on and leave it there. Banned members do not come back, so I guess my arguments are flat and worthless.
Either way I trust in every staff member's judgement. Not just by position bias but by personal immersion in the character one can reasonably derive from their input here.
I do recall personally his "please ban me" thread. I just considered that online spontaneity. A simple overreaction. Remember not everyone has been here so long as to have respect for the place as something different from opening up a random website on one's phone one day while bored. Some folk see this amazing venue, made solely possible only by the staff of course, as something rare not only in their own lives but even as far as most common "places" online. To some, this may be like an outlet, an escape, a sanctuary if you will, where, no perhaps we don't fully appreciate for what it is, but we appreciate it enough for as it is to become.. comfortable, perhaps. And in comfort we reveal our true selves, the good, the bad, and everything in between.
I have read the posts where he did request a ban, twice. Yes. However. And this is the "gotcha." No where can i recall did he request a "permanent" ban. So, he could have merely been referring to what is known here as "a suspension", which and yes, is effectively a ban for a given period, remains a unique request.
Ah well. What's the gent have to do anyway if he had a strong objection? Wait 60 days until the new forum launches? :lol:
That would be a bit weird wouldn't it? "Can I be banned for 45 days after which I will have calmed down and want to come back please?"
No, it is not weird. This is what the "suspended" status is intended for.
In one of those discussions, I asked why he or she did not simply withdraw. The answer was that participation was experienced as a compulsion.
I get that.
I can quite any time I like...
I know you are joking and are reflecting upon years of participation.
I have had different times when I broke off from the discussion for different reasons. I miss some of those who have wandered off.
My room is at the back end of the motel and the car has gas.
....yesss....
....joking....
:fear:
Interesting response.
Do you regret your participation in any way?
I am familiar with that adversarial model.
Yes. I feel the same way.
mQuoting Banno
I wonder if he has to attend philo-anon meetings now. “Hello everybody, my name is ProtagoranSocratist and I’m a phil-aholic.”
Mine complains about time spent (or wasted) with my ‘invisible friends’. I protest that folks do far worse things online than debate philosophy. Not a winning argument least as far as she’s concerned.
:rofl:
Ha ha. Getting a real taste of aging, illness, and death, such as in the form of looking after a demented, barely mobile, incontinent elderly relative is very existentially wholesome. Cures one of silly ideas.
Hard to argue with that. :up:
And I believe this is the second time, so he is clearly persistent.
This is surprising, coming from a "philosopher" like you.
That’s a terrible analogy. A more appropriate one is the gambling addict who asks to be banned from a casino.
I know, I'm upset too, javi. Arguably I was upset already and it had nothing to do with this banning. But the now-banned user was not only quite clear but quite insistent as well. There is little to be upset at, I fear.
The result appears to be the same: justify yourself to drag others into the gutter.
Yep. :up:
Honestly, I think there needs to be a "right to self-ban" when it comes to technology, given its addictive nature. Additionally, computers, phones, and tablets should be required by law to include the ability to self-limit oneself. In my opinion what @Michael has done is not only morally permissible, it is morally praiseworthy. Refusing someone's request to limit their addiction is what would be morally problematic.
(At the same time I understand why the initial request was deferred given the emotional nature of that case.)
Metaphorical band-aid on a wound that ultimately requires something else. Couldn't hurt, sure. In fact it might even help, until people start to think such a transient and short-lived remedy solved it and so don't make any reasonable attempt to actually address the deeper, underlying root issue, of course. :brow:
While that may be a good idea, it should be mentioned that bannings are inherently personal. Are they not? :smile:
Note: I didn't mean to suggest that anything in my last post applies to the recently banned user personally, it was simply a reply to the general idea of a "self-banning" as far as those with a compulsion to use, anything really, but specifically technology, irresponsibly.
Would you say the same thing about the gambling addict who avoids casinos? I don't say that avoiding casinos is the perfect remedy, but I also don't see that imperfect remedies should be neglected. Oftentimes the only options we have are imperfect.
What a caring community! :heart:
No, because that's proof they're treating the root issue by avoiding the problem by using their own willpower. The dynamic you mentioned (or someone mentioned) was to make some other force or entity other than one's self entirely responsible for the individual avoiding something they claim to have a problem controlling or utilizing responsibly, thus removing what is the only true solution (willpower) from the equation entirely. A literal world of difference.
Right, and I should have been more specific. I should have said, "Would you say the same thing about the gambling addict who asks to be banned from casinos?"
In any case, you seem to think that the root problem is being addressed by mere avoidance, as long as the avoidance is volitional. There are other views which would say that mere avoidance does not address the root problem, and I had mistakenly assumed that you were included in that group.
(I don't mean to draw us off on a tangent, but some of this is relevant up to a point. I will let you have the last word.)
Maybe @Michael was compelled by the same powerful forces that @ProtagoranSocratist was when he asked to be banned and he couldn't stop himself from banning him, and here you go blaming Michael for what he could not control. And maybe I'm just doing the same with whatever I'm saying, and then your responses aren't to be blamed either because you're just being immovable you.
Or maybe we just take things at face value. He wanted banning, he asked for banning, and he got banning. We're not impossible to reach out to, so if he pleads temporary insanity and wants to return, we can consider it then. At this point, defenses are being made for him that he hasn't even claimed himself. It's possible he's happy not being here.
I second your motion.
Right. That's not only my but the general sentiment of the active participants in this thread at this time.
Quoting Hanover
Mm, that's not what I've been made aware of.
See the "official rules" thread, specifically this stipulation:
"Bans are permanent and non-negotiable."
That's true, and I don't want to suggest a change in the text of the rules so people might think there are simple ways back, but there are imaginable scenarios where things can be reconsidered, which is just an admission sometimes further review is warranted.
My point is that this case isn't such an extraordinary instance because it's all so speculative that the person even wants back or regrets his request.
Despite all Bob's disclaimers, this is homophobic. It promotes a moral framework that classifies a group of people as defective, disordered, and in need of correction. It's in clear contravention of the guidelines:
We have been very tolerant, and Bob was warned many times, but he persisted in advancing racist, homophobic, and transphobic positions.
Your rules are your rules though. I think attempts to open discussion on sensitive topics are a good idea.
I see no problem with someone espousing views I dislike if they do so in a graceious manner and an open mind.
Huh? The immorality of homosexuality? Where're you from?
Questions about the use and meaning of terms like 'race' and 'homosexuality' are very much front and centre in western academia.
He framed his understaanding of 'morality' his way. I questioned that and hoped to point him towards a better way to frame his words. That will not happen now.
To your point about “not happening now” I think its always better to have the discussion but Im assuming that was done? Jamal said he was warned. Im sure somebody tried to explain how wrong he was at some point to no avail given his last post.
Maybe people had tried to point out the inconsistent use of terminology? I have no idea. If it is the case that he was just repeatedly pushing the same position over and over without engaging with the criticism laid at his feet, then fair enough.
The post as it was laid out was homophobic because people view it as homophobic. For race he was questioning the its use as a 'social construct' as opposed to essentialist claims.
Would I be allowed to start a thread questioning the validity of the uses of terms like 'homosexual' or 'race'. These are all relevant in terms of how we communicate and sort through the messiness of language. I do not see the point in gagging people on the basis of hate speech.
Let racists speak out. Let homophobes speak out. There are certainly areas where someo would label one person as 'racist' where others would not, as there are areas where people are labeled as 'homophobic' by some when others would not.
The necessary messiness of communication means we should do more of it with an intent to disagree in some areas and agree in others. Trying to understand why people hold the views they hold allows us to better understand why we hold the views we do, and perhaps question the reasoning and reinforce or rethink our approach.
All that said, this is a private enterprise though. Anyone can be banned for any reason the owner sees fit. It matters not if we agree or disagree with them that much.
My criticism can be considered or not. I am pretty sure the owner appreciates being questioned if they set up a philosophy forum.
I i didnt assume, I just read what he said. Evidently we had very different takes on that. Alas, Bob is no longer with us to clarify.
Basically yes. On this particular topic, no less. I don't really like it, but Bob kept skirting around the guidelines with respect to racist and homophobic viewpoints. It was also explained to him in his more recent thread why : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1031074
And the most recent post, now deleted, was basically this but towards homosexuals, a topic previously discussed between he and I where we told him "This topic is not worthy of debate here".
So he has been warned multiple times on the similar theme of putting forward views that are not considered worthy of debate, being told directly that this is not how we do things here, and he went ahead and posted anyway.
I like Bob, and don't really relish losing him. But this was done as gradually as possible, as I tend to like to do, and here we are.
I would say otherwise. Though, perhaps your emotional intelligence is simply higher, more refined, or greater cultivated than mine.
It should be noted his posts were fairly intelligent, showed the ability to surmise proofs (I don't know why I find that as such a striking quality about a person), and were generally logical and sensible. I found some a bit odd and seemingly made primarily to advance an agenda or point of view as opposed to discussing a concept or theme. Judging by his avatar, I sense a sort of ideological—if not outright religious—motive in play. Which I can respect. I'm like that in my personal life and in other places as well. Reminds me of a young me.
However, for anyone concerned or even dismayed about the idea of losing an intelligent (if not misguided) poster, one might take solace in the fact that we messaged once or twice before, and it was during this brief period he repeatedly expressed his awareness of the possibility of his banning being far from unlikely. Which I then repeatedly suggested to him to have more tact or otherwise reconsider his current style of discussion and debate if he wanted to stick around. That was around a month ago.
Eh, what can you do. :confused:
I just so happen to know about this area as it was the subject of my final essay last year.
I think it would have been very interestign to dive into discussion about differences and similarities between national identity and race identity. This is kind of what he was getting at, but form a 'Natural Kind' view rather than 'Social Kind' view.
If that singular post is representative of his approach I see nothing wrong with it. His post about homophobia was strange in the manner in which it used the concept of morality and wrong, but was certainly one that could have led to a very productive discussion on all these front and centre issues on personal identity and their political weight.
I do find engaging in political topics tiresome because all too often people (including myself) are just too ready to put you in a box if you happen to question something they feel strongly about. I am sure we can just cut past the snipes and fluff and get to the heart of the interest if we all tried a little harder right? I do not expect it is easy to do, but I belive it is more than worthwhile at least trying to.
True enough :D Trying not to try takes serious effort!
Pretending to be whatever a human being, is possibly meant to be, is an interesting passtime :)
Should TPF tolerate homophobia? No.
That's what I think. Bob kept pushing and pushing that way. He wanted to go as far as he could, and he would not stop until banned. The banning would determine how far he could go. It's a sort of challenge. So he slowly kept taking one step further and further and further. The only way to stop him was to ban him. It reminds me of a number of others who have slipped in that way. Good people get caught up in the wrong cause, and cannot recognize that it's a bad cause.
Quoting RogueAI
Yes, one must be selective about the stripe of pseudo-intellectual moralism one chooses to associate with.
Wait, what's the good kind?
Me.
Maybe provide us the cite to the article from the academic journal that you suggest mirrors Ross's comments.
Alrighty
Framing his stance as essentialist based on the post he provided is less than charitable. It speaks for itself. It is very, very much a 'natural kind' stance not an essentialist one.
He literally stated:
Hence, he is talking about race in the sense of 'natural kind'.
If you wish to read up on the idea of 'race' as a 'natural kind' or as a 'social kind' these might help:
- Sally Haslanger
- Quayshawn Spencer*
- Joshua Glasgow
- Lewtonin (?)
- Rosenberg (data analysis rather than philosopher if I recall?)
- Robin Andreason*
(*advocates of forms of 'natural kind')
If you do not there is no definitive answer to this. Some points from the 'natural kind' side hold weight, but there is certainly more traction in terms of 'social kinds'. Personally, I think there is an admixture of sorts.
In terms of essentialism we already know that there is more diversity within a group of people than there are between groups of people. That is not up for debate as far as I can see. If it was it would be on highly, highly, highly speculative grounds at best!
I actually do think these kinds of topics are going to grow in importance as people start tinkering with their DNA and augmenting their bodies. At some point we are going to have to deal with a picture of humanity that is less and less distinct as a singular species due to such technological innovations. Such uncomfortable talk today helps prepare the grounf for better and more accurate discussions in the future, surely?
Anyway, flogging a dead horse. He is gone. Someone else will tryand bring up such things again I am sure and maybe they will do a better job of it :)
Indeed, a wise man once said that there are no mistakes, only happy accidents.
While I agree that the framing in terms of "essentialism" has its problems, that doesn't excuse the issues with Bob's post.
For instance, I wouldn't say racism should be disallowed "because race isn't real."
What does that even mean?
It depends on what you mean by "real." I think this is a very tricky subject because when we focus on the "reality of race (or sex)" it tends implicitly grant the premise that if race were "real," then rascism would be acceptable. Consider that far fewer people deny that sex is in some sense "real," but this position hardly implies that sexism is justified. Likewise, it seems to me that on a account where race (and sex?) are not morally coherent concepts per se, this would imply that much of classical feminist thought ought to be censored (if sex is included), or that making a positive case for affirmative action on the basis of racial categories deserves censorship, etc.
Whereas I would say that what makes Bob's thread bannable is not that it is "essentialist" (because many progressive readings of race, sex, gender, etc. are also essentialist in many respects) but because it is a (facile) argument [I]in favor of[/I] the reasonableness of racism. Indeed, many classic arguments against racism rely on it being essential in some sense (i.e., an immutable and essential part of personal identity that one has no control over). Historically, many towering figures in the fight against racism spoke of race as a sort of biologically grounded identity as well, but it hardly makes sense to censor them.
Anyhow, what is "reality" here? We race-meaned tests that imaged the cupping of patient's optical nerve. You need to do this to properly diagnose glaucoma, because variances that indicate pathology vary by genetic heritage. The software is set up this way, the test wouldn't work without it. Sure, you could set up the categories somewhat differently, but they also aren't arbitrary. There are all sorts of diagnostics like this. Most are uncontroversial, because they aren't about things people particularly care much about. Some are very controversial, like race-norming IQ tests (this was a big thing with the NFL in diagnosing CTE a few years back).
I feel like the appeal to "scientific" authority on the unreality of race actually tends to help the race-realists, because of course anyone with eyes can tell if someone is of East Asian versus European versus Sub-Saharan African descent. It appears "real" in at least some sense (particularly when it dominates political life). And if the response is that such categories aren't "metaphysical" or "platonic," this merely ends up being a strawman against the more sophisticated race realists (some of whom are researchers, and can easily dance around this charge, and most of whom are themselves thoroughgoing nominalists).
For instance, I'd ask instead, if race was "real" (whatever that is supposed to mean) then would that make racism morally justified? Would Bob's advocacy for using race as a category for moral action be acceptable if race were real? The focus on "essentialism" seems to grant their race-realist their key (and faulty) premise: "if races are 'real enough,' then racism is (at least plausibly) justified or beneficial." Rather than attack the consequent, we attack the antecedent, but the antecedent is itself squishy since what is meant by 'real' or 'essential' can be equivocated upon.
For instance, if people cannot be transracial (a common progressive position), then race does seem somehow immutable and essential to identity across a person's lifetime. Likewise, if race can be a proper category for hiring discrimination, and is in a sense immutable (you cannot change your identity to take advantage of such efforts) we have the same squishiness. We can call the category a "social construct," but this really has no force when both sides increasingly assume that [I]everything[/I] is a social construct. No doubt, the race realist might reply that planets and quarks are social constructs too, but that this doesn't make them less real in the relevant sense.
This is similar to the oddly essentialist position often staked out on homosexuality and being transgender, that people are simply "born this way," (that it is immutable and essential to identity). Maybe this is so, but supposing we denied this, supposing even that both are a "choice," in what sense would that justify discrimination?
On Bob's actual point, there is actually plenty of research on this, that people show a preference for altruism in favor of relatives, but also for those who look like them, as well as those who share other social traits, (language, ethnicity , religion), etc. And there is the theory that the same "selfishness of genes" that makes familial altruism confer advantage also is in play, to a lesser extent, for facial similarity, etc. But this is a slim effect; obviously people kill even their own children all the time.
Yet only if one is already operating with the fallacy that "natural = good or acceptable" in mind is this even suggestive of what ought to be done. Unfortunately, this fallacy is already often already invoked in more progressive directions. If fornication cannot be a defect because it is "natural" then it follows that if racism is natural, it cannot be a defect either. However, one need only consider that infanticide, murder, rape, etc. are all "natural" human behaviors in this sense to see that the appeal is nonsense. "Naturalness" in this sense is beside the point.
Likewise, I'd argue that essentialism is beside the point entirely. Or rather, that posts like Bob's are unacceptable because rascism is itself essentially unacceptable, not because they ipso facto must reduce to some sort of dubious metaphysical position (they don't, the "hyper-racists" are exemplary in their hyper-nominalism; it's exactly that outlook that makes them say that nothing is good or bad, only useful, and that racism is simply a useful heuristic). I think the progressive stance actually often has trouble here to the extent that it accepts these same premises. If usefulness determines the badness of racism, we have to argue that racism isn't useful (e.g., because it isn't "real" in the right sense, and yet it is said to be real enough for other sorts of hiring discrimination, etc., and of course this assumes that reality and truth are "more useful.")
Given the massive amount of literature out there, I'm asking for cites to his specific conclusions, not general discussions about naturalism and essentialism that I am supposed to accept support his conclusions.
Quoting I like sushi
My hesitancy in letting this go is that you're suggesting his post was true, but just poorly articulated and so the pearls of wisdom were missed. I'm disagreeing entirely and just asking for some academic source to be cited for each of his conclusions.
That is a different topic. I was referring to the one on racism. I provided examples of people in academia who both argued for and against race as a 'natural kind'.
Quoting Hanover
What are you talking about? Where did I suggest anything of the sort? The thread was closed before I could even comment on it. The other (homosexuality) was deleted (and I did comment on that one).
His framing of the term 'bad' and 'moral' were strange to say the least. I can maybe see the logical argument he was trying to form and pushed back against it. You cannot see because that thread was deleted.
That may have been the case 100 years ago, but certainly not now. But you have said "essentialist" in quotes so maybe you mean something different.
Either way such discussions can be taken up in the forum proper.
Strange? It was bigoted and stupid. It would have been one thing if Bob had been intellectually honest, but arguing with him was like talking to smoke.
In any case, Jamal did a great job of laying this one out, and as with T Clark, it's a shame but not totally unexpected. It wasn't legitimate work here.
His essentialism was unfalsifiable by design. Counterexamples were dismissed as “pathological,” “deformed,” or “non-natural,” while conformity were treated as confirmation. That is not an epistemology; it is an immunisation strategy. An essence that cannot be contradicted by any actual instance is doing no explanatory work.
His appeal to Aristotle and Aquinas was selective and anachronistic. Neither thinker held that every natural tendency grounds a fixed social role, nor that deviation implies defect in a moral sense. Aquinas in particular is careful to separate natural inclination from law and from virtue. Bob reads later ideological commitments back into scholastic metaphysics.
Tim is correct that racism is not wrong because race is unreal, and that essentialism alone is not the issue. But it remains true that Bob’s justifications for racism, homophobia, and transphobia rely on a misguided essentialism that illegitimately converts descriptive generalisations into normative constraints while insulating itself from criticism.
In his case, I think it's actually philosophical inexperience and a measure of incompetence, rather than malice.
Like my dick!
I laughed at this more than I should have. Really out of the blue lol
I had spotted dick for pudding tonight.
My comments were only on his thread that led to his banning, so maybe we crossed wires in referring to different threads. My point was only that I don't think what he said specifically in the thread that resulted in his banning had any supportable academic underpinnings.
Whether he had other threads that might have been more supportable, I suspect that's true, but I remain skeptical of his motives generally. The theme of too many of his comments was to pretend innocence and objectivity while obviously trying to reveal what he wanted to assert was some sort of controversial truth.
Jamal was very generous with giving Bob enough rope. The result was inevitable.