Moderators beware.
The job of a moderator on this and any other forum is a thankless and difficult one. Rarely are moderators the subject of much deserved gratitude from users of a 'free' forum such as this.
Thank you
Of course the 'thank you' comes with a caveat. Some great thought is being moderated out of the forum, and some great thought is being banned, or moved.
My question is this.
Are we at times throwing out the baby with the bath-water?
In moderation are 'ideas' being dispensed with that may well have a place in Philosophy.
I fully comply with the notion of offensive posting being moderated. However the shifting/merging of posts or closing of posts because another might feel that they 'lack content' or the content appears to them to be confined to another thread, smacks a little of the personal 'values of the censor'.
If a post is not interesting or lacks philosophical content, or is relevant to another thread, this post will have its own inherent 'ban' or closure in that others will be disinterested in it and it will quickly fade to oblivion without moderation.
If a poster on this forum considers a point to be philosophical, it should be left to stand on its merits as its content cannot presumably offend philosophy.
M
Thank you
Of course the 'thank you' comes with a caveat. Some great thought is being moderated out of the forum, and some great thought is being banned, or moved.
My question is this.
Are we at times throwing out the baby with the bath-water?
In moderation are 'ideas' being dispensed with that may well have a place in Philosophy.
I fully comply with the notion of offensive posting being moderated. However the shifting/merging of posts or closing of posts because another might feel that they 'lack content' or the content appears to them to be confined to another thread, smacks a little of the personal 'values of the censor'.
If a post is not interesting or lacks philosophical content, or is relevant to another thread, this post will have its own inherent 'ban' or closure in that others will be disinterested in it and it will quickly fade to oblivion without moderation.
If a poster on this forum considers a point to be philosophical, it should be left to stand on its merits as its content cannot presumably offend philosophy.
M
Comments (27)
Can you give an example, please?
Importantly the content of my Post concerned a different view of the Trump issue, than that which is under discussion in the Donald Trump thread.
I feel my initial point was unfairly silenced. Whereas if simply left alone it will disappear due to lack of interest.
Internet Stranger's most recent post was 'closed' because it was deemed to lack philosophical content. His post contained a very important point which I have opened as a new discussion on the subject of education and racism and educating racism.
Again I don't wish to sound truculent or offend the Moderators whom I firmly believe are doing (on the whole) a great and unappreciated job, however alternative thinking (outside the box) should not become the enemy of Philosophy.
Internetstranger's post was unsupported speculation. Your OP about Trump had potential, but it ended up by you simply asking people to write "what they love about Trump". Which is perfectly fine, but Trump's supporters were already doing that in the other Trump discussion, right? So we'd end up with two discussions with Trump supporters writing what they loved about Trump and others disagreeing. What would the difference have been in your view? If, on the other hand, you had had an obvious philosophical angle in there or something more specific like an analysis of Trump foreign policy etc, I would have supported leaving it separate.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
I much appreciate you saying that, but I don't yet think that there's evidence that we are unfairly treating alternative thought. We only ask for a certain level of rigor in philosophical OPs not a particular viewpoint (political or otherwise). All viewpoints within the scope of the guidelines are welcome (I also told internetstranger that before he told me to "fuck off" by the way).
Regardless of his 'insults' he is (IMOP) one of the most most enlightened and erudite authors on the forum, and his thought (outside of insults), is competent and profound. It would be a loss to this forum if he were to take his 'wisdom' (and insults) elsewhere.
Nietzsche can be most insulting to the gentle soul. Chomsky finds Zizek 'insulting' or entirely unreasonable or lacking in philosophical content.
Indeed like all of us he can be offensive, and when the offense contains a potential to cause real hurt to another, he should be silenced. However his philosophy is insightful and valuable, as yours quite often is, and my own aspires to be.
To silence an opinion on the basis that the idea lacks philosophical content to a particular self, is perhaps a little unfair, and un-philosophical. Particularly when the individual in question has shown himself to be both erudite and philosophical.
If the idea has no merit or no content it will be ignored by others and need not be 'shut down'.
Perhaps a moderator 'caution' or warning or a moderator demand for justification, would be a fairer way of dealing with issues rather than the castration of the thought itself?
M
He did get a caution and his response was "fuck off". So, he got banned. Sorry, but you're not making much sense.
But before the inevitable, there is an opportunity to consider if something a bit severe is going on?
For the sake of old philosophy?
M
Not unless you PM us to tell us to "fuck off" (or do something else egregious). And judging by your record, I don't expect that.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
That's what you're doing and being allowed to do here isn't it? I don't agree with you but I'm just one mod.
Quoting StreetlightX
This type of language and thought is arguably 'Trumpian' in its essence, and I can see why you found the 'naked truth' post personally offensive, but one should not let personal emotion get in the way of philosophy. IMOP in deleting/merging my post you have affirmed the painful nature of its content.
I think it would be fair to state that in moving the discussion you effectively deleted it, and this was done because you have a 'personal' problem with the content, which you insist belongs in another thread (despite the fact that you did not transfer the content itself).
Your ostensible point for moving the thread (effectively deleting it) was that it pertains to Donald Trump, when in fact it does NOT pertain to Trump, but rather what we think or don't think of Trump on a deeper 'subconscious' level, and how the horror that is Trump might be reflective of universal horrors within the human psyche.
It appears to me that you do not like this idea and have decided to shut it down. Because it seems invalid to you. This puts philosophy under threat.
If my post is indeed simply invalid, then let it stand, put it back up and let the idea die of its own accord rather than kill it because you personally don't like it. We are here for Philosophy, let the philosophy decide. If others agree with you, the post will disappear through lack of interest. Surely we should be moderating offense, and not thought itself.
There is another discussion that is on-going and it is called 'What will Muller find? This discussion might easily be merged with the Donald Trump thread under the same logic, but this has not occurred.
M
No, my 'ostensible point' for moving the thread was that it was a rubbish thread. While it's cute that you arrogate yourself so that any action upon it is some kind of attack on thought or philosophy itself, consider that, no, it was just a badly composed thread.
If it is as badly composed as you assert, why not put it back up, and see the proof of your 'opinion' in the lack of interest it generates.
Moderatorship and anger do not mix well.
I see now quite clearly why its contents are so frightful to you.
Prove your point and put it back up... let philosophy decide....., if you dare.
There is but a snowball's chance.
M
Balance is not necessary to offer a place to discuss philosophy but it shouldn't be a bashing/pile on creating a mob mentality either.
Are you suggesting that anyone that supports our President is part of the "herd"?
I dont think this forum is like that. It does lean left, though.
[i]When somebody takes off their clothes, a 'real' body is exposed. I love Donald Trump. I love him in the sense that he is actively exposing the myth of intellectual progress. His are truths that are held by the herd. The dangerous ones within the herd are those who do not know they love him. He has a veritable army of supporting non-supporters who swarm to join in the fun of stone throwing.
There is little to be gained by the self serving refutations of his intellectual primitivism. The sycophants to reason and even old philosophy, are in the queue with their non thinking rocks in hand.
Let us be courageous and honest in a Christian way; and post here what one loves about the man.
The naked truth of the self!
M[/i]
StreetlightX, Thank you for your response as I was feeling quite the opposite was happening.
The point here is that the deletion/move in question is not 'moderating', but rather something else, a form of intellectual self preservation.
The 'dare' is directed towards the intellectual- preservation, in the vain hope that it might overcome itself ... which interestingly was the very point of the deleted/moved thread.
The deletion/move has effectively proven the point which refers to.. the unseen Trump within us all (some more than others)
The Don would be proud of some of the current dictates, and silencing of thought and speech, 'right here right now'.
If the thread is not put back up.
I am most happy with this one as the same initial point is being iterated in a real and practical sense.
M
I move to close this thread if any moderator is reading this.
Maybe, but no one on this forum is getting your message because of the way you're presenting it.
What's your first language, if you dont mind my asking?
Cool. I'll PM him.
"]Maybe, but no one on this forum is getting your message because of the way you're presenting it."
Is it the way the idea is being presented? Possibly....
However the fact that my idea(s) (and others) are being silenced, is probably the more reasonable answer.
I ask the moderator to confirm my point, and go with the unveiled Trumpism. The sore has been opened.
Shut the dialogue down,
BUILD THE DAM WALL!
NOW
It is this same 'intellectual process' that elected the 'man' in the first place.
M
I'm going to close this discussion because you now have begun to discuss Trump here, which strikes me as an effort to discuss here what you were already asked to discuss elsewhere when you previously created your duplicative Trump thread.