Terrapin StationSeptember 03, 2019 at 21:23#3238300 likes
It's very difficult to tell if anyone is lying, really, because you need to know that what they believe to be the case at time Tx is different than what they're claiming to believe at time Tx. That requires knowing their mental content, contra their expression. Obviously that's not something we can really do.
Deleted UserSeptember 03, 2019 at 21:35#3238320 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserSeptember 03, 2019 at 21:40#3238350 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
It's very difficult to tell if anyone is lying, really, because you need to know that what they believe to be the case at time Tx is different than what they're claiming to believe at time Tx. That requires knowing their mental content, contra their expression. Obviously that's not something we can really do.
It [I]can be[/I] difficult. It can also be pretty obvious. If I told you that I'm on the moon right now with Chevy Chase, would you believe me? Would you think that I was mistaken? Would you withold judgment? You'd think that I was lying, wouldn't you?
Terrapin StationSeptember 03, 2019 at 21:43#3238370 likes
You're not distinguishing between liar, lie, and lying.
? No need to, really, unless you don't understand grammatical permutations. "Liar" is the person telling a lie, the lie is what they're uttering that's different than what they believe to be the case, and "lying" is the act.
Terrapin StationSeptember 03, 2019 at 21:44#3238380 likes
If I told you that I'm on the moon right now with Chevy Chase, would you believe me? Would you think that I was mistaken? You'd think that I was lying, wouldn't you?
How would I know that you don't believe that you're on the moon right now with Chevy Chase? You could be crazy.
You don't think that people can have some beliefs?
What? Wait, if this is some sort of subtle practical joke, given the title, then hats off to you.
Yes, I do think that people can have some beliefs. And I don't think that you'd entertain as a serious possibility that I'm crazy enough to really believe that I'm on the moon right now with Chevy Chase.
(Even though I really am on the moon right now with Chevy Chase, but that's not the point).
Terrapin StationSeptember 03, 2019 at 21:54#3238450 likes
In other words, there are some beliefs that you'd say that particular individuals couldn't actually hold.
I don't think that. Even if the person doesn't have a history of saying things that are crazy, they could believe something crazy now.
It would be an extremely remote possibility, so not something that I'd take seriously, because I'm reasonable like that. (As is Chevy Chase. He doesn't give serious consideration to the remote possibility that I believe that we're on the moon together, either. I know that because I just asked him).
Terrapin StationSeptember 03, 2019 at 22:02#3238510 likes
It's not normally something I'd worry about.
I might go, "Wait--you believe what now?" And if they persist saying whatever it is that caused me to react like that, I'd just go "ohhhhkay."
No need to worry about whether they really believe it, really.
I might go, "Wait--you believe what now?" And if they persist saying whatever it is that caused me to react like that, I'd just go "ohhhhkay."
No need to worry about whether they really believe it, really.
But the question is whether or not they're lying, and whether or not you can tell, not whether or not you're worried about it. Most of the time I'm not worried about climate change or cancer, but I'm not on the fence about whether or not they're real.
Maybe we here can start small. There are liars and trolls here. I propose that within an informal system of warnings, that recalcitrant offenders be banned. How do we recognize the lie? By its signs of evasion, avoidance, non-responsiveness, persistence, misdirection, confusion making, deliberate misstatement, & etc. This is a philosophy site: love of wisdom: willingness to learn and be corrected, and on the other side to be clear, patient, and an educator. And in the case of argument, to be clear, direct, and to the point. That is, not a sophistry site, nor a liar's nor a troll's site. They poison our place. Usually there is room for the liar, one can distance oneself from them. But the world has got small; they make themselves and their lies and purposes our business, even in those cases when the assure us the matter is "none" of our business. Ultimately it's them or us. Let's make it us
I get annoyed at people who disrupt the forum. Lying though? What is there to lie about here? We're anonymous. We don't really deal in facts so much as opinions. How can an opinion be a lie? Trolling? I've been accused of trolling when expressing a sincere disagreement. As good philosophers, let's define it. From the web:
A person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.
A person who antagonizes (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.
Someone that starts arguments or upsets people by posting off-topic or extraneous messages....Their goal is to cause people to get emotional and to harass people online.
Those seem like pretty good definitions to me. The emphasis is on disruption. Stopping the rest of us from having fun.
So what do we do about it...drum roll....nothing. Or at least nothing much. This is a well moderated forum. The moderators usually get crap when they delete posts or ban people. I think they walk a good line between rigid control and chaos.
Tim - how exactly do you propose to crack down? I get the impression this thread is in response to recent activities on the forum. I do see above average barking and hissing going around right now. Most of that seems to me to come from lack of discipline, courtesy, and familiarity with the forum rather than an effort to disrupt.
But the question is whether or not they're lying, and whether or not you can tell, not whether or not you're worried about it. Most of the time I'm not worried about climate change or cancer, but I'm not on the fence about whether or not they're real.
I'm not on the fence about whether people can lie. Just whether we can tell that a particular person is lying . . . not that it matters much to me that we can't tell, as I noted.
I'm not on the fence about whether people can lie. Just whether we can tell that a particular person is lying . . . not that it matters much to me that we can't tell, as I noted.
But there are some clear enough cases where we can tell. You're just setting the bar unreasonably high, as usual. And I don't think that it's intellectually honest of you to take the stance that you can't tell in at least some cases, like my example earlier. You know I'm not crazy enough to believe that.
But I fear Truth is no motivating factor in your plea for censorship. If you resort to censorship you cast doubt on Truth itself by replacing it’s force with suppression. Truth doesn’t require protection, especially by those who believe they lay claim to it. Think of Milton’s famous insight:
“Though all winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.”
JS Mill makes it more explicit:
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
I see nothing wrong with the banning of ill behavior. As for these so-called lies, I’m pretty sure fellow posters are far enough into adulthood to figure that out for themselves.
Deleted UserSeptember 04, 2019 at 00:47#3239160 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
At the heart of the matter is who shall hold the field. Reason, or attempts at same? Or rant and destructive behaviour? Of course our issues aren't even storms in teapot - maybe a thimble! But even at small scale the issues are real, nor is there anything about this site that in itself argues a suspension of rules of civil discourse.
I think I know exactly how you feel. I don't want you to think I don't share your values. I know the feeling of standing on solid intellectual ground, with my feet under me, nice wide stance in front of someone else who stands the same. Both trying to work out the things that are important to us working with the other person. Ideas against ideas maybe, but not poster against poster. I like the people on this forum and I don't want to waste my time pissing on each others shoes. I don't want to distract from their voices.
As you can maybe see, I am skeptical that group action beyond that already provided by the moderators is the right way to go, but I think there may be individual things I can do to make things better. Some ideas:
I try to make sure I am not contributing to the problem. Make sure my posts are reasonably civil and respectful and not disruptive. Don’t call anybody a dick, no matter how much they deserve it. Make sure I try to stay on the subject as described in the OP. Respond to people when they comment on the things I’ve had to say. Try not to go too far off on a tangent. Never, never respond to anything @S has to say. I try to stay away from people I don’t get along with. I have had some success with all this, but I have a ways to go.
The best way to have some control over the course of the forum is to start high-quality threads and shepherd them through the process. No half-assed off the cuff dipsy-doodle themes. We’re supposed to be philosophers. Pick something you understand, know something about, and have thought about extensively. Don’t piss out thread after thread of meaningless bull shit. Describe the terms and goals of the OP clearly. Define terms. Describe what you want to include in the thread and specifically what you don’t want to include. During the discussion, protect the OP by letting people know when they are getting off track or being disruptive or heading off on a tangent. If you have to, go to the moderators. You have standing with your own threads, this is where you can make a difference.
Try to do similar things in your posts in other’s threads. They’re the boss. Stick with their Ops. Try to contribute if you can, not find fault. Again – make your point clearly, tie it into their posts, define terms. Support the original poster when people try to hijack their thread. Try not to go off on tangents. If you find yourself doing that, shift to a PM. If you don’t have anything substantive and relevant to add to the main thrust of the thread, go somewhere else.
In a limited way, take a little social control into your own hands. Politely point out to people when they are off-base without disrupting the discussion. Do it as a PM to avoid disruption if it makes sense. In other people’s threads, the original poster gets the final word.
Support the moderators. I try to be really careful about this – enlist their support. They are all hammers and we tend to look like nails to them, so don’t be heavy handed. Only bring them in if it’s important. Be fair.
For me, these are goals. I often fail to live up to my own standards. I'll keep trying.
For me, these are goals. I often fail to live up to my own standards. I'll keep trying.
Indeed. You just can't resist responding to my little pearls of aggression on occasion.
But in all seriousness, that was mostly good advice. Except for the part about finding fault. That's exactly what you should be doing. The less faults, the stronger the end product. The sooner they're identified, the sooner they can be addressed.
Your advice is a lot more detailed, but less punchy than what I would have said, which would be to get over it and move on.
I don't think that. Even if the person doesn't have a history of saying things that are crazy, they could believe something crazy now.
Of course they could, but the sun 'could' explode in the next three seconds, we 'could' all suddenly lose the ability to read... But we don't act as if that were the case. We act with a presumption of expected result based on our theories. We presume consistent patterns will continue to be so until overwhelmingly contradicted by evidence to the contrary. So why shouldn't we treat plausible beliefs in the same way?
Oh and @S, if you're on the moon with Chevy Chase, then who the fuck is this I'm on Mars with?
Pattern-chaserSeptember 04, 2019 at 07:57#3240340 likes
So what do we do about it...drum roll....nothing. Or at least nothing much. This is a well moderated forum. The moderators usually get crap when they delete posts or ban people. I think they walk a good line between rigid control and chaos.
:up: Our mods seem to do a good job. Thanks to them! :up:
So what do we do about it...drum roll....nothing. Or at least nothing much. This is a well moderated forum. The moderators usually get crap when they delete posts or ban people. I think they walk a good line between rigid control and chaos.
— T Clark
:up: Our mods seem to do a good job. Thanks to them! :up:
Agreed.
If things get out of hand, the mods are accessible and can give an objective perspective via PM conversation. I have had a few helpful exchanges with @Baden
The problem often lies in our becoming too subjectively and personally upset with an individual.
It can be emotionally exhausting with anger often leading to an escalation with knee-jerk, sweary responses. It's important to gain perspective, control the anger and not to get too sucked in, as per:
I try to make sure I am not contributing to the problem. Make sure my posts are reasonably civil and respectful and not disruptive. Don’t call anybody a dick, no matter how much they deserve it. Make sure I try to stay on the subject as described in the OP.
After making your point or objection as to any misrepresentation, walk away. As per:
Chasing and harassing - ask yourself if it's worthy or worth it.
Follow your own philosophy of life. If too rigid and absolute, this can lead to stress, hypertension and bloody noses.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 04, 2019 at 09:12#3240470 likes
Reply to Amity I haven't noticed any particularly unpleasant exchanges recently, but I suppose it depends which topics we follow. For all I know, the OP is complaining about me. :yikes: I hope not, but one man's supporter is another woman's troll, as we might put it. Courtesy is the only way to run any forum, assuming we wish to avoid the typical online unpleasantness.
I haven't noticed any particularly unpleasant exchanges recently, but I suppose it depends which topics we follow. For all I know, the OP is complaining about me.
This thread follows on from exchanges in the Donald Trump thread.
If you want to, you can look under @tim wood 'Comments' for detail.
Of course it's not about you - dummkopf :smile:
Pattern-chaserSeptember 04, 2019 at 09:25#3240490 likes
Of course they could, but the sun 'could' explode in the next three seconds, we 'could' all suddenly lose the ability to read... But we don't act as if that were the case. We act with a presumption of expected result based on our theories. We presume consistent patterns will continue to be so until overwhelmingly contradicted by evidence to the contrary. So why shouldn't we treat plausible beliefs in the same way?
Unlike the sun, you can never observe the way the person's beliefs match up with what they say.
This thread follows on from exchanges in the Donald Trump thread.
If you want to, you can look under tim wood 'Comments' for detail.
— Amity
Is there any other poster than tim doesn't figure is a liar or a troll, though?
Yes. I note a few more have made their opinions known as to a certain poster.
(I have given up following the Trump thread; it's become rather tedious ).
However, only tim has started a thread related to the heated exchanges. And so, I think his 'Comments' are worth looking at as particular examples.
We can of course look at others...who have reacted and the ways in which they met/meet this kind of challenging behaviour in that thread and elsewhere. They might even respond here...
Is there any other poster that tim doesn't figure is a liar or a troll, though?
The point of course being that he has been known to make rash judgements and to jump to conclusions in this regard, and I'd have to agree. Not wanting to restart beef, Tim, just saying it how I see it. The elephant in the room this time is obviously NOS4A2, and Tim's opening post is basically just a verbose attack piece on him, with the intent of seeking attention, gathering supporters, and of influencing the decision-making of the site staff. It's a lynching, basically. Gather your pitchforks, fellow villagers!
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 11:42#3241010 likes
Unlike the sun, you can never observe the way the person's beliefs match up with what they say.
Of course you can. If, after saying "I'm off down the pub for a drink" someone proceeds to walk towards the pub and orders a drink it's a pretty safe bet that's because they believed the pub was located in that place and served drinks thus.
It could be coincidence, but the idea that coincidences are unlikely is the basis of most relational knowledge.
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 12:23#3241150 likes
When do we get to the part where we're observing their beliefs?
That part is silly. That we can't literally observe someone's beliefs has no bearing on anything. That's not a reasonable approach to the matter, Terrapin.
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 12:26#3241180 likes
It seems like that should be obvious. To know that someone is saying something different than they believe, we have to be able to compare what they said with what they believe.
It seems like that should be obvious. To know that someone is saying something different than they believe, we have to be able to compare what they said with what they believe.
You're still not justifying your stance, because we can do that without literally opening up someone's skull and taking a look inside their brain where you presumably think their beliefs reside, and then comparing that with what they said.
We can know what someone believes in many cases through common sense, although I would understand if that was a problem [I]for you[/I].
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 12:38#3241240 likes
You're still not justifying your stance, because we can do that without literally opening up someone's skull and taking a look inside their brain where you presumably think their beliefs reside, and then comparing that with what they said.
That wouldn't work even, because mental content is only observable to the bearer, because it's what it's like to BE the brain in question.
We can know what someone believes through common sense? Hahahahaha
That wouldn't work even, because mental content is only observable to the bearer, because it's what it's like to BE the brain in question.
We can know what someone believes through common sense? Hahahahaha
Talk about not justifying something
Hahahahahahahaha, yes, it's so absurd that through common sense, which you act as though you lack, we can know that I don't really believe that I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase!
It's much more sensible to believe that it's a big mystery! After all, I could be crazy, right! Kukoo, kukoo!
:brow:
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 12:46#3241280 likes
Hahahahahahahaha, yes, it's so absurd that through common sense, which you act as though lack, we can know that I don't really believe that I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase!
If someone says, "I believe I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase," and you go, "Really? You believe that?" And they say, "Yes, I do," etc. then how would "common sense" tell you what they believe? How do you figure that works?
If someone says, "I believe I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase," and you go, "Really? You believe that?" And they say, "Yes, I do," etc. then how would "common sense" tell you what they believe? How do you figure that works?
Because if they don't act, or continue to converse in any way as if they were on the moon with Chevy Chase, then it's unlikely that they believe that they are.
If someone says, "I believe I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase," and you go, "Really? You believe that?" And they say, "Yes, I do," etc. then how would "common sense" tell you what they believe? How do you figure that works?
No, no, I'm agreeing with you. It's all a big mystery. Even though we've spent a great deal of time communicating with each other over the years, you genuinely think that I could really be crazy enough to believe something so patently absurd. :ok: :lol:
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 12:52#3241310 likes
People very often say that they believe things that I think are patently absurd, with philosophy being one of the primary milieu culprits. So it's not as if I'm surprised at any crazy thing anyone believes.
People saying things that I think are patently absurd is one of the things that attracted me to philosophy in the first place, and it's pretty much what I focus on in my comments.
"I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase" isn't any more absurd than "meaning isn't subjective," "speech is causal to others' actions," etc.
Reply to Terrapin Station So, without cracking any jokes, in all sincerity, you really think that I'm the kind of person who could right now believe that I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase? Or that I'm an ostrich? Or that space whales are about to launch an imminent attack on humankind?
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 12:59#3241350 likes
So, without cracking any jokes, you really think that I'm the kind of person who could right now believe that I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase? Or that I'm an ostrich? Or that space whales are about to launch an imminent attack on humankind?
If you say you believe those things, sure.
You're the type of person who believes that (we can show that) speech is causal to others' actions, for example, right? I'm not joking when I say that I find that patently absurd.
But in all seriousness, that was mostly good advice. Except for the part about finding fault. That's exactly what you should be doing. The less faults, the stronger the end product. The sooner they're identified, the sooner they can be addressed.
I hoped no one would notice I didn't get into this. So, thanks for that.
I agree to a point. My posts here disagree with some of what Tim wrote, but they still seem constructive to me. I his contributions thoughtful and helpful. I've been known to comment when I think a post is weak or poorly thought through. I've sometimes commented when I think someone is getting off OP or is being disruptive. I have been passionately blunt when I think someone's ideas are objectionable. I try to criticize the argument and not the poster.
Did I mention not calling anyone a dick? You helped me out with that one by giving me many opportunities to practice turning the other cheek.
Of course they could, but the sun 'could' explode in the next three seconds, we 'could' all suddenly lose the ability to read... But we don't act as if that were the case. We act with a presumption of expected result based on our theories. We presume consistent patterns will continue to be so until overwhelmingly contradicted by evidence to the contrary. So why shouldn't we treat plausible beliefs in the same way?
Thanks for the opportunity to pull out, again, my favorite quote from Stephen Jay Gould:
“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’”
The point of course being that he has been known to make rash judgements and to jump to conclusions in this regard, and I'd have to agree. Not wanting to restart beef, Tim, just saying it how I see it. The elephant in the room this time is obviously NOS4A2, and Tim's opening post is basically just a verbose attack piece on him, with the intent of seeking attention, gathering supporters, and of influencing the decision-making of the site staff. It's a lynching, basically. Gather your pitchforks, fellow villagers!
I didn't even know who were [s]talking about[/s] lynching until you brought it up. Till now, I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about an important issue.
Yes. And there are clear forum standards for that, I think.
However, apparent trolling is treated differently.
I've just been scrolling down the Trump thread and caught this response of yours:
"There’s only one way to stop a troll from trolling and that is to deny them attention. Personally, I don’t think he should be stopped. As someone mentioned, it’s good that there’s at least one person participating in this topic with a different view, even if he’s just playing around."
So, even if we accept that it might be best not to give a troll attention, we just might carry on the conversation to see how far it progresses before it reaches banning point ?
It could be viewed as good practice in using judgement and anger control...and knowing when to contact the mods. Others see it as a form of entertainment and prod back in similar fashion. It ends up in a vicious circle. Nothing virtuous about it.
It's interesting to see how the mods judge the to and fro.
And when any banning takes place, for whatever reason.
A member of a philosophy forum who has a pattern of making wild claims and not supporting such claim should be banned, in my opinion.
The moderators have been known to ban someone for repeated frivolous or low-quality threads. To me, that doesn't seem like a solution that should be used very often.
Reply to tim wood
Even within lies, you can find worthwhile truths. I'm happy to troll people if I think that there's no chance of having a reasonable discussion with them. Sometimes I'll troll people just because I don't like them. Trolling to me is a course of action that follows feeling no respect towards someone, thinking either they or their ideas are absurd. From my perspective, if you're being trolled by me, you deserved it for saying idiotic things.
I don't think there's always value to trying to have a discussion in earnest with people because of either one or both parties. Though, I also think that people troll because they want to take part in conversations where they have nothing of value to contribute.
Trolling is a hostile action, which often works because people haven't accepted that they can't control the actions of the troll. The only option is to recognise that this person is trying to get under your skin and show them that it won't work. If you get annoyed you lose, if you show you can't be annoyed then you win. I think people who hate trolls probably lose more than they win. You can try to disregard that and justify your frustration but how can it be that the troll successfully trolls you and you got frustrated but that's showing your virtue? That's delusional.
Being trolled is an opportunity to build your character and know more about yourself. Ultimately, if you accept that there are always going to be those who will violently disagree with every idea you have and everything you are then you won't be surprised when your paths cross. It won't be surprising that people will do their best to upset you and you'll see it for what it is and handle it with grace. You cannot isolate yourself from it AND use the internet.
The elephant in the room this time is obviously NOS4A2, and Tim's opening post is basically just a verbose attack piece on him, with the intent of seeking attention, gathering supporters, and of influencing the decision-making of the site staff. It's a lynching, basically. Gather your pitchforks, fellow villagers!
— S
I didn't even know who were talking about lynching until you brought it up. Till now, I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about an important issue.
Yes. It was cleverly and carefully presented as an objective piece of philosophy.
Yes. Still important in itself.
However, anyone following @tim wood 'Comments' would see the underlying issue. The provocation and anger involved.
It's clearly not about a lynching. But the OP is a lengthy and 'verbose attack piece'.
No need for pitchforks but beware the forked tongue.
I think I prefer open and downright dishonesty to this.
Deleted UserSeptember 04, 2019 at 15:00#3241930 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Sometimes I'll troll people just because I don't like them. Trolling to me is a course of action that follows feeling no respect towards someone, thinking either they or their ideas are absurd. From my perspective, if you're being trolled by me, you deserved it for saying idiotic things.
Reading your posts, I've seen a lot that are blunt and aggressive, even insulting, but I don't know of any that I'd consider trolling. Maybe I've missed those. And, of course, I disagree with your point.
Reply to T Clark
Yeah, I don't troll on this forum, not much at least. I don't know what point you're disagreeing with but the reality is that you cannot control the troll and your reaction is the only thing that can be controlled. If you try to control the troll, you reveal your own powerlessness and you spiral into greater frustration and anger but if you handle yourself well then you will win in every sense. Spectators will support you, you'll feel good about yourself and the troll who failed to upset you will be revealed as a troll.
Whether the troll thinks you deserve to be trolled or not is irrelevant and it's only worthwhile to note that because if you are a reasonable and sensible person then perhaps the troll has misjudged you. Regardless of what the best outcome is of being trolled, to not aspire towards that but instead try to control whether people troll or not is delusional. You absolutely cannot control that and if you try to exercise a power you don't have then you'll look like a fool.
Deleted UserSeptember 04, 2019 at 15:22#3242090 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to Judaka Makes sense to me. Anyone can report anyone, of course, but making it a private affair might be the more sensible course of action to take.
Deleted UserSeptember 04, 2019 at 15:31#3242130 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I didn't even know who you were talking about lynching until you brought it up. Till now, I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about an important issue.
It's something of a skill. I've seen more subtle attack pieces. This one from me in response to Wallows is funny to look back on: Overcoming. It was a pretty good opening post, I thought. You know, two birds, one stone and all.
Reply to tim wood
Yes, it's my choice to be hostile, I do not need validation from anyone but myself. I have the capacity to be unkind. When I believe it is right to be unkind then it is right. I know that no matter what I believed there'll be people who disagree, it was never an option to act in accordance with all the responsibilities people think I have.
In this forum and in life, you can only try to act in a way that leaves you without regret. That most often leads to an outcome that favours you. My hostility is measured, I won't be hostile where I think that the result will be unfavourable for me. So with the troll, I am not defeated but rather I aspire towards a favourable outcome.
If I had the power to make it so nobody ever trolled me then that would certainly be a favourable situation for me but seeing as I don't have that power, it's unrealistic. Applying an unrealistic solution can't be favourable.
Yes, it's my choice to be hostile, I do not need validation from anyone but myself. I have the capacity to be unkind. When I believe it is right to be unkind then it is right. I know that no matter what I believed there'll be people who disagree, it was never an option to act in accordance with all the responsibilities people think I have.
Well, on this forum, you do have responsibilities. They are spelled out in the Site Guidelines. There are, as discussed in this thread, procedures for dealing with people if they don't live up to them. As I indicated, I haven't seen anything from you that rises to that level.
Deleted UserSeptember 04, 2019 at 16:00#3242250 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I only care about what's practical, I think most of the times I've argued with you, you admit that you're being unrealistic and impractical but stand by your position anyway and I think you'll end up doing that again if we continue to debate this. I haven't read any of your posts besides those directed at me, maybe you've been saying very sensible and reasonable things, don't know but I haven't thought of any sensible disagreements to what I'm saying.
All I know about trolling is that I've done it before and I'll do it again - I get something out of it.
The word "responsibilties" holds a certain importance to me, so when a forum that I barely visit and consider entirely dispensible has rules that I haven't even read, I am unhappy about saying I have a responsibility to abide those rules. There are consequences for not abiding by them, that's what I'd prefer to say.
Reply to tim wood
Sure, it's a personal philosophy. My values, my thoughts, my personality - they can't be separated from me. My personal philosophies are right because they're right for me. If my values and preferences changed, the philosophies that were true because of them or good because of them will lose their value. And to people who never had my values or preferences, there may not have ever been any value. I only expect the same out of others, I only object in cases like these where you'll agree that your actions lead to outcomes you don't like, I think it's clear then that your way is not working.
Deleted UserSeptember 04, 2019 at 16:35#3242380 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
More the Athenian aristocracy. I look at the censorial motivations and fear of unpopular opinions and see a parallel.
DingoJonesSeptember 04, 2019 at 17:00#3242510 likes
Can we lose the pretence? Who are you guys talking about? S, Terrapin or that other NOS4A2 guy? Someone else?
To the general topic, banning for trolling needs to be handled very carefully. It is the go to internet accusation. On this very forum I have observed (often tbh) two, equally reasonable posters become frustrated and conclude that the other “must be trolling”. I have made the charge myself. I do not want any of those people banned.
Trolls will go away if ignored, but I think this forum has acceptable guidelines in place already. Id even say its a bit heavy handed at times, but then again I dont have the unenvious position of having to sort and judge it all.
The word "responsibilties" holds a certain importance to me, so when a forum that I barely visit and consider entirely dispensible has rules that I haven't even read, I am unhappy about saying I have a responsibility to abide those rules. There are consequences for not abiding by them, that's what I'd prefer to say.
This forum means a lot to many of us. It's clear it doesn't to you. If you feel the need to throw your weight around without following the rules or being courteous, why don't you just go somewhere else?
[As I read the above, implicit is that everyone is operating within the bounds of good faith]
[b]The question was, what to do about them what don't. The answer seems to be, nothing.
— tim wood
Reply to T Clark
I'm still here so I can't have disobeyed the rules too badly. The forum is not mine, I cannot say what it is but what it is to me is still intact. It doesn't matter to me whether people want or don't want me to be here.
Reply to tim wood
I know that I am just one perspective in a sea of billions and my perspective is only important to me because I am me. That's enough though - and I don't answer to some kind of transcendent idea of right and wrong. There is no "right because right for me" because that is a claim about the transcendent. A person's interpretations are subjective but they've real consequences and real validity. The idea of right and wrong as a transcendent thing is removed from reality, it isn't something that affects me.
It is a battle for power I think, the never-ending debate about what is right and wrong. I can see that I'm different from others in ways that I never decided to be. So it is also not a choice for others to be like me, futile for me to argue it should be like that. What I should do is up to me and I'm left to react to the actions of others. I'm not oblivious towards that for example, I'll be banned from this forum if I'm caught violating the rules. Knowing that and things like that, I make my choices.
Reply to Amity He said himself in the sentences before what you quoted that site management is very-good to exemplary, which he agrees with. So if it's not an issue for site staff, then what does he expect to be done, that he cannot do by himself? I don't like the sound of that. Trying to gang up on someone? Just try to exercise greater self-control, I say. I agree with Judaka.
It is a battle for power I think, the never-ending debate about what is right and wrong.
This whole thing is a battle for power. Tim wants power over NOS4A2, who he has decided is a liar and a troll, and this is his power play. I'm guessing he wants him banned or ostracised. I say leave it up to the site staff and stop making such a public show of things.
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 17:48#3242720 likes
So just to clarify, in this thread, people are actually claiming at least one of the following:
(1) If people typically believe that P (or maybe iff the vast majority of people typically believe that P), then we have good grounds for concluding that someone asserting not-P must be lying,
(2) If S (some subject) has a history of asserting that P, then we have good grounds for concluding that S is lying if S asserts not-P.
(3) If S claims that Q where Q is a very unusual, highly implausible assertion relative to what most people assert, and/or relative to what S has asserted in the past, then we have good grounds for concluding that S is lying.
This is a philosophy site: love of wisdom: willingness to learn and be corrected, and on the other side to be clear, patient, and an educator. And in the case of argument, to be clear, direct, and to the point.
I think we need to examine why it is that so many people are terrified of learning about themselves and being corrected. Here's a snippet of what I researched about trolls:
"I began doing some troll research in online journals such as Journal of Politeness Research, Computers in Human Behavior, The Psychology of Cyberspace, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, and Psychology Today. I was amazed to discover how much current work is being done on the psychodynamics of online communication and relationships. I learned that when online anonymity is guaranteed, some people feel free to be cruel. They don't just disagree with others; they're cruel. It's called toxic disinhibition when online commenters insult or bully others, or otherwise behave in ways they would not if their identity were known (Suler). Anonymous commenters are significantly more likely to make vulgar or nasty comments (Suler). This is why many news outlets and other sites only allow comments on FB, where people can't hide behind anonymity.
I also learned that trolling can be contagious and can spread from person to person in a community (Cheng). It can alter forum members' perceptions of a given topic (Anderson). Social scientists have been studying mass psychology since the nineteenth century to understand how the presence of a calculating "agitator" can transform a group of rational people into a violent and destructive mob (Adorno). Of course, things are a little different in cyber space, but the agitators are there as well.
Trolls are unhappy people with deep-seated insecurities which they can't acknowledge to themselves. We all experiences unhappiness and insecurity: they're part of the human condition. But to inflict suffering on and cause harm to others is the most unhealthy way of avoiding or denying our own personal problems. Inflicting harm on others is guaranteed to make an emotionally-disturbed person worse; trolling hurts the troll worst of all. Because trolls won't face their inner demons, they behave hatefully to others in an attempt to ward off feelings of self-loathing."
What was most productive about the research I did was my own process of coming to terms with why I have sunk to the same level a few times online--not too many times, but I reacted as described above when I got trolled and wrote nasty stuff right back. It never ceases to amaze me how hard it is, even at times for self-reflexive and self-questioning intellectuals not to jump to the defensive and turn agressive.
I do agree that any trolling or impoliteness should be pointed out, and people online shouldn't be afraid to apologize if they write things they regret later.
I learned that when online anonymity is guaranteed, some people feel free to be cruel. They don't just disagree with others; they're cruel. It's called toxic disinhibition when online commenters insult or bully others, or otherwise behave in ways they would not if their identity were known (Suler).
I'm actually exactly the same way in person as I am online . . . which I'd be happy to demonstrate to anyone via a telephone conversation or an in-person meeting if you even happen to be in the NYC area (when I'm home and not traveling).
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 18:09#3242870 likes
If you're not claiming at least one of those three things, you could clarify just what your justification would be for accusing someone of lying when they assert whatever they're asserting.
Reply to Terrapin Station I'm less interested in that and more interested in your answer to my question. Do you not think that you're overcomplicating things when you go to such lengths, and can't even accept that I was lying when I said that I was on the moon? Is that not an indication that you've gone drastically wrong somewhere, and need to reassess the matter?
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 18:15#3242910 likes
Do you not think that you're overcomplicating things when you go to such lengths
Probably not, right? Or I wouldn't do things that way I do them. I probably do things the way that I do them because I think it's a good way to do them/I like it, etc. Unless you think that I don't like what I'm doing/the way I'm doing it and I just can't figure out how to do things differently.
Probably not, right? Or I wouldn't do things that way I do them. I probably do things the way that I do them because I think it's a good way to do them/I like it, etc. Unless you think that I don't like what I'm doing/the way I'm doing it and I just can't figure out how to do things differently.
Oh no, that's the answer I was expecting. I'm just testing your self-awareness.
Sometimes I'll troll people just because I don't like them. Trolling to me is a course of action that follows feeling no respect towards someone, thinking either they or their ideas are absurd. From my perspective, if you're being trolled by me, you deserved it for saying idiotic things.
You're saying that you troll because you believe it's ok to be mean to people you don't like and who you think are stupid idiots? Do you have an ethical system, and is this part of it? That those who consider themselves superior should belittle those they consider inferior?
I'm sincerely wondering why you believe it's ok to be rude and nasty to those you consider your inferiors. Behavior learned at home?
You're saying that you troll because you believe it's ok to be mean to people you don't like and who you think are stupid idiots? Do you have an ethical system, and is this part of it? That those who consider themselves superior should belittle those they consider inferior?
I'm sincerely wondering why you believe it's ok to be rude and nasty to those you consider your inferiors. Behavior learned at home?
Let's be honest, because it's fun. We're all old enough not to take it to heart, and if you do, then more fool you.
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 18:29#3243000 likes
And there's a huge difference between a comrade saying that and someone saying really nasty things to me online or to my face.
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 18:30#3243020 likes
Since this is a thread about lying/honesty, I see people not expressing just what they're thinking, including when they try to "tactfully" temper or spin what they're thinking, as dishonest.
I prefer hanging out with people who are honest/unfettered.
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 18:31#3243040 likes
Since this is a thread about lying/honesty, I see people not expressing just what they're thinking, including when they try to "tactfully" temper or spin what they're thinking, as dishonest.
I prefer hanging out with people who are honest/unfettered.
Well I'm blunt, and you're an idiot, so we're a match made in heaven.
Terrapin StationSeptember 04, 2019 at 18:32#3243070 likes
I mean, you seem pretty removed from reality so I can't tell if YOU'RE trolling or not. Nobody would ever "DARE" to call you an idiot? You're the kind of guy I was just criticising in this thread, you don't have control over such a thing... Violence and abuse of power would quickly become your only recourse to control people and there's consequences for that. Online you don't even have those options - you've got nothing.
As for whether I think it's okay to be mean to people I don't like. I think being "mean" is vague because there are things which are mean that I'll do and things which are mean that I won't do - because I think that's going too far. Meanness is a part of me, I never decided I should laugh when I see someone making a dumb mistake or saying something stupid, it's just how I am. As for why it's justified, clearly, it can only be because I value my enjoyment over yours. Honestly, all philosophies which act as though you're a gear in a machine, I think they're ridiculous. I am me, not the person I think is an idiot, I don't need to think their perspective is equally valid to mine.
There are people I admire and respect and so too are there people I don't respect. To me, that's better than showing everyone unconditional civility. I am happy for people to not respect me, especially if they've got an argument for it. I would not necessarily be displeased if you started to tell me what a degenerate you thought I was, I'd probably laugh and enjoy it.
A member of a philosophy forum who has a pattern of making wild claims and not supporting such claim should be banned, in my opinion.
— praxis
The moderators have been known to ban someone for repeated frivolous or low-quality threads. To me, that doesn't seem like a solution that should be used very often.
As often as needed.
Philosophy is pretty much worthless if you don't value truth, right?
I'm still here so I can't have disobeyed the rules too badly. The forum is not mine, I cannot say what it is but what it is to me is still intact. It doesn't matter to me whether people want or don't want me to be here.
I've been clear I don't think you've done anything that would require any action from the moderators.
Being "mean" to people is honest, if that's what someone is thinking.
So does anything go as long as someone's being honest, keepin it real? Verbal abuse and insult is fine as long as the abuser's being sincere? I can accept that we have different takes on this issue: for me, being mean is never justified. Oh oh. I just said "never."
It can be, yeah, so long as you don't go overboard. There's a difference between, say, poking fun at someone and stabbing them in the liver.
I conclude that your understanding of "poking fun" includes being mean. Now I tease my friends, but we all know when we're teasing. For me poking fun is never the same as being mean.
I conclude that your understanding of "poking fun" includes being mean. Now I tease my friends, but we all know when we're teasing. For me poking fun is never the same as being mean.
Poking fun at someone [i]can[/I] be mean. I never suggested that it always is, and I never suggested that it's the same as being mean. It's just one form among many that being mean can take. And it is more of a minor form.
mean, you seem pretty removed from reality so I can't tell if YOU'RE trolling or not. Nobody would ever "DARE" to call you an idiot? You're the kind of guy
For one thing, the "no one would dare" comment was meant to be a joke, but I guess people don't know me yet and my keen sense of irony. For another thing, I'm not any kind of guy: I'm some kind of gal. Thirdly, I don't have a clue as to how degenerate you are, so I won't be going there. Do you justify meanness on the basis of refusing to conform to phony social norms of politeness?
It's against my ethics to be mean, which means to me to hurt someone else's feelings frivolously or for the sake of my own amusement. I've been mean and said really nasty things to lots of people in the past, but my ethics have changed.
At least I understand now that you are guided by some kind of "meanness scale": if it's between 1-5, you'll be mean, but not if it's between 6-10.
Is it an instinct? Is it part of everyone? Is there a significant difference between potential for meanness and practice of meanness? Is it in your genetic makeup, or your psyche, or both?
I think that sublimation--not repression--is very healthy for the progress of humankind. I don't think we should let our impulses fly like farts.
It's against my ethics to be mean, which means to me to hurt someone else's feelings frivolously or for the sake of my own amusement.
That sounds boring. I think I'd rather you were mean every once in a while. That would then make you human. I prefer humans to empty shells with pristine ethics.
Reply to S It's against my ethics, but that doesn't mean that I don't snap at people or get impatient with them. I have no halo over my head: I'm very impatient with slowness, I can be bitchy. But I'm getting better, because it matters to me now. When I'm mean to others, I feel the negativity like a hangover afterwards; it's just not good for my psyche or my soul. I'm not prosyletizing. I'm describing parts of myself to you. Take it or leave it, it's cool with me.
I have no problem with it sounding boring to you: I'm not trying to convince you that you need to be like I am because I'm right. It's my ethics, and it's not boring: I get along much better with people. The better I get along with others without losing my patience or being supercilious with them, the better I feel.
Reply to T Clark
Alright so in your last comment "you" is not me, but "one" is that right?
I got no idea what the rules are but some of the worst posters here are mods. The worst I've been called on this site is an "illiterate half-breed" and the person who called me that WAS a mod. In fact, before even knowing who were mods, I had already felt like 50% of the mods were posters I shouldn't respond to or take seriously. So I can't take the idea that poor or rude posters ought to go elsewhere seriously, given how many mods here fit that description.
Reply to uncanni
Sarcasm over the internet can be difficult to detect but I'm glad it was a joke.
Justifying meanness is intricate. There's the who, the what, the why, the where. Yes, there's a meanness scale but it's more complicated than that.
My goal is to find a way that works for me, the progress of mankind... that's not a concern of mine. I have opinions about what's fair, what's reasonable, what's just, what's deserved and I make my choices based off of my interpretations. That's my ethical consideration. From there I take into account how it will be received and whether things will likely play out how I want.
Beyond the ethical consideration, there's what I find funny and enjoy, my expression of displeasure or contempt and so on. It's also unusual that when I'm being mean - it's to someone's face. I've got nothing interesting to say on this topic I think, each situation is different.
I am not a moderator nor can I eat popcorn BUT I was enjoying following this thread without having to log in. It's not like putting it in the lounge isn't far enough off the main page but now putting it in a speak easy?
Maybe we here can start small. There are liars and trolls here. I propose that within an informal system of warnings, that recalcitrant offenders be banned.
Comments (144)
It [I]can be[/I] difficult. It can also be pretty obvious. If I told you that I'm on the moon right now with Chevy Chase, would you believe me? Would you think that I was mistaken? Would you withold judgment? You'd think that I was lying, wouldn't you?
? No need to, really, unless you don't understand grammatical permutations. "Liar" is the person telling a lie, the lie is what they're uttering that's different than what they believe to be the case, and "lying" is the act.
How would I know that you don't believe that you're on the moon right now with Chevy Chase? You could be crazy.
Seriously?
You don't think that people can have some beliefs?
What? Wait, if this is some sort of subtle practical joke, given the title, then hats off to you.
Yes, I do think that people can have some beliefs. And I don't think that you'd entertain as a serious possibility that I'm crazy enough to really believe that I'm on the moon right now with Chevy Chase.
(Even though I really am on the moon right now with Chevy Chase, but that's not the point).
In other words, there are some beliefs that you'd say that particular individuals couldn't actually hold.
I don't think that. Even if the person doesn't have a history of saying things that are crazy, they could believe something crazy now.
It would be an extremely remote possibility, so not something that I'd take seriously, because I'm reasonable like that. (As is Chevy Chase. He doesn't give serious consideration to the remote possibility that I believe that we're on the moon together, either. I know that because I just asked him).
I might go, "Wait--you believe what now?" And if they persist saying whatever it is that caused me to react like that, I'd just go "ohhhhkay."
No need to worry about whether they really believe it, really.
But the question is whether or not they're lying, and whether or not you can tell, not whether or not you're worried about it. Most of the time I'm not worried about climate change or cancer, but I'm not on the fence about whether or not they're real.
I get annoyed at people who disrupt the forum. Lying though? What is there to lie about here? We're anonymous. We don't really deal in facts so much as opinions. How can an opinion be a lie? Trolling? I've been accused of trolling when expressing a sincere disagreement. As good philosophers, let's define it. From the web:
Those seem like pretty good definitions to me. The emphasis is on disruption. Stopping the rest of us from having fun.
So what do we do about it...drum roll....nothing. Or at least nothing much. This is a well moderated forum. The moderators usually get crap when they delete posts or ban people. I think they walk a good line between rigid control and chaos.
Tim - how exactly do you propose to crack down? I get the impression this thread is in response to recent activities on the forum. I do see above average barking and hissing going around right now. Most of that seems to me to come from lack of discipline, courtesy, and familiarity with the forum rather than an effort to disrupt.
Just hang 'em, then.
I'm not on the fence about whether people can lie. Just whether we can tell that a particular person is lying . . . not that it matters much to me that we can't tell, as I noted.
But there are some clear enough cases where we can tell. You're just setting the bar unreasonably high, as usual. And I don't think that it's intellectually honest of you to take the stance that you can't tell in at least some cases, like my example earlier. You know I'm not crazy enough to believe that.
But I fear Truth is no motivating factor in your plea for censorship. If you resort to censorship you cast doubt on Truth itself by replacing it’s force with suppression. Truth doesn’t require protection, especially by those who believe they lay claim to it. Think of Milton’s famous insight:
JS Mill makes it more explicit:
I see nothing wrong with the banning of ill behavior. As for these so-called lies, I’m pretty sure fellow posters are far enough into adulthood to figure that out for themselves.
Last minute replacement. I was supposed to be meeting Professor Brian Cox, but instead I got Chevy Chase. You can imagine my disappointment.
Aha! Now I [i]know[/I] you must be lying. Caught you red handed.
I think I know exactly how you feel. I don't want you to think I don't share your values. I know the feeling of standing on solid intellectual ground, with my feet under me, nice wide stance in front of someone else who stands the same. Both trying to work out the things that are important to us working with the other person. Ideas against ideas maybe, but not poster against poster. I like the people on this forum and I don't want to waste my time pissing on each others shoes. I don't want to distract from their voices.
As you can maybe see, I am skeptical that group action beyond that already provided by the moderators is the right way to go, but I think there may be individual things I can do to make things better. Some ideas:
I try to make sure I am not contributing to the problem. Make sure my posts are reasonably civil and respectful and not disruptive. Don’t call anybody a dick, no matter how much they deserve it. Make sure I try to stay on the subject as described in the OP. Respond to people when they comment on the things I’ve had to say. Try not to go too far off on a tangent. Never, never respond to anything @S has to say. I try to stay away from people I don’t get along with. I have had some success with all this, but I have a ways to go.
The best way to have some control over the course of the forum is to start high-quality threads and shepherd them through the process. No half-assed off the cuff dipsy-doodle themes. We’re supposed to be philosophers. Pick something you understand, know something about, and have thought about extensively. Don’t piss out thread after thread of meaningless bull shit. Describe the terms and goals of the OP clearly. Define terms. Describe what you want to include in the thread and specifically what you don’t want to include. During the discussion, protect the OP by letting people know when they are getting off track or being disruptive or heading off on a tangent. If you have to, go to the moderators. You have standing with your own threads, this is where you can make a difference.
Try to do similar things in your posts in other’s threads. They’re the boss. Stick with their Ops. Try to contribute if you can, not find fault. Again – make your point clearly, tie it into their posts, define terms. Support the original poster when people try to hijack their thread. Try not to go off on tangents. If you find yourself doing that, shift to a PM. If you don’t have anything substantive and relevant to add to the main thrust of the thread, go somewhere else.
In a limited way, take a little social control into your own hands. Politely point out to people when they are off-base without disrupting the discussion. Do it as a PM to avoid disruption if it makes sense. In other people’s threads, the original poster gets the final word.
Support the moderators. I try to be really careful about this – enlist their support. They are all hammers and we tend to look like nails to them, so don’t be heavy handed. Only bring them in if it’s important. Be fair.
For me, these are goals. I often fail to live up to my own standards. I'll keep trying.
Indeed. You just can't resist responding to my little pearls of aggression on occasion.
But in all seriousness, that was mostly good advice. Except for the part about finding fault. That's exactly what you should be doing. The less faults, the stronger the end product. The sooner they're identified, the sooner they can be addressed.
Your advice is a lot more detailed, but less punchy than what I would have said, which would be to get over it and move on.
Of course they could, but the sun 'could' explode in the next three seconds, we 'could' all suddenly lose the ability to read... But we don't act as if that were the case. We act with a presumption of expected result based on our theories. We presume consistent patterns will continue to be so until overwhelmingly contradicted by evidence to the contrary. So why shouldn't we treat plausible beliefs in the same way?
Oh and @S, if you're on the moon with Chevy Chase, then who the fuck is this I'm on Mars with?
:up: Our mods seem to do a good job. Thanks to them! :up:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Agreed.
If things get out of hand, the mods are accessible and can give an objective perspective via PM conversation. I have had a few helpful exchanges with @Baden
The problem often lies in our becoming too subjectively and personally upset with an individual.
It can be emotionally exhausting with anger often leading to an escalation with knee-jerk, sweary responses. It's important to gain perspective, control the anger and not to get too sucked in, as per:
Quoting T Clark
After making your point or objection as to any misrepresentation, walk away. As per:
Quoting S
Chasing and harassing - ask yourself if it's worthy or worth it.
Follow your own philosophy of life. If too rigid and absolute, this can lead to stress, hypertension and bloody noses.
Quoting Amity
:up: :smile:
This thread follows on from exchanges in the Donald Trump thread.
If you want to, you can look under @tim wood 'Comments' for detail.
Of course it's not about you - dummkopf :smile:
How kind, I think. :chin: :smile: :blush:
Always :halo:
Well...that could be a lie :wink:
Unlike the sun, you can never observe the way the person's beliefs match up with what they say.
If it's Professor Brian Cox, I'm not going to be happy.
Quoting Terrapin Station
And yet we can still spot a lie. Miraculous!
I thought Chevy wasn't as funny in real life as I was expecting...
...and he keeps banging on about stars...
Is there any other poster than tim doesn't figure is a liar or a troll, though?
Yes. I note a few more have made their opinions known as to a certain poster.
(I have given up following the Trump thread; it's become rather tedious ).
However, only tim has started a thread related to the heated exchanges. And so, I think his 'Comments' are worth looking at as particular examples.
We can of course look at others...who have reacted and the ways in which they met/meet this kind of challenging behaviour in that thread and elsewhere. They might even respond here...
The point of course being that he has been known to make rash judgements and to jump to conclusions in this regard, and I'd have to agree. Not wanting to restart beef, Tim, just saying it how I see it. The elephant in the room this time is obviously NOS4A2, and Tim's opening post is basically just a verbose attack piece on him, with the intent of seeking attention, gathering supporters, and of influencing the decision-making of the site staff. It's a lynching, basically. Gather your pitchforks, fellow villagers!
I hadn't bothered with the Trump thread much, as I don't like the typical opinions of either side--either the pro or anti-Trump folks.
I'll have to look at it to see what happened to spark this thread, though.
Of course you can. If, after saying "I'm off down the pub for a drink" someone proceeds to walk towards the pub and orders a drink it's a pretty safe bet that's because they believed the pub was located in that place and served drinks thus.
It could be coincidence, but the idea that coincidences are unlikely is the basis of most relational knowledge.
??
When do we get to the part where we're observing their beliefs?
That part is silly. That we can't literally observe someone's beliefs has no bearing on anything. That's not a reasonable approach to the matter, Terrapin.
The bearing it has here is that lying is a matter of someone saying something that's contrary to what they actually believe.
That doesn't explain why you think that it's necessary to literally observe someone's beliefs.
It seems like that should be obvious. To know that someone is saying something different than they believe, we have to be able to compare what they said with what they believe.
You're still not justifying your stance, because we can do that without literally opening up someone's skull and taking a look inside their brain where you presumably think their beliefs reside, and then comparing that with what they said.
We can know what someone believes in many cases through common sense, although I would understand if that was a problem [I]for you[/I].
That wouldn't work even, because mental content is only observable to the bearer, because it's what it's like to BE the brain in question.
We can know what someone believes through common sense? Hahahahaha
Talk about not justifying something
Hahahahahahahaha, yes, it's so absurd that through common sense, which you act as though you lack, we can know that I don't really believe that I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase!
It's much more sensible to believe that it's a big mystery! After all, I could be crazy, right! Kukoo, kukoo!
:brow:
If someone says, "I believe I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase," and you go, "Really? You believe that?" And they say, "Yes, I do," etc. then how would "common sense" tell you what they believe? How do you figure that works?
Because if they don't act, or continue to converse in any way as if they were on the moon with Chevy Chase, then it's unlikely that they believe that they are.
No, no, I'm agreeing with you. It's all a big mystery. Even though we've spent a great deal of time communicating with each other over the years, you genuinely think that I could really be crazy enough to believe something so patently absurd. :ok: :lol:
People very often say that they believe things that I think are patently absurd, with philosophy being one of the primary milieu culprits. So it's not as if I'm surprised at any crazy thing anyone believes.
People saying things that I think are patently absurd is one of the things that attracted me to philosophy in the first place, and it's pretty much what I focus on in my comments.
"I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase" isn't any more absurd than "meaning isn't subjective," "speech is causal to others' actions," etc.
If you say you believe those things, sure.
You're the type of person who believes that (we can show that) speech is causal to others' actions, for example, right? I'm not joking when I say that I find that patently absurd.
I hoped no one would notice I didn't get into this. So, thanks for that.
I agree to a point. My posts here disagree with some of what Tim wrote, but they still seem constructive to me. I his contributions thoughtful and helpful. I've been known to comment when I think a post is weak or poorly thought through. I've sometimes commented when I think someone is getting off OP or is being disruptive. I have been passionately blunt when I think someone's ideas are objectionable. I try to criticize the argument and not the poster.
Did I mention not calling anyone a dick? You helped me out with that one by giving me many opportunities to practice turning the other cheek.
:grin: :point:
Thanks for the opportunity to pull out, again, my favorite quote from Stephen Jay Gould:
“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’”
I didn't even know who were [s]talking about[/s] lynching until you brought it up. Till now, I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about an important issue.
Oh, S, and you were doing so well.
Yes. And there are clear forum standards for that, I think.
However, apparent trolling is treated differently.
I've just been scrolling down the Trump thread and caught this response of yours:
"There’s only one way to stop a troll from trolling and that is to deny them attention. Personally, I don’t think he should be stopped. As someone mentioned, it’s good that there’s at least one person participating in this topic with a different view, even if he’s just playing around."
So, even if we accept that it might be best not to give a troll attention, we just might carry on the conversation to see how far it progresses before it reaches banning point ?
It could be viewed as good practice in using judgement and anger control...and knowing when to contact the mods. Others see it as a form of entertainment and prod back in similar fashion. It ends up in a vicious circle. Nothing virtuous about it.
It's interesting to see how the mods judge the to and fro.
And when any banning takes place, for whatever reason.
The moderators have been known to ban someone for repeated frivolous or low-quality threads. To me, that doesn't seem like a solution that should be used very often.
Even within lies, you can find worthwhile truths. I'm happy to troll people if I think that there's no chance of having a reasonable discussion with them. Sometimes I'll troll people just because I don't like them. Trolling to me is a course of action that follows feeling no respect towards someone, thinking either they or their ideas are absurd. From my perspective, if you're being trolled by me, you deserved it for saying idiotic things.
I don't think there's always value to trying to have a discussion in earnest with people because of either one or both parties. Though, I also think that people troll because they want to take part in conversations where they have nothing of value to contribute.
Trolling is a hostile action, which often works because people haven't accepted that they can't control the actions of the troll. The only option is to recognise that this person is trying to get under your skin and show them that it won't work. If you get annoyed you lose, if you show you can't be annoyed then you win. I think people who hate trolls probably lose more than they win. You can try to disregard that and justify your frustration but how can it be that the troll successfully trolls you and you got frustrated but that's showing your virtue? That's delusional.
Being trolled is an opportunity to build your character and know more about yourself. Ultimately, if you accept that there are always going to be those who will violently disagree with every idea you have and everything you are then you won't be surprised when your paths cross. It won't be surprising that people will do their best to upset you and you'll see it for what it is and handle it with grace. You cannot isolate yourself from it AND use the internet.
Yes. It was cleverly and carefully presented as an objective piece of philosophy.
Yes. Still important in itself.
However, anyone following @tim wood 'Comments' would see the underlying issue. The provocation and anger involved.
It's clearly not about a lynching. But the OP is a lengthy and 'verbose attack piece'.
No need for pitchforks but beware the forked tongue.
I think I prefer open and downright dishonesty to this.
I didn't do nufin', gov.
Reading your posts, I've seen a lot that are blunt and aggressive, even insulting, but I don't know of any that I'd consider trolling. Maybe I've missed those. And, of course, I disagree with your point.
Quoting Judaka
I agree with that, but maybe for different reasons.
Not true.
I don't disagree, but it matters how you take it on. Many times aggressive responses just contribute to the chaos.
We or you?
Indeed :up:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? They're watching, popcorn in hand.
Not a chance. You have already told a downright lie.
Yeah, I don't troll on this forum, not much at least. I don't know what point you're disagreeing with but the reality is that you cannot control the troll and your reaction is the only thing that can be controlled. If you try to control the troll, you reveal your own powerlessness and you spiral into greater frustration and anger but if you handle yourself well then you will win in every sense. Spectators will support you, you'll feel good about yourself and the troll who failed to upset you will be revealed as a troll.
Whether the troll thinks you deserve to be trolled or not is irrelevant and it's only worthwhile to note that because if you are a reasonable and sensible person then perhaps the troll has misjudged you. Regardless of what the best outcome is of being trolled, to not aspire towards that but instead try to control whether people troll or not is delusional. You absolutely cannot control that and if you try to exercise a power you don't have then you'll look like a fool.
Request denied.
It's something of a skill. I've seen more subtle attack pieces. This one from me in response to Wallows is funny to look back on: Overcoming. It was a pretty good opening post, I thought. You know, two birds, one stone and all.
Quoting fdrake
:lol:
Yes, it's my choice to be hostile, I do not need validation from anyone but myself. I have the capacity to be unkind. When I believe it is right to be unkind then it is right. I know that no matter what I believed there'll be people who disagree, it was never an option to act in accordance with all the responsibilities people think I have.
In this forum and in life, you can only try to act in a way that leaves you without regret. That most often leads to an outcome that favours you. My hostility is measured, I won't be hostile where I think that the result will be unfavourable for me. So with the troll, I am not defeated but rather I aspire towards a favourable outcome.
If I had the power to make it so nobody ever trolled me then that would certainly be a favourable situation for me but seeing as I don't have that power, it's unrealistic. Applying an unrealistic solution can't be favourable.
I don't think that trolling is a valid, useful, or effective way of dealing with troublemakers.
Quoting Judaka
Maybe that's the difference. I'm don't worry much about looking like a fool. You might have noticed that.
:zip:
Well, on this forum, you do have responsibilities. They are spelled out in the Site Guidelines. There are, as discussed in this thread, procedures for dealing with people if they don't live up to them. As I indicated, I haven't seen anything from you that rises to that level.
Heh, I certainly have.
I only care about what's practical, I think most of the times I've argued with you, you admit that you're being unrealistic and impractical but stand by your position anyway and I think you'll end up doing that again if we continue to debate this. I haven't read any of your posts besides those directed at me, maybe you've been saying very sensible and reasonable things, don't know but I haven't thought of any sensible disagreements to what I'm saying.
All I know about trolling is that I've done it before and I'll do it again - I get something out of it.
The word "responsibilties" holds a certain importance to me, so when a forum that I barely visit and consider entirely dispensible has rules that I haven't even read, I am unhappy about saying I have a responsibility to abide those rules. There are consequences for not abiding by them, that's what I'd prefer to say.
Sure, it's a personal philosophy. My values, my thoughts, my personality - they can't be separated from me. My personal philosophies are right because they're right for me. If my values and preferences changed, the philosophies that were true because of them or good because of them will lose their value. And to people who never had my values or preferences, there may not have ever been any value. I only expect the same out of others, I only object in cases like these where you'll agree that your actions lead to outcomes you don't like, I think it's clear then that your way is not working.
Maybe the troll isn’t so much “poisoning the well” as he is “corrupting the youth” with his lies and heresies. Wouldn’t that be a better analogy?
More the Athenian aristocracy. I look at the censorial motivations and fear of unpopular opinions and see a parallel.
To the general topic, banning for trolling needs to be handled very carefully. It is the go to internet accusation. On this very forum I have observed (often tbh) two, equally reasonable posters become frustrated and conclude that the other “must be trolling”. I have made the charge myself. I do not want any of those people banned.
Trolls will go away if ignored, but I think this forum has acceptable guidelines in place already. Id even say its a bit heavy handed at times, but then again I dont have the unenvious position of having to sort and judge it all.
This forum means a lot to many of us. It's clear it doesn't to you. If you feel the need to throw your weight around without following the rules or being courteous, why don't you just go somewhere else?
I replied to further PM request from Tim.
The answer was in a previous response, easy enough to find :
Quoting Amity
I'm still here so I can't have disobeyed the rules too badly. The forum is not mine, I cannot say what it is but what it is to me is still intact. It doesn't matter to me whether people want or don't want me to be here.
I know that I am just one perspective in a sea of billions and my perspective is only important to me because I am me. That's enough though - and I don't answer to some kind of transcendent idea of right and wrong. There is no "right because right for me" because that is a claim about the transcendent. A person's interpretations are subjective but they've real consequences and real validity. The idea of right and wrong as a transcendent thing is removed from reality, it isn't something that affects me.
It is a battle for power I think, the never-ending debate about what is right and wrong. I can see that I'm different from others in ways that I never decided to be. So it is also not a choice for others to be like me, futile for me to argue it should be like that. What I should do is up to me and I'm left to react to the actions of others. I'm not oblivious towards that for example, I'll be banned from this forum if I'm caught violating the rules. Knowing that and things like that, I make my choices.
Quoting Judaka
This whole thing is a battle for power. Tim wants power over NOS4A2, who he has decided is a liar and a troll, and this is his power play. I'm guessing he wants him banned or ostracised. I say leave it up to the site staff and stop making such a public show of things.
(1) If people typically believe that P (or maybe iff the vast majority of people typically believe that P), then we have good grounds for concluding that someone asserting not-P must be lying,
(2) If S (some subject) has a history of asserting that P, then we have good grounds for concluding that S is lying if S asserts not-P.
(3) If S claims that Q where Q is a very unusual, highly implausible assertion relative to what most people assert, and/or relative to what S has asserted in the past, then we have good grounds for concluding that S is lying.
Good points.
But I have said enough and now beyond the point of caring.
I think we need to examine why it is that so many people are terrified of learning about themselves and being corrected. Here's a snippet of what I researched about trolls:
"I began doing some troll research in online journals such as Journal of Politeness Research, Computers in Human Behavior, The Psychology of Cyberspace, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, and Psychology Today. I was amazed to discover how much current work is being done on the psychodynamics of online communication and relationships. I learned that when online anonymity is guaranteed, some people feel free to be cruel. They don't just disagree with others; they're cruel. It's called toxic disinhibition when online commenters insult or bully others, or otherwise behave in ways they would not if their identity were known (Suler). Anonymous commenters are significantly more likely to make vulgar or nasty comments (Suler). This is why many news outlets and other sites only allow comments on FB, where people can't hide behind anonymity.
I also learned that trolling can be contagious and can spread from person to person in a community (Cheng). It can alter forum members' perceptions of a given topic (Anderson). Social scientists have been studying mass psychology since the nineteenth century to understand how the presence of a calculating "agitator" can transform a group of rational people into a violent and destructive mob (Adorno). Of course, things are a little different in cyber space, but the agitators are there as well.
Trolls are unhappy people with deep-seated insecurities which they can't acknowledge to themselves. We all experiences unhappiness and insecurity: they're part of the human condition. But to inflict suffering on and cause harm to others is the most unhealthy way of avoiding or denying our own personal problems. Inflicting harm on others is guaranteed to make an emotionally-disturbed person worse; trolling hurts the troll worst of all. Because trolls won't face their inner demons, they behave hatefully to others in an attempt to ward off feelings of self-loathing."
What was most productive about the research I did was my own process of coming to terms with why I have sunk to the same level a few times online--not too many times, but I reacted as described above when I got trolled and wrote nasty stuff right back. It never ceases to amaze me how hard it is, even at times for self-reflexive and self-questioning intellectuals not to jump to the defensive and turn agressive.
I do agree that any trolling or impoliteness should be pointed out, and people online shouldn't be afraid to apologize if they write things they regret later.
I'm actually exactly the same way in person as I am online . . . which I'd be happy to demonstrate to anyone via a telephone conversation or an in-person meeting if you even happen to be in the NYC area (when I'm home and not traveling).
If you're not claiming at least one of those three things, you could clarify just what your justification would be for accusing someone of lying when they assert whatever they're asserting.
Probably not, right? Or I wouldn't do things that way I do them. I probably do things the way that I do them because I think it's a good way to do them/I like it, etc. Unless you think that I don't like what I'm doing/the way I'm doing it and I just can't figure out how to do things differently.
Oh no, that's the answer I was expecting. I'm just testing your self-awareness.
You're saying that you troll because you believe it's ok to be mean to people you don't like and who you think are stupid idiots? Do you have an ethical system, and is this part of it? That those who consider themselves superior should belittle those they consider inferior?
I'm sincerely wondering why you believe it's ok to be rude and nasty to those you consider your inferiors. Behavior learned at home?
But lots of people aren't: they do that Jeckyll and Hyde thing and only let their nastiness/cruelty come out in certain contexts.
Let's be honest, because it's fun. We're all old enough not to take it to heart, and if you do, then more fool you.
You don't hang out with people who say "You're being an idiot" if they feel you're being an idiot?
And there's a huge difference between a comrade saying that and someone saying really nasty things to me online or to my face.
I prefer hanging out with people who are honest/unfettered.
You need some new friends.
Definitely some people you know are going to think you're an idiot sometimes. If they don't tell you that, they're not being honest with you.
Well I'm blunt, and you're an idiot, so we're a match made in heaven.
Right. Of course I return the favor. ;-)
You find being mean to people fun? Are we talking about the same thing? I'm beginning to think we aren't.
Being "mean" to people is honest, if that's what someone is thinking.
I like people who are honest and expressive.
It can be, yeah, so long as you don't go overboard. There's a difference between, say, poking fun at someone and stabbing them in the liver.
Quoting uncanni
I mean, you seem pretty removed from reality so I can't tell if YOU'RE trolling or not. Nobody would ever "DARE" to call you an idiot? You're the kind of guy I was just criticising in this thread, you don't have control over such a thing... Violence and abuse of power would quickly become your only recourse to control people and there's consequences for that. Online you don't even have those options - you've got nothing.
As for whether I think it's okay to be mean to people I don't like. I think being "mean" is vague because there are things which are mean that I'll do and things which are mean that I won't do - because I think that's going too far. Meanness is a part of me, I never decided I should laugh when I see someone making a dumb mistake or saying something stupid, it's just how I am. As for why it's justified, clearly, it can only be because I value my enjoyment over yours. Honestly, all philosophies which act as though you're a gear in a machine, I think they're ridiculous. I am me, not the person I think is an idiot, I don't need to think their perspective is equally valid to mine.
There are people I admire and respect and so too are there people I don't respect. To me, that's better than showing everyone unconditional civility. I am happy for people to not respect me, especially if they've got an argument for it. I would not necessarily be displeased if you started to tell me what a degenerate you thought I was, I'd probably laugh and enjoy it.
As often as needed.
Philosophy is pretty much worthless if you don't value truth, right?
You admit to lying?
I've read a lot of your posts and I haven't seen anything heretical. What do you think is heretical?
I've been clear I don't think you've done anything that would require any action from the moderators.
So does anything go as long as someone's being honest, keepin it real? Verbal abuse and insult is fine as long as the abuser's being sincere? I can accept that we have different takes on this issue: for me, being mean is never justified. Oh oh. I just said "never."
I conclude that your understanding of "poking fun" includes being mean. Now I tease my friends, but we all know when we're teasing. For me poking fun is never the same as being mean.
Poking fun at someone [i]can[/I] be mean. I never suggested that it always is, and I never suggested that it's the same as being mean. It's just one form among many that being mean can take. And it is more of a minor form.
For one thing, the "no one would dare" comment was meant to be a joke, but I guess people don't know me yet and my keen sense of irony. For another thing, I'm not any kind of guy: I'm some kind of gal. Thirdly, I don't have a clue as to how degenerate you are, so I won't be going there. Do you justify meanness on the basis of refusing to conform to phony social norms of politeness?
It's against my ethics to be mean, which means to me to hurt someone else's feelings frivolously or for the sake of my own amusement. I've been mean and said really nasty things to lots of people in the past, but my ethics have changed.
At least I understand now that you are guided by some kind of "meanness scale": if it's between 1-5, you'll be mean, but not if it's between 6-10.
Quoting Judaka Is it an instinct? Is it part of everyone? Is there a significant difference between potential for meanness and practice of meanness? Is it in your genetic makeup, or your psyche, or both?
I think that sublimation--not repression--is very healthy for the progress of humankind. I don't think we should let our impulses fly like farts.
That sounds boring. I think I'd rather you were mean every once in a while. That would then make you human. I prefer humans to empty shells with pristine ethics.
I have no problem with it sounding boring to you: I'm not trying to convince you that you need to be like I am because I'm right. It's my ethics, and it's not boring: I get along much better with people. The better I get along with others without losing my patience or being supercilious with them, the better I feel.
Alright so in your last comment "you" is not me, but "one" is that right?
I got no idea what the rules are but some of the worst posters here are mods. The worst I've been called on this site is an "illiterate half-breed" and the person who called me that WAS a mod. In fact, before even knowing who were mods, I had already felt like 50% of the mods were posters I shouldn't respond to or take seriously. So I can't take the idea that poor or rude posters ought to go elsewhere seriously, given how many mods here fit that description.
Sarcasm over the internet can be difficult to detect but I'm glad it was a joke.
Justifying meanness is intricate. There's the who, the what, the why, the where. Yes, there's a meanness scale but it's more complicated than that.
My goal is to find a way that works for me, the progress of mankind... that's not a concern of mine. I have opinions about what's fair, what's reasonable, what's just, what's deserved and I make my choices based off of my interpretations. That's my ethical consideration. From there I take into account how it will be received and whether things will likely play out how I want.
Beyond the ethical consideration, there's what I find funny and enjoy, my expression of displeasure or contempt and so on. It's also unusual that when I'm being mean - it's to someone's face. I've got nothing interesting to say on this topic I think, each situation is different.
I think it's just right for me.
It wasn't sarcasm: it was irony. I enjoy poking fun at myself, but I try not to be mean to myself.
I am not a moderator nor can I eat popcorn BUT I was enjoying following this thread without having to log in. It's not like putting it in the lounge isn't far enough off the main page but now putting it in a speak easy?
Quoting T Clark
This is intended as a straightforward acknowledgement that you have violated no guidelines in the posts that I've read.
It's in Feedback because it includes feedback, such as:
Quoting tim wood
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Don't you keep yourself logged in? How dare you log out!
Some of us have lives. Not me, but some of us.
Busted! :joke:
Could you please pass the popcorn I can't chew nor is it on my menu of noncarb food. :rofl: it's still fun to throw at @Hanover
:lol: