Threads deleted.
The last two of my threads were deleted, both without an explanation. I've had a few members inbox me asking what happened to them, and I don't have an answer.
Is there a way to know why they were removed?
Is there a way to know why they were removed?
Comments (40)
@jamalrob deleted at least one I found. So, you can PM him or he may respond here.
Thank you - request for clarification sent.
I tried hard in my thread - which wasn't about autism, nor was it intended to be - to explain courteously why I was asking what I was asking, and I got sneering condescension, from the 'usual suspects'. :sad:
I'm asking for a bit of moderator guidance here. Do I belong here, or must I move away to some lesser forum, where perhaps tolerance is more easily found? [ I wouldn't move from here by choice; I quite like TPF. ]
I locked it. No particular reflection on you. It was just deteriorating. And we don't have any special guidelines re autistic posters, but they've never been a particular problem anyway, so...
@jamalrob deleted at least one I found. So, you can PM him or he may respond here.
Can I ask two questions?
Is it possible to send me a copy/paste of the contents of the OP of both lacked posts?
Also, if/in doing so, is there anything you see in them that violates rules and/or does not align with the site in some way?
Apologies but I am having a hard time understanding why they were removed. I don't mind moderation and understand its need, but removing without explanation doesn't seem to benefit anyone.
Not to be unhelpful, but as you've already sent a request for clarification to @jamalrob, and he's the one who deleted the discussion, I'll let him deal with it. (It is theoretically possible to send copies of deleted OPs to the OP writer. Whether that's done is up to the mod who deleted it.)
Thanks I understand, it wouldn't be right for you to get involved at this point. I will wait for a reply and update as needed.
Interesting post. I don't care what your motivations are for telling us about your autism (whether you seek sympathy or whatever) and I'm not suggesting you might actually not be as you say you are. What I find interesting (again, candidly and truly) is that you suggest an inability to temper your behavior to the point where you recognize you may come across as belligerent or socially inappropriate, but you then ask others to exercise their empathy toward you and excuse that conduct as it's beyond your control. If you can recognize what empathy is and can recognize when it's appropriate and should be expressed toward you, why can't you do the same for others? It would seem if you can say essentially "that hurts my feelings, don't act that way," then you could similarly realize when you should do that for others. I understand it might not come as instinctively to you as it might to others not so affected by autism, but you do show an ability to recognize it, so why can't you do as other do, even if takes greater reflection on your part?
Maybe this is a post better suited for another thread, but I really do wonder this because I have known other autistic people who could clearly express their limitations and discomforts in situations and even demand that they be treated in a particularly sensitive way, and I never understood why logically (even assuming limited emotional ability) it could not be understood that others would expect similar sympathies and not be treated callously. .
Are we allowed to have this conversation here or not? Because a bunch of posts, that I cannot identify as otherwise offensive, just got deleted. Yet his defamation is still here.
:brow: You are better than that S.
Just to point out this is actually true - I experience sound(s) as shape(s), and so naturally reduce music and literature into the basic form(s) which gave rise to them before being elaborated by the composer. It has implications for how I read/understand religious texts, but I do not use this as any basis for any special consideration(s) that would shield from a scrutiny.
I feel anyone who is in a honest pursuit for truth should appreciate their own ideas being scrutinized and be excited to see how their ideas stand the analysis of others.
It's for this reason I wish to understand why my threads were deleted. I'd rather people rip the ideas apart than having content removed with no explanation. It's especially frustrating not knowing why it was removed in the first place.
Censorship is sweeping like a disease - very sad to see it plaguing a philosophy forum wherein one might hope for refuge *from* censorship.
Maybe it is a topic for another thread but you bring up a interesting observation and one that feels genuine. I wonder if the concept of reciprocal empathy or reciprocal emotion in general exists in the Autistic mind.
I have little experience with anyone with Autism so I am truly curious.
"Possibly playing" a card and saying that "it is being played" are very different.
So you at least entertain the possibility, then. Good. I just so happen to think that he does so. I could be wrong, but then so could you. I don't think that I should be silenced from expressing a relevant criticism based on my honest opinion.
Fair enough
Especially since he started the attack.
God no. This is a refuge from non-censorship, such as in public spaces like YouTube comment sections. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a philosophy forum—the philosophy would be buried in masses of irrelevant and low-quality crap.
My use of the term 'censorship' is meant to apply to content that is relevant but controversial, as could be the case with my topics (still unknown). Youtube comment sections would be a different category entirely I think - perhaps 'crap'.
Moderation is fine if/when used properly, censorship is not because it is a part of the problem, not the solution. Removing topics without notice or explanation is not "philosophical" - it is something else entirely.
To be honest I'm not entirely sure there actually is a valid reason why they were removed that does not fit the category of 'censorship' and so I am anxious to understand the reason(s) given as to why they were removed (if any).
I am launching on Thinkspot when it goes public, and joined these forums to get a feel for receptivity of the views I'm advancing because of the implications they have for "belief"-based worldviews. If the site owner is going to censor them without explanation, it will have to be something that others need to be aware of because intolerance and/or censorship of criticisms of "belief"-based worldviews is why hundreds of millions of people are dead, and the site owner (if having anything to do with real philosophy) should understand they are not contributing to the solution, but rather the problem.
I expect you will get an explanation. It's the general policy to give them when requested.
The question for me, is that following a paragraph like this, 'why only two deletions' ?
Thank you for the comment - I'll use it to make a point.
The quality of the conscience can be measured by the quality of the questions it can address. Your question is a bad one because:
i. we (including you) still don't have a reason as to why they were deleted, and
ii. you are advocating for censorship based on... personal dislike?
This is a part of the problem - not part of the solution. If you don't like something, or someone, encouraging censorship reveals ones own latent intolerance and/or advocacy for fascism. If you don't like something, there are alternatives to censoring it, such as not getting involved - especially in matters that do not actually concern yourself at all.
Would you care to elaborate your rhetoric? I'd like to know what triggers people like you who advocate for censorship so all can read for themselves.
No. I'm advocating deletion because you are a hypocrite. All you do is preach intolerance of mainstream belief systems without which you would have nothing to say. As I said before, this is one of the few forums which puts up with such trolling activity.
Based on your usage, it's not immediately obvious to me that you understand what the word 'hypocrite' actually means. Hypocrisy would be denouncing mainstream belief systems while advocating for an alternative mainstream "belief" system. Knowing what not to "believe" is not a mainstream belief system, it is the opposite of one.
But your attempt to mount an ad hominem attack is duly noted.
...I am not going to come on a philosophy forum and talk about stuff not related to philosophy. I began with the problem 'from whence human suffering?' which lead me to the problem of "belief" such that:
i. Contrary to popular "belief", the Torah has 4 independent source authors J, E, P and D with a 5th R(edactor). Because the Torah opens the Bible, any/all "beliefs" which regard the Bible as the perfect word of god as delivered to a man on a mountain is certainly false. This is found by the work of Richard Friedman and elaborated by Yale U - they have videos on Youtube you can watch. Hundreds of millions of people "believe" an assertion that is certainly false. This has implications for both Judaism and Christianity.
ii. Contrary to popular "belief" the Qur'an is evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns that evolved over a very long period of time. The base layer (ie. rasm text) of the Qur'an was not only not Arabic (it was Syriac) it was not even Islamic (it was Christian). Additionally, contrary to popular "belief", Mecca did not exist at the time of Muhammad and the events described in the Qur'an indicate Petra (South Jordan) whereto all mosques built until 730 CE faced.
Between Christianity and Islam alone, hundreds of millions of people are dead and billions are presently "believing" assertions that are certainly false, contributing to their own internal state of suffering which "believers" "believe" is coming from somewhere *other* than their own "belief"-based religion which is based on a certainly false assertion.
If you want to hear me talk about something else, it is best not to talk to me on a philosophy forum that deals with philosophical matters, such as the root of human suffering.
...but do you understand you are the one trolling right now? Your replies:
#1
#2
#3
#1 is strictly a "troll" comment.
#2 is strictly a "troll" question.
#3 is strictly a "troll" personal attack.
You will find that the old Canaanite sacrificial rituals were all based on scapegoating the sins of the tribe onto a single animal/person "believing" the sins of the tribe will be reconciled. Christianity is an example of a Canaanite religion: scapegoating the sins of humanity onto a single man while "believers" "believe" their sins are paid for already.
The problem with enmity (Cain/Canaanite) is when a person is in a state of enmity (ie. dislike of another) they begin projecting their own nature onto others and accuse others of what they are themselves guilty of. In modern day terminology, this is called 'psychological projection'. It only happens with people who are in enmity.
In this case, the only trolling activity here is yourself.
The “philosophy” in philosophy forum deserves quotation marks. Very few, if any philosophies besides the very worst advocated for and practiced censorship.
.. I'd like to say something about this. When a person is being mean and nasty, they are transgressing the ultimate law of morality: "do unto others as you would have them do to you", and we know that when people are found to give amusing responses, they become targets for those who goad.
So it seems that his tendency to lean on the Austistic diagnosis is attracting meanness and nastiness from those who find it amusing (and I'm only reflecting what has already been found in this thread). So then, the problem with expecting him to let it be, is that you are taking sides with the ones who are being mean and nasty - and your attitude toward him is that he should forfeit any expectation of justice.
That means you are expecting him to tolerate injustice, immorality and meanness - and such oppression drives a righteous person mad (which is again, rather rewarding to the one goading, who sits comfortable beyond his reach - Proverbs 29:27).
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
That's the "penal substitution atonement" doctrine, which is widespread and most popular in Christianity, but essentially based on a mischaracterisation of God's character (1 John 4:16, 1 John 4:18, 1 Corinthians 13:5-6, Proverbs 17:15, Isaiah 59:7). So I don't like to call it a Christian teaching.
People who believe that doctrine are unable to reconcile certain logical problems, and unable to read the scriptures without prejudice (because the scriptures do not say what they have been programmed to see them as saying). It's the reasoning of a fallen mind that thinks in terms of indebtedness (and there's a lot of people claiming to be Christian who are of the fallen mind, who do not know what godliness is, just as Jesus was saying of the religious teachers in His time - consider what Jesus was saying about this through Luke 19:14 and Matthew 12:43-45 "So it will be for this evil generation").
I'd quite like to show you more, but it is off-topic for this thread, so I only mentioned it FYI. It's something that you can look into, as you say you are focused on the philosophy of the human problem. It's one of those heresies that 2 Peter 2:2 points to. (Eg. Luke 5:20 and Luke 7:47 show that blood is not necessary for forgiveness of sins).
Can you please cite actual examples to prove your case instead of slandering people in the abstract? I don't recall anyone being mean to him, though he claims we have. We simply don't agree with him, but last I checked that was not the basis of "meanness."
I think the actual injustice is going around and giving people unearned bad names.
I can live with all sorts of epithets, but I want to have earned them fair and square.
If I go around saying that I'm a sociopath, will you all forgive me for any perceived wrongdoings? If so, then I'm a sociopath. :smile: :up:
So that's what "S" stands for!
And, yes, especially about the superficial part. The irony is of course that equating people with any kind of disability with victims is just belittling and paternalistic.
It alternates between that and sarcastic son of a bitch.