Typical and here I expected more from you. Naive on my part.
You’re just like the rest orthodox in your views only you’re the liberal counter part. You can’t stand anything that doesn’t fit in your neat tightly grasped orthodox philosophical views and you’ll go into censorship if it doesn’t meet your criteria.
Also, I write in all my threads but apparently this is lost on you, my guess intentionally on your part.
I use a lot of images in my threads for entertaining aesthetics but it is also used for illustrative points in argumentation as a helpful aid in presenting a conveyed message. Whatever, you’ve revealed your true colors.
I guess I’ll just get use to residing in the Sandbox, won’t I?
No, it’s a valid piece for the Sandbox. The Sandbox is for things that are not fleshed out much at all. And your thread was not. It has a weak implicit argument. YOu are not some iconoclast rebel with a unique way of presenting ideas or in that thread unique ideas implicit or otherwise. Throwing a bunch of images down is vague and saves you the trouble of presenting an argument. I could imagine using images in a unique way to present an argument, but it would not be like that.
I can’t see what the problem is. You get to post. Your threads will appear in people’s new posts threads. Many people barely notice which forum it is in. The Sandbox even allows for budding genius that is not fleshed out. It is a more relaxed less clearly argued area. That’s what your posts are. You mention it being entertaining, well that fits there.
Or you could make the arguments.
But here’s the thing. Your images add not the slightest bit to the argument I said was implicit. It is not as if they add some nuance. They simply present women with money. It is a less efficient but perhaps more entertaining way to present a weak argument.
I could see if your images presented some beyond the weak implicit argument, but they do not.
And presenting them as images means you do not have to actually make the argument, which avoids bearing any burden. Other people must first do your job and make the argument explicit, then argue against it or support it.
If you have an image based thread where the images actually present some nuance and a good argument I would defend it. I don’t think a thread has to have words, but this thread and others come off as laziness or making it harder to have your ideas critiqued. When someone pointed out your OP did nothing that was claimed in the OP you could not even acknowledge this obvious truth. You could have acknowledged that that image did nothing and then presented images where you thought something more nuanced was being presenting in images. But your images just end up being examples, at best. Examples are not an argument.
A bot could use the cue serial killers and collect images from the internet. Or collect images of rich women. It’s not philosophy, yet. But there it is nicely findable in the Sandbox, where people who want to be entertained or find some vaguer mulling will find it. Others will simply find it in their new posts lists and go there without even thinking about where it is.
Playing the radical, unique thinker victim is just silly on this issue.
It’s interesting that you see it that way, because it comes across more as though you use lots of images because expressing complex ideas is hard, and copy-pasting images is much easier. You post images in place of a point, not in support of it.
At least, that’s how it seems to me. Maybe this will help convey my message:
That is not always the case. Sometimes, pictures are louder than words.
I mean, thats how art galleries were developed, because there was a brief period of time where art actually had value and conveyed things words couldnt say.
I mean, some videogames would lose their truths if they had an obnoxious narrator commenting on everything.
Absolutely, and I really don’t mean to minimize the value of interpretive dance. Though I’m sure it sounds sarcastic, and I did use ‘interpretive dance’ specifically because it sounds like something worthless, I like interpretive dance and I’ve seen some very moving performances that communicated something that would be very difficult to put into words.
The point, rather, is that this isn’t an art gallery, it’s not a dance studio; the Society, Government, and Economics forum on the site ILovePhilosophy.com is meant to house philosophy related to society, government, and economics, and posts that consist almost entirely of a series of photos without direct commentary, explanation, or tying-in, are just not philosophy. They may be art, they may communicate a message, they may be deep and powerful in their own right (I don’t think they are in this case, but in theory they could be), but they aren’t philosophy.
Carleas and crew just don’t like any new expirimental philosophy or methods that don’t fall straight into their orthodox views and ways. End of the story.
They can’t handle raw, untamed, and uncontrollable viewpoints. It’s too much for them.
It’s too dangerous and a threat to their beloved mainstream.
I have no love of moderating at all, however with that said,
posting a photo and calling it philosophy, isn’t philosophy,
especially considering you didn’t take or create the photo.
Posting a picture and proclaiming it philosophy is a weak move
and personally, I find it a really dam irritating. a photo or a video
is a superficial means to impart information because it doesn’t get to
the story or narrative we need to make a decision. A picture may be pretty and nice
like a photo of a sunset but doesn’t say anything about the sunset or say anything
about anything, just that this sunset is pretty. There is no information or story or
narrative about a picture of a sunset and we can’t decide anything or judge anything
or have a story about a picture that has no context. With words, we can have a story,
we can have context, we can have something to decide on, a picture, not so much.
there is nothing complex or innovated or original about posting a picture and
calling it philosophy of some sort. Its weak, irritating and superficial. use your words.
words are philosophy and can be about context and innovated and original.
Am I the only person who doesn’t even care or notice where a thread is? I just log on and click new posts, then if those are all boring I’ll click view your posts and scroll down the page. How much does it really matter if a thread is in this or that section?
There are different moderators by section, so picking a section can be a way to pick moderation.
Some people only read threads in a certain section, so picking a section can be a way to pick audience and interlocutors.
Some forums don’t get indexed by Google and aren’t visible to non-members (as I recall this only applies to Rant House).
Some forums serve a signaling purpose (especially Rant House and Sandbox).
Forums can signal meaning, e.g. a topic about abortion in Society, Government, & Economics is probably intended to discuss something different from a similar topic in Religion & Spirituality.
But you are right that for many threads, these won’t matter much, and even less so if you’re only responding to threads (rather than starting threads).
I admit, I had originally typed “You’re a shit poster who hardly ever contributes anything worth reading and I don’t want you on SGE”, but then I changed it at the last moment.
I don’t understand why you think that qualifies as a post that needs to be protected. You literally just copied and pasted the entirety of someone else’s blog post – and without attribution. Your post is effectively the same as if you had just posted a link to another site (and, for copyright reasons, I am going to edit your post to replace the text with a link).
But copyright issues aside, why should that be treated as a valid way to post? You, Joker, haven’t said anything, you just pointed at someone else who said something. We don’t know if you, Joker, agree or disagree, find it exciting or disturbing, or if you even understand the content of the post to which you link.
A bias against terrible posters that rarely if ever contribute anything to the site is the essence of moderation. Of course I have a bias against people who make ILP worse. Every moderator should.
Anyway, warning has nothing to do with anything. The Sandbox is specifically for posts like yours, so I put it there. If I warned you, your thread would still have been moved.
