Forum conduct aesthetics

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Before I start, I must stress: DO NOT MENTION NAMES OR REFER TO SPECIFIC PEOPLE/CASES. It must be possible to discuss personalities and patterns of conduct in general. This is obviously absurd, because generalities are all based on particulars - but we need to bow down to mod rule.

In another thread I suggested an aesthetic preference, on the grounds of honesty, for those who lose their head. There is plenty of this on this forum, I doubt that is to be contested much. I would hazard a summation that the common attitude towards someone losing their head is a negative one - going by general reactions and moderation action. We are to be spared any sort of discomfort in the name of rational dignity and intellectual ‘progress’ or something.

Personally I find the dignity of rationality to be somewhat of a mask - a restricted highly controlled and self-moderated form of contention. It is a matter of aesthetics that the unpleasance of hostility is prohibited. A fuller depiction of human limits includes all ugliness and danger too. To round off this picture might be more honest towards the place of rationality within complete human conduct. For one, this would serve to undo a lot of prejudices and presumptions towards the veneration of reason.

It has been suggested that this is simply entertainment at best, and only aesthetic in its lowest form when applied to an internet forum. Does this have to be the case?

In reality, flame wars occur because when one feels no longer able to use controlled rationality to come out on top - they resort to methods outside of the limited obedience of being ‘good’. I suggested that this is similar to an animal reflex of being backed into a corner. Human pride is perhaps not identifiable or present in animals, but for this analogy it serves to talk of pride as just another form of feeling wounded in the same way that one’s personal space or comfort zone might be ‘wounded’. It has been suggested to me that it is actually a relief to indulge in this disobedience when one merely has false pride - this would indicate a kind of inability to do otherwise. It is indeed a lower type who reacts on a stimulus out of need - unable to do otherwise.

One who is able to do otherwise would still not necessarily do otherwise, nor necessarily engage at all. One would have to be naive, brave or foolish - if there is really that much distinction between these terms - to dare to engage with a situation that does not befit you at your familiar best. Personally, I relish the opportunity to test my versatility on a situation that has lost its rationality. One is thrust into unpredictability and must adapt or fail and suffer the greater personal shame that comes with failure to cope outside safe and controlled environments. To act derisively towards the situation and pass it by, without test, is to show hubris. To succumb to the irrationality and become part of it, or to be unable to resist a compulsion to join in is similarly lower. It is only higher to know from experience that one can easily come out on top, that there is no challenge available - or to choose to delve into the midst of the monster, to play with chance. A simple internet forum can be a ground upon which to exhibit highly aesthetically varied behaviours.

Often the origin of irrational animality is when one has presented something that means a lot to oneself. This could be any kind of lie or attempt towards truth that one needs to feel self respect, or that causes one to feel pride. When this pride is wounded, the hurt is all the more amplified, and a lashing out becomes all the more likely. Whether others deem what is presented to be worthy of pride or not is undeniably part of what they hold to be their own source of pride. Whether they show their own or not can be for many reasons, but the worth to every party involved is surely subjective - meaning there is no objective basis from which to judge the worth of the source of pride.

However ugly the lashing out, it is passion that drives it that can be seen as beautiful no matter what form it takes. How successful one is in communicating this passion to others in a way that encourages them to share in it, is perhaps more integral than the content and object of passion. One’s desire to vent one’s passions is more primary than the content through which one does so. Content is perhaps merely circumstantial. If one is successful in winning others round to their passion, they create a following - whether this was the intention or not.

It is worth noting at this point that one can search for a following for many reasons. One may feel a need for a following for feelings of self-assurance - these are the least equipped to be successful in doing so. In the event where one has gathered a large degree of knowledge or other form of superficial display, one who needs a following can become successful in creating a following purely through the fact that they can be impressive to the ignorant. The show can be as superficial and robotic as is necessary. One may create a following accidentally - this could be quite unwelcome. Superficial ones can be quite easily attracted to passionate ones. They perhaps have utility, but there is surely little satisfaction unless there is some competition and equality in those who are attracted - introducing a welcome source of challenge. Superficial supporters often simply hold one back and invoke unpleasant feelings of pity and shame. One may also desire to create a following simply because it is a possibility.

One may deny a following, simply in favour of an audience - in which case they are a giant mouth. One may simply favour being the audience like a giant ear, or look for those who are worthy of a following - just so they might find something to follow. One would not participate on a social internet forum without social goals - the question remains why one contributes their presence in one way or another to an internet forum at all.

- I am aware of the sheer irony here, but I must once again request that no one loses their head over this thread. There is evidently a great deal of scope to do so, but as long as there is moderation, there is no room for the appearance of my confessed aesthetic preference here. I will be HUGELY annoyed if anyone fails to control themselves, derails this thread or gets it moderated or locked altogether. Please do not.

2

I think this is an important point (assuming I interpret it correctly).

A lot of people value, one may say even worship, reason, but as both the means to an end and the end itself. You see this a lot in this anti-theist types, who have found some comfort in basing their morals on defining certain “images”/pictures/scenes/etc.
–ones that are extremely displeasing in most people’s minds–
as bad (a secure start, as seeing these as “bad” is often taken as “common sense”–at least in a general, idealized way–because very few would disagree),
leaving “good” to be that which avoids that ultimate bads. They see “irrationality” that had a part in the bad, and so they praise reason.
The problem is a certain ignorance of what one’s values are based on. In many cases, maintaining one’s goodness (secure sense of rationality) requires repeatedly distinguishing it from that which is not reasonable; more often than not, the prideful self-proclaimed rationalist’s “reason” is maintained, affirmed and almost indistinguishable from identifying (what he says as the) irrationality of others.

To value “Reason” as an ideal in itself (not as a means to seek or avoid some “aesthetic” subjective experience) is shallow, and will only do any good for as long as one remains ignorant to their lack of clarity.

I don’t think there’s any simple logical answer to this besides something obvious like “because they do”. I suppose we could come up with a idealistic, romantic explanation we could all agree on, that would make people less likely to lose their shit when things don’t go their way, though. I don’t have anything to offer at the moment. :-k

3

… from an essay on another forum…

4

Someoneisatthedoor made this comparison between ILP and other philosophy boards, saying that compared to ILP, the others feel kind of like talking to an index-card system. It’s exactly the excessive emotional content - I would call it involvement, idenfication, that makes ILP stand out. Of course there should be a balance between emotion and reason, but I don’t think this balance is threatened when we are discussing the different styles of approaching philosophy, and implicitly those to who those styles belong. Under the standard of locking the thread this is a continuation of, also, for example, Nietzsches writings on Wagner would be banned from ILP.

For those who believe that ‘‘there are no philosophies, only philosophers’’, it is difficult to accept that we can not talk about persons here.

My comment on the conception of a philosophy forum as the lowest easthetic form - well, that depends entirely on what a poster uses as a standard for his own writing. I can guess that the source of this quote does not uphold a very high standard - on the other hand, the person to whom the locked thread was dedicated does make an attempt to create aesthetically pleasing content. What is practiced here is writing, and no definite standard pertains to that verb.

5

Thank you, a clear summary.
It occurred to me the other day that, when all is understood only relative to oneself, that the recognition of societal forms such as ‘herd’, ‘swarm’, ‘pack’ etc. is indicative of the observer recognising such behaviours within himself.

As a consequence, it is not so much that reality lies between opposing explanations - as suggested in the opening disclaimer - but rather that reality consists of and amongst each explanation, as well as in between and all around. A specified clarification of only one or another existing is always a simplification.

I would consider humanity as primarily consisting of pack animals, who fall back on herd attitudes and behaviours as a result of impotence, all observable from afar as operating much like a swarm. Those who succeed according to the ‘pack morality’ condone and support its conduct, likewise herd members condone and support their own conduct. The former know how it is to feel power and all that comes with it, but only so many can be ‘alphas’ - their alpha position requiring superiority over a majority. The majority respectfully yield to this power, knowing their inability to be anything but beneath it. However, if enough of this majority become so numerous and displaced from the direct dominance of few individuals, they can become conscious of their power in numbers and submission - they become able to overthrow the dominance of the pack by adopting a herd morality, and do so.

However, this is not the end: exceptional people persist, at least relatively to others - and with the herd’s new dominance they suffer. The herd contains an unquenchable unrest amongst those who taste the power of pack morality. As before, only a very select few shine through, countless others are doomed to only envy them, but still more fall back on collective herd power in submission. Even the merely envious taste power in their defiance, and it becomes a weighing up of which gives more power: collective herd submission or defiant pack competition.

Mods act to sway the envious to their preferred herd submission, but this is wasted on all but the least capable pack animals. The most capable do not need power because they are used to it and freely carry on as they were, where the envious will abandon all composure in their thirst for attaining only this unique indiviual position. The envious are characterised by their attraction of moderation, because their frustration in their failure results in lashing out, insults, derailing and flaming in general. The successful pack alphas are distinguishable not by their obedience - they will often taunt and tempt moderation - but their free operation inside and outside of rules revealing not a single ounce of resentment and frustration. There is no sarcasm here, no shame in their own blunders and oversights - they do not need to cling to a perfect presentation, their composure is flawless throughout even in error, except when they intentionally play with or use lack of composure to their own composed ends. The passion and force of the alpha must not be mistaken for the rage of the envious, and the politeness and gratefulness of the alpha must not be mistaken for herd submission. Detection of these differences actually requires extreme subtlty as the envious are crafty. They feign the ability to compose themselves in such a way, but to a more discerning ear, holes appear in their performance. Beware!

Jakob, there is indeed no standard for taste. The ability to successfully assert one’s taste is obvious, however. It is a matter of communication - and not, as many might like to believe, a matter of the reader’s stupidity. There is only so much that reader stupidity can account for. In discussing stupidity, it is not requisite that malicious hurt or exaggerated debasement is the intention - as is indeed demonstrated by Nietzsche’s writings on Wagner and in all his mentions of Kant etc. Mod attitudes definitely tend to assume this.

matthatter, rationality does indeed require the comparison with the supposed irrational in order to have meaning. This is what makes it so irrational, because it requires its opposite to have meaning. It follows that the idealisation of only the rational part is entirely hypocritical.

I didn’t mean to imply there was a singular reason for why anyone contributes to an internet forum in general. If you had proposed one, even if it was quite a sound one, I would probably feel the need to reject it for the very reason that it attempted to apply to everyone in general. My reasons for being here primarily include the refinement of communication techniques: of my thoughts into writing as well as of my writing into the thoughts of others, and learning counter arguments that I may not have considered. The simple act of forming a strong communicable argument is really quite satisfying.

6

This is true. Every premise one can formulate is an approximation; perfect knowledge of the subject matter is impossible.

The capacity to adapt to one’s environment is indicative of quality, as it pertains to enforcing one’s Will upon the Other. However there is a fine line here between exploiting the system and buying into it.

In the case of the latter, it implies an investment, a dependency. The social contract.

The herd is not suddenly impotent when one understands its mechanisms. It holds the threat of ostracization as the punishment for infraction. Therefore, using the herd can hold it’s own dangers to individual power as the investment is founded upon a transaction of obligations which are very constraining.

Navigating the herd while evading obligation is next to impossible.

7

We would not have internet forums if the herd had not come to accept rational discussion as one of its primary conditions for success. Forums would not be much use if we had tended more towards the physical violence side of things, for example.

Reason is one of the contemporary herd’s most worshipped idols. If one is to differ on more superficial levels, as long as they stick to a deeper consensus, there is much less chance for significant ostracization. One has to learn at what depth it has become acceptable to challenge the herd - so that they somewhere new move with the herd, and not against it. This is not precisely next to impossible, it just requires a huge degree of subtlty.

It also requires a great deal of experience and even self sacrifice. The modern herd worships reason because it is believed to have been integral to its persistence thus far. This is a necessary pride that holds together herd movements, it keeps the herd united. Getting to the bottom of this pride is very difficult for someone who has enough ‘herd’ in them to stand a chance of being accepted by the herd at all. This step is necessary to become aquainted with inadeqaute herd-pride, or the pride of a different herd, so that breaching the gap - between now and a new future - becomes possible. Once one knows their enemy, they can combine their own side with theirs in the intended way - experience in each is needed to successfully link the start point to an end point.

Put simply, this is communication. Or translation.

The hostility I see on this forum, all losing of one’s head, is reducable to a simple failure of communication.

You’ve called to my mind an interesting distinction. The pack alpha on a small scale will simply emerge as best decision maker for the general consensus of the group. Perhaps what I was referring to in my post was the “herd alpha” - the pack alpha on a large scale. These herd alphas must be distinguishable, like pack alphas, but essentially much like a shepherd rather than a stronger version of everyone else - taking on a much more distinct role. But, like the pack alpha, this is their strength. It must involve all the above qualities that I referred to. As I suggested, the reason we can identify such societal forms is because we can identify with each of them in ourselves and in our own society to different extents. This interesting distinction perhaps supports this.

The honesty revealed in losing one’s head shows the challenges faced by the potential human herd alpha. They are intellectual communication challenges that are as deep as human progress has buried them up until this point in history. A refinement of a small scale pack alpha’s simple physical strength. They cross boundaries of simple reasonable dignity and other decadent ideals, into the vulgar anti-social - to unite a herd, one needs to speak both languages.

8

Haha alright, I see we’re on the same page there then.

Pretty accurate description of what keeps my coming, as well!

9

You are conflating the herd with all human social groupings.

Don’t be a retard, darling.

The use of reason is not a fashion.
The herd abhors reason.
Reason contradicts. Reason challenges.

The thing about you is that you enjoy possessing the conceit that you are “outside” the herd or remain unaffected by it. You enjoy this perspective because it flatters you… even though your investment is such that you are reduced to reinforcing the herd at every turn…

The “hostility” you caricature is at the ideology of democratic inclusiveness under which this forum operates; more specifically, the consequences of it.

Read what I wrote, above, about the Herd.

Pay particular attention to how limits are established on excellence in order that the weaker sheep can be included in an unthreatening environment.

Leveling, dear child - leveling.

There is no Herd Alpha.
In the Herd, everyone is equal. Everyone has “rights” and is protected. Positions of “authority” that come with their own inherent power are given to certain sheep who do not threaten the status quo; or do not appear to.
Mods, for example.

Yes, the honesty that is revealed when the pressure of reinforcing the delusions, reinforcing the investment, becomes too much to bear.

It is a risk/reward thing.

On the internet, there are few consequences. Here one can … be honest… without the threat of social ostracization or imprisonment.

Do you realize how much you are excusing and reinforcing the compromises you have made?

10

All social groups have methods which equate to ostracization or imprisonment; real or virtual:

Editing posts
Limiting permissions
Warnings
Bannings

It’s just that online you can’t see the faces as they mete it out.

11

Aw, a familiar face. Why don’t you tell me to fuck off, darling? It might work on me, you never know

Does few = none?

12

Few = not many
None = no many

One consequence can have a greater impact that a few.

On the internet one can also be dishonest and face no consequences at all so, again, art imitates life.

Now why don’t you work out the differences between:

Why don’t you fuck off?
And
Fuck off.

Remember the rules have changed in your favour. It’s OK to indirectly insult now.
That should make you a lot happier around herds here.

13

Have they changed? Are you sure?

Shall I hit the report button and find out?

Why not…

14

Well I doubt it would be against forum conduct aesthetics if you did.

15

Anyhoo…

Yes, that was the idea. My observation concerning our recognition and psychologising of all forms of social group - be it herd, pack, swarm, whatever - indicate that we recognise the pscyhology of each in ourselves. Otherwise we would find ourselves unable to comprehend them whatsoever.

All fascination and accurate portrayal of herd behaviour indicates a massive amount of self reflection, relating to the role. There is no other explanation of it, other than those who claim to be superior to the herd know the herd within themselves so well that they have been able to disprove its presence within them so well. That’s not to say they don’t identify with and prefer ‘the pack’ in them. But to deny the herd altogether when you clearly understand it so well is just denial.

Having accepted this - it takes a great deal of self overcoming and pride overcoming to do this - I don’t fit neatly into either herd or pack. I’m not about boxing myself into one or the other. I share the compromising desire to see equality in everything with the herd - so that I may order it, but towards the purposes of my dominating desire to re-establish inequality and separation that I share with the pack - so that I may control and lead.

My experiences of pack and herd behaviour have been equally of too small people. I would rather transcend each than surrender to either. I don’t operate with the slightest recognition of the possibility of flattery. I just want to see something bigger in people - since no one else seems to know where to even start with this, I’m doing it myself.

One can deny the existence of the herd all they like - I’d rather come to know it so that I know how best to conquer it. The herd does exist, even within the most devout ‘pack member’ who knows anything about the herd. The herd does worship reason because it provides a connective link between all humans - it assumes equality in order to unite and predict anything dangerous, and has the potential to nullify any threatening notion whatsoever. This is not to say they worship it because they are capable of it - more often than not they have little ability in it and it is the herd instinct that they fall back on for safety. But if they are to defend themselves, reason has risen as perfect for them because it isn’t physically damaging - the advent of reason becoming so widely recognised and utilised is entirely symptomatic of the rise of the benign, weak and peaceful individuals of the herd. The pack has no need for reason when it can simply attack with physical violence.

This pack approach is no longer effective because reason has resulted in technologies that easily suppress physical violence and the pack. If the pack is to get back on top it must reaquaint itself with the herd within, learn it, and use it against the herd. Reason can contradict and challenge - this is how one can reestablish rank within the herd.

Carry on denying the herd and segregating yourself as a lone superior pack member and carry on living a small life.

16

Good conduct is what separates the educated/well-brought-up from those that, well… just aren’t :confusion-shrug:

Bad manners gets no-one nowhere…

17

Honestly Magsj, I don’t understand why you were offered to be a mod on a philosophy site…

As a mod, you’re motivated to promote discussion, and control insults and such that get in the way of that. I get that.

But don’t you see the hypocrisy in your entering a thread expressing a different way of looking at the situation, and you making that post? You act as if everything that is said is irrelevant in comparison to your own explanation, which simply equates those who insult with those who are not well educated, nor brought up well (the “right” way). Not only is there no logic to it, but it disregards the arguments of anyone who condones behavior you don’t like as the “bad-manners” of the uneducated, developmentally-stunted “bad” person.

These short, other-insulting (while personally-soothing) irrational utterances–veiled as calmly voiced expressions of common-sense–are pretty much all I have ever seen from you.

I mean, as long as you are on friendly terms with people you seem charming enough… is that why you were made mod? Simply because people like you? I just think the way you attempt to handle things is more likely to add fuel to the fire; rather than making them feel like they shouldn’t say insults because they are part of a community, it comes off as closing the door in their face, refusing to listen to that which alienated them from a feeling of “community” in the first place. This is a philosophy site, and the point of controlling insults is to maintain an atmosphere of "All philosophical claims and ideas welcome, no matter how unusual! just make sure you make an attempt to demonstrate it and support it by the standards of reason/study of the respective subforum)

When all you end up doing is focusing on the explicit name calling, and then calling the name-caller the bad guy who is against the community, you are oftentimes affirming another’s not philosophical, and not respectful, community-supporting behavior; oftentimes one resorts to explicit insults because the other disregards their idea and POV, ignoring or misstating the other’s argument, ultimately judging the person’s philosophical limitations because they just feel wrong form it–demonstrating no actual philosophy to support their criticisms.

This doesn’t make for a peaceful, respectful and open exchange and discussion of various ideas, but instead supports philosophical stagnancy, as mediocre philosophical minds are free to dismiss ideas on purely emotional grounds (one seems them in conflict with what one believes in, and automatically/irrationally distorts the other’s intended message into something one can quickly criticize), as long as they do so with a superficial air of logic and objectivity. This support, this affirmation for the “common intellectual”–who is more intelligent than the average person, but is completely ignorant and bullheaded towards anything that threatens the arrogant self-image they’ve made to copy with their problems–allows them to patronize members who try to offer ideas and discussions outside the normal, repeatedly recycles points of view. This can result in those more original, and oftentimes more philosophical, members getting frustrated and explicitly insulting them, OR, they can simply not feel welcome, or just not interested, with the forum.

Your style of dealing with counter-philosophical community action isn’t productive. It alienates and weeds out the more competent philosophers, limiting the bulk of the posts to an arrogant few who serve the same ol’ points, year in and year out.

18

…I’m on about the down-right nasty posters who take throwing about ad-homs and profanities as a sport - other than that I don’t interfere with discussion… you ever seen me? :confusion-shrug: I don’t think so [-X

I’m all for a good clean fight (debate) though :wink:

19

I disagree. I think you only pay attention to the profanity, which often only happens after another repeatedly ignores and distorts one’s message. It isn’t an ad hom when one is simply insulting the person AFTER they were the only one to make actual coherent arguments, the other relying on making irrationally disregarding the other’s entire point (as you just did mine, and as you just did to anyone who have ever used profanity on their board, by equating the “bad-manners” with a lack of education and improper upbringing).

No, I rarely see you. As I said, the only time you do I think you don’t moderate in the forum’s best interests (unless this forum values passive aggressiveness over intelligible, thoughtful philosophical discussion…).

I’m sure you are. But you are coming down not on the people who enter the ring and disregard all the effort one put into “training” (having an idea, and thoughtfully communicating its points in a coherent manner) by simply announcing some criticism of what they completely distorted of an original point or argument, and deeming the other loser without actually playing by the rules (standard of a debate). You are instead alienating the people who actually put a effort into trying to do philosophy and clearly communicate their ideas to the other, only to find out the other isn’t even trying to understand them (yet keeps implying their ongoing victories, match after match, as if they were actually taking part in a rational debate), and keeps judging them simply as a means to attack views that make them uncomfortable.

The people you end up accusing of not playing by the rules of the game are actually the ones who are actually trying, and end up getting frustrated as hell because all their efforts to engage are rejected as “loser talk” by those who don’t even know how to play.

20

I rarely intervene, so what thoughtful philosophical discussions have I interrupted? :confusion-shrug:

I have alienated no-one as, like I’ve just said, I rarely intervene - I cannot make anyone talk sense, but I can ensure that all are playing by ILP’s rules.

I see this happening a lot here, but it doesn’t pay to lose your rag, as profanity is profanity… whether you are right or wrong.

I am here to keep the peace, not to uphold the views of the right… that’s your job :wink:

…and remember… whenever I partake in any discussions, I am open to the same attacks as you…