If this is what ‘you’ believe, or think, then all is well and good.
But is what ‘you’ think or believe ALWAYS True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct?
If no, then neither is this time right?
Or, do ‘you’ not believe what ‘you’ just said and wrote here?
But, if ‘you’ do believe what ‘you’ just said and wrote here, then it could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect, correct?
And when I ask him to just tell me why I’m wrong, he gives me this:
Okay. As I said, or alluded to, before, if I ever think what ‘you’ said is wrong, then ‘I’ WILL tell ‘you’ ‘you are wrong’, and the ‘I’ WILL show ‘it’.
But, AGAIN, since I have NOT thought ‘you are wrong’ here, and have NEVER said absolutely ANY thing that implied ‘this’ WHY ‘you’ think or believe what ‘you’ are here, ‘you’ MIGHT want to SHARE with ‘us’ here.
It’s impossible to talk to this guy. There’s no progress possible.
Have ‘you’ considered just NOT talking ‘to me’ “flannel jesus”.
I started A thread about WHAT the word ‘person’ refers to, exactly, and WHY what that word refers to, exactly, is NOT a product of genetics. But, ‘you’ wanted to tell me that when ‘you’ say you believe something is true that what this means is that ‘you’ only think something is true.
Which I have NO issue NOR problem with AT ALL. And, OBVIOUSLY, I am in NO position AT ALL to tell a human being that how they have personally chosen to define words is Wrong.
So, what is ‘your’ REALLY issue here “flannel jesus”?
Do ‘you’ think or believe that ‘the way’ ‘you’ are being and showing here is because of ‘genetics’ or because of what ‘that body’ has previously experienced hitherto?
Is going to someone’s thread and talking about something so irrelevant in general, let alone absolutely irrelevant to the topic, and then complaining to others that about made up False claims ‘about me’ is really a ‘grown up’ and mature thing to do “flannel jesus”.
If ‘you’ can’t stick to the topic at hand here, and want to make False claims to others, then WHY come into this thread?
Have ‘you’ personally got something ‘against me’ “flannel jesus”? ‘you’ have already suspended me from this forum, and seem to really hate conversing with me, but for some you keep doing conversing with me, only to then complain ‘about me’. Is there some reason ‘you’ do this, exactly?
This is first and foremost clearly a discussion forum. I believe Anews posting patterns are chronically opposed to what’s required for an actual discussion.
If you look at my initial contribution to the thread, you’ll see what I think is a good example of a discussion on a forum like this. I replied to his post, I disagreed with his post, I did so explicitly and I made it clear why I disagreed. I disagree with your conclusions, here’s my reasoning, here are my sources. Maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong, but either way I’ve given us something concrete to talk about.
Compare this to Anews response to me. He spends a lot of words saying this nonsense:
But is what ‘you’ think or believe ALWAYS True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct?
If no, then neither is this time right?
Or, do ‘you’ not believe what ‘you’ just said and wrote here?
But, if ‘you’ do believe what ‘you’ just said and wrote here, then it could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect, correct?
Now I think it’s fair to interpret this as him hinting at disagreement. And when I ask to explain his disagreement, I get this:
But, AGAIN, since I have NOT thought ‘you are wrong’ here, and have NEVER said absolutely ANY thing that implied ‘this’ WHY ‘you’ think or believe what ‘you’ are here, ‘you’ MIGHT want to SHARE with ‘us’ here.
So what’s the point of wasting my time with all those words about if I do or don’t believe, if what I believe is always accurate? What’s the fucking point? I made a claim - my claim is that I didn’t say the words he’s saying I said. Either agree or disagree, why are we wasting time with endless nonsense words that don’t mean anything?
That’s his modus operandi though. Endless nonsense words that don’t mean anything. It’s antithetical to discussion, and I think at the very least a suspension is in order, and the suspension should only be lifted if he shows a genuine intention to actually move forward in discussions. Not just vaguely hint at disagreements without ever saying anything clear.
I despise Anew, one of the dumber posters here, but with that
said, I reject any type of banning based on his idiocy… now
had he spammed us or taunted us or offer some dumbass
conspiracy theory, maybe, but as of right now, no… I just
won’t engage with him… and that should be the proper response,
just ignore him
Good luck ever trying to get a ‘discussion’ out of someone who genuinely thinks that he/she is God, and is already in possession of the absolute Truth on a great many issues.
The messages of @anew1 can be described as pointless for the conversation at the most part, but I do not know if it is considered behavior worthy of ban. I guess what @Peter_Kropotkin proposes is the best course of action.
The Anew1 situation has been like this for months, if not longer.
It is actually impossible to have any kind of constructive back and forth with the person, but i am not entirely sure if that is a ban worthy transgression.
They are a hardcore demagogue and sophist, but as i said, i dont know if that is entirely out of place on a philosophy forum.
What is sure is that everyone has to decide for themselves when they had enough of him cause he will never admit to nor stop being wrong.
I think its more sensible to just mute them.
Cause a ban would imply that the forum needs to quality check the users
I wonder if Peter got banned for chopping up all his sentences, if he would reindigitate (I want $1 billion for any time anybody ever says that from here on out) as someone who doesn’t chop up his sentences?
I despise Anew, one of the dumber posters here, but with that said, I reject any type of banning based on his idiocy. Now had he spammed us or taunted us or offer some dumbass conspiracy theory, maybe, but as of right now, no. I just won’t engage with him. And that should be the proper response, just ignore him
Do ‘you’ have an underlying motive to get ‘a reaction’, ‘from me’, so that ‘you’ can then present as some sort of motive for ‘banning me’?
After all, ‘you’ manipulating a couple of our discussions now, by telling me that if I do not do something that ‘you expect’, then threatening me with banning, as well as continuing with your manipulating ways until I react, is obviously something ‘you’ do not have to keep doing.
Now, ‘we’ ALL KNOW that ‘you’ NEVER asked me to provide a definition for any word in that thread, and that I am under NO obligation to do anyway. And, ‘we’ ALL ALSO KNOW that if absolutely ANY one has just asked me to, then I WOULD.
So, if it is not enough for ‘you’ to just stop ‘harping on AT me’, in an attempt to get a particular reaction, to then use against me, very similar to exactly what “narcissists” do, then so be it, It is NOT ENOUGH ‘for you’ to just stop conversing ‘with me’, here.
So, I suggest discussing ‘the words’ in the opening post of the thread I started, which, AGAIN, were about WHAT ‘you’ people are, exactly, and about HOW ‘you’ are NOT the direct result of genes.
Would ‘you’ like to have a discussion about these views, ideas, and claims? After all, first and foremost, this is clearly a discussion forum ABOUT views, ideas, and claims, and NOT ABOUT any perceived particular personality.
I KNOW that when ideas, views, opinions, beliefs, assumptions, and claims are presented in a philosophy forum, then considering and discussing them, and NOT attacking people, is the WHOLE idea of ‘philosophy’ and ‘philosophical discussions’.
It would be great to see if ‘you’ could actually follow along with this ‘philophical idea and perspective’.
And, to make it absolutely CLEAR, to me, the word ‘philosophy’ means the ‘love-of-wisdom’, which either one has, or one does not. Now, if one has a love of becoming wiser, then what is needed is a love-of-learning, which when one has this love FULLY, then instead of ATTACKING others and turning threads into being ABOUT others, ‘they’ become and remain FULLY OPEN to ‘looking at’ and discussing ideas, views, claims, et cetera ONLY and refuse to ATTACK.
And, if ‘we’ ‘look at’ my response I ASKED, politely, for examples, which could back up and support ‘your disagreement’, but which obviously NONE were provided.
Now, I have the irrefutable proof of HOW and WHY people are NOT and could NOT be a direct result of genes, and WHY ALL people are the sum result of what the human body experiences, SOLELY.
But, instead of ASKING for the proof and facts, most of ‘you’ people in that thread WANTED TO fight for ‘your positions’ and WANTED TO show that ‘you are right’. Some of ‘you’ did this by linking to some so-called “studies”, which most of ‘you’ NEVER even read, and when I pointed out that even in those so-called “studies” there were examples that was ‘evidence’ for ‘my claim’ rather than ‘your claims’.
If ‘you’ have, allegedly, given ‘us’ something concrete to ‘talk about’, then WHY do ‘you’ NOT ‘talk about it’, exactly?
For example, what traits, characters, or temperaments were ‘you’ “flannel jesus” born with, EXACTLY, which came from ‘genetics’?
If ‘you’ REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE and CLAIM that ‘you’ are the result of genetics, then what part of ‘you’ are the result of genetics, which ‘you’ obviously would NOT be able to change and so will remain the exact same character, trait, or temperament till the day of your misnomered “death”, exactly?
If ‘you’ REALLY want to have a discussion about the ideas and claims in ‘that thread’, then WHY did ‘you’ NOT discuss those ideas and claims, fully?
If I recall correctly, ‘you’ wrote and claimed something like when “I beleive something is true”, “I think something is true”. What is there that I could disagree with? If ‘this’ is what ‘you’ think and do, then I cannot disagree with it, OBVIOUSLY.
‘you’ just perceived and presumed, Wrongly, ‘a disagreement’, because ‘you’ have a tendency to ASSUME things that are not even there. (Which, by the way, might be one of ‘the traits’ that ‘you’ are genetically made up of, right?)
What?
That ‘you’ believe ‘some thing’, I can NOT disagree with, OBVIOUSLY.
If, however, what ‘you’ believe is true or not is a whole completely other issue.
So, if ‘you’ when ‘you believe something is true’ ‘you’ are only ‘thinking it is true’, then OKAY. I can NOT disagree with ‘this’ because ‘this’ is what ‘you’ want, and do.
I could ask the exact same thing about ‘your words’. But I would not be that allusive.
Now ‘you’ KNOW what I have been going through in these forums.
I could also wonder the exact same thing. For example, WHY send links to things, and then expect the other to ‘find and see’ whatever ‘it’ is that ‘you’ have supposedly ‘found and seen’?
This claim is because ‘this one’ does NOT seek out ‘meaning’. Instead it CHOOSES to BELIEVE that ‘those words’ are nonsense and do not mean anything. Instead of doing what I do, and be genuinely curious and seek out what ‘the other’ is actually saying and meaning, so as to obtain actual clarity and and a better understanding ‘of the other’, instead of believing that everything revolves around ‘its own understanding and interpretations’, then discussions here would and could flow far more easily and peacefully.
See, HOW these two sentences of “flannel jesus’s” here are of its OWN interpretation and presumption ONLY, and if others do NOT agree with what “flanned jesus” has ‘now’ CHOSEN TO BELIEVE is the absolute truth, then it is ‘they’ who are WRONG.
Imagine believing that ‘your OWN interpretation and presumption’ of ‘another’s so-called modus operandi’ is the ONE and ONLY correct interpretation and presumption.
LOL, LOL, LOL
SO, I should be suspended, which OBVIOUSLY means that I can NOT speak and be heard, and LOL this suspension should only be lifted if I show a geniune intention to actually move forward in discussions. LOL Does ‘this one’ write ‘this stuff’ on purpose, or really does NOT see THE CONTRADICTION or ABSUDITY here?
How could ANY one who has been SUSPENDED from discussions, and so OBVIOUSLY could NEVER EVER be heard, show ANY thing, let alone show a genuine intention to actually move forward in discussions?
Surely ‘others’ here can see the blatantly obvious absolute ‘dictatorship’ thinking and controlling here.
Besides this clear and obvious point that by removing someone so they can NEVER be heard, and then claiming that until they can show, through being heard, then they could be allowed back in, ‘to be heard’, is an obvious sign of one who is afraid of others who express opposing views and claims, it is also a way of a ‘narcist’ keeping control OVER others.
Have ‘you’ ever considered that what ‘you’ personally interpreted and/or presumed could just be wrong in and of itself?
Or, do ‘you’ never consider these sorts of things?
For example, have ‘you’ ever considered that ‘your’ own personal interpretation and presumption about some so-called ‘modus operandi of mine’ could be wrong from the outset? Which, from this Wrong claim, then led to another Wrong personal interpretation, assumption, and/or claim of yours? So on, and so on?
See, I will again suggest here that before ‘you’ people move on from one interpretation or pre/assumption, to another interpretation or pre/assumption that what ‘you’ first do is find out, for sure, if the first one is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct FIRST, before doing absolutely anything else here next. See, and again, that way ‘you’ will NOT be as Wrong as ‘you’ are, here, NOR as often Wrong as ‘you’ are here.
ONLY “dictators” or “narcissists” types of people want ‘others’ to be completely removed from expressing ideas, views, and claims. OBVIOUSLY in case ANY idea, view, or claim OPPOSES their beliefs that they want EVERY one to follow and abide by.
Throughout human history there have been many examples of ‘the one’ that the majority have ‘despised’ or which ‘they’ did NOT want the views, ideas, and claims of ‘that one’ to be expressed and shared, turned out that ‘that one’ was ‘the one’ who was actually expressing and sharing some of the irrefutable Truths in Life. And, if ‘the majority’ or the “dictator” or “narcist” had gotten ‘their way’ those Truths would NEVER have come to light when they did.
Good luck EVER getting “atla” to accept that i have NEVER EVER genuinely thought that i am God.
See, “atla” has CHOSEN to BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that i have, but which there is NOWHERE that i have, yet because “atla” BELIEVES what it has made up and concluded is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, then is NOTHING i NOR anyone else here could SHOW “atla” otherwise.
Once more, because of HOW the brain works, exactly, in conjunction with the ‘belief-system’, while a person is believing something is true, then is absolutely nothing in the whole Universe that can show them HOW they are Wrong.
And which is something taught, generally, to under-ten-year-old children to ‘just do’ anyway.
If, for example, one is saying and claiming that the earth revovles around the sun, which is opposite to what everyone around ‘that one’ believes, and ‘that one’ KNOWS they are Right, then would ‘you’ expect ‘that one’ to admit that ‘they’ are wrong, just because everyone else is telling ‘them’ to admit they are wrong?
If ‘you’ would expect this, then why?
If ‘you’ would not expect this, then do ‘you’ expect me to admit I am wrong when I KNOW, with proof, that I am also Right?
But I disagree that what you quote is anew1’s response to that. Rather, the response is here. I won’t say that post is a model of clarity, or that it offers a strong rebuttal, but it’s not nonsense: he challenges you on the meaning of ‘personality’, and rejects that twin studies contradict his claims.
It’s also worth noting that that exchange comes 90 posts into a thread, so his response (or lack of response) may be explained in part by his ongoing discussions with other users in the thread. Skimming them, there is a lot of discussion of ‘personality’ prior to your post (I think he intends something that I would call ‘person-ness’).
It’s not a great thread, before or after your exchange. Atla makes clear by the fourth reply that it will import some personal animosities from previous interactions, and shortly after your first exchange, and directly after ~20 posts speculating on anew’s mental health, he laments that “another thread has turned into being ‘about me’”.
I don’t think this incident would justify a ban on his own, bit this seems a reasonable place to turn to the pattern of behavior.
There have been a few other formal complaints against anew1:
There was a similar complaint to yours in August for this post (you rejected that flag).
There were two complaints at the end of September that I think were coming from a similar place, for “misrepresentation” and “quoting[…] out of context” (you rejected these as well).
You flagged several of his posts as off-topic; I consider those as part of this motion.
And I do find anew1’s posts to be difficult to follow. His writing style is idiosyncratic and makes interpreting both their meaning and tone difficult (e.g. the frequent and inscrutable use of single quotes and capitalization). He may also be a non-native English speaker, or a speaker of some less familiar dialect of English (e.g. mistakes of word order: “what is ‘your’ REALLY issue here”). He seems to have some philosophical beliefs and presuppositions that go unstated but suffuse his writing.
And he often comes across as haughty or superior, implicitly deriding or insulting his interlocutors, and as dissembling rather than trying to clarify a point of disagreement. I don’t think these critiques apply equally to all their posts, but their quirks appear to get worse in response to disagreement.
Something that stands out to me is that, if there’s anything ban-worthy in anew1’s posts (and I don’t concede that there is), it is here: the possibility that the pattern of behavior in a user’s contributions could be net-negative despite individual examples seeming excusable or embiguous.
By vocation I am a lawyer in the common law tradition, and so my inclination is to refer to precedent: what have we done before, and what would this mean going forward?
I can’t recall a person we’ve banned for behavior comparable to anew1’s. We don’t ban people often, especially permanently (which is how I interpret the suggestion here). Since the software update, we’ve only banned a handful of accounts permanently, and their behavior seems egregious by comparison (persistent harassment, death threats, 20 years of being a dick). Expanding the criteria to encompass behavior like anew1’s would be a significant change.
Going forward, it would also seem to justify banning a lot of other users. How should we characterize ‘behavior like anew1’s’ in a way that would make moderation rational, predictable, and fair? The charge is something like ‘doing philosophy badly in a way that is annoying’; is that a fair characterization? However it’s characterized, I suspect more than one user would level a similar charge against me.
It’s not a question of whether conversations with anew1 are themselves productive discussions of philosophy, but whether anew1’s presence makes it harder to have the kind of conversation ILP is meant to enable.
Furthermore, there’s the question of how banning anew1 would affect other users: several users in this thread express both a dislike of interacting with anew1 and reject the idea that people could be banned for it. Because users will see others getting banned and consider what that means for their own place here, we should take seriously not only whether a banning can remove someone that is causing problems, but also whether it undermines the participation of other users.
Ultimately, all policy and all applications of policy should relate back to the Purpose as defined in the Forum Philosophy, so one question should be: Does anew1’s behavior inhibit the ability to discuss philosophy on ILP?
As it happens, my conclusion aligns with my presumptions: I oppose banning anew1.
I am skeptical of that conclusion, and everyone else should be too.
I would appreciate your input:
and I voted no on any banning…
I hold that we should allow people to speak even
though they are complete idiots… we don’t have to engage
and that is the second part, I read anew, as I read virtually
all responses, but engage, nope, I am much too old
to get dragged into a shouting match which can only
end with everyone being annoyed…
I also vouch not ban worthy.
Is it mute, blocked and ignored worthy? Yes. I have done so myself.
But ban-worthy implies that the forum has to quality scan it’s posters and members.
Thats a slippery slope you do not really want to get onto cause even as we speak right now, i could name at least 4 other people whom we could have a “poll” about, because “the quality of their arguments” do not meet a certain standard.
Not to mention, im pretty sure some would think of me the same way. I have my spikes in combativeness too.
Constant preaching coming from a place of absolute certainty, coupled with too disruptive behaviour, should be banned imo. anew1 played a big part in wrecking the PN forum, eventually most people left and he/she couldn’t preach to anyone. The more you understand what he/she is actually trying to say, the worse things get.
