=D> =D> =D> Hallelujah.
Defining what you mean and what you understand is very important but many here don’t want to go beyond ego and into exploration.
.
…ah yes, I was a soft mad child then, Gamer. How did Jimmy put it? “Snug in the whooly cotton brains of infancy…”
Thankfully I met you, Gamer, and I became a better writer, bought a thesarus, and expanded my arsenal of names for dropping once in a while in various threads to remind everyone that I know my shit.
I meant to mention you as one of the generals earlier but I forgot. My bad.
Will you guys PLEASE mention me more?
Why does Dunamis get talked about all the time and not me? I could learn latin in a month, people…no problem. Is that what its gonna take?
Trying to keep people banned by referencing the IP addy is moronic in this day and age. I’m comparitively computer illiterate and even I know that much. To even attempt it is like giving a blind retarded man a shotgun and telling him someone’s breaking in.
No, the real trip up is that eventually the “new” poster either gets smug enough to boast of having returned or their highly idiosyncratic way of writing tips people off. For instance, my comma fetish and interminable use of the work “I” would be a blatant tell if I tried to bluff my way into another username. That and my ubiquitous sarcasm.
I’d gladly mention you more if you’d pick one goddamn Avatar and stick with it. All those little pictures confuse me. 
IP address is one toe-print on a foot print. It’s actually well worth learning about, because it’s fascinating (at least, I think so!).
Then you must know enough to know you don’t need to be a computer genius to change all nine of the other toes along with it. As I’ve said, I am no expert but my time as an Admin, hobknobbing with the real geeks has taught me all those tricks. Well, enough of them at any rate.
It’s definitely not easy, so if anyone has led you to believe so, then you’ve been misled. It’s certainly not a matter of “changing” things.
Of course it’s not; don’t be daft. Or rather, it’s easy but not simple. You’re either being coy or you truly don’t know, but either way I guess it makes no difference to me. 
I’m not sure what difference it makes if someone banned comes back in a new persona. If they screw up as in their first banning, they’ll just get banned again. It has nothing to do with the who, but how they choose to play.
Gamer, There is something called the IRC chat room. If people really wanted a clubhouse, there it is. I’ll stick by my original statement: No one wants to invest the energy and time necessary to CREATE their own environment. That includes you, and all the rest of us.
GCT, I’m sure that you’re convinced of your “truth”, but quite frankly, setting yourself up as the high court of what is truth and what is bullshit is… well, bullshit. But it sounded good. Very poetic.
I disagree- I think we do all create our own environment.
Solipist.
This post begins as a direct reply and moves into a more general explanation of things I believe are problems within ILP. I consider it entirely subjective, which would seemingly contradict one of my more minor points. This is true if one ignores the fact that ILP supplies a context for every discussion here. Furthermore I predict some may take the final paragraph to serve as a justification for whatever it is they hope to argue as to how I might be a hypocrite in this regard. Do not make the mistake of believing that I advocate standards that do not apply to me. I have openly admitted that I regularly fail, and that sometimes I purposefully engage in the very behavior I would like to see removed from ILP. Anyway…
But aren’t you the same guy who told me there is no way to qualify one’s opinions as necessarily being any better than anyone else’s? It is nice to see you have come to the realization that clearly some opinions are bullshit. This is, I believe, called growth.
Gamer, the approach is part of the end itself. And there is a difference between being witty and being wise, though I admit the two are not exclusive, one must take care to note one is for entertainment, the other for enlightenment, and that these two do not always happily co exist. If you believe you can do both, as per your particular talents, then I wouldn’t have a problem with you. I just don’t see how fixating upon particular posters accomplishes either one.
Not that I haven’t done the same as you, I have in some instances… just that I was always aware that I was being petty, at least in relation to and in regards of the Truth. Perhaps you see it as something else, something more grand and noble. However,this only explains your pique, if, and only if, you are upset because I do not recognize your inherent genius. This assumes that I know enough to know what motivates you, and that this knowledge is a sufficent premise to justify a conclusion. Either that or I take you at your word, and I am sorry, I require more than that.
My apologies. I like you Gamer, I really do. But, to me, it seemed as though you went astray long ago, and I have only your word now as to your sincerity. I think ILP should require more than that. It is very easy to say, ‘disregard what I am doing, because this is why I am doing it.’
If I seem stern now it is because I am more given to judging the act first, rather than the actor. This, to me, seems the most fair. Though I suppose I could see why some would think it instead to be the most unforgiving.
With ILP banning people over ad hom and homework it admits, as per the forumlations of its rules, that the post is not, in fact, divorced from the poster, and that people are responsible for the actions they carry out here. The choice of limiting this to just ad hominem and homework threads is, while not arbitrary, severely inhibited from the purpose of fostering genuine dialogue to the degree that genuine dialogue requires transmittable ideas that are meaningful to those beyond the transmitter himself, or herself.
This is applicable to everyone, be they a supposed expert or layman. A common complaint about Dunamis, before it all became personal, was his misuse of terms, i.e., he used words in contexts and with meanings sometimes in opposition to their generally accepted (at least by members here) usage. he didn’t promote understanding, rather lengthy and overwrought debate about particular words or ideas, over and over again.
We all remember those threads. What we don’t remember is that he never, finally, made plain his own suppositions, rather we mistook his vehemence as being sublime understanding. Maybe he would have gotten around to explaining in full, or maybe he did and I just missed it, but he would then, having garnered this reputation, be subjected to constant attack. Not his ideas, but himself. The actual poster.
This, to me, was beyond idiotic. Like fighting a fire with cylinders of gasoline. And as I knew it would, it became par for the course. Since, in truth, no one here is really as bright as they like to think they are, we would rather continue the lie that we understood, and that we still understand, the nonsense. This leads to our only recourse, vitriol, and the eventual bannings that come with it. Either this or, if the poster in question is less eloquant, we ban them before things get out of hand. See: Jennyheart.
But eloquance and vehemence do not make something true. Forgotten in all these exchanges and this petty one upsmanship is the very name of this website. Philosophy, literally translated, means love of philosophy. Thus ILP means I love the love of wisdom.
Not I love wisdom itself, rather, we love the love for wisdom, the pursuit of it. I never for one second honestly believe that I would become wise by reading ILP, that I would attain the Truth. To characterize my previous post is to miss the point I was trying to make. It is the pursuit of wisdom that we should engage in, as per our involvement in a site that says we love the love of wisdom.
What I think ILP’s proper role in this is all is not to be confused with elitism or insisting that we all argue over objective facts… ILP should simply facilitate discussions wherein we express our love for the love of wisdom. And for the literal minded this does not mean love poems dedicated to Wisdom. This means engaging in dialogue as a sincere pursuit of the object of our affection.
Dunamis was the golden calf. By obsessing over him, we agreed to pretend that he was wise, and thus made him the focus of our attentions. But, even assuming that wisdom is an attribute, it still must be expressed, and it is through the expression alone that we can, at same time, engage with it and appreciate it.
Instead we deny it, or, accepting it, we mock it. When I would go from thread to thread asking how a person knows what it is they claim to be the case, what I am looking for is something that makes sense, something I can appreciate, something I can love. I would do this because, it is rare when anything posted here makes sense at all, because I am not wise, and neither is anyone else who frequents this place. But rather than blithely assume that all expressions here are of equal value, I like to sometimes challenge those that sound interesting, simply it is through the process of dialogue (genuine dialogue) that maybe I can learn something appreciable.
I had assumed that this was what philosophy was… that we could know something, that it would appear at least true to us, and that we could love it. I suppose if I were mistaken it could be debated, but even then it would be something I might know, that might appear true to me, and something I might love. You can date the departure of the kinder, happier GCT from the moment this site became much more personal and hateful. Consider it merely an extension of the environment. And for that, don’t ask a separate standard of me, to be that which you do not ask of yourselves. If you find my replies cruel, pointless, snide, petty, whiny, complacent, deranged, and over boastful, well, that is what passes for love for the love of wisdom at ILP. Why should anyone feel inclined to do differently? Sometimes I may try, though I invariably fail… and my attempts at something I deem better are not because of something inherent about the rules of ILP, it is in spite of it.
GCT,
Sure, we all pursue our own interests here, and everyone has to start where they are, and if their astute or just plain damned lucky, they find growth - personal growth within the community.
No small part of the issues involved is the conversational -vs- formal debate gap. There are threads running here that are about the same as I might enjoy with the eighteen year old clerk at quickie mart. And the conversation is probably more meaningful with the clerk. Still, every once in awhile, there will be a little spark. Perhaps someone, knowingly or unknowingly, will provide a different perspective, a new context that sets off a new way of seeing for me. That is what holds me, you, and most of the regulars here. Is the soup thin? Some days you can look through the forums and there isn’t a single thing of interest, or there may be a dozen threads you want to engage. It’s been this way since I joined ILP.
I’ll still say that opinions are still just opinions and that there is no one perspective that allows us to come up with an external definition of what is Truth and what is bullshit. You’ve admitted that on any given day you can write profoundly and the next write pure crap. Yup. We all suffer the disease. It seems important to me to remember that all is perspective and context. What is profound insight to one is mundane crap to another. I think that is pretty much what growth is all about. You’re right to say that no one is particularly bright here, but I think that is precisely the point. We all inhabit our own space of understanding and experience, and it is in this, that the pursuit is born. Whether dippy doo conversation in Mundane Babble or a rigorously formal discussion in Philosophy, it is the constant experiencing that is the pursuit.
OK, there’s a lot of water in the soup, but there is enough good stuff to sustain us if we work at it.
The personality/ideas issue. It would be wonderful if everyone separated ideas from the member posting, but alas, it doesn’t happen. Not in ILP, not anywhere I’ve ever been on the internet, not in real life. The number of people who can hold the two separate isn’t one in a hundred. And so we create tin gods and paper devils. It may not be right, but it is what it is. Asking for the abstraction and separation of people and their ideas may be an ideal, but in a community of, guess what? - people, that makes it all “personal”, with all the the strengths and weaknesses of a community of humans.
Consider: If every person who joined as a member were capable of performing the love of wisdom ideal, why would there be any rules? There would be no need for moderation because life would be perfect. But reality is a little different. We’re dealing with humans, and you know what that means…
I’ve watched the formation and failure of a number of “internet communes”. All were set up by a handful of “free thinkers” who were going to be the expression of this ideal or that. And each might have succeeded if there weren’t any humans involved.
Finally, ILP is a community in the full sense of that word, with all the frailties and strengths of the human condition. I’m in for the game.
I basically agree with everything you wrote there, CGT. Hopefully you understand that we share your “vision” for what ILP is all about, and that our decisions are made based on that vision as a goal. The posting style of people we ban is typically a style that does not suit that vision of facilitating healthy and constructive discourse where possible. We all have off days, but to be banned you would typically need to show consistency in your negativity coupled with consistency in your unwillingness to adhere to our warnings/requests.
I do not miss the kinder gentler GCT, I like your posts now just fine, even the one above. If ILP took a “turn” to the personal or mean-spirited, maybe it was just a phase. We all have moods.
When you say my stance is:
‘disregard what I am doing, because this is why I am doing it.’
I have no idea what exactly it is that I did other than show up mid-stream in deep conversations and heckle people with pseudo-profound quips.
Why? Cause I was bored and felt left out. I dared to think maybe it wasn’t me, it was them, obfuscating things and choking off any real learning.
When Dunamis posted his pic I said “great, you finally let us see you, now can you let us see YOU, instead of your emotional monotone? Can you post in MB or write a poem?”
That day, that moment, marked D’s breaking point at the time, and I scurried to make up, maybe even kissed up a little, because I felt guilty. Xanderman hasn’t spoken to me since – that alone is evidence that I did something ugly, something evil.
I don’t pretend to know what it was yet. You came in in the middle and saw something of your own design, not the truth. You missed huge chunks of my story. Thirst also would complain that I lost my stride. No. I just ran out of things to talk about. Hm, let’s see: death, check, courage, check, truth, check…
So I became selfish, only posting about myself, stimulating conversation about ME. Know thyself, as they say. I stopped checking in every day, I know I missed millions of opportunities, millions of fine posts and topics that went under my radar and I am the less wise for it, my heart is not limitless, my love for love of wisdom has limits.
But I was always one of the good guys. I’m incapable of being mean, like Greedy Dick, for instance, who was not one of mine BTW. He was missing a piece of his soul, he used his freedom to hurl insults. I just want to make sure you know I was not Greedy Dick, that may sound stupid. But I just wanted to be clear.
I regard the political type as someone who is amoral in an incomplete fashion. One would have his moral convictions yet plenty moral fexibilities, as he would have it. Perhaps this type is running this community. Balance, a concept that has been repeatedly stressed here by them, which is ever to blance the right and the left. What GCT is doing is to urge them to constrain their moral flexibilities in favour of establishing their political right based on their basic convictions, at least to an extend that is more than themselves, or some among themselves.
The reality is that some of us are less moral than others. Some of us give expression to their amorality, while the more moral among us react to that expression in order to defend their moral convictions. Then the amorals react back, Dunamis as the foremost example. This process tends, if not already has, tightens regulations of this site in general.
What detrop is suggesting, at least the principle idea underlying it, is to push ILP towards a democratic left. This is in discordance with the moral balance that the moderators strive, because for instance, threads by Dunamis where amoral events abund stretch their moral flexibility to an offensive extend. They would want to intervene and try to balance rightwards, which they did via pm, then Dunamis had no choice but to manuover a kamakazi into the Hegal Christianity thread. Finally he gave his last expression of amorality, not political leftwing, via someone else.
The problem for Dunamis is morality, humanity, but not politics. He is non political, or at least publicly so, he is alwas philosophical pure. The problem here is political. Dunamis motive does not concern moderators, who nevertheless have to take the similar types of behaviour into consideration. Therefore, reflections on personal motivation, personal experiences, personal morals, would be irrelevant for the moderators purpose. The moderators are not willing to, or more naturally not able to, alter their foundamental moral political convictions.
But still, we talk of our moral actions and reactions from posting experiences. We are immediately beyond politics in this respect though obviously, involuntarily. We are not ripe enough for our fruits, in the words of Fritz.
I think the choice is between being philosopher or being player. If you try to be both, you always end up philosophically refuting your politics, along with the morality that politics compells you to take. You reach intellectual impass of indertermination because of philosophising under influence of herd instinct. What you get is matured philosophy, yet you fail to integrate that with actuality and your existentiality with it. Politics is essentially non philosophical and mostly anti, do not speak of being profoundly philosophical while speaking of tightening the regulations et cetera. It is immediately ungenuine in the sense that you are not truely acknowledging your purpose, you are excusing, conflicting inside.
Apply for a moderator position and wear a tie as you post, or extinguish your political flame once and for all and be a complete philosopher. Karl Marx decided to give up philosophy at the time he wrote his manifesto as a licence to kill. He who breaks silence no longer remains a philosopher, so says Nietzsche, what stunning insight.
Uniqor,
Enjoy the luxury of either/or as long as you can. 
The world’s preocupation with bringing you to heel will happen soon enough.
Sure tent, and let me enjoy it here once more. In retro, I tried to simplify the problem and put things in the base context. So it is relevant on that account. And that gives cause for posting for me. In content, I stated that the conversations between GCT and Gamer have already reached beyond the place from where you as a moderator can find practical advise. Also, when we try to relate these deeper conversations to politics about governing ILP, we make the mistake of decadence. We speak under influence of subtle political ideas. Which we already encompassed by virtue of personally reflect upon out own experinces and feelings. You concern yourself, that is what takes to be non political. As soon you commite yourself towards a certain political principle, you cease to be a creative philosopher, voluntarily or involuntarily. My post above was for those involuntary ones.
Talking about my personal experience now, which is irrelevant to this topic and which you can move to somewhere else. I stopped finding Dunamis offensive a year ago. I hope he knew that and I have a feeling that he did. And I hope those who find Dunamis offensive look inward, instead of keep going on and on about how this place should be run in a politically correct manner. What those are doing is essentially ignoring and casting aside something more important than ILP. I did not name those in names because I do not know who they are at all. My current non political position arises due to my final conviction that ben fundamentally does not want a democracy. Due to this postion, I said what I said with relevance to the issues here.
So, you are probably too drawn in by this whole issue. I am offering you a shade to chill, tent, assuming that you are hot. I am not here to tell anybody to leave the thread or forget about the moderation problem, even though that mght be a good idea. I mean, When Gamer and detrop fight, you want to log off fast otherwise you are stuck onsite for the day for nothing. I noticed that detrop is right now at a happy place with a happy face, nevertheless speaking vehmently against Fritz devoid of rational concerns and entirely ignore my post for him. Gamer, the things you do. How can you expect us to help your merge with the universe by syndromatically hurting those among us who believe that you were not GreedyDick.
“Gamer, the things you do. How can you expect us to help your merge with the universe by syndromatically hurting those among us who believe that you were not GreedyDick.”
Explain to me how I hurt people and I will cease at once.