What is important here? Here being the very specific here of ILP.
For the moment consider the values of temperance and tolerance. As these two values get promoted intemperance and intolerance get excluded. Actions which show either a lack of restraint or blatant personal intolerance are uniformly and officially rejected. Now it might be argued that a perfect promotion of tolerance would reject nothing. This is an imperfect promotion of tolerance we are working with.
Does a movement in this direction take the website away from more important goals? What are those goals, why are they more important?
This thread is like when the new manager comes to the company, calls all the old employees into the conference room, states some rather banal and idealistic truisms, and then asks for comments and suggestions.
I say, longer coffee breaks and smokers being allowed to light up on the second floor balconies.
I did not enjoy the thread that involved the word “nigger” in it. That was not because of the word by itself, but because the claim was made that the word no longer had value. There was also a lot of other nonsense in the thread about slavery and its value as an issue as well. The thread at best was an interaction with people that where in (I hope) a temporary state of moronic stupor. So, I was happy when that got locked.
However, when people argue, sometimes the argument takes one or more parties to another level of understanding. It can be the case that ideas that we have never heard before, ones that shake a foundation, or that secretly appeal to us can be very anger producing. This anger may be a mask for something else, or the anger generated can cause the person on the receiving end to reevaluate their position.
So, one does not know where a thread is going to go or what new ideas that it is going to generate. This is especially true when it involves typically thought provoking posters. The question would be: why is this making you angry or why do you believe such and such. If people can’t state their positions, then it might be the case that the thread needs to get closed, but even then only after a few days.
Would you agree with the idea that a disagreement needs a bit of formality to avoid being just a fight? The goal here is for people to let their ideas clash. And ideas might be broken or destroyed in that process, but the person is left intact.
This is so hilarious that you are addressing this question to Adlerian, who repeatedly seeks to destroy the esteem of others, mustering all of his “psychobabble” training to reduce, for instance, Shyster to mental institution candidacy.
Yes, but Dunamis, she really is going to go insane! Trust me! Plus, I do not engage in psychobabble as my theoreticial background is well established.
I’m sticking up for your behavior so get off my back! “Insert smile face here”
Xander it is good to have a formal approach to arguing topics. However, part of my point was that when the regulars start arguing the admins might want to pull back and see what happens.
Let me try this the Nietzschean way. I think each take according to his need. When the needs clash we have conflicts. I think I’m briefly describing the human society here, and I think it’s valid for me to generalise as such. Many posters need room for their ego, as their ego is probably squeezed in off-line life. So basically we have a spacial shortage oriented ego intensivity going on. Hence I imagine that ILP’s dawn must have been peaceful and friendly all around, it used to be spacious enough to handel the relatively slow acceleration of ego expansion.
Tolerance essentially demands you to give up part of your room, to acconmodate those almost explosive external power, to allow yourself being intruded and invaded, to force yourself to smell foreign aroma and look at unfamiliar sight. It’s dangerous without a doubt, nevetheless can be extremely beneficial. People aren’t prepared to make this sacrifise because they had unpleasent experience with this venture and invitation, mostly when they were little cherubs. Indeed our actions encourage each other to be hostile and causious. Our will to power spur each other’s on and on without an end. Tolerance requires perfect self control and visionary sight. To tolerate others while increasing own potential for power is solely the superman’s art. To be tolerated by such a strong man is the weak man’s failure and loss, at the gain of illusive temperory powerfulness.
However, we don’t have to tolerate so hard at all in the first place. We could divide everything equal and learn to feel equal, and hence satisfied. The economical history shows that this can’t possibly be maintained, not yet anyway. What can you possibly want from a internet forum like this? There are no girls for grab, no jobs to apply, the goal and pearl here is gaining wide spread respect, so we tell ourselves. The less beautiful but more truthful thing is obviously - power instead. This problem is just as apparent - the power that most people are aware of can’t be respected, only feared, hated and desired. The power that actually gains respect can be seen only by a few who can, thus we have a few who are eventually respected by all on the account that they have sacrifised instead of competed. The truth of course is that these ubermenschen cracked you in an invisible way.
adding to dunamis statements i want a pay rise and a closer carparking space. (or at least in true homer simpson style, rollerblades to get to the building)
oy and next time you call a meeting… send out memos or summit so we dont all turn up late.
More beautiful photos, more competitive writing (not just in the form of arguments) and more work by the more intelligent members to try to drag some sort of project together…
I think a tolerant approach his highly desireable as long as it’s a methodology and not an ideology. So, saying “No cussing at each other in the respectable forums” or whatever rules you want to make is a good thing, but that ‘tolerant’ word can be easily abused- “This is the tolerant view on abortion, this is the tolerant view on race, expression of other views is intolerant.” In that sense, it has no place in the guidelines here, and I would not expect that mistake to be made.
