@carleas Yes, I do. ‘Turd’ is about as mild as you can get. ‘Terf’ is worse. What about ‘feminazi’? And constantly using socks to ‘community hide’ someone else’s comments is harassment. I can’t stand him with his constant whining and entitlement. Calling a man a ‘sicko’ for saying that he’s considering ‘becoming a lesbian’ to get women is just stating a fact.
He’s not offended by being called a ‘turd’. He’s not offended by any of it. He just wants to get me off here because he can’t argue with me. Look at him eagerly waiting for you to ‘execute’ me 
Just how ‘polite’ are we expected to be on here? Are any insults allowed? The guy’s a rabidly anti-semitic conspiracy theorist. I would have thought that would be considered a lot worse than calling someone a turd, or insane. I haven’t been using this forum for long and I’m still getting accustomed to the reduced freedom compared to the other forum. I personally think mass flagging others’ comments using sock accounts should be a major banning offence.
You said that people who are happy need to be deluded. Maybe they’re not deluded and just don’t care about all the wars and suffering around them and if that’s the trick to being happy, then maybe that’s better from a purely pragmatic standpoint than caring about all the suffering because it makes them happy not to and their families happy and that sounds like a successful life to me, being happy.
@Carleas I’m glad you are censoring her hateful vitriol, however, the normal policy is to give punishment for continual rule violations. She has no fear of the moderators here and even as we debate her ban, she is completely impervious and makes no attempt to change her behavior at all. On most other forums she would be banned already, most likely permanently.
And also notice, when I debate RealUn, or other transphobes on here, its not the same dynamic. I don’t spam them with personal insults. Victor on the otherhand continually spams personal insults and turns the place into Reality TV drama cesspool.
Her style of “debate” is to misrepresent people’s arguments, accuse them falsely, then spam insults. That’s most of what she does.
Afraid to use your real name, “RealUn”?
I’m not a one-month user. I’ve been a member since 2023. Additionally I’m contributing more philosophical material than most, including you and MagsJ combined. Where is your work? Where are your structured systems, your ideas, your completed essays? You’ve had years to produce them.
Here are some of mine:
Moderators and administrators are not special. They are fallible too.
Duration is not as significant as contribution anyway. Philosophical and contributive quality should be the metric, not duration.
A 50 year member could commit questionable acts and clutter a forum with nonsense too. Issues should still be addressed, regardless of longevity. Further there are details of which you are unaware so your response is uninformed.
The forum is being bombarded with nonphilosophical nonsense. It creates an unprofessional and disreputable environment. My work is serious. I want it to be presented that way. Others likely do, too.
Loyal? To what? Anonymous, faceless strangers on the internet?
Most are not producing philosophy. Philosophy cannot be consumed if philosophy is not being produced.
Socializing about philosophy, discussing philosophy is obviously fine and on-topic. However most dialogue is not philosophical. Review the threads. Review your own comments.
Great. Now read the next remark:
You already seem exhausted with the subject. Fair review? I think not.
Previous discussions involving similar topics should not impact how this material is received. This is original work.
Additionally it’s difficult to find the material when it’s buried under countless threads of nonsense. That’s largely the issue here.
Moderators are meant to remove spam and nonsense threads so real philosophy can be noticed and discussed. That isn’t happening when moderators are not fulfilling their duties.
Perhaps. However, you seemingly fail to comprehend the purpose of a foundational ontology.
“Existence exists” is a grand oversimplification. In fact the phrase is circular, it is trapped in abstraction as mentioned above and elsewhere, including the essay.
“Existence exists” doesn’t explain anything. It offers no insight, no elaboration. It provides no operative means of substantiation. The phrase doesn’t even appear in the text.
Such a grand oversimplification suggests you do not take the material seriously. Evidently you haven’t reviewed it, else you would have realized there is much more to it.
For example, the ontology reconciles the Parmenides-Heraclitus conflict concerning change. It offers clear, concise, operational terms and definitions anyone can embrace within minutes of reading unlike dense, demanding works of Spinoza and Hegel which can take months, even years to grasp. Complete comprehension of Spinoza still does not allow the theological versatility found in the ontology presented here.
The practical, operational terms and definitions, which are grounded in concrete, real world instances, allow the seamless integration of science and the scientific method. The philosophy also connects epistemology and ontology while identifying their differences.
Those are all real and significant philosophical achievements. It isn’t merely a set of definitions. It’s a structural map for how to comprehend every thing that is.
The ontology takes the abstract concept of being and turns it into a functional, interactive, scientifically-compatible framework. It will never collapse or crash due to null or nothing error because every thing is existence. It is universally compatible allowing religious, scientific and artistic aspects without contradiction. It is scalable forever as there are no boundaries to encounter.
Foundational ontology is intentionally very general. It isn’t meant to be prescriptive or specific. It’s a framework from which systems and specifics emerge. Such generality can appear rather basic on the surface.
Clean up the forum. If we had more philosophically-inclined participants we could have better philosophical discussions, including better challenges to the material I present.
I agree that it’s mild, and can even be affectionate when used in the context of a post with an otherwise friendly tone. In the context of a post like this, though, it is one of many personal insults, so its magnitude matters less than its direction.
First, I don’t think being insulted affects whether this post is insulting. If I were in the habit of banning people for these kinds of things, it would be a mitigating factor. But here, I’m just want to establish what counts as bad and unwanted, but I am also happy to do that for the examples you mention.
“Feminazi” seems like a bad and unwanted personal attack, and in a critique of a post calling a user a “bloody insane … turd … feminazi”, I would absolutely have highlighted it as one of the epithets that warrants hiding the post. @futureone do you agree?
“Terf” I think depends more on context. As I understand the term, it is an acronym for “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist”, and as far as I can tell was initially used as shorthand for that philosophical position. It has become an epithet, so it absolutely can be used that way and in some contexts should be understood as merely an insult, but it’s a hard call in cases where it would be descriptively accurate to call someone’s expressed position “trans-exclusionary radical feminism” whether it can simultaneously be deemed an insult to call the person a “terf”.
My preference, of course, would be to mostly avoid saying anything of the general form “you are a ____”, and reserve labels for ideas and arguments. But that’s unreasonable as a standard for conversation on a social forum.
I don’t see this happening on my end, he is the only account flagging your posts. The software calculates the point at which a flagged post is automatically hidden prior to moderator review, based on the number of flagged posts the post author has, and the number of accepted vs. rejected flags the flagging user has.
That can’t possibly be right. Maybe you could argue that saying “you make me sick” is just stating a fact, assuming that that conduct actually makes you sick. But it clearly doesn’t make some substantial minority of population sick, so “sicko” seems false as a statement of a general fact.
But more importantly, whether or not something makes you sick is generally not relevant. Even if it were a mere statement of fact, not all factual statements are appropriate to make at all times. It’s often true that our interlocutors are virgins, or that their parents are not proud of them, or that they are unattractive by conventional beauty standards, etc. All of those are clearly insulting to mention in the context of a philosophical discussion.
Possibly, though it is of course not ‘turd’ in isolation that he’s complaining about.
But I am wary of having moderation weaponized as a meta-rebuttal to an argument someone doesn’t like. I guard against that by mostly limiting my interventions to requests not to use so many personal insults, which seems hard to weaponize.
I’m not sure what a precise answer to the first question would look like. One not-very-precise answer is “polite enough to allow for philosophical discussion to take place”, which I think it more polite than the post I critique above. Flaming is all heat and no light, and it sucks the oxygen from an actual discussion of ideas.
For the second question, the short answer is “yes”, and the longer answer looks pretty similar to the one I gave to the first question: they’re allowed to the extent they don’t undermine the goal of philosophical discussion.
(EDIT: I should also note that I generally ignore insults directed at me, because none of us (myself included) should trust my impartiality in enforcing the line when I am the target. I have also been ignoring most insults in this thread, because I think it would be counterproductive to police them in a thread about what counts as an insult.)
Worse, perhaps, but not prohibited. Being wrong in ones beliefs, even culpably wrong, even harmfully wrong as relates to the world, is not grounds for moderation. Ideas are a protected class, and that includes bad ideas.
What other forum? The most frequent critique I hear about ILP is its excess of freedom, so it’s interesting to see it described as less-free than elsewhere.
No it isn’t. Anything more than moving a thread or hiding a post is exceedingly uncommon. Permanent bans are virtually unheard of.
.
Both your weak repetitive rhetoric = low to average IQ = 
.
Ho ho ho but they came to slay, but all they slayed were a few more IQ points off their IQ average.
That can’t be right. It says ‘community’ flagged. Unless I’m mistaken a ‘community’ is more than one person. Several in fact. Sometimes my comments get hidden only a couple of minutes after I’ve written them. That seems awfully quick for a moderator to react. Just the right amount of time to sign in and out of sock puppets though, although he’s evidently a ‘social media virtuoso’ so he probably has some technique where he doesn’t even need to sign in and out.
I’ve noticed that I get two kinds of ‘flag’ notifications. One that’s giving me the option to ‘edit’ and one that doesn’t say that. Perhaps a ‘community’ one via sockpuppets doesn’t go to you? I wouldn’t know. I’ve never ‘flagged’ comments and haven’t bothered to work out how to do it. I don’t go crying to moderators every time someone allegedly insults me. If he’s so unbearably ‘hurt’ by my insults that he feels they need to be hidden from view, then why would he copy-paste them into another thread? Seems rather counterintuitive to say the least.
Noted. IQ reducing garbage like this is perfectly acceptable on a philosophy forum but calling a turd a turd is not.
Must be an in joke between lovers 
Gotta love those Americans. Take you literally when you aren’t but don’t when you are. They just can’t get ANYTHING right. It’s almost as if the entire population is autistic 
It may be true that one doesn’t need to be deluded about things that actually exist—for example, by thinking that they don’t exist—in order not to be affected by them, directly or mentally/emotionally, at least. There is, however, a different kind of delusion, and this consists in thinking that things which don’t exist do exist… (I said ‘for example’, as one may also think things are different from what they actually are; but this can actually be reduced to thinking things exist which don’t exist and vice versa, as properties of things are themselves also “things”.)
It doesn’t seem fair though.
RealUn gets banned for 2 months because he posts a URL to a 4chan post that has a slur. He didn’t even write the slur.
Meanwhile Victor can be transphobic 24/7, disruptive, post continuous insults, slurs, false accusations 24/7 and nothing.
Yes, because I know your type very well. You have no views, opinions, or perspective that would invite real danger into your life. That’s why you’re so brazen about your ‘open’ philosophies. Your ideas are completely tame, not rebellious at all.
If your ideas had weight, then people would attack you for them. Why would somebody be so stupid to offer fuel and ammo to those who do you harm? For example, I’ve seen countless examples of online crazies threatening to hunt somebody’s children down, kidnap them, rape them, kill them, etc. (on this forum too by the way) Why, the fuck, would any reasonable person want to provide such information to the public? Yeah, here’s a list of my close family members whom I love, my bank account, social security number, have it all Daniel. Just for you…
You’re being dense.
That’s yet to be seen. I like the ILP format, for the most part. If you want to spread your ideas then you have to fight for them, like myself, and many others, have done for our own ideas. If the Normies don’t want them, if @Ichthus77 jumps in your thread or Smears, shit-posting, well then, it’s your thread and your duty to deal with them. Welcome to the Internet.
I generally try a good-faith approach method. If I want somebody’s opinion and positive feedback, then I will respond to THEIR THREADS first, socialize a bit, INVITE them to mine. I’ve never seen you do such a thing. So you have your own method.
Except the 20-year participants of ILP are not “faceless” to us. We’ve seen each other’s faces. We know who each other are, for the most part. Eventually, you learn somebody’s ideas and styles so much, it doesn’t matter which Username they might return as. It becomes easy to clock somebody’s thinking and rationale/logic.
While it would be beneficial for ‘more philosophy’ to occur, frequently, faster, higher quality, in reality, it’s not so fast. Sometimes, or usually, it’s a slow process.
Perhaps not. I reviewed your posts when you originally put them out, but briefly. About 15-20 years ago I posted a “Nothing does NOT exist” thread that covered a lot of what your points did. I’m very aware that Existence is infinite. I’m very aware that the human mind/brain is not, and is finite. So it’s not exactly new or interesting material, to me.
Trust me, there’s been countless Admin/Moderator issues around here. The other “philosophy forums” aren’t much better, or even close in some instances. Maybe try other forums? I’ve been around the circuits across the years, ILP suits me best, but none is ‘perfect’.
That’s great and I wish you the best on that… like I argued though, this website has at least a dozen similar thinkers, intellectuals, and philosophers who attempt the same as you. Everybody wants a superior framework for understanding–life, existence, the universe. It’s a battle though. And it takes a lot of progress integrating with others. That’s the real battle. A framework, in your own mind, is not the point, is it?
It’s about interacting with others?
They do. You attempt to character assassinate me in your opening statement, here.
I have been targeted, by name, for my efforts. For example, this popular music video here:
“Lavender (Nightfall Remix)” by Snoop Dogg.
I am portrayed as a clown figure. Other references are made as well.
This has already been explained, here:
Continuing, you stated:
I have no children. No family. No wife. Not even a girlfriend. No risk there.
What other forums?
The other main philosophy forum, Philosophy Now, just closed. This is really all that remains. Thus my conviction to improve and sustain it.
Yes, thus my participation here.
Additionally, as explained, a core feature of the ontology is integration. Hence the theological versatility, the ability to absorb or integrate any and all concepts as things or parts of existence or as existence itself.
Integration is significant. However I’m not seeking to form a deep, intimate partnership with each and every forum member. I do not seek to share every single detail of my life with everyone, or clutter the forum with those details.
I have news for you. The word ‘lavender’ is used often. Whenever someone uses it does not mean that they are talking about you. I have lavender in my garden. Is that you?
I have news for you as well. You lack certain details and certain information. You likely wouldn’t believe me if I told you.
Read the rest of the comment referenced:
Connect the dots.
Believe it or not sometimes activists receive retaliation.
Notice when she made that statement she was referring to us both combined, primarily your IQ. Yours is so low it dropped the average about 30 points.
No
fjldldljdfldj
.
Come on Veg, you gotta admit that that was funny..
..but I guess things aren’t funny when they’re aimed your way.. 
I’m beginning to realize how NOT-Normie we are, who post at Philosophy Forums…
Except maybe @GaryChildress …?
The insanity on full display is mind-boggling. Even the alleged ‘jokes’ induce vertigo (the bizarre exchange between Taylor Swift’s muse above and his lover banging on about ‘IQ points’ which they seem to find hilarious being one example). At least I think they are sharing a joke, going by all the laughing going on.
The irony is that Gary Childress is the only one who has been open about being diagnosed with a genuine mental illness and a very serious one. And yes, he comes across as the only sane person (apart from me of course)
.
Bizarre? .to your mental capacity, it seems.
.
..you thought wrong.. it seems that thinking is not your forte.
NOT-Normie means mentally-ill, to you? 