OK, I respect the points you are making. I still stand by what I am saying and would prefer to meet in the middle with you since whether it is obvious or not, I actually respect you. I too, do not appreciate any sort of abusive behavior but I guess I am just more tolerant of it. I see abusive behavior on both sides - not from you, however. I also understand where both sides are coming from. I may not agree with the more extreme behavior coming in from both sides but why should I let either side off of the hook? I really don’t agree with a lot of what UR is saying and in this thread, his extreme behavior was more numerous in the count. Perhaps this is why he lost it with me because he thought that I was one of the gang - those guys don’t care much for me but neither does UR.
Seems you have no idea what you’re talking about. I listed good points against Uccisore who wasn’t very “becoming” of a moderator. I’m not a moderator nor does “making myself out to be innocent” - innocent of what? Yes, I’ll kill fucking fascists. That I am guilty of condoning, and proudly so. But killing people I disagree with? No thanks. Accusing Uccisore of what I am doing? That doesn’t make any sense. Who are you anyway? Someone who has multiple accounts.
Some thoughts from reading this thread (numbered by which of my original questions they go to):
[1] It is often easier to identify wrong answers than it is to identify right answers, and some wrong answers to the question of who should be a moderator present themselves pretty clearly in this thread. Judging how a person will moderate based on how they engage in discussion isn’t perfect, but posts that look like a mere emotional reaction suggest moderation that will look like an emotional reaction.
[2] To Peter’s point, I think banning should be taken in the context of the near absolute anonymity that the internet provides. Banning a username isn’t really banning a person. The punishment of banning is, in practice, just stripping someone of their name. That’s actually unpleasant for anyone who wants to build a reputation or develop relationships, so it works as a weak punishment. It also serves a purpose something like hanging the bodies of thieves at crossroads, warning passers-by that there is a state that enforces its laws. The weakness in these justifications is that, as a punishment, it tends to hit hardest on the best users: it leverages attachment to the community, while bad-faith trolls can just assume a new identity and continue. And as with rotting corpses, it communicates force more than justice, not necessarily a reassuring message.
[3] Magnus, though I actually think a fuzzy purposes is a positive for a pluralistic community, you’re right that making purpose clear is a good way of thinking about the question (and I appreciate encode’s draft statement of purpose). Indeed, setting aside practical considerations, forcing people to stop and reflect on the purpose of each post before they submit it would probably solve 90% of the problems we have here. encode, I’ll try to give you a fuller reply on the specifics of your draft today or tomorrow as time allows.
It’s the other way around: Uccisore listed good points against you (and Carleas confirmed it too). I have also read the threads quoted back then - yea, back then already, because I wanted to know why you spread so much lies.
What lies? I called out Uccisore for spewing insults which went against the rules for the forum, that I clearly pointed out. There’s no lies there and your posts to me seem to be nothing but trollish behavior. This is confirmed by your projection of lies while you indeed lie yourself about pretending “Carleas” confirming anything as a “good point” written by Uccisore in that thread. Maybe you should go troll some weaker minded victims such as URWRONG if you have a desire to get off on spreading some diseased version of sociopathy that you may suffer from.
Do not play the innocent again. Or do you want to deny that there was this dispute with the moderator Uccisore? Should I quote all relevant posts from that time here? That would go beyond the scope here. Besides, you know exactly what I mean, only you do not want to admit that once again.
I am also not primarily about you, but about the topic here, in which you play only a minor role - but nonetheless as a Wild West cowboy. 
commendable, but not helpful
I don’t know what is wrong with you, but stop it. Stop talking about me, stop misrepresenting me, because you don’t have your understanding of what’s going on straight, as I already showed
Carleas may have missed this post because I linked to it from another thread. I think this is one of the most important concepts to explore on ILP:
Ecmandu wrote
What constitutes an insult can be up for debate itself.
Insults are a language unto themselves.
Some people can type walls of seemingly innocuous non ad hom text that when examined closer, are just as insulting as typing “fuck you” as a response.
When I see this, I’ll outline a counterpoint and say fuck you back. Then they start whining about it. Fine. But you stated it first.
In my experience, walls of text responding to walls of text are dumb. I try to be concise. Mostly, that includes swearing (strangely enough)… but swearing is not good enough, it needs to include a real counter argument.
The only real insult is “retard” (which can be stated a great many ways… “ignorant”, “moron”, “wrong”, “shithead”. Etc…
When stated that insults are a language unto themselves… in the context of a discussion it’s about who is using the term correctly for the topic at hand.
Having personal experience with Carleas judging me, I do know the thing he cares about most is that you make an actual argument. I’ll even add to that, that you actually respond to counter arguments.
All posters on these boards make actual arguments, a few cherry pick in their responses. This is when it frustrates others. Is that bannable? Ultimately it’s up to Carleas.
Let me give an example of blatant cherry picking (not to make this a Trump thread). There are Trumpists on this board…
All the fucking posters on this board know that Trump campaigned with the phrase that if he randomly shot someone to death in Times Square that everyone would love him for it.
I’m sorry, it’s actually funny, that’s immediate grounds for disqualification as president.
When he was president, he wanted to puff up his ego, so he actually casually bragged about national secrets to Russian ambassadors. The result wasn’t funny (these are not stupid people) - they related what trump told them to their intelligence agencies and it outed actual agents (sources and means) and severely compromised US national security. That’s actually treason in the constitution. The punishment for treason is death. It’s not funny shit.
The list goes on and on about Trump.
The point is not about Trump, it’s about the cherry picking. I’d argue that cherry picking is trolling.
When you say cherry-pick, do you mean partial quoting and responding to that quote or something else? Because I am guilty of partial quotes - my reasoning is that most of the time I either agree or respect that which I don’t quote and respond to.
Also, I made some attempt at arguing both sides of the insult argument but I did not include the wall of text thing even though I too have a disdain toward it - I mainly did not argue that because at the time I was too into all the other arguments and didn’t think to mention that if a person is not repetitive in their walls and I am really into the argument and my text is long and the other side is into the argument then I am kinda ok with it, but it is rare - I am with you on the whole concise argument being a preferable way to go since the human mind does have some limitation on what it can effectively digest in X amount of time(I am not going to spend all day typing stuff because I had to spend half a day thinking about the counter-argument).
Meh, I hope this makes sense…anyway the question is about cherry-picking. Never mind, you answered before I posted this.
This is what you said to Joker in “The Reckoning” thread:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2802749
I think this forum should be a place where people who respect each other (i.e. who do not want to shoot each other) converse on philosophical matters.
If there are members who do not respect other members, they should be removed.
Well that would be ideal unfortunately this place has become a refuge for a small group of maniacs who want to spread and normalize their quasi nazi fascist agenda and propaganda. Of course, their choices on social media are limited and places like Parler even has serious issues as well as whatever website that degenerate My Pillow guy put forth, so Ilovephilosophy.com can be haven of this type of degenerate or ban them just the same particularly if you ban the likes of anyone who doesn’t tolerate that psychopathic racist degenerate garbage such as myself. But I’m pretty sure I know which direction you favor yourself.
Anyone who wants to show these pieces of shit “respect” has no respect from me as well.
Why should anyone tolerate your behavior? What’s the benefit of doing so?
If you think that there are people on this forum who act in a way that is harmful to others, I suggest presenting a case with a cool head. If you’re not going to do so, if you are not going to cooperate with others, why should anyone tolerate you?
You are welcome to present your case against those “pieces of shit”.
My behavior is merely the intolerance of theirs in so much as I wouldn’t “behave” any way if it wasn’t for their presence here. That can be provided with a myriad of posts from 2013 - 2018 or so until I realized that this sick ilk has infested a place that I used to discuss philosophy and actually learn from others.
Do not let the words I use lead you to assume that am I not of a cool head.
the fact that anyone is still acting like that was a death threat is completely ludicrous.
Can non philosophical posts be sent/redirected out of serious threads by linking them to a catch all thread in Non philosophical chat?
Posts that threaten or spam insults get sent/redirected to a Rant House catch all thread.
Would setting up a system to relocate irrelevant and/or harmful junk posts be adequate moderation?
Perhaps I have snapped…
If what is going on around here comes back to what I call the mini-me problem then the forum does indeed have some issues. Fanatical behaviors of attempted conversions I do have a big problem with. NO, I do not want to join a cult. There have been many times I have come across these slimy zealots - my answer today is the same as it has always been and the same as it will always be. NO…NO…NO - this is like the picture of the drug pusher and again I say NO. It is despicable behavior and will receive much of my contempt.
Respect is a slippery word in my opinion. On top of that, I am not going to pretend that I know the full story of what on earth is going on around here. Managing my own life outside this place is tough enough but I don’t live under a rock either(as much as I would like to sometimes). There are a lot of assumptions I have to make and I do not have time to read every thread properly so I just quickly look at what I can to build some kind of picture. My perception is that there seem to be two sides and those two sides throw the word fascist at each other but how can we have two fascist sides at war? Maybe there can but it does not compute with me - this year at least.
Maniac on the other hand is a word I can work with. Over the last five years, I have been witness to some really peculiar and messed up…um…shit, I guess you could call it. A gigantic conspiracy that I have never seen the likes of before…this is a worrying trend…to think that some of the people I know who have bought into this fear-mongering used to be able to think for themselves. Not only do these people buy into this but then they start to try and spread it(back to the mini-me problem) similar to how a disease spreads(someone pass me the antibiotics). How can I respect that? Well, I simply don’t. In the case that respect stands for holding another in high regard, I don’t think I have ever used the word like that. I have gotten used to this idea of respect being my ability to humor ideas for a time - letting people have their time to speak through what I was led to believe is their right to do so.
I am happy to think about anything that anyone says to me, agree and disagree, this is all part of it. I will always vote for the side I think is the better of two evils because I don’t trust anyone…there is plenty of reasons to have trust issues in the modern world. JUSTIFIED!!! Fanatics on the other hand can bugger off - I will happily stand on my own two feet thanks. Yeah, don’t be like me. Think for yourself.
I believe some people are too stupid to understand what think for yourself means - it does not mean that there is this supermarket you go to where you can buy parts to build your persona - oh, look at me, look at me, I am different, I am special, hahaha. Sniffing each other’s butts like dogs do to get information >> Oh she likes this type of music and despite the fact that it sounds good I must deprive myself of it so that I can be different. Then something snaps in their brain and instead of wanting to be “themselves” anymore they have to start the disgusting conversion. It is perverse.
Heads up: This is not a response to Carleas - these are my unwanted opinions. Have at it.
While the idea of moderation is simple at its core it seems the implementation of it is not so clear cut.
Is this because we brought baggage into the discussion? Baggage from other discussions?
Three central questions remain unresolved at this point. Why is this? Surely there is only one answer and that is those who want moderation are more interested in themselves and what they have to say than getting what they asked for to begin with. No real points have been proven at this stage and therefore we have made no significant progress(perhaps this word right here is the problem). I see energy expenditure from those who were happy with the way things were which leads to the conclusion that this side is interested enough to discuss the matter.
So far we have not seen a good example. Nominate and give your reason for the nomination. Finally, does the nominee want to moderate?
Those that want the moderation need to show that they are worthy of being considered among the best users. To do this you need to consider what is best for the forum instead of what is best for yourself << ultimately these are not always the same things.
Stop, reflect, modify(if needed)(rinse and repeat if needed)…then post. Question to ask oneself: Is what I am about to post clear? I say this because if we are to start moving down the more strict path then something will have to be sacrificed - there is always sacrifice in a rigid system.
I think that is the most significant thing said so far - for 2 reasons -
- Without a Purpose every effort is just senseless noise
- Carleas and all discussion board administrators are in an awkward position -
To be Twitter or Parlor - that is the question - “tis it nobler----?”.
Years ago I watched many discussion boards get canceled and entirely erased due to what they allowed to be said in public (often the owners not even aware of actually how or why it happened). America and the entire West is closing in on a time when all public speech is to be politically/socially controlled - Twitter, Facebook, Google, Youtube - all being current examples. There is still a fight for some degree of freedom of speech, but it appears at this point to be a losing battle - the odds favor the global propagandists - social manipulators - that is where the money and power is.
- A moderator from one side of the battle will use a variety of clever techniques to silence wrong-speak.
- A moderator from the other side will attempt open debate (even if not entirely honest).
So Carleas must make a decision (regardless of what he might have to announce) as to whether to take up the fight for free speech (political, religious, science, social, philosophical…) and probably lose (possibly much more than just the board) or go along to get along with the current front runner globalist authoritarians.
I wouldn’t want to have to make that decision although it is easy to kibitz those who do.