That’s my point though. There is no way in which a moderator can convince another of what their “true” motive/intention was unless the other is able to crawl inside the moderator’s head when a decision is being made. We can only either accept or not accept the explanation. Always from within the context as we construct it.
In other words, here we can only take our own subjective leap to one or another conclusion. And that’s before we get to the part where we are able even to delude ourselves that we are doing something for this reason and not another.
My point then is always to note the manner in which some will argue as though we really can pin things like this down rationally, logically, essentially, objectively.
All I need do here is to point out that others view my own moral and political narrative [rooted in my “dasein dilemma”, rooted in nihilism] as in turn a scary way to view the world.
And indeed I have been banned from places like this – forums.philosophyforums.com/ – precisely because the substance of my arguments so perturbed the powers that be there. In that case Postmodern Beatnik. But I was banned not as a result of the arguments I was making. No, of course not. Instead, he informed us, I was banned for being a troll.
And Satyr embodies the delusions and the dangers of objectivism [as I construe it] like few others I have bumped into online.
Or, as I noted to arbiter on another thread, objectivists of his ilk are no doubt what prompted Roger Waters to compose this: youtu.be/1vDczley1R8
Deconstructing them is now sort of what I do. My own contribution to the human race as it were.
But those 15 posts are all different… In other words, she is not posting “word-for-word the same, well-thought out reply dozens of times to everyone who responds”…So what does the pattern reveal… That she included various ideas of Satyr that related to the topics at hand over the course of 15 posts? You’re phrasing things like she was blindly quoting Satyr without regard to the subject of the thread, but how can a pattern be formed(in the moderator’s mind) when each post is relevant to the topic of its respective thread? There’s only a pattern if the posts are irrelevant, no?
So, given that A) her 15 most recent posts do not demonstrate a pattern of misconduct (i.e. a pattern of repeating the same (word for word) ideas over and over again, and that B) she is not acting as a proxy for a banned user if her use of quotes is relevant to the thread (as you’ve said is fine)… the ban still seems unjustified.
He’s not talking about the posts as individuals, he’s talking about the set of posts. A set is an abstract entity. They teach you about them in philosophy school.
with a yes, then there truly is nothing left to debate. Because if you do answer it with a yes, it means that it is not even the particular, let’s say, “Satyresque” style of expression that bothers you (which is ridiculous enough, that you would ban some ideas from being posted because you don’t like the style or the poster who espouses them), but any sort of expression of such ideas, and when called upon this, you can then retreat back into “gray areas”, aka, your personal, subjective, mostly subconscious judgments and distinction-making that you cannot justify or even properly explain to anybody else, so there is nothing left for me to attack or criticize but to say that I ardently disagree with such a rule system, and that if implemented in human political reality, I think it would fail, horribly.
I suppose, but it’s not only meant to serve as an interesting anecdote. My point is that Satyr’s expressions of his positions, though lacking in (sound) reasoning, are convincing for quite a few people and, considering the nature of those positions and of those people, are dangerous to philosophy. Lys is someone who needs an exemplar of what she has called the “Satyr Type” in order to cleave to it. Currently, that exemplar is Satyr. So if you give Satyr a permaban, you should do the same for Lys: as Carleas and Only Humean have made abundantly clear. But hey, I’d be open to a discussion of the pros and cons of allowing both of them back into the Rant House!
See above. By the way, that was his original “ban”. I’m not so sure it was for greater offenses than Lys’. In the meantime, however, almost seven years of at least as offensive behaviour have gone by. And in any case, perhaps Lys is even more dangerous than Satyr? To end with a Nietzsche-quote: “[M]an is at the bottom of his soul merely evil, woman however is bad there.” (Zarathustra, “Of Old and Young Womlets”, my translation.)
Are you familiar with the concept of analogy? Because this is a bit like trying to explain something to Amelia Bedelia. What I’m trying to do, PB, when I “take the trivial case”, is to show you that the general principal on which you’re relying (the no-one-thing-was-enough-so-all-the-things-together-can’t-be-enough principle) is incorrect, by showing you that it is clearly incorrect in a specific case: repeating the same thing over and over. Just as in the trivial case, no one post is basis enough on which to evaluate the act: to see the harm you need to take each post in the context of all the other posts.
I hope this helps. I encourage you to read that wikipedia page about analogy, and other related articles. I can’t personally recommend Amelia Bedelia, but I know people who loved them. Certainly you might be able … analogize … to your own predilection for taking things too literally.
Boy, you make saying yes very tempting…
But I don’t think the answer is yes. I actually don’t think this is a clear yes-or-no question. Like in a related problem, where someone is trying to figure out when a heap of sand stops being a heap by removing one grain at a time, I don’t think Lys stops behaving as Satyr’s proxy at a clearly defined point as she gradually replaces one word with another in something Satyr has written.
I’m a little baffled by the underlying premise here, though. Does Lys not understand the ideas well enough herself to express them without mechanically replacing Satyr’s words with synonyms? Or has Satyr actually expressed the ideas so perfectly and clearly that no restatement in anyone else’s words (unless it is a replacement by mechanical substitution of synonyms) will so perfectly and clearly convey the idea? Neither premise is at all plausible; even considering the very best that humanity has produced, it is unlikely that any time-bound and context-free expression is the best way to convey an idea in a living discourse.
See Carleas, this is what I mean. Once more? When did I EVER post on Satyr’s behalf here? I do not recall quoting him ONCE in my entire history of being on this forum.
And as I said, you can check my IP address, and unless Satyr is flying from continent to continent daily, just to post on ILP, I don’t think you have reasonable grounds for a ban.
Then again, you can refer back to grey areas… I am arguing in favor of a banned member after all. Might as well permaban me too, after all, it is POSSIBLE that Satyr is flying from continent to continent to post on ILP. He is known to be obsessed with it, and if based on this possibility you also judge that it is probable, then bye bye Arbie, yes?
You know Saully, I once dated a womlet who made a mean omlete. With cheddar cheese, bacon, and chives stacked upon it. His time in the cave, Zarathustra did waste it. No love for a womlet and no chance to taste it.
If only someone would bake me a delicious pie for guiding you through the muck of your misunderstanding… I never said that one instance would be enough… I’m asking you how you are able to determine a pattern of misconduct if you refuse to actually look at and comment on the content of a user’s posts (and leave the determining factors for a ban (like spamming) undefined))? You say it’s based on the context of all other posts. So describe this relationship then. Surely a pattern doesn’t form out of nothing?
You say at one point Lys was clearly told to stop doing what she was doing, but what she was doing was never clearly defined in the first place as a bad thing to be doing. You then use this piece of information to form your “context”.
I can’t wait to hear how you’ll justify this, Carleas. Perhaps Mags needs to be warned for her abuse of discretion?
Really, pb, are you arguing that after posting large amounts of satyr’s quotes and being asked “stop posting satyr quotes”, she didn’t know that what she was doing was frowned upon? She then made 15 or whatever consecutive posts of satyr quotes because she didn’t quite know where she fell in between bright lines?
Satyr, the man, is a published author. Are works by published authors also not allowed?
Or is it simply a subjective banning of words based on the subjective perception of the man behind the words?
Can we not separate the ideas and the words from the ego? Are we too simple and not intellectual enough to read and form our own opinions of the thought without you overlaying your personal opinion of the man?
Do we need to have our hands held through it, to be lead to a specific bookcase with blinders on or do you really want honest discourse on your forums?
Being a “published author” is hardly a credential. I think by the time a kid graduates college almost all of them are “published authors” in some place or another. You can publish on the internet, you can self publish, you can publish something that your teacher wrote and get credit as one of the authors. This happens all the time.
If you’re trying to compare the dude to an actual, academic philosopher who has published original work in a respected journal, or who has written a book that has been reviewed and accepted by the philosophical community, then I think you’ve got an uphill battle ahead of you.
AS this will be the only time I shall comment in this thread, here
is my two cents. I don’t believe in banning and I really don’t believe in
permanent banning. The reason for this is simple. If we are old enough
to vote and old enough to get cigarettes and old enough to get guns, why
are we not old enough to ignore someone? If someone is posting some vile porno,
there are laws that make it illegal for you to post that and that is just dandy, no problem
with me because there are laws that cover you. now if you post stupid shit like several here,
we don’t ban them because face it, we can ourselves figure it out that it is stupid and we
don’t need to read it anymore. IN other words, allow adults to act like adults and
let us decide for ourselves if we want to get involved in stupid post or not. By banning you,
in essence say, we, the reader is unable or not adult enough to discern the stupidity of said post.
but we are adults. You by banning are saying, we readers are children and need help discerning what
is suitable or not suitable for us regardless of the guidelines. Your defense will be in the guidelines but
guidelines by the very word, GUIDELINE, is not an absolute and unshakable rock which cannot be
argued with. Guide… think about the word guide. You either accept the idea that us readers are
adults in which case you don’t need to involve the act of banning unless it violates some LAW in which
case you are covered. If someone calls me, a shithead, and you decide to ban, I do not want you to ban
for the very simple reason, I am an adult. Being called names as an adult is part of the territory.
I don’t need my mom to stick up for me or my wife to stick up for me or my daughter to stick up for
me and I don’t need you to ban. Let me react as an adult. I can respond or not and as you have noticed
I don’t respond when the poster is not worth it. If you ban on my account, you have taken away the
fact I am an adult and don’t really need you to act. I can deal with it. I am an ADULT.
I’m sure that all the philosophers in history that never were published in your beloved (read: institutionalized) journals and approved methods, should likewise be drawn, quartered and likewise silenced.
Consider that, if you would. Just for a moment. Think of all that would have been lost if that seal of approval was a necessary marker of intellectualism. All the ideas trashed, all the works and ideologies erased from historical record.
I have, in my possession, a book written by Satyr some years ago. It is well written, has some very interesting things to chew on. It’s probably not to your liking, however… having not been sufficiently steamed, sucked of all value by editors and regurgitated for the general dumbed down masses. Beware free thought, sirs… beware.
