I think he’s saying his disagrees with the canned, talk-radio brand of American conservatism, and that he was baited into behavior that would get him banned by someone who holds those views and is able to ban him for a day. I don’t know whether or not this is true, but if I’m not mistaken, that’s the gist of his post.
Well, why not just say that? His post in unintelligible.
Maybe he’s challenging people’s comprehension skills, or maybe english isn’t his first language. People prefer conciseness in varying degrees.
Cassie, my comment on that thread was meant simply as “Okay, you have made about 10 posts on this thread, all alone on the thread, and I don’t strongly disagree with any of them, but what is there to do about it?” or as I literally said, “So, what now?”
I was the only other person on the thread. I merely asked a question of what else to do after seeing what banshii sees. I doubt that my question had anything at all to do with any mod reaction (although, never can tell).
Carleas, its true I don’t know him from the start, but since I’ve been here, he’s been banned for the third time! I believe he said he has been a really really old member here since 2004, and that would explain his attachment to this forum and not an irrational obsession conferring an idol status to this forum.
And what I can’t understand is how someone like Mr. Reasonable openly “openly” is exhorting to stop analyzing philosophy texts with statements like philosophy has nothing to do with value judgements and living, and in that sense preventing scholarly discussion and exchange, yet no Mod. gives him a single warning!? Not a word against him even. This board shows no stance on his position.
I don’t want to see Rational banned or anything, he has his own view, but I am pointing out Disruption of philosophical discussion cannot be the reason some are permabanned; for if that’s the case, your reason is already invalidated by some members openly exhorting others to stop thinking in whatever subject that interests them.
Observer/Hesperus/Banshii disrupted nothing is all I know, and you can’t deny this in these names he’s tried to participate here.
I also dont understand how you check for reform in someone when you condemn them forever? Are humans like cats whose chance expires after their 9 lives are up?
A hypothetical question. If Satyr is permanently not welcome here, his copy-pasted ideas would be allowed?
I read someone on his forum was willing to do that for him, although he never asked himself.
So is it him you block or his ideas too?
Well, after Humean called Banshii a Troll, you can understand how your comment came across to me; after 10 posts, you say a so what and relatively speaking, that looks more like trolling than someone posting his ideas.
Oh well.
At most that would be harassing, but a “So, what now?” isn’t even that.
Trolling is the constant relentless effort to gather a group into someone’s net (of whatever type).
It is similar to proselytizing. Satyr could easily be accused of trolling simply because he does nothing but proclaim “truth for the world to see”, no reasoning or philosophy being expressed… endlessly. He seems to be merely a preacher out to gather a flock and nothing else.
No, that’s not the only definition of trolling. Trolling is also making trivial remarks.
It is similar to disruption by trying to nullify something with content with unproductive lightness. Making light of things is a way of dismissal.
So does everyone who have their own position to present.
So do you.
Again, it isn’t simply enough to say so, when you make no case for it.
Whatever happened to “Clarify, Verify”…
He puts his ideas for discussions; not his fault if no one is upto rational arguments.
Firstly, I am not the one prosecuting him. I am just now explaining to you what I see has happened and I’m not going to argue over the definitions of trolling vs harassing.
I was all up for rational argumentation concerning various ideas that he presents. I agree with many of them (and frankly can pretty much guarantee that I know him even better than he knows himself), but he is so hyper-sensitive that if I make the slightest sign of confidence, he goes ballistic and attacks, not what I say, but me. He certainly isn’t alone in that regard, but it is frowned on no matter who is doing it to whom (possible exception of certain mods).
He doesn’t do the “rational debating” thing, and certainly not against anyone of confidence, whether right or wrong. In that thread, all he had to do was discuss in a friendly manner. I hadn’t attacked him or what he said at all. But the real problem is that he has been merely preaching for so long and tried to deceive with sock-puppets and gender bending so often, that he didn’t get the chance this time. It was too late. It really had nothing to do with me. I have never complained of him being here even when he was doing the gender bender thing. I don’t personally care and didn’t say a word to anyone about it, until after they already spotted him.
He apparently has been banned due to long-term proselytizing aggravated by being too sensitive to disagreement and counter discussion leading to nothing but derailing ad hom.
I’m no longer participating on this forum anymore. I have all I can stand of your temporary bans here just because somebody gets their feathers roughled.
If people are so damn worried about their feelings perhaps they need a new hobby other than philosophy.
He is an old member; he antedates me. And after his initial ban, we welcomed him back on several occasions, only to regret it in short order when he inevitably puts down everyone he deals with. He’s now been banned longer than he’s been welcome. That makes it seem like obsession.
But exhorting people to stop thinking, especially in the Social forums, is not disruptive. One can advocate for a complex and orderly philosophical framework in a disruptive way, andone can advocate for chaos civilly.
That’s an interesting hypothetical, and the answer is not straightforward. Given that you’re specifically criticizing permabans, I take it you mean to implicitly endorse short term bans. But a ban of any length is meaningless if the person banned can simply post-by-proxy right away. When someone is banned, we immediately ban new accounts they create to circumvent the ban. It seems there is strong reason to ban an account that acts as someone else’ account. But of course, quoting someone can be done in degrees.
A bright line seems to be quotes that a banned user has written in direct response to an ongoing discussion on ILP, and which are posted by a proxy user in the discussion where the banned user would have placed them, will earn a good faith proxy user a warning, and bans as become warranted. Grey areas will be fact sensitive.
Let’s talk about the abuse of all that temporary banning going on.
What do you have to say on that fearless leader?
I can understand that he’s invested a lot in this forum since 2004, and of course you have put your time and thoughts and energy and have had relations both positive and negative here with people for over such a long time, you are going to feel related to this forum. I wouldn’t see that as an obsession.
Its in his absence after being banned, and when he can’t defend himself or his ideas, and knowing full well that he can’t, there are some who make accusations about him - now I would call that obsessed and personalizing, after the person isn’t present himself. These are instigating provocations that make one want to come here and defend their name, that gives the appearance of an obession. Such instigating provocations are never factored and the one-sidedness of someone’s coming here takes the appearance of an obession. There’s a lot of objectivity and behind-the-scenes that is being lost, in this particular case.
No. The statement that philosophy should not be about value judgements and the exhortation to stop thinking was in the Philosophy section when Mr.Reasonable was a ‘Smears’. Observer/Satyr was reminding him of it in the Rant section, and then Reasonable continued to repeat the same in the Rant section.
I do not wish to reduce this issue to some children’s playground tit-for-tat, but I feel there is a serious flaw here - one of double-standards. You are also sending out the message that a soft violence is more acceptable if the disruption is not visibly perceptible. Someone can say “philosophy is not valuing” and “there should be no analysis of texts” and “stop thinking, and valuing as this is not real living”, etc.in a ‘philosophy section’ - is apparently less of a disruption of a Philosophy forum’s goal and purpose of existence, than someone impersonally but vociferously challenging statements like that and is banned for it. The destructive streak to the purpose of this forum is more in the former than in the latter.
Although I understand this is your forum and its not your job to convince anybody, I am sorry to say that I am not satisfied with the justification you provided as it doesn’t hold water. Fact is someone was just posting their ideas and did not even"intend" to disrupt anything and got banned for it.
I am someone who acknowledges there is a grain of goodness in everybody as you claimed to do too, and no one should be condemned as some sort of Criminal forever, much less for something he did not even do yet.
That is just bad.
p.s. I hope you know I have no personal vested interest in any particular individual, and Satyr/Reasonable, etc. is just being a good example of a phenomenon.
[/quote]
I’m afraid you have misunderstood my question.
I am not referring to “tit-for-tat responses of the banned user being carried over by a proxy user here”, but someone who is both a member here as well as a member on KT wishing voluntarily to Re-present the ideas of the banned user here as food for thought. A whole thread just containing the “Ideas” alone of the banned user and not his personal responses.
So my question was would the export of his ideas here, be banned too?
Thanks for your time.
Firstly he is no criminal (yet) to be “prosecuted”.
Same. I was explaining how your comments came across to me in the context that was set by Humean.
When you are repeatedly banned, and you know you are going to be banned again, then you share as much as you can in the limited time, and it appears as though you are not open for debating when the posts come all together. I’m sure you understand.
And I told you, I only inferred it that way about you because of Humean’s remark. I have nothing personal against you, as much as I’m sure he couldn’t care about personalizing it with you either - his short shrift “deal with the ideas or be silent if you have nothing to say” says as much and not an attack on ‘you’.
I’ve been reading this thread for cassie, but this was just BAM, there.
Reposting for posterity.
I would. It’s odd that anyone be concerned with a forum for as long as Satyr has been concerned with this forum. It’s unusual for even a person who has been welcome here to still be here after so long. For him to have been unwelcome for most of the last half decade and still unable to let go of the connection, that’s strange. It’s obsessive.
And of course it’s an exaggeration to say he’s had no contact with us over that time, he’s never really left us alone (obsession). And that’s what keeps people talking about him: he keeps inserting himself into the minds of those here. But it seems disingenuous to say that he should have a right to return and defend what name he has here when the common reason his name is spoken is because he keep returning here.
I disagree. I disagree, first, that Satyr’s participation and disruption was ever impersonal. I’ve had my back-and-forths with him, I know how he engages and I know that it is essentially always personal. Rational people can disagree about that, but because the actions of the ILP staff take place in the perception of his conduct as personal, I will take that as the premise in addressing Smears’ participation.
A personal attack in defense of an idea draws a personal response. So when someone inserts that into a discussion, the level of the discussion descends twice: once when the comment is made, and once when there is a response that is a personal attack. And since this second personal attack will tend to provoke yet further personal attacks, the conversation quickly becomes a trade of insults, and the ideas are lost. On the other hand, when someone posts a general exhortation to stop thinking, the response is not the same. The topic may veer off course, but it might also just shift to the practical implications of the discussion at hand, which is not necessarily a bad thing. And while two parties engaged in a heated insult exchange are likely to continue it in other threads where they participate, someone drawn off course by an exhortation not to think in one thread is not likely to lose focus elsewhere.
Given your clarification, I think I did understand it, and I apologize if my response was not clear or complete.
As I said, quoting is a matter of degrees. Let’s take the bright-line rule from the other extreme. Suppose Steven Pinker was a huge ass on web forums, was incredibly disruptive to every conversation on the site, and contributed nothing to any conversation other than flooding insults. Would someone still be able to quote Pinker’s Language Instinct in a conversation about language or psychology? It seems the answer must be ‘yes’: the book’s ideas are valuable, and they could be used to inform and advance a discussion. Even though Steven Pinker was banned, his ideas wouldn’t be, and even the words he used to express them wouldn’t be. Here, the person quoting the work wouldn’t be acting as a proxy for Steven Pinker, but merely attributing ideas to their source in an appropriate context.
But again, this is the extreme. Maybe starting a thread that reads like a blog post written by Pinker would be treated differently (is Pinker likely to come here personally and defend attacks on his ideas that are posted in response?). And we aren’t talking about Pinker, so the balance of the value of access to the ideas as expressed by the banned member against the likelihood that verbatim inclusion will lead to a disruption may come out differently. As I said, it will be fact sensitive.
But ask this: what’s the goal in posting the words of a banned member? Is it to discuss philosophy? Or is it to toe the line? It looks a lot like an attempt to find a loophole in site moderation; it looks like participation in bad faith. If that’s the case, it’s not likely to be given much leeway when it comes to decisions of whether or not to moderate. Users have pretty broad freedom to discuss how they like, we aren’t going to sweat a decision to come down on someone who’s intentionally testing the boundaries.
He’s as “obsessed” as the other members are on your forum here who cannot stop taking his name even after he has gone and is permabanned. Doesn’t that strike you as equally obsessive?
That’s not a fact. He returns here only because his name and his views are taunted and mocked and his relentless “passion” to set straight his ideas and expose the flaws and motivations behind those making those caricatures does not equate to obsession.
As someone who has posted 5000+ posts or more, I can see why someone can feel this forum is much theirs as it is yours. And the sentiments attached to how it once was and what it has become now is as parallel as someone passionately reflecting over the state of our world, what it was once and what it has come to now. Somtimes with rage, sometimes with melancholy. This is normal human nature.
From such a view, one could even say, Life is an obsession.
You have no proof this has occurred at all in the Philosophy section, whereas Reasonable’s statements were so.
No proof anything was disrupted.
Satyr’s rants were only restricted to the rant section. And yet some past incident is used to justify present circumstance, which I think is absurd.
So someone constantly exhorting others in different ways to stop the pursuit of thinking and doing philosophy is tolerated on a philosophy forum, than the one Impersonally attacking such a “mentality”? wow.
No, that isn’t the case, where this exhortation happens in any thread certain subjects and certain authors are discussed. There’s a taboo and systemic discouragement and ‘booing’ happening here on certain areas that is really not in the spirit of open-minded philosophy.
Well, Pinker is a great topic. And this what he had to say on the subject of swearing and profanity:
Pinker wrote:
https://www.academia.edu/524061/Sexuality_and_Russian_Obscene_Language
"Profanity is way of getting the other to think an unpleasant thought."
Scientifically speaking, Profanity is only a “philosophical means” towards engaging with truths and facts that are hard to digest or confront, and so understandably feared and ostracized like a ‘pollution’.
This is not making it personal, but has a whole evolutionary history.
I was trying to ascertain if a thinker and his idea can be separated, and two, if the thinker is banned, can his ideas be objectively separated and engaged with - and you seemed to say yes. Then you also say, its finding a loophole into moderation. But if the awareness of thoughts and knowledge alone is the objective, then the focus on other motives is you personalizing things, I feel.
Ideas should be let to be expressed is my feeling.
Of course the decision is yours.
Yes.
As I said, I took the premise that Satyr’s comments were personal, that they attacked not the mentality but the person espousing it. Given that Satyr’s comments were taken to be personal, while Smears’ were not, it is reasonable to apply a moderation philosophy that forbids personal attacks to Satyr and not to Smears.
This is is a non-sequitur. We don’t ban for profanity and we don’t consider profanity to be a personal attack.
My point was to note that it can be both.
- Again, I take as a premise here that banning someone, for some length of time, is ever a reasonable moderation measure. If that’s the case, then prohibiting blatant circumvention of that ban through the use of a proxy is, by hypothesis, reasonable.
- As you note, ideas and people are different, and discussing a person’s ideas while they are banned, and even quoting that person in the expressions of their ideas, is not necessarily circumventing a ban, and should be allowed.
The point is that these two principles can be in tension, thus my two bright-line cases: - an account whose sole purpose is to circumvent a ban by acting as a proxy for a banned user and quoting the banned user’s replies to ongoing discussions is clearly prohibited.
- quoting a famous work of a recognized scholar in a field in a discussion on that field is clearly not prohibited, even if that scholar is currently banned from ILP.
Cases in the real world will fall in between these two, and the outcome will be fact-specific. The answer to the question, “Can you quote a banned user?”, is “it depends.”
Hmm, since this thread was started about me, I feel like I should say a few words.
There.
What are you really saying about Observer then?
So… what did you conclude in this particular case?
In a general case, how are you determining a false motive?