Forum Philosophy Update

Serendipper · February 25, 2018, 5:08am

Phyllo, is this an insult? How can we discern intent?

Serendipper · February 25, 2018, 5:22am

Yeah, see? Banning and censorship is not necessary. People will figure out how to get along.

Maybe I’m a little too sensitive about being called stupid and maybe in the future I’ll lighten up about it and maybe Mr R will realize that calling people names isn’t perceived by others in the same way he thinks it is and he’ll lighten up as well. Maybe it’s a function of how determined the community is to hold itself together.

We need people to disagree with us because if everyone agreed with me, I’d have nothing to do here. Having someone to take the opposite side lets me determine what it is that I think. We need diversity, but we also have to get along somehow.

Serendipper · February 25, 2018, 5:54am

Authority is given by the people.

Eternal banishment is eternal banishment.

You don’t have the right to control what the public has access to. If this forum were not visible to the public, then I’d agree with you.

Some forums have private sections that are not public and within those, free speech doesn’t exist. (Though it’s usually opposite wherein you have more freedom in the private section than the public.)

I think I’d have a right to be free from starvation and illness before I’d have a right to be free from insult, and yet I do not have those rights. First bring me free food and healthcare so that I may exercise my RIGHT to be free from hunger and malady and then we’ll talk about my right to be free from insulting remarks and information.

Disruption isn’t speech; it’s action.

If the board owner has made his board public, then obviously he does not own it or it wouldn’t be public. You cannot have the public’s ear and also claim expectation of privacy. The law has gotten around that by claiming lack of scarcity in that someone can easily go somewhere else, but I disagree on that.

Plus, I am a property owner in the truest sense of the word “property” and I have no rights. Any idiot can come on my property then sue the hell out of me for something that has nothing to do with me. And my property is in no way public.

Serendipper · February 25, 2018, 6:03am

That’s a good point.

So what rules do you have to have?

Why does he need to get a warning from mods instead of members? Because the members have no power? Yes they do… they can collectively ignore or ridicule or just point out that it’s not an argument.

You don’t want to be a daddy and I don’t want another one.

Serendipper · February 25, 2018, 6:12am

Did you make your software public? Did you make it possible to download and install your software without first paying you? If so, it’s public. If not, then not.

Pirate sites can offer it for free, but you didn’t sanction the pirate site and therefore you did not make the software public. It’s only public if you make it so.

Music is played over the airwaves and is therefore public. I can copy and listen all I want, but I cannot sell it.

Serendipper · February 25, 2018, 9:51am

I think its odd that the ones arguing most vehemently for authoritarian control are the ones stridently breaking the most rules. It’s advocating for one’s own punishment and, not only is that hard to understand, but it also seems not very reasonable.

Phyllo, you said things that you regret as if you should have been issued demerits for the errors which places you likewise in the category of having “bewildering” motivations. Why would you want to give yourself warning points?

The rules state:

[i]However, we are a community first, and as a community we must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness. A community based on the exchange of ideas cannot persist when individuals are attacked as individuals for the ideas they express. Anything that inhibits the community will prevent us from our purposes.

Because ideas are so central to a person’s life, they can contain deep significance. Enshrining the critical consideration of all ideas while maintaining a civil discourse can be difficult. Therefore, radical positions must be approached delicately. Certainly, philosophy is a story of radical ideas, and so such ideas are welcome, but the radicalism of an idea must be balanced with a proportionate care in expression. The line between radicalism and antagonism is thin.

ILP is its members, and the ideas they bring with them. This site is a community. When that community falters, ILP falters in its purpose. The actions of its members define its tone, its quality, and its utility as a haven for the ideas it holds dear. Let your actions here reflect that ethos.[/i]

More specifically:

[i]2.1 Show courtesy to other posters at all times: no flaming. Insulting, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards others will result in a warning.

2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued.[/i]

Holy cow to that last one! Let’s read that again: If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them a warning may be issued.

How is everyone here not banned? Kinda feels like that moment when Jesus recommended that the one without sin should cast the first stone

But really… why are the ones harping about the rules also most-unable to keep the rules?

And how has Mr Reasonable been here for 11 years while accumulating 25,000 posts yet still be unable to adhere to the rules which he so enthusiastically defends?

I realize this post may be construed as demeaning and whatnot, but how else am I to convey the conundrum?

This is reminiscent of the gun debate wherein the ones advocating for stricter control are, statistically, the ones more likely to need it. I’m curious why that is.

Karpel_Tunnel · February 25, 2018, 1:16pm

I wish this kind of pattern was responded to. Not banning, but something like a forum consensus, to, well, shame.

I have found this thread interesting and have learned that:

two checker players, playing a checker game could not mutually decide to change these arbritrary rules in the middle of a game. Decide say that Kings can jump over two squares. No not possible. More relevantly the ‘game’ of discussing philosohical ideas cannot have its rules changed over time by the people having these discussions. We simply cannot change that. In ten years ilovephilosophy must have the exact same social rules as it does now. It is physically and socially impossible to ‘change games in the middle’ of this long, extended set of games.
stirring debate is a problem in a philosophy discussion forum.
one should break rules in specific but argue against the freedom to do so in general
Carleas is being victimized in this thread
that while Patterns of interaction that are normal in nearly every social, professional and leisure activity are wrong here. I.e. shaming. We should not use ‘pointing out patterns of interaction we dislike’ as members of this community. Though advocates of not doing this have had a tendency to do it themselves here.

phyllo · February 25, 2018, 2:15pm

If I break the rules then I ought to get penalized. That’s only fair.

I regret posts where I was manipulative and where I let my frustration get the better of my judgement.

It does appears that you are “bewildered” by my ethics, morality and motivations. The fact that I want the current forum rules to be enforced seems to be “bewildering”.

phyllo · February 25, 2018, 3:02pm

The forum rules are not being enforced so it hardly matters if those rules are replaced by new rules which are not going to be enforced.

Furthermore, you don’t have a problem with breaking the written rules, so really the only rules in effect would those that “the community” gets together on at any moment. These “rules” (for lack of a better word) are going to be vague and undefined. Right?

Since there are only about 20 active members here, in practice the shaming would be done by two or three people.

phyllo · February 25, 2018, 3:21pm

phyllo wrote:

But I like Serendipity see nothing wrong with you breaking forum rules and playing the game differently than Carleas would like.
Then you don't accept the rules of the game and you are playing a different game - a game where you have decided on the rules. And you have decided without the approval of the other players.

I don't want those changes. I didn't agree to those changes. I signed up with specific rules in place.

So where does that leave me in this game?
That’s a good point.

So what rules do you have to have?

Why are you asking me another question? I asked for an answer from Karpel and you.

iambiguous · February 25, 2018, 8:17pm

Here I would need you to note what that advice actually was. That way I could comment on its applicability given the existential parameters of my own life here and now. And the extent to which I have the option to act on it with respect to conflicting value judgments in the is/ought world.

Instead, you note this:

phyllo:

For example, someone might tell me that he has back pain and I suggest that he tries Yoga. If he comes back and says that he tried 4 classes over the span of a month it didn't help, then I know he took some action. Unfortunately it did not work.
If he says that he has back pain but he makes no mention of my Yoga suggestion, then I would suspect that for some reason Yoga does not interest him. I might suggest something else like Pilates or Feldenkreis.

This is embedded far more in the either/or world. Many do in fact suffer from back pain. And these methods have in fact been demonstrated to be effective in relieving that pain.

It can all be more or less measured if the options are pursued.

On the other hand, you could tell a woman that if she does not want to risk a possible unwanted pregnancy, she should avoid sex altogether. Or engage only in oral sex or anal sex or masturbation.

But if she chooses to engage in vaginal sex and practices safe sex and still becomes pregnant, is it rational/virtuous to abort the pregnancy?

How is that calculated with any degree of finality? What advice could someone like Moreno offer to her?

phyllo:

And after a while, I get tired and bored of hearing about it. That's especially true when it's a one way discussion of his problems. I would probably like some advice and sympathy about my problems. But if we constantly have to talk about his back pain, I don't get what I need out of the interaction.

What could be more discomfiting for a man or woman then to confront the question “how ought one to live?” and come to conclude this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Since you are not drawn and quartered yourself when confronting conflicting goods in a No God world, I would not expect you to grasp just how discomfiting that frame of mind can be.

On the other hand, what if you come to embody it yourself?

Then you too could seek out possible remedies.

iambiguous · February 25, 2018, 8:48pm

Yes, but this “social mammal” construes “I” here in the is/ought world as revolving largely around this:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Here, shame/shaming is deemed to be an existential/political contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

In other words, while I come into this world with the genetic capacity to feel and/or inflict shame, that is always situated out in a particular world awash in any number of conflicting memetic narratives.

Consequently, to what extent can philosophers pin all of this down such that shame/shaming is understood wholly, essentially, objectively, naturally, deontologically.

Why? Because in recognizing that my views here are in turn [subjectively/subjunctively] just existential contraptions, I acknowledge right from the start that I once rejected them before and, given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge, I may well reject them again.

Indeed, with respect to identity, value judgments and political economy, and given how grim, how bleak and how utterly cynical my frame of mind is here and now, a part of me would very much like to “think up” a way to jettison all that.

Then I too might engender the sort of “comfort and consolation” that I construe to be embodied in the objectivists among us. I have access to none of that here and now.

Given the moral and political interactions of mere mortals in a No God world, I honestly do believe “in my head” that “I” live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that segues eventually into oblivion.

And if some are able to convince themselves that their own interactions with others revolve around an essentially meaningful world that segues eventually into one or another rendition of immortality and salvation then, hey, come in, who “wins” in the end here?

Note to others:

Is this actually true?!!

Still, let him bring this accusation down to earth by noting behaviors that often come into conflict over conflicting goods and we can broach the components of our respective philosophies more, say, substantively.

Karpel Tunnel:

See above.
How can it bring things down: since you are not abusive - at least from what I have seen - can string together rational arguments. You can lock people on you. It can seem like an interactive dialogue will take place. But all discussions will end up with you repeating your assertions and focusing on what you think and what the other person’s statement did or did not do FOR YOU. Rather than some other options like seeing what you are doing does to others. When you comment on this, it is always the implicit smug: I seem to make objectivists angry, uncomfortable. Not being able to imagine that there are effects and problematics ones from your behavior that have nothing to do with other people’s weaknesses and your bravery for having shucked off objective values. Not being able to imagine how what makes you uncomfortable affects the dynamic and the content of your discussions and your inability to, ironically enough, see the discussions accurately from other viewpoints than your own - hence your repeated, I make you uncomfortable smugness. How convenient.

Okay, all of that may well be true. But to the best of my knowledge no one here is required to read my repetitious groots. Let alone respond to them and be made fools of.

Not unlike, for example, you?

phyllo · February 25, 2018, 8:52pm

I’m not going to go rummaging through thousands of posts. It ought to be easy enough for you to remember if you took any advice offered on this forum. Since you can’t I think that the answer is ‘no’.

Another one of your side shifts. My point was that there are reasons why people stop talking to you which have nothing to do with being uncomfortable with the philosophical contents of your posts.

What could be more discomfiting for a man or woman then to confront the question “how ought one to live?” and come to conclude this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Since you are not drawn and quartered yourself when confronting conflicting goods in a No God world, I would not expect you to grasp just how discomfiting that frame of mind can be.

I am reminded of the end of ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’:

Note the difference between you and him.

iambiguous · February 25, 2018, 9:42pm

So, we’ll just have to take your word for it.

Or let’s start from scratch:

Pertaining to the OP, what advice would you offer me when pointing out that the conflicting narratives being debated here are embedded in assumptions that can be construed as reasonable given a particular premise regarding the creation of rules in discussion groups of this sort?

Is there a way of “acting” so as to demonstrate the most rational argument being made?

But my point is always in making a distinction between discussions that can be resolved regarding actual facts embedded in this thread, and discussions in which folks may well terminate an exchange because they do in fact feel uncomfortable confronting the possiblity that their own arguments here are just existential contraptions – and not reflections of the optimal or the only rational conclusion.

But that’s up to each participant to mull over.

What could be more discomfiting for a man or woman then to confront the question “how ought one to live?” and come to conclude this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Since you are not drawn and quartered yourself when confronting conflicting goods in a No God world, I would not expect you to grasp just how discomfiting that frame of mind can be.

But that is just a myth! In reality, flesh and blood human beings actually are confronted with social, political and economic contexts/interactions in which conflicting goods are very much bombarding them.

Reactions to Trumpworld for example.

Can they be resolved philosophically?

I consider that. And here and now it seems reasonable that the manner in which I articulate my dilemma above still makes sense.

How does it not make sense to you? to others?

Again, what else is there here but to bring it down to earth? In much the manner that the OP is discussed and debated here on this thread. I merely note the distinction between those who do seem convinced that others are in fact, among other things, “idiots” for not seeing things their way, and folks like me.

No fucking dilemmas for them right?

Instead, they are able to nestle down into one or another fundamental frame of mind that sustains the sort of psychological comfort and consolation that is simply not within my reach here and now.

phyllo · February 25, 2018, 9:57pm

We will have to, since you can’t or won’t say.

Your posts are entirely about your distinctions, your dilemma, your points and your navel lint.

You wonder why people leave.

Camus was writing about his experiences and his understanding of the world. That’s how writing works. Why do I need to say it?

Serendipper · February 26, 2018, 3:15am

Yes but why is it only fair if an authority punishes you rather than your peers? Again, you don’t want to be a daddy, but you claim to need one. Why?

It’s bewildering because you are advocating for your own punishment from an authority figure. It’s not bewildering because you have ethics, but it’s bewildering that you would need an authority to enforce your own ethics (as if you cannot control your own self).

Again I ask: Why do the ones breaking the most rules advocate strongest for the enforcement of rules from an authority?

And the corollary is that the ones arguing against authoritarian control seem to need it least and be most-able to control themselves (ie Karpel Tunnel).

phyllo · February 26, 2018, 3:36am

You’re not advocating having any set rules or any set process. You’re advocating some vague shifting “community standards” which are enforced when a mini mob descends on a poor slob and makes him feel guilty and ashamed.

I prefer a book of rules and some guys with jackboots. That way at least I know where I stand.

Apparently you need your peers to shame you into conforming. What are you so self-righteous about?

Serendipper · February 26, 2018, 3:50am

phyllo:

Then you don’t accept the rules of the game and you are playing a different game - a game where you have decided on the rules. And you have decided without the approval of the other players.
I don't want those changes. I didn't agree to those changes. I signed up with specific rules in place.

So where does that leave me in this game?
That’s a good point.

So what rules do you have to have?
Why are you asking me another question? I asked for an answer from Karpel and you.

Why are you asking me another question?

I can’t answer your question until I ascertain more information from you. I have to know if those rules you have in mind would exist in nature without authority. But now that I’ve told you that, it’s impossible for me to be assured that your answer will be innocent and objective since you’re likely to seek rules that cannot exist without enforcement of authority just to undermine my reasoning because too often what is important is winning the debate; not determining what is best.

This is probably why Carleas included the rule: If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them a warning may be issued. Because all other violations apparently stem from that. A person will stop at nothing to prevent conceding defeat which is the immorality that often engenders insults et al and people dogmatically digging-in often causes reasonable people to leave, which threatens speech-maximization.

It’s imperative to the functioning of the community to adhere to the ethos of fair-mindedness in debate because if cheating is rampant, then no one will decide to play and the community devolves into a monkey house. Ethics is not something that can be mandated since the unethical will always find subtle and ingenious ways around the rules and no one is perfectly ethical anyway.

There is an Alan Watts story where an emperor decided to engrave the rules on pottery so the community can know the law, but his advisers told him that’s the worst thing he could do because then it will be a litigious society of those engineering ways around the law and reduce judges to inflexible machines merely dispensing prescribed justice.

Serendipper · February 26, 2018, 4:01am

If the rules are not enforced, then why are you here? You said you only agreed to be here if there were rules. If you say that the rules that exist are not enforced, then you’ve undermined your own reasoning for being here. The contract is null and void, yet you adhere to it.

If you say you were fooled, then why did it take 8 years to figure that out? Surely you have witnessed countless transgressions that were not recompensed, yet you decided to stay. How come?

How can you say that you’re here only because there are rules in place, but do not leave upon noticing that the rules are not enforced? Cognitive dissonance? What else can explain that?

Serendipper · February 26, 2018, 4:19am

I guess that’s one way of putting it, but I’m not arguing against having rules, but that the community should determine and enforce them. But obviously the community can’t have the keys to the kingdom and an authority will have to handle violent offenders who disrupt in action. I’m not advocating a lawless anarchy per se, but more involvement of the community concerning the definition and punishment of offensiveness. Although the analogy of mob rule is succinct, it isn’t quite accurate.

I want to address that a bit more. Suppose you rescue a baby from a burning building and a mini mob arrives to ridicule you. Would you feel ashamed? Of course not. You would only feel ashamed if you actually did something shameful and were called-out by the mini mob.

A proverb is no proverb until life has illustrated it - keats. So you cannot feel shame until your life as illustrated how your action was shameful.

Yeah, that seems reasonable and the lawyers agree “Tell me the letter of the law that I may find ways around it”

Well, it’s more the thought of my peers shaming me that prevents me from acting shamefully in the first place, so I don’t need them except in my own mind.

I read on youtube:

“you’re stupid!”
“do you often talk to stupid people?”
no reply.

So I think “Do I want to be the guy calling someone stupid?” No, that’s stupid! “Slander is the tool of the loser”, so why would I want to do that? I don’t need anyone to tell me not to act like an idiot… it’s just something that I intrinsically do not want to do, though I don’t always succeed lol

Probably lots of stuff… unfortunately. I think it’s just part of existing in a duality.