ILP is fascist

I made a post of various people discussing their experiences with breaking out of the false narrative system of fake news and neoliberal conditioning, a process often referred to as “red pilling”. What these people have to say is very heartfelt, personal and respectful and is highly relevant to politics and social discourse today.

And yet, my post was summarily moved from Social Sciences to the Rant House, despite it not being a rant.

It is clear that ILP has a desire to bury this information and conceal it from as many people as possible. This is fascism 101.

ILP has made it very clear that it will protect the status quo, by censoring dissenting voices even when those voices are quite reasonable. So much of what is posted on this website is pure ranting, racism and idiotic hatred and insults, anti-Semitism for example also, but escapes the “moderators” here, they don’t care because it’s not a serious attempt to give people information which would disturb the neoliberal “elite” globalist power structure that ILP is clearly party to.

Pathetic indeed. Might as well rename this website I Hate Philosophy.

Rant house is obviously the wrong place since you are not ranting in that thread.

I believe the idea is that posting videos is not the intention of the other forums. One is supposed to articulate your positions, and videos can be an extra. But if you find threads where liberal positions that were primarily videos were allowed to stay in the main forums, then you have a good case.

I’d back you up on calling it discrimination.

Should have been sandbox.

Find a liberal thread that had the same format, link to it here, and call Carleas on his discrimination.

Here’s the rule…

Now you could spend time trying to find a liberal example that got a pass.

Or you could start threads with a thesis. Or both.

The sandbox is public view. The Rant house is not.
This is why the moving is a bit troubling.
A lot of powerful politics is expressed in that thread. Apparently, undesirable politics.

Since there was no rant in there, and since this is not the first time to put it mildly, it is hard to swallow this one.
Also given indeed the sludge of fascistic ideology and deranged racism that is being posted and allowed to fester in the philosophy forums.

Karpel,

By posting a topic explicitly about red pilling, I am obviously opening up a discussion about that. What, do I need to actually write out the sentence “please talk about your thoughts regarding this” to make it obvious that I am offering “some form of thesis for discussion”?

I had intended for users to write and comment in the topic. Just because I also post videos outlining the basic thesis and position doesn’t mean I was not trying to make a topic for discussion.

Yes, quite troubling indeed.

It would be troubling if this place was only for politics; it is quite a bit more disturbing to see such actions routinely taken on a site ostensibly dedicated to philosophy.

Your post was moved because it was a bunch of videos without any context or discussion. Those kinds of threads are regularly moved, regardless of what point the videos are being used to make. This has nothing to do with the point you were making, and everything with way you were making it.

This isn’t a site for sharing videos, it’s a site for discussing philosophy. If you are uncertain if a post would be appropriate, imagine meeting some friends at a cafe to discuss philosophy, and on arrival, your friend takes out their phone and holds it in front of you and plays a bunch of videos without saying a word. I hope you’ll agree that you and your friend aren’t discussing philosophy.

I disagree that this is more appropriate in Sandbox, though I acknowledge that it’s an edge case. First, see precedent above. Second, posting a bunch of videos is more Rant-ish than “Seeds of deep thought”-ish. Third, Rant is more discouraging than Sandbox, and this kind of post should be discouraged.

  1. Finding a liberal thread with a similar format that hasn’t been moved is one way to demonstrate bias, but there may be multiple threads taking conflicting positions that have been overlooked. SG&E is under-moderated. Given that, what is the appropriate Bayesian inference from finding a liberal thread?
  2. Another option is to note that URUZ has another thread in SG&E making basically the same point but presented in writing, which has not been and should not be moved.
  3. Also note that I’m probably not the kind of liberal you think I am, so define in advance what kind of position you expect me to be biased towards, and compare whatever whataboutist spoils you turn up to that.

So if I repost the topic with a stated clear thesis for discussion and some questions I want users to answer, you won’t censor it?

In addition to phrasing it like that, how many videos are allowed to post? One? Two? How many, where is the limit?

Posting a video is no different than posting a quoted text. It’s food for thought supporting a position, it’s giving information. So say how many videos I can use to supplement my topic to escape the censors.

Why not open a discussion by starting to discuss it. If I want to watch videos about red pilling I can go to youtube, etc. The idea is for you to present some ideas using your own words. That’s what a discussion forum is about. We can easily go elsewhere for other kinds of media and have them be in the center.

I tend to immediately ignore threads where people just quote someone or just have videos.

Finding examples of different political positions with the same format problem would be a step in demonstrating bias. And you could come back with evidence of a lot of similar missed threads to defend against bias. However it would be fair to wonder, if you couldn’t or if there were tendencies, via chance, unconscious bias or whatever. Appearance of bias is a problem, even if there is no bias. My main point was that he had no evidence of bias, but was claiming it. He was leaping to conclsuions

Which is a solid counter argument

You may be addressing the OP here, but since it comes after my quote I would just like to point out that I made my point without considering whatever kind of liberal or not you are. We have come into disagreement a couple of times where my position would likely be considered the more liberal one. Despite that I would, of course, be irritated by bias against people with political positions other than mine. And I sure wouldn’t want to see a bunch of liberal threads that started with just videos. It functions like a pop-up as far as I am concerned.

Wait, wouldn’t that be evidencethat right end positions are not being excluded?

I realize he said ILP is fascist, but I assumed that was labelling it in the more pejorative way from Carleas’ perspective.

I don’t take you for a liberal at all actually.

I disagree that the Sandbox is inappropriate. The issue of making a concentrated resource of information inaccessible to the general public is what bothers me. I would not have come in here to complain if it wasn’t for the de facto censorship.

I can make a post about how the electronic voting machines (with modems to boot!) are made by a company auspiciously named DIE-BOLD… meaning, “if you raise the topic of the US controlling the elections, you’ll be killed.”

Do any of you honestly think trump was elected or that anything on television internet or print media is real? The whole “Russia hacking out elections” is a shill for America hacking our elections.

Any responsible president would say that we have control of the internet, voting and media and that needs to stop!

ILP is basically the dark web of net neutrality - which incidentally, has the best thinkers on earth as posters. They hack YouTube views, for more views or less views to manipulate public opinion, how do some of us know whether ILP does the same.

Don’t you find it odd that mostly 60 people have been reading philosophy internet discussion forums for the last couple decades?

You folks actually believe the narrative…

And as it starts to fester …

Is it any coincidence that we have a president who distinguishes between real and fake news

It’s ALL fake news!!!

Karpel Tunnel’s response here is spot on. Again, this isn’t a link sharing site, it’s not a video sharing site, it’s a discussion site. Youtube has a comment section for discussing its videos. If you have some ideas of your own, and a video helps you to express them, then include a video. But the primary vehicle of your thoughts should be your written words.

And while it’s not policed as harshly, I would honestly say the same thing about a post where you just quote big blocks of text: most of your post, most of the ideas it conveys, should be your ideas in your words.

I’m not going to tell you a number, because there is no number. If you’re writing a post with the goal of fitting as many videos as are technically permitted, expect that it will be moved to Rant.

Karpel Tunnel, you make several good points on the topic of bias. Appearance matters, even not-quite-justified implications of bias matter. And I try to be skeptical of my own motivations, and I am sure that I fail (if I might coin a law in the spirit of Hofstadter’s that I try to live by: “Carleas’ Law: I am always more biased that I think I am, even taking into account Carleas’ Law”).

To point #3, I had started it by writing my thoughts on Redpilling, but I don’t really want to get into that here. Suffice it to say that I agree all bias is bad, even if it’s unintentional and no matter whether or not I agree with the viewpoints it burdens.

That’s not what ILP is here for. Youtube hosts those videos, they are there for the general public, any free blogging platform can be used to create lists of videos. Those things may not get the information you want in front of people who come to ILP, but my impression is that people don’t come to ILP for the lists of Redpilling videos curated by URUZ. And they shouldn’t, that’s not why ILP exists, and it’s not how ILP best serves its users.

The point I made in an odd way, was agreement with carleas, to point out that my last post could easily be posted in a couple forums here - censorship is not the issue, it’s format.

What a fucking joke. You actually expect people to take this seriously, don’t you.

You must have a very low opinion of your users.

I have seen plenty of topics and posts at ILP that are simply sharing information and nothing else. No commentary. And you have no idea if and when something like that will spur a conversation to take place, or how that information will be taken by someone.

But apparently I am subject to special censorship rules where when I do that same thing, on a very important and pressing issue of relevance no less and which therefore it would be reasonably expected to quickly produce some responses and conversation (my topic shot up to over 100 views in less than a day), I get silenced and the expectation that I phrase things in just the right way so as to make it OBVIOUS that I want to start a conversation. Yeah, because apparently it is not obvious enough. Unreal.

So ok. I can easily do that, it is just a waste of my fucking time. I have to re-post my entire topic, go through each video and upload it again, and make sure to put some nice flashy “my own thoughts” at the top and some “please let me know what you think about…” too just for good measure. What a fucking joke.

I kept thinking joker wanted to start a discussion with that thread about his surrogate activities but he didn’t. He just wanted to post videos. But I don’t know what forum it was in.

  1. i don’t see any conversation in that thread. 2) threads that are only videos tend to attract conversations less than other threads, sometimes nothing. 2) you want to start a conversation`? Start a conversation.

Which means that you had a good title and it made people curious. And then no one participated. It is a lazy and ineffective way to start a conversation.

You could start with a post describing your position on an issue, justify that position, then refer to the video and why it is relevant to your position. What it adds to what you wrote. You don’t have to bombard people with 8 videos. You could use one video. People can talk for a year’s worth of commentary over a single position or single video (in places like youtube).

The idea is not for us to discuss things you find, but for us to have a discussion with you. If you have something to say, say it.

We can all find books, videos, articles on topics where what is presented is done mroe professsionally and or dramatically than we can. But people come to a discussion forum to interact with how other people think. To interact, basically, with believers, believers on the ground.

By coincidence, Slate Star Codex has a post relevant to this question up yesterday. The gist is this:

We have limited moderation resources, and even assuming that posting a bunch of videos is equally as bad as posting a bunch of text quotes, coming down hard on the videos is an efficient use of resources. If you know that every time you post a bunch of videos it’s going to get moved to Rant, you’ll stop posting videos threads. Since you’re watching so many videos, you probably don’t read much, and so probably won’t substitute crappy text-quote threads where you used to do crappy video threads, and so the net moderation burden falls, less crappy posts with the same moderator effort.

This supports my position: 100 views and zero replies means 100 percent of those 100 people didn’t want to participate in a thread where you post a bunch of videos.

I can tell you now that such a thread would also be moved to Rant.

This thread is hilariously dumb :laughing:

No. ILP is not fascist, nor is anyone getting silenced, the videos are still on youtube, they’re not even the poster’s own videos…

Even if moving the videos could be said be a fascist move, the poster isn’t even having any of their own speech silenced (the videos are still unaffected on youtube, ready to be found and listened to anyone so chooses), and even if the poster were having their own speech moved, it’s not silencing you to simply move your speech to a less accessible area of the forum (and only less accessible for viewers who aren’t signed in to contribute to the forum anyway) - the speech was still freely given, unpunished, and still exists unchanged.

The act of reducing your potential audience, is at best a “relative” infraction on freedom of speech, but in a standard way when it comes to a privately owned, themed forum, which has rules set up in line with the owner’s preferences.

Are you going to argue that private property is a violation of freedom of speech? #-o

You are free to contribute to this private property, no infraction there. Should all privately owned and moderated forums be no different from free-for-all public forums with no themes? Your speech would be far more lost in the noise of all other kinds of speech. Any “relative” infraction on freedom of speech, such as in a moderated themed forum, actually works in your favour in this regard! You are still free to decline to concord with the moderation of the theme and freely choose to stay silent, you are free to go somewhere else more to your liking and speak there, you are free to make your own place that accords with your own rules, or even try to be heard in a public unthemed environment - you are pretty much maximally free here… What the hell do you actually think Fascism is?

This thread/complaint is nothing more than a toddler’s tantrum that you’re not getting their way in every way all the time. Pathetic.