The ideas she was posting are still all over ILP. Those ideas aren’t gone, and they aren’t banned. They’re apparent in every forum, and in almost every thread, advanced by the many users here who accept and advocate the ideas that user was posting.
Which proves that ILP does not ban specific ideas (or, strictly: which refutes what appears to be your only evidence for the contention otherwise).
That could be. But I don’t sell yourself short, nor them long.
Futhermore, Lyssa and Satyr’s posts they made prior to being banned are still available here (albeit Satyr’s appear under the username “Lollipop King”). If the hypothesis that we ban ideas is correct, wouldn’t we have removed all of the posts containing ideas?
The problem here is in defining philosophy. Personally, I don’t find existentialism to be very philosophical. I don’t find most religion to be particularly philosophical. Many would consider both subjects squarely in the philosophical purview. On the other hand, I think physics and math have quite a lot to do with philosophy. I think rhetoric and policy and economics are philosophical endeavors. Many would disagree.
We try to accept all comers. That means essentially everyone will see something on here to which they’ll think, “that’s not philosophy”.
I do know, and I know what happened to it: it was locked to discourage the continued participation of its author, who was banned. But still it sits, hosted on our servers, discoverable through Google. The permitted ideas of a banned user.
Thanks. I’m pretty good at it. If you ever feel like having a normal conversation about something philosophical, just let me know. But the whole, “men and women are not the same species” just isn’t even close to interesting. Not to mention that the more you type about that kind of stuff, the more you’re exposing about your own distorted view of the world, as opposed to what you seem to think, and that is that there is something of any philosophical substance to the ridiculous assertions that you can’t seem to help yourself from trying to sell. I mean what am I supposed to do with someone who’s wrong and can’t understand how even when the explanation is given to them? Some people just aren’t as smart as they think they are. You can type all the long winded, jargon filled nonsense that you like, but it’s still nonsense.
The reason why this webforum lacks philosophy is more the lack of permabanning trolls than the definition of “philosophy”. In other words: ILP has too many trolls.
Let’s grant that this is true. What’s the best method for identifying and banning those trolls? And how effective do you assume banning to be for preventing someone from posting on ILP?
Welp I haven’t gotten any warnings or bans, but I agree with Ucc. If I were mod I’d be a bit ruthless. No ad hom, people have been getting away with personal attacking instead of attacking the position in a debate. “You don’t agree with me, you’re an idiot”. The only time I will say something is if someone starts calling me an idiot or insulting me, we may do philosopby but this doesn’t imply we shouldn’t or won’t defend ourselves when provoked.
So to identify the trolls, you seem to recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach, is that right? And then you recommend banning early and often. First insult a permaban? First off-topic post? Or just when a user continues to rub the moderator the wrong way for a long time?
