why was trixie banned?
Says she was banned for saying women are good at building houses
Listen… permmabanning Satyr isn’t going to work. He just gets angrier, makes more sock puppet user names over on KTS, and recruits the silly to hit this place up, then systematically hits this place up. Your trying to suppress a cross-boarder guerilla war who is quite determined.
Just let Satyr do what he needs to do to get the shit out of his system… it’s a few months tops before the users on the site adjust. He got absolutely nowhere with me… backfired if anything, a person who is a moderate debater can handle him.
Trixie is expressing a rather generic sexist opinion of women in the gay community (well, the male side of it). It was a pointless thread, but it isn’t any more pointless than say, Shield Maiden’s Anti-American stance, or Smears’ Anti-Poor & Sober stance, or Carleas Anti-American stances, or the Anti-Men stances of feminists, or whatever the fucking hell satyr is doing with the gay cross dressing Hannibal Lecter stuff he always pushes.
Part of being tolerant philosophically isn’t merely asserting no bias, but being willing to here them out and hold dialogue… and often that dialogue is going to be one of revulsion or attraction, or taking it foolheartedly by others. This is natural, it always was that way. How do I know? I had a Dago stepfather who didn’t know shit cept cameras… completely uncultured, a true caveman… but he and his ban of merry men knew how to communicate on this level.
Your not purifying philosophy… all logic, pure mathematics, etc… is still pure rhetoric, it’s communication. A phone hooked into a computer us rhetoric, looking at a painting is rhetoric, thinking and dreaming… your merely sorting shit out on a very poorly declared basis, basis being your own prejudice and bias.
Your better off just reestablishing that silly old subforum on logic, and guarding it. Provide some example threads for what you want, and provide another subsection where people are able to talk freely up front… and no, talking freely doesn’t mean go to off topic, mundane babble. I should be able to call Zizek a cock sucker and give a pretty damn good defence for it. There are alot of good reasons to suspect this of him, and challenge the legitimacy of the philosophy of a needlessly closeted homosexual in this day of age. Why does he have to hide this, what else is he hiding, can we really trust his ideas?
The premise is absurd and emotionally driven… but the thread is conflict driven… the actual thesis isn’t Zizek or homosexuality… that is pure emotion and bias based on a decisive persona… the point of the thread is can you accept a person’s philosophy based off their public biography and respected sense of self, or does one have to dig deeper like a reporter (or do what Derrida did), or if ideas can be accepted on the basis of ideas alone, without regard to the individual.
It leads to larger inclusions in debates, a more vibrant dynamic and higher rates of user viewership. I essentially ask stock philosophy questions in such threads… I fully expect some people (the usual suspects, Kropotkin, Zinnati, You, etc) to get upset because I didn’t bow down to liberal ideological demands in how to form the question… but it is a fantastic sacrifice to make… I get much higher rates of inclusion, and more consider it. It becomes not merely the philosophy of dry academics, but a philosophy that even your average fucking abusive cavedwelling Dago can grasp.
Trixie is compulsively driven to dinegrate women. He is a transexual… he didn’t invent this trend. He was trying for the above. Nobody protested you moving his (or my response thread) away because it… was silly and responded to, by me.
You can counter 90% of forum issues, including Satyr, merely by being a philosopher… if you don’t like what they say, stay incentive and challenge them. I think this was Moreno’s main complain about me… I never hit somebody the way he expects, but comes at them sideways from a completely unexpected position.
I do this because I keep it loose and open, float like a butterfly and sting like a bee… but I can only do that because I appreciate logic and rhetoric, how it relates to dialectics… you gotta have a pretty damn good understanding of psychology and how logic unfolds to consistently do this, while playing to the expectations of a predictable persona. I apply philosophy, and apply it differently to other users. For some,I get under their skin, others, merely point out their contradictions and encourage them, others I just play games as that’s all they are here to do.
I do this for everyone, from the administrator down… but I’m consistent in my approach if you look at the groups I engadge.
You accomplished absolutely nothing… and I do mean nothing, by banning Satyr. We know from past experience banning him doesn’t work. Let him come back, we can slap the silly fuck around some more. Romans feared the elephants in the first few battles in which they faced them, but soon learned to get out of the way and hit them from the sides. Fairly simple creatures to take down. Satyr projects a lot of depth, but is really a rather shallow character… quick in the response, but shallow. He is simple to take down. Had you let him stay, the average user would of been man handling him by the fall, making a mockery of him. Now… he gets to act the martyr, hiding out in his masturbation cave, drawling the impressionable in.
You did absolutely nothing to win Trixie over. Absolutely nothing. No change in behavior, now you have his resentment. Absoluteky nothing will change, other than he now can justifiably call you a dick.
Same with Joker… again… your futile attempts to forceably amend his behavior has failed. Yeah… maybe he will change his lifestyle and outlook and embrace your pathetic shitheaded outlook on life Only Humean… no… he too can point to you being a miserable fuckhead who unfairly persecuted him over something absurdly minor.
You no longer have no rules to point to, as your a failed administrator who long ago made a mockery of all the rules. You can’t really expect moderator solidarity because you even attacked a moderator in that thread over nothing. This site had a bad habit back when Pavlov was still around to randomly ban and attack people, and the only thing moderators could do was point to moderator reinforcement of one another’s absurd actions… you can’t even expect this degenerate form of defence for your bans (which is offensive and authoritarian as fuck on a philosophy forum) because your moving in the direction of banning fellow moderators.
Really, do you think Carleas coming in saying he fully supports your actions is going to change shit? Everyone thinks your a piece of shit… perhaps you can cue support from a few other pieces of shit on thus forum I’ve angered over the years (cue Kropotkin or IAmbigous) but nobody really accepts you or your behavior anymore.
You gotta change. You’ve been skiing the slippery slope for too damn long, it has become the new normal for you. You confuse “What is philosophy” with “What do you like”.
How about we just rename that section “Shit Only Humean Wants To Talk About” and we can lump the rest of the site as “For Everyone Else?”.
I know for certain I will never change who I am, or my approach to anything, ever, do to your actions. I know Trixie won’t, Satyr won’t, Joker won’t… many more will refuse. Yet you do this silly pointless absurd shit, and drag your shreds of authority even further down the drain.
You go around randomly attacking people who aren’t even engaged in a discussion with you. You are a fucking menace, a enemy of philosophy and free thinking, and of all the people here, you are the one who needs banned. You can sit at home and ponder if banning actually does jack in changing of mollifying thought patterns, or if you remain who you are. If you remain the same, and remain philosophically inclined… then I would love to hear your unadulterated, honest ideas. This is the best kind of philosophy. I don’t need some third party doing butcher work to a discussion they aren’t even participating in. Such people should be locked up in prisons, as sadistic enemies of democracy and the first amendment.
Bring Satyr back, the hurt has only begun for him.
The answer to this question is always that the user earned sufficient warnings to justify a ban. Banning is tied to how many times a user is warned.
Trixie has three warnings for these three posts:
viewtopic.php?f=10&p=2576988#p2576988
viewtopic.php?f=7&p=2588321#p2588321
viewtopic.php?f=2&p=2610017#p2610017
I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine the length of the ban based on the number of warnings (hint: it’s in the Forum Philosophy).
No it isn’t, I’ve been a member long enough to know it is based purely of how big of a asshole the moderator is being.
Tour rules are meaningless at this point, they haven’t been systematically applied, and if they were, the site would collapse from everyone being banned.
Knock the silly shit dodging off and bring him back.
And no, warning or banning me here, or suddenly in another ban on something seemingly unrelated won’t change shit. Your system is still fucked up, and nobody is buying it anymore. Just do the right thing, by bringing them back. You did the crime, but they shouldn’t have to do the time. This is completely on you two.
Everyone knew who Satyr was when he first appeared, why was he allowed to continue? What… the moderators were the only ones ignorant of this fact. There seems to be a serious lack of consistency here. Satyr uses insults designed to divert others from actually questioning his thoughts, I don’t find his stuff offensive, just repetitious. I do think some ownership from the author of a thread should be encouraged upon a philosophy forum rather than an ‘almighty’ moderator making such decisions all of the time. Posts should allowed to be moved by a moderator if in their opinion they are in the wrong place, but unnecessary censoring can also indicate that the person is fearful of the opposition. A good moderator is someone who doesn’t need or want to do too much controlling, a style similar to an informal ‘super’.
It is a fine balance to achieve the satisfaction of both poster and moderator, too much tampering and the butterflies’ wings are damaged and if it gets out of kilter this is what happens.
Turd…I have an anti-poor and anti-sober stance?
Warned? Please state for public record what I was banned for. 
Thanks for the kind words and compliments Mr. Turd. 
c.f. my post above. Bans are commensurate with warnings. You have 4 warnings, so upon receiving your most recent warning, you were given a 1 week ban.
And here are experts from the string of posts that earned you your 4th warning:
What I said was relatively mild in comparison to what other members say everyday.
You supposedly support ‘free speech’ here but if it doesn’t meet your terms we all better go on the defensive and watch out I guess. This place is free speech in name only…
World forbid that somebody gets insulted or offended somehow, what a travesty! It’s unthinkable!
Maybe your definition of mild is different to mine. Unfortunately, I moderate to the latter, not the former.
The Philosophy board has a sticky post at the top, “Philosophy Forum Rules”, in which acceptable language is explicitly defined. So clearly your speech is not entirely free when posting on that board, and it would be patently false to claim otherwise.
It’s so nice you can reduce and limit human life, experience, or interaction in such small tightly controlled parameters. As for me I cannot and don’t.
If you feel your life and experience so limited by moderation, it’s an odd choice to sign up for and contribute to moderated forums.
A typical and expected response from you. tips his hat
The freedom of speech has never meant that everyone can do whatever they want all the time so long as their actions are speech-based. It couldn’t be, because certain speech acts are incompatible, so allowing one can mean tacitly preventing another.
In your case, you used your keyboard to produce strings of characters that technically qualify as language, and even, charitably, convey ideas. But the expression is corrosive to the speech of others, because you posted eleven times in a row, offering little more than one-liners, and peppering them with personal insults irrelevant to and distracting from the topic at hand. You made a negative contribution to the net supply of speech on the forum. So warning you for it, and banning you for a period during which you can’t make such a contribution, is actually speech protective, by removing from the forum an impediment to speech. Namely, you.
If you value the freedom of speech (and not just invoking it as a way to moralize a tantrum), then post in such a way that you use your speech to effectively communicate interesting ideas, and don’t disrupt conversations or turn them into shouting/dissing matches. If you value the freedom of speech, value all speech, and consider how your speech interacts with the ability and desire of others to continue speaking.
Your dodging the actuality of what he said Carleas. It is easy to hide behind abstractions, then call it negative, when they go unnamed.
Actually quote what he said, and tell me the founding fathers didn’t specifically protect that form of political expression. He vehemently rejected Satyr and his group on ideological grounds. This is the primary speech they were protecting… the most important aspect, no form of speech is more important than this as far as America is concerned.
If there is any structural incompatibility that can possibly flow as suggested by your position, it is the actions of your moderator, and the foolishness he engaged in. That Carleas, is incompatible with free speech, that Carleas, is incompatible with Democracy, that Carleas, has fundamentally gone against every good and just tradition we’ve preserved in philosophy. We have had tyrants bite out their own tongues and spit it in the face of tyrants. They had lead just rebellions, have stood up in senates denouncing the obscene vice of tyrants and autocrats.
Joker has a point to make, and made it. He is partisan, opposed to Satyr’s world view, and he participated fairly in philosophy by stating this emphatically, in dialogue… but he used dialogue. He wasn’t the twisted son of a bitch that turned his back on dialogue, and therefore philosophy, by banning Satyr.
Joker isn’t the one who shoukd of been banned, the offendibg moderator should of been, he committed the crime against out true institutions, which do not flow from your insight and reasonings, but the ancient institutions of philosophy and conscious. Institutes we were so very careful in this proudest of republics to emulate and preserve. You have turned this poor boy and fool into the very image of Martyrdom of conscious and free speech. In your stupid brutality of thought control and contortion of free expression, what is the difference between your actions and that of the persecution and execution of Sir Thomas More for his? Do we not hang his portrait in the Supreme Court to remind ourselves of this patron saint of lawyers, to remind ourselves not to repeat that heart wrenching injustice against free speech and rights of individuals to affiliation?
What we have at root here is just that. If you dared to quote what he said you would instantly see that, it could be nothing more, nothing less than that… there is no fucking around around and side winding on lawyeresqe sophistry to try to distract everyone. What he said was conceptually reasonable, and in magnitude and character of daily speech seen on this forum, not unusual.
I submit therefore it was a persecution, against him, not for any element at play on his part, which is fully protected but the traditions of philosophy and free speech, but by the shitheaded and dimwitted outlook of a moderator hopelessly over his head, upset nobody ever discussed things in ways he desired, and had to crush the personalities that most offended him and his own personal outlook. He confuses being a justice of the peace with justice of peace of mind… we do not elect and justify coercive force for the latter, but the former. We expect those frictuve elements, and reserve our force for more serious mortal matters, of the physical and not of the spirit. We should look back to Marsilius of Padua on this, and observe such frictions are not unnatural or even undesirable, but evidence of the need to balance coercive force in ordering the loose ends of society by making a society that can encompass all loose ends justly, where there is a place for everyone, and everyone has a place.
Currently in the structure of your pan-philosophical website, too many people stand out as loise ends,andare repeatedly hammered for no reason. People are tolerated till a vreaking point us reached, then arbitarily banned without just reasoning or furtherance of discourse or insight of reasoning, where rules are put up in mockery of due justice. These breaking points are purely based on oersonality and afflicted histories, not the substance of arguments. Anything can be found and hammered, and thereafter hidden behind as objective action. “Oh… we have a methodology, we only followed the rules, look at the rukes for why you were banned”. Such arguments are why mobs chase tyrants out if cities, why escape tunnels have to be built out of white houses and presidential palaces. A rwasonable society has no need for such recourse, yet we find you here in your arguments mining ad hoc in unison underground digging your escape. There is no place to run to, there is no place to hide within the realm of ideas, to ehich you perpetually offend against. We will see you anywgere, grab you by your collars and yell to the crowds “we got you now you scrondrel”.
Tolerance and breadth of categorization matterrs in philosophy. It is our city, the foundation of our every great building, what our streets are paved in. We expect qualitatively like to back like, similar ideas to form together into areas of dedicated philosophy overtime, so we can refer to types of philosophy, and have a good idea of the ideas within it, but we shouldn’t hold too cloosekly to the logical rigors we derive from this phenomena. Philosophy is still very much the construct of the individual mind, and not all mind see the pattern as others do, some stick out as awkward thornes and refuse to accept the layout as others see it. So be it… the mind is a mix of feedback loops, every aspect worthy at least of consideration. When men cone along who simply cannot fit, let them be. Some of our greatest minds have been like them, and we should fear their seismic character. They aren’t capable of doing any great harm to our city, to the architecture and forms we have developed, but rather strengthen every stone, smooth the way of our rough streets, by adfing to the strength and insights of anything and everything they touch.
Certainly as the First Amendment to the US Constitution has been applied (and it’s worth noting that the application is among the most speech-protective legal principles the world has ever known), it has made exceptions for ‘fighting words’, i.e. words that incite an imminent breach of the peace. In the microstate of an internet forum, Joker’s posts, which I’ve already quoted above, certainly rise to that level. The collapse of a discussion into vitriolic shit slinging is a breach of the peace in a virtual state whose only existence is in the flow of the discussions it houses.
So his actions are rightly punished, that punishment does not infringe on the freedom of speech (and is indeed protective of it), he deserved a warning and he got one. And receiving his warning, he received a ban, according to the schedule we have in place to prevent single overreactions: even if Joker were being unfairly targeted, he has been on notice for weeks about the standard to which his conduct was being held, and he’s made no attempt to meet that standard.
It would be one thing if he were making an attempt to participate in civil discussion here. If he were actually trying really hard and just chanced his way into several rules that weren’t very well specified, maybe you would have a point. But he’s here to present the too-cool-for-school, badboy persona. It’s destructive by design. There’s no coherent freedom of speech that requires putting up with that kind of tedious and caustic bullshit.
It’s no use Turd Ferguson in trying to persuade the inner party apparatchiks of ILP. They will come with various excuses and justifications for their censoring and intimidation tactics on forum members here even calling their actions ridiculously civil or moral ones.
Case in point:
There’s no indication here that the arguments presented were even read, much less understood, and there’s no attempt whatsoever to rebut them. Instead, they’re dismissed because of who they come from. This is philosophy 101: it’s an ad hominem fallacy in the sense that it is simply attacking the speaker as a person and concluding that such a person could not present a valid case.
A comment like this in the context of a philosophical discussion just ends the discussion, it’s purely noise to any kind of conversation because every followup or attempt to get back on track is dismissed as coming from the same, tainted source. And it tends to provoke responses in kind, further degrading the quality of the debate.
This is a mild example, both because the insults are mild and because this thread is administrative. But when the same pattern is repeated endlessly and in threads that are intended to be philosophical, and when the insults are more personal, it’s speech destroying. To prohibit that kind of activity is to protect the conversations, to protect the speech.