Suicide should be available to everyone

You’re saying that we should treat the new stuff as we have treated “the same crazy nonsense” h’s posted before. I read that as, “if we’ve allowed a post this bad before, we need to allow it again.” Which is to say, we can only moderate when a post is worse that the worst post we’ve allowed. I keep saying it because what you’re saying entails it.

Uccisore has it in for Ecmandu because Uccisore thinks Ecmandu’s posts are shitty. It’s personal in the sense that the same poster keeps making threads that the moderator sees as shitty in the same way, but that’s different from Uccisore being somehow prejudiced against Ecmandu.

Not really. We’re literally being criticized for a reasonable moderator action to clean up a forum, while at the same time being told that we don’t do enough to clean up the forums. If you want a higher standard, that means more actions like these, that means moderating posts that we might have let stand in the past. It means doing what you’re criticizing us for doing here.

Picture an alternative world where we left the posts. Would you look at them and think, “Boy they have low standards around here”?

We’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. That dissatisfying.

Let’s clarify this Carleas…

Uccisore thinks my POSTS are shitty, not not me personally… Right?

Have you read the shit Uccisore says about me??

Yes, in the sense that if you posted differently, your posts wouldn’t be removed.

:laughing:

K: As this has been a thread I have ignored up till now because it is from Ecmandu and
frankly, I don’t think much of anything he writes, I must admit I am surprised I am mentioned
rather frequently in this thread…Often as the boogy man, I admit…but I never thought
Ucci would defend me… I am rather surprised… but let us comment on my “insults”…
have I called for the death or exile of any conservatives? NOPE, have I suggested they
are slower then the rest of us, YEP, but I have given my reasons for such a suggestion,
which as Ucci has mentioned can be agreed with or refuted or whatever…
Have I in the past suggested being conservative is a mental issue, yep and I am
not proud of that… I could have gone a different way with that besides saying
being conservative is a psychology issue… but as I have noted before, I am
working on me and my issues… becoming human is about tackling such things…
creating a better society requires us becoming better people first…and such
is the place where I am coming from…

Kropotkin

You have decided to accept mentally ill members. You don’t ban them (when you discover that they are MI). Mentally ill people will post crazy stuff. They can’t be moderated because they are crazy.
Removing a couple of posts, once in a while, will not change their behavior. Notice that the removal of Ecmandu’s posts produced even more posts from him.
Singling him out while ignoring other crazy posts from other MI members is ridiculous. It’s caused by a personal issue between him and Uccisore.

While this is happening, all sorts of inappropriate posts and spam are allowed by posters who are not MI. These posters would benefit from moderation. There is good reason to believe that they would respond to moderation. The discussions would benefit. The forum would benefit.

There are two major issues … what to do about MI members and what to do about ‘normal’ members who post inappropriately.
Neither issue is being handled well at this point.

My personal suggestions:

MI members - I think that I would ban MI members. If you choose not to do that, then I suggest ignoring their harmless posts and moving the offensive stuff to Rant.

Spammers - Give warnings immediately, move the spam to Rant. Ban them if they don’t clean up their act.

‘Normal’ posters who write inappropriate stuff - They have to be warned. A moderation has to come into the thread and point out how a discussion forum works … Point out that political opponents are not “supporters of terrorism”, people who disagree with them in a discussion are not “insane” or “certifiable”.

“GOP is a terrorist organization”

Anything to say?

“anyone who has posted against Clinton for the purpose
of getting Herr Trumpf is a supporter of terrorism…”

Anything to say?

You also mentioned specific members as supporters of terrorism. Anything to say?

Oh phyllo…

How great of you to call yourself sane!

Any fucking moron knows we’re all crazy

I imagine the quality of intellects you have in your life as friends is very low

Were phyllo in charge who would be banned for being mentally ill [ part from Ecmandu and Trixie and Kropotkin ] Arbitrarily deciding who is and is
not mentally ill however should not be a basis for banning anyone. Even if they actually are mentally ill that is not in and of itself sufficient reason
to do so. Even if the quality of discourse would improve as a consequence and be more related to matters philosophical as the forum title suggests

Thanks.

Since I know that some are sane, then I’m not a “fucking moron”.

Image whatever you like. :smiley:

PK is not MI. Trixie is not MI, she’s pulling your legs.
It’s easy to test … moderate them and see how they respond.

I could do it if it was my site. And I think it would improve the site.

One could alternatively treat everyone equally, without any special consideration for MI. The MIs would keep posting crazy stuff, then they would be warned and since they would not stop doing it, they would eventually be banned.

There is appropriate and inappropriate behavior in every situation.

This is a discussion site. If mental illness disrupts it, then something ought to be done.

So improving quality of discourse and increasing philosophical content are not reasonable goals to strive for at ILP?

Are we here to simply care for the mentally ill?

You guys patting your shoulders still haven’t figured it out yet…

The crazy ones are the sane ones…

A crazy person walks up to me on the street and leaves shaking my hand…

People like you, they’d spit on.

Do you guys really think you’re sane?

I’d ban Ecmandu. That would send him an unambiguous "you are a retard’ message. He might take it seriously and learn something from it. Otherwise, you’d reinforce his bullshit. And dealing with it using arguments is tiring, and stupid, considering the fact he will just ignore them.

PC is dead. Now we need to put an end to free speech.

Magnus… I’m more disciplined than you are.

You’re whole shtick is about how disciplined you are.

And that’s why you’re superior.

I actually don’t think anyone is superior.

This is a subtle point in my mind

I live on $10 dollars a day… And that’s not even counting my psychological discipline…

You are a parody of yourself

It’s a good thing you responded to me. Nothing more important than responding to me.

PC means no boundaries. Free speech means no boundaries. Anything free – freedom in general – means no boundaries. It’s how unrestrained – the self-destructive – want to secure conditions that will allow them to be maximally unrestrained.

A death wish. A peaceful death wish.

Any sympathization with any variety of freedom means you too desire freedom, to be maximally unrestrained, to be unable to be held responsible for anything.

It means the instinct to protect yourself from external danger is gone. Now replaced with the instinct to protect yourself from internal danger.

Fearing fear, leading to reckless behavior, to being attracted to that which would otherwise repulse you.

“Make love, not war” says the one in war with oneself and in love with everything opposite to oneself.

Healthy people shamed for fearing the external and loving the internal rather than fearing the internal and loving the external.

You should not be afraid because fear is a sign of weakness and you do not want to be weak, right? So just pretend you are not weak by showing strength that consists in nothing but erasing your fear and replacing it with love.

Fearing is easier. Loving is harder.

Be tolerant toward everyone. Never reject anyone. Celebrate free love for everyone.

Rejection implies fear. Fear implies weakness. Weakness implies shame. Shame implies pain. Pain implies something bad. Therefore, rejection is bad.

If you want to reject someone, this means they are a threat.

And it never means they are a threat to one’s health, intelligence and sanity. It always means they are a threat to one’s delusions.

If I want to ban Ecmandu or Biguous or whoever else, it’s not because he threatens to confuse, to befuddle, to deceive, to retard and in general to corrupt, but because he threatens to expose my delusions for what they are. Therefore, I must never ban them.

I like your post Magnus …

And you know what’s funny…

That’s the format I post in!

I like the attention phyllo’s brought to this. I agree that the Forums would be a healthier place for discussion with stricter, more consistent moderation.

Strict to me means moving thoughtless/purely troll topics and banning those who constantly prevent the community from reaching its intended purpose. I’ve always thought that policing heated arguments is not the way to go, unless it’s threats or nothing but insults with no end in sight.

Perhaps, how many of you understand discussions between Random Factor or Trixie and I ???

Intelligence is ALWAYS like a fingerprint…

Everyone’s is different!

The thing IMO that makes these boards great is that geniuses of things over your heads can come together.

We can even try to distill it for you.

I’m not kidding when I say that this is the frontier of internet philosophy

I would ban anyone I do not consider virtuous. The ratio must be in favor of the virtuous and there are too few of them. Or rather, there are none. You want people who can set an example. Healthy people who can radiate health. Not boogermen such as Turd. Or crazies such as Trixie and Ecmandu. It ultimately depends on who runs the forum, and though you can beg and prescribe, the quality of the forum will ultimately be no higher than the quality of the person running it.

Magnus man,

Turd is a lot smarter than you

Trixie is a lot smarter than you

So am I …

Do I want to ban you???

Fuck no!!!