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!!!
That’s because you have no boundaries. All is one. Self is not separate nor different from other. Last I heard, that is the definition of egocentrism, no? The inability to differentiate between self/subject and other/object. We are all part of one universal being. With the capital B Being. What harms me harms all. What harms all harms me. What benefits me benefits all. What benefits all benefits me. We are one big universal family. All are friends.
I don’t need to be patronized Magnus…
Let’s just say you have some shit when it comes to virtue …
If you like these boards, be thankful you can post on them
K: I do believe the GOP is a terrorist organization as I have stated and for the
reasons I have stated…and I do believe that anyone who supports the GOP supports
terrorism also for the reasons I have stated…I believe that the GOP will damage
America in ways we can’t even begin to see yet as it damaged America during the
Bush Jr. years…as for my comments… would you like me to give you the PC version
of terrorist group… Sorry I don’t do PC…The reason my calling the GOP terrorism
and it is not, NOT an insult is simple, I am stating facts. I have shown you how the
GOP is a terrorist group and how anyone who supports the GOP is supporting terrorism…
the GOP is doing a better job of destroying America then ISIS and Al Quida put together
and I have shown you that…Now you may disagree and that is fine and dandy,
but I stick by my words and they are not insults but facts and facts that
will be demonstrated time and time again over the next 4 years…
Kropotkin
It is possible for someone to be mentally ill and still post actual philosophy. Despite what I said about the quality of discourse improving if the mentally ill posters were removed. The only one who posts complete rubbish is Ecmandu. Trixie posts a lot of it too just not everything. I would personally favour stricter moderation than see anyone banned. There is no reason why this cannot be enforced. An awful lot of what is discussed here has got nothing at all to do with philosophy. Satyr
is absolutely right about this. It would be nice if we could raise the bar and give Turd some quality material to engage with. Trixie is highly intelligent and she can
apply herself when she feels like it. I am sure Ecmandu can too. We all can regardless of who we are as no one is beyond self improvement. All it takes is willpower
That’s true and it very much depends on the nature of the illness. One can overlook the occasional wacky post but if the vast majority of posts are crazy then one has to classify that member as MI for all practical purposes.
Shellytrokan is another one. I have a couple of others in mind.
Probably the biggest obstacle is getting moderators who are prepared to put in the time and effort.
Exactly.
One of the biggest problems of the modern era is hyperbole. At one time, the word ‘terrorism’ was restricted to real acts of terror … the FLQ in Canada, the IRA in the UK. But gradually, less violent and threatening acts were labeled as terrorism. Now we are at the point where some people use the word for even minor inconveniences and disagreements. For example, a proposal to reduce social security payments would be called ‘terrorism’. Right?
That’s how you use the word.
(Hmm, smells like Aidan in here)
Ecmandu, you’d probably benefit from spending some quiet alone time at a nice quiet beach house. Just you, the sea and the birds. Under these conditions, maybe after a year or so your brain will reset itself. But before then, you should not be subjected to stimulus of any kind; I don’t think your brain can handle it well right now.
Women tell me quite often that they like me more than their boyfriends…
It’s called “surrogate gay best friend for life” or the friend zone"
Guys don’t do that to women, men are actually sexually attracted to the spirit of the person.
They subjectify more than women
I’m going to do a couple cross postings because people in large numbers are talking about banning me…
Consider it self defense
I don’t disagree with any of this. But Ecmandu’s increased volume of crazy posts weren’t on my section of the forums so I don’t care. If I drive him out of Society and Politics often enough, maybe he’ll become somebody else’s problem and then he will get banned.
The appearance of personal issues between me and him is precisely why I merely boot his ass out of my section of the forums instead of banning him forever, which I could with the click of a button at any time, and I highly doubt I would get significant blowback. Hell, I have banned him before for a week or two at a time. He’s mostly kept his idiocy to the pro-idiocy sections of the forums until recently.
An obligatory “not all mentally Ill people are ill in a way that makes them bad for forum discussions” goes here, but in general I get what you mean and I don’t disagree.
Men objectify more than women. Women aren’t bothered by fugly dudes but men are bothered by fugly women. Women do seem more unfair and evil in the dating game but I’m still trying to figure out the exact equation as to why.
No women more than men. Humane suicide is the most fundamental right… It’s the ultimate subjectify cation of any being in existence.
The reason we don’t have it, is because women derive self esteem from abusing men (their children too) - “I’m so important because I’m a mom, moms work harder than anyone”. Bullshit!!
The only reason you’re still a mom bragging on yourself is because men just want to get laid, and you have a blackmail system that makes men also not make humane suicide available to everyone.
I’m living proof that women objectify more than men do.
If anything, you should be a 2nd amendment activist and laughing gas activist. 12 gauge shotgun and laughing gas are the only humane ways of suicide, both items too heavily regulated to be put in the hands of the suicidal.
In my eyes, women don’t objectify you. Superficially, you are a lumberjack who lives in a log cabin, but on the inside they subjectively view you as a surrogate friend. I do not think women are so stupid to the point where they are unaware you have lust for them.
The smaller the gauge, the bigger the barrel…
10 gauge is better …
Women know all guys lust after them
I disagree with the whole ban-people-with-mental-illnesses thing. As long as I’ve known it, ILP has been frequented by people who are diagnosably mentally ill. I don’t think we’ve ever had a time since I’ve been here (since I first found ILP, not just in my tenure janitor-in-chief) that there wasn’t at least one openly mentally ill staff member. And the boards have always had a colorful set. The very field of philosophy is full of kooks. Normal people don’t ask these questions.
But I also basically disagree with the milder form: banning people just because they’re bad at philosophy or messageboarding. If people are actually disruptive, I’m on board, and I’m open to the idea of banning them, even permanently. If someone proves themselves unable to participate in a non-disruptive way, they shouldn’t be here. But that’s different from people who are just not very good at what they’re trying to do. I favor generally a standard of good faith over quality, with the caveat that sufficient problems of quality can trump all the good faith in the world.
But, to take Mr. Ecmandu as our present example: while I think most of Ecmandu’s posts are devoid of content, and most of his ideas fall into the category of “not even wrong”, he has produced at least one philosophically interesting idea, namely the intuition pump of looking at a world where suicide is cheap, easy, and painless for anyone who wants it, and asking what that would would have to look like so that no one was committing suicide. I think that’s an interesting thought, and one which I’d have missed if we banned him when it became obvious that he’s technically mentally ill and isn’t great at normal participation in discussions.