Getting back to the OP…
What were the opinions expressed on this thread that garnered a ban for the posters who expressed them? Where is the evidence to determine that the ban was predicated solely on the substance of the opinion itself and not on the manner in which it was delivered?
Further, where is the argument able to sustain the accusation that this is the norm here at ILP? That, if you express an opinion that angers a mod, you will be risking a ban.
Concomitantly, where is the argument/evidence that if you persist in challenging Satyr in the agora at KT, you will not be dumped in the dungeon?
What is the “fundamental general knowledge about how reality functions” — as it pertains to gender roles? And is that not entirely linked at KT to the manner in which Satyr has determined in The Lectures [his general description of human interactions] that all rational men and women are obligated to grasp the relationship between genes and memes in nature?
Also, as Phyllo speculated above:
“How did your views suddenly become the standard for sanity?”
And then [in my view] we are back to objectivism. One or another intellectual rendition of this:
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
Which from my frame of mind is but one more psychological rendition of this:
[b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.
[/b]
But I repeat myself.