Value ontology is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

At ILP??

Who knew.

Clearly, in forums such as this, moderation “in reality” becomes intertwined in enforcing “the rules” and the politics embedded in the reactions of particular moderators to the opinions of particular posters.

It’s not an exact science in other words.

Now, any number of folks have been banned here because, by and large, they were unable to contain themselves in the way of curtailing the huffing and puffing and the name-calling.

Objectivists by and large who, for all practical purposes, felt compelled to fulminate against any and all conflicting objectivists who dared to insist that it was in fact their own “general description” of human interactions that really Explained Everything.

So, in order to sustain this psychological compulsion to make that crucial distinction between “one of us” and “one of them”, they would [over and over and over again] “go too far”.

They would, for all intents and purposes, “go berserk” against their own rendition of the “retards”

And then they were gone. Reduced to contributing nothing at all.

Thus they really need ask themselves if it was worth it?

Better perhaps to “play the game” politically and continue to post than to rant and rave, get booted, and claim that their own ranting and raving was being “picked on”.

Well, unless of course I’m wrong.

Ranting and raving is fine, according to the vague and somewhat flexible rules, as long as I don’t directly rant and rave too hard on another person.

If my rant and rave is intellectually targetting, ranting against their philosophy, not so much as targetting their personhood, then it’s generally acceptable.

Futhermore, I’m generally allowed to insult people, who aren’t part of the forums, but not allowed to directly insult other members for no good reason.

But you know, some people are allowed to break the rules and some people aren’t. Some people are allowed to have self-defense in some states, and in other states you go to prison for trying to defend yourself from an attacker.

Consider yourself lucky. There’s way stupider shit out there that you might have heard. If this ontology is the studidest thing you’ve ever heard then you should be glad.

I’ll take your word for it, my brain can only take so much.

Go and sit in a hipster bar with some headphones on so no one thinks youre listening, amd eavesdrop on random hipster conversations. You’ll be so ready to come back and talk about this ontology it’ll blow your mind.

As much as I hate 'em, when I’m at cafe’s, all the hipsters I see are doing architecture and building things with their fancy computers.

Yeah they suck.

Even so, the fate of the world is in their hands.

Scary to think about.

I think the fate of the world is in the hands of the banks.

Banks and hipsters aren’t mutually exclusive, ya’ know.

True.

No, on the wrong person. Even if only subconsciously [in this human–all–too–human world], moderators will tend to be more lenient towards those they are generally in agreement with with regard to any actual substance in the post.

So, if making your point is important [and you’re not just in Kid mode], you have to play the game.

Look at folks like Satyr. He pretends to feel nothing but disdain for the “retards” here, but he must know how foolish he was to self-destruct over and again. He would like nothing better than to be “lecturing” us here. If only because there are so many more people who would read his stuff. But [invariably] he becomes incensed when others [either conflicting objectivists or folks like me] refuse to think about everything in exactly the same manner in which he does.

He can’t help himself: huffing and puffing, he fulminates contemptuously to or about the “morons” that ubermen qua “serious philosophers” of his ilk must contend with.

It’s all about the “psychology of objectivism” in my view.

In fact, the irony regarding KT is that what gets you dumped into the dungeon isn’t the huffing and puffing so much as refusing to kowtow substantivey to Satyr’s gene/meme narrative.

But, to their credit, you are much less likely to be banned from the forum. The dungeon is something that I would like to see installed here as well.

Yes, exactly!

Welcome to the real world.

Again, if you have opinions about things that you would genuinely like to convey to others [and are not just in here venting or scapegoating others for all the other shit in life that pisses you off] you have to be willing to accommodate the politics.

Now, that doesn’t work all the time, true. Otherwise Postmodern Beatnik would not have “banned me for” life here: forums.philosophyforums.com/

But, at most forums, it’s still the best of all possible worlds.

Well I tried to enter the forums, it let me login on my old account, but it won’t let me view anything. It just says “You do not have permission to view this section of the site.” I never broke any rules, and I never got a message saying I was banned or anything.

Shouldn’t a philosophy forum like, make most threads available to the public and not perpetuate ignorance?

That’s a dead forum.

People who used to post on it moved here:
thephilosophyforum.com/

Maybe you should try posting there?

Ugh, looks like the new forum catered to the whole Hipster style. Also, how will I show threads from the old forums, I want to read them but now I can never read them.

I hate the hipster style, I like this style this is my style.

This is my style:
youtube.com/watch?v=EKGydWrGEjc

This is the hipster style:
youtube.com/watch?v=zvCBSSwgtg4

I HATE THE HIPSTER STYLE!!!

Stupidest, yes, but also most narcissistic, most solipsistic, most nihilistic.

According to the narcissistic and homosexual VO “god”, a stone is a cow, a planet a bacterium, … and an insult a part of his meal for his narcissism …, and all this just because this solipsistic nihilist has said so.

So to him, equality means and has the same function as everything else: supporting and mirroring his maniac delusion that he is in agreement with himself.

Vanity_Occultism.jpg

Yes, at the “liberal” and “egalitarian” ILP. :blush:

I have not heard of value ontology before reading this thread, so did a quick google just now and found this definition on some other board:

My question to UP1001 [assuming the definition above is agreeable] is 'what do you find ‘stupid’ about this view? This is the first and to date only brush I’ve had with the concept, so understand I am doubtless missing a lot. But from my thinking the definition above could be describing anything from a modification of evolutionary theory to that of a design argument to support the existence of God. What am I missing?

Is the liberal egalitarian thing something ILP claims to be? Or is it something that someone else claims ILP to be?