Forum Philosophy Update

Two responses 1) I think people feel shame and judge each other a lot in normal social interactions. 2) I am being polemical, or following Serendipity’s polemics for a few reasons. A little context: most of my life I have hated ‘shaming’ and would have been on your side of this debate just because I saw the word shame. When I arrived in this discussion, however, I realized that I do things in normal social interactions - when what I consider negative patterns to be present and, for example, one person is responsible in the main for them - that will, if the other person respects me and listens, will likely be shaming. The truth is I am not focused on his or her shame. I am focused on expressing, with some of the emotion present at least, what I see as what they are doing and the effects of this. But even though I am not focused on shame, I think it is unlikely that anyone will change unless there is a transitional state of shame. I am not trying to get them to feel bad about themselves in some long term way, but, damn, if they respond with ‘YOu know, you are right…’ as part of some longer explanation reaction, and this almost always includes some shame on their part, it feels great, I feel respected AND I respect them, often a lot, at least for that time. I am not hoping they will be moping around even later that day. So for the sake of exploration philosophically and, yes, to be or join polemics, I decided to take responsibility for the likely reaction of anyone on the receiving end of what I consider a normal social interaction. Let me see if it feels/seems defensible to consider it part of my intention, instead of just tacitly knowing it is a byproduct of my actions. Shame is a motivator. I think it is a huge motivator when we shift off patterns that people we give a damn about confront us - private, professional, leisure environs all. I certainly feel shame when my wife points out shit I am pulling. And without that, I think I would not really have heard her, gotten it, understood, taken responsibility, gotten underneath the habit. I mean, who wants to notice that stuff. Except long term I do. And I want others I interact with to notice that stuff also.

Though stopping talking to someone in most normal social interactions will lead to them feeling shame (or, if unable to introspect AND they have not been doing anything wrong anger, perhaps or sadness). But I am not suggesting you need to intend shaming. I think this is what happens, but you are doing a minimal personal (rather than communal) shunning. If more people do that a person may notice that they are not getting the response they want. Natrual consequences, great.

Of course one can be in error. But honestly responding still gives information. OK; phyllo said I wasn’t responding to him or I don’t respond to him in general, but no one else is saying this, so either we have a communication problem or he is off in some way. HOwever if a bunch of people start saying it and they seem like fairly smart people, this is good information also. Now it is time to evaluate 1) the forum is a good fit - perhaps the paradigmatic differences are so great or the experiential differences are so great, then it is very hard to bridge and/or 2) if ‘I’ have a problem I need to look at. Probably in working this out, being open to the possibility of 2, shame will be present. That shame will motivate something, change of venue, change of self, added care in responding to see if they are right and so on.

Sure, that’s because you have not convinced him that abortion is either morally right or wrong. So any points you raised about his behavior, assumptions, interactions, beliefs is a failure. AS if the only motives present are his, as if he does not have effects on the world. Only people he sees as objectivists have effects on the world. And negative ones (LOL) so any not giving him a solution that works for him to his conundrum is mere noise. If he was just one step more aware he might say How dare you focus on me and what I think, do and write? That doesn’t prove abortion is right or wrong and you have not agreed with me.

In any case that’s my take. You may not have responded to some of this points, but I will bet you responded to him and what he wrote and how he interacted. And I will bet you encountered blankness yourself on many an occasion.

All possibilities, but the phenomenon is real - some people repeatedly, for example, simply restate their opinions and in doing so it is as if this responds to counterarguments, when it does not. We are all fallible. All social groups are fallible. Still, patterns emerge and the feedback that people are experiencing these patterns is part of social life. Yes, some parts of Japanese culture and British culture will be even more reticent than you to express blunt shaming, as a couple of examples, but they sure as shit manage to convey it indirectly.

Perfect question. But you know the answer. The ‘we’ is him. God forgive me I looked at the post you quoted

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=125&p=2694639&view=show#p2694639

and notice how there is a gesture at making it relevant, but it is in fact simply a repeat of his question. One that does not aid this community or further the discussion.

He thinks there is no way to determine moral behavior. Of course one can still discuss group norms and how to practically make these work for those present, without thinking of this as objective morals. But in any case, the thread is not meaningful to him. He cannot have a position on the thread, since he views it in moral terms only. It is irrelevant to him.

His issue is irrelevant to us. It is about him.

It’s a form of narcissism everything gets sucked towards his ‘need’.

And one need not be on objectivist to respond negatively to this. I would guess if he was a chimpanzee, he would either have to change or be shunned. YOu can’t just keep pointing at the nits in your own hair and demanding to be groomed. You gotta do other shit to be appreciated. And if you keep pooping in the water source…

That’s good stuff!

Lots of folks like that. With some people it takes a lot of neural energy for me to decipher what they are trying to convey. I can’t figure out if it’s me or them. With some, English isn’t their first language or there are geographical differences in dialect that makes communication difficult.

I do that because I stand alone without backup. One-man protests don’t work too well. Plus, prism could be my mother and I get plenty of bullheadedness from family

But you said: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=100#p2694373

Well if you know the rules aren’t going to be enforced, and you’re here, then the rules don’t matter to you. That’s where it leaves you in this game.

That reminds me of this thread…

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193671

I think, but I am not sure, that the topic interests me. I just don’t know what they’re saying. But they seem too. Like some kind of twins language. But since they seem to be getting something out of it, OK. I can’t complain about that since it is contained. I just avoid the thread, or check in actually, to see if I can get a grip on it.

And there is the English as second language issue with him. But even with that slack. Or, her, I guess. I hope Prism isn’t your Mom.

You said you signed up knowing specific rules were in place. I wanted to know what those rules are. For instance, you may have liked the rule of not insulting someone. Ok, but that’s a rule that would exist anyway because no one likes to be insulted. The only difference is how you want offenders punished. So it’s better to say that you signed up knowing punishment would be demerits rather than shaming-by-peers because the rules would be the same regardless if daddy were here or not.

Well we can propose one.

Hence the purpose of judges. No one person can change the rules and no one person can consider them unbinding.

No, it already exists, but is subdued by the existence of the authority because it’s their job, not mine, currently.

Well, yeah, but the alternative is: a mod will issue warnings or bans based on their “personal standards”. Then a person who disagrees has the choice of ignoring it, getting into an argument with the mods about the “standard” or leaving the forum.

What I had in mind wouldn’t be organized, but would rely on a handful of good seeds planted, as in members who could teach others by example. Carleas is a good example because he’s so fair-minded in speech. He notes when members make good points, he admits errors, and just generally has a good tone that I think should be copied.

I think when people make good points, people should quote it and say “good point!” Why only negative feedback? Why only punishment? Lead with both hands: one has a stick and the other a carrot. I think if more people started doing that, it would catch on.

I think I see what you’re saying… you may be led to feel shame in error. Yes, I suppose that’s true, but on the other hand, there should be other members who could come to your defense as well.

Yup. Well, luckily there are always more than just nazis. Just don’t go bragging about rescuing jewish babies on stormfront

How else am I to have a moral compass?

I’m asking myself if I’ve had better luck appealing to one person to change his mind or a group of people. Groups seem more open-minded. What do you think?

Me too

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Somebody is eating their Wheaties!

Carleas is rarely here. He only participates in some forums.
I think the forum is so small that you have very few potential “good seeds”.

You can say it in your posts and hope it catches on but is it reasonable to punish people for not saying it. Are you really going to shame people if they don’t say “good point”?

I think that you misunderstood what I wrote.

When part of a group, individuals tend to lose their sense of personal responsibility.

If it is small, and it seems to be, then you don’t need many seeds.

Good point! (thought I doubt he would, one can encourage behaviors also as most social, professional and other groups do)

We got two tools now, encouraging and shaming - followed by shunning in the latter and post of the week awards for the former.

No that’s not the only difference. You have already stated that you would not punish direct insults (“retard”) and you that you would punish indirect insults (“fall off ladder”). That 's the opposite of what I want.

But in another post, you said that it would not be organized.

I’m confused because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I have had several disputes with the admin about how the rules were applied. When someone was banned and I thought he did not get adequate warning. When threads were moved into rant. When Ecmandu’s threads were being deleted and moved. I think there were some others that have slipped my mind.

Those disputes were in the context of the “rules of the game”.

Well, there are something like 10 or 11 forums and the “good seeds” would have to be actively reading the posts.

Carleas has been proposed and I assume you would nominate yourself and Serendipper … who else?

You funny.

You’ve simplified it too much.

Jayson’s rules for the Religion&Spirituality Forum:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=169044#p2090563

Jayson would read the posts and hold people accountable. That’s how moderating ought to be done. Even when I didn’t agree with his decisions I respected his integrity.

If he is not here, then where are the mods and what is their excuse?

What? He can only find a gestapo, but no good seeds?

Youtube has a bot for that. beta.nightbot.tv/

It’s a robocop with no common sense whatsoever, dispensing justice with no regard. An authoritarian wetdream come true!

No I don’t think I said that. Of course, a good daddy would shame the child who didn’t say “thank you”. But you don’t need a daddy, oh wait, you do lol

That’s possible.

Yeah I don’t know… one person is more likely to be unreasonable than a group, which is why we have 9 justices interpreting the constitution rather than one dogmatic old fart.

Thread nearing end.

I don’t think I said that, but I said indirect is worse than direct, but both are insults.

Direct insults may not be insults, goofy. ← not an insult. Pejoratives aren’t always insults, so the insult is always derived from the context and therefore there is no such thing as a direct insult.

If a good friend of mine said “Oh you’re just being retarded”, I wouldn’t believe he thinks I’m retarded nor would I interpret it as an insult. All it means is he can’t understand why I’m saying what I’m saying and if anything, he is the retarded one.

What do you mean by organized? Reduction of entropy?

We can propose a system that evolves according to the evolving nature of society. No one element is fixed and corruptible. Lack of authoritarian control is the only way to ensure truth and guard against corruption. This was the underpinning of the US in that no one person can have all the power. Checks and balances abound.

Judges -plural.

And how did that end? Fell on deaf ears? I’ve never seen a protest sway one person in power. You’re better-off trying to convince a group.