Forum Philosophy Update

If by “he” you mean me, allow me to rejoin…

I do not argue that there is no way in which to determine moral behavior. I merely point out that of late I have not come upon an argument that convinces me that there is.

At least insofar as someone here is actually able to intertwine his or her own moral narrative into a context that most here are likely to be familiar with.

The one on this thread for example.

And the thread itself is meaningful to me in that it exposes yet another example of the point that I do raise about “rules of behavior”.

Consider:

Carleas could embrace one of three policies here…

1] might makes right. It’s his forum and the rules are in sync with that which suits him.
2] right makes might. He has determined that there is in fact an optimal set of rules and that the forum must abide by them.
3] moderation, negotiation and compromise. He recognizes that different folks have different narratives/agendas regarding these things. He has come up with a set of rules/policies [subject to change] that come as close as he deems “the best of possible worlds” might be. Here and now.

Power [rules] wielded somewhere in the murky middle of that which I construe to be embedded in dasein and conflicting goods.

I tried and I didn’t succeed. :eusa-violin:

Note to others:

Not to worry. There will almost certainly be further “rounds”.

Indeed, probably until one of us dies. :wink:

The problem is mobile devices make debate too difficult. Forum participation blossomed 2012ish then began waning as iphone popularity grew which relegated comments to potshot one-liners and if you can’t state your position succinctly, humorously, and absent of punctuation, it just won’t be read.

You have to dumb it down for the kiddies because, as Mr R said, if they’re not immediately interested or grow bored within a run-on sentence, then your position sucks because it’s not iphone/ADD compatible.

So, due to technological and intellectual limitations, all we can do is lob mudballs at each other for kicks while we slowly devolve back into the simian.

Mods aren’t enforcing the rules because, if they did, there would be no one left and that hinders “speech-maximization”. If you try to engineer a community with only smart people, then there won’t be anyone there. You have to figure that the ave iq of the US is 98 and probably declining because there is increasingly less selection for high iq (thanks to technology) while smart people often suffer substantial disadvantages as common artifacts of intelligence (See Satoshi Kanazawa’s book: The Intelligence Paradox) leaving them ill-equipped to emotionally deal with the herd.

People are dumb animals and if you’re trying to make money off them or desire to become popular with them, then you’re going to have to cater to them. The mob runs the show either with or without authority.

The purpose of the rules is not to “have rules” … it’s to have a well-functioning forum.

Carleas can determine what ‘well-functioning’ means for him.

If he wants a forum where people chat casually and exchange recipes, then one particular set of rules and enforcement will be better than another. If he wants a forum where people discuss philosophy, then another set of rules will be better. And discussing philosophy can mean many things … academic, serious but casual, practical, etc … each of which would be best served by specific rules and enforcement.

He has the power to set rules, choose mods, change posts, delete posts, ban members and ultimately shut down the forum.

The members can determine what ‘well-functioning’ means for them.

The actions and reactions of the members is producing feedback which alters the nature of the forum and moves it into some direction. The members are steering, individually and as small groups. They have the potentially huge power of numbers, if they align themselves. But they don’t have administrative powers to change posts, delete posts and to ban people or to pull the plug.

They have the power to leave and to “break the rules”.

The “one of three policies” is really a simplistic way of looking at the situation. The power and goals of the admin and the members are much more intertwined.

Good point, though given that it is a discussion forum, then the conclusion that a position sucks due to length is silly. It’s not a philosophy twitter forum. I get that some people may not be interested in reading longer posts and may also not want to respond with any detail given their technology, but they 1) have no basis for thinking long posts suck and 2) aren’t discussing philosophy, at least often, when they lob opinions and assertions as posts. There could be ways to make interesting points that are very restricted, and that would be great participation. But too often the shorter posts are dismissals of a whole post based on an opinion, not an argument, about one piece of it. We are not taking votes here.

Maybe your argument is why a number of forums seem to be going downhill. On the other hand there are forums where the level of philosophical debate is higher.

To illustrate:

We’re not philosophers; we’re entertainers! Reminds me of:

Billy Joel
“The Entertainer”

I am the entertainer
I come to do my show
You’ve heard my latest record
It’s been on the radio
Ah, it took me years to write it
They were the best years of my life
It was a beautiful song
But it ran too long
If you’re gonna have a hit
You gotta make it fit
So they cut it down to 3:05

azlyrics.com/lyrics/billyjo … ainer.html

youtube.com/watch?v=CYLMN2PSI3E

We are entertainers :eusa-violin:

They probably have less members.

Well, it’s good he knows he hasn’t made any good posts at least in this thread. The really bizarre part of what you quoted here is

  1. the authority asked for feedback and you are obviously coping with the authority figure 2) he wasted time to write that rather than posting in a topic he found interesting? It makes no sense. I don’t think he’s honest about the choices he makes and he’s a hypocrite. So I have him on ignore.

Likely.

I generally follow rules regardless if they exist or not so the main problem I have with authority is having others attack me but not being able to defend myself because of the rules.

For example, on another forum I was debating a guy who made remarks with disparaging implications, which I quoted and summed as follows:

Quoted text = “You’re stupid”

Quoted text = “You’re stupid”

Quoted text = “You’re stupid”

So a mod gave me points over it. I complained and admin reversed the points, but it just goes to show who was in the crosshairs. I was merely pointing out that someone else implied I was stupid, but because my post contained the word “stupid”, I got points from a trigger-happy mod who obviously didn’t like me. And as far as I know, the other guy, who actually made insulting remarks, got no points.

It’s similar to someone who committed a property crime against me, but I can’t do anything about it because I can’t prove it to the cops when I know good n well who did it and if I take any action, then I’ll be in trouble. Authority protects the criminals who’ve found ways around the authority or who have become friends with the authority.

He’s not here for discussion but to get kicks from throwing mud, so it makes sense in that light.

For years I followed rules unless someone broke them in my direction. Then the bile could flow. Though sometimes I would get really cold and just list their violations and fallacies. quote, then formal name of fallacy. Quote, then formal name of fallacy. That annoyed to no end precisely one poster and was within the rules.

Annoying interaction with that admin you had. I recently rejoined another forum. There was a 2 page thread where someone was listing reasons why those who disagreed with him were fallacious or off in some way. Not aimed at individuals, just the category. I responded point for point. Others had responded, some mainly with jabs, some with good points. The admins closed the thread before he could respond to me. In the closing post the admin called everyone who participated in the thread stupid because they responded to a troll. I started a thread in their admin criticizing this approach, quoting that mods post. Another admin closed my complaint thread and said ‘I think you misquoted her’. I started a new thread and pointed out how strange it was that he didn’t check to see if I misquoted her and also did not respond to my complaint. The first admin returned to the fray closing that thread and telling me she would ban me if I ever restarted a closed thread. From there I took it up in PMs, hoping that would tone things down - not that I had been harsh or insulting, but they were harsh and threatening. At no point could they see the possibility that admins calling people stupid might not be a good idea. They just kept justifying it, and attacking me, based on how badly other people behaved. I gave up and asked them to remove me from the forum. I still got emails telling me I had more responses from them. So I blocked the email. It’s amazing how things can be run.

Yeah, though not really a problem here, I don’t think.

He can occasionally make a post presenting a position, but if I want a mind fuck I’d prefer to have get it from someone with more skill.

Yes, you can’t challenge or admonish authority. There are no appeals in a dictatorship since there’s no one to appeal to. I think a dictatorship can work if you get lucky and get a good dictator, but many times the power reveals corruption.

I was talking to some guys on a physics forum and most were nice, but one longstanding member was unable to reply to me without making me the topic of debate in derogatory fashion. I kept telling him that wasn’t necessary, but he kept insisting I be the topic. So I gathered all the ad hominems of the thread into one post so he could see what he’s doing (btw an ad hominem is not necessarily an insult, but an argument directed “to the man”. It’s a change of subject or a red herring.)

You blah blah
You yada yada
You can’t
You refuse to
You won’t

I said “See?”

The guy was smart and I didn’t want to piss him off, I just wanted him to stop making me feel stupid unnecessarily because I won’t simply accept his authority instead of his explaining his assertion.

It was actually going quite well as he seemed remorseful about it, that is, until a mod popped up claiming that they encourage spirited debate and he’s seen no violation. I said you see no problem with making me the topic? He disagreed and warned furthermore that my continued replying to him IS considered offtopic and a violation. Oh boy, wrong thing to do because I tore into him! He posted in MY thread instead of pm-ing me and then claimed that I am offtopic if I reply to him?!? I gave him a big piece of my mind and told him that whatever he intended to do about it would be forever unknown to me, then shook the dirt off my feet and left. It’s a good illustration of an otherwise manageable situation getting escalated by the appearance of authority.

Well obviously there was no sense hanging around since ad homming was just sanctioned by authority and appeals were considered a violation for the sake of a righteous compulsion that I couldn’t resonate with. So they lost a very speech-maximizing member, in my opinion, and have presumably been relegated to entertaining themselves. Forums are dying and they need me more than I need them since there are other places for me to go while not many people who are willing to forsake Twitter, FB, and YouTube to participate in specialized discussion forums.

I’ve never understood the anally retentive compulsion to obsessively adhere to topics anyway. Back in 2008 I watched a mod drive himself crazy locking threads, banning people, deleting posts, doing thread surgery and for what? Who reads those threads now? Who gives a shit about all that work? The AI bots??? People can’t even read a paragraph; much less a long thread from 10 years ago. Btw I just got my newly redesigned phone bill in the mail… it looks like a Dr. Seuss coloring book. That speaks volumes of where society is heading. The next lifeform to read this will be silicon-based (Hello AI peeps :slight_smile: )

Carleas seems OK with challenges, so that’s a positive.

I think people are very back to the wall, at least in their emotions. It feels like the world is ending so they defend their lines very tightly. A mod who admits he or she has abused power or made a mistake may feel like if they admit it, they will deal with this all the time. Not that that’s a justification, just an explanation. The mod should obviously have allowed you guys to work it out. If tough talk is allowed, well, that would go for you too.

For some though rules do basically revolve around having them. The rules become crucial for distinguishing between “one of us” and “one of them”. Indeed, there are some communities [religous or otherwise] where there are rules for practically everthing. And if you are “one of us” you know your place in the community. And that’s because in communities of this sort there is almost always a place for everyone…providing that everyone does in fact strictly embody the rules.

Besides, what’s that got to do with the conflicting narratives here regarding what particular rules would best bring about and sustain a well-functioning forum? The arguments [for some] seem to revolve around whether or not Carleas’s understanding of “well-functioning” reflects the optimal frame of mind.

In other words, is there an optimal frame of mind re the three approaches I noted above.

Okay, but what specific rules and enforcement per forum? Can the optimal proscriptions be pinned down?

That’s always my focus. Sure, different folks will have different renditions of this. But then there are the ones who basically insist that if you don’t share their own then you are wrong. If not a “retard” or a “moron”.

Thus the extent to which, between the members and the administraters/owners, moderation, negotiation and compromise is even able to prevail.

Indeed, but how would this even be possible if the owners created rules to suit only their own particular prejudices…or insisted that their rules did in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational frame of mind.

We’re probably more or less on the same page here, with different narratives to explain it.

Optimal, optimal, optimal …

Reminds me of this : “Perfect is the enemy of good.”

That also explains in what sense we are not on the same page.

Still, we do live in a world where, with respect to the rules being discussed and debated here – or to any other set of rules – there are in fact those who insist that perfection is within our reach.

Or, if we have to settle only for the “good”, that too will still revolve around our own religious/philosophical/ideological/moral etc., prejudices.

Now, with respect to your own rendition of “good rules” here, what do you say to those who insist that their own rendition should prevail instead? Well, you can adopt the frame of mind that revolves around “your right from your side and I’m right from mind”; and then attempt to forge a set of rules that fall somewhere in the middle re the members and the moderators. Or you can insist that only your rules do in fact reflect the optimal narrative/agenda. Then you can leave and set up a new forum predicated entirely on those rules. Either because as, say, one of Nietzsche’s uberman, your rules deserve to prevail, or because, as a philosopher-king, you really do know what the best rules are.

ILP is clearly somewhere in the middle here. And while it may not reflect the best of all possible worlds, does that even exist?

People believe all sorts of stuff. :confusion-shrug:

A “bad” forum will dissolve as people leave, a “good” forum will maintain itself. A “good” philosophy forum will have some philosophical discussions, a “bad” philosophy forum will have little or none. So “good” and “bad” are not entirely based on prejudices.

I say that they can try to implement those rules and I will not support them and I might actively resist them. Therefore, there will be a struggle to decide who prevails.

No, I will adopt an attitude that “you think you are right but you are wrong”. (But you knew that, right? :wink: )
Rule changes can be proposed and my approach would be that there is a possibility of give and take on some rules, while other rules are not negotiable. Some rules could be implemented on a trial basis to see how they work in real life. I’m not entirely intransigent. But I’m not going to throw away some basic principles in order to reach an agreement.

That’s one possibility.
I could challenge the rules and demonstrate their flaws. I could try to sabotage this forum. I could go to another forum. I could “pursue other interests”.
I have options.

But you have noticed a decline. You have mentioned it in several posts (“the kids”). A lot of posts can best be described as “preaching” from the soapbox. Members have left.

Yes Carleas is the exception and not the norm. I thought he was a regular member until this thread. That’s the way I’d want it if I ran a show… because otherwise everyone would jump on me and start kissing my butt. I don’t want to be admired or hated but just considered worthy of consideration.

Jerry Seinfeld said he hated drunks because they’re always either telling you how much they love you or hate you.

[i]Jerry: But in a way, I think I inadvertantly turned this guy into an alcoholic. I hate being around alcoholics because they’re either telling you how much they love you or how much they hate you. And those are the two statements that scare me the most. But I think he’s okay now because I have no idea how he feels about me. He’s finally off the wagon.

Dick: You mean on the wagon.

Jerry: Don’t get smart.[/i]

seinfeldscripts.com/TheRedDot.htm

There is probably truth to that, but here is a case involving a private message. I signed up on a psychology board where a pm is automatically dispatched by the owner who is a Dr of psychiatry. Within the message he went to great lengths in relating to people who were presumed to be spammers until proven otherwise. Since he went to such lengths in empathy and since he is a Dr who invariably deals with crazy people all the time, lol, I decided it was safe to reply to the pm complaining that it’s unethical to presume guilt. Yeah, he bit my head off. Empathy went out the window and he got defensive right off the bat then said he’s “all ears” waiting for my recommendation for how to handle all the spam. I said “captcha”. He didn’t reply. It just goes to show that even the professionals in private are not immune to feeling defensive.

I remember once on the phone with customer service where I asked why it seems all the agents are so nice. She said “they send us to school.” People have to be taught to talk to people and the customer is always right if you want to be in business. It’s a hard skill to learn and I don’t have it :blush:

Of course, some don’t seem interested in running a business, but displaying their power for all to see which is evidenced by the exhibition of the banned:

goingyourownway.com/mgtow-banned/
thethinkingatheist.com/forum … Log–20087

Check out the rules of this one:

survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=2

The rules for this site are simple:

So simple it took 2896 words (according to Word) to lay them out :laughing:

At first glance you wouldn’t think survivalists would need so much protection, being rough tough men n all, but after further consideration, building safe spaces is kinda what they’re into.

And here is the ass-kissing I was on about earlier:

The Following 281 Users Say Thank You to ~kev~ For This Useful Post:

They always have a trail of minions congratulating their every move and that behavior would make me feel cheesy, so I wouldn’t want anyone to know I’m the admin.

Thanks for that. It’s nice to know I’m not alone in my thinking. Yes, we would have worked it out if the mod hadn’t tried to fix it. I did like the guy, but I think there might have been a language barrier on top of maybe some autism stuff or something. He was smart and really wanted to help me, but in a master/groveling-student kinda way.

Good stuff, biggy.

Trixie was warned for posting cartoons as per here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193475

You should seriously check out those cartoons; they’re deep. Darkmatter2525 is a philosopher. I’ve been hooked on them ever since I read her post and I don’t understand why he doesn’t have a bigger following than merely the 622k on par with what Stefan Molyneux gets.

Here’s the newest video youtube.com/watch?v=3ZEQK8MpCGc

This is a good one on the corruption of power youtube.com/watch?v=2L9RZYguI0Q The good part starts around 19:XX.

Who must leave in order to make a forum “good” or “bad”?

According to this statisticbrain.com/iq-estim … ege-major/ the ave iq of philosophy majors is 129 and philosophy ranks 2nd only to physics. Once we’re down to the 115s or so, we’re into social sciences, agriculture, and art.

So if we say the “average” philosophy-person is 129, that may imply a range of 115 to 145 (only 16% of the population) who are able to understand philosophical concepts well enough to enter into discussion about them which leaves 84% of people categorized as “bad” for the forum because not only are they unable to participate, but also are too likely to defecate on the board then claim victory which may cause legitimate players to leave. The situation isn’t too dissimilar from adults and children eating at separate tables and children needing more supervision than adults.

Helmuth Nyborg noted that countries with low ave iq can only be ruled by a dictator because the people aren’t smart enough to understand what’s necessary for a democracy. youtube.com/watch?v=OQVPifbxldI That idea parallels the need for a shepherd over a herd of animals who aren’t smart enough to follow unspoken rules and, of course, children need supervision. So the theory is that the smarter the herd on average, the less oversight they need and therefore the creation of a safe space invites those who function best within that dictatorial structure… it selects for it… and therefore selects against who you need to attract into order to call a philosophy forum “good”.

I guess that people who understand democracy are not smart enough to understand anarchy.

Democracy requires a vast set of rules.

Why have a constitution, rules for elections, rules for the representative assemblies, rules for political conduct, … ?

After all, if people can just get together and agree on ad hoc action then you don’t need any of that stuff.

Ah, the “unspoken rules” which everyone knows and follows, if they are smart enough.
What if they are so smart that they understand that they need not follow the “unspoken rules”?