Forum Philosophy Update

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”?

My point to Iambig was that good and bad need not be considered as abstract ideas tied to " " (fill in the blank) prejudices. If people are in a forum doing nothing but discussion sports and/or exchanging recipes, then it’s not a philosophy forum. Is it? And if it calls itself a philosophy forum, then it’s a bad philosophy forum.

Is a particular type of forum good or bad? People are going to vote with their feet. There is the feedback.

I’m not saying that a philosophy forum is only good if it attracts philosophy majors or “serious” philosophers. There can be many forums with various levels of discussion. Those who want to discuss philosophy on an academic level probably don’t want to be in the same forum as those discussing it on a casual or practical level. And vice versa.

I personally don’t want to be in a philosophy forum with philosophy majors.

Yeah that’s how Alan Watts reasoned it. When and if people get smart enough, they won’t need any government as they will be self-governing. I’m not sure where he got that idea, but perhaps Aldous Huxley.

Yes but children and herd animals do not set their own rules, but the rules are dictated by a governing body. When children become adults, they set their own rules and play a bigger part in determining society’s rules. Remember the ave iq of society is only 100 or so.

I’m not saying have no rules, but only questioning who should determine and enforce the rules and how. We have a republic which is a democracy among elected individuals who are supposed to be smarter than the public on average, but because the public elects them, they often aren’t.

Suppose you have a medical problem and you poll the general population for what to do as opposed to polling all doctors for a consensus. That’s the difference in a democracy and a republic.

It boils down to what the group of people are capable of understanding.

They become the shepherds and parents?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Y0cuufVGI[/youtube]

I’m not sure what you mean by “abstract”.

That seems true.

But voting with feet doesn’t seem a good litmus test for determining good or bad because argumentum ad populum can’t work per the iq bell curve. If
most" folks leave, that is good. If “most” folks stay, then smarter people leave and that is bad. Therefore setting up conditions that attract the herd is bad for a philosophy forum.

Of course, I see your point, but I was just trying to boil it down for easy illustration. No matter how you slice it though, not everyone will fit in and trying to make everyone fit in will only result in losing those required to make it good.

Iambig gets so wrapped in dasein, details and complications that good and bad become completely abstract and detached from anything concrete. I’m trying to bring it back to something measurable … function, participation and meeting the basic definitions of philosophy and forum.

Let me get this straight …

Forum members are smart enough to set forum rules and decide who should be shamed and shunned. But they are too dumb to understand philosophy.

Also the smart ones leave and the dumb ones stay, so neither an empty inactive forum nor a large( let’s not quibble about the definition of large for now) active one indicate the “goodness” of a forum.

What exactly would be a “good” philosophy forum?

Oh I see.

No if they are smart enough to understand philosophy, then they are smart enough to set and enforce rules. But if they don’t have the power to set and enforce their own rules, then a safe space has been created that favors the population of people who may not be able to understand philosophical concepts. It’s not a necessity, but authority favors the blind-followers and because they have such numbers on their side, the truly philosophical may be pushed to the side.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that created them.” - Einstein

So, the pioneers will be the outlaws who think outside the box and don’t blindly follow the rules.

Reminds me of Euler being characterized as a mathematical outlaw: (FWD to 3:45 and then 6:30)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Oazb7IWzbA[/youtube]

The point is the imposition of rules defines a box in which people are not allowed out of and that doesn’t favor out-of-the-box thinkers.

“Goodness” isn’t determined by population, but on content. Of course, a higher population could be better so long as it doesn’t negatively affect the content, but it just isn’t likely to happen. Variety has merits as well and we should strive to be diverse in our membership, but we can’t mandate it.

One that inspires deep insight.

There are two cases here :

  • a forum where the rules are set by “the community”
  • a forum where the rules are set by “an authority”

But in both cases, the members who “walk in” are the same average or slightly above average general population. Since there are no IQ tests or other test of ability, they will mostly be “not smart enough to understand philosophy”.

Therefore, it seems that they will not be smart enough to set and enforce the rules - the rules and enforcement will be dumb.

That depends on the rules. A rule against calling people “morons” does not appear to be particularly limiting. On the other hand, a community of shamers could be very limiting or not - depends on the community.

That’s saying that people can’t determine “goodness” by their choices. A car model which sells well is not necessarily “good”. A beer that people repeatedly consume is not “good” (or is it). :confused:

So what are people doing when they make choices?

Okay, you have a standard of what is a “good philosophy forum” and you will leave if the forum doesn’t meet that standard. You will also vote with your feet. Right?