Forum Philosophy Update

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?

For me intelligence is not the issue for the shaming and shunning issue. Here we are in the internet with lots of options. If the community here, in this forum, shames and shuns things in ways that I consider stupid, this is not where I belong. Maybe they are stupid, maybe they simply do not understand what leads to good discussions, maybe they are actually smarter than me and correct. Regardless of the reasons for their community norms, their norms guide me. In the process of being shamed - where I can discuss their opinion with them - I may learn and change or they may learn and change or both or neither. But if we reach a point where there is a poor fit, it does not matter if they are right or I am right.

Here in ILP this is especially true, since Carleas is very hands off. I think this all happens anyway. People come and stay for a while and get frustrated with X and leave. Community norms piss people off or feel like opportunities or feel fair or unfair, etc. and this affects participation, who stays and who leaves. When I say it happens anyway, I mean that norms drive people away, but the norms are not made visible and defended and critiqued. They just bother people who leave and I would guess for me, some of those people are people who can have more nuanced discussions and they are right to leave.

I think one problem, here, is that people who are smart about philosophy get fed up, since many participants do not know how to engage the ideas of other people. My hope would be that by encouraging shaming and shunning, this would shift community norms. It might also, as a different solution, create a couple of communities here. Some people would, via shunning, not see anymore, many of the posts made by people who cannot interact with ideas. The people who want to just throw out opinions or twitter philosophical assertions from cellphones will continue to do this, but less at the expense of people who would like to do something more nuanced. It may not work, but I think it is worth a try. Social groups and professional groups often manage all these non-verbally, both the shaming and shunning. YOu just find yourself alone on coffee breaks or not invited onto project teams, etc. I think that is actually not a good thing-that it is handled non-verbally- or at least a limited thing, since people have less chance to adjust to community norms, the norms are not criticized openly, and those who have these norms never have to defend them. They might find they were embarrassed, for example.

For me it would be exploratory and with intelligent posting, and also not so focused on what team one is on - atheist vs. theist, right vs. left, etc. I suppose a place where when someone makes a point one cannot, now, counter, people admit it - rather than focusing on some other point they think they can counter and pretending that troublesome point was never made. That’s a rather specific issue, but an important one for me.

And this is a perfect example of what I am categorizing, polemically, as shaming…

Note that it is ad hom - and I am not being critical when I say that - in the sense of being aimed at the person. Now he ‘asked’ for your motives, and since your motives relate to his behavior, to answer honestly you had to go ad hom.

You put out your sense of what expectations one can have in a philosophy forum for normal behavior.

You might never decide to shun - put him on ‘foe’ as it is called in this forum or less formally ignore him. You seem to have found iambiguous problematic for a long, long time, but you still engage him. That’s your style.

Serendipity and I are suggesting that shunning after shaming might also be useful. And when I say ‘after’, I men when it seems like the shaming leads to no significant change.

It may seem off to refer to what you did as shaming, but I think if it is effective - iow if Prismatic really considers that what you are saying might be true or to some degree true, he will feel shame. And if he were to learn from it, shame would be part of the transition, as he learned to improve as a discussion partner. And I think his shame will be apparant in the way he responds defensively to your post. Hopefully he will prove me wrong, but in that case, he will have experienced some shame about they way he has been behaving. But we could call it something else. ‘Pointing out patterns of behavior that make you a poor discussion partner’ or whatever. We could call shunning ‘no longer engaging with people who stubbornly repeat those kinds of patterns’ or ‘not feeding the subtle trolls’ or whatever.

Whatever we call it, I think the process is a useful one if we want the forum to have what are better discussions for me.

I expected that you would comment.

Sure, we can reduce it all down to that. But the actual rules in any community [like this one] are still going to revolve around one or another set of proscriptions. Can these be detemined objectively in a wholly rational manner?

And, from my frame of mind, the answer one gives to that question can make all the difference in the world regarding the fate of that community.

In particular if an objectivist comes to wield the power.

True, but if one’s prejudice regarding rules revolves entirely around either might makes right or right makes might, “good” and “bad” become considerably more clear cut. And here it is being “one of us” or “one of them” that makes all the difference in the world.

It is only in a “moderation, negotiation and compromise” world that one can realistically “struggle to decide who prevails”.

And that’s all about politics. And that’s all about democracy. And that all about some level of respect between the governors and the governed.

Of course one might also choose to be doctrinaire regarding the rules that are “non-negotiable” as well. Those that become embedded instead in “basic principles”.

Like these can be ascertained…axiomatically? Like there are objective “flaws” that all rational men and women are obligated to concur regarding.

Indeed. Folks like faust and moreno and von rivers [those I had had exchanges with] have all basically skedaddled over the years. And the Kids are clearly a factor here.

Or maybe [ironically] it revolves in part around folks like me. Those who are ever intent on exposing what they construe to be the profound limitations of “serious philosophy” in the is/ought world.

How ought one to live? Well, suppose philosophy really is essentially impotent here?

Would you abandon philosophy if you thought that?

It’s not as cut n dry as that. A forum that favors the mundane will select for that over time. For instance, I’m not sure what you consider me, but I’d never join the survivalist board because there are too many rules and the admin seems a jerk, but people who like that environment climb right on his ass and start kissing. So because admin imposes his will, he dictates evolution. Whether or not there exists any survivalists is a matter of opinion, but it’s highly unlikely there are many free thinkers or a collective iq surpassing average as a matter of fact.

MGTOW is a board filled with submissives since they’re compelled at the point of a gun to follow an order to introduce themselves or die as soon as they arrive to be showcased on the trophy wall. Quality of posts has nothing to do with their existence; only demonstration of servility. So men who tired of kissing the ass of women can always decide to go kiss that of a man at Men Grovelling To Overbearing Wannabes.

Boards transform over time into a collection of members who had their existence favored while shunning those who don’t fit and it’s that which degenerates the variety, creativity, novel and free thinking that contributes to the quality of content that either discourages or encourages new members to join. So there are no iq tests required at the door for entry since birds of a feather naturally flock together.

Evolution takes a long time and it’s not like you could turn off the rules and have a flock of smart folks descend suddenly or, conversely, add more rules and suddenly be overrun by a mob of bootlickers.

I wish I could find that study that found animals raised in small cages developed inferior to animals that had more control over their environment since that’s essentially what I’m on about. The New Zealand no-rules school also mirrored that.

Except people get around that rule. It favors the criminals because they can get away with underhanded shenanigans while people, well like me, have to walk on eggshells because I don’t know where the line is if I retaliate, so I’d be likely to leave since I’m hogtied in defending myself and the mods won’t do anything to stop me from being insulted. If there were no rules, then I could defend myself without worry and maybe the other guy would leave.

That’s exactly right and I hate that I can’t find a good 1950s style metal garden hose nozzle at walmart because they just don’t sell as well as the grandiose plastic contraptions that leak, break, and generally suck. Consumers are stupid and reflect the iq bell curve. I complain ALL the time about that. It’s like my motto that if you ever find a product you like, you had better stock up before they “improve” it to pander to the dummies.

Bud light sucks, but everyone drinks it to be part of an image or something. It’s the #1 selling beer by far ratebeer.com/beer/bud-light/474/

I used to take surveys where they’d ask “which label makes you more likely to identify with the product” and the like. People buy things because they feel “trendy” or “wholesome” or whatever imagine they fancy.

Yeah or I could just get busy and accidentally vote with my feet. But I’ve seen some changes since I’ve been here: people call each other names less and seem to be improving their content. I think people want to be better, but need to know what “better” is. The seed has been planted simply because we started talking about it. No great acumen is responsible; just someone had the balls to challenge authority and he wasn’t crucified.

[i]I went to a meeting of geneticists not so long ago where they gathered in a group of philosophers and theologians and said, “Now look here; we need help! We now are on the verge of figuring out how to breed any kind of human character we would want to have. We can give you saints, philosophers, scientists, great politicians, anything you want; just tell us what kind of human beings ought we to breed.”

So I said how will those of us who are genetically unregenerate make up our minds what genetically generated people might be? Because I’m afraid very much that our selection of virtues and may not work. It may be like, for example, this new kind of high-yield grain which is made and which is becoming ecologically destructive. When we interfere with the processes of nature and breed ‘efficient plants’ and ‘efficient animals’, there’s always some way in which we have to pay for it and I can well-see that eugenically produced human beings might be dreadful; we could have a plague of virtuous people![/i]

FWD to 18:30

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US3dsStNHfg[/youtube]

Then he talks in other lectures about the atrocities caused by righteous crusades. Like the Vietnam war, which was on at the time, where he said it would be one thing to greedily capture all the beautiful oriental girls and bring them home for ourselves, but instead we’ve embarked on a righteous crusade in fighting some ideology called communism and that’s far more destructive than good old fashioned rape n pillage.

Then he said of communism, “I wouldn’t think you’d need to fight it… it would just fall apart” and he was right. He described communism as one giant corporation that’s terribly inefficient and it finally collapsed under its own weight.

Really, the only true good and bad is in thinking there is a good and bad. In order to have the good, you must have the bad and to have a population in heaven requires the damnation of others and so the whole ideology is a root of evil, that is, if you consider atrocity a bad thing.

I think it was Jordan Peterson or one of those guys Stefan typically has on who said “If you think you’d be a benevolent dictator, then that is indication that you wouldn’t.”

God forbid I ever contribute to stopping you from making the kind of very polite on point comment you made there.

#-o

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

There is a struggle in all three of your cases. I don’t know why you don’t see it.

These are the sorts of questions which make no sense to me.

If one looks at something like the Judgement of Solomon, one learns from it that there are many ways to solve a problem, that the most obvious approach may not be effective and generally that there are many ways of evaluating any situation. That alone is an important lesson which makes philosophy permanently valuable. It can’t subsequently “become impotent”. The lesson is always a factor in “how ought one to live?”.

If the lesson you learned is that “babies ought to be cut in half in order to solve problems”, then you might see philosophy as impotent and worth abandoning when faced with a problem which does not involve babies. :imp:

That went to your head pretty quickly. :laughing:

I don’t see your point with that.

Yeah :laughing: But I said no great acumen required! No cause for celebration.

Whatever the particular context – genetic modification, communism, righteous crusades, benevolent dictatorships – there is going to a distinction between what you can in fact establish as true for all of us objectively, and that which you believe to be true “in your head” here and now, but in which there are conflicting narratives and political agendas regarding the extent to which it may or may not be true for all of us.

But even the established facts are open to interpretations. Yes, it might be pointed out by some, Communism did seem to collapse by itself. But that’s only because the manner in which it was pursued was the wrong way. Or because its enemies were successful in destabilizing it — forcing it to expend huge sums on the military and defense, forcing it to presume there were spies and saboteurs around every corner, forcing it to become all that more repressive.

There are always going to be ways in which to interpret “the facts” so as to sustain your own political prejudices.

Here we can all agree on any number of facts. Chief among them [re this thread] is that in order to participate in the forums we are expected to follow the rules. We can agree that there are rules. We can agree that the rules were established by particular individuals for particular reasons. We can all agree that the rules are enforced unevenly…or not enforced at all in some cases.

My point then is always to take issue with those who insist that if you think about rules in a philosophy forum in the optimal manner, you will think like they do. That, in fact, objectively, the optimal rules can be established.

And that conflicts of this sort invariably come to revolve around one or another inherently problematic combination of might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Not counting the fucking Kids of course. :wink:

Has it been established that what is true for all of us is better than what is true for some of us?

It wasn’t true communism? That’s what they say about capitalism; that it’s not true capitalism. So not-true capitalism beat not-true communism :wink:

Well that would be like saying a fighter only won because he managed to destabilized his opponent with punches. All is fair in love and war.

It didn’t bother the US to spend huge amounts on military.

More of what it already was… that’s the Darwin award, right? When something doesn’t work, it goes extinct.

I suppose so. I think the US has a few unfair advantages: 2 big oceans, smart people like to immigrate, lots of fertile soil, and abundant natural resources. With that in mind, it’s hard to judge the outcome of the cold war. What if the situation were reversed?

:handgestures-thumbup:

If the function of a government is to beat other governments, this makes sense, but if a boxer beats the shit out of my surgeon in the operating room that doesn’t mean he’s the best guy to start digging into my innards.

The second sentence is quite different and not a conclusion based on the first. A person insisting implies over resistance that is not being integrated. I am pretty certain some forums have obtained optimal rules for their participants. Optimal rules would be those that lead to what the participants want to have happen happen. I’ve experienced groups with structures that did just that according to we the participants.

A gov is responsible for the welfare of its citizens and if that means undermining an enemy, then so be it. That’s different from the surgeon/boxer analogy.

I thought you were arguing against rules? Anyway, I can’t see objective-anything, much less objective rules.

Optimal rules (subjective) can merely mean the rules that are least bad. If there is a rule that we must have 5 rules, then which rules do we pick so as to be least intrusive? Trashy’s forum had a rule that new members cannot pm other members and they cannot post links for 7 days and he couldn’t figure out how to turn it off. Since I couldn’t pm him on his own site, I had to come back here to contact him because of the rule. Rules intrude upon freedom and if they don’t, then they aren’t rules.

That is one responsibility. Being a good boxer in relation to another gov does not mean it is a good gov. Further the above assumes that the boxer did not create, provoke the enemy and that we, the citizens, needed that enemy undermined.

My neighborhood is controlled by a mafia. Let’s say that in fact another little mafia wants to take over. ‘Mine’ defeats the other - iow is a good boxer. Maybe it is worse at other facets of running the neighborhood than the defeated mafia. Other non-boxing related skills. Perhaps both suck. Perhaps the false dilemma of the choice between them is a fog over the truth.

My dad beats up a guy who is bullying me, who happeans to be another dad. On the other hand my dad is sexually abusing me. Just cause he beat up the other father doesn’t mean is a good dad or even a better dad. I am not arguing this analogy fits the US vs. the USSR, just that I think your argument is problematic, even before we look at the choice as a false dilemma - two bad dads that is.

I ended up on structure. I see patterns of interaction instead of rules, though they may be experienced very similarly by participants.

Many groups have to have rules since they do not have an architectural format, like an online forum does. A theater group will have rules, like ‘we meet tuesdays at 7’ and each director chooses the play and whatever. I was also against limitations on free speech, and rooting for the use of shame and shunning to sideline problematic communication. It might not work with this group. But the architecture here functions like rules. Any post can be quoted for example.