Forum Philosophy Update

[Mowk]

Cool running. You're one "bad" ass.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I think that you are pulling a lot of normal social interaction under that category of shame/shaming.

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.

For example, I didn't stop talking to Prismatic because I'm shaming or shunning him, I stopped talking to him because he has not said anything new for weeks. I have already responded many times to his "general problem solving method", his "psychological angst" and his definition of "perfection". I'm bored and uninterested now. But that's not a punishment.

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.

There is a lot of not really responding to people's points

I don't think it's realistic to try to punish this. I have been accused of that exact "failing" and I can produce a list of reasons why those accusations are BS. Of course, some days I'm in a bad mood, or frustrated or distracted by other concerns ... so I was probably a rude prick some of the time.

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.

Iambig is constantly saying that I'm not responding to his points.

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

"not responding to a person's point"

When I feel that someone is not responding to my points, I usually think that either I have not expressed myself clearly or the other person does not understood my point. Either way, I'm basically talking Swahili to him/her.

There are instances when he will call me a "libtard" or "Randian thug" or something similar and just refuse to respond to the points. Ironically I'm accused of having both extreme right wing and extreme left wing views.

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Okay, but how do we write about human interactions in what some construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningless world?
One that ends for all of eternity in oblivion? And, as well, in what Camus and others deemed to be a No God world.

Who is "we"?

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...

[Serendipper]

There is a lot of not really responding to people's points and other rudenesses that if turned into infractions would put an incredible burden on Carleas, since he would have to go into these discussions and do some analysis. Not fair to him. Demeaning to us to demand/expect a parental role for something we can do ourselves. As it is we have a lot of solipsistic posts made by people who cannot really interact with the ideas of others and really, have no reason to think they need to. Philosophy as expressing opinions. The rephrasing these.

That's good stuff!

I ambiguous could practically be a bot or terribly weak AI, one that questionably passes a Turing test.

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.

People have moved from shaming to shunning, formally ending interaction.

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

[Serendipper]

If the rules are not enforced, then why are you here? You said you only agreed to be here if there were rules. If you say that the rules that exist are not enforced, then you've undermined your own reasoning for being here. The contract is null and void, yet you adhere to it.

If you say you were fooled, then why did it take 8 years to figure that out? Surely you have witnessed countless transgressions that were not recompensed, yet you decided to stay. How come?

How can you say that you're here only because there are rules in place, but do not leave upon noticing that the rules are not enforced? Cognitive dissonance? What else can explain that?

That would make sense if the only reason (or main reason) to be in a philosophy forum was to engage in the enforcement of rules. Since it's not, my answer seems to be obvious.

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

I don't want those changes. I didn't agree to those changes. I signed up with specific rules in place.

So where does that leave me in this game?

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Serendipper]

I can't answer your question until I ascertain more information from you. I have to know if those rules you have in mind would exist in nature without authority.

What???

But now that I've told you that, it's impossible for me to be assured that your answer will be innocent and objective since you're likely to seek rules that cannot exist without enforcement of authority just to undermine my reasoning because too often what is important is winning the debate; not determining what is best.

Yeah, I might do that if I knew what the hell you were talking about. LOL.

My question was asking what happens to the person who disagrees with you guys.

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.

There is no process proposed for deciding on the rules

Well we can propose one.

and no reason to think that you will treat any fixed set of rules as binding.

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

Basically this system of shaming would just "start up".

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

One or two or three of you will start shaming someone based on your "personal standards". Then a person who disagrees has the choice of ignoring it, getting into an argument with you about the "standard" or leaving the forum.

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.

[Serendipper]

I guess that's one way of putting it, but I'm not arguing against having rules, but that the community should determine and enforce them.

As I just wrote, there is no process for selecting the rules. Are you proposing a vote?

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 want to address that a bit more. Suppose you rescue a baby from a burning building and a mini mob arrives to ridicule you. Would you feel ashamed? Of course not. You would only feel ashamed if you actually did something shameful and were called-out by the mini mob.

That sounds good in theory but in practice people are made to feel shame when they have no reason to.
The process of being shamed is unpleasant even when you have no reason to feel shame.

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.

You rescue a Jewish baby and you are ridiculed by the Nazi mob.

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

So I think "Do I want to be the guy calling someone stupid?" No, that's stupid! "Slander is the tool of the loser", so why would I want to do that? I don't need anyone to tell me not to act like an idiot... it's just something that I intrinsically do not want to do, though I don't always succeed lol

That's a simplistic example. You see yourself as agreeing with the rightness of the shaming.

How else am I to have a moral compass?

But what if you don't agree. What if you are pressured to act in a way which you don't want to act? Then you are up against the mob. Are you sure that you are not going to cave in to them? If you don't cave then you're shunned.

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?

[Serendipper]

Ironically I'm accused of having both extreme right wing and extreme left wing views.

Me too

[Serendipper]

I think that you are pulling a lot of normal social interaction under that category of shame/shaming.

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.

For example, I didn't stop talking to Prismatic because I'm shaming or shunning him, I stopped talking to him because he has not said anything new for weeks. I have already responded many times to his "general problem solving method", his "psychological angst" and his definition of "perfection". I'm bored and uninterested now. But that's not a punishment.

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.

There is a lot of not really responding to people's points

I don't think it's realistic to try to punish this. I have been accused of that exact "failing" and I can produce a list of reasons why those accusations are BS. Of course, some days I'm in a bad mood, or frustrated or distracted by other concerns ... so I was probably a rude prick some of the time.

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.

Iambig is constantly saying that I'm not responding to his points.

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.

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

[phyllo]

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.

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".

I think when people make good points, people should quote it and say "good point!"

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"?

How else am I to have a moral compass?

I think that you misunderstood what I wrote.

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?

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

[Karpel Tunnel]

I think the forum is so small that you have very few potential "good seeds".

If it is small, and it seems to be, then you don't need many 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"?

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.

[phyllo]

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.

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.

Well we can propose one.

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

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

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

ell, 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.

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".

[phyllo]

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

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?

[phyllo]

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.

You funny.

[phyllo]

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.

You've simplified it too much.

[phyllo]

Jayson's rules for the Religion&Spirituality Forum:

THE RULES

1. NO AD HOMINEM POSTS.

2. NO SLANDERING OR BELITTLEMENT OF ANY OTHER USER.

3. NO SLANDERING OR BELITTLEMENT OF ANY RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL BELIEF.

4. NO SLANDERING OF WORLD RELIGIOUS LEADERS.

5. NO SLANDERING OF ATHEISM OR AGNOSTICISM.

6. NO INSTIGATION TO RISE BY POSTING BLATANT RELIGIOUS OR THEOLOGICALLY AGGRESSIVE MATERIAL - FOR OR AGAINST.

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.

[Serendipper]

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.

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".

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. https://beta.nightbot.tv/

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

I think when people make good points, people should quote it and say "good point!"

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"?

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

How else am I to have a moral compass?

I think that you misunderstood what I wrote.

That's possible.

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?

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

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.

[phyllo]

Thread nearing end.

[Serendipper]

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.

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.

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.

Well we can propose one.

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

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.

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

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

Judges -plural.

ell, 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.

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".

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.

[Serendipper]

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

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?

And you. 4/10 isn't bad. Convert the remaining 6 and then 10/20 would be good one day.

[Serendipper]

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.

You've simplified it too much.

[Serendipper]

Jayson's rules for the Religion&Spirituality Forum:

THE RULES

1. NO AD HOMINEM POSTS.

2. NO SLANDERING OR BELITTLEMENT OF ANY OTHER USER.

3. NO SLANDERING OR BELITTLEMENT OF ANY RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL BELIEF.

4. NO SLANDERING OF WORLD RELIGIOUS LEADERS.

5. NO SLANDERING OF ATHEISM OR AGNOSTICISM.

6. NO INSTIGATION TO RISE BY POSTING BLATANT RELIGIOUS OR THEOLOGICALLY AGGRESSIVE MATERIAL - FOR OR AGAINST.

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 4#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.

Jayson has more integrity than you? No? Then you can do the same.

When you didn't agree with his decisions, was that an error in justice? That's why I don't like capital punishment... it presumes we know for sure.

[Serendipper]

Thread nearing end.

Conceding defeat but dogmatically charging onward anyway, eh?

"Your reasoning contradicts my worldview so let's drop it."