Forum Philosophy Update

[Zero_Sum]

Carleas is being careful because nowadays companies can turn off websites or web hosting on a whim just because the owners of them emotionally feel like doing so where his occupation as a lawyer he's trying to I think make sure no laws are broken concerning online interactions to make sure no threat against the forum manifests itself hence his extreme paranoia.

It's understandable given the last year and a half how many websites have been shut down ironically in a nation that prides itself on free speech. Right now there are many trying to identify the difference between free speech and hate speech where under the newly defined definition of hate speech are trying to silence others. This is problematic for ILP because many of us are definitely not politically correct in the conventional sense where I am sure there are some that would like to see this forum gone. Thankfully our administrator is a representative of the law, let us hope the government doesn't change the laws regarding online interaction or communication.

[Well, eventually they'll try to anyways as it is inevitable..]

This place is unique for a philosophy forum in that, where else can you see different ideologies debate each other in a single place under a singular forum platform? I'll tell you now not anywhere else as all other forums tend to be echo chambers where only one ideology is allowed or represented where yet still others are persecuted. Here multiple ideologies are allowed to compete, debate, and argue against each other. Here at ILP we have democrats, republicans, marxists, nationalists, autocrats, libertarians, liberals, anarchists, multiculuturalists, ethnic identitarians, cynics, pessimists, nihilists, materialists, idealists, religious, irreligious, and one world government enthusiasts in one single spot debating each other. This doesn't exist much elsewhere [It use to be more widespread in years past but not any more as the internet has aged.]as there are fewer places left to have this kind of exchanging dialogue. This is probably the reason why I keep coming back as all of that makes ILP unique.

Here-here, I'll drink to that.

If we're still around, a decade or two from now, will look back on the early 21st century as the long lost golden age of internet freedom, thanks in part to venues like ILP.

Pretty much, gold in the rough as they say.

I suspect however they'll simply turn off all of the internet before then....

[Zero_Sum]

Carleas is being careful because nowadays companies can turn off websites or web hosting on a whim just because the owners of them emotionally feel like doing so where his occupation as a lawyer he's trying to I think make sure no laws are broken concerning online interactions to make sure no threat against the forum manifests itself hence his extreme paranoia.

That's a good point.

It's understandable given the last year and a half how many websites have been shut down ironically in a nation that prides itself on free speech.

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Some are dying from lack of participation. I get a lot of email from admins just-about begging for someone to come participate in their garden, motorbike, whatever forums. I'm not sure if Twitter or mobile devices killed them.

Right now there are many trying to identify the difference between free speech and hate speech where under the newly defined definition of hate speech are trying to silence others.

Free speech includes hate speech.



100 Chicago Professors "Propose To Exclude Viewpoints They Find Objectionable"

This place is unique for a philosophy forum in that, where else can you see different ideologies debate each other in a single place under a singular forum platform?

I know of a couple small places and probably it's only because they are small that it is so. As soon as the herd thunders in, they trample on everyone's rights.

I'll tell you now not anywhere else as all other forums tend to be echo chambers where only one ideology is allowed or represented where yet still others are persecuted.

What's to talk about in an echochamber? I need someone to disagree with me or I wouldn't know what I think. How would I know I advocated for free speech unless someone else didn't? We need enemies.

Here multiple ideologies are allowed to compete, debate, and argue against each other. Here at ILP we have democrats, republicans, marxists, nationalists, autocrats, libertarians, liberals, anarchists, multiculuturalists, ethnic identitarians, cynics, pessimists, nihilists, materialists, idealists, religious, irreligious, and one world government enthusiasts in one single spot debating each other.

Where are the Nazis?

This doesn't exist much elsewhere [It use to be more widespread in years past but not any more as the internet has aged.]as there are fewer places left to have this kind of exchanging dialogue. This is probably the reason why I keep coming back as all of that makes ILP unique.

If Hillary had been elected, none of this would be happening. Not that Trump has done anything, but people are reacting to fear itself.

Look at all the white nationalist websites they simply turned off last year, they won't just stop with that however as what will come next is any website promoting rebellion against the government or power structure. Mark my words for future reference please. White nationalism was a target of convenience for public outcry to move onto other venues in banning or censorship.

I also like differing opinions and beliefs as my beliefs wouldn't become stronger if I didn't have any opponent to debate. I take great pride in debating others striking them down in bouts of words.

Where are the nazis? If you don't know by now I am the resident autocrat here and I make no apologies for being such. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump serve the same masters, choice within democracy is always a false dichotomy.

[Zero_Sum]

If Hillary had been elected, none of this would be happening. Not that Trump has done anything, but people are reacting to fear itself.

If Hilary had been elected we would have ground troops in Syria and God knows what tensions with Russia. I have little doubt she would have continued the harshest treatment of whistleblowers - he was worse than Bush - since we are talking about free speech.

Yet a hot war is surfacing in Syria under Trump, nothing was implemented differently at all.

[Zero_Sum]

Here at ILP we have democrats, republicans, marxists, nationalists, autocrats, libertarians, liberals, anarchists, multiculuturalists, ethnic identitarians, cynics, pessimists, nihilists, materialists, idealists, religious, irreligious, and one world government enthusiasts in one single spot debating each other.

Is there anyone here who supports to restriction of speech? If not, is there anyone who can play devil's advocate to argue their position? I'm curious if there is any merit and why anyone would hold such a view.

In Europe it's against the law to challenge the holocaust and one can serve years in prison over it. I think the reason is that it disrespects the victims by making them liars, like telling Buzz Aldrin he didn't walk on the moon and getting punched for it:



(Now that I watched the video, the fact that he didn't pacify the guy by swearing on his bible is a bit suspicious. Is he afraid to swear on it? Would he have to swear on it in court? If he would swear on it in court, then wouldn't it be easier to swear on it to make the guy leave rather than making such protest followed by slugging the guy? Opinions on that would be cool.)

So should we make a law that prohibits folks from making conspiracies about the moonwalking? Why not? Why allow disrespect of the astronauts who risked life and limb?

Heck, why stop there. It's a slippery slope, right? We can slide on down to the crime of hurting people's feelings. "You called me a name so you can go to jail!"

Why not outlaw climate denial? After all, our earth is at stake, right? "Life in prison for advocating the destruction of earth!"

Where does it end and who gets to decide?

Why must truth be guarded so rabidly?

Freedom of speech is the only mechanism for establishing truth, so censoring speech for the sake of truth is therefore the undermining of its very own underpinning and it the philosophical equivalent of sawing off the limb you're sitting on. It's madness!

"Beware when fighting monsters that you don't become a monster." As soon as we embark on a crusade of righteousness we've become monsters: armed clergy.

I support the restriction of speech under my chosen political ideology however under the dictatorship I promote I would have no problem with holocaust revisionism or skepticism publicly in that my beliefs are definitely not kosher. I would publicly state my beliefs on the holocaust or World War II here on the forum but I won't for such politically incorrect beliefs of mine pertaining the subject would get me permanently banned here very quickly. I'll just leave it at that.

[Serendipper]

So you're implying that meaning of implication is too hard to discern and so isn't that an implication that moderators are stupid? Anyway, if in doubt, a mod could inquire for clarification. But all that's beside the point since I'm arguing that the community should be capable of policing itself and then we wouldn't need to worry about lettering the law perfectly. Because the alternative is "Well, some crimes must be allowed because we can't construct a law properly."

I am saying that it's hard to discern. I didn't think that Mr. R's suggestion to "fall off a ladder" was insulting. And after rereading it I still don't. I'm surprised that you take it as an insult.
My opinion is probably the result of having fallen off a ladder and permanently damaging my body. Any more similar falls off ladders could leave me paralyzed. So although gravity doesn't increase consequences, damage does accumulate as he suggested.

He should not have said that you were being tacky.

It's in the context. If I had asked what it feels like to fall off a ladder, then the suggestion wouldn't be insulting. But I simply said that nature doesn't increase punishment and he recommended I fall off the ladder more often in order to discover that nature does increase the punishment and that my expression of ignorance was tacky. But what was tacky is what he metaphorically stepped in by calling me tacky because the punishment does not increase and nature doesn't seek to punish.

And, conceding that maybe people don't change, he continues to find tacky things to step in here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=193768#p2690982

People who throw insults at one another are, for the lack of a better word, kind of lowly and pitiful.

So he's insulting people who insult and has consequently defined himself by his own conclusion. I suppose I have to tread lightly lest I insult him, but then again, I'm human and subject to mistakes and won't contaminate myself with purity.

No they have the same rights as before, the freedom of speech.

So the pub owner gets added obligations but the patrons have no added obligations even if the owner has a clearly expressed policy on use of the webcam and the patrons have agreed to the policy. Is that your position?

Umm.. I guess so. I thought I stated my position verbosely. The pub owner doesn't have the right to take away the right to freedom of speech of the public. That is independent of any obligations the pub owner may or may not realize. That is my position.

If you come to my house and I don't like the way you talk, I can ask you to leave. You don't have freedom of speech at my house. But if I invite the public to my house by putting up a sign "all are welcome", then I've made myself public and cannot ask you to leave on the basis of your speech. Also if you come to my house and use my equipment to address the public, then I cannot ask you to leave on the basis on your speech. I cannot do those things ethically, anyway, but maybe legally because the law has been perverted, but not ethically for sure.

So if I'm a Jew and I invite the public to my house for some roasted lamb and then someone starts yelling anti-Semitic, anti-meat, or just personal insults, then I can't tell him to stop and I can't tell him to leave??
( Maybe "throw the filthy Jews in the oven" stuff )
That's the correct ethics?

Depends what you mean by "invite the public to my house". Is the invitation open to everyone on earth? Or do you mean just some friends? If it's open to everyone, then no. If the invitation is limited, then yes. You make the decision to make your house public and once you do that, you can't control what information the public has access to. If someone starts yelling comments, then all you can do is say "Well, I invited everyone and this is what I get: everyone."

Unplug? If it's unplugged, then what are we discussing?

The owner can unplug the webcam if a patron is saying something that goes against the owners policy? Now I'm really confused because in the last example you seemed to be saying that the homeowner has to allow his "equipment" to be used. And you also seem to be arguing that with respect to media companies in general.

No the owner doesn't HAVE to allow usage of his equipment; it was just to state that "even if they use his equipment". Who owns the equipment doesn't matter. What matters is who is invited and who is the audience.

For years those videos played just fine, then after Trump was elected, suddenly they were copyrighted. Schiff isn't even a fan of Trump, so I don't know what the deal is. There are videos from 2006 when Schiff called the housing bust and consequently ridiculed that are now blocked. He can't reproduce that. How can he reproduce 2006-people laughing at him?

I don't know the details of what the policy was or why it changed. But if it was copyrighted material, then they can ask that it not be broadcast.

So Schiff has no rights to his own material simply because it was on a medium owned my someone else? If you discover the cure for cancer on my pc, then I can seize your work and claim credit? It should be the other way around... it was Schiff's intellectual property that was stolen by CNBC.

[Serendipper]

I agree but why is it not entertaining to read "There are no gods, retards"? Do you seriously think he thinks theists are retarded? No, of course not.

Well, he has made threads in the past where he said that theists are mentally ill and delusional. But at least he wrote some arguments in those threads.

Indeed I am missing a lot of history, but I hate to lose even one member. I think banning should be reserved for the absolute last measure when all-else has failed.

Yeah I agree with that, but the point was Dan's action worked... or it appeared to. Anyway, it was the right response. To that you said "only because someone reported it" which was beside the point, which is: anyone else could have taken the same action. The fact that mods exist leaves people thinking, "Well, policing the community isn't my job, so.... "

The Religion and Spirituality forum is described as "For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict. "

In fact, the moderation is not strict. It has become a forum for bashing theists.

I have tried to keep the discussions at least a bit philosophical. But I'm tired of it.

I wish I could help, but I can't even keep up with my own posts. How do you know when someone is addressing you? Some boards have notifications up in the corner, but I have to randomly check to see if anyone is talking to me and I'm sure I miss even reading a lot of replies because I can't remember all the places I've posted in order to check and see.

So what would you have said?

That he presents no new information, no argument and that his post is one insult. And he has a choice of either posting relevant content or getting banned.

Reminds me of Stefan Molyneux's "Not an argument!" lol! Why the haste to ban people? I'd like to ask Stefan the same question because he said:

Start at 58:30



When you take away external coercion, what you get is not chaos, but spontaneous self-organization.

He used the "school with no rules" as an example https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-school-with-no-rules

So I went to his forum and found more rules than I've ever seen and I've read on other forums how ban-happy he is. He can preach, but can't take his own medicine.

Prohibition doesn't work. Public shaming does.

I can't picture a forum situation where shaming would be a positive.

Why not?

Yeah, my theory is that evolution of communities favors the most immoral and underhanded since the nice people leave.

I don't think that's true. As long as there are enough "nice" people around then they "crowd out" the "nasty" people. The "nice" people go quiet or leave when a certain threshold of "nastiness" is exceeded.
Policing helps keep the "nastiness" in check by presenting real consequences to the "nasty" people for their behavior and giving them motivation to change. It reduces the rate of growth of the "nasty" population.

I guess so, but it also creates echochambers just like the nasty people do when left alone. Policing is artificial selection vs not-policing which is natural selection. Either way, survival is determined by selection. I'm guessing you're a theist since you're teleological in asserting that control and guidance from ruler is necessary?

[Serendipper]

(Now that I watched the video, the fact that he didn't pacify the guy by swearing on his bible is a bit suspicious. Is he afraid to swear on it? Would he have to swear on it in court? If he would swear on it in court, then wouldn't it be easier to swear on it to make the guy leave rather than making such protest followed by slugging the guy? Opinions on that would be cool.)

Some guy calls Buzz a liar and Buzz is supposed to "do" something for the guy to show that he is not lying?

What if Buzz does swear on the bible and then the guy just says that Buzz lied while swearing on the bible?

Do you really think that the guy would say that he was "completely wrong about his allegations" and walk away "converted"?

I don't think so.

I don't know, but I probably would have said "Ok look, I realize you having some difficulty in believing I walked on the moon, so if it will help, I'll swear on the bible for you. Happy now? No? Then I'm out of ideas to help you, now please leave me alone until you can think of something that I can demonstrate for you." Why would I not say that? The only thing I can imagine is that if I believed in god, I would not want to swear on a lie.

[Serendipper]

Yes.

Don't let him off the hook. I want to see some serious shaming.

What did I miss? Dang it.

[Serendipper]

Look at all the white nationalist websites they simply turned off last year, they won't just stop with that however as what will come next is any website promoting rebellion against the government or power structure. Mark my words for future reference please. White nationalism was a target of convenience for public outcry to move onto other venues in banning or censorship.

Yes, I agree with you.

I also like differing opinions and beliefs as my beliefs wouldn't become stronger if I didn't have any opponent to debate. I take great pride in debating others striking them down in bouts of words.

Yup, except not sure it's healthy to feel pride in defeating someone. It should be more like helping someone who has fallen down to stand up.

Where are the nazis? If you don't know by now I am the resident autocrat here and I make no apologies for being such.

No I wasn't aware, but nice to meet you and glad you're here to represent your beliefs.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump serve the same masters,

Yeah, with some differences. Don supports guns and is tougher on immigration, but is in bed with the jewish banksters.

choice within democracy is always a false dichotomy.

Yes, but then again, is democracy so attractive? Would you put a prospective operation or medical treatment up to a popular vote? It's always bugged me that people who have no idea about economics are voting on economical issues. Abortion? Ok I suppose that's subjective enough to put to a vote, but minimum wages? Most people aren't qualified to have an opinion.

[Serendipper]

I support the restriction of speech under my chosen political ideology

What is your reasoning for that position?

I would publicly state my beliefs on the holocaust or World War II here on the forum but I won't for such politically incorrect beliefs of mine pertaining the subject would get me permanently banned here very quickly. I'll just leave it at that.

Seriously? Denying the holocaust will get you banned from here? Is it an unwritten rule? How is anyone to know the rule exists?

[Karpel Tunnel]

I would love to have a forum where subtly destructive patterns are moderated as much as openly insulting ones. Often the most damaging posters are people who are generally polite but who never quite manage to respond to what you have written and/or refuse to acknowledge that a criticism has been mentioned, let alone respond to it, often simply repeating their assertions, people who confuse expressing opinions with mounting a cohesive argument, strawmen lovers, appealers to authority and so on. Someone who makes a lot of racist statements or insults people can be very disruptive, though it should be noted that if the rest of the community responds intelligently, there is no problem. Of course if you insult people, it tends to set of worthless to the topic responses, but then that means we have a community problem not simply an individual problem. It is also, I find, easier to ignore, than someone with the vague form of rationality who draws you in but never acknowledges or concedes anything that might trouble their view. Of course, I bear responsibility for being lured in when I am.

If I look around the forum I see a lot of opinion making and really sloppy arguments, with the occasional interesting post. Keeping away right wing extremists may or may not have lead to more focused discussions, but really I find it hard to imagine that this is the case, given the current state.

It is easy, and understandibly more appealing to no doubt busy moderators, to focus on CONTENT. But pattern of interaction is really more destructive.

I think shaming is good. I wish the community would shame not content but inability to carry out coherent dialogue with integrity. I mean, it does happen. A number of people have reacted to Prismatic who is a classice example of someone so sure they are right, they cannot acknowledge the slightest mistake and commit many of the sins I mentioned above. AT least three people have bluntly commented on his shortcomings here, after trying through many, many posts to have a rational dialogue with him. I think that kind of shaming is good. In fact I would like to see more shaming and less banning. Not that it has worked in Prismatic's case, nor am I optimistic with some of the people mentioned earlier in this thread.

I also think people should be encourage to ignore posters. Right now there is this weird conception that it is a sin or weak or cowardly to put people on ignore or otherwise ignore them. Jesus, do people listen to just random podcasts and radio shows. Just flip a coin to decide what books to read, what friends to have, who to have deep discussions with? No. We all make choices. More people should be ignored. Don't feed the trolls, regardless of whether they are polite impervious idiots or rude people. If you cannot learn from them adn they cannot learn from you, what the hell are you wasting your time talking to them for?

Announce you will ignore them - shaming, factual information, a nod to your colleagues - then ignore them.

Make shame and shunning the core natural consequence punishment here. Shaming itself is fair and gives the person good feedback. Then when they are shunned, get little response, they understand why. Shaming will not make changes or much, but shunning after shaming will.

And we don't need Carleas to do this, though it would help if he saw the wisdom of this.

[Serendipper]

I would love to have a forum where subtly destructive patterns are moderated as much as openly insulting ones.

Yes, or at least frowned upon.

but never acknowledges or concedes anything that might trouble their view.

I think it's very important to make concessions when we're wrong. Good points need to be encouraged and reward given for what is earned. If you make a good point, I want to tell you so as feedback and to let you know that I'm playing fair and worthy of conversation.

Not conceding is the moral equivalent of cheating to win a game and who wants to play with cheaters?

But it seems the best to be hoped for is that a person simply leaves the conversation. No concession, no thanks, just poof. I guess that's better than going round and round

Not that it has worked in Prismatic's case,

I wish I knew how to fix prism. Cognitive dissonance elicits a fight response involving a part of the brain not having rationality, but survival in mind. So the more evidence that is presented, the more they dig in. And the smarter the person is, the more creative ways they can find around being wrong. Good read: http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-sm ... bad-ideas/

I also think people should be encourage to ignore posters. Right now there is this weird conception that it is a sin or weak or cowardly to put people on ignore or otherwise ignore them.

I feel like I'd miss part of a conversation and maybe the person can change over time then I'd never know it if they were on ignore. I figure I can ignore them without having to put them on ignore.

If you cannot learn from them and they cannot learn from you, what the hell are you wasting your time talking to them for?

Yeah no kidding.

Make shame and shunning the core natural consequence punishment here. Shaming itself is fair and gives the person good feedback.

I think shaming will work if enough people or the RIGHT people are participating. Obviously someone who is not respected by the person won't be able to shame, but if the shamer is respected, then it will produce a feeling of remorse.

And we don't need Carleas to do this, though it would help if he saw the wisdom of this.

Yeah a blessing would be good.

I genuinely believe that communities should be capable of maintaining themselves, and if they can't, they aren't communities, but herded animals in need of guidance. It's a shame that online communities would need the caliber of oversight typically reserved for elementary schools.

[phyllo]

It's in the context. If I had asked what it feels like to fall off a ladder, then the suggestion wouldn't be insulting. But I simply said that nature doesn't increase punishment and he recommended I fall off the ladder more often in order to discover that nature does increase the punishment and that my expression of ignorance was tacky. But what was tacky is what he metaphorically stepped in by calling me tacky because the punishment does not increase and nature doesn't seek to punish.

Well, you said that it was clearly insulting and I didn't agree. So it's much more debatable (and harder to moderate) than when someone is called a retard or moron in a post.

Umm.. I guess so. I thought I stated my position verbosely. The pub owner doesn't have the right to take away the right to freedom of speech of the public. That is independent of any obligations the pub owner may or may not realize. That is my position.

I think that I have asked about the obligations of the patrons about 4 times and each time you avoid it.

Moving on.

Depends what you mean by "invite the public to my house". Is the invitation open to everyone on earth? Or do you mean just some friends? If it's open to everyone, then no. If the invitation is limited, then yes. You make the decision to make your house public and once you do that, you can't control what information the public has access to. If someone starts yelling comments, then all you can do is say "Well, I invited everyone and this is what I get: everyone."

Sounds preposterous to me.

So Schiff has no rights to his own material simply because it was on a medium owned my someone else?

I said that he retained some rights. Apparently he doesn't have enough rights to dump the entire video on youtube. Look, I don't know enough about the exact situation to comment beyond making the general remarks about copyright.

If you discover the cure for cancer on my pc, then I can seize your work and claim credit?

"Discover the cure for cancer on my pc"

I don't know what that means.

[phyllo]

I wish I could help, but I can't even keep up with my own posts. How do you know when someone is addressing you? Some boards have notifications up in the corner, but I have to randomly check to see if anyone is talking to me and I'm sure I miss even reading a lot of replies because I can't remember all the places I've posted in order to check and see.

I think that you misunderstand my entire position. It's not about me, my feelings being hurt, me being offended .
I don't want anybody to be directly insulted because that destroys the discussions, discourages people from participating and stops them from speaking freely.

People who are not morons when they don't share your opinions and/or then they disagree with you.

Prohibition doesn't work. Public shaming does.

I can't picture a forum situation where shaming would be a positive.

Why not?

I can see lots of negatives but no positives.

I guess so, but it also creates echochambers just like the nasty people do when left alone. Policing is artificial selection vs not-policing which is natural selection. Either way, survival is determined by selection.

One can choose a preferred path which one believes leads to a better result.

I'm guessing you're a theist since you're teleological in asserting that control and guidance from ruler is necessary?

I don't know why you would even write that.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I can't picture a forum situation where shaming would be a positive.

Why not?

I can see lots of negatives but no positives.

You and I, think it was you also anyway, could be said to have shamed Prismatic. IOW we pointed out what we saw as the shortcoming of his responses. This can be shaming in that it can cause shame, but I think the intentions to some extent are similar to intentional shaming in parenting, social groups, where the offending behavior is pointed out publically.

[phyllo]

You and I, think it was you also anyway, could be said to have shamed Prismatic. IOW we pointed out what we saw as the shortcoming of his responses. This can be shaming in that it can cause shame, but I think the intentions to some extent are similar to intentional shaming in parenting, social groups, where the offending behavior is pointed out publically.

Are you referring to a specific incident?

It's a public forum so practically everything I say is in public. I rarely use PM.

I pointed out his logic errors which I would not call shaming.

I complained to him that he often called people shallow, narrow, ignorant and immature. I would not call that shaming either. I didn't do it in PM because he didn't just target me, he targeted others as well.

I got an explanation of why he was doing it. I didn't pursue it further.

I think those personal comments are not appropriate for a philosophy forum. "Shallow" is not as bad as "retard" but it's still a personal attack.

[Karpel Tunnel]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&p=2688936&hilit=prismatic#p2688936

though I think I was confusing you with another poster, may apologies for that.

[Karpel Tunnel]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&p=2689006&hilit=prismatic#p2689006

Here pointing out what you consider a negative pattern of behavior.

And this one...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&p=2688936&hilit=prismatic#p2689132

Now, as said, I confused you with another poster. More than this poster and I have responded more generally than you have and fit the shaming pattern I encouraged above better than your posts. Perhaps it speaks to Prismatics need for chastisement that even when I mix up your name with someone else you have done things which less perfectly fit the kind of shaming I am recommending, but nevertheless are present in your posts.

You responded more specifically - though indicating a general criticism (the reference to his psychology) - and were ad hom in the sense of directing criticism at the person not the argument.

I am suggesting that if a broad pattern of ruins discussion behavior is enacted by one poster MAKING GENERAL shaming statements is perfectly appropriate. We would do it at a dinner party and at college seminar in a debate in a meeting. Not always, not always when we should - given all the reasons one may hold back what needs to be said - buy it is a part of pretty much any community self-regulation. Hey, what you are doing is fucked up. It is good feedback for the person. It provides them with information- which is almost always ignored now, but sometimes has longer term affects when the same feedback comes again and again. Sometimes, I have noticed, the person shamed does not acknowledge anything, but changes behavior, tones it down, tries to respond more to those he or she is arguing with, gets more careful about making cogent arguments. Better if they could openly acknowledge but still positive results.

here you are making fun of him.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&hilit=prismatic&p=2689164&view=show#p2689165

[phyllo]

More than this poster and I have responded more generally than you have and fit the shaming pattern I encouraged above better than your posts. Perhaps it speaks to Prismatics need for chastisement that even when I mix up your name with someone else you have done things which less perfectly fit the kind of shaming I am recommending, but nevertheless are present in your posts.

You responded more specifically - though indicating a general criticism (the reference to his psychology) - and were ad hom in the sense of directing criticism at the person not the argument.

The moderators should have told him not to call others "shallow", not me.
I don't want to be doing that and if moderation was effectively implemented here, then I would not have to. I don't come here to be somebody's Daddy.

We would do it at a dinner party and at college seminar in a debate in a meeting.

If I'm running a meeting where people present their work and it's critiqued by others, then one of the rules is "No personal attacks". Nobody is a moron or shallow or ignorant. Their work is not moronic or shallow. If there is a deficiency in their work then specific problems and errors are pointed out.
Since I'm running the meeting, I'm enforcing the rule.

There is way to interact with your peers. If you want to do something different afterwards at a pub or dinner then that's your decision.

[phyllo]

I don't want Prismatic to feel ashamed. I want him to realize that by making those comments, he is not communicating effectively and that he is reducing the level of communication in general.

[Serendipper]

It's in the context. If I had asked what it feels like to fall off a ladder, then the suggestion wouldn't be insulting. But I simply said that nature doesn't increase punishment and he recommended I fall off the ladder more often in order to discover that nature does increase the punishment and that my expression of ignorance was tacky. But what was tacky is what he metaphorically stepped in by calling me tacky because the punishment does not increase and nature doesn't seek to punish.

Well, you said that it was clearly insulting and I didn't agree. So it's much more debatable (and harder to moderate) than when someone is called a retard or moron in a post.

I don't think I said it was clearly insulting, but now that you mention it, yeah it clearly is:

if you don't think that falling off a ladder repeatedly will lead to increasing discomfort, then I think you should fall off a ladder repeatedly and get back to me about it.

Breaking it down, we have:

if you don't think that falling off a ladder repeatedly will lead to increasing discomfort = If I'm that stupid

then I think you should fall off a ladder repeatedly = I should be punished for being stupid.

and get back to me about it = so he can gloat.

If I am that stupid, then I should get hurt because of my stupidity and display my crippled self before his ego.

I'd prefer he simply call me stupid than make such a drama out of it, which is far more insulting. How do you see it differently?

Umm.. I guess so. I thought I stated my position verbosely. The pub owner doesn't have the right to take away the right to freedom of speech of the public. That is independent of any obligations the pub owner may or may not realize. That is my position.

I think that I have asked about the obligations of the patrons about 4 times and each time you avoid it.

I'm not avoiding anything. What obligations of patrons?

Nothing here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693526

Here you said viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693656

He now has bunch of obligations placed on him. At the same time, those who appear on the webcam, seem to have no obligations. They have a lot of new rights.

I said no new rights, but the same old rights of free speech.

Here you said viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693786

So the pub owner gets added obligations but the patrons have no added obligations even if the owner has a clearly expressed policy on use of the webcam and the patrons have agreed to the policy. Is that your position?

And that is where we are now. What obligations would the patrons have because the pub owner decided to do something? If the pub owner makes a choice, the obligations are on him; not the patrons.

Your accusation that I'm avoiding addressing your point smells of malicious intent to discredit me. Slander - the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. But it's ok... I'm not going to make a big deal out of it; just saying.

I don't want to say anything to offend you because I enjoy our conversations. I'm just asking that you not accuse me of immoral activity without evidence.

You see? This is how we handle things without moderators. I say "here is how you're coming across" and you say "oh I didn't mean it like that" and we go on. We come to a mutual understanding of each other's issues and consequently make different choices in future interactions.

Moving on.

Yup

Depends what you mean by "invite the public to my house". Is the invitation open to everyone on earth? Or do you mean just some friends? If it's open to everyone, then no. If the invitation is limited, then yes. You make the decision to make your house public and once you do that, you can't control what information the public has access to. If someone starts yelling comments, then all you can do is say "Well, I invited everyone and this is what I get: everyone."

Sounds preposterous to me.

Why?

So Schiff has no rights to his own material simply because it was on a medium owned my someone else?

I said that he retained some rights. Apparently he doesn't have enough rights to dump the entire video on youtube. Look, I don't know enough about the exact situation to comment beyond making the general remarks about copyright.

I told you the situation. Schiff and other invitees were arguing on CNBC's video tape. It is precisely the same as you and I arguing on Carleas' forum. Exactly the same. So it boils down to: Does Carleas have the right to prevent you from displaying your conversation with me on another medium? It's a simple question.

Of course, to my knowledge, Schiff has never addressed his own censorship because, presumably, it would undermine his philosophy of sucking the capitalist dong.

[Serendipper]

I wish I could help, but I can't even keep up with my own posts. How do you know when someone is addressing you? Some boards have notifications up in the corner, but I have to randomly check to see if anyone is talking to me and I'm sure I miss even reading a lot of replies because I can't remember all the places I've posted in order to check and see.

I think that you misunderstand my entire position. It's not about me, my feelings being hurt, me being offended .
I don't want anybody to be directly insulted because that destroys the discussions, discourages people from participating and stops them from speaking freely.

People who are not morons when they don't share your opinions and/or then they disagree with you.

What I meant was that I wish I could help in your effort to call others out, but I can't keep up with my own postings.

You said here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693787

I have tried to keep the discussions at least a bit philosophical. But I'm tired of it.

So I said I wish I could help.

Prohibition doesn't work. Public shaming does.

I can't picture a forum situation where shaming would be a positive.

Why not?

I can see lots of negatives but no positives.

What are the negatives that you see?

I guess so, but it also creates echochambers just like the nasty people do when left alone. Policing is artificial selection vs not-policing which is natural selection. Either way, survival is determined by selection.

One can choose a preferred path which one believes leads to a better result.

Ok, but that's teleological.

I'm guessing you're a theist since you're teleological in asserting that control and guidance from ruler is necessary?

I don't know why you would even write that.

Because it would seem that if you believe in natural selection, then you would also believe in natural selection for communities. Yet you don't seem to, which seems odd to me. Why believe it is not necessary to have a god to guide humanity while at the same time believing we need moderators to guide humanity?

[Zero_Sum]

I support the restriction of speech under my chosen political ideology

What is your reasoning for that position?

I would publicly state my beliefs on the holocaust or World War II here on the forum but I won't for such politically incorrect beliefs of mine pertaining the subject would get me permanently banned here very quickly. I'll just leave it at that.

Seriously? Denying the holocaust will get you banned from here? Is it an unwritten rule? How is anyone to know the rule exists?

A majority of human beings are dumb herd animals, only a wise or intelligent dictatorship can lead them. A benevolent philosophical sheep herder is needed.

I try not to rock the boat too much around here as people get spooked rather easily. Seen plenty of people get banned over the years here. I admit however that I'm not always on my best behavior where I've been trying to reign in on myself. I've been getting better I like to think compared to my younger years as an adolescent.

[phyllo]

What are the negatives that you see?

I don't think that making someone feel shame is the right thing to do. I don't think it's how people ought to interact.

Because it would seem that if you believe in natural selection, then you would also believe in natural selection for communities. Yet you don't seem to, which seems odd to me. Why believe it is not necessary to have a god to guide humanity while at the same time believing we need moderators to guide humanity?

I don't think that one has to be theist (or atheist) to see that a hockey game plays better, faster, smoother with referees. The players can concentrate on the game instead of worrying about and arguing about infractions.
If a player refuses to play by the rules, then he gets warned, penalized and ultimately ejected from the game. Those rules and their enforcement make the game itself possible.

This forum is a game of sorts with rules.

[phyllo]

I'd prefer he simply call me stupid than make such a drama out of it, which is far more insulting.

Guess that's the way you see it.
I would brush it off.

Your accusation that I'm avoiding addressing your point smells of malicious intent to discredit me. Slander - the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. But it's ok... I'm not going to make a big deal out of it; just saying.

I don't want to say anything to offend you because I enjoy our conversations. I'm just asking that you not accuse me of immoral activity without evidence.

"malicious"
"slander"
"accuse me of immoral activity"

Well, well, well.

You see? This is how we handle things without moderators.

Yeah, not impressive. Definitely not something that I want.

I say "here is how you're coming across" and you say "oh I didn't mean it like that" and we go on.

Except I would not say "oh I didn't mean it like that". And we would not "go on".

I told you the situation.

You told me your version of the story. You told me what you wanted me to hear about it.
To know what is actually going on, I would have to check the CNBC version and the YouTube version and the Schiff version. Then could make an intelligent evaluation.