I'll ask him to tone it down. Otherwise he's a good mod.

Despite my initial post here, it wasn't really the aggression that got him banned, more so the response to my very polite request. He was trouble.

Xtrix is a good mod and I haven't noticed anything untoward in his posts.

Thank you for alerting me to that problem :up:

Don't be shy Yohan. It's a fair question.

I wanted to prevent the Salman Rushdie discussion from degenerating into insults like the Ukraine thread did, so when Adamski started getting aggressive towards Hanover, without cause as far as I could tell, I sent him a PM asking him politely not to.

He completely rejected my request, so I reiterated that he was being too aggressive and said I wasn't going to discuss it further.

He responded with this:

"You know what,you do you and I will do me.
This is a new level of cowardice from you.
A "discussion forum"!"

This is always a sign of a problem member. Not only that but he's pretty clearly a returning banned member, as he mentioned Streetlight and the Ukraine thread and said things that suggested he knew me.

As to what I mean by "aggressive", it was the accusations of ignorance, evasion, and "mealy mouthed" something or other. It wasn't ban worthy in itself, but the bad attitude in the PMs and the fact that he was probably a returning banned member combined to provoke my ban hammer.

After initially putting on a good show of being polite and reasonable--including in the email he sent that persuaded me to invite him to the forum a couple of days ago--he quickly began to turn nasty.

Banned @Adamski for being aggressive and refusing moderation.

I've removed the completely irrelevant personal attacks, because this discussion has been civil for a good four pages and I don't want it to degenerate like the Ukraine discussion did.

:up:

So what's his philosophy of language here? What's his intentionality? — universeness

He has not made any contributions to the philosophy of language that I’m aware of, and note that intentionality in philosophy is not about intentions as commonly understood.

https://iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/
https://iep.utm.edu/intentio/

I’m not trying to be a smart arse. It’s just that you’ve carried on with your conviction that what you’re discussing is relevant to the philosophy of language even though I told you it isn’t.

Feel free to ignore me, of course.

Anyway, any comments on the clash between Matt, Jimmy and Jordan? — universeness

I don’t have any, no. I’m not interested.

Do you think Jordan should be allowed to make transphobic quotes on twitter? — universeness

No. The debate, as I see it, is about what counts as transphobic.

Do you think he is transphobic? — universeness

I don’t know. I stopped paying attention to him after some initial interest, because of his ignorance when it came to Marxism and postmodernism, and his apparent slide into right wing crap.

If Jordan claims the title of philosopher at times then surely a philosophy forum can comment on what he claims to be true? — universeness

Only if what he says is philosophically, psychologically, politically, or culturally interesting. Note that there have been a few discussions about JP over the past few years.

BTW, posts in the Feedback category are only lightly moderated, if at all, so that folks can have their say.

I watched the video of Matt Dillahunty and Jimmy Snow on Jordan Peterson and based on the language involved and the fact that the issues under discussion were important and emotive, It was, I felt a good comparator with some of the language used in the antinatalist threads. That's why I used it as I wanted to offer a comparison between exchanges on TPF and other sites — universeness

Yes, I understand. But as I say, it was a distraction from the point of the post. Although, the point still isn’t clear, probably because you’re trying to make too many.

Philosophy of language is a topic allowed on TPF so that is why I landed there also as it seemed important to analyse the reasons why people choose to employ certain language in certain situations and how that is currently being moderated on discussion websites in general. — universeness

That’s more linguistics and psychology than philosophy of language, but even then, it’s rather too casual and vague for those disciplines too.

If the staff opinion was that my thread and its OP was cumbersome and 'all over the place,' and it needed restructuring, then why was I not offered an opportunity to do this? — universeness

It’s time-consuming to do this kind of thing all the time. What I’d suggest now is just to post in the Feedback category, something like “Do aggression and strong language have a place in TPF discussions?” In which you could make the case that they do, citing your own experience with moderators. I agree it’s up for debate, and some mods are more tolerant than others.

So why play the ban threat card so quickly, why not 'why are you being so insulting and you just seem to be ranting' as a PM communication — universeness

I can’t remember how things went, but I seem to recall it was me and Xtrix who were involved. Maybe the ban warning came after you had refused to comply with the first warning message.

I would be interested in your general opinion of the usefulness of angry exchanges between people to YOU as a reader and observer. Do you get a 'bigger buzz,' if there is more 'honest anger'/emotional terms used/clever puns/humourous putdowns etc during an exchange?
Is everybody on their absolute best politically correct behaviour the only way to go and the main standard that must be enforced?
Regardless of the topic under discussion and regardless of how a person truly feels about a topic, is the most important rule, the rule of being nice/respectful to your opposition, especially when you have an audience watching/reading? — universeness

This seems to be the core of the OP. The trouble is that it’s buried in the middle, between the stuff about Peterson and some gesturing towards the philosophy of language. The trouble starts with the title, which is all over the place. The result is a very unclear post, lacking in focus. It also looks like it might be a complaint about the staff of TPF, which is a separate issue that belongs in the Feedback category.

If the OP had been pared down to the above quotation, without the Peterson distraction, then it might have been ok for one of the main categories. Having said that, it’s not philosophy. That’s not to say it’s not interesting, of course. It might have worked in “Politics and Current Affairs”. I’m not sure though; it’s still quite Loungey.

As for your own issues with moderation, it wasn’t just about being nasty or angry or what have you. It was the fact that you were just ranting, so there was nothing much of substance there anyway.

This post is somewhat off-topic but it’s the Lounge so I went ahead. I can remove it if you like.

I've been casually reading this discussion and from my point of view this is the post that most clearly solves the problem. :up:

Ego is not a philosophical but a psychological term. Most probably it has been created by Freud.
In my opinion, it is a useless term. It has so many facets and nuances that it can only produce confusion, except maybe among (old) psychologists who speak in the same terms and on the same level.

It is better to use the word "self", which is both a psychological and a philosophical term, because it much more simple as a concept and has a more restrictive meaning and use — Alkis Piskas

Just a quick note to say that Freud himself used das Ich, which means “the I”. Not too far from “self”.

It was the translator James Strachey who chose “ego” (and “id” and “super-ego”).

It's in the category called "The Lounge". Discussions in the Lounge are not shown on the main page.

If you didn't post it to the Lounge originally, a moderator must have moved it here.

Is the final answer: Yes to Shia Muslims, no to Sunni Muslims — Hanover

Credit where credit's due: don't forget about ISIS and al Qaeda.

You might see a fundamental difference: unlike the attack on Salman Rushdie, those Sunni Islamists are or were not led or motivated by any country's official doctrines and rulings. To the extent that this is the case, it's a reflection of Iran's particular history, in which it ended up with a radically reactionary government whose authority in the region rests largely on its continuing radical position. On the other hand, if I'm not mistaken the Sunni Islamists have been supported more or less covertly by various governments or other powerful groups, whose representatives have sometimes at the same time publicly expressed sympathy with their actions and views.

If the answer is simply that Islam does not permit such fatwas but through corrupt leadership the ignorant masses were led to believe such in order to take a swipe at the West, that have done well to respond, but I'm still sorting out the politics from the theology.. — Hanover

I don't think it's that simple, because what's going on in Islamic countries is so varied and complicated. It's really not just, or even primarily, about Islam vs the West.

As to what Islam permits, opinions differ, and that's the point. There are widely differing interpretations, each of which has some support somewhere. The everyday beliefs and practices of most pious Muslims, as with most believers in any religion, are a mixture of peace, love, family values, and social conservatism.

But it might be the case that right now, in the present context, Islam is particularly resistant to progress and plagued by violence, and by violent theological interpretations. This is different from saying that Islam is intrinsically worse than other religions (more violent, more conservative, what have you). I say this not exactly to defend Islam (which in my opinion deserves a mixture of respect and contempt, as with all religions), but rather to defend the potential for change without the wholesale rejection of entrenched traditions. This is the only realistic way forward.

There was a time when Islam was a beacon of enlightenment, but even that was an expression of social and political realities rather than some true pure heart of Islam. And alas, that's not the world we live in today.

No -- Rome's or Canterbury's excesses neither justify nor excuse Tehran's pontificating mullahs. A plague on all their houses! — Bitter Crank

:100:

Was the attack on Salman Rushdie consistent with mainstream Muslim theology? — Hanover

I think there is a problem with the question, namely that there is no such thing as mainstream Muslim theology. The holy texts and traditions of Islam have been used both to condemn and to support various acts of violence, and these interpretations are conditioned by politics and history. The same thing happened with Christianity (and still does to some extent).

But unlike Christianity, there is no credible central Islamic authority.

The reactions from governments and religious leaders in Islamic countries will be interesting in the context of the various Islamic civil wars, but I personally don't see the point in looking at theology.

But if you're talking about Iranian religious clerics in particular, I'd expect support for the attack. On the other hand, Shia Islamists Hezbollah have so far said something along the lines of "no comment".

This does not sound like MAYAEL — L'éléphant

I agree. I wonder if his TPF account was hacked? — jgill

I've just spent some time looking at MAYAEL's posts and it's clear to me that it's the same person. The same spelling and punctuation mistakes.

"Well it's simple gay people are nasty plane and simple, sure a few of the woman might not be but I'm talking like 1% of the gay community
And so naturally a bunch of guys that like to get phucked in the azz by other guys and seek this kind of thing out via the night club party seen are going to be the scum that infects the nation"

Banned @MAYAEL for homophobia.

:up: :clap:

To embed a video right here on TPF, click on the camera icon:



Then paste in the link:



You don't have to do this if you don't want to, but people mostly won't click to open YouTube while they're on TPF.

Bob Dylan - If Not for You — Amity

I have good memories of this song. My parents used to play it.

That he existed was something he found he couldn't doubt, so that was precisely the thing he did not need to prove. He built the world back up again on that foundation, with God and proofs.

Your point, while perhaps a fair one, seems not to have affected my position.

I don't think Descartes advocated solipsism, did he? — Tate

Correct.

And scientists no longer expect any ultimate foundation or certainty for their theories. — bongo fury

This is why I think that solipsism and external world scepticism should be seen as important ideas in intellectual history rather than challenges to face on their own terms. It can be argued that Descartes was well-motivated in his time. Such motivations are no longer felt, so the ideas as expressed today become mere psychological curiosities.

Unfortunately, a noxious personality is much harder to give up than smoking.

Yes, I knew that. At the same time, I also wanted to explain its existence.

Yes, but it exists to gather all the anti-life stuff in one place, so that it can be easily ignored. Until Baden merged them all into this thread, there were at least two or three such active discussions. We've had enough. Containment seems like the best option.

There's nothing like the words of a professional torturer to send you into a peaceful sleep.

I'm told the version with Jonathan Davis is excellent. Don't know about Roy Avers.

In any case, prepare to have no idea what is going on or why. :grin:

I love paper books, but now I find myself tapping on words I want to know the definitions of or get more information on. Turns out that doesn't work. — T Clark

I do that too. Doesn't work for me either :chin:

Sometimes I'll look up a word or place and then go off on a tangent for 15 minutes, looking at maps and photos, following a Wikipedia trail off into the sunset. Love it. — T Clark

Too, I do that too. Attention deficit.

I know of Henry Cow, but haven't listened. Where should I start? — Noble Dust

Not sure it matters with Henry Cow. Legend or Western Culture. But I’m a bit more familiar with solo Fred Frith. Gravity and Traffic Continues are very different but both fantastic.

:up:

I’m sure I’ll read it again. Not right now though. Although I am curious about his other Sun books.

I'm reading The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe — Jamal

Finished it. Brilliant, and in my opinion gets steadily better as you go through the four parts. Sort of Jack Vance plus Nabokov, Borges and Proust. As it happens he was influenced by all of those, and references them pretty openly, though indirectly.

I must say though, I was able to get through it much more easily this (second) time round only because I was reading on an iPad, so I could look things up. Even a regular dictionary isn’t sufficient, because the lexicon makes use of many archaic words, so it was essential to have easy access to the web.

Jamal (mod), is this post ok? — Agent Smith

Of course. Don't play dumb.

Feels more proggy. Some Ian Anderson vibes or something. — Noble Dust

Prog feels like my musical home. I don't know about Ian Anderson; what I hear is the influence of Henry Cow (now that's a weird rabbit hole for you if you don't know them; Fred Frith is one of my favourite musicians).

If we're still trading tracks, this is the Oceansize magnus opus. The ending is profound. — Noble Dust

For some reason I assumed they were American, but I see they're from Manchester, and they were starting up around the time I was living there. I'd never heard of them.

I quite like it and I recognize the artistry, but it does have that solemn, portentous 90s guitar rock sound that I'm not that into. Maybe it'll grow on me. I appreciate learning of their existence.

I like the use of the horns on the first track — Noble Dust

Yeah I think that's one of the things that really attracted me. They did a lot of stuff with bassoon as well. This was the first song of theirs that I heard, one of their best:

How are they connected to Cardiacs? — Noble Dust

The lead guy, Kavus Torabi, was in the Cardiacs in the early 2000s, and Tim Smith of the Cardiacs had produced some of his music in the 1990s I think.

Oceansize is one of my favorite bands. One of their best — Noble Dust

Cool. I especially like the tinkly bit in the middle, and generally the whole thing has a satisfying anthemic quality.