There was a lot more to my post, that you cherry-picked, that establishes a different theme than what you seem to have gathered from it.

Nazis limited free speech. That is the similarity that your forum has, yes, but I was also referring to your "extremist" statements. Did you not argue that you should engage in extreme behavior to combat extreme behavior? That is what I was referring to in establishing a similarity between you and Nazis.

Sure, you have the right as a private owner of a website to establish certain rules and you don't throw people that break the rules into a concentration camp. That is obvious. It makes me think that you cherry-picked on purpose and misrepresented my post and me, to avoid having to address the meat of my post, or at least trying to insult my intelligence by thinking that I wouldn't know that difference.

You see, in a free society, where free ideas are allowed to compete and the winners are those that are coherent, reasonable and consistent, Nazism would never be able to gain a foothold. It is only when you allow a certain group or individual to gain a lot of power, that you run that risk. As long as true free speech and ideas are allowed to exist AND compete in the arena of reason (there must be a competition of ideas for progress to happen and to root out emotional ideologies like Nazism), then we don't really need rules for controlling it, do we?

Extreme reactions to extreme actions are not the answer. Reasonable reactions to extreme actions are the answer. You fight racism (hate) with reason, not reciprocal racism (hate). The emotions are not bearers of truth (other than the fact that you have them in certain situations). Reason is - and it is why reason always wins out when determining the truth. — Harry Hindu

Oh, I actually missed this post and only got notified of the one where you rhetorically expressed doubt about whether I was a pedophile (consider this a replacement response). Anyway, no, I didn't deliberately cherry pick though of course I may have misunderstood your intention (your post was relatively short and I addressed what appeared to be the substance of it); no, I don't own the site, jamalrob does; no, Nazism did actually take hold in a relatively free society (the Weimar Republic) and in any case we are talking about this forum—I'm not advocating for changes in free speech laws generally; no, it's not wrong to moderate Nazis, pedophiles and the like on an internet forum, it's a very sensible reaction that almost every forum employs; and no, reason demonstrably doesn't always "win" when determining the truth in that plenty of people are convinced by its opposite and ultimate agreement on what the truth is anyway, especially wrt moral issues, is rare.

ATTENTION MODERATOR!! Clear violation of the rules!!!! — Jake

Releasing flying monkeys now!

Or to put it more bluntly, we need more psych majors on the moderation team in my opinion. — Posty McPostface

How many are on it now? Maybe you know more than me. I'm not aware of what majors the mod team are although I believe everyone except @Hanover has had at least some formal schooling.

It's not so much labels are the problem, but labels used deliberately and unfairly as a rhetorical strategy, which we can all be guilty of sometimes. And even then the best way to react is simply to push back. For example, @Harry Hindu has every right to label the mod team Nazis (in whatever sense) if he wants (here in feedback anyway). It's up to us then to argue back if we want. It wouldn't be sensible for either of us to take any of that personally, and I wouldn't even bother calling it "abusive" as that in itself could be deemed just another label. Come to think of it, aren't we in danger of labelling the labelers, "labelers"! But, yes, @Jake gave some good advice which is worth heeding on these internets.

Surely, the warm and fuzzy feeling evinced from expressing true love and kindness (as opposed to the fakey manipulative kind) and witnessing its effect on others beats any pleasure that could be squeezed from a $40 laptop?

OK. I think we've both made our points anyway.

You can drop the "poor me" act. They're your words. And none of this has anything to do with whether you stay here or not because no-one has said you've broken any rules.

I never said that I was particularly kind and loving... — All sight

And clearly you're not. But it's probably because you've

not healed from previous battles — All sight

I can

just imagine the expression on [your] face as [you] type from the levels [you] emit. — All sight

So, it's not really your fault and we still love you. Despite it all.

And I sincerely don't care because the jig is up. Your insincere exhortations towards being kind and loving have been revealed as empty posturing and an attempt at propping up your ego.

It's character assassination — All sight

You've just admitted to trying to assassinate the character of your interlocutors by making claims of their inferior personal psychologies. But anyway, I'm not going to go around in circles with a passive aggressive. Most posters here have seen this type of thing dozens of times.

...you wouldn't tell me — All sight

I did tell you. Here:

Someone who strongly virtue signals about being kind and loving, but when others don't respond the way they wish, engages in subtle insult and other strategies to control the narrative and undermine their interlocutors while still attempting to maintain an appearance of being the most reasonable and considerate person in the exchange is engaging in typical passive aggressive behaviour. And it's going to be given short shrift here. — Baden

I have not been cruel or disrespectful to anyone — All sight

Where did I use those words? I said you were engaging in passive aggressive posturing. Which you were.

All I can do is deny it. — All sight

Really?

...it is because they've not healed from their previous battles. I can just imagine the expressions on their face as they type from the levels they emit.

There is a thing it is like to not be haunted like that... — All sight

"They" are the people who disagree with you, right? You are not "haunted like that", right?

@All sight
Some of the strategies you specifically have used have been to falsely imply that others are ignorant of the topic at hand, and to impugn and mock the characters of those who don't agree with your discoursal strategy, suggesting they may have some personal psychological deficit that you are above.

@All sight
Someone who strongly virtue signals about being kind and loving, but when others don't respond the way they wish, engages in subtle insult and other strategies to control the narrative and undermine their interlocutors while still attempting to maintain an appearance of being the most reasonable and considerate person in the exchange is engaging in typical passive aggressive behaviour. And it's going to be given short shrift here.

I'm not going to give you an English lesson. Demonstrate you can do at least some cognitive work yourself and if you really can't figure out why that could be applied to your post then get back to me.

Curiously my post to which you're responding hasn't appeared, but what the hey. — gurugeorge

No, it was deleted because you repeated in it (only in different words) the essence of your pseudo-scientific race-based and racist theories. Again, being ignorant is not an excuse for being racist and we've given you more than enough leeway already. Final warning.

So, abusive argumentation is out, but passive aggressive posturing is fine... Ok then...

A very welcome bit of good news. Well done, Sam. :strong: You've conclusively demonstrated that anyone in this discussion who suggested you keep the ring was just flat out wrong ethically, and given what you've written above should reconsider their position.

+ @Harry Hindu From the guidelines:

"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."

The fact that we're a moderated forum with standards that are enforced, and that you don't have an absolute right to free speech is not going to change.

WHY are Nazis wrong? WHY are you right? — Harry Hindu

If you can't figure that one out, you're really in trouble, as you are if you can't figure out why the mod team on this site are not the same as Nazis simply because we enforce certain standards, or why in general certain things like Nazism, pedophilia, rape etc. are wrong for obvious reasons that we don't need to go into here because we'd rather spend time on stuff that is actually worth debating. But, yes, feel free to go to other sites to try to figure out why Nazism is wrong. I hope you manage it some day.

It seems healthier to me to be able to compartmentalise to a degree. Balance is being able to switch between broad modes of self - animal, social and rational by turns, depending on the setting. The difficulties would arise when we try to identify as just the one self - the beast, the poet, the thinker - as if we ought be so centred and simple. — apokrisis

The other question is what is the best we can expect? I think feeling adapted - properly embedded in a context, but also with sufficient creative freedoms - does it for most people for natural reasons. I think it helped me that I did compartmentalise my selves to a fair extent into their physical, social and rational modes. I pay enough attention to keep all three plates spinning. — apokrisis

As I am arguing, they can't be "well-integrated" because they are three spheres of being. They each need to be lived by their own lights to a reasonable extent. — apokrisis

Again, no words will just fix you if they are just more rationalisation. But my view is that the psychology of this is that we are formed by our habits. And habits can be changed just as they can be learned. — apokrisis

@csalisbury The thrust of what apo is saying is how I see it too. I tend to posit it in terms of irreconcilable drives, but his divisions are neat enough. We're not one "self" as in some kind of unified internal flow that deals in one particular way with the external environment, and the narrative that we are is just a necessary illusion that allows coherent functioning in each of the contexts mentioned above. So, there isn't an overarching harmony except in an acceptance of disharmony and no solution except a recognition of paradox. And then if you get that in the background, you can foster a kind of transient harmony moment to moment. But yes, you're framing philosophy and truth through a mood that probably has little or nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with your apparent depression, the cure for which (in so far as there is one) can't be thought through, and the trying to think through is more likely a symptom than any kind of route to a solution. Anyway, I've been through a lot of depression and obsessiveness and other lasting uncomfortable states of mind myself, and sustained relief has come only from disciplined cultivation of habit, as per apo's comments, and in particular a push towards being creative.

Given what you've said though, I'm interested in your answer to where do you see the boundary between philosophy and art. How do we distinguish between the two?

Personally, I find it difficult to call crucifixion success, but then I am weak-willed and self-centered. — unenlightened

It certainly wouldn't be my cup of blood either. I like my flagellations short and sweet.

Right. Well, so can I. So why am I not more famous? — Bitter Crank

It's one of the great mysteries of life, which even I have never managed to work out. :chin: We all have our limits...

:clap: @Sam Sam

Yes, let's leave it at that. Your previous comments are not on-topic anyway, and I'd prefer we stick to the OP here. Future commentary on that issue will be deleted. Though what you have said in this discussion is fair target for criticism.

You realize saying that sort of thing makes you a "racist" and a "Nazi," right? — gurugeorge

No it doesn't. Promoting the following pseudosicentific nonsense does make you a racist though:

"...we are divisible into sub-species by means of both plain observation and more recondite scientific investigations (into relative genetic closeness or distance). For humans, there are 3 broad and about 7 or 9 more refined sub-species, or "races,"
...It turns out that of the three main races, Asians tend to be the least promiscuous, Blacks the most, with Whites inbetween." — gurugeorge

Which is why you were warned that if you say it again, you'll be banned. For... being a racist. Unlike BC who is not.

Simple. Contact them and ask them if you can have it. If they say "yes" keep it. If they say "no" then they need it. — Lif3r

This is actually the best answer.

Illogical Spock. Return to Vulcan for retraining. :razz:

... But oh, OK, you win. Just keep an eye on your wallet when Sap is around. :eyes:

Hope springs eternal. :halo:



Again, I agree with the sentiment and we have also agreed that extreme measures may be necessary to combat evil even if done with a "heavy heart" as you put it. We would probably just disagree on what measures were appropriate for what situation. And your call for greater love and respect in conversation in general is laudable.

Ok, I'm getting a clearer view of your position now. Thanks.

Just like you couldn't personally kill all the nazis, and would require a concerted team effort, I would as well. — All sight

Sorry, do you mean here you actually would help to kill the Nazis?

True. I've had as much success with harsh words as with reasoned argument though I think. That being very little in both cases. :)

If everyone thought like that the world would be a much finer place. But when some don't, it becomes inappropriate to make it a hard and fast principle and can result in greater misery--as not using violent means to stop Hitler most certainly would have. But to give another example, suppose you have a young child who is attacked by someone wielding a knife and you also happen to have a knife, do you use it on the attacker to defend your child? I'm trying to understand how far you would take this.

No. I think that love is the cure, so no, I don't find that delusional. — All sight

It's not always delusional to think that. But in the specific case of Hitler (and those like him) it seems to be, doesn't it? At least I don't know what you mean by suggesting that could have worked. Maybe you can spell it out in more detail so I can understand. What would have been your strategy of love towards the Nazis that would have stopped their genocide of the Jews in WWII? If you could make it clear, perhaps I may understand.

That's the way it can work. Not on the internet though. It's too impersonal.

They are yes/no questions. Please do me the courtesy of responding with a yes/no answer to each. Thank you in advance.

You're just not being serious, and attempting to accuse me of hypocrisy. — All sight

Again, you are being disrespectful and unkind. I am not attacking your character and am trying to show love as you suggested.

These ones:

If anyone (including you) advocated standing by and not doing anything except expressing love for Hitler while he proceeded to wipe out the Jewish race then that person would be doing something morally wrong or evil or use whatever term you like (Agree or disagree?). If anyone (including you) thinks that loving Hitler would have stopped him killing the Jews, they are delusional, very mistaken etc. (Agree or disagree?). — Baden

You are being disrespectful and unkind now. I asked you nicely to answer my questions, then answered yours and did not impugn your character yet you feel the need to attack me. Why are you being abusive? Don't you love me?