No forum anywhere represents the world. The internet is a cesspool that attracts the absolute worst people this side of murderers and rapists. What happens in this forum or any other is hopelessly skewed. This site tries to keep the trash out with some higher standards. You want more wide open gates, but as far as I can tell diversity of discussion isnt the mandate, quality is.

Ok, so something like Occums Razor?

Ok, I misunderstood. You want something that obligates me to certain conclusions across multiple topics, the way logic does? And it has to be specific to each discipline? Is that right?

Well as you increase your awareness of politics you will find connection to other topics because of overlap with them. Why are these people acting this way in this area of politics? Boom, sociology, psychology, biology...awareness is key so in so much as they in fact overlap you will need to encompass that in your knowledge in order for your “key” (awareness) to unlock the doors of politics.
There are bound to be topics that do not overlap of course, but the principal still forms the basic analysis for those separate topics.

Ok, i understand.
I have core principals but not sure how theyd fit into your framing nor if any would be concrete enough for yiur query, so ill just throw one out and see if its what you are looking for.
Im always saying “awareness is key”. I think its fundamental to whatever free will you think humans might have, to communication and by extension philosophy and language, to self reflection and therefore self improvement...everything, as more awareness leads to more connections between not just sub categories but all categories.
Operationally awareness should be maximised as a first step, and constantly updated throughout other steps. I generally assume in discussion of philosophy that my discussion partner knows something I do not if they disagree with me and the updating of awareness at each step dictates that knowledge be assimilated so get after it.
Thats the gist, is that the kinda thing you mean? Feels like its too generic fir yiur purpose.

Is it a cop-out to offer something like reason or logic? I think most people have those as core principals, but im not sure if you are looking fir something more specific...and wouldnt core principals be applied basically in all your thinking?
Sorry, I think its an interesting question but Im a bit fuzzy on how to start answering.

No. Because these “residual effects” are embedded in different facets of society such as racism in healthcare, economics, policing etc. — Anaxagoras

The word “racism” is not necessary in your statement. At best you could say the residual effects of racism. There isnt That much that you are attributing to racism that couldnt also be attributed to socio-economics.

No it does not. If I’m identifying a problem how am I altering the response? — Anaxagoras

Well if the problem is a racist system the response is going to be much different, its going to justify social control. So mis-labelling the problem as systemic racism will result in unjustified social control.
Its not that identifying the problem is bad, its identifying the problem incorrectly. Thats what I think is happening with “systemic racism”. Its similar to when people say things like:
1 Nazi’s are bad
2 its ok to punch nazi’s
3 everyone that disagrees with my systemic racism narrative is a nazi
4 i should punch people who disagree with my narrative.

Its a word game, a tactic, to exercise social control. The Black Lives Matter founders freely admit and our proud to say that they are “trained Marxists”. If that doesnt cause you to take another look at the narrative being pushed then im not sure what to say to you.
As far as talking points, I understand that there are people who push a “right wing” counter-narrative that involves some of the things I am mentioning and I call that the same sort of game, and damn them for making normal words trigger words so its difficult (sometimes impossible) to have an actual discussion.
“White privilege” is a bullshit term too, and part of the same tactical playbook. Same with the way “racism” is now defined as “prejudice plus power”, a bullshit definition so people can be openly racist and not have to worry about being called a racist. It utterly fails under scrutiny. Its all part of this ideology being peddled in academia thats churning out useful idiots to join the sjw army.

This is simply ridiculous. — Anaxagoras

I agree, your strawman is ridiculous. I said “race”, not racism.
It matters if someone is racist, of course. Race itself isnt a big issue for anyone other than racists and people who think everyone is a racist. Two minority groups, with the majority of people realising its not really that important what someones race is. Ill admit the latter is catching on thiugh, many have bought the narratives of systemic racism, unconscious racism , identity politics etc etc.

No, everyone doesn’t get it. But I’m sure indirectly you’re saying in effect everyone perhaps white who thinks like you get it. Not to presume YOUR ethnicity per se but again, this is a typical talking point. — Anaxagoras

Ya I understand. I hear similar things that have been picked up and repeated as talking points, its what makes these discussions difficult to have. Anything anyone says can be weaponised by either side and then when anyone else touches the data or words or points then they get immediately grouped in with whichever side has co-opted the data, word or point.
Id like to note however that even though you attempt to avoid “racism” by not presuming my ethnicity, you still are making a judgement about people based on the colour of their skin, their white skin. Im not a white person, but that shouldnt make a difference. White skin shouldnt disqualify someones opinion any more than dark skin does.

Good point. There is probably a few specific areas where what I said applies and a bunch where it doesnt. The ones where it applies are the areas accessible to the uneducated, religion, politics etc, the ones where everyone has an opinion even if its uninformed. Thats probably why they tend to be such toxic/poor discussion topics, they are diluted by the standard idiocy of mankind.

Is that any different than any other topic? Lots of people always have the “dogma” of their particular side they put out and it ruins it for the minority who are actually interested In real discussion?
Topic dependent I suppose. Someone attached to a topic emotionally generally holds discussion back rather than helping it along. Passion is the enemy of reason.

Alright, I guess we are talking about different things.

Which makes no sense so im assuming an actual criticism or joke has gone over my thick but handsome skull.

Which I think is pretty reasonable considering the mods do this for free. (Right?).

I am gonna go ahead and Godwin the thread. — SophistiCat

Unfortunately you went right over my head there. What do you mean by Godwin the thread (i googled the law/man but still don’t get it) and how do the two quoted portions relate?

Right, makes sense. A practical consideration for moderation that should trump the inconvenience of the slight post pollution that gets in the main forum. I didnt really think of that.

Obviously I agree those secular things are more important but thats becuase neither of us are believers. To a believer they are much, much less important.
So to me you are still being fallacious, using different premises to reach a different conclusion and acting as though there is something wrong with the believers conclusion because it doesnt follow from your premiss. Of course it doesnt, you’ve replaced their non-secular premises with your secular one. Can you answer that criticism specifically? (A request, not meant as snark or a leading question)
I won’t belabour the point, as I said Im not a fan of religion so its not like I have a dog in the fight per say.

:lol:
Just had a look. Case and point lol
I have a two birds with one stone solution: post all the banned (fir low quality) users stuff to a sub-forum called “youll have to do better than this” and here will be the place Newbs will be regulated to until such a time they get “reverse banned” into the main forum. Like a promotion, once they post something in the “youll have to do better than this“ sub forum that doesnt belong there cuz its not garbage.

Same. I'm going to take your claim to authority with a slight pinch of salt if I'm honest. — Kenosha Kid

Im not claiming authority, you asked how I know what they pray for and I told you. I didnt intend to indicate you should concede the point because of my knowledge or anything like that. Indeed, fair play on the grain of salt id be disappointed if you didnt. It should be about the points being made, not someones “authority”.
Then I asked you how you knew what they prayed for, which I thought was fair.

Right, so personal concerns then. — Kenosha Kid

The part you bolded is meant as something important for everyone, not just themselves. Its a greater good, the greatest good, to many believers.

So how do you know what most Christians pray for? — Kenosha Kid

By talking to them, by listening to them, by reading about them and the writing they themselves do, by studying religion in an academic setting and by way of personal experience.
What about you?

I'm not hearing anything that justifies the claim that, even from a believer's point of view, puts believer's concerns somehow ahead of the secular world. Even the salvation of everyone is a secular concern, and I'm confident that secular means will be the means by which it is done, if it is done. — Kenosha Kid

Not sure where we are missing each other here...secular concerns are mortal concerns. Do you understand what I mean by that? Some believers view this world as a pale shadow of what awaits them after they/we leave this world, this world only exists as a stepping stone to whats truly important, being with god forever in paradise.

But worth doing to maintain quality on the forum. Also, hurt feelings are not, or shouldn't be, a deciding factor in the decision to ban. They really ought not be considered at all really, as its about rules enforcement rather than preservation of anyones feelings. By the same token, we shouldnt ban anyone for hurting anyones feelings either. Ive always found “feelings” to be a somewhat lacking metric.

I'm sure many Christians also pray for an end to global warming, an end to mass extinction, an end to injustice, etc. These would be obvious things to pray for, and go beyond personal salvation. — Kenosha Kid

Well, depends on the brand of believer. Some of them have salvation (still not going to concede its all about “personal” salvation) tied very closely with the end of the world or judgement day. Some see those things you mentioned are viewed as gods plan or signs the day of judgement is coming (a good thing, under those views.)

Is there anything that you know of that Christians pray for that is more important than their personal salvation and is more important than the biggest problems facing secular society — Kenosha Kid

Most christians think everyones salvation is more important than their own. Secular society concerns are mortal concerns, and are less important to certain believers for the same reasons ive already mentioned.

What things do you pray for that are of more importance than the comparatively petty "social, cultural and personal" considerations I've suggested? — Kenosha Kid

I dont pray for anything, im an atheist and an anti-thiest.

Im not sure that characterisation is accurate or helpful. I get what you are saying, I knew a guy that would go to church on christmas and pray for himself and no one else. Id agree, Very selfish.
Most believers arent like that though, many a christian will genuinely feel its of utmost importance to prioritise everyones soul, and that everyone is better off putting god first.

Lol, i do! :lol:

Ok, I take your points. It isnt as obvious to me he wasnt suited to the forum, and it seems like the loose and very subjective “Unsuited to the forum” is being applied unfairly here...there was no chance for him to change his behaviour or to even be aware his behaviour was going to be considered good evidence that he was unsuited to this forum.
Anyway, I understand the reasoning and see the value of having a mechanism to get rid of jerkoffs without the hassle of treating them like they arent jerkoffs.

DingoJones My bad, carry on. — Wheatley

I disagree lol
I think what you did was a good, for the same reason that me bringing this up is good (imo). I want to be held accountable, and sometimes I am rude on purpose or by accident and I want to be held accountable in both those circumstances.
Im a disagreeable contrarian I suppose but at least im consistent.

I promise im not trying to be a shit here but what you do and what you should do are different things. Shouldnt par for the course be upholding the guidlines? Unless Gnostic is being defined as a troll, I dont see any support for a no warning ban.

It didn't, it's nice to have to explain decisions. If we fuck something up really bad you lot will probably notice. — fdrake

Right, that is the exact spirit with which it was meant. To that end, I did notice you didnt respond to my last post where i tried to clarify the point I was making. :wink:

I dont think it is about personal fate, nor about placing it selfishly above the rest of the human race. From the perspective of a believer (not your perspective, as an unbeliever) the long tern effects on the planet, the mortal lives of all humans, or really just any trappings of this life are a minuscule concern next to immortal soul and gods higher purpose.
You may not agree, but its fallacious to use different premises (there is no god or afterlife, all that stuff is bullshit) to justify the rejection of a conclusion based on different premises (there is a god and afterlife). Obviously if you dont believe you arent going to think any if that is more important than mortal concerns (which are the only concerns a non-believer has).

DingoJones Your previous post sounded like a interrogation to me. — Wheatley

Oh. Well it wasnt intended that way, but rather intended to simply raise a concern and gather information. Fdrake, apologies if I came across as rude.

I understand, i read his stuff too. I mentioned him as someone who should be banned for preaching rather than discussing a long time ago. Im not making a point about his post quality nor that he was banned. Im under the impression that forum guidelines say a warning will be given except in certain circumstances like white supremacy etc, i dont remember Low post quality being one if those.

Its being hard on the mods to expect consistent application of the rules? To simply ask questions about a specific banning in the bannings thread? I cant agree, I dint think im being “hard” on them at all.

How so? What is it about low quality posts that makes a warning ineffective? You are calling that “good evidence”?
I can give you an even better one that Im surprised wasnt obvious to you:
The best evidence that a warning isnt useful is when a warning is given and is ignored or otherwise ineffective.
Im under the impression a warning is supposed to be given? Isnt that part of the guidlines? They are pretty specific about what things are grounds for no warning bans...but maybe Im not remembering the guidelines correctly.

Lol, I know he most likely wouldnt have changed but I do think rules should be applied to everyone, especially when the rules are whats being enforced with the banning in the first place.

Isnt that supposed to be the process?

Arent you essentially reinforcing Wayfarers point there? To a believer, you have your priorities out of order in not putting god or the afterlife before worldly concerns.

Did he receive a warning? A chance to change his behaviour?

Its no one else's fault but there own if they bring dogma instead of discourse. Its picking on them the way its picking on a speeding driver to give him a ticket.

You’re misreading me. Lynching someone is bad regardless of color, clothing, or anything else. I’m just wondering if there are situations that are labeled racist, but that the skin color is just circumstantial, and that maybe their appearance in general aside from their skin color is a contributing factor. That type of situation doesn’t seem all that unlikely to me. But that isn’t to excuse any sort of unprovoked aggression. Again, that is wrong regardless of color, clothing, or anything else. — Pinprick

I think thats correct, that racism is often misapplied to interactions between races. The term racism has been pretty well diluted and I think many things considered racist are not racist at all. One of them is what you are describing, that a black guy going for that gangster look provoking an image of danger that a white person reacts too is racist. Its not.
Hate and a particular ignorance about race is required for racism imo.

I agree, not even sure someone just not caring even has a place on a moral scale of any kind. They would be moral or immoral only by accident.

I know its petty so thank you. Lol

Still, my mistake.
It is a bit depressing to me someone like Pinprick has to even question whether he himself is racist even when he knows in his own mind he is not. I wish I could blame the race peddlers and lefties (not all lefties) that push the narrative, and I do for their part, but it really comes down to actual racists (of course). They are the force behind it because actual racists draw the lines on race that the rest of us have to defend.
Anyway, if someones actually worried they might be racist then im satisfied that they probably are not.