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.

Oh, ok. It was the “or is it mostly cuz theyre black?” and invitation to self reflect that made me think you had an idea in mind already about his basis. My mistake...you triggered me

He already said it was not the skin colour but the clothes. You are assuming its based on skin colour, with no real basis except being triggered by the topic. Your questions werent sincere questions but rather meant to mock. (Which is fair, if it seems silly to you I suppose). You are assuming that self reflection will show him the answer that you are just...assuming.
A better question than any of yours is:
“Pinprick, would you feel the same way about other ethnicities whose clothing you associated with violent/criminal people such as whites wearing biker gang colours or perhaps well dressed japanese men with chest/back tattoos and missing pinky fingers?”

Pinprick, you do not sound racist to me. That would require you to be reacting to skin colour or race rather than the way someones dressed. You may be guilty of jumping to conclusions based on attire but thats not racist. I think that you may be conditioned to think that because of the race narrative being peddled about these days.

He means there is an additional, separate percent chance not two percent chances that need to be added together.
They only get combined together later in his attempt to account for the two, separate percent chances into a single calculation.

No, because there would be a conflation with actively being racist and not trying to prevent racism. Being apathetic about racism doesn't equate to racism. But if I'm missing your point, let me know. — Baden

Well I had in mind less the apathy (but really, I think thats an serious issue in all of this too) and more in mind cops like the asian one in the Floyd murder...he should have done something and he didnt and thats a serious part of the problem too imo.

Im curious if you would agree with this amendment to your last sentence:
If we take systemic racism out of the equation, all the racism we point to must fall on the racist cops and those who know about them and do nothing.

What about though of us who suffer from the residual effects of such policies? — Anaxagoras

Then we call that “residual effects of those policies”, not “systemic racism”. If you are suffering from a policy, we change it. If you are suffering from the consequences of history then you do what everyone else does when history has done them a disservice. Calling it systemic racism drastically alters the problem and shifts the response to, perhaps coincidently perhaps not, unjustified social/political control. Race doesnt really matter to anyone except the minorities of racists and people who think everyone is a racist. Everyone else gets it, race is mostly irrelevant.

Since life is often hard work, and by its nature inherently meaningless, why fear death? Because ceasing to be cannot be any scarier than the trials and tribulations of living.

(Accepting all viewpoints and counterarguments) — Wandering-Philosopher

Ok, just for fun. Hard work comes with rewards, you left that out of your equation. That omission skews the argument.
Why is life inherently meaningless? What fo you mean by that?
Ceasing to be can indeed be scarier than trials and tribulations sir, if one is more afraid of not being than they are of life's trials and tribs.

If you could defeat the argument...
— Frank Apisa
If you could show any of my arguments on any thread have not defeated your position - I've given you a lot of targets to take shots at - you would have, Frank, but you can no more defend your position with a valid argument than you can soundly defeat my (or almost any member's) counter arguments. All you ever do is deny deny deny anything anyone expresses that you don't agree with and/or understand with what amounts to "no no no" tantrum. I've not ever tried to pursuade you out of your confusion, only expose you as a specimen of garden-variety, anti-philosophical, dogmatic confusion for public display. No "wise men" or "wise women" here, friend, only fools of varying degrees of self-awareness (Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding), or at different levels of recovery. So I'll keep on casting my pearls, sir, and you keep on spilling your "no no no" seed. :up: — 180 Proof

:100:

So accurate, except Ive come to realise Frank is mentally ill, dementia, delusions of grandeur or Bi-polar (though its uncommon for episodes to last so long and consistently so maybe not.).
Its obviously very difficult to pin point his actual problem by his posts, but I think its equally obvious that he has some kind of mental illness. To that end, he deserves our pity rather than our derision. You should just let him be dude, I really dont think he can help himself. Engagement usually feeds the fantasy.
Apologies for being preachy...I just feel a bit bad for him, hopefully he has family or friends who help him through the worst of it. If he needs to act like he does to cope, the behaviour is easy to ignore and might be a needed mechanism for him.

In what way are those standards not being applied to difficult issues? People get banned and warned for the same behaviour regardless of the topic difficulty, as far as I can see.

How would that work? What “form of demand” do you have in mind?

I think the root of it is identity politics. Thats the conversation that needs to happen before discussing race. Without that lense the issues get much more clear and easy to parse.

Well everybody knows what Im talking about when I say “black” or “asian” or “white” races, so its obviously a useful categorisation. Useful categorisations are useful because they are based on something real. Denying that categorisations existence is silly. To argue that race isnt a scientific term of some kind is to argue against a strawman. Most people use race to refer to these categories except (as far as I can tell) racists and people who are obsessed with racists/race.
It seems obvious to me that what people arguing race doesn't exist are actually concerned about how people interpret the differences in race. Their problem is actually with people who think that differences in race have any meaning or bearing on ones humanity or value. Racism. Thats the fear, which should be obvious but some people get silly and try to commit to race not existing. Social and environmental conditions that resulted in certain cultural and biological differences...that exists, and that's basically what people mean when they use the term “race”. The people who do not are the racists and the people who think everybody is a racist.

Higher bone density, more fast twitch muscle fiber. Thats where the better average athletics come from for blacks.

Ok.

I dont think it is. Its mostly on the loud mouthed fringes, most of it is either harmless or results in positive change. Its certainly a problem in specific areas, but the population at large doesnt seem effected enough to call it systemic.

I dont think he should be fired for not disavowing. Do you think thats why he was fired? How did you determine that was the case?

Lol, ya but you openly admit you dont trust the source so your suspicion is automatic isnt it?

(So maybe something unfair happened but "tyrannical" is hyperbole. Let's save "tyrannical" for a President who wants to literally kill people's families to punish them.) — Baden

Maybe? Seems pretty clearly unfair. Tyrannical Ill grant is a stretch but there are uses of the word that dont mean murderous presidents so it doesnt seem that over the top to me.

Yes, but at least one of his examples isn't remotely accurate.

What actually happened was:

"Tea Katai made the posts on her Instagram story earlier this week, and the Galaxy angrily condemned them as "racist and violent" on Wednesday. The posts included a photo with a caption written in Serbian urging police to "kill" protesters, another referring to protesters as "disgusting cattle," and a third sharing a racist meme."
— Baden

If your wife is an out-of-control racist calling for people to be killed, you better disavow that shit quickly or you can expect some blowback. — Baden

It doesnt matter to you that the person punished didnt do what they were punished for? I understand you are saying its bad for him to not disavow the behaviour but are you saying thats why he was fired? Cuz He didnt disavow it (or didnt disavow it fast enough rather)?
It seems like he was fired by his association, how did you determine it wasnt?

Ya, It seems to be something about how they are received. That Terrapin guy always turned when people either didnt accept his framing or they didnt understand his framing and he did suicide by mod when too many of his discussion went that way. That Nuke guy seemed to be upset that his taunts/rants didnt get enough support or reaction once the discussion degenerated into mud slinging so he suicided by mod in his attempt to escalate it.
Fragile ego’s and/or narrow interest of engagement would be my guess.
I dont wanna say trolling..but there is something trollish to it. Its a very focused, self serving sort of engagement like trolling is...I mean there aren’t that many good philosophy sites so there is some cost to it if they are interested in that kinda thing.
I dont know why it fascinates me but it does.

Thats a good point, but surely we can find a more reasonable cut off than the examples NOS used but that do include the example you used. What gets compared (and shut down) to your swastika example is pretty egregious.

What do you think the reason is for that kamikaze “hurrah” we see too often on this forum? There have been a few now who clearly decide they are going to act out and get banned.

Well said, and history shows us pretty clearly that its true. ideologies that later turn out to be very weak almost always have censorship as a primary trait.