kjh

I would be interested in your general opinion of the usefulness of angry exchanges between people to YOU as a reader and observer. — universeness

I’m a little confused because as far as I can tell there is no “exchange”. The video you linked to, of which I briefly skimmed, appears to be a couple of guy’s ridiculing a ridiculous JP video.

Oh? How did you access this thread? I posted it 28 days ago but it was removed by a moderator or an administrator. I even typed some random characters (the 'kjh' you can see posted 18 days ago) to test it and nothing appeared in the main forum showing all threads. So I assumed it had been removed. So where did you find it?

To answer your query, My use of 'exchange,' particularly referred to angry exchanges between people here on TPF. I included the Jordan Peterson vid and Matt and Jimmy's response to it as an example of the anger and language that YouTube is willing to accept. I consider YouTube to be one of the best resources on the internet but I have not watched every video on it so I don't know how many I would personally disapprove of. I know TPF is not YouTube but I thought it was fair game to compare the two in the way my OP is suggesting.

There is an exchange between Matt, Jimmy and Jordan, in the same way, that there is an exchange between Jordan, twitter and twitter followers/members. People watch and will respond to posted video on YouTube via their own postings on sites like twitter etc, I am sure many response posts to his video will get back to Jordan personally and many of his responses to those posts will get back to the respondees. I am sure you are quite familiar with how these public exchanges work. They do not have to be direct face-to-face exchanges.

Again, I just checked and my thread still does not appear in the main page of the forum!

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.

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

Charming, the moderator involved could have at least told me they had done so and told me why.
I am not a fan of monarchistic moderation but you are one of the administrators so I will leave my protest with you. Thanks anyway for informing me.

I watched a few second of the video and in those few seconds it was off-putting to me because:

1) There were people taking JP seriously.

2) The people taking JP seriously were making insulting comments about him. That’s surprises me because I don’t usually mind that sort of thing.

Charming, the moderator involved could have at least told me they had done so and told me why. — universeness

Same thing happened to me some time back. I started a thread of whether mathematics could be considered racist, based upon changes advocated in California that seemed to imply just that. Zip, gone. But I quickly found it here in the lounge where it quickly expired. This is where threads go to die.

This is where threads go to die. — jgill

:lol: Or more precisely, this is where moderators/administrators, in full monarch mode, put threads they don't really like, to die. One day, come the on-line bloodless revolution, oppressed posters everywhere, from small town discussion websites to full city-sized websites. Our brothers, sisters and gender-varied comrades will rise up and overthrow all privately owned discussion-based webspace and their unelected, aristocratic moderators and administrators and insist that the democratic will of the membership be regularly consulted on all important decisions such as who becomes/stays a moderator/administrator and who gets banned.

Sorry for the late response praxis but you didn't place a reply link in your recent response so I was not informed it was there.

I watched a few second of the video — praxis

Well, thanks for doing that but if you get some free time I would recommend watching more. These people have a significant influence on many many people.

1) There were people taking JP seriously. — praxis

Many people do, he has a very large following and many admirers. I think it is folly to discount such sources of significant influence.

2) The people taking JP seriously were making insulting comments about him. That’s surprises me because I don’t usually mind that sort of thing — praxis

So does that mean that you don't mind heated debate and the use of one or two insults between relatively anonymous people here on TPF? Do you think the moderation here is over the top at times?
That's why I wanted folks to listen to the words/terms thrown at Jordan by Matt and Jimmy and also some of the terms used by Jordan towards twitter and asses whether their choice of phrase attracted you more to the video or repelled you more.

So does that mean that you don't mind heated debate and the use of one or two insults between relatively anonymous people here on TPF? — universeness

I generally don't mind it but circumstances vary widely, of course, and I can imagine debates where insults are too disruptive or counterproductive.

Do you think the moderation here is over the top at times? — universeness

No.

That's why I wanted folks to listen to the words/terms thrown at Jordan by Matt and Jimmy and also some of the terms used by Jordan towards twitter and asses whether their choice of phrase attracted you more to the video or repelled you more. — universeness

I find practically everything that comes out of JP's mouth repellent. And as I mentioned, I didn't care for the way Matt & Jimmy were talking about JP in his absence. In the brief part I watched, a randomly chosen spot about a third of the way through it, they were smugly calling him a prick for something. Granted he is a prick. I guess because they were taking him so seriously to begin with and the smugness is what bugged me.

I generally don't mind it but circumstances vary widely, of course, and I can imagine debates where insults are too disruptive or counterproductive — praxis

I think some topics are very emotive and moderation should take more account of that before they threaten with the Banno, I mean ban reaction.

Do you think the moderation here is over the top at times?
— universeness

No. — praxis

Ok, thanks for answering.

I find practically everything that comes out of JP's mouth repellent. And as I mentioned, I didn't care for the way Matt & Jimmy were talking about JP in his absence. In the brief part I watched, a randomly chosen spot about a third of the way through it, they were smugly calling him a prick for something. Granted he is a prick. I guess because they were taking him so seriously to begin with and the smugness is what bugged me — praxis

I understand how you could come to such a viewpoint based on arriving at just the scenes you described rather that what had gone before that part. Before that point, Matt and Jimmy opined (using Jordan's video) why they thought JP is unjustly transphobic. The issue of transsexuality is very emotive for many people. I think Matt Dillahunty's current partner is transsexual and Jimmy Snow is homosexual, so perhaps that's why they use angrier language when debating the issues.

I think some topics are very emotive and moderation should take more account of that before they threaten with the Banno, I mean ban reaction. — universeness

You’re displeased with the moderation? If so, I’m curious and interested in seeing an instance of what you regard as heavy handed or whatever.

Btw, your OP in this topic is somewhat unclear and apparently not of a philosophical nature so I can easily see why it was moved to the lounge area (to die). Here’s a link to a good guide for producing an OP: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op

You’re displeased with the moderation? If so, I’m curious and interested in seeing an instance of what you regard as heavy handed or whatever. — praxis

Yes, I was threatened twice with banning due to some of my angry responses and insults towards the antinatalists on antinatalist threads. They responded in kind and I think some of them were also threatened with banning. I dont think the ban threat should be trundled out so quickly. I think there could be more dialogue between moderator and disgruntled/angry member before the ban threat card is played. No need to start with a 'warning' why not start with a PM question like 'why are you so angry here....' I know the admin/moderator staff might protest that 'we just dont have the time to do that,' or 'We are not a psyche service,' then ok, at least imo, they will be admitting they are a private concern and their rule is not democratic.

Btw, your OP in this topic is somewhat unclear and apparently not of a philosophical nature so I can easily see why it was moved to the lounge area (to die). Here’s a link to a good guide for producing an OP: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op — praxis

I appreciate your impudence but I have no such need and I reject your opinion on my OP for many reasons, including the mention of 'philosophy of language' in my OP.

I was threatened with banning once for allegedly expressing bigotry. I would characterize it more as devils advocacy. In any case, the threatening moderator has since been banned for rudeness and bigotry, so go figure.

'streetlight,' is an interesting case which has been discussed a lot in the 'bannings' thread.
In his case I personally would 'leave the door open' for a possible future invite back, maybe on some trial basis, to see if he could tone down the anger a little but I don't have any inside track on the details involved. He was certainly an interesting intellect, based on the very few exchanges I had with him and the fact that I am still a relative newbie on TPF.

It's like Jordan Peterson. I found him initially interesting but I am moving very quickly to your position of completely dismissing him as a dangerously camouflaged, right-wing extremist. I watched this guy (Cody Johnston) below, also rally against Peterson (almost 3 Hours of it). He made a lot of very good points.
I think that in today's world it is vital to do your own research on anyone in the public eye that has significant influence and catches your personal attention and you probably need to continue to do so even if you are convinced enough to become an approver/follower/facilitator of someone.




Do you think that posters on a thread should be threatened with banning if they call each other idiot or dimwit or describe something typed as idiotic or dimwitted? I mean in cases of important and emotive issues that affect the lives of many people. I think skilled moderation is required. I am not suggesting the staff on TPF are unskilled. This thread was an attempt to invoke discussion regarding TPF moderation against twitter moderation or youtube moderation, just as a topic for dialogue. I am trying to not come across as just displaying 'sour grapes' because I was ban threatened but I have a feeling that I am coming across like that. I can only insist that was not my 'hidden reason' behind the thread. But then there is always the 'well he would claim that wouldn't he,' claim.

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 appreciate you as admin staff taking the time to post on this thread, regarding the issues I raised and the issue of 'well-formed OP's.'

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. 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.
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?

I appreciate your mention of the feedback process which I admit to not being as aware of as I should have been.

It was the fact that you were just ranting, so there was nothing much of substance there anyway. — Jamal

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? Okay, I might have tried to defend with 'give me some examples of me ranting!' and it would have took some more time to settle things but is such effort not part of skilled moderation or is it just not worth the effort in your opinion and the 'stop or be banned' is your easiest first response?

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.

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

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

In my OP I included:
In analytic philosophy, philosophy of language investigates the nature of language and the relations between language, language users, and the world. Investigations may include inquiry into the nature of meaning, intentionality, reference, the constitution of sentences, concepts, learning, and thought.
I consider 'intentionality,' 'constitution of sentences,' etc to be indeed related to linguistics which in turn then seems fair game in 'Analytic Philosophy' or 'Philosophy of language,' but if you don't agree, you don't agree.

Oh, the ban threat card was played very early both times by Xtrix and confirmed by yourself but I would have appreciated the opportunities of a little more dialogue on the issues I described.

I might post something under the feedback category as you suggest but the embers are a bit too cooled at the moment.

Anyway, any comments on the clash between Matt, Jimmy and Jordan?
Do you think Jordan should be allowed to make transphobic quotes on twitter?
Do you think he is transphobic?
If Jordan claims the title of philosopher at times then surely a philosophy forum can comment on what he claims to be true?

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.

Ok, thanks for contributing to my recategorised thread and your further input regarding my two ban threats. I still don't want to be nice to antinatalists, so I will continue to comment around them on TPF and will employ more stealth when dealing with them.
It would be much more fun to challenge them head-on and rant at them and insult their viewpoint with gusto, as well as posting why their viewpoint is completely wrong. We have different views of what trolling is compared to how bad and dangerous viewpoints should be dealt with. I know that one person's defender is another person's terrorist but imo, you pick your camp and raise your standard as best and honestly as you can!

This thread was an attempt to invoke discussion regarding TPF moderation against twitter moderation or youtube moderation, just as a topic for dialogue. — universeness

I just watched the Perterson video about his twitter suspension so that I might better understand the comparison. I didn't know, or I forgot, what that was about. He was suspended for tweeting:

Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.

Twitter insists that it be deleted for violating the rules against hateful conduct, which are that "you may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of... gender, gender identity, ..."

It seems the suspension will be lifted if he deletes the post, but laughably, in the video Peterson says that "I would rather die than do that," so he considers it a ban.

My general impression of JP's video is that it's all theatrics. If I remember right, his initial rise to fame surrounded an issue like this and it seems to me that he's milking this twitter suspension for all it's worth. I even suspect that a Twitter action may have been part of the plan all along.

There are four points in his tweet that are... I'll say controversial, and he covers each of them.

Remember when pride was a sin?
Pride in this context is self-affirmation, promotion of equality, and attempts to counter shame and social stigma. Conservatives are known to take pride in things, such as being an American. In fact, they often criticize liberals for having weak national pride and claim that they hate America.

He refers to page as her and Ellen rather than Elliot
Refusing this kind of consideration is what initially rose him to fame so it seems he's merely playing the same winning tune.

Criminal physician
His rhetoric and reasoning are particularly bizarre on this point. Experimental Nazi surgeries, really? :lol:

Anyway, I don't think that if someone posted here at TPF what JP tweeted that any action would be taken against them, but I'm not entirely sure.

Thank you indeed for the time and effort you have spent in watching the video and typing your views.

Twitter insists that it be deleted for violating the rules against hateful conduct, which are that "you may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of... gender, gender identity, ..." — praxis

So Twitter did not ban him straight away they gave him a chance to delete the tweet. This is similar to TPF's approach in that you get a threat to ban and perhaps even a second or third warning before you are actually banned. Would you have banned Peterson straight away for this tweet or give him the chance to withdraw what he typed? The house of commons speaker will let an MP withdraw a statement/comment and if they don't then they have to leave the chamber and can be removed by security if they don't comply.

Peterson says that "I would rather die than do that," so he considers it a ban. — praxis

This was one of the first issues Matt and Jimmy had with his response video. This 'I would rather die than do that' approach is very provocative. He used two cameras to shoot him from different angles. He sits suited up in a fancy chair trying to look quite regal and authoritative.
He invokes images of the captured hero soldier, refusing to comply with an enemy (in this case twitter) despite their tortures (threat to ban). Do you think Peterson has been studying Trump and his approach to rhetoric. Do you think Jordan is employing psychological tactics here to win over more supporters?
I think this is why Matt and Jimmy felt the need to tear this imagery down with valid counterpoints and angry insults. Is it not important that he be 'torn down' with a mix of valid counterpoints and insults because to do otherwise would be a weak response to dangerous and destructive viewpoints such as those doctors who perform surgery requested by transsexuals should be vilified as criminals?
This is why I think YouTube will publish such angry responses by the likes of Matt and Jimmy or the Cody Johnson video. They see past the need to control the language and the insults due to the importance of countering the imagery JP is trying to sell. I don't think the antinatalism group is as powerful as the transphobic group but they could become so.

Remember when pride was a sin? — praxis

So what's his philosophy of language here? What's his intentionality? To attract theists/Christians to his side or at least confirm that they are still on his side as he already had many of them in his camp. He was obviously attacking the gay pride events here.

He refers to page as her and Ellen rather than Elliot — praxis

Matt and Jimmy called this 'dead naming.' They did not coin the term but seemed keen to repeat it many times. Are such phrases an effective counter?
Find a cool-sounding short sharp phrase that will be easy to understand, make the person who is accused of it look nasty, it will be hard to defend against.
Do these phrases work? or are people beginning to see through such phrases?

Criminal physician — praxis

This is the most serious and dangerous comment he made and Matt and Jimmy countered in the strongest terms they could, almost suggesting JP was talking like a fascist himself.
If you responded to this gently and with non-emotive language, I think you would just look weak.
I could not offer a 'with respect' response to such an unacceptable statement.

Anyway, I don't think that if someone posted here at TPF what JP tweeted that any action would be taken against them, but I'm not entirely sure. — praxis

Only the staff could tell us but I think if Jordan would be banned straight away if he typed that on TPF but I also am not entirely sure.

I'm tempted to talk about the specifics but the larger picture, as I see it, is that JP is a brand and all this crap is totally on-brand for him and his particular audience (market segment). I'm glad there are folks like Matt and Jimmy who are there to tear it down.

The thing that really bugs me about people like JP is when they talk about how bad it is for the county to be divided the way it is, as if they're not selfishly contributing to its division.

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.

The thing that really bugs me about people like JP is when they talk about how bad it is for the county to be divided the way it is, as if they're not selfishly contributing to its division — praxis

I agree that he increases divisions between people but I object a lot more to his claim to not be right-wing and be theistically conflicted. He talks about hierarchies in such a way that suggests they are a natural imperative and he tries to justify power and wealth being in the hands of the few through such bad science. I just wonder if he is trying to build enough of a following that he could throw his hat into the political ring in the USA.

I just wonder if he is trying to build enough of a following that he could throw his hat into the political ring in the USA. — universeness

I thought he was Canadian.

He has not made any contributions to the philosophy of language that I’m aware of, — Jamal

Where did I suggest he has? Everyone imo has their own philosophical approach to life, yes?
Suggested synonyms for the word philosophy from the Bing on-line dictionary are:
thinking · reasoning · thought · wisdom · knowledge. So thinking and reasoning are manifest in language. Jordan uses language to describe his philosophy. This is my angle of approach in trying to analyse what his intentions are and how on-line social media is accommodating/moderating him.

I have no qualifications in philosophy and I will defer to those that do when it comes to technicalities or interpreting terminology. I will look at both the links you provided and respond after I have read the contents.

Feel free to ignore me, of course. — Jamal

Not at all. I do not want to make statements which are based on completely misinterpreting terminology so if that is what you think I am doing then I appreciate the fact you are telling me so and are providing the links to show me why. Give me a little time to look at what you have linked me to.