My vote, do whatever you want to do and if the mods find it objectionable they'll probably let you know. Personally, I see no reason why you should respond to posts that don't interest you. I make that mistake sometimes, and it often doesn't work out that well. :smile:

I usually disengage for a few reasons - 1) I can't think of anything more to say, and I'm uncertain about what I could write that would be worth writing. 2) I feel like we're repeating ourselves a bit too much, and can't seem to get over that hump. 3) I had other things to do besides philosophy, came back and saw that someone already said what I would have said and so I let them have at it rather than repeat what has been said.

I try not to disengage just because I think the other poster is lower quality at the time. Sometimes I've been surprised, and sometimes I'm just misreading, and it seems like a habit that would be too easy to get into. But it's not the sort of thing I view as rude from others. I understand that I may not be the most important thing on someone else's list of things to get to -- I'm just a random guy on the internet after all :D

Etiquette isn't the be-all and end-all. The way I see it, if you have a better reason than etiquette to respond or to not respond, then etiquette goes out of the window. For me, pragmatism beats duty-based thinking.

There are always posts - and occasionally posters - beneath the dignity of a response. And many worse than even that.

There are always posts - and occasionally posters - beneath the dignity of a response. And many worse than even that. — StreetlightX

And if I could add: there always will be a % of those whose responses are at times or always not worthy of you responding to. Even if the current % were banned for low quality posts, there would be an equal number of new members that fill up that empty spot. It is just the nature of a community.

In any finite discussion, someone has to have the last word. When's me, I always wonder whether it is too feeble to worthy of response, or so incisive as to be unanswerable.

I usually respond at least once if I am addressed in a serious thread, and to almost everyone in some way in my own threads, though not necessarily individually. Beyond that, it seems acceptable to please oneself, and engage only when/as-long-as it feels productive, or interesting or amusing.

Thanks for all the replies. I'm going to pin this one to my computer for the next time no-one replies to one of my posts.

I always wonder whether it is too feeble to worthy of response, or so incisive as to be unanswerable. — unenlightened

In any finite discussion, someone has to have the last word. — unenlightened

So you say, but the empirical evidence has so far shown otherwise.

The Last Word

This is not a reply.

Maybe because I'm new, but I still feel like I learn a lot from even very low quality posts.

The number of people who come in here thinking they've proven some huge metaphysical point in only two paragraphs of dubitable axioms and erroneous inferences; the posturing of clearly very young men (~18-21) who are deeply frustrated that their brilliant ideas or interests are almost completely ignored, thinking that this says something about their genius over/against society rather than their own problematic interests; the way that certain threads are filled to like Page 63 with lots of awful posts along with interesting posts has given me a bit of a new perspective on how it feels to (for example) enter into Hegel scholarship; the fact that some big name posters get away with slightly shameful posts that would go ignored or have angered the mods if made by a new member due to having built up seniority and relationships reminds me a lot of tenure and academic networking.

In short, the way this place works as an institution reminds me so much of academic philosophy that it's (a) given me a new perspective on what's going on in academia; (b) got me suspecting that it's no accident that academic institutions run the way they do -- perhaps this is simply what happens when you throw a lot of people from different ages and life circumstances together to engage cooperatively in thinking about philosophy.

It's reasonable to stop responding whenever. Each of our posts and responses is meant to be a contribution to "philosophical" discussion. Making any such contribution does not obligate you to make future contributions.

It's expected that people come and go as they please which is an upshot of anonymous, public, and open discussion. People may wonder what prompted a conspicuous disappearance, but it would be irrational to consider it a breach of etiquette. Take it from a spectre and vagabond of the internet: if what you do post is worthwhile and has merit, you've already done enough.

These discussions - these agon - are not always genteel. Sometimes error and nonsense have to be called out (not always - that's no one's business). A participant genuinely interested in the topic will not take amiss appropriate correction but rather will be grateful for it. And there are things to be learned here and knowledgeable contributors who make that learning possible. I am grateful to all of them, and have thanked some of them.

Think of it, perhaps, as a pick-up game of basketball - that as a universally understood metaphor. We're not professionals (some of us likely are), but we like to play. But the game comes with its own forms of violence - which you accept and even enjoy - and the risk of extra violence, which in the name of sport is endured. It all goes with the territory, so to speak.

Two points: learning sometimes just is the result of a struggle, an adversarial discussion of ideas. And incumbent on participants is to "get on board" with the local rules of conduct in the game.

But here's something I wonder: this model of mine is I think essentially a male, testosterone-informed, activity. Would a "female" model differ?

That's a really interesting post. One of my main interests was (still is, in an amateur sense) in how people hold and defend ideas, and places like this are irreplaceable as a resource for that. What's interesting for me about what you're saying is that I see so many similarities between the young would-be geniuses and some of the more seasoned academics, in terms of the way in which beliefs are held. The more seasoned simply have better rhetorical skills.

The whole discussion about post quality (though I get the feeling that it's really not quite about what I first thought it was) reminds me of certain team meetings where everyone agrees collectively that there needs to be improvements only each individual is nodding along sagely without realising that all the others think the improvement needed is their immediate dismissal.

Whoa! I thought you were jorn doe and I was taken aback by some of your responses, in other threads because it just didn't seem like his kind of wording.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum John!

That's a really interesting post. One of my main interests was (still is, in an amateur sense) in how people hold and defend ideas, and places like this are irreplaceable as a resource for that. — Pseudonym

I am also interested in how people hold and defend ideas and came here with the expectation that I'd find all those great discussions and thoughts that the stuffy old out-of-touch academy stifles. That's in a vague, arrogant sense how I remember my brilliant "insights" from before I got wrapped up in and corrupted by an academic mindset. What I'm finding is that there's not much difference, and that what I'm remembering is almost certainly the arrogant tone of that youth which vastly underestimated others. Like, oh yeah, not that smart now but also not that smart then!

What's interesting for me about what you're saying is that I see so many similarities between the young would-be geniuses and some of the more seasoned academics, in terms of the way in which beliefs are held. The more seasoned simply have better rhetorical skills. — Pseudonym

This is one of the most informative threads on the site. It's (in my opinion so please nobody sue) absolute philosophical fluff couched in genius level posturing and it is all the more fascinating to see how effective that type of posturing is when it's going to work on total fluff. This might seem like an insult but it's certainly not, that guy has a 1000x my rhetorical skill and one's likely to be far more successful putting some philosophical meat on his skill than the other way around.

The whole discussion about post quality (though I get the feeling that it's really not quite about what I first thought it was) reminds me of certain team meetings where everyone agrees collectively that there needs to be improvements only each individual is nodding along sagely without realising that all the others think the improvement needed is their immediate dismissal. — Pseudonym

:lol: These posts are therapy because you get to see your own stupidities and myopia reflected in others. It's a test of your strength to try and avoid the sad little ego telling you "Oh no! I don't do that!"

Whoa! I thought you were jorn doe and I was taken aback by some of your responses, in other threads because it just didn't seem like his kind of wording.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum John! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Thanks for the welcome! Hope my prose isn't too awful then! :yikes:

I know, for example that it would be frowned upon to start a thread only to read, but not respond to, the replies. — Pseudonym

Like this?

Banno, this is a perfect example of another thread being born about Trump that has either been closed or merged into the Trump thread whose tally of replies has to be over 1k. When people respond curtly with a reference of having stated their position earlier on that thread, it becomes impossible to read back 40 pages to find it.

Having said that PF had a Politics sub forum that could only be accessed once you logged in which is also a possible option, software, and 100% agreement on permitting such a change.

Correction 2.9k replies to the Trump Thread.

But I still like the idea of making a single post, which leads to over 100 replies without further comment.

It was a perfect example of @Banno taking the piss.

But I still like the idea of making a single post, which leads to over 100 replies without further comment. — Banno

I know this goal of yours but I was refencing the actual content of the thread and it's closure.

I think it should have been left open for another nine posts.

It was a perfect example of Banno taking the piss. — Baden

I thought you were listening to "members"...

I think it could have been left open for another nine posts. — Banno

At least a light thread that wasn't so serious that inflective labels need be applied.

I think it should have been left open for another nine posts. — Banno

Q.E.D. :D

I thought you were listening to "members"... — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I am.

So I shouldn't make jokes about Trump's organ being cut short?

So I shouldn't make jokes about Trump's organ being cut short? — Banno

Anything that will alleviate the tension would be bloody grand my friend

Political discussions tend to be tense and contentious, Tiff. That's their nature. If you choose to become involved, expect people to speak their mind. If you find that too stressful, just avoid them.

Or take the piss like Banno. That can work too...

Trump is stupid.
If he actually ever owned any Elton John records he would not be breaking them.
He would leave them as an inheritance for his grand children. By the time they grow up they will be worth more than anything else he will have left to leave them.

Yeah I know that is not what he was talking about but it was just the way he babbled it. "I've broken a lot of Elton John records"

People should discuss politics while drinking. Strong drink makes for a lighter heart and a less critical mind. Plus, if you drink enough, you won't remember the stupid things that were said, to you, by you...