The thing is this is the exact kind of questioning front and centre in mainstream academia. — I like sushi

Huh? The immorality of homosexuality? Where're you from?

He made an attempt to define his understanding of what 'morality' meant to him and said that within those contexts.

Questions about the use and meaning of terms like 'race' and 'homosexuality' are very much front and centre in western academia.

He framed his understaanding of 'morality' his way. I questioned that and hoped to point him towards a better way to frame his words. That will not happen now.

I understand, it just doesnt seem like he was talking about the use and meaning of homosexuality to me. It seemed pretty clear he was concerned about the morality of homosexuality.
To your point about “not happening now” I think its always better to have the discussion but Im assuming that was done? Jamal said he was warned. Im sure somebody tried to explain how wrong he was at some point to no avail given his last post.

Assuming he is 'wrong' is anti-philosophical.

Maybe people had tried to point out the inconsistent use of terminology? I have no idea. If it is the case that he was just repeatedly pushing the same position over and over without engaging with the criticism laid at his feet, then fair enough.

The post as it was laid out was homophobic because people view it as homophobic. For race he was questioning the its use as a 'social construct' as opposed to essentialist claims.

Would I be allowed to start a thread questioning the validity of the uses of terms like 'homosexual' or 'race'. These are all relevant in terms of how we communicate and sort through the messiness of language. I do not see the point in gagging people on the basis of hate speech.

Let racists speak out. Let homophobes speak out. There are certainly areas where someo would label one person as 'racist' where others would not, as there are areas where people are labeled as 'homophobic' by some when others would not.

The necessary messiness of communication means we should do more of it with an intent to disagree in some areas and agree in others. Trying to understand why people hold the views they hold allows us to better understand why we hold the views we do, and perhaps question the reasoning and reinforce or rethink our approach.

All that said, this is a private enterprise though. Anyone can be banned for any reason the owner sees fit. It matters not if we agree or disagree with them that much.

My criticism can be considered or not. I am pretty sure the owner appreciates being questioned if they set up a philosophy forum.

Assuming he is 'wrong' is anti-philosophical. — I like sushi

I i didnt assume, I just read what he said. Evidently we had very different takes on that. Alas, Bob is no longer with us to clarify.

If it is the case that he was just repeatedly pushing the same position over and over without engaging with the criticism laid at his feet, then fair enough. — I like sushi

Basically yes. On this particular topic, no less. I don't really like it, but Bob kept skirting around the guidelines with respect to racist and homophobic viewpoints. It was also explained to him in his more recent thread why : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1031074

I know I've quoted this before, but it's worth reading the relevant part of the guidelines carefully:

Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
— Baden

This is not rhetoric. It reflects a substantive judgment about what does and does not count as a legitimate object of philosophical debate.

Every intellectual community draws boundaries around admissible positions. Refusing to treat certain views as worthy of debate is the baseline judgment that makes good philosophical debate possible.

TPF is not a platform for discredited intellectual frameworks, particularly those belonging to a long line of justifications for racial discrimination. Views which presuppose racial essentialism, whether framed biologically, metaphysically, or in thought experiments, fall well within the category of those positions we do not consider worthy of debate. — Jamal

And the most recent post, now deleted, was basically this but towards homosexuals, a topic previously discussed between he and I where we told him "This topic is not worthy of debate here".

So he has been warned multiple times on the similar theme of putting forward views that are not considered worthy of debate, being told directly that this is not how we do things here, and he went ahead and posted anyway.

I like Bob, and don't really relish losing him. But this was done as gradually as possible, as I tend to like to do, and here we are.

Was he asking to be banned, in a round about way? That’s what I thought. Otherwise he was pushing, or testing the boundaries repeatedly while saying I might be banned for this.

He was going to be doing sexism and anti-Semitism next. He thought he was being tricky.

Did anyone get a sense that Bob was ashamed of his views? I didn't, but I didn't read a great many of his posts. He was defending claims rather than confessing to feelings, wasn't he?

This was a clear case. Thanks for the time to explain and give the reasons. Far better than just to say "banned for homophobia".

Did anyone get a sense that Bob was ashamed of his views? — bert1

I would say otherwise. Though, perhaps your emotional intelligence is simply higher, more refined, or greater cultivated than mine.

It should be noted his posts were fairly intelligent, showed the ability to surmise proofs (I don't know why I find that as such a striking quality about a person), and were generally logical and sensible. I found some a bit odd and seemingly made primarily to advance an agenda or point of view as opposed to discussing a concept or theme. Judging by his avatar, I sense a sort of ideological—if not outright religious—motive in play. Which I can respect. I'm like that in my personal life and in other places as well. Reminds me of a young me.

However, for anyone concerned or even dismayed about the idea of losing an intelligent (if not misguided) poster, one might take solace in the fact that we messaged once or twice before, and it was during this brief period he repeatedly expressed his awareness of the possibility of his banning being far from unlikely. Which I then repeatedly suggested to him to have more tact or otherwise reconsider his current style of discussion and debate if he wanted to stick around. That was around a month ago.

Eh, what can you do. :confused:

He was advocating for Essentialist views or Natural Kind views. I think it leans more towards a Natural Kind view, so why not simply engage with it that way?

I just so happen to know about this area as it was the subject of my final essay last year.

I think it would have been very interestign to dive into discussion about differences and similarities between national identity and race identity. This is kind of what he was getting at, but form a 'Natural Kind' view rather than 'Social Kind' view.

If that singular post is representative of his approach I see nothing wrong with it. His post about homophobia was strange in the manner in which it used the concept of morality and wrong, but was certainly one that could have led to a very productive discussion on all these front and centre issues on personal identity and their political weight.

I do find engaging in political topics tiresome because all too often people (including myself) are just too ready to put you in a box if you happen to question something they feel strongly about. I am sure we can just cut past the snipes and fluff and get to the heart of the interest if we all tried a little harder right? I do not expect it is easy to do, but I belive it is more than worthwhile at least trying to.

Yeah, I think this is reasonable (discussion of discredited/toxic beliefs to confirm their falsity or salvage defensible bits), but so is the stance TPF has taken. There may be other forums that welcome it, but that would presumably come with a quality penalty I would imagine. As you say, all would be well if we tried harder. That goes for global warming, understanding people different from ourselves, reading actual articles rather than AI sound bites, being fit and healthy, not indulging in drive-by posts (which I never ever do), noticing sentences that end in questions marks and answering them, and life in general. Or maybe not. Maybe life would be worse if we all tried harder, instead of just doing, as Nike and Yoda might argue.

Maybe life would be worse if we all tried harder, instead of just doing, as Nike and Yoda might argue. — bert1

True enough :D Trying not to try takes serious effort!

Pretending to be whatever a human being, is possibly meant to be, is an interesting passtime :)

If this list doesn't constitute homophobia, what does? Do you have to advocate imprisonment or violence?

Should TPF tolerate homophobia? No.

Was he asking to be banned, in a round about way? That’s what I thought. Otherwise he was pushing, or testing the boundaries repeatedly while saying I might be banned for this. — Punshhh

That's what I think. Bob kept pushing and pushing that way. He wanted to go as far as he could, and he would not stop until banned. The banning would determine how far he could go. It's a sort of challenge. So he slowly kept taking one step further and further and further. The only way to stop him was to ban him. It reminds me of a number of others who have slipped in that way. Good people get caught up in the wrong cause, and cannot recognize that it's a bad cause.

We're better off without his pseudo-intellectual bigotry.

We're better off without his pseudo-intellectual bigotry — RogueAI

Yes, one must be selective about the stripe of pseudo-intellectual moralism one chooses to associate with.

Yes, one must be selective about the stripe of pseudo-intellectual moralism one chooses to associate with. — Joshs

Wait, what's the good kind?

Wait, what's the good kind? — frank

Me.

By the way, lest I break the rules about careful writing, I know that "I" is grammatically correct. However, some Oxonian writer (I forget whom) once wrote: "When you hear a knock on the door and ask, "Who is it?', if the knocker answers, "I" he is using proper grammar, but you shouldn't let him in."

The thing is this is the exact kind of questioning front and centre in mainstream academia — I like sushi

Maybe provide us the cite to the article from the academic journal that you suggest mirrors Ross's comments.

Too bad. I liked Bob in spite of our serious differences. I’m not surprised by this and I’m certain he wasn't either.

Me — Ecurb

Alrighty

You can probably find the different positions of race as 'social kind' and 'natural kind' taught in practically every reputable university.

Framing his stance as essentialist based on the post he provided is less than charitable. It speaks for itself. It is very, very much a 'natural kind' stance not an essentialist one.

He literally stated:

I will firstly note that this discussion post is not:

1. Suggesting that any race is better than the other;
2. Holding that race is an essential property of a human; nor
3. That race can be used to segregate, deny rights, or otherwise persecute people of different races.

Hence, he is talking about race in the sense of 'natural kind'.

If you wish to read up on the idea of 'race' as a 'natural kind' or as a 'social kind' these might help:

- Sally Haslanger
- Quayshawn Spencer*
- Joshua Glasgow
- Lewtonin (?)
- Rosenberg (data analysis rather than philosopher if I recall?)
- Robin Andreason*

(*advocates of forms of 'natural kind')

If you do not there is no definitive answer to this. Some points from the 'natural kind' side hold weight, but there is certainly more traction in terms of 'social kinds'. Personally, I think there is an admixture of sorts.

In terms of essentialism we already know that there is more diversity within a group of people than there are between groups of people. That is not up for debate as far as I can see. If it was it would be on highly, highly, highly speculative grounds at best!

I actually do think these kinds of topics are going to grow in importance as people start tinkering with their DNA and augmenting their bodies. At some point we are going to have to deal with a picture of humanity that is less and less distinct as a singular species due to such technological innovations. Such uncomfortable talk today helps prepare the grounf for better and more accurate discussions in the future, surely?

Anyway, flogging a dead horse. He is gone. Someone else will tryand bring up such things again I am sure and maybe they will do a better job of it :)

Assuming he is 'wrong' is anti-philosophical. — I like sushi

Indeed, a wise man once said that there are no mistakes, only happy accidents.

:lol: :D