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

While I agree that the framing in terms of "essentialism" has its problems, that doesn't excuse the issues with Bob's post.

For instance, I wouldn't say racism should be disallowed "because race isn't real."

What does that even mean?

It depends on what you mean by "real." I think this is a very tricky subject because when we focus on the "reality of race (or sex)" it tends implicitly grant the premise that if race were "real," then rascism would be acceptable. Consider that far fewer people deny that sex is in some sense "real," but this position hardly implies that sexism is justified. Likewise, it seems to me that on a account where race (and sex?) are not morally coherent concepts per se, this would imply that much of classical feminist thought ought to be censored (if sex is included), or that making a positive case for affirmative action on the basis of racial categories deserves censorship, etc.

Whereas I would say that what makes Bob's thread bannable is not that it is "essentialist" (because many progressive readings of race, sex, gender, etc. are also essentialist in many respects) but because it is a (facile) argument in favor of the reasonableness of racism. Indeed, many classic arguments against racism rely on it being essential in some sense (i.e., an immutable and essential part of personal identity that one has no control over). Historically, many towering figures in the fight against racism spoke of race as a sort of biologically grounded identity as well, but it hardly makes sense to censor them.

Anyhow, what is "reality" here? We race-meaned tests that imaged the cupping of patient's optical nerve. You need to do this to properly diagnose glaucoma, because variances that indicate pathology vary by genetic heritage. The software is set up this way, the test wouldn't work without it. Sure, you could set up the categories somewhat differently, but they also aren't arbitrary. There are all sorts of diagnostics like this. Most are uncontroversial, because they aren't about things people particularly care much about. Some are very controversial, like race-norming IQ tests (this was a big thing with the NFL in diagnosing CTE a few years back).

I feel like the appeal to "scientific" authority on the unreality of race actually tends to help the race-realists, because of course anyone with eyes can tell if someone is of East Asian versus European versus Sub-Saharan African descent. It appears "real" in at least some sense (particularly when it dominates political life). And if the response is that such categories aren't "metaphysical" or "platonic," this merely ends up being a strawman against the more sophisticated race realists (some of whom are researchers, and can easily dance around this charge, and most of whom are themselves thoroughgoing nominalists).

For instance, I'd ask instead, if race was "real" (whatever that is supposed to mean) then would that make racism morally justified? Would Bob's advocacy for using race as a category for moral action be acceptable if race were real? The focus on "essentialism" seems to grant their race-realist their key (and faulty) premise: "if races are 'real enough,' then racism is (at least plausibly) justified or beneficial." Rather than attack the consequent, we attack the antecedent, but the antecedent is itself squishy since what is meant by 'real' or 'essential' can be equivocated upon.

For instance, if people cannot be transracial (a common progressive position), then race does seem somehow immutable and essential to identity across a person's lifetime. Likewise, if race can be a proper category for hiring discrimination, and is in a sense immutable (you cannot change your identity to take advantage of such efforts) we have the same squishiness. We can call the category a "social construct," but this really has no force when both sides increasingly assume that everything is a social construct. No doubt, the race realist might reply that planets and quarks are social constructs too, but that this doesn't make them less real in the relevant sense.

This is similar to the oddly essentialist position often staked out on homosexuality and being transgender, that people are simply "born this way," (that it is immutable and essential to identity). Maybe this is so, but supposing we denied this, supposing even that both are a "choice," in what sense would that justify discrimination?

On Bob's actual point, there is actually plenty of research on this, that people show a preference for altruism in favor of relatives, but also for those who look like them, as well as those who share other social traits, (language, ethnicity , religion), etc. And there is the theory that the same "selfishness of genes" that makes familial altruism confer advantage also is in play, to a lesser extent, for facial similarity, etc. But this is a slim effect; obviously people kill even their own children all the time.

Yet only if one is already operating with the fallacy that "natural = good or acceptable" in mind is this even suggestive of what ought to be done. Unfortunately, this fallacy is already often already invoked in more progressive directions. If fornication cannot be a defect because it is "natural" then it follows that if racism is natural, it cannot be a defect either. However, one need only consider that infanticide, murder, rape, etc. are all "natural" human behaviors in this sense to see that the appeal is nonsense. "Naturalness" in this sense is beside the point.

Likewise, I'd argue that essentialism is beside the point entirely. Or rather, that posts like Bob's are unacceptable because rascism is itself essentially unacceptable, not because they ipso facto must reduce to some sort of dubious metaphysical position (they don't, the "hyper-racists" are exemplary in their hyper-nominalism; it's exactly that outlook that makes them say that nothing is good or bad, only useful, and that racism is simply a useful heuristic). I think the progressive stance actually often has trouble here to the extent that it accepts these same premises. If usefulness determines the badness of racism, we have to argue that racism isn't useful (e.g., because it isn't "real" in the right sense, and yet it is said to be real enough for other sorts of hiring discrimination, etc., and of course this assumes that reality and truth are "more useful.")

I was looking for a specific cite to a specific journal that mirrors the 7 bullet pointed conclusions set forth at the beginning of this banning entry.

Given the massive amount of literature out there, I'm asking for cites to his specific conclusions, not general discussions about naturalism and essentialism that I am supposed to accept support his conclusions.

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 :) — I like sushi

My hesitancy in letting this go is that you're suggesting his post was true, but just poorly articulated and so the pearls of wisdom were missed. I'm disagreeing entirely and just asking for some academic source to be cited for each of his conclusions.

I was looking for a specific cite to a specific journal that mirrors the 7 bullet pointed conclusions set forth at the beginning of this banning entry. — Hanover

That is a different topic. I was referring to the one on racism. I provided examples of people in academia who both argued for and against race as a 'natural kind'.

My hesitancy in letting this go is that you're suggesting his post was true — Hanover

What are you talking about? Where did I suggest anything of the sort? The thread was closed before I could even comment on it. The other (homosexuality) was deleted (and I did comment on that one).

His framing of the term 'bad' and 'moral' were strange to say the least. I can maybe see the logical argument he was trying to form and pushed back against it. You cannot see because that thread was deleted.