Glad to be of service. :D

I understood the double entendre. That's why I said it. It was a joke, said in response to your claim that the moderators in that discussion were purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered. — Michael

Right, so you did intend to call me a crappy person. Notice that you have attacked the man, and I have merely attempted to characterize certain posts.

Right, so you did intend to call me a crappy person. — Thorongil

I didn't intend to call you a crappy person. I intended to make a pun. You're taking it far too personally. I would have said the same thing even if you had never posted in that discussion at all.

I point it out when people start with that kind of stuff because it is kind of a big shrug. Not because I feel attacked, but because it isn't addressing the points or topic, so it is something of a conversation stopper. I can either just start playing the same sort of game, or bow-out. I do both things, depending on how I feel.

That's why we love you.

I didn't intend to call you a crappy person. — Michael

Oh, you didn't? Alright, Michael, I'll take your word for it. I can also apologize to you if any of my posts seemed to attack you as a person, as opposed to the posts you wrote.

But your admission only reinforces the point I made earlier in this thread:

I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck.

So can the mods now acknowledge this please?

Sorry, Wos, couldn't find a kiss smiley there and the love heart seemed a bit too much...

Sorry, Wos, couldn't find a kiss smiley there and the love heart seemed a bit too much... — Baden

Wos is getting a lot of affection today from all sides >:O

Don't be ashamed of your undying love for me. Sing it from the rooftops.

I'll do a duet with Agu as long as we don't have to hold hands. :P

I agreed with the perspective point earlier in this discussion. I also think you tend to take things too personally or read too much into them at least some of the time, but I also acknowledge Wos made a fair point about that discussion.

I do think that Thoro is right though, and it totally is anti-intellectual to boot someone for their views, even if they are a Nazi. As long as they aren't being super constantly abusive, flooding the place with spam or something, I think that there should be free thought. I don't rule the place though, just around, but that is my view.

I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck.

So can the mods now acknowledge this please? — Thorongil

Yes, it happens. If you find a post that you believe to be highly offensive dreck, whether by a mod or by a non-mod, then flag it. If another moderator agrees then they will delete it, if not then they won't. If you disagree with the decision then PM a mod or post a comment in the feedback.

Good. Thank you.

(Y)

That was a case in point about the bitter sarcasm. — Thorongil

It wasn't bitter. It was lighthearted. You're reading the former into it.

Not when he admitted its double meaning, which means it could have been read as an ad hominem.

I wonder if part of the problem here is that calling someone a "lemon" has different connotations in Britain than it does elsewhere. Here in the UK, it's more of an affectionate insult (like "cunt" is in Australia, I guess).

like "cunt" in Australia, I guess — Michael

Really? I would have that thought that depends on how it's said. You can call someone a "bollocks" affectionately quite easily in Ireland, for example, but it depends on context. Calling someone a "lemon" would be like calling someone an "egg", pretty much neutral.

Dunno, not Australian. Just heard it used in a friendly manner.

Perhaps "numpty" is a better example. It might mean "a stupid or ineffectual person", but I don't know anyone that would take offence to it. My mum would often call me a numpty when I did something silly as a kid.

Ah go on, ya bollocks, really?

Never heard of anyone using bollocks in that way, only in the same way as "damn!" or "rubbish".

I'm not talking bollocks, you numpty.

Now you sound like a proper Englishman. Congratulations on the promotion.

Oh, bollocks! :(

I thought "numpty" was Scottish

Originally, but I think it's since spread down to at least Northern England. My dad's from Lancashire, and I picked it up from him.

I can see how it would work with the Northern accent

I prefer "Muppet" personally.

I'd say the moderation is about right. It's hard to assess, since I'm unaware of most of the cases of censorship. Perhaps the moderators could maintain a record somewhere on the site, or collect exemplary borderline cases in an annual anthology.

I recall this site's predecessor had rules that gestured at the relevance of contemporary academic philosophy and the Western philosophical tradition for our community standards. If we have any rules like that here, I haven't seem them. The site guidelines are not very explicit. Nevertheless, I find conversation among us today more reasonable overall than conversation in that prior forum. I've often wondered if that's due in part to a shift in policies of moderation.

In philosophical conversation I aim to thoughtfully and carefully approach good sense and mutual understanding in a spirit of goodwill. To pursue that aim, I must limit my action far more narrowly than the raw principle of "free speech" would allow.

I expect the action of like-minded interlocutors is guided by a similar principle, no less than the action of moderators in a community of such interlocutors.

Perhaps it's easier to agree on the sort of behavior that belongs in a community like ours, than it is to agree on the sort of subject matter, or the sort of point of view, that belongs in a community like ours?