No, Tiff, you're amiss in thinking that that's what I was thinking. I took care with the wording of my prior comment which you referenced. I merely noted that it was after the aforementioned event that your behaviour towards me noticeably changed - and I was not the only one to take notice.

You may well have had a bee in your bonnet long before that encounter. I accept that, with marked indifference.

No, Tiff, you're amiss in thinking that that's what I was thinking. I took care with the wording of my prior comment which you referenced. I merely noted that it was after the aforementioned event that your behaviour towards me noticeably changed - and I was not the only one to take notice.

You may well have had a bee in your bonnet long before that encounter. I accept that, with marked indifference. — Sapientia

Yes Sapientia, your attitude changed, followed by a marked change in your behavior. To which I did follow the forum protocol and converse with the administration asking for moderation, so I am glad that you are aware that others noticed more than just me.

The "Bee in my Bonnet" is not the way you as a fellow forum member treat others in a condescending attitude, it is when you are a moderator with that same condescending attitude towards forum members that is unbecoming of a leader.

Yes Sapientia, your attitude changed, followed by a marked change in your behavior. To which I did follow the forum protocol and converse with the administration asking for moderation, so I am glad that you are aware that others noticed more than just me. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Odd. You begin your reply with an affirmative, as though you are agreeing with me, yet you've changed the subject in a transparent attempt to turn the tables. I was talking about you, not myself. Your behaviour, not mine.

The "Bee in my Bonnet" is not the way you as a fellow forum member trea — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Are you going to finish that sentence?

The "Bee in my Bonnet" is not the way you as a fellow forum member treat others in a condescending attitude, it is when you are a moderator with that same condescending attitude towards forum members that is unbecoming of a leader. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ah, never mind, upon refreshing the page, I see that you've caught your breath enough to continue your reproachment.

I suppose this is the part where I admit to some alleged wrongdoing so that you can walk away feeling righteous and vindicated. I suppose you'd like that, wouldn't you?

You claim to be a fan of Nietzsche. I wonder what you make of the following:

First Essay, Sections 10-12

SUMMARY
Nietzsche suggests that the "slave revolt in morality" begins when ressentiment, or resentment, becomes a creative force. Slave morality is essentially negative and reactive, originating in a denial of everything that is different from it. It looks outward and says "No" to the antagonistic external forces that oppose and oppress it. Master morality, on the other hand, concerns itself very little with what is outside of it. The low, the "bad," is an afterthought and is noticed only as a contrast that brings out more strongly the superiority of the noble ones. — Spark Notes summary of The Genealogy of Morals

There are indeed times when principles may conflict with what might be considered good practice, which may result in a dilemma whereby only either the one or the other may reign predominant. I can envisage a leader striding forth down either path, based on what seems right at the time, rather than being dragged by the chain down the path of public demand - also known as the hoi polloi. That, one might argue, would be unbecoming.

Sapientia can be kind of a jerk, I have video evidence.

The average interlocutor.

I do not care for your hyperbolic, one-sided, verbal lynchings, and I will not permit them to drag me down to your eager satisfaction. You wish to characterise myself and others - male others - as dastardly villains, whilst venerate others - female others - as saints, or rather, damsels in distress. It is all so superficial and sexist, and the worst part of it is that you seem to think you're combating sexism as opposed to succumbing to it. — Sapientia

I didn't expect you to be thrilled by my complaints. I do expect the moderators in general to respond carefully to reasoned and evidenced criticism. I criticised your posting behaviour in a particular case and a particular circumstance. What I wish, is for you to stop moderating, and for the other moderators to take stock and make an effort to change the ambience of the forum. I do not deny being sexist, I am a product of the culture.

Philosophy remains the most male-dominated discipline in the humanities, both in its population and its combative methods. Instruction in philosophy often consists of being reprimanded for mistakes so small you need a magnifying glass to see them. At its worst, philosophy is something you do against an opponent. Your job is to take the most mean-minded interpretation you can of the other person's view and show its absurdity. And repeat until submission. Certainly the method has the merits of encouraging precision, but at the same time it is highly off-putting for those who do not overflow with self-confidence.

One tutor of mine, the very talented Hidé Ishiguro, who broke through many barriers to rise to her position as reader in philosophy, had a different approach. Sitting on the edge of her chair to pay full attention to what we said, she would take our stumbling comments, tidy them up, give them back, and tell us how they related to the history of the subject. She would observe that the views we were advancing, even if wrong, had been held by great philosophers of the past. Instead of feeling that we had embarrassed ourselves once again, we came away with the feeling: "I can do this!". Rather than a pedantic scrap over the details, her tutorials were a model of politeness and encouragement. Which makes me wonder: if philosophy is to be more "gender friendly", do philosophers have first to act, well, if not in more "ladylike" fashion, then at least with greater decorum?

source link.

In the end, I am not speaking for women, I am speaking for myself. The lack of women is merely a symptom of a cultural one-sidedness that excludes people like me - by which I mean people like I would wish I was, and like to blame people like you and Agustino for not being more so. My verbal lynchings - really? - No, actually, I manage to sustain an uncomprehending and passionate disagreement with Tiff about gun control, and a mutually respectful and friendly relation. So I know it can be managed differently. Will you engage with the topic at all, will you read the article , consider the evidence, and present at least something a little more substantial in your defence?

The "Bee in my Bonnet" is not the way you as a fellow forum member treat others in a condescending attitude, it is when you are a moderator with that same condescending attitude towards forum members that is unbecoming of a leader. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Moderators facilitate discussion, they don’t lead discussion. It strikes me as more appropriate for a leader to express condescension, as it exerts dominance and in so doing may help to fulfill the goals of their leadership by keeping followers in line [I’m thinking of a drill sergeant barking at boot camp cadets], than for a moderator.

What are you following that a moderator leads?

Philosophy remains the most male-dominated discipline in the humanities, both in its population and its combative methods.

War remains the most male-dominated form of conflict, both in its population and its combative methods. The solution to make war more "gender friendly" is to employ greater decorum (Y) .

Some activities are conflictual by nature. Dialectics and philosophy seem to be of this nature, though not in all regards.

To regard philosophy as an analogue of war really says it all. The truth will prevail by aggression? War is madness, and this philosophy is also madness. Is this what you want, that might makes right? Excuse me, but fuck that!

Philosophy as the love of winning, rather than the love of wisdom?

Imagine we're all neurons in a single brain, neurons do two things basically, they fire, and recruit other neurons to fire the same way, to harmonize with them. The second thing they do, is tell other neurons to stfu. They inhibit other neurons from firing differently.

I think that we can actually do without the second one. I think that one neuron can change the whole brain, I believe in that power, and think that we can be confident and steadfast in our harmonizing tune, believing in its truth and goodness, and not at all engage in strong negative recruitment, in the silencing and suppression of dissent, but seeing it as highly valuable, if we believe in more than just the selfish fulfillment and adoptions of our tune, but know that we're all in this together, and we steer the world towards greener pastors, or off a cliff.

Philosophy is the love of the pastor, and not the cliff.

Moderators facilitate discussion, they don’t lead discussion. — praxis

I agree. Furthermore, in discussions a moderator is subject to the same guidelines as everyone else and shouldn't under normal circumstances* moderate their interlocutors. You can report a moderator or ask that a moderator be moderated in the same way as you would any other poster by flagging their posts or by sending a PM to another mod. In other words, moderators as posters, are not leaders in any important way, and they don't have a special set of guidelines to operate under. So, in this capacity they should be treated like other posters. When it comes to moderating decisions, they obviously can't be because they have powers other posters don't have. In these cases, the feedback category, or again a PM, can be used to complain about moderators' actions in their capacity as moderators. Of course, the feedback category can be used for just about any complaint anyway - we leave it fairly open, but the more specific the complaint is, the more easy it is to understand and deal with.

Obviously, the above won't fully satisfy those who feel the moderating team is biased towards itself, but the ultimate arbiter of disputes that any member feels are not being dealt with fairly is @jamalrob. So, if all else fails, members can appeal to him directly.

(*Exceptional circumstances may include instances of racism, extreme flaming etc when the decision is very obvious, the action needs to be taken quickly, and there may be no-one else on duty to do it.)

@ArguingWAristotleTiff @unenlightened @Sapientia I respect and like all of you and as far as I'm concerned you are all entitled to speak your mind as you are doing. Not to say I agree with either the content or the tone of everything being said but I understand some of the frustrations on both sides. I'm trying from my own point of view to be a bit more restrained in dealing with contentious topics and a bit more understanding of my interlocutors, but I don't feel it's my role, or the role of the moderating team in general, to try to legislate the personality of others, moderator or not, if the guidelines are not being breached.

As far as sexism is concerned, I think we have made some progress but I accept not to everyone's satisfaction. Some would probably consider the self-referential faux flirtation theme in the Shout box sexist, for example. Maybe they're right, but not clearly so in my view. I see it as more of a parody of sexual behaviour, and though it may have a fairly short shelf life, generally harmless. All of this is open to discussion anytime, of course. I only ask for specifics and suggestions of how to deal with them.

I didn't expect you to be thrilled by my complaints. I do expect the moderators in general to respond carefully to reasoned and evidenced criticism. I criticised your posting behaviour in a particular case and a particular circumstance. What I wish, is for you to stop moderating, and for the other moderators to take stock and make an effort to change the ambience of the forum. — unenlightened

You went further than that, for example, claiming that the forum is sexist, and your criticism, in full, was certainly neither reasoned nor evidenced, for example, the part that I emphasised in my reply to you.

I do not deny being sexist, I am a product of the culture. — unenlightened

I do not find that excuse acceptable, and I reject the false implication that we have a sexist culture here on the forum. You are responsible for your own behaviour, as I am responsible for my own. We can exercise our own will and judgement, we are capable of self sufficiency, and we can steer our own behaviour in a direction of our own choosing.

The lack of women is merely a symptom of a cultural one-sidedness that excludes people like me - by which I mean people like I would wish I was, and like to blame people like you and Agustino for not being more so. — unenlightened

And where is your evidence for this? The very high number of male members and the much lower number of female members is certainly not anywhere near enough to warrant your claims. As far as I can see, this is merely unsubstantiated opinion and jumping to conclusions - conclusions which are suspiciously in line with your agenda, namely to peddle the myth that the forum is sexist, and to unfairly recriminate members who grind your gears because they are more forthright and less polite than you can stomache. Let's be honest, this is a rather elaborate and frankly embarrassing stitch up of your own design.

Excuse me, but fuck that! — unenlightened

My oh my! How appalling. An expletive! Is this evidence of a double standard?

Perhaps you will disagree, since you are not a moderator and I am. Yet, as a moderator, my job is to moderate in accordance with the guidelines. I myself can also be moderated accordingly, and I have no objection to that. However, I have very rarely been moderated in the last two years since I became a moderator, and I cite that as evidence towards my suitability for this role. I am also, I would venture to guess, one of the most proactive moderators when I am online - which, of course, I am very regularly, as has been the case for years -
mainly due to very frequent minor edits that I make here and there, but also in part due to occasional moderator action of a more serious nature.

It wasn't that long ago that I began to feel a condescending attitude being expressed lavishly over myself and other longtime members and asked politely in thread to tone it down, which was met with more of the same condescending attitude and I walked away from the thread instead of resorting to what is happening here. Within 24 hours, on a completely different thread, my post was met with another snarky reply directly to me. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Who are you to say "longstanding member" as though you have some sort of entitlement over everyone else? I have never enjoyed reading anything that you write and whether I consider you to often say inappropriately oblique comments nuanced with a form of moral superiority or whether I think you are superficial, all I do is simply avoid you.

Is this too snarky for you? Are you going to complain?

Freedom of speech is a symphony orchestra and not some random person playing the xylophone in the corner of an obscure city street. Any regulation is only necessary when it clearly demonstrates incitement to discrimination or hatred, and not when you feel like there is some condescension.

Very well said.

I admit that I can come across as condescending. I have admitted as much in the past. Sometimes I think to myself, "This is something I should work on", and other times I think, "I may express myself as strongly as I like, so long as it is in accordance with the guidelines, so take it or leave it".

It would be nice if Tiff was modest enough to, for once, admit some of her own vices, instead of being so quick to point out the perceived vices of others, with the expectation of submission.

Ok, I've given my feedback. I've given references. In the end, the staff decide for the forum, and members decide for themselves. It is rather a shame that I have not had any response from other staff members, but whatever is not a priority, is not a priority. I will get me to a monastery.

I admit that I can come across as condescending. I have admitted as much in the past. Sometimes I think to myself, "This is something I should work on", and other times I think, "I may express myself as strongly as I like, so long as it is in accordance with the guidelines, so take it or leave it". — Sapientia

The guidelines and rules are to enforce a minimum level of decorum. Certainly you can do better than that?

I personally don't think you're a very effective communicator and it stems from the fact that you think you don't need to take other people's feelings into account when expressing yourself but expect them to accept the way you express yourself. Or consider "being frank" important but how you do that a "stylistic irrelevance". There's a lot of ways to get your ideas across; being frank and not caring about how you come across to others is not very effective and you will indeed end up in a "bloodsport" with a lot of people where most of the time it isn't necessary.

I wasn't trying to squelch anyone, I just wanna say, I want to hear more and more from them, and for them to do the opposite of going away. I wouldn't even pay any attention to them at all if I was indifferent to their contributions. More!

Except for Benkei, he's too little for blood sports.

I usually contribute the blood in sports, it's true.

The guidelines and rules are to enforce a minimum level of decorum. Certainly you can do better than that? — Benkei

Define "decorum" - is it the same decorum the pigs decided it to be in Animal Farm?

I personally don't think you're a very effective communicator and it stems from the fact that you think you don't need to take other people's feelings into account when expressing yourself but expect them to accept the way you express yourself. — Benkei

I personally think he is. What happens then?

To regard philosophy as an analogue of war really says it all. — unenlightened

I said in some regards, philosophy, just like war, is conflictual by nature. Not in all regards, but in some it is. If you cannot stand to take part in the battle of ideas - and it doesn't matter why - then perhaps philosophy is not for you, just like a career in the military is probably not for you if you don't like conflict - your gender for that matter is irrelevant.

War is madness, and this philosophy is also madness. — unenlightened

Not everyone believes that war is madness. What would you say, for example, to a general with a career in the military? Would you tell him that he's wasted his life fighting for the wrong things, and being engaged in the wrong profession? I think the military and war can have their value.

Is this what you want, that might makes right? — unenlightened

What does that have to do with anything? I think might and right are two different things. But yes, might is required to make right in this world at least. Might is required to restrain criminals, keep evil at bay, etc.

Might may be necessary to do right some of the times. Right is the end, might may be the means, depending on circumstances. For example, if I am a millionaire and build a children's hospital, I do the right thing, but what enables me to do it is the might of my money. Without that, I couldn't do anything.

In this world, without power, you cannot do right - nor wrong for that matter. Power is just the enabler.

Jesus, I've just looked at this discussion for the first time in ages. What the Hell is going on here? Is any of this shit useful? I'm not sure.

I don't think I'm going to comment on the specifics of the debate, as regards individuals, but I'll think about what everyone is saying. Generally, I don't think this forum is sexist, and certainly not coming from any of the mods, but I do think there's a gang mentality that crops up sometimes, and that could be so macho as to be unwelcoming to women. I'm not sure. (I personally find the platitudinous anti-American prejudice on the forum more annoying and destructive than any locker room talk, but maybe that's just me)

Some would probably consider the self-referential faux flirtation theme in the Shout box sexist, for example. Maybe they're right, but not clearly so in my view. I see it as more of a parody of sexual behaviour, and though it may have a fairly short shelf life, generally harmless. — Baden

I don't know if this is part of what @unenlightened has been criticizing, but in my opinion it's a sick culture that would judge that to be sexist. Assuming, as seems apparent, that those on both sides are comfortable with it and give as good as they get. That could be a bad assumption, of course, but I don't have any reason to think it is, as yet. It's confined to the Shoutbox, which is a social space and will have some of the natural features of social interaction. But then I would say that, because I've been involved in it.

I don't know what to do about any of this, if anything, because at the moment this thread seems to be just a mess of confusing bitching and bitterness.

If the rules state "don't pick your nose" but you continually belch, you've met the decorum required by regulation but it's not a very high standard. I suggest we should aim higher even if we won't enforce that higher standard. In this particular instance I think giving more due to how others receive your words would be better and would lead to a more effective communication. I've tried to illustrate this before with how Martin Luther King would communicate if he'd been "frank" and not take how people receive his words into account: "racism should stop." Instead he started with "I have a dream..." and painted a picture of the future that resonated with others on an emotional level. That's effective communication.

I tend to agree with the sentiment, so I don't really want to argue about it, but you have to admit you can be pretty frank yourself: e.g.

I thought we were going with the "won’t happen, but we can always wish". — Michael
A day later and in a fluke accident at an NRA rally, every rabid gun-toting redneck dies horribly of self-inflicted gun wounds. — Benkei

If @Sapientia had said that, he may very well have caught flak for it. Maybe my point is only that we all have a bit of Kevin in us that we need to be aware of.

If Sapientia had said that, he may very well have caught flak for it. Maybe my point is only that we all have a bit of Kevin in us that we need to be aware of. — Baden

I totally agree I can be blunt. I also don't have an issue with Sapientia on a personal level as the way we communicate tends to be similar so there is no static on the line between him and me. But as a consequence I think I recognise quite easily the areas of improvement and I've been very active in the past two years trying to improve my influence in the work environment through communication skills. It's more difficult for people who think facts and veracity are by far the most important (like me) and I (and I think Sapienta as well) need to be reminded regularly that not everybody thinks the same and reaching those people require other "stylistic" approaches. It's a bit of tact, part inspiration and a lot of shifting gears in how we talk to others.

If someone says, "wow, that's way too blunt" I can defend myself or I can say "Oh, sorry about that. what part did you take offence with?" The first tends to be our automatic reaction (Westerners tend to be argumentative) the second is probably much more conducive to a reasonable conversation. So really I just want to urge Sapientia to try different approaches because in my experience it does pay off.

That's fair enough.

I do not care for your hyperbolic, one-sided, verbal lynchings, and I will not permit them to drag me down to your eager satisfaction. You wish to characterise myself and others - male others - as dastardly villains, whilst venerate others - female others - as saints, or rather, damsels in distress. It is all so superficial and sexist, and the worst part of it is that you seem to think you're combating sexism as opposed to succumbing to it.

Generally, I don't think this forum is sexist — jamalrob

Do you then think that I am sexist because I propose that it is, as I am being officially told above? I'm sorry to be so much trouble, but the fence has become too sharp to sit on without getting a stake up the arse. I have dared to be explicitly critical of a moderator in feed back, alongside and connected to a general concern. Personally, I think this sort of ad hominem response is rather pathetic and brings the forum into disrepute. But it is not my business fortunately, it's yours.

I would ask you to justify your opinion, given the gender imbalance of the forum, the total absence of female staff and the general state of academic philosophy which google will quickly tell you about, not to mention the universal gender pay gap and... oh, really, I can't be bothered. Dream on bro.

The guidelines and rules are to enforce a minimum level of decorum. Certainly you can do better than that? — Benkei

Better than what? A minimum level of decorum? Yes, I'm sure I could. But I prefer to express myself in my own style, as I am permitted to do. I value the freedom of expression we have here.