Where to start...

No, I don't need an adversary, you made a statement and I responded. That is three times now you have pretended I - me, the personal me - is doing something that she is not, falsely attributing emotions to me, which is nothing more than an ad hominem and your way to justify a non-argument. — TimeLine

Notwithstanding the condescension you show towards me and other long time forum members. Your words not mine. Or is condescension not emotion in your vocabulary?

What else could we be possibly talking about? — TimeLine

In regular English "this" refers to something that came before and the word philosophy wasn't in your comment whereas the contents of the thread were. You'd expect you'd be talking about what is in this thread not "philosophy" at large. You were being unclear, in my view. I was happy to accept it was about philosophy it just didn't change much about my point. Instead I get a value laden rhetorical question back, which is once again emotional. There is no speaking without emotion unless we're conversing in algebra.

Your etiquette? Your decorum? Like starting a forum post and writing this?

On suicidal thoughts. "Don't have them."
Fuck normal people. "Fuck you too."
— Benkei — TimeLine

What's the title of that thread? Context matters. And in that context it fits perfectly in what I've been saying here.

Right. So, it's ok for you to start a thread and say that, but we - us little people - must show, what, you forbearance and compassion? — TimeLine

Where did I speak with condescension towards you that warrants the label "little people"? I'm not in this conversation to put anyone down, I've given particular advice to Sapientia as he has repeatedly indicated he thinks form doesn't matter. I think it does and have tried to argue why and how that's a win-win for everyone involved. Did that come across as an attack in your view that we're having this conversation? If so, I think that would be for Sapientia to take up.

More generally, I think the forum could do with more forebearance and compassion as these combative attitudes make most conversations here just go round and round (talk about the futility of philosophy indeed). This one is heading towards it as well. You don't have to agree, you don't have to implement it. I personally can take whatever people throw at me so this issue isn't even about people being forebearing and compassionate to me.

Finally, I've never claimed consistency myself and even said I can be blunt even when recognising I can do better. Even so, my personal actions have no bearing on my argument here. Assuming you just committed a fallacy, which one would that be?

Maybe a verbal dance with a Kevin helps us to perfect our tango. Maybe, though we do wish Kevin would check himself sometimes, we recognize he may bring out as much of the best as the worst in us and if he were absent in every way in all of us, there would be a little less spark in our engines, a little less juice in our marrow. Don't get me wrong, I'm not glorifying Kevin, Kevin can be a right pain in the ass, just putting the lad in context, just staring into a bubbling cauldron and wondering if what makes it toil and trouble is also what makes it potent and keeps the magic alive. — Baden

This is pretty great. And aren't we all Kevin, at least a little bit? There's an "excess" that makes an individual an individual. Take out all of the Kevin and somehow it's all grayly safe and safely gray. Or shall I sey "grey"? (Also the anti-anti-Americanism was nice.)

What's the title of that thread? Context matters. And in that context it fits perfectly in what I've been saying here. — Benkei

The context here is what you expect of others and how you actually apply yourself, therein the hypocrisy. If someone started a thread about suicidal thoughts before you make a joke of it, I hardly call that:

forbearance and compassion — Benkei

And I doubt Martin Luther King would either.

Or is condescension not emotion in your vocabulary? — Benkei

Well, this shows your lovely character of compassion and forbearance, right, by being condescending. No, condescension is an attitude of patronizing superiority, what you exemplify above.

In regular English "this" refers to something that came before and the word philosophy wasn't in your comment whereas the contents of the thread were. You'd expect you'd be talking about what is in this thread not "philosophy" at large. You were being unclear, in my view. I was happy to accept it was about philosophy it just didn't change much about my point. Instead I get a value laden rhetorical question back, which is once again emotional. There is no speaking without emotion unless we're conversing in algebra. — Benkei

How is it that you speak of context and yet you are unable to ascertain that the discussion in this thread together with what I said vis-a-vis content - being philosophical - was not somehow the subject of concern? Ok, without being obtuse (your favourite word, right?), let me move on to the latter part and ignore the nonsense of my lack of clarity as I attempt to dissect what it is that you are attempting to convey, which is that last sentence that there is no speaking without emotion unless we're conversing in algebra.

Indeed, when I say define or explain yourself, think of it like this; what would happen if we began to regulate emotions? What would that look like? Everyone here is different; what you may find offensive, I don't at all; so what happens then? We have no right to put demands on how other people should behave, it is situational and requires situational relativism, and whilst you can and have the absolute right to profess what you feel to be an ideal mindset and attitude in approaching philosophical discourse, how this can be approached will remain ambiguous. It is the reason why you cannot clarify yourself.

Where did I speak with condescension towards you that warrants the label "little people"? I'm not in this conversation to put anyone down, I've given particular advice to Sapientia as he has repeatedly indicated he thinks form doesn't matter. I think it does and have tried to argue why and how that's a win-win for everyone involved. Did that come across as an attack in your view that we're having this conversation? If so, I think that would be for Sapientia to take up. — Benkei

If you post on a public forum, than you contractually allow other members who have signed and agreed to the regulations to respond accordingly. Are you saying that I am not allowed to contest your advice that I disagree with only because it was not directed to me? Whether you are or you are not putting people down, that is of no concern to me, but what is of concern is that you think that "form does matter" which I think disregards the liberty to be as you are and lacks cultural and situational relativism. Is that so hard to understand? Instead, I have received very little in substance or intellectual matter from you, save for that one sentence as mentioned previously.

This returns back to the underlying point about assumptions of behavioral etiquette; I have not at all been emotional or confrontational, but you took what I said personally and that is your flaw, your problem because the content of what I am saying is relevant. How you feel about that approach is of no concern to me. I never called you a dickhead or the like to become subject to criticism, I just pointed out errors in your opinion. Why is that wrong?

More generally, I think the forum could do with more forebearance and compassion as these combative attitudes make most conversations here just go round and round (talk about the futility of philosophy indeed). This one is doing towards it as well. You don't have to agree, you don't have to implement it. I personally can take whatever people throw at me so this issue isn't even about people being forebearing and compassionate to me. — Benkei

There is no "combative attitude" as that is all dependent on how people choose to react; we may have emotional attachments to our beliefs or worldviews, but it does not mean that those emotions themselves are justifiable just as much as the beliefs themselves. People can be passionate for what they believe in and we have no right to stop them from expressing themselves, however which way they may attempt to articulate it. If we were to apply your compassion, we should overlook the emotion and reach in to find the content and go from there.

Only when it crosses the line; i.e. freedom of speech vs. hate speech, that regulation becomes a necessity, comparatively when posters here start inciting terrible or extremely nonsensical suggestions that ultimately merit deletion. What I consider a joke you may consider offensive. The only thing we can do is try to understand one another as best as we can and not to suggest that either you or me or Saptientia can be "better" people, which renders back to the point of why I said "little people". To purport that "decorum" is required lacks the very relativism that I am a proponent of.

Well, this shows your lovely character of compassion and forbearance, right, by being condescending. No, condescension is an attitude of patronizing superiority, what you exemplify above. — TimeLine

Have you considered it was a straightforward question?

Quite obviously this is going nowhere. I ask you to refrain from judging my character as you don't know me. We can talk about my actions but not this.

Have you considered it was a straightforward question? — Benkei

Yes. But clearly you have intentionally ignored everything that I wrote to try and outmaneuver the intention of my point against you, which is that you have no right to ask of others what you yourself refuse to do.

what made you decide it wasn't? And if I told you it was would you believe me? If not, why not?

First, I suggest you answer my question. Why do you think that there is no speaking without emotion unless we're conversing in algebra?

I think it's self-evident. Words change how we feel. A sentence I thought was neutrally stated is received as condescending.

Indeed, which displays a number of possible factors; the first is either I believed you intended to be condescending by implying that my vocabulary is lackluster when in fact you were merely asking a question, or you were being condescending but did so in a manner to try and escape any possible connection to this and that I was stating a fact. Just the same as ignoring what I wrote by asking have you considered it was a straightforward question? which can be considered a red herring, before, of course, quickly editing that post to add your so-called reasons to ignore the post that actually ask you questions about clarity you are refusing to give.

It leads to only one point. This discussion is over.

Interesting. It just so happens I'm typing on a phone so I'm trying to be economical with what I write. I edited it to clarify for you. I'm sorry to see you seem to interpret what I say in a negative light and disagree with your assessments in that area. What can I do to avoid that?

I am on the phone too and have no trouble explaining myself. Do you have difficulties with technology? Does that cause you to have issues articulating your point? It's just that, when you say:

Quite obviously this is going nowhere. I ask you to refrain from judging my character as you don't know me. We can talk about my actions but not this — Benkei

I assumed that you refused to actually read what I wrote considering that what I wrote was actually in good faith and had not attempted to judge your character. You interpreted this incorrectly and yet you say:

I'm sorry to see you seem to interpret what I say in a negative light — Benkei

I have not interpreted what you say in a negative light. I am ameliorating your question by providing possibilities vis-a-vis interpretation. It appears to me that you are projecting your own "negative light" onto me and that merits the end of this conversation because clearly you are misinterpreting me.

I will apply my own beliefs that when a discussion is going no where, it ceases to exist. But I am happy to wait until you find suitable technology to assist you to write better.

I'll leave others to interpret this exchange but we certainly didn't come any closer to understanding each other and in that sense it isn't going anywhere. Here's some well intended advice from the other side of the divide: try to apply the principles of charity more. I'll look into this thread in a week's time whether I failed there as well.

There are many methods of using fallacious and faulty reasoning to stop discourse or an argument, Benkei and whilst I applaud that you played ignoring what I said well enough - whether intentional or accidental - you are repeatedly doing this:

Here's some well intended advice from the other side of the divide: try to apply the principles of charity more — Benkei

I ask you to refrain from judging my character as you don't know me. We can talk about my actions but not this. — Benkei

Can you not see that you are asking me to apply some principles of charity, that verifies that you are judging my character, which you yourself ask me not to do?

I don't think a week can make you see what you refuse to. All I can say is, ignoratio elenchi.

facepalm

Seriously? Had I known I would not have wasted my time.

[Exactly, Praxis. And nowadays there's a lot of research on how to communicate effectively. Sapientia and TimeLine seem to prefer to ignore it even if it would help them (and others) in being effective communicators.] — Benkei

The key word there is "seems", and you don't seem to have taken on board my point about effective communication being relative or context-dependent. My writing style is a conscious choice, and it is not a result of ignorance. It is effective at communicating what I intend to communicate, the way that I intend it to be communicated.

You are judging my writing style in accordance with some other standard that you have in mind, and you are giving the misleading impression that it is the only standard that counts or matters. The desired result in your standard seems to be that people be pleased with what I say, due to the way that I have said it, but once again, that is not a priority for me. I prioritise content over your preferred style, my preferred style over your preferred style, and, like Timeline, content over emotion. Also factored into this is freedom of expression, which I previously mentioned.

(Y)

I am quite content to be associated with that particular comment, consequences be damned.

I've given particular advice to Sapientia as he has repeatedly indicated he thinks form doesn't matter. — Benkei

No, that's a misrepresentation. You have misunderstood. It's not that it doesn't matter, it's a matter of priorities.

Maybe a verbal dance with a Kevin helps us to perfect our tango. Maybe, though we do wish Kevin would check himself sometimes, we recognize he may bring out as much of the best as the worst in us and if he were absent in every way in all of us, there would be a little less spark in our engines, a little less juice in our marrow. Don't get me wrong, I'm not glorifying Kevin, Kevin can be a right pain in the ass, just putting the lad in context, just staring into a bubbling cauldron and wondering if what makes it toil and trouble is also what makes it potent and keeps the magic alive. — Baden

This is pretty great. And aren't we all Kevin, at least a little bit? There's an "excess" that makes an individual an individual. Take out all of the Kevin and somehow it's all grayly safe and safely gray. Or shall I sey "grey"? (Also the anti-anti-Americanism was nice.) — t0m

Yes, pretty great, I agree, and I think that J.S. Mill would also agree.

But I am happy to wait until you find suitable technology to assist you to write better. — TimeLine

:D

Can you not see that you are asking me to apply some principles of charity, that verifies that you are judging my character, which you yourself ask me not to do? — TimeLine

I for one can see it, and I think that it's a point worth bringing attention to.

what would happen if we began to regulate emotions? What would that look like? — TimeLine

When it's too sedate sparks may be useful to rev things up, as Baden may be suggesting:

Maybe, though we do wish Kevin would check himself sometimes, we recognize he may bring out as much of the best as the worst in us and if he were absent in every way in all of us, there would be a little less spark in our engines, a little less juice in our marrow. — Baden

When things get out of hand more decorum may be appropriate to rev down.

If I'm not mistaken, the topic has focused on personal responsibility and not enforcement through moderation.

I have not at all been emotional or confrontational, but you took what I said personally and that is your flaw, your problem because the content of what I am saying is relevant. — TimeLine

The existence of this topic would seem to indicate that emotion is relevant. To suggest otherwise is rather literally Kevinish, in that the character in the film is severely sociopathic (emotionally deficient). Kevin could kill without without feeling and had no regard for the effects of his actions on others.

A true Kevin would be incapable of consciously attempting to regulate the emotions of others. For the non-Kevin's, it couldn't hurt to try.

If I'm not mistaken, the topic has focused on personal responsibility and not enforcement through moderation. — praxis

A combination of the regulation of behaviour and the behaviour of regulators. There are some smug and rather hypocritical elitists that have previously made it clear that moderators should approach their position with more decorum. I say that moderators - indeed everyone - can be however which way they like and they are in no position to present themselves in some particular way; their only responsibility is regulating the content and not the effect a post can have on a personal and emotional level (clearly since how this emotion is assessed is ambiguous), unless it crosses the line. The forum rules explicate that line, so if someone states that "all women deserve to die" then that merits moderation and a warning or a ban, but if someone is saying, "that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard" then any emotional response that comes of that is no longer of concern.

I have had complaints against me from these "longstanding posters" who write with more exclamation marks and emoticons than they do with words and have no sense of humour and I get that, but to expect me to "behave" the way in which they want me to is none of their business. I just avoid them where necessary and they can do the same to me. The reality is that each and every single one of us is different because we each come from different cultures, we are different in age, education level and above all we have different beliefs; if someone is right-wing or deeply religious, and the moderators are not, the risk will be silencing their beliefs despite the fact that it might be profoundly stupid according to me.

The only "decorum" we each have a responsibility to give and is necessary is relativism, recognising these differences and being objective in our approach. I don't give a shit if you are upset because I disagree with you, for instance, or have a different belief to me; show me why I am wrong and we'll go from there. Why are you finding that so hard to understand?

The existence of this topic would seem to indicate that emotion is relevant. — praxis

Again, according to who? It is not relevant to me, so are you saying that I am irrelevant?

A true Kevin would be incapable of consciously attempting to regulate the emotions of others. For the non-Kevin's, it couldn't hurt to try. — praxis

Non-Kevins can go suck on a lolly for all I care.

we each have a responsibility to give and is necessary is relativism, recognising these differences and being objective in our approach. I don't give a shit if you are upset because I disagree with you, for instance, or have a different belief to me; show me why I am wrong and we'll go from there. Why are you finding that so hard to understand? — TimeLine

I can show, that is, you will see if you will look, that your attachment to objectivity is an emotional one, that your not giving a shit is an emotional stance. The amount of ad hominem arguments in this thread is a illustration that claims to objectivity and the identification of indifference to others with some kind of clarity or commitment to truth is unsustainable. The fact is that everyone here is a sensitive little flower who hates being told they are a crap poster or crap moderator, or not objective.

Indeed it is precisely because emotions are the master of rationality that it is most important to have consideration for the feelings of others and sensitivity to one's own. The nature of moderation in particular, and philosophy in general is that it always involves judgements of those things that people most closely identify with - their words. It is simply the case that people are hurt when their posts are deleted, and when their arguments are defeated or their positions belittled. The only way not to be hurt is to have contempt for one's critics, but this is an emotional response, that prevents further communication or learning.

Thus decorum and sensitivity to the feelings of others is the supporter of rational discussion and objectivity, and not at all the enemy.

Rational discussion requires engagement. You haven't shown a willingness to engage with others who have pointed out the shortcomings of your position and approach in this thread. If someone just doesn't engage, then no discussion, whether rational or irrational is possible.

show me why I am wrong and we'll go from there. — TimeLine

As others have pointed out, you contradict yourself. For example:

Non-Kevins can go suck on a lolly for all I care. — TimeLine

If a non-Kevin is an individual who possesses the capacity of emotional intelligence and has the inclination to use this intelligence to consciously attempt regulating (generally stimulate or calm) the emotions of others in pursuit of a rational and perhaps mutually beneficial goal, regardless of the prevailing latitude in official rules, this individual would be behaving responsibly. Behaving responsibly in the pursuit of a rational goal may generally be characterized as mature. Given the context, it's unreasonable to imply that non-Kevins are immature.

One of your primary claims is that content is relevant and emotion is irrelevant. Yet with this statement you sacrifice content, suggesting that the conscious application of emotional intelligence is immature, which is clearly false, and favor an expression that is designed to produce an emotional response.

I can show, that is, you will see if you will look, that your attachment to objectivity is an emotional one, that your not giving a shit is an emotional stance... The fact is that everyone here is a sensitive little flower who hates being told they are a crap poster or crap moderator, or not objective. — unenlightened

Ok, what part of this do you not understand?

I say that moderators - indeed everyone - can be however which way they like and they are in no position to present themselves in some particular way; the only responsibility is regulating the content and not the effect a post can have on a personal and emotional level (clearly since how this emotion is assessed is ambiguous), unless it crosses the line. — TimeLine

Where exactly have I said that I believe we should somehow remove ourselves from our emotions or that objectivity lacks emotion? Indeed, on the contrary, I am saying that we are highly emotional and that is the reason why we should apply an objectivity in our attitude, but ultimately we each are different from one another, we each have different beliefs, different customs, we are of different age, different environments and that would mean that we each have very different emotions. It is like multiculturalism only we require cultural relativism for it to function adequately; we cannot have some European form of governance that holds transcendental values and minimises differences into a system of idealist power that values ambiguous principles and not normative interests.

This is common sense and the fact that I am repeating this is disturbing to me. Oh wait, is that too emotional for you, my little sensitive flower?

Indeed it is precisely because emotions are the master of rationality that it is most important to have consideration for the feelings of others and sensitivity to one's own. — unenlightened

That is what relativism offers, but how we are capable of this is dependent on the individual and again goes back to considerations of age, education level, language barriers etc &c., and I have met some highly intelligent and insightful people who lack all the expected qualities that would mark them as such.

I have met some of the most brightest kids, so profoundly intelligent but incredibly disadvantaged and so do not have access to the language - the education - they need to articulate themselves. Do we just let them fall through the cracks by cutting them off or shutting them out because they fail to reach the standards we set? A young man once said to me: "So fucking you know what, fuck, the government is fucking creating policies and shit that most fucking people prefer, but it doesn't fucking mean that these policies are good for the fucking country." I don't like swearing and hearing it can make me emotional (frustrated), but if I had no relativism I would refuse to translate that and will instead see a failure of "decorum" that overlooks the substance in the comment neither will I appreciate the mind of someone who is trying to articulate a good point in their own language or form. I should overcome the emotions wrought by these expectations of decorum (which is actually my failure) and appreciate the content and by doing so return by giving them comments that may assist them to understand how best to explain what they are trying to say. That is my responsibility and that is the best way of influencing them to learn and develop.

Where is the understanding, the "compassion" for those who fail to articulate themselves adequately because of a number of social or environmental factors? Instead, all I see is a form of elitism that demands "decorum" for the most selfish of reasons. And yet you say:

Thus decorum and sensitivity to the feelings of others is the supporter of rational discussion and objectivity, and not at all the enemy. — unenlightened

No, it is about your emotions that only you can regulate. Relativism is the best that you can offer because it is about content, not about decorum. How am I supposed to know how you feel, and if I tell myself that you might feel a certain way, all I may be doing is projecting and perhaps even ultimately restraining the liberty to say what I want to say. What one person gets offended about, another person may find normal. It is thus too ambiguous to focus on other people' emotions.

If a non-Kevin is an individual who possesses the capacity of emotional intelligence and has the inclination to use this intelligence to consciously attempt regulating (generally stimulate or calm) the emotions of others in pursuit of a rational and perhaps mutually beneficial goal, regardless of the prevailing latitude in official rules, this individual would be behaving responsibly. Behaving responsibly in the pursuit of a rational goal may generally be characterized as mature. Given the context, it's unreasonable to imply that non-Kevins are immature. — praxis

How dare you believe that you have the capacity to regulate another person' emotions. Can you not see how elitist and arrogant that is? IF you are in possession of emotional intelligence, the ONLY person' emotions you can regulate is your own. Who are you to tell others that they should characterise a certain "responsible" character when all you appear to be expecting is everyone to be just like you?

It is easy to be emotionally intelligent in an environment where everyone is the same.

Oh wait, is that too emotional for you, my little sensitive flower? — TimeLine

The seal of authority always deceives people in thinking they have more control than they really do, and they can pull more levers than they really can. So when that seal disappears, impotence makes itself known. Authority blinds its possessor, just like a snake hypnotises its prey before it eats it.

Authority blinds its possessor, just like a snake hypnotises its prey before it eats it. — Agustino

Nicely said, in a sort of disturbing way.