Yes, you are.

I'm with you on this. Somehow I get sucked into arguing without argument and I always leave disappointed and with ruffled feathers. I tend to take personal insults seriously and this, unfortunately, damages my sense of competency. This is more a problem outside this forum, which by comparison is moderate. I like to think the moderators here are dedicated to making this a safe and inclusive environment so that commanding someone to kill themselves, for example (as has happened elsewhere), is strictly impermissible. So far this hasn't happened to me here, so either this place attracts decent people, or the moderators are doing their jobs (or both). :up:

The only complaint I have is that discussion tends to devolve into petty potshots and I-told-you-so's. That is not to say I am completely innocent in this respect.

Well, it was indecent.

Well, I personally could survive without making dirty jokes, so I'm listening, but it might be the death of Hanover. Would you want that on your conscience? Anyway, I sympathize with the points you made, but it's not really a mod issue but an issue of differing personalities and their expressions.

Well, it was indecent. — Posty McPostface

Ooh, la-de-da.

I agree, Posty! The sexual jokes are really annoying.

Can we do away with the jokes about Hanover fucking Sapientia mom or my mom or your mom or whoever mom, really really hard? — Posty McPostface

This made me chuckle.

Would you want that on your conscience? — Baden

Yes please! One only knows one has a conscience when it carries some weight. It is one of the difficulties of being very nearly perfect.

Or to put it another way, the same joke endlessly repeated is really tedious.

But otherwise, I like that people invest some identity into their positions, as if it matters who has the right of it.

OK, well, if everyone tells @Hanover they don't like his dirty jokes, he will no doubt...make more dirty jokes. Would you like that on your conscience?

(Sorry, Un, that's the best I can do at 2am.)

Yea, mostly with Posty on this. But I wonder if the formatting of the forum plays some part. Some forums that I visit have an area tucked away at the bottom of the listings for off-topic stuff, or even an area you can’t access unless you have a certain number of posts. So the nasty, salty, or pungent stuff is mostly safely contained in its little adult swim area, or whatever. It is allowed to exist, but at a distance. And people know what to expect when they go there (within reason, of course).

All well and good. But on this forum, a blunt comment in the Shoutbox can kind of hit you off guard. Also, when in “view all discussions” mode, which everyone probably uses, the goofy Lounge stuff (which can be lots of fun occasionally) just flows in the line with the weightier topics. Anyhow, just my two cents... :smile:

I agree the Shoutbox is too prominent. It is easy to change to Categories mode though. Maybe more posters should do that.

Summary of my 2C: The jokes are harmless but the Shoutbox is too prominent.

Admit it, you too enjoy the dirty jokes and don't want Hanover to stop. Ive seen you two playing one upmanship on that front to no end.

Why is that?

Maybe more posters should do that. — Baden

Oh dear! Maybe that thread should be closed, if it is such a problem? Or maybe people who are over-sensitive should go somewhere else? Or possibly, moderators should be a bit more moderate.

you too enjoy the dirty jokes — Posty McPostface

I find them harmless as I said above and fun sometimes. But I will personally be more careful in future seeing as it bothers you and some others.

and don't want Hanover to stop — Posty McPostface

It's not something that keeps me awake at night one way or the other tbh.



I'm not personally for banning dirty jokes in the Shoutbox or telling Hanover he can't make them. I'm sure the other mods have their own opinions on it, which they may share here.

Or possibly, moderators should be a bit more moderate. — unenlightened

Generally speaking, yes, but I don't consider making dirty jokes (or any jokes) in the Shoutbox as being immoderate in any important way unless they are deliberately being done to bully or belittle, which is not the case with Hanover.

So, Hanover's name has now been mentioned 9 times in this discussion. Let's all congratulate ourselves on our achievement before he gets to congratulate himself on it. Goodnight.

Oh, puh-leeze don't flip the issue and say that your doing this because of us. Make your silly jokes that are in reality deeply demeaning to women and our common sensibilities. I guess that's just how things are and I should shut up and fall in line.

No, it's not. I have no investment in it and will happily stop. I'm just not going to try to dictate to others that they do. I'll leave that to you and those who object most. Goodnight.

Sleep tight.

Don't sweat it!

Sometimes we get too far into it but this place would be insufferable if all we ever did was blow sweet nothings up each-other's rears. (Just pretend we're fictional characters in a daily soap opera :) )

But when a fight does break out, (especially if you're in it), focus on the ideas and not the people wielding them and almost no matter what you will come out of it without regret: I've had many emotionally barbed exchanges with posters here, but I honestly cannot remember with whom save one or two notable nemeses (it wasn't them I envisioned as my opponent, it was their ideas). Shit-festivals though they may have been, I take great pride in my ability to stay on topic and attempt meaningful contribution while also engaging in those emotional games we play. It's a necessary part of human psyche and motivation for us to call bull shit

Sometimes the catharsis of a good emotional ass-kicking is what people are after as well though, or at least it's what they need.

And even if everyone around you starts catching hurt feelings and declaring their dislike of you, don't sweat that either! You don't know them and they don't know you, so allow your conception of them to evaporate along with their emotions; deal in ideas. But if you absolutely must, playing the insult game has strict etiquette on a philosophy forum:

Ad-hominems cannot be the premise of an argument (fallacious), they must therefore be the conclusions.

Appealing to the person is directly is almost never O.K, you MUST appeal to the ideas, actions and statements of your interlocutors, not their ego or alter-ego. Apply your insulting conclusions to their statements and argument, not to them, and they may be thusly suaded in the long run.

If you follow the above two rules then heated discussions can actually be quite fun and entertaining. It's when certain lines get crossed (generally when hatred or some variant is directed at a poster).

We're all mostly human though, and we're imperfect. Forgiveness is premium.

I guess that's just how things are and I should shut up and fall in line. — Posty McPostface

Not at all! You have made a new line, and people have not just fallen, but jumped in it. Congratulations! Viva la revolution!

Long live Mary Whitehouse!

This is an interesting one: Freedom of speech versus dignity,respect and decorum. The debate is as old as the hills.

For what its worth here are my 2c. I think that Posty is right the crass nature of ideas communicated with base language and references, is somewhat infantile. However at times it can be amusing. Zizek is no fool, and he is a master of the crass and the crude.

When it is used as a vehicle for thought the depth or significance of the thought is more often proportional to the crudity of the delivery: When this is not the case, genius (as in the case of Zizek) may often be at the table. It is a loss if one misses genius because ones gentle sensibilities are being molested.

I think Chomsky has a hard time taking Zizek seriously for precisely the same reasons, and this is a pity because there is equally much to love and much similarity in their thought. Indeed it might be argued that the Philosophy of the 'left' suffers as a consequence of the lack of unity between these two 'giants' (personally I think Chomsky is most at fault here)

As such there are deep thinking philosophers on this forum who simply avoid the crass stuff and don't engage with the author, this is a pity because behind the crass there is often a significant amount of passion, and little of interest can be asserted without a modicum of passion. Crass becomes truly crass when it lacks real intellectual substance.

In this respect the moderator is right not to try to limit or censor the crass and the crude, It is up to the individual not to take offence, and when offence becomes unavoidable as when dialogue degenerates into talk of intercourse with the maternal, then it is time for those more interested in philosophy to stop reading, and avoid the disappointment that usually arises when one encounters raw emotion that has became divorced from deeper thought.

Freedom of speech is precious and must persist in spite of its potential for abuse. If the crude and the crass came to predominate on this forum, deep thinkers with a respect for dignified language would go elsewhere and that would be a loss to both freedom of speech AND good philosophy. I think what remains of paramount importance is not the words, but that which lies behind them.

Thank you Posty for raising this issue and thank you Baden for declining to act as a censor. Hopefully the overall displacement will be a little more respect for others, and for the ability to express thought in an engaging manner without a dependence upon the crude and the crass

M

Oh dear! Maybe that thread should be closed, if it is such a problem? Or maybe people who are over-sensitive should go somewhere else? — unenlightened

Or maybe they should get over it.

Or possibly, moderators should be a bit more moderate. — unenlightened

That wouldn't do away with the sexual jokes which a few people dislike and others view as harmless fun. Really, you should be imploring the moderators to be more intolerant. But I would hope that they're not so easily swayed.

Thank you Posty for raising this issue and thank you Baden for declining to act as a censor. — Marcus de Brun

That's a misconstrue of the situation. The point was that immorality and indecent talk was being encouraged, for the sake of one-upmanship and some idiotic ego games.

Would you want to fly with drunk pilots flying your plane had you witnessed them taking a drink in front of everyone before the flight?

To be quite blunt, it was one of those 'because we can' situations.

That's a misconstrue of the situation. — Posty McPostface

You asked for the sexual jokes in the Shoutbox to be done away with. That sure sounds like a request for censorship.

The point was that immorality and indecent talk was being encouraged, for the sake of one-upmanship, as often is the case when talking about lude jokes. — Posty McPostface

You disapprove. We get it already. How many more times are you going to interrupt the play with your booing? Until you get your own way?

There are a number of issues as I see it being raised here:

1. When posters get into arguments it's distressing,
2. Sexual jokes are unsavory to some,
3. the Shoutbox is a free for all.

1. The mods do regulate abusive conduct between parties and if you feel you're being abused, then you should speak up. My own view has been that I believe there should be as little regulation as possible of discussion because we're all adults and can handle ourselves. I have been attacked in all sorts of ways, some deserved, some not (or maybe so), and my general view has been that it shouldn't be moderated. There are parameters of acceptability and we have to maintain that, but I tend to object (in the mods section) to over-regulation more than under-regulation, but I'm just one vote and take very little personally. Differing views among mods keeps things moderate. I really am hesitant to intervene based upon an insult alone without there being some clear line being crossed (like racism or other specific rule being violated). In prior conversations with mods, I have objected that I felt the tone of the forum was growing too gentle, too protected, almost corporate, where I felt I was a customer service representative making sure no one was upset by another's comments. I didn't like it. We need an edge. But, as I said, I'm but one vote, and I am very protective against bullying of any sort.

2. I agree that outside the non-philosophical areas I shouldn't post something about having sex with a fellow poster's mother (see how gently I described that in this thread), but within the Shoutbox it's pretty much an open discussion about whatever. In all truth, much of what I have currently read in the Shoutbox are really poor attempts at humor, with a current trend with the posters acting as if they were all animals. That discussion is non-offensive sure, but it's right out of Romper Room. I obviously don't believe it should be moderated, but my point is that moderating based upon sense of humor is fraught with all sorts of problems. What I will say, though, is that I agree that no one should use humor to demean or bully.

3. The Shoutbox is the free for all area. It just is. There is a good argument that could be made that there's too much free for all in this Forum and that we should focus our efforts on real philosophical issues outside the Shoutbox. I do agree with that actually. To the extent someone wants the Shoutbox rated G and not R (and it's not X), I suppose we could rearrange the furniture and create a Shoutbox G and a Shoutbox R and then sensibilities would be protected, but I question whether that's really needed.

"Would you want to fly with drunk pilots flying your plane had you witnessed them taking a drink in front of everyone before the flight?"

Certainly not Posty. however my point was and is that the flight with the drunk pilot will certainly be more exciting and more of an adrenaline rush, than the usual sober and often entirely predictable affair. Generally I choose not to get on the plane. However it cannot be denied that the drunken pilot (if he/she does not crash the plane) is far more likely to bring me to an unexpected destination, and the unexpected destination is the place where new discoveries are made.

I accept your point in respect of that which is patently offensive. Everybody takes a shit but there are doors on toilets and we dont have to open them irrespective of the most enthusiastic invitations emanating from within.

Lighten up.. you have a proven intellectual caliber and you need not stoop to conquer.

Some people's thought is worthy of response others are not. Allow fools the freedom to be foolish when they are hurting none but themselves.

M

Thanks Doctor.

No probs.. I'll set up a pay pal a/c.. do you want to pay in Euros or Dollars?

M

Haha.

Do you guys still take the Hippocratic Oath in Germany, I assume?