But, what about biases and assumptions about other people, you can't entirely remove those can you? How do they manifest into attacks on the person? — Posty McPostface

My father tried to teach me to play poker. Unsuccessfully. He always used to tell me "the cards play themselves." You judge a poker hand by what's showing when you turn the cards over, not by what anyone says about it.

That's true here too. The arguments speak for themselves. Racists and murderers can make good arguments too.

That's true here too. The arguments speak for themselves. Racists and murderers can make good arguments too. — T Clark

Really well put. I was thinking something similar. Why does being anything have to do with the arguments you make?

In response to @Posty McPostface. I don't know if you can know anything truly. I'm sure it's dangerous to just assume they are by their arguments. Perhaps the finger pointing derives from that feeling of antagonism. Everyone seems to be so willing to assume the worst in the other these days. Or maybe the people that do that are more vocal now? I don't know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I was wondering about a similar question, but in general context of internet communication. Generally, how can we see intentions in chats, forums, comment sections and the like?

And namely, how do power structures work with such a communication, even at work and so on?

That's true here too. The arguments speak for themselves. Racists and murderers can make good arguments too. — T Clark

What's true here too? I'm trying to ask, why should I even care who you are, or what reason you have for posting something? Doesn't it come down to paranoia or something of that sort?

Why does being anything have to do with the arguments you make? — yatagarasu

Indeed?...

Indeed?... — Posty McPostface

XD By being I meant... What does being a murderer or gay person or anything have to do with the arguments you make? haha That was terrible on my end.

I don't know. Why even bother asking?

So, you're asking because you want to know?

I don't know. Does it even matter? — Πετροκότσυφας

What's it you don't know?

The purpose of this thread. — Πετροκότσυφας

There are a bunch of questions in the OP. You can choose to answer anyone you like.

So, is it some logical fallacy to try and categorize a person or label them as someone or something to discredit them or present them in some negative manner to ignore the content of their post?

how do I know you're not a murderer posting on here — Posty McPostface

You don't -- which is why we don't post our telephone numbers and addresses. About 20% of the membership have intensely psychopathic, murderous, heinous-crime-inclined personalities--a common product of life in modern depersonalizing institutions, like Harvard or Wall Street. If we knew where each other lived, there would be more cases of the Socratic Serial Murderers. (The victims are engaged in lengthy philosophical discussion before they are "banned" as it were.)

or a racist or a manipulative two-faced person — Posty McPostface

Who isn't? Preferring one's own tribe, manipulating others, and kowtowing to the opinions of the dominant chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) in the troop is baseline primate behavior.

What -- do you think we are made in God's own image, or something? The Garden of Eden? Any one of us could play the snake.

But, what about biases and assumptions about other people, you can't entirely remove those can you? How do they manifest into attacks on the person or in a misconstrual of an actual situation? — Posty McPostface

No, you can not eliminate biases or assumptions about other people.

The reason why innocuous discussions of what are fairly esoteric matters become scenes of mayhem is straightforward:

Jack says, "If a tree falls in the forest, it make no noise if nobody hears it" and invests his statement with his personal line of credit. "Because I am saying this, it is important and must not be disrespected."

Mary comes along and says, "Phenomena are not dependent on our perception. Every 6 year old knows that, imbecile!" Mary also invests her statement with her personal line of credit.

Jack responds by calling Mary an asshole because he feels (and was) disrespected. Mary also feels (and was) disrespected, and we're off on another riot in a demitasse cup.

Why point the finger? Why ask if it's a form of paranoia and not ask, for example, if it's not a form of love? — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't really know. Is there even an answer?

To summarize my post, above, we end up having disagreeable fights because too often we act as if a discussion is a contest upon which is riding a judgement of our personal worth. The solution? Write what you will and then let go of it.

To summarize my post, above, we end up having disagreeable fights because too often we act as if a discussion is a contest upon which is riding a judgement of our personal worth. The solution? Write what you will and then let go of it. — Bitter Crank

So, this is a result of not playing devils advocate with every position or argument you make?

Why ask if it's a form of paranoia and not a form of love? — Πετροκότσυφας

Chances are it's not love.

So, this is a result of not playing devils advocate with every position or argument you make? — Posty McPostface

Play devil's or angel's advocate as you wish, just don't tie your sense of personal worth to what you wrote. Take the view that someone is attacking what you wrote, not your person.

As always Posty, your posts are serious grounds for thought.

Essentially you seem to be asking two questions, how do you know I am not an evil person?

You don't, you are engaged with my thought.. and evil people can have equally pure thoughts. Hitler was a vegetarian and much of Mein Kampf is a valid appeal for social justice!

So I suppose you have to rely upon your instincts.. eventually (as in Mein Kampf) the evil content slowly exposes itself... but you have to keep reading.....

Your second question appears to point to a favorite of yours: namely why do people on forums such as this, tend to be more destructive in their commentary than constructive or kind?

On balance, it seems to me that on forums such as this one, where anonymity is relatively assured people are free to reveal more of themselves, their deeper angry insecure selves.

We ( the people who post) are generally united by a degree of insecurity and uncertainty, else we would be too busy enjoying the Epicurean pleasures that our status as relatively wealthy westerners affords us. Instead we like to express ourselves on fora, and break lances with our peers. Others play football and score goals, the forum is a bit like an intellectual game of football and many believe that the game is about scoring points and bringing down opponents by fair means or foul.

I think you can tell the x's from the y's by spotting those posters who believe that conceding a goal is as much a victory as scoring one... at least when it pertains to the great 'game' that is Philosophy.

But I might be wrong... I often am.

:)

M

people are free to reveal more of themselves, their deeper angry insecure selves. — Marcus de Brun

The "deeper angry insecure self" gets more response from attacks than agreement. People like to get responses. What do you say to somebody who says they agree with you? Not too much. What do you say to someone who disagrees with you, and perhaps in a disagreeable way? Plenty.

I don't really know. Is there even an answer? — Posty McPostface

The point is that if you don't have a non-self-contradictory argument for finger-pointing at the fingerpointers and wondering about their motives, paranoia etc, you don't have anything worth responding to here. So, do you have such an argument?

If not, logically this whole effort is a performative contradiction and should be shut down. And no-one who thinks it isn't can speculate on my motives for saying that because that would be paranoia. After all, what does it matter? Just address the logic of my argument.

Q.E.D. :up:

So, is it some logical fallacy to try and categorize a person or label them as someone or something to discredit them or present them in some negative manner to ignore the content of their post? — Posty McPostface

Bears some relation to poisoning the well.

In contrast to the appraisal of some of the other respondents, to be honest, I don't think that you've asked anything particularly deep or worthy of exploration. Maybe these questions or remarks from you are more of an expression of some feeling you wanted to get off of your chest in light of recent events, and it's more about the subtext. I think that you kind of already know the answers to your questions. You don't know for sure that I'm not a murder or a racist or so on, but you can make various judgements about myself and others based on what we say here, to varying degrees of accuracy. You might be wildly off target or you might hit dead centre. It might be paranoia or it might be rightly calling someone out.

Anyway, you know I'm not 'X', because 'X' is a letter, and I'm not a letter. I'm an owl. Ba-dum tsh.

How did you know this about me? Was it in my name?

As always Posty, your posts are serious grounds for thought. — Marcus de Brun

Thanks, I try.

So I suppose you have to rely upon your instincts.. — Marcus de Brun

What kind of instincts? If I were aware of the entire list of logical fallacies, would I be exempt from making wrong/bad inferences?

Your second question appears to point to a favorite of yours: namely why do people on forums such as this, tend to be more destructive in their commentary than constructive or kind? — Marcus de Brun

Yes, that has been a concern for me for a long time.

On balance, it seems to me that on forums such as this one, where anonymity is relatively assured people are free to reveal more of themselves, their deeper angry insecure selves. — Marcus de Brun

Interesting. What makes you think that's the reason why?

I think you can tell the x's from the y's by spotting those posters who believe that conceding a goal is as much a victory as scoring one... at least when it pertains to the great 'game' that is Philosophy. — Marcus de Brun

I don't play the game, I just watch from the sidelines.

I don't think that it's about the argument. If he's doing what he describes others of doing, it is precisely then that we (Posty included) can learn something. From the source. — Πετροκότσυφας

I guess we can all learn something from each-other, hence, the need not to point fingers for any reason in particular and just reflect on your own assumptions and biases.

Easier said than done, though.

In contrast to the appraisal of some of the other respondents, to be honest, I don't think that you've asked anything particularly deep or worthy of exploration. — Sapientia

[...]

Maybe these questions or remarks from you are more of an expression of some feeling you wanted to get off of your chest in light of recent events, and it's more about the subtext. — Sapientia

Thanks for proving my point...

Should I have lied and said that it was serious grounds for thought, so I could play the good guy and you could thank me?