I posted in the mod board about it, I'd prefer he stayed banned. I'm the only one on duty at the minute though, so had to act.

You were doing good work with the outreach, remarkable really. Regardless, that kind of crap doesn't belong on the site.

Edit: Baden logged in in the interim between me banning sunlight and this post.

can we not unban him? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

No.

Well, I suppose we don't have to open the banning thread now that this is here. But usual thing, 24hrs to let us know your feelings about the decision should you wish to do so.

Noted.

Lol, I was tempted to say "Yes or no, whichever one means he stays banned". :lol:

I told you so. I was right not to start a thread, and it has been demonstrated that Scrotum's horrible rhetoric provides comfort and encouragement to right wing extremists.

So nah nah to you all, or something.

And I've noted your noting of my note. (Don't think I won't be here all night on this one). :wink:

I think you have to give space for people to have that kind of discussion, if someone does actually have suspicions of Muslims or developing prejudice, seeing how @Mr Phil O'Sophy conducted himself or other peoples' counterpoints might have done something.

I was pretty suspicious of Muslims as an edgy teen 'rationalist' watching Dawkins and Hitchens, it took a long while to get over, reading discussions like that actually helped.

Anyone who does the knee jerk reactionary bile thing can at least be modded into oblivion while allowing the discussion to stand, predictable problems in the issue framing yielding predictable responses doesn't mean we should shut down that space for debate.

:scream:

Yes, or no, whichever one means I don't have to answer any more questions. :wink:

That's ok if someone unbans him I'll just ban him again.

I think there's a fine line between trolling and just having ideas other people don't want to hear. I think there's a fine line between expression of controversial ideas and what is considered by a few to be "hateful". I haven't observed much of the dialogue in question in this case, but it seems to mirror a trend on social media to shut down instead of listening to what might be considered "vitriol".

I am a huge fan of Nietzsche, and this is somewhat ironic because I often disagree with his philosophy, but he had a certain eloquence that can't be denied and his sometimes caustic opinionating doesn't completely detract from the radiant truth in some of his assertions.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that unless people are willfully and frequently obstructive and appear to want absolutely no place in rational discourse or an atmosphere of some semblance of civility, they should be permitted to speak their minds. If anything, caustic or controversial ideas serve as a guiding light which should catalyze self-assurance in a healthy mind.

A philosophy forum should be all-inclusive to achieve maximal diversity of input. Otherwise, it's just a clubhouse you built for you and your buddies.

An up-vote for your post!

A philosophy forum should be all-inclusive to achieve maximal diversity of input. Otherwise, it's just a clubhouse you built for you and your buddies. — whollyrolling

No, it's just a regular moderated forum with a clear set of guidelines boringly on display for all to see, and which, if we didn't enforce, we wouldn't have been able to foster quality and become as successful as we have. We don't get to ban people just because we don't like them, and there are plenty of posters around that are far from being our buddies.

Stop pretending to be a rebel. If you really were, you would have left long ago. :razz:

@whollyrolling I agree with some of the rest of what you said, but it doesn't make me want to have an ignorant bigot like @sunknight back.

I've had buddies all my life whose political or religious views, as well as my own, were bitterly disagreed on at times. There used to be an ability to sit across a table in a coffee shop or a pub (examples of public meeting places) and throw up hands, sigh, reply sarcastically, raise voices, disagree vehemently, but get ideas heard and cheers afterward, with friends and often strangers.

I've had many opportunities to converse with ignorant people, racists, sexists, morons, quacks, etc., and they were represented by a diversity of whichever demographics people want to throw them into. I have gained more within myself at times by checking my values and opinions against those of ignorant or even violent people than conversing with people who subscribe to mainstream ideologies. Philosophy isn't a popularity contest, and your comment about the popularity of the web site demonstrates a concern for drawing in quantities, not qualities of conversation. In referring to the popularity or growth of the site, you've emphasized my point.

Philosophy is defined, in the only trustworthy dictionary online as far as I'm concerned, as "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts", "pursuit of wisdom", "a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means", "an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs", "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".

How is anyone ever going to find wisdom by excluding what is by "gut feeling" or by "social acceptance" perceived as its opposite?

Whether you bring this specific person back to the site or not isn't my concern, I'm not trying to convince anyone to do so. You are the moderators, that's your judgment call. You opened the floor to feedback about the decision, so I'm providing some.

Is philosophy not by its nature intended as a medicine against ignorance?

If we wanted quantity not quality, we wouldn't ban low quality. And if you think you can find higher quality elsewhere in an unmoderated popular philosophy forum, go for it, but you won't because we're right about what works and you're wrong.

We're discussing a topic here, why are you implying that my side of the discussion is unwanted on your site based on a self-centered and skewed perception of my view. I'm not wrong, and you mentioned the popularity of the web site, not I. You're throwing out a red herring here, "right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with popularity. You seem irritable.

Too many flies in the ointment can lead to unpredictable side-effects.

I made a thread some time ago about what we could do to capitalize on the many low-quality posters that darken our doors. I proposed a less-visible low-quality section which could work as a kind of limbo for those posters who would otherwise be banned. It could even be replete with guides about how to make coherent and quality posts.

The thinking was that if we could retain and train these people, our community would grow and become enriched, but it's asking a lot from the site developer and it's a bunch of headaches for moderators.

It's also possible that we don't need a massive community, or that increasing our size would create more burdens than benefits.

It's not my intent to rock the boat or to draw out your negativity, I'm expressing a view as was invited in the OP of this thread. Why would anyone invite feedback from others and then try to ward it off if it doesn't fit their own view?

I'm not trying to convince anyone to invite or tolerate vitriol or bigotry, I'm just sharing my view. In fact, I understand why you might, as moderators, ban certain dialogue. If word got around that your site was a place that anyone, even bigots, could express their views, it would likely lead to the site's downfall. This drives my point home. I'm correct about this, and the entity called "social media" is incorrect.

As I said before, I agree with some of your points. This:

A philosophy forum should be all-inclusive to achieve maximal diversity of input. Otherwise, it's just a clubhouse you built for you and your buddies. — whollyrolling

I disagree with.

This:

If word got around that your site was a place that anyone, even bigots, could express their views, it would likely lead to the site's downfall. — whollyrolling

I agree with.

And mostly I'm looking at it from a practical point of view: i.e. what works. I don't see a huge moral issue either way.

Anyway, it's 2am here, so night all.

A philosophy forum should be all-inclusive to achieve maximal diversity of input. — whollyrolling

The trouble with philosophy forums is that as soon as someone says 'should', others will descend upon them asking 'whence comes this should....', misquoting Hume saying 'ye cannut git an awt from an uz' and demanding a synchronisation of meta-ethical stances before we can address the content of the 'should'.

Stop pretending to be a rebel. If you really were, you would have left long ago. — Baden

I'm kind of quasi I guess. On the one hand, fanning the flames of discontent; on the other hand, not blowing up the fire department.

Who banned Roger Scrotum? It would make a great film.

Whatsup Drake?

And I've noted your noting of my note. (Don't think I won't be here all night on this one). :wink: — Baden

@Mr Phil O'Sophy Dude, @Baden ain't lyin! I have played this game of verbal tennis and the guy will wear you down! He's got Mad Skillz! :100:

Noted.