The moderators, in allowing the tone to be set in such a way, perpetuate the kind of academic cruelty that never should be allowed. — uncanni

My guess is some mods do see this but dont have time to really teach people healthier discourse styles. My guess is only the egregious ones are simply banned or warned. Hard to make that distinction of when to step in.

I'm an academician and I've seen more than my share of pathetic ph.ds try to compensate for their sense of worthlessness or low self esteem by acting sadistically towards others. — uncanni

That rings very true as what could be or is happening here sadly.

Is there a philosophy of nastiness, or just a psychology? :nerd:

I've reported all of your off-topic posts. Hopefully a moderator will come along and delete them, along with this one.

Yep this forum, even in it's original incarnation was never one that promoted healthy exchange. It's as if people here equate dbaggery with superior argumentation. There are exceptions but mainly demeaning antagonism is the norm sadly. — schopenhauer1

That hasn't been my experience at all. Sometimes things get heated between even reasonable people who generally discuss and agree or disagree in good faith, but apart from that there seems to be only a small minority of people here whose main motivation seems to be to win arguments and/or defend their own biases or pet theories at all costs.

People on these forums are on many different levels of philosophical understanding and competence in critical thinking, so there will be many threads which the more philosophically adept will not be interested in, as well as specialized threads which the generalists will not be interested in. Surely the purpose of participating is to learn, and to try to overcome our biases and humility dictates that we should learn from those who are more adept, if we can understand them. I welcome my ideas being challenged, and I hope I can find the humility to admit it when I am wrong.

Anyway, in relation to the OP: why should it be assumed that meaning of life would be the same for all people?

People on these forums are on many different levels of philosophical understanding and competence in critical thinking, so there will be many threads which the more philosophically adept will not be interested in, as well as specialized threads which the generalists will not be interested in. — Janus

Sure, I'm fine with that.

Surely the purpose of participating is to learn, and to try to overcome our biases and humility dictates that we should learn from those who are more adept, if we can understand them. I welcome my ideas being challenged, and I hope I can find the humility to admit it when I am wrong. — Janus

Nothing wrong with that. My critique is the style mainly. To pretend that there are posters that are not being demeaning and purposely antagonistic and not arguing in good faith and basic decency is to overlook a lot of what is the case. If you think simply because someone argues a point you disagree with requires a vitriolic style of response, than I don't know what to say. The only thing I would think that warrants any sort of vitriol is straight up racism, bigotry, and personal attacks.

To pretend that there are posters that are not being demeaning and purposely antagonistic and not arguing in good faith is to overlook a lot of what is the case. — schopenhauer1

I think you meant to write: "To pretend that there are not posters that are being demeaning and purposely antagonistic and not arguing in good faith is to overlook a lot of what is the case." so I will answer that.

I'm not saying there are not posters of the kind you describe, but that they are a small minority and not characteristic of the forum.

I think you meant to write: "To pretend that there are not posters that are being demeaning and purposely antagonistic and not arguing in good faith is to overlook a lot of what is the case." so I will answer that. — Janus

:lol: Yes that was what I meant.

I'm not saying there are not posters of the kind you describe, but that they are a small minority and not characteristic of the forum. — Janus

I've seen some productive stuff and not so much.. The jury is out maybe... But as far as my experience, there's a lot of vitriol. The problem is people don't know how to regulate their message.

There are several levels of vitriol and venom going on...

Let's say you think you're a philosophy hot-shot. You've read the latest on Concepts, and Objects, and know a lot about statistical this, or biological that, language games this, or logical puzzle that, and symbolic logic this, mathematical axiom that...then a poster comes who is not speaking your style (level of grammar.. in the mind of the OP) of academese.. the amount of vitriol spurned on the intruder is unnecessarily venomous, to the point of hubris. It just doesn't warrant that. The best way to handle this for a conscientious person who encourages learning, is to present the poster in a private message some articles to read up on, if you don't think they are at the level YOU are at on that particular topic and to even elucidate a bit more on the general topics at hand that you want to focus on.. Of course, that would take patience and compassion- things lacking for most in an internet forum meant for quick posts. We are only in a "PHILOSOPHY FORUM" who needs to think about other people and ethical behavior in posting, right? But anyways, this is rarely done, even by the most "well-read". Yeah, am I "asking too much?" maybe.. but then again, it IS a philosophy forum where ethics is something that is relevant.

Then you have your everyday pisher/antogonistic poster who is trying to get a rise out of others. This is your basic troll that just wants to see their "opponent" or "interlocutor" pissed off at all costs. They are not arguing in good faith, but rather out of meanness and seeing the other person burn to the ground.

So, from the top down, I see a lot of both of these kinds of nasty behaviors. I am just telling it how I see it a lot of times.

So, from the top down, I see a lot of both of these kinds of nasty behaviors. I am just telling it how I see it a lot of times. — schopenhauer1

I see that too. I am guilty of it myself at times. People commonly do become impatient, and get pissed off, especially when the interlocutor does not seem to be actually responding to what is written, but distorting it for the purposes of making their own argument look better, or is changing the subject, becoming needlessly insulting or abusive, or trying to otherwise control the discussion so as to avoid answering hard questions for their position that have been posed.

You know, all that ego-shit: that is the one thing that really tests my temper, but I have been making efforts to keep my responses even-tempered come what may, and to ignore people I believe are just trolling, or who I believe have no intention of ever seriously questioning their own beloved ideas or pet theories or whose egos are patently so big they will never admit they are wrong. (Not suggesting I'm devoid of ego myself, of course; maybe that's why it makes me feel angry when I see it in others).

Well, if I were to say, "God, any child can see how ridiculous and stupid that statement was. You are not even in the realm of sensible understanding." is that productive? I could say, "That doesn't seem to make sense if we take into account X, Y, Z". That second style seems more productive and is focusing on the issue at hand, not just trying to provoke and incite. That can go a long way in making things more pleasant all around.

Yes, I totally agree. There are a few posters on here with that kind of ugly ignorant style and I, for one, have called a couple of them out for their "toxicity". ( I won't mention any names but you know who you are :grin: ).

I have also called myself out for it a few times. (See how much holier than thou I have become!).

Surely the purpose of participating is to learn — Janus

An angry, insulting, patronizing participant has nothing to teach me.

I'm not letting a few warty, bilious, infantile trolls chase me away. I just wish they would play nice. — uncanni

How could I put it. How can we agree with your points (not a specific one, but any one of them) while disagreeing with them?

We need a sample text. Or some guidelines.

I figure your text reflects what you consider "playing nice". For references, please see your quote leading this post of mine.

An angry, insulting, patronizing participant has nothing to teach me. — uncanni

In this case you can become the teacher.

Surely the purpose of participating is to learn
— Janus

An angry, insulting, patronizing participant has nothing to teach me. — uncanni

You missed the point. It isn’t what they can teach you, but what you can learn from your participation in the discussion: humility, patience, tolerance...

Perhaps you are too sensitive then?

You missed the point. It isn’t what they can teach you, but what you can learn from your participation in the discussion: humility, patience, tolerance... — Possibility

So you believe that we learn from trolling? I see it as toxic, discussion-killing. So do the experts.

Perhaps you are too sensitive then? — Janus

I don't know if I'm more sensitive to nastiness than others.

It's as if we are engaged in writing a kind of essay together, — uncanni

Let's keep it to no more than a 200-word essay, please. ;-)

(I think discussions are better when they remain tightly focused.)

Let's keep it to no more than a 200-word essay, please — Terrapin Station

You must stay away from the discussions with around 2,000 responses. Just because a discussion gets long doesn't mean it can't keep its focus.

You must stay away from the discussions with around 2,000 responses. Just because a discussion gets long doesn't mean it can't keep its focus. — uncanni

I agree with that hypothetically, but in practice, contingently, even single long posts on the board are never focused.

You missed the point. It isn’t what they can teach you, but what you can learn from your participation in the discussion: humility, patience, tolerance... — Possibility

But perhaps what he or she as an individual needs to learn is pride or the sense that should not simply get away with being disrespectful, or perhaps he has been to patient in the past and not cut off relations with rude people or users or too tolerant of things that were in fact simply vicious.

even single long posts on the board are never focused. — Terrapin Station

It seems that even the short posts aren't focused quite frequently.

It seems that even the short posts aren't focused quite frequently. — uncanni

That's true, but the situation isn't made any better by making posts longer.

In this case you can become the teacher. — god must be atheist

I like Paulo Freire's concept of the student-teacher and the teacher-student in collaboration. I have always learned a great deal from my students, for I am a professor.

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." It is also true that "When the teacher is ready, the student will appear." This latter means that if a person in a community gains knowledge far beyond the practice and common knowledge of the community, he or she will be in a position to teach that community.

Historically, the teachers who so developed, had no chance, they were burnt on the stake most commonly, and / or given hamlock to drink, and / or criticized by the peer reviewers mercilessly.

Ironically, people have always been keen to listen to a rabbi, a teacher, a wise person, but when the teacher's tuition turned against accepted, strong beliefs, he or she was burnt, mutilated, hanged, quoartered and cut into many little pieces.

but when the teacher's tuition turned against accepted, strong beliefs, he or she was burnt, mutilated, hanged, quartered and cut into many little pieces. — god must be atheist

Teaching to transgress by bell hooks: I teach subversively, but so far I've avoided being tortured to death; they can't do that after they give you tenure, can they?

I teach students to question authority and more than anything else, I try to get a dialogic flow going between them and me.

some irate parent can sue you, or the gov. (If you teach hate.) If you teach evolution, you may get shot through your car window if you live in Texas or Georgia someplace. If you teach that the earth is round, you will be shot through your kitchen window by some Fundamentalist.

I saw this joke by JIm Unger. It's a drawn comic. A teacher is pinned down on his desk by a painful stranglehold by an irate parent, and it is obvious to the viewer that the teacher's arm can be broken in an iunstant. The kid is standing ildly by. The parent asks the teacher, "Did you, or did you not teach my kid that I'm a 'homo sapien'?"

I agree with that hypothetically, but in practice, contingently, even single long posts on the board are never focused. — Terrapin Station

I thought about this on and off all day. One of the challenges of cyber-communication is, indeed, staying focused and to the point, and another one is the fact that in many cases we really don't have enough of a context within which to understand what a person means when s/he writes a statement. It's a challenge not to assume that one knows exactly what someone means when one might not really understand where the other is coming from without further clarification.

This reminds me of Borges' infinite cosmic library, which in turn makes me think of Derrida's deferral of meaning, and we're always chasing after it like a runaway kite...

I teach students to question authority — uncanni

What do you answer when the kids ask you, "Why ought we question authority?"

And what do you answer, when the kids don't question you?

And what mark does a kid get who does not question you, but answers all questions on his test the precise way you taught him to answer them?

It's a challenge not to assume that one knows exactly what someone means when one might not really understand where the other is coming from without further clarification. — uncanni

This could lead only to two different responses: all communication would stop, or ELSE, all communication would explode into an infinite series of questioning
A: "What do you mean when you wrote..."
B: "What do you mean with your question?"
A: "Why do you ask that question?"
B: "What is the reason behind your asking that question?"
ETC.

In my opinion assume we must, and if it's really off the mark by a long shot, it will come out in the wash.