Well, I hope we still can discuss difficult topics. Because if this forum will have problems for an open dialogue, just think how bad it will be out there in the real World. — ssu

I agree. I want to keep it open to a wide spectrum of views.

Well, I hope we still can discuss difficult topics. Because if this forum will have problems for an open dialogue, just think how bad it will be out there in the real World. — ssu

It's only a problem for people who have biased perspectives and ignore all attempts at examining even their own convictions in an honest way. If this is a philosophy forum, then there has to be some form of demand to keep difficult discussions from ignoring philosophical standards of debate.

How would that work? What “form of demand” do you have in mind?

That difficult topics should have the same amount of demand for high-quality posts as everything else.

In what way are those standards not being applied to difficult issues? People get banned and warned for the same behaviour regardless of the topic difficulty, as far as I can see.

Well, I hope we still can discuss difficult topics. — ssu

I agree too and I don't think it's too hard to discuss difficult topics like race without using phrases like "black coon" or repeating a bunch of racially-loaded personal anecdotes of dubious veracity. We're not setting the bar very high with that, I think.

Seemed fairly well educated and knowledgable, from what little I read from him. The weirdness of his comments on race surprised me though! I suppose had they not been a surprise, it would not have seemed so weird! — creativesoul

I read through quite a few of his posts (here and Facebook) to get a better sense of him, because I questioned honesty. I believe he’s sincere. And yeah, educated and intelligent, though emotionally... off, perhaps somewhere on the spectrum.

I read through quite a few of his posts (here and Facebook) to get a better sense of him, because I questioned honesty. I believe he’s sincere. And yeah, educated and intelligent, though emotionally... off, perhaps somewhere on the spectrum. — praxis

I didn't find him particularly sincere, but that became an aside once the racism reared its head. It's not bannable to create a fake persona and to provide all sorts of incredible personal claims, but it's not terribly endearing either. We do deal with people with all sorts of personal issues, and we try to be understanding, but we can have but one set of rules that have to be applied consistently. Whether he had some personal limitations, I really don't know, and my guess is that I'd be wrong if I speculated.

I read through quite a few of his posts (here and Facebook) to get a better sense of him, because I questioned honesty. I believe he’s sincere. And yeah, educated and intelligent, though emotionally... off, perhaps somewhere on the spectrum. — praxis

Extremely high functioning?

I agree too and I don't think it's too hard to discuss difficult topics like race without using phrases like "black coon" or repeating a bunch of racially-loaded personal anecdotes of dubious veracity. We're not setting the bar very high with that, I think. — Baden

I wholeheartedly support ending the self-perpetuated hatred of an entire group of people based upon nothing other than a few true beliefs followed by irrational reasoning, or a few false beliefs following the so-called rules of correct inference.

Anyone who uses the term "black coon" is repeating a historically well-known racial slur. It is always a case of nurturing the derogatory belief, the irrational hatred of olden days.

Though very unlikely, I suppose that one could use the name to pick out an individual black person, and not know it's history. One who is first learning by virtue of knowing what's acceptable to say about black people, not only can be, but certainly will be completely unaware of the historical destructive nature of the real life circumstances surrounding the use of that slur. Men were hung to death for being accused of interacting with a white female. Those same men were called "black coon" during these hatred filled ritualistic activities. These hangmen bragged about it at the time while using that name. There is no way a first time user knows this.

Those are extenuating circumstances though, and as such are exceptions to the rule, so to speak. We all know of the plight that is exclusive to black Americans. What's in the best interest of all Americans is also in the best interest of black Americans. It is only when and if it is the case that black lives matter, that it could possibly also be the case that all lives matter. There are unique circumstances which apply to the descendants of slaves as a result of the hate filled belief that still pervades American society. Those beliefs have a well documented history.

"Black coon" is prima facie evidence that those beliefs remain influential to this day.

Should this language user's attention be directed towards the well documented history of hate and violence surrounding such language use, and they do not voluntarily choose to join the team of killing the racist belief, anyone who does not agree to stop such hate cultivation and nurturing of racist belief, anyone who still yet refuses... well then they have proven themselves a harborer and/or nurturer of racist belief themselves - at best.

Good riddance.

Watch a master. It doesn’t involve ‘not speaking’ to those you oppose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7R-X1CXiI8

After taking advice from other members of the team, banned @Devans99 for low quality.

Not unexpected. The Dunning-Kruger effect was firmly on display.

He's not an isolated case but perhaps suffers from a particularly virulent strain.

Oh jeeze. I hope it had nothing to do with my thread.

Are we picking on theists?

He was identified as a maths kook to me.

Its no one else's fault but there own if they bring dogma instead of discourse. Its picking on them the way its picking on a speeding driver to give him a ticket.

Just wanted to make sure. :up:

Are we picking on theists? — Wheatley

I certainly am. :rofl:

After taking advice from other members of the team, banned Devans99 for low quality. — Baden

:up:

:up:

@christian2017 has been banned for low quality. I suppose now would be a good time to resurrect the accusation that we're picking on theists. Though we're not really.

Well, not pantheists (every theist, get it? I'm shameless).

So...are we panning theists?

Good. Nasty little troll.

Banned @Gnostic Christian Bishop for low quality, after @Kenosha Kid, @Banno@Wayfarer brought their track record to mod attention.

Oh dear, they're starting the crackdowns. :smile:

The revolution is here.