Closing it again. Seeing as it immediately derailed.

Banned @Scott the Woz for low quality along with several sockpuppets of his later discovered.

Less than a day.

I thought of pointing out to him that this is not a social media platform and that responding with a meme is not a good idea here, but even longtime regulars do it now and then. I suppose we just let that slide if it's part of an otherwise substantial posting history, or so long as it doesn't seem to be dragging down the site so that a lot of people do it a lot of the time. Is that the feeling among the admins and mods? I have a little puritan reaction to it even when I find myself about to do it. I guess it's all context, just like all philosophy, damn it.

Yeah it was the sudden descent into meme posting that made me think he was beyond reasoning. At first I thought he might be someone who could be reasoned from anarcho-capitalism to anarcho-socialism if only someone would gently listen to his concerns and explain why the latter addresses them better than the former. Then he posted a vibrating "TRIGGERED" meme in response and all hope went out the window.

It wasn't really the memes but moreso that there was little rational substance to his political screeds.

That was faster that I expected, but the outcome was clear from the outset.

Didn't expect you'd be crying into your billycan over this one.

It's more a coffee pot than a billycan.

What's sad is that my devastatingly succinct reply, the one that elicited the meme, is lost to history.

Tragic.

Posting something that endorsed an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. — fdrake

As a semi self-identifying Jew, I would just like to voice my, perhaps short sited suggestion, to consider not banning anti-semitic conspiracy theory posters outright. I don't know exactly what your criteria is for what constitutes antisemitic, but I like to hear people's concerns about "my people", as empathy can help to dismantle people's hate, and they may open their mind to reason. I think a philosophy forum is a good place for sensitive topics to be discussed with objectivity. If they have bad reason's for their beliefs, then this is a good place for those bad reasons to be exposed for all to see.

:up:

But then they'd have to accept all the other wakos: the 9/11 truthers, the holocaust deniers, the young earthers, the flat earthers, the hollow earthers, the vaccers, the incel whiners, the chem trace snifers, the hunters of alien lizards, those unsure about global warming, the Pi-doubters, the Jesus mythicists, the perpetual motion specialists and the angry debunkers of Special Relativity...

You bring up a good point. Sort of. The reason why conspiracies against groups of people, especially smaller groups who by comparison have less defense due to numbers is so dangerous, is fairly obvious. Paranoia or even suspicion is hardwired into the human brain through years of early survival. You're in the woods and you hear a twig break or something else that just makes you feel off occurs, you pay attention and respond to it, you may just save your life. That fact is what I hold my belief of where paranoid-class complexes or ailments come from. You're in a group of a few hundred people who everyone more or less knows each other and you happen to have over a few dozen new people over- and something odd occurs. As someone in the larger group who everyone you know or someone you know knows, and if this smaller group likes to maintain their own traditions which naturally involves some level of privacy, or as some would cast secrecy, your mind will naturally assume it to be the unknown vs. the known A sort of failed attempt at "when you eliminate the impossible whatever remains must be the culprit" per folly of human psyche. In a strange way we can be as trusting as we are suspicious. Your brain is uncomfortable if it can't find a solution to something and so will conform to what has worked in the past or makes sense based on belief or upbringing, hence optical illusions, cognitive dissonance, pareidolia, suspicions, witch hunts, etc. Long story short that can lead to innocent people getting hurt.

On the other hand though the general term 'conspiracy theory' where it doesn't have to do with people (ie. aliens or government coverups) can be used, rather the facts from the first paragraph can be used, as they are very real and understandable, to hide other things. Which is worth noting.

↪Yohan But then they'd have to accept all the other wakos: the 9/11 truthers, the holocaust deniers, the young earthers, the flat earthers, the hollow earthers, the vaccers, the incel whiners, the chem trace snifers, the hunters of alien lizards, those unsure about global warming, the Pi-doubters, the Jesus mythicists, the perpetual motion specialists and the angry debunkers of Special Relativity... — Olivier5

Whats wrong with any of that as long as it follows the rules of discourse? Just because some of those folks, or most, are unhinged and incapable of discussion doesnt mean all if them are. How are people with these erroneous beliefs (or any erroneous beliefs) supposed to know better if A) they arent allowed to talk, B) are not allowed to listen and C) we arent allowed to talk them, and D) we arent allowed to listen to them?
Is not the purpose of discourse to expose bad ideas? If we ban people based on what they believe (rather than how they express it according to certain rules of discourse) then that becomes impossible, and discourse has failed.
Isnt discourse more important than whether or not we agree with the person?

Is not the purpose of discourse to expose bad ideas? If we ban people based on what they believe (rather than how they express it according to certain rules of discourse) then that becomes impossible, and discourse has failed.
Isnt discourse more important than whether or not we agree with the person? — DingoJones

:100:
Well said.

How are people with these erroneous beliefs (or any erroneous beliefs) supposed to know better — DingoJones

Open a book?

Think of banning as a mute button.

Stops the rabid rabbiting.

Good advice perhaps, if the person is around to hear it. (Banned people are not).
Further, those ideas have books as well. My comment applies just as well to your response. How would these people you describe know which books to read? You cannot tell them, and they no longer have the option to ask.
I stand by what I said, banning people based on their ideas is the enemy of discourse. Fortunately, the mod team doesnt share your view (mostly) and bannings seem to mostly be about the guideline breaches (specifically refusing moderation Ive observed) rather than strictly the idea itself.

If we ban people based on what they believe (rather than how they express it — DingoJones

Yes, agreed. To me, it's the expression that matters, not the belief. If a member is consistently incoherent, lazy, sloppy, and otherwise disrespectful of the reader's time then ok, probably time to go. On the other hand, if they can express outrageous views in an intelligent articulate manner, let's hear it.

I would agree that those who hold outrageous views often do so because their minds are naturally incoherent, lazy, sloppy etc. So lame beliefs and lame expression do often go together.

Thank you Gus. First post in a while and look at that warm reception.

Well, I cant disagree with any if that. :up:

[removed, off-topic]

Well, I cant disagree with any if that. :up: — DingoJones

WTF? Isn't agreeing against the rules??? Ban him, ban him!!! :-)

Good advice perhaps, if the person is around to hear it. (Banned people are not). — DingoJones

Banned people can still read the forum, including the bannings thread.

As the only person who's ever been un-banned, I can testify to that first-hand.

Sure, but the point is about discourse, about erroneous beliefs being corrected. It isnt about people self correcting through silent observation...how would such a person get banned in the first place?

Lol

If a forum such as this is to sustain its meritocratic structure (which it commendably does), a user's alienation merely on the basis of him/her exhibiting unconventional beliefs (preposterous as they may be) is indefensible. What is defensible, is an alienation on the basis of blatant disrespect of either other members, the forum's objective or of what philosophy entails altogether. Facetiousness in the form of meme sharing is likely to be representative of such grounds, but that's only my estimation.

Is not the purpose of discourse to expose bad ideas? If we ban people based on what they believe (rather than how they express it according to certain rules of discourse) then that becomes impossible, and discourse has failed. — DingoJones

Holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, Racists, Misogynists, etc. don't want to engage in discourse. They want to pontificate. They want to spread ideas to other people, often young people or easily persuadable or naïve people. We are now facing repercussions of major social website such as Facebook or Twitter or YouTube ranging from attempted kidnapping, rallies that end in murder, conspiracy cults, to outright genocide, because they failed to ban such people, and moderate the content on their website.

Others, like Flat-Earthers, 9/11 Truthers etc. are just stupid. No different then someone advocating miasma theory over germ theory.

In both cases, it's perfectly acceptable for the moderators of the website - or whatever platform - to control and maintain the quality of the website. If this site was overrun by racist users and subject matter would you stay? I wouldn't.

Example. I believe I could make an intelligent reasoned case which puts Nazism in a broader more objective context than "they be the evil bad guys". I know the mods don't want this, so I won't. But, imho, it is sometimes possible to offer credible arguments for that considered beyond the pale.

:up: