I think there are two factors to this:New posters and older posters alike get fed up and decide to foolishly dare the mods to enforce the guidelines.
What are people thoughts on why they do that? — DingoJones
I think it's an act of getting closure to an unsatisfactory relationship.They could just leave, but some anger or frustration compelled them to
Realizing that one is in the wrong place, and has been there for a long time, can look rather ugly.So a sign of the times then? Are we just so divided that certain people crack from the stress of knowing people out there disagree with them so so much?
All discourse is overshadowed by the power differentials at play. Even at a philosophy forum, where the power of the argument should be bigger than the strength of the argument from power. But in reality, the argument from power is always the strongest one.Is it the nature of discourse, that some people just arent equipped for?
I've seen it elsewhere a few times. I don't know what was happening via PM's or the stuff that was deleted, so I can't know for sure, but the common point seems to be: authoritarian politically correct moderators.Ok, but why haven’t I seen this on other similar forums? Is there something about this forum that attracts these sorts of people? — DingoJones
As far as I have seen, it's always been like that.Now, difference of opinion is a difference of good and evil in the hearts and minds of most people. — DingoJones
Who does??!They just didn't like being told what to do, or how to behave. — Philosophim
Are we just so divided that certain people crack from the stress of knowing people out there disagree with them so so much? — DingoJones
The best remedy for bad ideas like fascism is discussion, to show where these ideas fail and where they lead — DingoJones
Of course not.Where on earth did you get that idea from? Have you honestly seen any evidence of it, in general. Do people, in your experience, generally have a tendency to listen to arguments (no matter who they're from) and alter their opinions accordingly? — Isaac
For that reason I try to give signs of encouragement to others I agree with in other threads, even if I'm not going to go to the effort of really engaging in their battle against their opponents. Just so they know that someone is on their side, and they're not alone.
I think the forum would be a much more pleasant place if people generally would do things like that more often. — Pfhorrest
If I don't have your sword, your bow, or your axe, then what use are your little words of support to me?For that reason I try to give signs of encouragement to others I agree with in other threads, even if I'm not going to go to the effort of really engaging in their battle against their opponents. Just so they know that someone is on their side, and they're not alone. — Pfhorrest
Who would make a point of visiting and posting at a forum which they know to be very different from their own views? — baker
(And they end up being called "trolls" by the forum members.)I think these people do indeed deliberately join forums whose culture is generally opposed to theirs, deluded into thinking that they only need present what seems obvious to them and all 'right thinking' people will fall into line on reading such cold hard logic. — Isaac
It's not enough that discussion be seen as a battle but that we must now have a jeering crowd egging each combatant on? — Isaac
If I , for example, were to chime in to one of your discussions to say I agree, would that have the same effect on your well-being as if [insert some well-respected poster here]? — Isaac
People tend to be cognitive misers. They are willing expend only a little effort to understand other people, and they underestimate the effort a particular other person would need to make in order to understand them. — baker
All discourse is overshadowed by the power differentials at play. Even at a philosophy forum, where the power of the argument should be bigger than the strength of the argument from power. But in reality, the argument from power is always the strongest one. — baker
As far as I have seen, it's always been like that. — baker
While I agree, there's another, even simpler explanation, and that is that most people are not trained philosophers.Yes. I think that's true but this is one of the reasons why social media (all internet platforms really) might be such breeding grounds for extremism. Much of our bandwidth is occupied with the judgement of social relations - the intentions of others, their social position etc. It's supremely hard work (in terms of how much brain power it takes).
People use their resources differently in internet interactions, much information we'd normally use to judge someone's intent is unavailable so there's a theory that a lot of the behaviour popular online is an attempt to extract that kind of data from a medium we're not used to. Just a theory... — Isaac
Thinking back several decades when I was growing up, to be different in any way meant to be evil, or at least wrong or defective.Its always been a thing yes, but thats not the same as that thing becoming more widespread or significant. Im talking about the latter. — DingoJones
For my part, the thing that I tend to find stressful is the perception that nobody agrees with me. Even if I know better, if I'm well aware of prominent thinkers who agree with me... they're not here, or anywhere else that I am. — Pfhorrest
I think the forum would be a much more pleasant place if people generally would do things like that more often. — Pfhorrest
I would prefer that it not be seen at a battle at all, but if it's going to seem like some people are attacking you, instead of us all just cooperatively working on a puzzle together, then it's nice to have other people comforting and supporting you too. — Pfhorrest
Someone to affirm that you're not completely crazy, that there's some worth and merit to your thoughts, even if there is also room for refinement. — Pfhorrest
when so far as I can tell you're not just some crazy person I can safely ignore, it makes me feel obliged to address your responses, at whatever length necessary, no matter how obviously wrong I think you are. — Pfhorrest
I think one needs to be stronger than that, more self-confident, more self-efficacious.I would prefer that it not be seen at a battle at all, but if it's going to seem like some people are attacking you, instead of us all just cooperatively working on a puzzle together, then it's nice to have other people comforting and supporting you too. Someone to affirm that you're not completely crazy, that there's some worth and merit to your thoughts, even if there is also room for refinement. — Pfhorrest
Where on earth did you get that idea from? Have you honestly seen any evidence of it, in general. Do people, in your experience, generally have a tendency to listen to arguments (no matter who they're from) and alter their opinions accordingly? — Isaac
Thinking back several decades when I was growing up, to be different in any way meant to be evil, or at least wrong or defective.
What do you think drives the social pressure for conformity? — baker
Took a pretty leap to get to that bolded portion sir. Thats not what im saying. No matter who they’re from? Where did you get that from what I said? — DingoJones
Im not sure pleasantness is what folks are after on a forum like this. — DingoJones
As I was just discussing above, this seems to me to be the crux of this entrenching. If a person who you think is not crazy tells you you're wrong, but you don't think you are, it surely demonstrates as clearly as possible that something's seeming to you to be the case cannot itself be sufficient evidence that it is the case. Yet, no amount of internal reflection is going to get any more than something's seeming to you to be the case. One cannot take another person's contrary position and examine it against one's own web of beliefs. It will as obviously fail such a test as taking a Land Rover component and bolting it to a Ferrari would fail. You have to create a virtual web of beliefs built around what your (non-crazy) interlocutor is saying - a kind of joint space which neither of you actually believe in. But since neither of you own this space, there's not much incentive to do so in a combative environment.
I know it seems rather fusty, but the process of citation and building very gradually and slowly on previous work is a grand scale manifestation of this mental process, the academic corpus in general being the shared web of beliefs which neither party completely believes. This is why I think that "I've re-written the whole of..." type posts are just combative from the start (no matter the intention of the poster). They eschew the shared space of beliefs we already have. Doing so is equivalent to turning up to a negotiation with gun and expecting that not to have any influence of the parties' approach. — Isaac
For my part, the thing that I tend to find stressful is the perception that nobody agrees with me. — Pfhorrest
trying to find something interesting to say about an already well thought out topic. — Echarmion
Tolerating it leads to, well, you've seen what just happened. — Baden
It’s just one with very obvious cons — like, for example, what just happened. — Pfhorrest
I’d say even that should be “tolerated” to the extent that that means taking it as an idea about which we can discuss the pros and cons. — Pfhorrest
But propagandising is not discussion. I think questioning e.g. whether the Holocaust happened, i.e. disguising propaganda as debate — Kenosha Kid
What is your superior remedy to a bad idea? — DingoJones
Regardless of what folks are after on a forum like this, what purpose should a forum like this serve? I.e. what's a place like this good for, anyway? — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.