Exactly, and not going to be guilt-tripped into indulging the premise either.

Anyhow, said my piece, goodnight all!

Of course, but wider implications could be taken into account, or not...
Of course moderators have to make their own call, and I'm not trying to "guilt trip" anyone; everyone has to make up their own minds when it comes to such issues. I'm just expressing my opinion about how I think I might handle it if I were a moderator, which I'm not, so...

To me this amounts to " You think you're a man; I'll show you what a man is"; in other words playing the same game in reverse. — Janus

Truth need not tip it's hat to BS.

Admittedly banning is easier, but I think deletion of offensive posts would send an equally clear, and more compassionate, message. — Janus

Such posts would be seen and they would offend. Don’t you care about that? They would also promote bigotry, and by allowing them the forum could be perceived as supportive. Does anyone follow up on what posts are deleted? My own posts could be deleted and I wouldn’t know.

Truth need not tip it's hat to BS. — James Riley

Of course not; that's why I said it should be deleted.

Such posts would be seen and they would offend. Don’t you care about that? They would also promote bigotry, and by allowing them the forum could be perceived as supportive. Does anyone follow up on what posts are deleted? My own posts could be deleted and I wouldn’t know. — praxis

They've already been seen by the time the member is banned for them. I don't think offense is the real issue; it's the actions that such views support which count. How would bigotry be promoted if bigoted posts are deleted? Deleting them is not "allowing them". Also if someone bloody-mindedly persisted in posting offensive material, then of course they should be banned. I just don't favour the 'one strike you're out' way of dealing with bigotry.

Truth need not tip it's hat to BS.
— James Riley

Of course not; that's why I said it should be deleted. — Janus

Allow me to clarify. You said:

To me this amounts to " You think you're a man; I'll show you what a man is"; in other words playing the same game in reverse. — Janus

When I said that truth need not tip it's hat to BS, I meant that if X kicks a man when he's down, and Y beats X to stop the kicking, then yes, both are acts of violence. So what? It's not the same game. Y is righteous for stopping X, just like Baden was righteous for banning. So calling it the "same game in reverse" is fundamentally untrue. Truth need not tip it's hat to BS.

When I said that truth need not tip it's hat to BS, I meant that if X kicks a man when he's down, and Y beats X to stop the kicking, then yes, both are acts of violence. So what? It's not the same game. Y is righteous for stopping X, just like Baden was righteous for banning. So calling it the "same game in reverse" is fundamentally untrue. Truth need not tip it's hat to BS. — James Riley

Does Y need to "beat" X or just restrain X? I'm not arguing that, if the choice was only between banning and not banning, with no other option, that banning would not be preferable. Deletion is another option, which restrains the person, while rejecting the material and not the person.

Does Y need to "beat" X or just restrain X? I'm not arguing that, if the choice was only between banning and not banning, with no other option, that banning would not be preferable. Deletion is another option, which restrains the person, while rejecting the material and not the person. — Janus

My point was, it's not, as you said, "the same game in reverse." One side is right and the other side is wrong. You've already stipulated that it is the site's prerogative on how to be right.

I sure wouldn't want to police bigots in the hopes of reformation. It's not a matter of whether Y needs to beat X or not. It's his choice to take him out for tea and explain the error of his ways, or not.

I just don't favour the 'one strike you're out' way of dealing with bigotry. — Janus

Fair enough. I propose two strikes for the repentant misogynist and one for the unrepentant.

↪Janus

So by that logic, it wouldn't be justified to ban for racism someone who said this either.

I am an unrepentant racist. For me, the concept that blacks should be considered the equal of whites, if they are any kind of white, is simply fucking ludicrous

I don't relate much to your idea of justice. — Baden

Man, I've come across quite a few oblique, or casually, racist comments across several threads but I stay critically engaged anyway to expose and ridicule them until you Mods judge they should be banned (mostly you all don't ban them, or maybe you give warnings, idk). I've been accuse by some of these members of "reverse racism" or "anti-white prejudice" for my clear anti-racist stands with respect to police violence in the US, etc. I give at least as good as I get, but I don't report; from my nightclub bouncer days, I still love 'punching' assholes (i.e. curb-stomping racists, misogynists, antisemites, fascists, et al). Keep on keepin' on, Baden! :up:

thank you

I was responding to your framing of the banning as being the righteous action of a real man. I wasn't saying it was just as bad as the misogynist view of a real man. The misogynist belittles women, not their ideas but women as such. Banning belittles the bigot, not their ideas but the bigot as such. In that sense, and that sense alone it is the same game in reverse. Deletion belittles the ideas, not the person.

What if a woman on here said:"I am an unrepentant misandrist. For me, the concept that a man should be considered the equal of a woman, if he is any kind of woman, is simply fucking ludicrous"?

Now of course, I am not denying there would not be any difference, given that women obviously have not been treated fairly in this patriarchal society. they have been, and in ways still are, the oppressed class.

Anyway, I've said enough on this. All I was expressing is the idea I have that a less rigorous approach might be, all things considered, better. But I'm not a moderator and I don't know how much effort is required to carry out the task.

I still love 'punching' assholes (i.e. curb-stomping racists, misogynists, antisemites, fascists, et al). — 180 Proof

:rofl: :up: :death:

:up:

Anyway, I've said enough on this. — Janus

Probably should have lead with that. I tried to parse the rest of it, but dinner's on and a quick skim didn't reveal any distinctions with a relevant difference. Enjoy the evening.

Enjoy the evening. — James Riley

I will when the evening comes. It's morning here.

In debating this most recent banning, this forum should consider what philosophy is, since this is a philosophy forum.

One of the most salient characteristics of philosophy since its inception in Ancient Greece was the banishment and putting-to-death of its adherents. These persecutions of the philosophers were based upon their perceived transgressions of the community’s laws. For example, Socrates was condemned to death by a jury of his peers for corrupting the youth by teaching the existence of gods other than those sanctioned by Athens.

Now, we don’t persecute ppl anymore—at least in the “free” world—for believing in and espousing the wrong god, and that is a good thing for philosophy; but we do persecute them for other transgressions, ones peculiar to our day and time. Every society, in all places and times, has its forbidden topics. In Ancient Greece you couldn’t talk about the possibility of gods other than Zeus or Hera, etc; in modern liberal democracies you can talk about any god you will. In ancient societies it was a given that women and men are unequal (and it was surely scandalous when Plato, in his Republic, suggested that women ought to serve in the military); in the modern dispensation, that possibility is anathema to thought, and you could lose your status in society, or your job, by giving it voice.

The speech that the rulers of this “philosophy” forum have deemed to be forbidden is the same speech that is censured by liberal society throughout the world: anything “sexist, racist or homophobic.” Speech has not been given freedom: the reins that restrict it have just been changed. Is it obvious that women and men are equal? Is it patently clear that there is no essential difference between the races? Is the acceptance of homosexuality good for society? Should ppl be allowed to alter the genders they were born with? We may never know the answers to such questions, for we are prevented by means of threats from even asking them.

Philosophy is the UNFETTERED love of wisdom, and that means asking ANY question, however forbidden it be. Socrates wasn’t prevented by Athens from pursuing philosophy, nor are we by Modernity. The advantage we have over the ancients is that whereas we may be kicked out of a forum or lose our job, they could be banished from their country or put to death; the disadvantage to us is that we lack the full diversity of phenomena that they had access to.

Philosophy is the UNFETTERED love of wisdom, and that means asking ANY question, however forbidden it be. — Leghorn

Being banned does not lose anyone their job. They aren't killed. They're just told they are not welcome in our house. I don't consider that persecution or even censorship. I've had disagreements with the moderators in the past about particular bannings, but never on the principle behind them.

They're just told they are not welcome in our house — T Clark

That pretty much sums up what I’m saying.

Philosophy is never welcome in any “house”, for houses always have rules, and philosophy is unfettered by rules.

I've been on plenty of sites "unfettered by rules." Not much reason going on.

No quarter for misogynist lowlifes. Good and uplifting.

I've been on plenty of sites "unfettered by rules." Not much reason going on. — T Clark

So the fact that philosophers and certain web-browsers are both unfettered by rules makes them equal?

So the fact that philosophers and certain web-browsers are both unfettered by rules makes them equal? — Leghorn

Nuff said.

up: — Janus

Thumbs up to the ‘one strike you’re out’ policy of unrepentant misogynists. Thanks for the exercise in futility.

Not my personal definition of espousal. And if you want to pour gasoline on the discussion with reprehensible language, then you will inevitably get a blaze: observe, I have used none of it. And I am quite sure you know the differences between being and espousing.

(It's fantasy that) we can or should try to reform bigots by being nice to them. — Baden

Long live the heterogots!

Thumbs up to the ‘one strike you’re out’ policy of unrepentant misogynists. Thanks for the exercise in futility. — praxis

So, the person in question was given a chance to repent? That was not how it appeared to me. My point was at least they ought to be given a second chance. If the person in question was given a second chance and remained unrepentant, then I have not understood the situation.

I am an unrepentant misogynist. — Michael Zwingli

If he’s as influenced by social dynamics as you’ve suggested, it’s likely that he would have been compelled to remain consistent with this statement.