For example, if a poster were to express a very negative view of, say, New Age, would that make them a New-Age-phobe, and thus, bannable (instantly)? — baker

Don't be bloody ridiculous.

A while back, a poster was instantly banned for declaring to be a misogynist. From the discussion that ensued among the moderators, it seemed that other "phobias" and isms could be bannable offences as well.

You are allowed to disagree with a person's beliefs. You are not allowed to disagree with a person.

For example, if a poster were to express a very negative view of, say, New Age, would that make them a New-Age-phobe, and thus, bannable (instantly)? — baker

As a general matter, we don't render declaratory judgments, meaning there must be an actual case in controversy for us to rule. That means we don't entertain hypotheticals and then declare some sort of binding precedent. What we do is when there is an actual case, we read the rules and we interpret them, relying to some extent upon the way they were interpreted before.

To do otherwise would result in our continually responding to "what ifs," which we don't have time for, and which often wouldn't be helpful anyway because actual cases have all sorts of nuances that have to be considered.

:100:

What if someone says, flat-out, "I hate New Agers" or "New Agers are stupid, worthless people"?

What if someone says, flat-out, "I hate New Agers" or "New Agers are stupid, worthless people"? — baker

Here

See above. But if there's some specific group you actually (not hypothetically) wish to express hatred towards and you're worried you'll get banned for it, feel free to run your proposed comment by us and we'll apply a common sense interpretation of the guidelines to it.

Go for it baker, it sounds like Baden has challenged you. Express your hatred, maybe you'll get banned, and maybe not. It seems kinda like Russian roulette, a lot to lose in comparison with what you might win.

As purposefully inflammatory as this topic may be, it can extend to many thought provoking avenues. Just because "New Age" or let's be honest if I spent $50 and registered a brand new religion with my government revolving around say.. the idea that every toy we once owned and played with but discarded is now a god and keeper of our original soul and must be worshiped (and perhaps marked up 300% tax free)... what makes that any different from discriminating against a major religion such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism? Because there's more people and therefore for that simple "nothing to do with anything truly divine" reason, it must be paid attention to to avoid backlash? Is that right? Is that moral? Is that what religion has devolved to now a days, closet atheism that only has any meaning because of the humans that follow it? Or perhaps was that all it ever was? These are valid questions I believe OP, if not unintentionally, asks us and forces us to ask ourselves.

Google Definitions

etc.

/ɛtˈsɛtərə/

adverb

used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included.

"protect seedling from damage caused by feet, lawnmowers, pets, etc."

Reminds me of metaphysics which I consider to simply be a synonym for miscellaneous.

One thing's for sure though: violence-promoting and inequality-perpetuating beliefs and the people who're vectors of dangerous ideas aren't welcome in this forum. Most ideas that are a big no-no at present had their...er...moment in the past. Quite possibly it's some kinda cyclical process:
Phobia $\rightarrow$ Acceptance $\rightarrow$ Phobia $\rightarrow$ ? Back to square one that is. Anicca! Unfortunately, nothing new. Same old, same old!

But if there's some specific group you actually (not hypothetically) wish to express hatred towards and you're worried you'll get banned for it, feel free to run your proposed comment by us and we'll apply a common sense interpretation of the guidelines to it. — Baden

I'm not too keen on expressing hatred, nor on taking up the time of the moderators, however,
Where is the dividing line here at this forum, between the acceptable and the bannable?
Between the acceptable and the reportable?

From seeing what posts are allowed, it's clear that it's not hatred or love alone that would be the deciding factors for a ban.

Sympathizing with Nazis gets you banned, but not sympathizing with Communists. How about sympathizing with, say, Stalinists?

Misogyny is a bannable offence -- but only if declared by men?
General misanthrophy is okay, but not misogyny or misandry?

Hating Muricans is okay, hating Africans is not okay? How about Asians?
Hating blacks is not okay, hating whites is okay?

And so on. Where's the line?

But if there's some specific group you actually (not hypothetically) wish to express hatred towards and you're worried you'll get banned for it, feel free to run your proposed comment by us and we'll apply a common sense interpretation of the guidelines to it. — Baden

And it's kind of too late for that anyway. Given the discussion between moderators after that poster was instabanned for misogyny, I've thought of many posts already made that would qualify as bannable offences. A general atmosphere of uncertainty as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all. — Schopenhauer

Test: I agree.

I compared the manitoba coronavirus response to germany pre-wwII, not as a sympathizer, but looking to see if anyone had experienced germany, as I had not. The OP was deleted and I was warned with a ban if I continued that line again. I am not really sure why though, I was not promoting anything, just looking for feedback from multiple sources. I was not expecting the slap-down.

And so on. Where's the line? — baker

As a general matter, we don't render declaratory judgments, meaning there must be an actual case in controversy for us to rule. That means we don't entertain hypotheticals and then declare some sort of binding precedent. What we do is when there is an actual case, we read the rules and we interpret them, relying to some extent upon the way they were interpreted before.

To do otherwise would result in our continually responding to "what ifs," which we don't have time for, and which often wouldn't be helpful anyway because actual cases have all sorts of nuances that have to be considered. — Hanover

To state (by proxy) something bannable through a famous philosopher's words gives you no protection from banning. Whether that philosopher be Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Aristotle, Nietszche or whoever. All would have been banned themselves for espousing Nazism, sexism, slavery, and/or misogyny if they chose to do so here. Neither being famous nor hiding behind someone famous gives you protection from the rules. We're fairly equal opportunities on that score. So, thanks for the test. You're banned. Do I get an A?

To put it as simply as possible, you don't get to say bannable stuff just because a famous philosopher once said it. And there's hardly anything a famous philosopher hasn't once said, so that should have been obvious.

It is surely obvious that there is no line. What is unacceptable is defined by folks not accepting it. What folks will not accept varies. What is accepted by a member in good standing may not be acceptable as a first post; what is unacceptable to me may be acceptable to you, and may be acceptable to me too on a good day.

Nevertheless, the community develops an ethos through moderation and complaints and discussion of moderation. Consistency evolves rather than being laid down in statute.

It is the concern only of trolls to know exactly how much offence they can give before they are ejected.

It is the concern only of trolls to know exactly how much offence they can give before they are ejected. — unenlightened

And of the naive who think discussions are about arguments, and not about the social power hierarchy.

A nicely judged comment, if you don't mind my saying so. :hearts:

"....Women are...".
— Schopenhauer — emancipate

I don't know the source, but I suppose the author is being humorous in accord with the standards of his times. Which is to say that he is representing an idea and inasmuch as it is humor, it is not at all clear what he actually means. Censoring this, then, simply an error of ignorance. I hope at TPF such errors can be avoided.

And it's a good way to avoid such by refraining from rendering preliminary judgments absent cases or particulars. The merits of the thing and the circumstance, then, standing or falling on their own. Schopenhauer gets a pass on his own merit. We get to say that it's a joke not in accord with our own sense and understanding, and even seems ignorant on its face (being one reason I think it's a joke).

And it seems to me the ultimate standard, if there be one, is the overall presence and quality of the reason of the argument. If none, then post to the farm, and if the poster makes clear he has none, then him to the farm too.

It is the concern only of trolls to know exactly how much offence they can give before they are ejected. — unenlightened

This nails it.

Couldn't care less. I'm not censoring Schopenhauer. You can quote him to show what a complete dick he was re women or even to twist yourself into a pretzel defending him because you can't accept that he said what he meant and meant what he said. Doesn't matter. The point is where you say "I agree with X that Y" (where Y is a prima facie bannable statement as per the rules on this site in this current time) then that is equivalent to saying "I agree that Y" which = "Y" = bannable = ban. The "with X" part is irrelevant as is who X is.

Ubanned @emancipate because he came back in sockpuppet form to say he wasn't being serious. Fine, just remember we're not mind-readers. If we don't know your posting history, we're likely to take what you say at face value.

You guys are heartless. How long do they have to wear it?

Misogyny is a bannable offence -- but only if declared by men?
General misanthrophy is okay, but not misogyny or misandry?

Hating Muricans is okay, hating Africans is not okay? How about Asians?
Hating blacks is not okay, hating whites is okay?

And so on. Where's the line? — baker

There is no line - how can there be? Determining what is acceptable to a site by mods is not a science but an interpretive art.

What are you really getting at? It appears you are looking for rigid categories of unacceptability because your sense of fairness has been pinged by mod decisions. You've noticed that some objectionable ideas are allowed and some are not and there doesn't seem to be a measurable line for determination. I think this may be unavoidable. I recall Emerson's aphorism - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

:lol:

How dare you ban my sockpuppet (joke).

Actually a reasonably clear rule.

:smile: :up: