But who’s the fool and who is suffering the fool? The Arrogant Bastard’s eternal dilemma contradiction.

If you define a fool as anyone Street flamed, or every member of every group he made bigoted comments about then yes, but that would be foolish.

If you define a fool as anyone Street flamed, or every member of every group he made bigoted comments about then yes, but that would be foolish. — Baden

I notice you allow some people to write insults and harass others. It is one reason I don't like using this forum as much.

And so again, Baden sets the prices of participation at being nice to fools. — Banno

To quote our rules:

"A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted)."

This rule was followed closely here. If we did fail to follow this rule, it was in extending leniency in the hopes we could gain compliance, but we couldn't get that to happen.

Anyway, where you arrived at the conclusion @Baden acted unilaterally, I don't know. I'm not here to defend him, but I'm also not going to pretend that I and the other mods weren't as much a part of the decision as he was.

I don't want to derail this thread too much, but

This brings up a more general moral principle.. How much leeway does one give those who possess a lot of information about X?...My guess is his contribution to the field of knowledge in general would give him a pass.

Is an excellent question. In my view, Einstein could have still contributed by submitting papers, as his work and theories can still be appreciated even without having to deal with him personally. But we certainly draw a line even in these cases-brilliant professors who sexually assault their students, for instance will get fired regardless of how "good" their work is. In an online philosophy forum, where the quality of discussion is in part affected by the language people use (especially if such language can affect whether people want to engage, the quality of their engagement, etc), I don't think its unreasonable to ask people to be mindful of how they interact with each other. Furthermore, there are plenty of ways to word specific sentiments or express disagreements that don't come off as bigoted, fallacious, assholeish etc. There's a clear difference between saying

Group X are mindless shells of humans

and

In my experience, Group X has a tendency towards Y behavior due to Z

Note how one facilitates conversation, debate, and understanding (which I would hope is the point of posting) and the other doesn't. In my opinion, allowing blatant disregard for the rules of logic, fallacies, and common decency (I realize this is a fuzzy term) will hurt the quality of any philosophical community.

Some of you put up with him because he expressed what you yourselves felt

This bothers me. If it is fine to put up with bigoted language as long as we "agree" with it, in my opinion, we have no right to criticize others for standing by when someone says something racist, sexist, etc. In this case, popular bigotry gets a free pass because more people "feel" the same way and agree with the sentiment.

Ok see this is a good example. If you really felt that way you wouldn't have had to come up with a way to not-so-slyly call anyone who thinks the world, let alone intelligent debate, is better off without filth (not calling anyone filth just speaking about conduct and mindset) chickenshit — Outlander

Huh? I know Unenlightened, I value his contributions, I like his posts. I did not know he felt that way. I was genuinely sorry he felt intimidated, I had not guessed and it made me think... Perhaps you jump to conclusions just a tad too quickly? And honestly, your contribution does not display 'intelligent debate' in my book.

I might well be uninformed. I do not know what you guys needed to delete. I do think that, if one causes the need for the moderators to clean up the mess every day, that itself deserves a ban.

is acceptable. If you do, please do us all a favour and leave now. — Baden

No, I do not think it is acceptable. I would support those who would speak up against it. It is also such an overt generalization, simplistic, silly, it simply refutes itself. I do think, but that is my attitude in general, that such things are better settled in debate. I do see a trend of people being overly thin skinned. I remember days gone by when Baron Max, Black Crow, Gassendi1, 180 Proof and yours truly were at each other's throat viciously. We would all be tossed out by today's standards. I am a dinosaur and I sound like one, but times really did change. I am European, used to much more rigorous prohibitions against insult and hate crimes than there are in the States, but we became much, much more sensitive today then we were some time ago. Probably a sign of a much more polarized and volatile society...

No, we don't babysit posters. They follow the rules or they get banned. It's that simple. — Baden

With this I wholeheartedly concur.

I'm sympathetic to both sides here, if not every specific argument. I hope you all don't unnecessariiy make enemies of each other over this.

. I do think, but that is my attitude in general, that such things are better settled in debate — Tobias

You're referring here to what he said about Christians. That tells me all I need to know about you.

I fite you.

:naughty:

:naughty:

Of course not. I have seen my other friends here express opposite opinions.

I just had to say what I felt.

I'm sympathetic to both sides here, if not every specific argument. I hope you all don't unnecessariiy make enemies of each other over this. — Baden

One of the important lessons I’ve learned here is when to walk away from an argument without having to have the final word.

Stop trolling.

mods cannot be expected to go through every post of a long term and prolific poster forever; this decision is long overdue, and has been delayed because of the one in six excellent contributions. — unenlightened

What about the zero in a thousand, like most every contributor on TPF , including you and @Baden. we should ban all of us :joke:

I was being slightly tongue in cheek with my suggestion, but on a more serious note I know that in Facebook groups, moderators have an option to turn off autoposting for certain members' contributions - this means that all that member's posts have to be confirmed by a mod before being published. I know it sounds like a hassle, but if possible maybe it's a useful 'purgatory' option to have along with our existing heaven and hell?

in Facebook groups, moderators have an option to turn off autoposting for certain members' contributions - this means that all that member's posts have to be confirmed by a mod before being published. I know it sounds like a hassle — coolazice

Exactly. If @Baden and Co had worked a bit harder, maybe @Streetlight wouldn't have bitten the dust.

Fuck that. The Mods are mods, not nannies, and members are adults, not inmates or preschoolers. Can't police your antisociality and your other bullshit – can't keep your used diaper (nappy) on – and persistently ignore the mods' warnings? Buh bye. Anybody making it harder than it has to be to moderate this site isn't worth putting up with any longer thsn the Mods need to, IMO. That said, I don't care for banning folks, but like incest taboos, paying taxes and killing fascists (W. Guthrie), bannings are the price of civilization. :mask:

I'd have given a total thumbs up on this post, but the regret of not being able to fuck your sister was a weird turn.

Lol!

I was thinking the exact same thing. Thought I misread it.

I'd have given a total thumbs up on this post, but the regret of not being able to fuck your sister was a weird turn. — Hanover

As they say, son, in civilized parts that dog just won't hunt.

bannings are the price of civilization. — 180 Proof

:up:

Like how crime is the price of capitalism.

Like how homphobia is the price of Christianity/Islam.

These are what I've dubbed The Siamese Twin Conundrum: Keep one, keep both; Lose one, lose both!

Not to rain on anyone's parade.......definitely not on birds of the same feather (or, feathers of the same bird), or on the admirer and the admired, no ruffling of feathers is intended, however the following:

Like how crime is the price of capitalism.

Like how homphobia is the price of Christianity/Islam.

These are what I've dubbed The Siamese Twin Conundrum: Keep one, keep both; Lose one, lose both! — Agent Smith

will only hold true, as it indeed does, when the undefinable experience which we call life, is attempted to be boxed and organized into words, language, concepts, theses, popular/unpopular narratives, and then into organizations. These organizations (most kinds, if not all), as can be seen, are in the business of serving capitalistic motives/masters.

But when the above is observed to be true, as it is (so simple a caveman/woman can see it), and one strikes at the foundation of the word (or at the root of human thought- either one will do) then the entire house of cards will fall. But that's dangerous for the person as well as for "society". The price of alone-ness, and/or poverty (of all kinds) may be too much to handle. Therefore one welcomes the compromises, the hypocrisy, the double standards, and the rather comedic appeals to righteousness (several on this thread) when it suits one's purpose.

Otherwise, a lover of wisdom, if there is one, will be quite content, in understating/experincing the undefinable behind the word, and in understanding the word is not the thing : therefore rejecting the entire edifice, can easily stay with "one", (instead of "both")

You're referring here to what he said about Christians. That tells me all I need to know about you. — Tate

Funny how taking an impersonal position on a subject, a position that was for instance also taken by John Stuart Mill to name one, immediately leads to judgments about my personal character...

I am not against the banning per se. I trust Baden's judgment, he explained it and is an excellent mod. I am also not here to make enemies. The banning of a prolific and long term poster is a cause for discussion. Not a subject to be scared of in a philosophy forum I would think.

I've lurked this forum since it's inception and have seen many of streetlights interactions with others over the years. The fact is that street often let his emotions come through in his posts in a negative fashion, but he also brought a great deal of quality and insight to the forum. This explains the ambivalent responses to his being banned.

Personally I had friendly and helpful interactions with him. He spoke passionately with me (via PM) about continental philosophy, especially deleuze, and I consider it a real shame for the forum to lose someone who can contribute to those types of discussions.

If this was a democracy I'd vote clemency.

These are what I've dubbed The Siamese Twin Conundrum: Keep one, keep both; Lose one, lose both! — Agent Smith

:lol: I like that.

: I like that. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'm glad I made you go :lol: All comedians go to heaven!

Theoretically possible... — The Dalai Lama

One shouldn't assume the flaws in language imply imperfections in reality. That would be, to my reckoning, sawing off the very branch one sits on and lectures the world. We're, in a sense, projecting our own shortcomings onto the world.