oh I see. Yeah, that's common in philosophy forums it seems!

Banned @PL Olcott for a lot of threads with aggressive cranking in them….Being very rude about the pseudoscience you're peddling — fdrake

Makes me think of Feyerabend’s definition of a crank.

It is here, by the way, that the distinction between 'respectable' people and cranks must be drawn. The distinction does not lie in the fact that the former suggest what is plausible and promises success, whereas the latter suggest what is implausible, absurd, and bound to fail. It cannot lie in this because we never know in advance which theory will be successful and which theory will fail. It takes a long time to decide this question, and every single step leading to such a decision is again open to revision. Nor can the absurdity of a point of view count as a general argument against it. It is a reasonable consideration for the choice of one's own theories to demand that they seem plausible to oneself. This is one's private affair, so to speak. But to declare that only plausible theories should be considered is going too far. No, the distinction between the crank and the respectable thinker lies in the research that is done once a certain point of view is adopted.

The crank usually is content with defending the point of view in its original, unde-veloped, metaphysical form, and he is not at all prepared to test its usefulness in all those cases which seem to favour the opponent, or even to admit that there exists a problem. It is this further investigation, the details of it, the knowledge of the difficulties, of the general state of knowledge, the recognition of objections, which distinguishes the 'respectable thinker' from the crank. The original content of his theory does not. If he thinks that Aristotle should be given a further chance, let him do it and wait for the results. If he rests content with his assertion and does not start elaborating a new dynamics, if he is unfamiliar with the initial difficulties of his position, then the matter is of no further interest.

However, if he does not rest content with Aristotelianism in the form in which it exists today but tries to adapt it to the present situation in astronomy, physics, and micro-physics, making new suggestions, looking at old problems from a new point of view, then be grateful that there is at last somebody who has unusual ideas and do not try to stop him in advance with irrelevant and misguided arguments.

I think it is clear now that there is no harm in proceeding as Copernicus did, and as Böhm does, in introducing unfounded conjectures which are inconsistent with facts and accepted theories and which, moreover, give the impression of absurdity - provided the suggestion of such conjectures is followed up by detailed research of the kind outlined in the preceding section. (Realism, rationalism and scientific method)

love that quote

The crank usually is content with defending the point of view in its original, unde-veloped, metaphysical form, and he is not at all prepared to test its usefulness in all those cases which seem to favour the opponent, or even to admit that there exists a problem.

By this cranks would make great politicians. Yet a politician considers and adapts the message to whom he or she is talking, a crank doesn't.

It might be a case of 'they're all cranks saying crank'.

I'm not making modding decisions based on exegesis of Feyerabend. But discussing it would make a good thread elsewhere. Make it? I'm locking this again now.

@Tarskian was returning banned member @alcontali.

@Lionino was banned for homophobia and racism.

He won't mind too much:

Unsurprisingly, this website is still a waste of time. — Lionino

Pity. Smart guy. A certain vitriol about him, but, such seems to come standard and be par for the course for any well-traveled intellect on this hectic journey we call life. Any guy who can understand proofs has a leg up over me. If only I had reached out to him, as I was going to after noting his return from his two-month posting hiatus about the importance of restraint and self-control. Someone, or something, once told me: "Control yourself lest ye be controlled."

Ah well. Can't win 'em all. Glad it wasn't me. :lol:

...can understand proofs... — Outlander

...not so much.

Lionino was banned — Jamal

It’s unbelievable it took this long. Guess I can take him off my ignore list.

I had a hunch this thread would be revived after the election.

Ah that's a shame. Ah well - hope he enjoys himself out there.

Pity that @Tarskian was banned as a returning banned member. He did start some interesting threads in my view.

Lionino was banned for homophobia and racism. — Jamal

In what thread did this happen?

In what thread did this happen? — ssu

The mods already warned him in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15408/rules/latest/comment

But Lionino couldn't control himself, and I will miss him. I had good and interesting exchanges. It is difficult to meet an Iberian neighbour on the Internet, by the way.

It is difficult to meet an Iberian neighbour on the Internet, by the way. — javi2541997

On the other hand, there is a plethora of venomous far right keyboard warriors on the internet.

In what thread did this happen? — ssu

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/945354

On the other hand, there is a plethora of venomous far right keyboard warriors on the internet. — Jamal

I find it interesting that some people's defense of racist, homophobic, transphobic and fascist opinions and posts usually comes in the form of defending it for being conservative, right wing opinions.

Either conservatives and right wing people are really just all of the above, or they're so politically and ideologically confused that they can't see the difference between that and true conservative and right wing politics.

Beyond the historical extreme outliers of right wing ideologs, I thought conservative and right wing views were mostly about pro-capitalist, pro-market, family values, keep traditions type of an ideology. So, either right wing conservatives have collectively become totally delusional and there's almost no actual conservative right wingers left, or they've all just become racist, homophobic, transphobic fascists?

Why do conservative right wingers let themselves be represented by immoral haters and fascists? It's like having a large dinner with friends and one is just screaming racist remarks over and over and when someone wants him silenced, everyone is just, "just let him be, he's a friend too".

I wish the real conservative right wingers could just get their moral compass straightened out and distance themselves from this stuff.

But whatever, glad another is gone. Good job cleaning up.

But Lionino couldn't control himself, and I will miss him. — javi2541997

Yep. I think he wanted to be banned.

But he was ultimately being anti-U.S., which is curious. He complained that "Burgerland" (the U.S.) exports "georgefloydism" and "sodomy," and this was construed as racism and homophobia. Is it racist to oppose the exporting of "georgefloydism" and homophobic to oppose the exporting of "sodomy" (LGBTQ+ agenda)? Certainly not in the U.S. In the U.S. this would be seen as an ideological claim, not a factual claim. In fact there are many Black people in the U.S. (and particularly Minneapolis) who oppose everything about the George Floyd movement, and there are even LGBTQ+ individuals who oppose the overt exportation and inculcation of that agenda.

But Lionino decided to use TPF as a place to come when he was angry, as opposed to a place to avoid when he was angry. That makes all the difference.

@Leontiskos. What is "georgefloydism"?
Many thanks.

- Hard to say. Presumably it is the set of ideas that spread internationally after George Floyd's death, ideas which are centered on a narrative of racist police along with the repudiation of police forces (on those grounds) and a generally revolutionary attitude. It would not be surprising if this was felt most keenly in Lionino's France.

What one never hears is that the story is much more complicated, as indicated by things like Liz Collin's "The Fall of Minneapolis" and Radley Balko's response. Glenn Loury and John McWhorter have discussed this issue at some length (link).

@Leontiskos. I think the inflammatory style can sometimes be distasteful.

But if he means extreme identity politics and the exportation of LGBTQ,then as you alluded to,that is a legit US position. Also something I fully endorse with caveats and nuances.

- Yep. :up:

I think Lionino could be defended. After all, an inflammatory style is not against the rules on TPF. I think Lionino had a way of highlighting a left-leaning bias on the forum. At the same time, I don't expect a forum to be perfectly objective, and TPF is better than most. What is needed though, is a clear line so that the bias has a measure of transparency. We conservatives are accustomed to wrestling with one hand tied behind our back in progressive spaces, but clear guidelines are helpful in setting expectations.

(I messaged Lionino 2 months ago encouraging him not to get impatient. I think he made a choice to flirt with being banned.)

@Leontiskos
I hear you,but one has to read the room.

Although I do understand just going out all guns blazing!

It's a sign of the late times that natural morality and eternal values are oppressed in western "progressive nations",so the religious are unjustly impeded in their freedom of speech.

But only the brave is what I would say!

And people deep down know that certain moral principles are eternal,this is why they have to obfuscate and oppress legit religious views.

Lionino had a way of highlighting a left-leaning bias on the forum. — Leontiskos

Is it left-leaning to ban homophobia, transphobia and racism?

It's remarkable that being respectful in not promoting or doing such is considered "left-leaning". What does that make the right and conservatives? If you reduce actual living human beings down to categories of ideology and "agendas", then how is that different from when other certain historical movements did the same?

The proof is in the pudding, and if the pudding smells bad then throwing it away is not a political leaning, it's just basic human decency.

It is difficult to have any charitable interpretation of his remarks, in particular, given that he'd used a white supremacist organisation as a source and lied about it. There was plenty of other mod relevant behaviour which we did not provide warnings for, but serves as additional context. "Sodomy" and "george floydism" should be interpreted as pejorative given his past behaviour, some of which probably went unnoticed except through mod work. Making an explicit troll thread at the same time as that remark also didn't help - I deleted it.

Suffice to say it isn't just his current remark which got him banned, it's a whole history.

I hear you,but one has to read the room. — Swanty

Right, and Lionino would have probably returned and said something even more provocative, which is why it isn't worthwhile to defend. Or like says, there are probably more provocative things that have already been deleted.

Is it left-leaning to ban homophobia, transphobia and racism? — Christoffer

It is left-leaning to simply assume that something is homophobic, transphobic, or racist, which is precisely what you are doing in failing to address the arguments at hand. The left is exceedingly accustomed to using these labels to shut down speech and debate.

It is left-leaning to simply assume that something is homophobic, transphobic, or racist, which is precisely what you are doing in failing to address the arguments at hand. The left is exceedingly accustomed to using these labels to shut down speech and debate.

I mean this is the reality,liberals are soo quick to stereotype and label any dissent as phobic of their pet theories. And thus a crime and thus shut down. Totally totalitarian.

@Christoffer @Leontiskos

Take the discussion about the excesses of reactive left wing culture elsewhere @Leontiskos @Swanty , @Christoffer . It is an interesting topic for a thread but it's not for this one. If you have further comments related to Lio's banning, say them.

@fdrake.
For sure it's a great topic.
Might start a new thread tommorows.