:cool: :cool:

on the surface at least — Nickolasgaspar

:zip:

:cool:

Welcome :smile:

However, we do have guidelines and we do sometimes moderate comments and members according to what they say, not only how they say it. The forum is not a microcosm of society, and has its own particular rules. For more information, see the guidelines:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

Virtue signaling, or call it what you will, compensates for the left’s inability (or reluctance) to demand genuine economic change. At the bottom of our current “heresy-hunting frenzies” is a desire for compensation, to feel politically triumphant, even if it is only in ineffectual ways. This ritual of self-celebration — typified by the “heroic” postures struck by campus radicals, cable news hosts, and career activists — has become a major part of the “political subculture of the left.” Burgis believes that this obsessive allegiance to virtue-rooted-in-identity has become pathological, whether it is found on the left or right. The arguments associated with “identity politics” are inevitably rooted in the same source: an embrace of the impregnable power of subjectivity (or to our proclaimed “subject positions,” at least) rather than a call to reason.

Review of "Canceling Comedians While the World Burns"

Banned Windbag, who was a returning banned member.

I don't know who mentioned it but note that you can in fact see who has upvoted a post, by hovering over the number to the left of the heart icon.

EDIT: unless that's just mods and admins.

Nah, you could. I could, at least. — Outlander

This is not self-hosted software, so I don't see how.

That's kind of how I feel about it too.

What are your intentions for TPF - to become like Facebook ? — Amity

People keep going on about Facebook. But there's more to the internet than Facebook et al, and I think there are more relevant comparisons and models. Reputations, upvoting, downvoting and so on are used on other, more interesting websites, sometimes to good effect. There are many social platforms that use something like a reputation system, where it seems to work. Reddit and things like Physics Forums spring to mind, and anything that uses Discourse or Stack Exchange, e.g., the Codecademy Forums or Philosophy Stack Exchange. Of course, that functionality is richer, and the latter is more of a Q&A site, but still.

And the idea, implied by others here, that philosophy, whether on or offline, has hitherto been--or should be--free of accolades, status indicators, social pressure, and so on, strikes me as naive.

Strikes me the question is quite easily resolved. Let it run for another week or so, then take a look at the post history of the folk with the most likes. If they're the kind of posts/posters you want to encourage, the system works: if they're not, the system doesn't work. — Isaac

Sounds good. Then I could drop this pretence of democracy. :wink:

By the way everyone, since this software we're using is basically just Vanilla, it might be worth quoting what they say about their reputation system:

Reputation is an important concept in online communities because it lets community members and moderators know who can be trusted and it allows members, who have invested their time and effort into building the community, accumulate reputation capital which can bring real-world benefits such as influence or employment opportunities.

An engaged community is one where people are creating content and interacting with each other in a meaningful way. [...] — Vanilla

https://blog.vanillaforums.com/product/vanilla-forums-reputation-system

I'm guessing the thinking is that it will act as a psychological nudge, to influence posters to write better quality posts by making them a little more self-conscious? — Kenosha Kid

Yes, I was thinking along those lines. It could stand in for the social pressure that in real life motivates you to behave well and present your best.

However the same mechanism will make posters less apt to post well-written but unpopular content, which would be a net loss imo. Or to make them seem unpopular, less respected, therefore giving their posts less weight. It also favours longevity and frequency over quality. — Kenosha Kid

Good points.

Long-tailed tit, maybe.

I think condors, vultures, and at least one other eagle are bigger.

Great news. Harpy eagle?

I'm glad you asked!

In order of increasing coolness:

• Iridescent plumage
• Mimicry (I have heard them mimicking car alarms and other everyday human noises)
• Their flocking behaviour, which is a sight to behold (I continue to resist the use of the disgustingly twee and entirely unscientific word "murmuration")

EDIT: I've noticed that Americans hate starlings, possibly because they're an invasive non-native species in North America.

There was an inexplicable craze for it some years ago. I kept mine because I do like starlings a lot.

Banned @Protagoras. As well as being a low quality poster and troublemaker, he was likely a returning banned member, although he denied it.

We can't customize this software. It'll be possible when we move on to something else, something self-hosted.

It's all or nothing. Maybe we'll just turn off likes again.

Original post.

In other contexts it can also mean Original poster, meaning the person who writes the original post.

By the way, when you google "what is an OP?" you get the definition at the top of the results.

In my younger days this kind of thing could lead to unhealthy and painful obsessiveness if I thought about it too much afterwards. There's really nothing to be gained from mentally going over it, except maybe one thing, namely the takeaway lesson that when dating you should be always prepared to brush things off and walk away, like Book273 says. You should definitely do that in this case I think.

She expressed herself harshly, but she made good points. I didn't see anything that stepped over the line.

I think this is just one more sign that strong feminists are not welcome here on the forum. — T Clark

Baden banned her for low quality, and I would probably have done the same had I been paying attention, and that's despite the fact that I agreed with some of her points. The point though is that it's not the point someone is making that matters (within limits), but how they make it. Iris didn't argue carefully or treat the arguments of others with respect.

For the record, I personally have a lot of sympathy for the several feminists who have been accused of transphobia. It's a complicated issue and I think we need to see how it plays out rather than enforcing a way of talking about it as if it were as clear-cut as racism and sexism. There isn't even a consensus among trans people.

Others on the staff may be more liable to shout "transphobia" than I am, but there's a diversity of opinion, not a politically correct tyranny.

Remember to flag bad posts and PM the staff about serial offenders.

Unfortunately there is no such feature, but @SophistiCat did make a browser extension a couple of years ago, as described here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5738/ignore-list-browser-extension/p1

The Chrome extension is here: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/thephilosophyforum-ignore/makbinojcaolplmpbneielaccnondnko

Don't worry Jack, it won't happen. It's the worst idea I've ever heard.

There are so many wonderful features and functions available but not everyone knows how to use them. Even some 'oldies' are still wrapping their heads around them.

Just look at the format menu along the top of message box you are writing in.
Some are self-explanatory but...
The Quote bubble, the links chain, the sign and whatever else is along there ?

It would be more user-friendly if a clear explanation could be given in one place: a 'Welcome' thread. — Amity

People do fine and there's no need for a manual. The functionality is either obvious or can be discovered by experimenting. Or members can ask if they're having trouble with anything.

On the other hand, maybe the Useful hints and tips could go at the top of the main discussion list instead of in the side menu where it is now. It's very far from a pressing need though.

I think one of the more common issues is new members seemingly posting the first thing that comes to their mind, and not really taking the time to get a feel for the forum, etc. So, what if there was a mandatory waiting period for new members before they could post? I think that would encourage new members to spend some time on the forum before posting to at least see what type of posts are preferred, and which are not. — Pinprick

In my experience, spending more time on the forum is not going to cure problem members of their problem posting, so I don't think it's worth it, and puts an annoying barrier in the way of good members.

Another idea would be to create a thread that new members must post in before being allowed to post elsewhere. The thread could require them to post their favorite rule from the guidelines thread, or maybe the rule they think will be difficult to follow, need clarification on, etc. Really just anything that forces members to at least look at the guidelines. I dunno, just some ideas I thought I’d share… — Pinprick

This in my opinion is even worse. Many potentially good members would just leave at that point. I know I would.

To be quite honest, the impression I got soon after joining was that this forum does have a left-wing bias, just from the way I was attacked for pointing out inconsistencies in Marxist theory — Apollodorus

A right-wing internet random who obviously hasn't read Marx, doesn't understand his intellectual capacity, influence, method or anything about his life, presents a thesis that's it's all a hoax based on the fact that he thinks Marx was mischievous.

Advice: read "Capital", realize how clownish and unthought-out your idea is and then come back and write an at least half-serious critique. — Baden

Not bias so much as good advice.

I've put the Shoutbox back on the main page, in a new category (currently closed to new discussions) called "Symposium", and pinned at the top.

Because her leaving was so ugly, the moderators moved the Shoutbox out of the mainline discussions and into the Lounge. That took a lot of energy out too. It was the place where everyone got together to gossip and complain and it showed up on the front page. Now, most people don't even look at it. It goes for days without a comment. I understand why the moderators moved it. They thought there was too much disruption, and they were right. Still, it took some of the life out of the forum. — T Clark

Yep. What we really need is a real, separate shoutbox in a little box at the side, as in the old forum and a few alternative forum platforms. We can't implement that here and my feeling is we just wait till the time comes to make the move to Discourse or whatever.

When I joined PF--the now-expired site from which this one sprouted--around 2010, long-time members talked with fondness about the good old days, but for me as a new member it seemed great. Maybe there are newer members here who are having a great time. And just from a quick look at the topic titles on the main page, things look pretty healthy.

Sounds complex. A default view based on up and down votes works well for the question and answer format, as implemented on Stack Exchange, but here I can't see how it would work, even without the added difficulty of subtle judgments on relevance, "key argument", etc. Unless I'm missing something.

In any case, nothing like that can happen with the software we're currently using. I'm thinking of moving to Discourse, which will give us a lot of flexibility. As it happens, Discourse was developed by the guy who made Stack Exchange, so maybe it'll have some of that functionality too.

As far as I know there hasn't been an episode of Conflicted since December, and if Aimen Dean has reacted to the air strike, I don't know what his reaction was.

If you just mean that based on the opinions he makes clear in the podcast, he would support the air strike, then I think you might be right. Dean is especially hostile to the ambitions and foreign actions of Iran, and approved of the Americans' assassination of Qasem Soleimani.

I can't recall ever using that functionality, so I didn't know until a few seconds ago that I have 14 followers. I am sure that this has nothing to do with my philosophical skills and everything to do with being a significant personage at TPF.

You can't send private messages until you have posted 20 times.

So that's what he's been up to. I'll watch it some time soon. Thanks for posting.

(Jazz elitists: I don't care I like it)

How can I absorb these texts better — deusidex

note taking — The Questioning Bookworm

This.

only reading the authors/thinkers you truly are interested in — The Questioning Bookworm

And ideally this.

Simple.

I'm just puzzling over the place of this little corner of the community. Part of me would be rid of it, merging the conversations into metaphysics and ethics - but that would detract from both those — Banno

If this were my personal fiefdom I'd remove the philosophy of religion category and I'd probably delete most of the philosophy of religion that turned up in other categories. But it's not, so the most I want to do is crack down on it. I confess I want do this more to religion than, say, solipsism, which is another subject that generates bad discussions. I'm not sure if this is unfair.

I'm someone who firmly believes that religion has historically played an important socio-cultural role in collective normative validation and legitimation. And that its complete expulsion from modern life is more of a harm than a good. — Pantagruel

One can agree with all this, as I do, and yet find the majority of these discussions about God's existence and omnipotence bloody awful.

:clap:

Navalny gets 2 years and 8 months. In a "penal colony", which always makes me think of the Gulag.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard that sort of view being articulated before. — TheHedoMinimalist

To add to what SophistiCat said, it goes back to Plato's Theaetetus. To show that there must be more to knowledge than true belief, Socrates gives the example of a jury convinced of the truth merely by the rhetoric of a lawyer: only through luck did they arrive at the right verdict, and that doesn't look a lot like knowledge.

In your own example, luck didn't replace justification as it did in Socrates's example, but merely put you in a position to justify your belief (by allowing you to be taught). That's not what philosophers are talking about when they talk about luck in epistemology.

https://iep.utm.edu/epi-luck/