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/

I thought there were too many of them.

done

Note: I've merged a few God threads together into this one.

This discussion was merged into Can God do anything?

This discussion was merged into Can God do anything?

It's in the text box toolbar see.



If you're typing it, you have to use double quotes around the username.

You broke it. — Gus Lamarch

Wrong. The original, «What it's "Legitimacy"», is nonsense.

Fixed, thanks.

One fact to notice is that actually the Russian Opposition to Putin aren't actually very Pro-Western, or at least aren't politically correct when viewed from the West. It shows the distrust or suspicion Russians do have towards the West. Nemtsov had been a deputy prime minister during the Yeltsin years and an outspoke critic of Putin, while Navalnyi I think hasn't held office. — ssu

As far as I can tell, Nemtsov was actually quite pro-West. For example, unlike Navalny he was against the annexation of Crimea, and supportive of Ukraine's closer ties with the West.

Looks completely farcical compared to putin's instrumental use of nationalism. — The Opposite

If I was a Russian liberal opponent of the regime I'd be troubled that the only guy I could support once attended far-right marches, and during the short war between Russia and Georgia referred to Georgians as rodents, and urged the government to take more drastic action:

Russia should take the following steps (at least):

1. Provide serious military and financial assistance to South Ossetia and Abkhazia (to the extent that Abkhazia is ready to actually fight in South Ossetia).
2. Declare South Ossetia a non-flying zone and immediately shoot down all aircraft that are in this zone.
3. To declare a complete blockade of Georgia. Stop any communication with her.
4. To expel from the Russian Federation all citizens of Georgia who are on our territory.

In the future, act according to the situation, but at the same time be aware that of course you really want to fire a cruise missile at the general staff of rodents, but the rodents are just waiting for this. — Navalny, 2008, through Google Translate

https://navalny.livejournal.com/274456.html

"Rodents" ("grizuny"), was a known ethnic slur against Georgians. He has since apologized for the slur but stood by the rest of it.

Generally it looks like he was somewhere around the xenophobic end of the Russian political spectrum, with a less-than-accommodating attitude to immigrants from the former Soviet republics of the Caucasus and Central Asia.

But as I've implied, I think this could be set aside in the fight against authoritarianism and corruption, and it's possible he has moderated his views. I'm certainly impressed by him at the moment. I'm not trying to cancel him as the pro-Putin tankies are no doubt spending all their time doing as I write this (I wasn't surprised to see the socialist Monthly Review peddling the idea that Navalny's return is a CIA plot).

As for Putin's nationalism, what exactly are you referring to? He's a pragmatist when it comes to issues of ethnicity, and more often than not emphasizes the multi-ethnic nature of Russia: one of the things he has always been afraid of is the country falling apart.

Plenty of information around. Just look for it yourself. Not that it's significant in the present context.

what are your thoughts on the protests? Did you join in? — The Opposite

I think they're entirely justified and I hope it has some momentum, although it's difficult to see how at the moment. And no, I stayed well away from the city centre. Getting arrested or kicked out of the country is something I want to avoid at all costs. Not only that but I don't feel like it's my fight, or maybe, I don't feel I know enough about it. I think on balance that Navalny is to be admired and supported right now, but his apparent past support of ethnic Russian nationalism isn't something I could get behind.

But that last point isn't all that significant here. Obviously the protesters were not nationalists in that sense; they were protesting against authoritarianism and corruption. Really it's just that I can't risk getting kicked out.

It might be relevant to put his photography, and perhaps even his attachment to Alice Liddell, in the context of a contemporary aesthetic movement or tendency, namely the Victorian cult of the child, "which perceived child nudity as essentially an expression of innocence". (source)

It might be naive to think that there was never anything erotic about this, but as far as I know there's no evidence that Dodgson sexually abused or assaulted anyone, or "engaged in lewd or sexual behaviour" as Wayfarer put it.