Most people have this fairy tale idea of the entrepreneur as some kind of invincible hero who always succeeds at whatever he touches - a sort of Midas. But that's not true - he succeeds because he puts in literarily almost non-stop working hours for many many years, and battles through whatever comes his way, whether that is mental illness, fear, lack of finances, etc. - whatever comes his way, he will bear it, and like a bull not get his eyes off the ball, not give up. — Agustino

This is also a fairy tale, one we often hear from entrepreneurs. The successful ones, of course. The ones who give TED talks extolling the virtues of failure and reminiscing about the days when they lived on gruel, and so on and on.

Working for a company run by others doing what you are good at is a better option for those of us who are not as dynamic as you perhaps are. — T Clark

No, that's just a way to stay in your comfort zone. You never grow that way, so if your life is about feeling safe, sure, do that, but otherwise I wouldn't recommend it because you'll regret it later. — Agustino

This is a careless comment Gus. If you're, say, a civil engineer, then working for an established company is the best way to develop your craft, because it provides the resources, variety of projects, and administrative support to allow you to focus on your specialist tasks. Sometimes, security is necessary to give you the space to progress. Think also of what academia does for scientists: it is not an easy option, but rather the proper context in which they can concentrate on what they're interested in. How useful is it for an engineer to have to worry about business when what they really want to do is build great dams?

And I say this as someone who, perhaps like you, gave up working for other people and started a business.

Banned

evolutionary psychology, a version which is even considered extreme among those who do, but he doesn't get into that as much until his Blank Slate — Saphsin

The Language Instinct, as I recall, combines Chomsky's linguistics with evolutionary psychology.

A trivial point.

If the discussion is not returned to public view for public participation, I may be taking my interest in trivialism to another, more understanding, and more respectful online forum. — Paul E. Mokrzecki

It has been deleted and it will remain deleted, and if you post any similar evangelistic confusions, they will be deleted too, preferably before they get any responses.

It's a philosophy forum and we try to maintain high standards. Discussions about conspiracy theories as a social or psychological phenomenon would be interesting. Discussions that take the theories seriously on their own terms are much less welcome. Conspiracy theories are examples of bad thinking and I want to see less of that here.

It's true that there is nothing in the site guidelines to suggest that conspiracy theory threads will automatically be deleted, and I know that other moderators would have let it go, but beyond the guidelines we have to sometimes make editorial decisions based on other criteria.

Notice that you can agree with the Chinese party line, as presented by Erik, and still support Tibetan self-determination. Even if the Chinese brought some welcome modernization, the Tibetans may have liked the chance to do it themselves.

(Y)

Ah yes, I remember now. I think I asked the developers to remove the cumulative score. Without that I think it would've been ok.

But it seems most people are still against it anyway.

Oh

I do miss upvotes. I like to see what people are thinking and how popular certain posts and kinds of posts are. But first of all, last time I checked you couldn't get upvoting without downvoting (as far as I can recall), and secondly, voting is probably mostly used for agreement and disagreement anyway, which is not the ideal use of the feature.

I agree with those who suggest expressing approval or thanks with words. Even posts with just a (Y) are okay, within reason.

women seem inordinately attracted to bastards — Pseudonym

A quick note to say that this is a misleading cliché. Psychological studies and ordinary experience suggest rather that many women are attracted to men with qualities that "bastards" often happen to have, but which many non-bastards also have: confidence, independence, a lack of neediness, emotional unavailability, and so on.

interiorized misogyny — praxis

Every woman who criticizes the movement is condemned for "interiorized misogyny".

You are making the confusion, by using a definition of belief which is basically meaningless, as it encompasses 1+1=2 as a belief, and I believe in fairies. — charleton

I don't see how it follows from the fact that some beliefs are true and some are false that this concept of belief--a very ordinary one, and also the philosophical one--is meaningless.

Ah, I see what you mean. Actually though, I think one can believe--without choosing to--without being able to justify it. In fact, I think there are basic beliefs that cannot be justified. Rather, they are implied in the way we go about things.

I believe nothing. I seek to know. — charleton

When you know, you believe.

And when you take it to be the case that "the idea that people are free to believe what they want ... is a dangerous and damaging idea", then that is what you believe. You believe it's a dangerous and damaging idea. To take something to be true, or the case, is to believe it.

It's not belief that's the problem, but certain kinds of belief, for example, belief contrary to evidence.

ProgrammingGodJordan was unable to see this. I hope you're not.

There are subtleties, of course. One says, "I don't believe it, I know it", which is an attempt to give a guarantee of the claim's truth, or, more charitably, to show that the belief is well-founded. It's to say, "I don't merely believe it, I know it". But it doesn't escape the fact that belief is involved whether or not it's knowledge.

Yes, I agree. I'm implying that what would have been my initial reaction to the discussion, i.e., to delete it, would have been too hasty.

I seem to remember there were quite a lot of this kind of thread on the old PF, and speaking personally, I learned a lot from seeing the likes of Banno reveal the basic mistakes they were making. So yeah, I'm happy with how this went, although I admit I'd have been inclined to delete the discussion if I'd seen it before it gained any responses.

for what reason? — Noble Dust

He was banned, so he created a new account.

I will say to the moderators, even though the thread was far too popular for you to delete or close, I appreciate that nonsense like this was able to be addressed. Free speech means that all ideas, no matter how close-minded, need to be brought to the table, if only to be shot down. — Noble Dust

I agree, but in the long run such people are not good for the forum. He was banned for evangelism. As it says in the guidelines:

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

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

Right now we're paying $49 per month to PlushForums, with additional amounts required to maintain the subscription service. We currently have $220 in our PayPal account, with eight ongoing subscriptions of either $5/month or $10/quarter.

It's quite possible that they'll bump us up to the next level account some time this year, which is $70 per month, due to the number of members we have and the storage space we're using for uploads.

They're a lot of fun sometimes, and they do attract some interesting responses. And it's good to see basic mistakes exposed, for the benefit of onlookers.

Purely out of curiosity, moderators, what exactly connotes "evangelism"? I have no interest in anyone being warned or banned; the more bullshit evangelism the merrier, per my view (hence my entertainment of this thread). But I've always been interested in this issue with regards to the guidelines, and this thread seems like a prime example of secular evangelism. Maybe I'm wrong? — Noble Dust

You're right, but there have been so many responses that probably none of the mods would delete the discussion now. I've only just seen it.

I think this has been answered well enough, so I'm closing the discussion.

If that was the meaning then he was wrong to say it, in my opinion, but if by "here" he meant in that discussion, then he was right.

Yep, off-topic, so it was the right decision to put a stop to it in that discussion.

A friendly warning. If you find yourself defending convicted serial child rapists, please expect that you will shortly no longer be able to do so here. — StreetlightX

>:O Give me a break mate. I know nothing of this case or the people involved, but according to you, everyone who disagrees with the official reading of an event is wrong and must be ostracized. Because if the justice system decided he is a rapist, then it really follows that he is a rapist :s Ha ha - how funny. That's what Stalin used to do too. — Agustino

From here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2632/philosophy-websites/

I think the difficulty with your contextuality argument - although I basically agree with it - is that if enough twits overstep a certain sort of mark, then a rule starts being introduced. Like driving on one side of the road or the other, for instance. Pedestrians manage without such a rule but drivers can't. So it's worth thinking about what 'a certain sort of mark' is constituted by. 'Using power for sexual ends' might be one aspect of a description. — mcdoodle

Yes, I see what you mean. But this is where I want to stand up for the ability of people to negotiate these difficulties themselves. I'm not the only one who believes that some of the attitudes of MeToo represent an increasing infantilization of women.

Maybe so. But I will say that some of the fiercest debates I've seen about this, both in real life and online, have been between women.

See my edit.

It depends on what kind of interaction you've had with him up to that point, and on the qualities of that interaction. In my scenario--I possibly didn't describe it in enough detail--I had in mind coming up behind a man in the street and reaching around. I'm not sure why that came to mind, but hey.

EDIT: But I imagine the response to this might be to ask if I think the only unacceptable sexual advance is a sexual assault, and this shows why I don't want to get bogged down in details and definitions.

Sure, it might be pushing the language to call it harassment, but if it's "totally unacceptable" then surely it shouldn't be accepted as the norm? — Michael

It's unacceptable to pounce on a stranger, put your hand down his trousers and feel his balls, and it shouldn't be acceptable. That doesn't go against my point. Not all sexual advances are like that.

Does it matter what you call it? — Michael

It matters here because my point was that what you call it is revealing.

Yes, this is where we differ. I think it should be accepted as the norm, and I don't believe a single unrepeated unwanted advance amounts to harassment, although certainly it might sometimes be totally unacceptable.

It's revealing that you describe sexual advances with sordid expressions such as "cop a feel", and "grab an arse". What I think it reveals is the prudishness and regressiveness of the movement. Sexual advances do not always have the character of a grab, a grope or a lunge.

But you might follow it up with one. In fact it might be expected and desired. And still with no verbal confirmation. (I don't care if you wouldn't do it yourself; I'm pointing out that people and situations differ)

I think if your risky "advance" is some sort of sexual touching then you're doing it wrong. Is it so hard to ask/wait for verbal confirmation? — Michael

I look her in the eyes, smile, hold out my hand, and see if she takes it. — Michael

So, no verbal confirmation?

I'm not sure I want to give you the example you're looking for, because I don't want to stray from my point, which is that all of this "it's really quite simple" stuff forecloses on the possibilities to the detriment of sexual interaction, and what we tolerate in terms of physical contact and flirtation differs from person to person. Your comments express a wish to impose a regime of flirtation that you believe is the only permissible one. I was pointing out that it's not always easy, and in some of those cases it is worth trying (for both parties, obviously).

Just so we get a good idea because I might not be "manly" enough — Benkei

Note that it's not really--or not only--about "manliness", because what I'm saying goes both ways.

So yeah, I admit I'm reluctant to give an example. You go first...

It is indeed and should be a social restriction on how a lot men behave towards women because women don't want to be treated that way. They can't be much clearer about that than they have been recently. — Benkei

Treated what way? And who is "they"? All women? And note that I'm not arguing against the metoo movement as such, but with some of the attitudes that have come out of it, from some campaigners and commentators.

The solution is really quite simple. You should pay attention to the person you're interested in and read their actions and hear their words. I've misread flirtation in the past but that became clear before I even touched her. It really isn't that hard and I'm not even good at reading people or moods. That fact makes the problem even more egregious as it takes very little effort to avoid this shit. — Benkei

The problem with these sentiments, which I've seen all over the place recently, is that they don't take account of the richness of life. Thus they amount to an acceptance of new social restrictions surrounding sex, an impoverishment of sexual interaction and a degradation of individual autonomy, decades after the freedoms gained in the sexual liberation of the sixties.

Everyone is different, and even if you're good at reading signals, still sometimes it is hard to know if your advance will be welcome or not. Sometimes you do have to take risks.

It really boils down to respecting people instead of seeing them as objects to conquer or use. — Benkei

But sometimes people want to be treated like that. Sometimes people want to be conquered and used. People play games. It's part of the fun, and inevitably it will often misfire. But it's ok to make a mistake; it becomes harassment only if you keep on doing it, and that's where respect comes in.

Is it not possible to criticize academic fads, feminism, and such without being tarred by the alt-right brush? — Bitter Crank

Alas, no.

(Y)

Indeed, I find some of that movement's attitudes highly objectionable. It's not sacrosanct.