This thread isnt about homosexuality being a defect, its about why the other thread was deleted. Are you even paying attention or, again, are you simply rules by your emotions?
No one is defending the claim that homosexuality is a defect. The opposite. Whats at issue is why we were not given the opportunity to correct that claim when it was made, especially since the OP was declared well intentioned by the mod who deleted it.

Is rape really that bad? Is being French a disability? Are the Chinese evil? Is homosexuality a defect? All questions of a similar offensiveness that need not be dignified here imho. — Baden

If someone is seriously confused about any of those then a response is warranted, as opposed to someone just being hateful where I would agree a response is less warranted.
If a person is sincerely asking the question, why wouldnt you respond? You dont believe in teaching moments?

I swear to God if you all turn this thread into one which was explicitly deleted by a mod I will ban the lot of you. — StreetlightX

That would only be appropriate if this thread was homophobic since that was the reason given for the other ones deletion. The topic itself wasnt the issue, and the topic in this thread has no homophobia so what are you even talking about? Is your modding guided entirely by your emotions/idealogy? You seem to be looking for teasons to exercise your banning power...

↪DingoJones
I would imagine that it may not have been so problematic if it had not been in the title. It would make it stand out like a newspaper headline. — Jack Cummins

Indeed, but mods should delete threads for their content more so than the thread name.
I just think its bad for this forum and its discussions to delete a thread like that, how many other threads get deleted before anyone sees it, and for such weak reasons.
The OP ended with an open ended “so, am I wrong?”. Apparently we have a bunch of people who know the answer was yes, but never got to tell him/her why or how.
I understand mods need to delete threads and enforce the guidelines but there is a level of comfort that with it that I think is damaging to discourse.

Well, it isn't clear to me that we're here to learn whether homosexuality, or being Black, or being Jewish, or being disabled, etc. is or is not a defect. — Ciceronianus the White

Obviously I meant learning in the broader sense. We are here to discuss things, discussion is important in learning about your own positions as well as others. Discussion is prevented by such deletion. That homosexuality is not a defect might be obvious to me and you, but not to others.

No, Im aware. I realise its use by homophobic or anti-gay rhetoric. Its something ignorant people use, and its also something people use when they hate/dislike gay people. Only the former applied to that OP, I saw no hate in it. My point in this thread is about discourse. That person asked an honest question and was not allowed an honest answer. That person can’t learn why “defect” is problematic unless its pointed out to them. This cannot be done if their post is deleted.

Homophobic? Because of the word “defect”? Did you miss the disclaimer portion, where the poster explained explicit non-homophobic behaviour in their day to day life?
Also, how do you reconcile the post being homophobic AND well intentioned?
It was an honest question by the poster and was not homophobic. It was a a good faith OP in my view, could you have perhaps made a kneejerk reaction that you could rectify?

Yes, “defect” stood out right away as problematic. Thats the primary mistake made by the poster, a simple enough mistake to point out if the thread hadnt been deleted.

Dingo, you do know that homosexuals can have kids, right? I feel like given that new information you may want to revise your response. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes I realise that but pointing it out is pedantic, a waste of my time and a failure to address the main issue. Leave such commentary to the petty.
Thank god for you though :roll:

↪ssu
Interesting. I wonder if it is the media, internet and social media which have created this environment or just the politicisation of everything? When you put it like that, I probably should have just avoided this thread altogether. — Judaka

Social media plays a big role, its a fact that it creates tension. Its designed to. I recommend The Social Dilemma, eye opening.
Also, it wasnt a waste of time responding to whats his face the Kenosha wanker. You exposed him and other people here can see, you were speaking to them as much as to him so yes it was worth you bothering.

Perhaps it's telling of our times that Peterson is referred to being a philosopher.

Anyway, I have become extremely sceptical to anyone who today is a critic of some person. Now days there simply is no objectivity or any will to try to understand the other. As a Finnish saying goes: it's like "The Devil reading the Bible". It gets interest, clicks. The critic has either an agenda or simply promotes his views to his or her own tribe of similar thinking people. Perhaps it is far too confusing for people if you agree with one thing and disagree with another thing that some person has said. That seems lax, weak. Nope, tribalism has to dominate! You are either for or against and either with us or against us!

The solution? Listen to the people yourself and make up your mind without the people who have chewed the message for you before hand. — ssu

The most wisdom in a post on this thread yet. :up:

I see. So more like a cultural dark ages rather than some sort of apocalyptic reset?

What kind of world are you living in if you cannot see the deep chaos into which humanity is descending? — Jack Cummins

Im not sure what you are referencing, where did I give that impression?

How do you imagine the “new Dark Ages” looking in thrse modern times?

↪DingoJones Might be traumatic brain injuries (a lot of that going around lately) that causes would-be philosophers to get thick as a brick and kill themselves by Mod. You know, too much social media trauma, too many Trump tweets, too much doom scrolling, too many things for sale on line, heat stress from global warming (even in the dead of winter), too many choices on Netflix, and so on. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I intended to include those things under “a sign of the times”. Social media and fear based news are big parts of it in the general public but I thought there might be something specific to this forum. Perhaps suicide by mod is one of the ways those with a philosophical bent express that stress.

Well i wasnt talking about specific kinds of discourse. Obviously there are going to be better or worse forms by of it. If you are just yelling at them and not listening you wont make much headway. So maybe I should amend my claim to “good discourse is the best remedy for bad ideas.”

I think what Isaac is trying to say is that you are very unlikely to change someone's mind in a non-professional conversation (like an internet forum) just by making what you think are good arguments. If you want to change people's minds, you need to first figure out what context they formed their opinion in in the first place, and then try to give them a new context in which they can then come to new conclusions. — Echarmion

Ok, thanks.

So in what way would someone figure out that context and provide them with a new context if not through discourse. Amend that, what better way than discourse?

I dont think you’ve been as clear as you think. Id rather not guess and then have it cause confusion later on, so im trying to get a concise answer.
So I guess you think membership into another group? Thats a superior remedy in your view?

So your superior remedy is...?

Address the reason why someone is attracted to it. — Isaac

To a bad idea? Any number of reasons. I dont follow why that answer challenges the assertion I made about discourse being the best remedy. Non-sequitor I would call it, but maybe Im missing something.
So do you have a superior remedy?

Regardless of what folks are after on a forum like this, what purpose should a forum like this serve? I.e. what's a place like this good for, anyway? — Pfhorrest

I suppose the purpose of this forum is more or less specific to each person, falling under some broad categories. I think learning through discourse is a good general purpose of any forum.

What is your superior remedy to a bad idea?

Thinking back several decades when I was growing up, to be different in any way meant to be evil, or at least wrong or defective.

What do you think drives the social pressure for conformity? — baker

Thats not been my experience at all.
I think social pressure to conform comes from our ape brain, the primitive instincts that remain from our evolutionary past.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? Have you honestly seen any evidence of it, in general. Do people, in your experience, generally have a tendency to listen to arguments (no matter who they're from) and alter their opinions accordingly? — Isaac

Took a pretty leap to get to that bolded portion sir. Thats not what im saying. No matter who they’re from? Where did you get that from what I said?

For my part, the thing that I tend to find stressful is the perception that nobody agrees with me. Even if I know better, if I'm well aware of prominent thinkers who agree with me... they're not here, or anywhere else that I am. — Pfhorrest

Im the opposite, I don’t care if people agree with me or not. Im just not that invested in any conclusion I reach. By design, I think this is useful for avoiding bias, or dogmatism. People get married to their conclusions and end up closing their minds in various ways that Id rather avoid. Plus, most people are dumb so its hard to care what they think.

I think the forum would be a much more pleasant place if people generally would do things like that more often. — Pfhorrest

Maybe, but Im not sure pleasantness is what folks are after on a forum like this.

All discourse is overshadowed by the power differentials at play. Even at a philosophy forum, where the power of the argument should be bigger than the strength of the argument from power. But in reality, the argument from power is always the strongest one. — baker

This reference to power seemed to be your main point. I dont think it overshadows all discourse, its just another factor and it may or may not be a significant factor in any given case.

As far as I have seen, it's always been like that. — baker

Its always been a thing yes, but thats not the same as that thing becoming more widespread or significant. Im talking about the latter.

Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated. Fascism is one. Tolerating it leads to, well, you've seen what just happened. — Baden

Depends on what you mean by tolerate. The best remedy for bad ideas like fascism is discussion, to show where these ideas fail and where they lead. So I think being tolerant of the idea in the arena of discourse is tolerable, even preferable. Outside that arena, say in the political arena, fascism just cannot be tolerated in a civil society. We’ve tried it, seen it, we dont like it so if someone wants to use it in an arena like that then its going to have to win in the battleground of ideas first.

Unfortunately it is, it is a sign of the times, which indeed I find very worrisome. The US looks bad now, and I don't want similar things happening here.

I remember the old PF. When Dubya Bush invaded Iraq and the WoT was in full swing, it wasn't at all so hateful, even if it was a bit tense as people came on the Forum to defend the US decision while others naturally were against it. But that was 17 years ago on another site. Then there are a lot of the same people here. Yet it didn't go on the level of personal insults as now. Or if it did, snap, they w — ssu

Its been ramping up for years, decades. I remember how people hated Bush jr, how he became a joke. Remember the show That’s My Bush (i think that was the name)? It was a sitcom about how stupid george bush was. That stood out. A sitcom making fun of the sitting president. Then came Obama. The hatred was so toxic and unhinged, and not just the racists. Average people suddenly became these rabid, decisional attack dogs. Obama was Hitler, he was the anti-christ. Didnt think it would get much worse than that but then of course Trump, wanders in off the tv set and taps into all that venom and darkness to get elected and now discourse is dead, everyones lost their minds. All it took was social media to make it easier for stupidity and division to widen and spread. Now, difference of opinion is a difference of good and evil in the hearts and minds of most people.

Now it's acceptable at least for some to use language, even mods, to use language that would have gotten them off the old site. Just stick to the rules and them being the same for everybody. Some could point fingers, but I think that it indeed is about the times we live in. — ssu

I cant say im much bothered by language. Just words to me, same as others. If “go fuck yourself” conveys the emotion or expression your going for then go ahead.

PF is in my view a "canary in the coal mine". If here different ideas aren't tolerated, then where then? — ssu

Indeed. The battleground of ideas has been demolished and reseeded to grow a sturdy crop of dogma and toxic ideology.

Good point.

Same here. Its strange and zi have a curiosity the strange.

The people that I am aware of all had some peculiarity in their style or preoccupation that was evident long before the "suicide by mod". They all seemed to have a very rigid position with respect to some topic, or a style that would lead to never ending discussion. — Echarmion

Hmm. That makes sense. So maybe its simply a matter of the most rigid reed snapping the loudest. Likewise with the never ending discussion method. Thats true they do all seem to have one or both of those traits.

My guess would be that getting banned was the only way they could claim they upheld their position "to the end", without giving ground. After all, when you're banned, you can't reply, even if you want to. — Echarmion

A matter of principal? Not so sure about that, but maybe.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it had something to do with playing the victim. “They’re trying to silence me!” Being a victim seems to be social currency nowadays. Also, if they’re banned they can believe that had they had the opportunity to respond to others posts they could have “won” the argument. It gives them a sort of “plausible deniability.” — Pinprick

Well again this is standard fare for the internet. I agree that misbehaviour can often be attributed to the psychology you mentioned but this is different. They dont want to quit, they dont want to soapbox, they dint want to rant or get in the last word...they wanna be banned. Its so strange to me.

Anyway, there is one member here who was banned for doing something that very well seemed similar, but was allowed to return to the forum (which I completely feel was the right decision). If suicide by mod was in fact his intent, maybe he could provide some insight. I’m sure you’re aware of who I’m referring to, but maybe that’s a conversation that is better suited for PM, as he may not appreciate being called out publicly and asked to explain his personal actions. — Pinprick

That would be enlightening.

More specifically, I think there is a distinction to be made between wanting people to agree with you and needing people to agree with you. Everyone has the former. Everyone likes when people agree with them. However some go an extra step and decide that there is something to lose when people disagree. In other words, become entitled to others on the forum reacting to them in a specific way. Become reliant on it like food and water. It’s those people that commit suicide by mod. Their expectations get shattered and so they lash out. — khaled

Ok, but why haven’t I seen this on other similar forums? Is there something about this forum that attracts these sorts of people?

It’s a similar trend to the age old phenomenon of “rage quitting” be it in a video game or a real game. When something doesn’t go your way and you throw a temper tantrum. — khaled

We have a fair share of such tantrums, its the internet after all. This seems like something different, like these people are going through the motions of the same psychological effect.

It is not that this is a forum that caters to 10 year olds.... — Tobias

...are you sure? Certainly seems like it sometimes, seen the Trump thread at all?
Gotta be at least a handful of 10 year olds here.
Anyway, taking bets on the next person banned. My money is on counterpunch. Place by your bets!

It's just that it seems to me that people who are in righ wing circles will usually use a more specific label for their ideas, and many more who embrace some elements of "right wing" ideas will reject the label. This doesn't seem to happen to the same extent on the left. People will usually not object to be labeled left wing even if they are only really interested in social justice rather than econmically "left" ideas.

Of course this might all be my bias talking. But it seem like we associate "right wing" with "Hitler" and therefore bad much more quickly then we do the same with "left wing" and "Mao". — Echarmion

Ya, see I do not associate the right wing with hitler nor Mao with left wing, but I may be ignorant of the general consensus. You do hear that association made more often in the last 5-10 years, but I think this is more about a loud minority fringe on either side.

Well, no. It was tounge-in-cheek. Of course both are equally capable of being correct, but only one is actually correct (or moral, or least bad). We cannot find out via the labels though, we need to debate. I think this forum does a rather good job at the debating, for an online forum. It's not without bias, but nothing is. — Echarmion

Very true, key words are “online” and “forum”. Thats a low bar.
Bias can never be purged, only managed. The key to doing that is realising that at any given time, on any given topic, you could have your head up your ass. Thats what I do anyway lol
You cant purge it but you can try and minimise its influence by being aware of it.

Insofar as you're more likely to garner negative or even hostile replies to espousing "right wing" ideas, sure. But so long as the discussion remains for the most part honest and on topic, this is not necessarily a problem. — Echarmion

Not necessarily no, but ive seen some pretty gross displays by that left bias on this forum...though none of those incidences seemed like honest discourse.

I agree that it'd be best to not consider labels like left and right at all when engaging in a discussion. We won't all be able to avoid it all of the time. — Echarmion

Well I think its easier to dismiss people when you label them, thats why people do it. If you can make people associate right wing with hitler, then all your work is done. You call them right wing and you dont even need to talk to them at all. If you can call someone a left winger and have it mean “Moaist” then you no longer need to listen to that person, they are essentially a monster.

"Left" and "right" are extremely leaky generalisations about a whole host of not necessarily connected views. So it's no surprise that noone can agree on who is what. — Echarmion

Agreed. I think this is because people tend to use those terms as labels (you think this, you must be right/left)) rather than categories (you think this, and thats right/left). The former pushes someone into a box (the dichotomy of left or right) the latter allows for entry into and or all appropriate boxes. Nuance I often hear it called.

What's perhaps interesting is that people seem to object to being described as "right wing", but outsider of specific circles people rarely object to the opposite label. — Echarmion

Well would those specific circles be the “right wing” ones? Why wouldnt someone object to the right wing term unless they were in fact in those right wing circles? I understand that right or left is insulting to some people, but what exactly are you trying to say here? Do you think a person who isnt left wing still embraces the label “left wing”?

I guess the question is how do we know whether it's reality or the forum that has the left-wing bias? — Echarmion

Does reality have a bias? If you are talking about the left or right being correct or incorrect, then I think thats showing bias, human bias rather than realities bias. I think both right and left are equally capable of being correct and incorrect.
Also, it seems clear that this forum is biased left. Thats just going to be the case when the majority is left, no?

It's at least possible that the consensus actually represents the best arguments. — Echarmion

Agreed, but how did you determine (or how would you determine) that to be the case? The false dichotomy naturally obscures the issue, as ideology and ape brain tribalism rears its ugly head.

Obviously Brett is venting some frustration here but his poor expression of his issue with this forum doesnt mean there is no substance here.
Perhaps the OP could be rephrased and made a bit more clear and substantive, something like: “does the leftist bias of this forum hinder political discussions?” Or “is the leftist bias on this forum resulting in a tribal mentality that is dismissive of other/right posters?”
To anyone who doesn't think there is a leftist bias, I direct you to the poll done on political affiliations in another thread. 60% left, but more importantly 0% right. An example from this very thread came from Pfhorrest when he said “ I'm sorry about reality's well-known liberal bias. Feel free to hide from reality in a right-wing echo chamber if you really prefer.”
Left wing, reality based. Right wing, not reality based but the simple dogma of an echo chamber.
Thats a pretty biased way of looking at the right and the people on it. Also, delightfully ironic since Im not sure what else you would call this forum other than an echo chamber given there is apparently (according to Pforrests own poll) 0% of the other side posting on it.
Another question worth asking is why someone on the right might feel attacked.
Another might be “ are we interested in diversity of opinion on this forum or just the “correct” (left) opinions, politically speaking?”
It is also relevant to ask whether the right even exists anymore, or it has disappeared in the wake of trumpism, the political game (right wing ideology has been replaced by the ideology of winning the game of politics) and astonishingly widely accepted conspiracy theories?

Lol

Sure, but the point is about discourse, about erroneous beliefs being corrected. It isnt about people self correcting through silent observation...how would such a person get banned in the first place?

Well, I cant disagree with any if that. :up: