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:

Thank you Gus. First post in a while and look at that warm reception.

Good advice perhaps, if the person is around to hear it. (Banned people are not).
Further, those ideas have books as well. My comment applies just as well to your response. How would these people you describe know which books to read? You cannot tell them, and they no longer have the option to ask.
I stand by what I said, banning people based on their ideas is the enemy of discourse. Fortunately, the mod team doesnt share your view (mostly) and bannings seem to mostly be about the guideline breaches (specifically refusing moderation Ive observed) rather than strictly the idea itself.

↪Yohan But then they'd have to accept all the other wakos: the 9/11 truthers, the holocaust deniers, the young earthers, the flat earthers, the hollow earthers, the vaccers, the incel whiners, the chem trace snifers, the hunters of alien lizards, those unsure about global warming, the Pi-doubters, the Jesus mythicists, the perpetual motion specialists and the angry debunkers of Special Relativity... — Olivier5

Whats wrong with any of that as long as it follows the rules of discourse? Just because some of those folks, or most, are unhinged and incapable of discussion doesnt mean all if them are. How are people with these erroneous beliefs (or any erroneous beliefs) supposed to know better if A) they arent allowed to talk, B) are not allowed to listen and C) we arent allowed to talk them, and D) we arent allowed to listen to them?
Is not the purpose of discourse to expose bad ideas? If we ban people based on what they believe (rather than how they express it according to certain rules of discourse) then that becomes impossible, and discourse has failed.
Isnt discourse more important than whether or not we agree with the person?

Same thing as with Tzeentch, there are people who hurt because they are hurting but there are also people who hurt because it makes them truly happy.
I don’t feel like this is controversial, but to illustrate Ill use the classic example of evil: The Nazi’s thought they were creating a better world, they were in the pursuit of true happiness, they thought they were doing good. Now maybe you can make the claim that not every Nazi felt this way, maybe even most of them had deep down pain and regret and it was all just acting out these deep psychological pains and sure, that might be true but you arent going to easily convince me Joseph Mandalay did. He was a monster, who took great pride and pleasure in his evil scientific pursuits. To him, the fact that these were human beings, that he was causing suffering, death, insanity etc didnt bother him, deep down or otherwise. Some people are born or conditioned by experience to derive true pleasure and happiness from inflicting pain or rape or whatever. You think Stalin, or Putin, or Ted Bundy wouldn't be happy if people just left them alone to do as they pleased? They’d slip into a depression would they? I dont think so.

That might be true of some people who murder, rape and torture but not all of them. Some people might do it just because they enjoy it, and those are the people im talking about. How would you exclude these people from being moral?

An act which leads towards the true happiness of the individual that commits it. — Tzeentch

Immediately begging the question “what about if true individual happiness means murder, rape and torture?”
How do you exclude that?

Would the individual more morally required to self terminate their membership in the group?

Interesting question, but how is it relevant? — Aleph Numbers

Well its related because group consensus would be at play, but individuals might not agree with the group consensus yet none the less remain in the group.

Indeed, I agree with that.



I think that is an interesting related question as well. It made me think of large groups or institutions that are immoral, and how and in what ways the individuals within that organisation are morally culpable.

The former.

The objective standards are being created by rational discourse as you outlined. You are adding the extra consensus step to hang onto the consensus morality, but its not necessary for what you just described. What is necessary for what you just described is rational discourse. Unfortunately I think your idea doesnt work.

I dont think the consensus part of your equation is needed anymore in that case. Its rational discourse that would then be your metric.

Well a utilitarian calculation accomplishes the same thing as far as I can tell, for example. Pretty much every moral system I can think of are attempting to address the things you referenced. Some of those are flawed and some are not, but you would have to demonstrate to what degree your moral consensus view is better than the ones im supposed to be rejecting.

I understand consensus morality can accomplish what other moral metrics do, but I think your metric has to win by comparison. Thats the point im trying to make.
What is it about your consensus morality that makes it better than other metrics we already use that do not share the same flaw as consensus morality? To me it seems you must demonstrate not only how consensus morality is better than conventional moral metrics but also how it compensates for the serious drawback of morality essentially being a popularity contest that will inevitably rob minority moral views of validity.
Other moral metrics accomplish the same things your suggesting moral consensus does but without leaving out potentially vast swaths of people/moral views. If the majority (say 51%) are deciding right and wrong then 49% of the spectrum is being excluded. Thats problematic, not the society or moral system id choose to live in.

In the sense of functionality.

Well, there is the example of health care: nobody wants to be denied care or bankrupted by a visit to the hospital. The majority of people, in the US at least, want universal health care to be instituted, but because of garbage neo-liberal politicians this policy has not been passed. The morality I propose would give strong ground upon which to criticize corrupt politicians. Thus, consensus, and the morality I propose, could potentially help overcome a flawed democracy, and, ultimately, result in considerable happiness. Furthermore, certain despicable and backwards practices could be condemned and eliminated, such as fgm. I'll try to think of more ways that consensus has utility. — Aleph Numbers

Right, but Im asking about the utility of your consensus morality over and above other moral metrics. The examples you list here are not unique to a consensus view, in fact I would say that those things are better accomplished by other metrics that do not have the problems that your consensus morality does.

As a courtesy Im letting you know I do not like you, have no use for what you write (I ignore it as much as I can) and have no intention of engaging you.
So there is no need to waste your time directing comments at me.

Yes, correct about the consensus bit. And I want to avoid cultural relativism, not all forms of relativism. And I think that using the consensus of all humanity would lead to a stabilizing effect; the status quo would probably succeed more often than not. But yes, you make good points, the minority should not always be wrong. — Aleph Numbers

Ok, in that case I think my criticism stands. Consensus morality is problematic, but that doesnt mean it doesnt have utility. Is there some utility or advantage you feel consensus has over other metrics?
You mentioned a stabilising effect...but stabilising effects come in many forms and not all of them moral in any conventional sense. For exsmple you could have teo warring tribes. Unstable. Genocide of one or both tribes would have a stabilising effect but I would argue thats an immoral utility.

Yes, you are also making good points. Just because the people in the minority are wrong right now doesn't mean they always have to be wrong; perhaps it would serve an even greater good in the future to defy what is considered right right now. Thus, certain axioms would only be right some of the time. One axiom might be thrown out in favor of another if it would better serve the coming present consensus. This could take the form of accelerating the consensus along to what it will be in the future given enough time. Sorry if that is a copout. — Aleph Numbers

Well, I do think thats a bit if a copout if Im being honest. You are making an appeal to the vagaries of how things might play out over time. That seems much to nebulous to serve as an adequate moral metric. I think your idea here is going to need a lot of utility to balance out these flaws and agin if you want me to be honest I think there are many superior metrics one could use over consensus without having to struggle so much to find merit in it. So now I would ask you what it is that moral consensus accomplishes that other more conventional moral metrics do not (or do less well)? You would have to demonstrate the superiority of consensus, and you have my attention and interest sir so lets hear it.

Slavery would only be justified if one disregarded the views of the slaves. You fall prey to the same objection that Ignoro just laid out. Additionally I literally said I didn't propose an objective morality, I just broadened the consensus. — Aleph Numbers

Well the views of the slaves would only matter if they were the ones forming the consensus. This is the problem with morality by consensus, the minority moral positions wouldnt matter.
If consensus is your metric, then you allow for moral validity even to positions that are clearly biased, misguided or irrational.
My mistake on objective morality, I thought you were positing a moral system with the aim of avoiding moral relativism and assumed you were going for something “objective”.

But, furthermore, once the consensus is taken, via the process I described, it can be used to make objective moral "measurements" anywhere you find humans. — Aleph Numbers

Ok, so your view has some similarity to mine but you are positing the metric “consensus” as your “inch” (to stick with the analogy), is that correct?

What you described is moral relativism. You’ve just shifted the focus on consensus.
If I understand you, then under your view slavery is moral since most of the cultures in the world at one point agreed it was.
I dont think morality needs to be “objective”, it is sufficient to have an objective standard, a metric that can be used to take moral measurements. The analogy I use is a measuring tape, in inches. An inch is not “objective”, it is arbitrary, a human made it up and started measuring things with it. So its basis is still subjective, but once established it can be used as an objective standard; no matter where you go, how human perceptions makes distances appear different between one person and another, where or when you take a measurement etc an inch will always be an inch. If something is 12 inches long, it doesnt matter what someones opinion is, its always going to be 12 inches long.
I view morality in this way, a metric is chosen and used to make moral “ measurements”.

John McWhorter lays out what it is your dealing with in this topic, and why you are wasting your time trying to discuss the issue with them. Everything you say is going through a religious filter of trigger words and agenda driven placeholder words. Self righteousness is a powerful inoculation against different (and therefore opposing, under this cultish ideology) points of view.

Antifa are fascists who call themselves “anti fascists” in order to justify themselves to the lazy thinkers that dont bother looking at their behaviour closely enough to see it for what it is: fascism. The woke left and BLM protesters provide cover for their activities (knowingly and unknowingly) because you can’t force people to talk, act and think the way you want without thugs to enforce it. They don’t know their history, they will be among the first to be sacrificed if the fascist uprising is successful.
But what has any of this to do with Trump specifically?

There can be those sorts of disagreements or divergence without effecting Harris’s arguments. Thats what the moral landscape means, the peeks and valleys of various moral questions and answers. He allows for multiple peeks (different but equally valid moral conclusions) and valleys (human suffering) that can all function from the same standard.



I think it would be worthwhile to do some reading or look into some of the debates/talks Harris did on The Moral Landscape. His arguments are pretty thorough and address most criticisms. Id be interested in discussing how I (or anyone else) disagree with Harris but I'm not keen on (probably poorly) trying to articulate his entire arguments piece-mail.