I'm sure they can. And it's fate whether you're born as a black man or a white woman, that doesn't mean you want my pals in your country.
Forum Improvements
- Thread starter Justin S.
- Start date
Norsemaiden
barbarian
But you will never change Black to White by accident. Do you not want anyone crippled in your country? Would you kill yourself if you lost an arm?
I don't care one way or another, but the crippled sure as hell aren't as good as the whole.
I know this: I don't want Faggajews in my society, or even on this forum.
I know this: I don't want Faggajews in my society, or even on this forum.
Demiurge
This user has no title
I wasn't trying to erect a hard, clearly delineated distinction there. What I intended can be clarified as follows: I like discussions of philosophical issues that are not explicitly political.
I'd like to distinguish between on the one hand the political conditions that allow for a discipline to flourish and the implicit political ideas operating within the discipline's theories. All 'higher' fields of learning seem to share in common the former, even mathematics is related to politics in this sense. However, it is difficult to see how the latter ties in. I cannot easily discern political ideas hiding behind the surface of a mathematical theorem. Frankly, I have the same problem with many issues in philosophy. I readily acknowledge that the fact that they are being taught and discussed presupposes a certain political climate, but I cannot see where the political ideology fits into the philosophy, per se. I am intrigued by your comments, though. I've heard similar ones before and I was never able to assimilate them into my worldview because no one was ever able to give me concrete examples of political ideology lurking behind putatively apolitical philosophical ideas. So, maybe you could help me. Where, for example, is the politics in the debate over the problem of universals? N.B. This problem has spanned many different states with different forms of governance. It appears not to be tied to any one in particular.
Demiurge
This user has no title
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
How about some accountability. Add an appeals process for the purpose of challenging moderators locking threads because they think it is "going nowhere" (honestly, how do they know where it will go?). This would probably have to be in the form of a stickied thread. Conversely, the thread could be used for giving reasons for closing particular threads, so those threads can be focused solely on substantive discussion.
The Moderation and Board Issues thread serves the purposes you mention. Sorry, I don't know why I didn't reply to this post earlier.
Here's something that's been bugging me. This is probably the least friendly forum I've seen. The general tone of many posts is antagonistic and condescending. I don't find this appealing at all, and I know from some people on other forums on UM that this place does not make a good impression on others. I think at least some minimal friendliness is good for any decent philosophical conversation. I would like to know if you guys agree with my observation and have any suggestions about what can be done about this.
Here's something that's been bugging me. This is probably the least friendly forum I've seen. The general tone of many posts is antagonistic and condescending. I don't find this appealing at all, and I know from some people on other forums on UM that this place does not make a good impression on others. I think at least some minimal friendliness is good for any decent philosophical conversation. I would like to know if you guys agree with my observation and have any suggestions about what can be done about this.
If you want to stop this, I have one powerful suggestion:
Kick out people making trivial arguments, and those who are not able to argue in the philosophical vein.
That's what is irritating people: a influx of people who do not belong in a forum for Philosophers.
Honestly, I'd include you in that group as well. I think you need some time reading and analyzing philosophy before you're ready to make any contributions here.
Anyway as I was saying..yes I think there are a couple of people here who actually dont know the meaning of the word friendly, and I couldnt imagine having or even wanting a decent philosophical conversation with them. Ive only posted for a while on this particular forum, and it seems one is not particularly welcome here unless one is a philosophy student or at least has a large selection of philosophy books.Maybe one or two should take their heads out of the text books and have a few thoughts and views of their own? As for condescending people who try to make others feel inferior, you get that everywhere, maybe theyre insecure, who knows
Generally speaking tho Ive found most people here fine, its just the odd one or two.I do not wish to have anyone banned from here. This very suggestion is an instance of the unfriendly attitude that I'm talking about.
How did not think of that before? Many thanks.
I am a little concerned that the regulars here have not responded to my post so far.
Since you specifically asked for opinions:
If you prowl around this site, it appears there is no shortage of brusk dismissal and less than cordial behavior - it is not unique to this particular forum that I can tell. Nevertheless, to be perfectly honest, it does seem things are perhaps a bit more hostile(on occasion)around here of late. Some clearly have a decidedly low threshold for poorly defined(philosophically)or ill-supported positions, or in rarer cases, positions with which they strongly disagree. On the other hand, some seem equally quick to take umbrage with more "controversial," socially unpopular, or shall we say less humanitarian-oriented topics or ideals, and are swift to voice their blunt displeasure there too.
None of this necessarily bothers me personally, but in truth, it probably doesn't present a terribly receptive environment for the newcommer or easily intimidated either.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Hehe, well, good luck using moderation to make people nice and civil! However, I do say, there are some rather vicious attacks--especially of non-regulars. I think its part of the fun.
I agree with derbeder on these issues.
The type of condescending antagonism common here only hinders communication. He is also correct that a minimum of civility is necessary to even engage in debate; otherwise, people are simply hurling the strawmen of their inner-representations at each other. However, this does not mean we must give up the proper "sharpness of formulation" that can lead to severe disagreement. It means posts should be fashioned with the intent to communicate (whatever it may be) rather than harangue.
As far as taking steps toward this atmosphere, I think the only truly viable way is general consensus. Certainly moderator powers will be of limited use, and can very easily make the situation worse (by engaging in the same aggressivity). We need people to hold themselves accountable and make an effort to engage each other with thoughtful arguments- what else are we here for?
The type of condescending antagonism common here only hinders communication. He is also correct that a minimum of civility is necessary to even engage in debate; otherwise, people are simply hurling the strawmen of their inner-representations at each other. However, this does not mean we must give up the proper "sharpness of formulation" that can lead to severe disagreement. It means posts should be fashioned with the intent to communicate (whatever it may be) rather than harangue.
As far as taking steps toward this atmosphere, I think the only truly viable way is general consensus. Certainly moderator powers will be of limited use, and can very easily make the situation worse (by engaging in the same aggressivity). We need people to hold themselves accountable and make an effort to engage each other with thoughtful arguments- what else are we here for?
I still dont see how you get rid of this antagonism. I even remember you stating (when I made comments as moderator similar to derberder's) that philosophy is so combative because its so personal, and thus nothing could be done. And when Derek and I went on a anti-antagonism and rudeness offensive (editing cruel cutting and baiting posts, closing threads, or warning posters to stop), it was welcomed with complaints of over-moderation not praise.
My comments were about how philosophy is confrontational due it cutting below/beyond social formalities, and as such there is an irreducible tension and "charge". These descriptions do not apply to the needlessly aggressive posts around here (they are "confrontational" not in terms of anything philosophical, but through over-blown rhetoric and online "intellectual" thugery).
We certainly can minimize the latter, and (as I already stated) mod action alone cannot address it.
We certainly can minimize the latter, and (as I already stated) mod action alone cannot address it.
Yes, because you're asking a non-question:
"How do we stop people from being annoyed at idiots without banning idiots?"
Keep it friendly, yo.
