Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:52 pm

LOL
LOL
LOL

And 'this' coming from THE one that WANTS to HAVE POWER and CONTROL OVER "others" here, so that they COULD SHUT DOWN WHATEVER they do NOT AGREE WITH.

"lacewing" 'you' could NOT be coming across MORE CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL here even if you wanted to.

Even for you this is disingenuous, manipulative bullshit. She never said anything of the sort.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 7:31 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:13 pm Just as we can ignore someone, so can anyone ignore this forum. Or any gathering of people. The bridge club who bans someone for shrieking about their underwear during games the whole time. Etc.

Good example.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This is ONLY a so-called 'good example' BECAUSE 'you', "lacewing", are THE one 'trying to' GAIN POWER OVER "others", by being ABLE to BAN ANY one for REASONS that 'you' see FIT, like for example, if people do NOT think and speak the way 'you' LIKE.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 6:23 pm Moderation is surely useful in all publicly shared spaces, simple because of how humans are.

I have NOT SEEN and OBSERVED such HYPOCRISY as this for a while now.

Talk about providing a GREAT EXAMPLE of just WHAT the 'ego' OF one, who is DESPERATELY SEEKING 'self-serving' POWER OVER "others", WILL DO.

WHY NOT just come to a PHILOSOPHY forum to DISCUSS 'issues', INSTEAD of just 'TRYING TO' TAKE OVER, and HAVE CONTROL OVER "others"?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 6:23 pm In person: Someone throwing trash all over the sidewalk, someone heckling funeral-goers, someone pooping on the floor in a Walmart... all of these have happened. Online: Someone excessively bombarding a public forum with huge amounts of their "stuff" which are mostly unengaged with, someone physically threatening another, someone posting images or content that are clearly a violation of forum membership... all of these have happened.

SO WHAT?

Are you THAT IMMATURE that you can NOT just IGNORE words on a screen?

Are you even AWARE that these are JUST WORDS, ONLY?

WHY do 'you' WANT CONTROL and POWER OVER "others"? How is this 'self-serving' WANT helping 'you', EXACTLY?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 6:23 pm Personally, I prefer balance in all things.

SO, WHY do 'you' SHOW the EXACT OPPOSITE?

WHY are some 'things' so ONE-SIDE, to you?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 6:23 pm Neither a complete lack of moderation nor over-moderation.

LOL And ONLY 'you', or 'those' on YOUR SIDE could 'this' properly, correct?

I CLAIM 'me', "dattaswami", "henry quirk", "attofishpi", "promthean", "iwannaplato", or MANY "others" could do a MORE BALANCED job than 'you', "lacewing", could do. 'We' might ALSO say 'we' are FAIR and would and have done this job WELL.

So, based on this ALONE 'we' SHOULD be GIVEN 'the job', right?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 6:23 pm
Some people are incapable it seems, for whatever reasons, of moderating themselves.

And, what 'you' are SAYING and DOING here "lacewing" is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who is NOT CAPABLE of moderating "them" 'self'.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 6:23 pm So, if they want to share a public environment, it might be most fair for everyone to have some guidelines and limits within that shared space.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WE COME HERE, and/or FOUND "ourselves" HERE, for the VERY REASON that WE are ALLOWED FAR MORE FREE SPEECH than in OTHER FORUMS/SITES.

YET here we are with YET ANOTHER one who wants to RESTRICT and LIMIT this FREEDOM, YET AGAIN.

Talk about one who is NOT OPEN to there BEING MORE, than 'its' OWN limited and individual human being view and perspective of 'things'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:28 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 7:31 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:13 pm Just as we can ignore someone, so can anyone ignore this forum. Or any gathering of people. The bridge club who bans someone for shrieking about their underwear during games the whole time. Etc.

Good example.

Moderation is surely useful in all publicly shared spaces, simple because of how humans are.

In person: Someone throwing trash all over the sidewalk, someone heckling funeral-goers, someone pooping on the floor in a Walmart... all of these have happened. Online: Someone excessively bombarding a public forum with huge amounts of their "stuff" which are mostly unengaged with, someone physically threatening another, someone posting images or content that are clearly a violation of forum membership... all of these have happened.

Personally, I prefer balance in all things. Neither a complete lack of moderation nor over-moderation. Some people are incapable it seems, for whatever reasons, of moderating themselves. So, if they want to share a public environment, it might be most fair for everyone to have some guidelines and limits within that shared space.

This forum 'is' moderated. The obvious 'post-modern' bot was banned not that long ago. Scary though, just how gullible people really are. Perhaps it was 'doing a Sokal', because it kept getting responses from idiots who seemed to think it had profound insight and wisdon
I'm sure someone will get around to doing something about dattasmarmy eventually.
I recall a site where the moderators were so power-crazed that they immediately banned anyone who made any comment that didn't fit with their own personal radical agenda. I didn't realise this when I joined and was instantly banned (my one and only comment) which was accompanied by a threat to do 'what?' with my ISP address, for an innocent comment about Richard Dawkins (supportive, while the wankers running the site were hell-bent on destroying him). Wokies are such kunts. I'm sure they, too, thought they were doing an excellent job of moderation. Human nature dictates that very few humans are going to say 'by golly, I'm a really bad moderator'...

I would suggest absolutely NO human being would say 'that', well NOT until much 'later on' and WITH HINDSIGHT.

"lacewing" just says, and believes, 'it' did a 'good job' because 'it' is TOO SCARED to just LOOK AT and CONSIDER ANY thing ELSE.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:09 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:52 pm

LOL
LOL
LOL

And 'this' coming from THE one that WANTS to HAVE POWER and CONTROL OVER "others" here, so that they COULD SHUT DOWN WHATEVER they do NOT AGREE WITH.

"lacewing" 'you' could NOT be coming across MORE CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL here even if you wanted to.

Even for you this is disingenuous, manipulative bullshit. She never said anything of the sort.

When you say, " she NEVER said 'anything of the sort' ", what do you mean by 'anything of the sort'?

1. What do you think I was referring to EXACTLY? And,

2. What does the word 'moderator' IMPLY or MEAN, EXACTLY?

3. What is the role of 'moderating', exactly, if NOT shutting down or stopping what one does NOT agree with?

4. What, EXACTLY, do you think I am being 'disingenuous' about, and/or what, exactly, are the words 'manipulative bullshit' in reference to, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:20 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:09 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:52 pm

LOL
LOL
LOL

And 'this' coming from THE one that WANTS to HAVE POWER and CONTROL OVER "others" here, so that they COULD SHUT DOWN WHATEVER they do NOT AGREE WITH.

"lacewing" 'you' could NOT be coming across MORE CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL here even if you wanted to.

Even for you this is disingenuous, manipulative bullshit. She never said anything of the sort.

When you say, " she NEVER said 'anything of the sort' ", what do you mean by 'anything of the sort'?

1. What do you think I was referring to EXACTLY? And,

2. What does the word 'moderator' IMPLY or MEAN, EXACTLY?

3. What is the role of 'moderating', exactly, if NOT shutting down or stopping what one does NOT agree with?

4. What, EXACTLY, do you think I am being 'disingenuous' about, and/or what, exactly, are the words 'manipulative bullshit' in reference to, EXACTLY?

Where did she say she wants to shut down anyone who disagrees with her? BTW. You disagree with EVERYTHING, just of the sake of being disagreeable. That's the definition of trolling.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:33 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:20 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:09 am

Even for you this is disingenuous, manipulative bullshit. She never said anything of the sort.

When you say, " she NEVER said 'anything of the sort' ", what do you mean by 'anything of the sort'?

1. What do you think I was referring to EXACTLY? And,

2. What does the word 'moderator' IMPLY or MEAN, EXACTLY?

3. What is the role of 'moderating', exactly, if NOT shutting down or stopping what one does NOT agree with?

4. What, EXACTLY, do you think I am being 'disingenuous' about, and/or what, exactly, are the words 'manipulative bullshit' in reference to, EXACTLY?

Where did she say she wants to shut down anyone who disagrees with her? BTW.

IN and WITH the words, 'I want to be a moderator'.

By definition, this MEANS shutting down what the "moderator" does NOT agree with.

The job description of "moderator" INVOLVES stopping what is NOT being agreed with,

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:33 am You disagree with EVERYTHING, just of the sake of being disagreeable.

Well considering I do NOT disagree with EVERYTHING, the rest here is False, Wrong, Incorrect ALSO, and thus MOOT as well.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:33 am That's the definition of trolling.

To you, maybe. But it is certainly is NOT to "other people".

By definition, 'trolling' means or refers to 'throwing a line out, with a baited hook, to see what can be caught'.

Disagreeing with some 'thing' that some one has said is NOT 'trolling' AT ALL, from this definition and perspective.

And, in regards to 'trolling' on a website or forum, it can refer to or mean, 'throwing words out, which in themselves can be cast as 'baited hooks' to catch and pull some people in, or to see who gets caught and pulled in.

Wow. YOU disagree. How AMAZING and UNEXPECTED.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 2:05 am Wow. YOU disagree. How AMAZING and UNEXPECTED.

Wow, that I BACKED UP and SUPPORTED My CLAIMS, ONCE AGAIN, is NOT that AMAZING NOR UNEXPECTED, AT ALL.

That you could NOT CONTEST NOR ARGUE AGAINST what you had INITIALLY thought or BELIEVED you could is ALSO NOT that AMAZING NOR UNEXPECTED AT ALL, EITHER.

The Fact that I just PROVED, IRREFUTABLY True, the EXACT OPPOSITE of your CLAIMS and ASSUMPTIONS here is ONCE AGAIN, NOT AMAZING NOR UNEXPECTED AT ALL EITHER, AS WELL.

That you appear to find DISAGREEMENT as some sort of thing that is WRONG, BAD, EVIL, or A SIN is somewhat AMAZING, but NOT REALLY UNEXPECTED from those with BELIEFS that are HELD ONTO SO STRONGLY.

AND,

The Fact that YOUR OWN PERSONAL DEFINITION of the word here was and is ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and just PLAIN OLD ABSURD was NOT that UNEXPECTED NOR AMAZING AT ALL, REALLY.

vegetariantaxidermy to Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:33 am Where did she say she wants to shut down anyone who disagrees with her?

It's such a stupid claim. I have no interest in shutting down people who disagree with me! That would likely be most people here, and then I'd be here by myself.

Age projects his delusion onto people, which makes him wrong about people most of the time. He has shown for years that he has absolutely no clue what I'm about or what other people are about, he just wrongly thinks and claims he does, so I don't see the value of his 13,000+ posts containing his convoluted distortions about everyone and what they say.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:27 am

vegetariantaxidermy to Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:33 am Where did she say she wants to shut down anyone who disagrees with her?

That's such a stupid claim. I have no interest in shutting down people who disagree with me! That would likely be most people here, and then I'd be here by myself.

Yes, I thought that at most you wanted people whose behavior was problematic tp be moderated , not based on their opinions.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:46 am Yes, I thought that at most you wanted people whose behavior was problematic tp be moderated , not based on their opinions.

Exactly. And it's in response to feedback from forum members in agreement about ongoing problematic issues.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:27 am

vegetariantaxidermy to Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:33 am Where did she say she wants to shut down anyone who disagrees with her?

It's such a stupid claim. I have no interest in shutting down people who disagree with me!

But it is NOT about "others" disagreeing with 'you', and I have NEVER said it was.

SEE, this is just ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one NOT being ABLE TO SEE, COMPREHEND, NOR UNDERSTAND what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, because they are BLINDED by their OWN BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS.

I suggest 'you' OPEN UP "lacewing". That way 'you' can GAIN A MUCH WIDER and BROADER ASPECT of 'things' here.


That would likely be most people here, and then I'd be here by myself.

Age projects his delusion onto people, which makes him wrong about people most of the time.[/quote]

LOL And this COMING FROM one who has ABSOLUTELY NO ACTUAL IDEA AT ALL ABOUT what I have SAID and WRITTEN here.

BUT 'you' just PROJECTED YOUR OWN DELUSION here ONTO "another" "lacewing". So, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' are Wrong about the "other".

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:27 am He has shown for years that he has absolutely no clue what I'm about or what other people are about, he just wrongly thinks and claims he does, so I don't see the value of his 13,000+ posts containing his convoluted distortions about everyone and what they say.

"lacewing" has shown for years that 'she' has absolutely no clue what I am about or what "other" people are about, 'she' just wrongly thinks and claims 'she' does, so I do not see the value of 'her' posts containing 'her' convoluted distortions about everyone and what they say.

I also see NO value in "lacewing" wanting to make this site MORE RESTRICTIVE and LESS BROAD.

Wanting to HAVE CONTROL OVER "others" just SHOWS how little this one REALLY IS and HOW MUCH LOW self-esteem this one REALLY HAS.

In fact it has YET to even ONCE back up and support just ONE of 'its' CLAIMS that I have QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED 'it' ABOUT.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:46 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:27 am

vegetariantaxidermy to Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:33 am Where did she say she wants to shut down anyone who disagrees with her?

That's such a stupid claim. I have no interest in shutting down people who disagree with me! That would likely be most people here, and then I'd be here by myself.

Yes, I thought that at most you wanted people whose behavior was problematic tp be moderated , not based on their opinions.

LOL Here is ANOTHER who HAS COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

And, AGAIN, this is BECAUSE this one here is ANOTHER COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED human being.

They OBVIOUSLY are NOT ABLE to SEE and COMPREHEND the BIG and WHOLE Picture of what is going on EXACTLY here.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:52 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:46 am Yes, I thought that at most you wanted people whose behavior was problematic tp be moderated , not based on their opinions.

Exactly. And it's in response to feedback from forum members in agreement about ongoing problematic issues.

LOL "WE WANT TO MODERATE PROBLEMATIC ISSUES/BEHAVIORS".

BUT NEVER EVER MENTION WHAT behavior/issue EXACTLY 'you' WANT TO MODERATE.

And, GIVEN POWER to MODERATE, as POINTED OUT ALREADY, is just a SMALL JUMP to BANNING ABSOLUTELY ANY one the so-called "moderator" does NOT AGREE WITH.

Which, by the way, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of WHAT 'you', two, are ACCUSING ME OF.

These people here were SO CLOSED they could NOT EVEN SEE what WAS HERE FOR ALL TO LOOK AT and SEE.

ONE VERY PROBLEMATIC ISSUE and BEHAVIOR, which has been feedback from forum members IN AGREEMENT, is this CONSTANT TALKING ABOUT "others". Which, by the way, is the VERY OPPOSITE of what PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSIONS were ONCE ABOUT.

So, IF ANY BEHAVIOR/ISSUE that would be best ADDRESSED and MODERATED is this CONTINUING ISSUE.

By the way, NOTICE the DIFFERENCE HERE?

If no, then I PROVIDE AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE of WHAT THE ACTUAL PROBLEM/ISSUE IS, EXACTLY.

Whereas, and UNLIKE those "others" who just CLAIM there is A PROBLEM, or there is A ISSUE, that "other" forum members agree with and with I SHOULD BE the 'moderator' OF, BECAUSE I am a 'good moderator'.

LOL

The FIRST thing about COMPLAINING, CRITICIZING, or ARGUING AGAINST some 'thing' is to POINT OUT, HIGHLIGHT, SHOW, or PROVIDE thee ACTUAL 'thing' instead of just ALLUDING to that there is some 'thing'.

Saying that there is SOME problematic issue/behavior, which one SHOULD be a "moderator" OVER, just ALLOWS the "moderator" to do WHATEVER they then WANT to 'moderate' OVER, which may INCLUDE the 'opinions' of "another".

How about INSTEAD of just ALLUDING to SOME so-called 'ongoing problematic issues', you ACTUAL EXPLAINING WHAT 'issues' are you referring to, EXACTLY?

Or, is this BEYOND you CAPABILITY, ALSO?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:59 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:46 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:27 am
That's such a stupid claim. I have no interest in shutting down people who disagree with me! That would likely be most people here, and then I'd be here by myself.

Yes, I thought that at most you wanted people whose behavior was problematic tp be moderated , not based on their opinions.

LOL Here is ANOTHER who HAS COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

And, AGAIN, this is BECAUSE this one here is ANOTHER COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED human being.

They OBVIOUSLY are NOT ABLE to SEE and COMPREHEND the BIG and WHOLE Picture of what is going on EXACTLY here.

Isn't it odd the way EVERYONE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISUNDERSTANDS everything YOU SAY.....