your penalty box

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: your penalty box

Post by Terrapin Station »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:10 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:16 pm Yeah, ideally I want to have what I consider a conversation with people online.
Me too... and it seems strangely difficult or rare to accomplish online.

All throughout my life, I've had philosophical/thoughtful conversations with people in person. I have not studied anyone else's philosophy (except Christianity in my youth), rather it has always seemed natural to think philosophically to a certain extent, which other people have noted about me. It seems most reasonable and true to look at life from many angles and observe the workings of that, and consider the outcomes and implications... without being blinded by personal favor/payoff. To boldly explore beyond ego/identity as much as possible.

It takes courage and honesty to explore rather than latching/settling onto a belief/platform.

A lot of people on this forum use it to construct mental/belief structures to serve themselves, and to avoid the inconvenience of anyone challenging them on it -- as would happen in person. Some seem to have mental issues, and online communication is probably their primary interaction with the rest of the world. It's not honest.
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:16 pm Offline, when I'm interacting with someone in person, if I ask them a question and they don't answer--and in a rather direct way that makes sense as an answer in the context of the question, I'm going to have a problem with them and I'm not going to consider that a conversation. I wouldn't keep spending time with that person. And if they keep pestering me, things are going to turn a lot more harsh than putting someone on ignore.
Agreed! This forum has turned out (for me) to be more for entertainment, than for exchanging honest, brave discussions. It has shown me just how messed up and manipulative a lot of people are. :lol: I honestly didn't guess there could be so many in one place. Here's what I gain from it when I want to deal with it: 1) I get to practice dealing with world madness/nonsense in a non-serious way -- which has strengthened me in dealing with life; 2) I get to question and oppose and mock beliefs/claims that many people think it inappropriate to question/oppose/mock -- which is good for keeping mentally limber and open; and 3) there's a lot of humor in it, so it makes me laugh a lot -- which is healthy for one's entire being.

This forum is the only one I use in my free time. The prior philosophy forum I was on was too rigidly structured. This one seems a bit overrun by insanity -- but there's value in learning to deal with everything, I suppose. It has been insightful/informative in ways I didn't expect.

I think it would be very interesting if people actually followed a reasonable line of questioning about beliefs/claims without darting into hiding/avoidance by erupting into noisy babbling or by adding on more nonsense claims/projections to derail and drown out all else. Such noise obscures any reasonable, true, or courageous philosophical exploration -- but apparently that's the best that people can do sometimes.
Spot on comments.

What's frustrating to me about it is that when I first started using the Internet in 1994, it actually was possible to have extensive good-faith discussions about philosophy online. I was a regular on the IRC Undernet #philosophy channel from 1994 through the early 2000s, when it finally started dying off as the Internet was changing and gaining all sorts of new bells and whistles.

It was normal on Undernet #philosophy to have 20-30 people paying attention at the same time where you could have what amounted to extended Socratic dialogues with a number of people, without it devolving into people simply being stubborn (and essentially putting their hands over their ears and going "la la la la"), without it devolving into flaming, etc. (partially thanks to smart moderation). It seems to me like something changed culturally over the past 20 years or so that makes it far less likely to be able to have Socratic dialogues like that with others online. I'm not sure what led to those attitudinal changes, but I keep hoping that it might turn around.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: your penalty box

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:48 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:43 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:00 am In other words, you BELIEVE you are better than those ones.
Not at all. All it means is that they are behaving it a way which is either silly, immature, unchallenging, uninteresting, impeding to honest thought, or perhaps trolling.
That is just your view...
That's right. Absolutely. And my view matters.

My conversation is at my discretion. Not yours. Not anyone else's. That's how it is in real life, and that's how it is here, too.

And, of course, nobody's got a right to demand conversation. It's a privilege, and privileges are offered or withheld at the discretion of the giver.
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:43 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:48 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:43 pm
Not at all. All it means is that they are behaving it a way which is either silly, immature, unchallenging, uninteresting, impeding to honest thought, or perhaps trolling.
That is just your view...
That's right. Absolutely. And my view matters.
But your views, obviously, can also be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, and that is what Really matters.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:43 pm My conversation is at my discretion. Not yours. Not anyone else's. That's how it is in real life, and that's how it is here, too.
Once again, you BELIEVE life is all about 'you', and that EVERY thing revolves around 'you', which, obviously, it does NOT.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:43 pm And, of course, nobody's got a right to demand conversation.

Off topic.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:43 pm It's a privilege,
This is just your own view here. And, ALL of your views could be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:43 pm and privileges are offered or withheld at the discretion of the giver.
LOL There are, at least, TWO 'givers' in ANY conversation.

And not all 'givers' view conversations to be a "privilege".

So, contrary to YOUR BELIEF, not all conversations are privileges. But you will NEVER know and understand this FACT. This is because you think and believe EVERY thing revolves around 'you' and your views. You also BELIEVE that 'your views' are absolutely and irrefutably true, right, and correct, correct?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: your penalty box

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:10 am But your views, obviously, can also be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect...
Not in the matter of whether or not I want to bother to talk to a person. In that, I am the one infallible witness. Only I know whether or not I'm interested, and whether or not I want to extend the privilege of conversation. 8)

And I'm not interested in your kind of conversation. So I did you a favour by responding to you, but it doesn't mean I'm at all interested in your usual run of nonsense questions, into which you chose to lapse.

And now, I'm exercising my option not to waste time further.
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:09 am
Age wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:10 am But your views, obviously, can also be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect...
Not in the matter of whether or not I want to bother to talk to a person.
Of course not. But the views that we were obviously referring to can be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:09 am In that, I am the one infallible witness. Only I know whether or not I'm interested, and whether or not I want to extend the privilege of conversation. 8)
Of course.

This has NEVER been in dispute.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:09 am And I'm not interested in your kind of conversation. So I did you a favour by responding to you,
LOL Here is more proof of just how this one BELIEVES it is superior to "others".

By the way, if you responded or not both were equally in my favor.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:09 am but it doesn't mean I'm at all interested in your usual run of nonsense questions, into which you chose to lapse.
But it is your inability to answer, what you perceive to be "nonsense" that you are showing here.

You make claims, but are unable to back them up nor support them with clarification.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:09 am And now, I'm exercising my option not to waste time further.
This is fine with me. I have already SHOWN and REVEALED what it was that I wanted to SHOW and REVEAL, and with YOUR HELP, by the way.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Walker »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:05 am It sounds like it must have been a very small goat, or a very big motor vehicle, for NO one in an automobile to notice the obvious consequential thud, bump, and shudder that would be involved when running over a goat.
Some goats are small, some fight, some flee, some faint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI4hzzepEcI

Some dance while humming, Staying Alive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dUEf6mvsOY


I once ran over a groundhog on a motorcycle. I was on the motorcycle, not the groundhog. Neither was the groundhog on a motorcycle. Couldn't avoid it, he was suicidal. I barely felt a bump, and that was probably because I was well-aware of what was happening. It was either him or me.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Lacewing »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:46 pm It was normal on Undernet #philosophy to have 20-30 people paying attention at the same time where you could have what amounted to extended Socratic dialogues with a number of people, without it devolving into people simply being stubborn (and essentially putting their hands over their ears and going "la la la la"), without it devolving into flaming, etc. (partially thanks to smart moderation).
I remember the days of large group discussions and smart moderation (which takes a lot of time -- and which, today, would probably be fairly impossible due to the surprising numbers of mentally imbalanced people that apparently use forums for their only/primary social activity :lol: ).
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:46 pmIt seems to me like something changed culturally over the past 20 years or so that makes it far less likely to be able to have Socratic dialogues like that with others online. I'm not sure what led to those attitudinal changes, but I keep hoping that it might turn around.
Yes, it has changed. I imagine it will change drastically again over the next 20 years -- yet never going back to the way it was. We seem to be in the midst of a meltdown. I think the experience of such dynamics can be used to become stronger and wiser. Noticing what we're capable of -- and the effects and fallout from it -- we can (hopefully) be more conscious about what we choose going forward.

I like to fantasize about what I would do if I had moderator privileges on this forum. :twisted: (I was a moderator on the last philosophy forum I was on.) The first thing that happened was: I cleaned up my own behaviour. :lol: I took the task seriously. There's just no way, though, to moderate everything. I typically only follow a handful of threads at a time. And this forum is a form of recreation for me -- I realistically don't need another job in my life, especially not a thankless, overwhelming mess of a job -- despite the satisfaction of having more power to deal appropriately with nutjobs. 8)
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:29 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:46 pm It was normal on Undernet #philosophy to have 20-30 people paying attention at the same time where you could have what amounted to extended Socratic dialogues with a number of people, without it devolving into people simply being stubborn (and essentially putting their hands over their ears and going "la la la la"), without it devolving into flaming, etc. (partially thanks to smart moderation).
I remember the days of large group discussions and smart moderation (which takes a lot of time -- and which, today, would probably be fairly impossible due to the surprising numbers of mentally imbalanced people that apparently use forums for their only/primary social activity :lol: ).
Here is ANOTHER example of ANOTHER person who truly BELIEVES that they are better and more mentally stable than "others" are. It is a pity though that these people do NOT look Honestly at and question/challenge the actual 'thoughts', which arise within those bodies.
Lacewing wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:29 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:46 pmIt seems to me like something changed culturally over the past 20 years or so that makes it far less likely to be able to have Socratic dialogues like that with others online. I'm not sure what led to those attitudinal changes, but I keep hoping that it might turn around.
Yes, it has changed. I imagine it will change drastically again over the next 20 years -- yet never going back to the way it was.
Which could be a GREAT thing indeed.
Lacewing wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:29 pm We seem to be in the midst of a meltdown. I think the experience of such dynamics can be used to become stronger and wiser. Noticing what we're capable of -- and the effects and fallout from it -- we can (hopefully) be more conscious about what we choose going forward.
And, continually LOOKING AT "others", while judging and ridiculing them, is NEVER going to progress humanity forward, in a positive way.
Lacewing wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:29 pm I like to fantasize about what I would do if I had moderator privileges on this forum. :twisted: (I was a moderator on the last philosophy forum I was on.) The first thing that happened was: I cleaned up my own behaviour. :lol: I took the task seriously. There's just no way, though, to moderate everything. I typically only follow a handful of threads at a time. And this forum is a form of recreation for me -- I realistically don't need another job in my life, especially not a thankless, overwhelming mess of a job -- despite the satisfaction of having more power to deal appropriately with nutjobs. 8)
Again, what is with the continual seeing of "nutjobs".

WHY do these people NOT just look at "themselves" FIRST, and ONLY?

The reasons WHY are OBVIOUS.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Walker »

Beware ascending to the hot-air balloon height required to piss on everything.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Walker »

IC wrote:“… And, of course, nobody's got a right to demand conversation …”
- I think I know what you mean, and if my interpretation is correct, I think a phrasing more transparent to the meaning is:
And, of course, everyone has a right to demand anything, but no one has a right to expect anything from another.

The same principle is found in the saying:
A lack of preparation on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

The same principle is found in the words:
A demand for conversation on your part does not constitute a need to converse on my part.

Another variation:
Your focus is your own, until you join a team.

If my thinking is incorrect, and it very well could be since I significantly changed your words and applied various examples of the principle underlying what I interpret from your words, then I realize that I own the error, and you are under no obligation to clarify your meaning to me.

Why is that?

Because there’s more to it than you clarifying what you meant. Once the inner words become the outer words, they exist independently of the writer and are given meaning by the reader, which means a lack of word understanding on the part of the reader does not constitute a need for the writer to further explain his/her/it meaning.

The reader's interpretation that is dependent upon the totality of the reader may well open new and unanticipated avenues of understanding, and the reader is under no obligation to share this in writing. The reader may first apply the insights to action in other ways not shared by the initial writer, such as what folks do when reading a book and applying insights to their personal knowing of the way things are.

Of course, this is all situationally dependent, the situation being this philosophy forum.

The explicit contractual bond of employment or servitude that requires one to answer boss or master (if that is a condition of one's particular employment or enslavement) upon demand, or else suffer the consequences, does not implicitly apply to a philosophy forum where response to each and every question, no matter how stupid the question may be*, is not an explicit condition for an existence as words and concepts.

Also, a reader’s incorrect interpretations cannot be assumed accurate to the writer’s intent if the writer does not respond to demands for verification.

Now, if your meaning was different than my interpretation, then an opportunity for philosophy ensues, however pursuit of what ensues is not an obligation for either party.


* Yes, there are stupid questions, they are not mythical beasts.

*

Rather stoic in spirit, I suppose, although likely not meeting every criteria of textbook stoicism.
mickthinks
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: your penalty box

Post by mickthinks »

It's like Walker has never heard of cooperation.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Walker »

mickthinks wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:00 am It's like Walker has never heard of cooperation.
On the contrary, I endeavour to perpetually cooperate, appropriately.

For Henry Thoreau, civil disobedience, with the intent of improving the system from which he benefited, was an appropriate method of cooperation.

Imagine that.
It's like Walker has never heard of cooperation.
Although brain flatulence may not be philosophy, it is tolerated in the context of the situation, and as they say, when considering the source ... (select the emoji you think applies)
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Walker »

mickthinks wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:00 am It's like Walker has never heard of cooperation.
You're still on the list, btw, but it when comes to the bother of figuring out how to take you off the brain just goes ... meh, why bother?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Lacewing »

Walker wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:23 am Beware ascending to the hot-air balloon height required to piss on everything.
Are you referring to my post? If so...you're mischaracterizing it.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: your penalty box

Post by Walker »

Lacewing wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 4:02 pm
Walker wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:23 am Beware ascending to the hot-air balloon height required to piss on everything.
Are you referring to my post? If so...you're mischaracterizing it.
Well, I endeavour to write to the principle rather than the person, just as you do at your best.

I’d be interested in hearing how you characterize what you wrote, should you feel that’s appropriate.
Post Reply