Clarification and Addendum to the "No Insults" Rule

[Infohawk]

Member X and member Y get along just fine, and they enjoy friendly banter, they call each other idiots. Member Z despises member X, sees the friendly banter but reports it anyways.

Like I said, I really don't buy this. I can't think of one time I've seen this happen on this forum. If the posters are telling you that's what's happening, it's more likely that they're the people that voted against the rule and want to be able to insult people. It's like two kids fighting after school but denying it was a real fight based on some unwritten schoolyard code.

Anyway, we'll see what happens.

 

[dank69]

I did not see this yesterday, will start following it today.

Out of curiousity, how long is the vacation penalty?

Out of curiosity, how many posts did you report that had nothing to do with you?

 

[cybrsage]

Out of curiosity, how many posts did you report that had nothing to do with you?

Dunno, but rules are rules. It did not matter if I agreed with the violating post or not. If the rules say XYZ is not allow and to report it when it is seen, then I reported it when it was seen. If it was friendly banter (which is easy to pick out), I did not report it as it was obviously not to be taken seriously.

The real question is how many violations did you refuse to report even though the rules say you should have?

 

[dank69]

Dunno, but rules are rules. It did not matter if I agreed with the violating post or not. If the rules say XYZ is not allow and to report it when it is seen, then I reported it when it was seen. If it was friendly banter (which is easy to pick out), I did not report it as it was obviously not to be taken seriously.

The real question is how many violations did you refuse to report even though the rules say you should have?

I have a hard time believing you stick to your lawful alignment when it is to your own detriment.

 

[Bowfinger]

Dunno, but rules are rules. It did not matter if I agreed with the violating post or not. If the rules say XYZ is not allow and to report it when it is seen, then I reported it when it was seen. If it was friendly banter (which is easy to pick out), I did not report it as it was obviously not to be taken seriously.

The real question is how many violations did you refuse to report even though the rules say you should have?

Exactly what I predicted. Vigilantism by someone who feels entitled to control everyone else. I'm curious, as one of the worst offenders, how many times did you report yourself?

 

[cybrsage]

I have a hard time believing you stick to your lawful alignment when it is to your own detriment.

Your lack of belief is irrelevant to the truth.

Lawful Neutral here, with dips into Lawful Good.

 

[cybrsage]

Exactly what I predicted. Vigilantism by someone who feels entitled to control everyone else.

Since the rules said we were to police ourselves with this and to use the reporting tool, you are amazingly incorrect wrt your claim of vigilantism. I honestly expected you to understand the term, but I sadly have to admit I was wrong.

Since you just said you feel rules should not be followed (due to expressing your dismay that the rules were actually followed), care to explain why you feel rules should not be followed?

 

[Moonbeam]

Exactly what I predicted. Vigilantism by someone who feels entitled to control everyone else. I'm curious, as one of the worst offenders, how many times did you report yourself?

As somebody who has experienced his special kind of love, I can understand why what you say here, you experience as factual, but if you say he's one of the worst offenders out of that same belief as fact, is it or is it not a personal attack?

And now I have just implied that he is a particularly adapt practitioner of a special kind of love while also agreeing that what you said is the same thing. We tend to believe that somebody who is a worst practitioner of something is being personally attacked while the best practitioner of some art is some kind of worthy artist.

It seems to me that there is an inherent tension between folk who reason and folk who are gifted with truth without having to bother to reason at all, between self reflective thinkers and bigots that results in two kinds of stupidities:

Thinkers cannot believe the stupidity of bigots and refuse to acknowledge that no matter how much logic they apply the brain damaged will remain as stupid as they already are which is a completely stupid thing to attempt. Folk with damaged brains have damaged brains period. People who can't think can't think. LunarRay has a saying about this I forget but includes the notion that it is a waste of time to try to teach pigs to fly for at least two reasons. They will never fly and it pisses off the pigs. So even people who can think can have defects in their thinking too.

On the other hand, aside from being stupid by definition, folk who can't think can't believe thinkers don't agree with their bigotry. And don't forget they are only stupid in not being able to reason. They can use the thinking process to rationalize brilliantly. They can create smoke screens to hide behind to the end of time. They have mastered the art of being blind. And being blind they absolutely cannot understand why thinkers aren't blind too. To them, anybody who can think is an idiot or as I hear quite a bit, on drugs. They are motivated by fear and are terrified of leaving their little bigot box. And folk can get really really serious about what frightens the shit out of them.

I think if you look at P & N you will see that what people want is to eliminate doubt, to come to agreement on how the world works, not to feel any anxiety that one might be wrong, liberals and conservatives alike. I have less hope for conservatives because of their perfection of denial, but do have some hope for liberals, that what they need is more self confidence. As long as you can reason and think and do it with others who can also, you will, I think, find commonality that is reasonable, like scientific truth and faith in the scientific method which pretty much accounts for the standard of living improvements over the centuries. We liberals are doing OK in the thinking department. Maybe one day we will even find a neurological method to repair damaged brains. We can see that over the centuries too, the quality and quantity of bigotry has declined, I think. Have faith like conservatives do but in your reason and not in your stomach.

 

[LunarRay]

Moonbeam,
You can't teach a pig to fly! Trying does nothing but frustrate you and tick off the pig.


Idontcare,
You have mentioned and we are or ought to be aware that you and the other Mod folks donate time to enable this sub-forum to exist.

As you know or can find out I assume, I've not reported anyone for anything nor put people on ignore. The former causes you all to act and the latter does not but does eliminate one from seeing a bothersome poster's posts appearing in threads.

My rhetorical question is why don't we use the ignore function... I think it is because we want to see what the person under fire responds with. We are apparently compelled to view what folks are saying no matter the attack parameters. We know that we've won the battle when the dialog devolves into attacks. Some folks won't yield even in the face of incontrovertible evidence against their position... They, in the best of times, find a comfortable tangent to embark on and continue or spew the venom they are compelled to issue. A thousand rules with sanctions will simply provide the vehicle by which the sub-forum will be vacant... Folks come here to confront! Most do anyhow.

I figure the best and easiest way to deal with this problematic issue is to create an entry visa to hell, as it were. Anything goes. IF you don't like the heat then leave. I don't know if You or if Anand or that other fellow whose name I forget would buy that or even if it is permissible otherwise but as I see it, the only way to deal with the issue is that way... assuming closing the sub-forum is not an option you all want to do.

An entry visa is just that... You decide the entry parameters and there it is.. I'm thinking there may be some comments that may violate law and that would pull the visa but verbal attacks and like that are simply words that big people ought to be able to deal with... IF not Ignore them...

Edit: If I were running it all I'd remame the sub-forum 'hell' or for the non religious believer as well "Singularity"... and implement the entry to Hell parameters tomorrow...

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam,
You can't teach a pig to fly! Trying does nothing but frustrate you and tick off the pig.


Idontcare,
You have mentioned and we are or ought to be aware that you and the other Mod folks donate time to enable this sub-forum to exist.

As you know or can find out I assume, I've not reported anyone for anything nor put people on ignore. The former causes you all to act and the latter does not but does eliminate one from seeing a bothersome poster's posts appearing in threads.

My rhetorical question is why don't we use the ignore function... I think it is because we want to see what the person under fire responds with. We are apparently compelled to view what folks are saying no matter the attack parameters. We know that we've won the battle when the dialog devolves into attacks. Some folks won't yield even in the face of incontrovertible evidence against their position... They, in the best of times, find a comfortable tangent to embark on and continue or spew the venom they are compelled to issue. A thousand rules with sanctions will simply provide the vehicle by which the sub-forum will be vacant... Folks come here to confront! Most do anyhow.

I figure the best and easiest way to deal with this problematic issue is to create an entry visa to hell, as it were. Anything goes. IF you don't like the heat then leave. I don't know if You or if Anand or that other fellow whose name I forget would buy that or even if it is permissible otherwise but as I see it, the only way to deal with the issue is that way... assuming closing the sub-forum is not an option you all want to do.

An entry visa is just that... You decide the entry parameters and there it is.. I'm thinking there may be some comments that may violate law and that would pull the visa but verbal attacks and like that are simply words that big people ought to be able to deal with... IF not Ignore them...

Edit: If I were running it all I'd remame the sub-forum 'hell' or for the non religious believer as well "Singularity"... and implement the entry to Hell parameters tomorrow...

But I think there are a lot of interesting folk here with interesting points of view and I learn stuff all the time. I would hate to have to wade though millions of personal attacks to get to something good. It seems like it would be good practice for say bullies, to have their fangs removed, so other people can exchange ideas. It would be instructional too I think, if folk who know everything and are always right had to defend their points of view without having to resort to slashing people because they have no real case. I know that you can't ultimately prove anything, especially to fools, but you can make they play their fool hand. When facts reduce folk to bumbling idiots, it says a lot. Just my take on this.

As we drift off into insanity as a nation, this forum can stand as a bastions of partial reason, no? Roberts rules and politeness and manners are good for society I think. Also, I fear that without rules I could maybe get mean. There is just so much I could say that I don't and would prefer to have reasons not to.

One thing that I struggle with all the time is bullies, folk who like to intimidate and make fun of other people. If you are nice to them they see it as weakness and accelerate their attacks. Kicking a bully in the balls over and over when he attacks you tends to dissuade that behavior, I think. This is especially true because bullies are bullies because they are afraid. The intimidate to avoid feeling afraid themselves.

 

[cybrsage]

But I think there are a lot of interesting folk here with interesting points of view and I learn stuff all the time. I would hate to have to wade though millions of personal attacks to get to something good.

An interesting thing for you to say, since you say those you disagree with are mentally broken. But I agree, which is why I did what the rules requested we all do, so that we could have a better place.

Now the rules say to not do it, so I will stop.

 

[silverpig]

Let's see how this works.

Silverpig, you're a fucking moron.

 

[GoPackGo]

Let's see how this works.

Silverpig, you're a fucking moron.

This seems appropriate:

http://youtu.be/Bp4UI_FxGLE

 

[Moonbeam]

An interesting thing for you to say, since you say those you disagree with are mentally broken. But I agree, which is why I did what the rules requested we all do, so that we could have a better place.

Now the rules say to not do it, so I will stop.

No. I disagree with LunarRay on many things which, instead of me thinking he is broken, always suggests to me I'm the one who probably is. And I have taken the mental defect thingi from a new and growing scientific effort that experimentally indicates that as factual.

But if you are suggesting you have flagged my posts as violations of forum rules, I have no idea about any of that. I can tell you this however, that what you call better might be totally worse in my opinion. This is just another example to me of how conservatives reveal their true condition in that they do not reason but know in their guts automatically what better is and isn't. This is the unexamined assumption of which bigotry consists. The cart always comes before the horse.

 

[sandorski]

Let's see how this works.

Silverpig, you're a fucking moron.

I can't Report you, so you'll have to do it yourself.

 

[LunarRay]

No. I disagree with LunarRay on many things which, instead of me thinking he is broken, always suggests to me I'm the one who probably is.

And I disagree again... hehehehe You ain't broken check the xrays again.

What I posted above is my intuitive belief that the reason folks enjoy this forum is it provides the venue for the activity they and I enjoy and they way in which we enjoy it... Personal attacks and all that is simply part of the person's way of dealing with frustration what ever the source. The question is: Can rules and their violation consequences alter the basic person? To the criminal, will the law and its violation consequence keep him being a criminal? For some yes but for many no...
Legalizing Marijuana eliminates the crime but ticks off some... so you create a smoking room and have at it. Contain the smoke!
Since personal attacks don't bother me I have to externally gather data and look see what I see... and I see to varying degrees folks feel personally and actually attacked... and to that extent they are compelled to respond in kind... they can't help it... and rules won't change the relative nature of it all.

 

[cybrsage]

No. I disagree with LunarRay on many things...

I was speaking in the general. You are routinely saying those you disagree with are mentally broken.

 

[Moonbeam]

LunarRay: What I posted above is my intuitive belief that the reason folks enjoy this forum is it provides the venue for the activity they and I enjoy and they way in which we enjoy it...

M: By whatever means it is that I evaluate things, perhaps as you say intuitive sensing or even as I sometimes suspect, simple mechanical aptitude applied to the human machine, this sounds right to me but it also raises issues. There is the matter of the nature of how you enjoy the forum, how I enjoy it, how others enjoy it and how all those enjoyments interact and also conflict plus the intention of how the keepers of the forum intend that it be enjoyed and the rules that need to evolve on how that all can best be managed.

LR: Personal attacks and all that is simply part of the person's way of dealing with frustration what ever the source.

M: That is a fact that you know and one that I know but it is not one that everybody knows. For many many people personal attacks have no internal motivation other than to deal out to people what they deserve for having moronic opinions that offend them. The analysis of personal frustration is short circuited in some who simply explode with righteous indignation and tempers the words of others who feel shame at dumping their internal frustration on others. Thus, as I have described many times, the more conscious person is always left to carry the larger burden of the nastiness caused my unmitigated frustration.

This is not a burden for you because you posses, I believe, an incredibly rare gift. You are comfortable with who you are and want nothing so you don't have any frustration to dump on people and nobody can dump any on you. You enjoy yourself anywhere. Not everybody is quite so fortunate so we have in the forum frustration war inevitable among frustrated people.

LR: The question is: Can rules and their violation consequences alter the basic person?

M: Not in my opinion because I believe that the only real morality people have is internal and unrelated to fear. The suppression of unhealthy desires by fear is part of what creates frustrated people.

LR: To the criminal, will the law and its violation consequence keep him being a criminal? For some yes but for many no...

M: But we make such laws anyway because we do not create a psychological setting in which all children can grow up with their morality internalized. We aren't even close to having much if any comprehension of this. And since our society is destined to create monsters because of our blindness, we resort to coarser means but it seems we also have to. We live is an fucked up world that produces fucked up people who will fuck up others with the result that we build more and more prisons, increase the severity of law, and create new ones every day. Our insanity has created an industry. Could that not also means that forums need rules to mitigate the damage destructively frustrated people can do?

LR: Legalizing Marijuana eliminates the crime but ticks off some... so you create a smoking room and have at it. Contain the smoke!

M: I guess that's something to consider. We could even imagine, some who suffer from smoke inhalation that is, that the Great Forum Keeper in the Sky, when he made constant the light speed and stuck us out in the middle of nowhere, had something just like that in mind.

LR: Since personal attacks don't bother me I have to externally gather data and look see what I see... and I see to varying degrees folks feel personally and actually attacked... and to that extent they are compelled to respond in kind... they can't help it... and rules won't change the relative nature of it all.

M: I believe that all right, but I don't look to rules to change the nature of the underlying reality, but to give frustrated folk some protection from others who want them to be even more frustrated. I think that rules should be consciously structured to achieve a kind of balance where a wide variety of types, non smokers included, can maybe even sometimes learn new things and mature in the way they react because they are exposed to more evolved people.

But who knows. Maybe we all need a zoo cage where we can spend our lives throwing shit at other apes, maybe not a smoking room but a fertilizer factory.

 

[Moonbeam]

I was speaking in the general. You are routinely saying those you disagree with are mentally broken.

You put this differently than I would. In trying to formulate reasons to explain the differences between liberal and conservative thinking I have arrived at a number of personal conclusions and in exploring these notions on the internet came across all kinds of new scientific evidence to explain what I see and what the scientists observe, research that I presented in at least two threads regarding the discovery of neurological and physical differences in conservative and liberal brains including such things as a larger fear center in conservatives etc but all boiling down to the fact that conservatives experience something called truthiness. I am being brief here for briefness sake. I am not interested in nailing this.

So I am not just saying that the people I disagree with are mentally broken. Rather, I am applying what the research suggests to how conservatives react to me, how they get lost in following a simple line of reasoning because it leads in directions that upset their egos, causes them to be afraid, etc, just as the science predicts they will do. They can't follow reason because they follow truthiness instead due to this brain defect, a heightened sense of fear, the same fear, for example, that causes you to take evidence you have a brain defect and dismiss that as a personal attack rather than a tool to help you understand yourself.

Again, the sense of truthiness tells you you don't need any such understanding because your sense of truthiness is already complete. You have a tea cup that is full and nothing more is needed. You are not a seeker but a propagandist seeking safety in a world where fear is managed by control. You are an agent for the Matrix.

 

[dank69]

Your lack of belief is irrelevant to the truth.

Lawful Neutral here, with dips into Lawful Good.

And your 'truth' is irrelevant to reality. As already pointed out, you felt obligated to report people for making personal attacks but did not report yourself for making personal attacks. That's reality. In your mind, you never made any personal attacks, even though they are all in black and white for all to see. This is the truthiness that moonbeam speaks of.

BTW, I have no doubt you dip into lawful good, I've seen it. What amuses me though is that you don't see that you also dip into lawful evil much more often.

 

[LunarRay]

(... snip)

M: I believe that all right, but I don't look to rules to change the nature of the underlying reality, but to give frustrated folk some protection from others who want them to be even more frustrated. I think that rules should be consciously structured to achieve a kind of balance where a wide variety of types, non smokers included, can maybe even sometimes learn new things and mature in the way they react because they are exposed to more evolved people.

But who knows. Maybe we all need a zoo cage where we can spend our lives throwing shit at other apes, maybe not a smoking room but a fertilizer factory.

So... I asked the apes about how they felt being in a cage. They to an ape said, "Huh? Thought it was you humans that were in a cage. Now, you've given me more to complain about. But, answer me this: Why do you like shit being tossed at you?" As I was leaving one ape handed me a note... it read: Our ape god gives us all the food we need to survive and at night comes in and gathers up all the fertilizer... where else could we live like humans?

 

[cybrsage]

You put this differently than I would.

Correct, you use three or more paragraphs to insult and denigrate the positions you do not agree with whereas I summarized it into one sentence.

The result is the same, you insult and denigrate the positions you do not agree with whether it be with one sentence or three paragraphs.

 

[cybrsage]

And your 'truth' is irrelevant to reality. As already pointed out, you felt obligated to report people for making personal attacks but did not report yourself for making personal attacks. That's reality. In your mind, you never made any personal attacks, even though they are all in black and white for all to see. This is the truthiness that moonbeam speaks of.

We were to only report the posts we thought were breaking the rules. You may think that reporting posts you did not think were breaking the rules was a proper thing to do, but I did not think that way.

BTW, I have no doubt you dip into lawful good, I've seen it. What amuses me though is that you don't see that you also dip into lawful evil much more often.

Lawful Neutral dips into both sides of the line. It is to be expected. Much more often is simply your bias showing, though I do it more often than I would like.

 

[Craig234]

You can't teach a pig to fly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FXSnoy71Q4

 

[LunarRay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FXSnoy71Q4

"As God is my witness..." I want to cross examine the witness please!