|
 Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
 
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US 
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
 Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule.  [Re: The Ecstatic]
#26406244 - 12/29/19 12:05 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps, but I can't be sure without an example.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 27 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]  4
#26406333 - 12/29/19 01:08 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Have you honestly forgotten every economic discussion that was derailed into qmans warnings of 'hordes of unskilled migrants'?
That led to both sides presenting evidence on whether or not unskilled labor hurts the country. I think that was a good debate.
I'm confused because you appear to refer to a single instance, when the reality is that qmans ability to turn even the most tangentially related topics into 'hordes of unskilled migrants' became a literal meme around here.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Do you no longer remember every discussion on climate change that stagnated due to qmans doubts regarding the veracity of climate science?
No, I don't remember. Qman has always agreed with climate science (to my recollection). His arguments have mainly been about the financial costs to combat climate science.
Qman can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the view I've seen them express lately is that, although they agree with the climate science that shows the presence of anthropogenic-led climate change, they do not agree that climate science is able to accurately predict what the resulting effects will be and because of this they suggest that inaction is currently the preferred response. As a consequence of this, discussions on this topic rarely move beyond a discussion of whether climate action is required or not, rather than any specific actions.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Blocked out the memories of discussions of international politics devolving into claims of antisemitic conspiracy?
Do you forget the opportunity I gave qman to provide their supposed "rational thought" regarding claims of machinations by the Jewish people and all we got was a single anecdote and some emotionally fueled drivel?
Did you forget the discussion we already had on this topic? https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26294042
Again, I think these are important debates to have because nearly half the people in this country seem to share these views, and I think it's important to show evidence that does/doesn't back their beliefs.
Calling for someone's removal is a less effective technique than showing them why they're wrong.
Remember, qman had a clear and explicit opportunity to show the evidence backing their beliefs - no valuable discussion was had. Can you show me an example of this "important debate" on antisemitism that qman has played a critical role in here?
I never called for anyone's removal - I took both qman and XUL to task in defending their controversial views many times - writing long and detailed posts in good faith - and neither was able to form a coherent defense. This wasn't a call to silence those with controversial views - this was the community getting tired of showing them why they're wrong and wanting to move on.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Here's a different challenge - instead of continually asking us to reestablish the negative effect of qmans posts, why don't you submit some examples where qmans racism and antisemitism provided a beneficial effect for this community?
Again, I think having both sides show why unskilled labor hurts/does not hurt the economy was a good discussion. 
Do you think that is a fair way of portraying the situation? Qman wasn't targeted for their arguments regarding the economic merits of unskilled labour. The beliefs they were disciplined over, things like (I assume) qman's professed beliefs that white women who sleep with black men degrade themselves or that Jewish people are a monolithic group engaged in a plot to bring down the West™ are of a different nature than the strictly economic one you pose. Can you show me an example where qmans antisemitic or racist beliefs made a beneficial effect for this community?
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 27 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic] 1
#26406346 - 12/29/19 01:19 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Ecstatic said:
I think you need to think more about how discussions are framed, and how certain framing affects those discussions. I think the point here is that we can’t ever get to larger discussions about labor or migration because we’re always bogged down by ceding the argument to qman and posters like him, and letting him argue on the grounds that he’d like to argue on.
If we only ever discuss migration on the terms of domestic economic net result we’re missing a vast majority of the information necessary to form an opinion on the topic.
This is definitely an important aspect to consider. Constantly arguing against the lowest common denominator position doesn't ever allow for more nuanced discussions to develop. Imagine is every discussion of evolutionary science had to first argue for the validity of the basic principles of biology and evolution.
Not all points of view have merit - not all ideas are equal. Of course we need to take care to avoid close-mindedness but the other side of that road is being so open-minded that we refuse to discriminate ideas with merit from those without merit, resulting in another situation where refusal to closely consider before passing judgement means we lose out on valuable insight. We have critical faculties for a reason.
I'm still curious for Falcon91Wolvrn03 to provide some clear examples of valuable discussion qman brings to this website, because I have a strong belief that there will be little (if any) crossover with the type of discussion qman was disciplined over.
--------------------
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,660
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 6 hours, 33 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] 2
#26406396 - 12/29/19 01:51 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
More speech, ala posts from all, benefit the community. I keep coming back here....due to the content. Yes, one has to sift through the garbage. But, I will say that there are more political thoughts that trump most r/politics forums out there. I like this little corner of the internet.
--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26406409 - 12/29/19 01:58 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Have you honestly forgotten every economic discussion that was derailed into qmans warnings of 'hordes of unskilled migrants'?
That led to both sides presenting evidence on whether or not unskilled labor hurts the country. I think that was a good debate.
I'm confused because you appear to refer to a single instance, when the reality is that qmans ability to turn even the most tangentially related topics into 'hordes of unskilled migrants' became a literal meme around here.
If that's the case, then whenever qman does this we should direct him to the discussion he lost.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Do you no longer remember every discussion on climate change that stagnated due to qmans doubts regarding the veracity of climate science?
No, I don't remember. Qman has always agreed with climate science (to my recollection). His arguments have mainly been about the financial costs to combat climate science.
Qman can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the view I've seen them express lately is that, although they agree with the climate science that shows the presence of anthropogenic-led climate change, they do not agree that climate science is able to accurately predict what the resulting effects will be and because of this they suggest that inaction is currently the preferred response. As a consequence of this, discussions on this topic rarely move beyond a discussion of whether climate action is required or not, rather than any specific actions.
I'll let qman respond, if he wishes.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Remember, qman had a clear and explicit opportunity to show the evidence backing their beliefs - no valuable discussion was had. Can you show me an example of this "important debate" on antisemitism that qman has played a critical role in here?
I think you handily won that debate.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
I never called for anyone's removal - I took both qman and XUL to task in defending their controversial views many times - writing long and detailed posts in good faith - and neither was able to form a coherent defense. This wasn't a call to silence those with controversial views - this was the community getting tired of showing them why they're wrong and wanting to move on.
I wouldn't put qman and XUL in the same bucket, but if qman fails to provide an adequate rebuttal to something, I would remind him he has to do so, or he loses the argument (assuming the other side had evidence).
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Do you think that is a fair way of portraying the situation? Qman wasn't targeted for their arguments regarding the economic merits of unskilled labour. The beliefs they were disciplined over, things like (I assume) qman's professed beliefs that white women who sleep with black men degrade themselves or that Jewish people are a monolithic group engaged in a plot to bring down the West™ are of a different nature than the strictly economic one you pose. Can you show me an example where qmans antisemitic or racist beliefs made a beneficial effect for this community?
If someone believes a white woman is degraded by sleeping with a black man, then that's how that someone feels. The benefit is simply to understand that a large portion of the country feels that way. You and I would disagree, but we shouln't pretend these feelings don't exist.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 27 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26406454 - 12/29/19 02:20 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Can you show me an example where qmans antisemitic or racist beliefs made a beneficial effect for this community?
The benefit is simply to understand that a large portion of the country feels that way. You and I would disagree, but we shouln't pretend these feelings don't exist.
Have I ever given you the impression that I wish to pretend these feelings don't exist?
Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?
--------------------
|
living_failure
unworthy
Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26406470 - 12/29/19 02:32 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Far as i know, a proper discussion between shiva and qman never happened.
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/25975061/fpart/6/vc/1#25975061
But we have that thread, but since the thread of qman being banned, i don't think it will happen.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,660
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 6 hours, 33 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26406485 - 12/29/19 02:48 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Less speech creates a roadblock regarding freedom of association.
--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
living_failure
unworthy
Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: SirTripAlot]
#26406495 - 12/29/19 02:53 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Hey, here we can't even say "fuck the king" without risking getting sued or going to jail, so whatever. Freedom of speech or association is overrated.
P.D: Porfaplis no me hagais nada.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 27 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure]
#26406536 - 12/29/19 03:19 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
living_failure said:
Far as i know, a proper discussion between shiva and qman never happened.
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/25975061/fpart/6/vc/1#25975061
But we have that thread, but since the thread of qman being banned, i don't think it will happen.
This thread was the result of the thread you link to - an attempt at a proper discussion between qman and I.
You're right that no discussion ever occurred, but this was not for a lack of trying on my part. Turns out posting a formal argument in defense of antisemitism isn't as easy as vague references to Jewish manipulations and "JNN" typos.
Nothing of value has been lost.
--------------------
|
Brian Jones
Club 27
Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,426
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] 3
#26406553 - 12/29/19 03:29 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There is no defense to antisemetism.
But I still take this forum for exactly what I think it is, an internet drug site. I don't think it's important except as out pastime. Nobody is paying any attention to us except us.
You are an extremally high quality poster, and I hope you are also making your arguments somewhere else where it might make a difference. But I haven't seen anything on the internet except back and forth ranting.
--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
living_failure
unworthy
Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones] 1
#26406569 - 12/29/19 03:41 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I totally lost the other thread, like totally, and i marked up the other one waiting for the discussion to be linked.
Not everybody is good as debating or have time for it i guess.
I am used to lurk a lot, and it is sad to see most internet forum discussion die because well, no discussion presented anymore just circlejerk.
I see your neccesity of getting rid of the "enemies" because of ethical implications of your point of view. But i think everyone, even you, would benefit if the discussions are being made.Quote:
Brian Jones said:
There is no defense to antisemetism.
But I still take this forum for exactly what I think it is, an internet drug site. I don't think it's important except as out pastime. Nobody is paying any attention to us except us.
You are an extremally high quality poster, and I hope you are also making your arguments somewhere else where it might make a difference. But I haven't seen anything on the internet except back and forth ranting.
There is a difference between pure antisemitism /pol/ style and what qman was trying to prove. I think it fell more into "conspiracy" than antisemitism
|
 Enlil 
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones]
#26406617 - 12/29/19 04:24 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Brian Jones said:
how many people have read Chomsky?
I've read Chomsky's writing in the field within which he is an expert: Linguistics. There is no question the man is brilliant at that.
His political stuff is pure crap, though.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] 2
#26406620 - 12/29/19 04:27 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?
Is denying the platform going to reduce the prevalence of racist ideals?
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,811
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 14 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Enlil]
#26406677 - 12/29/19 05:33 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ask Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopolous
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,258
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic] 1
#26406725 - 12/29/19 06:16 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Who are they? I don't see them in this forum.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26407053 - 12/29/19 11:28 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The benefit is simply to understand that a large portion of the country feels that way. You and I would disagree, but we shouln't pretend these feelings don't exist.
Have I ever given you the impression that I wish to pretend these feelings don't exist?
No, you haven't. But I myself probably became more educated about conservative viewpoints as a result of my discussions with them here.
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?
Is denying the platform going to reduce the prevalence of racist ideals?
I have the same question. In fact, I would guess that telling people it's not ok to express a possibly racist opinion only makes them more racist.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 27 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26407074 - 12/30/19 12:13 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?
Is denying the platform going to reduce the prevalence of racist ideals?
I'm not sure if this question is in reference to the shroomery specifically or deplatforming in general so I'll respond to both.
On the shroomery, denying a platform will undoubtedly reduce the prevalence of racist ideals on this website. For example, no platforming prevents a culture of normalization from forming and limits open access to a community audience. It will likely have negligible effect on the prevalence of racist ideals off-site though.
In general, denying a platform will have the same effect as above but with an additional aspect: unlike posting on a public internet forum, an invitation to speak at a university campus, a prestigious event or to write an opinion piece for a newspaper provides (prima facie) higher-order evidence. It is evidence that the speaker is credible; that she has an opinion deserving a respectful hearing. Higher-order evidence is genuine evidence. It is rational to respond to higher-order evidence by moderating our confidence in our beliefs, sometimes even to abandon them altogether.
There are epistemic considerations in support of deplatforming. Inviting someone to give arguments that are bad or false generates misleading evidence, and we should avoid generating misleading evidence. If someone is likely to speak in favour of a view we know to be false, we have grounds to no-platform them, because we know that providing them with a platform by itself provides higher-order evidence in favour of that view.
I think it would be safe to conclude that any additional evidence (either first-order or higher-order) will positively effect the prevalence of racist ideals, and that preventing the creation of misleading higher-order evidence will negatively effect the prevalence.
For concrete examples of this effect, the Ecstatic provides two great ones by bringing up both Milo and Richard Spencer.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,473
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 27 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26407170 - 12/30/19 02:31 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The benefit is simply to understand that a large portion of the country feels that way. You and I would disagree, but we shouln't pretend these feelings don't exist.
Have I ever given you the impression that I wish to pretend these feelings don't exist?
No, you haven't. But I myself probably became more educated about conservative viewpoints as a result of my discussions with them here.
I believe you are conflating conservatism with racism. Unless you consider racism to be a necessary aspect of conservatism, then conservative views have not been censured on this website.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?
Is denying the platform going to reduce the prevalence of racist ideals?
I have the same question. In fact, I would guess that telling people it's not ok to express a possibly racist opinion only makes them more racist.
You have my answer above but to be honest I think it's poor form to not answer the questions I posed to you first before asking your own - this is a discussion, not an interrogation.
Furthermore, are you actually making the argument that calling out racism makes people more racist? I hope this is different from the old alt-right rallying cry of "being called racist made me racist". Remember that deplatforming isn't about getting racists to suppress their views - it's about preventing their access to the audience and/or credibility that such a platform offers. I'm not concerned about pissing off existing racists - I'm concerned with limiting the ability for existing racists to recruit new ones and in this aspect deplatforming is effective.
--------------------
|
Brian Jones
Club 27
Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,426
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Enlil] 1
#26407325 - 12/30/19 06:30 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Brian Jones said:
how many people have read Chomsky?
I've read Chomsky's writing in the field within which he is an expert: Linguistics. There is no question the man is brilliant at that.
His political stuff is pure crap, though.
Then you have exactly the same opinion as Zappa. The American left views Chomsky as one of it's most important spokespersons. He was a leader of the Viet Nam antiwar movement. I don't have enough background to understand much of his linguistic theory or cognitive science but I did get into his bashing of Skinner and behaviorism.
--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Rono
phi1618
silversoul7
Edame
Swami
GabbaDj
GernBlanston