Seems a tad overblown. But in the future just say "I don't understand the point of your response. Please explain it to me in a more (or less?) detailed way." instead of going back and forth like it's a schoolyard conversation or as if we were in a chatroom from 2005. That's frowned upon here. Outside of the Lounge or Shoutbox. Hey, gotta have standards. :confused:

You seem to disagree on the definition and implications of what constitutes (or otherwise the particular presence or prominence of) "manipulative language."

This is what we call "going off on a tangent" or basically perusing a unique argument (that sure was spawned from the main one) to the point it detracts from the main OP (or in some cases the current "zeitgeist" everyone else seems to be discussing, which is not always immediately evident, particularly for those short on time who like to join in at the last moment and reply to a particular objection without digesting the entirety of the discussion first). I've been guilty of this at least a few times.

I would suggest if you want to have a conversation on manipulative language, it's implications, what warrants such, etc. a separate topic be made. Not passive-aggressively, no naming names, just separate, well-thought out, yet to the point.

The one thing I've learned here is if you and especially just one poster aren't making any particular headway, make one final post asking for an explanation, and if it's not to your liking, assume either a misunderstanding in communication (or perhaps a lack of ability on the other person's part) and be done with it. It's really not worth the time of day, in my opinion. I understand we don't want to abandon a topic we're interested in, but, again, if you and a particular person don't really seem to be understanding one another, or are otherwise talking past one another, I dunno, there's just better uses of your time, in my opinion.

Seems a tad overblown. But in the future just say "I don't understand the point of your response. Please explain it to me in a more (or less?) detailed way." instead of going back and forth like it's a schoolyard conversation or as if we were in a chatroom from 2005. That's frowned upon here. Outside of the Lounge or Shoutbox. Hey, gotta have standards. — Outlander

Fair. My problem is that I was warned and Ecurb was defended as if his approach to posts were reasonable and supported here. My issue is the one sided warning. I agree, the conversation was getting out of hand. I take issue with the idea that I was the sole problem in this conversation and Ecurb's example usage was entirely reasonable and polite.

You seem to disagree on the definition and implications of what constitutes (or otherwise the particular presence or prominence of) "manipulative language." — Outlander

Which is fine. People do not have to agree with me. I disagreed with the way the tone was going.

This is what we call "going off on a tangent" or basically perusing a unique argument (that sure was spawned from the main one) to the point it detracts from the main OP (or in some cases the current "zeitgeist" everyone else seems to be discussing, which is not always immediately evident, particularly for those short on time who like to join in at the last moment and reply to a particular objection without digesting the entirety of the discussion first). I've been guilty of this at least a few times. — Outlander

I also agree. I was trying to end it. But I'm also going to defend against belittlement.

I would suggest if you want to have a conversation on manipulative language, it's implications, what warrants such, etc. a separate topic be made. Not passive-aggressively, no naming names, just separate, well-thought out, yet to the point. — Outlander

No disagreement here either. That was not the warning however. It was targeted at me implying that I was the sole issue in this discussion, and that Ecurb was polite.

The one thing I've learned here is if you and especially just one poster aren't making any particular headway, make one final post asking for an explanation, and if it's not to your liking, assume either a misunderstanding in communication (or perhaps a lack of ability on the other person's part) and be done with it. — Outlander

True. I did attempt this here:

Looking at your examples I feel like you're trolling at this point and not taking the conversation seriously. I'm getting ready to leave town, so this isn't really worth my time. I'll check the thread when I get back and see if anything is worth addressing then. — Philosophim

Thank you for your weigh in Outlander.

Without getting into much, that's not surprising.

Why not get into it? Thats what these threads are for, right? Also, why comment to start with unless you wanna get into it? Come on, share, you know you wanna :wink:

Because we're talking about the administrator of the website we're on who, despite any opinions, does more for the site than most us. And, in the face of dispute, there's a process, of a kind. I just think the process is broken, so I'm unsurprised.

No point talking shit about the guy running the place beyond noting that its not surprise others are having a similar experience. I doubt anything more could come from this thread anyway. Go to Feedback...

At the end of the day, it's a simple cost-benefit analysis. Does your willful presence and participation on this site bring more pleasure, entertainment, or value to your life versus any possible displeasure, suffering or strife it may bring alongside? Does any willful act or hobby? Assuming you're a functional adult, you have not only the choice but the obligation and necessary duty to decide what's best for you, especially in a world where nobody else will. If not, one's problems are unfortunately much larger than this or any website, not to mention @Jamal.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It costs less than an average first world country's hourly wage to purchase a web domain on the Internet. And not much more thereafter to set up your own forum. This can be done even with little to no technical knowledge often in under an hour. There is no one on this site who is withholding your potential to live your desire, if it's something you believe is not or cannot be found here.

Just my 2 cents.

After reading your conversation with Ecurb in context, I don't think he truly wanted to bully or troll you.

The thread where you are debating is called "my truth", and I believe that Ecurb is giving you examples of his arguments related to the point of the thread.

Perhaps you felt uncomfortable because he used your nickname (not your real name or identity. It is just a forum profile) on awkward situations. If he had said, 'A masked man who looked suspiciously like javi2541997 had seized a young child and was holding a knife to her throat [...] or Kindly Ecurb (who is also brilliant and handsome) was being questioned by an ugly, jack-booted Gestapo who looked suspiciously like javi2541997', would you have felt better?

I truly believe that Ecurb just wanted to give examples about why "manipulative language" does this and affects that.

I would also not have liked it if he used your name either in such examples. Ecurb and I have spoken many times, and it's clear to me he does not like me. Which is fine if the conversation stays somewhat on track.

I read his examples, rolled my eyes, and saw that this was starting to get personal, so withdrew.
His point to the example being a joke was disingenuous. So I called him out on it. My greater question to you is if that deserved a warning from a moderator explicitly about me. I used no harsh language, was trying to withdraw from the conversation, but did not let a common bullying tactic of it being, "Just a joke" slide. Even if someone else thought it was just a joke, no one would think it in good taste for fostering communication. My issue is with the one sidedness of the warning when I think it was clear Ecurb was not being polite at that point.

Do you think the warning to only me was justified? Me being called thin skinned by Ecurb wasn't philosophically on point either, and while I do agree that conversation had gone off rails at that point, I do not believe that was due only to me.

See, but act
Grow, but stand firm
Love, if only to grieve
And lose nothing

I understand. :up:

Ecurb and I have spoken many times, and it's clear to me he does not like me. — Philosophim

My guy. I can't believe I have to take the time to write these words out but NO ONE HERE KNOWS WHO YOU ARE. :rofl:

There's no "you" in online discussion among strangers. It's a nonexistent concept. Sure, there's people's ideas of you, and how said ideas make them feel that the ignorant transpose into some ridiculous and unfounded sort of "identity" that lives solely within the confines of their mind. Which is to be pitied. But other than that, it's nothing to get one's feathers ruffled over. In my opinion. Cheers.

We're here to discuss a topic. And if people get excited and distracted from that, you simply be the bigger person and return to the topic like an adult. There's no need for this fuss,. this hullabaloo, this brouhaha. Not as functional adults. Not at all.

There's no "you" in online discussion among strangers. It's a nonexistent concept. Sure, there's people's ideas of you, and how said ideas make them feel that the ignorant transpose into some ridiculous and unfounded sort of "identity" that lives solely within the confines of their mind. — Outlander

There’s some philosophy in there about the nature of identity. Something akin to Hans-Georg Moeller’s philosophies of profile identities.

How much ”you” do you project into our online identities? And more crucial, how is the identity of ”you” being collectively curated into a final persona of the internet version of you. A holographic projection of you that is scrambled by the nature of written language and how you think in that language as text rather than the full identity of yourself, formed by the interpretation of that text by others.

The canyon between your true identity and the perceived identity of your internet persona is very large, even for those who are honest and true to their real self when writing.

The canyon between your true identity and the perceived identity of your internet persona is very large, even for those who are honest and true to their real self when writing. — Christoffer

The T Clark you see here on the forum is exactly the T Clark you would see if you were sitting here in my living room with me right now. No canyon.

The T Clark you see here on the forum is exactly the T Clark you would see if you were sitting here in my living room with me right now. No canyon. — T Clark

That would be scary; a big floating text post hovering abstractly in the sofa.

But, it’s exactly that, the interpretation of text will always skew an authentic image others have of you, regardless of honesty put into words. It becomes the same as two people reading the same book having wildly different views on how to interpret it.

So we can be honest in thought, but we will always be out of reach of existing as we truly are in real life when we act online.

Just like a hammer, in our brain, becoming an extension of our arm for the cognition of using it; here, we essentially are the text, rather than truly and fully being ourselves.

So we can be honest in thought, but we will always be out of reach of existing as we truly are in real life when we act online. — Christoffer

But isn't "real life" just another venue for interpretation, of a presentation which is far from a transparent projection of a "true self"? Do we really ever know the other? Or are we interpreting words and gestures of someone operating under a dozen aims, proclivities, and consraints other than an urge to reveal their innermost being?

By this light, are our online personas really distortions of our authentic selves found in the flesh? Or are they just another presentation, in another medium? Whose own tempo, textual form and shared interest leads to a manifestation of the self which is not more or less true, but just different.

FWIW I thought the warning was uncalled for. I would have been annoyed as well.

Perhaps you felt uncomfortable because he used your nickname (not your real name or identity. It is just a forum profile) — javi2541997

Plot twist! His real name is Philosophim!

It costs less than an average first world country's hourly wage to purchase a web domain on the Internet. And not much more thereafter to set up your own forum. This can be done even with little to no technical knowledge often in under an hour. There is no one on this site who is withholding your potential to live your desire, if it's something you believe is not or cannot be found here. — Outlander

Speaking of which, have you set up your site yet?

But, it’s exactly that, the interpretation of text will always skew an authentic image others have of you, regardless of honesty put into words. It becomes the same as two people reading the same book having wildly different views on how to interpret it. — Christoffer

I don’t experience it that way.

In the post to which Philosophim took umbrage, when I described Ecurb as, "Noble, kindly Ecurb (who is also brilliant and handsome)" was I presenting my "true self"? Or was I sarcastically lampooning my narcissism? Maybe I should have whined that I was "bullying" myself.

I agree, though, that no warning was necessary, although I appreciate Jamal (and Javi) for recognizing that my clearly fictional hypotheticals were on point. Besides, look at the discussion they've engendered! It's more interesting (philosophically?) than "manipulative language", or whatever it was we were discussing.

As a literary critic, I'd suggest that using "Ecurb" and "Philosophim" as characters in my hypotheticals added a little (a very little) zing to the stories, and made them more (very slightly more) entertaining. The reactions show that -- yes! -- my literary instincts are intact!

Speaking of which, have you set up your site yet? — L'éléphant

I take this as a rhetorical question for reasons that should be self-evident.

(I'm assuming "Feedback" threads are a quasi-grey area where non-philosophical banter and whatnot is permitted)

But, I mean. I certainly intend to. Provided I live long enough. I'm sure you recall my concerns. Which honestly in this day and age are likely quite silly and trivial. I'm worried about people copying the thoughts and ideas of those 1,000 times greater than them so as to oppress those who are at least 4 or 5 times their moral superiors who just might not happen to be mentally-equipped yet. But that happens already so. Similar to the religious, rational attitude toward U.S. gun control. "Well, I mean, if the absolute worst pieces of trash are going to arm themselves no matter what, no reason to deprive the good people who are actually worthy of life from being able to defend themselves." Shrug.

I agree, though, that no warning was necessary, although I appreciate Jamal (and Javi) for recognizing that my clearly fictional hypotheticals were on point. Besides, look at the discussion they've engendered! It's more interesting (philosophically?) than "manipulative language", or whatever it was we were discussing. — Ecurb

Ah, good to see you Ecurb. I wanted you to have a chance to give your view point. I had nothing against your arguments, just your approach. I had been working overtime for the last few weeks in anticipation of my current vacation, and did not want to deal with what appeared to get personal from my point of view. Most of the time, I don't mind, but my time and tolerance were in short supply at that point.

As I mentioned, I'll check the thread when Im back. If you would like, we can continue. If momentum and interest have wained on your end, I won't continue it and I'll see you in another thread.

"Well, I mean, if the absolute worst pieces of trash are going to arm themselves no matter what, no reason to deprive the good people who are actually worthy of life from being able to defend themselves." — Outlander

Hah! My kind of thinking.

So..well..then, is that a no?

I don’t experience it that way. — T_Clark

But isn't "real life" just another venue for interpretation, of a presentation which is far from a transparent projection of a "true self"? Do we really ever know the other? Or are we interpreting words and gestures of someone operating under a dozen aims, proclivities, and consraints other than an urge to reveal their innermost being?

By this light, are our online personas really distortions of our authentic selves found in the flesh? Or are they just another presentation, in another medium? Whose own tempo, textual form and shared interest leads to a manifestation of the self which is not more or less true, but just different. — hypericin

Yes, all social interactions mainly display a projection of a true self that becomes distorted by the means of communication. But I think we evolutionarily have formed so many sync points in communication with each other that if we look into each others eyes and communicate as honest as we can to what our experiences and inner life is, that is the closest we can come to transfer the self into the perspective of another. Empathy together with all the micro-expressions people display, goes a long way of producing an honest bridge between two minds.

Yet, even at the most synced up level of communication... we are still always disconnected from each other. It's basically the hard problem of consciousness, qualia, the inability of the true experience of another.

Every communication with another is filtered through the beliefs of the self, so every information we consume, we filter them through ourselves before examining them.

But text takes another form. It is a structure that differs from the way I speak. Not only do I communicate in another language here, so my thoughts have another structure and grammar, the rhythm and flow I use, usually takes a much more analytical form than speaking aloud in my native Swedish. It's not just who I am, but in linguistics, they've seen how speaking in another language often is more analytical, while the native tongue is more emotional/experiential.

So text is a large distortion of who I am, whether I intend it or not. Maybe you hear these words as you read them and you form an internal image of how I look, I how talk, how I am. This internalized image is your own construct, based on how you interpret my text.

And without a clear image of how I actually look, talk and behave as a human, and a longer experience of all my quirks and behaviors in life, my online persona is fundamentally a construct that you have made for yourself.

My text might reflect my ideas, philosophies, and values, but they're being presented in a cold nature of straight information, with only minor hints at emotions and some form of "inner life".

So while real life fundamentally has this problem of actually not knowing the true self of others, an online persona is a further massive distorted reflection of who we truly are.

We essentially transforms into such a new form of our self, that for others, we are that text, more than we are our true selves.

(sorry if this became a derail from the topic)

We essentially transforms into such a new form of our self, that for others, we are that text, more than we are our true selves. — Christoffer

What constitutes our "true self"? Aren't all of our interactions with others performances? If we are students, or have jobs, don't our professional roles and expectations influence our behaviors and performances?

Of course our on-line performances are less spontaneous than many in person interactions -- and when we are seen in a variety of situations (work, play, etc.) others can better judge who we are.

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts, — shakespeare

What constitutes our "true self"? Aren't all of our interactions with others performances? If we are students, or have jobs, don't our professional roles and expectations influence our behaviors and performances?

Of course our on-line performances are less spontaneous than many in person interactions -- and when we are seen in a variety of situations (work, play, etc.) others can better judge who we are. — Ecurb

This is what hypericin essentially brought up and I answered to earlier in that post.

What I constitute as true self in this discussion is essentially who you experience yourself to be in the now. We can go further into what that constitutes, but for examining the difference between the you that you experience and the understanding/experience others have of you, which in real life is closer to your actual sense of self than it is through online text, that's the definition I used.

You wouldn't look at your social performance in different social situations as being your actual true self. And making the distinction that you are performing, means you did have a notion of the difference between that behavior of performing, and your actual sense of being. That shows there's a sense of true being and a conscious awareness of social performances which conflicts with that true self.

Yet, even at the most synced up level of communication... we are still always disconnected from each other. — Christoffer

Not to sound like a broken record, if you remember what that is, but I don’t experience it that way.

So text is a large distortion of who I am, whether I intend it or not. — Christoffer

I don’t think this is true for me. I’m a very verbal person, so pretty much I am what I say—or write.

We essentially transforms into such a new form of our self, that for others, we are that text, more than we are our true selves. — Christoffer

As I stated previously, for me the text is my true self.

Not to sound like a broken record, if you remember what that is, but I don’t experience it that way. — T_Clark

Isn't it just the basic nature of the hard problem of consciousness at its core? You are fundamentally detached from experiencing my true self. For that, you would need my qualia.

I'm not talking about a sense of honest connection with other people, I'm speaking of the inherent impossibility of others to understand my true self as I experience life.

And because of that, any attempt by me to communicate my true self, is being distorted by the means of that communication; in this case online text.

How are you experiencing this differently?

I don’t think this is true for me. I’m a very verbal person, so pretty much I am what I say—or write. — T_Clark

Yes, but that's just your way of being honest in communication, it doesn't change the fact that when I read your text, I miss out on your expression as a physical person, as well as my interpretation and experience distorting how I read that text.

I am, fundamentally, detached from your true self. I can never fully "understand you", just as how you will never fully understand me.

As I stated previously, for me the text is my true self. — T_Clark

And what I mean is that the distortion from the means of communication and my interpretation of your text, creates a different mental understand for me of who you are. You can be honest in text, but your idea of your true self in that text becomes drastically different when I read and interpret it.

It's basically about the limitations of perspective and how my own self's experience of the world interfer with a true understanding of you.

So what I fundamentally was saying is that while people are separated by this basic impossibility of other's perspectives even when they sit in the same room talking, an online experience with written text adds a tremendous distortion of what I experience of the "true you".

Isn't it just the basic nature of the hard problem of consciousness at its core? — Christoffer

I don’t think it has anything to do with the hard problem. Besides, I don’t really see the hard problem as much of a problem.

And because of that, any attempt by me to communicate my true self, is being distorted by the means of that communication; in this case online text. — Christoffer

The point isn’t to communicate my true self, it’s to show it, to be it. And it doesn’t have to be perfect.

I am, fundamentally, detached from your true self. I can never fully "understand you", just as how you will never fully understand me. — Christoffer

In this context, it’s not really important whether or not we understand each other. The work that needs to be done is for us to see each other as we are. And all we can ever do is the best we can. But that’s true no matter what the mode of communication is.

I think maybe the difference between you and me is that I don’t feel this sense of disconnection from other people you seem to. I don’t think that’s necessarily because I see and understand people better than you do. I think it’s probably mostly a question of attitude and temperament.

The T Clark you see here on the forum is exactly the T Clark you would see if you were sitting here in my living room with me right now. No canyon. — T Clark

I wonder if this kind of thing is for others to judge. But who knows? In life I’d guess I’m not much like I am here. I expect many people are often nicer or nastier on line for all sorts of reasons.

Yet, even at the most synced up level of communication... we are still always disconnected from each other.
— Christoffer

Not to sound like a broken record, if you remember what that is, but I don’t experience it that way. — T_Clark

I agree with T-clark. I'm very similar. When I chat with another person I often have a self-made image of another person there. When I read another person's words I have a 'voice' for them. And I do the same for myself when I read. I attempt to talk to another person, not have some intermediary do it for me.

A person's words often convey in my opinion, a less filtered chain of thought and expression. Anonymity allows people to say things in more direct ways, and text requires this for clear communication. So while your 'text' self may be a more direct and less filtered version of you, it is you in some expression if you with the social constraints/assists of non-verbal interactions and voice removed.

I don’t think this is true for me. I’m a very verbal person, so pretty much I am what I say—or write. — T_Clark

I'm also this way.

:up: