If I may expand this topic slightly to include closed threads... (If not here, would it be better in the Shoutbox, or a new thread?). First of all, many thanks to the moderators for their work to keep this place up and running, and not devolving into a mud wrestling match. Easier said than done, probably like trying to herd dozens of obstinate cats. :wink:

But I wonder if in some cases, the closing of a thread like for instance the one by @Marcus de Brun about education and racism (which was probably started because of a understandable and deserved banning) was a bit premature. I mean, even if the premise of a thread is borderline wacky, maybe giving it time to be shown or proven to be “wacky” or wrong would perhaps be better than quickly putting a padlock on it. At least for appearances sake, which is not unimportant. And also to let others attempt to argue against the OP or at least give some differing takes. I know you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but maybe there is a point buried somewhere in the haystack of words. Of course if a poster is trolling, baiting others, or looking for a glorious funeral pyre martyrdom, then that is another thing entirely... Also, for the sake for being fair I think the option of a temporary suspension should be seriously considered. Even IF they “don’t work” 99% of the time, suspensions would STILL be a good idea, imho. The appearances of fairness is not mere window dressing. But, just my two cents. Please do what you think best... :up:

If I may expand this topic slightly to include closed threads... (If not here, would it be better in the Shoutbox, or a new thread?). First of all, many thanks to the moderators for their work to keep this place up and running, and not devolving into a mud wrestling match. Easier said than done, probably like trying to herd dozens of obstinate cats. :wink:

But I wonder if in some cases, the closing of a thread like for instance the one by Marcus de Brun about education and racism (which was probably started because of a understandable and deserved banning) was a bit premature. I mean, even if the premise of a thread is borderline wacky, maybe giving it time to be shown or proven to be “wacky” or wrong would perhaps be better than quickly putting a padlock on it. At least for appearances sake, which is not unimportant. And also to let others attempt to argue against the OP or at least give some differing takes. I know you can’t make a purse out of a sow’s ear, but maybe there is a point buried somewhere in the haystack of words. Of course if a poster is trolling, baiting others, or looking for a glorious funeral pyre martyrdom, then that is another thing entirely... — 0 thru 9

I'll resist the temptation to debate this here as it's off-topic. Marcus has not been banned! :party: . All's I say is I think I gave the opportunity for an elucidation and none was forthcoming. But let's please keep this discussion purely about bannings. Not wanting to be heavy handed but anything else will be considered deleteable. So, last chance to comment on internetstranger's banning before this gets temporarily closed again.

Also, for the sake for being fair I think the option of a temporary suspension should be seriously considered. Even IF they “don’t work” 99% of the time, suspensions would STILL be a good idea, imho. The appearances of fairness is not mere window dressing. — 0 thru 9

Noted.

Noted — Baden

Thank you.

But let's please keep this discussion purely about bannings. Not wanting to be heavy handed but anything else will be considered deleteable. — Baden

Sure thing. :up:

Marcus has not been banned! :party: — Baden

Yes, I was aware of that, thanks.

Banned @Martha Woodmansee for being someone called Michael Rectanwald pretending to be Martha Woodmansee in order to use her name and reputation to compliment himself. (Won't tell you how we know for confidentiality reasons, but we do know.)

I see plenty of people complimenting themselves here.

If you can't tell the difference between complimenting yourself and impersonating a known academic and using that as a basis to compliment yourself then...I'm not surprised.

Ah. Fair enough, Bades. I didn't relaize Martha existed. The punking was entertaining though.

He's quite the wee stirrer, that dude.

Banned @Noah33 for refusing to disavow Hitler/Naziism etc. He was also reported as previously having a Hitler avatar. If he had disavowed as requested though we would have let him stay. As it is, three PMs concerning suspicions of Naziism including two requests for a disavowal were ignored, so banned.

Could you ban Trump for the same reasons, from the country?

:smirk:

Working on it. :up:

Could you ban Trump for the same reasons, from the country?

:smirk: — creativesoul

You do realize who that would leave in command right? :scream:

He made a return.

He made a return. — Waya

Whack a what??

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/2580/noah333

Whack a nazi

He's gone.

:up:

Thanks. :up:

Banned @wellwisher for low post quality. The camel-spine rupturing straw being a post from which here follows an excerpt:

"Since these two sets of feelings are conflict, the natural writing process is tricked in separating one law memory into two locations in the brain. So if we try to do good by the law, the evil side of the coin is repressed. It does not go away, but becomes unconscious as a shadow affect. Sin taking opportunity though the commandment produces sin of every kind. The unconscious side of the coin can become autonomous in an attempt to merge the memory back to neutrality. The result is impulsive evil behavior inductions to merge the memory.

Love your enemy was a way to disrupt the divided mind, due to law tricking the writing process. Forgiveness of sins was a way to change the emotional tagging on the dark side of law memory, in attempt to restore a natural neutral writing process. Jesus was way ahead of his time based on science 2000 years in the future. The atheist position is not based on science, but comes from the dark side of the law memory consolidation, symbolic of Satan. "

Banned @gurugeorge (eventually) for being a racist. We went to considerable efforts by PM to warn him and give him a chance to demonstrate he wasn't. His last comment to me by PM showed these efforts were wasted as it included the idea that it's "a hard pill to swallow" for blacks to accept that they are inherently less intelligent than whites, but they are. Ergo, the banning.

Anyway, we're going on the basic (Googled) definitions on this:

Racism is:

1) "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." (as in gurugeorge's case).

2) "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Though gg happened to be a right-winger, we consider racism and anti-semitism not a fundamentally left-right issue at all by the way, but a problem right across the political spectrum. And we will give fair warning in all but the more extreme cases.

Good riddance, fuck that guy

Damn, my brilliant and incisive counter argument was on the verge of converting him to a thorough-going Marxist. Oh well.

The hell did he mean "we woulndt want something bad to happen to (TPF) if you get my meaning"?

Support level for gg is at roughly mandatory-daily-enema level, so I think it's safe to close this.

Ho hum. It might be interesting to discuss Fanon sometime, but that was a very odd combination: Fanon the liberation psychoanalyst and Heidegger the Nazi. Kind of like the current association of Zionism with the far right. Interesting times... I would offer a link, but the thread in question along with the classic cry bully who posted it presumably have suffered the final solution.

He made his disdain for us all clear to me by PM, so I released him from our misery.

[See below:]

Banned @Zoneofnonbeing for his apparent inability to not think everyone who is not him is an idiot.

It didn't come as a total shock to me, and my sadness at the loss is bearable.

I don't expect crowds to be thronging in protest at this one. I hope he finds somewhere where he is appropriately understood.