He said "boo-hoo" when someone pointed out the deaths of children in the Israel-Gaza thread. Compared to the insults the moderators themselves are tossing around in said thread, I think it's a pretty weak banning, but maybe he was trolling in other threads I'm not aware of.

Not sure how many warnings Merkwurdichliebe received in order to be banned, but I feel like some leniency is in order with regards to heated topics like Israel-Palestine.

Actually that Merkwurdichliebe, who has been here for 5 years and posted well over 2000 posts is actually telling.

I think that times are changing.

I think it was more a case of boo-hooing the deaths of children highlighting a long history of mostly very aggro posts. Very aggro posts in contentious threads. But we've banned people for less in the past.

I have no recollection of any real philosophy. I certainly remember aggressive posts and mainly negative posts. I had a brief look, but came up empty apart from anti-left, anti covid, anti philosophy; I don't feel like it is a great loss to the forum, but someone could show me some gems if I have missed them.

He would not feel so all alone
When everybody must get stoned.

:up: My thoughts also.

anti-left, anti covid — unenlightened

Oh, the horror!

@Merkwurdichliebe posted mostly very low quality, nasty comments. There was rarely anything of substance. It was a good decision.

the horror! — Tzeentch

You can be anti-left, for example, if you do it reasonably.

Happy new year!

Hmm, just out of curiosity could you point to specific examples? — EricH

Here are just a few from the first page of his comment history:

Correct. It is a sucka play for nabbing baby-raping dimwits — Merkwurdichliebe

Apparently, you'be not been paying attention
— 180 Proof

I only have to hear the lame ass bitching and whining from you Hamas symps to know Hamas is fucked. — Merkwurdichliebe

according to an analysis of visual evidence by The New York Times.

:yawn: Blahblahblah. NYT has no credibility. — Merkwurdichliebe

That is because the climate change doom cult is full of shit. — Merkwurdichliebe

He almost never posted anything substantial or engaged in good faith, even if one was polite. But as mentioned, a response of “boo hoo” to dead children should remove all doubt about the kind of poster he was.

Good decision indeed.

He said "boo-hoo" when someone pointed out the deaths of children in the Israel-Gaza thread. Compared to the insults the moderators themselves are tossing around in said thread, I think it's a pretty weak banning — RogueAI

Insults of the same level as

The Israel haters here (esp. the moderators) sure do come across as pricks sometimes. — RogueAI

Of course there is. Scratch a hyperbolist, find a useful idiot. — RogueAI

?

Plenty of leniency on that thread, for everyone. The difference is that you, for example, don’t have a long history of nearly exclusive trolling/negativity.

A quick perusing of his comment history speaks for itself, and anyone can look.

Insults of the same level as

The Israel haters here (esp. the moderators) sure do come across as pricks sometimes.
— RogueAI

Of course there is. Scratch a hyperbolist, find a useful idiot.
— RogueAI — Mikie

Yes, Merkwurdichliebe didn't seem any more insulting than anyone else in that thread. Also, I'm not a moderator. Moderators should rise above the fray, don't you think?

Plenty of leniency on that thread, for everyone. The difference is that you, for example, don’t have a long history of nearly exclusive trolling/negativity.

A quick perusing of his comment history speaks for itself, and anyone can look. — Mikie

I hadn't interacted with him much. I figured there was more to it than just what I saw in the Israel thread.

Myself, I wonder why this particular forum, which is mainly concerned with philosophy, ought to accomodate never-ending threads on vexatious topics such as Middle Eastern politics, which is famously divisive. I hardly contribute to that thread, as I don't have a dog in the fight, and besides there's enough stress and bile going around without outsiders piling on with their own opinions. So let's bear in mind what the purpose of this particular forum is about, there are many other fora (reddit, quora, etc) where non philosophical issues can be canvassed.

Moderators should rise above the fray, don't you think? — RogueAI

I do. Which is why I hold myself to a saint-like status and never lose my temper. Can’t speak for the other derelicts.

Yes, I agree. The lounge should be the proper place for that if it's really unavoidable that that thread must be made. This is a philosophy forum.
(In the past, I opened a few threads the nature of which should be suspect as to their proper places. If the moderators moved them to the lounge, that's where they should be).

- I tend to agree, although I do not have a principled way to separate politics from philosophy. I mean, American election politics is generally not philosophical, but the issues in the Middle East perhaps are.

Got a hunch he's a historian of Ottoman expansion and the greater Muslim conquest. People tend to look at war in the past with a blase "yeah we kicked ass" type of mindset when in reality, as you can see, much more vile, less boastful events occurred regularly, typically involving women and children. I'm no history buff, but something in me doubts the conquest of Constantinople was a family-friendly moving experience with a Casablanca-esque atmosphere as people bade their farewells, knapsacks full of fun little snacks and treats for the kids as they hit the dusty trail. There's some pretty nasty stuff written in religious books. Those were the laws of the day, mind you. I'd be curious to know his knowledge or lack thereof regarding the aforementioned so as to ascertain precisely what frame of mind he was in when such comments were made, rather the true context of the seemingly glaringly callous remark(s). Any deeper understanding at all would be better than blind "infallibility", typically attributed to God, shown for one's "team" in a war involving human casualties. Which, unfortunately, in a war, is exactly how things work. It is simply against human nature to care about your enemy's child when your own are viewed by said enemy as being better off dead. Hm. Oh well. :brow:

That or Michael's "Why be moral" thread featuring specific examples of baby killing was a bit more convincing than he anticipated. :chin:

:cheer:
garbage poster

:up:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Myself, I wonder why this particular forum, which is mainly concerned with philosophy, ought to accomodate never-ending threads on vexatious topics such as Middle Eastern politics, which is famously divisive. — Wayfarer

May I humbly suggest that every site inhabited by humans needs a waste disposal system. If we did not have the controversial threads, the controversies would infect all the philosophical threads more than they already do. But there is no reason why we should put up with people who only come to use the facilities and never entertain us with some pleasantries at the very least.

It would be a mistake not to talk about politics, especially if it's controversial.

Most philosophers up until recently were very much involved in current events, so, it is a crucial topic to cover because it is important and part of the tradition.

Of course, the risk is much higher in that people will be nasty and the like, but that should be navigated, as is done here.

Fair point. I wasn't suggesting that such discussions ought to be banned, just from time to time drawing attention to the sign on the door.

Not addressed to me I know, but, thanks for the clarification. :up:

And happy 2024 to you and yours, am looking forward to exchanging books and ideas on mutual interests.

:clap:

I had a brief look, but came up empty apart from anti-left, anti covid, anti philosophy; I don't feel like it is a great loss to the forum, but someone could show me some gems if I have missed them. — unenlightened

Anti-philosophy! That sounds like very good reason for banning from an explicitly philosophy forum, to me.

Certainly, in the Platonic-Aristotlean tradition, politics & ethics are complementary faces of the philosophical coin. Not all participants in political discussions are 'dispassionate' (or thoughtful) enough to forgo their unwarranted/uninformed opinions for the sake of dialectic or argument. Political controversies attract trolls like flies to turds so Mods have to weed-out the incorrigible ones from time to time. Same as any other topics.

Anti-philosophy! That sounds like very good reason for banning from an explicitly philosophy forum, to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

I imagine most of our regulars are anti-philosophy in a technical sense. By and large regulars seem against system building and metanarrative spinning. Or are language radicals or positivists, believing that philosophical questions are close to being meaningless.

By my estimation we're a group of people who either aren't doing philosophy or don't wish to be doing it.

By my estimation we're a group of people who either aren't doing philosophy or don't wish to be doing it. — fdrake

Yep.

This is something I’ve been saying many times. I get that threads on politics generate a lot of animosity, but this is a philosophy forum. That should mean that discussions about politics, society and conflicts at least follow an ability to formulate criticism and arguments by a certain standard of internal logic while maintaining a tone fit for proper philosophical discussion. When some just utter emotional outbursts and present arguments that would fail any other thread by the forum’s standards, I fail to see the point of such discussions. They usually just end up being the same people throwing the same shit repeatedly at each other for hundreds of pages while alienating anyone else who tries to enter the topic.

So, sure, a higher bar of tolerance may be needed, but it sometimes feels like that bar went through the roof and people trigger each other until someone snaps and goes too far or create a repeating cycle of bs posts that just goes on forever. Maybe lower the bar slightly and demand a bit more effort when participating in those types of discussions? In the case of the Israel-Palestine discussion it just feels like a perfect example of neither side listening to the other, both handling facts and knowledge like weapons to win an argument without regards to their validity or caring to accept the level of validity of the other side’s presented facts.

Philosophical discussion generally favors discussion to grow knowledge in all participating parties. It demands a bit of an open mind on the counter arguments to one’s own convictions. And I believe that having a slightly lower tolerance for these threads spiraling out of control and focus people towards holding a discussion rather than a brawl would be in everyone’s favor, especially important for those who want to learn and grow their understanding of certain topics related to on going conflicts and problems in the world.