If you have further comments related to Lio's banning, say them. — fdrake

I'm not interested in discussing it with them at all, I just remarked that the decision to ban him has nothing to do with the forum being left-leaning or censorship as is being implied. But rather that he showed a failure to behave respectfully.

I'm not interested in discussing it with them at all, I just remarked that the decision to ban him has nothing to do with the forum being left-leaning or censorship as is being implied. But rather that he showed a failure to behave respectfully. — Christoffer

:up:

Yep.

Now closer this thread.

Before this thread closes, there really should be infractions enabled towards members for various offences.

If the Rules and Guidelines can be updated with 2 strike rule instead of 3, I think it would be worth it for members. If people scream for earning an infraction, then just refer them to the Policies/Rules and Guidelines of the forum...

I have banned @Arcane Sandwich.

19 days ago I privately asked him to reduce his posting rate and to stay on topic when he did post, as it seemed to me that he was dominating the forum too much, by posting everywhere and so often (he had posted 2000 times in two months), disrupting several discussions. I said I would implement a temporary suspension if he did not comply (this prevents someone from posting but allows them to send PMs) but he said he would just refrain from posting entirely for three months. A strange response, but I said okay. Some hours ago he started posting again and sent me a PM to admit to breaking his promise, and I suspended him. He responded to that with private insults and I banned him.

It was clear to me that while he was knowledgeable in philosophy, his attention-seeking behaviour and apparent need to be heard on every topic was not good for the forum. And if he had really wanted to stay here and cooperate he would have ridden out the suspension and refrained from sending me unpleasant messages.

A really sad day. I lost a Hispanic friend on the forum.

I had several PMs with him, talking about a lot of different things. He was a very active user, and I wondered why he hadn't posted anything for the past weeks. I didn't ask him because I think there is some break or holiday in Argentina, so I thought it was just that.

I didn't know you asked him to behave once, and I am sorry he responded you with bad manners. I honestly believe he is a good person, but he might not have understood how TPF works, and it is true that 2K posts in just a few months is a lot.

When I saw he posted a lot of threads continuously, I thought: "mods would ask him to behave. Otherwise, he could be banned."

Sadly, I was right. :broken:

If these really interesting members would slow down their posting, I believe they would remain here.

Furthermore, he is a professional philosopher in Argentina and has written interesting books. I think he could have been a great user.

I will miss Martín (@Arcane Sandwich).

To put 2000 posts in two months in context, I have just over 2300 posts in 8 years, and I'd say I post pretty regularly.

... and it's an average of 33 posts a day ... so possibly part of some relapse into methamphetamines. And I say that out of concern and not insult.

Philosophy can be a dangerous mind game at times and injuries do occur.

his attention-seeking behaviour... was not good for the forum. — Jamal

This, I think, is exactly right.

I'm sorry @Arcane Sandwich was banned, but I'm glad you gave him a chance to work things out before he was.

I am sorry that he was banned. He is a knowledge person and I learned a few things from him. He will be missed.

Philosophy can be a dangerous mind game at times and injuries do occur. — boethius

:up:

Furthermore, he is a professional philosopher in Argentina and has written interesting books. — javi2541997

I'm curious, what books?

I'm curious, what books? — hypericin

I wouldn't say it's quite out of the realm of possibility javi was merely entranced by words and stories that were, shall we say, a tad less than factual. You'd be surprised how mundane and simple the things are for some to get entertainment from (ie. claiming to be someone else in order to gauge a reaction. philosophers are natural psychologists, though not necessarily ones beneficial to the well-being of humanity..).

I wouldn't say it's quite out of the realm of possibility javi was merely entranced by words and stories that were, shall we say, a tad less than factual. — Outlander

A condescending and insulting way of putting it. It makes you look like a pompous prig.

He communicated to me several papers, published in English and Spanish, mostly on quantification and individuation, which he was able to defend at length. He is a competent philosopher.

Unlike others hereabouts.

But his banning was perhaps inevitable. A shame.

@Gregory was banned for misogyny.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comments/4660/gregory

As it says in the guidelines, this kind of thing is not tolerated.

I'll consider myself next if I dont shape up. Apologies for that.

:up: :up:

Weird decision. Some of his comments were a bit edgy, but really nothing warranting a ban.

This is a philosophy forum. There should be a reasonable tolerance for off-beat or even strange views.

What exactly was the big "misogyny" scandal here? The "Women corrupt men" comment, or the jab at a popular radical feminist viewpoint?

This is a philosophy forum. There should be a reasonable tolerance for off-beat or even strange views. — Tzeentch

Reasonable tolerance... here? Uff...

I'm still waiting for individuals who rejoice in the genocide in Gaza to be banned. But I suppose making weird and incel posts about women is worse than endorsing the eradication of an ethnicity.

You know the famous guidelines...

This is a philosophy forum. There should be a reasonable tolerance for off-beat or even strange views. — Tzeentch

I generally agree with this. Of course I also agree that there's a limit to that. I think most people agree that there's a limit to what kind of speech can be tolerated, it's just a matter of disagreeing on where the tolerance should end.

I probably wouldn't end it where they chose to in this case though. But that's just me. Every forum owner / moderator team has their own prerogative to foster the community they want to see I guess.

I think a reference to Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is very appropriate here. In an open discussion space like this, there should absolutely be room for controversial, even uncomfortable ideas – but that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate dehumanizing statements.

When someone writes that “women are a disappointment,” “a waste of time,” or that “hopefully there won’t be any female humans in 10,000 years,” that’s not an “unusual perspective” – it’s clearly misogynistic. Such remarks undermine respectful exchange and create a hostile environment that excludes and harms others – exactly what Popper warned about: if we tolerate unlimited intolerance, we destroy the very space in which tolerance can exist.

Philosophy thrives on the clash of ideas, not on the degradation of people.

When someone writes that “women are a disappointment,” “a waste of time,” or that “hopefully there won’t be any female humans in 10,000 years,” that’s not an “unusual perspective” – it’s clearly misogynistic — DasGegenmittel

I guess I missed the full extent of everything he said. I didn't realise he was hoping for their extinction, what a bizarre idea.

.. that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate dehumanizing statements. — DasGegenmittel

:100:

Welcome to TPF.

:up:

Imo the one where he hoped every woman would die

I'm still waiting for individuals who rejoice in the genocide in Gaza to be banned — javi2541997

@Merkwurdichliebe was banned for that.

I'm still waiting for individuals who rejoice in the genocide in Gaza to be banned. But I suppose making weird and incel posts about women is worse than endorsing the eradication of an ethnicity. — javi2541997

Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing.

Imo the one where he hoped every woman would die — fdrake

I don't think that's what he actually said, though.

It's a pretty silly yet common view among radical feminists that men are superfluous, and I think he was mirroring some of that.

Strange? Sure. Worthy of a ban? Not so sure; at least not an outright one.

I think it was the right thing to do, in this case, but it's worth pointing out that complete lack of response to demeaning posts can often accomplish the same thing. We're really not required to debate every position, or "give air" to every remark.

But what if someone produced an antisemitic rant? Would you be ok with just ignoring it?

I know! I'm not sure. I certainly wouldn't protest at such a banning. The US free-speech tradition is pretty strong, but I also respect how European countries have handled such noxious speech.