Joey Joe Joe Jr Shabadoo was the biggest Kevin of them all.

Good Lord.

Kevin hasn't read this thread. Or if he has, he thinks it is about Steven.

Let's ask him. @Kevin, what do you think about all of this?

Bye. — Mongrel

To those people who are still insisting, some via PM that I have something personal against Mongrel, let me clarify one last time that I have no ill feelings towards Mongrel and even feel sorry that she has decided to not take part in the forums anymore, but I do respect her decision.

I have a long history with Mongrel on these forums, and for most of that history our interaction has quite frankly been good and enjoyable. Mongrel is a person who can be quite witty, and enjoyable to talk to in a casual manner. If I met her, I think I'd actually get along with her very well to tell you the truth (she's different than some other people here who I actually don't think I'd get along with very well at all).

I remember even today the many times she has playfully mocked me with regards to Mongolia and straw dogs, the entire "Bilo" thing, the three word poems, and so on so forth. Maybe these don't ring a bell to many people, but Mongrel sure remembers them, and I remember them as very funny and positive interactions.

In addition, I should also mention that I've heard around that Mongrel works or worked in healthcare taking care of ill and dying people, something that I think takes a lot of courage to do and is extremely admirable, and quite frankly something that I myself probably wouldn't be capable of doing. So I have a lot of respect for Mongrel as a person.

As Baden has said, I don't have any right to tell any woman how they should feel about sexism, which statements they should find sexist or not, and so forth. And in that regard, it is excellent that Mongrel wanted to talk about sexism openly, although it is lamentable the way she has chosen to do it, and quite frankly not very productive.

It is true that in my opinion Mongrel is an extremist when it comes to issues of sex, religion, and the like. This makes her become resentful and even though she's fighting for something good, she ends up causing a lot of harm unwillingly. Over the last months I haven't engaged with her at all pretty much, but she would come from time to time, just to say something mean in response so something I had said. It appears to me she gets very easily offended around those topics and isn't capable (or willing) to consider or accept hearing different views and opinions. This is unfortunate since this is a philosophy forum after all, and it is unavoidable that there will be people here holding a multitude of views, and it wouldn't be fair to expel those people simply because their views are not acceptable to one (or a few) persons.

I do not know nor understand why Mongrel takes such an extremist approach to these issues, but then I cannot know what kind of men she had to deal with through her life or what she went through and it's not my business either.

Frankly I'm disappointed to see that Mongrel has decided to slander me and viciously and cruelly state some very violent and untrue things about me in the forums. But I do understand she may have felt offended by things I've said, even though they were not intended in the way she interpreted them, and I have apologised to her for it. I truly am sorry, but I cannot accept that those things were as she interpreted them to be, since that's just false.

Nevertheless I have forgiven Mongrel despite the unfair treatment she has given me, and I wish her all the best, and hope that she can find a place where she will feel better. I think we're all willing to welcome her back if she ever wants to return, she's been with us for a long time, and I think she's been a great person for the most part. I also think sometimes we should discuss issues of sexism fairly and openly, without condemnation and hatred, and it's good she attempted to bring the topic up. So I'm not happy to see her go, but it's her decision and she knows better what the good thing for her is! Anyway, goodbye Mongrel, and all the best!

I hope you are not suggesting that we have an unmoderated forum?
— unenlightened

No, but I would be as hands off as possible. I requested this before, but there really needs to be an ignore feature on this forum. That's a pretty glaring oversight by its makers. Nonetheless, it is still possible to ignore users you don't like, so I still have a hard time feeling sorry for you. — Thorongil

Well we agree about being as hands off as possible. In fact all the mods agree about that, because modding is tricky, thankless and tediously time-consuming.

But I have no idea why you think I want you to feel sorry for me. I am, strange to say, completely un bothered personally by all this. Mods are in the business of being unpleasant to people by editing or silencing them, or by standing in judgement and giving stern warnings. So they take a level of crap in private and in public that would be intolerable to the delicate. Over the years in the previous forum I have manage to arrive at sense of personal security that allows me to be quite sensitive and yet more or less immune from hurt. It is a condition of being eager to learn and change, but unattached to what has already been learned.

So this is what I am doing with this thread: I am trying to minimise the moderating, in the same way that one might try to minimise the housework. But this cannot be done by letting everything get into a disgusting mess, rather one has to clean as one goes, show the drunks the door, sternly order the children to behave, and ask folks to take their muddy boots off as they come in. It's not the most exciting topic in the world, but if I can get folks to think about their own behaviour, and that of their fellow guests, then not only will it save some housework, but the party will be more fun.

On reflection, and with the benefit of hindsight etc, I have slightly mislead some folks with the Kevin thing. It was a bit of wordplay - nobody died. The party analogy works better. The dance floor is crowded, and if you tread on someone's toes, you can apologise and move on. Some dancers are a bit wild and inconsiderate, and you might want to remonstrate, but if a drunk is flailing about knocking people down and throwing up on them, it's time to call in the bouncers. Don't try to tackle them yourselves or it will become a brawl. The bouncers need to be alerted to trouble, but not troubled with trivial alerts. And this is the undefinable judgement that we all have to make, between a lively party, and a rowdy one.

I think it's been a bit too rowdy here of late, and some people seem to have left as a result, which is a shame. Wipe up the vomit, calm down, and carry on with care and consideration.

At Titus Andronicus shows, Patrick Stickles makes this little speech about how not everyone has fun the same way, and asks the crowd to be aware of people around them if they want to get slammy. (I'm paraphrasing.) You can be punk and still be sensitive.

Why shouldn't men argue with women over the merits of sexism? Men can be the subject of sexism too. Sounds like a double standard to me. Women shouldn't be placed on a pedestal just because they're a minority on the forums.



I've never understood the concept of ignoring users. You shouldn't be able to just selectively ignore an opinion or person you disagree with - then you're just turning an anything goes discussion forum into an echo chamber.

There are no "merits of sexism" that are recognised here. Period.

One wonderful thing about not having an ignore feature is that now I'm disciplined enough to ignore people all by my lonesome. It's lovely.

You misunderstood me. I'm just saying that men should be able to dispute allegations of sexism women may make. Just because a woman says it's sexism doesn't necessarily make it so. Your previous post insinuated that women should not be challenged if they determine a post or person to be sexism because men cannot empathise with such a viewpoint, but that's an absolutely bizarre thing to say. Men can be victims of sexism too. We should be able to question the legitimacy of such claims.

If a woman was deemed sexist she would be given grounds to defend herself and her actions. But what you're saying is that a man shouldn't because the woman is always right.

If I'm misinterpreting what you originally said please do correct me.

Over the years in the previous forum I have manage to arrive at sense of personal security that allows me to be quite sensitive and yet more or less immune from hurt. It is a condition of being eager to learn and change, but unattached to what has already been learned. — unenlightened

You do show good technique, reframing a horrifying tragedy to a dance party. However the effort doesn't indicate immunity.

You said "merits of sexism", not "merits of accusations of sexism", so it read as you suggesting that we should be able to discuss if sexism is warranted rather than if accusations of sexism as correct.

I said:

Nobody should be telling women how they should feel about sexism — Baden

Hope it's clear now.

You do show good technique, reframing a horrifying tragedy to a dance party. However the effort doesn't indicate immunity. — praxis

I did say 'more or less', but I suspect some people mistake my caring deeply about how things are for being hurt. One can be unhappy about things without being hurt.

Understood. Poor phrasing and reading comprehension on my part. Apologies fellows.

I realize now I'm not talking about this forum. I don't give a fuck about this forum. I'm talking about the United States. — Mongrel

But who gives a fuck about the United States, other than as a potential threat now that we are under specific circumstances?

We are talking about something like the antinomy of democracy as a model for doing philosophy: open, honest exchange of ideas should lead to better philosophy. But if some of those expressions drive people away or silence others, that's not what we wanted.

silence others — Srap Tasmaner

I don't understand how someone can be "silenced". It's an online forum! How do you "silence" someone? I suppose by banning them perhaps. Otherwise they only remain silent if they want to remain silent.

I don't know what the dispute was, that disillusioned or discouraged you, so of course I'm not in a position to disagree with you or judge your objections.

...but I can say this:

Of all of the forums that I've ever participated in, this is the only one with genuinely effective moderation, ...and with moderation that isn't abused.

1. I've been on forums where (regardless of whether there was nominally moderation), even the worst behavioral abuses were gotten-away-with.

2. I've been on forums where evidently any longtime participant could be a moderator, and usually abused their authority in order to win arguments that they started.

In fact, before this forum, those two kinds of forums were the only kind I'd encountered.

So, I repeat:

Of all of the forums that I've ever participated in, this is the only one with genuinely effective moderation, ...and with moderation that isn't abused.

Michael Ossipoff

I should add that I once received a murder-threat, from a "moderator" at a Spiritual forum. Of course there were no consequences to the perp.

Michael Ossipoff

"Less inclined to speak" which you put entirely on them if you want, but the circumstances matter.

I should add that I once received a murder-threat, from a "moderator" at a Spiritual forum. Of course there were no consequences to the perp. — Michael Ossipoff

:-O You should've threatened to put the cops on him. Then he may have turned from that big loud-mouthed dirty boy into a whimpering coward, like in this very recent example >:O

"Less inclined to speak" — Srap Tasmaner

That's not the same as silenced. It's their choice not to speak anymore if that is the case, no?

I sometimes wonder if those of us who don't get along on this forum would get along in real life and those of us who do get along on this forum wouldn't get along in real life. A mostly unprovable thought experiment.

I said:
Nobody should be telling women how they should feel about sexism
— Baden

Hope it's clear now. — Baden

Just to be clear, you would also say that, "Nobody should be telling men how they should feel about sexism," right?

I don't know what the dispute was, that disillusioned or discouraged you, so of course I'm not in a position to disagree with you or judge your objections. — Michael Ossipoff

I'm not at all discouraged. But thank you for the endorsement of the regime, with which I totally agree. There is a tradition inherited from a previous site of quality moderation and generally friendly and insightful members. Long may it continue. If this thread appears critical, it is only because eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Just to be clear, you would also say that, "Nobody should be telling men how they should feel about sexism," right? — Buxtebuddha

I think the line of the left is that since sexism is used against women (or at least used to be used against women) more frequently than against men it would be an equivocation to say "nobody should be telling men how they should feel about sexism". Not that I agree with their position, but that's what I think people on the left generally think.

Some dancers are a bit wild and inconsiderate, and you might want to remonstrate, but if a drunk is flailing about knocking people down and throwing up on them, it's time to call in the bouncers. — unenlightened

Hey, I was John Travolta on the floor, back in the day. And despite being drunk, I never knocked people down (bounced off a few and fell down myself though), nor did I throw up on anyone. The bouncers threw me out anyway. I think they were jealous of my moves.

Of all of the forums that I've ever participated in, this is the only one with genuinely effective moderation, ...and with moderation that isn't abused. — Michael Ossipoff

I love the moderation, and the moderators ... honestly. Keep up the good work folks!

I should add that I once received a murder-threat, from a "moderator" at a Spiritual forum. Of course there were no consequences to the perp. — Michael Ossipoff

Probably that Moses... whatever the fuck his name was. He threatened me over at pf, in a PM, and Streetlight dealt with him for me. Thanks Street. Now there's a good reason to ban someone if there ever was one.

It's their choice not to speak anymore if that is the case, no? — Agustino

Sure. The question is whether we as forum members give people reasons to continue speaking or reasons not to.

For example -- note I am not attributing anything to you here -- the "logical content" of the following is the same:

"I respectfully disagree."

"Only a moron would think that!!!"

Both are ways of saying "That's false" but one contributes to the health of the forum and one really doesn't.

My point has only been that we should be mindful of not only the philosophical import of our words, but their effect on the health of the forum. It's a matter of faith, perhaps, that the latter would also lead in the long run to better philosophy.