Downvoting

[MMX2010]

I would wager that this type of rhetoric is the exact reason why you are being downvoted. You are asserting absolute knowledge of the mindstate of others.

 

 

Absolutely not.  I'm indicating two possible types of behaviors, and predicting the results of those behaviors.

 

IF you downvote or ostracize for moral reasons, you will suffer absolutely no harm, but IF you downvote or ostracize for aesthetic reasons, you will absolutely suffer great harm.  Do you think this statement is true or false?  If it's true, we'll move on to something else.  But if it's false, you have to tell me why. 

 

 

 

You don't seem like a bad guy. I don't think you deserve any kind of harsh ostracism, but I also think you're intelligent enough to take the downvotes as an indication that, maybe, just maybe, your tone and style aren't facilitating whatever it is your intentions are for posting.

 

 

Your argument is not only non-convincing, but also supports my argument: IF you ostracize for moral reasons, you will suffer no harm; but IF you ostracize for aesthetic reasons, you will suffer great harm. 

 

"Tone" and "style" are aesthetic!   And neither "tone" nor "style" reveal anything about Truth or Falsehood. 

 

Will you consider taking agency by asking, "How can I better manage my negative emotions so that I'm not annoyed by MMX2010's tone and style?" and "How do I better focus on the Truth or Falsehood of what he's saying, rather than upon my own emotional reactions to his words?"  (Morally, I know that I can't "make" you (nor anyone else) do that, but morally I know that if you don't, then you don't prefer having a conversation primarily focused on Truth / Falsehood.  You instead prefer conversations primarily focused on Sharing Your Authentic Emotional Experiences.) 

 

Has anyone ever made this argument to you before?

 

Perhaps, that's an area you should work on, instead of doubling down (something else you point out in others.) My guess is that changing your tone from a lecturing, proselytizing style to a more sincere, casual one would work wonders for getting others to see the value in the viewpoint that you have.

 

 

I'll be concise here: The harm people suffer from ostracizing aesthetically is the inability to focus Truth / Falsehood when uttered by people of diverse backgrounds and communication styles.  People who draw Truth from diverse types of people, whether diverse in life-experience, occupations, fields-of-study, or communication styles, consistently outperform people who can only draw Truth from one type of person. 

[WasatchMan]

IF you downvote or ostracize for moral reasons, you will suffer absolutely no harm, but IF you downvote or ostracize for aesthetic reasons, you will absolutely suffer great harm.  Do you think this statement is true or false?  If it's true, we'll move on to something else.  But if it's false, you have to tell me why. 

 

 

It is just simply false.  If it were true, the following statement would be true "If you downvote or ostracize for reasons of a person being a racist (an aesthetic reason), you will absolutely suffer great harm."

 

I am absolutely keeping myself from harm from refusing to interact with racists, which is the exact opposite of your claim.

 

"How can I better manage my negative emotions so that I'm not annoyed by MMX2010's tone and style?"

 

So you are asking other people to change their behavior based on their dislike of your preferred "style" of communication?  If you can request this, I think it is fair that others request you change your behavior based on their preferred "style" of communication - and they have, through the mechanism of downvoting. 

[MMX2010]

It is just simply false.  If it were true, the following statement would be true "If you downvote or ostracize for reasons of a person being a racist (an aesthetic reason), you will absolutely suffer great harm."

 

Being a racist is immoral, though.  It is immoral to presume that an individual is inferior solely because of their race. 

 

 

 

 

So you are asking other people to change their behavior based on their dislike of your preferred "style" of communication?  If you can request this, I think it is fair that others request you change your behavior based on their preferred "style" of communication - and they have, through the mechanism of downvoting. 

 

No, Wastachman.  Read me very carefully. 

 

In any conversation, people have two primary choices: (1) Primarily focus on Truth / Falsehood.  (2) Primarily focus on their emotional reactions. 

 

I'm asking them to primarily focus on the Truth / Falsehood of my arguments.  They're asking me to primarily focus on their negative emotional reactions. 

 

You cannot equate, "Please primarily focus on Truth / Falsehood." to "Please primarily focus on how negatively I feel right now."  They are not the same; they are complete opposites.  (Or, you can, based solely on the factor that "a request for change has occurred" - but that misses the major point of my argument.) 

[WasatchMan]

Being a racist is immoral, though.  It is immoral to presume that an individual is inferior solely because of their race. 

 

 

 

In any conversation, people have two primary choices: (1) Primarily focus on Truth / Falsehood.  (2) Primarily focus on their emotional reactions. 

 

I'm asking them to primarily focus on the Truth / Falsehood of my arguments.  They're asking me to primarily focus on their negative emotional reactions. 

 

You cannot equate, "Please primarily focus on Truth / Falsehood." to "Please primarily focus on how negatively I feel right now."  They are not the same; they are complete opposites.  (Or, you can, based solely on the factor that "a request for change has occurred" - but that misses the major point of my argument.) 

 

I would classify your analysis as an either-or fallacy. 

 

People can primarily focus on the truth / falsehood of someones argument and at the same time maintain their aesthetic preferences for how someone communicates to them.  Its called not erasing yourself in a conversation.

[MMX2010]

 

 

 

I would classify your analysis as an either-or fallacy. 

 

People can primarily focus on the truth / falsehood of someones argument and at the same time maintain their aesthetic preferences for how someone communicates to them.  Its called not erasing yourself in a conversation.

 

"People can do X." is not the same thing as saying, "People are doing X."

 

I agree with you that they can primarily focus on the truth / falsehood of someone's argument and at the same time maintain their aesthetic preferences for how someone communicates to them.  My argument is that the downvoters never (or almost never) do that. 

 

(Didn't you read my argument to Ray H showing how he didn't comment about the Truth / Falsehood of my argument, because he focused primarily on his negative emotional reactions to it?) 

[Ray H.]

Your premise is wrong. I haven't focused on my negative emotional reactions to your posts. Because I don't have negative emotional reactions to your posts. I'm not angry at you. Really and for true. You've simply read that into it, and then reframed the conversation as being about my shortcomings instead of your own. Framing downvoting in a moral context is farcical. This is a messageboard. No harm has been done to you or anyone else.

[MysterionMuffles]

I'll just repeat what I wrote in my Friends With Benefits thread on how to handle negative criticism.

 

If there's anybody on this board who has gotten a ton of downvotes, enough to fall below the community threshold, I would suggest that they:

1. Log out from the boards (so they don't feel compelled to post anything new)
2. Search up their own names and look at their reputation history
3. Try to read their posts with the most downvotes from the perspective of an outsider
4. Ask themselves if they would enjoy being treated the way they've treated others in those threads
5. Remove their attachment to being right in their arguments, maybe they are right, but that's not important
6. What's important is observing one's own behaviour and learning how to correct it so they don't run repeat it
7. One last big thing is also looking for any patterns. Have several people given you the same feedback repeatedly?
8. If so, ask yourself why you refuse to accept it and work on improving.
9. If not, which criticisms provoke the most anxiety? Work on that!

I've only gotten a couple of downvotes before, but before I could ever go on a witch hunt asking who it was, I've looked my posts over. I saw what I did wrong, editted out the abusive language, apologized for it and never made the same mistake again. One such example was a thread about happier women being more attractive, and I said something condescending about how unattractive unhappy women are. Although I think it's true, the way I phrased was snarky and horrible (This is the PG rated version). I recognized that what I said was unempathetic to such said women, and to some degree outright dismissive. I won't repeat it here, thus negating the lesson I learned from delving into it with myself.

 

Anybody with even the slightest ounce of self awareness would give themseleves the courtesy of a self RTR conversation when they have been downvoted--instead of rushing into defending their point or their right to speak the way they want. "This is a philosophy message board, criticism and censorship is NOT philosophy," they cry. But such people who do make this claim often do not look inside of themselves for answers.

 

Why?

 

Because they avoid the questions a self RTR would produce. It's painful to admit fault. It's painful to admit that there needs to be a change in their behaviour. They would much rather keep trying to prove the other party wrong as opposed to figuring out how they can better convey their points, because to them, I would imagine, it's not about educating others or learning more about other people's contrary viewpoints. No, it's about top-down dominance.

 

If they were all about wanting to improve other people's point of view, they can do well without the false accusations, ad hominem attacks, and in MMX2010's usual case, the strawnmanning via rephrasing what others say via colour coded quoting. Or worse, the misdirection of the original topic. Obviously, I am not MMX, however, if I was, I would try to at least acknowledge that "hey! A lot of the threads that I engage in become more about my communication style instead of the original topic." And then wonder how and why that happens. It's self knowledge 101.

 

If you are repeatedly given negative feedback about the same thing, or similar things, it's an invitation to what I call a Test of Valor. Your behaviour is provoking others to challenge you about that behaviour, and in a way, you bring it upon yourself, which isn't a bad thing. Unless you ignore the test and not explore what's going on for you, and instead speak, act, and think from a place of reaction.

 

Many callers of this show are put under it when Stefan pushes back on their inconsistent narratives (when it comes to a personal topic where a caller must accept ownership for their actions), or inconsistent arguments (when it comes to the abstract philosophical arguments and a caller must agree to a more rational mode of debating). A good example of a Test of Valor is the recent Subjective is Objective conversation, where the caller was called out on attempting to redefine terms and refusing to acknowledge that he was doing it at all. Or even that caller after him who talked about his girlfriend not fitting his standards anymore. He accepted the Test of Valor and learned to take ownership for his actions that caused the problem he called in about.

 

Likewise with anybody on here on the boards who gets a bad rep, whether justly or unjustly, I invite you to a Test of Valor:

 

Can you take a step back from an interaction, online or otherwise, and explore how you feel about it?

 

Can you uncover why you may resort to certain behaviours or phrases, and work to improve yourself if those behaviours and phrases aren't serving your interactions?

[J. D. Stembal]

I love the community participation of reps and negs, but I have difficulty understanding the reason why MMX2010 attracted the ire of the forum goers at large. I've mentioned to him that his writing format is often hard to follow and his style abrasive, but I don't think this explains 140 or more negs over the course of five months. While my eyes often water and go blood-shot upon seeing his walls of text, I respect his continued contributions. I could see a neg here and there for being cocky or annoying, but he went from being tolerated to despised in short order.

 

When Ken Cotton joined up and started touting the virtues of fascism, no one bothered to downvote him at first. Mike banned him after a few weeks, if I recall correctly.

 

Perhaps MMX is being downvoted because of his appreciation for game and pick-up artistry. If anyone feels negatively about the content of his replies, the truth would be more useful in the long run than following him around and pushing the downvote button.

[MMX2010]

Your premise is wrong. I haven't focused on my negative emotional reactions to your posts. Because I don't have negative emotional reactions to your posts. I'm not angry at you.

 

I believe that you're not angry at me, but you speculated that I was being downvoted for rhetoric that was making other people angry. 

 

So, while you're absolving yourself of the notion that you are "angry, and not focused on truth/falsehood", you're also avoiding the question of whether others are "angry, and not focused on truth/falsehood". 

 

 

 

Really and for true. You've simply read that into it, and then reframed the conversation as being about my shortcomings instead of your own.

 

Why didn't you phrase the blue-words as, "reframed the conversation as being about the shortcomings of my argument, instead of on the shortcomings of your own argument"?  Do you understand that saying words like "my shortcomings" and "your shortcomings" is personal-in-nature, whereas "my argument" and "your argument" is completely impersonal? 

 

 

 

 

Framing downvoting in a moral context is farcical. This is a messageboard. No harm has been done to you or anyone else.

 

I'm not concerned about harm to myself.  I'm concerned about harm for FDR. 

 

The purpose of philosophy is to seek Truth over Falsehood, right?   Downvoting for anything other than egregious moral violations harms the community by making it more difficult for its members to discover Truth. 

 

This is wdiaz's argument, "Simply disagreeing with a post should not trigger a downvote. This will drive away unpopular opinions since the member posts will be hidden. Stef has said that he welcomes opposite views and they go to the front of the queue. So down voting should only be use for abusive language etc."

 

Do you think wdiaz is wrong?  Why or why not?       

[Ray H.]

"saying words like "my shortcomings" and "your shortcomings" is personal-in-nature"

 

Not within the context of this thread; it certainly isn't. I've been clear that I'm talking about the content of your posts. You can reasonably assume that I wasn't questioning your character since I said outright that I don't think you're a bad guy. Once again, you're removing context and reframing with an interpretation.
 

[MMX2010]

"saying words like "my shortcomings" and "your shortcomings" is personal-in-nature"

 

Not within the context of this thread; it certainly isn't. I've been clear that I'm talking about the content of your posts.

 

 

 

Objectively speaking, which is the clearer way of communicating that you're talking about the content of someone's posts?  (1) You've simply read that into it, and then reframed the conversation as being about my shortcomings instead of your own.  (2) You've simply read that into it, and then reframed the conversation as being about the shortcomings of my argument instead of the shortcomings of your own? 

 

Please pick one, and tell me which is objectively more clear. 

[Ray H.]

I'm not biting.

[MMX2010]

I'm not biting.

 

Well, there you go, Ray H. 

 

I asked you a very simple question about an objectively true definition.  It was a question so easy that it'd take you two seconds to answer. 

 

Did I call you names?  (No.)  Did I insult your personality?  (No.)   Did I condescend?  (No.) 

 

But rather than giving me the honest answer, and then giving me the benefit of being right, you replied "I'm not biting." 

 

Why?  Why, Ray? 

 

Why argue for "context" and "you can make a reasonable assumption" rather than avoiding the usages of words that seem personal and noticing that I take great pains to avoid using personal-language, always instead referring to YOUR ARGUMENT? 

[Ray H.]

 "I take great pains to avoid using personal-language, always instead referring to YOUR ARGUMENT?"

 

 

"(Didn't you read my argument to Ray H showing how he didn't comment about the Truth / Falsehood of my argument, because he focused primarily on his negative emotional reactions to it?)"

[MMX2010]

 "I take great pains to avoid using personal-language, always instead referring to YOUR ARGUMENT?"

 

 

"(Didn't you read my argument to Ray H showing how he didn't comment about the Truth / Falsehood of my argument, because he focused primarily on his negative emotional reactions to it?)"

 

 

You realize that you just provided evidence that I avoid using personal-language, always referring instead to "your argument", right? 

 

It says it twice, right? 

[Ray H.]

You were entirely personal in that second quote. You called me out by name, and falsely claimed that I had negative emotional reactions.

 

This thread is highly valuable, folks.

[J. D. Stembal]

They may have played a role in driving off the cop who introduced himself. I was disappointed because I have some complex feelings towards cops and wanted to see how Stef's material, and debating philosophical and mature adults who can handle the difference of opinion, affects his thinking.

 

Do you mean The Fuzz? How was he driven off? If he is no longer posting, it is his choice. No one forced him away. He voluntarily decided to sign up here for a reason.

 

I upvoted his post when he started the thread because he showed vulnerability by saying that he had doubts about his decisions, which demonstrates self-knowledge. However, when I (and others) began to ask questions about the effectiveness of "fight tyranny from the inside", he retreated back to the standard justifications for the need for police and the state. He wrote later in the thread that he did not find the NAP to be completely valid, and thought that spanking was an effective behavior deterrent for his children.

 

I did not accuse him of any wrong-doing, but he took my first reply to mean that I thought he was evil. That revealed his defensiveness and showed that his conscience was gnawing at him. It is clear to me that he is very conflicted, which is why he is here. He is as welcome to the forums as everyone else, but I'm not going to pretend that coerced funding of law enforcement is a modern necessity that society cannot go without.

[MMX2010]

You were entirely personal in that second quote. You called me out by name, and falsely claimed that I had negative emotional reactions.

 

This thread is highly valuable, folks.

 

I also claimed that you never commented on the Truth / Falsehood of my arguments. This claim is correct because you used no words for "true" or "false" in anything you said in that post.

 

I also asked you whether wdiaz made a wrong argument?  (You haven't commented.)

 

I also clarified that I wasn't speaking about "other people's mindsets", but was instead speaking about specific behaviors and making predictions.  (You haven't replied whether you agree with my correction.) 

 

There are so many things I've said, but you're focusing solely on what you perceive to be "personal".

 

Why?  Why not address what I believe is much more important? 

[neeeel]

 

Anybody with even the slightest ounce of self awareness would give themseleves the courtesy of a self RTR conversation when they have been downvoted--instead of rushing into defending their point or their right to speak the way they want. "This is a philosophy message board, criticism and censorship is NOT philosophy," they cry. But such people who do make this claim often do not look inside of themselves for answers.

 

 

 

Downvoting tells you nothing about what you did wrong. And generally, it is very difficult for someone to read their own post and see whats wrong with it. Further, I also find it hard a lot of the time to see why others posts have been downvoted.

 

For example, MMXs post #47. It has 3 downvotes. And I cannot see anything that deserves a downvote. Taking that post on its own, there is nothing wrong with it, nothing insulting, nothing unempathetic. If I had to guess, I have heard people make fun of him for his habit of putting 1).....2)...... in his posts, and so I would assume that the people who were making fun of him, are following him around and downvoting every post where he does that. 

 

I cant know if thats the case, but I cant see any other reason why his posts would be downvoted. If it is the case, where does that leave your wall of text? Its the downvoters who should be following your instructions, not the poster.

[BaylorPRSer]

Hi J.D.,

Sorry, it may have played a role in his decision to leave is more appropriate.

I don't have any issue with what u said in that thread nor do I know who down voted him. Also, I fully accept that it could have had nothing to do with him peacing out. Who knows? maybe he plans to return. I was only speculating.

[Merrifield]

The fuzz didn't leave

[BaylorPRSer]

The fuzz didn't leave

good ish

[WasatchMan]

Perhaps MMX is being downvoted because of his appreciation for game and pick-up artistry. If anyone feels negatively about the content of his replies, the truth would be more useful in the long run than following him around and pushing the downvote button.

 

I don't think so.  MMX tends to come off as someone who is willing to rationalize anything post-facto.  He will make huge assertions (like ostracizing for aesthetic reasons causes the person harm), and then when called on the logic, double down with rationalizations, goal post moving, or larger assertions (like racism is immoral).  It comes off disingenuous to me.  He was trying to shame me in another thread for wanting to nail down a precise definition of morality because he claims a precise definition damages Christians, and then in this thread he all of a sudden has such a precise definition of morality that he is willing to make the claim that thoughts (illogical thoughts, but still just thoughts) such as racism are immoral, just so his claim of ostracism for aesthetic reasons causes harm to the ostracizer remains standing.

 

I don't dislike MMX, and I don't go around downvoting all of his posts.  However I don't think it is correct, or helpful, to say that he is downtvoted for being a PUA.  I just don't find this community that spiteful.

[BaylorPRSer]

Shirgall,

 

I found out last night Stephan Kinsella is a determinist.  Maybe a debate with the Stefs is in order?  lol

[Frosty]

Downvoting tells you nothing about what you did wrong. And generally, it is very difficult for someone to read their own post and see whats wrong with it. Further, I also find it hard a lot of the time to see why others posts have been downvoted.

 

For example, MMXs post #47. It has 3 downvotes. And I cannot see anything that deserves a downvote. Taking that post on its own, there is nothing wrong with it, nothing insulting, nothing unempathetic. If I had to guess, I have heard people make fun of him for his habit of putting 1).....2)...... in his posts, and so I would assume that the people who were making fun of him, are following him around and downvoting every post where he does that.

 

I agree with neeeel here, in a lot of cases with MMX I find it hard to spot why people down voted some of his posts, I'm not convinced people are dolling out up/down votes with enough care and attention, we've got a mechanism here where now his posts are being hidden and I don't think that's a good thing because I see value in some of the things he says and how he makes me question my own positions on things.

 

The feeling of irritation at some of his posts, the length of them and the style they're written in shouldn't be used as an excuse to ostracise and derail otherwise perfectly good debate. I don't think the vote system is good at all, if people are perpetually trolling or troublemaking then that's something mods can and should deal with on an individual basis, the hiding of other peoples posts ought to be a personal thing we do as users and not have authoritatively done for us, certainly it doesn't support the idea of liberty, even if this is a privately owned space.

[MMX2010]

I don't think so.  MMX tends to come off as someone who is willing to rationalize anything post-facto.  He will make huge assertions (like ostracizing for aesthetic reasons causes the person harm), and then when called on the logic, double down with rationalizations, goal post moving, or larger assertions (like racism is immoral).  It comes off disingenuous to me.  He was trying to shame me in another thread for wanting to nail down a precise definition of morality because he claims a precise definition damages Christians, and then in this thread he all of a sudden has such a precise definition of morality that he is willing to make the claim that thoughts (illogical thoughts, but still just thoughts) such as racism are immoral, just so his claim of ostracism for aesthetic reasons causes harm to the ostracizer remains standing.

 

I don't dislike MMX, and I don't go around downvoting all of his posts.  However I don't think it is correct, or helpful, to say that he is downtvoted for being a PUA.  I just don't find this community that spiteful.

 

Two things here. 

 

(1) "He was trying to shame me" is exactly like Ray H's example in this thread: a highly personal emotionally-inciteful interpretation of our exchange.  Not only is it much less personal and much less emotionally-inciting to say, "He was trying to point out the flaws in my argument" rather than saying "He was trying to shame me" - but also you provide no cut-and-paste examples of, "This is what MMX2010 said that was shaming!"

 

(2) Your claim is that "a precise definition of morality damages Christians" - BUT you misinterpreted me. 

 

Now I've got to open a thread from three days ago, cutting-and-pasting our exchange, all because you're importing examples from other threads without citing examples.  Surely it's more courteous to either discuss your grievances in that thread, or import examples directly so we can all talk about it.  But no!  Let's make me take the extra time out of my day that you can't be bothered to take. 

 

 

WastachMan: Also, I don't care if identifying that you can only call things morality and ethics when they are derived from truth annoys every Christian and causes them to misbehave more, at least they won't be able to hide behind their actions being moral.

 

 

 

MMX2010: As a pragmatic person, let me ask a pragmatic question: There are 168 hours in a week, of which approximately 56 hours are spent sleeping, and another 56 hours are spent working.  That leaves about 56 hours of free time.  How many of those hours are spent talking to people in real life for longer than ten minutes at a clip?

 

I ask because someone who doesn't care that his philosophical opinions might incite 2 billion people to despair-induced violence doesn't strike me as someone who spends a lot of time talking to people. 

 

 

 

WastachMan:  Truth does not care about how it affects people - it just is. I think you have gotten it confused with politics.  However, you have made it abundantly clear on this forum that you are willing to manipulate people to achieve certain ends, so I am not too surprised by your confusion between the two disciplines.

 

WastachMan, is asking you how many hours you spend actually talking to people really "trying to shame them"?  Compared to doxxing?  Compared to openly insulting them?  Compared to downvoting them en masse? 

 

If a Christian person goes on a killing spree because you told him that his behaviors that he only follows because he was violently brainwashed into adopting "aren't really moral" because "truth doesn't care how it affects people", would you tell the mothers of the murder victims that the truth doesn't care how it affects people?  If so, do you expect them to beam in glorious insight and bake you a casserole because you enlightened them? 

 

(Okay, I get it.  That sort of behavior is unlikely to happen, so let's go much more likely.) 

 

If multiple Christian parents become apathetic and depressed and/or alcoholic, because "truth doesn't care how it affects people", would you be satisfied with this result because "at least they won't be able to hide behind their actions being moral"?  Or does the negative affect of the particular style with which you spread your beliefs not matter to you, because "truth doesn't care"? 

 

---------------------------------

 

Thirdly, "being a racist" is absolutely immoral.  You reject that notion without argument, but you haven't asked whether the majority of people in FDR agree with you.  Perhaps you should start a thread about it. 

[Kevin Beal]

The feeling of irritation at some of his posts, the length of them and the style they're written in shouldn't be used as an excuse to ostracise and derail otherwise perfectly good debate.

What good debate?

[MMX2010]

What good debate?

 

 

I'm hoping Frosty will cite the discussion on the Friends With Benefits thread, because my last post to you in that thread detailed four of your assertion that I found completely off-base.  And you neither addressed, agreed with, nor counter-argued my assertions.  You just abandoned the debate, only to imply now that there is "no good debate".   

I love the community participation of reps and negs, but I have difficulty understanding the reason why MMX2010 attracted the ire of the forum goers at large. I've mentioned to him that his writing format is often hard to follow and his style abrasive, but I don't think this explains 140 or more negs over the course of five months. While my eyes often water and go blood-shot upon seeing his walls of text, I respect his continued contributions. I could see a neg here and there for being cocky or annoying, but he went from being tolerated to despised in short order.

 

When Ken Cotton joined up and started touting the virtues of fascism, no one bothered to downvote him at first. Mike banned him after a few weeks, if I recall correctly.

 

Perhaps MMX is being downvoted because of his appreciation for game and pick-up artistry. If anyone feels negatively about the content of his replies, the truth would be more useful in the long run than following him around and pushing the downvote button.

 

My appreciation of Pick-Up Artistry is part of it, but it doesn't tell the whole story. 

 

I've told this story multiple times, so you may have heard it already.

 

The second time I went to an FDR NYC Meet-Up group, the entire group of eight people (except the one guy who liked me, and has since become a friend) argued, for about 90 minutes that my communication style was "dominating" and "non-empathetic".  I didn't bat an eye, didn't yell back at them, didn't insult them: just listened and counter-argued. 

 

Eventually my friend spoke about his positive experiences with embracing Roosh's three-circle Venn-diagram, illustrating what it is to be a great man.

 

 

 

The entire group agreed that Philosophy and Self-Knowledge fall under the Lifestyle circle, and that Philosophy is the most important element of all. 

 

I stated, "You can't use an excess of six-pack abs and money to make up for a lack of philosophy."  (The entire group nods.)  I continue, "But you also cannot use an excess of Philosophy to make up for a lack of six-pack abs and money."  (The entire group amygdala-freezes.) 

 

Except one guy, who had been repeatedly pointing out that I was non-empathetic, who said, "You don't need six pack abs and money to attract a virtuous woman." 

 

I looked him in the eye and quickly replied, "Philosophically, what you're saying is 100% true, but you're not empathizing with a virtuous woman's desire for six-pack abs and money."

 

He reacted very, very negatively, so I knew my remark deeply stung him.  But he didn't counter-argue, didn't comment, and I wasn't invited back to the next meeting. 

 

I get downvoted very often for re-telling that story, but the most important thing is that every woman I've told that story to - (about six on FDR, and exactly three outside-of-FDR) - has reacted very positively to it.  At minimum, they've all smiled and agreed, and about half of them vociferously agreed with loud, instantaneous laughter and/or spontaneous clapping.   

 

So, long story short, a sizable chunk of male FDR members are using Philosophy to argue against women's natural desires for muscular men with lots of money.  A man is allowed to have an aesthetic preference for women who don't seek wealth and muscular hotness, but every man is responsible for the repercussions of that decision, including being unable to compete equally with men who combine Philosophy and Pick-Up Artistry to become more attractive to women. 

[J. D. Stembal]

I don't think so.  MMX tends to come off as someone who is willing to rationalize anything post-facto.  He will make huge assertions (like ostracizing for aesthetic reasons causes the person harm), and then when called on the logic, double down with rationalizations, goal post moving, or larger assertions (like racism is immoral).  It comes off disingenuous to me.  He was trying to shame me in another thread for wanting to nail down a precise definition of morality because he claims a precise definition damages Christians, and then in this thread he all of a sudden has such a precise definition of morality that he is willing to make the claim that thoughts (illogical thoughts, but still just thoughts) such as racism are immoral, just so his claim of ostracism for aesthetic reasons causes harm to the ostracizer remains standing.

 

I don't dislike MMX, and I don't go around downvoting all of his posts.  However I don't think it is correct, or helpful, to say that he is downtvoted for being a PUA.  I just don't find this community that spiteful.

 

While I haven't seen all the threads and replies or the one you referenced, I agree with everything in the first paragraph, except MMX was arguing in this thread that downvoting for moral reasons is harmful to the forum or community. I don't see the voting system as a form of real ostracism, rather it is a basic tool for performance metrics tracking. While it is possible to downvote with a moral justification, I don't think that the system can accurately track a member's relative morality. It is just a tool, nothing more. The end user will decide for himself what the tool indicates.

 

Like others members, including myself, MMX needs to work on consistent use and application of philosophy. I agree completely, and we should encourage him to reflect on it. I am reflecting on my use of philosophy and self-knowledge daily.

 

Ostracism, manifested in a forum, would be an account suspension, expulsion, or if necessary, IP banning. In the real world, for example, MMX was ostracized from one of the New York City philosophy clubs, and was asked not to come back. My statement about pick-up artistry was rank speculation, of course, but I am willing to entertain the possibility for now that the extent of the downvotes he has received is due to more than just inconsistency, abrasiveness, style, and text formatting. Perhaps I am totally wrong about this, but I've never looked at the structure, grammar or words someone picks and felt the need to hit the green or red button. I consider content and the motivation behind the post. Obviously, other members may use this feedback tool differently than I do.

 

I am not suggesting that the community as a whole is spiteful or petty because I honestly can't assess it in that manner. However, it is possible that there are individuals who are capable of this behavior.

 

Again, the feedback system is a tool, but for whatever reason, this tool is failing him. He is requesting honest feedback, so I hope that we can offer him some great insights.

[labmath2]

Quick question, when you get the ability to upvote or downvote, is there some sort of guide that you get on recommendations of what you should upvote or downvote? If there is, then i am willing to concede the voting system is done in good faith. Without such a "guide," you just leave people to decide on their whims what they like or dislike and vote accordingly. This may not necessarily be bad, but it may sometimes turns threads into a popularity contest.

[Kevin Beal]

If there's a non-sequitor, it's not an argument. It's at least two parts of an argument. "I have a belly ache" and "therefore Obama is great" can take the appearance of an argument, but if no logical implication tying the two statements is there, no actual argument is there.

 

I would highly recommend that people do read the threads in question and see them in context. "I don't understand why X was down voted" is not really any kind of argument that it was unjustly down voted. Read it in context, and then maybe you will understand it.

 

Some things only make sense in context. People who are sophisticated albeit compromised human beings use context and subtext, rather than overtly prejudicial statements. Regardless, you will find plenty of both kinds if you read the threads.

 

That becomes the actual focus of the "debate" toward the end. Saying "I don't understand" means you didn't really read those posts. You can disagree, obviously, but "I don't understand" is kind of annoying to someone who gets the context and isn't only seeing the story about the interaction, after the fact.

 

140+ downvotes in a short time? That would be a humungous defensively irrational reaction to mere difference of opinion or uncouth delivery...

 

Or maybe there's more to it than the story about it.

[MMX2010]

If there's a non-sequitor, it's not an argument. It's at least two parts of an argument. "I have a belly ache" and "therefore Obama is great" can take the appearance of an argument, but if no logical implication tying the two statements is there, no actual argument is there.

 

I would highly recommend that people do read the threads in question and see them in context. "I don't understand why X was down voted" is not really any kind of argument that it was unjustly down voted. Read it in context, and then maybe you will understand it.

 

Some things only make sense in context. People who are sophisticated albeit compromised human beings use context and subtext, rather than overtly prejudicial statements. Regardless, you will find plenty of both kinds if you read the threads.

 

Just pointing out that I took the time to cut-and-paste specific examples of WastachMan's thread in order to make my point.  Whereas you're refusing to cut-and-paste any examples, asserting instead that "You encourage people to read the threads in context." 

 

Which one of these is objectively more likely to lead to substantial debate? 

 

 

 

 

That becomes the actual focus of the "debate" toward the end. Saying "I don't understand" means you didn't really read those posts. You can disagree, obviously, but "I don't understand" is kind of annoying to someone who gets the context and isn't only seeing the story about the interaction, after the fact.

 

140+ downvotes in a short time? That would be a humungous defensively irrational reaction to mere difference of opinion or uncouth delivery...

 

Or maybe there's more to it than the story about it.

 

Or maybe there's nothing to the story at all, but you're incorrectly hinting that there is? 

 

Isn't it obvious that cutting-and-pasting examples so that those examples can be publically debated is much more effective at getting to the bottom of things? 

[Matt D]

Voting is for statists.

 

Just kidding... pls don't downvote me!

[MysterionMuffles]

It's funny how quickly this thread became about MMX2010 as well. Again, it's a reptitious cycle he's unwilling to confront in himself. The fact that he just continues to keep responding is testament to how much he wants to avoid the Test of Valor. He's free to keep doing so, of course. But he's only gonna get more of the same because it's an automatic and unconscious action. You can't prove anything to anyone when you've helped invoke some feelings of distrust and disgust in you.

 

Notice I say help invoke, not provoke alone. We are all responsible for how we feel, but we are all also responsible for how we present ourselves to others. MMX2010 does not appreciate or acknowledge that responsibility and would much rather continue acting unconsciously. I can't even say it's his choice since it seems like something that is deterministically proned to happen. The misdirection, the attention drawing, non-sequitors etc etc etc. It's just his unconscious modus operandi he's unwilling to confront, and the degree to which he avoids the Test of Valor for this compulsion only speaks volumes of how painful and vast the change might be in him if he took up the challenge.

 

I can't remember the original topic or the person he quoted, but MMX2010 shared a quote by someone that said something ala "don't wish she was easier, wish you were better." When I read that, I jived with it and thought, yes, despite of the lifestyle he lives that I particularly do not like, he's got some wisdom to share from time to time. Hence, I unblocked him for a while...much to my detrement.

 

I think he's forgetting that that principle also applies to other people, not just prospects for sex and dating. He's ascribing difficulty in all of us for taking his communication style and arguments personally, just WISHING we could all just change how we perceive him, thus making things easier to him. In turn, he's not making any attempts to improve his behaviour. He can't control how we respond to him, but he can (can he?) control how he comes across to minimize or completely mitigate such behaviour. Likewise, perhaps we can all "develop thicker skin" when reading his posts, but after numerous threads getting derailed by him, I think it's safe to say that the fault of responsibility lies on him to do as I listed above.

 

And I'm saying this as just a suggestion, not an attempt to manage him and change his mind. I don't have control over that because I don't quite think he has much control over it himself...

[Ray H.]

I reached my quota for positive votes today. Negative votes are up for grabs.