Downvoting

[NumberSix]

Here's a good test to long term listeners of the show - ask them if they have been to therapy.  If the answer is no, then you know how seriously they take the ideas talked about on the show.

That’s exactly the kind of purity test, I have a problem with.  Do I have to agree with everything Stef says and devote my life to it?   

 

You assume that everyone needs therapy, that a qualified therapist can be found, that the person can afford to pay, and they have time available.  

 

[MysterionMuffles]

thebeardslastcall: awesome question

 

MMD: even awesomer answer!

[MMX2010]

If you're interested in philosophy - one of the first steps on the road to knowledge is "know thyself." If you don't have self-knowledge, it's going to be very hard to rationally examine new evidence without emotional biases overriding your thought process. Many people gravitate to conclusions they like instead of arriving at conclusions through a consistent application of a rational methodology. This material is discussed in detail within 'The Bomb in the Brain' series - and since it's publication, even more scientific research has come out on the subject - which we're going to be featuring in an upcoming presentation.

 

In a study co-authored by Elizabeth Gershoff which examined 20,000 kindergartners and their parents, 89% of black parents, 80% of Hispanic parents, 79% of white parents, and 73% of Asian parents said they have spanked their children. Overwhelming evidence suggests that peaceful parenting is rare. If people have grown up with peaceful parenting - they likley have still gone to public schools around many people who have not been raised peacefully. If you are parented peacefully and were not subjected to public school (maybe you were unschooled/homeschooled/Montessori/etc.) then you are still entering an adult world where you are very much a minority and will interact with people where were raised with violence and without win-win negotiation.

 

I really don't know how somebody could claim not to be benefited by therapy if they are interested in philosophy.

 

If you are a talented athlete and want to make the Olympics - you get a coach. The same applies to philosophy - and the foundation of philosophy is self-knowledge.

 

Interesting answer, MMD.  The blue is the most important part, though. 

 

Are you familiar with the evolutionary biology terms: "costly signaling theory", "the handicap principle", and "pronking"? 

[shirgall]

 

Are you familiar with the evolutionary biology terms: "costly signaling theory", "the handicap principle", and "pronking"? 

 

There ain't nothing like faking a pronkial spasm to throw off a predator.

[MMX2010]

There ain't nothing like faking a pronkial spasm to throw off a predator.

 

I know.    But I've read long, complicated books that hint at why this works.  And I was just wondering whether MMD is familiar with the terms. 

[J. D. Stembal]

In a study co-authored by Elizabeth Gershoff which examined 20,000 kindergartners and their parents, 89% of black parents, 80% of Hispanic parents, 79% of white parents, and 73% of Asian parents said they have spanked their children. Overwhelming evidence suggests that peaceful parenting is rare. If people have grown up with peaceful parenting - they likley have still gone to public schools around many people who have not been raised peacefully. If you are parented peacefully and were not subjected to public school (maybe you were unschooled/homeschooled/Montessori/etc.) then you are still entering an adult world where you are very much a minority and will interact with people where were raised with violence and without win-win negotiation.

 

Those are some eye-opening figures to be sure.

 

However, it is important to note that spanking, while completely non-effective and abusive, is just one small facet of irresponsible parenting. Cajoling, neglecting and demeaning - making a person to feel invisible - are far more damaging to the child in the long run. I don't want to endorse corporal punishment in any way, but personally, I think it is less harmful in comparison to the "mind games" involved in modern parenting, intentional and unintentional.

 

I was in Target two days ago and I overheard a conversation between a mother and her son. One of the son's friends or acquaintances was also in the store waving to them, trying to get their attention, but the mother completely ignored it.

 

"Mom, do you see Travis over there?"

 

"Who, honey?"

 

"The person who we met recently at <social function>."

 

"Oh, no, I didn't see any one I recognized."

 

"Well, mom, you had your head down the whole time when we walked past them."

 

"Honey, I was focused so much at the task at hand."

 

The mother and child continued walking past, leaving the people they knew behind. Apparently, buying a new pair of hosiery was more important than to investigate what the child was interested in doing. I would not characterize this a strict abuse, but it belies a profound lack of interest of life in general (people you know in your vicinity) and it a soft denial of what makes a child excited about life. The difference in the tone of voice between mother and child was palpable. The son was excited, and then mildly disappointed, and the mother did not seem curious about her child's emotions at all during that particular span of time, as if she was pushing a shopping cart while in a mental fog considering only what she wanted to purchase at the store.

 

I would be shocked to see any parent beat their child in a public place, and I have never seen it in person, but you see denials of existence and reality all the time, not just with children and their parents, but with everyone. They are so common that you have to be tuned in and looking to find them in order to notice them.

[_LiveFree_]

While the content of what you're saying, J.D., is important, I totally disagree that spanking is a "small facet" of bad parenting. Spanking is a silly word for physical violence, which has an extremely negative and profound effect on the developing brain. And according to the statistics Mike just posted, the vast majorty of parents engage in this violent behavior. If we could get just half of those parents who spank down to ignoring that would be a major improvement.

 

Why do you think hitting is a small facet of bad parenting?

[labmath2]

In my opinion, hitting is a smaller aspect of bad parenting. I dont know the data, but i imagine based on personal experience that spanking happens a lot less often than non-physical forms of abuse. I have mey many parents who hit thier kids maybe once a week, but debase them every chance they get.

[_LiveFree_]

In my opinion, hitting is a smaller aspect of bad parenting. I dont know the data, but i imagine based on personal experience that spanking happens a lot less often than non-physical forms of abuse. I have mey many parents who hit thier kids maybe once a week, but debase them every chance they get.

Please watch "The Truth Facts About Spanking"

 

edit: title corrected

[hannahbanana]

In a way, you could say that with spanking and other physical abuse, at least it is more easily recognized as abuse, so you can go to therapy/address the harm done in some way... But with other verbal abuse and manipulative behavior from parents, it is much more difficult to recognize as being a problem, giving it a greater opportunity to spread into all parts of your life. Not to mention outside support...if a child told someone they were hit by their parent, they would be much more likely to be taken seriously than if they said something like they were teased a lot by their parents (which can bring about a lot of insecurity and problems in their future).

Both types of abuse are really bad, but I think it may be possible that people don't give manipulation and verbal abuse as much attention as it deserves, compared to the response to spanking.

[Kevin Beal]

I've heard Stef say that the worst part of physical abuse is the emotional abuse that must necessarily be present in doing that. Hitting someone is humiliating, for example. The two are not mutually exclusive, obviously.

[MMX2010]

My experience is identical to labmath's, where the parents who don't spank are almost all extraordinarily passive-aggressive, prone to anger, and quick to humiliate / bully their children. 

 

Thus I agree with Hannah's speculation that society-as-a-whole condones (by not caring about) verbal and emotional abuse so much that they find Peaceful Parenting to either be: (1) an exact representation of what they're already doing - (which isn't even close to being true) OR (2) such an extreme mismatch with what they're already doing that it must be the wrong approach. 

 

Stopping spanking, no matter how much I agree with its importance, is roughly only 10% of the battle.  The other 75% is promoting Peaceful Parenting in a way that challenges parent's (supposed) "rights" to verbally abuse their children. 

[thebeardslastcall]

I just downloaded the Bomb in the Brain series and will listen to them soon when I have a chance.

 

I think the point to note on spanking is that it's just a symptom. If you address the cause then the spanking goes away. This is the real solution and addresses many bad parenting practices, which can all be very traumatizing individually and are usually a package deal that leaves children scarred. However, if you don't address any of the causes and merely use force of heavy social coercion to prevent just the spanking, then you aren't really solving much and may be falsely thinking you've solved something, as many in society don't seem to realize. The parent will still have many other outlets for abuse without spanking, which are very traumatizing. While some parents are quick to hit, many hit as the end of an abusive chain of maltreatment and neglect.

 

Usually the obvious point of offense is just the end of a single and repeating set of chains. Like when a parent gets super frustrated and tells her kid something like "I wish you'd never been born, it's all your fault." A statement like this is very hard for a child to hear, but the parent has likely already expressed this sentiment many of times in other ways leading up to this verbal outburst. Children are told many feelings and thoughts with the parents actions long before they put it into words or spanking actions. Parents will tell the child they're evil before they try to beat the devil out of them. They'll treat them like they're evil before they'll say it. It's a harsh upbringing living with an abusive parent, whether or not they spank.

The good part about this community is that people here are trying to address the causes of bad parenting and not cheaply pretending to solve problems by merely addressing symptoms, as much of society does.

[_LiveFree_]

So I'm totally open to the fact that I might have missed something. Here is what I saw..

 

1. NumberSix - judging whether or not longterm listeners go to therapy is a purity test

2. MMD - presents facts that most children are spanked. Therefore, their brains are not wired up for rational discussion. Therapy is a great way to gain self-knowledge in order to rewire the brain to better engage in rationality. The basis of philosophy is "know thyself". Even if you are parented peacefully, others around you have not been, and, therefore, you need to know how to navigate a world like that.

3. J. D. Stembal - while spanking is an important topic, it is a small facet of bad parenting. 

 

PAUSE

 

This is why I responded. My question, which was not answered, was "Why do you think spanking is a small facet of bad parenting?" 

 

The discussion was not about facets of bad parenting. It was about therapy being a necessity for engaging in rational discussion. Why would J.D. make the comments that he made; to emphasize that neglect was more important than spanking? That was not the point MMD was making. He was conveying that virtually every human being has been abused and we only need to look at the spanking statistics to see this. 

 

J.D. made a post with a real world example of neglect in order to drive the point home. What I wanted to know is, why? Why is that important to him? Maybe I missed something in the exchange with MMD and NumberSix. As I read this thread, J.D.'s post stuck out to me as not being in flow with the rest of the thread. 

 

If I am missing something I'd really like to know what that is.

[MMX2010]

 

The discussion was not about facets of bad parenting. It was about therapy being a necessity for engaging in rational discussion.

 

There's a difference between "Therapy is a necessity for everyone in this group." and "Therapy worked really well for me, and you should probably try it.  But I won't either judge you or ostracize you if you haven't been to therapy." 

 

The first is a moral argument - which requires it to be UPB.  But the second is an aesthetic argument that's not even Aesthetically Preferable Action.  (The Aesthetically Preferable Action is "to learn how to deal with violent people who aren't skilled in Win-Win Negotiations", not "to go to therapy".) 

[MMX2010]

This post makes absolutely zero sense. 

 

How is on earth is somebody going to therapy or not going to therapy a moral issue on any level?

 

 

It's not.  And I never said it was. 

 

I did, however, say that statements like, "Therapy is required for everyone who participates in this community." are moral statements, because they strongly hint at either Ostracism or Creating Separate Tiers of Individuals.  Such statements can be used to suppress the valid arguments of Those Who Have Never Been To Therapy, (an experience I had during my first three FDR NYC Meet-Ups).  And it's the truth-suppression aspect that makes such statements moral. 

 

 

 

This is not a moral issue - it's all aesthetics and aesthetics are a matter of subjective preference. There are many aesthetic preferences that the majority of people share - but it's still not about morality in any way shape or form. 

 

 

In my observation, it varies based on an individual's behavior.  Pure aesthetic preferences never create a desire to exclude, ostracize, nor create separate tiers of humans.  For example, no one ever says, "I'm better than you are because I like vanilla ice cream."  But once someone says or implies, "I'm better than you because X....", that's automatically a moral statement - because that statement can only be true when X is a moral issue and you have the correct moral argument. 

 

Humanity also has a horrible track record of using their aesthetic preferences to exclude others, as was illustrated in Doctor Seuss' Butter Battle Book. 

 

 

 

You also have yet to get back to me via email about scheduling you for the show.

 

 

I just emailed you now.  Sorry for the delay. 

[WasatchMan]

I did, however, say that statements like, "Therapy is required for everyone who participates in this community." are moral statements, because they strongly hint at either Ostracism or Creating Separate Tiers of Individuals.  Such statements can be used to suppress the valid arguments of Those Who Have Never Been To Therapy, (an experience I had during my first three FDR NYC Meet-Ups).  And it's the truth-suppression aspect that makes such statements moral. 

 

 

Strong aesthetic preferences are not moral statements by nature.  The magnitude of the consequences of positions held do not equate to something being moral or immoral. Philosophy is not consequential in nature.  Philosophy is trying to find what is true, damn the consequences.

 

 

In my observation, it varies based on an individual's behavior.  Pure aesthetic preferences never create a desire to exclude, ostracize, nor create separate tiers of humans.  For example, no one ever says, "I'm better than you are because I like vanilla ice cream."  But once someone says or implies, "I'm better than you because X....", that's automatically a moral statement - because that statement can only be true when X is a moral issue and you have the correct moral argument.

 

Please demonstrate how you would universalize the position that "I'm better than you because of X" automatically makes that a moral statement.  How about I am better than a fat slob because I work out and treat my body right.  Is this moral or purely an aesthetic preference to health?

[MMX2010]

Strong aesthetic preferences are not moral statements by nature.  The magnitude of the consequences of positions held do not equate to something being moral or immoral. Philosophy is not consequential in nature.  Philosophy is trying to find what is true, damn the consequences.

 

Exactly.  Philosophy is trying to find out what is true.  Hence, using statements like, "Therapy is required for everyone in this group." to imply that, "Person X shouldn't be taken seriously because he hasn't gone to therapy." is anti-philosophical.  The logical fallacy for this is called Poisoning The Well.

 

 

 

 

Please demonstrate how you would universalize the position that "I'm better than you because of X" automatically makes that a moral statement.  How about I am better than a fat slob because I work out and treat my body right.  Is this moral or purely an aesthetic preference to health?

 

Both.  It is aesthetically preferable to be healthy.  And since Stefan states as true that REASON + VIRTUE = HAPPINESS, then deliberately refusing to exercise means that you're deliberately placing a stumbling block between yourself and happiness.  Which means you're not interested in pursuing the truth about yourself, your happiness, nor your body.  (This is the complete opposite of "going to therapy", because "going to therapy" is not universally aesthetically preferable, nor does it have nearly the same odds-of-success as does routinely working out.) 

 

So whenever I meet someone new, I ask him if he works out.  If he doesn't work out, I give him an argument from both personal experience and objective medical truth that he ought to work out.  If he agrees, then I give him pointers on to how to better work out, and I follow up with him to ensure that his workouts are going well.  Then, when he happiness invariably increases, I tell him, "I told you so." 

 

However, if he doesn't work out, then I don't take any of his complaints about happiness nor being able to find a relationship seriously, because he doesn't work out. 

[PatrickC]

Both.  It is aesthetically preferable to be healthy.  And since Stefan states as true that REASON + VIRTUE = HAPPINESS, then deliberately refusing to exercise means that you're deliberately placing a stumbling block between yourself and happiness.  Which means you're not interested in pursuing the truth about yourself, your happiness, nor your body.  (This is the complete opposite of "going to therapy", because "going to therapy" is not universally aesthetically preferable, nor does it have nearly the same odds-of-success as does routinely working out.) 

 

If you think APA's should be universal or that they can sometimes be considered as universal moral theories, as you seem to be implying. Then you fundamentally do not understand UPB.

 

Friendly advice before the call with Stefan. Either swat up on UPB or forget about using an argument that involves UPB/APA.

[J. D. Stembal]

While the content of what you're saying, J.D., is important, I totally disagree that spanking is a "small facet" of bad parenting. Spanking is a silly word for physical violence, which has an extremely negative and profound effect on the developing brain. And according to the statistics Mike just posted, the vast majorty of parents engage in this violent behavior. If we could get just half of those parents who spank down to ignoring that would be a major improvement.

 

Why do you think hitting is a small facet of bad parenting?

 

I did not say that spanking is insignificant, just a small part of the overall problem of abusive parenting. Even if half of those parents gave up spanking, there would still be child abandonment, psychological mind games where the parents deny reality in order to control their children (raising children in religion), and sexual abuse or genital mutilation. These three examples of abuse are far more insidious than spanking. It's all bad parenting, but we shouldn't overlook the less obvious examples of abuse.

 

Like I said in my previous post, no parent starts flogging their child in public for all to see, but you can pick out small mind games all over the place if you are looking for them.

[MMX2010]

If you think APA's should be universal or that they can sometimes be considered as universal moral theories, as you seem to be implying. Then you fundamentally do not understand UPB.

 

There's a difference, Patrick, between "I observe that this particular aesthetic (specifically exercise) is universally preferred by all reasonable and healthy individuals." and "I think ALL APA's should be universal."  (Physical exercise is the only APA that I endorse as universal.)   

 

If you don't understand the difference between "this particular example" and "every single example within a specific category", then you are operating from an agenda-driven perspective that vastly distorts your perception of human language. 

 

This goes triple for the two people who upvoted your comment, because they had both opportunity and the advantage of intellectual distance needed to spot your error, but instead supported it. 

 

 

 

Friendly advice before the call with Stefan. Either swat up on UPB or forget about using an argument that involves UPB/APA.

 

If you admit that there's a great difference between "one particular APA" and "every possible APA that exists", then I will accept your advice as friendly.  If not, I'll consider your advice demeaning and agenda-driven, (the opposite of friendly). 

 

Choose. 

I did not say that spanking is insignificant, just a small part of the overall problem of abusive parenting. Even if half of those parents gave up spanking, there would still be child abandonment, psychological mind games where the parents deny reality in order to control their children, and sexual abuse or genital mutilation. These three examples of abuse are far more insidious than spanking. It's all bad parenting, but we shouldn't overlook the less obvious examples of abuse.

 

Like I said in my previous post, no parent starts flogging their child in public for all to see, but you can pick out small mind games all over the place if you are looking for them.

 

 

Exactly.  Then those psychological mind games to control their children turn into psychological mind games to control the thoughts, behaviors, and freedoms of adults-in-general, especially the ones they claim to love.  People who resort to these mind games have no ability to participate in rational discussion, regardless of whether they've been to therapy or exercise regularly.  They're still stuck in the violence/dominance, win/lose approach to every discussion. 

 

Stefan himself says of being raised in a statist system, "To see the farm is to leave it."  Psychological mind games to control other people's perception of you is just-another-farm that must be seen, in order for you to leave.

[WasatchMan]

There's a difference, Patrick, between "I observe that this particular aesthetic (specifically exercise) is universally preferred by all reasonable and healthy individuals." and "I think ALL APA's should be universal." 

 

 

I think this is an interesting point.  I do have some disagreements, because it would lead (I think) to the conclusion that it is immoral to not be a healthy individual (that poor man in a coma is not only in a coma but is now immoral).

 

However, I think ethics could benefit from a categorical analysis of universals behavior for the achievement of aesthetic preferences.  Like if you want to be healthy person, exercise is universally preferable.  If you want to be a magnanimous man, therapy is universally preferable.  If you want to associate with magnanimous people, people who have gone through therapy is universally preferable.  This would help philosophy ostracize people who do not meet their aesthetic preferences, because you cannot be friends with everyone, so it is universally preferable to seek out good people (if your goal is to live a good life).  However, I don't think you can get morality out of this analysis.

[PatrickC]

I think this is an interesting point.  I do have some disagreements, because it would lead (I think) to the conclusion that it is immoral to not be a healthy individual (that poor man in a coma is not only in a coma but is now immoral).

 

However, I think ethics could benefit from a categorical analysis of universals behavior for the achievement of aesthetic preferences.  Like if you want to be healthy person, exercise is universally preferable.  If you want to be a magnanimous man, therapy is universally preferable.  If you want to associate with magnanimous people, people who have gone through therapy is universally preferable.  This would help philosophy ostracize people who do not meet their aesthetic preferences, because you cannot be friends with everyone, so it is universally preferable to seek out good people (if your goal is to live a good life).  However, I don't think you can get morality out of this analysis.

 

Yes, you raise an interesting point WasatchMan. As Stefan once discussed, APA is the thing we struggle with and strive for the most. UPB by contrast is fairly clear and understandable. It's the advancing of personal virtue via APA, that very often is morally neutrel, that can take us much longer to master.

 

That said, he did attempt to categorise them to a point in UPB. Although not in the way you're suggesting. At this point I don't see how, but that might be just my limitations of course. It would be pretty awesome if we could.

[MMX2010]

I think this is an interesting point.  I do have some disagreements, because it would lead (I think) to the conclusion that it is immoral to not be a healthy individual (that poor man in a coma is not only in a coma but is now immoral).

 

A man in a coma isn't the same thing as a living individual who, through a series of choices made over years, becomes obese due to lack of exercise.  I know that Stefan uses "coma guy" to raise important distinctions between UPB and APA, but the comparison isn't relevant here.

 

 

 

However, I think ethics could benefit from a categorical analysis of universals behavior for the achievement of aesthetic preferences.  Like if you want to be healthy person, exercise is universally preferable.

 

Yes, because physical exercise has zero, if any, downsides, and cannot be substituted for - *AND* unfailingly aids you in the pursuit of truth and virtue.  (It is necessary, but not sufficient.) 

 

 

 

 

  If you want to be a magnanimous man, therapy is universally preferable.  If you want to associate with magnanimous people, people who have gone through therapy is universally preferable. This would help philosophy ostracize people who do not meet their aesthetic preferences, because you cannot be friends with everyone, so it is universally preferable to seek out good people (if your goal is to live a good life).  However, I don't think you can get morality out of this analysis.

 

No, because therapy is one of many ways to achieve magnanimity, and it's not nearly true that the majority of people who've sought therapy are magnanimous.  Nor is it true that therapy has few (if any) downsides. 

 

Hence, to advocate either ostracism / creating separate tiers of individuals based on, "Who, here, has gone to therapy?" isn't philosophically rigorous.  (Therapy is neither necessary, nor sufficient.  It merely has helped some people.) 

 

Ostracism and Creating Separate Tiers of Individuals is an inherently moral (or immoral) act, so I'm glad that you can't remove morality from the analysis. 

[WasatchMan]

Hence, to advocate either ostracism / creating separate tiers of individuals based on, "Who, here, has gone to therapy?" isn't philosophically rigorous.  (Therapy is neither necessary, nor sufficient.  It merely has helped some people.) 

 

 

I get it is not philosophically rigorous.  I was just throwing around some examples of how that sort of analysis would work - not indicating that the conclusions I was making are true.  That would take some time to go through to prove any of those conclusions as true.

 

Ostracism and Creating Separate Tiers of Individuals is an inherently moral (or immoral) act, so I'm glad that you can't remove morality from the analysis. 

 

Sorry I put that in a hard way to understand.  I did mean you can't remove it morality, I meant you can derive morality out of universal behavior for achieving aesthetic preferences.

 

 

 

I think it would be really fun if WasatchMan called in to discuss APAs on the show!

 

 

I am not against the idea, however it is not something I have thought much about.  It just came across as an interesting way to look at APAs, so I think it needs some fleshing out in my mind. 

 

What sort of question would you think would be good for this topic?

 

(FYI - I am heading out of town for the weekend, so don't take my lack of replies here shortly as a lack of interest)

[Kevin Beal]

Most of what he posts in the gender section has been interesting and helpful, it's sparked a good debate between just about everyone who contributes.

Just curious. I saw that you've been participating in one of the threads mentioned. Did you find that the debate was as helpful, interesting and productive as you had originally perceived?

[shirgall]

[MMX2010]

Also good, possibly funnier: "To find out who rules over you, simply find out whom you're not allowed to downvote." 

[Frosty]

Just curious. I saw that you've been participating in one of the threads mentioned. Did you find that the debate was as helpful, interesting and productive as you had originally perceived?

 

Yes absolutely, I've disagreed with MMX on a huge number of things and I understand that he's frustrating to debate with, but he makes me question my own position, consider new ideas, strengthen my own arguments and find nuance where previously I saw none, these are all productive things to me, whether we settle the debate at the end or not.

 

I think the huge number of down votes are unwarranted, as an observer of what is going on it's extremely unhelpful because I now have pressure of social bias towards his ideas, I also have to keep un-hiding his posts which is annoying. I'd pefer that people dispassionately deal with each others arguments, if nothing else just for practicality, I don't see any value in the voting system quite honestly, it's not even clear what it's supposed to represent, nothing helpful quite frankly.

 

It's strange to see that a board of people that presumably mostly support the NAP and libertarian ideals are using tools like this to diminish other peoples opinions, I'd much rather selectively hide his posts myself if I deem them unproductive in some way rather than there being some kind of pseudo-democracy on the forums, maybe the free market applies and I should just choose to post elsewhere?

[MMX2010]

Yes absolutely, I've disagreed with MMX on a huge number of things and I understand that he's frustrating to debate with, but he makes me question my own position, consider new ideas, strengthen my own arguments and find nuance where previously I saw none, these are all productive things to me, whether we settle the debate at the end or not.

 

I think the huge number of down votes are unwarranted, as an observer of what is going on it's extremely unhelpful because I now have pressure of social bias towards his ideas, I also have to keep un-hiding his posts which is annoying. I'd pefer that people dispassionately deal with each others arguments, if nothing else just for practicality, I don't see any value in the voting system quite honestly, it's not even clear what it's supposed to represent, nothing helpful quite frankly.

 

It's strange to see that a board of people that presumably mostly support the NAP and libertarian ideals are using tools like this to diminish other peoples opinions, I'd much rather selectively hide his posts myself if I deem them unproductive in some way rather than there being some kind of pseudo-democracy on the forums, maybe the free market applies and I should just choose to post elsewhere?

 

 

Thank you. 

 

What's ultimately ironic about Kevin Beal's position is that he's "Failing the introduction" - meaning that his position is blatantly contradictory to Stefan Molyneux's first podcast in the Introduction to Philosophy series.  In it, Stefan asserts that "Philosophy is primarily about discerning between Truth and Falsehood, because the mind is prone to error.  And we determine Truth and Falsehood through the process of debate and argument, centering on objective evidence." 

 

After spending some time stressing the importance between Objective and Subjective, he uses the following statement as an example of a non-philosophical statement that can never be true, "I had a dream about a unicorn last night."  That statement can never be true, because you can't enter into that person's brain and find a recorded experience of the dream, nor can you hook that person's brain up to any machine to determine the "residual traces" of that dream. 

 

So when Kevin Beal says, "I think we should downvote assholes!", he's using the word "asshole" subjectively - because it's impossible for him to use it objectively.  And so he's trying to coordinate the entire community around his own personal, subjective, non-universalizable, aesthetic preferences.  When he does this, he makes it harder for everyone in the community to discern Truth from Falsehood. 

 

When you speak of your personal annoyance at having to un-hide my posts, you're feeling the harm that his (and everyone else who supports him) coordinated efforts have produced.  (I'm guessing he'll say, "But I'm not coordinating with anyone else!" - which may be true, but it's an amusing truth, because he can't prove that objectively AND he'd be placing his own emotional needs ahead of the philosophical needs of everyone else in the community by making such a statement.) 

[Frosty]

I would like to stress also that my reply above was not directed at Kevin, although it was in direct response to him. It's more of a broad dissatisfaction at the rating system in general and the kind of abuse it's prone to, given human nature. I don't have anything against Kevin specifically, I don't even know who is doing the majority of the up/down voting, all I know is that I don't find it helpful and I find it kind of intrusive when my experience on the forum is guided by the common vote, I don't need other people to tell me who should have their posts hidden, I'd like to make that decision myself. If the forum has to have this system it would be nice if it was opt in so I could opt out and view it through a less bias lens.

[GuzzyBone]

Look at it like this...

If you argue that "downvoting" is necessary for things like trolling and hate speech or whatever you dislike...

You are essentially saying "I believe that punishment works and is beneficial"

I would say: AT WHAT COST?

Ostracism is about choice. I did not choose to have MMX's posts hidden, and frankly it's very annoying.

I also have an added emotional bias towards him personally. I sympathize with his punishment because I have been there in life. I am more inclined to agree with him and take his words more seriously because I know how it feels to be in his position of being punished for simply offering views that aren't "comfortable" or "popular".

If you believe someone is a troll or disruptive, would it not be more effective to completely ignore them entirely?

You always have to consider that this net of punishment that we place to catch "bad-intentioned people", always inevitably catches many "good-intentioned people" as well. One innocent person getting screwed is too many.

Voting isn't choice. It's majority rule. I understand this is a privately-owned forum and we are all here at the owner's invitation and permission, but if you have a grievance that someone is just trolling or doing these things you find disruptive, then wouldn't it make more sense to simply contact the administrator?

If you don't have the moral responsibility to do that, then at least chill out with this whole group-whipping and group-praise nonsense.

Punishment is not the answer. Choice is the key that will save us.

Just my 2 cents...

[Frosty]

Kevin contacted me via PM and we had several back and forth messages on this topic, but some time tonight all my PM/responses to him have disappeared from my account, this seems highly irregular, can anyone shed light on what is going on?

[labmath2]

After reading the last few posts, i think i am officially on the side of "voting is for statists and let us keep it that way." People have made arguments about how voting helped get rid of trolls. I am sure some people have come on this forum to troll, but by using voting to moderate we take away both dissent of opinions and others capacity to judge for themselves what is valid. While this community is filled with quite intelligent rational people, i do not think we are immuned to groupthink. I think voting will increase the likelyhood of groupthink creeping up slowly into the community.

[MMX2010]

It's strange to see that a board of people that presumably mostly support the NAP and libertarian ideals are using tools like this to diminish other peoples opinions, I'd much rather selectively hide his posts myself if I deem them unproductive in some way rather than there being some kind of pseudo-democracy on the forums, maybe the free market applies and I should just choose to post elsewhere?

 

From the Roosh Forum, about the early days of Reddit.

 

Person One: "Reddit is one of the worst site designs ever created, and the sooner it dies the better.

 

For a start, it's hard to decode what is and isn't important information from the clunky layout, and the actual mechanics of the site encourage homogeneity of ideas: posts with lots of "upvotes" appear higher up than posts with lots of "downvotes" by default, punishing deviation from the dominant ideas and beliefs of whatever subreddit you're currently in. Coupled with the fact that there are persistent user identities, the desire for ones ideas not to be rendered invisible by mass-downvoting, and the similar desire to be a respected "member" of the "community" create a network of incentives which are thoroughly anti-intellectual; where the best-loved (and therefore most visible) members of each subreddit are those who are capable of most creatively expressing orthodox thoughts..."

 

 

Person Two: "I generally agree with this analysis, but it's worth noting it wasn't always like this. Reddit started as a small community of mostly tech-oriented guys. There was a lot of quality on the site. For awhile Reddit worked (or seemed to) when its audience was limited and things like iPhones had not made internet browsing on your phone the primary pasttime of 20somethings.

 

Back in the day when these things were starting up, there was this notion that if you entrusted people with the basic power to make decisions for themselves, that the results would be good. This is really sort of a core idea to Democracy and Capitalism, so it's not really a shock that people who grew up wanted to bring this core idea to the internet. After all, we finally could make a perfectly agnostic democratic voting system. Then all the quality stuff would rise to the top, right?

 

That's what I thought at the time. Turns out, we were wrong. The voting system breaks once you reach a critical mass of uneducated, low-effort voters. It's been an educational experience for a lot of us, and hopefully some meaningful lessons can be drawn from the bad examples these sites set for creating better social systems."

 

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

 

The lack of effort is what you're complaining against. 

 

It takes oh-so-little effort for people to put me on ignore, and then actually ignore me - but they can't even do that.

 

It takes oh-so-little effort for people to say, "Yes, you had a point there." - but they can't even do that. 

 

It takes oh-so-little effort for people to say, "Yes, the language I used in this post was maximially designed to express emotional frustration.  Perhaps, emotionally-neutral or emotionless-language would have been better." 

 

Now, I would greatly question the value of my posts if I didn't have so many people whom I routinely Skype with telling me, "You're right.  You're doing fine.  Keep going." 

 

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

 

But as for "posting elsewhere", you could do that.  My favorite forum is Roosh's, but you may not be interested in learning Pick-Up Artistry. 

 

Yet why not fight the good fight here?  Why not continue to point out your disappointment with this forum, and then post in ways that set counter-examples?  I do the best I can to make that happen, despite the hundreds of downvotes.