Is it just me or is this forum pretty empty nowadays?

[Jot]

When I first started reading this forum (2013) the activity on here was much more intense. There were a lot more high-post and high-reputation members who were involved into the threads. 

Nowadays, to me it feels like you could count on your fingers the number of regular posters. Also, with a handful of exceptions all of the early listeners and/or reputable folks have vanished from the boards. 

Lately, I found myself often contemplating how is this possible given that the show has grown probably tenfold in listenership from back then and instead of increasing the forum involvement has decreased. 

What are your theories on this?

 

Has the FDR conversation moved somewhere I am not aware of? 

[Byron]

You can join FDR's (unofficial) discord here if you'd like 

https://discordapp.com/channels/287637838810316800/287637838810316800 

 

Other than that, I don't know what the answer to the question is. 

I was never a regular on the forums myself  I liked the chat which is gone now (hence the discord channel above). 

[S1988]

I assume that they're busy with other aspects in their lives. Some of the older members are parents, and they can't spend hours on the computer since they have kids to raise.

[DaVinci]

Yeah, Stef's subscription number on YT doesn't directly correlate to conversation here, which is unfortunate. I would wager most topics of discussion don't get much traction, or at least not as much as they could given the number of people here. It also doesn't help that there has been a surge in shitposting, which is awesome for memes and useless for having a productive discussion. 

To take that a step further, I'm not convinced that all the people who came for Trump are going to stick around for peaceful parenting/anarchy. They might not even care about that stuff with so much "winning" happening. 

[shirgall]

I admit I don't come here for the conversation anymore.

[M.2]

Could it be that the forum is too strictly regulated? There have plenty of posts of mine that were not allowed for some reason. I even checked the community guidelines to see what I did wrong, and couldn't figure it out. That is what is most off-putting for me. Maybe that is why the unofficial forums were created. Maybe the unrestricted free market of ideas should be applied to the forums.

Other than that, there are certain members on the forum who go out of their way to bully others for "making a bad argument". I can take a punch or two, but I can understand those who quit because of it. This may be just my experience.

Anyhow, the forums were given a decent upgrade a couple months ago, so that makes me think the admins have noticed the decline of activity here.

[D.D.]

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Could it be that the forum is too strictly regulated? There have plenty of posts of mine that were not allowed for some reason. I even checked the community guidelines to see what I did wrong, and couldn't figure it out. That is what is most off-putting for me.

If you could provide us with these posts you speak of, then perhaps we could review them to help you resolve this issue.  Any conclusion without them is purely speculative and perhaps a biased one at that.

 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Maybe the unrestricted free market of ideas should be applied to the forums.

Your implying that the FDR forum is not operating under free market principles without providing a clear case for your speculation.  Does FDR receive tax payer revenue?  Does FDR lobby the government for favourable legislation?  Who is forced to participate / contribute to FDR?

 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

there are certain members on the forum who go out of their way to bully others for "making a bad argument". I can take a punch or two, but I can understand those who quit because of it. This may be just my experience.

We can only conclude, at best, that "this may be just my experience" because we lack the empirical evidence to determine your claim.  Who are these "certain members"?  How do they "go out of their way to bully others"?  How did you determine they "bully others"?  How do you know members have "quit because of it"?

 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Anyhow, the forums were given a decent upgrade a couple months ago, so that makes me think the admins have noticed the decline of activity here.

How much more likely is it that the forum software was upgraded so that FDR and perhaps ourselves could benefit from a more secure, less buggy, sleeker, and an improved forum interface?  Please provide your reasoning as to how you concluded that the [perceived] decline of activity here resulted in the forum software upgrade.

 

22 hours ago, shirgall said:

I admit I don't come here for the conversation anymore.

I'm curious to read what you come here for if you don't mind sharing.

[Pod]

I'm really upset with myself for not having found this resource when it first started.  I know the depths of conversation were much more focused back then and that seems to be where the majority of the energy was.  Not to mention for me personally, it could have stopped me from making certain mistakes that I'm now dealing with the fallout from.  Better late than never I suppose. 

But I get what you're saying because when I log onto this site I get the feeling of a place that's more focused on topical stuff where thread interest lasts about 3 days at best.  I think it has to do with Stefan's focus.  He's much more politically involved now than he was in his "political efforts are useless" days due to Trump and the libertarian surge.  That shift of focus from personal application of philosophy to current events along with the show's rapidly growing size means he can't communicate one-on-one with the same people anymore which means less interaction with the board members (the call-in show excluded of course, but that being brief, isolated conversations).

Maybe it'll shift back to a focus on personal philosophy when the interest leans in that direction. 

[shirgall]

1 hour ago, D.D. said:

I'm curious to read what you come here for if you don't mind sharing.

I look for topics that interest me still, and I occasionally drop in a comment.

[M.2]

17 hours ago, D.D. said:

1. If you could provide us with these posts you speak of, then perhaps we could review them to help you resolve this issue.  Any conclusion without them is purely speculative and perhaps a biased one at that.
2. Your implying that the FDR forum is not operating under free market principles without providing a clear case for your speculation.  Does FDR receive tax payer revenue?  Does FDR lobby the government for favourable legislation?  Who is forced to participate / contribute to FDR?
3. We can only conclude, at best, that "this may be just my experience" because we lack the empirical evidence to determine your claim.  Who are these "certain members"?  How do they "go out of their way to bully others"?  How did you determine they "bully others"?  How do you know members have "quit because of it"?
4. How much more likely is it that the forum software was upgraded so that FDR and perhaps ourselves could benefit from a more secure, less buggy, sleeker, and an improved forum interface?  Please provide your reasoning as to how you concluded that the [perceived] decline of activity here resulted in the forum software upgrade.

1. I cannot post them. That's the point, isn't it? Besides, they are lost forever as soon as they are discarded by the admin.
2. There are the donators to the forum, whose voluntary support could be called tax with a stretch. That much is in accordance with the free market. However, the goods allowed to this market of FDR are undoubtedly limited by the admins. Which I argue is not a good thing. We already have the reputation system to ostracise anyone who writes a bad post. What could make it even better, is if posts could be voted up or down like in the reddit system. That way good arguments could be much more accessible, and bad ones difficult.
3. I leave this one up to you. I began the sentece with a "maybe", which means it was meant to be speculation.
4. The upgrade was made to make the forums more comfy, that we agree on. But I think we also agree that upgrades to a service or product are made to attract and retain customers. If the forums were gaining 100 active people per day, I don't think the upgrade would have been made. Why fix what is not broken? Again, just speculation.

[shirgall]

I don't donate because of the forums, but rather because of the podcast and book content.

[A4E]

17 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Other than that, there are certain members on the forum who go out of their way to bully others for "making a bad argument". I can take a punch or two, but I can understand those who quit because of it. This may be just my experience.

If this forum was a soccer match, would you still call players on the other team 'bullies' if they took the ball from you, or blocked it from where you wanted it to go?

12 hours ago, Pod said:

I'm really upset with myself for not having found this resource when it first started.  I know the depths of conversation were much more focused back then and that seems to be where the majority of the energy was.

Sentimentality is quite a powerful and disabling force. If you let it grow its leaves around you, you will just be left crippled, and lulled into nothingness.

Push that member berry manure away, look forward and make history. I have been engulfed by this crippling force, so I know what I am talking about. It will take several years to get out of it if you let it sink its teeth in you.

(member berry: south park reference)

12 hours ago, Pod said:

Maybe it'll shift back to a focus on personal philosophy when the interest leans in that direction. 

No. Stop waiting for other people. Make it happen!

 

2 hours ago, shirgall said:

I don't donate because of the forums, but rather because of the podcast and book content.

And I'd imagine because you want the world to be a better place, with less immorality. (maybe that was such a given that you forgot about it)

[shirgall]

29 minutes ago, A4E said:

And I'd imagine because you want the world to be a better place, with less immorality. (maybe that was such a given that you forgot about it)

I deliberately did not go into depth about why I like the podcast and book content. I like terse.

[D.D.]

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. I cannot post them. That's the point, isn't it? Besides, they are lost forever as soon as they are discarded by the admin.

The point I was trying to help you understand is - you have assumed FDR is over-regulated because you experienced issues posting.  Your conclusion (FDR is over-regulated) was based on unknown posting issues.  Your reasoning has holes.  When I ask for your evidence to support your assumption and you cannot provide it, then why should we agree with your conclusion?

 

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. There are the donators to the forum, whose voluntary support could be called tax with a stretch.

Incorrect.  You do not get to redefine terms.

A donation is a gift given by physical or legal persons, typically for charitable purposes and/or to benefit a cause.

A tax (from the Latin taxo) is a financial charge or some other type of levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or a legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state in order to fund various public expenditures.^[1] A failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to taxation, is usually punishable by law.

 

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

However, the goods allowed to this market of FDR are undoubtedly limited by the admins. Which I argue is not a good thing.

You're just saying stuff.  What are the "goods"?  How are they "undoubtedly limited by the admins"?  You have not argued anything here.

 

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

We already have the reputation system to ostracise anyone who writes a bad post. What could make it even better, is if posts could be voted up or down like in the reddit system. That way good arguments could be much more accessible, and bad ones difficult.

How do you know that people are using the reputation system the way you expect?

Do you have a log of all reputation points and the reasoning behind them?  The answer is no, nobody can provide the empirical evidence to support their argument that the reputation system here on FDR is being used to accurately rate member arguments.

 

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

3. I leave this one up to you. I began the sentece with a "maybe", which means it was meant to be speculation.

Making accusations of members misconduct without evidence and reasoning is a sign that you lack the integrity of being honest nor your capacity to understand the severity of your claim.  I hope you can understand and make the necessary correction.

 

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

4. The upgrade was made to make the forums more comfy, that we agree on.

I never agreed to this.  I put forth the "likelihood".

 

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

But I think we also agree that upgrades to a service or product are made to attract and retain customers. If the forums were gaining 100 active people per day, I don't think the upgrade would have been made. Why fix what is not broken? Again, just speculation.

You did not read what I wrote.  You're also reaching on your speculation which is significantly less likely to be true than the ones I provided.  You have extremely limited time interfacing with the forum software.  Perhaps the admins experienced some buggy behaviour and for them an upgrade was desired.

 

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

5. I began exploring FDR back at the beginning of 2015 and the European migrant crisis. I liked what I saw, and decided to join the community to find out more. I like the discussions around politics, economy, and family as well. I have been learning a lot. I will also start donating here regularly to the show as soon as Mr.Molyneux becomes catholic. I expect this wait not to be long.

Please take the time to read and understand - this question was not directed to you.  Sorry to be abrasive but it is annoying knowing that some people do not take the effort.

 

2 hours ago, shirgall said:

I deliberately did not go into depth about why I like the podcast and book content. I like terse.

Me want your thoughts - what podcasts & book content & why?

[M.2]

13 minutes ago, D.D. said:

1. The point I was trying to help you understand is - you have assumed FDR is over-regulated because you experienced issues posting.  Your conclusion (FDR is over-regulated) was based on unknown posting issues.  Your reasoning has holes.  When I ask for your evidence to support your assumption and you cannot provide it, then why should we agree with your conclusion?
2. Incorrect.  You do not get to redefine terms. A donation is a gift given by physical or legal persons, typically for charitable purposes and/or to benefit a cause. A tax (from the Latin taxo) is a financial charge or some other type of levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or a legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state in order to fund various public expenditures.^[1] A failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to taxation, is usually punishable by law.
3. You're just saying stuff.  What are the "goods"?  How are they "undoubtedly limited by the admins"?  You have not argued anything here.
4. How do you know that people are using the reputation system the way you expect? Do you have a log of all reputation points and the reasoning behind them?  The answer is no, nobody can provide the empirical evidence to support their argument that the reputation system here on FDR is being used to accurately rate member arguments.
5. Making accusations of members misconduct without evidence and reasoning is a sign that you lack the integrity of being honest nor your capacity to understand the severity of your claim.  I hope you can understand and make the necessary correction.
6. I never agreed to this.  I put forth the "likelihood".
7. You did not read what I wrote.  You're also reaching on your speculation which is significantly less likely to be true than the ones I provided.  You have extremely limited time interfacing with the forum software.  Perhaps the admins experienced some buggy behaviour and for them an upgrade was desired.
8. Please take the time to read and understand - this question was not directed to you.  Sorry to be abrasive but it is annoying knowing that some people do not take the effort.

1. I think the forums should not be regulated at all. You don't have to agree with my conclusion. If you haven't experienced getting your posts blocked, good for you! Maybe it's just me.
2. I was not redefining terms. I presupposed that if FDR were a government, the tax system would be voluntary, since I presume it would run according to ancap principles. I was making an analogy. Pardon me for not being clear.
3. Still going with the analogy here. There aren't many people on the forums with whom we constantly speak past each other, but you are definitely one of them.
4. I did not claim that they are, I suggested they could be and should be.
5. I have been very honest with you, and I don't recognise the severity of my claim, since bullying is a natural part of life, and even I do it sometimes. I often see bullying going on in the forums, but I wouldn't go as far to say that it is misconduct. If you don't experience anything of the sort, that's great, maybe you have very thick skin. Also, I am in no mood to get into a case study with you regarding who was bullied by whom. I put forward a possible explanation to the question above, and you can take it for what it is, or you can accuse me of making unsubstanciated claims, which I did not.
6. I cannot imagine any other reason why the forums would be upgraded other than to make it more comfy. Maybe to make it uncomfy?
7. No, I'm pretty sure I did. And I think I answered it to the best of my abilities. The very appearance of the forums was upgraded, which makes me think that the target was not the admins or developers, but the members.
8. My bad. I edited my post.

[shirgall]

1 hour ago, D.D. said:

Me want your thoughts - what podcasts & book content & why?

I consistently find the call-in podcasts to be good, and of the books I especially liked UPB and RTR. The special subjects and interviews are generally stellar.

[anjumahmed]

There was plenty of activity on the original chatroom... before it went away :/

[RichardY]

A few general thoughts.

Self Knowledge. Split focus between Self Knowledge and the wider implications in society(universal Ethics). Though both are related given the speed of changes in society(to the detriment of all) there has been a shift from more specific micro-level personal problems to wider macro-generalities imo. Maybe someone will develop a more specific focus on self-knowledge (their own show), not ignore wider problems in society but maintain a focus on individual self-knowledge and not the universality of ethics in general society. 

 

Depth of conversation/Focus on Quality. Hubris. The amount of knowledge out there is staggering, but much of it seems derivative of a few key thinkers, though some authors or posters may write a lot, they lack original creativity.Diminishing returns . In an acknowledgement of that, I have begun to look at the more hardcore thinkers, bring in the sledgehammers perhaps, of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, Leibniz, Carl Jung. Would be good if some audio books were easily available of the source material and not just tomes  and if lucky fragmented librivox recordings. To what end, I don't know. 

"Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.
It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers.
He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers—and spirit itself will stink.
Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.
Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it even becometh populace.
He that writeth in blood and proverbs doth not want to be read, but learnt by heart."

 

Trump election. Character Disposition. imo Annoyed the more left-wing Libertarians, who tend to write reams.They also tend to read a lot, so are likely to be apt, but shallow in multiple areas of knowledge. Reading Ayn Rand Introduction to Epistemology kind of highlighted this, how to integrate information into a more stable matrix of knowledge and not vast disparate formulas and pieces of information. 

 

Separation of Church and State. Can't have separation if you don't have a church. Metaphysics. Lack of Ethos in society. Christianity Ethics, Buddhist Priesthood, alternate ethos people are willing to bleed for? Alternatively there is Islam, but that is an equivalent of "She who must be Obeyed". Why the von Misesian argument can't be adopted instead, is kind of an annoyance.

 

Maybe the shear weight emotionally, intellectually of the topics being considered is too much of a drain for most people, working full time or addicted to one thing or another. Can't really find any hardcore philosophy forums ("One repays a teacher poorly, if he remains but a student") compared to FDR. Perhaps someone knows any forums with a hardcore focus on self knowledge?

 

[meetjoeblack]

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 4:03 PM, Mishi2 said:

Could it be that the forum is too strictly regulated?

I posted and it was days before my post went through. other times, it doesn't go.

 

If Stefan draws more attention here, continues to put out awesome content, and interesting subjects people want to hear about, no doubt, he will draw more traffic here. Its difficult because there is 4chan/reddit/sherdog/bb.com/misc and its a lot looser with posting.

[Spenc]

23 hours ago, Pod said:

Maybe it'll shift back to a focus on personal philosophy when the interest leans in that direction. 

I'm not overwhelmingly confident about this.  According the what is implied in the show, anyone can (with a reasonably articulate e-mail) get on as a call-in, and they are dropped into the queue.  People who want to argue a counterpoint to Stefan are the only people who move up in the order.

 

Since the call-in show is drifting away from the 'personal freedom' issues,as well as the videos/podcasts that they produce, the content isn't there to create a feedback loop wherein those people out there looking for that sort of content won't find it in FDR because it is not featured here anymore.  Thus they will not listen, will not call-in, will not join the forum, etc.  And thus the shows will reflect less of these concerns in a constant feedback loop.

 

So I hope if there is something you want to hear on the show, that you get in line as a caller, otherwise you probably won't be hearing it.

[Spenc]

23 hours ago, Pod said:

I'm really upset with myself for not having found this resource when it first started.  I know the depths of conversation were much more focused back then and that seems to be where the majority of the energy was.  Not to mention for me personally, it could have stopped me from making certain mistakes that I'm now dealing with the fallout from.  Better late than never I suppose. 

But I get what you're saying because when I log onto this site I get the feeling of a place that's more focused on topical stuff where thread interest lasts about 3 days at best.  I think it has to do with Stefan's focus.  He's much more politically involved now than he was in his "political efforts are useless" days due to Trump and the libertarian surge.  That shift of focus from personal application of philosophy to current events along with the show's rapidly growing size means he can't communicate one-on-one with the same people anymore which means less interaction with the board members (the call-in show excluded of course, but that being brief, isolated conversations).

Maybe it'll shift back to a focus on personal philosophy when the interest leans in that direction. 

If you're interested in more focus on the content of the earlier shows, I had made a topic a month ago or so about starting a skype chat (or similar group chat) and reviewing and discussing the earlier FDR podcasts, from FDR001 and working our way thrugh the whole catalogue of classics.

 

I had 3 positive responses, of which one person gave me a skype SN. I added and messaged him to state who I am and why I added him.  No response.  Another person seems like they might be interested, and a third person was interested, contingent on how much time it would take to listen to old podcasts.  (Really, listening to the podcasts in advance of the chat would be ideal but not even necessary to contribute to a discussion that extrapolates from the ideas covered)

 

I'm still willing to coordinate a skype chat, or google hangout or whatever, but I need people to show me that they are actually going to give it a serious shot.  I wouldn't even mind if I was the only one to listen to and summarize the episodes, as long as people commit to the chat times and show up for the discussion based off of my summaries.  I think that would at least be a productive starting point.

[DaVinci]

On 6/30/2017 at 11:25 AM, A4E said:

If this forum was a soccer match, would you still call players on the other team 'bullies' if they took the ball from you, or blocked it from where you wanted it to go?

I would caution against thinking of having a conversation as a game. Soccer. Chess. etc. Rules for debate are fine, but people take the idea of talking as a game to this extreme where conversations which could be productive for both camps end up being more about the competition as an end in itself and/or "winning". 

 

On 6/30/2017 at 5:56 PM, RichardY said:

Maybe the shear weight emotionally, intellectually of the topics being considered is too much of a drain for most people, working full time or addicted to one thing or another. Can't really find any hardcore philosophy forums ("One repays a teacher poorly, if he remains but a student") compared to FDR. Perhaps someone knows any forums with a hardcore focus on self knowledge?

 

I'm sure for some people the topics here are emotionally draining, but really the problem for most people who come here with an open mind is time. You can't tackle all this complex stuff in a single night. Especially not if you work, have a family, etc. 

[meetjoeblack]

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 9:42 PM, shirgall said:

I admit I don't come here for the conversation anymore.

This was why I signed up here but, this just really doesn't happen anymore. I thought there would be more like minded and sharing of ideas, answers, and solutions but, I just find myself seeking more questions or looking to alternative sources. I did hope I would find some answers coming here. Maybe when I call Stefan.

[D.D.]

On 2017-06-30 at 3:10 PM, Mishi2 said:

1. I think the forums should not be regulated at all. You don't have to agree with my conclusion. If you haven't experienced getting your posts blocked, good for you! Maybe it's just me.
2. I was not redefining terms. I presupposed that if FDR were a government, the tax system would be voluntary, since I presume it would run according to ancap principles. I was making an analogy. Pardon me for not being clear.
3. Still going with the analogy here. There aren't many people on the forums with whom we constantly speak past each other, but you are definitely one of them.
4. I did not claim that they are, I suggested they could be and should be.
5. I have been very honest with you, and I don't recognise the severity of my claim, since bullying is a natural part of life, and even I do it sometimes. I often see bullying going on in the forums, but I wouldn't go as far to say that it is misconduct. If you don't experience anything of the sort, that's great, maybe you have very thick skin. Also, I am in no mood to get into a case study with you regarding who was bullied by whom. I put forward a possible explanation to the question above, and you can take it for what it is, or you can accuse me of making unsubstanciated claims, which I did not.
6. I cannot imagine any other reason why the forums would be upgraded other than to make it more comfy. Maybe to make it uncomfy?
7. No, I'm pretty sure I did. And I think I answered it to the best of my abilities. The very appearance of the forums was upgraded, which makes me think that the target was not the admins or developers, but the members.
8. My bad. I edited my post.

You originally wrote an unsubstantiated response to the OP's question.  When asked for evidence, you deflect with even more unsubstantiated responses and passive aggression defences, as shown below:

On 2017-06-30 at 3:10 PM, Mishi2 said:

If you haven't experienced getting your posts blocked, good for you!

Pardon me for not being clear.

There aren't many people on the forums with whom we constantly speak past each other, but you are definitely one of them.

The value gained from exposing the lack of evidence in your responses, is to show and remind others of a standard to empirical based philosophy - otherwise, things become subjective and unverifiable.

 

Threads like this one appear as a growing result from a lack of logical arguments supported or backed by evidence.  If the comments here turn into the kind found on YouTube or Facebook, the philosophical passion is drained from some members to engage in serious conversations - the wrapping of non-arguments in philosophical language is transparent to those who recognize sophistry.  The appropriate response can only be to bring about the change that is missing - not more unsubstantiated thoughts.

While there are other contributing factors like the ability to have better conversations outside of texting and the satisfied early FDR members for philosophy, it could be argued that the recent increase of political discussion has quickly attracted a different group of unlike minded people, however, this is in accordance with FDRs goals - to bring philosophy to the world.  With the provided forum, open access to an extensive amount of knowledge, and new members, it is up to those who are willing to reason from first principles (in accordance with empirical evidence) to add their voice when they can, regardless if it's difficult.  The alternative is relativism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qpXdEnaHCE

[S1988]

43 minutes ago, MMD said:

In the days of social media - forums don't serve nearly as much purpose as in years past.

Good point. And that fact is quite sad because forums allow people to discuss thoughts and ideas without sacrificing anonymity. With social media, it's hard to protect privacy since many social media accounts require your real name. That's why I'm not on social media because I've read horror stories about people who got accounts hacked or were stalked by people they didn't want in their lives. (Shudder!) Too many headaches and risks for me.

[Dad]

2 hours ago, MMD said:

In the days of social media - forums don't serve nearly as much purpose as in years past.

forums are social media. 

[S1988]

9 minutes ago, Dad said:

forums are social media. 

How are forums like social media? I always thought social media was only akin to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

[S1988]

58 minutes ago, S1988 said:

How are forums like social media? I always thought social media was only akin to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

Actually, I think I'm starting to see what you mean. Social media is a type of electronic communication that allows users to discuss ideas and share content such as videos and web links. People can do that in forums, so they're not much different than platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

[M.2]

22 hours ago, D.D. said:

You originally wrote an unsubstantiated response to the OP's question.  When asked for evidence, you deflect with even more unsubstantiated responses and passive aggression defences, as shown below:

The value gained from exposing the lack of evidence in your responses, is to show and remind others of a standard to empirical based philosophy - otherwise, things become subjective and unverifiable.

Threads like this one appear as a growing result from a lack of logical arguments supported or backed by evidence.  If the comments here turn into the kind found on YouTube or Facebook, the philosophical passion is drained from some members to engage in serious conversations - the wrapping of non-arguments in philosophical language is transparent to those who recognize sophistry.  The appropriate response can only be to bring about the change that is missing - not more unsubstantiated thoughts.

While there are other contributing factors like the ability to have better conversations outside of texting and the satisfied early FDR members for philosophy, it could be argued that the recent increase of political discussion has quickly attracted a different group of unlike minded people, however, this is in accordance with FDRs goals - to bring philosophy to the world.  With the provided forum, open access to an extensive amount of knowledge, and new members, it is up to those who are willing to reason from first principles (in accordance with empirical evidence) to add their voice when they can, regardless if it's difficult.  The alternative is relativism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qpXdEnaHCE

Right. Here is the problem: You are trying to have a debate, while I am trying to have a conversation. From my view, our Conversation looks like this:

M: I have had a personal experience, and think others may have had it too. Has anyone else had this?
DD: Your experience is not proven true.
M: Yeah, I know, that is the point.
DD: You have to prove it!
M: I cannot.
DD: You are terrrible at arguing and you are what makes this forum hell for the original folk.

- My first point was that the forums may be too regulated. Which is substantiated by the fact that your posts and mine on this very thread take 10 hours to 2 days to getting through. Or they do not get through at all.  You can check the dates. meetjoeblack has attested to this phenomenon already.
- My second thought was that maybe people create an uneasy environment by bullying people because of the supposed bad arguments they make. You yourself are the proof to this point, as you keep arguing with me while I have no interest in doing so over something that is not even up for debate. My personal experiences. You call into question my integrity, my debating abilities, you accuse me of sophistry and passive aggression. I assume you would not agree with my definition of bullying either, but what you are doing, namely questioning my integrity, is the worst type of bullying that you could possibly carry out on an East-Asian. I am very offended in the truest sense of the word.
- Thirdly, I made a point about the upgrade to the forums. And for some reason you felt like you had to question me on the reasons for my speculation. All questions which I was delighted to reply to until you began reminding me that all of my speculations are merely speculations.

To me it seems like you set out to make a point when you replied to my post, and you made that point regardless of what I said. I mean... How do you manage to see malice even behind my apologies? What is the matter with you? Even if I admit to a mistake, you call that passive-aggression?

[Spenc]

17 hours ago, MMD said:

In the days of social media - forums don't serve nearly as much purpose as in years past.

In the beginning, Stefan used the forums to reach his audience and build his brand.  If you're saying that Stefan doesn't need the forums anymore in order to grow the show, gain donations, etc. I think you're likely correct.

 

However, in terms of the forums serving a purpose for discussion among all people serious about ideas, I don't believe social media has supplanted the forums' necessity and purpose at all.  On Reddit, r/FDR is very quiet.  The facebook group is an alt-right shitposting disaster.  Even to the extent that there are some interesting videos and articles posted on occasion, the format of how comments are displayed on facebook is garbage compared to simple forums like this for making lengthy posts and having them easy to read, find, respond to, etc.  Twitter isn't even worth mentioning, as 140 characters is not sufficient for exchange of philosophical ideas.  The Discord group is pretty dead as of last week when I checked in on it....

Where exactly are people having great philosophical conversations on social media that I'm not aware of?

 

 

[D.D.]

22 hours ago, MMD said:

In the days of social media - forums don't serve nearly as much purpose as in years past.

Definition of social media

1. :  forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos)

 

Therefore, forums = a form of social media and it's purpose is equal in the present.

[DaVinci]

7 hours ago, Spenc said:

 

Where exactly are people having great philosophical conversations on social media that I'm not aware of?

The answer is they aren't. You already said it. The shit posting disaster comment you made. That's happening here too. Since the push to Trump a lot of the conversations here involve people who shit post. Not people who have done any kind of real work on themselves,or who actually understand or care about peaceful parenting/anarchy.

That's what bothers me. We don't have conversations here anymore. We have written chess games and shit posting. How many "What happened to FDR" threads have popped up in the past year? I've seen five or six myself. People have come back after not having been here for a while and don't understand why a guy (Stef) who used to say voting was immoral was now making pro-Trump videos, and when they asked they were told to watch the past year's worth of videos, and often also got down voted. If that many people were brave enough to post a "WTF happened?" post then how many came back, saw it had changed, didn't say anything and left never to return? 

Now we have this Oh forums are outdated in the era of social media remark. What a load of absolute shit. People are fucking starving for conversations. People are gasping for the air of a long form conversation. That's why you see guys like Joe Rogan doing three hour long podcasts in a world where we also have six second clips on Vine. The fact that this thread exists shows that people sense a distinct lack of conversation. ...

This isn't healthy you guys. The move away from robust conversation is the right's answer to the left's safe space censorship nonsense. If it keeps going like this it won't be weird to see Western culture dissolve completely. The lack of conversations is actually contributing to the collapse. Chip chip chipping away at the foundation. 

[D.D.]

On 2017-07-04 at 3:35 AM, Mishi2 said:

From my view, our Conversation looks like this:

M: I have had a personal experience, and think others may have had it too. Has anyone else had this?
DD: Your experience is not proven true.
M: Yeah, I know, that is the point.
DD: You have to prove it!
M: I cannot.
DD: You are terrrible at arguing and you are what makes this forum hell for the original folk.

Please do not put words in my mouth - your re-framing is inaccurate.  The prior posts are here for anyone to read.

 

On 2017-07-04 at 3:35 AM, Mishi2 said:

- My first point was that the forums may be too regulated. Which is substantiated by the fact that your posts and mine on this very thread take 10 hours to 2 days to getting through. Or they do not get through at all.  You can check the dates. meetjoeblack has attested to this phenomenon already.

Finally, actual evidence to support your speculation, not just your words - thank you.  Why was that so hard?  Next, we could investigate why there was a delay in the posts.  The best people to help you would be the forum administrators.  If your really curious and want the truth, perhaps contact Michael at [email protected] with the relevant information.

For what it's worth, I've had some posts marked as "hidden" and shown as pink/red after clicking the Submit Reply button.  I don't know why this occurs but I move on with my life as the post eventually goes through.

 

On 2017-07-04 at 3:35 AM, Mishi2 said:

- My second thought was that maybe people create an uneasy environment by bullying people because of the supposed bad arguments they make. You yourself are the proof to this point, as you keep arguing with me while I have no interest in doing so over something that is not even up for debate. My personal experiences. You call into question my integrity, my debating abilities, you accuse me of sophistry and passive aggression. I assume you would not agree with my definition of bullying either, but what you are doing, namely questioning my integrity, is the worst type of bullying that you could possibly carry out on an East-Asian. I am very offended in the truest sense of the word.

It's great to read that you're trying to present evidence to support your thought...but your ethnicity does not excuse you from others questioning your integrity.

Definition of bullying (source: Merriam-Webster)

1. :  abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger, more powerful, etc. :  the actions and behavior of a bully

In the context of this thread, we're not interested in your ethnicity.  We're interested in your ability to provide reason and evidence to this conversation.

 

On 2017-07-04 at 3:35 AM, Mishi2 said:

How do you manage to see malice even behind my apologies?

These are the only apologies of yours that I found, as shown below:

On 2017-06-30 at 3:10 PM, Mishi2 said:

Pardon me for not being clear.

8. My bad. I edited my post.

If "Pardon me for not being clear." was not passive aggression, then I would apologize for my accusation....however, my conversation with you thus far has left me to conclude, with a high probability, that you don't know what it is to be passive aggressive.  Even I'm having to keep checking with myself to make sure that I'm as assertive as possible in this conversation.

 

On 2017-07-04 at 9:19 PM, DaVinci said:

We don't have conversations here anymore. We have written chess games and shit posting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "chess games".  My understanding is that treating a conversation like a chess game would be to engage in a conversation where the other participants are treated as opponent(s) with the purpose of placing said opponent(s) under an inescapable threat of defeat/capture.

Where as, the definition of debate is:

• a contention by words or arguments.  Our polite chat about politics became a heated debate.
• a regulated discussion of a proposition (see ¹proposition 1b) between two matched sides.

The difference would be having an argument using reasoning (the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way) as opposed to having a position regardless of reason and evidence.  What's your thoughts?  Perhaps I've exhibited this "chess game" behaviour.

[RichardY]

I wouldn't say Stefan is doing Pro-Trump videos as such, mostly refuting the M.S media. That missile strike on Syria and the comments on that guy Bill Mitchel(silver hair hunger games style) sub-tweeting someone, could sense the tension imo, could see Stefan was pissed. Though if they were going to do the "right"/sensible(how to articulate I don't know) thing during the election they didn't really have a choice.  All those 4-D chess memes.... 

It would be interesting to get more of an Irrationalist perspective like Scott Adams more often. From looking a little bit at Greek mythology, many concepts motivations are covered implicitly kind of sounds occult like, but can see it copied and articulated in modern culture.  C.G. Jung — 'Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.'

I tend to view the forum as a potential place to gather and share information(trader principle) on Philosophy, Psychology, Current Events. Articulate thoughts with greater precision. Something more interesting then video games. Get a dialogue going and not a casual conversation, I know when I first posted the forum was not particularly welcoming,  I'm patient with people prefer to acquire some productive or interesting knowledge(If everyone picked a genius and quoted passages could really harvest some information, a Blue Harvest). I resist impulses I have to put the knife in and twist(Not productive), though if they're just plain cruel or trolling(unproductive) why not? I'm fallible, sometimes not even twist.

Determinism and Freewill, plus derivative threads seemed to come up a lot in the past. Try to suppress it with signature. Lot of inconsequential crap as well, like arguing over the definition of social media. Kind of annoying, that perhaps the full potential of the forum is not reached, as a tool could be great to dissect various sources of information. 

 

 

 

[D.D.]

34 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Lot of inconsequential crap as well, like arguing over the definition of social media.

Definitions are not inconsequential crap - it's how we set forth clear meaning to words.  How can we have a rational discussion if the words we use to communicate with have different meanings?

The implied claim that forums is not part of social media was incorrect, according to the definition.