Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

[Joshpantera]

On 6/15/2018 at 1:09 AM, TruthSeeker0 said:

Josh, you should keep in mind that you are likely much more thick skinned, in comparison to some other types of people. It's not so much that people become intolerant of the views expressed, as that they get tired and worn down because they are idealistic and principled, and they place value on different things. And when they get exhausted, it's better for them to leave, as they feel overridden and outnumbered, and therefore it fulfills nothing for them anymore. I have been close to that myself. I rarely feel understood here (I should qualify that, I mean in certain areas on this site), and feeling understood and valued is important. And people will seek communities where they feel like they belong and they aren't constantly being challenged. At least the majority of people. Maybe you thrive on that, but not everybody does.

 

I'm interested in hearing more of the personality analysis aspect. That seems to be increasingly relevant. 

[Eowynesque]

6 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Josh, you should keep in mind that you are likely much more thick skinned, in comparison to some other types of people. It's not so much that people become intolerant of the views expressed, as that they get tired and worn down because they are idealistic and principled, and they place value on different things. And when they get exhausted, it's better for them to leave, as they feel overridden and outnumbered, and therefore it fulfills nothing for them anymore. I have been close to that myself. I rarely feel understood here (I should qualify that, I mean in certain areas on this site), and feeling understood and valued is important. And people will seek communities where they feel like they belong and they aren't constantly being challenged. At least the majority of people. Maybe you thrive on that, but not everybody does.

 

There certainly is a lot of "listening" to find an argument rather than to understand. Thinkers could perhaps improve in this regard and feelers could learn to make fewer emotionally charged arguments. 

[Eowynesque]

11 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I'm interesting in hearing more of the personality analysis aspect. That seems to be increasingly relevant. 

 

I'll bite. This is all conjecture. I think a lot of this boils down to the thinking/feeling domains. It occurs to me that thinkers are more inclined to be of the thick-skinned, sticks-and-stones-words-can-never-hurt-me variety. And perhaps to expect this more of others. As a feeler I put a lot of thought into the real world consequences of words: Will this opinion incite discrimination? How will this statement make so and so feel? Etc. Even if an opinion does not hurt me, I can't help but think about all the people it does. I may be somewhat thick-skinned, but I still feel for those who are not. Perhaps this is a question of how much weight different personalities give to the power of words. 

[Eowynesque]

7 minutes ago, Ann said:

Good point, but I think maybe thinkers (in general) don't give a shit or don't feel responsible for others feelings. I care to a point and don't want to intentionally hurt others...and then think after polite communication..."If that's the way so and so feels, that's their problem." Maybe thinkers have a greater tendency to lean towards Narcissistic and Sociopath personality disorders?

 

I do think asking people to change like this is unrealistic but I had to throw it out there. I hope nothing I have said is taken as disparaging thinkers, nor do I think they should feel responsible for other people's feelings. Conversely though, I do not want my regard for the feelings to be put-down or misconstrued.

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

Good point, but I think maybe thinkers (in general) don't give a shit or don't feel responsible for others feelings. I care to a point and don't want to intentionally hurt others...and then think after polite communication..."If that's the way so and so feels, that's their problem." Maybe thinkers have a greater tendency to lean towards Narcissistic and Sociopath personality disorders?

Thinkers are, I Think, at times unfairly characterised as having no feelings or not giving a shit. While this is true of some people to think of thinkers in this way "in general" is grossly unfair.

 

Now I certainly don't feel responsible for anyone's feelings as I cannot control their feelings. This is of course assuming I'm not intentionally trying to hurt someones feelings. (Which I never intend to do)

 

I think it's just thinkers tend to place higher value on abstract causes and feelings second while the opposite is true of feelers. 

 

Also note thinkers write in terms of I think while feeling people write in terms of I feel.

 

Edit: This difference between thinking and feeling doesn't make either or more valuable, or inherently better. What it does mean is that at times (As can be clearly seen in this thread) we will disagree as we each place more weight on particular values more than others.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Ann said:

...greater tendency from the thinker category to contain those personality disorders. 

 

Just throwing out a curve ball for people to think about.

 

Why is it perfectly ok for Ann, or anyone else, to ask or suggest, claim even, that thinkers might be more prone to personality disorders, but its not ok for Joe Bloggs (Our mysterious non member here) to ask, suggest, or claim that homosexuals are more prone to molesting children, (Or whatever criticism Joe might bring up about any group which is generally considered to be oppressed)

 

 

(PS to clarify I have no issue with Ann asking the question.)

 

And is the fact I am sitting here wondering if I should actually post this question worrisome? I am sitting here slightly worried about the verbal bashing I may get for what is a genuine question. There seems to be tolerance for some things that could be considered hurtful or offensive, but not others. This second question is free - the first one I'd actually like a bit of nuance around. 

[Fweethawt]

33 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Why is it perfectly ok for Ann, or anyone else, to ask or suggest, claim even, that thinkers might be more prone to personality disorders, but its not ok for Joe Bloggs (Our mysterious non member here) to ask, suggest, or claim that homosexuals are more prone to molesting children, (Or whatever criticism Joe might bring up about any group which is generally considered to be oppressed)

 

(PS to clarify I have no issue with Ann asking the question.)

 

And is the fact I am sitting here wondering if I should actually post this question worrisome? I am sitting here slightly worried about the verbal bashing I may get for what is a genuine question. There seems to be tolerance for some things that could be considered hurtful or offensive, but not others. This second question is free - the first one I'd actually like a bit of nuance around. 

To further clarify, the example above pertaining to Joe Blogg (a.k.a. supposedly Me), is an EXAMPLE ONLY and this person (supposedly me) never did suggest the above mentioned and would appreciate it if people would stop associating him (supposedly me) with saying that.

 

Thank you.

 

Carry on.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

4 minutes ago, Fweethawt said:

To further clarify, the example above pertaining to Joe Blogg (a.k.a. supposedly Me), is an EXAMPLE ONLY and this person (supposedly me) never did suggest the above mentioned and would appreciate it if people would stop associating him with saying that.

 

Thank you.

 

Carry on.

 

 

 

That example actually doesn't have anything to do with you. When I mention something to do with you I actually use your name. Joe Bloggs is something I've adopted as a mascot for giving examples for situations. Some of them obviously coincide with things that pertain to you, some don't. I find it easier to follow a conversation that says "for example lets say Joe Bloggs or Suzy loo" rather than my old "If X says, then Z says". 

 

You ain't THAT important to this conversation little mouse - I'm more concerned about the wider impact here of just what not tolerating intolerance means.

 

I used that example because there is research one can use either way to back up the question, hence the question why is it ok for some topics not for others?

 

I can edit my post to specifically say it doesn't pertain to you if you wish.

[Fweethawt]

2 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

You ain't THAT important to this conversation little mouse - I've been tossing around the idea of counting how many times my username has been tossed around in here. Doing so would certainly negate your claim of my lack of importance to this conversation.

 

I can edit my post to specifically say it doesn't pertain to you if you wish. - Not necessary. You've just taken care of that. Thank you.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

1 minute ago, Fweethawt said:

You ain't THAT important to this conversation little mouse - I've been tossing around the idea of counting how many times my username has been tossed around in here. Doing so would certainly negate your claim of my lack of importance to this conversation.

 

Haha, yeah you are probably right there. I did think of that. You make for a great real life example. Now don't go and get a big ego!

 

[Fweethawt]

1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Haha, yeah you are probably right there. I did think of that. You make for a great real life example. Now don't go and get a big ego!

 

If by big ego you mean wishing my name wasn't used at all in this super, ultra, rational and civil discourse -- then I guess I have a big ego.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 minute ago, Fweethawt said:

If by big ego you mean wishing my name wasn't used at all in this super, ultra, rational and civil discourse -- then I guess I have a big ego.

 

It would be a denial of reality to say that it isn't the many hot topics you post (And BO) that isn't the driver for these conversations. This topic has been bubbling for a while, it's popped up before with the same players involved.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Right I've been inspired, after some private conversations, to write a post elucidating why I hold the views I've expressed thus far. I was thinking of starting another thread about why do you have the view you do, but thought it still fits nicely into this thread.

Hopefully what I cover here will answer much of @wellnamed posted, even if not directly.

 

I will put my head out on a block and say, without having done any research, that much of what we do, say, and think stems from core values. I've discussed a bit about how some of our differing core values may lead us to reach a different conclusion on the question this thread poses.

 

So at the core of my core values are something that the US constitution would call unalienable rights. (And not I don't think these come from God.) I think these should apply because this is the surest foundation on which to build a free and fair society. These being:

 

Right of autonomy 

Right of freedom of speech and expression

 

I think these two are fundamental to a well-functioning and healthy society.

 

Other values I hold tend to be subordinate to these two which is why the freedom of someone to speak their mind, distasteful as I or anyone else may find it, is placed ahead of the consideration of the feelings of others.

 

So why do I think that these things should be placed ahead of the consideration of feelings? Well we need only look to many of our own situations to see why it’s so important. Too many people are held subject to the fear of their families and friends’ feelings when thinking about ‘coming out’ as an atheist. Time and again people talk about the hurt they may cause those closest to them. Some to the point where they are willing to deny their own right to freedom of expression and autonomy in order to save the feelings of their family. But what is the result? It’s a lie, a lie unspoken to placate the feelings of a group that doesn’t want to be criticised.

 

Thus it is important to ensure above all that people are free to express themselves. As previously mentioned this right to freedom of expression ends at inciting violence. And I don’t mean speech that some deranged person goes an interprets as saying something that was never said. I mean speech that calls for actual violence. Thus if you are worried that I might suggest Hitler (His name pops up a lot) should be given a platform then never fear. That horrible person called for the slaughter of multiple groups of people. No way does he come close to passing the threshold for tolerated speech.

 

Curtailing speech has been used as a control for centuries. It’s used as a control today. There are laws, in our ‘free’ western countries today in which you can be locked up for criticism of particular groups. Not actually inciting violence – there are already laws for that. Apparently, and I haven’t found proof of this yet, but apparently the UN is drafting a bill in which criticism of Islam will be considered a violation of human rights. If it’s true, if it passes, Christianity may well try for the same thing, and where does that leave us with our at times visceral attitudes towards Christianity?

 

There is another important factor to consider. When you advocate the censoring of speech or expression you make a rod for your own back. Sure today you might be with the majority or those who have power to censor, but tomorrow the same censoring you advocated could be used against you.

 

The argument that certain speech should be banned because it may hurt the feelings of some group I find is a poor argument. It does not persuade me at all. Lets face it, if you were truly concerned about the hurt feelings of millions of conservatives you wouldn’t tell them LGBT people should have the same rights as them. This deeply offends and hurts these conservatives. Yet we really don’t care that they are hurt. We think LGBT should have the same rights as any human and we tell them (Conservatives) that. The idea that speech should be censored because it might be considered offensive is to me distasteful. Anyone can take offense at anything. I had to catch myself regarding Ann's post (several up) talking about thinkers possibly having personality disorders. I actually become briefly offended that she might think that about me. But then I thought why am I offended? What if it's true? I'm not sure if Ann considered the many thinkers among us and thought about whether we might take offense, but she certainly shouldn't have to. It's her right to ask the question even if it causes offense. If you aren't going to ask the questions or discuss the topics that might offend people then society cannot move forward. Now the caveat on this would be if you are going out of your way to cause offense - i.e. intentional offense causing. Wellnamed hit on this when he talked about trolling and baiting, and I agree that this behavior is a detriment to the functioning of this forum, and it also makes the argument for free speech harder to support. However, I'm very reluctant to give support to those in power (whichever power - forum Mods, Government, Media etc) for them to make that judgement about what is a genuine point of discussion and what is trolling/baiting. What should be censored and what shouldn't which is why I support the all free speech position.

 

Where I am persuaded slightly in this discussion as it relates directly to this forum is the feelings of our Ex-C members who are LGBT or have family members who are LGBT. I think it’s a valid point that some of them may not feel welcome upon reading some of the content posted here. However they can also read the well expressed defenses of LGBT people as well. Not a single post goes unchallenged, provided members don’t get too emotional and do a cyber storm out. Not only that I weigh up the entire forum, its purpose, compared to the perceived harm the ToT may do, versus my core values, and the fact that I think the ToT is not a one way street. It really does help some people, myself included, discuss some important issues and enable personal growth.

 

Weighing up all these various factors is why I come out ever so slightly on the no moderation of topics in the ToT (Outside the very odd moderation that goes on), and why I fight for the right for any member to post whatever they like. I also think any member should be free to challenge anything a member posts. Do I agree with some of the content? The answer should be self-explanatory. Do I think some positions could be better put and thus prevent the baiting/trolling or the appearance of bating/trolling? Yes, certainly.

 

As an end note here is a series of speeches at Oxford University whose views I largely agree with. Not entirely, though Shami I feel hits the good middle ground of free speech.

 

 

 

 

[TABA]

8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

So do I think we should let Joe Blogg get away with being homophobic? No, I think we should tell him why he's wrong and force him to try and justify his position. Now if its a bad argument it's going to fall apart. But should we ban Joe Blogg? Tell him no, you cannot voice any dissent towards any group... except Christians. Oh boy are we happy to let our big guns here tear into any poor mite looking to save lost souls.

 

I can assure you 2 billion Christians think WE should be silenced and dumped in hell for our views of Christianity. Be careful how we tread in this discussion. People who want to silence others only want to silence that which they disagree with. So depending on which group has power depends on who/what gets silenced, and silencing people only leads to silence.

 

So I think we need to separate very clearly tolerating someone voicing their opinion vs actually tolerating the views expressed. There is a huge distinction, but one a certain group here are failing to make.

 

We should afford everyone and every group the same rights as anyone else has, but we should also be free to discuss any group. No one should get a free pass because they happen to belong to a certain group. We've seen that with religion - for too long has religion been off limits to criticism. That's now changed, thankfully. In centuries past we'd all be hung... literally.

 

 

 

This is pure gold.  Wish I could use up all my likes for today on this one post.  I’m glad to see that my native country of Ireland is getting ready to vote on removing their Constitution’s ban on Blasphemy.  Originally inserted to protect Catholicism’s stranglehold on the country, there is now a danger of it being used to punish criticism of Islam too.  THIS is the direction we should be going: removing hate speech laws, not adding them, the way the UK and Canada has been going.  Some European countries too, with their asinine Holocaust-denial laws.  Yeah, denying the Holocaust is appalling and stupid, but banning such talk is just as stupid and ultimately short-sighted.  Shine a bright spotlight on bad ideas.  Driving them underground just lets them grow and fester and become martyrs. 

[LogicalFallacy]

24 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 Yeah, denying the Holocaust is appalling and stupid, but banning such talk is just as stupid and ultimately short-sighted.  Shine a bright spotlight on bad ideas.  Driving them underground just lets them grow and fester befome martyrs. 

 

Exactly. Right on point here TABA.

 

Ultimately this brings me back to the point; by censoring speech you are creating a rod for your own back.

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, Ann said:

Good point, but I think maybe thinkers (in general) don't give a shit or don't feel responsible for others feelings. I care to a point and don't want to intentionally hurt others...and then think after polite communication..."If that's the way so and so feels, that's their problem." Maybe thinkers have a greater tendency to lean towards Narcissistic and Sociopath personality disorders?

 

I haven't caught up on all new posts yet, so I'm sure LF or someone already exposed the problem with the above. But it's obviously a glass house issue that anyone could easily answer if they've been reading and paying attention. The personality types favoring "feelings," have taken issue with "thinkers." But the those "feelings," have been isolated only to a chosen fraction of people, they are not all inclusive to everyone. They exclude christians, perceived bigots, the perceived intolerant, even those with simply conflicting opinions. So this "feeling" personality type, or types, come with an ugly and what should be embarrassing dark side that we now have a spot light shown on. 

 

Now the question is whether or not it's the personality type itself that renders this glass house dark side, or some other factors? 

 

Because the thinkers are for an all inclusive view, equal freedoms all the way around. Not isolating these freedoms to only a chosen few who are deemed worthy. That's the opposite of narcissistic. That's the opposite of control freak tendencies. Because liberty is the opposite of authority. And the "feeler's" have been towing the line of a moral high ground and then applying authoritarian views to that perceived moral high ground. And this all backfires horribly when a light is shown there. And it's far less morally superior in the grand scheme of things. Tolerating everyone across the board is all inclusive and morally superior in that way. Being exclusive about tolerance can be hurtful, rather than helpful towards other people's feelings. This makes for a situation where the feeling lot, are more correctly labeled an "exclusive feeling lot." 

 

So what at a passing glance may seem like thinkers are the cold ones with no empathy, and feeler's the warm and fuzzy, that's not the case when it comes down to deeper fundamental levels of considering what's actually taking place during these social interactions. Warm and fuzzy doesn't seem to get well rounded and all inclusive until "thought" enters the arena and it becomes a logical issue where self contradiction can be shown a light on and analyzed thoroughly for content and value. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

3 minutes ago, Ann said:

Don't think this is a true statement. I'm the only one (I think) that has "taken issue" on this topic (and my personality type is thinking). Funny thing, I wasn't even taking issue with it...just had a brief moment of "maybe.." and knowing this site....throwing that question out there, was hoping to get some feedback which you addressed very well....Thank you (for reals, not being sarcastic). I haven't seen examples of "feelings" type taking any issues and now regret asking the question in the first place because I worry this comment will be misconstrued into something that was not my intention.

 

What I posted was coming out today anyways, regardless of what you said. I just used it as a launching point to go into what I've been discussing privately with a secret cabal of intellectual atheists behind the curtain. lol

[wellnamed]

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So at the core of my core values are something that the US constitution would call unalienable rights. (And not I don't think these come from God.) I think these should apply because this is the surest foundation on which to build a free and fair society. These being:

 

Right of autonomy 

Right of freedom of speech and expression

 

I think these two are fundamental to a well-functioning and healthy society.

 

I expect that support for the concept of freedom of speech is nearly universal in this forum. Not just because it's a good idea, but because we have almost all been socialized in western democracies where it is valued. We didn't arrive at the conclusion that the 1st amendment is preeminent by pure logical deduction, we've heard about it our entire lives. Note that this fact doesn't invalidate free speech! I mention it because it speaks to the point I was attempting to make about the power of speech to shape how people think and act, as should also be apparent to most ex-Christians anyway, I'm sure.

 

I'd also note that an appeal to free speech as a legal principle should acknowledge that in fact there are many limits on speech that are considered legitimate in American law. The most obvious is that free speech rights only prohibit the government from suppressing speech. Beyond limits on incitement, which you mentioned, the courts have also recognized exceptions related to false statements of fact, obsenity, as well as allowing reasonable limitations on the time, place, and manner in which speech is made. Those limitations reflect some analysis of the costs and benefits of speech. The point I would make is that while freedom to speak is valuable, it is not an absolute value, nor is it granted without any social costs in every situation. We value speech highly, and rightly so, but we recognize limits to speech where we find that the costs outweigh that value.

 

Of course the legal prohibition on restrictions to speech only apply to the government, but you can see a similar calculus made in private life all the time, including in the rules of this forum, which prohibit spam, as well as posting that is "knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, [or] harassing, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy." When you argue for an "unmoderated" ToT, are you arguing that those site-wide rules should not apply? I expect you would recognize the value of at least some moderation beyond the prohibition of incitement. For example, should I have a free speech right to doxx you? I hope that you'd agree that the answer is no.

 

Borrowing by analogy the concept of "time, place, and manner" restrictions, and considering that not all speech is either equally valuable or equally costly, I think we can pretty reasonably arrive at the conclusion that -- even valuing freedom to speak highly -- an approach that completely eschews moderation is inferior to one that implements some reasonable rules, not unlike the ones that already exist on this site, even if they go unenforced. I said before that it would be silly to only focus on the question of what views should be allowed while ignoring how people express themselves. Reducing the question to one of free speech absolutism has the drawback of conflating the value of your posts (for example) with the value of some obnoxious and content-free trolling. I can't see any good reason to think that the two are equally valuable, or equally worth protecting. My willingness to moderate the latter category does not reflect a disdain for the value of a free society. Basically I think that you're oversimplifying the problem to take an all or nothing attitude towards speech, and such an approach isn't really justified by an appeal to the 1st amendment to begin with.

 

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

The argument that certain speech should be banned because it may hurt the feelings of some group I find is a poor argument.

 

I anticipated this argument, and already pointed out how it is wrong. The problem with bigotry is not primarily that it hurts people's feelings.  I also think there's some apparent tension between the free speech absolutism expressed here and your original post in which you asked whether people "should have the right to start calling them bigots", which appears to suggest the possibility of banning certain speech precisely because it hurts people's feelings. I realize you may not have meant to imply actually banning anything there, or you may now be answering your own question negatively.

 

That said, I also think you give insufficient consideration to the possibility that lurkers or potential new members to this forum might decide not to register, or not to post, because they are turned off by what they see here. I think you've also probably made the debate too abstract. This site has a specific purpose, which is to "encourage those who have decided to leave religion behind", quoting from the guidelines again. If, in the name of free speech absolutism, we tolerate the creation of an environment that will drive many people away from the site then I think we will be (already have, imo) impeding the site's mission, and for what real gain? There are a lot of other places on the internet that are completely unmoderated. We are not debating the passage of new laws. Moderation of this forum does not impinge on anyone's right to speech, but it might matter a lot to fulfilling the stated mission.

 

Note that I'm arguing against your conclusion that we should eschew all moderation. I think that conclusion is clearly sub-optimal, both philosophically but also practically. This post has focused way more on the philosophical, but I think it would be helpful to be more concrete, because actually reading some of the posts in the forum might poke a few holes in abstract and lofty notions about the value of speech

 

But, rejecting an unmoderated forum doesn't settle the question of what the moderation should be. My opinion isn't that any discussion of controversial viewpoints should be prohibited. Nor even would I prohibit the expression of views which I personally consider to be bigoted. But I think if a forum chooses to facilitate discussions on those topics it should require that people participate in meaningful discussion in a respectful and thoughtful way, and that includes respect for the humanity of members of social groups being discussed in the abstract, not just individual posters. I think disillusioned was right to point out the importance of respect, which is about far more than protecting people's feelings. The bill of rights, including the first amendment, is fundamentally grounded in humanistic values and a respect for human dignity, and it is entirely consistent with free speech principles to prohibit the kind of "abusive, hateful, or harassing" speech already forbidden by site rules.

 

 

[wellnamed]

I always appreciate it when people make more concise, pithier, better versions of my posts. 

[disillusioned]

@wellnamed, really good post. Again, putting many of my thoughts into words, and doing it better than I could.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I'm interesting in hearing more of the personality analysis aspect. That seems to be increasingly relevant. 

All right then, I'm talking about you INTJs here specifically, maybe we can generalize to thinkers/those who prioritize logic, maybe not.  I have talked a lot with @LogicalFallacy, but I will include you both here now. Sometimes I seem to make a point, over and over, and yes it appeals more to emotion and consequences and the impact on people regarding certain behaviour in real life, but in the end I don't really feel like my point went across. Especially in regards to the fact that I'm not talking about how this or that offends me, I'm talking about how this or that behaviour or words has consequences on others and perhaps whole groups of people in society. This is why I've pointed out time and again, I have an end goal in mind regarding societal consequences, I'm not selfishly thinking "I dont like your opinion, so just shut up."

 

On INTJs and weaknesses: "INTJs tend to have complete confidence in their thought process, because rational arguments are almost by definition correct – at least in theory. In practice, emotional considerations and history are hugely influential, and a weak point for INTJs is that they brand these factors and those who embrace them as illogical, dismissing them and considering their proponents to be stuck in some baser mode of thought, making it all but impossible to be heard."

 

https://www.16personalities.com/intj-strengths-and-weaknesses

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

Secret cabal!?....fascinating and now want to start a conspiracy theory about said secret cabal. Don't know how productive a discussion dealing with "thinkers" vs "feelers" will be...starting to remind me a little of the Jane Elliott "brown eyes, blue eyes" experiment.

 

The christians were right!!! There really IS a large scale conspiracy of atheist's and pantheist's trying to take over the world at the UN and abroad, with sleeper cells in various forums recruiting soliders. 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

Everyone keeps conflating freedom of speech for the entirety of society, with how this single forum with a particular purpose should be moderated.  Words like authoritarianism (which reflect a system of government) are being used as labels with which to slander the other side of the opinion, when I feel like the central point of our arguments are being ignored.  ExC is and has been losing members, they are sick of the trolling, the constant bickering over extremely questionable content posted in ToT.  It turns out that things are changing on that front, which is why me as Truthseeker are still here posting.

 

It's not slander, it's stating the fact that there's a sliding scale between philosophical liberty and philosophical authority. And some people are trying to slide the scale towards the philosophy of more authority. This doesn't have to be about governments, it can apply here too. It's just that the government has no say in how things on the forum go in terms of liberty or authority. It's going to boil down to how the admin and mods prefer to handle it. 

 

I'll either agree or disagree when I find out what decisions are made and what rules will apply going forward. 

1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

Every situation has its own particular nuance so moderation should be done by an unbiased party based upon the application of common sense.  I don't think we should be intending to shut down a whole laundry list of topics, just taking out unnecessary and inflammatory elements to the discourse.  This will help those with perhaps more fringe beliefs be better understood, but also not make our discussions so terrible for members of this site to read or engage in.  

 

I'll with hold too much judgement until I see the end result. I just hope you realize that this direction should include no inflammatory elements towards christian apologists, spiritual but not religious theists, woo woo talking occultist's, new ager's and magicians. It should have to be a safe space for everyone, all inclusive. 

 

 

[wellnamed]

41 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

All right then, I'm talking about you INTJs here specifically, maybe we can generalize to thinkers/those who prioritize logic, maybe not.  I have talked a lot with @LogicalFallacy, but I will include you both here now. Sometimes I seem to make a point, over and over, and yes it appeals more to emotion and consequences and the impact on people regarding certain behaviour in real life, but in the end I don't really feel like my point went across. Especially in regards to the fact that I'm not talking about how this or that offends me, I'm talking about how this or that behaviour or words has consequences on others and perhaps whole groups of people in society. This is why I've pointed out time and again, I have an end goal in mind regarding societal consequences, I'm not selfishly thinking "I dont like your opinion, so just shut up."

 

On INTJs and weaknesses: "INTJs tend to have complete confidence in their thought process, because rational arguments are almost by definition correct – at least in theory. In practice, emotional considerations and history are hugely influential, and a weak point for INTJs is that they brand these factors and those who embrace them as illogical, dismissing them and considering their proponents to be stuck in some baser mode of thought, making it all but impossible to be heard."

 

https://www.16personalities.com/intj-strengths-and-weaknesses

 

 

Allow me to be a curmudgeon for a moment: the MBTI is at least partially pseudo-science and I would treat the text you quoted with just a bit less skepticism than one of those computer-generated astrological charts. I like the quote in this article: "When it comes to accuracy, if you put a horoscope on one end and a heart monitor on the other, the MBTI falls about halfway in between."

 

I think the dichotomies identified by the test, especially introversion/extroversion, have some rough validity but these sorts of vague interpretive schemata in paragraph form are not likely to be valid, even as generalizations.

 

That said, as an INFP-A (Mediator) who fairly consistently scores at 50% on the Thinking/Feeling axis, I am of course uniquely qualified to settle any and all debates that may arise from this thread.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, wellnamed said:

 

Allow me to be a curmudgeon for a moment: the MBTI is at least partially pseudo-science and I would treat the text you quoted with just a bit less skepticism than one of those computer-generated astrological charts. I like the quote in this article: "When it comes to accuracy, if you put a horoscope on one end and a heart monitor on the other, the MBTI falls about halfway in between."

 

I think the dichotomies identified by the test, especially introversion/extroversion, have some rough validity but these sorts of vague interpretive schemata in paragraph form are not likely to be valid, even as generalizations.

 

That said, as an INFP-A (Mediator) who fairly consistently scores at 50% on the Thinking/Feeling axis, I am of course uniquely qualified to settle any and all debates that may arise from this thread.

I was totally expecting you to say this