Moderation Note

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Drake

I really thought we were all too old for this shit. Did the ignore feature go away or something?

Yeah that's my take away, reporting a post to prove a point on an obscure message board is kind of a little bitch princess move.

Please note, I am speaking hypothetically and sincerely would never call out a specific member of this forum as being a little bitch princess.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But that makes no sense given the current argument. This was an action taken by Ben, not the people who you think he's too lenient with, and you claimed the action would've been different if the roles were reversed. If you weren't arguing that Ben was biased against Jon and/or conservatives, then I have no idea what you were talking about in your first post of this thread.

1) I didnt know Jon reported it.
2) I still suspect if Jon had made the statement and it had been reported Jon would have been boxed, by someone other than Ben, and then the post would have been made.


It all useless internet cock-waggling hypothetcial bullshit cuz it didnt happen.

[Chief Rum]

No one can make you feel offense. They don't have access yo a knob in your head, where they can turn on your indignation or perception of insult.

Everyone here needs to sack up and not give other people the power to "offend" them.

Sadly, it seems clear that "being offended" is all the rage these days.

[PilotMan]

Moderation is a bitch. It's a no win game. Fuck everyone who can't play. I've tried really hard to avoid getting personal. I moderate my own forums here and there and it's completely thankless. Play by the rules, and deal. I'm simply thankful for the forum and even SkyDog and his minions after all these years.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

More of a lurker, but I greatly appreciate you and Edward participating in the Trump thread even if I disagree with 90% of what you personally say. For reasons expected, prevent it being a 100% echo chamber.

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words!

TBH, I did not vote for Trump and would not vote for him next time. Additionally, I plan to vote straight down Dem in GA for mid-terms not because of any policies but because I don't like Trump.

There are some Trump & right-wing stuff that I do agree with (e.g. gun rights but okay with additional controls, wall + immigration reform, tax cuts, China etc.) and others that I disagree with (Obamacare, treating our allies like crap, lying and constant BS, misogyny etc.). I do feel the need to support some of the stuff I agree with and that makes me a right-wing-nut to some.

All in all, I learn stuff from the different POV regardless if I agree with them. I believe/hope most people on this board agree.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words!

TBH, I did not vote for Trump and would not vote for him next time. Additionally, I plan to vote straight down Dem in GA for mid-terms not because of any policies but because I don't like Trump.

There are some Trump & right-wing stuff that I do agree with (e.g. gun rights but okay with additional controls, wall + immigration reform, tax cuts, China etc.) and others that I disagree with (Obamacare, treating our allies like crap, lying and constant BS, misogyny etc.). I do feel the need to support some of the stuff I agree with and that makes me a right-wing-nut to some.

All in all, I learn stuff from the different POV regardless if I agree with them. I believe/hope most people on this board agree.

Yeah it's funny that you and me are both labeled as pretty right wing (you just described yourself and I havent voted GOP once in my entire life... Clinton, Clinton, Gore,Kerry, Barr, Johnson, Johnson ) in the echo chamber because we sometimes (GASP!) agree with some of the policies of Trump.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Moderation is a bitch. It's a no win game. Fuck everyone who can't play. I've tried really hard to avoid getting personal. I moderate my own forums here and there and it's completely thankless. Play by the rules, and deal. I'm simply thankful for the forum and even SkyDog and his minions after all these years.

I agree with this. Moderation ain't perfect, its not going to get it right all the time, and some people are going to feel slighted because of one-thing-or-another.

All-in-all, I'm all for moderation. If there wasn't some level of moderation and forced decorum, I can really see this board degrade to a pissing match and people leaving and not caring to participate again ... which I think we will all/most regret.

BTW - once Jim's new version is out, this forum will likely dry up so let's enjoy it while we can !!

Group hug anyone? ... or let's do skype and sing kumbaya?

kumbaya - Google Search

[korme]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'll bite but you wont like it.
To me ignorant, mentally ill, or evil aren't attacks.
He is saying he classifies you as one of the 3.

ignorant
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

mentally ill
a disease that causes mild to severe disturbances in thought and/or behavior, resulting in an inability to cope with life's ordinary demands and routines.

evil
profoundly immoral and malevolent.

---

Claiming that those are not attacks on a person is simply riding your side all the way until the wheels fall off.

[Toddzilla]

Being a virulent racist: okay so long as your a friend of the mods

Got it.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'll bite but you wont like it.
To me ignorant, mentally ill, or evil aren't attacks.
He is saying he classifies you as one of the 3.

It actually literally is an attack as defined by Ben in post 1:

"1. It's fine to personally attack, etc. someone who isn't on this board. Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi are fair game for "f&&& them!"

2. It's not ok to personally attack someone who IS on this board.

Larry's post and Jon's response don't specifically personally attack any board member by name, so in that sense it's consistent with what has been allowed here. However, when stuff is included like "...and everyone who supports him," the post does--albeit not by name--personally attack some folks who post here.

Stay away from that."

He says stay away from lumping people together and calling them names. So now we gotta argue if "ignorant, mentally ill, or evil" qualifies as an attack? That's specious reasoning to say the least.

Think if any of these qualify as "personal attacks":

You're ignorant.

You're mentally ill.

You are just EVIL.

Yes to all 3. Personally I could let that go, and have. But if you're going to moderate, then moderate according to some rules, not according to who's my buddy and who's been here for 15 years.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Have you ever read 1984? I highly doubt it.

You are calling me ignorant. That is an offense to get you boxed, correct? You know, words hurt more than sticks and stones. I would much rather be called ignorant that someone hitting my with a big stick. Of course I suffer from white privilege.

This thread is fantastic. It really highlights peoples personas on this forum.

Good stuff.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You are calling me ignorant. That is an offense to get you boxed, correct? You know, words hurt more than sticks and stones. I would much rather be called ignorant that someone hitting my with a big stick. Of course I suffer from white privilege.

This thread is fantastic. It really highlights peoples personas on this forum.

Good stuff.

EXHIBIT A of people's personas, your honor.

I will make one last point for me: Nobody here (I don't think) wants to silence conservative voices. I enjoyed the discussion I had with CU Tiger in the Trump thread yesterday on immigration, and hope that we were both respectful and hope he didn't take what I was saying as calling him a racist.

HOWEVER, when you are advocating murder (even OBVIOUSLY HYPERBOLICALLY), you are crossing a pretty major line.

If you want to call Trump a God and Obama the devil and those that like him devil-worshippers, I could give a shit. But if you are going to have the personal attack and "generalization" rule, then enforce it.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Butter

It actually literally is an attack as defined by Ben in post 1:

"1. It's fine to personally attack, etc. someone who isn't on this board. Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi are fair game for "f&&& them!"

2. It's not ok to personally attack someone who IS on this board.

Larry's post and Jon's response don't specifically personally attack any board member by name, so in that sense it's consistent with what has been allowed here. However, when stuff is included like "...and everyone who supports him," the post does--albeit not by name--personally attack some folks who post here.

Stay away from that."

He says stay away from lumping people together and calling them names. So now we gotta argue if "ignorant, mentally ill, or evil" qualifies as an attack? That's specious reasoning to say the least.

Think if any of these qualify as "personal attacks":

You're ignorant.

You're mentally ill.

You are just EVIL.

Yes to all 3. Personally I could let that go, and have. But if you're going to moderate, then moderate according to some rules, not according to who's my buddy and who's been here for 15 years.

I can see how 2 of the 3 are attacks. I was probably just caught up in the moment and arguing a point just to argue it.


I dont ever consider ignorant to be an attack. I will frequently say to customers or vendors "I am ignorant on this can you explain"


Ignorant, to me, just means uneducated on the subject at hand. Not incapable of learning. So if we start discussing the merits of Peruvian eye liner I'm ignorant and of no value to the conversation. So when speaking of my values, if I call you ignorant, I dont mean it as an insult just saying that you dont know my values. I may be wrong.


Either way I enjoy the debate and discussion...carry on.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I can see how 2 of the 3 are attacks. I was probably just caught up in the moment and arguing a point just to argue it.


I dont ever consider ignorant to be an attack. I will frequently say to customers or vendors "I am ignorant on this can you explain"


Ignorant, to me, just means uneducated on the subject at hand. Not incapable of learning. So if we start discussing the merits of Peruvian eye liner I'm ignorant and of no value to the conversation. So when speaking of my values, if I call you ignorant, I dont mean it as an insult just saying that you dont know my values. I may be wrong.


Either way I enjoy the debate and discussion...carry on.

Yeah, but it's a lot different if I'm telling someone I AM ignorant about something. I can call myself a fucking dumbass all day long. If you do it... well, we gon have words.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hey, you owned it.

I don't think your judgement is worthy of being a moderator, but that ain't my call.

Leftists run this place & that's Ben's decision.

I didn't exactly hide from it when I made two posts about the suspension when it happened. Wasn't a close call in my mind.

I'll take your second statement as a compliment, I think.

Regarding who "runs this place" and how people's personal philosophies might affect moderation, my guess is there's a lot of selective memory going on across the board. I'm pretty sure the suspensions over the last year or so (which are rare) have actually been more on people who you would tend to disagree with.

[cuervo72]

In the spirit of full disclosure I would like to state the I have not read 1984.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter

EXHIBIT A of people's personas, your honor.

Seriously.

I will make one last point for me: Nobody here (I don't think) wants to silence conservative voices. I enjoyed the discussion I had with CU Tiger in the Trump thread yesterday on immigration, and hope that we were both respectful and hope he didn't take what I was saying as calling him a racist.

I find CU Tiger will actually honestly engage you in conversation. Some other folks like to troll, strawman, misrepresent (which, whatever) and (some) advocate for murder against folks that they disagree with (which is not really whatever).

There is a difference.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I find CU Tiger will actually honestly engage you in conversation. Some other folks like to troll, strawman, misrepresent (which, whatever) and (some) advocate for murder against folks that they disagree with (which is not really whatever).

There is a difference.

CU is the type of guy I could sit down with a few 30 packs and by the time we got through the first one, all the world's problems would be solved

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I can see how 2 of the 3 are attacks. I was probably just caught up in the moment and arguing a point just to argue it.


I dont ever consider ignorant to be an attack. I will frequently say to customers or vendors "I am ignorant on this can you explain"


Ignorant, to me, just means uneducated on the subject at hand. Not incapable of learning. So if we start discussing the merits of Peruvian eye liner I'm ignorant and of no value to the conversation. So when speaking of my values, if I call you ignorant, I dont mean it as an insult just saying that you dont know my values. I may be wrong.


Either way I enjoy the debate and discussion...carry on.

If you need info on Peruvian eye liner, DM me

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by lungs

CU is the type of guy I could sit down with a few 30 packs and by the time we got through the first one, all the world's problems would be solved

And I would actually enjoy that greatly.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You are calling me ignorant. That is an offense to get you boxed, correct? You know, words hurt more than sticks and stones. I would much rather be called ignorant that someone hitting my with a big stick. Of course I suffer from white privilege.

This thread is fantastic. It really highlights peoples personas on this forum.

Good stuff.

Not sure what your point is here. Nobody is claiming their feelings were hurt due to the use of the word ignorant. That was only brought up to show that personal attacks have been used in the past and did not receive a suspension, despite the (seemingly now retracted) claims that Ben is biased against conservatives.

It's kind of funny that this become a big thing now. I looked through my post history the other day and found numerous instances of personal attacks, including a couple times where I said "fuck you" to someone and where someone said "fuck you" to me. I didn't report those posts and no one reported them against me. We just moved on about our day.

[Chief Rum]

Today's Daily Stoic says what I said above much better than I did.

A few years ago, conservative commentators in America began using a term for young college students--mostly liberal--who insisted on #noplatforming speakers they disagreed with: Snowflakes. It was said with both a sneer and well-meaning wisdom because the world just isn’t going to work if you think you can block out or censure everything you find objectionable.

But here’s the problem. It’s totally hypocritical. Because on all sides of the political debate we have this snowflake tendency. Conservatives freak out now when people question or criticize the president (indeed, the president himself loves to dish it out, but complains constantly about having to take it). You’d be amazed at the number of Donald Trump supporters--the same ones who accuse liberals of Trump Derangement Syndrome--who send in angry notes to DailyStoic.com that illustrate not just their inability to deal with views they disagree with, but also exhibit what ought to be called Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Why point this out?

Because the whole aim of Stoicism is to reduce the amount of offense we take from things that are outside our control. Remember, Epictetus says we are complicit when we allow someone to make us angry, when their words produce a disproportionate reaction from us. Intellectually, a philosopher has to be someone who can calmly entertain, consider, and engage with views and ideas different from their own. The notion that you would love listening to a band and then turn them off because they “brought politics into it” is positively infantile, whatever those politics are. Or that you’d turn away from a friend or a parent because they are on their own intellectual or social journey. (Or unsubscribe from a free email you otherwise liked!)

Snowflakes, whether they are on the left or the right, are miserable because they need the world to be a certain way--their way. They are constantly at risk of being upset and disturbed because someone else--someone with views different than their own--has the power to say or do or think for themselves. A Stoic, on the other hand, is open-minded and content to let others live and think as they wish. Not only that, but they relish the opportunity to have their own views challenged, because they know they grow stronger for it.

Don’t be a snowflake. Be a Stoic.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Not sure what your point is here. Nobody is claiming their feelings were hurt due to the use of the word ignorant. That was only brought up to show that personal attacks have been used in the past and did not receive a suspension, despite the (seemingly now retracted) claims that Ben is biased against conservatives.

It's kind of funny that this become a big thing now. I looked through my post history the other day and found numerous instances of personal attacks, including a couple times where I said "fuck you" to someone and where someone said "fuck you" to me. I didn't report those posts and no one reported them against me. We just moved on about our day.

I hope it continues that way.

I enjoy coming here. And, while Im an asshole, I respect every ones opinions here and have learned a lot. Its nice to see what others opinions are and why they have them.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Drake

I really thought we were all too old for this shit. Did the ignore feature go away or something?

I haven't used this until about a month ago: two people on it now. One who is just a troll, the other I wish I could ignore on only a couple of threads, as outside of those two threads I find them interesting and informative.

Mods: any chance of an 'ignore by thread' feature?

[RedKingGold]

What’s up FOFC?

[claphamsa]

this thread sums up the reason I never post here anymore

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I haven't used this until about a month ago: two people on it now. One who is just a troll, the other I wish I could ignore on only a couple of threads, as outside of those two threads I find them interesting and informative.

Mods: any chance of an 'ignore by thread' feature?

You really don't like my stance on guns or politics do ya?

[NobodyHere]

So everything in moderation right?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Personally I think we are all adults and should have thick skin.
I think if you want to say "Person X is a twat-waffle who deserves to dies a slow and painful death after watching their entire family suffer the same fate...and then their lifeless corpse should be burned with acid and fed to sharks with laser beams"
Cool.
.

I'm reporting this. I am a twat-waffle and was very offended.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

When's the last time I gave Jon a suspension? Like 4 years ago? (I really don't know how long, but that'd be my approximate guess.)

I know you boxed him the same time you did me, and I'm pretty sure that was much more recently than 4 years ago.

OTOH, it's also the ONLY time I can remember Jon ever being boxed.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

You really don't like my stance on guns or politics do ya?

You’re not one of the two

No, I don’t like your stance on guns, but I agree with the posts in this thread - you seem a good guy who has different opinions to me on things, that’s cool. And someone who can talk about it passionately without being OTT.

And would double down on the idea that we could have a few beers and talk about it too!

[Radii]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

You really don't like my stance on guns or politics do ya?

I can't stand your stance on guns, on general politics I suspect we would disagree more often than not on issues worth talking about for more than 15 seconds, but I read everything you have to say and at least give it a thought, because in this political climate its really really hard to avoid echo chambers and I believe its important to not be dismissive of viewpoints that don't match my own as long as there is some reason and humanity behind them. I value a number of posters here willing to express what ends up being a view of a minority of folks on this board.

I basically draw the line at being told that our nation and our world would be better off if all the people who believe the same things that I do were dead. Only one poster on this board does this on a somewhat regular basis.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Snowflakes, whether they are on the left or the right, are miserable because they need the world to be a certain way--their way. They are constantly at risk of being upset and disturbed because someone else--someone with views different than their own--has the power to say or do or think for themselves. A Stoic, on the other hand, is open-minded and content to let others live and think as they wish.

I don't think this thread is about being offended about what people are saying. Someone's offense taken is not relevant.

To me it is about consistency in moderation rules. Whether or not someone is offended by something has literally nothing to do with it. It is about what constitutes a personal insult. The opening post says "generalized insults" should also be avoided. People generally take offense to personal insults, and to argue otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.

Also, when people tell me I should die for my beliefs... I'm gonna get a little rankled. And I don't think the person that is telling me I should die should just get to do that unfettered.

While I don't appreciate the tone of your condescending post on stoicism, I appreciate what is at the heart of the idea.

But I do think that there are ideals worth fighting for, and yes, stupid message board arguments qualify as fighting for them. And if I am a snowflake for fighting back against extreme nationalism and the most harmful political figure in American history, then so be it.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Today's Daily Stoic says what I said above much better than I did.

This is brilliant

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Butter

I don't think this thread is about being offended about what people are saying. Someone's offense taken is not relevant.

To me it is about consistency in moderation rules. Whether or not someone is offended by something has literally nothing to do with it. It is about what constitutes a personal insult. The opening post says "generalized insults" should also be avoided. People generally take offense to personal insults, and to argue otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.

Also, when people tell me I should die for my beliefs... I'm gonna get a little rankled. And I don't think the person that is telling me I should die should just get to do that unfettered.

While I don't appreciate the tone of your condescending post on stoicism, I appreciate what is at the heart of the idea.

But I do think that there are ideals worth fighting for, and yes, stupid message board arguments qualify as fighting for them. And if I am a snowflake for fighting back against extreme nationalism and the most harmful political figure in American history, then so be it.

You must be reading a different thread than I am, then. There is a whole lot in here about people being offended. No one here on this forum is doing or saying anything to you or anyone else that will cause you physical harm. My point is that whatever mental or emotional harm someone takes fron a comment here comes because they themselves allow it to happen. Why do they give some idiot on a message board the right to "rankle" them? Why do they care what these others say?

I think direct insults are an easy moderation decision and not called for. Ben is spot on there. And I think attacks on public figures not on this board seem like fair gane. Where your offense seems to lie is in the vagueness in the middle, the generalized "people that believe as you do" or whatever. That offense is only given power in your mind if you let it. You may believe that is condescending (another offense in your mind alone, btw), but it's still true.

Before I started to apply this, I used to allow myself to get all stupid upset and write long posts that I was famous for. I'm guessing you remember that. When was the last time you saw one of those from me? I didn't suddenly give up what I feel about things. I just stopped giving y'all (general y'all) the power to get me upset. And i'm much happier this way than I was before.

To be frank, it's exactly this sense of offense that is at the core of the divisive issues this country has politically. Everyone, both sides, takes everything so damn personal. Just let it go.

It's a message board. If you feel that strongly, put him on ignore. But the best way to handle it is to let him spout his crap and don't give him the joy of seeing it get to you.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter

I don't think this thread is about being offended about what people are saying. Someone's offense taken is not relevant.

To me it is about consistency in moderation rules. Whether or not someone is offended by something has literally nothing to do with it.

Almost every ban starts with a reported post. Ben has explained in the past that posts aren't evaluated individually. If a mod happens to come across something they can always act, but they generally rely on reports. Sometimes a personal insult post from the past is highlighted, and a mod has explained that nobody reported it, so it wasn't acted on.

So looking at the types of posters who are offended and report posts is as relevant as looking at the types of posters who are banned. Whether someone is offended matters because someone being offended initiates the ban process.

[Subby]

Stoicism is bullshit and just another method of control conjured up by dudes. It's a luxury for a protected class (white dudes) who can afford not to worry about anything. I'm not going to be stoic about a bunch of fucking alt-right dumbasses running around genuflecting in front of confederate statues and beating off to NRANEWS porn.

Also I would totally drink beers with tarcone and cu tiger but jimga makes me nervous bc he is always talking about murdering people.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Subby

Also I would totally drink beers with tarcone and cu tiger but jimga makes me nervous bc he is always talking about murdering people.

I'd drink beer with tarcone and CU Tiger, but with JIMGA, I'm thinking a carton of smokes would be the way to go.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Subby

Stoicism is bullshit

Agreed, but that discussion probably better for a philosophy thread . I just think any philosophy that devalues emotions does not really get the point of humanity. I distrust any overly logical philosophy (yes, even from you, Mr. Spock!). Though Stocism is really into virtue ethics, and likely would be more than fine with 'virtue signaling' (it could lead to virtue character traits over time), which is kind of interesting.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Subby

Stoicism is bullshit and just another method of control conjured up by dudes. It's a luxury for a protected class (white dudes) who can afford not to worry about anything. I'm not going to be stoic about a bunch of fucking alt-right dumbasses running around genuflecting in front of confederate statues and beating off to NRANEWS porn.

Also I would totally drink beers with tarcone and cu tiger but jimga makes me nervous bc he is always talking about murdering people.

Yea opinions vary on it. It has made an impact for me. But of course I'm just a "white dude" with no struggles whatsoever.

Fwiw, being a part of and engaging in the social fabric is a big part of being a stoic. Hate crimes and rscism are rationally detrimental to society, so stoics aren't down for what the alt-right is selling either.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Agreed, but that discussion probably better for a philosophy thread . I just think any philosophy that devalues emotions does not really get the point of humanity. I distrust any overly logical philosophy (yes, even from you, Mr. Spock!). Though Stocism is really into virtue ethics, and likely would be more than fine with 'virtue signaling' (it could lead to virtue character traits over time), which is kind of interesting.

Yea we shouldn't sidetrack the discussion here, so I won't deep dive into it. But I bolded one statement you made. That's actually completely false about stoicism. The philosophy isn't about not feeling emotion. It's about putting that emotion in the right context so you can understand where it's coming from and choose how much to allow it to affect your life.

[ISiddiqui]

The putting the emotion in context is usually about putting in a box, IMO. And is a devaluation (and note I said devaluing, therefore saying not feeling emotion is a mistatement of what I said). Hence the focus on virtue as opposed to actually exploring the genesis and channeling of emotions. So I would say it's about not feeling emotion.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The putting the emotion in context is usually about putting in a box, IMO. And is a devaluation (and note I said devaluing, therefore saying not feeling emotion is a mistatement of what I said). Hence the focus on virtue as opposed to actually exploring the genesis and channeling of emotions. So I would say it's about not feeling emotion.

Apologies if I misstated.

My point is that stoicism recognizes that emotion is part of humanity and the human experience. And that it is all for the positive ones, so long as the pursuit of them doesn't take you away from your goals in life. The negative ones are viewed as destructive (anger, hate, sadness, etc.) and these are the ones stoics attempt to devise ways of productively dealing with them. For you, perhaps, that is putting them in a box. For me, it is revealing them for what they are. Understanding where they come from, and releasing them in a healthy way.

[CU Tiger]

There is a huge difference between what I feel and what I show.


I like the duck analogy laid back and calm above the water and kicking like hell out of sight.

Originally Posted by Subby

Also I would totally drink beers with tarcone and cu tiger but jimga makes me nervous bc he is always talking about murdering people.

Originally Posted by lungs

I'd drink beer with tarcone and CU Tiger, but with JIMGA, I'm thinking a carton of smokes would be the way to go.

You know whats really goofy. Ive had the pleasure of meeting Jon one time. He couldnt have been a more gracious, generous and friendly host. I mean really salt of the earth dude. Would drink a beer with him any time...as logn as its outside. I despise cigarette smoke.


Anyway whats goofy, I'd lay a hard wager that in reality I'm much more likely to kill someone than Jon. I dont mean to be dismissive of him, and maybe he really is that neighbor that seemed so nice..but I dont think he lives the exact persona he portrays here. I mean I think he honestly feels some folks aint worth living...but I just suspect that in the moment, gun in his hand he aint pulling the trigger.

[Subby]

Haha CR that was a test to see if you would remain stoic in your reply. Nice work!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Subby

Haha CR that was a test to see if you would remain stoic in your reply. Nice work!

Thanks lol. To be fair, I was a little snarky in my white dude comment. But I have always been a bit of a snarky guy haha.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

My point is that stoicism recognizes that emotion is part of humanity and the human experience. And that it is all for the positive ones, so long as the pursuit of them doesn't take you away from your goals in life. The negative ones are viewed as destructive (anger, hate, sadness, etc.) and these are the ones stoics attempt to devise ways of productively dealing with them. For you, perhaps, that is putting them in a box. For me, it is revealing them for what they are. Understanding where they come from, and releasing them in a healthy way.

The issues I have involves the stated ways of productively dealing with them. For instance, as you've stated, you think people get offended because they "let themselves get" offended. Whereas, I think that's a great way to miss what is causing that offense. The stoic way of trying to avoid suffering through peace of mind, and believing their is a central logical way of determining things to do so, avoids actually having to deal with what is causing that suffering, IMO. And it tends to work best if you are part of the social caste that doesn't have to deal with too much suffering, which is why the Greek thinkers we know who have written extensively on it are from the rich part of society, such as Zeno, who may have attempted to live ascetic, but came from pretty comfortable means.

Anyways, like I said, I tend to have a dim view of those philosophies that elevate logic to the top of the pyramid, especially are more and more scientific evidence shows that we come to our beliefs through our emotions and then try to post-hoc logic them.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The issues I have involves the stated ways of productively dealing with them. For instance, as you've stated, you think people get offended because they "let themselves get" offended. Whereas, I think that's a great way to miss what is causing that offense. The stoic way of trying to avoid suffering through peace of mind, and believing their is a central logical way of determining things to do so, avoids actually having to deal with what is causing that suffering, IMO. And it tends to work best if you are part of the social caste that doesn't have to deal with too much suffering, which is why the Greek thinkers we know who have written extensively on it are from the rich part of society, such as Zeno, who may have attempted to live ascetic, but came from pretty comfortable means.

Anyways, like I said, I tend to have a dim view of those philosophies that elevate logic to the top of the pyramid, especially are more and more scientific evidence shows that we come to our beliefs through our emotions and then try to post-hoc logic them.

Actually Epictetus was a slave, and Musonius Rufus lived much of his life in exile on a barren rock in the Aegean Sea. It wasn't just the privileged following it. Yes, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero, were well off. But why do you think we have knowledge of them? Because they were well off, and people listened to them. My understanding is that stoicism had a good bit of following from many at all levels of life.

Putting that aside, sure, I suppose being a white middle aged male in the U.S. means I have less societal challenges than others. I disagree that stoicism can't be applied as easily by others, but then I will always only be a white male. Just as you can insist that stoicism is necessarily only of benefit to a dominant social caste, despite you having no conscious experience of what hardships a white male might face in life.

As for not dealing with issues bringing offense, that's not accurate. Part of putting emotion in its place is recognizing the cause of it and taking action against that. It could be as simple as using the Ignore feature on a message board, but you don't ignore the issue. There is a social element to stoicism. It's not about locking yourself in an unfeeling box. That is a misconception. Stoicism recignizes that humans are necessarily social and that helping others and helping society is an integral part of being human and being a stoic.

But I also recignize that we're not going to agree on this. We just have different value systems and perspectives. It's enough for me that you have some understanding where I am coming from, and that I feel I understand your view.

[ISiddiqui]

Just one thing, Epictetus WAS a slave, but was freed by the time he started getting a name for himself and Musonius Rufus was the son of an eques (the class of Romans under the Senatorial class) and lived in exile after he had pissed off Nero.

Though the second point of that paragraph is probably true that well off people were more respected and listened to a bit in Rome. And philosophers probably had to come from the upper classes because laborers probably couldn't sit around and expound on life's great mysteries and get fed at the same time .

Though I would say (as a good Postmodern person) that that sort of thing enters into whatever philosophy they construct.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And philosophers probably had to come from the upper classes because laborers probably couldn't sit around and expound on life's great mysteries and get fed at the same time .

Plato made a similar'ish argument in his Republic, as I recall. Something along the lines of "yeah if you give the poor political power they'll levy taxes on the rich, but the rich are still better off under that scenario because they have the money and lack the time to govern, whereas the poor lack money, but have all the time in the world to govern."