Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Golden Mean, or All Things in Moderation

Rate this topic


AlexL

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:
9 hours ago, AlexL said:

There is no free speech on a private forum. 

There's a balance to be had what to permit and not permit.

Sure, but it is misleading to couch it in terms of freedom of speech, that is as a right. Freedom of speech is a guarantee for non-limitation by government etc., while on a forum the owner does legitimately define the limits – at his discretion, in the form of forum rules.

Quote

Then there is throwing out the ban hammer just because someone said something that you thought was a really bad take.

Nu, someone’s refusal to justify his own claims is an easy to establish fact, not an opinion (if I correctly understand what the idiom "bad/good take" means).

Quote

It makes sense to have some toleration... [to] encourage better and more rational thinking.

Allowing arbitrary claims discourages rational thinking. Baseless claims are irrational thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, necrovore said:
12 hours ago, AlexL said:

There is no free speech on a private forum.

There is, if and to the extent that the forum's owners and moderators allow it.

Therefore freedom means doing/saying what you are allowed to !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Reporting violations of the rules

Do not post complaints about the behavior of any member on the forum - report them to the moderators. Public complaints about other members will be treated as a personal attack and may be deleted!

1. Does this mean, for example, that, if someone makes a claim and refuses to justify it, I cannot tell him directly about that and I should instead complain to the moderators?

2. And if I do, what will the moderators do? I suppose they will first check the rules and see if there was a violation. In this example, is there a violation of the rules? It doesn't seem to be... at least not explicitly.

3. Therefore the moderators will do nothing. The result will be: I am not allowed to tell him that justifying ones own claims is part of a rational debate, and the moderators will not caution him either.

Is this OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Is this OK?

Good questions. Obviously without moderator intervention, and such a rule being adhered to, #3 would stand.

#2 would depend on the quality of volunteers to a moderator pool.

#1. Would insistence for providing justification have more weight coming from the general rank and file, or the voluntary maintainers of the site?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, necrovore said:

But yes, I meant invalidity.

Then the following

14 hours ago, necrovore said:

Free speech [...] requires that we allow people to make invalid arguments, on the basis that the invalidity, if it is not already apparent, will become so eventually.

doesn't make sense to me (I am not sure anymore that I am allowed to tell this to you directly😟).

 

9 hours ago, necrovore said:
13 hours ago, AlexL said:

Besides, I was speaking about arbitrary claims, those which were presented without proof/justification even after such justification was demanded.

Sometimes people have decided that they can deem facts they don't like to be "arbitrary" just so that they can then demand that those facts be removed from consideration and debate.

I think each person should be able to make their own assessment about what is "arbitrary" because that's just another form of making their own assessment about what is "invalid."

No, the above definition of "arbitrary" is very clear and the check is straightforward: was a justification given or not? Maybe you believe that only a justification that the other person finds convincing is a valid justification in this context, but no, the definition does not demand that, and I am conscious of this fact. Any justification removes the arbitrariness. Then follows the examination of the validity of the justification itself, which is a different stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Good questions. Obviously without moderator intervention, and such a rule being adhered to, #3 would stand.

#2 would depend on the quality of volunteers to a moderator pool.

#1. Would insistence for providing justification have more weight coming from the general rank and file, or the voluntary maintainers of the site?

The moderators enforce the Guidelines. The Guidelines do not specify that a user should justify his claims if asked to. 

Do you consider that he should?

And if you consider that he should, do you intend to do something about it? Because yes, insistence for providing justification has more weight coming from the moderator - because the moderator seems, according to the Guidelines, to have leverage.

PS. You reminded me of the correct procedure for "Reporting violations of the rules" described in the Guidelines. Can I assume that you don't think that I acted improperly by directly communicating my specific displeasure to whyNOT?

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AlexL on that topic in particular, it would help to have someone with an interest in what is being hashed over.

In part, I created this thread to pull together some references to moderation, discovering that there are classes folk pay money to help develop the skill.

From the members that are relatively active on the forum, I would ask if there is any interest in volunteering for operating in that capacity here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

Allowing arbitrary claims discourages rational thinking. Baseless claims are irrational thinking.

I'm saying that they aren't offenses that need to be acted upon through post deletion or anything like that, that's the sense tolerance of tolerance I'm talking about. But you can be intolerant in the sense of calling it out, and saying those kinds of claims are bad, or demonstrate how the claims in question aren't valid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

it would help to have someone with an interest in what is being hashed over.

I think the moderator for Ukraine-related thread(s) should have NO special interest in the topic, should have no opinion, should be neutral.

Quote

In part, I created this thread to pull together some references to moderation, discovering that there are classes folk pay money to help develop the skill.

The skill you mentioned there has little to do with what is required here. Moderating a structured debate or debate competitions (as in high school) is essentially different, in my view. I think that the moderator should understand what is fair and just and should have some knowledge of informal logical fallacies.

Quote

From the members that are relatively active on the forum, I would ask if there is any interest in volunteering for operating in that capacity here.

The participants in the Ukraine thread should not be involved in the  moderation of this thread - conflict of interests. I, in particular, cannot moderate this thread, because I will be judge and party.

There is no need for a special moderator for Ukraine threads - unless you don't feel like doing it, but then the problem is a different one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, AlexL said:

I think the moderator for Ukraine-related thread(s) should have NO special interest in the topic, should have no opinion, should be neutral.

My special interest in any topic I have interest in is to remain as objective as my knowledge and mental capacity allow me to. The notion of having no opinion and dispassionate neutrality flies in the face of what drew me to this philosophy.

57 minutes ago, AlexL said:

The skill you mentioned there has little to do with what is required here. Moderating a structured debate or debate competitions (as in high school) is essentially different, in my view. I think that the moderator should understand what is fair and just and should have some knowledge of informal logical fallacies.

I think I mentioned earlier, some of this was conference style debating particular.

In my previous paragraph addressing the first paragraph of your quote, I couldn't tell you what informal logical fallacy the ideas of having "no special interest in the topic, should have no opinion, should be neutral" fall under.

57 minutes ago, AlexL said:

The participants in the Ukraine thread should not be involved in the  moderation of this thread - conflict of interests. I, in particular, cannot moderate this thread, because I will be judge and party.

There is no need for a special moderator for Ukraine threads - unless you don't feel like doing it, but then the problem is a different one.

I can understand why a judge ought recuse himself from a case where a relative, spouse, close friend, or owns a financial holding in a company, for example.

Last I checked, that isn't what OO is about. I understand that there can be personality conflicts. people can harbor grudges, talking past one another or even be egregious evasions or attempts to mislead. 

On as small a scale as is being operated on here, little short of calling in an outside arbitrator would seem to fit the criteria.

If you think whYNOT's being evasive, why engage with him? If you think someone is a troll, why feed a troll?

Another way of tying this to my first point.

You have an interest in resolving something you don't get in what is going on in the Russian/Ukrainian. Do you seek the answer from someone that isn't going to provide it, or spend your days bemoaning how they are not acting how you think they should act? Wouldn't that time be more objectively spent pursuing the answer your seeking in other places it might reside?

If you know an answer for certain and someone issues a falsehood, does that alter what you know? State the right answer, then it is there to point to and use for reference.

If you think this forum ought be run differently, that's one thing. If it's only about that thread then perhaps the problem is a different one.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AlexL said:

Therefore freedom means doing/saying what you are allowed to !

If you're allowed to do it, then you're free to do it. Sounds synonymous to me. On the other hand, this syllogism seems wrong:

  • In a capitalist society, all forums are privately owned.
  • There is no freedom of speech on a privately owned forum.
  • Therefore, there is no freedom of speech in a capitalist society.

An exception is that you would have free speech if you owned your own forum. However, it should certainly be possible for a forum owner to allow free speech if he wants to, and I think that would be a good idea. (Of course, the government has to allow free speech, too, or free speech cannot exist.)

15 hours ago, AlexL said:

doesn't make sense to me (I am not sure anymore that I am allowed to tell this to you directly😟).

I have no objections.

Regarding free speech, though, I think it's important to allow mistaken arguments even though they are mistaken. It may be possible and even necessary to learn from those mistakes, and to learn how to identify them as mistakes.

15 hours ago, AlexL said:

No, the above definition of "arbitrary" is very clear and the check is straightforward: was a justification given or not? Maybe you believe that only a justification that the other person finds convincing is a valid justification in this context, but no, the definition does not demand that, and I am conscious of this fact. Any justification removes the arbitrariness.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but that seems like a formula for infinite regress: I could offer a justification, only to be told that it, too, is arbitrary, so I would have to offer a justification for that, and so forth.

Ultimately the best I can do is tell you what part of reality needs to be looked at. The fact that there is a part of reality that can be looked at, should be enough to establish that the claim isn't arbitrary. Most of the time, though, the part of reality involved is obvious. But nobody can offer any kind of proxy or substitute for that reality. You're just going to have to look at reality.

4 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

My special interest in any topic I have interest in is to remain as objective as my knowledge and mental capacity allow me to. The notion of having no opinion and dispassionate neutrality flies in the face of what drew me to this philosophy.

There is a difference between how you run your own mind and how you run this board. You can decide (and say) that a point of view is invalid, without preventing it from being expressed.

An Objectivist book seller, for example, might well sell copies of the Critique of Pure Reason in his bookstore, even though he disagrees with it. He might want people to see its mistakes for themselves.

I suppose I believe the old saying that if you give the mistaken people enough rope, they will hang themselves. (Yeah, I'm aware that this might apply to me, too, but I'm willing to take the risk.)

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

My special interest in any topic I have interest in is to remain as objective [...]

I will comment on this later, but I would like you to first answer my two  questions I asked earlier - here -  about the requirement of justifying one's claims if asked to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, necrovore said:
On 2/17/2023 at 12:55 PM, AlexL said:

Therefore freedom means doing/saying what you are allowed to !

If you're allowed to do it, then you're free to do it. Sounds synonymous to me.

😁No, they are not.

Quote

[...] you would have free speech if you owned your own forum. However, it should certainly be possible for a forum owner to allow free speech if he wants to, and I think that would be a good idea.

Yes, the forum's owner should be able to decide what limits he wants to put, including no limits at all. But I think that putting no limits at all will rapidly transform the forum into a garbage dump.

Quote

Regarding free speech, though, I think it's important to allow mistaken arguments even though they are mistaken.

I was not against allowing mistaken arguments. I was against systematically tolerating claims which are advanced without arguments and where the claimant refuses systematically to justify its claims. Proving ones claims is an essential element of a rational debate. Exactly in the same way as forming opinions based only on facts (vs on faith) is the essential characteristic of a rational adult. The link between the two is obvious: if one accepts conclusions w/o having based them on facts, one will be unable to justify them for third parties, if asked to. I thought all this is sooo obvious for the readers of this Objectivism forum...

10 hours ago, necrovore said:
On 2/17/2023 at 1:47 PM, AlexL said:

No, the above definition of "arbitrary" is very clear and the check is straightforward: was a justification given or not? Maybe you believe that only a justification that the other person finds convincing is a valid justification in this context, but no, the definition does not demand that, and I am conscious of this fact. Any justification removes the arbitrariness.

Expand  

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but that seems like a formula for infinite regress: I could offer a justification, only to be told that it, too, is arbitrary, so I would have to offer a justification for that, and so forth.

Maybe you misunderstood me. Let us take an example, a realistic one (maybe even a real one). A person A claims that Russia attacked Ukraine because Ukraine was about to attack Russia and therefore, Russia's attack was a preemptive one. (A preemptive attack in the above context is often considered legitimate). Now: a person B asks A to justify its claim - that Russia's attack was preemptive and not simply an aggression.

Assume that A does answer (whoa! yeah, a rare occurrence): "A document with attack plans was found on an Ukrainian officer." 

I continue: "Have YOU seen the document? If you haven't, how do YOU know it is true? Can I see it? Why is it not published?" No answer from A...

There is no infinite regress in this realistic/real example ! The arbitrariness of the initial claim was rapidly established. The arbitrariness in both aspects: as claim presented on this forum without proof, as well as a conclusion accepted by A without proof.

Quote

You're just going to have to look at reality.

Yes, ultimately someone has to... But where can you look to find the hows and the whys of the facts of reality - dead people, demolished houses... ? Let's go into this some other time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

I will comment on this later, but I would like you to first answer my two  questions I asked earlier - here -  about the requirement of justifying one's claims if asked to.

There is no metaphysical requirement to justify one's claims if asked to.

Neither is there a requirement for an unjustified claim to be accepted by the recipient.

Given that there are three ways to express your displeasure, I've not taking little umbridge with your approach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

I will comment on this later, but I would like you to first answer my two  questions I asked earlier - here -  about the requirement of justifying one's claims if asked to.

There is no metaphysical requirement to justify one's claims if asked to.

Neither is there a requirement for an unjustified claim to be accepted by the recipient.

 

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

A very cool comment by @Nicky in the 2014 "Ukraine" thread mentioned above !

As a side note, (from another thread,) I noticed that Nicky had been banned from this site because a moderator did not care for his posting style. Even though I've since rescinded the ban (after I discovered it much later), I don't think the poster has tried accessing the site since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was absent from the site during 2014, so I wouldn't have seen Nicky's comment when it was posted.

12 hours ago, necrovore said:

The fact that there is a part of reality that can be looked at, should be enough to establish that the claim isn't arbitrary. Most of the time, though, the part of reality involved is obvious.

This might have been ambiguous; what I meant was, the answer to "which part of reality should I look at?" is obvious, even if it may not be "obvious" what you would actually see when you looked there.

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, necrovore said:

I suppose I believe the old saying that if you give the mistaken people enough rope, they will hang themselves. (Yeah, I'm aware that this might apply to me, too, but I'm willing to take the risk.)

I did a quick search on "if you give s man enough rope" and chose the top google presented return:

Proverb. If one gives someone enough freedom of action, they may hang themselves by foolish actions.

In general, the folk that come here looking for insights into Objectivism can find it. Those that come to stir the pot are usually don't last long. There can be merit in understanding why something is wrong. I'd like to think I am dealing with people who can distinguish between analysing and advocating an idea.

whYNOT's been here since 2009. Has he turned to the dark side? Has he not 'outed' himself until Russia attacked after CoViD swept the world? His discussions of Objectivism were okay enough, but turning to politics have put all that aside? 

He has shared links to Russia Today.

1.) It is another publication in the world we live. 

2.) One can read it, assess it and reply.

3. ) Choose not to read it. Move on.

4.) Shoot the delivery guy for tossing it on your front porch.

5.) ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

There is no metaphysical requirement to justify one's claims if asked to.

Sure, there is even no metaphysical requirement to justify anything, including claims/opinions/etc.

But I was arguing for it from the point of view of the rationality of the debates, namely for maintaining the rational character of the debates.

But you may very well chose not to strive to maintain it, for whatever reason. This forum is not mine, I can only suggest what would be of value, in my view.

Quote

Neither is there a requirement for an unjustified claim to be accepted by the recipient.

Sure, I can only signal to its author that he has an obligation of honor, as a rational debater, to justify them. And he can ignore it and continue to post arbitrary claims, potentially transforming this site in a propaganda outlet. But yes, anyone has the right to try to refute/disprove such claims. But what if none will do this? And the moderator doesn't feel like intervene?

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:
5 hours ago, AlexL said:

A very cool comment by @Nicky in the 2014 "Ukraine" thread mentioned above !

As a side note, (from another thread,) I noticed that Nicky [...]

It was a very lucid, somewhat premonitory 9 years old comment. Recommended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Sure, I can only signal to its author that he has an obligation of honor, as a rational debater, to justify them. And he can ignore it and continue to post arbitrary claims, potentially transforming this site in a propaganda outlet. But yes, anyone has the right to try to refute/disprove such claims. But what if none will do this? And the moderator doesn't feel like intervene?

Some propaganda outlet. Objectivism Online, a beacon of an adolescent set of ideas that "most rational folk outgrow" when they realize they have to live in the real world. 

Other's point to the efforts of Objectivists and shrug. "Repent of the ills of non-thinking, the end of civilization as we know it is nigh." they hear. I think of the character on Gulliver's Travels ... "We'll never make it. We're all doomed."

28 minutes ago, AlexL said:

It was a very lucid, somewhat premonitory 9 years old comment. Recommended.

I remember it. Nicky is a pretty spot on there, and in other posts he shared here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
2 hours ago, AlexL said:

Sure, I can only signal to its author that he has an obligation of honor, as a rational debater, to justify them. And he can ignore it and continue to post arbitrary claims, potentially transforming this site in a propaganda outlet. But yes, anyone has the right to try to refute/disprove such claims. But what if none will do this? And the moderator doesn't feel like intervene?

Some propaganda outlet

I didn't say it is. I said: "potentially transforming this site in a propaganda outlet" And also "what if none will refute/disprove the claims"?

And there were also other important points in my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Eiuol said:
On 2/17/2023 at 10:09 AM, AlexL said:

Allowing arbitrary claims discourages rational thinking. Baseless claims are irrational thinking.

I'm saying that they aren't offenses that need to be acted upon through post deletion or anything like that,

Deletion!? This is what one practices here?? This is rude as a first move. Why not something like reminders, warnings and such?

Quote

But you can be intolerant in the sense of calling it out, and ... demonstrate how the claims in question aren't valid. 

For the type of validity I was talking about there is no need of elaborate demonstrations: the fact that the claim is not accompanied, or followed, by justifications even if requested, is immediately visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, AlexL said:

I didn't say it is. I said: "potentially transforming this site in a propaganda outlet" And also "what if none will refute/disprove the claims"?

And there were also other important points in my post.

I did not claim that you did say that it was. What I said might be better expressed as:

Hmph! What kind of propaganda site would that turn out to be? Why bother? It's hardly worth the effort.

The referenced thread is replete with unanswered calls to justify the links to Russia Today. And if the messenger does not supply the onus of proof, that does not create a requirement to shift the onus to refuting and/or disproving the claim to someone else.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

... whYNOT's been here since 2009. Has he turned to the dark side? Has he not 'outed' himself until Russia attacked after CoViD swept the world? His discussions of Objectivism were okay enough, but turning to politics have put all that aside? 

And what is your answer? Has he turned to the dark side in politics? 

Quote

He has shared links to Russia Today. It is another publication in the world we live. / One can read it, assess it and reply. / Choose not to read it. Move on...

whYNOT shares only links to Russia Today and other outlets and "journalist" who work for the Russian government. 

The problem with this is the following: these sources are linked to one of the warring parties. And the war is also informational. And this is not abnormal. But the information coming from such sources is certainly distorted in some way: either incomplete, or one-sided, misrepresentations, outright lies... It may contain some true information, but one cannot know a priory what is what. One has to research in other sources anyway. Then... why bother at all with sources which are known to be contaminated ? The simple rule is: avoid governmental sources of parties in conflict !

Then there are professors and experts who "turned to the dark side in politics" - either conspiracists of various kinds or suspected of being simply payed by one of the party (they are, I believe, rather rare, but they do exist; Russia, in particular, is known to have spent, since the 1920s, dozens of billions of dollars on this). They can be identified by looking up the Internet and filtering intelligently the results. When one is above 30-40, one knows what sources are more and less reliable - if one has/had the right epistemology, that is the reflex of going by facts.

And whYNOT shares exclusively the above mentioned kind of links. All coming from one direction and pointing in the same direction. 

Then: has he turned to the dark side - in politics? Should one ask him, maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Nicky is a pretty spot on there, and in other posts he shared here.

He also had a quite a knack for being an asshole towards anyone who dared offend his sensibilities. You seem to remember people disliking his "style" but that style was often a form of poisoning the well. That's what a moderator is for usually, to find ways to minimize that kind of behavior, going as far as to decide when disobeying the rules of civility qualify as toxic. 

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

I didn't say it is. I said: "potentially transforming this site in a propaganda outlet" And also "what if none will refute/disprove the claims"?

 

Sometimes it is okay to outright disallow/ban any promotion of different alternative views. Q-anoners would qualify, communists, Nazis, ethnostaters, people like that. Then you go a little less extreme for some things, for example saying that RT is only acceptable to link in certain contexts. Mostly these days discussion goes on in Discord servers, so a ton of effort isn't usually worthwhile for a website like this. There is one stupid thread, the Ukraine one, but the rest is pretty much business as usual. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2023 at 10:36 AM, dream_weaver said:

As a side note, (from another thread,) I noticed that Nicky had been banned from this site because a moderator did not care for his posting style. Even though I've since rescinded the ban (after I discovered it much later), I don't think the poster has tried accessing the site since.

Can you email him to let him know you rescinded the ban?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...