Moderation and Morality.

[Dekan]

Let's look at it from the Mods' viewpoint. They're trying to run a Science Forum. (Why anyone should want to do that, is another issue - it probably involves ego-massaging).

 

However, given that there is a Science Forum, obviously the Mods must comply with current requirements. Which are - that no post shall contain any of the following:

 

1. Racist views

2. Sexist views

3. Homophobic views

 

From this, we see that the basic rule is simple - don't express, or blatantly imply, any of the above taboo views in your posts. Then you'll be safe, and the Mods won't ban you from the Forum.

 

Forget about old-fashioned considerations of "morality" or "objective truth", or indeed "Science"! These are quite irrelevant. What matters most nowadays, is to be "Politically Correct" in all your posts.

 

This is good practical advice.

[s1eep]

This is good practical advice.

It may be good advice, for being an average kind of victor, but there are more important matters than politics, in my opinion, such as the world and the human condition, that are greater victories.

 

And whether or not you think morality is insignificant or not, it's there, in the relaxed sense I'm using it to describe the possible beneficent or maleficent actions in light of an objective. And it being there is a good thing and helps me to progress with some of the problems I face when proving that people are being evil towards the Earth; not to mention making the suppressing of religious stupidity harder because they are the accepted representatives of morality. I think that objective morality is a rational morality. What is a word we use to describe all the "usefulness" for one objective, and "deliciousness" to another, and so on? I think good fits quite well.

[zapatos]

Let's look at it from the Mods' viewpoint. They're trying to run a Science Forum. (Why anyone should want to do that, is another issue - it probably involves ego-massaging).

 

However, given that there is a Science Forum, obviously the Mods must comply with current requirements. Which are - that no post shall contain any of the following:

 

1. Racist views

2. Sexist views

3. Homophobic views

 

From this, we see that the basic rule is simple - don't express, or blatantly imply, any of the above taboo views in your posts. Then you'll be safe, and the Mods won't ban you from the Forum.

 

Forget about old-fashioned considerations of "morality" or "objective truth", or indeed "Science"! These are quite irrelevant. What matters most nowadays, is to be "Politically Correct" in all your posts.

 

This is good practical advice.

Since 'politically correct' is a pejorative, you seem to be deriding the fact that you are discouraged from posting racist, sexist and homophobic views. Did I read your post correctly?

[Phi for All]

Let's look at it from the Mods' viewpoint. They're trying to run a Science Forum. (Why anyone should want to do that, is another issue - it probably involves ego-massaging).

Right, gaining knowledge has nothing to do with it. It's all about my ego.

 

1. Racist views

2. Sexist views

3. Homophobic views

 

 

In ten years here, I've never seen anyone come close to expressing any of these views successfully. With no evidence to prove their points, they devolve into hatespeech, so the admonition about slurs against groups is really an issue of flaming, not political correctness.

 

Productive discussion can't happen if the language used is intended to anger. "Be civil" is our #1 rule because it makes it easier for everyone to talk, not because we're afraid of offending anyone. I guess that's not as obvious as I thought it was.

[swansont]

Yeah, we try to avoid letting one person figuratively crap on another person. How awful to be forced to visit the site and be censored in that way.

[s1eep]

Yeah, we try to avoid letting one person figuratively crap on another person. How awful to be forced to visit the site and be censored in that way.

That was addressed earlier by Phi for All,

 

To add to what I said in my last post---this is ironic, it seems as though you two are socially conditioned the same... You will say the same semantics that are centred around the objective of moderating the board, which I said I had no problem with; I'm treating it as evidence for discussion.

[swansont]

That was addressed earlier by Phi for All,

 

 

I have to post and agree with him from time to time because it's all about his ego as he non-sarcastically posted.

[Dekan]

 

In ten years here, I've never seen anyone come close to expressing any of these views successfully. With no evidence to prove their points, they devolve into hatespeech,

 

Your term "hatespeech" looks just like a word from the "Newspeak". dictionary. "Newspeak" was, as you know, a language devised to make it impossible to successfully express any views which contravened the Party line.

 

The parallel is, sadly, exact.

[swansont]

 

Your term "hatespeech" looks just like a word from the "Newspeak". dictionary. "Newspeak" was, as you know, a language devised to make it impossible to successfully express any views which contravened the Party line.

 

The parallel is, sadly, exact.

 

The source of the sadness is lost on me.

 

You are not permitted to post things belittling some group of people, because everyone should be able to speak up without having to face a hostile environment that's based solely on who they are. In a sense, yes, that's the party line. Treating everyone with some basic respect and requiring others to behave similarly doesn't make me sad. What I don't get is why others see it as such an imposition.

[Dekan]

 

I have to post and agree with him from time to time because it's all about his ego as he non-sarcastically posted.

Don't go overboard about the "ego" thing! All mods have big egos. Otherwise, why would they keep mutually awarding themselves "+" points for their posts, and so building up huge rep?

 

We all know that, but it doesn't matter. The practical point is, that they've created a very useful, and highly valued "Science Forum". For which every science-minded person should be grateful.

 

Amid all the dross of the Internet, "SFN" shines like a beacon of light. I've loved it ever since I first found it. I couldn't bear to be excluded from it.

 

Such a site could only be created by big egos, with powerful, energetic, thrusting minds. Every mod on here shows these qualities. Including the lady ones, I hastily add!

 

The source of the sadness is lost on me.

 

You are not permitted to post things belittling some group of people, because everyone should be able to speak up without having to face a hostile environment that's based solely on who they are. In a sense, yes, that's the party line. Treating everyone with some basic respect and requiring others to behave similarly doesn't make me sad. What I don't get is why others see it as such an imposition.

Acknowledged. It was just the word "hatespeech" which seemed so 1984ish!

[swansont]

Don't go overboard about the "ego" thing! All mods have big egos. Otherwise, why would they keep mutually awarding themselves "+" points for their posts, and so building up huge rep?

 

We all know that, but it doesn't matter.

 

It's amazing what "we" know, based on zero actual evidence whatsoever.

[s1eep]

What is a word we use to describe all the "usefulness" for one objective, and "deliciousness" to another, and so on?