Reasons to tolerate stupidity

[Transcix]

There are many good reasons to tolerate stupidity in some circumstances. However, why should stupidity be tolerated on this forum?

Recently there's been lots of talk about the poor quality of some members on this forum, but generally the members in question haven't been called out by name. I'd like to propose a radical (or not) solution: speak up against the stupidity, stand up against it and refuse to tolerate it.

A problem has been identified: there's an excessive degree of poverty in the quality of this forum's member base. So why keep those members around? It seems members who are totally diametric to your views don't join this forum in the first place or don't remain here for long. Other members wear your philosophies and ideologies like a hipster wears clothes, and they take them off when they get home or go to bed. In terms of subversiveness, this hipster-esque type of divergence of views could be more detrimental to the forum's prevailing philosophies and ideologies than outright diametrically opposite views, because they blur the line between authentic and inauthentic and bring to the foreground that slippery slope which lies between ignorantly agreeing with something in general (and often in effect sabotaging it) versus having legitimate conviction for it based on a firm grasp of the underlying principles.

A level of protocol would need to be established by the forum administrators, in order to establish a permanent or even temporary acceptable degree to which a thread can be hijacked for the sake of calling out stupidity and standing up to it. Those who aren't wanted would get the idea more quickly and bluntly, more basis would be revealed to justify increased banning of unhelpful members, and perhaps most of all the true philosophies and ideologies of the forum can become more strongly solidified and can even take shape in the first place. An all-inclusive forum is ideal in theory, but in practice it almost never works. Absolute consensus never exists between a varied group of people on a discussion forum, so after careful deliberation a line would have to be draw by those in charge as to what kind of members should and shouldn't be retained. Perhaps a member does not have to subscribe fully to the forum's viewpoints, providing the way in which they argue against it is sufficiently productive (I would include myself in this category).

Mistakes may be made and certain members who aught not be banned may be, but at the end of the day should we not strip bear the marketplace of ideas in the spirit of survival of the fittest and maintain conviction that if you're really up to par then you can fucking elucidate as much by putting words together in things called sentences and successfully delivering your message? If an axiomatic standard for membership to the forum - as well as for hessiandom - is aptitude in the areas of intelligence and awareness, then I would submit that the struggle over truth is synonymous with the struggle to get yourself into a position to struggle over it. Why admit members to the forum who require your mercy to maintain their membership? This is a double-standard, for you show this mercy to some, while you don't give it to others who don't need it; like encouraging inferior traits in the human gene pool through excessive social assistance. The medium is the message - the forum and your membership on it is the medium, and what you say shouldn't (nor is presently) given a blank slate as if existing independently of your unbanned membership status.

There are various forums on the internet for various topics. What's this one for? What could possibly be the downsides to what I propose here?

[Veritas]

This violates the il messagero non e importante principle.

People can make intelligent comments, or stupid ones. Some people have greater potential for intelligent comments than others, but this is to be judged by the output they produce. It's not the person that matters, but what they say. Plato's Justice concept is also relevant here - we needn't categorise one person as inherently better than another, but regonise that some have greater ability in certain areas and so should be put in charge of those areas. If you lack ability, sit back and learn, and ask questions but do it humbly.

When idiotic behaviour is targeted, but no specific examples pointed out, it is because it is a general reminder to keep your posting worthwhile. You be your own judge, what's important is that you actually value quality, because nowadays few people do.

[Transcix]

It's not the person that matters, but what they say.

I completely agree. Banning a member isn't a comment on themselves personally, it's a comment on what this forum is looking for.

we needn't categorise one person as inherently better than another, but regonise that some have greater ability in certain areas and so should be put in charge of those areas.

And those people who are in charge sometimes ban others, it's nothing new, I'm just proposing there be more of it. I don't think you've illustrated reasoning to the contrary here.

[Dinaric Leather]

You be your own judge, what's important is that you actually value quality, because nowadays few people do.

This might be way off topic, but I find it pretty strange that you find stupid comments a 'nowadays' thing, maybe I should shine some light on the messages left on Pompeii's walls about two thousand years ago.

http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti%20from%20Pompeii.htm

My favorite: "Two friends were here. While they were, they had bad service in every way from a guy named Epaphroditus. They threw him out and spent 105 and half sestertii most agreeably on whores."

[Transcix]

This might be way off topic

Perhaps.

[Dinaric Leather]

This might be way off topic

Perhaps.

Are you a psychiatrist or something? "Perhaps" what?

[Transcix]

This might be way off topic

Perhaps.

Are you a psychiatrist or something? "Perhaps" what?

If you must know, perhaps yes it was way off topic.

[rapidshare]

I'd like to propose a radical (or not) solution: speak up against the stupidity, stand up against it and refuse to tolerate it.

We are in agreement, but I have two corollaries/exceptions:

(a) Sometimes "stupidity" is useful. Newer members need to make mistakes and learn from them (by not getting positive feedback or attention) and there needs to be some room for screwing around, like there is in the blog comments. Too much of a managed situation is the bad side of fascism.

(b) I'll support calling out bad arguments and in rare cases, pointing out where someone has done nothing but spam/antagonize/post stupidity. However, I'm not a big fan of us forming any kind of witch hunts. Sometimes people start off posting dumbass stuff and turn out OK as they learn the rules of the road.

I will always be in favor of two types of forum:

(a) The anarchy zone. No rules, no divisions, let it rip and if the userbase is there, it will select out the more popular stuff (recent replies move to the top). http://bbs.anus.com/ was this way

(b) The civil space. Rules and divisions, and dumb stuff gets deleted. These are never as popular and require some kind of very active admin, which we don't have.

I guess time will tell.

[Conservationist]

Mistakes may be made and certain members who aught not be banned may be, but at the end of the day should we not strip bear the marketplace of ideas in the spirit of survival of the fittest and maintain conviction that if you're really up to par then you can fucking elucidate as much by putting words together in things called sentences and successfully delivering your message?

You know, you're right. We need a Ninja Warrior-style obstacle course and then an IQ test. Anyone who fails gets shot in the penis with a 12 gauge.

[Transcix]

(a) Sometimes "stupidity" is useful. Newer members need to make mistakes and learn from them (by not getting positive feedback or attention)

What I mean to suggest is that the learning process for beginners could be enhanced by treating beginners bluntly (but without personal attacks of course) and moreover by cracking down on any positive feedback or attention they receive when they say something off the mark.

and there needs to be some room for screwing around, like there is in the blog comments.

I agree a certain amount of screwing around does not fall into the realm of 'stupidity', even if that amount is probably far greater than I'd personally like.

Too much of a managed situation is the bad side of fascism.

In my view, if truth is at issue, then the responsibility lies upon those in power to make the right decisions and succeed to cultivate a great forum, or to make the wrong decisions and fail. Ultimately the only manager of the situation is logic, and it's up to all of us, mods and admins and users alike, to try and follow it as best as we can and determine what is and isn't true or right. This allows for the greatest degree of creativity and free-flow, because when issues are considered from a perspective of understanding and awareness then the discourse is free to evolve brilliantly and in all sorts of directions, whereas ignorance generally tends to limit the conversation.

(b) I'll support calling out bad arguments and in rare cases, pointing out where someone has done nothing but spam/antagonize/post stupidity.

Do I misunderstand, or are you saying you wouldn't want members of the forum to always directly point out where someone has done nothing but spam / antagonize / post stupidity?

However, I'm not a big fan of us forming any kind of witch hunts.

I admit it's not the best option, only the least worst. I'm not in favor of personal vendettas or personal attacks or emotion getting in the way in any form. But where people living under fascism are hard-pressed to find alternatives, if members don't like this forum they can easily leave or switch forums or start a forum of their own. This is the whole point, the internet allows for specialization, this forum is unique, and the borders delineating its uniqueness are already enforced - I'm only suggesting they be enforced more (to what precise extent is not my decision).

Sometimes people start off posting dumbass stuff and turn out OK as they learn the rules of the road.

Sacrifices have to be made, think of how much could be gained. Besides, they would be given a fair chance, and if they really want to re-apply surely they could do so later on once they're more aware.

and require some kind of very active admin, which we don't have.

Hum, this is always one of the more difficult parts. I would point out that you aren't generating advertising revenue at the moment (that I'm aware of), and there are also other kinds of collaboration and innovative ways of compensating moderators for their work.

Mistakes may be made and certain members who aught not be banned may be, but at the end of the day should we not strip bear the marketplace of ideas in the spirit of survival of the fittest and maintain conviction that if you're really up to par then you can fucking elucidate as much by putting words together in things called sentences and successfully delivering your message?

You know, you're right. We need a Ninja Warrior-style obstacle course and then an IQ test. Anyone who fails gets shot in the penis with a 12 gauge.

I just believe there should be some options available which lie in between on one hand posting a couple strongly-worded threads denouncing stupidity and on the other hand the notion of challenging someone to a physical duel to the death when you disagree.

[Dinaric Leather]

Do I misunderstand, or are you saying you wouldn't want members of the forum to always directly point out where someone has done nothing but spam / antagonize / post stupidity?

I don't think you're mistaken. 99% of the time when someone is acting like a dumbass, telling them that they're acting like a dumbass, even in a respectful manner, isn't going to change dick. On the contrary, it usually makes things worse. Those rare exceptions he's speaking of are probably the people who seem to be intelligent, but also are having a slip of judgement or are too young and naive.

Those intelligent types are the people that will actually take constructive criticism for what it is. To almost everyone, any criticism is an insult.

[Transcix]

Where's Scourge when you need him? He would never support such bleeding-heartedness.

Do I misunderstand, or are you saying you wouldn't want members of the forum to always directly point out where someone has done nothing but spam / antagonize / post stupidity?

I don't think you're mistaken. 99% of the time when someone is acting like a dumbass, telling them that they're acting like a dumbass, even in a respectful manner, isn't going to change dick. On the contrary, it usually makes things worse. Those rare exceptions he's speaking of are probably the people who seem to be intelligent, but also are having a slip of judgement or are too young and naive.

Those intelligent types are the people that will actually take constructive criticism for what it is. To almost everyone, any criticism is an insult.

In my view an element of the Hessian character - both to be exalted in experienced persons and cultivated in less experienced persons - is directness and strength of character to not take directness personally. This left-hand path approach towards communication is one of the reasons I enjoy posting on this forum.

[Dinaric Leather]

Where's Scourge when you need him? He would never support such bleeding-heartedness.

In my view an element of the Hessian character - both to be exalted in experienced persons and cultivated in less experienced persons - is directness and strength of character to not take directness personally. This left-hand path approach towards communication is one of the reasons I enjoy posting on this forum.

Are you telling me I have a bleeding heart for acknowledging most people don't want to listen to reason?

Well first off, if you are, eat a dick.

Secondly, if they are posting such utter stupidity that you feel the need to correct them, then they probably don't have a stoic enough character to take blunt criticism. You can go ahead and do that if you want, have fun starting an inane shit storm with an idiot.

I have to admit I had a hard time understanding that post, so if I misunderstood let me know.

[Transcix]

Where's Scourge when you need him? He would never support such bleeding-heartedness.

In my view an element of the Hessian character - both to be exalted in experienced persons and cultivated in less experienced persons - is directness and strength of character to not take directness personally. This left-hand path approach towards communication is one of the reasons I enjoy posting on this forum.

Are you telling me I have a bleeding heart for acknowledging most people don't want to listen to reason?

Well first off, if you are, eat a dick.

Secondly, if they are posting such utter stupidity that you feel the need to correct them, then they probably don't have a stoic enough character to take blunt criticism. You can go ahead and do that if you want, have fun starting an inane shit storm with an idiot.

I have to admit I had a hard time understanding that post, so if I misunderstood let me know.

The bleeding-heart comment was just a general comment, not specifically directed at you, and it was meant to be facetious.

And I shall indeed have fun with idiots.

[diesel]

-to avoid putting yourself on a pedestal as some knowledge god, because you're probably wrong about that