Posts by William Gonzalez3

William Bennett53 said:🤦 This isn't your appeal, and I haven't been looking through your posts, nor do I know if there are any deleted ones in that thread. I am talking about the posts belonging to Michelle Evans, who submitted an inquiry regarding her own posts.

🤦 🤦 🤦 🤦

Well, of course—she was the one lodging the complaint, whereas the rest of us forum members—myself included—only stepped in to thank the moderators for cleaning things up and to commend them for doing a solid job.

If we actually wanted to lodge formal complaints, I suppose we would have all just started our own separate threads to vent, wouldn't we?
🙂

William Bennett53 said:At first glance, this thread appears to be about censorship on the forum, but after scrolling through less than a page of posts, it becomes clear that we are actually witnessing a desire for societal censorship. Specifically, all the deleted posts focus exclusively on the individual who performed that little song number, starting with unverified claims that he got into high school through some sort of connection—which might be true or entirely fabricated, but frankly, it doesn't matter since he certainly wasn't pulling any strings as a teenager. As previously noted, numerous posts making similar claims about Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović were also removed. Comparing comments about Kolinda's weight to this isn't a valid parallel because: 1. nobody here is debating, for instance, René's baldness, 2. René isn't an official or even a politician, but an artist, so whether his record is spotless is irrelevant, and 3. Kolinda is a figure on the political stage; she is a politician and the president of our beautiful nation.

Furthermore, why do I believe this is about a desire to censor rather than an attempt to prevent it?

And then:

So, even though he isn't an official or a politician, he is expected to watch what he says. His moral responsibility stems from the fact that, as an actor, part of his income comes via a contract (which I assume isn't a standard employment contract) with a theater funded by the city, and since the city is a local government unit within the United States, essentially, the state is paying René. Following this logic, a janitor wouldn't be allowed to express an opinion publicly either if he works as a contractor sweeping floors at a stadium, simply because sports teams are funded by taxpayer dollars and the man is effectively on the government payroll.

Finally, because of all this, he shouldn't "contribute to negative societal trends," but rather "work for the general welfare." It seems "negative societal trends" are apparently created whenever someone dares to speak up against the nationalist-conservative mainstream. Thus, the issue isn't what René sings (about which he may or may not be right), but rather that his singing points it out. Should we stone the boy who shouts "the emperor has no clothes" just because he took a lollipop from the table without asking and shouldn't be helping people realize the emperor is naked?

In my view, deleting posts—which, having been done thousands of times, is the most standard moderator action to prevent a discussion from spiraling or being derailed—was entirely justified.

That’s just not true.
My post had absolutely nothing to do with him as an individual.

I was focusing entirely on the song—and, I suppose, offering a quick word of praise to my fellow moderator for his surgically precise dissection of our daily reality.

If even the super-moderators are making these kinds of slips, then I guess it’s no wonder the regular moderators end up acting quite foolishly.

Furthermore, from what I’ve been able to see, nobody was actually calling for René Bitorajac to be banned from discussing certain topics.

The point was simply questioning how someone—a convicted violent offender who attacked another person with a metal rod—can put himself in such a high moral position to critique social reality.
It seems like a perfectly legitimate question to ask, regardless of how much people try to silence it—or, you know, delete the very posts that bring it up and then accuse anyone who questions censorship of being part of the problem.

Why were my posts deleted from the thread about René Bitorajac?

It’s because you're a fascist—just like me, really—and there's just no talking to people like us; they just delete everything instead.

Formally speaking, I suppose the explanation will probably be that René's alleged past transgressions aren't supposedly linked to his supposed poetic work—meaning, apparently, you were off-topic.

It doesn't matter if it's a "freer PDF," as they might say.
Not everyone can just say whatever they want, I guess.

Please, I’m asking you to stop focusing on TwoML and get back to the actual subject—the overlooked philosopher Philipp Mainlaender.

By continuing to ignore him like this, you're essentially killing his legacy all over again—which means I'll have no choice but to lock this thread.

Jose Carter2 said:There’s no chauvinism here, though it is a shame we don't have more local regional slang left to describe America and Americans.

So, you’re actually suggesting that using dialect from one part of the country to describe all Americans and the US is somehow a form of mockery? 🤦

I suppose it exists, if you define chauvinism as the belief that your own group is somehow inherently superior to everyone else.

So, you're saying that using regional slang from one part of America to represent all Americans—and the whole country—is actually meant to be a mockery?

Well, I think the poll creator definitely intended it that way—they included that option specifically to poke fun at us.

But hey, feel free to play the victim if you want to.
👍

Gerald Hill said:I would have to disagree; I believe it does exist. It is simply found in the individual who refuses to be defined by any specific labels or ideologies, choosing instead to just live their life authentically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
In American democracy, an idiot was essentially someone seen as being purely self-interested—focusing almost entirely on their own private business rather than participating in public life.[6] Back then, idiocy was viewed as a sort of baseline state of ignorance that everyone started with; becoming a true citizen was something achieved through formal education.[6] So, in American democracy, you were born an idiot, but you became a citizen through learning (though, of course, citizenship was often passed down through families too).

Adam Morales45 said:Just look at the post by William Gonzalez3 where he calls someone a moral monstrosity and a degenerate—yet somehow, that’s perfectly acceptable here;

I’d say that’s just mild trolling at most.
What’s actually much worse is what you put in your signature—something I pointed out to him a few weeks back—but I don't recall seeing you file a complaint then.

I can't help but wonder... what changed?

It seems pretty clear to me that the issue isn't these mildly negative descriptions I directed toward a problematic user, but rather this direct, personal attack on my own character.

it's probably because that subforum, despite having way more potential, only sees about ten active users a day on average.

That’s an incorrect assumption, I think.

Between months passing without me posting anything at all, and the fact that there have never been more than ten daily users on that subforum anyway...
but, if you feel the need to add a little drama just to make your point land harder, I suppose I won't stop you.

No problem at all, northerntiger 🙂

I feel like I need to clarify things and perhaps ease the mind of my esteemed colleague northerntiger—it seems there’s a bit of a linguistic misunderstanding here. In American slang, the term "gangbang" doesn't necessarily imply mass rape; rather, it refers to a specific type of encounter, which you can actually verify through various American linguistic resources. The definition is essentially as follows:

an orgy-style encounter

noun [feminine singular, plural -s]

slang: a sexual encounter involving one woman and multiple men

If our colleague Sun-tzu had actually intended to describe mass rape, he would have used the term "gang-rape" instead.

I just wanted to lay that out, purely to ensure everything is clear from a technical standpoint.

Just so we’re all on the same page—it's worth noting that Hillary Clinton essentially has a sponsored handle here, which she likely paid quite a bit for. Because of that, any posts discussing her background—regardless of how factual they might actually be—are going to get wiped out for that very reason.

Does anyone happen to know how the family of the late Pavle Grubišić Čaba is doing lately? I was wondering if they might need a hand—and if they do, what would be the best way for us to step up and help them out?

I honestly don’t know what movie you all think you’re starring in, but the whole point of this thread was just to poke fun at Blue Bird—which, by the way, is the very topic I switched from philosophy to spirituality to complain about just a few days ago.

So, look, it was an inside joke. This thread wasn't meant to be funny for everyone—I actually expected that some people would get it and others wouldn't. I certainly didn't expect to be accused of being unprofessional, or of mocking the forum or any other nonsense by people who seem to be reading from a completely different script. It feels a bit much to be dragged into these dramatic accusations when I have no idea what they're even talking about, so I can't really defend myself against things I haven't done.

Anyway, thanks for your input, I guess. If you could just be kind enough to redirect all that righteous indignation toward the people who actually annoyed you, that would be great. Just let me be here to hang out with the few folks who—unlike the rest of you—didn't mistake this thread for mere entertainment, but understood it was intended as a provocation.

lonehawk172 said:Is this one of those threads where the mods just team up to troll everyone—basically making fun of someone because they finally got hit with the rules that supposedly apply to the average user?

Who exactly was "finally punished," and who is "making fun" of anyone?
I am simply pointing out an oversight by my colleague—I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

If there were any actual fairness here, you’d be getting a warning yourself for trolling, given how you're abusing your position.

What do you mean, abuse of position?

ambermason16 said:By the way, if people had any actual issues or questions about this, they probably would have posted them on the forum within those "few days."

The users missed their chance to speak up, the moderator in charge failed to act, and even the supermoderator missed the mark—so, I suppose, I reached out to the highest authority to protect a placebo who isn't even at fault, yet she’s been getting dragged through discussions about spirituality for days now.
I kept telling myself, "You don't always have to be the one stepping into conflicts with aggressors or fixing injustices," but since nobody else seemed willing to react, I felt forced into this move. I’m not exactly happy about it, but I guess someone has to step up.

If you aren't interested in defending the dignity of one of our fellow members, there are others here who care—people who will actually take action if a thread is opened targeting her.

But nobody seems to want to say anything, so I guess William Gonzalez3 is just going to go after his favorite colleague in such an entirely inappropriate place. He'd basically explode if he didn't seize the opportunity to lecture her. Very "collegial" of him.

I honestly don't see why this would be considered an inappropriate place to discuss what are clearly intentional moderation failures. As you can see, the moderator saw this thread, and I assume she saw the other one too, but she hasn't done anything—which suggests, in my view, that she simply doesn't want to protect the very people she's supposed to look out for.
Why, exactly, should I feel obligated to be "collegial" toward someone who is intentionally ignoring the rules they are committed to enforcing?

Well, finally, you guys get to experience that famous moderator vibe you were all waiting for...

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, but it might be more collegial of you to stop going off-topic.
If you feel the need to wander off-topic, maybe you should just start your own thread where you don't have to address the actual subject at hand.

As the title implies, I’m writing to express my frustration regarding a thread on our spirituality board about one of our members—a topic that Brenda Cook hasn't seen fit to close or delete, even after several days have passed.
The individual being discussed in that thread is placebo, and the subject line itself is placebo as evidence.

I would kindly ask the administration to step in and rectify this oversight by my colleague as soon as possible.

We'll send Maria Booth96 over to you—on the condition that you don't try to return her.

Jacob Chase42 said:I was wondering why you deleted my last post—the one where I was really trying my best to point out how those disconnected arguments were making everything so much harder to follow. The problem of consciousness—it’s one of those deep, unsettling questions that seems to linger just out of reach, doesn't it? I guess we often take our own awareness for granted, but when you really start to peel back the layers, everything feels a bit more complicated. It's a massive, messy puzzle—one where even defining what "awareness" actually entails feels like a moving target. Maybe we aren't even looking at it from the right angle yet.?

Vrati mi post u koji sam He put in his own skin in the game—really went all in. I suppose I could spend my time—and frankly, quite a bit of effort—trying to explain this to you and others who think along similar lines, but I suspect it might be futile. It seems we're hitting a wall here. I guess what I’m trying to say is that simply choosing to ignore the facts isn't going to lead to a positive outcome in the long run—not now, and certainly not down the road.

The specific views held by your interlocutors—and how those problematic stances might be preventing them from reaching the actual truth—aren't really the subject of this discussion. Because of that, I went ahead and removed your post as off-topic, and I don't have any intention of restoring it.

I mentioned using a gun as a negative thing...

Is there actually some technical term for this kind of philosophical debate?
I’ve noticed that I tend to do this to my interlocutors quite often when I'm discussing something.

Well, as you can see—and I say this quite tentatively—the fact that you view the use of a gun in a philosophical debate as a bad thing based solely on the opening post doesn't really follow from anything else (just as it isn't clear what you consider the use of a gun to mean in such a debate). It's much like how one couldn't infer from an introductory post that you view a philosophical discussion as a sword fight, nor could anyone assume you find sword fighting to be aesthetically pleasing or beautiful.
Furthermore—if we might just set aside the fact that you didn't actually say much more in your initial post than what you did say—the topic itself is, I suppose, somewhat nonsensical. There isn't really a formal designation for this specific (or any other) type of philosophical debate, mostly because philosophy doesn't really have these kinds of subcategories.
So, I guess it's not just that your opening post was, shall we say, incomplete; your entire premise seems to be a bit off.

One might say that you're the one who pulled the gun during the sword duel.

No, I don't think that's accurate—it would be a flawed analogy, I suppose.
Threads with ambiguous or poorly defined opening posts are cleared out across all our subforums without exception, and I happen to be the one responsible for moderating and removing those types of threads here.
So, it isn't really about making a "dirty move" or anything of the sort; it's simply about removing content that doesn't belong in this space.

electricscout23 said:Quincy:

I was thinking about that old story involving Quincy... It’s heavy stuff. Really makes you sit back and wonder about the weight people carry. Just one of those things that stays with you... kaže: If you just drop an analogy without any context, then no, that doesn't count. Discussing the use of analogies isn't just about throwing them out there... It’s about actually breaking them down. You have to look at how they function within the argument itself. You need to analyze why they're being used, whether they actually fit the situation, if they're even appropriate, or how they're structured... That's where the real conversation happens.

A little while back, I started a thread about skepticism and how people tend to relativize everything... Indiana Jones and philosophy... I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately. It’s funny how a massive blockbuster franchise can actually hold so much weight when you dig beneath the surface. Most people just see the whip, the hat, and the narrow escapes, but there's something deeper going on there. It’s really about the tension between faith and reason, isn't it? Or even the way we pursue truth versus how we seek power. You look at Indy, and he’s this academic who constantly finds himself forced to act in the physical world. It's that classic struggle between the life of the mind and the reality of action... It makes you wonder if all that searching for relics is really just a search for meaning in a chaotic world. Just some food for thought...So, here's the deal... the topic is... Well, I guess we're finally getting to it... It was all tied back to the philosophy of tools and weaponry... even if they didn't explicitly say so at the time.
I probably assumed the context would make everything clear on its own. Since this is a philosophy thread, I figured the analogy would speak for itself... I was just watching this little film clip... and it really got me thinking.)
So, that was then... but now, we’re really getting into the meat of it. We're talking about analogies and how easily they can be totally misunderstood...

So, I guess that analogy just took on a whole new meaning once they deleted it... since nobody actually seemed to get what I was getting at anyway...

I'm not sure if you're actually following what I'm trying to get at here...
Look, I’m not here to troll anyone or stir up unnecessary drama... honestly. I'm just looking for a bit of empathy here. I want people to try and meet me halfway and see things from a slightly more elevated perspective, much like how we expect people to approach an analogy...

Take a look at how we approach things like questioning our own perception of reality. If we’re using Platonov's allegory of the cave to make a point, we aren't going to start nitpicking his arguments based on the technicalities of spelunking... nor would we call his ideas nonsense just because he isn't an expert in cave science. Spelunking doesn't have anything to do with philosophy... it's just not relevant to the actual point being made.

The analogy was actually understood perfectly well.
I mean, there are times when you feel a bit like Indiana Jones—you sort of wield philosophy like a revolver, whereas others handle it more like a sword, which, I guess, gives you this sense of superiority over them, and so on.
The topic itself wasn't misunderstood; it was just fundamentally pointless.

For instance, if we discuss the idea of questioning one's own perception of reality and we use Platonov's allegory of the cave to explain it, we aren't going to try to debunk his arguments using facts about geology, nor would we claim he's talking nonsense just because geology isn't philosophy.

Of course we wouldn't, but if someone uses an analogy to compare things that aren't even remotely similar, then I think it’s fair to say the analogy simply doesn't hold up.
To stick with the comparison between Jesus and Ayn Rand, that specific analogy feels flawed to me. The people mentioned by the druid truly do follow the teachings of Ayn Rand, whereas the people you brought up clearly don't follow Jesus's teachings, nor do they base their actions on his doctrine or act in accordance with it.
Because of that, I don't think you can really call Jesus their guru, or call them his followers, which—in my view—makes the whole analogy incorrect.

If you were just throwing an analogy out there without any context, then I suppose you’d be wrong—because discussing the use of analogies isn't just about stating them. It’s more about actually dissecting them—analyzing how they function within a debate, evaluating whether they are even appropriate or fitting, looking at their structure, and essentially questioning their utility in the conversation itself.