Complaint and similar issues

soadfan said:We need new rules, maybe to cater to pseudo-intellectuals, subtle trolling, or just to tank the overall quality of the debate. 😁 I mean, when someone asks "where does it say the discussion has to be high-quality?" or complains about posting links in a thread like this... then you know something is wrong. You also know exactly what the goal here is. ☕

Whatever. 👍I didn't realize my takes on this topic were polluting the thread so badly that we need new rules. If the majority thinks I’m intentionally trying to sabotage the quality of the debate or insult people with my views, fine—I'll walk away and stop commenting.
Also, if you're implying that after 4,500 posts I'm actually here with some conspiracy-driven agenda to cloud the truth, then have the guts to finish your thought and tell me what exactly leads you to that conclusion.

I only care about one thing. Who is this person whose specific opinion or methodological stance serves as the objective yardstick for whether a discussion is "high quality" or not?

In practical terms, can any single person here point to a specific piece of info or document released by WikiLeaks that actually gave them, or their community, more transparency, democratic influence, or any tangible way to change their social standing or impact policy in their own backyard?

Since I view the deletion of my posts and these remarks as undemocratic censorship—which isn't backed up by the forum rules or even the reasonable discretion of a moderator—I'm done with this thread.
Peace.

Moved from "WikiLeaks - philosophy of transparency"

Take a deep breath, man, because honestly, nobody here has a personal vendetta against you. It’s just that some people—let's be real—simply have an aversion to anything that smells even remotely like pseudo-intellectualism. And wouldn't you expect that particular sentiment to run even deeper within the halls of a Philosophy department?

- I don't think your goal is to ruin the quality of the debate, per se; rather, I think shamantrixx hit the nail on the head when describing the underlying motives of certain people as they evolve. I'm willing to concede that the degradation of discourse is merely an accidental byproduct of those intentions being carried out.

- There isn't some grand conspiracy at play here.

- And there certainly isn't any censorship happening when it comes to clearing out the off-topic threads.

That’s all I have to say about that.

I’ll just keep this brief.
Since when did we start demanding that people do their homework before they're allowed to jump into a forum discussion? Even in our book club, isn't everyone allowed to weigh in on the comments, even if they haven't actually finished the book? I mean, a person can always react to the specific points being raised in a thread, offering their own broad perspectives based on the context provided right there in the conversation. Why shouldn't someone be able to take a general stance—perhaps suggesting that things aren't quite as they seem—based solely on the information currently at hand, without feeling forced to become an expert on the subject matter first?
If it matters to you, try to talk him out of it; if it doesn't, then just let people express their views, even if those views are based on a shaky understanding of the facts or the specific parameters one would normally need to reliably back up a certain side of an argument.
In my opinion, stepping in to declare that this kind of participation is unwelcome—provided it isn't outright trolling, off-topic rambling, insults, or intentional sabotage—sets a really strange precedent for the philosophy of this community.
The real priority should be ensuring the opening post is solid; after all, the participants themselves are the ones who shape the quality of the debate later on. We ought to let everyone lay out their vision, even if we find it disagreeable, or think it lacks a proper foundation... and so on.

Pseudo-intellectualism?

: skeptical smiley :

Dennis Rogers6 said:Some people just don't have any patience for what they see as pseudo-intellectualism.

Okay, and?
Are we supposed to build them some special little vacuum-sealed bubble where no "intellectual" particles can ever float their way?
I mean, seriously, what kind of argument is that even supposed to be?

I honestly can’t fathom what makes this particular argument so inflammatory, or why anyone is treating it as if it holds any actual weight in the grand scheme of things. It’s not as if anyone lost their life because of my interpretation, nor has any tangible harm been inflicted by it; truly, nothing bad has come of it. Posts get nuked for going off-topic, regardless of who is typing them, so let's not pretend there's some targeted vendetta at play here. The reason I’m telling Mark Torres14 that I have no personal beef with him is primarily because he insists on being stubbornly incorrect—much like his previous stance regarding shamantrixx.

Dennis Rogers6 said:I don't get why this argument is even controversial, or why anyone cares. Nobody died because of my take, and frankly, nothing bad happened because of it. Posts get nuked for being off-topic regardless of who’s posting them. When I tell Mark Torres14 that I don't have a problem with him, it's strictly because he keeps insisting on things that are flat-out wrong—just like he did with shamantrixx.

Gotta admit, your sense of humor is pretty twisted.😕
By the way, nowhere in the forum rules does it say my arguments have to align with yours or Sham's. You're just pulling rank as a moderator to force your own perspective on the discussion by labeling my posts "trolling" or "off-topic." Then you delete or move my stuff so I can't even give you a proper response.

Look, you’re entitled to your own perspective, truly. I just want to set the record straight: I haven't gone back and scrubbed my last string of posts (as you're already well aware), nor have I been deleting anything just to "prevent you from giving me a proper rebuttal." And heaven forbid, I certainly wasn't deleting content simply because we don't see eye to eye—which, by the way, is a revolting concept to begin with. Even that post above where you're calling me out hasn't been wiped, and no, you haven't even been slapped with a deserved warning for drifting off-topic.

That is, for real this time, all I have to say regarding this matter. 😳

🙂

Dennis Rogers6 said:Honestly, I’m just not seeing why this argument is such a huge deal or even why it matters this much in the grand scheme of things. It’s not like anyone actually got hurt because of how I interpreted things—seriously, no harm was done at all. The posts were wiped because they veered off-topic, regardless of who wrote them or anything else. And when I told Mark Torres14 that I don't have an issue with him personally, it was really just because he keeps insisting on things that are flat-out wrong, which is exactly what he did back when we were talking about shamantrixx.

Well, if you take a look at your own 1, 2, 3 posts—which include three different moderator interventions—you'll see that one of them is bound to trigger exactly the kind of clutter that ends up getting deleted anyway.
I’m not out here trying to "defend" anyone, I promise, but I couldn't just sit by and watch this happen without saying something.

But let’s get one thing straight: I haven't touched a single one of my replies in any of those three posts. Looking back after the second one, I see a whole graveyard of deleted comments—Sham's, Mark Torres14's, and the rest—but this latest string right here? This is the set I didn't touch (which I assume is the one you're pointing at). Even in this batch, Mark Torres14's response to my post is still sitting there. And it was there in the first one, too.

🤷

It isn't really about deleting anything, it’s more about how these messages of yours end up triggering a whole chain of follow-up posts that—let's be honest—will probably just get flagged and wiped out as off-topic anyway. I pretty much laid out my full take on that situation in the comment above.
Just one tiny critique, though.

Look, I won't deny it—the criticism is perfectly valid. Unfortunately, I just can't seem to muster a proper rebuttal to all these points you've all raised (especially yours, steelridge58, since you actually dropped a few solid arguments in your previous post), purely because I simply don't have the bandwidth right now to sit here and dissect every single line, link back to old threads, and engage in the kind of rigorous, granular argumentation this deserves... I really hope you'll bear with me and not hold it against me too harshly.

I've got a big exam on Monday. 😁 On top of that, there are a few other things pulling at my attention lately... So, yeah...

Alright! I’m honestly really glad to see you taking this kind of feedback to heart.

🙂

N'Dug said:Sure, but Mandić is a controversial guy. Even if he’s inconsistent or plays fast and loose sometimes, you have to admit he maintained a certain standard—even when he was diving into Freud, eroticism, or food. That’s a level of depth way beyond your average WikiLeaks reader. Mandić belongs to that tradition where authors were first and foremost strong personalities, true individuals, or at least tried to be. They built their uniqueness through deep thought and by measuring themselves against significant, cult classics—not some random idiots in a coffee shop sipping lattes. We're talking about authors who weren't global megastars like Chomsky, but had massive individual stances and a unique fingerprint. It makes sense that people like that hate modern tech, where everything boils down to a mindless mob, counting upvotes and downvotes on some digital scrapbooks or Facebook feeds. They’d rather stick to their old typewriters, mentally staying "connected" to Sartre, Adorno, Camus, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Lukács, and other giants of leftist thought, instead of networking with the crowd that thinks writing graffiti is peak expression or believes clicking a mouse to take down a website is some kind of revolutionary act.

🙏👍
Bravo, N'Dug. Looks like besides us, Igor Mandić is now officially a quasi-intellectual in your eyes. Have you noticed most people haven't even read his piece? Nobody has even attempted to dismantle his arguments. Instead, you just label anyone with a different opinion a "quasi-intellectual" and then, if possible, get their post deleted or just insult them.
If this Brlja guy had written the exact same text but with a different slant—say, praising an Igor Mandić piece—he would've been slapped with a warning for trolling and had his post nuked immediately.
Unbelievable.

Look, let’s be clear: Igor Mandić isn't some pseudo-intellectual hack to me, but he certainly isn't some towering, indispensable titan of thought either—certainly not a philosopher. As for his specific blunder here, shamantrixx actually laid it out quite succinctly and briefly, didn't they? And don't try to spin it; Brlja's post is perfectly fine just the way it is.

If you really want to get technical, my comment about "pseudo-intellectuals" was aimed at an entirely different set of people; it has absolutely nothing to do with this particular mess or your recent rant regarding WikiLeaks.

By the way, I hope you realize that what you're pulling right now is just subtle trolling and mental gymnastics—something I am only tolerating for as long as it takes to justify finally handing you a permanent ban. So, you've got very little time left. 😁

Dennis Rogers6 said:Look, Igor Mandić isn't some pseudo-intellectual hack, but he’s certainly not some titan of thought or a philosopher either. As for that massive blunder of his? shamantrixx already laid it out perfectly—short and sweet. And don't even try to lie to me; that post from Brlja was totally fine.

So, you're calling that an "argument"? Give me a break.😕

I don't know what to tell you. Just facts. No fluff. said:Mandić is alright, but like so many from his generation, he completely missed the boat when it came to digital media. He never caught the wave with the internet, which leaves him stuck in a position similar to an illiterate tribe trying to go to war against a literate society.

It’s a decent read, sure, but when someone starts lecturing about things they clearly don't understand—you've got to take that with a massive grain of salt.

If you really want to split hairs, that "quasi-intellectual" comment was about something else entirely. It has absolutely nothing to do with this situation or your post regarding WikiLeaks.

What do you think about this?

Dennis Rogers6 said:I’m guessing those posts were nuked because they were part of that whole pointless argument—the one Mark Torres14 started, if I recall correctly. Honestly, the entire thread should have been deleted anyway for a dozen different reasons. I let it slide at first, but now? I’m all for my blood brother wiping it from existence.

We need some new trolls. Maybe specifically for that pseudo-intellectual crowd—people who love subtle trolling and just dragging down the quality of the entire discussion. 😁 Look, when someone starts whining about whether a discussion needs to be "high quality" or complains about people dropping links in a thread like this... that’s how you know things have gone off the rails. They clearly don't get the point of being here. ☕

How am I supposed to wrap my head around seeing Dennis Rogers6 instead of Mark Torres14?

Look, I hope you realize this whole thing is just subtle trolling and mental gymnastics. I’m only putting up with your bullshit for as long as it takes to justify finally kicking you out. So, hang tight—you've only got a little time left. 😁

Look, when someone tries to kick me out of a discussion just because they can't handle my take—all while throwing around insults like "pseudo-intellectual" and hiding behind their moderator powers—I’m going to use the same rules they're using to demand an explanation. This forum has guidelines for a reason, and I have every right to hold people to them.
That’s why I’m asking. Why are you doing this?
I really hope you aren't being serious with these threats, the warnings, and the constant insults. It’s just mindless trolling at this point.

Good grief. Insulting you, am I? Honestly, I think you’re taking things far too much to heart. Your entire issue stems from perceiving what was actually a piece of well-intentioned advice as some sort of personal attack.

But hey, look, you’re more than welcome to hold onto your opinions. It’s all the same to me whether you feel slighted because I didn't explicitly label you a pseudo-intellectual, or if you're fixated on the fact that I was merely pruning off-topic nonsense; the core of your grievance seems to be this idea that I'm unceremoniously pushing you out of a debate—one you walked away from yourself, mind you—while hurling insults and nameless labels your way. And now, apparently, I'm making threats too? Believe whatever helps you sleep at night. For my part, I considered this "debate" settled a long time ago.

🤷

Dennis Rogers6 said:Give me a break. Insulting you? I think you're taking things way too seriously. You're seeing a threat where there isn't one—it was actually just some decent advice.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion. It doesn't matter that I never explicitly called you some wannabe intellectual, or that I was just cleaning up off-topic posts. All you care about is that I'm supposedly pushing you out of a debate (which you walked away from yourself) and insulting you with whatever names you've cooked up. Now you're claiming threats, too. Believe what you want. As far as I'm concerned, this "debate" ended a long time ago.

🤷

Fine. Whatever.
Since you're a moderator and you have—in my opinion—extremely bizarre standards for how to moderate, I'll just try to avoid you on this forum as much as possible moving forward.

Dennis Rogers6, I’m going to be brutally honest here...

[1] You're biased because you don't actually have an opinion of your own—you just parrot everyone else's.
[2] You're way too young to have any real, formed ideas. You're just wandering around, mostly without even understanding what people are saying. Your only real metric seems to be figuring out which group holds all the power in the Philosophy department and mimicking how they think.
[3] Honestly, you're too young to even grasp how you're acting, at least from where I'm standing.

Bottom line: you need to step down as moderator immediately. You aren't cut out for the job—you lack both the knowledge and the intuition.

(period)

Ronald Rogers27

I’ve been following this thread silently for a while now—not saying I haven't had thoughts on it, but I didn't want to jump in until I had a chance to digest everything said here.

I think Dennis Rogers6 is doing a solid job with the moderation duties; honestly, I'm all for it.👍

That being said, I really can't stand those "arguments" where someone claims, "you're too young to understand this." To me, that’s just blatant trolling, and frankly, it doesn't reflect well on anyone who resorts to that kind of logic.🙄

As for Mark Torres14, I feel like his position is pretty clear, and I can see exactly where he's coming from. I believe we should be able to tolerate a specific viewpoint, though—with the caveat that if someone starts hammering the exact same point over and over again across multiple posts, it stops being productive and becomes a problem for the community. Basically, if someone (whether it’s Mark Torres14 this time, or someone else later on) begins repeating themselves just to wear down or provoke those with differing opinions, that feels like flooding or spamming, and it really ought to be sanctioned.👍

Of course, on a forum like this, finding that fine line between expanding on an argument and just being repetitive is tricky—but I suppose that’s what the moderators are there for, to decide where that boundary lies. In this particular instance, I think the line was drawn quite appropriately.🙂

Gregory Garcia said:Look, I get Mark Torres14's position. I see where he's coming from. That's fine. But if he keeps hammering the same point over and over in every single post, he's violating the spirit of this forum. If anyone—whether it's Mark Torres14 or someone else—starts looping the same arguments just to wear down people with different views, that's straight-up flooding and spam. It needs to be handled. 👍

Respect your take on the mods.

But since you decided to jump in and critique my posts regarding the very topic that triggered this complaint—especially since we've never even talked on this forum and you haven't posted in the philosophy sub ever in the last 4 years—you should probably show me exactly where I was endlessly repeating myself with the intent of wearing people out or baiting them.

If you can't back up what you're saying, then shut up and stay out of it.😠