Is the Spirituality Forum actually any good?

The "yellow" thing was actually just aimed at Unknown and about a dozen other users he kept tagging with the same label.
I didn't ask for the moderator gig—it was thrust upon me—but since I’m already in the seat, I might as well do the job with some integrity.

The offer is still on the table: we've got maybe 40 active members here talking about Philosophy (not counting the bots).
Most of you have already agreed that I'm just the wrong guy in the wrong place. You only need 18 more votes and I'll step down. Voluntarily.

Sean Cruz said:You conveniently skipped over my last post, which says quite a bit about you. Yes, you’ve certainly given yourself permission to pass judgment. What do you actually know about me? Do I belong to that group of radicals who pushed out the moderates, or as we say back in Boston, did the wolves come in and drive out the sheep? Who are you to judge me? Does my advocacy for a specific topic give you that right? And now Florin is criticizing the moderators?😂 Well, as far as I can tell, you're the first person Florin has ever addressed this way.
And exactly which "spiritual" topics am I supposed to write about? The ones promoting drugs or your little cult?
Get real, man. Being a moderator doesn't make you a god.

'elda... and here I am, just a blooming flower.😍

casualtiger2 said:The "yellow" thing was actually just aimed at Unknown and about a dozen other users he kept tagging with the same label.
I didn't ask for the moderator gig—it was thrust upon me—but since I’m already in the seat, I might as well do the job with some integrity.

The offer is still on the table: we've got maybe 40 active members here talking about Philosophy (not counting the bots).
Most of you have already agreed that I'm just the wrong guy in the wrong place. You only need 18 more votes and I'll step down. Voluntarily.

As far as I am concerned, there is no need for you to leave; the Spirituality section truly requires a moderator. However, you must refrain from acting on mere whims. That is all. Furthermore, please stop coming in with that attitude of "I am your God," because even if you follow Tantric practices, you cannot disrespect followers of Abrahamic faiths in such a manner under the unwritten rules of tolerance and decency.

casualtiger2 said:@ steeleagle13 and Helel, last warning regarding off-topic posts—I really don't want to spend my entire evening cleaning up after you two.

@ Enchantress - thanks 🙂

@ Donna 😂

@ normall - look, I’m gonna have to ask you to change that avatar. Violence just doesn't fit the vibe we're going for here—and before you jump in asking why we can't include violence, let's start with ourselves; if we change, maybe the world around us will follow suit.

I’m a fan of public polls, and most of mine will stay that way. We’re all hiding behind nicknames here, anyway—and honestly, if someone is too afraid to stand by their opinion even behind a screen, what are they even doing in a community focused on spirituality?

@ Benjamin Long, I still maintain you have no business critiquing the state of the philosophy or spirituality forums—especially not the moderators, who have put in thousands of times more work to make these spaces decent. If I'm wrong, please, enlighten me with your actual contributions to those boards (you know, specific threads you started or solid essays/debates you led).

@ I agree with steelridge58 that nobody actually asked the philosophers if they wanted spirituality shoved into their space. On the flip side, in that poll with the massive turnout, the spiritual crowd voted for independence—which is what I think would be best—but that was basically ignored.
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less where the spirituality section is "physically" located. As long as it’s one click away, it’s fine. What matters is who is writing the content and how they do it.

Up until a few months ago, philosophy was my gold standard—the perfect forum, perfectly moderated. Good people, good conversations—even when things got heated.
Spirituality was pretty much okay, too. steelridge58, remind me again what the actual issue was with the old spirituality board (aside from the lack of a permanent moderator)?
Then the "yellows" showed up and chased off the "reds." One guy with a mission ended up pulling a few others down with him; one argument led to another, and before long, nobody knew who was running the show. Unfortunately, that same guy—using the exact same tactics—came back to shake things up in philosophy, too (exactly what Alexis seems to be rooting for). Threads became personal, petty, non-philosophical, and just plain mundane. It kind of wrecked the philosophy board.
In my opinion, the spirituality forum was torn apart out of the best intentions. When everything moved, topics were shuffled and "sold off." Things that naturally belonged together were scattered across the internet.

That’s just my take on how things went down, and I might be wrong. But regardless, it’s in the past. Here we are now—the spiritual folks over at spirituality, the thinkers at philosophy, and all of us together with two goals: to learn something and have a good time.
So, it’s on all of us to make sure this place stays decent for everyone.

Now, casualtiger2, there is absolutely no need to get worked up! I am actually posting here under my lesser-known handle just to see how you would judge the situation without such biases.
It is just as much of a prejudice to lump me in with that "trio" who think they are simply "the wrong people in the wrong place."

@steelridge58, I truly appreciate your hard work and everything you have written, but your response still fails to provide a clear answer to a very straightforward question. This is particularly true because, as you claim, the group intended to address the matter through "suggestions rather than a decision"—yet a decision was clearly made! If a decision is reached without the consent of the authors, then we aren't talking about a suggestion anymore; we are talking about a decision whose reasoning remains entirely opaque. Why specifically were certain segments of that controversial thread deemed problematic? Simply stating that the moderators didn't act "unilaterally or arbitrarily" doesn't actually explain anything regarding the specific content that caused the dispute.
So, I ask you: what exactly was so contentious about that thread that it made it suitable for Spirituality, yet unfit for Philosophy?

casualtiger2 said:The "yellow" thing was actually just aimed at Unknown and about a dozen other users he kept tagging with the same label.
I didn't ask for the moderator gig—it was thrust upon me—but since I’m already in the seat, I might as well do the job with some integrity.

The offer is still on the table: we've got maybe 40 active members here talking about Philosophy (not counting the bots).
Most of you have already agreed that I'm just the wrong guy in the wrong place. You only need 18 more votes and I'll step down. Voluntarily.

Look, I hold that man in high regard, and that is my prerogative. You spoke in the plural earlier, so don't try to backtrack now, though it hardly matters. I have nothing against you personally, but don't go judging me based on scraps of information. It isn't my place to decide whether you remain a moderator here, but don't play God. Get back down to earth; you'll find there are actual people living there.
We don't have to agree on everything, but everyone has the right to an opinion—and the right to support whoever they choose. You're the one who accepted the responsibility of moderating; therefore, you need to be objective, rather than showing favoritism to certain users while trashing others.

Benjamin Long said:Now, casualtiger2, there is absolutely no need to get worked up! I am actually posting here under my lesser-known handle just to see how you would judge the situation without such biases.
It is just as much of a prejudice to lump me in with that "trio" who think they are simply "the wrong people in the wrong place."

@steelridge58, I truly appreciate your hard work and everything you have written, but your response still fails to provide a clear answer to a very straightforward question. This is particularly true because, as you claim, the group intended to address the matter through "suggestions rather than a decision"—yet a decision was clearly made! If a decision is reached without the consent of the authors, then we aren't talking about a suggestion anymore; we are talking about a decision whose reasoning remains entirely opaque. Why specifically were certain segments of that controversial thread deemed problematic? Simply stating that the moderators didn't act "unilaterally or arbitrarily" doesn't actually explain anything regarding the specific content that caused the dispute.
So, I ask you: what exactly was so contentious about that thread that it made it suitable for Spirituality, yet unfit for Philosophy?

Well, here I go again—getting heated, judging, and being biased. 🙂
I've never been a fan of people using multiple accounts (honestly, I don't really get the point), but hey, I won't stop you.
Maybe you just prefer those other handles—so when you feel like I'm not feeling you, you can just—I don't know—switch profiles. 😉

Sean Cruz said:Look, we don't have to agree on everything, but everyone’s entitled to an opinion—and to like whoever they want. But since you took on the moderator role, you're supposed to be objective, not playing favorites with some users while trashing others.

Actually, we're saying the exact same thing. I *am* trying to stay objective. Maybe our definitions of "objective" just don't line up? 😬
I like who I like, and I'm not out here trashing anyone else.

casualtiger2 said:Well, here I go again—getting heated, judging, and being biased. 🙂
I've never been a fan of people using multiple accounts (honestly, I don't really get the point), but hey, I won't stop you.
Maybe you just prefer those other handles—so when you feel like I'm not feeling you, you can just—I don't know—switch profiles. 😉

Actually, we're saying the exact same thing. I *am* trying to stay objective. Maybe our definitions of "objective" just don't line up? 😬
I like who I like, and I'm not out here trashing anyone else.

😂
I just don't want Comet to be annoyed with me, plain and simple! 😂

casualtiger2 said:Well, here I go again—getting heated, judging, and being biased. 🙂
I've never been a fan of people using multiple accounts (honestly, I don't really get the point), but hey, I won't stop you.
Maybe you just prefer those other handles—so when you feel like I'm not feeling you, you can just—I don't know—switch profiles. 😉

Actually, we're saying the exact same thing. I *am* trying to stay objective. Maybe our definitions of "objective" just don't line up? 😬
I like who I like, and I'm not out here trashing anyone else.

That's certainly possible.
And I agree on the first part—who I like is my business, but as for who I don't... well, I'd rather leave that unsaid. 😁

hollowtinker18 Nick said:The previous mods were total hypocrites—they completely trashed this thread and tanked the quality standards with their inconsistent, "spiritual" nonsense. Total mess.👎

Oh sure, let's just blame the moderators for everything. Meanwhile, you all just sit there handing out gold stars like it’s a kindergarten classroom. 😁
What would it actually take for a moderator to get everyone here to just... act like decent human beings?

So now you’re claiming the previous mods trashed the thread—but in your last post, I'm the one supposedly ruining everything, making threats, and being abusive... and suddenly you have zero clue why. Just a total pivot.
I’ve heard people say you’re actually a pretty sharp guy. So, are you really telling me you haven't noticed the absolute war zone happening in this thread for months now? It’s been a mess—first hitting the Philosophy section, and now apparently moving into spirituality too. The fighting and the insults have been going on forever, both in this specific thread and across the rest of the forum.
It’s a disgrace—but whose? The mods'? Yeah, right. How can you even say that?
And why on earth am I getting slapped with eleven moderation flags in a single night just for this one thread?!
So, how do you think objectivity should actually look in a thread like this?
Should I be backing Alim, Sanju, Enky... or Dr. Vitonog and the rest of them?

Why are you guys even trying to "keep me here"? It’s just going to take longer if you keep stalling—I've still got 22 pages of threads left to dig through.
Look, everyone needs to go out and actually live a little. Get some sunlight—maybe even a bit of clarity—for once. And hey, try to end things on a high note, too. Spirituality—or whatever you want to call it..

P.S.
Sean Cruz — I’d love to swap out that Steppenwolf voice, but it looks like I’m stuck. Apparently, not all moderators have the same level of access—or maybe I just haven't figured out the ropes yet. Either way, once I learn how to pull it off—or if I actually get the permissions—I'll make the change.

Good grief, the amount of ego clashing happening here is unreal.
Everyone seems desperate for "freedom," yet all they really want is the liberty to impose their own narrow views on everyone else.

casualtiger2, I think you’re being perfectly reasonable (even if we don't see eye to eye on much), so just tune out these narcissists.

Benjamin Long said:Now, casualtiger2, there is absolutely no need to get worked up! I am actually posting here under my lesser-known handle just to see how you would judge the situation without such biases.
It is just as much of a prejudice to lump me in with that "trio" who think they are simply "the wrong people in the wrong place."

@steelridge58, I truly appreciate your hard work and everything you have written, but your response still fails to provide a clear answer to a very straightforward question. This is particularly true because, as you claim, the group intended to address the matter through "suggestions rather than a decision"—yet a decision was clearly made! If a decision is reached without the consent of the authors, then we aren't talking about a suggestion anymore; we are talking about a decision whose reasoning remains entirely opaque. Why specifically were certain segments of that controversial thread deemed problematic? Simply stating that the moderators didn't act "unilaterally or arbitrarily" doesn't actually explain anything regarding the specific content that caused the dispute.
So, I ask you: what exactly was so contentious about that thread that it made it suitable for Spirituality, yet unfit for Philosophy?

The issue was strictly centered around suggestions; the reality is that those suggestions were handled exactly the way I described above. As for the idea that a decision was reached without the authors' consent, well, that's simply because we couldn't reach a consensus on a single one of those proposals. Regarding the part where you quoted me in your last post while asking about moving the thread, I think that actually answers your question about what the problem was quite clearly.
The content itself wasn't the issue; rather, the discussion led to a suggestion that the thread would better suit Spirituality or magic and mysticism (which was just a suggestion, mind you), but once it came time to actually pick one of those paths, there just wasn't any willingness to even have that conversation.

crimsonhound80 said:Nah, I actually made that animation myself on my computer—it’s a depiction of my showdown with Richard Walker79.

We crossed paths in the Astral plane, where he was busy peddling drugs to "higher" beings and their "lesser spiritual children." Okay, fine, he was just moving some low-grade weed, but I had to lay him out because he was trying to hawk bottom-shelf LSD to poor little reptiles and aliens... well, you get the idea, Richard Walker79. ☕

Anyway: a quick tip for future polls

Maybe stop including an option that makes the poll public? It seems like a lot of people are too intimidated to say what they actually think because they don't want to accidentally offend the moderators. 😉

Haha, honestly, it’s just pure primitive chaos.
So, is everyone who isn't like you going to end up getting beaten down too? 🙄

steelridge58 said:The issue was strictly centered around suggestions; the reality is that those suggestions were handled exactly the way I described above. As for the idea that a decision was reached without the authors' consent, well, that's simply because we couldn't reach a consensus on a single one of those proposals. Regarding the part where you quoted me in your last post while asking about moving the thread, I think that actually answers your question about what the problem was quite clearly.
The content itself wasn't the issue; rather, the discussion led to a suggestion that the thread would better suit Spirituality or magic and mysticism (which was just a suggestion, mind you), but once it came time to actually pick one of those paths, there just wasn't any willingness to even have that conversation.

How can we say the content wasn't the problem if:

steelridge58 said:The issue was strictly centered around suggestions; the reality is that those suggestions were handled exactly the way I described above. As for the idea that a decision was reached without the authors' consent, well, that's simply because we couldn't reach a consensus on a single one of those proposals. Regarding the part where you quoted me in your last post while asking about moving the thread, I think that actually answers your question about what the problem was quite clearly.
The content itself wasn't the issue; rather, the discussion led to a suggestion that the thread would better suit Spirituality or magic and mysticism (which was just a suggestion, mind you), but once it came time to actually pick one of those paths, there just wasn't any willingness to even have that conversation.

Wasn't it precisely because of the content that the suggestion arose?
And if no agreement was ever reached on the proposal, why was that specific decision made? Why wasn't everything just left as it was? Why did a mere "suggestion" turn into a final decision? If it truly was just a suggestion and it wasn't accepted, then nothing should have changed! Or am I perhaps fundamentally misunderstanding the definition of the word "suggestion"?

casualtiger2 said:Beautifully put, though there is one catch.
Pretty much everyone agrees that the spirit is something the rational mind just can't grasp—something that transcends thought. It’s that thing we sense in certain people, or feel within ourselves as a profound state of peace, stillness, love, unity, clarity, awareness, fulfillment, and high energy... basically, something untranslatable.
That’s why so many mystics ended up writing in paradoxes—using the language of lovers, metaphors, and analogies.

The bottom line is that words and thoughts fall short when trying to describe spirituality (let alone live it).
And on a forum, we really only have those tools (besides emojis).
So what are we left with? Should we try writing like mystics? Or just shut up?

@ My take on those questions.
Let's try, as best we can, to use our intellect—through our thoughts and words—to reflect the highest parts of ourselves: good will, intention, a pure heart, and clarity...
Because in the spirituality I’m (trying to) follow, there isn't a single level where spirituality doesn't show up—even though most people usually only focus on the "highest" tier.
So, let's see if we can figure out together how to let the spirit shine through most brilliantly at the level of thought.

Words give rise to the "ineffable"—because the "ineffable" isn't tucked away inside the words themselves; rather, it exists within us as we decode those words, translating their literal meaning into an experience that remains unreachable and inexplicable...
(It's the exact same thing with music—we can identify a minor chord or a major key, we recognize a specific interval or a bass clef, but that doesn't explain what the music actually *does* to us. It's the same with any form of art...)

Which means, if this forum is a medium that gets "filled" with words—and not just words, since we have multimedia options at our disposal—then those words ought to evoke the "ineffable." Together, they should produce the spirit of the forum (much like how words produce the spirit of a book).
Consequently, the spirit of a forum can be full, or it can be empty—truly hollow. It becomes hollow when more is being taken from it than is being invested into it...

Whether we write in the language of mystics or simply fall silent—those are questions of what feels natural to us, of how we are inherently wired to communicate... In any case, it is sincerity that makes communication possible.

casualtiger2, listen, what you heard doesn't matter. But if the spirituality section gets buried under heavy stuff—threats, ad hominem attacks, lies, or just people trying to tear someone down to look better themselves... who’s on the hook when nobody acts? Is it the moderator? It can be a hundred different voices creating chaos, but the mod is supposed to filter that out. I'm not the one meant to do it, right?
If things get heated or turn into full-blown fights and the rules aren't enforced from the jump, isn't the blame on the moderator?
When the actual discussion dies and everyone's just trying to act smart or condescend to others, dragging the quality of the sub-forum down... who's responsible?
I see what you're saying about the negativity on this site, but isn't it the job of those in charge to step in and clear the trash and parasites out of a topic?
Look, I'm not saying we're all saints, but man, when someone crosses the line, it's obvious who needs to step up. Even if I catch a ban for speaking out, whatever. If nothing is done automatically, hate just festers. You end up with cliques and endless wars.
So, whose shame is it if not the moderator's? If they can't handle the negative vibes, then who else will? Just look at the hate speech, the threats, the glorification of drugs dominating the spirituality section. Is that really what spirituality is about?
(Not talking about you... you aren't ruining the topic. But do it for yourself. Try to have a consistent standard for everyone. No favorites, no special treatment for certain users. It would make things easier for everyone, including you. Do you really think I want these arguments? Or that I enjoy being attacked just for voicing an opinion? All I want is a fair standard.)

Benjamin Long said:Now, casualtiger2, there is absolutely no need to get worked up! I am actually posting here under my lesser-known handle just to see how you would judge the situation without such biases.
It is just as much of a prejudice to lump me in with that "trio" who think they are simply "the wrong people in the wrong place."

@steelridge58, I truly appreciate your hard work and everything you have written, but your response still fails to provide a clear answer to a very straightforward question. This is particularly true because, as you claim, the group intended to address the matter through "suggestions rather than a decision"—yet a decision was clearly made! If a decision is reached without the consent of the authors, then we aren't talking about a suggestion anymore; we are talking about a decision whose reasoning remains entirely opaque. Why specifically were certain segments of that controversial thread deemed problematic? Simply stating that the moderators didn't act "unilaterally or arbitrarily" doesn't actually explain anything regarding the specific content that caused the dispute.
So, I ask you: what exactly was so contentious about that thread that it made it suitable for Spirituality, yet unfit for Philosophy?

It’s all laid out right here.

mistyfox812 said:It’s all laid out right here.

Doesn't this just reinforce everything I have already stated several times? It brings us right back to square one, and we could just spin in circles until the end of time! But honestly, I simply don't have the energy for that, as I have much more productive things to attend to:

Benjamin Long said:@ steelridge58, you claim that philosophy wasn't an issue—or rather, that philosophy itself didn't face any issues—but I simply cannot agree! I firmly believe that philosophy faced, and continues to face, the exact problem I outlined in my previous post. Let me reiterate: the core issue with this philosophy is its overly aestheticized and formalistic approach to thought (which, quite frankly, is why the Alim was moved).
The whole point of philosophical thought isn't to be pleasant, beautiful, symmetrical, harmonious, or "cute." Such notions were surpassed and dismantled long ago by various avant-garde and neo-avant-garde movements, yet it seems they still linger around here.
That is precisely why I think it is a wonderful thing that spirituality (whatever its nature may be) has been relocated right there. If it is even remotely possible, it might just shatter that forced, old-fashioned, primitive, and overly polished concept currently present in philosophy.

May you all enjoy the cuteness and harmony! Warmest regards and pleasant sounds.

hollowtinker18 said:casualtiger2, listen, what you heard doesn't matter. But if the spirituality section gets buried under heavy stuff—threats, ad hominem attacks, lies, or just people trying to tear someone down to look better themselves... who’s on the hook when nobody acts? Is it the moderator? It can be a hundred different voices creating chaos, but the mod is supposed to filter that out. I'm not the one meant to do it, right?
If things get heated or turn into full-blown fights and the rules aren't enforced from the jump, isn't the blame on the moderator?
When the actual discussion dies and everyone's just trying to act smart or condescend to others, dragging the quality of the sub-forum down... who's responsible?
I see what you're saying about the negativity on this site, but isn't it the job of those in charge to step in and clear the trash and parasites out of a topic?
Look, I'm not saying we're all saints, but man, when someone crosses the line, it's obvious who needs to step up. Even if I catch a ban for speaking out, whatever. If nothing is done automatically, hate just festers. You end up with cliques and endless wars.
So, whose shame is it if not the moderator's? If they can't handle the negative vibes, then who else will? Just look at the hate speech, the threats, the glorification of drugs dominating the spirituality section. Is that really what spirituality is about?
(Not talking about you... you aren't ruining the topic. But do it for yourself. Try to have a consistent standard for everyone. No favorites, no special treatment for certain users. It would make things easier for everyone, including you. Do you really think I want these arguments? Or that I enjoy being attacked just for voicing an opinion? All I want is a fair standard.)

Last thing I'll say about moderation before we drift off-topic. If you want to keep debating this, please move over to the Forum Quality thread in Spirituality.
Who's responsible for the fighting, the lies, the personal attacks?
The people doing them—the users, obviously.
Whose shame is it?
Theirs, first and foremost.
And secondarily, it's a lapse by the moderator.
What you're asking for requires 24/7 moderation, seven days a week. Do you honestly think anyone—myself included—is crazy enough to sign up for that?
That's why nobody sticks around in moderation for long. You give so much of yourself, and what do you get back?

I'm no better than the moderators who were here before me, but I know exactly what I want, and I'm pushing for it with everything I've got—stopping the bickering, staying objective, and trying to build a better atmosphere. Basically, all of it is aimed at finally getting back to discussing actual spiritual topics. If it works, great. If you guys vote me out? Fine by me too.

There's an old story about a guy—I think he was a Mexican—who set off on a journey riding a horse while his wife walked beside him.
A passerby (a liberal) saw them and told him it wasn't fair to the wife.
So, he got off and walked, and she hopped on the horse.
Then another passerby (a traditionalist) told him it wasn't right for him to walk while his wife rode.
In the end, they both walked.
A third passerby (an economist) said it was foolish and inefficient to walk when they had a horse available.
So, they both rode the horse.
A fourth passerby (an animal rights activist) told them it was cruel to make one poor horse carry both of them.

Moral of the story: you can't please everyone. That's my take on objectivity.

PS
If you agree, I'd love to move these last few posts over to the Forum Quality thread.

Benjamin Long said:Doesn't this just reinforce everything I have already stated several times? It brings us right back to square one, and we could just spin in circles until the end of time! But honestly, I simply don't have the energy for that, as I have much more productive things to attend to:

May you all enjoy the cuteness and harmony! Warmest regards and pleasant sounds.

We really need to make this personal, Benjamin Long from Denver... the issue isn't the "approach" itself, but rather the person doing the approaching.
In other words, it isn't that the "Philosophy" subforum has an inherent problem; rather, in this specific instance, we are looking at your own expectations of what Philosophy should be... which means the problem lies with your expectations—that is, you.

steeleagle13 said:How the hell is this allowed? How can a post from normal stay up when he’s clearly being violent toward another user?🙄

Fair point—I completely missed that.
The answer? I’m still waiting for a response from Normal.
It feels incredibly hypocritical to someone citing American laws while actively breaking them. Witch described the situation perfectly. Honestly, this constant, brutal aggression is grating—it gets under your skin. Even if you don't want it to, seeing stuff like this affects everyone, especially the kids reading this forum. It just sticks in your subconscious.
And what kind of "pedagogy"—or whatever they call prevention these days—involves beating down groups of people (like addicts, for instance) who are essentially dealing with a sickness and struggling to pull themselves out of a hole?
The last thing those people need is a fist to the head.