INTPf 2025 new era

[Hadoblado]

With the recent bannings we are officially in a new era.

This thread will serve first as an announcement, then as a discussion about forum direction, and also as a bit of a census for historical purposes. I want to see people pipe up at the very least to get a decent idea of who's still kicking.

Moderation Direction Announcement
I'm going to be more proactive in removing people who pose long term issues for the forum. This is in line with the results-oriented mandate from Ragnar and with how the forum was run before I was modded, but runs contrary to the process-oriented moderation I've been pushing ever since.

What does this mean for current users? Very little if you continue to post the way you are. But I'm not going to bother with these multi-year rehabilitation efforts with tens of warnings and rules lawyering anymore. It doesn't work. If someone's being a nuisance and don't show immediate signs of change they'll be banned. I'll continue to nudge people towards better quality discussion, but this isn't punitive in nature so don't feel threatened if I give feedback. If you're flirting with a ban I'll make that clear when I warn you.

As always, please report any issues you have with others. Reporting does not mean a ban or even necessarily moderation. It's just an easy way of drawing mod attention to something they may have missed. I won't respond to every report but I guarantee I read every one and they do influence moderation decisions.

Forum Direction
So with the above in mind, I guess this is where we discuss what we want to see more of on the forum. This isn't the first time we've had this sort of thread, we've been dying since before I joined in 2012 and yet we're still here. Previously, these sorts of discussions have resulted in forum D&D and mafia games. We probably don't have the population for anything like that anymore, not without firing up the bat-signal to bully old members to come back for a stint.

Personally, I want to see more blogs and personal content. I think increasing polarisation is partially the result of the passive dehumanisation of the anonymous. Despite knowing OT and Cog for a decade we still largely addressed each other as categories rather than people and that's incredibly harmful over time when so much post volume is made of this tribal hostility.

What do you guys want to see more or less of?

 

[Puffy]

I notice that the threads that have been most popular last few years are basically commentaries following recent news from the perspective of two factions in culture war. Heated exchanges lend themselves to back and forth and thus racking up posts. We probably had a similar thing in the god threads of old.

I feel like I can read this commentary in lots of other places though. I'd prefer a return to more thoughtful and original content that made INTPf unique. Personal blog threads can be nice as long as people engage with them.

The life of the forum is tied to thread creation and people engaging in said threads. Cog and OT were both prolific thread creators and they'd create threads that people would engage in due to opinion clashes. If everyone agrees then a thread won't go on for very long unless people are collaborating towards an end goal.

So really it's a matter of what threads people want to create and if people are interested in those threads or want to counter-point then they'll engage in them. A lot of the time people haven't engaged as much in threads I've created and so I've presumed that people didn't find it as interesting.

 

[fluffy]

Certainly more personal blogs would be appreciated.

I think that if people are civil it's not that hard to have disagreements when in discussions of controversial topics. Every time I tried to do so with some members it's always been that they projected onto me some kind of hostility for me trying to explain why I think or believe what I do. This comes from I suppose not understanding but more so unwillingness to understand. I often made it directly clear that I have reasons for why I believe things are the way they are yet in so doing get accused of some personal problems that have nothing to do with the subject.

I don't like making things personal but that is how I was treated and that made it hard to talk only about the ideas. Somehow I was the problem for trying to explain what I mean in the areas of the topics presented and this lead to many fights about others refusing to acknowledge the points I made. I had to avoid saying particularly many arguments about the subjects in question because of accusations of character flaws and in turn not say anything at all because some ideas upset people even though I tried to use neutral logical reasoning and not attack anyone by it.

If possible I think we need to disconnect what others say from who they are in that we should not try and make others character flaws the subject of discussion but in looking at what they actually are saying understand it logically and concisely. This leads to less fighting I think.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think politics and religion are not great topics to facilitate forum activity.
Yes it does generate reactions.
But all reactive content has the same issue of rapid engagement and then disengagement. Furthers toxic behaviors and not everyone is mature enough to keep it standard while disagreements happen.
I also think religion and politics generate the least substance and meaning for forums. Hind sight is 20/20, but needless to say Ill focus on other topics from now on. I gave both fair shake and I think the value is there, but not as much as I thought there be.

I welcome moderation and new direction.
Maybe few tweaks here and there can put this forum on the map again.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think the problem with religious threads is that they're mostly one-sided. As in, only one party is interested in religion, and they see their role as trying to bring people around to caring about religion. But this doesn't work and this forum is very old. Nothing ever changes. Any discussion I had with OT could have been had with da_blob 10 years ago and no argument need be different. It's tired and played out.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to discuss their religion, but I think the pattern of arguing for your religion is without value. I've never seen a single mind change as a result of this proselytisation. The net result is it tends to piss off a lot of people no matter how well intentioned.

Regarding politics, I think political conversations are unavoidable but also are dynamic, so long as they don't regress into tribal chest beating. I learn a lot from political discussion here. Even if my overarching views rarely change as a result of anything any particular person says, I come to understand how other people are thinking on these issues. When not pushed into locking horns, I have more empathy as a result of political discussions.

 

[Hadoblado]

Certainly more personal blogs would be appreciated.

I think that if people are civil it's not that hard to have disagreements when in discussions of controversial topics. Every time I tried to do so with some members it's always been that they projected onto me some kind of hostility for me trying to explain why I think or believe what I do. This comes from I suppose not understanding but more so unwillingness to understand. I often made it directly clear that I have reasons for why I believe things are the way they are yet in so doing get accused of some personal problems that have nothing to do with the subject.

I don't like making things personal but that is how I was treated and that made it hard to talk only about the ideas. Somehow I was the problem for trying to explain what I mean in the areas of the topics presented and this lead to many fights about others refusing to acknowledge the points I made. I had to avoid saying particularly many arguments about the subjects in question because of accusations of character flaws and in turn not say anything at all because some ideas upset people even though I tried to use neutral logical reasoning and not attack anyone by it.

If possible I think we need to disconnect what others say from who they are in that we should not try and make others character flaws the subject of discussion but in looking at what they actually are saying understand it logically and concisely. This leads to less fighting I think.

I hear you. We see our interactions differently but I can't ignore that my attempts to nudge your posting behaviour have gone poorly (and that's on me).

 

[Puffy]

I think the problem with religious threads is that they're mostly one-sided. As in, only one party is interested in religion, and they see their role as trying to bring people around to caring about religion. But this doesn't work and this forum is very old. Nothing ever changes. Any discussion I had with OT could have been had with da_blob 10 years ago and no argument need be different. It's tired and played out.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to discuss their religion, but I think the pattern of arguing for your religion is without value. I've never seen a single mind change as a result of this proselytisation. The net result is it tends to piss off a lot of people no matter how well intentioned.

Regarding politics, I think political conversations are unavoidable but also are dynamic, so long as they don't regress into tribal chest beating. I learn a lot from political discussion here. Even if my overarching views rarely change as a result of anything any particular person says, I come to understand how other people are thinking on these issues. When not pushed into locking horns, I have more empathy as a result of political discussions.

I agree overall but think it's helpful to distinguish proselytising from other forms of discussion as religious threads don't have to just be about proselytising. What OT and da blob were doing is definitely proselytising and I feel like they self-admitted that. If I write about spirituality it's normally as it's a part of my life to share or talk about but I don't expect or need to change other's minds.

 

[dr froyd]

some of the religious discussion with OT were actually not bad, at least initially. Because it seemed that he imposed a decent standard on himself in terms of quality of discourse - from scientific and logical perspectives. As long as everyone worked together, steel-manned each other's positions, it was pretty good. What disappointed me in the end was that when the flaws or outright falsities of this arguments became apparent through this discourse, he chose to resort to sophistry and eventually mere attacks on character of atheists etc. This revealed, of course, that the aim was not discourse but persuasion and evangelism

 

[ZenRaiden]

I felt like OT and Cog were using this forum more like proving grounds for their arguments. I believe OT was not trying to push religion, but I could feel both Cog and OT being bummed out when they could not push for what they believed, when someone challenged their scripts.

I think best type of ideology is to have some values, but it should never become a heavy handed script without revision. Ideology married to careful examination is where its at.

 

[dr froyd]

when it comes to political discourse, i think one just has to keep in mind a forum like this is unlike a mass-social-media site like twitter or reddit where chiming in with gratuitous half-assed reasoning in divisive subjects is not a destructive act but rather something that is rewarded with attention. That's not just about fair moderation - at which i think hado does an exemplary job - but the responsibility of everyone

 

[ZenRaiden]

but the responsibility of everyone

Strictly speaking of arguments we had, if people who are arguing begin from different assumptions then arguments are null and void. You can only construct an argument from common assumptions everyone agrees with. We had debates which are persuasion tactic to win over people. I felt like most of what was happening was like they were trying to win over some invisible group of people.
I am not even sure forums are good for debates or arguments, I prefer it just be talking points and exchange of perspectives.
If we want advanced arguments, we need serious discipline. If we want just debates we need to keep it in confines of rules that are set before debate like forum rules etc.

 

[dr froyd]

but the responsibility of everyone

Strictly speaking of arguments we had, if people who are arguing begin from different assumptions then arguments are null and void. You can only construct an argument from common assumptions everyone agrees with. We had debates which are persuasion tactic to win over people. I felt like most of what was happening was like they were trying to win over some invisible group of people.
I am not even sure forums are good for debates or arguments, I prefer it just be talking points and exchange of perspectives.
If we want advanced arguments, we need serious discipline. If we want just debates we need to keep it in confines of rules that are set before debate like forum rules etc.

yeah i agree, debate should definitely not be the principal purpose. But when debates crop up, then it's a shame for differences in opinion to become a divisive force in a forum whose purpose, in principle, is a gathering of people under a deeper shared set of attributes

how to do that in practice.. well who knows, im just throwing out philosophies

 

[Hadoblado]

I think the problem with religious threads is that they're mostly one-sided. As in, only one party is interested in religion, and they see their role as trying to bring people around to caring about religion. But this doesn't work and this forum is very old. Nothing ever changes. Any discussion I had with OT could have been had with da_blob 10 years ago and no argument need be different. It's tired and played out.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to discuss their religion, but I think the pattern of arguing for your religion is without value. I've never seen a single mind change as a result of this proselytisation. The net result is it tends to piss off a lot of people no matter how well intentioned.

Regarding politics, I think political conversations are unavoidable but also are dynamic, so long as they don't regress into tribal chest beating. I learn a lot from political discussion here. Even if my overarching views rarely change as a result of anything any particular person says, I come to understand how other people are thinking on these issues. When not pushed into locking horns, I have more empathy as a result of political discussions.

I agree overall but think it's helpful to distinguish proselytising from other forms of discussion as religious threads don't have to just be about proselytising. What OT and da blob were doing is definitely proselytising and I feel like they self-admitted that. If I write about spirituality it's normally as it's a part of my life to share or talk about but I don't expect or need to change other's minds.

Yes exactly. Sorry, that's what I meant, but apparently didn't make clear. If you want to talk about spirituality or any other facet of religion that's great. It's the endless advocacy of beliefs to uninterested parties that's toxic despite good intentions.

some of the religious discussion with OT were actually not bad, at least initially. Because it seemed that he imposed a decent standard on himself in terms of quality of discourse - from scientific and logical perspectives. As long as everyone worked together, steel-manned each other's positions, it was pretty good. What disappointed me in the end was that when the flaws or outright falsities of this arguments became apparent through this discourse, he chose to resort to sophistry and eventually mere attacks on character of atheists etc. This revealed, of course, that the aim was not discourse but persuasion and evangelism

I remember one thread I was enjoying regarding religion. OT had found a more scientific source and argument. But he didn't understand science basically at all, seeing it as more of a hierarchy of authority where credentials define how correct you are. As the discussion progressed, that understanding was more and more required in order to continue a meaningful conversation, and it fell apart. Found it.

Reading back through it, I think OT was still a burden on that conversation because he constantly distracted from the valuable parts of the argument, the ones that actually challenged beliefs I held, in order to reassert his own low resolution views. I don't care if OT doesn't think chimps and humans having a common ancestor is plausible. That doesn't affect me or my understanding at all. Trying to conciliate OT while also engaging with the content just made it worse. The longer the thread goes, the more he insists on dragging it back to the points he felt he could win, regardless of their value to others or their place in the greater logical framework. I was trying to address the generation argument and he wouldn't shut up about hooves.

TLDR any value found from his prosylatisation was found despite OT. CMV.

 

[Hadoblado]

I felt like OT and Cog were using this forum more like proving grounds for their arguments. I believe OT was not trying to push religion, but I could feel both Cog and OT being bummed out when they could not push for what they believed, when someone challenged their scripts.

I think best type of ideology is to have some values, but it should never become a heavy handed script without revision. Ideology married to careful examination is where its at.

I'm not sure how you conclude OT wasn't trying to push his religion. He was, and admitted as much on multiple occasions. He believed we needed saving and felt morally obligated to save us.

 

[Hadoblado]

but the responsibility of everyone

Strictly speaking of arguments we had, if people who are arguing begin from different assumptions then arguments are null and void. You can only construct an argument from common assumptions everyone agrees with. We had debates which are persuasion tactic to win over people. I felt like most of what was happening was like they were trying to win over some invisible group of people.
I am not even sure forums are good for debates or arguments, I prefer it just be talking points and exchange of perspectives.
If we want advanced arguments, we need serious discipline. If we want just debates we need to keep it in confines of rules that are set before debate like forum rules etc.

but the responsibility of everyone

Strictly speaking of arguments we had, if people who are arguing begin from different assumptions then arguments are null and void. You can only construct an argument from common assumptions everyone agrees with. We had debates which are persuasion tactic to win over people. I felt like most of what was happening was like they were trying to win over some invisible group of people.
I am not even sure forums are good for debates or arguments, I prefer it just be talking points and exchange of perspectives.
If we want advanced arguments, we need serious discipline. If we want just debates we need to keep it in confines of rules that are set before debate like forum rules etc.

yeah i agree, debate should definitely not be the principal purpose. But when debates crop up, then it's a shame for differences in opinion to become a divisive force in a forum whose purpose, in principle, is a gathering of people under a deeper shared set of attributes

how to do that in practice.. well who knows, im just throwing out philosophies

This was interesting to read.

I remember many years ago, there was a disagreement between myself and Cheese. I was libertarian pilled, believing that vigorous discussion was the panacea to bad ideas. I acknowledged it was unlikely to change the opponent's mind, but the goal was to diminish the idea in the eyes of the audience. Observer interpretation represented the stakes.

Cheese, believed that there is a cost to conflict. That through gladiation these opposing views born by human vessels hardened and weaponised in defense of themselves, resulting in unending conflict and an information environment in which information is effectively less free to move between minds.

I eventually came around to their views, and a big part of this is because we were notably not hostile to one another. If they had treated me as an idiot, I likely wouldn't have admitted defeat because through rhetorical conflict, people make it less okay to change your mind. It makes you feel weak and stupid to be beaten by someone treating you poorly. But unlike a real fight, you always have the option to choose not to have lost and our brains are exceedingly efficient at conjuring reasons to justify such a belief.

I think if we want a forum where meaningful discussion takes place, where curiosity leads discussion rather than defense of beliefs, we should try to make it okay to "lose" to one another by lowering the interpersonal stakes.

 

[ZenRaiden]

how to do that in practice

For me its obvious, I wont participate in either religious or political topics. Ill read them and my worst Ill throw in some fact, but I dont want to argue with people about this stuff.
Maybe Ill stick more to facts of life rather than throwing around opinions too add to it. My opinions can be rather divisive too.
I am not expecting others to follow this example btw, I just feel like I have outgrown the need to participate in these topics or show case my opinions.
I ll much enjoy just plain talking.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I felt like OT and Cog were using this forum more like proving grounds for their arguments. I believe OT was not trying to push religion, but I could feel both Cog and OT being bummed out when they could not push for what they believed, when someone challenged their scripts.

I think best type of ideology is to have some values, but it should never become a heavy handed script without revision. Ideology married to careful examination is where its at.

I'm not sure how you conclude OT wasn't trying to push his religion. He was, and admitted as much on multiple occasions. He believed we needed saving and felt morally obligated to save us.

Good point, I think he mostly did push the agenda, but I think he had few lucid points where religion was just part of the deal, because his entire identity was about Jesus.

I think if we want a forum where meaningful discussion takes place, where curiosity leads discussion rather than defense of beliefs, we should try to make it okay to "lose" to one another by lowering the interpersonal stakes.

I am Ok with losing or whatever. I just hate losing to poor arguments and bad logic if that makes sense. If there is something I can do is be more strict factual and less of intuitive and conspiratorial.

 

[dr froyd]

I think if we want a forum where meaningful discussion takes place, where curiosity leads discussion rather than defense of beliefs, we should try to make it okay to "lose" to one another by lowering the interpersonal stakes.

yep. If we believe we have a good argument we must avoid making it look like we're trying to defeat the other person

admittedly im guilty of having done that many times, but it's usually after having lost my patience (which definitely happened with regards to OT at some point)

 

[dr froyd]

how to do that in practice

For me its obvious, I wont participate in either religious or political topics. Ill read them and my worst Ill throw in some fact, but I dont want to argue with people about this stuff.
Maybe Ill stick more to facts of life rather than throwing around opinions too add to it. My opinions can be rather divisive too.
I am not expecting others to follow this example btw, I just feel like I have outgrown the need to participate in these topics or show case my opinions.
I ll much enjoy just plain talking.

sounds a bit drastic if you ask me, i think you have a great method of getting points in a constructive manner.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think if we want a forum where meaningful discussion takes place, where curiosity leads discussion rather than defense of beliefs, we should try to make it okay to "lose" to one another by lowering the interpersonal stakes.

yep. If we believe we have a good argument we must avoid making it look like we're trying to defeat the other person

admittedly im guilty of having done that many times, but it's usually after having lost my patience (which definitely happened with regards to OT at some point)

Yeah - in no way am I claiming to be an exemplar for this type of more gentle reasoning. I certainly have a predisposition toward matching energy at the best of times, and escalating when my patience wears thin.

 

[Hadoblado]

Also, given the new era and the intention of forging stronger communal bonds, I'm going to afford clemency to any active posters who are secretly previous members, even if they were previously banned. So please bring it out into the open.

If you are actively posting right now and I haven't banned you, I think it's safe to assume that whatever sins of the past got you banned have stayed there.

It's just getting a little bit silly with so many of us hiding our previous identities.

 

[ZenRaiden]

sounds a bit drastic if you ask me, i think you have a great method of getting points in a constructive manner.

Damn thanks for the compliment, but Id have to disagree, I def enjoyed your takes on both, but I think life is larger than these two topics. I for one am OK with spirituality. Different ballpark from religion. Different vibe. When it comes to politics it feels like playing Russian roulette before you trigger someone whether you intend to or not.

Also I think most of politics revolves around issues which I have no business in other than mere curiosity. I don't need to have opinion on abortion I think, I don't plan on having kids, when it comes to trans issues I feel like we are talking about misfit cattle rather than human beings, true that the issues are social, but I am not trans or LGBTQ so I don't really have skin in the game, when it comes to US politics I have passing interest in it, but I won't pretend like my life depends on it.
The only issue that mildly effects me is US foreign policy that could change the outcome of war in Europe namely Ukraine, but I have no power in this proxy game.
So why bother talking about this, especially with crappy intel and not knowing what is really happening always just guessing.

Religion is also institution that I feel as distant from as any other. I just don't feel the need to tell people I find it insufficient for life. It never solved any problems for me, but it sure can for some. Let them have their fun with the topic, but for the most part I am decisively closed up for the topic, an atheist with interest in these, but I never lived a religious life so its mere intellectual exercise. Can't really add much value to it then....

 

[threeStepfourStep]

I wrote this a day ago but refrained from posting it since it didn't dwell right at the time, but I think I can post this now.

From most of the religious members I've seen on this forum, they usually use religion as an existential crutch or a very thin psychological lifeline. That's great if you're just trying to commune with God, but making that public means you're more interested in the publicity of your faith rather than in the community of God. If you want to publicize your faith, that's what the church is for.

It's like you having a candle that represents your faith, and you let others blow it out, thinking that would glorify God. Not only will that get you frustrated, you won't even be able to focus on your own faith. That's where a lot of the frustration comes in.

The experience of the religion is lacking, for both sides, and the historical knowledge of how that religion has persisted over the centuries is also lacking. So thus why most religion threads end up being a contest of will, not a forum of knowledge sharing.

The history of Christianity is stupidly long, and unpacking motivations and contentions within the religion and the many denominations and the general modern secular understanding of it is notoriously difficult to unpack. In general I think Christianity is a very communal religion, unlike something like Buddhism, so the 'tool' of the internet I think is a poor way to share what the religion is. People in the past experienced certain things and they wrote those down, it's not like the text itself is the power behind the religion, but rather the historical events which led to its writing. I think when we're on the internet, we all easily fall into a kind of a "Derridean trap".

 

[dr froyd]

Also, given the new era and the intention of forging stronger communal bonds, I'm going to afford clemency to any active posters who are secretly previous members, even if they were previously banned. So please bring it out into the open.

If you are actively posting right now and I haven't banned you, I think it's safe to assume that whatever sins of the past got you banned have stayed there.

It's just getting a little bit silly with so many of us hiding our previous identities.

alright alright.. my previous account was Serac

i was never banned though, not even got a warning. I recall i asked to have my account deleted at some point during the political shit storm that was going on here a few years ago

 

[Hadoblado]

Thanks.

Actually I found these from 2024: "he's a bit like Serac but more chilled out".

But when asked if I thought you were the same person, I thought you weren't (at that time - reading back at old threads more recently there was some similar language that got me thinking).

Am I the only one on this whole damn forum that kept their original account? I hate this name.

 

[Puffy]

I think I called Serac a few years ago so having a moment of feeling like a proud goat. I didn't know that you'd asked to have your account deleted though. I'd always assumed you were banned and being secretive about being Serac as you thought it'd get you banned again.

Spoiler

Thanks.

Actually I found these from 2024: "he's a bit like Serac but more chilled out".

But when asked if I thought you were the same person, I thought you weren't (at that time - reading back at old threads more recently there was some similar language that got me thinking).

Am I the only one on this whole damn forum that kept their original account? I hate this name.

Think it's me, you and ZenRaiden. In this thread anyway. Surprised I've let Puffy stick as long as it has. When I was a teenager I was in a paintball team and we all gave each other stupid names. Mine was Puffa Sloth. When I created an account here I didn't know what name to have so just shortened it to Puffy. I do kind of like it though. Always figured your name was a similar kind of thing.

 

[Puffy]

I wrote this a day ago but refrained from posting it since it didn't dwell right at the time, but I think I can post this now.

From most of the religious members I've seen on this forum, they usually use religion as an existential crutch or a very thin psychological lifeline. That's great if you're just trying to commune with God, but making that public means you're more interested in the publicity of your faith rather than in the community of God. If you want to publicize your faith, that's what the church is for.

It's like you having a candle that represents your faith, and you let others blow it out, thinking that would glorify God. Not only will that get you frustrated, you won't even be able to focus on your own faith. That's where a lot of the frustration comes in.

The experience of the religion is lacking, for both sides, and the historical knowledge of how that religion has persisted over the centuries is also lacking. So thus why most religion threads end up being a contest of will, not a forum of knowledge sharing.

The history of Christianity is stupidly long, and unpacking motivations and contentions within the religion and the many denominations and the general modern secular understanding of it is notoriously difficult to unpack. In general I think Christianity is a very communal religion, unlike something like Buddhism, so the 'tool' of the internet I think is a poor way to share what the religion is. People in the past experienced certain things and they wrote those down, it's not like the text itself is the power behind the religion, but rather the historical events which led to its writing. I think when we're on the internet, we all easily fall into a kind of a "Derridean trap".

I'm not sure what the culture of Christianity is like in South Korea or Japan, as I've never been there. However, my previous therapist was Filipino (Catholic, I presume), and I’ve also been friends with Filipino and South American Christians who I found to be much more chilled out and open-minded than some of the more intense religious posters on this forum I'm guessing you're referring to.

I suspect the existential or psychological aspect you're referring to is true. I also wonder if some of it has to do with the evangelical culture as it's practiced in some places (the UK and USA, in my experience). I was briefly evangelical Christian, and there was definitely a strong emphasis on missionising and publicising faith. OT’s posts and the links he shared often reminded me of that culture, which is probably part of why I sometimes felt triggered.

For what it's worth, I feel like you often role-model in these types of conversations very well, and it comes across like you have a healthy and balanced relationship with your faith.

 

[fluffy]

Many things happened to me last year that were life altering.

I had to get rid of my dog. (very sad moments)

Then I stayed at my moms house for a month.

I came back home and my internet was broke.

My computer was so old that the settings stated to delete themselves.

Lost my passwords on everything. The printer broke too.

-

I was originally Animekitty but the rules say you can change your name.

I changed it to Black Rose with a submission for a name change.

Then I lost my stuff and logged on with my phone as fluffy.

@Hadoblado if you want you can change your name too I believe.

You can ask by some feature on the forum.

 

[Hadoblado]

No problem Fluffy.

At this point I'm not sure what I'd change it to. Yeah you're right puffy it's a name from highschool. Doesn't translate well to text and nobody's called me it in a couple decades.

 

[Hadoblado]

So I had an idea about applying one of the practices in marriage counseling to this place and I felt like it could be a good fit?

I see the biggest issue characterising the previous era was confrontation paired with ignorance. I couldn't tell you the number of times I witnessed or experienced someone attacking a perspective without understanding it. This led to a lot of talking past one another.

So what I was thinking was maybe, if you want to criticise someone's views directly, you need to show you can represent their perspective to their satisfaction first as a minimum requirement.

What I figure is that no argument addressed at someone you don't understand will land anyway, and while this might be cumbersome, it will be a trivial hurdle if you actually understand them.

The aim is to allow for critical discussion without all the boorish baiting and steamrolling, and to prioritise understanding over chest beating.

Good idea or nah?

 

[fluffy]

Its a fine idea

I would extend it to my view that sometimes people have trouble expressing themselves due to verbal fluency not all at the same level so it would take work getting everyone on the same page. If we have ideas that are not common as it is a forum first made for the INTP style type then it would require first knowing that it is better to first establish a bassline for when you understand and don't understand what others are saying. This takes personal responsibility to ask questions and be openminded to differences of opinion. because we all don't think the same those differences can conflict if not properly assessed with a mature thought process. Communication is about learning why others are they way they are without trying to change them but to bring clarity to why those differences we share and don't share might exist.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yep. So I was thinking the baseline would just be whether the person you're describing accepts it as a correct description. Any criticism thereafter would be scoped to what you've demonstrated you can accurately describe.

e.g. if someone described me a socialist that's a non-starter. If they described me as an atheist who doesn't believe in God that'd be okay. If they later criticised me as possessing a hatred towards God, that wouldn't be covered by what I've accepted and it would be expected they show they understand me better before proceeding.

What I hope would happen is this puts the emphasis back on ideas, rather than on people.

But this is a proposal so I'm looking for feedback before implementing it.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

I wrote this a day ago but refrained from posting it since it didn't dwell right at the time, but I think I can post this now.

From most of the religious members I've seen on this forum, they usually use religion as an existential crutch or a very thin psychological lifeline. That's great if you're just trying to commune with God, but making that public means you're more interested in the publicity of your faith rather than in the community of God. If you want to publicize your faith, that's what the church is for.

It's like you having a candle that represents your faith, and you let others blow it out, thinking that would glorify God. Not only will that get you frustrated, you won't even be able to focus on your own faith. That's where a lot of the frustration comes in.

The experience of the religion is lacking, for both sides, and the historical knowledge of how that religion has persisted over the centuries is also lacking. So thus why most religion threads end up being a contest of will, not a forum of knowledge sharing.

The history of Christianity is stupidly long, and unpacking motivations and contentions within the religion and the many denominations and the general modern secular understanding of it is notoriously difficult to unpack. In general I think Christianity is a very communal religion, unlike something like Buddhism, so the 'tool' of the internet I think is a poor way to share what the religion is. People in the past experienced certain things and they wrote those down, it's not like the text itself is the power behind the religion, but rather the historical events which led to its writing. I think when we're on the internet, we all easily fall into a kind of a "Derridean trap".

I'm not sure what the culture of Christianity is like in South Korea or Japan, as I've never been there. However, my previous therapist was Filipino (Catholic, I presume), and I’ve also been friends with Filipino and South American Christians who I found to be much more chilled out and open-minded than some of the more intense religious posters on this forum I'm guessing you're referring to.

I suspect the existential or psychological aspect you're referring to is true. I also wonder if some of it has to do with the evangelical culture as it's practiced in some places (the UK and USA, in my experience). I was briefly evangelical Christian, and there was definitely a strong emphasis on missionising and publicising faith. OT’s posts and the links he shared often reminded me of that culture, which is probably part of why I sometimes felt triggered.

For what it's worth, I feel like you often role-model in these types of conversations very well, and it comes across like you have a healthy and balanced relationship with your faith.

Oh I wouldn't say that, but I should say I have a gift for trying to synthesize everything in life with Christianity. (Trying should be the key word here.) Sometimes I do think I should have a much stronger faith foundation, as in perhaps I should plug myself into the church a lot more, because then life would probably be more fulfilling and fruitful because of the communal body aspect. But without me being so much plugged into church or Christian life, I'm able to understand a lot more about the world, which I think can be interesting.

If you wanted to know about Christianity in Korea or Japan, Korea's mainline Christianity is dominated by Presbyterianism, so basically it's a Calvinist type. Japan's Christianity is much more smaller because of the prevalence of imperial venerance. The church in Japan was badly damaged because of the issue of loyalty towards the emperor, versus the Lord in Christianity. There's less than a million Christians in Japan, out of the population of 133 million. There's a variety of denominations, but from what I understand Methodism is one of the larger denominations.

The difference between Calvinists and Methodists is that Calvinists tend to be very exact in their theology while Methodists tend to lean towards feelings. So it's a bit of a head versus heart situation. OT and da Blob probably come from a Calvinist strain. You mentioned Phillipino Catholics and South American Christians- I know that South American Christianity is dominated by pentacostalism, which is actually at the deepest end of the 'feeling' spectrum in Christianity (they don't have much of a defining theology). So yeah, Christianity is pretty diverse and has their own ways to engage with God.

Church history and denominational differences are very interesting because it reveals the tapestry of God's influence on the world (from a believing perspective) and also the nature of 'human nature' as it progresses throughout history. American history is very interesting because of the competeing Protestant groups who tried to find liberation from Angalicanism and the general infighting between Catholics and Protestants. Coming full circle to Japan and Korea, it was because of the settlement of Christianity in America that we recieved Christianity in both of those countries. Both Japan and Korea's Christianity were mainly nurtured by American missionaries.

 

[dr froyd]

So I had an idea about applying one of the practices in marriage counseling to this place and I felt like it could be a good fit?

I see the biggest issue characterising the previous era was confrontation paired with ignorance. I couldn't tell you the number of times I witnessed or experienced someone attacking a perspective without understanding it. This led to a lot of talking past one another.

So what I was thinking was maybe, if you want to criticise someone's views directly, you need to show you can represent their perspective to their satisfaction first as a minimum requirement.

What I figure is that no argument addressed at someone you don't understand will land anyway, and while this might be cumbersome, it will be a trivial hurdle if you actually understand them.

The aim is to allow for critical discussion without all the boorish baiting and steamrolling, and to prioritise understanding over chest beating.

Good idea or nah?

i think it's a good principle, or value, but i think enforcing it uniformly will entail a very formal and mechanical mode of interaction

maybe a mod could ask someone to do that if one sees that a political/ideological discussion starts to devolve into sophistry, adhoms, etc

 

[Hadoblado]

Yeah I can see that.

Maybe it's a standard we can agree on and modding won't be necessary unless requested. I don't really want to increase the amount of hounding I do.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

It never solved any problems for me

but it has certainly caused some for me

and it spills into politics - like with your abortion example

and the "trans" and all the marriage and divorce stuff

religion is simply philosophy by another name

politics is also simply philosophy - but with cops and soldiers

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What do you guys want to see more or less of?

 

[ZenRaiden]

It never solved any problems for me

but it has certainly caused some for me

and it spills into politics - like with your abortion example

and the "trans" and all the marriage and divorce stuff

religion is simply philosophy by another name

politics is also simply philosophy - but with cops and soldiers

Nice to see you post again.

I guess the way I feel about these topics is they seem rather complex when discussing them. I think a lot of time we tend to bite off more than we can chew and then the discussion can get a little to heavy and coarse and way to conceptual.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I guess the way I feel about these topics is they seem rather complex when discussing them. I think a lot of time we tend to bite off more than we can chew and then the discussion can get a little to heavy and coarse and way to conceptual.

the whole thing needs to be framed as philosophy

and we need to make our axioms explicit

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So what I was thinking was maybe, if you want to criticise someone's views directly, you need to show you can represent their perspective to their satisfaction first as a minimum requirement.

What I figure is that no argument addressed at someone you don't understand will land anyway, and while this might be cumbersome, it will be a trivial hurdle if you actually understand them.

RULE 1: DEFINE TERMS
RULE 2: NO AD HOMS
RULE 3: STEELMAN