JJ here is still clinging to the fallacious notion that I feel under constant attack. That’s simply not true. But I imagine it’s in his interest to paint this as a general issue with me, rather than a specific issue regarding him, since doing that could help focus attention on me instead of him.
I have no problem with saying that I stand up to people who I think are being bullies. By “stand up” I include calling them out on their behavior - publicly denouncing them, if you will.
I think JJ is used to having his way with other people. All he has to do (typically) is berate someone for how stupid he’s been, and the other person will “see the light” pretty quickly. I don’t think he’s used to dealing with someone like me, but I could be wrong. However, I never said that - and I don’t believe - that all bullies are just “softies” who don’t deal with people who stand up to them. I’m sure that many bullies - maybe even most - become enraged at being stood up to, as that’s a direct challenge to their perceptions of powerfulness about themselves. JJ could very well fall into this category. That’s fine. He can “up the ante” all he wants. I don’t think it’ll do him any good with me.
On the other hand, I could say much the same about JJ with the last two sentences he writes above. You’ll note that JJ continues to respond to me and certainly continues posting long after any actual point of discussion has been lost. So at the very least, this is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
I don’t believe for a minute that a bully will necessarily back down just because his target shows everyone that he’s not afraid. The bully might “up the ante” - in other words, he thinks his target’s bluffing and he’s decided to call his bluff. But what if his target isn’t bluffing? What if his target really isn’t afraid? What if the bully really can’t manipulate his target into submitting? Perhaps the bully will end up shifting the goalposts in a desperate attempt to maintain the perception that he’s superior or at least more powerful. For example, a relatively sophisticated bully might start using reverse psychology in an effort to give the impression that he really is in control of his target.
And here’s the reverse psychology. I think JJ could be trying to make others believe that he somehow has control over me. He doesn’t. I choose to respond. Whether I make that choice consistently in no way obviates the fact that it’s still a choice that I make. He’s not making me respond, although he might want people to believe otherwise at this point.
I maintain that JJ’s ultimate goal here is for me to shut up. He can mock my accusations of him all he wants to. It won’t make any difference. But it’s interesting to me that JJ, like many/most bullies, apparently feels entitled to bully others, and that therefore any challenge to his bullying is illegitimate. Oh well. I simply don’t restrict my challenging him to when he bullies me. He doesn’t have to like it, and it doesn’t matter to me whether he does.
Please note that, in my last post, I did commend JJ for the many links and videos he provides. I haven’t accused him of only ever engaging in bullying. I try to be accurate in my criticisms rather than engage in rhetorical strawman tactics. But no, I don’t appreciate him harshly berating (if not bullying) others, I don’t think it’s consistent with forum policy, I don’t think it should be allowed, and if the forum administration is going to turn a blind eye to this, then I’ll be happy to step in to the extent that I feel able.
I’d like people to evaluate my posts (as well as JJ’s) on their own merits.
EDIT- POST REMOVED BY MOD PHYSIOCRAT
JJ, that is clearly unconstructive in the extreme. Stop it.
JJ and Autolykos.
Calm down and cut it out.
I haven’t read all your posts this time but please respond to threads and posts in good faith; please do not derail them.
If you really have a problem with content posted by any member PM me as I frankly had forgotten about the existence of member issues and it’s easier deal with this way.
Mon. 12/07/09 09:33 EDT
.post #214
[url=Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down - #15 by John_James]
What a load of psychobabble. I nominate “Dr.” John James for the position of “resident psychoanalyst.”
See also:
I would be happy to do so, but it seems you need to be in my “friends list” before I can PM you.
Mon. 12/07/09 09:49 EDT
.post #215
[url=Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down - #26 by Autolykos]
Is this necessary? Seems to me you’re doing a perfectly good job of handling the situation yourself.
Edit:
[url=Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down - #22 by Autolykos]
Well said! So would I.
But now one of JJ’s posts has been deleted, so I can no longer do that.
Careful what you ask for!
Thanks, but I think it is necessary at this point, as Physiocrat has told JJ and me to stop responding to each other in this thread.
Mon. 12/07/09 10:21 EDT
.post #216
[url=Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down - #28 by Autolykos]
That’s a real drag, in my opinion.
The deletion of John’s post precludes the possibility of ever “evaluating it on its own merits,” to quote a wise man.
Also, consider the quote from your sig:
“The keyboard is mightier than the gun.”
Now, I’m not equating post-deletion with gun-pointing, but it’s definitely a use of “the keyboard” which runs directly counter to the sentiment your quote expresses.
I’m not blaming you. I’m just suggesting that we “kiddies” shouldn’t be so quick to “run to the authorities.”
And, in John’s defense, and in defense of honest discussion (even when it gets nasty), I hope you’ll join me in asking the moderator to please restore John’s deleted post.
LOL, our mods are really something. First they make a member’s issue group and then they forget about it.
Plus they have to have PMs enabled. I remember when I friend-listed someone to PM them, only to discover I still couldn’t.
Marko,
Since it seems that only the Muff and I are still around here on a semi-regular basis I just suggested PMing me in case of a problem. I don’t have the time I used to and since the forum keeps creaking Pming seemed reasonable.
Physiocrat’s request of JJ and myself is backed by his authority as a moderator of this forum. That is, he has the authority to do things against us like remove our posts and suspend/ban our accounts. The implication of his request for us to stop arguing was that, should we continue, he’ll bring sanctions against us. I’d prefer not to be on the receiving end of such sanctions, so I’ve chosen to stop arguing.
I’m sorry but I won’t join you there. I agree with Physiocrat’s rationale for deleting it.
Mon. 12/07/09 11:32 EDT
.post #217
[url=Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down - #33 by Autolykos]
Again, very well said. Your (very reasonable) response illustrates perfectly what I meant by “in defense of honest discussion.” Now, instead of honestly expressing yourself, you hold back. John James isn’t even granted the privilege of doing that, since his post has been deleted, which also precludes the opportunity for everyone else to “evaluate it on its own merits.”
And how can I now evaluate your writing “on its own merits,” now that your choice of words is influenced by your desire to avoid sanctions?
You see what I mean? Moderation, either actual or threatened, poisons the possibility of honest discussion.
I hope you’ll consider retracting what you’ve just said here, and also joining me in my request. Let me resort, once again, to “the keyboard.”
I’m both able and willing to make up my own mind, based on the merits of one’s argument. Now, I didn’t read John’s (now deleted) post, but I assume it was something that was quite blatantly rude.
Do you think that such a post hurts you, or hurts my estimation of you?
Not in the least! In fact, such a post tells me nothing whatsoever about you. What it does tell me is something about John James. Why should you, or I, or anyone, object if John wants to show everybody, by his behavior, how rude he can be? That just helps me get to know him a bit better, that’s all.
But, there is a larger issue at stake here.
What is the essence of libertarianism? To me, it is the plea for persuasion over aggression as a means of influencing people.
If we had the power to just snap our fingers and silence all the statists in the world, would finger-snapping pave the royal road to the society we’re striving for?
You know it wouldn’t. Even if it would, we’d all be hypocrites for justifying the end with those means. If we really believe in the power of persuasion, we must walk our talk. It’s not easy, but we don’t choose those means because they are easy; we choose them because they are consistent with our principles. We choose them because they are right.
This is a forum. The idea of a forum, in the broadest sense, is a place where people come to practice the civilized method of influencing others, i.e., the use of rhetoric and argumentation. Please note that “civilized” does not (necessarily) imply “polite” or “honest.” What it does imply is both the absence of coercion, and also the willingness to “evaluate the words of others on their own merits.” And that implies that we grant to the participants of a forum, even the rude ones, the ability both to write their words honestly, and also to read them.
I submit that moderation is antithetical to this process, and I call on you once again, as one libertarian to another, to join me in asking the moderator to please restore John James’s deleted post.
With all due respect, I don’t see how I’m being dishonest simply because I’ve chosen to respect Physiocrat’s request. Furthermore, my choice of words is always influenced by one or more desires.
Again with all due respect, I still won’t join you there. This forum is private property, and its owners have reserved the right to modify and/or remove any of its content that they wish. As agents of the forum’s owners, the administrators and moderators are endowed with the same authority. We, as “mere” users, do not gain any stake of ownership in the forum by posting or otherwise interacting in it. I, for one, consider the reservation of rights by the forum’s owners and their agents to be legitimate, at least in principle.
You’ll make the comment above, but you won’t answer my question here? I must ask, are trolling?
Mon. 12/07/09 15:55 EDT
.post #218
[url=Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down - #35 by Autolykos]
All right, then consider this example:
A mother tells her little boy that, unless he apologizes for hitting his sister, he’ll have to stay home with the grandparents while the rest of the family goes to the amusement park for the day.
Influenced by his desire to attend the amusement park with the rest of the family, the boy chooses to respect his mother’s request, and apologizes.
Questions:
Is the boy’s apology honest, or dishonest?
Does he really mean it?
Does his sister believe that he really means it?
I agree with everything you’ve said here, but I’m contesting neither the moderators’ authority nor their right to delete posts. I fully acknowledge as legitimate their authority and their right to control their property.
Fortunately, asking a moderator to replace a deleted post (or asking him to delete the post in the first place) does not constitute disrespect of his property rights. This is not a property rights issue.
Try this:
You already have the authority to ignore posts, and limited permission to respond to them. Suppose you also had the authority and the ability to delete posts which you deemed “clearly unconstructive in the extreme” (Physiocrat’s rationale, with which you agree). Would you have deleted JJ’s post?
If “no,” then why do you in one case (my hypothetical) prefer JJ’s post to remain, and in another case (the reality) prefer that it be deleted, when the “rationale for deleting it” is, in both cases, identical?
Edit:
Or, try this:
Suppose Physiocrat’s rationale for deleting JJ’s post had been:
“JJ, your avatar really pisses me off, so I chose to randomly delete one of your posts.”
Given this rationale, would you join me in asking Physiocrat to restore JJ’s deleted post?
Not to interrupt the lively debate going on here but I noticed that the forums have been up most of the time since Fephisto created his alternative board.
Clayton -
It’s weird getting that CloudFlare “offline” message. I thought CloudFare was suppose to cache a version of the site to serve requests when the actual server is down.
The problems only seem to have gotten worse since they started using CloudFlare. I have only once or twice seen CF fetch a cached copy of the forums. When the main site goes down, however, it usually seems to work alright.
Clayton -