I think peer pressure, especially from family, friends and loved ones, is difficult to overstate. An otherwise logical person might engage in willful cognitive dissonance on issues he considers peripheral or politicized beyond any hope that his opinion would matter. In other words, just toeing the party line on certain issues might be a way to deflect excessive peer pressure from family, friends and peers, freeing oneself up to concentrate on and express opinions that matter.
You might argue that keeping silent would be the best policy but people fill in the blanks. Silence can speak louder than words. Answering “Do you believe in God?” with silence is hardly a convincing front of polite theism. The feeling that your parents or others family and loved ones are disappointed in you is a pretty crappy feeling and you have to wonder whether it’s worth it just to advocate right opinions. Maybe a better approach is to just think your own thoughts and then say what you’re expected to say for the sake of world peace. Lots of great thinkers have done it and some of those who just barged ahead ended up in the loony bin (Georg Cantor) or committing suicide (Alan Turing… though he might have been murdered… but there’s plenty of other examples). No matter how rational you try to force yourself to be, at root, you are still the flesh-and-blood social animal you were born to be. It’s a difficult battle.
Just because Aristotle might’ve been wrong about class doesn’t mean he was wrong about virtue. These people have other ideas that should be weighed on their own merits, and you’d be hard pressed to find someone in history that you’ll agree with 100% categorically.
And besides all that; other than Robespierre, who was a legit A 1 psychotic nutjob of the highest order, none can be compared with Jackson. They’re just intellectuals - not people who exercise power in society via political means.
there was no PM. and i’m confused as to why i was banned even though other people were telling me to choke and die. seems non sensical. but pretty anarchist to ban people for saying things…
You’re misreading. He’s saying that he was warned to stop insulting, and continued anyway. That is what got him a temporary ban.
Personal attacks are not acceptible forms of discourse. They bring the forum down. The poster in question was handled leniently by giving him a warning. He didn’t heed this warning. That leaves only one course of action.
It’s one thing to simply be told to stop insulting. It’s another thing to be warned of certain consequences if one does not stop. Is it a stated policy (i.e. in the forum rules) that a temporary ban will occur if one does not do what a moderator, in his capacity thereof, tells him to do?
Of course I agree that personal attacks aren’t acceptible forms of discourse. That’s not what’s at issue with me. I’m not sure whether he was actually given what I would call a warning.
I understand that. I guess what I’m asking is whether it’s publicly stated policy that a user will be banned (for a length of time that’s at the mods’ discretion) if he continues to break one or more of the forum rules after being told to stop.
I don’t know if it is publicly stated, but it seems intuitive. It seems natural to assume that a forum makes use of bans wether it states so or not. Certainly posters have been banned before on here.
To state something as a policy means there must be an alternative. Personal attacks are not acceptable, which was pointed out and he continued anyways. The next logical step is to prevent him from degrading the forum, which is to retract the posting privileges that were given to him at no cost.
The alternative to not allowing individuals to degrade the forum is to allow individuals to degrade the forum. This is a matter of private property and reputation. If you allow someone in your house and he blows his nose with the curtains, and you ask him not to do that, and he does it again anyways, then he has established that he doesn’t care about your property rights, and his reputation in the eyes of the owner is ruined.
There is no need to create a public policy against curtain-nose-blowing when you have a birthday party, nor is there a need to create a public policy stating that guests will no longer be allowed entry when they ignore the wishes of the owner.