Discussing ideas, not people

Nice call ren. I think the inherant flaw in the "ideas not people" mantra is that it's just impossible to maintain. How do you even get to know another person without discussing people? I see no way. The way this thread has evolved is proof positive enough of this for me. We will never resolve differences if we are not allowed to discuss people. Plus its used as a weapon as much as anything by those on a mission to squash any conversation or individual not liked by them. I have had it shoved down my throat so many times by individuals I'm no longer allowed to address that I now have the ability to deep throat it without so much as a gag.

I dunno. Pretty easy to get to know people outside a public setting such as a forum post.

Private Messages.

Discord (Voice does wonders for getting to know a person)

Real Life...

But resorting to statements such as

Interesting comment from a person that told me not two days ago that they wanted me to just go away because I was a liar and full of shit.

Does not exactly help with discussing an idea with a person, rather it is discussing a person...

Thank you in advance and posthumously...

Arisaig wrote:
Kyrin Wyldstar. I hereby revoke your right to message me, comment on any of my journals, quote me, or @ me. Any attempt to do so will be viewed as a potential attack.

Potential attacks are fitting with Behaviour Unbecoming, and will be dealt with accordingly.

I will also return the favour by not interacting with you

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Thank you in advance and posthumously...

Arisaig wrote:
Kyrin Wyldstar. I hereby revoke your right to message me, comment on any of my journals, quote me, or @ me. Any attempt to do so will be viewed as a potential attack.

Potential attacks are fitting with Behaviour Unbecoming, and will be dealt with accordingly.

I will also return the favour by not interacting with you

I don't care. That post was made, obviously, in anger. And its not like its stopped anyone from half handedly referring to me.

Posthumously? Is that a threat against my life?

EDIT: Because it wasn't blatantly clear...

The phrase 'ideas, not people' is an abbreviation for a concept more properly defined in the ToS as 'Dialogue about ideas and do not attack people.'

No need to dilute the problem to hedge out from it, if you want to attack people give a reason why it should be allowed, or the rules will be enforced as they stand. But it better be a good reason because the rule makes sense to most people AFAIK.

Arisaig wrote: All of them... for the algebra problem. This is a false equivalency fallacy.

You say “false equivalency” and i say “allegory”.

Im pretty sure youre thinking of you and Kyrin when reading these posts. Im thinking of culture in general.

Heres a great example from recent current events: the NZ shooter was of the opinion that massive immigration of Muslims from countries where violence and repression are common (so called “honor killings” , for exampe) presents a sort of cultural threat to many of the nations of Europe. It should be blatantly obvious why a huge influx of people from a culture with vastly different social norms would constitute a serious disruption to a democratic society.

But he was obviously a terrorist and a murderer. Its perfectly reasonable to consider him morally repugnant; evil, even, though the word is not well recieved in this setting. So what do you do? Do you dismiss the logical and useful part of his belief structure because you disapprove of his moral fiber? Theres at least two immediate problems that appear when people dismiss arguments because of their own “holier than thou” sense of moral outrage: this: when a the ideas are good and/or have some merit, the holier than thou person deprives themselves of someting useful.
When the ideas sre bad ideas, the holier than thou person fails to offer a rational counter to them. Neither odf these problems are that big of a deal on the small scale of individual philosophies. But when they happen on the large scale civilizations, of trends and social movements in real society, they rsesult in serious problems.

Khaos wrote:

Because there is no tone one shouldnt assume the level of belligerence.

Agreed. But this principle shouldnt be used as a defense for being belligerent.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Arisaig wrote: All of them... for the algebra problem. This is a false equivalency fallacy.

You say “false equivalency” and i say “allegory”.

Im pretty sure youre thinking of you and Kyrin when reading these posts. Im thinking of culture in general.

I've said this multiple times and this is bordering on harassment.

I WAS TALKING TO YOU. I was not talking to, nor thinking about, a person I was NOT talking to. Stop drawing this damn imaginary line between myself and Kyrin.

It serves as nothing more than to belittle my entire opinion and identity down to nothing.
I've told you this before. Last warning.

Does anyone remember when the focus of jediism was serving our communities and selflessness instead of forum ego measuring?

Manu wrote: Can you offer an example of such a "life and death" situation within TotJO?

I understand that your post was made in the context of TOTJO but your statement that ”...manners were meant for saving face in a society where reputation is everything” was phrased in a way that seemed to transcend the TOTJO context and i was responding to that, specifically. I wanted to convey that there are social circles where manners are much more important than mere ego defense- circles where violence isnt seen as something extraordinary and where bad things tend to happen to people who fail to mind their manners.