I hope this is how the mods run the forum (if quality content is the goal)

[Ibn Sina]

Quality content, means truth. Things that work when applied.
Low quality content means that they are false, people get misled, Knowing and not knowing them does not add any value. That is low quality content.

Here is the catch , if you want truth, if want to clean up all the content that have no basis in reality, then things get nasty. 
Because people do unconsiously believe in low quality content , and dealing with that brings lots of nastiness, irrationality, ego's get  hurt, demonstration of lack of logic is made, put downs are made,  bannings can happenand so on.

And unjustified, illogical bannings can happen because of perception that there is just ego fulfilling going on, there is nothing to learn. So mods should be careful if you really want to run this forum with justice. You might destroy where  there is value if you perceive it otherwise.

You can't just  moderate however you want if your goal is the maximum efficiency of this forum, maximum quality content, maximum traffic and so on. You might be banning the wrong person who is steeped in logic and sense, but you feel he is acting like jerk so you ban him, thus lose his quality content which has it's roots in the nature of reality.

So it’s important to recognize what a good, productive , discussion looks like though it may look nasty, and separating it from bad discussion where it’s only about ego fulfilling.

First I would like to lay out a structure for what a good discussion / dialectic should look like.

Basically there should be a logical progression.

Person 1- Argument 1 proposition (someone says this is the case)

Person 2- Argument 2 ( He refuses, and he has has a sound argument , which person 1 might not have considered.  Person 1 might be lacking a certain information/data , or he might have problems with it’s interpretation or his reasoning his faulty. Person 2 corrects any of these anomalies)

Person 1- Argument 3 / Resolution
( He takes in the information  from Person 2, properly he modifies his argument, he places the right pieces at the right place. This has nothing to do with ego. It’s just putiing the pieces, following the argument.
Here is where most problem arises. The ego clings whatever belief they have. In bad discussion, they refuse to modify their argument according to strict rules.  This gives rise to the following problems that I have laid out. Ego takes the place of truth and many problems arise.

In a good argument, the process would repeat, and since there is continuous modification and learning, both reach a resolution.

Another good point is to see if he is bringing out unique, knowledge or not , which can literally be a life changer. One right youtube vid can change life, open new doors. I have literally had huge mind fucks, huge discoveries from just the videos and links people make. Posts can literally introduce you to completely new fields previously unaware of , and that day becomes a life changer.

So since I have pointed out the exact point which differentiates a good discussion from a bad discussion, let me tell give the various examples of the subsequent bad discussions that happen due to the clinging of the ego to their beliefs.

This is how(I hope) the mods consider while really banning / locking threads, taking any action

-          they are quoting and correcting over and over and over again, without a logical end. I mean correcting  is good if something false is presented, but in the bad type of discussion there will be correction after correction like-

1-      Okay so you are saying this__ (a)

2-      No I was saying ___ (b)

1 Okay, so you were saying (b)
2 No I was saying _____ (c)

It’s because the goal is not a certain truth, but to keep correcting and showing that  they are not, without any reason. Person 1 is a lover of truth, he wants  to know, keeps  asking question while 2 is just putting down continuosly to stroke his ego.

-Continuos repeatition
Some people will just go on repeating over and over and over again the same thing. Again, there is no way up to go from there.
They will quote, repeat the same thing. The other person modifies his answer and this means, there should be a change and the discussion should come nearer to end towards a common result)

( 1- Okay, so I got this so you mean this isn’t?
2- You got this part correct, but this part still you understand. It means this.

1 – Okay, so this means ______, so implies ____, and ____?
2- Yea, this time you got it right.)

 but nope, they repeat the same thing, and we are at stage 1 again.

( 1- So this means __?
2- No again you got it wrong. Its ___

1 – (almost exactly quotes him , shows the logical implication to demonstrate he understand ) so it’s this?
2 Again you are wrong. It’s  this ____
Goes on forever/

- Accusations without any evidence and accusations with evidence
There’s a difference. Look at it. If someone says you don’t like philosophy, then look if that  person was giving any reason to say so.
If someone says- you are assuming  (implying there was no evidence)___, look if their was a good reason to say so.

- Analyzing if the bringing down is a by product of the pursuit of truth
In pursuit of truth, only the truth can win. The untruth party will lose. And when that happens, it can get nasty. People cling on their beliefs with their life, and if they are  on the wrong side, then it gets nasty.
I am not talking about direct insult. If you see someone saying- you are idiot or moron, just ban them.
But if you see someone saying you are  Not stage yellow/ enlightened/ are Illogical( which might be an inferior category) and he gives logical reasons drawing from his arguments demonstrating they are just opposed to each other or demonstrates other proof, then you can’t ban them because they are not illogical terms, they can be demonstrated. People can be shown that they are not acting logically. And it can be a put down, but still it helps the community because we are all in search of the truth, and truth is of higher value to the community then the feelings of the opposing indivual.

People can be misled with false information, and if someone is correcting with sound arguments, then that  should be identified as value.

- Denial of self evident truths
Color white is not white
A triangle has 10 sides.
Absence of experience is not an experiences (which is  same as saying experience  is not experience)

What’s shocking is some people take it for some higher spiritual truth and believe it to be true. Yes spirituality contradicts many common notions, but it does not cancel self evident truths. It doesn’t say, perception is not perception , God is not spelled as G O D, that is  absolutely absurd, and no I have read spirituality, spirituality is not about that.

-          Look if the motivation is  pursuit of truth or ego.
The line can get  blurry sometimes but it’s not difficult.
Those who are in pursuit of ego  will be absolutely irrational.
They will keep repeating stuff to satisfy ego. Hold mutually exclusive beliefs. You can see there is no progression.
There is just an irrational expression of ego.
That’s how they feel better and feel superior.
While those who want truth (and in doing so, may be unknowingly putting people down as a result)

-          Will have a consistent, logical frame work beyond , which they do not cross.
Each of their arguments, their denials will be consistent with what they deem as truth and they don’t go away from that.
Eg someone says-

-          Apple can be eaten.
So that means, the  logical frame work is that he assumes that the apple is a food.
Now you ask him, it is a food isn’t it?
And he says, no it is not food, then here we have example of just pursuit of ego.
Likewise, someone says-
Apple is only red.
Then that means, his logically frame work is, there are many apples, and all apples are red, because that is his experience.
Going outside the logical frame work will be-

-          Apple is only red
So apple is has the color red isn’t it?
the answer is- no the apple is red, but the apple doesn’t have any color.

While staying within the logical frame work, staying in the pursuit of truth, and putting him down due to the presence of truth would be-
Showing him a blue apple.
And this will be  consistent. It was just that  he didn’t have the data to make that assertion.
But still it is in the logical frame work, it is in the pursuit of truth.
Now if the first person starts getting illogical, and gives illogical argument, and the second person is showing each of his argument is false, and putting him down as a result , then you can’t ban him. You know the second person is logically sound. While the first person is coming up with illogical claims because his ego is at stake. So you can’t ban the second person.

Also, mods should consider that no one is hoping to become a celebrity from making posts in a forum which itself is not mainstream. So, take a double check to look if this guy really is posting for his ego or not.

-  Questions may look like ‘put downs’ and it but they may be in pursuit of truth, and also  look at the answers.
A toxic egoic person will go on giving illogical stupid answers instead of going linearly through the question one by one. It can look like the questioner is harassing,.To rule out that, it should  be noted  if the question goes along a logical progression or not. If they are, and the answerer does not actually answer the question, but tries to say something illogical that protects his ego, then again you can say it’s there is problem and Those questions are not put downs.

-  Does not consider lack of data, and goes and posting on and on.

This one is for all the atheist and scientific minded people. They do not consider the possibility that they might not have gone through the experience, hence even if the reasoning is sound, their conclusion is wrong, since their starting premise itself is incomplete. Hence when a spiritual person says- Just go and take a DMT or just do a practice, they don’t stop, they go on and on and on. It’s just because they don’t consider that they lack data. For them just give them a message as warning.

 

-          The discussion is nasty, but it has value
Value includes there is something ‘new’ to be learned, whether it is philosophical like how a conclusion was arrived at from a certain reasoning, or if there is new knowledge  present, and it can all lead to nastiness people are clinging to their ego and spewing out irrationality to protect their ego. But still you can't start banning, because all that nasty discussion and visceral put downs (which has sound basis in logic) is the byproduct of the presence of truth. The opposing party might be constantly holding to his irrationality due to his ego, giving new creative reasons to maintain that, and the rational truth lover should with sound logic demonstrate that it is false. And that can get bloody. Doesn't mean you should ban him.

-          Just expressing frustration doesn’t mean you should ban them.
People can get illogical. And there might be expression of frustration like-
Look again you are saying this ____
How can’t you see ___  implies _____???

  If  it has logical basis, then why should there  be bannings? These things naturally come out when lack of logic is pointed out, and these things can sometimes be seen like put downs or just insults.
Just look at the motivation. These are not insults, these are  yearnings for truth.
 

-          Adopting  mutually exclusive ideas, embracing the ego over logical progression.
The problem arises when you post something , and someone else says, no it is this ___, and you ask questions to move through a logical progression (eg- 1- It is realization of _  2- So it is an experience isn’t  it? 1- No it is not)  but there is just clinging , clinging , clinging , clinging  with 2 logically mututally exclusive ideas (mutually exclusive ideas- one idea that excludes the other) (eg believing both that it is a realization and it is not experience. If it is a realization it cannot not be an experience)  , then there  is no progression, just ego, double standards.

-           Eg – Take an example of an ardent feminist. She believes that men and women should be equal. So in a logical progression it would mean she will have to take exactly the responsibilities and the burdens that men have to take and she has to renounce her previleges as a female. Being equal to male excludes her  privilege as staying at home , I don’t know not doing dangerous jobs, security and protection and opportunities as a female. But no, ego comes in, and both these sides are desired, She wants both the  advantages of male and the advantages of female she will give very good reason . which of course have  no logic to them, and guess many people will believe her and she will have a following.
So mods should take care of that, and the logical put downs coming from that.

    The bottom line is we are all here to learn and discover something new, improve our lives,  to discover truth, I hope none of us are  here to read about false ideas.

That’s the reason for watching Leo, reading any self help posts. Even if I am to get banned due to my commitment for logic and consistency because some mods think I am being an outright jerk , and thinks I am pursuing  my ego instead of truth then it’s okay with me I will time and again meet this forum , just read if there is anything new to learn and make use of, just  go on with life.

It really takes some work to do this forum justice. How to maintain the balance of truth and feelings of people, that takes work.  You may ban people for insisting  on logic and truth but if you ban them you may lose value and preserve false hood, and if you don’t ban them  you may allow  people feel bad for the beliefs that they  hold. So that  may effect the business?  It’s difficult to resolve this, depends  on what your vision is , and what your philosophy of how customers are attracted and how they exit the business ,is.

 

 

 

I might add something more if I get ideas.

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Ibn Sina