Ignoring someone who is blatantly provoking you seems rather foolish in my mind.

@Pre-Modernist I disagree. I think that by censoring them you give them a certain weight in the discussion whereas if you leave their comments which are built on nonsense and don't deserve to be engaged with ignored, they're the foolish ones. I'd like to remind here that the purpose of a troll is to upset - if you allow them to do so they have succeded and being banned is the highest medal a troll could achieve, victimising themselves and using this event as a reason to show how sensitive and touchy people can be on certains topics. It's more about the long term game than the short term satisfaction of shutting someone's stupid mouth.

@blul0tuus excellent response.

@blul0tuus I think we may have a slightly different approach to debate. I view it as an attempt to discover as much truth as possible. In that regard, I am selfish, my primary goal is to acquire knowledge and solve intellectual problems for myself; not to have an intellectual power struggle. I have no desire to prove anyone wrong(especially since that's a logical impossibility) or "win" and argument, I want to exchange ideas with interesting people in a rational and objective manner. If someone is intentionally and pugnaciously detracting from my ability to do so, it is well within reason for me to either move the conversation elsewhere or remove the troublesome individual from the conversation. If you're sitting in a coffee shop having a discussion with a few friends and someone came up to the table and interrupted everyone by yelling "I know you are but what am I?" style juvenile nonsense, you don't invite them to sit down and use superior reason to put them in their place. Someone with that approach does not recognise objectivity or rationality, they recognise slogans and yelling over their adversaries. Attempting to reason with a logical relativist is playing into their game far more than simply blocking and ignoring them. I don't care if they jerk off twelve times thinking about me blocking them, I hope it feels great; they're not disrupting me anymore and they're more than welcome to call it a victory if it helps them get off.

@Pre-Modernist I completely agree and still, I would use the nonsense said as an argument itself which does not even need my input, to support my argument and show how ridiculous the other person approach/intervention is which, in a way, brings you closer to the Truth (whatever that might be!) - always use other people's stupidity or silly behaviour as a weapon against them, if they care to play the game, they will end up burning themselves while you sit and watch, maybe even roasting a marshmallow on the fire.

@blul0tuus haha, I'll take your word for it. Like I said, the power struggle aspect of it isn't my cup of tea. Treating nonsense as an argument only serves to obfuscate the truth in my experience. Pwning someone might deliver a little endorphin rush, but compromising the integrity of rational discourse to do so isn't a fair tradeoff in my mind.

Succinct in the extreme!

I may go back and edit my comment to..What SHE said!

Imagine being in a discussion with a group of people in the "real world". An individual comes into the group uninvited and begins shouting nonsense, interrupting people, and acting in an overall bellicose manner. Would you truly simply ignore this individual and attempt to shout over him? Your idea of the "real world" sounds like a terribly chaotic chatroom in the early nineties.

Similarly, I am refuting your argument here, not your conclusion. As I originally stated, I'm completely open to the idea that I may be guilty of censorship as you claim, I just don't feel you've made a valid case for that conclusion. Ideas are independent of arguments and behaviour; censuring deviant behaviour is how societies and cultures maintain their viability.

I found that evil and ignorance are best kept in the light, hiding the dark sides of our society even though it may lead to disrupting the discussion in the moment. Personally I feel the long-term effects of displaying ignorance for what it is is more powerful than hiding it. Especially on a platform called intellectual dark web

That's a fair enough point. I don't fully agree, but I have no argument against your view. It may just come down to temperamental differences in personality.

@Pre-Modernist well, in that case I would not recommend, as you put it "ignore this individual and attempt to shout over him," but I would suggest turning your back to that person. In a civilized society if a person comes upon a conversation in public and expresses an opposing opinion, or even spews what we conceive as nonsense, we refute them, and give them an opportunity to learn. If that person on the other hand becomes a nuisance so much that they disturb the public peace, we have laws that can be enforced. In a online group, there should be publicly stated rules that identifies at what point they become a nuisance. That way it can be enforced. But those rules should be stated beforehand, so that the admin or moderators don't become despotic.

@BrianK Excellent point! I'm absolutely going to implement your idea of clarifying the rules before despotically banning people on a whim. Many thanks for giving what I consider to be the most reasonable refutation of my original thinking.

But the thing is, I'm not attempting to prove how stupid they are, I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind, I'm attempting to acquire knowledge through conversation and debate. When someone is deliberately interfering with your ability to accomplish your goal, ignoring them is simply passive cuckery. People who want pure democracy where every moron with a keyboard can type whatever the hell they want can travel on over to your group; people who don't want to sort through 50 lines of dick jokes before finding a meaningful post can come over to my oppressive group where ability to communicate like a grown-up is a prerequisite.

@Pre-Modernist passive cuckery??? U got be kidding on that one. Don't bitch when u are the one that gets silenced and censored is all I can say.

I meant no offense, it was an accurate description of what I was attempting to convey. Instead of expressing outrage, why not use your big boy words and refute my ideas instead of my terminology? Just shouting your opinion louder than your opponent(metaphorically speaking) is precisely the chaos I hope to avoid by banning children unwilling or unable to participate in adult conversation.

@Pre-Modernist I didn't take offense, just stating when it happens to u just remember u support it.

@Pre-Modernist also, try not adding context to text. Not everyone is a snowflake who takes things personally an just says it how it is.

@george when I completely disregard the social expectations for the environment I'm in, I will offer no complaints if I am censured for being unruly and unreasonable. You seem unclear as to the differences between ideas and actions.

@george fair enough. Mea culpa for putting words in your mouth.

@Pre-Modernist actions and ideas are both forms of speech and protected IMO. I can respond to what I choose and allow others to be idiots all the same.

@george Actions are in no way a form of speech. Conflating ideas, actions, and speech is the type of dangerous thinking that the left has been using to censor ideas.

@Pre-Modernist I have to disagree on "actions are in no way free speech." What about burning the flag? Kneeling? Hunger strikes...marches etc. You can exercise free speech and never say a word

@Pre-Modernist burning a flag is an action and is speech

@george No, it is freedom of expression. The action of burning something is not illegal. Freedom of expression protects your right to express yourself through legal actions. Burning is the action, what you are burning is the abstract concept. If you attempt to burn the flag indoors or somewhere else where open flame is not permitted, freedom of expression does not protect you. It only protects your ideas, not your actions.

@george if you equate speech with actions, you are inherently claiming that speech can cause physical harm. If speech is the same as assault, you either have to be willing to allow assaults to go unpunished or allow speech to be treated as assault. You have to think through the consequences of your beliefs, my friend; what you are arguing is truly dangerous.

@Pre-Modernist speech can't be assault because there is no physical contact but threats are already illegal

@george yet it can be action? There's physical contact between you and a flag you're burning and you seem to think that flag burning is speech. Is there any consistency here, buddy?

@Pre-Modernist when it comes to physical contact between humans that is violence, not speech. Actions can be speech but not all actions are speech. It is called nuance. There is plenty of consistency but u are just looking for anyway to dismiss me.

@Pre-Modernist same as threats are actual speech but not part of free speech, there is nuance to everything and not cut and dry.

@george I have no intent of dismissing you, my friend. I enjoy your take on many of the other topics on this site which is why I am taking the time to try to understand you. What you are defining as nuance I would call subjectivity. If something is vague, hazy, and subject to interpretation, it is unreasonable to ask others to abide by it. I would refer you to my response to your claim that flag burning is speech.

@Pre-Modernist a flag is not a person and is symbolic is why it is speech to burn it.

@george Exactly, the abstract act of disrespecting the symbolism is what is protected as expression(not speech), not the physical act of burning.

@Pre-Modernist expression or speech either is acceptable from my point of view on it but it still is the same concept all around as far as I can tell. Guess it's just a difference in how me and u interpret things, maybe.

@george it could also be differences caused by an abstract vs a more practical approach. Either way, I'm sure we'll both survive the difference in opinion. Thanks for the back and forth, I genuinely enjoyed it.

@Pre-Modernist same here, look forward to more in the future

@Pre-Modernist @george you just completely yapped yourself into a corner. Lol. If actions can't be speech, then speech can't be actions...which means regardless of what the "troll" typed it wasn't an action..it was speech not a behavior. Censor not censure. ??

@Freeken1 I never said actions can't be speech, I said they can be speech but not all actions are speech.

@george no...you didn't. I just tagged you so you would see your point validated

@george I completely agreed with your points

@Freeken1 George and I took our disagreement apart to the very core pieces and discovered that it was based in fundamental differences in perception and thinking. Once we both realised that our differences were subjective and could not be objectively argued, we respected each other as individuals and didn't preach morality at one another. I responded to your comments and gave you your share of attention, jumping in here with some attempt to gang up like kids on a playground is the type of disruptive behaviour I would rather avoid. Please get yourself under control, I agree that George made some really great points, try following his example of behaving like an adult.

I really like this take! Beautifully put!

This is pretty much my line of thinking on the matter, thanks for the feedback.

Nope, I meant dialectic.

@Pre-Modernist wel... that puts a slightly different spin on the ball, doesn't it?

@Jeeper752 I'm certainly not suggesting that we go around bashing anyone unfamiliar with formal logic. But I do believe that if someone is entering into an intellectual discussion or debate, they should either be familiar with rational thought or aware of their ignorance. An individual joining a football match would not be tolerated for very long if he were unfamiliar with the rules of the game and unwilling to learn them.

@Pre-Modernist, in the original post, you said you banned "a pedant" from one of your discussion groups.

I have read many of the conversation threads appearing before this one for a bit of context before coming back to this one.

You seem to be very interested in rules of logic, rules of debate and dismissive of those who see and understand those rules differently than you do.

I took the liberty of a Google search for "pedant definition" and copied the first entry that came up. Here it is:
"pedant (p?d?nt)?

n. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
n. One who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
n. Obsolete A schoolmaster."

It would appear to apply to one here...

I mean, you clearly weren't able to comprehend that definition. Unless you're incredibly clever and you're acting out the definition. But I doubt that. You're precisely the type I'm speaking of. I see no merit in you.

Agreed with most. But if the discouse is civil, and whatever it is being brought to the table becomes, as you say, the only thing people talk about, then clearly there's a place for that conversation and if the topic of the forum or thread is not a proper place for it, then as the host, why not make it clear and suggest another thread be started to accomodate? In other words making every effort to respect the right before blocking or removing.

What he's referring to is a little different and invilves balligerance & intentional disruption to prevent dialog it sounds like to me. It's like a video i saw with D'Souza trying to speak at a college & this idiot kid was standing and completely stopping the speech while making a video of it on his phone. He should've been booted instantly as his intent was obvious, but it took them forever. One could call that censorship as well, and it was necessary to continue the speech.

@Tommy6915 I would say that even when discourse remains civil, you will find that some topics of conversation are inherently disruptive to the community at large.

One of the best examples of this is conspiracy theories. There is scientific research which indicates that people who believe in one conspiracy are likely to believe in others. This means that when you tolerate one, you will fairly quickly end up with discussion of others. Before too long people who are not interested in these discussions will leave, and then all that is left is people talking about conspiracies.

And because conspiracy theories are driven by the psychology of their believers and not evidence, there is absolutely no point in trying to reason with them. A decision needs to be made: exclude them, censor the topic, or allow the forum to rot.

@InternetDorkWeb i understand what you're saying and have indeed seen examples of just what you're talking about. However, it's been my experience that the term 'conspiracy theory' has been used primarily by the left to censor unwelcome speech as a result of cognative dissonance. It is normally a big red flag to me indicating the one using it is highly unlikely to engage in honest debate as they tend to have little substance behind their arguments and tend to fall back on labeling rhetoric to shout down their counterpart.

You sound like you may be an exeption to that rule, so i'm explaining myself so you have an idea of where i'm coming from in terms of censoring speech. Some may see censoring content a little differently, but i'm not one of those. Nevertheless, i do see your concern and there certainly is that risk with any forum. I tend to approach it online like i did running bars, it's the behavior i tend to bannish, the content can be admonished by the crowd & if it's not, then at the least there's tacit approval & that's on the crowd.

My argument had nothing to do with real world...simply that unless it is actually abusive it is still discourse. If individuals can block members they don't like and not see their content...which they can on every platform I know of...wouldn't that eliminate the problem? At least for those upset

@Freeken1 no one mentioned you, my friend. I have addressed your points directly as I find them more nuanced and interesting than the real world arguments.

I have no desire to teach. I have a desire to learn. If someone is deliberately preventing me from learning merely to satiate their own nihilistic cynicism, I am certainly not going to maintain some hipster free-speech ascetic based on libertarian dogma.

But it's certainly not a strawman fallacy. I'm asking opinions on an abstract concept, censoring ideas vs. censuring behaviour. I am not presenting an argument against a fabricated opponent.

@Pre-Modernist again, I have zero context of conversation to work with. Do you have an example of the "trolling" you could screen shot? Otherwise this is a hypothetical discussion that can only be self serving in it's conclusion. I might completely agree or disagree with your assessment based on examination of both sides...but we only have one. The biggest problem with the written word is that the reader dictates the meaning not the writer. The tone and dialog is completely the reader's own voice in their head. A smartass remark typed while giggling for satire or irony read by an angry mind will have a totally different feel and meaning...but that says nothing about the writer and everything about the reader

@Freeken1 Again, I'm not asking for anyone to asses the specifics of my particular situation; I'm speaking in the abstract. I want to discuss the concept, not elicit advice.

@Freeken1 I also can't help noticing that you are arguing against my supposed belief that I am in possession of an absolute truth that I seek to impose on others. It would require a very active imagination to draw that conclusion from anything I have written here. You do not seem to be responding to what I have written, instead you have been responding to what you presume my intent to be. This is an example of a straw man, which is terribly ironic considering your initial response.

@Pre-Modernist well there are many unknowns in the initial statement/question. Do you have the right to control content on your page? Absolutely. Is that censorship? Absolutely...so what is the real question you are asking? Is my censorship justified? Well, without knowing what was censored that is an impossible question to objectively answer. What I was trying to point out is that you left no avenue of discussion that doesn't lead to the weeds

@Freeken1 darling, when I write that I'm not asking if my actions are justified and you conclude that I'm asking if my actions are justified, I have a difficult time seeing the merit of your comment. If you aren't able to differentiate between the abstract idea of censoring vs. censuring and the practicals of a specific situation, that's fine. I don't think any less of you for not getting my question, I do think less of you for repeatedly making presumptions that are the complete opposite of anything I have written. If you can't see any avenue of discussion that doesn't lead to the weeds, stepping into the weeds seems less viable than merely not entering the conversation. Just because you cannot see another option does not mean one does not exist.

@Pre-Modernist bitch, then your entire post was useless.. you asked for opinions on Banning content based on opinion versus Behavior. You give no real examples of either. So you asked for opinions but solely on your terms. What you consider somebody's Behavior may actually be them expressing their opinion. And then you want to get condescending with me? Where does that fall into Behavior? Don't know why Behavior keeps having a capital B but seeing as it's talk-to-text driving I can't fix it.

@Freeken1 breathe, darling. You're tough enough to survive some posho tosspot crassly critiquing your logical relativism online.

@Freeken1 and as I already stated, if you are not able to comprehend the abstract concept without specific examples, that's fine. Getting mad at me for not humouring your inability to grasp the abstract, however, is not fine, it's childish. You are under no obligation to answer my question, if it seems posed in a manner which you find unanswerable, simply not attempting to answer it is far preferable to insisting I change it to accommodate your limitations.

But if it does help clarify at all: Although I find your line of reasoning completely devoid of intellectual merit, I have no desire to block you. You are not being disruptive in any manner, you are being slightly insulting(which is entirely warranted by my provocations), but you are not disrupting the general discussion. Bad ideas such as yours should not be censored in my opinion, disruptive behaviour that detracts from discussion should absolutely be censured.

@Pre-Modernist and you are unable, or unwilling to grasp that I am simply pointing out that "grasping the abstract" is not the issue. Posing specific questions in the abstract is self serving.

@Pre-Modernist also I'm not mad at you "for not humoring..." I'm not mad at all. I just figured when responding to someone that is trying to be a condescending bitch I should point it out.

@Freeken1 I posed an abstract question in the abstract and provided context as to why I was posing the abstract question. That's a lot of abstraction, it's an absurd line of thinking that is incredibly frustrating to many people. It is entirely possible to divorce the abstract from the specific, it just may not be possible for you. If you don't want people to condescend to you, don't demand that they come down to your level.

@Freeken1 Many folks disagree with my thoughts on this manner(some of them have great points), but you are the only one who is unable to grasp the abstract concept. I am perfectly willing to believe that you see something that none of the rest of us see, but you seem unable or unwilling to communicate it in a cogent and objective manner. I can't just take your word for it and, although none of us think objectively, we do need to communicate objectively as mind reading is still in the development stage.

@Pre-Modernist exactly...mind reading doesn't work. The very reason I was trying to get an example of what YOU consider trolling. Without agreement on the parameters of your abstract and discussion is equally abstract. As far as "demanding people come down to my levet"...if you are so far above it you should understand it immediately and have no need to "adjust levels" or quaify it with an answer. Starting to think...as I have no examples...the "troll" was maybe just somebody calling you out on self aggrandizing condescension? Possible?

@Freeken1 I'm afraid we don't seem to be making progress here. I'm genuinely not interested in your opinion on me banning an individual from a group. I'm interested in discussing the abstract concept of censoring vs censuring. If your purpose is to call me out for being arrogant, congratulations, you've pointed out something I've known for over thirty years and with which I am completely content. Unless you have anything more interesting to add, I'm afraid I'm going to have to abandon this cyclical wank session.

@Pre-Modernist already had