"It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility

[Luna Bliss]

12 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

A belief in God is a belief that is regulated by centuries of religious institutions and written works of all kinds. It has the weight of history and tradition behind it. Marxism, hardly as much, and those wielding the term "neoliberalism," not so much at all. It's also transparent. If you are a religious believer, you cite your religion and it has a public profile and is a known quantity. Not so anonymous people invoking "structural" and "neoliberal" in every other tweet.

Social justice is what love looks like in public. God is Love.

Neoliberalism is the opposite of social justice.

Christ was a socialist.

[Silent Mistwalker]

31 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I hope we get to spoon after we're forked.

Unfortunately, Knife ran away with Spoon so now we are all sporked.

[Love Zhaoying]

@Prokofy Neva, in one of Codex's replies to me he stated (paraphrased) that 1) You are supporting a universal / worldwide  ID or social network ratings system, and that 2) this system would be a "permanent record", versus let's say, the US "credit score" system which allows a person to regain their rating after a time.  I am intentionally not trying to quote him (or review his exact wording).  

My questions for you are:

1) Since I did not notice in your own posts a suggestion that an ID-based rating system be "universal", can you confirm that is what you intended?  In my still-forming opinion, it may be a great solution if it is applied equally, everywhere.

2) I did not realize, as Codex claimed, that the Chinese social scoring system is "permanent".  Did you intend that also, and would you support such a "permanent score"? 

Personally: I am not necessarily in support of the "right to be forgotten" - except for victims who request it, for example.  This is not something debated a lot in my circles.

Thanks for your consideration in a response.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

The views of David Allen Green, a greatly- respected English commentator on law and politics, are perhaps relevant here:

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/11/let-me-be-absolutely-clear-the-two-rules-of-clarity/

 

2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

When I was little, I was taught that "To the casual observer, it is intuitively obvious that..." often precedes nonsense.

Thanks, guys! I was losing my confidence there, due to Codex's harsh response. 
 

[Innula Zenovka]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Maybe that's why I haven't heard of him and I read a lot of British thinkers.

He's worth reading if you're interested in English constitutional and administrative law -- which, as he says, isn't supposed to be particularly interesting and it's a bad sign that it's become so newsworthy over the last few years -- and he quite often writes for the Financial Times.   

[Codex Alpha]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

 

Thanks, guys! I was losing my confidence there, due to Codex's harsh response. 
 

 

Please stop framing my posts as malicious, hostile, 'harsh' or any other portrayal that basically begs a defensive response - and is not very conducive to friendly discussion, which this should be. Constantly inciting someone else by making accusations to their motivations or portraying them (or anyone) in the illest of light is not 'civil' discussion.

You can respond to someone else's posts without having to poke me or others in the process.

Please stop, and address the ideas that someone presents, and stop the personal attacks. Thank you.

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

*Edit* Your use of "clearly" (underlined and all) comes across as caustic and sarcastic. What the heck did I do, except be sensitive? Be cool, man. You can do it!

 I am not responsible for your reaction to what I post - that is  your responsibility, not mine.

Unless I post a 😠 at  you, assuming the best of people's intent is best.

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Please stop framing my posts as malicious, hostile, 'harsh' or any other portrayal that basically begs a defensive response - and is not very conducive to friendly discussion, which this should be. Constantly inciting someone else by making accusations to their motivations or portraying them (or anyone) in the illest of light is not 'civil' discussion.

You can respond to someone else's posts without having to poke me or others in the process.

Please stop, and address the ideas that someone presents, and stop the personal attacks. Thank you.

Sorry I've got feelings. Sheesh!

There just ain't pleasing some people.

*Edit* Your use of "clearly" (underlined and all) comes across as caustic and sarcastic. What the heck did I do, except be sensitive? Be cool, man. You can do it!

Edited June 4, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Rowan Amore]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Sorry I've got feelings. Sheesh!

There just ain't pleasing some people.

Some people use the old adage, "do as I say not as I do".   We've seen prime examples of it recently.

[Persephone Emerald]

Sometimes the people who are the most insensitive to hurting other people's feelings (or rights) are the most sensitive about their own.

[Love Zhaoying]

22 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Some people use the old adage, "do as I say not as I do".   We've seen prime examples of it recently.

Thanks! Despite my jokey demeanor, my first rule is usually "be nice". Funny!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

31 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Please stop framing my posts as malicious, hostile, 'harsh' or any other portrayal that basically begs a defensive response - and is not very conducive to friendly discussion, which this should be. Constantly inciting someone else by making accusations to their motivations or portraying them (or anyone) in the illest of light is not 'civil' discussion.

You can respond to someone else's posts without having to poke me or others in the process.

Please stop, and address the ideas that someone presents, and stop the personal attacks. Thank you.

And yet this . . .

14 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

. I keep forgetting dealing with manipulators and weirdos never works out.

Or THIS . . .

3 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

For myself I support a notion to reserve the extreme tools for extreme cases. When block and  mute is more than enough to eliminate a problem (for small offenses or misunderstandings) - then staff should be left alone, or calls to ban them is an over-reaction. Most issues can be dealt with by these tools. My argument was is that many don't use those tools BEFORE going to a more extreme measure. What can happen is that people can be framed in a much darker light than should be and have been subjected to over-discipline.

and this . . .

14 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

I'll just report instead.

I recognize that you may be, as Persephone intimates above, a bit sensitive and easily triggered -- and in such instances, as you yourself have suggested, it's easy to over-react and take the nuclear route rather than discussing things in a civil fashion. So I don't want to press you too hard.

But might you address the inconsistencies apparently in evidence here?

[Rowan Amore]

38 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

You can respond to someone else's posts without having to poke me or others in the process.

Seriously?  Just stop already, please.  When you've said about us collectively...

15 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

. I keep forgetting dealing with manipulators and weirdos never works out. I'll just report instead.

 

[Arielle Popstar]

Humour is so often taken wrong when there isn't a accompanying smiley to signify the jokey demeanour. 😀

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Humour is so often taken wrong when there isn't a accompanying smiley to signify the jokey demeanour. 😀

Usually I post a cute lion sticker. Not as much lately.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

Seriously?  Just stop already, please.  When you've said about us collectively...

 

In fairness, a point that I've tried to make here is that not everyone is psychologically or emotionally equipped to simply mute and walk away. That's not a "fault" as such -- it's often the result of extreme social anxiety, social trauma, and so on. And that, of course, can make people be particularly emotionally vulnerable in situations that they read (or misread) as belligerent.

That may well be the case here, so I think a bit of latitude is in order. I don't think much is gained by triggering easily-triggered people, beyond scoring points.

Which, of course, I'd NEVER stoop to do. EVER.

🙂

 

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Usually I post a cute lion sticker. Not as much lately.

I'm often confused as to how you mean particular comments )even with the lion stickers) and so I can relate to Codex's response. 

[Lindal Kidd]

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

"To the casual observer, it is intuitively obvious that..." often precedes nonsense.

That brings to mind the many "man in the street" videos that demonstrate that the casual observer is quite often a moron.

 

[Codex Alpha]

And.. look at them dogpile... they can't stop.

[Ceka Cianci]

This thread just feels like it's all over the board..

I peek in once in awhile and read a little bit then kinda just think to myself.... I got nothin.

It always seems like the same people arguing with each other.

What's that thing they say about insanity and results?

hehehehe

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Codex Alpha said:

And.. look at them dogpile... they can't stop.

I think we are asking you to explain the inconsistencies in your approach here. Is that not a reasonable request?

There is, of course, the option of "Ignoring" us. It's an option that I think is a poor one if it's just about not wanting to hear what others say, but I think it's entirely legitimate as a response to emotional stress. 

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

And.. look at them dogpile... they can't stop.

Yet, you're not addressing the issue brought up about your inconsistent responses.  You say WE should do one thing and you do the exact thing you say WE shouldn't do.  

WE should block, mute, etc.  WE shouldn't be hostile and throw insult but it's alright for you?  

Please, explain

[Akane Nacht]

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

What I've stated over and over and over again is that RL ID must be supplied, i.e. a valid payment form or government ID, ALTHOUGH you may have a pseudonym ON TOP of that. Thus, you can be held liable for violations and crimes because your RL ID is supplied, even if you use a nick inworld.

What about identity theft? 

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think we are asking you to explain the inconsistencies in your approach here. Is that not a reasonable request?

There is, of course, the option of "Ignoring" us. It's an option that I think is a poor one if it's just about not wanting to hear what others say, but I think it's entirely legitimate as a response to emotional stress. 

Get out of my head!  🤣

[Love Zhaoying]

45 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

You can respond to someone else's posts without having to poke me or others in the process.

Seriously?  Just stop already, please.  When you've said about us collectively...

OMG! 

@Codex Alpha - I just wanted to hear / read @Prokofy Neva's explanation.  I did not doubt that you were "fairly" representing their point of view. However, as I had tried  - tried very hard - to read all of their long posts in this thread, and not gotten the message you presented, which I tried to summarize (without quoting directly so as to intentionally not make it personal to you!) - I merely wanted to get Prok's actual explanation for their point of view.

Absolutely no Poking was intended.  Please don't be so sensitive! 

I only, in fact, dropped your name in that post as a reference point to my questions for Prok.

Had I disbelieved your interpretation of Prok's point of view, I probably would have in some way - any way - called BS. I did not because I don't think you are the type of person to intentionally misrepresent someone.  For instance, I do not think you would misquote someone under a pretext (there's that word again) of attacking their point of view.

Please be cool. I know you can do it!

Thanks,

Love

[Coffee Pancake]

7 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

And.. look at them dogpile... they can't stop.

This you?

20 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

Yet to this day you will see users act helpless and victimized when the power is under their fingertip and takes 0.0001% second of their life to implement.