A witch, a thang, a yin, a yang, a rational man and a boomerang

Author: RationalMadman
Vote
RM for president
DART president
2022 elections
ratman

Posts

Read-only
Total: 245
#31
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
If this is a person Pie respects, it says a lot about him as a person then.
How OCD works is that it is a disease of uncertainty.  You check a door lock 100 times, just because you can be uncertain that you checked yet. You remember doing it, but memory is imperfect. 

Lots of people don't realize that OCD manifests as more than just uncertainty with whether you washed all the germs off your hands. 

It goes to whether you can be certain your convictions are correct. Name any conviction a person should have and I can introduce you to 100 reasons to doubt it.

Never torture a baby for example. 

1. What if the baby is the next Hitler
2. What if we are in a simulation and the baby is not real
3. What if living through torture builds character and in the long term is actually psychologically beneficial?

Having uncertainty is not a moral failing. Lacking convictions is merely another way to say lacking certainty. 

I think people deserve respect even if they have a disease of uncertainty that makes it hard to have beliefs you are certain about (convictions). 

Even the mentally ill deserve respect RM. 
Topic's author
#32
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
 What if the baby is the next Hitler
I wouldn't torture it... WTF

What if we are in a simulation and the baby is not real
I wouldn't torture it, if we are in a simulation all my pain is as real as that baby's.

What if living through torture builds character and in the long term is actually psychologically beneficial?
To a baby? What the fuck are you talking about?
Topic's author
#33
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
Having uncertainty is not a moral failing. Lacking convictions is merely another way to say lacking certainty. 
No it isn't, you don't just lack certainty but to you being willing to completely betray and backstab is itself morally necessary so I don't know if I comprehend your morality or way of seeing the world.

I am going to just let you talk now and talk to others posting to this thread, it is clear you don't want fruitful discussion about my candidacy, just to defend yourself against something you yourself forced me to attack you on by the questions you asked and implicit threats you made about your vote and taking it away from me.
#34
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I don't backstab or betray anybody.  If anything I fault in the direction of being too loyal . I don't even see the faults of people who come into my circle. I just see their strengths. 
Topic's author
#35
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Should a person who makes rational and fact based (either sources, etc) arguments about their support of racism, sexism, transphobia, etc be banned?
very iffy.

I think Mesmer and Wylted both had very odd choices of evidence for what Misterchris banned them for. In fact he picked one of Mesmer's most satirical pieces about Nigeria when there were far more brutally racist posts made that weren't satirical at all.

I would have pushed Chris back and forced him to make a better reason for banning. I do agree with the Mesmer ban for several other reasons though, including defamation and harassment of me alone plus a series of huge baiting towards other users (pushing just far enough that you technically are inside the rules to bait the person to be so offended and insulted they themselves break it) except the baiting did break rules and was very personal.

I won't go into the details of Mesmer ban but I do 100% agree with it, I just feel Chris used poor specific URLs and examples to justify it.

The answer to your question is that alone is very close to what I would try to avoid but not over the line on this particular website for sure because that comes under the 'freedom' it's about what it says to do to the race, sex/gender, trans people etc and how deeply degrading it is. If it's not degrading and just discussing differences that may offend, I'm not against that, I've even engaged in debates on the side of noticing differences (not with race, with sex and therefore trans). I am not transphobic in my own opinion but stuff I've posted here in debates about 'ignoring sex, completely, being wrong' are things I probably would be very hesitant to post elsewhere outside of a private chat with someone I trust.
Topic's author
#36
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
I don't backstab or betray anybody.  
You do. Such as me, the moment I say I have little respect for you and won't cower to your demands or ways you think I should be for your vote you suddenly back out of the guy you preached deep support of on a thread he didn't even ask you to make.

It's fine by me, btw I had to reply to this particular one because it mattered to me.

I don't care though and I agree with you if you say betraying on a website like this hardly equates to IRL betrayal but it's you who prided yourself on relationships you formed here, such as with Whiteflame.
Topic's author
#37
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
Even the mentally ill deserve respect RM.
As a person, yes but I owe them no respect for their character at all.

Jack the Ripper was mentally ill, I don't respect him at all.
#38
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
The answer to your question is that alone is very close to what I would try to avoid but not over the line on this particular website for sure because that comes under the 'freedom' it's about what it says to do to the race, sex/gender, trans people etc and how deeply degrading it is. If it's not degrading and just discussing differences that may offend, I'm not against that, I've even engaged in debates on the side of noticing differences (not with race, with sex and therefore trans). I am not transphobic in my own opinion but stuff I've posted here in debates about 'ignoring sex completely being wrong' are things I probably would be very hesitant to post elsewhere outside of a private chat with someone I trust.
How do you reconcile differences that may be “derogotary” with pure differences. For example, if I say Blacks are dumber than whites because of their inherent brown structure and provide evidence, should I be banned?
Topic's author
#39
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
if I say Blacks are dumber than whites because of their inherent brown structure and provide evidence, should I be banned?
I would be very okay with banning a user who did that on a regular basis.

If their sole statement is about IQ or something and it's a discussion about IQ, I'd be just about okay with it. If it was a discussion contextually leading to white supremacy and degrading the race, I'd definitely draw the line.

I don't know any context other than pure IQ discussion where it would be appropriate though.

'brown structure' is just plain racist though but you clearly said it to highlight the kind of ways they'd word things.
#40
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I would be very okay with banning a user who did that on a regular basis.

If their sole statement is about IQ or something and it's a discussion about IQ, I'd be just about okay with it. If it was a discussion contextually leading to white supremacy and degrading the race, I'd definitely draw the line.

I don't know any context other than pure IQ discussion where it would be appropriate though.

'brown structure' is just plain racist though but you clearly said it to highlight the kind of ways they'd word things.
So you don’t believe that white supremacy should be advocated for/debated on the site when it includes evidence?
Topic's author
#41
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Like many others including myself you chose to vote 'no' on the MEEP deciding whether this position should exist in the first place. In what way, if any, will this effect your decisions you make as president if you are elected?
Not much actually, if I have the power then I can use it well for the website. If the power is in the hands of a person bad for the website, the democratic voters will suffer alongside me at the outcome.

I was never 100% against it anyway, I just felt that in the wrong hands this ban veto power can lead to someone toxic just unbanning other toxic users over and over for the hell of it. I also felt like it needed more specification on what exactly the president can or can't do vs mods.
Topic's author
#42
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
So you don’t believe that white supremacy should be advocated for/debated on the site when it includes evidence?
Yes, point blank yes.
#43
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@RationalMadman
You do. Such as me, the moment I say I have little respect for you and won't cower to your demands or ways you think I should be for your vote you suddenly back out of the guy you preached deep support of on a thread he didn't even ask you to make.
You said you have no respect for me and could care less about my vote. 

I was asking those questions before you responded to help your thread get more attention and so you could answer questions your critics would have. People on the fence between voting you or pie. 

I endorsed you. I meant it. I don't expect you to cower to what I want. Clearly I was okay voting for and endorsing you despite differences of opinion on some important topics. 

I still want to see you in a leadership position on the site though. Should I win, I hope I can count on you to be a liason to the mods and to the community over an anti bullying campaign that I want you to design and run. 

You like defending the defenseless. I think God wants you in positions where you can focus entirely on defending the defenseless and not have to worry about the politics inherent to office of the president. 
#44
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, point blank yes.
So you don’t believe in free speech of users on a debate site even if they back it up with facts/sources. Thank you for confirming that.
Topic's author
#45
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
White supremacists advocating white supremacy, yes I don't believe in free speech for that. You're welcome for my confirmation.
#46
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@ILikePie5
I understand his point. He wants to make sure that all users feel welcome, particularly when it comes to having traits they can't necessarily help. This is why he is such a great person to have defending people from harassment and bullying. You can depend on him to be the best advocate for the down trodden, the site could possibly have.
#47
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I was never 100% against it anyway, I just felt that in the wrong hands this ban veto power can lead to someone toxic just unbanning other toxic users over and over for the hell of it. I also felt like it needed more specification on what exactly the president can or can't do vs mods.
Besides times where you yourself were banned, what (if any) are some examples of bans that have happened in the past that you feel the mods got wrong and would have overturned if you were president at the time?
Topic's author
#48
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The Ethang5 ban before this last one is definitely one of them and even the one before I'd have pushed to be more lenient.

Ethang5 overreacts when other abrasive members pick on him and harass him. He has a strong pride to not ask the mods to protect him against harassment and instead starts being volatile, sometimes being very harsh and sometimes being passive-aggressive, to the member(s) harassing him. He is also prone to going after users he feels are harassing others (especially if the wrongdoer is an atheist). I feel that the mods sitting back and allowing the religion forums to just perpetually get worse while they did so, pushed Ethang5 to feel his role was more needed than before.

I won't go into Type1 because I do support his ban. I just think it didn't 100% have to be permanent due to me believing he'd reformed as a person a few months ago but as things are and given what he'd typed on that account, I stand by the ban. The reasoning is private though and not important here as I say I totally understand the ban, it was me who specifically forced his Sparrow account to get outed as being him as I realised he was not just abusing the rating system but literally voting for himself eventually.
Topic's author
#49
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
There are several bans that didn't have to become bans had the mods intervened in the Religion Forums.
#50
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
There are several bans that didn't have to become bans had the mods intervened in the Religion Forums.
What kind of intervention would you suggest there to reduce both bans and toxicity?
#51
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
White supremacists advocating white supremacy, yes I don't believe in free speech for that. You're welcome for my confirmation.
I fully accept your confession that you’re not in support of free speech
#52
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Wylted
I understand his point. He wants to make sure that all users feel welcome, particularly when it comes to having traits they can't necessarily help. This is why he is such a great person to have defending people from harassment and bullying. You can depend on him to be the best advocate for the down trodden, the site could possibly have.
I wouldn’t trust him to walk my dog in my neighborhood lol
Topic's author
#53
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
ROs work in that context often.

The mods would need to almost be 'too heavy handed' at first with how many ROs they set out.

You would find that at first the forums would seem 'dead' but slowly over time the more timid members and emotional members who aren't timid but know they react strongly can start to feel more welcome there.

I guarantee you there are members who barely posted there as well as onlookers to the website who took a couple of looks at threads there that never signed up specifically due to the toxic environment it has. In other words, there's activity that would be happening there with fun and friendly debate between theists and atheists, different theists, discussions of the meaning of traditions etc that aren't taking place because we have people too busy trying to derail threads and bring out the absolute worst in members that differ from their outlook.

On top of ROs, I think there needs to be a lot of active intervention, locking of threads etc. The religion forum users will at first maybe say 'stay out' but they will soon realise the help going on there when over time the more toxic bullies suddenly are either tamer or gone of their own volition. Not all the toxicity is the level of BrotherDThomas but what has happened is over time all the non-toxic members got eroded away and the only ones remaining either painfully tolerate and partly embrace the toxic environment or they totally and utterly perpetuate it. 

The toxicity is so direct and blatant that it is very easy to justify mod intervention to the people doing it and give them specific pointers to how to avoid ad hominem habits and perhaps discuss the topic more in an asking and answering format rather than a bite-back and berate format.

I can't give specifics without this thread itself possibly becoming classified as a callout thread but believe me, there are very specific habits of very specific members that if they were curtailed would completely transform the environment there. The mods are just obsessed with being lenient as in the past their intervening ways have been shamed and branded stupid by some members here.
Topic's author
#54
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
I wouldn’t trust him to walk my dog in my neighborhood lol
You'd trust the guy with no convictions instead, right?

Fine by me. I wouldn't trust most members here to walk my dog (if I have one) either... It's called being strangers on the Internet. :)
Topic's author
#55
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
White supremacists advocating white supremacy, yes I don't believe in free speech for that. You're welcome for my confirmation.
I fully accept your confession that you’re not in support of free speech
Be sure to ask all the same questions you asked me to Wylted on his campaign thread. They're great questions, very important to know where he stands on them wouldn't you agree? :)
#56
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
You'd trust the guy with no convictions instead, right?
I’d trust an American over a Brit any day🤷‍♂️
#57
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I guarantee you there are members who barely posted there as well as onlookers to the website who took a couple of looks at threads there that never signed up specifically due to the toxic environment it has.
That the religion forums on DART are toxic and that said toxicity is a problem is something I think most can agree on. The question is how to fix it, your suggestion seems like something worth thinking about at the very least.
Topic's author
#58
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Strange outlook. Not sure how what you believe my nationality is has anything to do with my candidacy here on this website but if that's what you're basing your vote on, I can't help but shrug back at you. 🤷‍♂️
#59
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I'll just write out my positions on them before posting the thread. 

Also I have convictions now. As I said.

GOD IS REAL


#60
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I think you should run your plan to fix the religion forum past them, and see how receptive the people who love the most active area of the site, appreciate you wanting to change their behavior and start cracking down on it.