Role of Crypto/Cybercurrencies in the PTB's loss of control?

[bjorb]

I actually agree that I would have been better off using a different word.

I actually rarely use these types of words let alone on the forum. And also wouldn't find it appropriate if this word usage became the standard on the forum.

That said. Harsh words sometimes get the message across clearly. And has an impact that it doesn't normally have. So sometimes I do find them appropriate.

I wasn't using it to talk down to others either. Although others do assume that. It is simply not true.

 

[United Gnosis]

This was an interesting sub-discussion. That being said, I was typing the sole reply (at that point) to BHelmet last night, but by now there is an entire page of the thread threatening to go off-topic. I'll just step back for now and share if actually relevant to the topic.

 

[psychegram]

I actually agree that I would have been better off using a different word.

I actually rarely use these types of words let alone on the forum. And also wouldn't find it appropriate if this word usage became the standard on the forum.

That said. Harsh words sometimes get the message across clearly. And has an impact that it doesn't normally have. So sometimes I do find them appropriate.

I wasn't using it to talk down to others either. Although others do assume that. It is simply not true.

Yes, and to clarify I'm not advocating for a coarsening of the dialogue. Overreliance upon colorful language is often an impediment to clarity of thought. But by the same token, oversensitivity to colourful language is also an impediment.

My reaction is not motivated by a defense of the word you used, but rather by a defense of the natural right of forum members to use whatever language they feel appropriate at the moment. People in general must be free to use the language they see fit, at the same time that the onus is on them to decide what is appropriate to communicate what they want to communicate. If they choose poorly, that's on them. That's not a choice for others to make, and attempting to shame others into not using certain words because they're offended (or worse, offended by proxy) is an abrogation of free will.

In my opinion, the way to maintain a high standard of discourse is not to run around policing the vocabulary deployed by others, but to strive individually to set the example of a high standards. The latter fosters a culture of thoughtful exchange; the former, a police state.

 

[psychegram]

This was an interesting sub-discussion. That being said, I was typing the sole reply (at that point) to BHelmet last night, but by now there is an entire page of the thread threatening to go off-topic. I'll just step back for now and share if actually relevant to the topic.

Agreed. It's a point that needed to be made, but enough verbiage has now been spilled on a tangential topic to that with which the thread is concerned.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

Interesting phrasing, though.

The phrase "you're in the wrong bar" is in fact regularly used here to suggest to trolls that they'd be welcome to leave.

As to a locker room, well after all we are here to Work (out). I admit that one is more of a stretch.

At any rate I must have missed the memo that this is now a Sunday school.

No one said this is a Sunday school or being in wrong bar etc, just made a point that it's more beneficial (from work on self point of view) to be mindful (not directed to you personally) about some word choices due to external consideration.

Sure, we have all the insane woke-SJW word policing going on in the broader society, but even there this approach will be useful to navigate the crazyness, although the motive would be totally different. FWIW.

 

[United Gnosis]

No one said this is a Sunday school or being in wrong bar etc, just made a point that it's more beneficial (from work on self point of view) to be mindful (not directed to you personally) about some word choices due to external consideration.

Sure, we have all the insane woke-SJW word policing going on in the broader society, but even there this approach will be useful to navigate the crazyness, although the motive would be totally different. FWIW.

I feel a great deal of self-justification in the implicit assumption that occasional and mindful use of words you do not like, used appropriately in context, somehow diminishes external consideration.

To the contrary, it seems that the external consideration is lacking on the side of those who would rather hunt for subjective, interpretive offense rather than apply that same consideration in listening to another's meaning.

 

[Scottie]

My reaction is not motivated by a defense of the word you used, but rather by a defense of the natural right of forum members to use whatever language they feel appropriate at the moment. People in general must be free to use the language they see fit, at the same time that the onus is on them to decide what is appropriate to communicate what they want to communicate. If they choose poorly, that's on them. That's not a choice for others to make, and attempting to shame others into not using certain words because they're offended (or worse, offended by proxy) is an abrogation of free will.

The terms of use for our forum are here:

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.

cassiopaea.org

Which includes this:

Four: We have ZERO tolerance for profanity. If you aren't intelligent enough to say what you think without using language that is objectionable to most civilized people, you're on the wrong forum.

That rule existed long before anyone ever heard the term 'SJW'. The rule also applies equally to everyone: man, woman, alien, gay, straight, whatever.

I think the core idea behind it is not to control speech, but instead to make everyone aware that 'bad language' very often goes along with strong emotional reactions (which we're often not even aware of). By speaking/writing more consciously, it becomes easier to catch and observe those reactions - which is basically the Work.

The rule doesn't actually curtail anyone's freedom of expression because in joining the forum, we each agreed to those terms in light of work on the self à la Gurdjieff. All members agreed that this is what we will do - for a reason. Anyone is free to change their mind about their use of language here, but then they are not free to continue posting and interacting with other members. Even then, most posts are publicly viewable, so 'excommunication' in the sense of totally preventing someone from reading the forum and continuing to participate in that way isn't even really possible.

Therefore, to say that we the forum and mods are acting 'SJW-like' is in fact doing exactly what the SJWs themselves do: "The rules don't apply to me, there should be no rules, I'm so offended and you have no right to curb my free speech."

We the forum admins and moderators are not YouTube or Facebook, we are not a popular public online service that influences entire elections and so on. We're just the Cassiopaea Forum. More importantly, our rules have been the same all the way back to the days when there was no forum, and instead we just had Yahoo Groups.

Frankly, none of the above was even the point. The point was (originally) that Bjorn posted and a few of us wanted to just say, "Um, that's a little strong, doncha think?" and in the end, he agreed. Well, happens to all of us - especially these days of Utter Insanity in the world! Since things will probably get even more nuts than any of us can imagine right now, that's actually watching each other's back since the #1 way to 'disintegrate' is to be pulled into the hysterical nonsense that has gripped much of the planet.

 

[bjorb]

To the contrary, it seems that the external consideration is lacking on the side of those who would rather hunt for subjective, interpretive offense rather than apply that same consideration in listening to another's meaning.

I think it can help to not assume the worst right away when people see someone use word that they dislike. (justifiably or not) But that's up to them.

 

[psychegram]

The terms of use for our forum are here:

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.

cassiopaea.org

Which includes this:



That rule existed long before anyone ever heard the term 'SJW'. The rule also applies equally to everyone: man, woman, alien, gay, straight, whatever.

I think the core idea behind it is not to control speech, but instead to make everyone aware that 'bad language' very often goes along with strong emotional reactions (which we're often not even aware of). By speaking/writing more consciously, it becomes easier to catch and observe those reactions - which is basically the Work.

The rule doesn't actually curtail anyone's freedom of expression because in joining the forum, we each agreed to those terms in light of work on the self à la Gurdjieff. All members agreed that this is what we will do - for a reason. Anyone is free to change their mind about their use of language here, but then they are not free to continue posting and interacting with other members. Even then, most posts are publicly viewable, so 'excommunication' in the sense of totally preventing someone from reading the forum and continuing to participate in that way isn't even really possible.

Therefore, to say that we the forum and mods are acting 'SJW-like' is in fact doing exactly what the SJWs themselves do: "The rules don't apply to me, there should be no rules, I'm so offended and you have no right to curb my free speech."

We the forum admins and moderators are not YouTube or Facebook, we are not a popular public online service that influences entire elections and so on. We're just the Cassiopaea Forum. More importantly, our rules have been the same all the way back to the days when there was no forum, and instead we just had Yahoo Groups.

Frankly, none of the above was even the point. The point was (originally) that Bjorn posted and a few of us wanted to just say, "Um, that's a little strong, doncha think?" and in the end, he agreed. Well, happens to all of us - especially these days of Utter Insanity in the world! Since things will probably get even more nuts than any of us can imagine right now, that's actually watching each other's back since the #1 way to 'disintegrate' is to be pulled into the hysterical nonsense that has gripped much of the planet.

Okay, that's a fair enough point. I didn't really consider it profanity per se myself but I can well understand that others might.

In this case, however, I think a lot of off-topic discussion could have been avoided if the initial reaction had been a gentle reminder to be mindful of this specific rule. The tone was initially much more along the lines of being offended, which is a bit of a different thing than just saying "come on now, keep it clean, we have rules here."

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

I feel a great deal of self-justification in the implicit assumption that occasional and mindful use of words you do not like, used appropriately in context, somehow diminishes external consideration.

Nope, it's not about "words I don't like". Just wanted to point out some basic concepts practiced here in this specific context (use of profanity), and as I mentioned originally, not to make mountain out of molehill.

 

[bjorb]

Bitcoin is the new salary.

Basketball Players in Canada to Be Paid in Bitcoin – Bitcoin News

The Canadian men’s basketball league CEBL will offer its professional basketball players an option to receive part of their salary in crypto.

news.bitcoin.com

 

[United Gnosis]

Nope, it's not about "words I don't like". Just wanted to point out some basic concepts practiced here in this specific context (use of profanity), and as I mentioned originally, not to make mountain out of molehill.

How is the word pussy a profanity? It seems to me that you are applying your own interpretations and assuming they are objective.

To the best of my understanding, if you resent that word, you are the one being mysogynistic. You attach negative connotations to female anatomy, and assume others also have the same interpretations. I read the word, and hear either 'cute kitten' or 'female temple'. But because of your assumptions, you would no longer allow me to express myself as it seems most applicable to the context. Such a restraint on the free will of others, because your triggers would rather run free, seems utterly STS to me.

The connotation, negative or positive, comes from intent and tone, but neither of these were present in the original comment. The mountain out of a molehill was created when some people read their own automatic triggers into that casual statement. Those who took issue with the word, categorically stated that it was a lack of external consideration. That in itself is the first lack of external consideration, failing to seek any understanding of the other and right away jumping onto a black-and-white label.

Beware the self-referential justification. "It's not a 'word I don't like', it is profanity'. But you declare it profanity because you don't like it.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

To the best of my understanding, if you resent that word, you are the one being mysogynistic. You attach negative connotations to female anatomy, and assume others also have the same interpretations. I read the word, and hear either 'cute kitten' or 'female temple'. But because of your assumptions, you would no longer allow me to express myself as it seems most applicable to the context. Such a restraint on the free will of others, because your triggers would rather run free, seems utterly STS to me.

I think your reaction is a bit over the top and reading too much into what I wrote. For example, I didn't say anywhere I resent that word, that's just silly. Notice I'm not the one here analyzing and labeling you as this or that, like someone who got his/her feelings hurt from a simple feedback.

 

[michaelrc]

Gee, now asking someone to curtail somewhat colorful speech after so many have been locked down emotionally/physically for almost a year now? I say a pass should be given after all we're to be locked down again it seems, no colorful venting allowed.

 

[Chad]

I'd agree that i don't think we need to belabor the point on this thread (there are other threads where the use of language is discussed) but i just wanted to add:

I actually agree that I would have been better off using a different word.

I actually rarely use these types of words let alone on the forum. And also wouldn't find it appropriate if this word usage became the standard on the forum.

That said. Harsh words sometimes get the message across clearly. And has an impact that it doesn't normally have. So sometimes I do find them appropriate.

I wasn't using it to talk down to others either. Although others do assume that. It is simply not true.

As has been said, that you rarely use it but did so for this topic i think highlights that your emotions are likely more in control of your thinking and actions than they usually are; and this likely shows that your perspective on this topic might not be as objective as you think it is. For me, that's how a number of your posts have come across in this thread.

Sidenote:

[...]

Therefore, to say that we the forum and mods are acting 'SJW-like' is in fact doing exactly what the SJWs themselves do: "The rules don't apply to me, there should be no rules, I'm so offended and you have no right to curb my free speech."

[...]

Indeed. Whilst SJW's are eager to censor speech of all kinds by claiming it's offensive, they also have a tendency to use some of the crudest and violent language that they can think of when triggered or when it serves them.