Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
Real - has an existence which you can experience
Are you asking me to define reality check because you are skeptical it has existence which can be experienced? You are skeptical that anyone has ever experienced a reality check?
Or are you just being contrarian as I suspect you are because you don’t like me very much?
I'm trying to impress upon you that nobody has any idea what you're talking about. It's quite clearly not just me as you can tell from other responses to you in this thread, and I suspect not only this thread.
Ok, I'm currently sitting in my living room, typing a response to you on my laptop. That is a "real" event that is currently occurring, per your definition. What is a "reality check" in this context? How would I know if and when I am experiencing one?
You talk purely in abstract terms. I am asking you to define those terms and give examples in a way that is understandable to someone unfamiliar with these abstractions. If you are not just spouting made up nonsense, you should have no problem whatsoever moving from the realm of the abstract to the realm of the concrete, from the general to the specific.
Moral truth - actions which bring you more in accordance with reality / the good.
The idea that murder is wrong is a moral truth. It’s not a historical fact.
At your lowest point in life, when you felt despair and disconnection - this is a reality check. It’s an unavoidable human experience.
It's clear that the confusion stems from a lack of understanding of obvious words when used by Craig.
He is asking you guys if the reality of lived experience can be as binary as the reality of the unregistered experience of an NPC, or not, and why, given more or less the same can be said for the true self and the soul, as detached from identity.
I am puzzled as to what is unclear
If this was posted by someone else I would assume it was a satirical post poking fun at craig's use of language because it does basically nothing to make anything clearer to anyone who didn't already understand the original phrasing.
I've always assumed that craig has a deep background in philosophy and it has become the lens through which he views, and therefore talks, about everything. That results in him using all sorts of terms that I assume have a well defined meaning in the fields he is taking them from but which often diverge quite considerably from standard parlance and make a lot of his posts indecipherable to anyone without the same deep background in philosophy. "Reality check" is a great example because it has a very common meaning that is almost entirely unrelated to the way craig is using it.
I would estimate that 80%+ of people on this forum can't do more than make educated guesses as his exact meaning in posts like his OP to the locked thread and that 99%+ of people in the general population would be in that same category.
And I’m trying to impress upon you guys that ignorance about basic moral truths like “reality check” is a serious problem. Assuming you are an adult.
This is a great post to work from, because it offers a very simple way to break down how your use of language can be confusing, if not outright incomprehensible.
How can a reality check be a moral truth? However you are defining "reality check", it is a name for some thing or action, and thus calling it a truth doesnt make a lot of sense. It seems to me that this is like saying a banana is a moral truth, or a long walk is a moral truth. Am I missing something?
If this was posted by someone else I would assume it was a satirical post poking fun at craig's use of language because it does basically nothing to make anything clearer to anyone who didn't already understand the original phrasing.
I've always assumed that craig has a deep background in philosophy and it has become the lens through which he talks about everything. That results in him using all sorts of terms that I assume have a well defin
I was giving Luciom the benefit of the doubt and assuming he was joking. If he was, it was pretty funny; if he wasn't, even funnier.
Again, this makes no sense to me. I can see someone calling an action moral/morally good, but not a moral truth. Whereas this...
...makes sense. An idea can be a truth, or falsehood.
Again, this makes no sense to me. I can see someone calling an action moral/morally good, but not a moral truth. Whereas this...
...makes sense. An idea can be a truth, or falsehood.
What makes the idea that murder is wrong true, if it’s not a historical fact? It’s because morally true and morally good are the same. In the same way, reality and the good are the same.
Have we reached the highest level of the good? If not, then we haven’t reached the highest level of reality.
Moral truth > historical truth
No. A thing or an action can not be a truth or falsehood, but an idea can.
I'm sure others might find holes in this, or find better ways to phrase it, but I'd suggest that if it can't be a sentence, it can't be a truth or falsehood.
Reality Check.
Banana.
Long walk.
Those aren't sentences, and they also can't be truths.
Murder is wrong.
That is a sentence, and can be a truth.
A reality check is like a banana in the tailpipe that makes you want to take a long walk off a short pier.
Am I doing it right?
A+
That's the problem with word salads - everything becomes covered with dressing and largely indistinguishable from everything else.
Just wait til you see his word smoothies.
And a music moral truth is?
I dunno man, I got that stuff I posted from Googling "spiritual nonsense generator". Reads uncannily like craig's posting, and I can assure you I don't have a deep (or any) background in philosophy.
I have read quite a bit of moral philosophy over the decades. The Platonic dialogues primarily concern moral philosophy. They are quite easy to follow, even if Plato's actual beliefs are sometimes difficult to pin down.
Abstraction, vagueness, and muddiness are not inherent to the field.
Reality checks In Craig world are the way you come in contact with music moral truths ie your true self IE your soul as opposed to the life you live as NPC under group identity lies
Yes. A reality check communicates, “You’re not done truth seeking. You haven’t reached the good / reality yet.”
Which is why when someone experiences a reality check, they realize the message and try to make changes. Or they deny it, cling to the comfort zone, and live as an NPC.
Again, this makes no sense to me. I can see someone calling an action moral/morally good, but not a moral truth. Whereas this...
...makes sense. An idea can be a truth, or falsehood.
Moral Realism
The moral realist contends that there are moral facts, so moral realism is a thesis in ontology, the study of what is. The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.” A signature of the latter type of moral fact is that it not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior.
The traditional areas of disagreement between the realist camp and the antirealist camp are cognitivism, descriptivism, moral truth, moral knowledge, and moral objectivity. The long and recalcitrant history of the realism/antirealism debate records that the focal point of the debate has been shaped and reshaped over centuries, with a third way, namely, Quasi-realism, attracting more recent attention. Quasi-realism debunks the positions of both realism and antirealism.
On the one hand, considering cognitivism, descriptivism, moral truth, moral knowledge, and moral objectivity as specifying the sufficient conditions for moral realism ignores the quasi-realist way. On the other hand, defining moral realism in a way that accommodates quasi-realism concedes too much: unlike the moral realist, the quasi-realist denies that moral facts are explanatory. Consequently, one can view quasi-realism as the contemporary heir of antirealism.
