Apology

ThinPicking

The problem is trying to combine no rules with anonymity. If people had to use their real names and faces it would probably work fine but as a practical matter trolls will keep burning the place down.

I understand. But be careful what you wish for.

I'd reveal myself right now if corporations weren't "people", or if lawful aperture were opened. If there's a digital ID scenario without that, your "legal identity" will be smaller than theirs. You'll be surrounded by giants, metaphorically speaking.

"trolls will keep burning the place down"... he said.

LetTheRedeemed

@ThinPicking hah thanks for de-encrypting your comments.

NotShanalotte

@LetTheRedeemed I concur with all of your points. I will not sink to his level, but if the basis of this forum is that I could call him, the admin, every slur in the book, I'd be curious to see how that has to do with bioenergtic principles.

The strange union of libertarianism at large and the truly alt-right never ceases to amaze me.

I'm sure topics with racial slurs and slapfights will inspire others to join.

"Take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to virtue and reasonable nature." ~ Marcus Aurelius

I used to read that quote often, and made sure I lived by it. Contributing to this forum, regardless of my unmodding, doesn't go with that. I'll check in to chat with you and some others though.

ThinPicking

@NotShanalotte said in Apology:

I will not sink to his level, but if the basis of this forum is that I could call him, the admin, every slur in the book, I'd be curious to see how that has to do with bioenergtic principles.

You'd be surprised Shan. Maybe... possibly... It would depend on your intention in doing so. And what response you got. And so on.

Bradster may be the smartest person in the room. We're unlikely to know until after the fact.

ThinPicking

Fuck you @brad

ThinPicking

Just kidding.

NotShanalotte

@ThinPicking Yes, your point is what my rhetorical statement embodies. It could be persuasively argued that setting him off on purpose would be for the good of the forum, as it would assuredly set new rules de facto regardless of his intention. But as I said, I won't. Nor will I crap up threads even though that's not against the rules either.

Be well and leave me a chat to tell me how you're doing from time to time, okay?

ThinPicking

Sure thing I love a chat, best thing about this place 🫡

LetTheRedeemed

@NotShanalotte Cool
blessings

yerrag

@LetTheRedeemed

Thanks for the segue.

@Amazoniac and @ThinPicking are two people I wish I could reply to more often but often don't bother to as I spend too much time decrypting their comments.

With A, I think it has more to do with his Dutch (or maybe Indonesian, or both) affecting his English, and that I accept.

With T, I just wonder why. Are you Brit and have a dialect like Cockney or Welsh? I speak US English and most of the time, your meaning is lost on me.

LetTheRedeemed

@yerrag hah right? I think some of ThinPicking-y-speak is his humor lol

brad

@ThinPicking lol

Norwegian Mugabe

Thanks for sticking up for free speech. I was afraid we were ending up with another Charlie forum TBH.

Kvirion

@Norwegian-Mugabe said in Apology:

Thanks for sticking up for free speech.

Yep, moreover... It's good to remember that we need a basic set of rules and proper initial conditions to keep things free.

As Ray would say a system needs energy and structure.

A system without any rules is just chaos... I have written more about it here https://bioenergetic.forum/post/23589

Peatful

@Kvirion said in Apology:

@Norwegian-Mugabe said in Apology:

Thanks for sticking up for free speech.

Yep, moreover... It's good to remember that we need a basic set of rules and proper initial conditions to keep things free.

As Ray would say a system needs energy and structure.

A system without any rules is just chaos... I have written more about it here https://bioenergetic.forum/post/23589

You heard this thought:
Without vision or leadership; people perish.
(Grossly paraphrased on my behalf)

Structure is paramount
And
What rules the structure is the way the organism/organization will trend

Ie: our ruling metabolism.

Or relevant here- Charlie’s pathology.
Or the illness of any gatekeeper.
The energy.

Whomever creates or enforces these guardrails-
Needs to be well.

Kvirion

@Peatful said in Apology:

You heard this thought:
Without vision or leadership; people perish.
(Grossly paraphrased on my behalf)

Yeah, agree. I would reformulate it slightly:
Without a proper sense of direction or (distributed) leadership; people perish.

A sense of direction allows for constant course correction and distributed leadership minimizes the chance of tyrants...

Structure is paramount
And
What rules the structure is the way the organism/organization will trend

Yep.

Or relevant here- Charlie’s pathology.
Or the illness of any gatekeeper.
The energy.

Whomever creates or enforces these guardrails-
Needs to be well.

It's good to have a system of proper Checks and Balances... to prevent unfortunate events like RPF anti-VA takeover...

insufferable

I like free speech.

AR04

Who was this?

T-3

@brad The clearly defined and minimalist structure you've created for the forum (only two rules) and, within that structure, giving meaningful expression to free speech (e.g., Lol-ing rather than banning "f&!k you"...) are much appreciated. Long may it continue.

T-3

@LetTheRedeemed I appreciate your posts and hope the most interesting forum members keep posting energetically and substantively. I take seriously your concern that offensive or politically incorrect content posted on this forum may cause forum members we would like to continue contributing to leave. That is a serious tradeoff to consider when advocating, like I am, in support of brad's minimalist structure with only two rules (allowing offensive posts to continue).

I think my preferences match yours to a large degree--about which forum members' posts to read and wishing to see a greater proportion of informative rather than shit-posts/fighting . But no matter how well-intentioned, adding more rules/restrictions would, in my view, risk a lot more than is lost because of the minimalist two-rule structure at present. See RPF. There is surely a place for virtuous anger, polemics, speculation, challenging Ray's ideas, or finding new links/understandings/context (possibly offensive to some) related to Ray's ideas.

The current structure is good in my view. More rules aren't needed. The structure we're looking for will be ours to create voluntarily. Coercion not needed. .