And how boring the world would be if that was the case, wouldn't you agree? The best thing about people is how complex we all are. We grow up molded by our environments and the people around us before we're shoved out into the world, and forced to interact with people that won't have the same experiences you had.

You said "autist" so now you're on the shit list pal :P

Here's the thing though, if you keep it in the relevant topics, don't shove it down other's throats, and your posts don't become absolutely predictable in their content, down to certain phrases and words, I think you'll be just fine, no need to STFU :]

Well, some sort of personality disorder, which makes you lack humour and self awareness.
People react so infinitely much more positive to people who can joke about themselves, for example.

Many people won't/can't keep themselves from replying to something they should rather ignore and think they need to be protected from exposure to certain opinions in the first place, that's why the technical ignore feature is so important to so many people on the internet.

Here's something John Cleese said not long ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U
(Core message: "If people can't control their own emotions then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior.")

While this is the general tendency you observe in many forums I would actually say that this recipe does not lead to a nice and fruitful environment. Especially if you overdo the retaliating sarcasm. It may scare some guys away but in general it only creates a climate of "you do not want to spent your free time here". It's not really what I long for.

It's surely right to give advice that everyone should minimize its target area, but approving bullying as a mean to clean the forum is wrong. The better answer would be lots of humour mixed with irony and also smart ignoring can achieve wonders I think. If you suggest hate, then all you get is an escalation of hate until nobody remains friendly. And in the end we are left with: Haters with a thick skin and a bite reflex.

I'm constantly on the search for welcoming, humourous social places with the emphasis on games but open to everything else. I will always stay where I find most of it.

I would say the best is a middle ground. To some certain extent include him and tolerate him being different. However after a certain level, when he becomes annoying, tell him to stop without becoming impolite. Then ignoring him. If he doesn't get the message, becoming gradually rougher and keep on ignoring.

It's basically a live and let live approach. He has a right to be here (maybe even find others similar to him) but he has no right to bother anyone else beyond a certain extent. If he doesn't get it, all that follows is his fault.

I never suggested outright hate/attacks, I suggested joking and a good dose of sarcasm, especially towards those that take themselves too seriously. We all piss yellow and bleed red, and even respected people of a community will get ragged on if they say something questionable.

Asking people to ignore walking targets never works, some amount of people will always respond because it's the internet and there are no consequences for opening your mouth, good or bad.

I also suggested that if people don't seem to like you, there's probably a good reason for that. Change that or leave.

I don't think there's any way around in in a non-homogeneous environment tho. Fundamentally, every human being will have his/her own values. According to these values, such human being will then form his/her opinions and reactions to his/her environment. If you talk to a conservative Christian, he will often get offended on suggestion that there's generally no need to go to church every Sunday, because, you know - your eternal soul is in danger and he wants to help you. And trough clashes in fundamental understanding of the world, conflict will inevitably arise.

Have you ever gotten into argument on a topic which felt extremely important to you, while you had all the evidence and persuasive argumentation in the world to counter that stupid whatever other side thinks was on your side? If not, hat off to you - most people don't have that kind of self-reflection, and if they did, we're talking about homogeneity yet again. Even people who call for tolerance and understanding ultimately call for other people to abandon their values and switch around to the values those who call for tolerance stand for. That's the funny thing - people who radically go for inclusion ironically exclude those who are incapable of such tolerance. And again, we're progressing towards uniformity.

So, in the end, the real question is: Would be homogeneity preferable, with absolute freedom for any human to say what that human wants to while said human knows for a fact other humans won't attack him/her (part of the value system is made homogeneous) or to try and place people into groups which have enough similar values to mostly understand each other, and only keep exposure to other group limited? And isn't the latter what's already happening, organically and naturally?

I mentioned rats previously in the thread, and I mentioned them because they're creatures intelligent enough to have relatively highly developed personalities and individual differences. It's fascinating to watch how, without any outside involvement, relatively big mischiefs eventually construct smaller sub-groups or friends and like-minded individuals who tend to stick around each other, and when conflict (usually between the groups) arises, alpha rat steps in and puts a quick end to it. What was the point of the last paragraph? Not much, I just love rats. Rats are awesome.

Edit: My god that's another wall of text by me, I apologize, next time I'll try to express myself briefly. ... .... ... ... Yeah, sure I am.

Ah, sorry. I must have misinterpreted your post. I guess we even mean the same or very similar things.

I like walls of text :)

That was a surprising conclusion. :) Made me smile certainly. I'm afraid biology / zoology are not my fortes though ;)

I'm reading your post and wondering if this is how people often feel when they read mine... funny that.


So, if I understand correctly, you are first saying conflict is inevitable due to different value systems. I cannot agree more and that is basically the similar premise to my OP - conflict being exactly what I proxied for with the "interminable arguments".

Then you are asking something I don't really understand, but perhaps I don't have to because you used it to highlight the paradox of tolerance coexisting with wanting to change others so they agree with you. And I think that's your actual point there?

I also agree with that, although I would point out that this approach is not universal. There are those that go for destruction / subjugation as a more "economical" approach. And this might be "rational": instead of spending a week convincing Urgh to give me half his fish for half my fruit, I can just knock them in the head and take it. I think someone that makes this point very well is a guy called Azar Gat. But I digress. What I describe is obviously not tolerance in any way. The other intolerant tolerance, with attempts to convert others, is at least a step towards a more ideal tolerance.

Anyway, I agree this paradox is a real dynamic, and I agree with the point that underlying this desire to convert others is an almost instinctive desire for unity in the social group with associated punishment of defectors.

Now getting to the final point (I'm not counting the one about the rats) I think your question is: Should we try to have one universal set of meta rules (I think calling this homogeneity is somewhat misleading by the way - as you mentioned yourself only part of the whole value system might require uniformization), or should we rather segregate somehow into compatible subsets.

My personal answer involves what is called the non-aggression principle as the meta rule, with that principle deriving from a premise of fundamental equality of value of each individual human. I agree though that in practice segregation happens at many levels, from the formation of families to the formation of countries. I think the two can be mostly resolved without contradiction. Although one can always postulate meta conflict a la Godel.

Come to think of it this goes back to the point I made about exclusion. There is a difference between choosing to associate preferentially with A, B or C, with consequence that D, E or F might be harmed. And choosing to harm D, E or F. This last is what I think is bad exclusion, whereas the other is just life. But there are many folks that look only at the outcome of harm without the consideration of either intent or propriety of agency. Which is ironic actually, but I digress again.

So now that maybe (hopefully) my answer to your question is clearer, I'll restate my earlier point you replied to. Not sure it's needed, but you can judge what to reply to - if anything ;)

When I said exclusion of a limited kind is implied by choice and limited resources I meant precisely the kind of natural segregation we see in the world and you mentioned. For the lowest level of social example: I am limited in my existence, and I should be able to choose to spend as much of that with A if I so wish. Because I love them. This means I am excluding myself from being with others, and maybe they will hurt because of my choice (and my finite existence - the incoherent fantasy about cloning / multiplying oneself is borne here). This is the same principle I apply at other levels, it all deriving from self-ownership.

When I said there is a different kind of exclusion I was referring to bad exclusion. The intolerant kind of actual war / conflict / aggression. I was not even referring to the intolerant tolerance of activists / missionaries - that's a grey area in between mostly. Any attitude of entitlement to something that is not ours I consider much more exclusive. Pun intended because this kind of bad exclusion is the root of privilege. Entitlement to what is actually mine is not privilege, it's self ownership and it's a basic human right.

So, to avoid this coercive exclusion, I don't think we require homogeneity - we can all be different as long we respect that diversity per the kind of rule system you mentioned. I think most of my takeways in the OP are along those lines... But to avoid the first kind of exclusion, where we make choices and have preferences and that causes inequality - this being its commonly given name ;) - even supra-fundamental human equality is not enough, we could all be perfect hermaphrodite clones but with limited resources some would get, and some would not get. That there is an actual utopia, as in, it's inherently unattainable - not due to imperfect human nature, but due to inhuman external realities.

I never use the reputation system.
Here, have a +.
I almost never use the reputation system.

You nailed exactly what I had in mind and then some. Sorry if I misunderstood the post I was responding to - I'm still kinda dumb you know :-P And yeah, I meant to say "Partial homogeneity" somewhere ... in there.

You assume ignoring and tolerant is mutually exclusive.

X and Y don't like each other ideals and refuse to back down on their own ideals. Instead of tearing at each other throat, X and Y tolerate each other by ignoring each other on ideals they don't agree on and only talk on stuff they agree with.

Isn't that a form of tolerance?

You are making your own definition of tolerance that everyone must talk to each other even on things they don't agree on.

While no man is an island, no man need everything from each other. Man certainly does not need to talk and agree with each other to flourish. And there things that man need to keep from each other to avoid suffering.

It's fine, I'm cynical and harsh in my tone, and have a foul mouth :P

Maybe I should've been British.

No no... sorry I was unclear.

I do imply communion and ignoring are mutually exclusive. Tolerance is somewhere in the middle as you say. I don't see tolerance and ignoring as equal.

So when I say a tolerant community the key is in both terms. A tolerant community is one where sometimes we tolerate others instead of mainly ignoring them - therefore still being a community rather than a collection of sub units hardly connected to each other.

If you are unclear what I mean by being tolerant that is not ignoring, it's in the OP. A nice respectful tone, acting with self restraint, not pushing people out, avoiding enmity and aggression, being careful to not make fun of others, etc... We don't need to love each other, we can just act as if so to speak... to me that's what true tolerance is. A civilized workaround for the real thing.

As to why you individually do not really go for communion with others, I know that's part of your life philosophy. I don't agree with it, and I actually think yours is a somewhat harmful approach - we can never avoid suffering and others in our life are rather a net positive IMO - but I respect it as your choice on how to live. :)

I tolerate you, you are part of this group with me - I don't want to push you out, I don't see you as an enemy.

As a tangent: if tolerating you was only not ever seeing you or speaking to you, I don't think that would be so tolerant you know? To me that is ostracism, just of a soft kind. Imagine then I see you by accident, what then? That's why I think Ignore functions are a bit weird... I mean, these forums are a dialogue, we quote each other. There is no technical solution where you will be bale to be shielded from others - third parties might quote them, or you will see a conversation is happening and notice a part is missing. Stuff like that... By all means let's have them for those that want them... but they are at most a palliative to a symptom, not a cure to anything deeper.

One diaper change later...

Worry not, I am probably the poster boy for going on tangents and having hard to follow walls of text. Having to post this stuff, talking to others, revising terms to clarify meaning and honing my expression is something I find sometimes enjoyable, but above all enlightening.

And let me be clear... since I'm not trying to get in the sack with any of you enlightenment is the limit of what I want from y'all. ;)

PS: You got few + from me as well... I won't + you +ing me though... I'm afraid of endless loops and the universe collapsing on itself.

So you still define tolerance as everyone must talk to each other even on things they don't agree on. Am I right?

And you claim ignoring is harmful. Am I right?