| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 18 hours ago |
| I like that aspect about Bluesky too. On “safe spaces”, as you hint at I think many of us don’t want to be shielded entirely from opposing or otherwise differing lines of thought. Speaking personally, I welcome it if there’s actual discussion to be had. Good faith discussions and exchange of perspectives is great, but I have no patience for trolls, circular logic, insults, “debate” that wouldn’t even pass for high school level, etc. |
|
| ▲ | EasyMark 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I would love to see a respectful debate starter pack on bluesy get started. Maybe controled by a bot that looks for words that are insults like “troll” “don’t melt snowflake”, etc and will boot you if you get caught. I like political debate, sharing of trustable sources, etc. I don’t like someone telling me I’m just a melting snowflake or cuck, when I bring in a link from a scientific journal to cite as part of my argument |
|
| ▲ | raxxorraxor 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Then you need to choose the safe space option. Under no circumstances should you opt to advertise removing content for others. Because your justification with "circular logic" could mean anything. This is the safe space option. That more free platforms employ spam protection is no excuse. |
| |
| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think circular logic is fairly well defined (from Wikipedia, “Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion.”) That said, yes it’s not grounds for a ban. I wouldn’t block over it either unless the person in question is being obnoxious and e.g. following me around between threads and trying to stir up argument about the subject of contention or resorts to personal insults or something like that. | | |
| ▲ | raxxorraxor 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You will never have an agreement on it. Some see statements as axioms and others do not. Without premises, every form of reasoning can be regarded as circular. You can have an authority on it that determines something as circular or not. But then you will inevitably end up with dogmatism. Someone once said that circular reasoning works if the circle is large enough. Knowing the fallacy might help you detect faulty reasoning in your own thoughts. It doesn't allow for much more practical applications. | | |
| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Maybe, though that suggests that there can be no such thing as a ground truth, which seems kinda shakey to me since it can be used to justify practically any viewpoint imaginable, regardless of how divorced from reality or lacking in verifiable proof it may be. |
|
|
|
