The Box of Chocolates Thread (You never know what you're going to get!)
Welcome to the General Discussion thread. If you have a topic that doesn't warrant its own thread, post it here. Have a free form discussion going that no longer fits in the original thread? It may be moved here to give it a place to wander. Also, general chit chat is welcome!
everyone knows people from boston are unsinkable
Lol at PMing. You unabashedly gaslight and flip flop to suit your needs in straight public view. Kinda hard to trust you in another format where you have even more freedom to obfuscate and mislead.
That's up there with his "fine Steph Curry is a solid player, but Jeremy Lin once crossed over Kobe and is an all time great!"
I think it was a bad idea to close the moderation thread.
As I have previously said, I think the main reason it is used to so much to complain about bad posts is because reporting posts rarely results in any action bring taken and even more rarely results in a personal response from a moderator. People want to know that they are being heard.
[QUOTE=TOMS]
In this passage, Adam Smith explores the concept of self-reflection and moral judgment in the absence of societal influence. He suggests that an individual, even in isolation, might naturally develop a sense of approval or disapproval towards their own behaviors, akin to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction one might feel towards a well-made or poorly constructed machine. This analogy underscores the idea that individuals can internally assess the "mechanics" of their actions and character, evaluating them for their prudence, temperance, and overall conduct as if they were observing an object with aesthetic qualities of beauty or deformity.
However, Smith argues that these internal judgments, while possible, would lack the intensity and significance they acquire through social interactions. In solitude, the perceptions of one's own virtues and vices are like matters of taste—delicate, subtle, and not deeply impactful. It's the connection with society and the anticipation of social judgment that amplifies the emotional response to these self-assessments. The sense of shame for wrongdoings or the pride in virtuous behavior is significantly heightened by the imagined or real scrutiny of others, who act as a "natural judge" of our actions.
Smith posits that it's through sympathy with the imagined or real judgments of this societal "arbiter" that an individual truly feels the weight of moral triumph or failure. The "triumph of self-applause" or the "shame of self-condemnation" relies on an awareness of how one's actions are perceived by others, suggesting that our deepest moral emotions are inherently social. Without the context of society to reflect our actions back to us, the internal judgments we make about our behavior might occur but would not carry the same emotional significance or motivational power.
This perspective highlights the social nature of moral judgment and the essential role of empathy and the anticipation of societal judgment in shaping our self-perceptions and ethical behaviors. Smith underscores the importance of social interaction in developing and reinforcing our moral sentiments, suggesting that our sense of moral approval or disapproval is deeply intertwined with our connections to others and our place within a broader community[/QUOTE]Notes on where/how we derive the impartial observer and use it.
Its interesting I think that while I study I affect the summary of parts so its slightly nuanced.
Button, I have a very important job for you. If you see this thread dropping off more than ~halfway down the first page, we need you to post something along the lines of the above about the impartial observer or about Nash (although ideally with about 1% of the word count). This very important work is crucial to the smooth and orderly operation of this forum, so I am entrusting it to you as one of the few posters who is diligent enough to perform this task competently. Great work, crack on.
Lol at PMing. You unabashedly gaslight and flip flop to suit your needs in straight public view. Kinda hard to trust you in another format where you have even more freedom to obfuscate and mislead.
I think it was a bad idea to close the moderation thread.
As I have previously said, I think the main reason it is used to so much to complain about bad posts is because reporting posts rarely results in any action bring taken and even more rarely results in a personal response from a moderator. People want to know that they are being heard.
Nothing's changed, dudes. Just imagine that rather than going round a fairly circuitous route, as we have in the last week, browser had just renamed the mod thread "Mod stuff & general chat thread" and said "look, you guys are doing too much in here and I really can't be ****ed sifting through 100+ bullshit posts every day to see if there's something I need to look at, so if there's something you actually need me for, PM me or report the post". I'm sure nobody would have thought that unreasonable.
If there is a genuine moderation-related discussion that starts here and requires user input and posts to be kept on-topic (and, no, whether Arabs are a race doesn't count), I'm sure browser can re-open the mod thread for that discussion as he said.
Given the fact that, as browser said, probably 90% of the posts in the old mod thread didn't require his attention in a moderation capacity, having a model where "moderator attention required" is the exception rather than the rule is a sensible solution.
[QUOTE=TOMS]Our first ideas of personal beauty and deformity, are drawn from the shape and appearance of others, not from our own. We soon become sensible, however, that others exercise the same criticism upon us. We are pleased when they approve of our figure, and are disobliged when they seem to be disgusted.
We become anxious to know how far we deserve their censure or applause, and whether to them we must necessarily appear those agreeable or disagreeable creatures which they represent us. We begin, upon this account, to examine our own passions and conduct, and to consider how these must appear to them, by considering how they would appear to us if in their situation[/QUOTE]
Smith shows why these things are innate in us based on the theory that darwin would eventually be known for applying to the origins of species. Here I think its relevant to the concept of peer pressure. But also I think game theory is relevant and important.
For example with an NCAA committee. It might be that a concept of rational morality was breached because the committee wasn't setup to defend from this (idea it had never been breached so there was no security from such tangential based political intervention) but my point here that it would be socially unpopular and impossible to unilaterally oppose the movement and no way mechanism to do it otherwise.
We would want to watch for this.
(ie the relevance here is that smith shows its natural that our concept of what is moral is heavily influenced by peer pressure)
Sorry, button, should have mentioned - your new duties are redundant, we solved the problem with technology. As you were, and thank you for your service and dedication.
Button, I have a very important job for you. If you see this thread dropping off more than ~halfway down the first page, we need you to post something along the lines of the above about the impartial observer or about Nash (although ideally with about 1% of the word count). This very important work is crucial to the smooth and orderly operation of this forum, so I am entrusting it to you as one of the few posters who is diligent enough to perform this task competently. Great work, crack on.
Why whats the problem if its natural to us that our concept morality and justice is defined by the group?
If people start posting mod complaints here it will mark full mutiny.
Until then:
[QUOTE=TOMS]When I endeavour to examine my own conduct, when I endeavour to pass sentence upon it, and either to approve or condemn it, it is evident that, in all such cases, I divide myself, as it were, into two persons; and that I, the examiner and judge, represent a different character from that other I, the person whose conduct is examined into and judged of. The first is the spectator, whose sentiments with regard to my own conduct I endeavour to enter into, by placing myself in his situation, and by considering how it would appear to me, when seen from that particular point of view. The second is the agent, the person whom I properly call myself, and of whose conduct, under the character of a spectator, I was endeavouring to form some opinion. The first is the judge; the second the person judged of. But that the judge should, in every respect, be the same with the person judged of, is as impossible, as that the cause should, in every respect, be the same with the effect.[/QUOTE]
Because of the effects of you guys, and that I know that my actions garner either approval or disapproval...I create my own internal simulated version of you (of the general moral sentiments of the group).
Its not for reasons people would think, not for impartiality-not to say the group is impartial! I need an internal observer that is impartial from MY VIEW. So it can help me survive in the group. Its not a brag that its impartial, its a point that its to be seperate from my view. It doesn't have my partiality, I'm hoping, just enough...so that I can simulate the groups morality.
Thats the impartial spectator.
i want to write a screenplay based on the sperm trapped inside rob's testicles that have no way of knowing there is no outlet
it'll probably be a mix of my dinner with andre and waiting for godot
Soundtrack theme:
