Are they claiming anything actively harmful to themselves or others? They appear to be sincere in belief and not malicious. I don't see what the actual harm is in engaging with their claims at face value. If - as I believe - their claims don't stand up to scrutiny they'll soon get bored and leave of their own accord, rather than face uncomfortable questions about their worldview.
Are they claiming anything actively harmful to themselves or others? They appear to be sincere in belief and not malicious. I don't see what the actual harm is in engaging with their claims at face value. If - as I believe - their claims don't stand up to scrutiny they'll soon get bored and leave of their own accord, rather than face uncomfortable questions about their worldview.
Yes, although another way of dealing with them is to simply ignore their posts. Boredom and departure may well ensue...
Other boards I post on have a block/ignore button as well a report button (so helpfully suggested by the subject of this thread). There are times I wish we had the former. This is one of them.
The posts that repeatedly insist that others' lived experiences are merely planted memories treads very close to denying others' basic humanity, which shouldn't be tolerated here.
Is this individual just being allowed to continue to post here for the humor value?
I’ve assumed it’s a matter of at least giving a day or two to see if any actual engagement on a variety of topics happens, if godincarnateme is crusading or of it it’s just trolling. My money is on the latter at this point.
Some of us here have worldviews, or even notions of ourselves, that some might consider a sign of an unsound mind (I'm sure I would fall into this category with some things, in fact). But we generally don't express such things in ways that are rude, condescending, or patronizing. And I think that, even if one claimed to be (let's say) an otherkin, or what have you, there's a level of "out there" that claiming to be God, and that the world was created in 1980, and that everyone else's lived experiences going back before that are simply false memories, that is ... on an entirely different level.
Some of us here have worldviews, or even notions of ourselves, that some might consider a sign of an unsound mind (I'm sure I would fall into this category with some things, in fact). But we generally don't express such things in ways that are rude, condescending, or patronizing. And I think that, even if one claimed to be (let's say) an otherkin, or what have you, there's a level of "out there" that claiming to be God, and that the world was created in 1980, and that everyone else's lived experiences going back before that are simply false memories, that is ... on an entirely different level.
I will say as well that he's being rude and condescending. Surely that's a violation of the rules? Does he get a special pass because of his issues?
I'd say not, but the extent to which the Admins and Hosts went for Martin should cause you to buckle-up for a much longer ride with this one.
Maybe. But I think Martin got so many chances because of his long history here, and because that history showed he had the capability to be a valuable contributor to discussions. This one, maybe not so much.
The posts that repeatedly insist that others' lived experiences are merely planted memories treads very close to denying others' basic humanity, which shouldn't be tolerated here.
Crossposted re others' "lived experiences." I'm not a fan of some aspects of the Epiphanies rules (which I try to follow regardless), but this is about the lived experiences of everyone on Earth over the age of 45.
Perhaps the best way to deal with this farrago of nonsense is, as I think I've already said, to simply ignore it. It may not be harmful, but it's certainly tiresome.
I'd say not, but the extent to which the Admins and Hosts went for Martin should cause you to buckle-up for a much longer ride with this one.
Maybe. But I think Martin got so many chances because of his long history here, and because that history showed he had the capability to be a valuable contributor to discussions. This one, maybe not so much.[/quote]
Crossposted re others' "lived experiences." I'm not a fan of some aspects of the Epiphanies rules (which I try to follow regardless), but this is about the lived experiences of everyone on Earth over the age of 45.
Yep, and denying any person's fundamental humanity, their very existence, even in part, should be dealt with as the wildly condescending, inflammatory insult that it is.
Yep, and denying any person's fundamental humanity, their very existence, even in part, should be dealt with as the wildly condescending, inflammatory insult that it is.
This is a strange phenomenon that I've noticed among other younger people on other boards. It seems to be an outcropping of gaming culture or a gaming mindset, to regard other actual human beings as NPCs (non player characters) set in place in order to advance or challenge the Player character through the game.
Some players discover hacks in the game that enable them to access god-mode, which gives them control over the game mechanic itself.
I'm not saying the GIM isn't god incarnate - maybe s/he's discovered the hack that puts them into god mode, and that's a strange and possibly dangerous state to find yourself in, in this reality. I even accept that I am a NPC in most other people's experience of their life.
It's just unpardonably rude and dismissive to speak to people and treat them as NPCs especially when you yourself are most likely an NPC in THEIR experience of life.
Yeah, he's not posting about anything else at all, even on any threads except his own, thus far. And he started three threads on the same day basically about himself. And in those threads he linked to his website. And I've noticed that his OPs seem to be more or less lifted from the text on his website. Ugh.
I'm not going to play armchair diagnosis, because I think that's a harmful thing. But reading their website, there's something about their story that seems terribly sad and lonely to me. I suppose wanting to engage with them is due to that.
The problem I have with the wretched GIC is that he/she/it (is it a bot?) triggers my pastoral buttons. But interaction with GIC is worthless. I can't help, and that is distressing. Ignore him, you say. Esier said than done for me.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!!
Either there is a lengthy discussion below decks or concerns being expression are not being considered. I am presuming the former.
There is a third option: Given that the hosts and admins have lives outside the Ship, and those lives may include work and family obligations, and given that hosts and admins may be in different time zones, a discussion may coming but may not have yet started, or may have started but relevant voices haven’t had an opportunity to weigh in yet.
It is clear that the poster in question had the possibility of crusading - and after their threads started they were specifically asked to look at c8. They have not, however, started to rapid fire post multiple identikit ops - I have asked then to restrict discussion of their experience of themselves as a divine incarnated being to two threads and closed the least active. As far as I know, having not yet reviewed the forums this evening, they have done so.
I am not sure their discussion on those two threads is inherently dismissive of others any more than posing a thread expressing Solipsism would be, if I have understood that philosophical position correctly - I am sure @Dafyd would know.
I suggest not engaging on those two threads if you don’t feel that discussion of the op’s perspective is worthwhile.
I have posted the following on both the threads in question:
I am going to post a general reminder to all posters that this thread is in Purgatory not Hell, please engage with each other in accordance with the Purgatory guidelines - which are linked at the top of the forum.
What rules do people think are being broken? While there is a possibility of trolling, there is also a possibility that Godincarnateme is expressing sincerely held, if idiosyncratic beliefs. Having idiosyncratic beliefs is not against the rules.
The posts that repeatedly insist that others' lived experiences are merely planted memories treads very close to denying others' basic humanity, which shouldn't be tolerated here.
Well, they're saying that about ALL people with memories from 1980 and earlier, so it's not as if they're singling out any particular group, as is usually the problem with denials of humanity.
I'm not sure, though, how it's supposed to be plausible that God would implant fake memories in billions of people, and then announce His deception on a message board. My best guess is @godincarnateme has recently just discovered Descartes' First Meditation, and is doing a riff on the basic reasoning(casting himself as the evil genius) just for the lulz.
I am not sure their discussion on those two threads is inherently dismissive of others any more than posing a thread expressing Solipsism would be, if I have understood that philosophical position correctly - I am sure @Dafyd would know.
The position the poster is expressing seems to be a variety of Last Thursdayism (there must be a more formal name). I wouldn't have considered that particular philosophical belief as such inherently dismissive of other people.
(It is however incompatible with belief in Einstein's theories of relativity which have much better evidence for them. Even special relativity requires all past events to be real.)
S/he's a lot like a hot air balloon. It will keep on flying for as long as we provide the fuel. All we have to do is to cut off the fuel supply.
Yeah, but for another metaphor, it's like sitting at a table and there's a big bowl of pretzels in front of you, and even if you're not excessively hungry or even a huge pretzel fan, you just keep munching on them 'cuz they're right there.
Not saying that's a good or bad situation, or anyone is to blame etc, but that's just sorta the psychological appeal of debates like this.
The position the poster is expressing seems to be a variety of Last Thursdayism (there must be a more formal name). I wouldn't have considered that particular philosophical belief as such inherently dismissive of other people.
It appears to be more formally called the Omphalos hypothesis although, significantly, that doesn't involve endless recurrence. Also in that wikipedia entry is the five-minute hypothesis:
The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, that proposes that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included. It is a commonly used example of how one may maintain extreme philosophical skepticism with regard to memory and trust in evidentially derived historical chronology.
(It is however incompatible with belief in Einstein's theories of relativity which have much better evidence for them. Even special relativity requires all past events to be real.)
Abbreviated linear models (such as the above) may well be incompatible. However, it seems that not only are time-loops compatible with General Relativity, the framework of General Relativity is part of the reason why (and context in which) modern physicists study them.
If it stays on those two threads, it is eminently ignorable. Just don't click on those two threads. If it starts showing up in threads where it's only marginably applicable, then a charge of crusading should be levied.
The position the poster is expressing seems to be a variety of Last Thursdayism (there must be a more formal name). I wouldn't have considered that particular philosophical belief as such inherently dismissive of other people.
It appears to be more formally called the Omphalos hypothesis although, significantly, that doesn't involve endless recurrence. Also in that wikipedia entry is the five-minute hypothesis:
The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, that proposes that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included. It is a commonly used example of how one may maintain extreme philosophical skepticism with regard to memory and trust in evidentially derived historical chronology.
(It is however incompatible with belief in Einstein's theories of relativity which have much better evidence for them. Even special relativity requires all past events to be real.)
Abbreviated linear models (such as the above) may well be incompatible. However, it seems that not only are time-loops compatible with General Relativity, the framework of General Relativity is part of the reason why (and context in which) modern physicists study them.
Many years ago there was a student who thought he was significantly more intelligent than his teacher.
In fact the teacher was a patient and very intelligent woman. She was telling me that this guy started asking a question which was completely off-base.
She began to explain why the question made no sense but the student said "no no, wait, I haven't finished," so the teacher leaned back on her desk and stared out of the window.
After 20 minutes, he finally stopped. The teacher asked if he had finished and then explained in a few sentences why his question was nonsensical.
Sometimes people genuinely lack the self-awareness to appreciate that know that at best they're boring everyone else and at worst they're just showing their ignorance.
Sometimes people genuinely lack the self-awareness to appreciate that know that at best they're boring everyone else and at worst they're just showing their ignorance.
And sometimes they know exactly what they’re doing, which is trying to wind others up.
Sometimes people genuinely lack the self-awareness to appreciate that know that at best they're boring everyone else and at worst they're just showing their ignorance.
And sometimes they know exactly what they’re doing, which is trying to wind others up.
Well yes, I think I would suggest those two options are often functionally the same.
There's an internet word for it, but I can't remember what it is, when someone continues asking questions that make little sense to wind up others.
Comments
I pity the Hosts, however, who do have to read them all...
u no like humor?
Yes, although another way of dealing with them is to simply ignore their posts. Boredom and departure may well ensue...
@ChastMastr - I agree with both points you make.
AFF
My comment would be that their website is entirely unreadable! Those fonts on a black background hurt my eyes.
No, I don't think so. We don't bait trolls here (if they are trolling, I'm not sure 🤔)
I'd say not, but the extent to which the Admins and Hosts went for Martin should cause you to buckle-up for a much longer ride with this one.
Maybe. But I think Martin got so many chances because of his long history here, and because that history showed he had the capability to be a valuable contributor to discussions. This one, maybe not so much.
Crossposted re others' "lived experiences." I'm not a fan of some aspects of the Epiphanies rules (which I try to follow regardless), but this is about the lived experiences of everyone on Earth over the age of 45.
Point taken.
Yep, and denying any person's fundamental humanity, their very existence, even in part, should be dealt with as the wildly condescending, inflammatory insult that it is.
This is a strange phenomenon that I've noticed among other younger people on other boards. It seems to be an outcropping of gaming culture or a gaming mindset, to regard other actual human beings as NPCs (non player characters) set in place in order to advance or challenge the Player character through the game.
Some players discover hacks in the game that enable them to access god-mode, which gives them control over the game mechanic itself.
I'm not saying the GIM isn't god incarnate - maybe s/he's discovered the hack that puts them into god mode, and that's a strange and possibly dangerous state to find yourself in, in this reality. I even accept that I am a NPC in most other people's experience of their life.
It's just unpardonably rude and dismissive to speak to people and treat them as NPCs especially when you yourself are most likely an NPC in THEIR experience of life.
AFF
Comparisons are invidious, but at least I sometimes caught a faint glimpse of what Martin was getting at, and (now and then) actually agreed with him.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!!
I am not sure their discussion on those two threads is inherently dismissive of others any more than posing a thread expressing Solipsism would be, if I have understood that philosophical position correctly - I am sure @Dafyd would know.
I suggest not engaging on those two threads if you don’t feel that discussion of the op’s perspective is worthwhile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZRe1kPWZw
I stand corrected.
Well, they're saying that about ALL people with memories from 1980 and earlier, so it's not as if they're singling out any particular group, as is usually the problem with denials of humanity.
I'm not sure, though, how it's supposed to be plausible that God would implant fake memories in billions of people, and then announce His deception on a message board. My best guess is @godincarnateme has recently just discovered Descartes' First Meditation, and is doing a riff on the basic reasoning(casting himself as the evil genius) just for the lulz.
(It is however incompatible with belief in Einstein's theories of relativity which have much better evidence for them. Even special relativity requires all past events to be real.)
Yeah, but for another metaphor, it's like sitting at a table and there's a big bowl of pretzels in front of you, and even if you're not excessively hungry or even a huge pretzel fan, you just keep munching on them 'cuz they're right there.
Not saying that's a good or bad situation, or anyone is to blame etc, but that's just sorta the psychological appeal of debates like this.
Doublethink, Styx Hosting
Excellent, couldn't have put it better myself.
But long live Karl Popper!
I have quite enough problem with people who are, at least largely, rational.
In fact the teacher was a patient and very intelligent woman. She was telling me that this guy started asking a question which was completely off-base.
She began to explain why the question made no sense but the student said "no no, wait, I haven't finished," so the teacher leaned back on her desk and stared out of the window.
After 20 minutes, he finally stopped. The teacher asked if he had finished and then explained in a few sentences why his question was nonsensical.
Sometimes people genuinely lack the self-awareness to appreciate that know that at best they're boring everyone else and at worst they're just showing their ignorance.
Well yes, I think I would suggest those two options are often functionally the same.
There's an internet word for it, but I can't remember what it is, when someone continues asking questions that make little sense to wind up others.