Rules update: new policy (#10) and its immediate implementation

[Laird]

Why any of the other founding members put up with his mental issues being projected onto this platform is disgusting as well.

A specific response to this as an ordinary member before my message as a moderator:

The insinuation that anything I post to this forum is affected in a disordered or otherwise problematic way by the psychospiritual difficulties I experience that have gotten me entangled with the mental health system is not just false but reprehensible and shameful.

[Laird]

Moderation note:

@Warddurward, some of the content of your most recent posts in this thread violates our #1 rule. I'll give you another chance, especially because you've contributed quite a few constructive and useful topical posts, but because I've given you one already, it requires an apology for the crude, insulting, and generally disrespectful way in which you expressed your criticism.

Note that I'm not asking that you stifle the criticism itself. Criticism is fine when it is incidental to topical contributions. Vulgar and bad-mannered criticism is not OK though.

I'm banning you for a week, mostly because a deferred response after time to reflect is most likely to be a constructive one that allows you to stay. I hope that you can make peace with the way discussion works on this forum and that you do continue to make constructive and useful topical posts.

[Laird]

The debates between proponents are sorely missed though.

Ditto those sentiments. I've found those debates very stimulating. I hope there are more to come. Sadly, the most prolific debaters here have become inactive. I'm worried in particular about @nbtruthman, who stopped participating very suddenly after posting about anomalous experiences in his household, and hasn't replied to my private message from a long time back asking if he was OK.

In any case, perhaps the updates that I've just posted about to my critique of Analytic Idealism could spur some inter-proponent debate? Perhaps @Ninshub could be inspired to reactivate himself here given his engagement on this sort of theme in the dualism vs monism as best explanation for survival thread.

Ditto those sentiments. I've found those debates very stimulating. I hope there are more to come. Sadly, the most prolific debaters here have become inactive. I'm worried in particular about @nbtruthman, who stopped participating very suddenly after posting about anomalous experiences in his household, and hasn't replied to my private message from a long time back asking if he was OK.

In any case, perhaps the updates that I've just posted about to my critique of Analytic Idealism could spur some inter-proponent debate? Perhaps @Ninshub could be inspired to reactivate himself here given his engagement on this sort of theme in the dualism vs monism as best explanation for survival thread.

Yeah I've been worried about Nbtruthman as well. 

On the larger question of membership I do feel part of the issue is simply that the pseudo-skeptics lost in a major, foundational way. If we went back to, say, 2010 I think you'd be hard pressed to find major mainstream scientists saying they reject Materialism. Even the Hard Problem was barely getting much traction, definitely not in pseudo-skeptic friendly places. Despite never really accepting Kastrup's particular Idealism I do think someone with his scientific background, working on CERN IIRC, publicly favoring Idealism was important as was Penrose and Tegmark being rather open about embracing Mathematical Platonism in some fashion..

Now neuroscientists like Friston and Koch openly deny Materialism - heck even Michael Shermer backed off Materialism for a spell. Parnia, the more he looked at NDE evidence, became more & more convinced Survival is true.

Now people will talk about not just the Hard Problem but topics like NDEs, Simulation Theory, Alien Disclosure, etc. Witchcraft, Tarot, and Astrology have entered into public consciousness. Publications like Vice will talk about the "Hard Science of Reincarnation" and CIA psychic programs.

Also there are a variety of podcasts that are far more public facing than Skeptiko ever was where academics will go on and discuss Platonism and Idealism without fear of just being ridiculed out of the room. 

Proponents used to be more unified because the disagreements we might have seemed minor compared to the powerful shadow Materialism cast over us all. Take that away, and suddenly our pursuits and interests which were always varied are a bigger focus. 

And there's less of a need to gather in small places like this or Skeptiko, when the stigma has been deeply lessened.