We are a community committed to learning about and applying philosophical Stoic principles and techniques.
Reflecting on the New ‘Seeking Stoic Advice’ Policy only Allowing Approved Users Reply: Is It Truly Stoic?”
Stoic Banter
So, I have a few thoughts with the advent of the new policy that restricts top-level comments on posts to only approved contributors for “Seeking Stoic Advice." It is obviously a measure to maintain a certain standard of quality advice from people who actually understand Stoicism and not random interlopers who just leave comments just for fun, because after all it is the Internet. But I would argue that this new way of doing things ends clashing with the fundamental tenets of Stoic philosophy and thus provides a few pitfalls.
To begin with, Stoicism is founded in the open discourse and sharing of ideas. Consider Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus and Seneca, who all encouraged the contemplation of varying opinions and the importance of intelligent conversation. If we only let certain users respond, we could be filtering out the diversity of answers that can only come from a diversity of perspectives and practical experience. Plus, it not only unduly curtails the range of discussions we can have, but also runs square in the face of the Stoic ideal of learning together.
One of the key tenets of Stoicism is recognizing our own fallibility and always striving to learn more. No one is perfect, not even those selected through the application process. By allowing only a chosen few to provide advice, we might unintentionally elevate their interpretations to an almost unquestionable status, which isn’t very Stoic. This will cause the community to be more static and inflexible, where different views and criticisms are repressed.
Additionally there may be bias in the choice of who actually gets selected through the application process. Those who are responsible for approving applications might be biased towards the interpretation they personal align with, rather than accepting the diverse and rich perspectives that Stoic tradition calls for. This can lead to an echo chamber where only specific view points and opinions are validated, which is dangerous and damaging to our collective growth. Stoicism bids us to question our beliefs and to be open to other ideas and insights. Allowing bias to dictate who is able to speak compromises the integrity of this most fundamental part of the philosophy.
Secondly, Stoicism advocates equality and universalism. By creating such a hierarchy, only the 'selected few' now have the ability to share their thoughts, and this can discourage participation of newer members of the community or the quiet ones whose insights should be heard, despite their flair status. It creates a closed circuit, against the Stoic virtues of justice and fairness. We are all members of the community and everyone here should be valued and heard, from the newest to the most seasoned among us. Just because someone is brand new to the philosophy doesn’t mean their perspectives are worth less than those who have studied the philosophy to a greater extent.
Another point connected to Stoicism is practical wisdom or phronesis. It is to apply the ideas of philosophy in our everyday life. All of us as contributors to this wisdom, each enriched by the experiences and view-points of everyone else in our community. Limiting advice to a small subset of authorized user could mean we miss out on perspectives from other walks of life, leading to advice that is less real-world.
Last but not least one of the greatest things of this subreddit always was the community mindset and supporting each other. If we restrict responses, the sense of community here can become undermined. Such open mindedness can only stand to strengthen the bonds between others and therefore in part the environment as a whole and everyone it supports. So what if some user comments aren’t in-line with Stoic philosophy, those who have experience are still able to step in an offer guidance and insight.
Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to task flaired users to correct and educate comments that are off base, rather than restricting who can respond. This way, we can maintain the quality of advice while staying true to the spirit of Stoicism.
Thank you for hearing me out. This is just my opinion and I am certainly not trying to drive dissent against our moderators who o recognize work tirelessly to maintain this community. Just offering up a different perspective.
Bests,
Eastern
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
It depends on what you want this subreddit to be. Suppose this is an actual physical Painted Porch - there's a bunch of more or less advanced students, maybe 5-10 actual scholars (people who study philosophy in real life), and sometimes someone who studied this philosophy professionally comes along (like Donald Robertson or Michael Tremblay). And then there's 600 000 random people who have heard something about this philosophy somewhere or maybe not, or they're just hanging out. Now someone comes along to this place, dedicated to this philosophy specifically and asks for advice.
The model before the change was the equivalent of 3 students giving advice related to Stoicism and 30 people from the audience giving general advice they think is good. Plus 5 guys who will say for example if someone wrongs you, you should beat that guy up, and ideally jam a thumb up his eye (I've been a moderator here, I've seen these responses). The new model is that only the students (not necessarily the most advanced ones) are giving advice.
The point is, the general advice forum is on the other side of the market. There are several subreddits already meant for this. This one is dedicated to discussing Stoicism. If we want it to be serious, we should emulate serious institutions like universities where random people from the streets aren't just allowed to give lectures on whatever they want. Again, there already are places for that - people asking for advice didn't choose to go there, they came here.
And the general audience is still welcome to participate in all other discussions and exchange their ideas. Only the posts by people asking for Stoic advice are limited this way. And seeing the "brilliant" advice that used to be given here before, I think the change is definitely for the better
Well explained. This whole thread makes me wonder if the mods are "gatekeeping" and "censoring" when they remove AI-videos, memes, advertisements too? Those are certainly giving new perspectives...
Or maybe that accusation is reserved to only this restriction, which is basically: prove once that you can give stoic advice in posts asking for stoic advice
🏛 makes a lot of sense.
I get what you're saying about wanting to keep the subreddit focused and ensuring the advice given is genuinely aligned with Stoic philosophy. But here's another angle to consider.
Imagine the Painted Porch again, but instead of seeing it as a formal institution, think of it as a more inclusive community space. Sure, there are students and scholars, but there's also immense value in having a diverse range of voices. Not everyone who comes to Stoicism is looking for strict academic guidance. Many are looking for practical, relatable advice that helps them in their everyday lives. Sometimes, this kind of advice comes from people who might not be experts but have valuable life experiences and insights to share.
When you restrict advice-giving to a select few, you risk creating an echo chamber where only certain perspectives are heard. This can make the subreddit feel less welcoming to newcomers who might be intimidated by a more rigid structure. Stoicism, at its core, is about practical wisdom and applying philosophical principles to real-life situations. By allowing a broader range of voices, you get a richer tapestry of experiences and interpretations, which can be incredibly valuable.
Also, consider that even within a structured environment like a university, there's room for open discussion and debate among all participants. This is where learning happens – through the exchange of diverse ideas. By allowing everyone to contribute, you foster a sense of community and shared learning, which can be more engaging and enriching for everyone involved.
I understand the concern about off-topic or harmful advice, but this can be managed through moderation without needing to restrict who can offer insights.
Yes, so we go back to the original question - what kind of subreddit do you want this one to be. It used to be more inclusive, and the result was both poor quality of given advice, and constant complaints from the community that this has stopped being a philosophy subreddit and became a community driven dating advice forum. There were regular posts suggesting that advice posts should be banned completely because the subreddit is losing focus.
So now the idea is to step away from a public forum towards something more focused on the actual topic of the subreddit, similar to r/AskHistorians - if you don't know it it's much more strict, allowing only experts in specific fields to give answers. This is not a problem, it's a feature - it's supposed to be a sort of an "echo chamber" where people discuss history instead of say costume movies. Personally I like this change.
Regarding a room for public discussion at this place - someone already thought this was a good idea and it was created years ago. It's called the Agora, a weekly pinned thread. And since the change was introduced, there's a second room like this too - posts with the "Stoic Banter" flair. And then there's an entire lecture hall just down the corridor where people can go to discuss their personal ideas called r/Advice.
That's one of the explicit purposes of the New Agora. "Practical, relatable, unverified (flairs aren't only, or primarily, for experts) advice" has its place, but that place isn't threads that are specifically "Seeking Stoic Guidance".
Offering life advice on the internet, by anonymous strangers to anonymous strangers, is already a highly irresponsible undertaking. I'm favourable to any measures that increase the quality of the responses.
This here is the main issue I see with Seeking Stoic Advice threads. Offering advice is not about me, about my opinions, or about myself being heard: it's about answering the question that was asked in a manner (1) that effectively helps the OP, and (2) that is based on Stoicism.
But assuming you believe in 1 and 2, why is Stranger A more qualified than stranger B.. because an internet janitor deemed it so? it shuts down discussion, and as I said in my above post, I've learnt more from the comments than the top levels, as their approach is often from a different place/mindset and it often gives me new things to think about and learn from
If people ask for Stoic advice; you want the responder to at least try to give a Stoic advice. I have seen some really bad advice here not in line with Stoicism even if it feels good. Some people have said some weird things like anger is Stoic, virtue is to do what is best for one’s self etc. And it takes a lot of energy and time from others to debunk it.
I would love open debate and that is still available to everyone as Stoic banter and others. But if people want Stoic advice, then a passing understanding of Stoicism imo is not a high bar to clear.
Better yet people should stop asking for advice from strangers. Idk this person’s situation but I am always open to center a discussion and guide people to further Stoic reading which I feel current policy is promoting well.
Advice is advice, take it or leave it, or as they say if the shoe fits wear it.
Have you followed every piece of advice you have ever been given? I’m going to assume the answer is no, as it is for most people. Which means you and all of have us have the ability to filter out what is good advice and bad advice. Fortunately, Reddit also has the upvote and downvote feature to all other users, both experienced and inexperienced, to vote on what they feel is the “best” advice. At the end of the day, the poster still has the ability to heed that advice or choose to ignore it whether it’s good or bad.
Wouldn’t you agree that listening to lots of advice from lots of different perspectives would provide you more information on the matter - information that you can now use to make a more informed decision?
In the school of philosophy it is about exploring diverse perspectives, new ideas, new ways of thinking - seeking wisdom.
Part of that entails knowing crappy advice when you hear it ☺️
If I go see a doctor I probably don’t want to hear advice from a priest. Same thing here. If anything, the bar to get license to give “stoic advice” is set very low as passing understanding of Stoicism. I don’t even know the Greek terms well and got a flair. Also, all other types of threads like Stoic Banter is open to all.
If a person want life advice there are other places for that. I think most people just need to see a therapist and realize no one here can give a personalized advice. That’s why the flair rule keeps the discussion center on Stoic topic and not overstep a person’s actual need. We should direct people to original Stoic sources or how Stoicism frames a situation. Encouraging only responses backed by Stoic literature protects the requestor and the one giving “advice” as we don’t want to overstep our boundaries.
Again all other threads are still open to all. So I don’t see the problem.
Exactly! and we have the upvote/downvote for that reason, we as a collective can choose!
I really don't have much more to add, I'm a very flawed stoic who has ADHD, I read infinitely more than I post in here. and as previously stated a lot of it has come from comments, vs top levels, because they are.. like me? they are flawed. and real. not just quoting some passage they read. I have been able to put into practice several things, read several books, based on advice given here by comments, whereas all the top level stuff feels like a copy/paste at this point.
I can of course see both sides, but when you have a sub based on a philosophy, to shut down any sort of discourse begins to make it feel like an echo chamber where NEW ideas cannot be discussed.. If I know anything, I know nothing. (I realize the irony in the quote )
Unfortunately this is the direction the subreddit is going. Desperate people asking for Stoic guidance as if we know any better. I don’t try to give my own opinion when responding and make it known if I am.
Yeah, at the end of the day this is r/stoicism, not r/LifeAdvice.
I get where you’re coming from, but don’t you think calling it ‘highly irresponsible’ is a bit extreme? Intention is everything in this instance.
Sure, not everyone who gives advice is an expert, but does that mean their perspectives are automatically unhelpful? Sometimes, real wisdom comes from unexpected places, and anyone with good intentions can offer valuable insights.
Isn’t it more Stoic to believe in the potential of every individual to contribute positively? By limiting advice to only those deemed ‘qualified’ by moderators, aren’t we possibly missing out on a wider range of helpful perspectives? Plus, having a variety of voices can lead to richer discussions and a deeper understanding of Stoicism.
Instead of restricting who can speak, why not focus on fostering an environment where everyone can share their thoughts, and the community can collectively guide and correct any misguided advice? It seems more in line with Stoic principles to encourage open dialogue and mutual support.
It is irresponsible insofar you value the OP's life. How can anyone offer advice without knowing the circumstances of the person asking for advice?
Giving advice is not a joke, it's not an study exercise nor practice for anything. It's not for you, nor for the community: it's for the person asking.
This is the point I highlighted earlier: what matters when offering advice is not what you think, or how good your intentions are. What matters is the OP receiving the answer they want according to Stoicism.
As far as I know anyone can apply to receive a flair. The bar is already very low.
So, would you agree that it wouldn’t be prudent for someone to take your advice, opinion, or perspective simply because you have the flair “Scholar” under your username?
It’s just your interpretation, not gospel. By limiting responses to those with specific qualifications, we risk stifling philosophical discourse, which thrives on weighing multiple perspectives. Newcomers are then met with limited and potentially biased viewpoints, rather than being exposed to a diversity of ideas and deciding for themselves what resonates best.
The selection and offering of flair is done in a vacuum by moderators who we know very little about and have no say in - it’s a closed selection process. If you want to build a repressive regime, you kill off democracy, stack the deck with people who you know agree with you, censor what gets published to the public, shutdown free speech, and tell people you are the authority.
I am not trying to discredit you in any way, I am well aware of your contributions and they are appreciated. It’s just my opinion, and that’s all it is, that philosophy thrives on open discourse from multiple perspectives and I am interested in hearing them all.
after being here a few weeks and seeing the kind of questions asked, i think it's a good policy as i could only imagine some of the answers provided would be pretty 'un-stoic'.
I just broke up with my girlfriend how would a stoic handle this
Epictetus: ???
Seems like a good opportunity to help someone and practice applying Stoicism to a situation that many have and some will have to face. Just because you find it annoying to see such posts, doesn’t mean others don’t find it meaningful.
You got a couple of things wrong here.
I actually do answer their question and I am happy to help; you can check my post history but my advice is more to direct others to read on their own or provide very surface Stoic understanding
We cannot know the mental state of the posters nor intention so any “advice” I give or anybody gives is never going to be adequate.
And if you think giving internet advice is practicing Stoicism; I have a whole book call Discourses that disagrees with you.
It’s easy to give “advice” so being conservative about the type of advice and who is giving it is important.
Stoicism is meant to be universally helpful. Whether someone is in a good place or struggling, guidance like focusing on what we can control, practicing virtue, and maintaining a calm mind can benefit anyone.
Intentions matter. If we’re offering advice with genuine compassion and humility, grounded in Stoic wisdom, we’re doing our part. We can’t control how others will receive or interpret our advice, but we can control how thoughtfully and sincerely we offer it.
I think we might be interpreting Epictetus a bit differently. Discourses emphasizes the importance of teaching and applying Stoic principles through dialogue. While Epictetus might not have envisioned the internet, the essence of his teachings is about engaging with others and sharing wisdom. Please share passages from Discourse that suggests exchanges of wisdom over the internet contradicts this.
When this started, I didn't like at first. But then I asked myself: why did they do it? They must have done it thinking it would be for the best, right?
Seeking Stoic Help. Who are the seekers? Generally young people in need, prone to accept the most voted answers because this is how Reddit works. Young people without real Stoic formation (reading Meditations alone doesn't count and / or watching videos of Stoic quotes out of context) that may want, probably, a quick fix.
Who are the posters? We have everything. Stoicism, stoicism, broicism, the "don't care bro it's out of your control" crew, general life advice that has nothing to do with the philosophy.
And then the majority of posts end up with a lot of highly voted responses that have nothing of Stoicism or are simply missunderstandings. Which may end up giving flawed views of the philosophy and not only not helping, but hurting the poster in need of help.
I think the change is for good. We are a Stoicism subreddit, not a self help one. At some point, seeing how so many times the last thing that we have is Stoicism related posts and answers, some changes must be made.
And it's not like there are not the other flairs where everyone is able to share what they think. And it's not like they can't ask to get the flair. And at least, now the ones that ask for help can see if they wanted Stoic help or not, because it is easier to digest with less, but of more quality, responses.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand and appreciate the concerns you’ve raised.
You mentioned initially disliking the change but then reasoning that it was done with good intentions. Indeed, Stoicism teaches us to assume positive intent and understand the reasoning behind actions. The aim to protect seekers from misguided advice is noble. However, we must be cautious not to undermine core Stoic values in the process.
You correctly identify the vulnerability of young seekers who may look for quick fixes and might not fully grasp Stoic principles. The internet’s tendency to upvote the most popular, rather than the most accurate, responses can indeed lead to misunderstandings.
Yet, the solution lies not in restriction but in education.
You raise a valid point about the variety of posts and responses, some of which may not align with Stoic philosophy. However, rather than silencing voices, we should encourage informed dialogue. Empowering flaired users to guide and correct discussions can maintain the quality of advice while fostering an inclusive environment. This aligns with the Stoic ideal of cosmopolitanism, where we support and educate each other regardless of our prior knowledge.
Moreover, the process of seeking the flair, while accessible, still places an unnecessary barrier to participation. True Stoicism recognizes the value in every voice. By embracing this diversity, we can collectively refine our understanding and practice.
Just out of curiosity, are you using ChatGPT to reformat your texts? It looks pretty similar to how ChatGPT writes and structures things.
In contrast, your original thread question doesn’t look at all like a ChatGPT text.
An example of so-called “gatekeeping” from Zeno, not that any of us are anywhere near his level.
Anyone can request and re-request the flair.
Do you suppose that Stoicism supports any restrictions at all—if users want to turn this into a meme, book photograph, and motivational poster subreddit, that’ll do just fine?
Apologies in advance for going a bit "meta" on you, but I don't think you're actually applying these principles in a Stoic way. Stoic ideals such as cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism aren't meant to be applied blindly as empty slogans or abstractions, without respect to the nature of the situations under question; a truly Stoic approach would take that nature into consideration first and foremost, and see how virtuous action is possible within it.
In that respect, idealizing Stoicism or philosophy in a way that can't actually be applied to contemporary internet culture doesn't seem like a very wise or Stoic approach.
A more sensible path, I think, is to look at the actual nature of the internet, Reddit, this sub in particular, and so on, and go from there. Many subreddits are experiencing an influx of people experiencing extreme social isolation and varying degrees of mental illness. In many cases it can drown out the actual purpose of the community and doesn't seem to accomplish much good in the process.
Even with the "regular contributor" program in place, I don't think these efforts go far enough in limiting this kind of desperate "oversharing to strangers" behavior that seems to be flooding Reddit.
That is the actual nature of the problem, as I see it, and the "regular contributor" program is an imperfect means of dealing with it, or at least slightly improving its character. But it's not enough, and ignoring the problem in favor of idealistic abstractions certainly won't improve things, even if they mean well. If anything, limiting the influx of advice posts, and not just the responses, is going to be necessary if the pattern continues.
I understand your concerns about the influx of users seeking advice and the potential for diluting the quality of Stoic discussions. However, I believe that the approach of further limiting advice posts and responses may not align with the core principles of Stoicism and could ultimately hinder the community's growth and inclusiveness.
Firstly, Stoicism is fundamentally about compassion and community. Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, and Seneca all emphasized the importance of supporting and guiding others. While the context of the internet does present unique challenges, we shouldn't abandon these core principles in favor of stricter controls. Instead, we should seek ways to integrate and support newcomers while maintaining the integrity of Stoic philosophy.
Secondly, completely limiting advice posts and responses could create a barrier for those who are genuinely seeking to learn and apply Stoic principles to their lives. Many people come to Stoicism looking for practical help with real-life issues. By restricting their ability to ask for advice, we risk alienating potential new members and reducing the community's overall impact.
A more balanced approach would be to create structured spaces within the subreddit that cater to different needs. For example, a separate thread or section specifically for general advice and support could allow for more open discussions while preserving the main space for focused Stoic philosophy. This way, we acknowledge the diverse needs of the community without compromising the quality of philosophical discussions.
Additionally, enhancing the "regular contributor" program with mentorship roles could provide guidance to newcomers. Experienced members could help moderate and direct discussions, ensuring that advice aligns with Stoic principles without completely shutting out less experienced voices. This mentorship approach fosters a more inclusive and supportive community while maintaining philosophical rigor.
Lastly, embracing a diversity of perspectives can enrich the community. While it's important to filter out harmful or irrelevant advice, allowing a range of voices to contribute can provide a richer, more nuanced understanding of Stoicism. This diversity can help users see how Stoic principles can be applied in various contexts and situations, making the philosophy more accessible and practical.
In summary, rather than imposing stricter limitations, we should seek to balance inclusiveness with quality. By creating structured spaces for different types of discussions and enhancing mentorship within the community, we can uphold Stoic principles while addressing the unique challenges of internet culture. This approach not only preserves the integrity of the subreddit but also promotes a more compassionate and supportive environment.
I think you may be missing some relevant information :)
“A more balanced approach would be to create structured spaces within the subreddit that cater to different needs”
This is precisely what the mods did. There are a number of flairs including Stoic Banter, flairs for discussing theory, success stories and more. Only one post flair limits responses, and that’s the Seeking Stoic Advice flair. Every other type of post has no limitations.
Is that not what we have right now?
Once again, my personal opinion is that your view is highly idealistic and detached from the reality of this subreddit. Most of the problematic posters that have flooded the community have no genuine interest in Stoicism. In fact, if you look at the post history of these users when they pop up, they are very often "spamming" their burdens to multiple communities, not just r/Stoicism, seemingly without any regard for the communities themselves or what they're about.
I think I would largely agree with your arguments if the majority of the people we were talking about had an interest in Stoicism and where our community might be the door that inspires some future Stoic practice. That would be a worthwhile endeavor.
Instead, what we get is the opposite: not only are most of the people making these posts have no real interest in Stoicism, the responses also often have very little to do with Stoicism, which is why they were restricted in the first place. The reality of the situation was that a large majority of content and discussion on Reddit's largest Stoicism sub eventually came to have nothing to do with Stoicism at all.
Now put yourself in the position of someone who has an interest in Stoicism or wants to learn about it -- the very people you imagine most of these posts are coming from. The reality is that those users were being drowned out by this unregulated flood of "personal crisis spam".
I think it's clear that this isn't what the community was intended for, and the rationale of the mods was that something -- even if it was an imperfect solution -- had to be done in order to stem the tide.
Stocisicm is about addressing life’s challenges. When people post here for guidance, whether they actually have any interest in Stocisicm or not, it still provides us the opportunity to apply Stocisicm to a real world situation. This is educational for everyone involved - for the person asking, onlookers, and the providers of the guidance.
While some users may not initially have a genuine interest in Stoicism, part of the community’s role could be to guide and educate them, potentially turning casual visitors into dedicated practitioners. Stoicism is not an elitist philosophy and I would imagine the core goal of this community is to educate and encourage the practice of Stocisicm, is it not?
Right, but only if Stoicism is being applied. The moderators are specifically responding to a situation where in the vast majority of both questions and comments, it is not being applied. This is why I keep saying that you have to actually account for the nature of the real world in considering policy. The mods didn't do this because they're "elitists", they were responding to a real world problem.
If a community's policies are such that the influx of non-Stoic content and responses drowns out the Stoic content by a wide margin, wouldn't you agree that this would be a bad policy for this exact aim you're stating?
It’s best to keep in mind that moderators are doing this as a passion, second to their life, careers and so on. It is very time consuming to go through each comment all the time, check if it was corrected by someone with the flair and so on. I basically see it as a trade off in order to maintain content quality while not needing to check every single comment 24/7. If someone is indeed coming to this sub for Stoic advice, then it does make sense for someone who is knowledgeable on the subject to respond.
Before contributing, it’s best to observe, learn and understand the subject matter first. This is just one of those subs that requires specialized knowledge in order to be able to give advice according to the Stoics.
The restriction is only for making top-level comments to users who are "Seeking Stoic Guidance: Requests for help in applying Stoic principles.". I don't see how this argument holds true in this case. If you asked for medical advice would mine not be worth less than that of a nurse/med-student/doctor?
It’s a shame that people spend time, thought and energy into writing a reply, only to have it deleted on technicalities. I suppose we should all be conscientious enough to read and re-read the rules of the forum before jumping in. I know i have visited less since this policy went into effect.
If one is willing to spend time and energy like that, then perhaps spending an additional minute copy-pasting the exact same reply in a message to a mod isn't far fetched.
Removal isn't deletion - if you apply for and receive flair after having a comment removed, the comment can be restored.
I have no actual say, but I nominate you the unofficial mod of 1st level advice comments. It's something you clearly care strongly about. The flair system does a good job raising the quality of most advice responses, and my opinion is that it is for the better.
You can follow their direction and see if you get flaired to give "stoic advice". If you care that much about giving advice, their requirements are really low. If I was flaired and other people who I question their knowledge in Stoicism was flaired too; you can probably be flaired. I was also denied before because I didn't read the instruction thoroughly and they le me re-submit. Long story short, if the mods flaired me then anyone can be flaired as long as they show a passing knowledge in Stoicism.
I think this is probably ideal as well.
Ideals rarely survive the test of reality.
Can you expound on this more? I don’t disagree, just curious to learn more about your perspective.
Most people aren't reasoning agents; they won't give heed.
I am comparatively new to this sub, but when I started anybody could comment. I studied classic texts regarding stoicism during academics and felt there is a disconnection between life in old Greece and present time. Our complexity differs and so are the values. This is why I came to this sub to find practical ideas. I don't want to side with anyone because both parties have some legit arguments. But I would like to share something: In one random posts in this sub, one random person commented about life that life isn't good or bad, it's just life. This I found to be one of the most practical stoic pieces of advice I have heard recently and every time there is something tough on my way, I keep on saying this again and again. With this flair system, I think many of us are missing things like this.
I absolutely agree, 'gatekeeping' stoic opinion (when it can and does oft vary so much) to certain select individuals, flies in the face of many stoic ideas... I consider part of the journey being able to sift through the nonsense to find the insight.
I completely agree with your whole post, but it won't change much. There is a reason people joke about reddit/discord mods etc.. it attracts a certain type. even in these subs. it is what it is.
Ironically, I think I've gained more insight from random comments than these 'top level' people, as they often come at things from a different POV.
While you bring up a rather meme-y example of prejudice, I think it’s a good idea not to judge people based off of general stereotypes.
The “There’s a reason people joke about ______ people” formula doesn’t seem very helpful.
I’m not distinguishing this as a mod; I’m commenting here as someone concerned about all forms of prejudice.
Entirely agree. These cookie cutter replies don’t really challenge anyone into getting involved with Stoicism. They can just get on with their day and that’s that.
So why not participate in the stoic guidance threads by replying to the cookie cutter advice and elaborating why you disagree? That's allowed isn't it?
Not at top level. It can only be a reply to a flaired users comment.
Yes, the flaired users comment is the cookie cutter advice he could elaborate under. ironically he'd probably get flaired fast if he did that well
The original post is the reason why we should protect free and open discussion on the internet in general anywhere where discussion is taking place on the internet instead of the highly filtered highly censored echo chamber that is becoming the present day internet
Wow!!! Thank you so much, u/SecretlyHistoric and u/North_Live, for the awards on my post. I’m genuinely touched and honored that you would spend your hard-earned money to recognize my contribution. It means a lot to me!
I wholeheartedly agree with your post and I appreciate the way you put it into words. I’m not as eloquent as I would like myself to be and your post really resonates with me.
Its all gatekeeping echo chamber bs… this is about purity not truth
It does it follow the Socratic method?
I’m not sure what you mean? Do you mind share more on the thought?