Folks, you just can't make this stuff up. While most people are enjoying time with family and friends and celebrating freedom, the Afore is busy posting up a storm about Gemli.
After banning Gemli a year ago, the Afore has decided to ask his small claque of crazies to share their sentiments about reinstating him. It's a psychologically fascinating example of obsessiveness/bearing a grudge/holding on to ill will/resentment and dwelling on the past.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_threadThe Afore wrote:Some of you may have been wondering, even worrying, about what happened to our long-time resident atheist here, “gemli.” Well, I want to reassure you that he’s still out there. And, occasionally, he tries to post here. You don’t see him, but I do (if I choose to look).
You may recall that he grew deeply, deeply tiresome because, after several initial years of politely and not very effectually challenging the consensus here and of being occasionally amusing, his comments increasingly came to consist merely in repeatedly asserting his position. He refused to read anything, refused to engage, refused to participate in any actual conversation.
Still, I make an offer: gemli obviously wants to participate here. If I sense that the sentiment here favors his return, I’ll try to make it happen. (That doesn’t seem to be as easy as the Disqus instructions say it is, but I’ll make the attempt.)
After reading a few of the Afore's comments, it's clear the Afore isn't interested in whether Gemli should be reinstated. The Afore's post was just a ruse/opportunity for the Afore to attack, belittle and degrade the always affable Gemli.
The one neutral poster who was unfamiliar with Gemli made the mistake of asking ChatGPT to describe Gemli and his posting style. This poster is being mercilessly attacked and mocked. It's a psychologically fascinating view into the Afore's psyche.
Patrice
20 hours ago edited
I was unfamiliar with Gemli so I asked ChatGPT the following- — “Describe the commenter Gemli at Sic et Non.” This was A.I.’s response.
“Gemli is a frequent and distinctive commenter on the Sic et Non forum, especially when it comes to topics related to philosophy, religion, and science. He often adopts a critical, skeptical, and analytical tone, offering nuanced views on a variety of issues, from historical events to contemporary discussions on metaphysics and epistemology.
One of Gemli's defining traits is his ability to express complex ideas in a straightforward, often blunt manner. He’s known for scrutinizing the assumptions underlying various arguments and questioning established narratives. Whether it’s in response to claims about religion or atheism, Gemli typically prefers to stay grounded in empirical evidence while acknowledging the limits of human knowledge.
His approach is also characterized by an underlying sense of fairness and intellectual humility. Gemli doesn’t shy away from challenging his own positions, which adds to his credibility as a commentator. At times, he may even engage in long, thought-provoking back-and-forths with other commenters, offering clarification when needed or conceding points when they’re valid.
On Sic et Non, Gemli tends to engage deeply with other users, often building upon their ideas and weaving in his own philosophical background. He can sometimes come across as somewhat pedantic, but this is often in service of making a more rigorous or refined point, rather than just to criticize.
If you're familiar with Sic et Non, Gemli's comments often appear like mini-essays, rather than short replies, and they contribute significantly to the intellectual atmosphere of the forum.”
It sounds like Gemli was a valuable participant. Why was he shadow banned?
DanielPeterson Mod Patrice
19 hours ago
Wow. A.I.'s description of gemli is the polar opposite to the gemli with whom I was familiar here. Long posts, analytical, self-critical, nuanced, fair, intellectually humble, thought-provoking conversations, readiness to concede, deep engagement with others? Reading such characterizations, I feel as if I've somehow wandered into the Twilight Zone.
We'll see whether others here with direct experience of him tend to side with my impression of gemli or with ChatGPT''s.
DanielPeterson Mod Ideeho
4 hours ago edited
Ideeho:"How long have you visited this site? How many Gemli posts have you read? Anyone, anyone at all who has spent a modicum of time here will aver that what your chat summary has for Gemli is laughably, laughably off."
Frankly, I was shocked at how wildly ChatGPT's "perception" deviated from reality. It didn't exactly lessen my skepticism (or even my worry) about A.I..
DanielPeterson Mod Philip Leaning
2 hours ago
PL:. "The funny thing about this whole thing is, even when gemli's not here, he dominates the comment section! Whenever he would "contribute" a comment the section would light up with responses to him. Comments would go over 100 every time as increasingly exasperated us tried to get him to engage with our reactions to his statements. It would become very lively lol."
LOL. Very true. First of all, he posted up a storm. Very commonly scores of times in a day. And not, contrary to ChatGPT's curiously inaccurate claim as reported by Patricia, in long, nuanced, mini-essays but, rather, in short, staccato, slogan-like comments obviously designed to provoke responses. Which they successfully did. But, especially as time went on, those interactions never resulted in genuine conversations.
And, ultimately, it was just tiresome clutter.
I'm not sensing a groundswell of desire for inviting him back.
DanielPeterson Mod moonshine
19 hours ago
He certainly doesn't interact with people here. He stopped doing that a very long time ago.
Remembering his earlier behavior, I encouraged him to return to that. I was fine with his being the resident atheist, but I grew weary of his repetitious refusal to engage. I warned him many, many times.
It was disappointing.
DanielPeterson Mod Ideeho
4 hours ago
Ideeho: "Gemli, bless his soul, chooses to post mantras that fit within his tightly woven paradigmatic cocoon and nothing more. If he wants to be heard, he can do his own blog and let aficionados go there to engage. I suspect he knows no one will do that, because no one wants to read the same thing over and over and over again."
I certainly didn't want to. That's why, after many repeated warnings, I gently showed him the door.
DanielPeterson Mod Philip Leaning
19 hours ago
Philip Leaning: "The initial comment of gemli that you shared is a compendium of his "responses" (he never actually responded to anything anyone posted in response to him).
His comments continue to be repetitive. If he's allowed to return here, he will offer nothing new, simply repeat the same irrelevant ignorance that is illustrated by the samples you shared."
That's my take, as well.
DanielPeterson Mod Occam's Razr
4 hours ago
Occam's Razr: "Perhaps our host could assign gemli some reading, and if gemli convincingly demonstrates he has done said reading, this would constitute sufficient evidence of reform."
A worthy suggestion. if he notices this and agrees to do some reading, I would definitely consider inviting him back. There seems little danger of that, though.
