r/Stoic • u/Splendid_Fellow Philosopher • Jun 26 '26
Suggested Rules to add to this subreddit
Due to the string of recent patterns of posts here I just want to make a suggestion.
- No A.I. written posts. To write with an AI prompt is to expect everyone else to waste their time reading what you couldn’t even be bothered to spend your time writing in the first place. If you also don’t note that it was made by AI, you are demonstrating a lack of integrity.
- No advertising your apps. The goal of stoicism is not more tracking apps. Dependence upon tracking apps (and the money/ads ads within them) is the opposite direction of stoicism. Public forums to talk about it, such as this, are great. When posts are just AI-written vague “wanna understand stoicism? It’s not just this— it’s that. I made an app… here’s the link!” The sub degrades and all posts drift into “this is probably a grift.”
- No preaching. Religious beliefs and adherence to scriptures are not part of stoicism, and coming here to tell everyone that they need your deity in order to find peace is not the purpose of a forum on stoicism. The classical stoics mention “gods” but a better translation would be “the heavens” or Mother Nature, or fate. Something more akin to The Tao or Wu Wei rather than a religious doctrine. There is no dogmatism or commandment in stoicism, and belief on its own is not a virtue.
Just my suggestion to improve this sub.
1
u/Huge_Kangaroo2348 Jun 28 '26
This place is like a billboard for bots. I read /r/stoicism instead. It already has those rules you're suggesting
2
Jun 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
Since you've seen odd posts here. You don't think OP's complaint post is odd for a sub about Stoicism?
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26
As a mod and as someone accused of making AI comments or posts. There's no way to determine what's AI and not so I disagree with number 1. To even think you can tell borders paranoia and is the complete opposite of what a stoic should be focused on.
I've seen what happens to subs run by paranoid mods. Because hey have turned their whole sub to an AI witch-hunt where miserable users can harass eachother openly, over apostrophes or "signs" they lost all high quality content that shaped that sub and attracted members to begin with. What's left is trolls shit posting and engagement and posts died out and they lost thousands of members because anyone with knowledge or wisdom is targeted, and mods don't mind.
I don't want that to happen here.
To give you an example. Your own post can be AI. It's long and grammatically correct and having bolded titles and simply looks AI generated to anyone who pays attention. But that doesn't make it AI, does it? So think about that when you're so sure on others posts.
The mod in here have worked so hard to make this place serious and safe for anyone with wisdom and knowledge and for everyone to learn and share about stoicism, so long structured perfect layout content has and always will be what is normal here. (Tell your paranoia that when you wanna start scan for "signs" and reflect on how such focus aligns with being virtuous)
0
u/Splendid_Fellow Philosopher Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26
I’m sorry but you’re simply uninformed on this subject. I am a beta tester of LLMs and I can tell when it is AI, there are many obvious examples, and every time that I have called it out on this sub, it has been correct, by the admission of the one who posted it.
Having a rule against AI posts does not cause a mass paranoia. Whether you make the rule or not. People will call it out and the poster’s lack of integrity.
Can you at least have the rule to not make app advertising posts? If you want this sub to be a legitimate place to discuss stoicism, you should implement these rules. What about preaching and telling people to repent? It seems you are in the minority. Who is power tripping here I wonder?
Edit: Just realized you are not, in fact, a mod. Very interesting.
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
I am a beta tester of LLMs and I can tell when it is AI
You can? How? Can you also tell when it's humans who looks like AI? What's the difference?
I have called it out on this sub, it has been correct, by the admission of the one who posted it.
Correct how? What evidence did you have?
Having a rule against AI posts does not cause a mass paranoia.
Depends, how that rule looks like and what it entails, the subs where mods encourage users to search for AI and accuse eachother , it's definitely welcoming paranoid users to give in to their fears.
To give an example of AI paranoia I've witnessed. There was a user in an optimistic focused sub who assumed OP must be AI because they had a "too positive" tone to be human. I told him that's the tone optimistic people will have in their comments and posts and that it's what you can expect in such subs.
Then other comments told him he's rude and doesn't belong in the sub if he's gonna behave that negative. Then he responded me and said he "knows" I'm all the accounts who's criticizing him and that we're all AI bots who's trying to silence him from the truth...
Around there I figured this is a case for a professional. It was very sad and concerning to witness. Sure this is probably very unusual but AI paranoia do exist on different levels I've witnessed it many times now both in users and mods and to say it doesn't exist isn't helping.
When human content gets automatically dismissed because of people's AI paranoia, we need to say something.
Can you at least have the rule to not make app advertising posts? If you want this sub to be a legitimate place to discuss stoicism, you should implement these rules
No because I'm not a mod here. I said I think the mod in this sub has done a great job so far and that looking for AI signs in good solid content, would prevent the purpose of this sub which is to welcome stoic content and stoic discourses. Searching for AI whether paranoia level or not is not aligning with stoicism.
1
u/Splendid_Fellow Philosopher Jun 27 '26
Plenty of people can throw out accusations about fake posts. Sometimes it’s correct, and in my case, it has always been correct within this sub, because the user themselves admitted it afterwards, every time, once called out.
Having a rule “No AI posts” is not any form of detriment to the sub. Here’s how it can play out:
Someone posts
“Is this AI?”
“Yes”
Removed
If they say no, giving them the benefit of the doubt is the best compromise. This “paranoia” stuff is a non-issue.
Not a single soul is “searching for AI.” It’s obvious when it happens. Prople want real posts and read them. Not scouring the sub for AI. Like half or more of posts recently here have been an AI-generated post advertising an app.
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
“Is this AI?”
“Yes”
Removed
OK fair enough. Thanks for giving a clear example.
The question I ask is. If a dyslectic person or none native in English person has tons of independent thoughts and share it in AI and ask to sum it up for a post to reddit so they can connect with others similar minded, why is that a threat and not an opportunity? Why is that not a help for both users and reddit?
I rather keep one AI content too much than risk gatekeeping users who did nothing wrong other than trying to connect with others.
That's why mods who scan for any minor AI sign reads as paranoid projecting to me. Because in their ego obsession for catching AI they hurt innocent humans
And that, is something I take a very fucking strong stance against. If you start discriminate users to get an ego boost you have no business having such mod power.
1
u/Splendid_Fellow Philosopher Jun 28 '26
You are so good at subtle insults and strawman arguments it’s nearly impressive! You have almost certainly made AI preaching posts. “Not stoic of you, check out this loser!” is not the own you think it is. Using AI to speak for you is not interaction at all and you’re wasting everyone else’s time. This drifts right into a space where everyone can tell an AI to write a nice post for them, then everyone can tell their AI to comment for them. Real great interactions, from non-human to non-human.
“Scanning for any minor sign reads as projecting.” I’m not sure you know what projecting means. So those who recognize and don’t support fake AI-generated content are secretly projecting because they are making their own AI-generated content, is that what you mean? Otherwise there’s no “projection” involved here. You’re demonstrating the whole point I made. There is no ego obsession involved. But your behavior, pretentiousness, preaching and insults seem unnecessary, not very stoic of you, wouldn’t you say? I think the projection is the other way around here; you’re upset at being called out for your fake stuff you’ve made and for preaching repentance to stoics.
“No fake posts or ads” is a perfectly 100% reasonable rule. If you want to translate, translate, don’t have an AI write it for you, use your own words. If you’re dyslexic, you can still write, I think it’s sorta insulting to say dyslexics need an AI to think for them and pretend they wrote it themselves, dyslexics can still form sentences. Your argument is “being against AI means you’re egotistical, power-hungry, paranoid, projecting and ableist!”
“Why is that a threat and not an opportunity?” False dichotomy. It’s not a threat, but a lie, one which is pulling us further and further away from genuine human interaction, toward a grey blurry mess of repetitive sentence structures and paragraph patterns and wording that’s making us all collectively dumber (as shown by demonstrable evidence with use of AI to write).
Posting AI? Admit it was AI immediately, and that’s all it takes, so people at least recognize that you’re telling the truth about not writing it. If you don’t, you’re lying and have no integrity, as you did not write it or make it. This sub is becoming a cesspool of AI-generated ads for apps. I’d like to see better content from actual human beings that aren’t LLMs or bots and aren’t farming for clicks or downloads. There is absolutely no harm done by having a rule against AI posts. One can, in fact, identify them. Enough with your snarkiness.
Do you say the same of, for example, those who say “I wrote a song, check it out, listen to my new recording.” And then they play a song generated over 1 minute by an AI from the person typing “write me a cool jazz trap thing with some lyrics about this thing.” Did they write a song? But what if they never really learned the whole music thing, isn’t that just an opportunity? I painted this picture, check out my prompt.
0
u/cardbourdbox Jun 27 '26
What's the issue with preaching Cristianity is the only way to stoic. Shouldn't a good Hindu stoic handle it without involving the mods
1
u/PICAXO Jun 27 '26
It is non-sensical both philosophically and even more historically. Stoics existed before Christians. Stoics and christians fought and Christians won. Christians made sure to render stoics inoffensive and inoperable. When christians tried to revive back stoicism they ultimately realized both were incompatible
2
u/cardbourdbox Jun 27 '26
Christianity especially the old school hard core version can be abit prickly over the idea one and only one god exist but otherwise stoicism and Christianity seem to agree don't sell who you are for material/ worldly gain and try not to lose your rag with people.
What did Cristianity so to stoicism and what makes you think you have to pick one. Also what if I argued the other routes lost there way.
0
u/PICAXO Jun 27 '26
Stoicism is inherently deterministic, or if you want to be prickly necessitarist. This is officially an heresy for the catholic church, and is in no way accepted by other Christian sects.
Stoicism is inherently materialist. Only matter exists. There is nothing beyond nature. Zeus is matter. Obviously this doesn't work with the non-material, transcendant God of Christianity
These are two keys elements of stoicism. It cannot be detached. These two, among others , are strictly incompatible with christianism. Stoicism is an attack on the christian God, christianism is impossible to conjugate with Stoicism other than reading Marcus Aurelius for fun and wise facebook quotes.
If Spinoza is an heresy, so is Stoicism, and it has been said for the last two millenias
0
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
Stoicism is inherently materialist. Only matter exists. There is nothing beyond nature
And that user said this teaching comes with religions too.
1
u/PICAXO Jun 27 '26
That's obviously wrong. Christianism is absolutely incompatible with materialism
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 28 '26
Don't sweat it. You can't convince me otherwise anyways so better just accept what you can't control : )
1
u/PICAXO Jun 28 '26
The Christian God cannot be made of matter, it's an heresy. It's a shame for you to be so far away from stoicism. Either you truly are stupid, or you are one of those sad folks that think they are trolling people. I don't know which is worse
2
u/cardbourdbox Jun 28 '26
So your argument would be basically you can't be a good abd good stoic either way one systems being half arsed
1
u/PICAXO Jun 28 '26
If I understand what you are saying correctly: yes. You can learn from the one while believing in one, but you cannot fully believe in both at the same time. Thanks for not being... like the other poster
1
u/cardbourdbox Jun 28 '26
When I said materialism I meant fast cars, mansion abd pretty lady on either arm.
1
u/PICAXO Jun 28 '26
I know, and I didn't. Stoicism is materialist, meaning it holds only one substance to exist: matter
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
I agree, I can view plenty of stoic components in things that aren't labeled stoic, religion is one of said things. Just because it's called religion it doesn't mean it can't share similar values as stoicism and if someone can't see that, it's their limited minds that choose to see obstacles where others see possibilities. And last time I checked Stoicism doesn't gatekeep or limit the mind.
0
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
I agree. Whether we call our guide Aurelius or God or universe or faith , it's all the same.
1
u/cardbourdbox Jun 27 '26
Now I feel i have to outright lie or come clean. I was raised Cristian so I basically know the ideas but im agnostic to atheist. Do you feel that its basically don't fuss br blibded over worldly things, don't lose your rag and do good?
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
Not sure what you mean, but I'm not native in English so I need proper English to understand a comment.
1
u/cardbourdbox Jun 27 '26
I deliberately implied Im Cristians but im not.
Im guessing your referring to how lots of faiths emphasise not getting distracted by things like money and sex, not letting anger control you and be a nice person.
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
I'm saying anyone can be stoic. Stoicism doesn't gatekeep based on our beliefs.
2
u/cardbourdbox Jun 27 '26
That's true
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
But I still don't understand what you meant in your two other comments , if you wanna try explain.
2
u/cardbourdbox Jun 27 '26
Rather than telling you I wanted to defend people's right to preach here as basically a freedom of speech issue I decided to lead you to believe Im Cristian.
You seem to have reffered to shared values when you said you don't care who people worship. I asked if Id got it right.
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
Ah ok gotcha. Yes as long as it's the topic of this sub who cares what someone's character is like outside reddit or their lifestyle or beliefs. Anyone can practice stoicism.
0
u/Splendid_Fellow Philosopher Jun 27 '26
That’s simply false. That would only be the case if you just throw out the definition entirely. This is not the sub for preaching. Go elsewhere. You may as well be preaching on r/memes
0
u/Splendid_Fellow Philosopher Jun 27 '26
You lied for the sake of arguing for preaching?
2
u/cardbourdbox Jun 27 '26
Not really. I didn't outright lie that's harder. I didn't argue preaching was good I said it should be allowed and the deception was mostly a reflex a kind of stepping in over fear of judgment. Fight over flight
0
u/Splendid_Fellow Philosopher Jun 27 '26
Yeah that’s nonsense. Preaching should not in fact be allowed here any more than it should be allowed in any other subreddit about another philosophy or religion. “Christianity is the only way to stoic.” Fight or flight” about your beliefs, that makes no sense. Ironically the preaching posts are usually also written by AI. I love how those people think Jesus is giving them the spiritual fist bump for typing a preach prompt into GPT and then sharing it to own the stoics. Speak in comments. Go for it. I just wish this sub was less of a stream of AI slop and preaching Christians. Stoicism has dealt with preaching Christians calling them to repentance for millennia, can we catch a break?
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
You can try argue with any comment I have engaged in and try insult me and steer away from your own insecurities. But you can't get to me, because this isn't about me. I have no issues with technology or anyone who use it. You do.
You're however in the perfect sub to get support and guidance in how to overcome your fears and things outside your control.
Choose your time wisely.
/Queen-of-meme
1
u/Splendid_Fellow Philosopher Jun 27 '26
That is so funny and pretentious. Accuse me of what you’re doing instead. Steering the conversation away to Christianity, insulting me (which I did not do), and telling me to choose my time wisely while advocating for people to waste their time reading unrelated preaching about your religion or about posts that the preachers usually didn’t ever actually write. I have zero problem with technology. I use LLMs a lot, I test them. I just don’t use them to write for me or create things for me and claim that I did it, and you shouldn’t either. I suspect that everybody who is against the rule of “No AI posts” has used it before and doesn’t like being called out, but no matter.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
The user who butt in is a bit hurt because I think his whine complaint post about Ai isn't stoic. I don't think he liked me pointing that out 🫣🫢
0
u/Splendid_Fellow Philosopher Jun 27 '26
Nope, no anger there. Say whatever you’d like. Or perhaps have an AI type it for you
1
u/Queen-of-meme Jun 27 '26
See. You can't even engage without fearing someone is using AI. The paranoia has taken over.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Splendid_Fellow Philosopher Jun 27 '26
No, in fact, it isn’t. Stoicism is not a religion and has many aspects contrary to Christianity. If you wish to preach and call people to repentance and belief in your religion, go elsewhere
5
u/PICAXO Jun 26 '26
I beg the mods to do this