Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1096403 Posts in 72513 Topics- by 19533 Members - Latest Member: marymsmith
Jump to:  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: The Real Issue (local)  (Read 12632 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18788
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« on: Jun 26, 2012, 06:58PM »

The other topic, The Real Issue, is about politics. This iteration of The Real Issue is about the forum. While this topic certainly isn't "Purely Politics" in the same sense, it may be best to move it there. I'd rather leave it where those who don't do PP can participate ... if any such people actually do so. I suspect we'll have a pretty good understanding of what's gonna be appropriate on that count pretty quickly.
 
Anyway ...
 
As BvB says, and I have said before, your behavior on this site is representative of a lot the is wrong with politics these days. Any position that isn't a talking point is mischaracterized and ridiculed. Feelings about personalities trump debates over ideas. God help anyone with personal experience or an original thought in this environment. I think it is unfortunate that this site, where other sections are heavily moderated and generally good discussions result, allows trollish and boorish behavior to run wild in the politics section. It's something else this is representative of where we are at: nobody cares.

 :(

Sounds good, but there have been problems with moderators being biased and/or operating based largely upon who seems to be provoking whining. The problem is most often, certainly not always but most often, the whiners, not their alleged provocateur--such is the nature of the most successful professional whiners.
 
So what's the best, most do-able plan for improving the social climate in here? I advocate ignoring buelshite but not substance (or good humor and such--negative reinforcement for anti-social behavior, positive reinforcement for behavior that's social). The primary difficulty that arises under that kinda utopian notion is that this is a discussion/debate forum, and sometimes some people perceive disagreement and rhetorical contention as hostility or otherwise anti-social behavior, and if such a person responds defensively, that is quite often anti-social, and too often moderator types aren't conscientious enough about determining what's really going on--the most passionate whining, as long as it's not too overt, often wins the day. Then the question becomes whether this flaw is worth it. No set up can be perfect, after all.
 
So, what say yous?
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
mwpfoot
@mwpfoot

*
Offline Offline

Location: Oakland , CA
Joined: Sep 29, 2004
Posts: 5097
"Mark"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: Jun 26, 2012, 07:12PM »

It seems that moderation of PP could be done out in the open with the existing terms in place. It just takes a moderator willing to warn and ban regardless of affiliation. Dismissals such as "typical liberal garbage" or "another dittohead" cross the line of respectfulness, drag us all down, and should be dealt with immediately. A strong presence and a willingness to trim and ban topics and posters would clean things up quickly. We currently have a weak presence, silent enforcement (if any), and moderators who seem to enjoy indulging the lowest level of discourse on a site that runs itself as if an academic institution in most other regards. It's a disconnect and it's not working, imo.

 ;-)
Logged

let's all move to http://www.trombonechat.com, it has owners who actually support it
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18788
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: Jun 26, 2012, 07:21PM »

A couple of words about Moderation here.

 ...
 
Note that there is a saying that I think should go for all of us:

Do Not Feed the Trolls

Goes both ways, depending on your viewpoint.

Sounds like a great idear, but after months of active advocacy (probably over a year or maybe two, actually), I don't see it happening. It would be the simplest, most sensible and probably effective way to take care of such problems, but experience tells me it's beyond a forum that's not kinda strictly moderated--at least about trolling and trollish behavior (and then there are the problems I mentioned in the OP).
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
RedHotMama
She Who Must Be Obeyed

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Luton, UK
Joined: Aug 22, 2000
Posts: 32932
"Forum Administrator"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: Jun 27, 2012, 11:46PM »

It's the usual question.

Where does moderation end and censorship begin?

The simplest solution would be the line adopted by many other forums:

NO DISCUSSION OF POLITICS OR RELIGION.

The OP inadvertently but clearly sets out the reasons for such an edict - it would be SO much easier. I've always fought against this policy, but it has often been mooted in the Mods Corner, as, of course, has been the removal of the entire Chat section.

I know how *I* would fix the alleged problem. Exorcise half a dozen members. Problem solved. Trouble is, two of the members whom *I* would immediately zap are regarded as being very useful in other areas, and at least one member whom *I* would retain is on the "zap" list of several other moderators. Who decides? If there was a function enabling us to ban certain members from posting in certain areas, that would be ideal but, as far as I know, there is no such function. And BTW, the moderators who take part in PP discussions are generally not PP moderators and thus have a perfect right to post as members.

I can't see how PP could sensibly be regulated without making it a full-time job and, as a side effect, creating an absolute firestorm of accusations of political and religious bias. I'm quite sure none of the current moderators would be willing to take this on. In fact, to paraphrase a political comment, anyone who DID want to take on such a role should, by definition, NOT be allowed to do so! And then, who moderates the moderator?  My current attitude is along the lines of Caveat emptor : "Let those who take part beware". Or perhaps, "All hope abandon ye who enter here"....





« Last Edit: Jun 28, 2012, 04:06AM by RedHotMama » Logged

Christine (red hot - that's what!)
christine.woodcock@gmail.com
In vodka veritas
mwpfoot
@mwpfoot

*
Offline Offline

Location: Oakland , CA
Joined: Sep 29, 2004
Posts: 5097
"Mark"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: Jun 28, 2012, 12:18AM »

Where does moderation end and censorship begin?

Moderation can safely include deleting or retitling posts, warning people to stay on topic, basically anything that happens regularly in the mouthpieces section.

Anyone who cries censorship when these actions are taken is probably current crying censorship for other bogus reasons. Make your life easier and ban 'em.

Banning from specific areas would be a great tool, yes, perhaps a future server can support that. Other approaches might be too much work to consider at this point.

 Don't know



(Edited to correct my quote! RHM)
« Last Edit: Jun 28, 2012, 12:20AM by RedHotMama » Logged

let's all move to http://www.trombonechat.com, it has owners who actually support it
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51702
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: Jun 28, 2012, 04:00AM »

... "All hope abandon ye who enter here"....


Actually, we did consider this for the sub-title of Purely Politics.  More and more I think it fits.  I wish we could make it an "opt in" section that is not normally visible unless you ask to be included rather than our current "opt out" where you can set it to be ignored.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18788
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: Jun 28, 2012, 04:19AM »

Where does moderation end and censorship begin?
Censorship begins where the private sector ends, more or less. Censorship can't happen on a privately owned and operated forum like this, not in any legal sense anyway. I'd argue it's entirely ethical for such a private entity as we have here to censor as whatever governing body sees fit.
 
The simplest solution would be the line which many other forums adopt:
 
NO DISCUSSION OF POLITICS OR RELIGION!
Hmmm ...
 
Never been interested in Tupperware parties, personally.
 
 ... or if a TPS-Q77 rimmed, open throat bronzed mouthpiece, a #14.5 carbon fiber and ceramic lead pipe, a 2/3 gold, 1/3 red brass bell with a lead-filled, titanium counterweight will make my middle Cs sound like Joe Alessi's in 3,500+ venues at 75°F.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51702
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: Jun 28, 2012, 04:23AM »

...
 Hmmm ...
 
Never been interested in Tupperware parties, personally.

How about discussions about Slide-O-Mix versus Trombotine?

Joe Alessi versus Bill Watrous?

Shires versus Edwards?
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
RedHotMama
She Who Must Be Obeyed

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Luton, UK
Joined: Aug 22, 2000
Posts: 32932
"Forum Administrator"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: Jun 29, 2012, 03:01AM »

Censorship begins where the private sector ends, more or less. Censorship can't happen on a privately owned and operated forum like this, not in any legal sense anyway. I'd argue it's entirely ethical for such a private entity as we have here to censor as whatever governing body sees fit.

Well, maybe, but someone here still has to DO it.
 
Quote
Never been interested in Tupperware parties, personally.
 
 ... or if a TPS-Q77 rimmed, open throat bronzed mouthpiece, a #14.5 carbon fiber and ceramic lead pipe, a 2/3 gold, 1/3 red brass bell with a lead-filled, titanium counterweight will make my middle Cs sound like Joe Alessi's in 3,500+ venues at 75°F.

Me neither. I view such subjects as the height (depth?) of tedium! However, the price for keeping the chat section is to put contentious political topics where they can be ignored by those who wish to do so. I don't think such topics CAN be sensibly regulated, because NO-ONE is unbiased. I'm over in the UK and could be viewed as unbiased as far as American politics are concerned, but I'm not. I think you guys just have to get on with it and try to police yourselves as best you can. We (the mods) can remove real trolls, but not genuine members who are simply making twonks of themselves. After all, someone reported a post of yours, Byron. The reporter simply said, this person is an ass. That's a matter of opinion, of course, but being an ass is not against the ToU!
Logged

Christine (red hot - that's what!)
christine.woodcock@gmail.com
In vodka veritas
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18788
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: Jun 29, 2012, 04:33AM »

I don't think such topics CAN be sensibly regulated, because NO-ONE is unbiased ...
Yeah, I think you're right, but bias in terms of the discussions isn't so much the issue as just the contentious nature of the topics, and the fact that we're a nation of ideologues over here--a society whose people often never grow out of the terrible-twos. I think it may just be the death throes of the more ideologically invested generations though. The kids don't seem to have quite the same investment issues the geriatrics do.
 
I think you guys just have to get on with it and try to police yourselves as best you can. We (the mods) can remove real trolls, but not genuine members who are simply making twonks of themselves. After all, someone reported a post of yours, Byron.
Just one of my posts!? That's a surprise given "some" of the rather delicate personalities in there. Given the fierce, deadly chihuahua schtick I'd expect a lot more bitching. I'm glad yous haven't had to put up with that, but I'm kinda surprised there hasn't been a whole lot more whining and, particularly, attempts at getting validation from the local authorities.
 
The reporter simply said, this person is an ass. That's a matter of opinion, of course, but being an ass is not against the ToU!
I'm sure if it were the reporter would have long been gone before ever having the chance to whine at the admin.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18788
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: Mar 03, 2014, 07:38AM »

Moved from Those whacky gun owners at it again....

Nope.  Not opining about anything.  Calling a spade a spade.  If you can't take the criticism, don't dish it out.

So you consider responding and correcting not being able to take it?
 
And you're just seeing spades because they're in your own mind.
 
So far everyone who's joined in on the pile (and I appreciate your concern but you really don't need to worry about that--pretty sure I'll be okay) are people who have had major problems with me criticizing an issue that's a sacred cow for them. In fact given the characters and context involved I take it as affirmation. The only exception among those who have commented about the collective tantrum is Tim, and as I said an impartial reader would, he saw what was really going on. (Well, Tim and DJ, but all DJ was saying is that he'd appreciate it if the tantrum would stop--or presumably move--and get out of the way, because who the hell wants to read that nonsense, especially those not involved and who don't care? ... which I'm sure is more or less everyone but Team Whine.) The rest of you are just trying to wrestle with your own inner demons, and that's all this has really been about, pretty obviously, particularly in your case since you refused to bother even reading the actual posts which caused that flare-up of emotional hijackings.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18788
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: Mar 03, 2014, 05:22PM »

Here's another explanation of another example of The Real Problem™ from the Wacky Gun Owners topic (note that this is strictly about the problematic reasoning--it ignores the unprovoked, baggage-based, reactionary nastiness entirely after this note of the fact).
 

The point in question here:
By "registering" our citizenship, a birth certificate registers us for our future civil liberties just as a gun registration would register us for our right to own a gun.
 
"My citizenship is registered as well. You could say it is my registration for my freedom of speech. As such, I do indeed prize said registration rather then fear it."
 
Nothing stops me from buying a car, but if I want to use it on a public highway I need to have it registered.
Exactly. Nothing prevents one from having a baby, but is "registering" it by accepting the birth certificate authorizing parents to raise it? Is that what a birth certificate is about? ensuring that parents meet the requirements to have the child, or is it a "registration" in a very different sense--in the sense that it records the birth for census purposes and all sorts of other logistical matters and such? Do we issue a birth certificate to authorize the parents to own or raise the child, or is it about making sure the child's birth is recorded and the child is afforded all the rights and privileges of citizenship and all that kinda shite?
 
Even more plainly than the disparities between a gun or car registration and a birth certificate (the fact that one is a "registration" is a plainly different sense than the others--i.e. it's an equivocation, as I explained at the time), if as bob argues we "registered" for our future freedom of speech through our birth certificates and this is the same as registering a gun, how did we not also therefore, along with our pre-registered freedom of speech also already pre-registered, fully, for our future right to keep and bear arms? How is it the same, a sound analog, if we have to register again for the one but not the other?
 
Is it really not patently obvious that if Bob's analogy is sound then we're all also already registered to keep and bear arms, and that if we require a registration above and beyond a birth certificate, the birth certificate is obviously not analogous to a gun registration? But mostly, calling a birth certificate a "registration" doesn't address the actual question, it dodges it. At the very least a gun registration, even granting Bob's model, is additional and prohibitive--you don't get the goods without the registration. So all this model really accomplishes is to avoid the question entirely.
 
That question was (full post quoted below):
So if people were to refuse a requirement to register in order to exercise free speech, that would be fear? If so, is fear in this sense bad?
 
On top of all those problems, when Bob started off on how he feels about registrations and civil liberties he was off track immediately. The question was about "people who [refused] a requirement to register in order to exercise free speech" (should have made that about resistance rather than refusal) and whether he'd consider that resistance to be based upon fear as he stated he does regarding those who advocate against the idea of gun registration.
 
But all of that aside, I simply didn't raise any issue against registration to prompt Bob to argue against it as if he were addressing my post. Registration only had tangential pertinence to the issue I raised. I asked if Bob would consider resisting the idea of a registration being added to a 1st Amendment liberty fear-based as he stated he does resistance to the idea of a registration being added to a 2nd Amendment liberty. Bob sidesteps the question by stating that he did have to register for his right to free speech by means of his birth certificate.
 
 --
 
Note:
Again, I don't have any problems with registration that are very significant--not significant enough to oppose a relatively competently written registration law (we'd all be against a badly written one I presume, but my standard is only a relatively well written one--"relatively" lowers the standard).
 

There is nothing wrong with requesting that people who own firearms have them registered as well.  The right to own arms is enumerated, but the gathering of information on who owns them is not proscribed.
I hadn't suggested any such a thing. Here again is the post to which Bob was responding:
 
When you have to register to vote and thus uphold the core duty of a citizen, but refuse to register to take part in rights given by an amendment... That's pretty much fear.
So if people were to refuse a requirement to register in order to exercise free speech, that would be fear? If so, is fear in this sense bad?
 
I don't disagree with the point about gun rights rhetoric, just that formulation of that criticism. Seems a strained effort at justifying judgmentalism or something of that nature (no need for that when it comes to most gun rights or extreme gun control rhetoric--they tend to pretty much beg for it).
In response to that post, Bob then asks:
Is registration so evil?
 
As I said before:
Huh? Where the hell did that come from?
 
Registration wasn't the issue I raised--that it "[seemed] a strained effort at justifying judgmentalism or something of that nature" was. Then I added "no need for that when it comes to most gun rights or extreme gun control rhetoric--they tend to pretty much beg for it" and leading with "I don't disagree with the point about gun rights rhetoric, just that formulation of that criticism".
 
Note the qualifications there--"most gun rights rhetoric" and specifically "extreme gun control rhetoric" tend to beg for [justifiable judgmentalism]. What should that tell you?
 
This is a regular thing--I make precisely that sort of qualification, but Bruce and RHM and others manage to perceive it as pretty much the opposite. That's why I've pointed out a few times that their reading comprehension takes a dramatic nose dive on this issue ... besides the fact that they incessantly attribute positions to me in spite of repeated correction (I think it's safe to say that I'm by far the uncontested most qualified expert on my own positions and opinions).
 
Later Bob adds:
BTW, you still haven't said how demanding registration for voting but withholding it from guns is about anything more then fear.
 
Again, as I pointed out in that thread:
Because I haven't taken any such position. It's a straw man Bob invented himself and attributed to me--or borrowed from many right winger types, anyway, and attributed to me. I didn't argue that it wasn't fear, I explicitly asked that if it is fear, is fear of that sort a bad thing (of the sort that, if Bob were consistent, he'd have to attribute to those resisting a registration for exercising free speech as well as those resisting gun registration)? Again, see that initial post quote above for the point I expressed in no uncertain terms.
 
Note that "Free Speech" does not give you license to foment rebellion or cause riot.  Also, it does not give you permission to libel someone.  Similarly, you can own a firearm but that does not give you license to rebel against the Government or to kill someone in cold blood.
No problems there other than that they're plainly uncontested and non-controversial points--pretty clearly safe givens, I'd say. Brought up why exactly?
 
If anybody is equivocating in this discussion, BvB, it's you.
Bruce's own initial comment correctly identifies the equivocation in Bob's rhetoric, but somehow he still managed to flip it around all bass ackwards and attribute it to my argument, and the "discussion" went into an unrecoverable flat spin from there (see for yourself, if you care to).
 
This kind of thing is what goes wrong in here pretty frequently. The fact that I don't ignore it and address it for what it is is seen as rude and arrogant and being a big meanie and all that other projected nonsense because the thinking and perception of those who perceive it that way are in the same feedback loop as above.
 
More to the point of The Real Issue though, Bob and Bruce both clearly seem much too smart to make this kind of error without something screwing with their thinking. Same for those who backed this rhetoric (Billy gets a pass on that part of the point, in a sense, because by his own admission he never bothered to read what he was commenting about), so how might this kind of problem be avoided? It ain't a problem with smarts. What's really going on?
 
And I'm pretty sure that even with this we're still not done here, for the reasons that got us to this absurd point to begin with, and which I've already gone over many times.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18788
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: Mar 05, 2014, 08:16AM »

I think there might be some benefit in discussing the idea of the nature of man, and whether the traditional RC idea of original sin or the more fundamentalist concept of the Fall of Man are in fact harmful.  I have come to think probably so.
 
However, I can't discuss that or any other idea here because billy, ronkny, Bob, and RHM are so mad at BvB that they have totally trashed this and several other threads, by ONLY posting attacks on BvB and NOTHING of substance.
 
Guys, if you can't stand him don't talk to him - don't destroy the threads for the rest of us out of your own petulance.
 
If his posts are worthless don't answer them  - but stay in the thread and post an idea of your own for a change.

It's good even if unpleasant to expose that so plainly as it has been to any objective observer--makes the actual dividing line clear, so to speak.

But this has been the predominate pattern all along. I did tend to be intentionally controversial back in the day, but even then the ideas were perfectly valid, the knee-jerk fest in response not so much. I used to enjoy the linguistic combat, but it's never really been all that rewarding a challenge. It was just new back then, while I was exploring my new, much more socially precarious place in society as an apostate, which for me was intriguing, even compelling.
 
The novelty wore off long ago though, and all that's left is just what's there without the novelty--not so compelling, and with the recent addition of a more reactionary, wingnut-oriented mindset that drove off most of the interesting participants in the main OTF Religion topic, it's gotten down to little more than the psychology of belief in terms of what the topic offers of interest here. There is more, but a whole lot less than there used to be.
 
No big deal, really--such is life and all that, but that's the way it is and was and the way it's gone to now.
 
 --
 
By all means please take Tim's invitation here to ignore my posts (don't worry about hurting my feelings ... no, really). If only he and I share media bits and converse for the most part, and occasionally a few others join in and contribute, that sounds good to me. I do still find the display of the Dark Side of religious psychology interesting in a morbidly fascinating sort of way, but the down side (mostly just the brain wreckage and chaos carpet bombing Tim's talking about above), which even in the wingnut/reactionary era is usually nowhere near at the extreme level it's just leapt to, has made genuine discussion in the topic problematic, as it frequently has in PP as well, though that seems to be under control ... for the time being.
 
The recent (and continuing) anti-iconoclasm reactionary tantrum has provided a crystal clear demonstration that precisely the problems I've long been pointing out are in fact The Real Issue™, both in here and in RL. If we want to get past it, both in here and in RL, we have to establish a better social climate--much easier in here than in RL, but still problematic, due mostly, I think, to widespread various and sundry personal baggage issues--blocks to true open-mindedness and to sound critical thinking. Things are changing though--the primary blockage is fading dramatically, so we'll see what happens with that in the coming years and decades.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7207
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: Mar 05, 2014, 01:46PM »

So, 3 administrators on the site admonish you, and your take on it is that we are throwing a tantrum.  Interesting. 
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18788
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: Mar 05, 2014, 03:29PM »

So, 3 administrators on the site admonish you, and your take on it is that we are throwing a tantrum.  Interesting.

And that an objective observer would agree ... yup.
 
Though Bruce has stayed clear outside of the gun issue, and for most of the collective tantrum thrown in there as well. It seems he has more self-discipline than some of his peers, and is better equipped to keep his emotions from hijacking his intellect--not surprising really.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5897

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: Mar 05, 2014, 04:33PM »

So, 3 administrators on the site admonish you, and your take on it is that we are throwing a tantrum.  Interesting. 

As a partial participant he also makes claims as if he was a non-partial bystander. I'm surprised it's not two. I'm assuming "me" is his voice, but is the observer supposed to be "myself" or "I"?

But hey, it's the same way he calls me out for equivocating by comparing speech and guns and their respective registrations but completely glosses over that I'm simply answering HIS question equating the two. Or says I'm arguing against a strawman of his position, when 1) the argument was already put out before he even entered it and b) I couldn't give a rat's ass what his personal beliefs were, I was discussing the question. It's like hearing "you're so vain" on the radio and writing a furious letting to the radio about that lady criticizing you.

Between the meaningless drivel that he's tossed out, the fanatical and repetitive defense of it, and the continual upkeep of this mess, I'm starting to make me wonder if he needs new medication.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18788
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: Mar 06, 2014, 05:53AM »

Jeebus H ...

But hey, it's the same way he calls me out for equivocating by comparing speech and guns and their respective registrations but completely glosses over that I'm simply answering HIS question equating the two.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the "discussion". You brought up birth certificates as if they were the equivalent of free speech permits so you could claim that you're not only okay with the idea of a free speech permit (though I doubt that very much and your own feeling about it wasn't the issue--see the actual question), but that you were glad to have gotten one--which avoided the actual question I asked entirely.
 
I took issue with all of that. You made the false connection claiming that a birth certificate is like a gun permit because it's effectively (somehow) a permit to the right to free speech that I asked about. You just forgot that would also make a permit to the right to keep and bear as well, a major reasoning error I explained above). I pointed out it was a false connection. Now you're trying to go back and re-write that error out of existence--or rather transfer it to me, as if it's not all there for anyone who, if interested for some strange reason, can go back and check (at least those who are so bias-driven they're pretty much incapable of seeing what's really there). I guess you may actually perceive it the way you say, but that's about the bias-driven problem I've been explaining.
 
Or says I'm arguing against a strawman of his position, when 1) the argument was already put out before he even entered it ...
When a position is presented has nothing to do with straw men, whether it's a) an accurate and/or fair representation of the argument, and b) whether the "accused" is actually responsible for the argument are. As we can see above, you were just confused about what the argument was and who had spun what into a fallacy.
 
... and b) I couldn't give a rat's ass what his personal beliefs were, I was discussing the question. It's like hearing "you're so vain" on the radio and writing a furious letting to the radio about that lady criticizing you.
That's ironic given that, again, you "answered" this question, by asking me why I think registration is so evil (as if that had anything at all to do with my question or could even be reasonably derived from it) and then going on about how you feel about birth certificates (which you claimed were effectively free speech permits so you could switch out birth certificates with the rhetorical free speech permits I asked about rather than ever actually addressing the question). So this complaint is pure projection. In fact most of your perception of my argumentation seems to be about projection.
 
Between the meaningless drivel that he's tossed out, the fanatical and repetitive defense of it, and the continual upkeep of this mess, I'm starting to make me wonder if he needs new medication.
Yes ... you got that exactly right--your aim is just about 180º off.
 
 --
 
The explanation above sums it up pretty well. Frankly I suspect Bob had serious trouble following it, not because it's complicated but because it raises issues and argues points that Bob doesn't like and doesn't want to see. That Collective BvB Fan Tantrum (or Uprising) was an instructive demonstration of why the critical thinking I always harp on is important--it makes such confusion and such errors (and the false conflicts they create) less likely--helps us to avoid them.
 
This aftermath is now proving to be a fine demonstration of why we need to invest in being accurate--in understanding things as best we can through carefully applied rigor rather than investing in given conclusions or positions. The key is to accept the fact that we can be wrong, so we aren't best served by investing in a current conclusion (or our egos). We may find out we're wrong. If we're invested in the conclusion (or our egos) rather than the process, we'll dig in and double down on the conclusion rather than in the process that will correct it. That's simply human nature. Unfortunately, as seems to be the case with so many things that require personal responsibility, those who would be most served by going back through all that crap are also the least inclined to do so (of course I can't blame others for turning and running away).
 
This is the heart of what my rhetoric is fundamentally all about.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5897

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: Mar 06, 2014, 05:58AM »

If you really want to dump out that much manure, can you swing by the Carolinas? It's time to start my spring garden, and that would be great to spread over the bedding. You wouldn't believe what they're charging per cubic yard now to get it delivered.
Logged
RedHotMama
She Who Must Be Obeyed

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Luton, UK
Joined: Aug 22, 2000
Posts: 32932
"Forum Administrator"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: Mar 06, 2014, 07:00AM »

Hang on. I'm not an administrator admonishing anyone! Sometimes I have to do administrator things, but not recently. At the moment, I'm simply a member who occasionally gets pissed off with another member.

OK, I said a couple of mildly rude things to Byron in the Religion topic this week. He's been quite rude to me over the years, and I get extremely vexed by his arrogant "I'm the only one who knows anything" attitude, so I felt justified in voicing an opinion. However, Tim requested that I stop, so I have. End of, as far as I'm concerned.

Unless someone crosses the ToU....

Logged

Christine (red hot - that's what!)
christine.woodcock@gmail.com
In vodka veritas
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18788
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: Mar 06, 2014, 09:12AM »

OK, I said a couple of mildly rude things to Byron in the Religion topic this week. He's been quite rude to me over the years, and I get extremely vexed by his arrogant "I'm the only one who knows anything" attitude, so I felt justified in voicing an opinion. However, Tim requested that I stop, so I have. End of, as far as I'm concerned.
You take a few dismissive, apparently self-affirming pot shots like that every so often in fact. I don't generally respond because I really just don't care what someone with so little credibility thinks or says--to a point. Rarely I may feel there's a reason to address it or to point out why it's selectively obtuse or compensatory whining or just childish, or whatever form of self-serving intellectual irresponsibility it may be. When a moderator is behaving like a problem child is a more likely case to warrant a response, but even then it's still pretty unlikely, which is why this is probably the first time I've felt a sufficient reason to bother for probably years.
 
In this case I simply don't value the opinions of someone who understands science but acts as if it's reasonable to box it up and ignore its value beyond specific isolated interests (personal and/or professional), and who disdains science and critical thinking when they're inconvenient for reasons of egocentric personal sensibilities, particularly in order to justify unwarranted, uninformed judgmentalism ... to sum it up in a sentence.
 
 --
 
Addendum:
On the positive side I might describe a friend's credibility regarding a given sacred cow in more or less the same way (but maybe not unless repeatedly prompted as in this case). I'm not inclined to presume poor intellectual behavior necessarily reflects on that person generally or even on too much if any more than regarding whatever issue exposes the problem.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: