|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 20:29:42 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
I'll leave it to Chris Mooney to try to coddle those people into seeing science as valuable... |
I haven't suggested that we coddle anyone. I am suggesting that we start out by being civil first. And if you really look at Chris Mooney and what he is saying, and consider his very public attacks, he is not being civil, even if he thinks he is. I don't really know how he got into your response to me...
Dave:
But you know me, Kil, and my history: I'm not suggesting that this approach is the right one to use in every situation. It's just that in the particular scenario with Tipok, it seemed to be the right way to go. It's not like I laid into him on his very first post. I came in after he'd already had some back-and-forth going, and I saw where it was headed. |
True. For my part, I had already used up "reason" with him. He wasn't having any of it. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2009 : 21:10:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I haven't suggested that we coddle anyone. I am suggesting that we start out by being civil first. |
And for the most part, people around here are civil at first. I submit that this particular thread is in part the result of filthy reading Tipok's posts (and the replies they generated) across a handful of different threads out of chronological order. I read them out of order, too, at first, and it was pretty easy to have a "WTF?!" moment at the later replies.| And if you really look at Chris Mooney and what he is saying, and consider his very public attacks, he is not being civil, even if he thinks he is. |
I think that's a different (but related) issue. "Civility," after all, is in the eye of the beholder. As has already been noted here, some people take even the mildest of criticism of their ideas as a full-on personal attack (see also Aleph Naught and his quest for introductory skeptical material).
And on the other hand, we all know of people who can dress up vicious personal attacks with what appears (on the surface) to be the height of civility. So just asking people to be civil opens up a whole 'nother can of worms, in terms of what "civil" even means.| I don't really know how he got into your response to me... |
Well, we're talking about approaches to people who hold incredibly irrational ideas, so Mooney was a natural "pull-in," since he obviously thinks that ridicule is detrimental to the goal, no matter what.
Actually, think about this: consider the scenario of a first-time poster to SFN offering up a zillion-times debunked creationist claim. On its face, it's obvious that he (again: it's almost always a "he") either hasn't done the most-basic of research but expects us to listen, or he actually expects us to be swayed by something he already knows the skeptical answer to. I can't tell which one insults my intelligence more, so it's really a matter of these sorts of people - knowingly or not - being uncivil the moment they set their foot in the door (here at SFN). Answering in kind either gets them what they probably wanted (in the latter case), or might spark some insight (in the former case). In that light, ridicule is almost a win-win response, since it helps discriminate between those interested and uninterested in the actual science.Dave:
But you know me, Kil, and my history: I'm not suggesting that this approach is the right one to use in every situation. It's just that in the particular scenario with Tipok, it seemed to be the right way to go. It's not like I laid into him on his very first post. I came in after he'd already had some back-and-forth going, and I saw where it was headed. |
True. |
Thanks. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 21:12:05 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by KilOtherwise we run the risk of coming off as thugs, no matter how correct we are. SFN is a tough site already. It has that reputation. I'm not |
It has?
Cool! Let me grab my leather jacket! |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 21:27:15 [Permalink]
|
Just as a "by the way," over here we've got an example of filthy calling a certain subset of the population "idiots," "buffoons," and suggesting that they need to be reminded to breathe.
I fail to see why incivility should be remarked upon only when it targets to those who have gone through the registration process here at SFN, since the primary concern is that incivility makes us look bad to those who might reconsider taking our arguments seriously if we're nasty, SFN member or not.
In other words, I don't mind filthy calling the Freepers all sorts of names. I only mind it when filthy takes others of us to task for calling an SFN member all sorts of names for (more or less) exactly the same reasons (near-pathological ignorance and/or lying).
Does typing out a few bits of information and responding to an email really engender a person with enough respect that we shouldn't call them stupid when they say stupid stuff? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 22:10:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Does typing out a few bits of information and responding to an email really engender a person with enough respect that we shouldn't call them stupid when they say stupid stuff?
|
You may want to weed them out, Dave, but there are others who enjoy the debate for debating sake. SFN is a skeptic forum. We know full well that as such, we will attract people who will want to challenge our views. And we know that many, if not most of those people will be completely full of shit.
Activity goes up, the fun level goes up, and there is even the possibility, however remote, that someone (the lurker or the challenger) will learn something, even if its only something about how to debate. And then there is this. I have learned a whole lot more about some subjects simply because we debated with an idiot.
From a tactical standpoint, you want to weed out the people who will not learn or change, and remain idiotic, no matter what we do or say. I still see value in arguing with them, and whats more, I see the tactical advantage of taking the high road, (being civil) at least at the outset of the debate.
Just because we think we have heard it all before doesn't mean there is nothing left for us to learn. If we start chasing every wrong headed person away, because they are hopelessly idiotic, by aiming to humiliate them right from the git-go, we will also be silencing those forum members who are up for the debate, and who sometimes post absolute gems that make this whole shooting match worth the price of admission. And Dave, sometimes those gems come from you.
I'm just kinda seeing this from a different perspective than you are, I guess.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 02:39:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
| Originally posted by KilOtherwise we run the risk of coming off as thugs, no matter how correct we are. SFN is a tough site already. It has that reputation. I'm not |
It has?
Cool! Let me grab my leather jacket!
|
This is indeed a tough site and I think the reason, if I recall the site's history correctly, is that it started out as a sort of bitch box for Bad Astronomy. It was a place where people could go to blow off steam and hasn't evolved very much from that. And that's the way I like it.
But the point I think I've made is to be a bit circumspect in our dealings with newbies, my Tipok mistake not withstanding. And was it really all that much of a mistake? If anything, I erred on the side of civility but sooner or later, even I get hip. So there's no loss, really.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 03:50:03 [Permalink]
|
I haven't chimed in on the Tipok threads yet, and have been trying to decide if I should bother. Any time a person comes here and vomits up the kind of idiotic nonsense he has and then refuses to engage in a discussion, my troll sense gets activated.
As for this site having a "tough" reputation, good! I have almost never seen any new member get jumped on and insulted right off the bat. Even Tipok had 15+ posts before anyone even started to become uncivil with him. JREF forums would have had 20 people stomping on his nut-sack inside of 10 minutes.
And seriously, anyone who steps in with the level of hostility exhibited by Tipok is looking for two things only I think. To be flamed and then banned.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 08:58:45 [Permalink]
|
I like the three posting rules suggesting earlier and, really, I don't feel the site to be that tough, I can't recall being insulted anybody but a few transients.
Now, my view points are probably more closely aligned with the site's culture than Tipok's for example, but I believe that we can be reasonably welcoming in most cases.
Case in point, there was a Creationist poster here a few months ago. His attitute was much more humble and polite than Tipok's and I don't believe he received much abuse... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 09:32:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
I like the three posting rules suggesting earlier and, really, I don't feel the site to be that tough, I can't recall being insulted anybody but a few transients.
Now, my view points are probably more closely aligned with the site's culture than Tipok's for example, but I believe that we can be reasonably welcoming in most cases.
Case in point, there was a Creationist poster here a few months ago. His attitute was much more humble and polite than Tipok's and I don't believe he received much abuse...
|
It's not so bad now. We are still tough, but few years ago the site had become so brutal to new members at times that we were also losing new skeptic members and regular members. This was before you were here Simon. Things are somewhat better now. Perhaps, because so many of us are OG's this is as good as it gets. What I don't want to have happen is for us to slip back to all the name calling and a general lack of civility that I thought was hurting the site. Even now, I know people who don't like to post here because they feel that we are too intense. They just want to discuss things and don't feel comfortable here, after giving us a try.
But then, we will never please everyone. And I don't suppose we should even try to. We have toned down the level of hostility a bit, and for SFN, what we have now is probably as good as it gets. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 09:32:30 [Permalink]
|
If they are willing to be civil in their idiocy then I'm willing to play along. If not, then blast away.
Eventually though even the civil idiot needs to grasp some basic concepts of critical thinking or they are likely to get blasted (ridiculed). After all if one approach is not sinking in then you need to ramp it up.
We have been covering this topic a lot lately (ridicule), and I personally think it's one of the best tools in our kit. People do not like to be laughed at....but it does tend to get some of them thinking. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 09:40:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
If they are willing to be civil in their idiocy then I'm willing to play along. If not, then blast away.
Eventually though even the civil idiot needs to grasp some basic concepts of critical thinking or they are likely to get blasted (ridiculed). After all if one approach is not sinking in then you need to ramp it up.
We have been covering this topic a lot lately (ridicule), and I personally think it's one of the best tools in our kit. People do not like to be laughed at....but it does tend to get some of them thinking.
|
Well, I certainly wouldn't want to take ridicule and sarcasm out of my tool kit. It's not as though I don't go there. But as filthy said, it should be used judiciously. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 09:48:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
You may want to weed them out, Dave, but there are others who enjoy the debate for debating sake. SFN is a skeptic forum. We know full well that as such, we will attract people who will want to challenge our views. And we know that many, if not most of those people will be completely full of shit.
Activity goes up, the fun level goes up, and there is even the possibility, however remote, that someone (the lurker or the challenger) will learn something, even if its only something about how to debate. And then there is this. I have learned a whole lot more about some subjects simply because we debated with an idiot.
From a tactical standpoint, you want to weed out the people who will not learn or change, and remain idiotic, no matter what we do or say. I still see value in arguing with them, and whats more, I see the tactical advantage of taking the high road, (being civil) at least at the outset of the debate.
Just because we think we have heard it all before doesn't mean there is nothing left for us to learn. If we start chasing every wrong headed person away, because they are hopelessly idiotic, by aiming to humiliate them right from the git-go, we will also be silencing those forum members who are up for the debate, and who sometimes post absolute gems that make this whole shooting match worth the price of admission. And Dave, sometimes those gems come from you.
I'm just kinda seeing this from a different perspective than you are, I guess. |
Good points, Kil. I'm going to re-assess my priorities. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 11:33:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dave W.
Does typing out a few bits of information and responding to an email really engender a person with enough respect that we shouldn't call them stupid when they say stupid stuff?
|
You may want to weed them out, Dave, but there are others who enjoy the debate for debating sake. SFN is a skeptic forum. We know full well that as such, we will attract people who will want to challenge our views. And we know that many, if not most of those people will be completely full of shit.
Activity goes up, the fun level goes up, and there is even the possibility, however remote, that someone (the lurker or the challenger) will learn something, even if its only something about how to debate. And then there is this. I have learned a whole lot more about some subjects simply because we debated with an idiot.
From a tactical standpoint, you want to weed out the people who will not learn or change, and remain idiotic, no matter what we do or say. I still see value in arguing with them, and whats more, I see the tactical advantage of taking the high road, (being civil) at least at the outset of the debate.
Just because we think we have heard it all before doesn't mean there is nothing left for us to learn. If we start chasing every wrong headed person away, because they are hopelessly idiotic, by aiming to humiliate them right from the git-go, we will also be silencing those forum members who are up for the debate, and who sometimes post absolute gems that make this whole shooting match worth the price of admission. And Dave, sometimes those gems come from you.
I'm just kinda seeing this from a different perspective than you are, I guess. |
Actually, I agree with that. I can't say in advance that I won't violate that thoughtful advice in the future, because I get riled sometimes. But I'll try.
I do think that some other things need to be added. What we often get, as with this present situation, are YEC Creationists who come here with the usual handful of "Flintstones fantasy" arguments and prejudices straight from the pulpit.
It is only natural that these low-quality, long-ago-refuted ideas should be irritating to anyone who follows science and the debates of the Culture Wars. The Creationists never seem to refine their arguments, nor to discard those that are disproven. These usually involve the same old quote-mines, the same old arguments from authority, the same old paranoia about science, the same old twisting of half-understood principles like the Laws of Thermodynamics.
These are all arguments the depend upon their target audience being ignorant of science and rhetoric. They are arguments originating from the pulpit, designed to dazzle uneducated parishioners.
What normal human being would not be irritated by having these calumnies thrown at one for the nth time?
So, while being careful to not unnecessarily offend the delicate sensibilities of these brainwashed, ignorant yahoos, we also should consider our own tender feelings.
I propose that one way we might handle these Creo visits is by posting (as is often done here) links to sites hosting counters to their Creationist arguments. We should follow up to determine that these visitors actually read and understood those sources. At that point, we should engage them in a discussion of these ideas.
If and until they show they are willing to actually make their visit here a two-way street, not simply an opportunity to proselytize or to insult skeptics, then, and only then, should we engage them in discussion.
Those of them who prove they won't even research their opponent's views are willfully ignorant. They are essentially trolls who deserve to be either ignored, or treated with open laughter and scorn.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 14:05:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dave W.
Does typing out a few bits of information and responding to an email really engender a person with enough respect that we shouldn't call them stupid when they say stupid stuff?
|
You may want to weed them out, Dave, but there are others who enjoy the debate for debating sake. SFN is a skeptic forum. We know full well that as such, we will attract people who will want to challenge our views. And we know that many, if not most of those people will be completely full of shit.
Activity goes up, the fun level goes up, and there is even the possibility, however remote, that someone (the lurker or the challenger) will learn something, even if its only something about how to debate. And then there is this. I have learned a whole lot more about some subjects simply because we debated with an idiot.
From a tactical standpoint, you want to weed out the people who will not learn or change, and remain idiotic, no matter what we do or say. I still see value in arguing with them, and whats more, I see the tactical advantage of taking the high road, (being civil) at least at the outset of the debate.
Just because we think we have heard it all before doesn't mean there is nothing left for us to learn. If we start chasing every wrong headed person away, because they are hopelessly idiotic, by aiming to humiliate them right from the git-go, we will also be silencing those forum members who are up for the debate, and who sometimes post absolute gems that make this whole shooting match worth the price of admission. And Dave, sometimes those gems come from you.
I'm just kinda seeing this from a different perspective than you are, I guess.
|
I agree, mostly.
This forum treats new people with insane ideas better than other places out there. JREF, for example. Their very high traffic aside, Tipok would have been beaten to a rhetorical pulp by his third post. SFN let him get to 15ish before things even started to warm up.
The target audience is never verlch/tipok/jerome/hybrid/billscott/etc
It is the people watching from the sidelines. So I agree that the argument is almost always worth having, and that we should maintain some civility, but you have to know that telling a person they are wrong (no matter how nicely you say it) is still an aggressive/hostile act.
Let me say this about ridicule: Ridicule is powerful. We should use it often and frequently when appropriate. BUT, (yes, an all caps BUT) we shouldn't ridicule just for the sake of ridicule. When a person drops in with some insane claim we can always easily ridicule them, but that ridicule needs to be accompanied by a solid argument and factual references that demonstrate the error/falsity of the claim we are ridiculing.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why go ad hom? I don't understand.
