Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions

[Aneris]

...there may be some benefit to you editing some of the contributions.

I had offered just that, but I'm afraid the whole process became so bogged down that I rather lost heart and withdrew my offer.

In hindsight, I realize I should have offered, and pressed the offer, while thoroughly explaining my bona fides and the advantages of such editing/proofing, much earlier, well before anything was yet presented.

Oh well. My mistake.

It doesn't matter, John. Nobody but the authors will be reading it all anyway...

Sheik already made an effort to cut it back to the core points.

[Lsuoma]

...there may be some benefit to you editing some of the contributions.

I had offered just that, but I'm afraid the whole process became so bogged down that I rather lost heart and withdrew my offer.

In hindsight, I realize I should have offered, and pressed the offer, while thoroughly explaining my bona fides and the advantages of such editing/proofing, much earlier, well before anything was yet presented.

Oh well. My mistake.

It doesn't matter, John. Nobody but the authors will be reading it all anyway...

Sheik already made an effort to cut it back to the core points.

Four legs good, two legs bad.

[Aneris]

...there may be some benefit to you editing some of the contributions.

I had offered just that, but I'm afraid the whole process became so bogged down that I rather lost heart and withdrew my offer.

In hindsight, I realize I should have offered, and pressed the offer, while thoroughly explaining my bona fides and the advantages of such editing/proofing, much earlier, well before anything was yet presented.

Oh well. My mistake.

It doesn't matter, John. Nobody but the authors will be reading it all anyway...

Sheik already made an effort to cut it back to the core points.

Four legs good, two legs bad.

Fish generally don't ride bicycles.

[Skep tickle]

I know this discussion is off-topic for this thread, but human biology floats my boat. Also, the rumor is that the mod 'round here never puts people on temp-ban for derailing. :D

At least more or less as from a brief search in Wikipedia for “subconscious” and “instinctive”, those terms seem to be rather nebulous to say the least, whereas I was looking for something a little more concrete in terms of physiological or neurochemical explanations.

Mmm, well, just because you would like a term or explanation that's more concrete doesn't mean that (at this point) a more concrete term or explanation would be accurate. ;)

And while I’m a long way from having much of a comprehensive handle on all, even any, of the processes involved, my impression is that mirror neurons are an important part of an explanation of a broad range of phenomena...

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate and other species including birds. In humans, brain activity consistent with that of mirror neurons has been found in the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex and the inferior parietal cortex. ...

Now whether those neurons are part of the central nervous system, the somatic nervous system (SNS), or the autonomic nervous system (ANS), ...

Hmm, now, where in the nervous system are the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex and the inferior parietal cortex? :whistle:

Not that there couldn't be input from the peripheral nervous system; the enteric nervous system (a big part of the autonomic nervous system) is sometimes called "the second brain", and there are people (possibly reading too much into that term) who claim it has a big influence on our subconcious; I'm skeptical of those claims. I know of no evidence that people who have had a complete transsection of the spinal cord fairly high up, or people who have had most of their bowel removed, act or react any differently in interpersonal interactions than everybody else.

... it seems apparent that they are part of a feedback control system that couples visual perceptions into at least the SNS if not the ANS as well. And while their detailed operation and consequences seem to be an open research topic, I think it is fair to characterize, at least to a first approximation, both humans and the societies they create as “coupled systems”, a topic on which there is a great amount of science, engineering, and mathematics that provides, I think, useful guideposts and avenues to approach those phenomena.

Guideposts to explore, yes. Guideposts to explain, not so much (at this time).

Could you elaborate, how is visual perception coupled into "at least the SNS if not the ANS as well"? (Ignore the obvious like pupillary constriction & dilation, and saccades, unless that's what you meant - I think it's not.)

And one of the better illustrations of those coupled systems is provided by the following YouTube video which shows some 32 metronomes which start out unsynchronized, but which eventually become synchronized – as some have argued happens with the menstrual cycles of some women living in close quarters ...

Errr....the sci am blog post you linked there argues that while some argue that, they're mistaken:

But the study of human menstrual synchrony has suffered from three major problems: first, whether a mechanism exists that can produce menstrual synchrony, second, methodological issues with existing papers and third, statistical artifacts in how one analyzes synchrony.

Instead, frankly, I find the absolute lack of synchrony evidence in non-human primates as well as in well-controlled human studies pretty darn compelling.

What about all that great anecdata, like what I describe in my opening story? Strassmann is the one who actually states the issue most accessibly:
“Popular belief in menstrual synchrony stems from a misperception about how far apart menstrual onsets should be for two women whose onsets are independent. Given a cycle length of 28 days (not the rule – but an example), the maximum that two women can be out of phase is 14 days. On average, the onsets will be 7 days apart. Fully half the time they should be even closer (Wilson 1992, Strassmann 1997). Given that menstruation often lasts 5 days, it is not surprising that friends commonly experience overlapping menses, which is taken as personal confirmation of menstrual synchrony” (Strassmann 1999: 579).

– because of the coupling provided by the common platform on which they reside. And which I’ve argued provides a useful analogy to the behaviours of humans in groups, and their very problematic tendency to group-think and mob behaviour: can't fix the problem if we don’t understand the causes. ..

Big jump, IMO, from simple mechanical devices literally sharing a physical platform, to complex biochemical devices sharing a common design. Your mileage, though, apparently varies. Course, that's in a car that's still just a sketch on a drafting table... :)

[JackSkeptic]

...there may be some benefit to you editing some of the contributions.

I had offered just that, but I'm afraid the whole process became so bogged down that I rather lost heart and withdrew my offer.

In hindsight, I realize I should have offered, and pressed the offer, while thoroughly explaining my bona fides and the advantages of such editing/proofing, much earlier, well before anything was yet presented.

Oh well. My mistake.

It doesn't matter, John. Nobody but the authors will be reading it all anyway...

Sheik already made an effort to cut it back to the core points.

It's always been about core points, not allowing drift and sticking to what is said. However every contributor has their own style and as the other side delight in misrepresenting what is said sometimes it is necessary to clarify even the simplest wording to reduce their opportunities to do that.

As to timing, for reasons I have no interest in going into our first two statements were very late and that made me very unhappy at the time. I want them turned around in 24 hours tops but due to people having real lives this may not be practical. However long delays should no longer be an issue and our last statement was produced quickly (remember publish time is not the same as produced time)

People are making comments here that are not always supported by what is happening. We do not give daily reports on every decision or thought being made and the matter of structure was discussed some time ago although any comments here are always welcome. But assumptions here are just that, assumptions. If people want to know what is happening the invitation to join is always open.

As to who is reading the statements there has to date been 51 replies. That does not allow for those who have read them and are commenting elsewhere or just simply read them. So while some clearly think it is a waste of time they are welcome to their opinion and I will have mine. As I have said repeatedly this is not some attempt at reconciliation but an attempt at showing we are not a bunch of ignorant haters as they so enjoy portraying us. The vast majority at FtB/A+/Skepchick have no interest in any 'understanding' as they are emotionally wrapped in their ideology which necessarily requires them to reject anything that does not agree with them. Their whole approach is based on having a devil, just like religion, and that devil is of course us and 'misogynists'. It is not those people I have any interest in but those who are still capable of nuance, logic and reason.

[Skep tickle]

I have a comment in moderation at Almost Diamonds "Reply the Second":

Do they have to actually bomb a conference...

Setar, could you clarify, were you using the verb "bomb" literally or figuratively?

"Actually" seems to imply actually "attacking with explosive devices", but perhaps that's not what you meant.

Thank you.

[Dick Strawkins]

I have a comment in moderation at Almost Diamonds "Reply the Second":

Do they have to actually bomb a conference...

Setar, could you clarify, were you using the verb "bomb" literally or figuratively?

"Actually" seems to imply actually "attacking with explosive devices", but perhaps that's not what you meant.

Thank you.

That Setar, he's a master of the subtle nuanced phrase.
He probably meant 'bomb' as in the type of dive that somewhat overweight people are notorious for doing in swimming pools.
It's quite clever of him really.
It suggests slymepitters entering the conference with a visually arresting but overall unimpressive 'splash'.

...Or he meant we'd murder hundreds of innocent people with an explosive device.

One of the two.

[Skep tickle]

From PToS here:

Zvan is crying foul over the latest delay in posting her contribution to the dialogue:

I had intended to bring you my latest response in the dialog yesterday. I submitted it Friday night. However, it hasn’t been posted yet. For those of you who are interested in following the dialog, I’m afraid I can’t tell you when it will be posted.

Apparently, the moderator for the other team has decided that my post is better moderated than argued with, and Mick Nugent has not ruled that out. I’m disagreeing strongly. I did not sign up to have my posts changed before they see the light of day. I haven’t asked for any changes to their posts, even where they clearly haven’t met the requirements of the dialog (i.e., Skep Sheik’s failure to indicate agreement or disagreement with the points he responded to). This was not part of the terms I agreed to.

We’ll see what happens next.

Irony much?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... g-delayed/

“…the moderator for the other team,” a.k.a., Chickenshit Hypocrite.

So Nugent’s providing a neutral platform and is otherwise hands-off? Then IMHO publishing your statement publically here is the only recourse. The other side can approve it there, edit it there, refuse to publish it there, whatever, but they will have to explain their decision to do any of the three or else withdraw.

If nothing else, it seems specifically and intentionally designed to provoke negative reactions… maybe looking for an excuse to bail on the discussion by behaving in bad faith? Then however YOU respond will be seen as the “real” bad faith action and then they will claim victory? It just seems really really shady.

Mick is acting as an intermediary. He doesn’t have any control over what they ask for.

But wait, isn’t it his blog? So they can ask, but he can say no. That’s the kind of thing that doesn’t show up in the ground rules because it seems so bloody obvious that nobody in their right minds would ask for that, so it shouldn’t have taken even a minute’s worth of thought for him to tell them no, and then to inform you that a) it happened and b) he said no. I don’t see any space for him saying “they asked for this, and I haven’t decided yet”.

But wait, isn’t it his blog?

^This. He may not be able to control what they ask for, but can’t he control what he lets them do? Or is someone else in control of the site?

[JackSkeptic]

No surprises really.

[Steersman]

FWIW, a comment of mine on Zvan's "Dialog Delayed" thread. But "still" in moderation, of course:

I thought that the idea of moderation was to ensure compliance with previously agreed-upon principles – not just to “represent your interests”.

In addition, Michael Nugent does specify a “structured dialog” which presumably applies to everybody. Which, considering the heavy moderation here, one would have thought you would have been more than happy to comply with that. Unless you're more into one sauce for the goose, and another for the gander ....

But rather amusing that some of them - Oolon in particular - seem to be of the view that Michael is only interested in promoting the "pit mythos" (who knew?), although that is rather unfortunate.

[JackSkeptic]

FWIW, a comment of mine on Zvan's "Dialog Delayed" thread. But "still" in moderation, of course:

I thought that the idea of moderation was to ensure compliance with previously agreed-upon principles – not just to “represent your interests”.

In addition, Michael Nugent does specify a “structured dialog” which presumably applies to everybody. Which, considering the heavy moderation here, one would have thought you would have been more than happy to comply with that. Unless you're more into one sauce for the goose, and another for the gander ....

But rather amusing that some of them - Oolon in particular - seem to be of the view that Michael is only interested in promoting the "pit mythos" (who knew?), although that is rather unfortunate.

Not to mention she was happy to imply she proposed the structure in the first place. Funny that. Also seriously, do you care what Oolon or anyone else says on a blog that only allows positive comments through including claims we are all bombers? They are all cut and paste clones. That makes them extremely predictable and not very subtle. So it is neither fortunate or unfortunate. This is not for them.

[Dick Strawkins]

I have been under the presumption from the beginning that Svan has only one tactic in mind, the same one she has relied on for the past few years I've been reading her stuff; fling a load of shit at us and then cry harrassment and withdraw from the dialogue process (while getting comforted by her sycophants for her brave martyrdom.)
Nugent's structure has made it difficult to do in strand one but she's clearly poking around for something to quote-mine into sounding like a threat, at which point her standard gish-galloping technique will begin.

[Steersman]

FWIW, a comment of mine on Zvan's "Dialog Delayed" thread. But "still" in moderation, of course:

I thought that the idea of moderation was to ensure compliance with previously agreed-upon principles – not just to “represent your interests”.

In addition, Michael Nugent does specify a “structured dialog” which presumably applies to everybody. Which, considering the heavy moderation here, one would have thought you would have been more than happy to comply with that. Unless you're more into one sauce for the goose, and another for the gander ....

But rather amusing that some of them - Oolon in particular - seem to be of the view that Michael is only interested in promoting the "pit mythos" (who knew?), although that is rather unfortunate.

Not to mention she was happy to imply she proposed the structure in the first place. Funny that.

It is, indeed.

Also seriously, do you care what Oolon or anyone else says on a blog that only allows positive comments through including claims we are all bombers?

Freeze peach, and all that. Although those types of comments aren’t likely to do their credibility any good, but I’m concerned about the consequential poisoning of the well. As has been discussed, we seem to agree that blogs are entitled to moderate as they see fit. But analogous to what someone was arguing on Nugent’s other threads in the context of supposedly sexist comments, draconian and self-serving if not fraudulent moderation is also not going to do their credibility any good whatsoever.

They are all cut and paste clones. That makes them extremely predictable and not very subtle. So it is neither fortunate or unfortunate. This is not for them.

That might well be true for many of them, but it is, I think, a serious stretch to argue that that is the case for all of them. I don’t think that tarring them all with the same brush helps “our” cause all that much.

[Steersman]

I have been under the presumption from the beginning that Svan has only one tactic in mind, the same one she has relied on for the past few years I've been reading her stuff; fling a load of shit at us and then cry harrassment and withdraw from the dialogue process (while getting comforted by her sycophants for her brave martyrdom.)
Nugent's structure has made it difficult to do in strand one but she's clearly poking around for something to quote-mine into sounding like a threat, at which point her standard gish-galloping technique will begin.

Gee. I wish I was able to read minds that well, as I certainly don’t see any “clear” evidence that she’s “poking around for something to quote-mine”. Have you read her opening statement? Her response to Jack? Looked to me like a reasonable effort to meet “us” on a level playing field. Although I also think that she has some serious biases that she is unable to address. But bad faith? Sorry, don’t see it ….

[Dick Strawkins]

FWIW, a comment of mine on Zvan's "Dialog Delayed" thread. But "still" in moderation, of course:

I thought that the idea of moderation was to ensure compliance with previously agreed-upon principles – not just to “represent your interests”.

In addition, Michael Nugent does specify a “structured dialog” which presumably applies to everybody. Which, considering the heavy moderation here, one would have thought you would have been more than happy to comply with that. Unless you're more into one sauce for the goose, and another for the gander ....

But rather amusing that some of them - Oolon in particular - seem to be of the view that Michael is only interested in promoting the "pit mythos" (who knew?), although that is rather unfortunate.

Not to mention she was happy to imply she proposed the structure in the first place. Funny that.

It is, indeed.

Also seriously, do you care what Oolon or anyone else says on a blog that only allows positive comments through including claims we are all bombers?

Freeze peach, and all that. Although those types of comments aren’t likely to do their credibility any good, but I’m concerned about the consequential poisoning of the well. As has been discussed, we seem to agree that blogs are entitled to moderate as they see fit. But analogous to what someone was arguing on Nugent’s other threads in the context of supposedly sexist comments, draconian and self-serving if not fraudulent moderation is also not going to do their credibility any good whatsoever.

They are all cut and paste clones. That makes them extremely predictable and not very subtle. So it is neither fortunate or unfortunate. This is not for them.

That might well be true for many of them, but it is, I think, a serious stretch to argue that that is the case for all of them. I don’t think that tarring them all with the same brush helps “our” cause all that much.

They are not all the same but I guess there's been a kind of natural selection that has culled from their ranks, anyone who is prepared to call for moderation or who interjects with any kind of criticism. The Setar bomb comment is a classic example of inflammatory language that should be instantly criticised - or, considering that the board is heavily moderated by Svan, not allowed in the first place.
If you say something stupid on this board you'll get criticised for doing so. Once you reduce arguments down to 'sides' rather than issues then you leave yourself open to the sort of nonsense illustrated by Setar and the others who, although they probably don't agree with him, must hold their tongues in case they show disunity amongst the ranks.

[Steersman]

<snip>
That might well be true for many of them, but it is, I think, a serious stretch to argue that that is the case for all of them. I don’t think that tarring them all with the same brush helps “our” cause all that much.

They are not all the same but I guess there's been a kind of natural selection that has culled from their ranks, anyone who is prepared to call for moderation or who interjects with any kind of criticism. The Setar bomb comment is a classic example of inflammatory language that should be instantly criticised - or, considering that the board is heavily moderated by Svan, not allowed in the first place.
If you say something stupid on this board you'll get criticised for doing so. Once you reduce arguments down to 'sides' rather than issues then you leave yourself open to the sort of nonsense illustrated by Setar and the others who, although they probably don't agree with him, must hold their tongues in case they show disunity amongst the ranks.

Generally agree with you there. As I think the case with EBW illustrates – even PZ had to give his commentariat a severe tongue-lashing over that – ok, ok, ok: maybe only a mild “guys, maybe you shouldn’t do that, but I’m kind of conflicted since you’re all so cute, and I did sort of give you carte blanche” ….

[JackSkeptic]

<snip>
That might well be true for many of them, but it is, I think, a serious stretch to argue that that is the case for all of them. I don’t think that tarring them all with the same brush helps “our” cause all that much.

They are not all the same but I guess there's been a kind of natural selection that has culled from their ranks, anyone who is prepared to call for moderation or who interjects with any kind of criticism. The Setar bomb comment is a classic example of inflammatory language that should be instantly criticised - or, considering that the board is heavily moderated by Svan, not allowed in the first place.
If you say something stupid on this board you'll get criticised for doing so. Once you reduce arguments down to 'sides' rather than issues then you leave yourself open to the sort of nonsense illustrated by Setar and the others who, although they probably don't agree with him, must hold their tongues in case they show disunity amongst the ranks.

Generally agree with you there. As I think the case with EBW illustrates – even PZ had to give his commentariat a severe tongue-lashing over that – ok, ok, ok: maybe only a mild “guys, maybe you shouldn’t do that, but I’m kind of conflicted since you’re all so cute, and I did sort of give you carte blanche” ….

They are echo chambers and I have never seen any discussion beyond broad agreement (unless one of us drops in) The A+ forums are similar. Lots of noise and no signal. Some people need their emotional buttons pushed regularly and blogs such as that feed into that need. Debate or discussion is the last thing they have any interest in. In fact A+ even says that and excuse it on their artificial and badly named 'safe space' policy.

We know the heavy moderation on these blogs is nothing to do with trolls, it is to do with blocking anything the contributors may not agree on. They mistake their irrational and uninformed aggression towards posters who may not tow the line with 'robust debate'. The total misrepresentation of what EBW said as well as the Ad Hominems, amongst numerous other logical fallacies, should have been an embarrassment to them. But they got their emotional kick so all is good. Who caress who they hurt or if what they say is nonsense? So to me it is mainly clones and what they say very predictable. Sadly predictable. Of course there will be outliers but they well be the exception and not the rule. People with any sense of justice and interest in discussion avoid such places like the plague.

[windy]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... /#comments

Sampling (not unbiased) of the 24 comments (from 18 or 19 people, including Ben Zvan) in the latest thread at Stephanie Zvan's site re the Nugent-sponsored dialogue, in reverse chronologic order:

...I’m actually enjoying the “dialogue” because I see it as exposing the bankrupt thinking on the other side.

This Hermit twat has been busy running interference for them on various 'neutral' sites, claiming that "one side just wants civility"! I wondered if he had actually read FTB...

[JackSkeptic]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... /#comments

Sampling (not unbiased) of the 24 comments (from 18 or 19 people, including Ben Zvan) in the latest thread at Stephanie Zvan's site re the Nugent-sponsored dialogue, in reverse chronologic order:

...I’m actually enjoying the “dialogue” because I see it as exposing the bankrupt thinking on the other side.

This Hermit twat has been busy running interference for them on various 'neutral' sites, claiming that "one side just wants civility"! I wondered if he had actually read FTB...

One thing that has been apparent to me is that many do not inform themselves at all. Carrier's speech was a prime example of this. They may not even be aware any contrary opinions are usually suppressed and assume it is a small minority against them. They are victims of their own censorship.

That's a prime issue when relying purely on emotion in a suppressive environment. It often leads to bad judgement and gut feeling. It encourages laziness too as it takes no effort to actually read and do some basic research of facts. Hermit did post in the Nugent blogs but it was apparent he had little interest in doing anything except distorting what people said. Everything he said came from emotion and that is largely useless when discussing issues with others. It's why their echo chambers are useless in establishing the truth. Ideas and concepts are never explored but simply affirmed.

[Steersman]

FWIW, Stephanie Zvan did finally let one of my comments through and responded to it, although my response to it is still in moderation at the moment, to wit:

Stephanie said (#24):

You’ll notice the “just” in that sentence is not in quotes. That’s because it had to be added to what I said to create the position Steersman tries to attribute to me here. I don’t know why he thinks ensuring compliance to the terms I agreed to when this dialog started is something other than representing my interests…

Apart from wondering what precisely were “the terms you agreed to” which might have some relevance, there is the question of how narrowly you’re defining “your interests”, and whether those are entirely compatible with either Michael’s objectives, with your previously stated objective “to hash all this out in public” (1), or with the stated “moderation guidelines” (2). And relative to the latter, one might wonder why you should apparently think that - of the three groups of people posting there: those making opening statements, those responding to them, and those commenting on both – you should enjoy some privileged status with regard to those guidelines. Maybe, perchance, you think that you can’t be wrong in anything you say, do, or think?

…but I don’t really care. It just demonstrates why I’m not interested in dialog. It isn’t dialog when they’re doing it, just smears.

And which “smears” would those be? And who would “they” be? One or two “pitters” who are hardly in a position to speak for all there, much less all of the A/S community? Citations required. But, speaking of “smears”, one might wonder at Setar’s question in your “Reply the Second” thread: “Do they have to actually bomb a conference …?” And the fact that you have yet to let a response (3) by a pitter – Skep tickle – through moderation. Or how about Oolon’s “pit mythos … akin to nazism”? Smears, indeed.

Skep Sheik all but completely ignored the part of the terms in which agreement and disagreement with each point are supposed to be explicitly stated. Did I stop that post from going up exactly the way he wrote it? Did I even try? No.

There’s some asymmetry there that you apparently discount and ignore. Which has to qualify as being disingenuous at best if not intellectually dishonest. That you let “us” get away with speeding hardly justifies a demand that “we” let you get away with murder – analogously speaking.

But here we are, on Monday, still waiting for a post that should have gone up Saturday, because team “open debate” wants to change my response before anyone sees it rather than answer it after the fact.

Again, why should you think that you alone of all the participants to this dialog should not be subject to the same rules that everyone else is subject to? Elitism? Privilege speaking? Papal Infallibility?

----
1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/03/26/engaging-in-dialog/”;
2) “_http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/structure/”;
3) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=84217#p84217”;

[And, in passing, a big hello to “PatrickG”, and possibly to Stephanie, as one or both seem to be lurking about … ;-)

But I also note that Ariel at least (#33) commendably acknowleges some “trigger-happy gunslingers” on both sides in pointing to several comments there including Setar’s.]

[JackSkeptic]

Nice post Steers, will be interesting to see if it gets through.

[Submariner]

Post 4 by Zvan is up and I can't make heads or tails of it without backtracking through all seven posts. I believe in legal terms this is called burying the opposition in paperwork.

This is, I believe, the intent of the format chosen (directed by Zvan).

[Steersman]

Post 4 by Zvan is up and I can't make heads or tails of it without backtracking through all seven posts. I believe in legal terms this is called burying the opposition in paperwork.

This is, I believe, the intent of the format chosen (directed by Zvan).

Why I have created an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of it all (below), although it is incomplete and only a “proof-of-concept”. And why I have recommended to “Team B” that an Excel Web App be created on Nugent’s site to keep track of all of the comments, opening statements, and responses:

ASD_Y130415A1.zip

Atheist-Skeptic Dialog; Version 15A1

(24.08 KiB) Downloaded 274 times

[JackSkeptic]

Post 4 by Zvan is up and I can't make heads or tails of it without backtracking through all seven posts. I believe in legal terms this is called burying the opposition in paperwork.

This is, I believe, the intent of the format chosen (directed by Zvan).

She claimed it was suggested/influenced by her but she later complained about the format. So I would take any claims with a pinch of salt without more evidence.

There is also going to be a consolidating post to tidy things up. Posts wandering off into irrelevancies should be ignored. This needs to stick to what was said rather than padding it out. Otherwise it will go on for years.

[Aneris]

2b. The obvious example within secular and skeptical activist circles would be the idea that people must be willing to be subject to, for example, “dramatic readings” of their words on YouTube with no criticism attached, effective impostor Twitter accounts, being propositioned while working, threats, having their employment information published online, etc. in order to engage in or express opinions on secular or skeptical activism in public–with the rationale that, because some people say they are wiling to deal with these things happening to them, everyone else must allow them too. While this is “equal treatment” in theory, it is not equality in fact. It is unequal in that it bars only those people who do not wish to deal with this treatment. It is further similar to the marriage equality issue in that the bar to participation is irrelevant to the institution in which people are trying to participate. There is nothing inherent to marriage that requires it be limited to one man and one woman, just as nothing about tolerating this kind of harassment is required to advance our shared goals.

Here we have an intriguing rhetorical trick. Coupling gay marriage with unrelated issues has the purpose of making criticism to appear as if it was against all accounts, including (gay) marriage, which I expect her or her commentariat to exploit. The other application of this trick is to bait statements on such issues that will be —in my experience with them— always distorted and exploited. I suggest sidestepping it with a short concise comment about her trick, ignore its contents, especially since the analogy is completely borked. Emphasize which legitimate points (i.e. dramatic reading, doxxing, imposters etc.) are being addressed. She already tried similar things last time when she compared the commitment to further understanding with experiments on humans.

The legitimate points are a case of Arson, Murder, Jaywalking. I think nobody here favors doxxing, i.e. releasing private information about other people without their consent. But that's another irony, since Pharyngula exploded a few times with the Adria Richard's case, where the stance of the commentariat was, clearly, that taking pictures and tweeting them to thousands of followers along overheard conversation was an "exactly right" move. They even burned Ellen Beth Wachs over this. My views are consistent. I am against it, except in very special cases (such as warning people from imminent danger etc.), but I don't see why common sense must be discussed (like with human experiments, it is obvious that there are special cases, do we really have to discuss every corner and every angle, when some things should be clear?).

I don't know about imposters and would suspect that Twitter has protection against it. I think it crosses a line, but I haven't seen any orchestration or mentioning of it here. I would think it's obvious that this is not a legitimate action.

Obviously, Dramatic Reading is no issue at all and doesn't belong in this list at all. In fact, whatever comes out at Nugent's, I will never give away the only sensible weapon that works against loons, demagogues and bullies—not taking them seriously and poking fun at them. There are really worse issues, like declaring someone a sociopath, misogynist, rape enabler or future rapist, sexist, whatnot, along with the real name to help Google along. Yeah, I know. The FTBullies maintain that they are right and it only reflects the Truth™. We often enough saw how well that worked. Even if someone says something stupid and apologizes, I'm not believing that the correction gets the same attention as the outrage before.

Consider that most people are too low profile and don't really have lots of info of them on the net. One avalanche of FtB Bullies dogpiling and their own information is buried under their allegations. Whereas when a big blogger with hundreds of articles and opinions gets another opinion, it's just a tiny drop in a lake. It goes all the way back to Rebbecca Watson addressing Stef McGraw from a stage, or PZ Myers from his high traffic network going against NoelPlum (who he banned before). They are already edge cases, so it is borderline insane to expect normal users to sit by happily and endure everything from online pillory to dogpile without having any way of doing anything, not even mocking and poking fun at it. Has North Korea already won? We have some satire, a few dramatic readings and mocking. All along the "make fun if them" line. That's all. Compare to FTB & Allies, extreme smearing, suggesting we are in league with terrorists etc. Seriously, are they living in a parallel universe? Dramatic reading!? What about defense against pointed sticks?

[Skep tickle]

Don't know why I bother except for a bit of amusement.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-226979

Sometimes the truth hurts. I’m sure they wanted to moderate the language of paragraphs 12 and 26 that calls their claims that they are having views imposed upon them in an effort to control them delusional. The “cargo cult” reference in 22 was probably another target. Sadly for them, delusional and cargo cult are apt and utterly fair descriptions of their viewpoints at issue in those paragraphs.

I submitted something like this:

I’m sure they wanted to moderate the language of paragraphs 12 and 26 that calls their claims that they are having views imposed upon them in an effort to control them delusional. The “cargo cult” reference in 22 was probably another target.

You may feel "sure", but since you're wrong that feeling is just a pleasant mirage.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Would you like a Tylenol for that?

[Steersman]

2b. The obvious example within secular and skeptical activist circles would be the idea that people must be willing to be subject to, for example, “dramatic readings” of their words on YouTube with no criticism attached, effective impostor Twitter accounts, being propositioned while working, threats, having their employment information published online, etc. in order to engage in or express opinions on secular or skeptical activism in public–with the rationale that, because some people say they are wiling to deal with these things happening to them, everyone else must allow them too. While this is “equal treatment” in theory, it is not equality in fact. It is unequal in that it bars only those people who do not wish to deal with this treatment. It is further similar to the marriage equality issue in that the bar to participation is irrelevant to the institution in which people are trying to participate. There is nothing inherent to marriage that requires it be limited to one man and one woman, just as nothing about tolerating this kind of harassment is required to advance our shared goals.

Here we have an intriguing rhetorical trick. Coupling gay marriage with unrelated issues has the purpose of making criticism to appear as if it was against all accounts, including (gay) marriage, which I expect her or her commentariat to exploit. The other application of this trick is to bait statements on such issues that will be —in my experience with them— always distorted and exploited. I suggest sidestepping it with a short concise comment about her trick, ignore its contents, especially since the analogy is completely borked. ....

Where exactly is that analogy “borked”? While I tend to agree with you, at least to some extent, it is not at all clear to me that that is the case – and it might be a creditable response to explain why that is the case.

But, offhand, one might argue that in the case of gay marriage, laws against that are attempting to block two people in their direct pursuits of “life, liberty, and happiness” - with no apparent justification apart from "Gawd says so", whereas at least some of the other cases, particularly “dramatic readings”, and being propositioned, look to me to be a question of “feelings” – which Zvan conceded have “limited utility”. At the very least several of her examples are not consistent with the analogy.

[windy]

2b. The obvious example within secular and skeptical activist circles would be the idea that people must be willing to be subject to, for example, “dramatic readings” of their words on YouTube with no criticism attached, effective impostor Twitter accounts, being propositioned while working, threats, having their employment information published online, etc. in order to engage in or express opinions on secular or skeptical activism in public–with the rationale that, because some people say they are wiling to deal with these things happening to them, everyone else must allow them too. While this is “equal treatment” in theory, it is not equality in fact. It is unequal in that it bars only those people who do not wish to deal with this treatment. It is further similar to the marriage equality issue in that the bar to participation is irrelevant to the institution in which people are trying to participate. There is nothing inherent to marriage that requires it be limited to one man and one woman, just as nothing about tolerating this kind of harassment is required to advance our shared goals.

Here we have an intriguing rhetorical trick.

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

[Dick Strawkins]

2b. The obvious example within secular and skeptical activist circles would be the idea that people must be willing to be subject to, for example, “dramatic readings” of their words on YouTube with no criticism attached, effective impostor Twitter accounts, being propositioned while working, threats, having their employment information published online, etc. in order to engage in or express opinions on secular or skeptical activism in public–with the rationale that, because some people say they are wiling to deal with these things happening to them, everyone else must allow them too. While this is “equal treatment” in theory, it is not equality in fact. It is unequal in that it bars only those people who do not wish to deal with this treatment. It is further similar to the marriage equality issue in that the bar to participation is irrelevant to the institution in which people are trying to participate. There is nothing inherent to marriage that requires it be limited to one man and one woman, just as nothing about tolerating this kind of harassment is required to advance our shared goals.

Here we have an intriguing rhetorical trick.

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

The breathtaking leap of logic she managed can only be appreciated when you see the starting point.

We stand for equality for all. We believe that all humans should be treated equally as people, with no inherent superiority of one over the other, as there is no rational basis for such claims of inherent superiority. Addressing areas of inequality such as seen in religions, cultures, and laws is done on the basis of these principles.

It's lucky that our side didn't mention anything specific about opposing racism or eliminating poverty. Peezus knows what she'd manage to twist that into.

[Lsuoma]

It's lucky that our side didn't mention anything specific about opposing racism or eliminating poverty. Peezus knows what she'd manage to twist that into.

Good job I didn't mention the dirty fork!

[JackSkeptic]

Don't know why I bother except for a bit of amusement.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-226979

Sometimes the truth hurts. I’m sure they wanted to moderate the language of paragraphs 12 and 26 that calls their claims that they are having views imposed upon them in an effort to control them delusional. The “cargo cult” reference in 22 was probably another target. Sadly for them, delusional and cargo cult are apt and utterly fair descriptions of their viewpoints at issue in those paragraphs.

I submitted something like this:

I’m sure they wanted to moderate the language of paragraphs 12 and 26 that calls their claims that they are having views imposed upon them in an effort to control them delusional. The “cargo cult” reference in 22 was probably another target.

You may feel "sure", but since you're wrong that feeling is just a pleasant mirage.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Would you like a Tylenol for that?

Which she promptly did a snark reply to yet failed to mention your posts she did not let through. I can't believe how overtly dishonest these people are even by their own standards.

[Steersman]

FWIW, my posts (in two separate ones) in Zvan’s echo-chamber:

Stephanie said (#22):

It’s kind of like the way they keep getting upset that I “changed the rules” despite Mick being very clear that there were no explicit rules on moderating participant statements.

But that was well after the issue of the moderation of your responses came up. Disingenuous if not intellectually dishonest to not differentiate between the two cases.

There is no trust. I’m simply evil, and I will continue to be no matter how many principles we are actually in agreement on.

Trust is a two-way street. How much of that are you exhibiting by putting several of us in moderation? People in glass houses, and all that ….

[Submariner]

2b. The obvious example within secular and skeptical activist circles would be the idea that people must be willing to be subject to, for example, “dramatic readings” of their words on YouTube with no criticism attached, effective impostor Twitter accounts, being propositioned while working, threats, having their employment information published online, etc. in order to engage in or express opinions on secular or skeptical activism in public–with the rationale that, because some people say they are wiling to deal with these things happening to them, everyone else must allow them too. While this is “equal treatment” in theory, it is not equality in fact. It is unequal in that it bars only those people who do not wish to deal with this treatment. It is further similar to the marriage equality issue in that the bar to participation is irrelevant to the institution in which people are trying to participate. There is nothing inherent to marriage that requires it be limited to one man and one woman, just as nothing about tolerating this kind of harassment is required to advance our shared goals.

The moderators let her slip this in, undefined.

Perhaps a definition of terms post needs to come into play before this proceeds too much further. After all, she uses the word harassment here and includes "dramatic readings" under it's (now enormous) umbrella.

[Submariner]

Spot the logical fallacy:

25
Stephanie Zvan

April 16, 2013 at 1:12 pm (UTC -5)

Actually, if you look at that question in terms of working toward our goals, it gets really bloody simple.

Do you need to call anyone a “cunt” to get things done? No? Really? Huh, lookit that.

Do you need to identify sexism or misogyny to get things done? What? Sometimes you do because they’re getting in the way? Oh.

Done.

[JackSkeptic]

Spot the logical fallacy:

25
Stephanie Zvan

April 16, 2013 at 1:12 pm (UTC -5)

Actually, if you look at that question in terms of working toward our goals, it gets really bloody simple.

Do you need to call anyone a “cunt” to get things done? No? Really? Huh, lookit that.

Do you need to identify sexism or misogyny to get things done? What? Sometimes you do because they’re getting in the way? Oh.

Done.

Yep. Total non sequitur. A meaningless comparison.

[Steersman]

FWIW again, Stephanie responded to half of my post and to which I responded as follows (still in moderation):

Stephanie said (#31):

Neither disingenuous nor intellectually dishonest.

Yes, well, you would say that, wouldn’t you? Your assertion doesn’t detract from the bare fact that you were referring to a situation that occurred well after the time during which your statements were being questioned by the moderation team.

But whether that was the understanding you had or not, the question is whether it is ethical for you to be free of the moderation guidelines that everyone else is subject to. Why should you think that you alone of all the participants to this dialog should not be subject to the same rules that everyone else is subject to? Elitism? Privileged speaking? Papal Infallibility?

If you wonder why people find you tedious to converse with, there’s a good place to start.

Eye of the beholder. I might with just as much justification, if not more, suggest that what you are calling tedious is due to a refusal to face the facts of the matter.

I am quite prepared to concede that you have made many quite reasonable points, as have several others here in this camp – which I have argued rather strenuously in the Pit – which you should have noticed as others here have – and with the Team B moderation group.

However, I also think you have made some real howlers that egregiously contradict the spirit if not the letter of those moderation guidelines. For instance, I think you went way off the rails and into the weeds in a spectacular fashion in your argument using Phil Giordana’s “this is not acceptable” as some kind of evidence of an “emotional response”. Would you have gotten the picture if he had said as well, “as saying 2+2=5 is not acceptable”?

You apparently thought that “the white, cisgendered, educated, middle-class to upper-class men who have shaped the traditional concerns of our movements” – to which Phil responded as above – was indicative of some nefarious corruption of some pure principles of atheism and skepticism, and which apparently needed purification by “coloured, trans-gendered, ignorant, lower-class women” to be of any relevance. One might ask, analogously, is there a Black value for the speed of light different from a White one? A cis-gendered molecular weight of plutonium different from a trans-gendered one?

You made a bare-faced assertion of what many might reasonably call egregious and un-evidenced dogma which the inequitable application of moderation policies would seem to put outside the realm of discussion. Doesn’t look particularly ethical or skeptical; doesn’t look like cricket to me.

[Steersman]

Ok, Stephanie let that last comment of mine out of moderation – for the “lulz”. The following is my response to her subsequent comment (still in moderation at the moment):

Stephanie said (#38):

Allowing Steersmans comment out of moderation for the sheer lulz inherent in the contradictions. Poor dear is all turned around.

What about Skep tickle’s comment questioning Setar’s “poisoning of the well” comment smearing the Pit with his “bomb” comment? Or is that something you agree with?

And “lulz” qualifies as a refutation of my argument? I expected better of you than that.

Also, this is not cricket. There is no game here. This is about getting work done. Don’t forget that.

I might direct you to the SEP article on game theory (1) – it is a discipline with substantially more ramifications and implications than some trivial pastime. You might pay particular attention to the section on “tit-for-tat” which has particular relevance to debates – this one in particular – and the interpersonal relationships fundamental to “getting work done” ….

----
1) “_”http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/”;

[Dick Strawkins]

Spot the logical fallacy:

25
Stephanie Zvan

April 16, 2013 at 1:12 pm (UTC -5)

Actually, if you look at that question in terms of working toward our goals, it gets really bloody simple.

Do you need to call anyone a “cunt” to get things done? No? Really? Huh, lookit that.

Do you need to identify sexism or misogyny to get things done? What? Sometimes you do because they’re getting in the way? Oh.

Done.

Yep. Total non sequitur. A meaningless comparison.

If the only thing that is universally agreed about the word 'cunt' is that it is a swear word, then all she is doing with the first part of that is arguing against swearing.
No, you don't always need to swear to get things done.
Many of us on this side don't swear. We still, however, disagree with them on many matters.
And swearing at their opponents is practically a defining feature for the FTB mob (even Dear "Dick" herself)
Is she really proposing that we remove swearing from atheist skeptical forums?
Fuck off!

And as for identifying misogyny?

Err, PZ's "lets do the sex thing later" sexist performance at skepticon comes to mind.
Apparently is was wrong to talk about this, though.
That was simply sex positive skepticism!
The woman wasn't asked permission to get harrassed by that oaf but because she didn't kick him in the nuts live on stage, we'll interpret her embarrassed compliance as enthusiastic consent.

[Steersman]

My last comment on Zvan’s blog to this comment of hers. And likely to be my last one there, period. In any case:

Stephanie said (#43):

Steersman is currently trying to make some case that people who have abused my patience while commenting should be allowed to comment because they don’t like something another commenter has said.

You were the one who talked about smears, yet you’re unable to wrap your head around the possibility that some in your camp are just as guilty of that, if not more so. Isn’t there a word for that? Starts with an “h”? ….

Steersman, Skep tickle, you have derailed my comment threads. You have insisted that you have some right to have me post you being abusive to me.

Yet you’re unable or unwilling to show how that question of Skep tickle’s (1) qualifies as being abusive to you. Looked to me to be a pretty reasonable question. But then again, I’m not wandering around with a chip on my shoulder the size of Texas ….

You’ve been general and tedious assholes, and unsurprisingly, that means that when you’re present, even by reference, commenters who have made valuable contributions to discussions here stop doing that and turn their attention to making you go away. I don’t like that, so I make you go away instead. I like my commenters as a group much better when they’re not dealing with you.

Seems you then prefer to have a bunch of sycophants falling over each other to tell you what a marvelous and wondrous person you are. The mark of a true skeptic, dedicated to the pursuit of logic, reason, and justice wherever those paths might lead. ‘Tis to laugh, even if only not to cry ….

Shoo

You, madame – and I use the term loosely, are an ignorant, arrogant fucking fat twat ….

----
1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=84217#p84217”;

[JackSkeptic]

Lol nice post Steersman, can't see it getting though. The Institute of Truth and Justice will show it's hammer.

[Steersman]

Lol nice post Steersman, can't see it getting though. The Institute of Truth and Justice will show it's hammer.

Surprisingly, it did go through. Maybe she likes hearing "bad werdz" ... ;-)

I expect she let it through though as prima facie evidence of the deplorable state of our morals on this side of the tracks. You gotta take a look at the responses, notably this one by Zvan Herself:

Seriously, pitters, what’s so hard about understanding, “Yeah, some people act like jerks to you. When you’re not around, however, they’re lovely people with interesting things to say. Them I can keep from acting like jerks by keeping them from having to deal with you. You, however, pride yourselves on acting like jerks”? It isn’t a difficult concept.

No, don’t try to answer. Just go think about it for a while.

I certainly need a GPS and the Rosetta Stone to parse what she has there in quotes as I have only the barest idea what she is getting at; seems to me she is using "them" and "you" to refer to several different individuals or groups. Do you know what the hell she's trying to say?

[John Greg]

I expect she let it through though as prima facie evidence of the deplorable state of our morals on this side of the tracks.

Precisely.

[Steersman]

I expect she let it through though as prima facie evidence of the deplorable state of our morals on this side of the tracks.

Precisely.

I reached and surpassed the "ex-plaining" threshold ....

[Tigzy]

My last comment on Zvan’s blog to this comment of hers. And likely to be my last one there, period. In any case:

Steersman, that post is a thing of beauty.

[Steersman]

My last comment on Zvan’s blog to this comment of hers. And likely to be my last one there, period. In any case:

Steersman, that post is a thing of beauty.

Thnk you; thnk you 'ver much. :)

Interesting responses over there too .... as I've mentioned many times, the different interpretations remind me of something from Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain:

When you listen to both “conservative talk radio” and “progressive talk radio” you will hear current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event.

There has to be some way of breaking out of those cycles of misinterpretations .... maybe a few "bad werdz" here and there helps to get their attention? ;-)

[windy]

Seriously, pitters, what’s so hard about understanding, “Yeah, some people act like jerks to you. When you’re not around, however, they’re lovely people with interesting things to say. Them I can keep from acting like jerks by keeping them from having to deal with you. You, however, pride yourselves on acting like jerks”? It isn’t a difficult concept.

No, don’t try to answer. Just go think about it for a while.

I certainly need a GPS and the Rosetta Stone to parse what she has there in quotes as I have only the barest idea what she is getting at; seems to me she is using "them" and "you" to refer to several different individuals or groups. Do you know what the hell she's trying to say?

Excuse me stewardess, I speak FTB-jive.

"They"= some of her regular commenters
"You"=slymepitters

Meaning, Zvan is compelled to act net nanny and block pitters, lest their presence turn her regulars into jerks with no interesting things to say.

[Steersman]

Heh. From the ‘Pit thread linked in Steersman’s post up above, discussing his comment at #45:

I expect she let it through though as prima facie evidence of the deplorable state of our morals on this side of the tracks

Considering that kind of body-shaming and misogynist language is a major factor in the current Deep Rifts, why yes, it is evidence. Not that difficult to understand. Though, since he apparently needs a GPS and Rosetta Stone to decipher Stephanie’s comment at 48….

The thing is Patrick, neither you nor anyone else has actually managed to prove that “twat” and the like are actually misogynistic. That that is the way you interpret such words is not an obligation on everyone else to do likewise. Unless you perchance have some citations that that is the case; maybe some dissections of the word that shows where the "thigh bone is connected to the hip bone" and misogyny is intrinsic to it? And the fact that many women don’t see such words as that should be sufficient evidence – at least for most who have the merest pretentions to being skeptics – to disabuse most of that bit of folk wisdom.

As for “body-shaming”, “fat” was of course an insult, although I reject the implied contention that it was an insult of everyone who is likewise. My impression is that she is rather sensitive to that so I figured it was likely to get her attention: sort of a tit-for-tat for her “poor dear”, and “asshole”, and “shoo”. If she wishes to bandy dismissive if not sexist and misanthropic insults about then she should expect to have them come back at her in spades.

And, in passing, a big hello to “PatrickG”, and possibly to Stephanie, as one or both seem to be lurking about.

If being banned by an FTB blogger is an achievement on their side, do I get something comparable for being named *hushed voice* over there? No? Ah well.

Well, considering that chief troglodyte PZ Myers dungeonated Julian (I think) for having admitted to just lurking about here, I suppose that if you were to pop in there I’m sure one of his pet piranhas, sorry, commentariat would be sure to let him know of that so he could do the same to you. Although he seems to have given Janine (janphar) a pass on that, but maybe that was his sexism talking, or just his hypocrisy ….

[Steersman]

Seriously, pitters, what’s so hard about understanding, “Yeah, some people act like jerks to you. When you’re not around, however, they’re lovely people with interesting things to say. Them I can keep from acting like jerks by keeping them from having to deal with you. You, however, pride yourselves on acting like jerks”? It isn’t a difficult concept.

No, don’t try to answer. Just go think about it for a while.

I certainly need a GPS and the Rosetta Stone to parse what she has there in quotes as I have only the barest idea what she is getting at; seems to me she is using "them" and "you" to refer to several different individuals or groups. Do you know what the hell she's trying to say?

Excuse me stewardess, I speak FTB-jive.

Why thank you, kind sir. Will that be coffee, tea? Or me?

"They"= some of her regular commenters
"You"=slymepitters

Meaning, Zvan is compelled to act net nanny and block pitters, lest their presence turn her regulars into jerks with no interesting things to say.

Apart from suggesting that, if that is the case then I think she and and Myers are failing in those attempts, I had sort of interpreted that, to a first approximation, as pitters acting like jerks to people like Watson, but who are otherwise “lovely people with interesting things to say”. Although I’ll agree that your interpretation hangs together much better.

However, that and many other subsequent comments over on Zvan’s site – many of which aren’t even wrong –illustrates my argument characterized by that quote of Shermer’s in #175 above.

[Submariner]

I don't compliment Steersman often, but when I do ....

:clap: :dance: :clap: :dance: :clap: :dance: :clap: :dance: :clap:

Stay thirsty, Steersman.

[Steersman]

I don't compliment Steersman often, but when I do ....

:clap: :dance: :clap: :dance: :clap: :dance: :clap: :dance: :clap:

Stay thirsty, Steersman.

Muchas gracias. :-)

Thirsty work though – going to have to break for some beer and popcorn in short order …. :-)

But I’m amazed at the responses on Zvan’s blog, notably by doubtthat, which illustrate what I’ve been trying to point out here and there and elsewhere for some time: many of them there seem to be just as certain, and just as sincere about their ways of looking at things as are many of us here on “our” side. There has to be a way of pointing that out and putting it all on the table for discussion – which is, of course, impossible on Zvan’s site.

But why I created that spreadsheet (#153 above), and think it might help in that regard ….

[Skep tickle]

Crossposting from PToS, my public comments about SZvan calling out Phil from her platform as a main participant at the dialogue site: viewtopic.php?p=84711#p84711

[Steersman]

Crossposting from PToS, my public comments about SZvan calling out Phil from her platform as a main participant at the dialogue site: viewtopic.php?p=84711#p84711

Nice summary with which I quite agree, notably that Stephanie and Phil had very different interpretations of her original statement, and with this point of yours:

I think Phil & SZvan were talking about different things - Phil seemed to be objecting to people making assumptions about individuals based on their characteristics, but SZvan had been referring to people trying to prohibit others from considering concerns to which skepticism might apply which weren't those of the historical 'fathers of atheism/skepticism'.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, one might argue that those making those rather grand assumptions were guilty of some serious stereotyping – i.e., racism and sexism.

[AnonymousCowherd]

Ha! Steersman called Svan "fat".

[Submariner]

My response to Zvan's statement 4:(in moderation)

Submariner says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm

2a. Agree with reservations. “Not everything that is called equal treatment is in fact, equal.”

Similarly, not everything called misogyny is, in fact, misogyny.
Additionally, when one goes deeper into the marriage equality issue, equal opportunity to marry another human that one is attracted to/loves, eliminates the false definition of equality

2b. I cannot disagree more. The actions of “dramatic readings” and parody twitter accounts have been equated to threats and doxxing. There is a clear distinction in these activities. Further, the desires of “…people who do not wish to deal with…” a thing can be accomplished by not engaging in public advocacy of controversial topics. It seems rather obvious that if one advocates an unpopular or controversial position, one will be mocked and parodied (“dramatic readings” and parody accounts). Threats and doxxing are orders of magnitude from parody and comedic criticism.

5. Agree with reservations. As with most ethical situations, the exact details need to be evaluated in each case. One cannot give a “one size fits all” response to a generic question about truth-seeking vs ethics.

6. Disagree. If science has taught us nothing else, it has taught that no theory, or explanation is absolute. Indeed this has been a criticism by theists of science which atheists have trumpeted as a strength. Even the most evidenced theory (such as evolution) is not absolute. “Only the Sith deal in absolutes”, is an apt quote from popular media.

7. Agree with reservations. When we are talking about facts and measurable demonstrable science, I agree. When we are dealing with value judgements and matters of personal opinion in areas where hard data are scattered or extremely difficult to obtain (such as human social interactions) then I disagree.

8. Disagree (mostly). When (again) reliably demonstrable evidence and consensus of experts about the meaning of that evidence is meant, I agree. When evidence is scattered or unclear about a phenomenon, or the matter is not testable by scientific methods (or correct methodologies cannot be generally agreed upon) then debate becomes significant in attempting to reach truth. When topic discussed are personal value judgements, debate seems to take a primary role in evaluating truth.

12a. Again most strongly disagree. Ideas not their origin are valid discussion topics. Which ideas are white, (born) gendered, middle to upper class, educated, male ideas? This seems to me to be classism, sexism, racism, and education-ism. If I reverse the characteristics you list here and argue the detrimental effects of black, trans, lower class, uneducated, women that I don’t think my argument would get much traction from your “side”.

12b. Disagree. I did not see Phil’s reaction as emotional. It was principled in the form : “A person’s physical and other characteristics give no weight to the value of that person’s opinions or arguments”

13. Disagree. Political ideologies have through history been “imposed” under false guises of “doing good”. The Soviet revolution, the rise of Germany’s Nazi party, and smaller scale impositions such as Scientology, Jonestown, and Waco are ideological impositions via persuasion.

17. Disagree. Criticism in the form of parody “dramatic readings” were just a few paragraphs ago decried as equal to threats. I may be mis-reading you comment here but it seems as if you are simultaneously arguing opposing positions.

20 Disagree. History has shown repeatedly that humans can be “persuaded” into doing all manner of ill. Humans will even give answers they know are wrong if enough of their fellow humans give the wrong answers. The propensity for groupthink should be opposed.

[JackSkeptic]

Nice post submariner. Well put and clearly showing how flawed her position is.

[Submariner]

Nice post submariner. Well put and clearly showing how flawed her position is.

Thanks, Jack. I must say, I had to leave some meat on the bone for sake of brevity.

[Steersman]

Nice post submariner. Well put and clearly showing how flawed her position is.

Thanks, Jack. I must say, I had to leave some meat on the bone for sake of brevity.

Yes, it was a good set of comments, particularly 12a and 12b. I find it simply incredible that so many people on “their” side – including Zvan, Jadehawk, and many others – have such a difficulty in “getting” why so many on “our” side find Zvan’s original statement so problematic:

We may not or we may or we must shape our agendas to appeal to groups of people whose relationships to these various issues are very different from the relationships of the white, cisgendered, educated, middle-class to upper-class men who have shaped the traditional concerns of our movements.

I think Phil did well in catching that rather problematic statement. But I still haven’t figured out how in the hell Zvan got from it to her subsequent response:

Phil Giordana unilaterally declared it “unacceptable” that I discuss how the organizations of the secular and skeptical movement have been influenced by the fact that most of the leaders of these movements have historically been white, cisgendered, educated, middle to upper-middle class, and male.

I sure didn’t see anything where Phil said anything about Zvan discussing that topic, much less that it was “unacceptable”; I figure she must have a whole bunch of crap running around in her head, and she gets all butthurt whenever anybody questions any part of it, and then rides madly off in all directions in response. Skeptics? Ha!

But I certainly think that it entails a rather problematic issue and set of consequences – as indicated by the many rather testy if not nasty responses to my comment on the topic on Jadehawk’s blog – that should be a central part of any future discussions.

[Submariner]

Exchange in the "Discussion" section of Nugent's dialogue:

Ariel says:
April 10, 2013 at 11:21 am

Some methods of imposing: (1) Shunning from otherwise earned speaking engagements, (2) banning dissenting commenters, (3) starting petitions for removal from secular offices,(4) labeling those with dissenting opinion with derogatory language, (5) call out culture, (6) two different ethical criteria depending on dissent or assent, etc.

If you accept my proposed definition of “imposing one’s beliefs”, with the stress on legitimate means, a mere list of methods won’t help us much at this stage. The methods you listed are not illegitimate as such, with the possible (a bit unclear) exception of (1), where the ethical content is explicitly built into it (the phrase “otherwise earned”). Ok, I must add that the second possible exception is (5) – I can’t assess it because the phrase “call out culture” is too unclear to me.

For illustration:

(2) – sometimes legitimate, when a dissenting commenter is dishonest (e.g. a case of a dissenter stubbornly questioning with silly arguments a conclusion which has already been established, just because he evidently doesn’t like it).
(3) I guess we could easily find examples where this would be assessed as legitimate by both of us.
(4) In some extreme cases I would treat it as legitimate (e.g. a dissent to a moral opinion that one shouldn’t exterminate a group of people because of their race)
(6) See (2)

All in all, your list of methods illustrates nicely why I was pessimistic about the perspectives of explaining the phrase “imposing one’s beliefs” in a descriptive way. The phrase carries negative connotations – normally we would think bad of someone doing it. Accordingly, the list of methods where morally heterogeneous instances can be given, should be treated with caution, even if meant as a mere example (not a definition).

Reply

Submariner says:
April 18, 2013 at 6:12 pm

I keep seeing the word “legitimate” . Who decides what is legitimate and what is illegitimate?

2) “…conclusion which has already been established…” by whom? Established how? Who determines what’s “silly”?
Again, who gets the power to decide when a topic has reached a conclusion? It seems if there are still reasonable dissenters then no conclusion has been established.

4) or that the population of males needs to be reduced to 10% of current numbers.

5) I recommend you ask Michael Shermer, Dr. Hall, Steph McGraw, Richard Dawkins, and recently EllenBeth Wachs. I’m sure each could assist you in understanding the phrase.

6) In an effort to reach common ground, I’m going to make an argument here: If a technique for demonstrating disapproval of the religious or theistic is acceptable, that same technique should be acceptable for demonstrating disapproval of fellow non-believers various ideologies. This principle is so well established in civil discourse that it has its own aphorism: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

[Steersman]

Cross-posting of my comment on Michael Nugent’s “An update on the atheist-skeptic dialogue”; also in the PToS thread as well.

[JackSkeptic]

I note that some seem to think my opening statement demanded or expected they allow open access to their blogs and spaces. This is completely false and I would never say that. My opening statement does not say that and I was aware of that issue when I wrote it. They are perfectly entitled to run their spaces as they see fit. However they have no right to try and shut down discussion and criticism outside their spaces.

Their assertion we all want free access to their spaces is highly problematic and one thing they keep bringing up. So we need to hit that on the head.

As Steersman says at Nugent's:

'What makes you think that I think that? A mind-reading course? What I think is that if bloggers post screeds then they should expect – at least if they give more than lip-service to skepticism – to have their claims subjected to some degree of scrutiny and criticism. And that if they shut-down the discussion after the broaching of some counter-arguments then they should expect to have their credibility called into question. But their call.'