Dick Strawkins wrote:[...]Ophelia treats the word liar as having three separate meanings.
1. "A person who has told something that I disagree with".
This is her standard response to being told something based on evidence (such as quoting her own words, or those of her favorite sycophants) that deviates from the script of FTB=good, non FTB=bad.
Usually the use of liar in this circumstance is just another word for "bad" since there is no amount of evidence that will get Ophelia to withdraw the charge - she will just move on to a new attack.
2. "A person who has said something that is wrong".
This definition is close to the standard popular notion of liar - although it doesn't require intent to deceive. Making a factual error (for example saying that one commenter said something when in fact it was another - or getting the quote slightly wrong, even if the message is the same, is enough to be labeled a liar.
This definition is often conflated with definition 1 - because Ophelia and commenters don't generally bother to check sources, particularly if they fear the facts might not line up in their favor.
3. "A person who has said something that they know is wrong"
This definition requires absolute knowledge that the statement is incorrect and the intent to deceive others.
Ophelia uses this definition whenever anyone accuses HER of telling an untruth.
How can you call her a liar unless you know that she knew what she saw saying was untrue - and since you cannot possibly KNOW what she believed at that time you have no basis for assuming she was lying rather than simply being incorrect.
This intellectual hopscotch - jumping between the different definitions in order to further your own progress in a debate - is, perhaps, one of the defining techniques of SJW rhetoric.
Feminism is the notion that women are people.
Feminism is the advocacy for the rights of women.
Feminism is the organized opposition to the patriarchal dominated rape culture in which we find ourselves.
Choose whatever definition suits the moment and discard it at a moments notice for the next definition if that one works better in the argument. And then switch back again when required. The fact that the definitions may be incompatible with each other is beside the point. It takes too long for your opponent to explain that and if they try you just accuse them of trying to derail the argument.
It is pretty much the exact equivalent of what you find in religious debate - the switch between literal and metaphorical meanings of sacred texts. These are incompatible and yet it is standard practice for apologists to do the same kind of intellectual hopscotch - hence you end up with internally contradictory positions like the Catholic churches teachings on Adam and Eve (the story is a metaphor but they really did exist!)
This kind of rhetorical sleight of hand is so common it must have a name - some generic fallacy, but I don't know what it's called.
Excellent summary of the situation, Stawkins. Guest comment on compartmentalisation has something to it, too. It is perhaps more complicated when you add the community.
ARRG! Wall of Text Again!!! Putting it together.
I assume most individuals have fairly consistent definitions, but they can’t synchronize them with each other, because of tribalism and extreme social costs when being “wrongâ€. Being wrong is not depenent of some external information, but on a belief system that is only partially informed by academia or science. The body of knowledge is communal, and passed on by first lurking and reading religiously what the members believe before joining their club.
The social dynamics are such a way that each opportunity to attack an outsider is used to go against the outsider, and not to discuss some interesting topic. Thereby, when given the choice, the tribe rather uses the attention span and the moment to go against the outsider, rather than discussing inconsistencies between their positions. The social costs of becoming a pariah (at least) facilitate this behavior. You win points by going against the outsider, but you risk points by questioning a tribe fellow. This happens from time time, they have some contrarians as well, but they are typically unseen in the heated topics and they are protected by being long enough in the tribe. They are also important to maintain a fiction of diversity.
The outsider, however, is confronted with all kinds of mutually exclusive positions and – interestingly – when trying to answer them, will appear confused to the tribe, which can (and will) take advantage of it. You can observe it in dogpiles. Clearing up definitions is made impossible, because it would always violate the view of some segment, who then jumps to attack. Another byproduct is a kind of Gish gallop, wherein the person under attack can’t possibly defend themselves against everything levelled against them, while advancing their own points (and if they did, it’s “you’re making it all about yourself†– ban). This is closing loopholes in their tribalist defense.
You can also see how this confusion is used to create phantom-positions the target doesn’t hold, by the very same trick. Some person attacks the foil with X, the foil answers X. Then the other tribe members will see X coming from their foil, and twist it a little further until the phantom-position is created, which then enters their fiction as true (and will be revised everytime the person shows up and the feud is perpetuated). In much the same way, the tribe people don’t “see†the positions of their peers, because of focus on the foil, they also don’t see (or downplay) inconsistent views or definitions.
But won’t they notice inconsistencies over time, if not in the heat of battle?
Indeed, they do. Over time, they smooth out the inconsistencies when they see how some word was used, which again feeds into the communnal body of knowledge. You learn by seeing how some argument was received by the tribe. This is how rationalisation schemes develop that can be readily applied in every given situation onwards. The latest one perhaps is the idea that being “against†something wasn’t good enough, in best American tradition that pitted in all seriousness a “Pro Choice vs Pro Life†movements against each other.
Finally, the community could have a number of such tools that are accepted, but which are inconsistent with each other. You have to see this not as personal beliefs, but more like “this argument worked and was accepted and somehow rings true†and thus can be applied. It allows them to simulatenously maintain that when we post over there, we wanted to recruit people, while also believing we hate them all the time (it’s just a minor example from Benson’s current blog).
The origins of this behavior is the battle with creationists, where evolution provided a solid ground to base views in. Here you could still point out inconsistencies, because they were grounded in fact. But as they gradually switched to humanities, such a ground doesn’t exist in the same way. Together with driven up social costs of being “wrongâ€, they fabricated a reality where their opponents hold indefensible views (similar to creationism).
Put differently, there is a bias against complexity and nuance, in favour of clear cut “we vs enemy†that is maintained. It is also the reason why their positions are pretty much always about “101†and hardly go deeper (because more complicated things blur tribalism, and risk that the person challenges view of another tribe member). This happens only undisturbed and protected (such as on other blogs, or imported whole).
This fiction is perpetuated by Myers, Benson, Zvan and Co and heavily protected by their blog moderation, their demonization of free flowing social media and demonization of memes (satire) as they threaten this fiction (here, Sheldon Solomon comes in handy). That’s where the block bot and so forth come in. And that’s also where you attach their “harassment narrativesâ€. The “playing victim†is a by-product, when there is a victim, there is a perpetrator. Where we come back to their “we vs them†fiction required to keep it running. It is an Ersatz-Theory-Of-Evolution in a way.
Last words, PZ Myers created this, as he emphasized the “we vs them†mentality and kept whipping up his horde. He indirectly controlled the socal dynamics and by his tribalist moderation, he set the tone. And he most likely enters history as a footnote on some research in (cognitive) psychology/science or sociology. Online communities are fairly new, they’ll be a hot topic and what could be more intersting than a community that claims to be rational (with all of this embedded in other social developments of our time, including atheism).
One day, I’ll write some e-mails myself to people who could be interested, or their students. Perhaps all of you consider that too. Let’s give PZ Myers the spot in science he deserves. But if Myers or his sycophants read here, why don’t you turn it around?
