Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by dumbest man on earth, Jun 29, 2020.
I feel sure this is true.
Tragically. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
''historically''. So, where are you saying it leans now?
Below your saying it's not about free speech. So, where? Is it still '' supremacism'' ?
Come on Tiassa don't sit on the fence.
''Let's be clear'' if only you would.
I was being generous. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Free speech seems to be the upshot, whatever the motivation.
Though, frankly, I'm not sure how supremacism manifests as non-interference.
You have now.
I think that there are several (more than one) individuals on this board who like to see themselves as "Crusaders for Righteousness". We often see accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" flying around Sciforums, typically because somebody else damnably disagreed with one of the Righteous ones. Whether it's politics, atheism, or just defending the honor of Science, the response to anything that they don't like can be a torrent of ridicule, insult and invective.
Probably the best way to deal with it is to appear unperturbed (they want to anger you, they see that as a victory, their way of hurting you) and just make better posts than they are capable of making. Show them up intellectually. If you find yourself getting too caught up in it emotionally, just put the louder and more abusive ones on ignore. That's what the ignore feature is for. If you sense that somebody is trying to mess with your head, you don't need to subject yourself to that.
Just keep trying to make good posts. I, for one, appreciate them.
Aw, dmoe - don’t let online antics get you down. There are people who will adore you and others who won’t. Just facts of life. ((Hugs))
You're cherry picking. That's hardly objective.
That lack of patience toward those seen as trolls has a history of literally thousands and thousands of patient, thoughtful, posts, in dozens of threads - over months and even years - written with careful explanations of the science - explained over and over - and all falling on deaf ears.
I know, for my part, I have written thousands of posts answering questions and patiently explaining every step of basic science of a given topic to each one of these members, all in good faith. It's all there in the forum history.
At some point, any responsible adult has an obligation to either bone up on the relevant facts, or acknowledge that they are talking through their hat.
These people are wilfully ignorant - they are not victims here.
tut tut Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'll tell you something my dear philosophical friend, I'll continue as is, and refute the real trolls and pseudoscience nuts, despite your bleeding heart support for them.
In fact I'm rather convinced you maybe another closeted ID adherent, explaining your bleeding heart attitude towards the real trolls.
Doubly so in dmoe and river's case.
Well, I'll keep my own counsel on whom I deem a troll. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Almost everyone on SciFo I will happily engage while they are discussing in good faith. Yes, even Magical Realist.
With the exception of a very select few, I try to hate the deed, rather the doer (in other words, I try hard to have a short memory).
DMOE has not made his way into my long-term memory. (If it was his intent to troll me, I guess he's ... not trying hard enough? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Not surprising, as he wastes all his time on me!!He maybe dumb, but he's not mute.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
DMOE! You're slacking off! You need to work harder at annoying Dave!
Here's an interesting article on debating trolls.....
I often like to discuss science online and I'm also rather partial to topics that promote lively discussion, such as climate change, crime statistics and (perhaps surprisingly) the big bang. This inevitably brings out the trolls.
"Don't feed the trolls" is sound advice, but I've ignored it on occasion – including on The Conversation and Twitter – and I've been rewarded. Not that I've changed the minds of any trolls, nor have I expected to.
But I have received an education in the tactics many trolls use. These tactics are common not just to trolls but to bloggers, journalists and politicians who attack science, from climate to cancer research.
Some techniques are comically simple. Emotionally charged, yet evidence-free, accusations of scams, fraud and cover-ups are common. While they mostly lack credibility, such accusations may be effective at polarising debate and reducing understanding.
And I wish I had a dollar each time a scientifically incompetent ideologue claimed science is a religion. The chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, Maurice Newman, trotted out that old chestnut in The Australian last week. Australia's Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, was less than impressed by Newman's use of that tactic.
Unfortunately there are too many tactics to discuss in just one article (sorry Gish Gallop and Strawman), so I will focus on just a few that I've encountered online and in the media recently.
Internet trolls know who their experts are. There are thousands of professors scattered across academia, so it isn't surprising that a few contrarians can be found. In online discussions I've been told of the contrarian views of "respected" professors from Harvard, MIT and Princeton.
Back in The Conversation's early days I even copped abuse for not being at Princeton by someone who was clearly unfamiliar with both science and my employment history. It was a useful lesson that vitriol is often disconnected from knowledge and expertise.
more at link..............
A pity that you reveal so much intellectual dishonesty, with your failing to comment on the ridicule, insults and invectives directed at science, by some of our god botherer friends,,,One in particular that has given you a "like" in your post previous to this.
I respect Yazata, I see him as rational and intellectually honest, I just think he has more patience and compassion for troll-like behavior than some of the rest of us who've had it up to here.
I mean, I can't truly defend my gleeful derision of trolls, except by saying I've lost patience with them. That doesn't make it right in an absolute sense, just that it's warranted for me in a relative sense. I have a lot of patience with ignorance, but I have my limit when it's obviously wilful. Yazata's limit just happens to be somewhere beyond mine. I try to respect his relative position on that.
Maybe the difference is in posting frequency. For example, I've gone somewhere near a thousand posts in one thread alone, patiently trying to bring some rationality to the discussion. Maybe Yazata has a similar breaking point, but just hasn't reached it yet.
I actually once respected him also, until I posted a quote from Bertrand Russell re "science is what we knowPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!hilosophy is what we don't know", which drew some ire from him.
The intellectual dishonesty that I mentioned, is formulated in that he is appearing to me at least, to deride and rubbish those of us that call a spade a shovel, while completely ignoring the actions from the other side.
I readily admit, after lengthy debate on some issues in using insults, but I do so after I have been insulted...or science unfairly in general.
If he offered his criticism fairly, to both sides, then you wouldn't see to much comment from me.
Whether I'm wrong or right in giving what I get is another matter, but I have a deep seated belief that bullies/trolls need to be confronted.
He is stupid and not concise.
I don't read yazatas posts.
This thread itself, was started to confront, to flame, and provoke, and we all know that, even you Yazata, if you chose to be honest. As was his thread previous to this also....http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ar...llies-on-sciforums.163292/page-6#post-3640439
Not particularly directed at Dave, more directed at the one he has continually directed, his passive aggressive venom tactics at for years now. It hasn't worked and still he persists.
Why not address that Yazata?
I get that, although there is something to be said for the way the pendulum has to swing: first to the side before coming back to centre.
At the risk of using an entirely too topical example:
Sure, All Lives Matter, but right now, Black Lives could use some extra lovin'...
I can't really fault Yazata if he feels that - right now - the derided of the board could use some extra lovin'.
That's great! Now expand your knowledge base and your ideas will improve.
Separate names with a comma.