A debate about 9/11 Truthers and CT threads (in the Pit)

The BBQ Pit
1

So, the latest in a seemingly endless line of 9/11 CT threads has once again sprung up like a mushroom in GD. This one, like so many others is following the usual trajectory. The OP dropped a steaming pile in GD, came back for a brief encore, then has seemingly left. Perhaps to return for a few more drive-byes (:p), perhaps not. A few other Truther types have come out of the woodwork to do their own drive by posts with nothing substantial being deposited in GD except more horseshit.

The debate, I suppose, is what should we as a community do about this? Because it’s never going to stop. These idiots will be posting Must See™ videos and drive-by posts composed mainly of their feelings and intuitive knowledge (backed up by a clown car host of internet bozos) of structural engineering, materials science and building demolition) pretty much forever. They don’t engage in debate because, well, they rely on ignorance, emotion and horseshit to ‘prove’ their tenuous points. We, the majority of this boards user community, have been through all the steps ad nauseam. They are, IMHO, some of the lowest, most fucked up and morally bankrupt people on the internet…and that’s really saying something. They wallow in their ignorance, and spread it like a poison. And, to make matters worse, they don’t debate worth a shit…it’s almost like shooting fish in a barrel with these folks. It’s too easy. Except that they just…keep…coming…back.

That brings us to the ‘but’ part of the debate (or could just be my rant)…but, the thing is (to paraphrase), all it takes for ignorance to flourish is for good people to do nothing. I’m not trying to say that we, the SDMB are what stand between Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!..but I always wanted to work in this skit from GhostBusters and this was really the only way to be sure. :stuck_out_tongue: What I am saying, though, is that obviously people read what we write on this board and follow our discussions.

So…should we engage these idiots? Should we, as one posters in that thread I linked to and as others have suggested in the past, have a sticky or something with all of the previous threads on this subject linked (or, at least the ones where we as a community engaged the idiot brigade and debunked their non-sense, instead of just going through the motions or trying to show which of use is the most witty…I give the thread in question to Bryan Ekers in post 121 with his ‘Gravity?’ comeback…I howled when I saw that. One word smack down!)? Or, should we basically ignore these threads, or just put down the folks who drop them on us? Or encourage the Mods to shut them down?

I really don’t know, so figured I’d ask here, since it also allows us to freely insult 9/11 Truthers and their ilk without risking any Mod displeasure. And I’ve seen some decent debates spring up in this forum before, and really hoping folks think about this and consider it from the angle of meeting this boards stated purpose, goal or mission statement…that of fighting ignorance, holding back the darkness and preventing dogs and cats from living together, as the gods intended.

Or, you know, feel free to go off on me, the 9/11 Truthers, some new cat video on YouTube, or anything else you like. :wink:

2

One way to handle it, and I don’t necessarily support this, would be to have a ban on such posts. Whenever one comes along, the mods could post a standard response with links to the various debunking sites, and then lock the thread.

3

One opinion: yes, engage them. And we should be relatively gentle and tender about it. The odds are getting worse and worse, but they might be perfectly innocent little naïfs who stumbled across the batshit and don’t know better.

By now, most of the innocents have been weeded out, and what’s left are the bats, but, in fairness, we should still try to engage them in good faith.

But we shouldn’t indulge them. Explain how VERY bad the theories are, and then disengage if they persist. Don’t let’s have any more 700 post threads; long before then, the “conspiracy of silence” is the best strategy.

“Fine, whatever, hope you can find someone who’ll listen, have a nice life, g’bye.”

Them driving by and then vanishing is a hell of a lot better than them staying in there and keeping on fighting. Yuck.

4

No different than any other conspiritard (JFK, Pearl Harbor, HAARP, etc). Let them put their idiocy on display. When we get enough threads archived, we can just start posting links to previous posts like that old bit about the numbered jokes.

5

Since we as a group are incapable of ignoring them completely, I’m for isolating them where they can’t litter the rest of the board. CT threads should immediately be sent into the limbo that is The Barn House, from which bourn they shall never be seen again.

6

Ah, yes, school is out. No wonder the silly posters mushroom.

7

I met one of them in the flesh on the tenth anniversary of the incident. I had to retreat to the ladies room to get away from him. After listening to a neighbor keening over the loss of her firefighter husband on my Staten Island block as we all spent a week watching Manhattan on fire . . . . it was all I could not to deck him.

8

I used to be a firm believer that some sort of conspiracy was behind the assassination of JFK. I doubt if anyone on this board could have convinced me otherwise. It took the very strong one-two punch of Oliver Stone’s JFK & Gerald Posner’s Case Closed to turn me around.

The sheer concentration of bullshit in JFK was enough to rattle me. Thru the fucking looking glass indeed. But, I have to admit that it did set me up for Posner’s book. I remember thinking “OK wise guy, convince me that Oswald acted alone” - which he promptly did.

So, don’t give up. I’m sure there’s hope for some of the Truthers to pull their heads out.

9

This.

We have the same thing happen every November when JFK assassination anniversary rolls around. We just deal with it.

Truth is, the CTs we get here don’t seem to have much staying power. The OP of that thread has already fled the scene, it would appear. The new one is being blasted properly and any comeback they have will just be a sad attempt at a Gish Gallop. We can deal with it as it comes and honestly any attempts to stop these threads in advance would be more trouble than just crushing them as they pop up.

10

I have to agree, but I do not make any illusions after several posts from the ones that only want to enjoy their ignorance. I approach this from the angle that many times I want to learn about the (usually dumb) sources they have, and also I want to learn new things and to teach the ones lurking what the better sources are actually telling us.

11

I have no idea how this could possibly implemented, or if it would make a major impact, but if there were a basic expectation that the OP be willing to maintain a meaningful presence in their own thread, it would make such threads more consequential for me.

12

I’ll use myself as an example of what I see as the trouble with this one…I always follow the threads I start (such as this one). However, I don’t always post in them again unless I’m asked a specific question, or if I think I have something to add that would be interesting (in my own opinion of course). The reason is that a lot of times I post threads because I want to see what others on this board think. A good example of this was a recent thread I started about Obama and climate change. I wanted to see what folks like GIGObuster thought, and how the discussion would progress. I wasn’t interested in my own opinions on the topic, since I knew these already (;)) and I doubted anyone else cared a wit about them. I’m no climate change expert, so I didn’t really have much to add to the discussion that hadn’t already been said by posters who were saying it better than I was anyway.

[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
This.

We have the same thing happen every November when JFK assassination anniversary rolls around. We just deal with it.

Truth is, the CTs we get here don’t seem to have much staying power. The OP of that thread has already fled the scene, it would appear. The new one is being blasted properly and any comeback they have will just be a sad attempt at a Gish Gallop. We can deal with it as it comes and honestly any attempts to stop these threads in advance would be more trouble than just crushing them as they pop up.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this is the way I lean as well. As a community, I think we SHOULD engage these people, because I think ignorance is like the darkness…it thrives on the lack of light. It also thrives in an environment full of horseshit. As an individual, it makes my teeth ache when I see another 9/11 Truther nonsense thread, and it’s all I can do often to reign in my temper and snap at these folks. And I see the same things in others when these things pop up now.

[QUOTE=davidm]
One way to handle it, and I don’t necessarily support this, would be to have a ban on such posts. Whenever one comes along, the mods could post a standard response with links to the various debunking sites, and then lock the thread.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this might actually make things worse. It might give these fools some validation or something to be banned or stifled or whatever. It’s an option, but not one I’d favor as a member of the community, though again as an individual I’d ban them all and let Bob sort them out. Which is probably why I’d make a terrible Mod. :wink:

13

I’d be fine with provocative/debate-generating topics that the OP has to come back and meaningfully contribute. Maybe make it a rule for GD only. The point of the forum is to debate back and forth, and if the OP isn’t willing to do that, they probably shouldn’t be posting in that forum anyway. I think it would make the threads more consequential as well.

That being said, how would this be policed? How long do we give someone to come back to a thread before it gets locked? Seems like a difficult rule to enforce well.

And do we really need more rules? Hmmm

14

I remember cases were the mods come hard on OPs that do not explain properly or do not come back to explain soon or the thread will be locked. I have also seen repeated offenders and trolls’ threads sent to the pit depending on the complains or replies of other posters. I think that the troll rule covers this issue and sometimes we all need to use the report button more when the subject of the OP is indeed just reheated and already discussed baloney.

15

The problem is, no one really wants to fight this type of ignorance anymore. The threads that are there largely consist people making fun of them. Very little is said to actually try to convince anyone.

So my proposal is that, if a GD thread has devolved into jokes without the OP responding, close it as no longer being a debate. Tell the OP that, if they want to continue the discussion they can email a mod or open a new thread or whatever we decide.

16

Mine is to initiate a Coventry-like exile forum, to which such threads could be banished. We could call it the Crankcase, where the dipsticks could take one anothers’ measure…

I really don’t want to come off as volunteering the mods to take on yet another set of tasks, though.

17

Make fun of them.

18

I agree completely - CT nuts and creationists alike - engage with them, keep it calm and rational.

IMO, a good tactic is to expose the flawed structure of their arguments - and again, CT people and creationists are alike on this - for example, if they respond to the rebuttal of one piece of argument by dropping it and moving on to the next, don’t let that slip unnoticed - point out that, five minutes ago, they were saying this thing utterly proved and supported their position - and now it’s in tatters, but their stance hasn’t wavered.

In other words, engage, and demand an honest debate.

19

This wouldn’t really be an issue, though, if the people under discussion actually respected the debate process. The eagerness of the grown-ups in the peanut gallery to compete for Cleverest PALATR bon mot is a factor that adversely affects the S:NR, to be sure, but the fundamental unwillingness of the CT hacks and the YEC hacks to engage in good-faith debate is, IMHO, the primary reason that such threads tend to thrive.

20

Do you get paid by the acronym?