Thanks for that.
I don’t see any point in looking at old posts; but just to make sure that, going forward, people are aware of the clarified status of the thread, would it be possible (at your convenience) to stick a note in there to point the status out?
Thanks again,
j
Done.
I saw. Hopefully that will keep it on the rails.
Thanks.
j
Is your sole goal self-validation that what you call “open racism, open transphobia, open bigotry” is such? Only having interactions with those of self-same assessments?
You don’t fight much ignorance that way. Dealing only with those as rock solid sure of your exact interpretation of others and conclusions will change the minds of exactly zero people.
Who needs to be, if not part of the conversation at least listening to it, to have any chance of impacting the interpretations and conclusions that others make?
Mostly intelligent enough people who are open to arguments and who have not concluded the same as you have, may have no conclusion yet at all, or only a tentative one, and are open to arguments and information that may convince them. Here I will be immodest enough to categorize myself as “intelligent enough”. Through the years here there have been a fair number of subjects that I started reading about that I had started out thinking about one way, and as a result of having my ignorance reduced with good arguments and facts, I moved into a different position. I hope but am less sure that I’ve provided good arguments and facts to being a pebble in moving other people along the way on some things as well. Hope springs eternal.
What do those people need to experience to be so moved? A groupthink that brooks no alternative interpretations and views? They can get that in any FB feed: Like! Me too! Preach it! Reinforcing silos of extant beliefs.
No.
They need to hear better arguments made and what feels to be an honest and fair critical assessment of the facts presented. Such does not require tolerating true hate speech. It allows for shutting down hijackers who make every thread about X or Y and ignore every response. It however cannot happen if the board requires the witnessing of (declared) “correct thought” that some here want here and impose upon it by the weight of their obnoxiousness.
Just a few days ago MrDibble stated here in ATMB that stuff he doesnt agree with is morally wrong. He thus, is right- if you disagree with him, you are wrong. Opinions are not a thing on major issues, apparently. Thus on any important issue it is pointless to debate with him- he is right, you are wrong.
It appears I have summoned Beetlejuice. Oops.
He has also stated that if he ran a board, he would ban anyone who disagreed with him. That’s certainly not the kind of board we want.
So very true.
Moderating.
This discussion most certainly does not belong in this thread. I have removed your links. I am instructing you not to try to hijack this thread.
…I’m not the subject of this thread. If you think my debate technique is poor then you are welcome to either address it in the relevant thread so I can properly defend myself or you can take it to the pit. But I’m not going to hijack this thread to address this, so pick your forum.
If by “self-same assessments” you mean no racists, transphobes and bigots, then hell, yes.
…about fundamental issues like racism, transphobia, bigotry.
I could give a fuck if someone disagrees with me on many of my stances, like anarchism, pacifism or taxing the rich. My statement wasn’t about all disagreement. It was about suffering evil.
If you’re referring to this post, then you’ve badly mischaracterized it, to the point of outright fabrication.
I distinctly said the equivalent of “some stuff I disagree with”
No that it is not what it means.
It means as written -
Can you parse the difference?
There’s plenty of internet spaces that are upfront about being racist and bigot free. This place never has been, afaik. What brings you here rather than those places?
Some stuff sure, like major issues as i posted “anti-abortion stance. Or a Pro-choice stance. Those are reasonable points on which people can disagree. Same with anti-gun and pro-gun (to an extent) or pre-fracking and anti fracking or pro nuclear power and anti-nuclear power.”
You said anyone who disagrees with you on, for example- abortion- is wrong and 'bad".
I suspect you may have misinterpreted Banquet_Bear’s post #1316. That post does not ask for examples of countries whose actions back up scientific consensus. It asked if the actions of two specific countries runs counter to the scientific consensus SayTwo asserted the existence of. The relevant part of that post reads thus,
SayTwo: But I think the science is coming around to a consensus that the closures are no longer worth it.
Banquet_Bear: Were the UK wrong to close their schools a few weeks ago? Was Sweden wrong to close some schools in November?
Banquet_Bear could as easily have asked, “were the recent closures in the UK and Sweden worth it, according to the scientific consensus?” This is an attempt to test SayTwo’s general argument by applying it to specific examples. Logically speaking, if the scientific consensus is that all closures are no longer worth it, it follows that recent closures in the UK and Sweden were not worth it. That’s why I wrote that Banquet_Bear was attempting to poke holes in SayTwo’s general argument.
There’s nothing disingenuous going on here; if you assert that scientific consensus says all X are Y, it is a valid rhetorical strategy to ask if scientific consensus says specific X are Y.
SayTwo pleads ignorance of the specific contexts surrounding the UK and Sweden. That doesn’t prove SayTwo a troll or even that the general argument is generally wrong, IMO; however, it does lower SayTwo’s credibility, significantly.
One factor in the loss of credibility is that SayTwo previously cited Sweden to support an earlier claim that closing schools had “no measurable direct impact on the number of laboratory confirmed cases in school-aged children”. Direct quote of inline citation, post #28, October. And especially the followup post #36 where SayTwo chides Czarcasm for assuming he/she doesn’t keep up with all the relevant reports on Sweden and other countries. Why would SayTwo be comfortable citing Sweden in October, but unable to say whether Sweden’s actions in December were consistent with the (presumed) scientific consensus? The way I see it, SayTwo just doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. There are other explanations but I think they are even less favorable.
Another factor - a minor one - is SayTwo’s failure to back up the assertion of consensus. This wasn’t ever explicitly asked for, but if I found myself asked whether the scientific consensus agreed with a particular action, and I was unable to find out enough about the context to make that determination, I would try and say “well, I don’t know enough about the context but here’s some info on the scientific consensus and maybe we can work it out.” SayTwo didn’t do that, and instead just said ‘I really don’t know’. I consider that bad form and count it against his/her credibility. Slightly.
I will repeat that none of this proves SayTwo’s assertion about a scientific consensus wrong. It doesn’t prove that SayTwo is a troll. All it does is lower his or her credibility, and that was my main point: the lack of credibility approaches speculation. Credibility is the difference between speculation and informed opinions.
~Max
So for limited values of “stuff” to mean this one thing. And it’s abundantly clear from his whole post that he’s extending it to mean people who would prevent women from making choices about their own body.
It was an extremely broad brush paraphrase that truly distorted his meaning, in my opinion. I’m not sure doubling down is the best path.
…thank you for clarifying my point.
And just to expand on this further: this wasn’t the first time I had asked the very same questions to SayTwo. Without going back and counting: I think I had put the very same questions to SayTwo in three different threads, about fifteen different times, and this was the first time he actually answered me.
For example in the thread about Sweden:
[edited out link to cite that shows Sweden closed some schools in November]
Jump to:
So to summarize: SayTwo claimed every country that closed their schools fucked up. (They later did concede that this was a “rhetorical rebuttal.”) In a thread about Sweden in which SayTwo argued that “Sweden hadn’t fucked up because they didn’t close their schools” I asked “but they did close some schools: were they wrong to do so?”
SayTwo didn’t answer me there. And didn’t answer me the many other times the same question was put to them. So the most recent exchange that has been quoted here lacks that additional context.
And SayTwo’s response to me when he finally did answer that question demonstrates the degree to which SayTwo’s participation in QZ is entirely disingenuous. After arguing for months that “Sweden got it right” for not closing their schools, when asked “were they right or wrong to close some schools in November” his reply was that he couldn’t answer it because he “can’t find a cite for it.” That he didn’t " know enough about the context."
Then SayTwo pivoted to “its not the context, but the leaders.” So I asked him did Boris Johnson get it right? The response:
And then we get another pivot:
For the record: SayTwo did not name one long-term school closure.
SayTwo has a very clear agenda. Its anti-mask, anti-lockdown, anti-public health, and SayTwo is using covid-truther talking points to obscure the fact that he has no facts. Its propaganda. And the boards shouldn’t be giving him a platform.
I don’t think SayTwo is doing much at all to obscure his lack of facts. I stopped participating in that thread quite some time ago, because of SayTwo, but I still read it. From time to time I think making a post quoting every time he’s been asked for a cite and didn’t provide one. But that seems like a task bigger than what I care to take on. Besides, it’s not like it would change anything.