I Accuse What Exit of Being a Liar

[BrainGlutton]

@Sailboat

I’ve always thought What Exit’s characterization of you as “astroturfing” was really on the mark – it seems like a paid campaign. You manage to post here, so you couldn’t simply be stupid.

But now I admit I am reconsidering my position.

A lot more people than you think will do that sort of thing without being paid. Check out crank.net.

[Guy_Betty]

@brazil84

I’ve always been fascinated by hoaxes and moral panics, I’ve studied the issues carefully, and I’m satisfied that CAGW falls into this category.

And you still missed all of the evidence?

[Tuckerfan]

@Sailboat

I’ve always thought What Exit’s characterization of you as “astroturfing” was really on the mark – it seems like a paid campaign. You manage to post here, so you couldn’t simply be stupid.

But now I admit I am reconsidering my position.

Why can’t it be both? Let’s face it, as far as places to astroturf go, the SDMB is pretty much small potatoes. We’ve got maybe 3K active posters, and maybe another 1K lurkers/occassional posters. If you’re trying to impact policy by getting a grassroots movement going (or even some angry emails/phone calls) to Kongress Kritters, this isn’t exactly “the” place to be. Assuming he manages shift the opinions of 1% of the posters here, that’s roughly 40 people. Not exactly big numbers. Nobody smart would think that this was a good place to astroturf, but as Brazilnut’s shown in even non-AGW threads, he’s little more than the Kirk Cameron of the anti-global warming crowd.

[Tuckerfan]

@BrainGlutton

A lot more people than you think will do that sort of thing without being paid. Check out crank.net.

Yes, but those people don’t tend to fold easily on anything. Contrast that with Brazilnut’s performance in this thread about RFID tags. A minor smackdown from me, causes him to go running for the mods to save him. In the AGW threads, he never screams for the mods because he thinks he’s being unfairly persecuted.

[brazil84]

@Tuckerfan

In the AGW threads, he never screams for the mods because he thinks he’s being unfairly persecuted.

Actually I’ve stopped reporting posts in all threads in GD. I’m not sure about “unfair persecution,” but I’ll admit I’m not satisfied with the quality of the moderating there.

Anyway, I have my own detailed rules of debate now. If somebody can’t follow my rules, I just “ban” them, which means I don’t engage with them any more. This seems to work just fine.

[brazil84]

@Guy_Betty

And you still missed all of the evidence?

I’m not sure what you mean by “missed.” I’ve considered such evidence as I’ve encountered and found. I’ve laid out my response on my blog, which I won’t link to here but I’m happy to share my thoughts in a GD thread. If you think I’ve missed something important, please feel free to share it with me.

[Hellestal]

@brazil84

Anyway, I have my own detailed rules of debate now. If somebody can’t follow my rules, I just “ban” them, which means I don’t engage with them any more. This seems to work just fine.

You got a list of these rules handy?

[brazil84]

@Kendall Jackson

You got a list of these rules handy?

Here is the most recent version:

I drafted these rules to give people notice of how I approach internet debates. If you violate these rules I will ban you. Obviously, on other message boards, I do not have the power to stop anyone from postings or remove their posts. Thus, when I ban you, what I mean is that I will stop reading or responding to your posts. Anyway, here are the rules:

Rule 1 No strawmen. While debating, you are not allowed to misrepresent what I say. Similarly, I will not misrepresent your position. If you state or imply that my position is different from what I have actually said, I will call on you to ’show me where I said it.’ You must either do so or own up and apologize. Otherwise I will ban you.

Similarly, if you argue against a position which I do not dispute — while pretending to be contradicting me, you are attacking a straw man.

Another form of strawmanning is to interpret my statements in an unreasonable way. For example, if I claim that men are taller than women, it would be unreasonable to interpret this as a claim that every man is taller than every woman. Or if I claim that smoking has been proven to cause lung cancer, I am obviously talking about proof in the scientific sense — not in a mathematical or logical sense. If you interpret my words unreasonably, I will correct you and you will be expected to to continue the discussion using the correct interpretation.

In addition, if I make a claim which is unclear or open to misinterpretation and subsequently clarify my position, you must argue against the clarified position. If I abandon a claim either because I think I was wrong or I am doing so for the sake of argument, you are strawmanning if you continue to argue against that claim.

Rule 2. No weaseling. While debating, you are not allowed to misrepresent your own claims or pretend to have said something different from what you actually said. Similarly, I will not misrepresent my own statements. If I point out that you are weaseling, you must own up to it or be banned.

A more subtle form of weaseling is if you pretend that you asked a different question than the one you asked or made a different request from the one you made. Similar consequences apply.

Rule 3 Coherency. While debating, I must be able to understand your points if I am to consider them and respond to them. This is not a classroom and you are not my teacher. Nor am I your teacher. Thus, you are not allowed to leave points ambiguous for some claimed pedagogical purpose (or any other reason). Similarly, I will make points as clearly as I reasonably can. You must answer reasonable questions to help me understand your position. If you evade or ignore those questions, I will ban you. Similarly, I will answer reasonable questions about my position.

Further, if your posts are consistently incoherent, I will ban you. If you feel that my posts are consistently incoherent, you are free to stop reading them.

Rule 4 Citations.

(a) You are free to ask me for a citation for a point I have made, but it must be on a point you are seriously skeptical about. For example, if I claim that men are on average taller than women and you demand a cite, you must first represent to me that you are seriously skeptical that men are on average taller than women.

(b) If you are providing a cite that a particular person or entity made a particular claim, you must quote the actual language in question. I will try to do the same.

Rule 5 Personal insults. No personal insults or intemperate language.

Rule 6 Spelling flames. If you start flaming my spelling, grammar, or the like, I will probably conclude that you are conceding.

Rule 7 Examples. If you make a general statement or observation, I may require you to provide examples. For example, if you claim that numerous species have gone extinct due to global warming, I may require you to name or 3 examples of such species. Similarly, upon request, I will provide examples of general statements I make.

Rule 8 Meta-Debate. I’m not going to waste a lot of time arguing over peoples’ debate tactics. If I sense things are headed that way, I will probably cut things off.

Rule 9 Badge-flashing If we are debating on a message board where you have moderator or administrative type powers, you are not allowed to exercise your powers in an abusive, unfair or biased way.

Rule 10 You cannot violate these rules directly or indirectly.

Rule 11 Assume Good Faith You must assume that I am arguing in good faith and give me a chance to fix any problems. I will do the same for you. For example, if you believe I have misrepresented your position, you should tell me so and give me a chance to correct any misinterpretation. I will do the same for you.

I may add other rules as time goes by, but that’s it for now.

By the way, these do not apply to plain vanilla pit-style flame wars. If you want to insult me in this thread, feel free. However, if a debate breaks out, that’s potentially a different story.

[AngryIrishLass]

@Tuckerfan

Yes, but those people don’t tend to fold easily on anything. Contrast that with Brazilnut’s performance in this thread about RFID tags. A minor smackdown from me, causes him to go running for the mods to save him. In the AGW threads, he never screams for the mods because he thinks he’s being unfairly persecuted.

I remember that thread. It started out mildly interesting, then, well a whole boatload of dumbshit got dropped in it. **Sarahfeena **deserves props for the effort put forth.

His debating rules are here courtesy of **SmartAleq **in post 13.

[Lionne]

The song running through my head after reading this thread is this one.

[elucidator]

Thank you for sharing.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Lionne

The song running through my head after reading this thread is this one.

Why am I hungry now?

[BrainGlutton]

Anything brazil84 has to say on scientific questions should be measured against his support for “scientific racism.” See his posts in this thread and this one.

[brazil84]

Oh, and another by the way:

I agree that drafting a set of rules like that was an extremely dorky thing to do. Shockingly dorky, even for the SDMB.

[What_Exit]

@brazil84

Oh, and another by the way:

I agree that drafting a set of rules like that was an extremely dorky thing to do. Shockingly dorky, even for the SDMB.

This might be the most reasonable thing I have ever seen you write. Are you trying to shock me?

[brazil84]

@What_Exit

This might be the most reasonable thing I have ever seen you write.

Most things I write are reasonable. You are just biased, as far as I can tell. Thus if I criticize myself, it’s much easier for you to appreciate my reasonableness than if I am criticizing you or something you are invested in.

[BrainGlutton]

@brazil84

Most things I write are reasonable.

Yes, well, there’s a difference between “reasonable” and “reasoned.”

[pkd88]

Brazil84 have you ever convinced anyone to change their mind based on the facts you post?

[Q.E.D]

@pkd88

Brazil84 have you ever convinced anyone to change their mind based on the facts you post?

Definitely. When he first started posting here, I thought he was a reasonable and intelligent person.

[brazil84]

@pkd88

Brazil84 have you ever convinced anyone to change their mind based on the facts you post?

Probably, although it’s somewhat unusual for anyone to argue for Position X in a thread and later openly admit that they have been convinced to abandon Position X.

However, for example, reading through this thread, I would say it’s likely that I changed ascenray’s mind about Guns, Germs & Steel. I would say it’s also likely that Shalmanese will – at a minimum – modify his argument about Guns Germs & Steel representing a scientific consensus.