Very perceptive, and absolutely correct. The examples of that entire range certainly abound in The Pit. I found SnakeSpirit’s “discussion” style to be irritating to the extreme. When he got banned, I felt relief, and vindication. Yet, I also felt a twinge of guilt for feeling the way I did, somehow knowing that it was a base instinct rearing its ugly head. Go figure.
Oh, note of honesty. I reported the post above mine, as it is, if not impossible, very difficult to report your own posts. I think I see a way to do it, but it involves messing with the post-id and URL, and I’m not sure it would work.
I understand that you say you don’t know what I’m talking about, Aes, and I’m willing to walk you through my train of thought. If you’d be so kind as to go through my postings of today, which are essentially musing on rationalism and the scientific method, as applied to observation, and pick out the parts where you start to fail to understand where I have attempted to lead you?
I am going to issue a hypothesis now, to counter your previous suggestion. I believe that calm, rational, relentless, and single minded focus on any specific topic can come off as oppressive. Thus, I suggest that in counter to your suggestion, provided that the thread was not locked by a moderator or otherwise dealt with in a fashion that removes the equal playing field, one single rational skeptic talking to a board full of new agers, as you suggest, can more than hold his own, as long as he sticks to topic and follows a solid train of thought. I believe I have seen it done in the past.
You following me? I really think we both have something to learn from where this is going, or I wouldn’t put so much time into it. Please don’t be dishonest to me. Please make a solid effort to walk with me down this path, and I, in turn, will do my very best to understand where we differ, and try to define these points, so we both understand them better.
All of this is basically what Sentient started the thread about. Somehow I get the sense that he’s honestly asking the question and you’re not…
…Because you’re saying “we” when you mean “you.” “You” humiliated people “you” disagree with because “you” are closed-minded. You’re pretending to pontificate impartially on board morality when you’re actually just painting yourself as a victim.
Obviously behavior of that sort isn’t good. Yet somehow, the people you’re trying to defend are also viewed as the dregs of GD because of their poor arguments and (in Snake’s case) abusiveness. Why is that? I don’t think the linking factor is that they believe in the paranormal, because SnakeSpirit behaved the same way and was treated the same way in other threads. (You said he admitted he was an asshole sometimes, as if that was a brave admission instead of a statement of the obvious.) I think it’s that they’re idiots who couldn’t back up what they say.
That enough of one for you?
If anything, I err on the extreme of trying to keep the hopeless. A bleeding heart. I really, really hate to see people get ostracized and banned.
I’ve got my own ethical/belief system that affects how I see these things. I think our interactions are primarily our own responsibility. If things don’t go well (I am excluding such obvious exceptions as a mugging or whatnot), the probability is that I myself am to blame. This doesn’t mean that I can’t call an asshole an asshole in my mind. But I am supposed to be smarter than the asshole, morally stronger. I mustn’t sink to his level.
Versus an asshole in a position of power, I can’t let his cheap invalidation tricks get to me. I must decide to avoid him or to acquire greater power myself.
But what if I am in power? Then the temptation is to use my power to crush the asshole, because he deserves it. But that is not the right way. Altruism requires that we try to help others to be their best. If, ultimately, I must use my power against the person in a way that he will perceive as negative, the goal must still be to do it in a way that causes the least harm.
Are people here asking how they could have helped SnakeSpirit be his best on this board? It was clear that he had a quirky style. I found it to be fresh, inventive (his “Don’t Thread on Me” pun was one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen on a message board), irreverent, and, yes, dickish at times. So how does one relate to that?
Ultimately, about a month ago the mods should have booted him for a month and let him cool down. He didn’t have the discipline to handle the situation that had come about (perhaps mostly his fault, but not entirely), so the board should have helped him to be his best.
That’s my philosophy, based on my New Age beliefs.
Do you have an answer? I sure don’t. You can’t expect people to try to help someone who is abusive and rude. It happens sometimes, but you’re not going to see it often. I guess I’m questioning the idea that “the burden of patience is on the majority.” At the very least, that burden ends when you try to help someone get to know the ropes and he’s not interested.
That’s one way of putting it…
And, precisely, why not? You’ll need to explain this comment since on the face of it this appears to be a rather stupid thing thing to say. Are you saying that claims of the paranormal are somehow above the scientific method?
Nope, I’ve exempted myself from victimhood. I am not a victim on SDMB, not persecuted either. I come here of my own free will, and my interactions with people here are my responsibility. If I bring negativity to the board, the board will shine rads of negativity back at me.
This requires untangling. I’m actually not defending anyone here. Both lissener and SnakeSpirit, the two people I have mentioned by name, have engaged in behavior that was unacceptable. They were banned in accordance with the usual rules and principles of the board, and I have nothing to protest in that regard.
I guess I am defending SnakeSpirit in the sense that I think he’s overall a good person, an interesting poster, a funny guy. His attacks on people, or counterattacks, were never really hateful. You can cite recent posts, sure, that enter that territory, but that was just wounded flailing and part of the flameout. I didn’t know lissener enough to comment one way or the other. Lekatt was harmless, although repetitive and annoying. Unless we classify the SnakeSpirit of the last two weeks or so as “the dregs,” I don’t think any of these three fit that category. In my book, the “dregs” would be the hardened trolls, the true haters, the extreme racists, people advocating genocide, etc. But even in the case of PaulFitzroy, I tried to diffuse one of the pile-ons; I don’t think I was successful, though.
Not sure. He seemed OK in other threads from, say, two weeks ago and going backwards from there.
Don’t know what “they” stands for here. The “idiots” label is the kind of thing I’m talking about (i.e., negative, invalidating, unproductive behavior).
We seem to agree that purposeful humiliation of others, whether they deserve it or not, isn’t a good thing.
I do. Create the “cooling off” policy. Lock down pile-on threads before they heat up. As for individual posters, don’t engage those whom you perceive to be negative. Report abusive posts.
That’s right, sometimes it takes a saint. But what we can do is make it a board tradition not to engage people we perceive as negative.
I think Sentient also means that those arguing in favor of the “paranormal” should be treated with a certain level of respect, whereas now they are treated derisively right from the start. This is a separate issue from that of what to do once people start going nuts.
This thread is going so fast, I just wanted to reply to something Aeschines said, and I’m afraid I’m a bit slow:
Poster A: (Minority Opinion)
Poster B: That’s stupid.
Poster C: (Calls A stupid)
Poster D: (Makes fun of A’s opinion)
Poster E: (Laughs at what D said and adds another joke on A)
Poster A: (Angry at posters B, C, D, E); tries to rebut jokes
Posters B, C, D, E: (Sense blood. Call names. Belittle)
Poster A: I hate you all! Your mother sucks cocks in hell!
Moderator F: A, you are banned.
Posters B, C, D, E: Ha, ha! You earned it!
If anyone deserves banning, it’s Posters B, C, D, and E. Why? Because they didn’t act in a calm and rational manner and actually attempt to use their brains and not their knees. They didn’t try to enter a debate, they participated in wolf-pack action with the intent of infuriating A.
Does that mean A shouldn’t be banned? I don’t think so, not in all instances. I think the mods should try to stop such wolf-like behavior we have seen so many times recently, especially in GOP commercials. I don’t know why, but when the mods don’t stop such behavior at the outset, or at least try to understand why A reacts in the way he does, they seem to take on the part of the wolves.
There’s another word for this behavior of posters, and that’s troll. It’s not an obvious form of trolling, but it accomplishes exactly what more “open” trolls are trying to do.
I agree with you. Adn, there are creationists who, since they do it for Christ, will go into a room full of evolutionists and argue and witness all day long. They won’t waver, they won’t get rude, and they might even put up with a lot from the other side.
But my point was about the behavior of that other side and how the skeptic would react. If he received the type of treatment here that proponents of the “paranormal” typically receive, then he probably wouldn’t enjoy himself nor think the whole thing really worth the trouble.
Another thing about New Age thought is the belief that our thoughts shape reality; we build our own little system, as it were. So I think the New Agers are likely to say, “We see where you’re coming from, and if that works for you, then so be it.” The skeptic’s perspective, on the other hand, is that there is one and only one reality and that one must, as the saying goes “fight ignorance.”
Hence, skeptic vs. Christian is not the same as skeptic vs. New Ager. Both the skeptic and the Christain have orthodoxies that are completely contradictory. Further, they both feel the need (admittedly the Christian moreso) to convince the world of the “truth.” Hence, one in the other’s environment is likely to be received with extreme hostility. On SDMB, however, the irony is that the two positions are so far apart that (or close, as it were, in the orthodox stance) that the two know it is hopeless to battle, and they don’t engage. The “paranormal” doesn’t fit in with Christian beliefs, either, so they are not going to take that side, and New Agers are as much the foe as skeptics.
The skeptic in the New Age environment (board, etc.) is likely to encounter, I would guess, a kind of knowing (perceived as smug by the skeptics, I would suppose) “understanding.” Contrary to how they’re perceived on this board, most New Agers are literate, educated, and fairly intelligent (they have had to overcome the same Christian conditioning as the skeptics, after all) and are well aware of what skeptics think and how they argue. But New Agers are not evangelical and would not try to “convert” the skeptic.
That’s how I see the sociology of it. BTW, I only participate on one tiny, members-only board for New Agers, so I honestly can’t suggest any experimental environments; but nor am I particularly interested in doing so.
The problem, Elysian, lies not with the stars, but in ourselves. Witness myself, who happens to be witnessing the cause of science today. I am poster G. The rational, patient, and reasonable disagreeing response. Alas, poster A rarely responds to my words.
Aeschines, you have had time to reply since I last posted, and clearly, as you have posted at length, no fewer than three times since I last posted, you have had opportunity. Are you simply not interested in a discussion of belief systems, or are you somehow unable? You seem to be presenting yourself as an oppressed minority, and yet you disregard my words of friendship, my metaphorical extended hand. I am willing to take you at your word, though I want to find out what your words mean.
Come. Let us talk. Or are you, and I do not want to say this is the only possible answer, but are you fundamentally dishonest here? Are you so blind that you will only listen to sychophantic affirmations? Are your beliefs so weak that they will not stand the light of day and the will of man?
Am I being, perhaps, too demanding here? Friends, let us encourage Aeschines towards rationality, towards a well examined life. One can hope he will be happier for it.
You’re wrong about that. He was warned in his first GD thread for junior modding, which was done in a jerky way. The “ASSumption” stuff was three-plus months ago.
He was rude from the beginning.
My apologies if my negativity stood in the way of his personal validation. When someone calls me an idiot, they’re not trying to be productive and I don’t feel obligated to be productive in response.
Elysian, that’s a very good example.
There are negative personalties that go to boards and exhibit various behaviors. Some become caricature trolls, obvious to all. Some are much more clever, always lighting little fires under feet, giving the knife an additional twist, and enjoying whatever “fireworks” are available.
I’m not saying he didn’t do “wrong” things; I’m saying that those wrong things weren’t really hateful, including the “ASS” stuff. Admittedly, this is my opinion. I don’t think it’s obvious, and I can understand why people wouldn’t want any of that on the boards. I found him in that mode to be goofy and funny. But I enjoy a bit of Puckish rebellion.
Why just not respond?
Again, I fully understand why people flame back. I’m guilty of it too. But I also recognize that it isn’t good and I should try to avoid it. But the real issue is what to do in the aggregate: What kind of board do we want, and what policies (mod- and individual poster-based) can help bring that about?
We cross-posted, apparently. See my response.
I note that Aes replied to me while I was typing the last message. I shall now read his words. Good thing I went back, as my post wrapped the page in my setup.
Skeptics and creationists. Witnessing is one thing. Witnessing is a beautiful thing. For the one thing science can not change is faith. Faith is belief in that which there need be no support for. If someone believes the universe is five thousand years old, or five minutes old, or created every second exactly as it is, because God Did It, it is perfectly acceptable to a skeptic who examines his own assumptions. Because it can not be proven one way or another. However! However, when the belief makes claims, which can be examined, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, one way or another, these claims can be examined. Such as, for example, Noah’s Flood. Where did the water go? Where are the layers of sediment? We have these tests that show how old exposed rock is, why does exposed rock of the proper age not show weathering of the proper type? How was the Ark put together? How did the animals all fit on it? What about freshwater fish? Saltwater fish? African bugs? These are all questions which can be framed within the scientific method and examined, and they all have answers that can be found or reasoned out. Once creationism makes such claims, they are in the realm of science and can be debunked or proved true.
Skeptics and the New Age. Skeptics tend to believe there is an objective universe. Or, admittedly, there is something that seems to act as an objective universe, from our perspective. Of course, we also realize that the only thing we can prove is that we, ourselves, exist. The rest of it is theoretically up for debate. But that’s hardly useful. Still, on the belief that our thoughts shape reality. How true is that? There are well known instances of New Age thought, for example, yoga flying, that are quite blatant, and easily captured on, say, film. And yet, the best examples found are best described by hopping. Why can not even one person in an entire room of believers, in an entire city of believers, not fly well enough to be caught on film? This is a reasonable question, isn’t it? Or, contrawise, to use a second example from the P+T experiments on remote viewing, what about objects that neither the skeptic nor the believer know about? For example, the moons of Jupiter? The believer is free to remotely view them all he wants, and tell the skeptic. The skeptic, knowing no better truth, is free to believe what the believer says. When the orbiter craft arrives, why does what the believer said not match the reality created? These are, again, questions in the realm of science, suggesting an objective reality.
I never said New Agers weren’t well educated, myself. One of my neighbors growing up was the editor of Tricycle, a well known buddhist magazine… are you familiar with it? Lovely, kind people. Great musicians. And devout believers. And I respect their beliefs. But for myself, I must test things before I can believe them.
I think that covers your post. Is there anything further you do not understand, or that I missed? I am eager to continue this conversation.
SentientMeat, if I were one tenth as articulate, intelligent, and even-tempered as you, I would consider myself fulfilled as a person. I mean that as a sincere compliment. But even you have had to abandon debates with SS because he was “debating in bad faith.” When you couple that with his abrasive, condescending, aggressive postings it makes me wonder if patience, reason, and respect would have any effect on him at all.
If his melt-down was precipitated by the two pit threads he started, well, he was advised in both of them that he was off-base and should have left well enough alone. His response in both cases was to crank it up even more.
As for his injury, he brought that up himself in such a bizarre manner that many of us thought he was joking. If you accept it as true it casts doubt on his later claim to the ability to “become aware” of land mines the sweepers had missed. On his website are several pictures of him shirtless and wearing short pants. Nowhere on his face, chest, arms or legs are any scars suggestive of shrapnel. Of course, none of this proves he was not injured exactly how he said he was. He could possess the ability to detect mines, only sometimes it goes away. He could have been mutilated by a land mine that only struck him in one specific area, or whatever scars he had may have healed. He could have had his children by artificial insemination or adoption. But string all those “coulds” together and the story starts to sound a little strange.
I am not going to crow about his dismissal. I will not even say he deserved it. He was asking for it, however.
No, you did not.
The funny thing is that, despite the fact that certain of the atheists here have had a difficult time respecting my viewpoint, I have no trouble respecting the atheist viewpoint. I think it’s great that we’ve both thrown off one of the worst memes ever created, evangelical monotheism (whether of a Christian or Muslim or other variety, it matters little) and decided to think for ourselves. Some atheists–some but not all self-labeled skeptics fit this category–are nearly rabid in their orthodoxy, but even that orthodoxy is a hell of a lot better than a monotheistic orthodoxy.
So, I guess the opinion isn’t mutual. And I was an atheist myself, before I became a New Ager.
I think part of the problem is that we view truth and belief in different terms. For one thing, I believe there are many different worlds layered on on another. This world of matter has quite strict, orderly rules that do not permit the easy perception of other worlds–but sometimes we get a glimpse. And we live in many worlds at once. Now I suspect in some of those worlds I can see myself in this world quite clearly, even though in this world I cannot see myself in the other world.
So when a person tells me she’s seen angels or met Jesus or what have you, I don’t think, “That can’t be true!” It could have been experienced in the world of dreams: they are an interesting, impermanent reality. It could have been in a world overlapping this one, tangential to it for a brief moment. Or she might just be nuts. How should I know?
I’ve experienced these other worlds. I’ve dream dreams, dreams that seemed more than dreams, and then stuff that definitely wasn’t dreams. They are all experiences; all true. So you say, “It’s just in your head, and that’s not real.” Fine, it’s just in my head. No problem! But, at the end of the day, if that reality holds up for me in a satisfactory way, what makes it any less real?
But there are also different worlds right here in the physical domain. I’ve lived in Japan for over 8 years. It’s a different world than the US. Now you say, That’s just in the cultural and mental dimension. True! But it’s still different.
I read a neat quote once, or maybe it was a teacher that told me this. When someone says something, try thinking, “In what way can what this person is saying be true?” It’s a neat perspective.
I see the point of this thread, Aeschines, but it’s certainly not as one-sided as you suggest.
In the case above, I had simply asked Snake to provide cites for some very unpleasant accusations he had agreed with.
I left out a quote mark - he pitted me.
I was naturally peeved, and threw in some insults of my own.
However when you came in politely during the thread, I was courteous back.
I think the vast majority of us are like that.
I would add that although I know of no evidence for anything paranormal, I did conduct an online test at this very board of remote viewing. It lasted 9 months, and I was polite throughout to the people who took the test.
I think what bugs people here is that on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, we get lots of interesting claims, followed by a complete lack of cites when challenged.
And this happens repeatedly.
So yes, by all means let’s have good manners. But some of the stuff posted here we have seen many, many times before (creationism / paranormal / words ending in -gry). And it is infuriating when the only support for the proposition, which challenges the well-supported current scientific knowledge, is ‘because I say so’.
P.S. Since Snake’s Pit thread of me has been closed, may I take the opportunity to respond to another unsubstantiated attack from there, this time by Devilsnew:
And here is his full evidence that I:
- typically show a lack of respect in debating
- resort to off point exagerration and insults all too often
So we have exactly one post by me, with one :wally symbol at the end. (I actually intended it for IWLN, but I accept that wasn’t clear. If Devilsnew had challenged this, I would have apologised.)
And this justifies Devilsnew’s accusations?
Of course not.
By the way, people, do read Devilsnew’s theory. Lottery winners are guided by a ‘precognitive ability’. The ‘evidence’ for this is that they win the lottery.
Now let me be clear.
This theory is unsubstantiated by any evidence, since the lottery behaves just as if it were random, not guided.
This theory has gaping holes in it. (Why do people win so rarely if they have a ‘precognitive ability’? Why do people who pick the same numbers each week and win once have a ‘precognitive ability’?)
This theory is silly. It is a :wally .
Actually, I respect your beliefs and those of monotheistic orthodox folks exactly the same. I’ve got no bone to pick with folks who believe God created the earth in seven days, any more than I’ve got a bone to pick with people who believe they’ve astrally projected to Venus, or who believe that they’re the reincarnation of Princess Di, or who read Tarot cards to predict the future.
Where I get into thorny territory is when someone makes the false claim that their nonscientific (often metaphysical) claims are backed up by scientific evidence. Whether that’s a young-earth creationist pointing to the fossil record or a “telepath” claiming that Randi’s test is a scam, they’re making provably false claims, and I’m willing to go to the mat with them over those false claims.
I quit arguing with Snakespirit, however, because I couldn’t tell whether he was being honest, and because I couldn’t tell when he was going to turn around and attack me. I don’t think I ever said anything to offend him, but I watched a jawdropping amount of viciousness coalesce around him.
Was he the cause of all of it? Probably not, and I think sentientmeat is right to caution skeptics to remain civil when disagreeing with folks who are asserting false claims. But he was nastier than anyone else, in the posts I read.
Daniel