Should moderation be applied equally - even to theists?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by phlogistician, May 18, 2011.

  1. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    lil phlogy vant lollipop?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It seems strange to me to claim a disbelief in something you can't define.

    No? What on earth do you mean when you say "I don't believe in gods", then?

    So all you're really saying is "I don't believe in whatever it is you believe, and I don't care about the details of that at all. I'll just assume you're talking rubbish right from the start without ever bothering to investigate the matter."

    Sound like closed-minded bigotry to me.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    I'd question the supposition that a disagreement between people on one "side" of the political spectrum needs to imply a vast difference in political leanings. The nastiest battles, let's note, are typically between the fringe left and plain-old left - and they're nasty exactly because they're fought over the question of what the left stands for, and who gets to represent it. Along those lines, I have seen bitter battles fought between people with nearly-identical politics, which come down to the one not liking the face that the other presents for their common cause.

    None of which is to offer any opinion on the specific complaint there - haven't read the material, and don't plan to waste my time doing so. Just pointing out that the sort of in-fighting posited is rather common and often more heated than the overarching conflict, and needn't imply any particular difference in the actual politics of the participants. A politicized moderator might even make a point of policing members whose politics he agrees with very closely, exactly to control how well-spoken-for said politics are here.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    How many cynics?

    Phlog, please understand that James is hardly on my list of favorite people right now—and he's aware of that—and I'm having a hard time following you. Believe me, if I could tack James to the wall, I would, and he knows it. But I'm not seeing where you're coming from.

    The only reason I'm specifically involving myself, in the end, is that while I have found much to disapprove of about my colleague's recent address of community issues, I have no idea what you're after in this case. That is, I can't pile onto James simply because it's James.

    So perhaps I'm giving this consideration greater address than it warrants; to the one, James is able to take care of himself, and, to the other, the complaint is, prima facie, bullshit.

    But that only begs the question. I promise you that I'm not about to hand James license to do whatever he wants, but in this case I am compelled to defend my colleague: You asked if any theist is honest, and while the quesiton has my sympathies, it is also extremely provocative, as it demands that theists are, by inclination of nature, dishonest. That is simply untenable insofar as it is an extraordinary assertion that demands a negative representation. Certes, it is possible that theists are, on the whole, dishonest, but this is the sort of assertion that requires supporting documentation beyond the merely interpretive. In order to nod to your confidence in the assertion, I need to entertain a presupposition that is simply untenable.

    Meanwhile, you ask this question. And this is how it goes: Adoucette asserts an outcome; this assertion is suspect according to the facts on record.

    Indeed, in the back room, James has faced the question of renaming and splitting this thread; not directly, mind you, but circumstantially. And I do not disapprove of how he has chosen to address the issue. Though I am his greatest critic right now, he has my support in this particular action, at least. Arthur's assertion was that a moderator (i.e., String) suspended him for political reasons. Indeed, I can imagine circumstances under which String might do so, but they are miles removed from anything you're describing. Read through the post that I quoted from Arthur; is anything about it really suggestive that String banned him in defense of political conservatives?
     
  8. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Well, given that this topic has come up yet again, for the umpteenth billionth time, I'm wondering if perhaps phlogistician would care to clarify this particular statement made in a similar thread a little over a year ago:
    http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2531811&postcount=59
    Specifically, how can you possibly know this?

    One will note that earlier in the thread cited, phlogistician remarked:
    http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2531482&postcount=49
    So one can see how I might be a wee bit perplexed: the theist cannot understand the mindset of the atheist, and yet the atheist somehow understands the mindset of the theist--or rather, knows what they think and what they can and cannot understand. Huh?!

    And the reason I bring this up a year later is 'cuz the original appeared in the Linguistics subforum and was subjected to some rather, uh, arbitrary (incoherent? inconsistent? insane?) moderation, and so pursuing the matter then proved a futile matter.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Investigations

    As a "self-appointed" member of the "master class" (meaning, in case you're wondering, a moderator who dares judge his fellow moderators, offered up as such with some degree of sardonica), I'm always interested in these cases. Can you point me to it? Though I can't right any potential wrongs, I can at least account for the errors in future considerations.

    Many thanks.
     
  10. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    I'm sure I could locate some more recent instances, as the one referred to above was just over a year ago. Anyhow, reviewing page 3 and page 4 of that thread should give you some idea of what I'm talking about.

    Unfortunately, a few posts were deleted (and I've not saved copies), but I was simply trying to get some clarification on how one party (atheists, in this instance) can know and understand the minds of the other, whereas the other party (theists, of course) are wholly incapable in that regards. The moderator, for reasons not entirely clear to me, did not consider phlog's claims to psychic ability of any relevance to the matter.

    (Of course, you--goddamn you--deleted a certain gem of a post, in another thread some time back, regarding a certain party's claim to "genius."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Brief Notes

    What I see in the thread record are two post edits and four soft deletes. The edits, it seems, are irrelevant to the present consideration, as the member involved was definitively a troll and, likely, a sock, who lasted all of ten posts before being shown the door. (Or, at least, only ten posts survive.)

    The deleted posts, though, fall under a prevention policy; Fraggle saw a situation showing many risk factors for an impending flame war and intervened. As far as official sanctions are concerned, I see none. The only question, then—at least as I see it—is one of inconsistency, and that's a tough issue to pick as it often skips past complications.

    I cannot tell you what alarms he noted, nor will I speculate. But it's also true that we are inconsistent. Sometimes our natural sympathies result in missing a cue. Sometimes we're just reading through too much material for all the subtleties to have their proper effect. Sometimes we just don't keep up on every last post, so yes, in the end it looks like some things get through and some things don't.

    There is, actually, a nearly perpetual discussion the staff behind closed doors about the fact of human inconsistency and the exploitation of human inconsistency. That is, can we identify patterns about what we "miss"? Are there any observable trends in the mistakes we make?

    And I think the answer for most—probably all—of us is yes, there are. The question is, then, what we do about them. We fight among ourselves frequently about potential exploitation of human frailty. Really, we do.

    Comparatively, though, I think the inconsistency you perceive in how that thread was handled results from the fact of human frailty; we simply cannot catch every little thing, and sometimes the fact that we notice, that something emerges to present itself as significant in our attention, is the starting point toward action. But, yes, if we could sustain action levels sufficient to oblige people to behave like the intelligent folks we're supposed to presume them to be, we probably would. That we can't doesn't mean we get to sack the whole notion of civility.

    By policy, he did fine. He squelched a potential flame war without handing out any yellow or red cards. I don't know what, if anything, he said to either of you in confidence, and I don't need to, as it's between him and you. In those contexts, though, you might find an avenue for discussing standards and practices. In what I have access to, though, the nearest thing to a gray zone I can find is the question of how we establish our thresholds for action. Intuitively, I can see the bloodshed coming, too, reading through those posts. Should we wait until the duel is over, and then start handing out red and yellow flags? Are the duelists entitled to a minimum and maximum number of passes before the fight is over? How do we do this, then?

    He didn't wait until you both tore yourselves bloody. And perhaps he was presumptive in thinking it would come to that. But it's what he perceived, and I've intervened for similar reasons before, too.

    Hell, maybe that's how I struck the genius gem, as such. In truth, I have some vague recollection of the incident, insofar as something about the episode stands out in my mind at all. I probably have an Action Note on it somewhere.
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Obviously nothing.

    Of course that post deserved a Suspension without any warning.

    Of course all similar posts like that get the member suspended.

    Of course they do.

    LOL

    Arthur
     
  13. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    That doesn't seem strange to me at all. If you can't define something, then how can you possibly believe in it? And doesn't that leave disbelief as the only option?
     
  14. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    I can appreciate that aspect of the moderation in the cited thread. I mean, personally, I would have let it slide; nevertheless, I can appreciate and respect one's decision to strike pre-emptively in order to defray further escalation--maintain some level of decorum and whatnots.

    But, for me, the real issue lies here:
    Indeed. For some persons, and to some persons, these patterns are plainly apparent. As SAM and others have noted, most recently in that "Goddamn Gustav" thread (I apologize for being lazy with the citations, but I suspect you know what I am referring to), Fraggle is consistently and reliably rather partial (a brand of inconsistency) with respect to whom we can and cannot mock, deride, antagonize, etc. This is reflected in his own criticisms as well.

    I can certainly request that a party clarify what I perceive as an incoherent, nonsensical claim, or an apparent claim to psychic ability (or privileged knowledge), but it's not especially reasonable for me to demand such (outside of the interrogation room). BUT, this I where I feel that a moderator ought really intervene: if a person repeatedly sidesteps a fairly simple and straightforward query--that is very much relevant to what is being discussed--some sort of action should be taken.

    Considering the broader context (patterns of behavior and whatnots), methinks the very reason that Fraggle didn't intervene with respect to that is telling of his own biases. And I don't believe that in that particular instance it had much to do at all with there either being "too much material" to read or simply overlooking.

    Again, I'm not so sure that I agree with respect to this particular instance. IOW I think that there was every bit as much deliberation as concerns the in-action. And again, my opinion here is informed by consideration of the broader context.

    If I'm feeling ambitious I'll provide links to some exemplary incidents from which I've derived this opinion--I recall a particularly juicy one surrounding employment of the term "materialist" (in the metaphysical sense, with implicit reference to a correlative epistemology).

    Here ya go. This Action Note partially compensated for some of my disappointment over the deletion.
     
  15. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Eh? So you believe in an infinite number of things you can't define?

    People have described their gods to me, and I have never been convinced enough to have faith they exist. Just like the FSM, or the Celestial Teapot. you are aware of these things, aren't you?


    I've debated theists since I was about 8 years old. That's quite far away from assuming, which is what you seem to be doing about my attitude.


    Listening to what people have to say is bigotry? Wow, you just re-wrote the dictionary!
     
  16. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    James is having to resort to being obtuse now. Seems he's taking this one personally, and losing some rationality.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    There are three options:

    1. Belief. 2. Disbelief. 3. Suspend judgement until you have enough information to make a decision.

    If you can't even define "God", you're not in a position to disbelieve in God. The first step is to find out what you're talking about.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    No. I suspend judgment about things that I haven't defined. It makes no sense to judge things before you know what they are.

    Yes.

    Just because you haven't been convinced says nothing about whether somebody else has been convinced, though. Right?

    And what's this:

    Looks like... an assumption about my attitude!

    Really, phlogistician. You ought to try to at least give the impression of practicing what you preach.
     
  19. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Belief is an active proposition. Unless you actively belief, you do not believe. We are not talking about an antithesis here, just a lack of belief. So you are ducking and weaving, rather than being honest, and admitting that you do not, and cannot believe in things for which you have no definition.


    "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." (Abe Lincoln)

    So what if others were convinced? Do you think there are people that think the FSM or Celestial Teapot are real? The 'somebody else' you speak of might believe a lot of things. They might also have a low IQ. I don't quite see your angle here.

    You've tried redefining the word atheist to mean anti-theist, you are dodging, refusing to admit that you cannot believe in something that you do not have a definition for. You are being obtuse.
     
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Nice attempt at a twist,... but it's impossible to believe in something you have no conception of. See, you need something to base that 'decision' on.
     
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    /chuckle

    that explains a lot
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Memory Lane, and Other Notes

    Oh, indeed. We're actually going through it in the back room, as a moderator struggles and sputters to justify the sudden recalibrating of standards, since it's someone he's sympathetic to who has committed the offense, and against someone he absolutely and genuinely hates.

    There are a host of egocentric complications about our considerations of intellectual dishonesty. What you're describing is a form of intellectual dishonesty that we can generally agree we'd like to do something about, although for reasons beyond any convenient and concise enumeration never get around to.

    It's entirely possible he had specific reason to look in on that situation. I've responded to complaints before, and then gotten all sorts of heat because someone thought I should only have silenced one person in a given dispute.

    I suppose I'm missing something important. That is, I'm having a hard time locating the offense of how he moderated on any figurative map.

    It could be, as such, that I'm looking at a different broader context.

    Oh my goodness. Yes, I remember that mess.
     
  23. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    This is something of a semantic issue, but the definitions of "disbelief" that I find in dictionaries say "refusal or reluctance to believe." Which would be to say that "Disbelief in God" and "Suspend judgement until you have enough information to make a decision" are essentially the same thing.

    "Disbelief" does not mean "positive belief in the opposite of whatever proposition." That's just another flavor of belief.

    I can't agree with that, as explained about. If you can't define something, you're necessarily in exactly a state of disbelief.

    The first step in getting from the default state of disbelief, and into some state of positive belief (one way or the other), sure.
     

Share This Page