(split) On lies, sexual harassment, and moderation

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Magical Realist, Oct 28, 2017.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,823
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2017
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    588
    Yeah, that's what is was, wasn't it...
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    That's what you say now.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Ha ha!
     
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,659
    Does that apply when Kittamaru or Bells are calling people "intellectually dishonest" simply for disagreeing with them? They do that a lot. They've done it to me.

    Does that apply to those who attack and caricature political conservatives or populists? Or to those who attack and caricature religion and religious believers? (Some of your moderators are among the bad-actors in those instances.)

    (Snarky remark deleted.)

    All that I think MR meant was that you always seem to dismiss any apparently anomalous event, without knowing very much about it. It needn't always be Venus, but it's always going to be something equally mundane. (That's why I wrote "swamp gas".)

    While I think that most of MR's examples are unconvincing, I do agree with him in principle. I personally think that anomalous events probably do happen occasionally. The reason I think that is because our understanding of the universe is incomplete and there are probably any number of things out there in the 'Unknown' that can surprise us. Addressing everything extraordinary with 'That can only have a mundane explanation' would seem to be a good way of missing the anomalies even when they are right under our noses.

    I'm not arguing for credulity, but I am arguing for not closing the doors prematurely. There's a time when it's appropriate to say 'I don't know what that is'.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
    Hipparchia and Magical Realist like this.
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,823
    Bells and Kittamaru's sleazy debating tactic is often to twist your words into something "intellectually dishonest", which is a charge so vague and general it can be used as an excuse to infract anyone. They want to quit debating the topic because they're losing and instead try to make you look like some derelict or troll so they can moderate you. It's how they win arguments, by threats of mod action and infracting and banning members from threads. Talk about "intellectually dishonest". It's blatant abuse of mod power, and James R either doesn't see it or ignores it and does nothing about it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,107
    Mod Note

    You do know that we can see your post, from original, before and after each edit, yes?

    Which leads me to the next question..

    At what point did you think that the word "snarky" best fits your sexually harassing another person on this site?
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2017
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,823
    Why is he being moderated for something he edited out and didn't post?
     
  12. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    588
    Posted so people could see it, then redacted, after people had seen it.
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,823
    Which people saw it? Did you?
     
  14. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    588
    Hey, you got me on ignore, remember?
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,823
    So noone saw it, including you. Tks for confirming that.

    You're not on my ignore list. I just don't feed trolls.
     
  16. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    588
    You must be starving.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,532
    Yazata,

    Unfortunately, I saw the crude insult you directed at me, and my opinion of you has now sunk considerably as a result. I thought you were better than that. I'll now wait and see whether you will do the decent thing.

    Two wrongs don't make a right, and those are separate issues you are raising.

    The fact is, here Magical Realist was caught out telling a deliberate and calculated lie, easily exposed. What he wrote could not be misinterpreted; it was quite clear, and as such a clear breach of our site rules.

    I'm not sure why you think I "dismiss" anomalous events. I'm quite willing to discuss them. I think your issue is that I tend to suggest possible mundane explanations, and you're not always happy with that.

    It depends what you want to call "anomalous". If, by that, you mean "supernatural", then I disagree with you.

    Yes. That's one of the main motivators for scientists to do science.

    I am careful never to assume that something is explained in advance. Compare and contrast Magical Realist's approach, for example, where he starts with the assumed explanation and works backwards to make that fit the facts.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,107
    Mod Note
    But he did post it. And he waited several minutes before editing it. Perhaps he was waiting for a reaction to his crude, vulgar and offensive post. Perhaps he realised that this was well over the line and was sexual harassment. Perhaps he realised the utter hypocrisy of the sentences he posted before he decided to edit it.

    The fact is, MR, he got caught. While I won't moderate him because he edited it out, I still won't stand idly by when sexual harassment is described as a mere "snarky remark". Because I honestly do want to know what led him to describe his sexual harassment as being merely "snarky".

    Do you view sexual harassment as being snide? Something that should just be ignored. Do you think that we should turn a blind eye to sexual harassment, MR? Do you think that it should not be challenged and that it should be shunted and ignored as being merely 'snark'?
     
  19. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    475
    Come on James. I had formed the impression that you were one of the good guys and had a sense of humour.

    I think it is quite common, when an "extraodinary claim"is made, for more thoughtful people to respond from a suite of 'standard' explanations. In the case of UFOs one of these is that the observer saw Venus. So the statement is just a gentle suggestion that you may be prone to do that. (I think most of us are, having become despairing of the same kind of tired examples being trotted out time and again by UFO believers.)

    Fraggle Rocker could tell us if it is an example of synechdoche, or just hyperbole, as MR suggested. Either way it is hardly a lie and I am disappointed you have made it an issue.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  20. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    588
    It was, however, a pattern of behaviour by a certain member. I call it "the teacher's not around" syndrome.
     
  21. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,225
    Mm, yes, shifting the goalposts... when is a lie no longer a lie? When is a falsehood no longer a falsehood?

    Thing is, in rational debate, there is little place for such absolutes... they are rarely accurate, and often are nothing more than an attempt at poisoning the well.
     
  22. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    475
    I think sexual harrasment is way to important an issue to be used as a "bandwagon" event, leading to witch hunts. I think we should be careful what we describe as sexual harassment.

    I think there is a range of behaviours that count as sexual harassment. Some of these merit severe penalties under the law. At the other end of the spectrum are acts so minor that the terms "snide" and "snarky" may well be applicable. And with some of those, ignoring them is absolutely the best response.

    Since I don't know what was written by yazata I cannot say where his remark would fit. Equally sexual harassment is too important an issue for me to accept your opinion as to where his remarks fits. I do know that he reflected on his remarks and withdrew them. Few people have not said something, in the heat of the moment, that they did not later regret. It is to yazata's credit that he recognised his remarks were inappropriate and deleted them. That should be an occassion for praise, accompanied by a private expression of concern that he posted it in the first place and that, even in anger, harboured such thoughts.

    Well a lie is not a lie when it is posted as a light hearted dig. That was how I read the post. I thought it was amusing. I expected JamesR to come back with a similar good natured jab. I'm not going to spend time looking for examples of exchanges of that sort between members, but I would be surprised if you deny that they occur.

    I don't remember when I joined this forum and I have spent very little time here. In this most recent series of visits I have been struck by how strongly influenced some members are by the impressions they have formed of other members. They seem to react to posts not on the content of the post but on the basis of whom the poster is. Past posting history and views should certainly inform ones perceptions to a degree, but it can be over done. It strikes me as being the case here.
     
  23. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,225
    Sounds like an attempt to whitewash the issue.

    Perhaps you would prefer "name and shame" where a users transgressions are displayed for all to see?

    Interestingly enough, you don't have to "accept" the moderation teams opinion on anything. If you disagree with it, take it up with the Administration (in this case JamesR) as the rules the site follows were established by the Administration.

    I am curious how you would know the inner workings of his mind so very well...

    That is a curious viewpoint...

    Oh, really? So if I put in the public space, as SciForums is, that you were a pedophile, then afterwards claimed it was "simply a joke", that would be just peachy keen with you?

    The history of certain members precludes extending them the benefit of the doubt that such things are "good natured" in any meaning of the word.

    October 10th, 2005.

    This much seems evident, given that you have less than 500 posts total in almost twelve years.

    Aye, they do inform views - and repeated poor behavior on the part of certain members makes it incredibly difficult to find any reason to extend the benefit of the doubt, especially when their apparent modus operandi is to simply win through volume of content, regardless how much of it is debunked, refuted, or shown to be utterly irrelevant, whilst simultaneously ignoring anything that would disagree with their desired outcome... yes, it gets some peoples hackles up, for good reason. Such behavior is extraordinarily tiring.

    As an example... have you ever tried debating with a brick wall, to convince it not to be hard?
     

Share This Page