Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Thanks for your advice. I've learned a lot.
The view from the couch - Tiassa's opinions about sciforums, its moderators and its members
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
It comes up, sometimes. Compared to absolutely accuracy, it's actually a lot more apparent when something is dysfunctionally inaccurate.
Zealots, hypocrites, fascists; it depends on the variation. But, sure, you're describing zealots, at least.
It's just one of those things where not all fascists are Nazis, and not all theists are zealots. If you need to paint all theists everywhere according to the magagaga, that's entirely on you.
Think back to old sayings, like, "There is no morality without God," or the stuffy old men penning letters about secular humanism as the thin edge of the wedge. You might remember we actually used to argue against that stuff, here. And, sure, that stupid, traditional supremacism was dishonest and unimaginative, but nothing about that precludes the possibility of atheists being moral relativists, divisive, superstitious, or dishonest.
Repeatedly fulfilling and reinforcing religious zealots' prejudice against atheists only reinforces their prejudices about atheism.
C'mon, even you are capable of figuring that one out.
Well, (Q), that's why only you can tell us the value of human life compared to the thrill of screeching in futility at the people you hate.
I agree with this.
People aren't "merely" right-wing or left-wing. Political beliefs influence personal actions. At the point where those actions adversely affect people other than the believer, it is reasonable to question the beliefs that led to the particular actions.
There's no difference between political and religious beliefs in this regard.
Unfortunately, this came along with loads of the usual Tiassa bullshit and baggage, to which I now turn, briefly. All of the following is off-topic for the current thread. It consists of Tiassa bitching about how sciforums is moderated, and trying to make snide ad hominem attacks against me, specifically, injected among his snide ad hominem attacks on Pinball, (Q) and several others. Because this is how Tiassa rolls.
Tiassa, because he is partial to certain religious ideas, doesn't much like atheists. That is why he so regularly tries to stereotype atheists, as if all atheists are the same. It's a kind of bigotry that is similar to racism in the methods it uses and in the attempts to dehumanise the other.
This choice of language by Tiassa seeks, as usual, to impute improper behaviour on my part. It is a snide attack, oblique and typical of Tiassa, who is too afraid to directly accuse me of things. I apparently rent a large amount of his brain space, despite his cowardly unwillingness to directly engage with me concerning his petty complaints.
And all of this, as usual with Tiassa, is entirely off-topic for the current thread. Tiassa likes to inject his personal animosity wherever he can. He has an enormous chip on his shoulder.
Another snide mischaracterisation of a past incident, which Tiassa is deliberately misrepresenting in an attempt to cast me in a bad light.
Tiassa has no personal integrity, so we can be sure we'll see more of this sort of thing from him in future, ad nauseam.
Here, Tiassa tries to imply that there is a double standard in how this site is moderated. Specifically, Tiassa is asserting that special privilege is given to some kinds of arguments or opinions over others.
Tiassa ought to review our Site Posting Guidelines, which set out the principles by which moderation happens (or doesn't happen) here.
Who was "allowed to advocate for mass murder"? Tiassa won't say.
Who might that have been? We'll probably never know. Only the insinuation is important.
Here, Tiassa presumes to read my mind, making his proclamations about what I supposedly think.
As usual, Tiassa is clueless on that front. But his aim is not to try to be accurate. His aim is to try to hurt.
Sadly, this is what we have come to expect from Tiassa. It is apparently the best he can do, or at least the best he wants to do.
My reply to Trek appears above. There's nothing complicated there. Trek's position on a lot of things is readily apparent in how he writes about them.
Hypotheticals are all well and good, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
This is an outright lie.
Tiassa ought to stop telling lies.
Good advice. But Tiassa has his own clear double standard when it comes to this sort of thing. Tiassa believes that he gets to troll all he like, with his small-minded ad hominems, but when he is questioned or confronted, he hides away like the coward he is.
It's worth bearing in mind that one of Tiassa's tried and tested tactics is to try to re-write "history" by cherry picking things out of context, or just flat-out inventing a fake context or fake events or fake motivations for the people involved.
It's fundamentally dishonest, but this is what you get with Tiassa, who is a frightfully dishonest man.
Another lie.
This is just a slur. No examples are given. It's probably pure fantasy. We'll probably never find out, because Tiassa's aim is not to uncover a truth. It's to attack his chosen enemies.
Last edited:
Not reasonable, just pathetic.
Let's take a look at this:
As I pointed out↑, you kept skipping the detail. But why would you skip the detail? That you "put no qualifieres there at all"↑ changed the subject; that's why I called it a false equivalence, in the first place. And when that was all you had to say on the point, you skipped out on four paragraphs.
Did you skip out because you didn't want to answer? Or did you skip out because you weren't capable of answering? If the latter, were you not capable because you were cornered, or were you not capable because you couldn't understand?
"I am never quite sure what your details are about," you said↑, continuing, "you rarely seem to have any real points besides criticism of the posters or the site. They are quite beneath you possibly?"
If you're uncertain what you're seeing, then how can you assess so confidently?
Here, go back↑ to the part where you said, "Why? I have already answered." Well, why did you skip the rest of the paragraph that told you why in order to ask why? Seriously, what the hell? And, "I have already answered"? That's non sequitur. C'mon, Pinball, what's your malfunction?
Are you trolling, or is that just the best you can do?
(Your effort to downplay right-wing crackpottery↑ just keeps looking ... oh, are you going to complain that's not what you were doing? Then try making sense. Because, seriously, if that was just an accident, that's how easy it is.)
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Actually now I do not think anything further would really contribute to the subject of the thread. It will read like petty bickering. If you think I am simply trolling that is your prerogative.
It is either amazing, or simply not surprising, that after this many years, James R still doesn't get it.
To wit:
No, that's just a straw man.
Still waiting on that scientific definition of beauty.
Another way to describe it would be the invention of yet another arbitrary standard in order to flag someone who annoyed James R.
James R is, in fact, aware that he has, before, worried that questions of intellectual dishonesty, good faith, and basic standards of rational discourse asre simply attempts to suppress political views. It might be reports/3150, which I've mentioned before in this context↗ that is about the one comparing "Black Lives Matter" to white nationalism, and I think along the way to something about the Federal Reserve. Why shouldn't someone need to support such an extraordinary argument? It's one thing if James doesn't think that comparison needs some explanation and rational support, but God-that-doesn't-exist help us if someone something-something "big lie" ufos.
It was Billvon. We've been through this before.
Parmalee. It's hard to imagine James can't remember. (Indeed, he was even reminded of the one during the other.) The fourth-wall pretense of not knowing is, in fact, just a pretense.
(Actually, I just read his posts↗.)
So, yeah, I just↗ read his posts. (You'll notice, in that post I just linked to, that I am responding to things he actually said, and along the way I refer to the occasion constraining use of the word racist, i.e., James R is already aware. Maybe if I look around some more, I can find another occasion when he just didn't want to talk about it. Oh, there it is↗.)
I confess, I do wonder why James can't simply dispute with the person in front of him instead of a straw delusion.
The weird thing about this approach is that the history can be discussed. The tragedy of James' darvo performance is that it would hope to forget history. It's one thing if there are reasons things go as they do, something else entirely to pretend they never happen.
And that actually lends toward why the bit about theists and right wingers is important.
Consider the American moment as we verge toward fascism, and the rightist fits around the world. Part of what we have in our Sciforums experience includes our legitimization of prejudicial and conspiracist crackpottery that, just like so many other people, just sort of happens. There are always seedy players, but how much room we give them to play depends entirely on our prejudices. This is entirely human.¹
We have in our history our own story of not wanting to quash speech, and watching the discussion, here and at large, creeping toward rightism. It's one thing if that's the way it goes, but why would someone want to deliberately forget history? Why keep such a fascinating tale silent? Who is so offended by the prospect of their imperfection? Who is so offended by their own humanity? We're human; this is part of how we learn.
This looks more like a reading comprehension problem. Observe that James R is referring to a discussion between Tiassa and Pinball↑; this recalled Tiassa's discussion with (Q)↑, where an example was posted over twenty-four hours before James R decided to say "no examples are given".
Now, was James R being explicitly dishonest, or simply not paying attention? Yet it's also true there comes a point where there isn't much practical difference.
(Flip-side, even (Q) decided to pass over↑ the point without comment.)
†
Think about the fact that on Wednesday, I razzed (Q)↑ about validating fascism, and that line has lasted four days.
It's one thing if Trek↑ wants to claim, "Lefties are complete idiots who not only lack backbone and common sense, but are completely dangerous". It's quite another to wonder whether that statement would have passed muster so easily if he'd said it about atheists. Which, in turn, says nothing about validating and normalizing that kind of pejorative in order to play patty-cakes↑. "Yet, you have no problem with the $8 trillion Trump added to the national debt," (Q) pointed out, "so he and his billionaire friends get to keep more of their money and you get to pay for it." It's not even a question, because everyone already knows it's true. "These are the same billionaires Trump is currently siding with while they rob the country blind, he's not on your side." Yes, we're all aware of that, and rightists don't care.
To the one, it's not the sort of discussion where you ask a question, someone else answers, the answer is analyzed, and then we move on to the next question according to the implications. To the other, those discussions generally don't work around here because so few people have any confidence in any part of it, or, perhaps, themselves.
(Q) has his reasons for engaging Trek as he did, and no, the point isn't to upbraid him. Comparatively, his rejection of Trek's nonsense about Chauvin↑ is a more appropriate manner of address. But it's also worth pointing out particularly that Trek attempted revisionism↗, which flew right past James R↗, but remains an important consideration. And speaking of James,, say what one might about "nothing complicated there", but there remans a question about why introduce such uncertainty keeping the revisionism in play.
The reason why people haven't rejected certain crackpottery lending to rightism and its authoritarian menace really is about empowered tradition, which in the U.S. includes white people, men, and if not Christianity explicitly, there are still plenty willing to appeal to its tradition; masculinism transcends religious status, and in some circumstances even race. For Americans, it's one thing to talk about liberty and justice, but in a time when we are willing to blame the prospect of justice for driving people to Trump, it's worth wondering how things came to this.
And we have a record, here, stretching back before the century. Whether we look at it as how easily we did our part, or as some reflection of the world around our community, there is something to learn about how we legitimize crackpottery simply by accommodating it.² Or, y'know, maybe just pretend nothing ever happened.
____________________
Notes:
¹ The strange context connecting Athanasius (ca. 325), and Emma Goldman (ca. 1911) is both far too tempting and far too long, but the underlying theme has to do with prejudice against humanity.
² In this context, we would be remiss to overlook the question of harm, or, in this case, what crackpottery we consider mostly harmless.
² In this context, we would be remiss to overlook the question of harm, or, in this case, what crackpottery we consider mostly harmless.
Not at all surprising.
Maybe you should have stayed out of it if you weren't willing to see it through? But please do be aware, there's nothing new, or, really, even atypical, about your performance: Complain according to false pretenses, refuse to answer, run away. I've seen it so many times before. It's like bawling↗, "I am part of your community so respect that"; maybe you should respect history, or at least the fact that it exists. Nothing about being part of your community means anyone should kiss your ass in thanks for disrespectful, fallacious conduct. Or maybe I should thank you for your exhibit on how easily people do their part. History does not become a blank slate just because you arrived. And argument by fallacy and omission will always read like a coin toss between whether one is unwilling or unable to do better.
• • •
Capitalism. Well, sort of. Obviously, it's a little more complicated than that, but the lifetime that has passed since Americans botched Gekko is now old enough to buck for C-suite promotion.
Or: It's a Boomer thing that will haunt us to the fourth and fifth generations.
A more complicated suggestion has to do with Huxley, a century ago, reflecting on a healthy unawareness of history. But it's still a feat of pathology to lay out how we get to conservative relativism. (Recall the grumpy old men of yesteryear, traditionalists complaining abuot the kids today, and the dangers of moral relativism, and even the old bit about pipe dreams and heads in clouds and how feelings aren't a reason; and then invoke the contemporary saying about every accusation being a confession, and suddenly we're looking at a generational process leading to this behavior that reads like a relativist marketing pitch in purusit of a feeling.)
Also, not all value is minted in coin: Sometimes people do things for money, and sometimes for honor, and sometimes for revenge, and sometimes for mere satisfaction because it feels good and why not.
Because, and this is something some of our neighbors might miss from half a world away↗, it is important to remember these are traditionalists chasing empowerment who talk and pitch and argue that way. Cold War-era liberals and leftists remember; American atheists of the period ought to be able to remember; in these long, historical arguments, traditionalists have a lower standard to meet. One of the reasons they keep beahving this way is that enough people are willing to let them.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Maybe yes, I wonder what stopped me? Also, people almost certainly don't care what you think of me/my performance, just a guess.
So let's respect the thread and move on.
Does it strike you as strange when encountering that kind of argument, though, that tries to parse out a problem from itself?
To wit, after the consistently and even increasingly racist performance in our society, the argument↑ would sacrifice Trump ("a POS") while removing racism from the discussion ("terms like racism probably do not apply"). It always stands out when people want to excuse racism from the discussion.
But it's also possible to worry about that a little too much. So, if our neighbor happens to take a strange path from↑, "Without getting into what racism actually is …", to↑, "However if a kid is not indoctrinated with hate early doors and differences are normalised, then those things do not grow and persist", the question isn't really how he managed to parse racism out into some mysterious realm.
Rather, it's kind of like a question about belief, discourse, and behavior↗, considering when someone is or isn't talking about a particular subject. If I might wonder how our neighbor thinks children are indoctrinated, it is because there is tremendous influence in failing to reject corrosive and injurious superstitions for what they are.
The thing is, we can't really say Pinball is actually trying to protect racism. But whether he intended to or not, he parsed it into vagary along the way. That's just the effect of his words, and that's not really any big thing, except insofar as racism is part of our evolution, I would make two points: First, and obviously, certain parts of our past evolution are things we should grow out of. Second, whether he intends or not, our neighbor describes racism in our evolution as a limbic↗ experience, which suits well enough, because, just for instance, so is religion.¹
Stiil, though, recontextualizing racism in re Trump really does stand out like one of the failures to reject corrosive and injurious superstitons for what they are. That is to say, yes, the word "racism" unquestionably applies to Donald Trump, to the point that it is absurd to suggest otherwise. Or, as you put it, "In many ways though, Trump is very much the typical American racist." And nothing, really, about the proximal discourse changes that.
____________________
Notes:
¹ cf., #3640098↗, in re Armstrong, who "attends a triune brain for the explanation, including the rise of the limbic system 120 mya, and the neocortex all of 20 kya"; #3689891↑, reflecting on Linden, "Our first religious inclinations might well have emerged into a limbic, not neocortical, circumstance"; #3692041↑, considering Graeber and Wengrow:
「And if the etymological and behavioral heart of religion has something to do with obligation, we might consider here the metaphors, the ideas and objects of focus, around which religion orbits. These metaphors emerged from the noise of human experience, and compared to the evolution of civilization and authority, we might wonder at the last thirty thousand years, but with evidence of ritual reaching back seventy thousand years, some degree of participation well prior to neocortical conformity in socialization might seem more a limbic experience. The perception of obligation might well precede the metaphors.」
Are we not all neighbours in this idyll, this slice of discoursian paradise, where we peer over our white-washed fences and chat about nothing at all for hours on end?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Only when we sip our Margaritas...
Why do you always seem so angry? Did you not ever get invited to one of Diddy's freak-offs, and now you're realizing it ain't ever gonna happen?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Thank you for you contribution to this topic.
Tiassa:
You're a nasty petty little man who can't get the chip off his shoulder. So you endlessly try to prosecute personal past grievances in the snide, dishonest way you are accustomed to.
For whatever reason, you're stuck in the past and you can't move forward. So you continually look for excuses to lash out at the people here who you perceive as hurting you in the past.
It's sad that this is what you've become.
You should just stop.
Clearly, you missed the point. Such concerns were irrelevant to you when you were a moderator, since you seldom did any moderating that required nuanced judgments anyway.
Where's my proclamation that says "You can't use the word 'racist' on sciforums!" or "You can't use 'racist' when you mean X or Y on sciforums!"
There isn't one. You're a liar.
There's no need to "dispute" repeated lies that one has already dealt with in detail - in some cases several times. One simply notes again that they are lies and moves on. That's if they are even worth taking the time to comment about. This post is largely a waste of my time. I'm fully aware of that. Nevertheless, it's important to call out your bullshit for what it is now and then, especially when you're applying the same tactics to members of this forum other than myself. I'm on to your games and your methods. I would like to warn others off spending years humouring your desire to bludgeon other people with your endless mischaracterisations, your straw men and your outright lies.
In the past, I have discussed "history" with you at length. It makes no difference. You stay stuck in your own views and you insist on endlessly regurgitating your own perceptions and your past lies. That's why I have no further interest in engaging with you about something you or I posted back in 2016, or in 2007 or whenever. That's history. You clearly misunderstood my position the first few times we discussed it, or else you understood and you're now deliberately trying to invent your own distorted version of it after the fact. Either way, it's utterly pointless engaging with you about the endless baggage you're still carrying around, years later. It only encourages you to inject more of it into your posts.
That is simply an insult. You should stop that. You should stop this whole repeated play you keep putting on. It's not interesting. It's not entertaining. Nobody but you cares for it. Slink back into your hole, Tiassa.
You don't have to accept it with open arms, but you should accept the reality - especially in your own country - that about half of the people around you are "rightists". You need to find a way to live with that.
As for sciforums, I can tell you that I will never act to reduce this place to being a left-wing echo chamber. Or a right-wing echo chamber. If you want such an echo chamber, this isn't the place for you. I believe in the contest of ideas. I am not for censorship or suppression. Didn't you understand that about me 8 years ago, when we have lengthy discussion about that topic? Wasn't I clear? Am I making myself clear now?
Yet it is you who is constantly dredging up your beloved "history" and selectively lying about it, not me.
Why haven't you learned?
You keep trying to imply that I have a special sensitivity about people saying nasty things about atheists, and that I imply a double standard in moderating posts in which such comments appear on sciforums. But there are no examples of what you snidely assert.
In other words, you're simply telling another lie.
This one is poor form on your part (but, hey, you can't seem to do any better). Worse is the one in which you lie about me supposedly having a soft spot for white supremacy, when clearly the record shows that the exact opposite is true.
But you're a unrepentently dishonest, nasty little man with a chip on his shoulder. You probably can't bring yourself to rise above.
Back in your box, now.
I get exactly what it is that you're trying to do, Tiassa.
You're a nasty petty little man who can't get the chip off his shoulder. So you endlessly try to prosecute personal past grievances in the snide, dishonest way you are accustomed to.
For whatever reason, you're stuck in the past and you can't move forward. So you continually look for excuses to lash out at the people here who you perceive as hurting you in the past.
It's sad that this is what you've become.
No, you aren't.
The liar accuses me of lying. Yet there is a record that anybody can consult if they care to.
You should just stop.
That's a false characterisation of what I was worried about, all those years ago. I was worried about the potential for personal biases of individual moderators to interfere with fair moderation of this internet forum.
Clearly, you missed the point. Such concerns were irrelevant to you when you were a moderator, since you seldom did any moderating that required nuanced judgments anyway.
Billvon didn't advocate for mass murder.
What's "stochastic terrorism"?
I do not share your petty fixations or your obsessions. Is that not yet clear to you? The personal bullshit you serve up to other people on this forum stopped being interesting to me some years ago.
I have not "constrained the use of the word 'racist'". You are telling lies, still.
Where's my proclamation that says "You can't use the word 'racist' on sciforums!" or "You can't use 'racist' when you mean X or Y on sciforums!"
There isn't one. You're a liar.
You're lucky you captured my attention for this long. I skip over most of what you post these days, since you spent most of your time virtually frothing at the mouth at one person or another.
There's no need to "dispute" repeated lies that one has already dealt with in detail - in some cases several times. One simply notes again that they are lies and moves on. That's if they are even worth taking the time to comment about. This post is largely a waste of my time. I'm fully aware of that. Nevertheless, it's important to call out your bullshit for what it is now and then, especially when you're applying the same tactics to members of this forum other than myself. I'm on to your games and your methods. I would like to warn others off spending years humouring your desire to bludgeon other people with your endless mischaracterisations, your straw men and your outright lies.
What's a "darvo"?
In the past, I have discussed "history" with you at length. It makes no difference. You stay stuck in your own views and you insist on endlessly regurgitating your own perceptions and your past lies. That's why I have no further interest in engaging with you about something you or I posted back in 2016, or in 2007 or whenever. That's history. You clearly misunderstood my position the first few times we discussed it, or else you understood and you're now deliberately trying to invent your own distorted version of it after the fact. Either way, it's utterly pointless engaging with you about the endless baggage you're still carrying around, years later. It only encourages you to inject more of it into your posts.
Here you try to slur me by suggesting that I have pretended that unnamed events never happened.
That is simply an insult. You should stop that. You should stop this whole repeated play you keep putting on. It's not interesting. It's not entertaining. Nobody but you cares for it. Slink back into your hole, Tiassa.
Where did you legitimitimise prejudicial and conspiracist crackpottery? And where did I do that? If we're responsible, show me where it has happened.
You're a seedy player. Fortunately, it is not just about prejudices. Some of us have a strong sense of fair play. Clearly, you lack that, or just don't care about such things.
Some people in the real world hold right-wing political views, Tiassa. Some even hold far-right views. Get used to it. Embrace the reality of it.
You don't have to accept it with open arms, but you should accept the reality - especially in your own country - that about half of the people around you are "rightists". You need to find a way to live with that.
As for sciforums, I can tell you that I will never act to reduce this place to being a left-wing echo chamber. Or a right-wing echo chamber. If you want such an echo chamber, this isn't the place for you. I believe in the contest of ideas. I am not for censorship or suppression. Didn't you understand that about me 8 years ago, when we have lengthy discussion about that topic? Wasn't I clear? Am I making myself clear now?
You're snidely trying to imply that I have tried to cover up something.
Yet it is you who is constantly dredging up your beloved "history" and selectively lying about it, not me.
Why haven't you learned?
Wonder away. Such comments, made to atheists, appear reasonably regularly on sciforums and they "pass muster" in a similar way, for the same reasons.
You keep trying to imply that I have a special sensitivity about people saying nasty things about atheists, and that I imply a double standard in moderating posts in which such comments appear on sciforums. But there are no examples of what you snidely assert.
In other words, you're simply telling another lie.
This one is poor form on your part (but, hey, you can't seem to do any better). Worse is the one in which you lie about me supposedly having a soft spot for white supremacy, when clearly the record shows that the exact opposite is true.
But you're a unrepentently dishonest, nasty little man with a chip on his shoulder. You probably can't bring yourself to rise above.
No. Trek has not (yet) "attempted revisionism". That might well be coming, but it hasn't happened yet. Apparently, this flew right past you. But it doesn't matter. You're not in the position of having to make moderation decisions. You don't need to pay attention.
You're asking for a pre-emptive strike. That's bad policy.
Back in your box, now.
Last edited:
DARVO - Wikipedia
What, James, this is what you do when you're not able to answer.
Like I said, it's one thing if there are reasons things go as they do, something else entirely to pretend they never happen.
We see what you choose.
Thanks, Sarkus.
So Tiassa was snidely accusing me of being abusive and gaslighting him, and comparing me to a sex offender.
The horrible vindictive little man seems to have no limits to how low he will go.
I wouldn't have bothered replying to him if I had known what that meant.
So Tiassa was snidely accusing me of being abusive and gaslighting him, and comparing me to a sex offender.
The horrible vindictive little man seems to have no limits to how low he will go.
I wouldn't have bothered replying to him if I had known what that meant.
Last edited:
- Status