Joined: Jan. 2006
Eigenstate shreds nullasalus's bogus 'civility' argument. It's worth reproducing in full:
|Quote (eigenstate @ Feb 11 2012, 17:30)|
|Buddy, there’s only one of us here who’s defending ad hominem attacks, and that’s you. You tried to wordsmith your way into establishing that sitting around for years, digging up RL pictures of your opponents to post, mock, deface, screaming about how you think they’re all gay, etc, is… you know, some kind of intellectual, reasonable activity.|
I’m under no illusion about the abusive nature of taunts and epithets at AtBC, or wherever they occur (it happens here — hi Joe and KF!). It was not and is not my claim that those are any kind of argument from the AtBC members. They are not, it’s just mockery, satire and namecalling.
That’s different than your suggesting “it’s worth noting”, by way of assessing someone’s ARGUMENT, that so-and-so was engaging in some low-brow mockery and uncouth satire somewhere else. That is, I understand the distinction between argument and mockery/taunts. You appear to be connecting them and conflating them: hey, if you are reading the post of CriticX, it’s worth noting that over here they called so-and-so names…
By contrast, I don’t see anything “worth noting” about Joe or KairosFocus patterns of ad homimen attacks and slander. I don’t like when that happens, but that in ITSELF is not a reason to discount the point either of them raise when they set that aside and make a serious point. It’s a cheap and lazy way to dismiss someone, this recipe you’re advocating. I think KF is quite clueless about information theory, scientific epistemology and evolutionary biology, but I don’t think that because of his predilections toward slandering atheists and those with different worldviews he supposes are hastening the Apocalypse.
I think he’s wrong on the merits, and think it’s cowardly to say “it’s worth noting” when evaluating KF’s argument that he has a slander itch he just can’t help but scratch.
|Yes, I know. You’ll say sure, you defended the behavior, but the arguments fall on their merits. That still has you defending, even encouraging, that vile crap. Me? Not at all.|
Yeah, I’m fine with that, because it’s minutiae, pedantics as evasion on your part. This is what students of internet culture would identify as the “concern trolling” mindset. OMG, that’s so uncivil, GOODBYE! It’s a haughty, prideful reaction, concerned with petty, small issues at the expense of important, substantive ideas. That you want to obsess on that, and at this point it’s seems clearly to be something of an obsession you’re bringing forth here, tells me this is an evasion tactic.
Look, I get called worse than anything I’ve seen at AtBC all the time, in the various places I venture to post. It’s just a test — can I let all that just roll off my back and focus on some discussion that has substance, or do I descend into the tarpit with all the personality stuff. It’s always a challenge to keep on point, but it’s not THAT hard. It just goes with being a grown-up with an Internet connection. Clearly, you have “higher standards” for what you will tolerate from others. You won’t deign to deal with people like that. That’s fine, that’s your choice. But it comes across a very convenient and self-serving pridefulness. When I DO react badly to that stuff, that’s what it is for me, anyway, a flash of my pride as a way to be “better than” all that.
|No, eigen. At no point did I say that “the people at AtBC are what they are, so their arguments are all invalid”. You keep swinging at phantoms, which is fine, because I love pointing it out.|
You’ve said something even worse — “the poeple at AtBC are what they are, so won’t even deign to converse with them.” Merely an ad-hom dismissal would be more magnanimous, more down to earth, more serious than the preening dismissal you’re advocating, here.
|I said that mutual respect is a standard for discussion – one I hold to, and one I think others should hold to. If people act like they do at AtBC – something you’ve defended, even praised – then no. They, personally, are not worth discussing anything with. Show me where I said ‘therefore their arguments are all wrong’.|
Yes, but you know as well as I know this is an easy cop-out lever to pull. It’s the coward’s way out. StephenB says I’m “unfit” for rational discussion because his magic axioms aren’t treated as such. KF simply can’t be bothered to defend what he says because we are “willfully” misrepresenting him, and that gives him a rip cord to pull to just not engage. You go all Church Lady on the stuff you read at AtBC, and it’s quite clear to see that for the (faux) prudish reaction it is. Adults conversing on the internet do not and should not have to let that noise get in the way of discussing important ideas. But here you are, obsessing on it. It looks like cheap, easy polemics.
That’s where the “cesspool” at AtBC proves out this point. I’m still on the fence as to whether a new post there named “Dr. Jammer” is a real IDer, and the same person who posts her on UD as “Jammer”, or is a fairly well conceived prank someone at AtBC is pulling on AtBC, but either way, since the members there don’t really know, they give Dr. Jammer the benefit of the doubt, and they engage. They don’t ban. And if I recall, this person has already made some kind of AtBC->NAMBLA connection in one or more of his posts.
That doesn’t get their righteous dander up, as it does yours. It causes grins, and good natured grins. It’s so over-the-top, that this may be one of the AtBC members pulling out leg (cf. Poe’s Principle, though, this is a hard problem).
They aren’t threatened in the least. They aren’t so wound up about themselves that they get apoplectic at some nasty references or vicious talk. It happens.
Dr. Liddle has already engaged in a friendly, subject-centric way, and has invited him to her blog to discuss, and even offered him a “guest post” to start things off, with desired. She’s a demon, that one!
This is how people who have the courage of their convictions and a grown-up attitude. It is the wild, pseudonymous internet, and that’s how ideas get engaged.
|What was that? I didn’t say that? Well then, we’ll just chalk your reply up to ‘yet more hopeless BSing’.|
Simply walking away, as you put it, is just a more extreme form of ad hominem. You aren’t even worth talking to at all, never mind worrying about the merits of your arguments. That’s your choice, I know. But you’ve argued strongly for a much stronger version of what you deny right here.
|Heh. That’s happened before, eigen. I’ve mostly received it from atheists, but I’ve also received it from a few Christians. And guess what I did when I received that?|
I stopped dealing with them – the conversation ended. I didn’t obsess over them for months or weeks, much less years. And I continued to engage the arguments, because – this will blow your freaking mind – I don’t need to tolerate dealing with a complete lack of respect to engage an argument, or even find criticism. I just wait for the critic I can respect (I know your being mired in AtBC’s antics may cloud your judgment here, but they do exist), or I engage the argument detached from the critic.
I hear that. You’ve learned to “shake the dust off your feet” as you leave, in Christianese, etc. Fine. But I’m surprised you’re holding this out as something more than an ad-hominem response. Sometimes, I agree, it’s the right thing to do. Sometimes it can’t be helped. But I don’t pretend it isn’t an outright dismissal of the person, which is the essence of ad hominem. I realize “you don’t need to tolerate”, etc. But that’s the problem. This is all about you, and the world living up to your “minimum pride conditions”. You must be appeased, or you will walk! That will show ‘em. I just think that fails to come off as the principled stand you hope it does, and it looks like hiding behind a Church Lady frown as a way to give yourself all the control you need to just pick and choose where you will put ideas at risk, and what you will answer to. It’s a way to rig the social etiquette in your favor.
|Again, eigen – the guy who is covered with feces and screaming an argument doesn’t need to be allowed into the room. The fact that he’s *gasp* a critic (with arguments!) doesn’t mean his antics should be tolerated. He should be, and should expect to be, ostracized until he apologizes and cleans up.|
Right, that PERSON can be and will be dismissed outright. His arguments need not be considered, he’s been dismissed as a person. I got it. This is the “concern troll” trope. It’s vengeful just as much or more as the “loutishness” you are reacting to.
|By the way, will you be apologizing and denouncing what goes on at AtBC? Digging up, posting, and defacing RL pictures of people? The insults? Or are you just going to let yourself stay covered in crap?|
I speak for myself. If you can’t read what I say, and judge it on the merits, nothing else will change that. For whatever concerns I may have on that, and maybe it’s “none”, you’re mistaken if you think that kind of transparently manipulative bait is gonna take with me. Have some guts, man, go over there and get your Church Lady on, and see how it goes. Don’t look to me or anyone else to placate the concerns you hide behing. That’s just exceedingly weak.
At this point, nullasalus probably wishes that eigenstate had gotten banned too.
"Unguided evolution (whatever that is) doesn’t predict anything. If it did it wouldn’t be unguided." -- Mung
"Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there." -- KF