Posting style (split from Climate science was wrong!)

[wallflash]

Holy cow . I have read through 2-3 threads in this area, and the amount of vitriol that gets aimed at people is amazing . “STFU, you stupid, ignorant denier” seems to be the standard attitude . 

Not a “denier” , BTW. But I am amazed at what I have seen reading on a science site . I have read comments from scientists about how they were hatefully attacked , stalked , fired , etc for expressing concerns about issues in the climate science processes , and then I come here and see it on a smaller scale in a place I expected to see rational , scholarly and respectful debate . Seems to be a pattern here . Not good . 

 

[iNow]

Thanks for your opinion. Do you have anything relevant to say?

[wallflash]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thanks for your opinion. Do you have anything relevant to say?

 

 

I regard what I said as relevant. I did , however, post a new thread , which is what I came here for . I am just surprised by the attitudes displayed here , which are worse than on any of the other 3 forums I do or have in the past participated in . Not even in the political forums that have minimal moderation do people routinely sling ad homs, insults , and tell others to STFU . 

 

Thanks for for your response:)

 

[iNow]

It’s hard to comment if you don’t refer to specific posts or quote specific people.

You’re just generalizing the whole thread, but seemingly forgetting that these interactions don’t happen in a vacuum. Sometimes posters have a history of bad faith arguments. Sometimes posters get tired of repeating themselves on this topic for decades. Sometimes those who love science and enjoy discussing it online are also humans first... 

You were surprised. So what, and thanks for sharing. 🤷‍♂️ 

Edited January 23, 2020 by iNow

[swansont]

9 hours ago, wallflash said:

I regard what I said as relevant.

It did not address the OP, so no, it's not. It doesn't address the discussion in the article, nor any effects of AGW. 

This is why I split this into a new thread for discussion.

(original thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120579-climate-science-was-wrong/)

 

Quote

I did , however, post a new thread , which is what I came here for . I am just surprised by the attitudes displayed here , which are worse than on any of the other 3 forums I do or have in the past participated in . Not even in the political forums that have minimal moderation do people routinely sling ad homs, insults , and tell others to STFU . 

I agree with iNow - without examples, it's hard to take such complaints seriously. (The proper procedure is to use the report post function, which identifies the post to the staff)

We've run across a fairly significant population who don't actually know what an ad hominem is, and there are also others who can't distinguish between being personally attacked and having their argument attacked. These groups overlap to some degree.

For example, using a description of "ignorant" (your example) is not inherently an insult. Ignorance means not knowing something, and everyone is ignorant on a great many topics. It can be used as an insult, as can other words, and it could be applied to a person or an argument, but without context there's just no way to tell. (I find two uses in that thread. One applied to a person, with regard to their article, the other to an argument. Neither was used as an insult)

The one time in that thread that someone said STFU it was about someone bringing up an irrelevant article in TIME, which has nothing to do with the topic. It's like telling someone to stop interrupting you while you have a conversation. You might consider that to be an affront, but it's in response to rude behavior and not uncalled for (especially if lesser efforts have failed) Again, we prefer it if staff were notified and so we can take care of it, but to a certain extent, community peer pressure is a viable tool to keep discussion on target. Such as asking of you have anything relevant to say on the topic.

 

 

[wallflash]

If you are fine with insults flying faster than they do on a political board that’s fine . Not my forum . But everyone can find a way to justify and excuse boorish behavior if one wishes . No other forum I’ve ever been in justifies such behavior on the excuse of “past behaviors” of those being insulted. 

 

It is just humorous to find a science site is one who chooses to consider this an acceptable method of posting .  

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash

[iNow]

When you arrive at a strangers house for a social gathering, somewhere you’ve never been before but where people are coming together for an event or discussion, do you also comment on all of their decorations, family photos, video collection, and the whole time you’re there you just keep talking about how crappy the place is relative to all of the other houses you’ve visited?

[wallflash]

If you wish to categorize my comments about the behavior of some here as criticism of the carpet and furniture, that’s fine . Accepted standards  of behavior exist across all moderated forums , commenting on what is allowed here that is considered boorish behavior to be moderated elsewhere isn’t the same in my opinion . I read through a number of threads in the climate science area and found numerous examples of such behavior , so I’m not pointing out a one off episode , but what appears to be fairly common behavior . 

 

I don’t expect you to agree

Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, wallflash said:

If you wish to categorize my comments about the behavior of some here as criticism of the carpet and furniture, that’s fine . Accepted standards  of behavior exist across all moderated forums , commenting on what is allowed here that is considered boorish behavior to be moderated elsewhere isn’t the same in my opinion . I read through a number of threads in the climate science area and found numerous examples of such behavior , so I’m not pointing out a one off episode , but what appears to be fairly common behavior . 

 

I don’t expect you to agree

I skimmed through the thread this was spun off from and didn't see anything particularly remarkable. However, we do try and maintain a good level of civil discourse. If you think we are failing in that goal, then please do your bit by reporting any posts that you feel fall below the necessary standards.

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, wallflash said:

I read through a number of threads in the climate science area and found numerous examples of such behavior , so I’m not pointing out a one off episode , but what appears to be fairly common behavior . 

Then list them. That way we can get to the heart of the problem if it does indeed exist.

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, wallflash said:

I’m not pointing out a one off episode , but what appears to be fairly common behavior . 

What percentage of posts do this? Do you have a percentage from your analysis?

[wallflash]

No. Before I begin though, what is the acceptable percentage allowed of telling people to STFU and calling them liars, trolls , and ignorant . If it exceeds that then maybe I will bring it up

 

Wow , I’m in the red for bringing up the topic of insulting !  LOL 

Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash

[Dagl1]

10 minutes ago, wallflash said:

No. Before I begin though, what is the acceptable percentage allowed of telling people to STFU and calling them liars, trolls , and ignorant . If it exceeds that then maybe I will bring it up

 

Wow , I’m in the red for bringing up the topic of insulting !  LOL 

Please just post the things you have issues with...

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

Please just post the things you have issues with...

!

Moderator Note

No. Please don't.

 

I don't think we want to get into a discussion of individual posts or members, and whether what they said breaks the rules. We have people to look after that. Sometimes we see things that we then act on. Sometimes we rely on people reporting it. Sometimes people report things as a "personal attack" or an "insult" and we don't think it is any such thing, so we don't act on it.

There are plenty of people who have been warned, suspended or banned (and, in rare cases, their posts hidden) for breaking the rules on civility.

So, again, if anyone sees anything that they think breaches our rules (which are sometimes 'more what you'd call “guidelines” than actual rules') please report it.

[Dagl1]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

 

I don't think we want to get into a discussion of individual posts or members, and whether what they said breaks the rules. We have people to look after that. Sometimes we see things that we then act on. Sometimes we rely on people reporting it. Sometimes people report things as a "personal attack" or an "insult" and we don't think it is any such thing, so we don't act on it.

There are plenty of people who have been warned, suspended or banned (and, in rare cases, their posts hidden) for breaking the rules on civility.

So, again, if anyone sees anything that they think breaches our rules (which are sometimes 'more what you'd call “guidelines” than actual rules') please report it.

Okay, I see.
It is just frustrating as no discussion can be had with the current amount of specificity by wallflash. But I definitely get why we don't want to go after individual posts/members. My bad.

-Dagl

[wallflash]

42 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

Okay, I see.
It is just frustrating as no discussion can be had with the current amount of specificity by wallflash. But I definitely get why we don't want to go after individual posts/members. My bad.

-Dagl

 

 

I would say without going into specifics just go read the threads  “ is global warming real” and “ climate science was wrong”  threads with fresh eyes . Aside from a few specific things it is also the general attitude that anyone not agreeing with the mass is either a troll, is stupid, or is just a liar . I have been on forums for decades , as well as having read here extensively in the physics area ( first foray into the climate area ). If anyone thinks the lack of civility and the snideness displayed regularly is the norm for forums, they are mistaken . For Reddit maybe , but not most . 

 

But it was just a singular post I made when I came here to read some and start the thread I did . I did not expect this to morph into its own thread , but I think I will focus on the other thread now  . People will continue to post as they will . 

Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, wallflash said:

Aside from a few specific things it is also the general attitude that anyone not agreeing with the mass is either a troll, is stupid, or is just a liar 

Well, they are either ignorant or one of the above. There aren't too many other possibilities. However, our rules do not allow people to accuse others of most of those things.

7 minutes ago, wallflash said:

I have been on forums for decades , as well as having read here extensively in the physics area ( first foray into the climate area ). If anyone thinks the lack of civility and the snideness displayed regularly is the norm for forums, they are mistaken

There are science forums that are much stricter than this one. And others were you can say exactly what you think of other posters. This one is in the middle somewhere.

8 minutes ago, wallflash said:

But it was just a singular post I made when I came here to read some and start the thread I did . I did not expect this to morph into its own thread , but I think I will focus on the other thread now  .

!

Moderator Note

I think we are done then. Everyone understands what they need to do if they think others have overstepped the mark.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, wallflash said:

 Wow , I’m in the red for bringing up the topic of insulting !  LOL 

If you mean your reputation, no, you aren't. As I write this, you have gotten exactly one reaction, in your first post of this thread, and it was an upvote. It's not even a matter of canceling a downvote — your posts have received exactly one reaction. It was green

 

Quote

Before I begin though, what is the acceptable percentage allowed of telling people to STFU and calling them liars, trolls , and ignorant .

Context matters, and you have provided none. In the thread in question, nobody has been called a liar, nor a troll (searching on those specific terms).  I have already addressed the other two terms, but that doesn't seem to have impacted your position.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you mean your reputation, no, you aren't. As I write this, you have gotten exactly one reaction, in your first post of this thread, and it was an upvote. It's not even a matter of canceling a downvote — your posts have received exactly one reaction. It was green

There was one negative vote, but it has gone now.

[iNow]

I'm the one who told that (now banned?) user to STFU about the Time magazine article he'd brought up about 792 times... since he kept reintroducing it every 2 minutes in that thread and others... even after nearly every poster explained why that global cooling claim from the 70s was not, in fact, the scientific consensus at the time and how it was nonsense... little more than a red herring.

Edited January 23, 2020 by iNow

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

There was one negative vote, but it has gone now.

I couldn't find it in the record. I thought that all reactions were recorded. If not, that's my mistake.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, wallflash said:

No. Before I begin though, what is the acceptable percentage allowed of telling people to STFU and calling them liars, trolls , and ignorant .

You already started with an emotional guess about the percentage that was already present. I doubt we can reason you away from that view.

I'm very leery these days about people with emotional criticisms. The current POTUS is criminally proficient at screaming he's being treated unfairly, and it's gotten him a lot of leeway he didn't earn and doesn't deserve. I'm suspicious that you're setting the stage here by painting people as unreasonable and rude if they argue against you. 

[wallflash]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You already started with an emotional guess about the percentage that was already present. I doubt we can reason you away from that view.

I'm very leery these days about people with emotional criticisms. The current POTUS is criminally proficient at screaming he's being treated unfairly, and it's gotten him a lot of leeway he didn't earn and doesn't deserve. I'm suspicious that you're setting the stage here by painting people as unreasonable and rude if they argue against you. 

No,not at all. The post you quoted was intended as a humorous response .  But I'm guessing this topic isn't actually closed after all

 

I have no intent of complaining about replies to my posts. Mark this post  down and throw it back up in my face before the entire forum if I do . But this forum has a level of snarkiness and snideness about it I haven't encountered on other forums, whether the members here know it or not, or wish to admit to it. And I was surprised to see it on a science forum. In the Science subsection in a now defunct forum I used to participate in, science minded posters dealt with creationist all day long, most regurgitating the same thing over and over in the face of patient replies to questions/gotchas . I never saw one insult a creationist throughout the decade I was on it. Not the style of the place I guess. I sort of expected this to mirror that, due to the emphasis on science. So I was surprised by comments to STFU, people insisting that others were trolls or liars,etc.

 

Not nearly as big a deal to me as this has turned out to be, but I didn't create the thread, just made one post commenting on what I saw being said.

Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, wallflash said:

I sort of expected this to mirror that, due to the emphasis on science. So I was surprised by comments to STFU, people insisting that others were trolls or liars,etc.

!

Moderator Note

I have looked at the two threads you mentioned and about five others. I could not find one single example of anyone accusing someone else of being a "liar" or a "troll" (despite a couple of those threads being started by obvious trolls).

So do not make such unsubstantiated and insulting accusations about the members of this forum again. Because, after all, it is against the rules.

 

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, wallflash said:

In the Science subsection in a now defunct forum I used to participate in, science minded posters dealt with creationist all day long, most regurgitating the same thing over and over in the face of patient replies to questions/gotchas . I never saw one insult a creationist throughout the decade I was on it. Not the style of the place I guess. I sort of expected this to mirror that, due to the emphasis on science. So I was surprised by comments to STFU, people insisting that others were trolls or liars,etc.

Eventually, creationists do more damage when we entertain their delusions. Other people reading their ignorance may not understand if it isn't shut down hard. We used to patiently explain here too, until we realized the creationists never learned, and they never stopped using arguments that were thoroughly debunked. Almost by definition, creationists are intellectually dishonest in their "reasoning".

We don't have a lot of patience for willingly obtuse behavior. If a person wants to learn, we're all over that. If you want to buck the mainstream, go right ahead as long as you've got the supportive evidence for your arguments.

I want you to remember this. As far as climate change is concerned, the scientists here have been forced to deal with fringe opinions that are asserted as if half the discipline agrees with them. The media presents almost all arguments these days as if half the people are on one side and half on the other, screaming across the middle. It's very compelling entertainment, but it fails to inform the public about this very, very important issue. It fails to show how few people there are opposing AGW who don't have a vested interest in fossil fuels. I hope you'll forgive some vitriol when an ignorant person repeats a long debunked argument as if it's gospel.