StringJunky Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, wallflash said: 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. The differences between forums shows that behaviour in like-minded groups is not stereotypical. Edited January 23, 2020 by StringJunky
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Strange said: ! 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. I will be delighted to find that post if there is a question about it. Perhaps it was in another thread. Edit to add :Here is one instance . There may be more , I only looked for a minute to find this one . This was a direct reply to a poster who stated he had doubts about global warming , so the following response is aimed directly at another poster in the “ is global warming real” thread . “ There is the side that overwhelmingly agrees that human behaviors are altering our climate, and there is the side that is ignorant and/or lying. “ Hopefully we are not not going to have a semantical argument about whether saying people are lying is the same as calling them liars . If a poster comes here and expresses doubts about global warming and it is said he must be lying , he is being called a liar . The option that he is ignorant is left open, but so is the implication that he is a liar . Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash
CharonY Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 37 minutes ago, wallflash said: Hopefully we are not not going to have a semantical argument about whether saying people are lying is the same as calling them liars . If a poster comes here and expresses doubts about global warming and it is said he must be lying , he is being called a liar . The option that he is ignorant is left open, but so is the implication that he is a liar . The quote appears to be a general comment and does not seem to be directed at a specific person. As such it does not seem to call a particular user a liar. This is not semantics but an important distinction. Second, it also leaves the door open that folks argue from a point of ignorance rather than deliberate deception. 3
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, CharonY said: The quote appears to be a general comment and does not seem to be directed at a specific person. As such it does not seem to call a particular user a liar. This is not semantics but an important distinction. Second, it also leaves the door open that folks argue from a point of ignorance rather than deliberate deception. I allowed for the option of being ignorant . I also did not claim any particular poster had been called a liar , I said I saw a general attitude in which anyone not agreeing must either be stupid, a troll, or a liar . And I made note of the fact that the poster being replied to was expressing doubt about global warming . Nonetheless I did not invent the insinuation of lying . Another poster took issue with it also in a couple of posts , and there is no stated limitation that lying only applies to “experts” and not everyone who decides not to accept the global warming hypothesis. Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash
Strange Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 44 minutes ago, wallflash said: I will be delighted to find that post if there is a question about it. Perhaps it was in another thread. Edit to add :Here is one instance . There may be more , I only looked for a minute to find this one . This was a direct reply to a poster who stated he had doubts about global warming , so the following response is aimed directly at another poster in the “ is global warming real” thread . “ There is the side that overwhelmingly agrees that human behaviors are altering our climate, and there is the side that is ignorant and/or lying. “ Hopefully we are not not going to have a semantical argument about whether saying people are lying is the same as calling them liars . If a poster comes here and expresses doubts about global warming and it is said he must be lying , he is being called a liar . The option that he is ignorant is left open, but so is the implication that he is a liar . Looking at the thread in question, it is very obviously not aimed at the other member. The OP started out saying there are two sides. The person you are quoting was responding to that by, quite correctly, pointing out that, as far as the science goes, there is only one side. Their characterisation of "the other side" could not have been aimed at the OP because they were still pretending to be "just asking questions." (And yes, this is "semantics"; which means the meanings of words.) 6 minutes ago, wallflash said: I allowed for the option of being ignorant . I also did not claim any particular poster had been called a liar , I said I saw a general attitude in which anyone not agreeing must either be stupid, a troll, or a liar It is not a general attitude about disagreement. It is about people who wilfully disregard scientific evidence and continue to repeat falsehoods even after being shown that they are false. I'm sure there is a word for people who do that...
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 16 minutes ago, Strange said: Looking at the thread in question, it is very obviously not aimed at the other member. The OP started out saying there are two sides. The person you are quoting was responding to that by, quite correctly, pointing out that, as far as the science goes, there is only one side. Their characterisation of "the other side" could not have been aimed at the OP because they were still pretending to be "just asking questions." (And yes, this is "semantics"; which means the meanings of words.) It is not a general attitude about disagreement. It is about people who wilfully disregard scientific evidence and continue to repeat falsehoods even after being shown that they are false. I'm sure there is a word for people who do that... In the immediate the poster has not been called a liar . However, the clear implication is that if said poster, or anyone else , chooses not to accept global warming and tells others this, they are lying, unless they are willing to admit they are just ignorant. If said poster tells his kids that global warming doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny , he must then be a liar . I am am not even debating the terms aren’t justified , I simply pointed out this isn’t allowed on most sites . If it is here , then it is .
CharonY Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 i do not quite get what you are arguing as you seem to state even a secondhand implication of ignorance or a lie would be disallowed elsewhere. I find it rather hard to believe. If someone states that there is no consensus on what the sun is and why it is bright, is there a way to point it out without implying that the poster is either ignorant of the facts or lying about what is known? Because if that is the case it means that one would need to treat every crackpot idea the same way as actual knowledge. And if we start with this equivalency it basically means we have no knowledge at all, just opinions. 2
Strange Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 53 minutes ago, wallflash said: In the immediate the poster has not been called a liar . However, the clear implication is that if said poster, or anyone else , chooses not to accept global warming and tells others this, they are lying, unless they are willing to admit they are just ignorant. I cannot extract that meaning from the sequence of posts. Let's put it in context: A: "There are two sides: people who think the world is round and those who think it is flat." B: "There are not two sides, there are those who know what the world is like and others who are ignorant or lying" Note that A does not claim to be on one side or the other. Note that B does not say anything about A's beliefs. Also, even if A now says "And I am in the second group" then factually they are either ignorant (or misinformed) or they know that the world is not flat and so they are lying. If they refuse to admit they are ignorant, that doesn't make them a liar, as you suggest. Quote If said poster tells his kids that global warming doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny , he must then be a liar . No. If he tells them climate change is wrong and the Earth is flat then he is only a liar if he does it knowing it is not true. If he is ignorant of the facts then he is not lying. Quote they are lying, unless they are willing to admit they are just ignorant No. They are lying unless they are just ignorant (even if they are unwilling to admit it). Or misinformed or wrong for some other reason. Edited January 23, 2020 by Strange grammar 2
moth Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 16 minutes ago, wallflash said: In the immediate the poster has not been called a liar . However, the clear implication is that if said poster, or anyone else , chooses not to accept global warming and tells others this, they are lying, unless they are willing to admit they are just ignorant. If said poster tells his kids that global warming doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny , he must then be a liar . I am am not even debating the terms aren’t justified , I simply pointed out this isn’t allowed on most sites . If it is here , then it is . It is confusing. You can't find a clear example of someone being called a liar, but still think it's a problem? 3
StringJunky Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, moth said: It is confusing. You can't find a clear example of someone being called a liar, but still think it's a problem? He's limiting the options of possible interpretations and excluding reasons like naivete or ignorance. His glass is half empty. 1
moth Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 Seems that some people believe arguing about the discussion is the same as discussing the argument. 3
studiot Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, moth said: Seems that some people believe arguing about the discussion is the same as discussing the argument. I Must try to remember that one +1 Edited January 23, 2020 by studiot
wallflash Posted January 24, 2020 Author Posted January 24, 2020 58 minutes ago, moth said: It is confusing. You can't find a clear example of someone being called a liar, but still think it's a problem? I'm not going to bother to answer every post, but I didn't say I had a clear example of someone being called a liar. Nor did I state that disagreement wasn't found on other sites. I said I found a general attitude than anyone who doesn't agree might possibly be a liar strange . And I said that implying that others might be lying, even if second hand, would not be permitted on the forums I have participated in. Nor would the pervasive snideness and snarkiness. There are obviously ways of disagreeing that don't involve these things. Nor would the excuse that " there is context and history" be accepted as an excuse for this. The reply to that claim when your posts were deleted would be , " learn to respond intelligently and without insult, or simply don't respond. " But I am obviously the odd man out here on the topic of responding to all posters with respect , and so be it. As I have said before, not nearly as big a deal to me as this thread has made it.
zapatos Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 2 hours ago, wallflash said: “ There is the side that overwhelmingly agrees that human behaviors are altering our climate, and there is the side that is ignorant and/or lying. “ Hopefully we are not not going to have a semantical argument about whether saying people are lying is the same as calling them liars . If a poster comes here and expresses doubts about global warming and it is said he must be lying , he is being called a liar . The option that he is ignorant is left open, but so is the implication that he is a liar . The statement you quoted was accurate. We know with certainty that there are many people ignorant of the causes of climate change. It is a difficult topic for the layperson so this should come as no surprise. Additionally, we know that many people lie about climate change for political reasons. It is not possible that those ignorant of climate change are overwhelmingly Republicans and thus is seems reasonable to assume they are lying for political purposes. There is nothing rude or snarky about calling a liar a liar, nor is there anything wrong with pointing out someone's ignorance. We're not here to make people feel better about themselves and we don't apologize for telling the truth. Perhaps you are taking offense because you are ignorant of the factors impacting climate change.
wallflash Posted January 24, 2020 Author Posted January 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, zapatos said: The statement you quoted was accurate. We know with certainty that there are many people ignorant of the causes of climate change. It is a difficult topic for the layperson so this should come as no surprise. Additionally, we know that many people lie about climate change for political reasons. It is not possible that those ignorant of climate change are overwhelmingly Republicans and thus is seems reasonable to assume they are lying for political purposes. There is nothing rude or snarky about calling a liar a liar, nor is there anything wrong with pointing out someone's ignorance. We're not here to make people feel better about themselves and we don't apologize for telling the truth. Perhaps you are taking offense because you are ignorant of the factors impacting climate change. I think I'll end my participation in all this if we are going to the assumption that I must be ignorant if I question the snarkiness expressed to other posters in the threads
Strange Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 8 minutes ago, wallflash said: The reply to that claim when your posts were deleted would be , " learn to respond intelligently and without insult, or simply don't respond. " But I am obviously the odd man out here on the topic of responding to all posters with respect , and so be it. That is exactly the sort of comment that moderators here do make to people who cross (or get close to the line). Persistent offenders may get suspended or even banned. The only way you seem to be out of step with others is in seeing offensive language where others see none. 11 minutes ago, wallflash said: I said I found a general attitude than anyone who doesn't agree might possibly be a liar strange . I don't believe such a general attitude exists or would be tolerated by the moderation team. Stating that people who believe the world is flat are ignorant is not an insult. It is a statement of fact. Saying that if they are not ignorant they must be lying would probably not be permitted if aimed at a specific individual, even if not a member here. But as a general statement about the motives of a group, it seems defensible. As zapatos says, we know that many people lie about certain subjects for political or financial reasons. 15 minutes ago, wallflash said: And I said that implying that others might be lying, even if second hand, would not be permitted on the forums I have participated in. The rules, and how rigidly they are enforced, varies between forums. For example, we are fairly relaxed about general members reminding others of the rules but another forum I am a member of has a very strict rule that only moderators can do anything that looks like moderating. One has to find the forum or forums that suit you. (Which you could choose to interpret as "if you don't like it here, you can go elsewhere" ) 1
zapatos Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 1 minute ago, wallflash said: I think I'll end my participation in all this if we are going to the assumption that I must be ignorant if I question the snarkiness expressed to other posters in the threads I'm not assuming you are ignorant. I simply suggested it was a possibility. Your assumption however seems to be that we are all incorrect, and only you see the light. (snakiness intended)
iNow Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, wallflash said: I also did not claim any particular poster had been called a liar , I said I saw a general attitude in which anyone not agreeing must either be stupid, a troll, or a liar Ignorant, not stupid. If you’re going to come here as a new member and start bitching about the way people use words, it would be helpful if you at least properly understood their definitions. Edited January 24, 2020 by iNow 1
MigL Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) We could do with a little more civility around here. Both INow and Zap can call me names/insult me if they wish, and I won't take it personally; after a while you get to know people. New members however, haven't gotten to know our personalities yet, and can be put off by our behavior sometimes. I have come to recognize that you need to tread lightly in certain subjects like AGW, as some people will assume posts have ulterior motives/agendas; a new member, who is unsure about the science will ask a question and be accused of being a denier. Now, quite a few times this turns out to be true, but we've probably turned away quite a few new members who thought they could come to a science site and discuss anything science related, without being accused of having an agenda. I don't say "This is who we are; if you don't like it, there's the door.". Rather, I want to thank Wallflash for bringing it to our attention, and personally, I will endeavor to do better and be more civil. ( my avatar might look bad-ass, but I'm actually a very sweet guy ) Edited January 24, 2020 by MigL 1
John Cuthber Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 14 hours ago, wallflash said: what is the acceptable percentage allowed of telling people to STFU and calling them liars, trolls , and ignorant . That's going to depend on the circumstances. In particular, if they are liars, trolls, and / or ignorant. 1
LaurieAG Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 On 1/23/2020 at 12:19 PM, iNow said: Thanks for your opinion. Do you have anything relevant to say? I worked in IT as an operational HRIS systems administrator in a 3,500 employee public organisation and I worked very closely with internal and external Auditors to make sure that our data wasn't polluted with a whole pile of crap. I was the business owner of the organisation's HRIS and databases and had legal obligations under state information security and Information privacy laws in my position description so I treated that responsibility very seriously and refused to make any changes that weren't legit. After that job I applied for a similar job on the same platform at a large private/health organisation and went to the interview. Unfortunately I made the mistake at the end of it by saying that the internal/external auditors at my last job would most certainly want to be informed of some of the 'data cleansing' tasks in the position description and they said 'we wouldn't do anything like that' and then pulled the bloody job. There's horses for courses and modifying data to suit your purposes just doesn't wash in my professional opinion.
swansont Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 11 hours ago, wallflash said: I didn't say I had a clear example of someone being called a liar. Nor did I state that disagreement wasn't found on other sites. I said I found a general attitude than anyone who doesn't agree might possibly be a liar strange . So it's impossible for a disagreement to be based on one person lying? That's what you're implying here. 11 hours ago, wallflash said: And I said that implying that others might be lying, even if second hand, would not be permitted on the forums I have participated in. If that's how they want to run things, I am not going to say they are wrong. 11 hours ago, wallflash said: Nor would the pervasive snideness and snarkiness. There are obviously ways of disagreeing that don't involve these things. Sometimes that's all you have when a person shows up and isn't arguing in good faith.
wallflash Posted January 24, 2020 Author Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, swansont said: So it's impossible for a disagreement to be based on one person lying? That's what you're implying here. Sometimes that's all you have when a person shows up and isn't arguing in good faith. No, Im not saying there can’t be disagreements over lying. I’m saying it isn’t necessary to accuse others of the possibility that they are lying if they don’t agree with the mass . No one here knows the inner thoughts of another poster or scientist . And no, that’s not all you have . I participated for decades in forums in which science nerds debated creationists , and also forums where Arab sympathizers debated Jewish sympathizers (no love or community found there ). In all cases debate was conducted ( HAD to be conducted or face moderation ) without insult, implications of dishonesty, snarkiness , or snideness . The science nerds managed it without need of moderation, the ME area needed frequent moderation , as did a few comments from creationists . To be fair, some of the creationist deletions were proselytizing instead of insult , but some insults were made . But the science nerds invariably conducted themselves above reproach . Which is why this place surprised me . But again, no big deal . This has taken on a life way larger than its importance . But it is not accurate to say sometimes these are the only tools left available the toolbox . I have observed differently firsthand for 2 decades . Edited January 24, 2020 by wallflash
Phi for All Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, wallflash said: But the science nerds invariably conducted themselves above reproach . Which is why this place surprised me . Gosh, that sounds swell. I'm sure it was just as you say, and everyone who was a nerd was nice. Thanks for sharing that.
Recommended Posts