Recursive Fury conversation

[Schneibster]

I'll just post Dr. Lewandowsky's own articles:

 

The Subterranean War

 

The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

 

Recursive Fury Goes Recursive

 

And this one from DeSmogBlog:

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/20/science-journal-retracts-paper-showing-how-climate-change-sceptics-were-conspiracy-theorists-after-sceptics-shout

 

You can read the man's accusations for yourselves. You keep closing the threads if I quote from the links.

 

It's also about time to mention again that Michael Mann seems to be steamrolling so far in his lawsuit; he's gotten past the standard attempt to dismiss, and is now in the process of getting the SLAPP counter-suit filed by Mark Steyn dismissed, after which he can take National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute et al. to trial. Here's the link to the current status of Dr. Mann's lawsuit:

 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/03/18/mann-motion-to-dismiss-steyns-counter-suit/

 

You'll also find links to other articles on that site about the previous ins and outs of the lawsuit.

 

Just so we're clear what this Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor of Psychology from the University of Western Australia, currently in transit to University of Bristol, says, he claims that he has been sadistically harassed by Libertarian Party members and global warming deniers on the Internet. Quote unquote. I think it's time to discuss this and put people who do it in their place permanently. I hope he joins Dr. Mann or files his own lawsuit against the principals who have harassed and defamed Dr. Mann. It's time these peoples' attempts to interfere with science ended in personal tribulation equal to their interference in the careers of these eminent scientists, and that those eminent scientists were rewarded financially for interference in their work. In addition, all the money that their institutions have spent needs to be reimbursed by the criminals of the Libertardian Party, Heartland Institute, James Inhofe, Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Review, Steve McIntyre, et alii.

 

That was public money those idiots wasted. Five different investigations of Dr. Mann, each of which cleared him completely. These lying miscreant harassers need to be made to pay the public back for the money they wasted on their lies.

 

Then they need to be sanctioned for their interference in psychological research, and defamation of this eminent psychology Professor. I think they should spend some time behind bars to remind them not to interfere in public science.

 

Let me repeat one more time: these accusations of defamation on the Internet are Dr. Lewandowsky's own. However, I support them and believe he has presented sufficient evidence of them to make the preponderance of the evidence indicate he is telling the truth and has been severely harassed and sadistically tormented.

 

What we're talking about here is repression of science, and of discussion about science. It's time that this stopped. I for one oppose it and will do so repeatedly and endlessly, since it appears that nothing else works against the liars, crooks, and fools.

 

Dr. Lewandowsky, I have never met you and never expect to; but you are an honest scientist, and I hate your harassers and oppose them, and I hope I can fight some of them that you won't have to. I have been harassed like you have and know what it means; and you are far more vulnerable than I. For the microscopically small amount it may mean, I believe in you and am on your side. Perhaps if we all push in the same direction we'll get it going fast enough they can't stop it.

 

One more thing: to the moderators and admins. You have been as fair as you can be, and I have tried to understand and follow your requirements without insisting on elements that you were uncomfortable with. This was a successful strategy.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Schneibster

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Schneibster,

 

Your persistence is...persistent.

 

1. What exactly are you trying to discuss here? From the looks of this and your last two threads, this looks to be little more than soap boxing (against the rules). The articles you've linked are, for the most part, talking about people who deny science. I am not sure why you have chosen to single our libertarians in this except that you have an intense personal vendetta against them, so please make that clear or this thread will be closed as well.

 

2. The use of the word, 'libertardian,' stops now. As do the rest of your slurs against people who trend towards certain political persuasions (not as present in this thread, though very present in your previous ones).

[Schneibster]

When a psychologist-- in fact a full Professor of Psychology who has already held a named seat in one university and is moving into another one-- tells you a particular behavior is sadistic, you really ought to listen to him and do something about it. When the same people who have engaged in this behavior are also being sued for defamation and harassment at the same time by an eminent scientist in a completely different field, I would say that's pretty much conclusive.

 

Please feel free to link any peer-reviewed publication of any kind that presents any technical fault in Dr. Lewandowsky's two papers. That's what I'd expect on a real science forum.

 

As far as what to discuss, it seems to me there's a great big discussion about what scientists, as well as the general public that pays for their work, should be doing about this political party that is maliciously interfering in science that they don't like; nor is this unique. They interfered with research into tobacco, too, until that got past the point where they could deny any more.

 

So why do you not want to discuss this major threat to scientific detachment and well-founded research?

Edited April 3, 2014 by Schneibster

[pwagen]

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

Rule 2.7, the part about being able to participate without clicking links. You've posted a few times, being angry about some kind of defamation? And I, personally, really still have no idea what, exactly, has happened. Who said what to who?

[Schneibster]

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

Rule 2.7, the part about being able to participate without clicking links. You've posted a few times, being angry about some kind of defamation? And I, personally, really still have no idea what, exactly, has happened. Who said what to who?

 

They kept deleting the article when I quoted Dr. Lewandowsky. So apparently that was the management of the site preventing me from following the rules they're supposed to be enforcing. Nor is this the first time for that either.

 

Dr. Lewandowsky, at that time the Winthrop Professor of Psychology at the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia published, along with several other coauthors, a study of the cognition of conspiracy theorists. The main conspiracy theory he examined was climate denial. He has, in his own words, been threatened, harassed, defamed, and trolled, and he points out that other research shows that trolling is intimately linked to sadism. He then did a study on these peoples' reaction and harassment; they then threatened one of the journals he published in, and got them to retract it, even though there is no ethical or technical flaw in the paper. Named individuals and organizations are largely identical to:

 

Dr. Michael Mann, the author of the famous "hockey stick" paper, has filed suit against Anthony Watts (a prominent climate denier), the Heartland Institute (a prominent mouthpiece for the energy industry), the National Review (a prominent US Libertarian Party yellow journalism and propaganda outlet), and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Koch brothers anti-science organization, for defamation and harassment. So far the defendants have tried every underhanded lawyer trick in the book and been smacked down hard several times by the judge.

 

The details of these matters are extensive, and it really is necessary to read the articles to fully understand them. This is the merest overview, but I recall statements, and you have shown a rule, that simply linking a source is frowned upon, so I'm trying to give you enough detail to have a good idea what the argument is about. To do any more requires I quote Dr. Lewandowsky, which apparently makes the moderators start deleting everything. I really do suggest you read the man's own words.

 

These people are attempting to corrupt science. They have now openly admitted (it's another link, available on request) that it's their intent to disrupt and prevent scientific research that has results they don't like. There is no mention by them of whether that science is correct or not; they appear to feel that's immaterial.

 

As for my personal feelings, I have been harassed, defamed, "trolled" (and yes it absolutely is sadistic), and stalked across most of the so-called "science" forums on the Internet by climate cranks, recently on this site, and most recently on another competing science forum. I am in the process of getting this taken care of; I'm glad the laws in Britain have been modified, because it's going to make this easier. So if I'm a bit testy, or even a bit nasty, keep in mind I have been extensively provoked.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Schneibster

[pwagen]

Personally, I'm pretty satisfied with your summary, so thank you. Naturally, to get the full picture one would probably have to dig deeper, but now we've got at least the basic idea.

 

Forgive me for questioning motives while going through the above, but is your reason to post this information solely that of spreading awareness of these events? Or is this something you'd like to have a discussion about - repression of science, threats against scientific journals etc?

[swansont]

 

They kept deleting the article when I quoted Dr. Lewandowsky. So apparently that was the management of the site preventing me from following the rules they're supposed to be enforcing. Nor is this the first time for that either.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Who are "they" and what is "the site"?

[Schneibster]

Personally, I'm pretty satisfied with your summary, so thank you. Naturally, to get the full picture one would probably have to dig deeper, but now we've got at least the basic idea.

 

Forgive me for questioning motives while going through the above, but is your reason to post this information solely that of spreading awareness of these events? Or is this something you'd like to have a discussion about - repression of science, threats against scientific journals etc?

 

Absolutely something I'd like to have a conversation about. On this subforum, I think we need to discuss the law Obama signed blocking enforcement of foreign defamation judgements, and the new British laws that took effect 01JAN14. There might even be a branch discussion about the attempts by Muslim extremists in the UN to ban anti-religious speech.

 

On the psych subforum, something I'd like to discuss is the mentation of the conspiracy theorist. This is not new psychology; I point to The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer, which was published in the late 1950s. Sadism is a common theme, of course. Richard Dawkins has discussed this extensively. I see little difference between these different fanatics; Dawkins' look like Hoffer's look like Lewandowsky's. There is also a branch to a memetics discussion based on Susan Blackmore's analysis of religious memeplexes and their self-sustainment and replication strategies in The Meme Machine.

 

I'm glad I was able to give you a good summary.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Schneibster

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Schneibster, you have not been harassed or defamed by anyone, least of all anyone from SFN. If you wish to post here, then fine, but keep the nonsense accusations out of it. They are not relevant in any way to your OP, which you still have not clarified; are you talking about libertarians or are you talking about people who deny science? Equating the two is in no way supported by your links and this is why you need to clarify yourself. Last chance.

The one thread on this that I didn't merge was left hidden because it was abusive and violated the forum rules. If you wish to cite quotes pertaining to your OP, go ahead.

[Schneibster]

I see no difference, and in fact I believe you are in denial about what the quotes say.

 

A great deal of your problem appears to be that you do not understand that US Libertarian Party members are not libertarians. Naming their party that was propaganda, specifically Big Lie propaganda. I have nothing against small-l libertarians; I'm one myself. But Big L US Libertarian Party members are, in my opinion, denying reality in a number of ways that go far beyond science denial, and include racism and belief that real knowledge is worthless and that the rich should run the world because they're "the best."

 

In short, these people are not really libertarian; they do not recognize the tyranny of money.

 

Now explain why a threat like "last chance" isn't harassment. Furthermore, tell me what's different between what I quoted before and what I've linked above, that you now require I quote it where before you threatened to kick me off for quoting it.

 

Do you really think this kind of harassment isn't totally transparent? Really?

 

Tell you what, go away. If I screw up some rule of decorum, come tell me; I'm not a barbarian. I'll fix it and if necessary apologize. But stop trying to deny real science. You're not going to get away with it. Everyone will see.

 

Also, it doesn't hurt any that you at least seem to get that climate denial is an energy company scam. But I'm still finding out who isn't in denial about that. And who's trolling about it. See? There it is again: Lewandowsky says:

 

 

 

Publication of the first paper (now known as LOG12) engendered a sustained and ongoing attack on the research and my work in general. Most of these attacks have been pursued by defamation on the internet, but they have also involved activities beneath the surface hidden from public view. I have already written about this Subterranean War on Science.

 

The strategies employed in those attacks follow a common playbook, regardless of which scientific proposition is being denied and regardless of who the targeted scientists are: There is cyber-bullying and public abuse by “trolling” (which recent research has linked to sadism); there is harassment by vexatious freedom-of-information (FOI) requests; there are the complaints to academic institutions; legal threats; and perhaps most troubling, there is the intimidation of journal editors and publishers who are acting on manuscripts that are considered inconvenient.

Let me emphasize: "There is cyber-bullying and public abuse by “trolling” (which recent research has linked to sadism); there is harassment by vexatious freedom-of-information (FOI) requests; there are the complaints to academic institutions; legal threats; and perhaps most troubling, there is the intimidation of journal editors and publishers who are acting on manuscripts that are considered inconvenient."

 

Here's the link: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf1.html

 

These are the tactics these people use.

 

These appear to be the tactics you use.

 

Would you like to consider and adapt your behavior? I really don't want to fight; but I won't back down to bullies, either.

 

Would you respect someone who would? Think about it.

 

Please don't just double down and deny it. It's silly after what's gone before. If you disrespect me that much anyone who's thinking is going to find you laughable.

 

I guess the funniest part is you pretend to be "pro global warming."

Edited April 3, 2014 by Schneibster

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Your links do not support your accusations against the Libertarian party. So again, what are you trying to talk about here?

[CharonY]

And even if they were, what is the point of discussion? Actually IIRC the author found a correlation between climate deniers and affiliation to the republican party (not the libertarian afaik) and I think iNow has in the past linked articles to that effect.

I am quite surprised that this is supposedly about a discussion signed by Obama, which is not further described and a post later it turns into soapboxing again.

For that, a blog is a much better place than a discussion forum.

[Schneibster]

!

Moderator Note

Your links do not support your accusations against the Libertarian party. So again, what are you trying to talk about here?

 

What?

 

Some 18 months ago I published a paper with colleagues Oberauer and Gignac that reported a survey of visitors to climate blogs which established a small, but significant, association between the endorsement of conspiracy theories and the rejection of several scientific propositions, including the fact that the earth is warming from greenhouse gases. The effects reported in that paper have since been replicated with a representative sample of Americans. No scholarly critique of either paper has been submitted for peer review to any journal to date.

 

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf1.html

 

CEI? National Review?

 

You know what, if you're telling me the US Libertarian Party is rebelling against climate denial, I might think you're crazy but I'll give you an honest hearing. OTOH, you've got about the same chance of convincing me teabaggers aren't racists, so good luck.

And even if they were, what is the point of discussion? Actually IIRC the author found a correlation between climate deniers and affiliation to the republican party (not the libertarian afaik) and I think iNow has in the past linked articles to that effect.

I am quite surprised that this is supposedly about a discussion signed by Obama, which is not further described and a post later it turns into soapboxing again.

For that, a blog is a much better place than a discussion forum.

 

Ummm wut?

 

You don't see how libel laws might affect this entire conversation, especially after the law Obama signed and the British law that took effect a couple months ago? Or you don't think that's "politics?" Please help me here I can't see your objection making sense.

 

Guys, this is not working.

 

The thing that's really the killer is Dr. Mann's lawsuit. There's really nowhere to hide from that. The climate cranks are desperately trying to keep it from going to trial.

hypervalent_iodine, if you're a US Libertarian Party member who believes global warming, I'm perfectly willing to listen to your justification. I may not agree, but I'll listen.

 

However when you try to bully me it's transparent and costs you a lot of cred with me. Quite frankly I'd respect you more if you were just straightforward and stopped trying to abuse your powers.

 

Not only that but that exact kind of abuse is why the political commentariat I hang out with dislikes right wingers; it's endemic among them. You need to back way off because to me at this point you look like a Bush 43 burrower appointee. You are having major ethical problems due to the way you're behaving. I'm being honest; you can earn my respect easily but you won't the way you're going.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Schneibster

[hypervalent_iodine]

Again, your quote does not support your argument. I clicked through to the other link in the quote and still, there is no mention of the actual Libertarian party. In fact, the correlations made are between classes of world views and acceptance of science, which contradicts your previous distinction between Libertarian party members and libertarians.

 

From the conclusion:

 

 

 

Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues.

 

To me, that's not so much a rejection of science as it is an extension of the libertarian view on government mandated programs. I don't agree with it (meaning that I don't agree, for instance, that people should be given the choice to vaccinate their children), but it's a different story to the one you seem to be trying to tell.

[CharonY]

If you start a discussion it is customary to provide the context and not to start in the middle of things and let the reader pick up the pieces you throw at them. So yo did establish that people were harassing scientists. Fine. I assume the discussion would be whether that is a bad thing? Well, on a science forum you will probably find few that would argue that point.

 

In post #8 a libel law appears for the first time. If that was a major discussion point it would have been nice to bring that at the top. Since you are trying to discuss something without explaining what it is I googled it and it appears that Obama signed legislation that protects Americans from Britain's libel laws. So what is the discussion? The fact that the UK has libel laws that could be abused or that the US tries to protect Americans from it...?

What I am saying is that you are highly erratic and it requires significant amount of clairvoyance to try to figure out what the topic actually is.

[Schneibster]

Again, your quote does not support your argument. I clicked through to the other link in the quote and still, there is no mention of the actual Libertarian party. In fact, the correlations made are between classes of world views and acceptance of science, which contradicts your previous distinction between Libertarian party members and libertarians.

 

From the conclusion:

 

 

 

 

To me, that's not so much a rejection of science as it is an extension of the libertarian view on government mandated programs. I don't agree with it (meaning that I don't agree, for instance, that people should be given the choice to vaccinate their children), but it's a different story to the one you seem to be trying to tell.

 

Bravo. This is the stage we should be arguing on. I will carefully consider your arguments and reply shortly.

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

hypervalent_iodine, if you're a US Libertarian Party member who believes global warming, I'm perfectly willing to listen to your justification. I may not agree, but I'll listen.

 

 

 

I don't live in the US and I have no party affiliation even in the country I do live in.

[Schneibster]

 

 

I don't live in the US and I have no party affiliation even in the country I do live in.

 

Thank you.

 

I am a US Democrat and a two-time Obama voter. I am against war but not against aggressive response to aggression. There has to be a line.

 

If you will tell me your country I will tell you what most closely resembles my views in your local political terms.

If you start a discussion it is customary to provide the context and not to start in the middle of things and let the reader pick up the pieces you throw at them. So yo did establish that people were harassing scientists. Fine. I assume the discussion would be whether that is a bad thing? Well, on a science forum you will probably find few that would argue that point.

 

In post #8 a libel law appears for the first time. If that was a major discussion point it would have been nice to bring that at the top. Since you are trying to discuss something without explaining what it is I googled it and it appears that Obama signed legislation that protects Americans from Britain's libel laws. So what is the discussion? The fact that the UK has libel laws that could be abused or that the US tries to protect Americans from it...?

What I am saying is that you are highly erratic and it requires significant amount of clairvoyance to try to figure out what the topic actually is.

 

Traditionally one asks questions if the articles linked, and the quotes provided from those articles, are not explanatory. It is, however, up to the querent to establish what context is missing.

 

I will happily provide the answers to any questions that are asked. I cannot agree to predict them; I'm not that good. Sorry.

 

I am amazed that this context is not immediately clear to anyone who is following science news. Please don't take that as criticism; I'm sure you're engaged in local pursuits that preclude it, and are in fact all the more effective at what you're doing because you DON'T know it. But give me a break; just because you have to ask questions doesn't mean there's something wrong. OK?

So the context here, for me, is first of all the lack of understanding by non-US folks that in the US, "Libertarian" doesn't mean the same thing as in the rest of the world.

 

US Libertarian Party members are not libertarians. They are right wing feudalists.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I don't have to live in the US to know what is meant by libertarianism or the US Libertarian party. If you read my post, the citation made in the quote you provided does not make a link between the Libertarian party and science denial, but libertarian world views and science denial.

[Schneibster]

Given the propaganda undertaken by the US Libertarian Party and the funding of the defendants in the Mann lawsuit, I'm not sure what link you think hasn't been made.

 

I suspect Dr. Lewandowsky has been fooled as badly as you have by the US Libertarian Party's propagandistic lying use of the word "libertarian" to describe a right-wing anti-freedom feudalist ideology that rewards the richest with power.

 

Real libertartians eventually believe money will become obsolete; everyone will be so rich that no one will pay attention any more.

 

Not that a few rich people will own everything. That's right-wing feudalism. The commoners aren't competent to own things.

 

As accessory evidence, I am also going to point out that Dr. Lewandowsky delayed joining the staff of Bristol University until after the British defamation law updates had become effective on 01JAN14. I expect this was fairly wise.

As far as small-l libertarianism, I am as I said one myself, and in fact one of the things I dislike the most about the US "Libertarian" Party is that they pollute real libertarianism with their cruel disgusting racist anti-gay anti-disabled creed.

 

One of the things I notice, hypervalent_iodine, is that you seem to have trouble acknowledging that US "Libertarian" Party members are not libertarians. You have been propagandized. Wake up.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Schneibster

[swansont]

I see no difference, and in fact I believe you are in denial about what the quotes say.

…

A great deal of your problem appears to be that you do not understand that US Libertarian Party members are not libertarians.

…

These appear to be the tactics you use.

…

Would you like to consider and adapt your behavior?

…

I guess the funniest part is you pretend to be "pro global warming."

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Emphasis added.

 

The personal attacks stop NOW. Discussion should be about the topic and not about the people making it. If you can't engage without making it personal, then the conversation will be shut down.

 

Do not derail the thread further by responding to moderation.

 

[Endy0816]

My only question is why the Lib's?

 

Two party system predominates as a result of our voting system. Republicans are probably the most in danger of the two of an ideological meltdown. A schism between social and fiscal conservationism, but I wouldn't peg the Lib's to be their replacement. More likely some sort of socially moderate fiscally focused offshoot would come out on top.

 

We should see some good candidates this round at least. Figure the good ones were all playing it safe and waiting for the election cycle they would have the best chance of winning. About standard for a President to be reelected for a second term.

[Schneibster]

My only question is why the Lib's?

 

Two party system predominates as a result of our voting system. Republicans are probably the most in danger of the two of an ideological meltdown. A schism between social and fiscal conservationism, but I wouldn't peg the Lib's to be their replacement. More likely some sort of socially moderate fiscally focused offshoot would come out on top.

 

We should see some good candidates this round at least. Figure the good ones were all playing it safe and waiting for the election cycle they would have the best chance of winning. About standard for a President to be reelected for a second term.

 

I'm not quite clear on what you're asking. Why the Libertarians... what?

 

Later: I guess it really doesn't matter what political party it is, I'd be unhappy with anyone following scientists around and harassing them about their results. We're not just talking standard science crankery here, you know, "my great new theorie that proves teh Einsenstein is teh WR0NG" or whatnot; this is actual IRL harassment of scientists with the intent to interfere with their work. The lawsuit is not Dr. Mann being whiny. These people are actually interfering with working scientists, and not only that but on a subject that is of pretty high importance, though low urgency, to everyone. This needs to stop permanently. Bible cranks spouting baby stories about "arks" and making museums with Jesus riding tyrannosaurs and so forth is a minor irritation compared to receiving FOIA request spam.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Schneibster

[imatfaal]

I'm not quite clear on what you're asking. Why the Libertarians... what?

 

Later: I guess it really doesn't matter what political party it is, I'd be unhappy with anyone following scientists around and harassing them about their results. We're not just talking standard science crankery here, you know, "my great new theorie that proves teh Einsenstein is teh WR0NG" or whatnot; this is actual IRL harassment of scientists with the intent to interfere with their work. The lawsuit is not Dr. Mann being whiny. These people are actually interfering with working scientists, and not only that but on a subject that is of pretty high importance, though low urgency, to everyone. This needs to stop permanently. Bible cranks spouting baby stories about "arks" and making museums with Jesus riding tyrannosaurs and so forth is a minor irritation compared to receiving FOIA request spam.

But is it merely because you personally agree with the conclusion of the scientists concerned that you diagree with the tactics arrayed against them? I also agree and hope the scientific community succeed in convincing the public at large of the validity of anthropogenic climate change. WE must be careful not to beatify those we agree with and demonise those we oppose.

 

Is it because those that are hampered are scientists in general? Or does the feeling that these tactics are unacceptable apply when they are used against say ngo.s or individual campaigners too.

 

But there are many groups I disagree with - some of whom claim to be acting scientifically - that I would not be particularly bothered and may even be positively pleased if they were chilled in their fight. In fact, I have taken part in quite a few disruptive campaigns on exactly these terms - just for different causes.

 

We must be very careful in our pronouncements of unacceptable techniques in politics - what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Truth will out. The more hurdles we place in the path of campaigners the longer we will take to get to truth

[Schneibster]

But is it merely because you personally agree with the conclusion of the scientists concerned that you diagree with the tactics arrayed against them? I also agree and hope the scientific community succeed in convincing the public at large of the validity of anthropogenic climate change. WE must be careful not to beatify those we agree with and demonise those we oppose.

 

Is it because those that are hampered are scientists in general? Or does the feeling that these tactics are unacceptable apply when they are used against say ngo.s or individual campaigners too.

 

No. I disagree with interfering with anyone that way. No one deserves to be harassed.

 

 

But there are many groups I disagree with - some of whom claim to be acting scientifically - that I would not be particularly bothered and may even be positively pleased if they were chilled in their fight. In fact, I have taken part in quite a few disruptive campaigns on exactly these terms - just for different causes.

 

We must be very careful in our pronouncements of unacceptable techniques in politics - what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Truth will out. The more hurdles we place in the path of campaigners the longer we will take to get to truth

 

I think you play a dangerous game. I have never used, and will never approve of, such tactics. Their primary effect is to convince the opposition that one is unreasonable, and even incapable of reason. Be the change you want to see.

 

There are many more effective ways. I use those: contributing money to orgs that work legally and legislatively for change. Contributing time to them doing volunteering. Doing outreach. Showing up and speaking out when it's time to speak up. Taking the time to really deeply learn about the controversy so I have the facts that support my position at my fingertips.

 

Responding with resolution to harassment.

 

Sometimes I do something beautiful. I sent some pizzas to the Occupy protest in New York.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Schneibster