There seems to be a growing mythology about this site that I would like to nip in the bud. This post is primarily for those at Uncommon Descent who bring up the subject of this site in their posts and comments.
Joe, aka Joe G, wrote, in response to Nullasalus
If I see Joe throwing sexual slurs at Liddle,
I may have thrown everything else at her, but not that.
putting up picture of her RL self to deface, and half the things the swampers do when they’re particularly riled, I’m going to pull no punches and call him out on that immediately.
I call her out just as I do all evos who misrepresent and over state their position and mangle ID, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, et al. She speaks from a postion of a scientist so I tend to go after those types a little harder.
If she can’t take it then perhaps she should learn and change. Or come up with a defense other than repeating herself in the face of referenced refutations of her claims.
I was banned from TSZ for getting into it with the evos who refused to comment in good faith. Ooops, that was all of them but in this case it was the evos who were just attacking me and obviously had nothing to say.
What I posted was not directed at Lizzie- it was directed at OM, aka OMagain, aka oldmaninskydidnotdoit- evo hooligan. And what I posted was spot-on for the situation.
Joe G was banned here for posting a sexual slur, consisting of a link to a pornographic image with a misogyinistic title, and a message apparently directed at me (although it wouldn’t have mattered at whom). Nobody is banned for “getting into it with the evos” at TSZ. But I will ban for posting porn links.
Upright Biped writes:
I second Null’s take on TSZ.
I only add that I spent over two and a half months there on one of the five or six threads devoted to semiosis. I focused primarity on one opponent, as the remaining crew offered little more than constant insult and absurdity. And after that one opponent abandoned his two main points, Liddle closed the thread under the auspices that I had violated her rules. She wanted to “ensure that emotional baggage and assumptions about other posters’ motivations are rigorously excluded. Let’s conduct this in an academically rigorous way”.
Upright omits to note that I started the thread for Upright Biped; and that when I closed the older one, for the reasons Upright Biped quotes, I immediately opened a new one. Moreover, one of the topic tags here is “Upright Biped’s Semiotic Theory of ID”, and there are several threads on the topic. I would also add that Upright Biped’s description of the discussion is not congruent with my own memory of it. But that is my underlying point – if we want to discuss an idea seriously, we need to rid ourselves of our assumptions about other people’s motivations, and concentrate on the argument itself. That means, in my view, not dismissing those views as “absurdity”. There were a great many non-absurd (and non-insulting) counter-arguments and question addressed to Upright Biped, and he is welcome to return her to respond to them.
Thirdly, I want to assure any posters at UD who would like to come and post here, that the strapline on this site applies to everyone, IDists and “evos” alike, and most of all to myself, and that nobody is banned for an expressing an opinion, nor are their comments moved to guano for expressing an opinion. The rule is “assume the other poster is posting in good faith”. It’s not always easy to do, and it’s not always possible to believe it, but assuming it is the rule. And while we try to mod with a light hand, I, and the other admins, will willingly move posts that break that rule to Guano. They will not be deleted, and the poster is welcome to repost the content in a manner that does not break the rule.
Lastly, what people post on other sites has no bearing on whether they are allowed to post here, and what sites members here also post on has little bearing, in my view, on whether they are decent and honest people. What matters to me is that while here, members adhere to TSZ rules.
I hope that has busted a few myths.
Lizzie,
Obviously you cater this site to atheists. And it is mainly atheists who post here. That’s a ‘home truth’ in your blogger world.
You write: “nobody is banned for an expressing an opinion, nor are their comments moved to guano for expressing an opinion.”
Yet that is what you did recently to me for ‘correcting’ the views of one poster at UD. You guano’d and edited at your discretion things that did not violate your ‘rules.’
Even now, my new OP Quiz for ID proponentsists is ‘awaiting review’. Please don’t play so innocent and even-handed as you pretend. You are not only hosting ‘skeptics’ here; you are actually promoting ‘skepticism’ as an ideology.
Gregory,
I don’t see the problem, Gregory. Lizzie manages to be a darn sight more even handed than most. It’s not surprising that skeptics should gravitate here either. I ask you to reflect on Cromwell’s plea to the Scots.
The thread “A few home truths…” should be placed in the Moderation category; it’s all about moderation.
Alan Fox knows this, so he’s just placed my response to his post in this thread in Moderation:
No, this is neither obvious nor true, Gregory, as you will see if you check the About this site page.
If it is “mainly atheists who post here” the reason is not that non-atheists are not catered for.
Yes, I did in that case, Gregory, because in my view, your post was designed to “out” a UD poster who posts anonymously. I’m not going to let TSZ be used to “out” posters at other sites, or, indeed, here.
You are more than welcome to critique his/her views as expressed under the name in which he/she posts. You are not welcome to speculate on views some person you think he/she is may or may not hold.
No. I am protecting innocent people from having their identity speculated about on this site. Your post is in review because I want to check that it does not attempt to expose the identity of internet commentators who comment anonymously. In the case the commentator is a theist. Your accusations to me are groundless. And I ask you to take them to the “moderation” column.
I will put my posts where I choose to put them, Gregory, and this one is not addressed primarily to posters here.
“I will put my posts where I choose to put them” – Lizzie
Yes, but in this case, you’ve put my posts where you chose to put them.
I did not ‘design’ a post to ‘out’ anyone at UD. You are mistaken and have no evidence otherwise.
But what my post did was expose something you don’t seem to want shown; THEISTS who reject IDT.
“If it is “mainly atheists who post here” the reason is not that non-atheists are not catered for.” – Lizzie
If?! Do you not care about reality, Lizzie? There have been a couple of threads here, not started by me, which expose this reality. You should at least be willing to say you’ve read those threads with people, now including yourself, who admit their worldview atheism.
To claim that you ‘cater for’ theists at TSZ is just silly. If it were true, you’d have personally deleted dozens of insults to theists by your low-brow atheist mosh pit (cubist, thorton, hotshoe, et al.) here.
Where we can find agreement, Lizzie, is in rejecting IDism. I agree with many but not all of your criticisms of IDT. As for your pro-atheist ‘moderation’ policy (is there a theist among your moderators? No.), we will simply have to agree to disagree. The facts should be obvious to observers that atheism is not only supported, but promoted at TSZ.
I edited your post, Gregory, and some comments (which I also moved to Guano) because they included speculations about the real life identity of an anonymous internet commenter.
There is no penalty for doing this, as I do not issue penalties. However, I do add rules as I discover the many ways there are for people to do things on this site that I do not want.
And outing anonymous commentators on the ID/evolution debate is something I discover I do not want here.
So I deleted that content, and have added an additional rule.
I accept that there are comments on this site that should be in Guano but are not. Some of these are from ID supporters, and some from ID proponents. As I said, we tend to moderate with a light-ish touch.
However, the principle is clear, and if you check Guano, I think you will find evidence of a reasonably even-handed policy, if a somewhat sporadic one.
I am very busy at work just now – when I’m around I tend to be a bit more proactive.
Lastly, I’d be delighted to have a theist admin (I’m not sure whether we do, in fact – I don’t know the religious beliefs of the admins here).
But my first priority is to have admins who understand the principles on which this site is based, and the current admins do so excellently.
And if an ID supporter would like to volunteer for the role, I’d be very pleased. There are several commentators at UD who would be excellent. Brandon, for example (whose blog is on the blogroll here), but I haven’t seen him around for a while.
I’d also point out that although this site is run as a group endeavour, with clear principles that we try to implement even-handedly, ultimately it is my blog. i pay for it, I run it, just as Barry pays for and runs UD.
And both Barry and I are entitled to do what the heck we like. If people like what we do, they will read and post here. If not, they won’t.
And what I like is a site where people can express whatever views they wish, are not banned except for posting unsafe material, but whose posts must respect the fundamental principle of “assuming the other posters are posting in good faith” if they are to remain on the main page rather than in guano.
It’s obvious then that you haven’t read posts on your own blog wherein your admins have declared their atheist beliefs. Do you really not know this, Lizzie?
TSZ is first and foremost an anti-IDT blog. Are you being realistic or naively idealistic to think that an ‘ID supporter’ would volunteer and that if he/she did it would not cause a crisis of moderation at TSZ?
No, they didn’t. The ‘real life identity’ of ‘Timaeus’ is still protected. You are simply wrong claiming his ‘anonymity’ was endangered. I don’t expect you to admit this publically.
But what I did bring up that you seem to think threatens your ‘skepticism’ is BioLogos. Theists who are anti-IDT seem to frighten you because you are not far from being one yourself. (Though, as a self-declared pantheist, quasi-Buddhist, ecclectic mixture of worldviews, your position doesn’t seem clear enough to directly convey.) The theists at BioLogos do not promote a ‘warfare’ approach to science and theology/worldview and yet they actively oppose young Earth creationism, which tells the lie to KN’s demand that one must ‘fight’ YECs rather than persuading them peacefully and faithfully.
I don’t read all posts on this blog, Gregory, and I don’t find the religious beliefs of my admins pertinent to their ability to admin this site. I asked them because I trusted them with the sense and technical ability to look after it as I would wish.
And TSZ is not “first and foremost an anti-IDT blog”. ID might well be a common topic but the subject matter is well-described on the About This Site page.
And I do not feel in the least threatened by Biologos. As you point out, their view is quite close to my own position, very close to the position I held for half a century, and one that most theists that I know hold. I see no incompatibility in principle between standard scientific models of the world and theism.
So please stop erecting these straw men, Gregory.
And do not post speculations on this site that could compromise the anonymity of commenters here or elsewhere. That includes speculating on the jobs you think they hold.
Yes, that is obvious, otherwise you would know that *all* of your admins are declared atheists or agnostics. Do you intentionally wish not to know or publically acnowledge that, Lizzie?
As for BioLogos, you contend: “their view is quite close to my own position.”
Right, except for you being an atheist, muddled quasi-Buddhist, while they are openly, clearly, obviously Abrahamic theists; specifically evangelical Christians.
As for speculating on jobs, that is a small concession, easily edited and allowed. And what you guano’d from my balanced, insider approach actually goes against your own policy. The ‘spirit’ of this site is far more welcome to atheists than to theists. Why don’t you admit that publically, Lizzie?
I’ve linked Alan Fox to the questionable message which you guano’d and which he can decide for himself, free from bias.
Repeat: To claim that you ‘cater for’ theists at TSZ is just silly. If it were true, you’d have personally deleted dozens of insults to theists by your low-brow atheist mosh pit (cubist, thorton, hotshoe, et al.) here.
But it doesn’t seem that you really care that much at all about respecting or welcoming theists at TSZ.
“What is H?” – Lizzie
Yes, exactly. HOME. What is “the skeptical zone” as HOME?
A majority atheists and/or agnostics. Yes.
A majority anti-IDT. Yes.
What else? Anything positive? Hope in emptiness, personal without personal, meaningless life in the long-run?
Gregory,
There are people who live full and meaningful lives despite being atheists. I am one such. I’m sure you are delighted for me.
Allan, after you’re dead, as an atheist, is your life meaningful? Thanks. Sociology is your answer, right?
That’s your argument for God? Argument to consequence?
Lizzie,
You have not busted the “myth” that my posts, which were a near word for word copy of Olegts insults, were moved while Olegts, along with Hotshoes, Thortons Richard Hughes and O’Magains posts filled with just pre-school worthy nonsense insults were all allowed to remain by Alan. Olegt was able to say exactly what I wasn’t allowed to say. It doesn’t get any clearer than this to show the double standard here.
It is not really possible for someone with an opposing viewpoint to come here and expect to receive respectful and equal treatment, this is no myth. I posted here in good faith, NEVER began any insults, but simply didn’t allow my comments to be overrun by the plethora of postings that are supposed to be against the rules here, and when I complained about it on moderation absolutely zero was done.
Your closing your eyes and pretending to not be aware of any double standards here is not genuine. But let’s also be honest, this is standard practice at virtually EVERY athiest/skeptic/evolutionist website on the internet, so yours is really no exception. Little separates you from the likes of Jerry Coyne.
I don’t know about Lizzie, but I’d consider that high praise indeed.
Jerry Coyne = ‘high praise’?! Coming from Patrick, another declared atheist, that’s not a surprising opinion. Coyne = activist anti-theist. This makes it obvious atheist just desert for TSZ, though Lizzie still denies it.
In that case, I apologise, phoodoo. As I said, the moderation can be a bit sporadic. But if you look in Guano you will find plenty of posts by “evos” that have been moved there.
There may not be a consistent standard, but we do try not to operate a double one.
Phoodoo. The fact remains that you con post here and most of us can’t post there.
What difference does it make whether you are respected? Disagreement implies that people think the other side of an argument is wrong. That’s a given.
Just present your best argument and ignore tone.
I do not ask people to respect other view points. I do ask people to assume that the other posters are posting in good faith. And the rules themselves spell out what I mean by this.
I have no problem with someone saying that such and such a view is “nonsense” or “vacuous” or “meaningless” or being as rude as they like about the view, although I’d rather they said why.
I do have a problem with someone saying that so and so is lying, or being deliberative provocative, or being disingenuous, or dishonest, or indeed stupid.
In other words: deal with arguments as roughly as you wish; but assume that the person making it believes what they are saying, and is trying to tell the truth as they see it.
Gregory, why are you obsessed with labelling people? How does that advance an argument? And what is your argument?
It is quite obvious that Lizzie prefers the obnoxious anti-theist language of thorton, hotshoe, omagain, richard hughes (and cubist) here at atheist-oriented TSZ.
You invite a double standard, Lizzie, with your 100% atheist admin composition.
Gregory, we will have to agree to differ on this. I try to be as evenhanded as possible, and I think the other admins do too.
And unlike some sites, I do not ban for anything other than unsafe material, and I delete very little else – for instance material that I think jeopardises the anonymity of a commentator who has chosen to remain anonymous. In other words, all I proscribe is material that could do actual damage.
However, from the main page the rules are clear, and implemented as evenhandedly as we can manage, given a small admin staff. We will not be consistent always, but I think the contents of guano indicate that at least when I’m on the warpath, “evos” are as likely to have their posts moved as non-evos. Slightly more so, I’d say, as I tend to cut a bit of slack for anyone facing a pile-on.
I’m afraid I do not understand any of this post. Can you explain?
I totally disagree with Lizzie being banned from UD. From what I know, it was not justified. Disagreement is different from disrespect.
However, presenting ones best argument is not possible if the argument is allowed to constantly be derailed by non-responsive posts that are really just time wasting trash. I was constantly reminded by Alan to follow the rules, and when I questioned why he wasn’t reminding others, he simply said if he reminds me, they can get the message (the message that it was me apparently breaking the rules?)
If Alan was not able to see the logic contradictions in this, I found it hard to believe he can be open enough to see other issues evenly.
Alan then suggested I debate at a place where there was zero moderation- which I think was an odd request, as opposed to debating somewhere where both parties are expected to respect the other, and insults and off topic junk are not tolerated. In that regard, UD does a better job I feel.
But I remain opposed to their bannings-at least what I know about them. There may be more I don’t know.
That’s great in theory, but only useful in practice, when one is able to objectively see who is posting in good faith and who isn’t. If its constantly the one who has the opposing viewpoint who is told they are the ones who are not doing so in good faith, while much worse behavior is permitted, then one is just wasting their time.
But your apology is appreciated.
Coyne is an excellent writer and the author of “Why Evolution Is True”, one of the best popularizations of modern evolutionary theory in recent years. His website is also well worth reading.
Well, you are allowed to post here, and if you argument isn’t well received you are free to rephrase it and provide demonstrations.
I saw a lot of people spend a lot of time responding to you.
And his book is packed chock full of misrepresentations, distortions and bad science, piled on top of his outrageously biased viewpoint, highlighted by the fact that here is a guy who goes out of his way to insult those he doesn’t agree with (even faculty colleagues at his own university) and yet is completely paranoid beyond rational behavior to have his viewpoints challenged publicly, or to have fair discussions about the science. He trembles at the mere thought of having to answer questions.
He is an intellectual coward who hides behind his atheism and pretends its science, and then throws preschool insults and runs away.
You are free to present a review of his book here.
I can’t read Alan’s mind on this. However, thorton, and several others, know that they are breaking the rules. So they don’t need reminding.
Moderation is a thankless job. We mostly prefer to keep administrative actions to a minimum – just enough to serve as a reminder. So sure, some marginal posts get through without being guanoed. On the other hand, thorton has had plenty of posts that have been guanoed (as have some other evos).
The evidential support you provide for your claims is underwhelming.
I agree with petrushka — please post a review of Why Evolution Is True here and we can discuss your (currently baseless) assertions.
I doubt that. I have not read the book. But, if it were as you say, then he would have received harsh criticism from other scientists. And I have not seen that criticism (except from creationists and ID proponents).
I’ll admit to thinking that he goes a bit overboard in his criticism of James Shapiro.
I would not use the word “paranoid”, but he does seem to take offense a bit too easily. I’ve only mildly disagreed with him (such as on James Shapiro), and have avoided being argumentative. Yet I now seem to be banned from commenting on his blog. And I know of another person who mostly agrees with Jerry Coyne, but disagrees about “free will”, who also appears to have been banned.
Gregory,
I’m not sure why you mention sociology. My life is meaningful to me, right now, and to those who love me (even just a little!). After I’m gone, it will continue to have-been meaningful to them, till they too are gone.
Of course I could in fact be wrong about the whole after-I’m-gone thing. But my current expectation that I won’t know anything about it does not devalue my present existence one jot. Why is nihilism the only alternative to theism?
The beauty of my rule is that you don’t have to know that a person is posting in good faith – you don’t even have to believe it. You just have to assume it for the purposes of discussion (per arguendo….)
And all I have to do is decide whether someone is assuming it or not is easy to do. Which is easy enough. If someone tells someone else that they are lying, or “trying that old schtick again” or “back to cause trouble” or whatever, then obviously they are not assuming that person is posting in good faith.
Nobody is supposed to tell other people that they are not posting in good faith. That’s the point. And I will try to be more diligent about removing such posts. But it’s actually quite a busy site, and right now, I’d rather take a “random spot check” approach than recruit more people to monitor every post. I think it comes out in the wash, and if it hasn’t looked even-handed to you, maybe it wasn’t. We will try to do better 🙂
As is the appreciation 🙂
This is a good point, phoodoo. I don’t usually give reminders – I just move stuff. But if I do remind instead of move, it is often to an IDer! Simply because I am slightly more reluctant to move an ID post than an evo one!
I do offer general reminders from time to time, though.
As you will see from the posts in Guano, I’ve moved a couple from this thread!
However, what I usually do when I move is note that I’ve done so (not always), and make it clear (but most people know this so often I don’t bother) that it is not a moral judgement – just the ref’s whistle.
re Joe
Yes it was a link to p0rn, which is why it is deleted. And yes it was a picture of a woman’s genitalia. Yes, it had the misogynistic title “nasty vagina”. No it was not a “medical picture”. It was p0rn.
As Joe well knows.
It was deleted because it was not safe for work. It was also misogynistic and insulting to me personally as the female owner of this blog, but that was not why it was deleted.
Joe is entitled to his own opinions but he is not entitled to his own facts.
Lizzie,
But me must thank Joe. At UD they claim to not to want to engage folks because of the company they keep, yet they embrace Joe who posts p0rn and has tried to threaten people with physical violence. Their hypocrisy is clearly evident. KirosFocus you are particularly culpable.
Also JWTruthInLove is outright dishonest:
“It was a “nasty vagina” — a medical picture, not porn. I, too, am a fan of medical pictures. My browser-history is full of them.:
It was hosted on a p0rn website.
The woman was partially clothed, the camera was low down shooting up from by her feet. You are a liar, JW.
It certainly wasn’t a “medical picture”.
And what was most offensive to me was the title Joe had given it. Joe is lying, not surprisingly.
But as far as I am concerned, that is water under the bridge. I do not bear Joe a grudge (eta:as he can tell from the premature obit I posted at AtBC when I feared he was dead!) Unlike Nullasalus, I am not particularly bothered about keeping company with people who do things I don’t approve of, although I have a habit of telling them I don’t approve of the things they do. I just didn’t want unsafe links on this site.
But I do find the idea that all members who post at a site are tarred with the brush of someone who posts there who did something nasty at some other site simply silly. People do nasty things. Other people tell them so. Life goes on. If we all refused to associate with anyone who had once done something nasty, well, I guess most of us wouldn’t have many friends.
Its simply an excuse not to engage in the specifics of the debate, because that never goes well for them.
So there was this guy, he was awesome. He mixed with everyone no matter what their background – very friendly with some ‘unsavory’ types. I think his name was… Jesus.
Nullasalus:
“Sure. Let the record show: Mark Frank’s A-OK with sexual slurs and posting porn pics as insults in the course of a debate. That’s right, folks, that’s exactly the kind of community you can hope to join over at The Skeptical Zone! So remember: if you want to discuss things with people who will froth with hate, post your RL details on their sister forum if they get them, and worse… well, you just be sure to sign up there.”
Uncommon Descent:
“Nonetheless, on this blog I went too far in trying to hold up the Baylor administration’s actions to the light of day. I let it get personal and went over the edge in three things: (1) posting a parody letter attributed to Baylor President Lilley; (2) posting contact information for the Baylor Board of Regents in an effort to apply pressure to the Baylor administration; (3) posting an exchange between Peter Irons and John Lilley largely for the purpose of embarassing both.”
I look forward to more hypocrisy from you, Nullasalus.
Joe said he didn’t give the picture its filename (“nastyvagina” or some such). Fine.
He chose it nonetheless, and if it had that name where he found it, it clearly wasn’t a “medical” source. Which of course it was not. I didn’t hang around (one look was enough), but it was NOT a “medical picture”.
It was an extremely explicit p0rn crotch shot as Joe well knows.
And these comments are addressed to Nullasalus, who is pickier than I about who he keeps company with. I’d happily keep company with Joe, just not here because I don’t want that stuff on this site.
Not to mention Farting Judge Jones!
OK, folks settle down now. We’ve had our fun. And if any of these good people would like to come over here, remember, site rules will apply.
I would *love* for them them to come over here. We can’t go over there.
Nullasalus believes Joe:
“I had no idea they did that. Really? One more reason to tend towards anonymity on the internet, I suppose. Sorry to hear it, but glad you apparently came out ahead.”
I believe (this predates my interaction) that Joe was reported to his employer for making physical threats from his place of work. But don’t bother investigating, Nullasalus.
Phoodoo seems to forget it was he who challenged me to meeting”someplace where you can discuss facts without hiding under your moderation skirt”. See moderation thread. BTW, I can’t post at UD
My effect on people who live on after I die might have meaning to them. It doesn’t matter to me when I’m dead, it might still matter to others. Who knows? It’s important enough for me to know that just as others affect me, I affect others. I don’t have this need to be told that some eternal mind outside of time and space is going to “make it all matter for an eternity”.
Such as? Give references.