This is essentially the heart of the complaints by Sal, and Lizzie and co.
I say no, it is not. We have a situation here where Lizzie and Patrick can chose to remove any post they don’t like, for any reasons they create, without explaining why, and relegate it to a garbage dump section. And then they claim, that because technically someone could go into the dump and read the banished posts, that this is somehow ethical moderation.
This is absurd of course, because the post is then taken completely out of context, and it does not show what the post was in reply to. It really is just a smokescreen technique for the site to fight their war on ideas, without admitting they are practicing censorship.
They know full well it is unlikely to ever be read in guano, so what is the point of putting it there? It is simply so Lizzie can pretend she doesn’t censor, which is really a subtle lie. Barry admits that he is forced to ban some posters.
But there is one even bigger difference. Barry’s site is a content site! He has news, real news! His site is not predicated on comments, it is about providing information. It necessitates a certain amount of moderation, in order to maintain the stories as the heart of the content, not the invective spews of people like Richard or Patrick.
So whilst Sal and Lizzie complain about the moderation of Barry, let’s not be deceived by what they routinely practice here at TSZ. A long while back, I reposted the exact words of another posted who was espousing nonsense ideas. I reposted his lines to me, and my post was immediately put into guano by Alan, while the materialist was allowed to same the exact same thing. And just yesterday, when Sal was asking why Barry banned him, I said maybe Barry had more than just one reason for feeling Sal was a kook (clearly an on topic point and clearly within the rules). It was guanoed by Lizzie with no reply as to why.
Hypocrites. I personally feel this is worse than standards. This site was started as a hypocritical statement to Barry’s controlling of garbage at UD. Thus Barry’s methods are more ethical in my view.
petrushka,
Right, some people make up fucked up double standard rules to prevent their arguments from being shown to be weak. I am not saying who, but they must have their twinkie wedged in a door waiting for it to be jerked out by another poster whose twinkie is equally wedged in that door, and I am also not saying who in particular, because that would be against the rules they make up.
phoodoo, what I’m saying is that the “something wrong” has been ideological disagreement. Which is also regarded as bad behavior.
As I recall, Lizzie was banned the first time for the bad behavior of pointing out to Dembski that evolution fully satisfied Dembski’s own definition of intelligent agency.
When the same people post at two sites, and dozens have been banned from one and not the other, clearly the rules are very different. When those banned all disagree with the UD doctrine and NONE of those in agreement with that doctrine have been banned despite some pretty objectionable behavior, I regard this as a clue. YMMV.
Flint,
Why couldn’t they just follow the rules, just like Alan, and Allan and Patrick claim?
Flint,
No, what I am saying is that they ban ideological disagreements here as well. ALL of the opposition posters agree. And if you don’t think this will come up here again, you are wrong.
What will happen is there will be another discussion. Lizzie, or someone will then make a claim that the person is being irrational, or that they have “earplugs in”. That person will respond that maybe it is Lizzie who has earplugs in. Then Patrick or Alan will come along and say, “Hey, you can’t say that about Lizzie, that is against the rules, I am sending that to guano.” Thereby those who are atheist can say whatever they want, and then the response gets moved elsewhere. Its just another way of censoring, and pretending your side wins. Your side can derail any conversation it wants. Just look at Richard.
phoodoo,
I find it interesting that you have carefully drawn a religious line here, putting forward the claim that “atheists” get special protections here, just as Christians are protected at UD. I admit I had not seen this in such starkly religious terms. If I should start calling people names, or posting pornography, or spamming the forum with irrelevant posts, or posting links to viruses, etc. I should not think my religious faith would be the issue.
I admit I haven’t paid any attention to who gets moved to guano, or for what reasons. I personally have no problem with content-free personal attacks, by anyone. I DO have a problem with contributions that make the signal here hard to find or contributions (like viruses) that are outright dangerous. Regardless of religious faith.
I should add that ideological disagreement is what I most value at this site. If posts are moved away from a discussion SOLELY for ideological impurity, then this is terrible moderation and harms the site. In direct contrast with a site intended to put forward and defend a sacred doctrine. There, it’s probably helpful.
Flint,
Well then you are going to be disappointed then because you are not going to get much philosophical arguments, because the moderators aren’t accommodating to one sides viewpoint. Also, you are allowed to have a different viewpoint at UD, there are opposition posters there, you just have to follow the rules. I guess some atheists just didn’t follow the rules, just like Patrick claims here when he moves posts.
And yet, as I scan down the long list of threads, I find all of them cram packed with presentations of all manner of views. Certainly there is no shortage of posts putting forth a view holding that “intelligent design” (meaning, design by other than natural feedback processes) is entirely plausible.
This would be a very dull site if people like you, and William and Sal and Mung and others were not permitted to engage in discussions. Happily, we see that they are frequent and active participants, participating in a great deal of dialogue. Maybe I just don’t understand what you mean about being accommodating?
Flint,
Indeed. What good argument is contingent on swearing or personal attacks. Funny how the moderation moaners are more prolific here….
Sounds like an average day at a seminary to me.
The view apparently being expressed here – that posts are moved to Guano because they contain problematic arguments for ‘materialism’ – is beyond dumb.
In biological terms, the issue is one of linkage. Attach your devastating critique to playground insult and it might be lost to the current pool of ideas. You really think it’s the devastating-critique bit that got it moved?
Still, takes the heat off more substantive issues, and gives a (rather feeble) opportunity to tar all atheists with the same brush, so it’s all good. Look! Over there!
Allan Miller,
But you have no problem claiming that is the reason people got banned at UD. To quell dissent. So your view is hypocritical. The people who got banned at UD simply couldn’t follow rules, and were rude.
Flint,
I gave up having serious discussion about issues here, seeing as how the site refuses to address the complaints of EVERY non-atheist on this site. So if the quality of posts here is poor, its because you asked for it. Maybe you could debate more civilized at UD.
And you know this how, exactly?
phoodoo,
I am not aware of having made any claim regarding the reasons people were banned at UD. I certainly don’t think they were banned for attaching insults to substantive comment. Nor do I think dissent is the reason for Guano-ing here. So I’m not sure what I’m being hypocritical about.
For my part, I was probably more polite at UD than I am here (and I’m hardly obnoxious here).
This will be my final post on the matter (a promise to myself as much as anyone else). Have a good Christmas.
I think that, rather inadvertently, you have put your finger on the problem. You don’t see the disputes here in terms of logic, or biology, or science. You see them strictly in terms of religious orientation. Maybe I should wade through guano and see if I can find any common denominator other than religion.
Back when I read posts at UD, I couldn’t help but notice that a phrase like “you are a close-minded idiot” was regarded as bad behavior when written by someone who disagreed with UD doctrine, but was regarded as a simple statement of self-evident truth when written by a pro-UD poster. When the very nature of a forum is built on a doctrinal religious foundation, the distinction between bad behavior and bad religion is largely lost.
And those accustomed to such an environment are going to view even neutral moderation as biased against them, much as laws requiring equal treatment for all citizens in some ways are regarded as “attacks on Christians.” When you’re accustomed to a double standard in your favor, neutrality cannot be distinguished from persecution. Especially when you believe your position is supported by Absolute Truth. Those who disagree REALLY ARE closed-minded idiots, right?
If admins are biased against theism, why can FMM and Erik able to post without going to guano?
fifthmonarchyman,
Without specific evidence you’re just making baseless assertions.
Why not? Have you been prevented from challenging anyone’s claims here?
fifthmonarchyman,
Technically yes, practically no. This is not UD.
Question, challenge, and be prepared to be questioned and challenged in return. This is a forum that values open discussion. The admins are just regular participants with some janitorial duties. The only exception is Lizzie, and she’s been proven to be a very benevolent and forgiving deity.
Seriously, don’t kowtow to anyone here. If you’ve got a point, make it. Just be prepared with evidence and reason.
phoodoo wrote:
I agree 100% with phoodoo here.
And here.
Anyone genuinely interested in the difference between The Skeptical Zone and Uncommon Descent can find plenty of examples of UD banning for ideological reasons and making arguments the UD regulars couldn’t refute at After the Bar Closes. See in particular the thread “Uncommonly Dense: The BlogCzar Years. Er, Months” and “Uncommonly Dense Thread 1-5”.
Barry may not realize it, but he’s executing an evolutionary algorithm. If he allows too many reality-based people comment, his regulars see their arguments exposed for the nonsense they are. If he allows too few, the regulars start feeding on each other. He needs to balance it so the IDCists can dogpile anyone they disagree with without having to directly address refutations of IDC claims.
I was banned simply for asking what happened to two other posters (they had been quite prolific and suddenly there were no posts in over 24 hours). Yeah…that’s some uncivilized behavior I was exhibiting there…
Perhaps our Joe can shed some light on this.
To be fair, a good many internet discussion groups have a very strict rule against questioning, discussing or sometimes even mentioning moderator decisions. Most of the time, this is irrespective of ideology. There are some political forums where the liberals and conservatives vie for who can insult the other most offensively, and nobody is disciplined if no moderation is mentioned. If it is, they are suspended regardless of their politics.
But since you didn’t say, let me guess. The posters you mentioned disappearing were those who disagreed with forum ideology. Right? I’ll wager you’d have received a polite reply if you asked (for example) where did Erik go.
Would it be possible simply to vanish individual posts presenting inconvenient arguments, rather than entire posters? Or would that be too much overhead?
I half agree with this (with the first half, basically). I disagree that the site doesn’t “offer content”, but it is true that I don’t pay a news editor to post “news”. I also offer everyone posting privileges so there is little “editorial” control over what gets posted.
Nonetheless there are frequently posts with substantive content. I’d like to see more. I’d like to think I offered a few, and would like to offer more.
And I have to say, that if “News” posts are the bar for “content” it’s not a very high bar.
Yes, *fiction* – as evidenced by Barry’s email to Sal. Very strange take on ‘content’.. Here we have original works, commentary on articles and opinions, all of which are content.
Like the evidence and reason you provided for the validity of Dawkins’ razor when asked specifically ?
Peace
I’ll have a go – any explanation that introduces more that needs explaining than it explains is dilutive to understanding.
1) who said anything about an explanation? The razor merely says “that” it does not specify that “that” is an explanation.
2) Your statement is merely begging the question. You need to explain why this is the case
3) how do you know what you claim is true? (evidence and reason please)
peace
Is the aim to of a (good) explanation to reduce uncertainty?
You need to tell me. I have no idea what “good” is according to your worldview.
Apparently it is merely a subjective classification you give to things you desire.
What you need to do is give evidence and reason for the validity of that desire
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
It’s Hitchens’ Razor: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” It’s basically another way of saying that the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof.
It doesn’t require much reasoning to understand. If you don’t support a claim there is nothing to refute.
I understand it just fine
I’m asking (again) for you to provide evidence for it’s validity
IOW since you are making the positive claim that the razor is valid the burden of proof is on you.
peace
You all look alike to folks on my side 😉
peace
Ah, the old Joe G conversational gambit.
To disentangle this, let’s just posit that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the other guy. If he makes a claim, he must support it. If YOU make a claim and he demands support, he must support the validity of his request.
FMM, let’s take a look at your argument so far:
You asked for “…the evidence and reason you provided for the validity of Dawkins’ razor when asked specifically?”
Hitchens’ razor is not an assertion of fact. It does not lend itself to evidence. It is a statement about how assertions of fact must be supported.
I can see FMM in court.
FMM: Your honor, the defendant is clearly guilty.
Judge: What is your evidence?
FMM: The defendant is defined as guilty. What is your evidence that he is not guilty?
Judge: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
FMM: What is your evidence for that assertion?
And so forth.
Thank you
You all are making my point for me.
Evidence and reason are required if your presupposition is a theist one. If you are presupposing something that does not involve God you get a free pass here. It’s fine by me if you choose to go that route.
I would only hope that you could see yourselves as others do
peace
petrushka,
Well and succinctly put, petrushka.
Evidence is required if you make an assertion of fact. Doesn’t matter if the assertion is the existence of god or the existence of Santa Claus.
God is not a conclusion he is the basis by which conclusions are judged.
He is not an assertion he is the grounds undergirding all true assertions.
peace
Why “must” it be so?
please give reasons for this instead of merely asserting it
peace
Patrick.
You hold the same relationship to Hitchens’ razor and your other presuppositions as I do to God.
You presupposition seems perfectly reasonable and self evidently true to you.
You find demands that you support your presupositon with evidence to be silly and irrational.
You find support from others with similar beliefs and presuppositions.
You think that folks who have different presuppositions are foolish and naive.
The same goes for me and folks like me.
get it?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
When you claim a god or gods exist you are making an assertion about reality. That places the burden of proof on you. If you have no evidence for any such entities, there is literally no reason to consider your claim further. It is empty.
no reality is contingent on God’s existence not the other way around.
That God exists is not an assertion about reality it is the condition on which reality rests.
peace
I say the exactly the same about the validity of Hitchen’s razor. It is a claim about reality.
Why are you right and I am wrong?
IOW what evidence do you have for your assertion?
peace
fifhmonarchyman,
No, I do not. I do not hold presuppositions in your sense because I am willing and able to question my positions, including the basis on which I hold them.
Wrong. Please refrain from assuming you know what I think.
No, as already evidenced. What I consider irrational is holding beliefs without evidence.
While I can appreciate someone making a good argument or providing a well constructed, coherent explanation, I find support in evidence and reason.
I find the concept of presuppositions to be opposed to rational, productive discussion.
What I get is that you appear to not want to call your assertions what they really are: claims about reality. Claims that can be dismissed unless and until evidence supporting them is provided.
That you all can’t even grasp what is being said here is exactly the reason there needs to be a Christian admin.
peace
Hopefully, you can understand that such statements presuppose the existence of what you are attempting to establish exists at all. You cannot presuppose your conclusions and expect to construct a compelling argument.
In other words, IF your god exists and IF it does what you claim, your statements have some relation to reality. But you must FIRST establish that your god exists. If you cannot do so, your words lack all semantic content; they are vacuous.