Moderation Issues (3)

Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.

4,124 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (3)

  1. Patrick: Untrue.The fact is that you haven’t tried.You’re content to spin your narrative and hurl your baseless accusations.

    Carry on.

    What is your ‘evidence’ for this ‘fact’ that I ‘haven’t tried’ patrick? As I said above, your standards aren’t entirely uniform. I guess that’s the nature of your vaunted ‘integrity’ that we’ve heard so much about.

    Meet your burden! Have you not heard me grunting?!

  2. walto:

    Untrue.The fact is that you haven’t tried.You’re content to spin your narrative and hurl your baseless accusations.

    What is your ‘evidence’ for this ‘fact’ that I ‘haven’t tried’ patrick?

    Any objective observer can read the past few interactions on this thread and determine that you have made a claim about me that you have failed to support with any evidence.

    If you decide to do so, I’ll re-engage in the discussion.

  3. As indicated, I absolutely encourage observers, objective or not, to read our interchanges. What they will see is that when you have asked for links, I gave you links. When you have asked for quotes, I gave you quotes. Like the fisherman’s wife’s flounder, nothing satisfied you.

    However when I now ask YOU to support a claim you have made regarding whether or not I have tried at something, you respond “It’s obvious: anybody can see it!”

    Your “engagement” isn’t really worth much, patrick. It’s insults, self-aggrandizement and weaseling. Nothing more.

  4. One final remark. I noted with amusement your complaint that I had removed language from a post of yours without inserting elision marks. I hope that when people are looking back through our colloquy to make their own judgments on your behavior, they will also have a look at your own practices on that front.

    More of your “what’s good for me” indignation/integrity, I guess.

  5. petrushka: You can say the sky is blue ’til you are sky in the face, but what if you say everyone, including atheist really believe in god?

    Yep, that’s a perfect example of why I think it’s internet-stupid to hang on this “burden of proof” shit.

    Our friend fifth has made that statement as a fact, apparently thinks it is a genuine objective fact, apparently thinks there is plenty of evidence to support that fact, and has shown himself to be a better person and more honest – by your and Patrick’s definition! – by assuming the burden of proof for his statement.

    Although we collectively think his evidence is not evidence whatsoever, his “fact” is objectively untrue, we think he fails miserably at understanding what “proof” would even look like, due to his presuppositional delusions … that’s not the point. The point is that you should judge him as honest when he does that, and you should judge me as dishonest when I don’t do that.

    IF that’s the stupid limited method you have of figuring out who’s dishonest – by observing that they fail to assume the burden of proof -sure, go ahead. To hell with false positives. To hell with false negatives. Sounds like a perfect rule to Patrick, who says he agrees with you, so go ahead and use it.

    Believe me because I am a trustworthy honest person, or don’t. I don’t care. Your and Patrick’s judgments about my honesty (or lack thereof) based on the arbitrary standard of “assumes burden of proof” means zero to me. Which is as it should be, because my sense of my own integrity should never depend on the opinions of internet guys like Patrick. What kind of integrity could that possibly be if it could be swayed by the shallow opinions of any random dudebro passing by? What kind of integrity could I possibly have if I perform a stereotypical array of words/behavior just to win your or Patrick’s approval?

    Fuck that noise.

    Now, instead of judging my statement “The sky is blue” (or any other statement, however simple or complicated) as true, honest and delivered by a person with integrity based on the statement itself and your knowledge of the person, you just move the judgment over one level. Now, you’re judging the “and I support that fact with this other fact (which is surely self-evident) plus this quote …” based on the performance of submission to the truth-telling rule.

    But you can’t escape that you have subjectively chosen a subjective rule for how you tell who’s an honest person. At this one-level-over, you still have to subjectively judge the “proof” performance based on your knowledge of the person: is it honest-but-mistaken and delivered by a person with integrity but unfortunately-bible-scrambled brains (say, colewd, perhaps), or is it dishonest-but-plausible delivered by a person with no integrity who will say anything (as I assume most see our old friend WJM). Regardless of the performance, your judgment is going to be inescapably subjective. Which makes that rule as worthless as I’ve already said it is.

    I’m not your performing monkey. That, all by itself, makes me a person with integrity, regardless of any other failings.

    As one of my exes used to sing:
    Tryna make it real compared to what?

  6. Patrick: The fact is that you haven’t tried.

    That’s not a “fact”.

    That’s your opinion – which is no doubt based on the things you see and is a somewhat-rationally formed opinion, not meanly fabricated out of thin air – but it’s not a fact.

    Because “have tried” or “have not tried” are subjective, not objective facts.

    You should be smart enough to know that.

  7. hotshoe_,

    For the record, I don’t think that you’ve demonstrated dishonesty because you explicitly said that people are justified in not accepting your claims if you fail to support them.

    Based on your comment, I’ve changed my view (just a little bit). Should the topic arise, I’ll now take the position that someone making a claim has the responsibility to either support it, retract it, or explicitly refuse to do either, accepting that the final option means the claim may be summarily dismissed.

    Okay, so I need to work on the wording.

  8. Patrick: Based on your comment, I’ve changed my view (just a little bit). Should the topic arise, I’ll now take the position that someone making a claim has the responsibility to either support it, retract it, or explicitly refuse to do either, accepting that the final option means the claim may be summarily dismissed.

    The thing is, patrick, you summarily dismiss claims, whether provided evidence or not, whenever you like. So I don’t think your life will change much.

    But OK. Based on this revision, I now summarily dismiss your claim that I didn’t try at whatever it is you say I didn’t try at, confident in the knowledge that you will agree that I am right to do just that.

    So thanks, hotshoe!

  9. Patrick: I share your view and believe that failing to accept the burden of proof for one’s claims demonstrates lack of commitment to honest, reasoned discussion.

    Pretty much every person here does this (except me, I just quote other people). In fact, it happens so often it just goes without mention. Should we petition Elizabeth to close down the site?

  10. Patrick: You made a claim. You can either support that claim, retract it, or leave it to readers to evaluate your character based on your refusal to do either.

    Is that a false trichotomy?

  11. Patrick: you explicitly said that people are justified in not accepting your claims if you fail to support them

    Well, close, but close only counts in hand grenades …

    What I actually said is:

    Now I accept that as a consequence you may choose not to believe that I have stated a fact

    Which is not at all the same thing as saying you are justified in it.

    Exactly the opposite indeed. From my point of view, no one is ever justified in not believing me / not accepting what I say as a true fact stated by a person with intentions of honesty. (That’s me, hello! ) Yeah, I do sometimes make mistakes, and I don’t always tell the whole-truth-nothing-but-the-truth (see “fat” example above) but Bayesian probability is that if I take the time to type out a “claim” you can accept most likely it’s well-founded, and you’re NOT justified in NOT accepting it merely because I don’t play your game of giving “proof” on demand.

    Every time you say that you are “justified” in NOT accepting a claim, you are saying in not so many words that you have already concluded the person is not generally trustworthy and that you are entitled to hold them to a higher standard of “proof” than you impose on people you usually agree with / accept as telling truth without challenging them to prove it.

    If you don’t see how subjective that is, not my problem.

    It’s still your fault, not mine, if you jump to the unjustified conclusion of NOT accepting a “claim” from a person who is known to be generally smart, accurate, and trustworthy (that’s me again, hello! )

    All I accept as a consequence is the fact that you might choose to do that, no matter how irrational your choice looks from my point of view. I can’t prevent you from jumping to conclusions based on some (conscious or unconscious) prejudice. I can’t force you to remain neutral whenever things aren’t “proved” to your personal satisfaction. That’s okay. It has to be okay, because it’s reality, and there’s no point in complaining about reality to a person who can’t do anything about it.

  12. Mung: Is that a false trichotomy?

    Whatever It is, it’s a mess. People are free to evaluate someone’s character whether this person has supported their claims or not.

  13. Mung: Pretty much every person here does this (except me, I just quote other people). In fact, it happens so often it just goes without mention. Should we petition Elizabeth to close down the site?

    Mung pulls away from the field

  14. Patrick: Fact : “an actual occurrence” or “a true piece of information”

    I’m good with “fact”.

    Sure thing, dude.

    Just like the “fact” that you didn’t even pause for a second to consider you might have been wrong.

    Jesus christ.

    Your demonstration of total lack of self-awareness – demonstrated, that is, in your words here, which are all I have to go by – continues to catch me by surprise, even when I think I’m expecting it from you.

    Dude, admitting to subjective judgment is not a failure. It’s human, and trust me, being human is okay.

  15. hotshoe_: From my point of view, no one is ever justified in not believing me / not accepting what I say as a true fact stated by a person with intentions of honesty.

    I don’t agree with that.

    Based on my experience, I’ll agree that you are usually honest. But it doesn’t follow that you are not honestly wrong. So I might at times be justified in delaying acceptance of what you say, pending further evidence.

  16. Patrick, to hotshoe:

    For the record, I don’t think that you’ve demonstrated dishonesty because you explicitly said that people are justified in not accepting your claims if you fail to support them.

    You’re letting her off much too easy, Patrick.

    Words can do damage, and hotshoe herself is adamant about that:

    Whoever coined “sticks and stones can hurt my bones but words can never hurt me” was a damned liar.

    False accusations can do damage. Hotshoe might accept that people will reject her claims if she fails to support them, but that does not give her carte blanche to make false statements elsewhere, now and in the future.

    The position she’s taking regarding evidence and burden of proof is unsurprising. Like walto, she will blurt things out irresponsibly and without bothering to ensure their truth.

    Example: Watch the bravado melt away when she makes wild accusations and is then asked to support them.

    Hotshoe and walto don’t like the e-word — “evidence”.

  17. Hahaha. I’m going to assert here that you were trying to type ‘patrick’ when you typed ‘hotshoe and walto’; after all, I know best what you’re trying or not trying to do!

    And don’t try to deny it, o awesomest one, it’s a ‘fact’!

  18. And of course walto still can’t back up either of these claims:

    This:

    Hahaha! Your eyes are turning brown again, keith– as everyone here well knows, you’re the biggest liar and quote-miner in these parts.

    Or this:

    I wrote a book on that subject (keith read it in about seven minutes, so I guess it’s a page-turner 🙂 ).

    What an impotent feeling it must be for walto to harbor all that anger with nothing to justify it — so that he’s forced to make stuff up. It’s pitiful, really.

  19. walto: People are free to evaluate someone’s character whether this person has supported their claims or not.

    Yep.

    Believe me, I do.

    It’s still true that Feser is a worthless pig.

    🙂

  20. Neil Rickert:

    hotshoe_: From my point of view, no one is ever justified in not believing me / not accepting what I say as a true fact stated by a person with intentions of honesty.

    I don’t agree with that.

    Based on my experience, I’ll agree that you are usually honest. But it doesn’t follow that you are not honestly wrong. So I might at times be justified in delaying acceptance of what you say, pending further evidence.

    Alright, I’m not gonna argue with you about that.

  21. You are most awesome, keiths. How often would you like me to sing your praises!?

    But I fear you should read these pages to see who has and who has not provided evidence for anything here.

    What color ARE your eyes, anyhow? I promise to take your (awesome) word for it!

  22. keiths: Hotshoe and walto don’t like the e-word — “evidence”.

    Don’t be more of a shitlord than you have to be, keiths.

    Nothing I have ever written here suggests that I “don’t like” evidence.

    I’ve certainly been clear enough that what I don’t like is being ordered to provide evidence. Or else.

    Or else what, keiths? Or else you’ll tell mean dirty little lies about me? Suck it, keiths.

    Tell all the lies you want. When I feel like it, I’ll correct you. When I don’t feel like it, I’ll ignore you like the used napkin you are.

  23. hotshoe_: I’ll ignore you like the used napkin you are.

      

    Maybe, but he insists his eyes aren’t brown and that he doesn’t read as fast as I gave him credit for. I say we take him at his word for those and demand no additional evidence regarding his eye color or his reading prowess.

    Are you with me?

  24. hotshoe:

    I’ve certainly been clear enough that what I don’t like is being ordered to provide evidence.

    Right. You want to make accusations, like the ones I linked to, without taking responsibility for ensuring their truth.

    So on the one hand you will complain about the harm that words can do when others wield them, and on the other you will freely make false accusations yourself and then bristle when others ask you to provide the evidence to back them up.

    You’re a hypocrite.

  25. walto: Are you with me?

    Where’s that shifty-eyes emoji when I need it again?

    I feel like a member of a conspiracy cell. Who has never met any other member of the cell and only communicates in code over the internet. We’ve never met, right? I can’t give away your identity, no matter how much the assholes torture me …

    Urgh, it’s sad that posting in the vicinity of them makes me start analogizing to being tortured,

    Done for today at least. Catch ya’ on the flip side 🙂

  26. keiths:
    hotshoe:

    Right.You want to make accusations, like the ones I linked to, without taking responsibility for ensuring their truth.

    So on the one hand you will complain about the harm that words can do when others wield them, and on the other you will freely make false accusations yourself and then bristle when others ask you to provide evidence to back them up.

    You’re a hypocrite.

    Suck it, shitlord.

    You don’t get to define “taking responsibility” for me or for any other human (other than yourself, assuming you’re human to begin with).

    You don’t get to bully me into “providing evidence” just because you demand it, no matter how many times you demand it, no matter if you choose to call me a hypocrite, and no matter how many of your internet asshole friends happen to agree with you (assuming some do, because that’s what your type of internet asshole does).

    You don’t like it, suck it.

    Sometimes you just don’t get what you want.

  27. hotshoe,

    Urgh, it’s sad that posting in the vicinity of them makes me start analogizing to being tortured,

    That is sad. It would be much better if you would take responsibility for your own hypocrisy — and for doing better — rather than blaming others for “torturing” you.

  28. See that’s soooo nice–offering free advice for hotshoe like that! Whether she wants it or not, you just know it’s good for her. So cool that you’re sad about the way she is but you don’t stint in spite of your sorrow. And you take the time to join patrick on the modeling-decent-behavior pedestal for everyone to see. Integrity cubed!

    I’d say that I think people should give a dinner in your honor, but I know you don’t really want that. You just want people to be better, the best that they CAN be. So so generous.

    You’re just the awesomest–whatever your eye-color and how slow you really read–I don’t even care!

  29. keiths: What an impotent feeling it must be for walto to harbor all that anger with nothing to justify it — so that he’s forced to make stuff up.

    Actually, I think walto is having fun. I don’t think this is based on anger.

  30. Neil:

    Actually, I think walto is having fun. I don’t think this is based on anger.

    You’re not very perceptive, Neil.

  31. keiths:
    Neil:

    You’re not very perceptive, Neil.

    You should psychoanalyse him! That’s bound to improve his perceptive chops, and improve his life generally. I know it’s a lot to ask, but you’re a lot of awesomeness!

  32. keiths:
    Neil:

    You’re not very perceptive, Neil.

    “Richard Richards: Better come in till this blows over.
    Bishop: What do you think, fella?
    Carl Spackler: I’d keep playing.I don’t think the heavy stuff’s gonna to come down for quite awhile. “

  33. Neil Rickert:

    Fact : “an actual occurrence” or “a true piece of information”

    I’m good with “fact”.

    Maybe one needs to distinguish between claimed fact and accepted fact.

    My statement is an objective fact. walto made this claim at 9:20 pm on April 3:

    Me: You know X is rule-violative and yet you don’t remove X.

    You: Yeah well you have no ethics.

    It is a simple matter[*] to look at each comment he’s made in this thread since then and find none that provide any evidence to support that claim.

    [*] You could ask Mung to write a GA to help with the search.

  34. hotshoe_,

    I’ve been thinking about your recent comments and it seems to me that our disagreement is not about the importance of evidence but instead the nature of this site.

    I’m going to quote excerpts from a few of your comments. It is not my intention to quote mine you, so please let me know if I’ve inadvertantly changed your meaning. I’ve include the links in case anyone wants to see the full context.

    hotshoe_:

    Leaving aside any philosophical question of what “proving it” would consist of — why under god’s blue heaven would I be obligated to answer your ask merely because you wasted a moment of your time asking it? You (a collective you) don’t own any rights to the output of my mind.

    hotshoe_:

    Believe me because I am a trustworthy honest person, or don’t. I don’t care. Your and Patrick’s judgments about my honesty (or lack thereof) based on the arbitrary standard of “assumes burden of proof” means zero to me. Which is as it should be, because my sense of my own integrity should never depend on the opinions of internet guys like Patrick. What kind of integrity could that possibly be if it could be swayed by the shallow opinions of any random dudebro passing by? What kind of integrity could I possibly have if I perform a stereotypical array of words/behavior just to win your or Patrick’s approval?

    hotshoe_:

    What I actually said is:

    Now I accept that as a consequence you may choose not to believe that I have stated a fact

    Which is not at all the same thing as saying you are justified in it.

    Exactly the opposite indeed. From my point of view, no one is ever justified in not believing me / not accepting what I say as a true fact stated by a person with intentions of honesty. (That’s me, hello! ) Yeah, I do sometimes make mistakes, and I don’t always tell the whole-truth-nothing-but-the-truth (see “fat” example above) but Bayesian probability is that if I take the time to type out a “claim” you can accept most likely it’s well-founded, and you’re NOT justified in NOT accepting it merely because I don’t play your game of giving “proof” on demand.
    . . .
    Every time you say that you are “justified” in NOT accepting a claim, you are saying in not so many words that you have already concluded the person is not generally trustworthy and that you are entitled to hold them to a higher standard of “proof” than you impose on people you usually agree with / accept as telling truth without challenging them to prove it.

    All bolding mine, to draw attention to what I think is the core of the disagreement.

    I don’t know you, but you probably are an honest person in real life. If I were to meet you at a dinner party we could probably have an interesting conversation. In that context, asking for you to provide evidence for all of your claims would be inappropriate and rude.

    This isn’t a dinner party. This is The Skeptical Zone. This issue isn’t about “rights to the output of [your] mind” or getting someone’s approval. It’s not about playing games or making demands. It’s not about assuming people are not trustworthy. It’s about getting to (some reasonable approximation of) the truth.

    You yourself have quoted Hitchens’ Razor (“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”) favorably. This is simply a pithy summary of who bears the burden of proof. In a skeptical environment, failure to support your claims is justification for not accepting it, regardless of the character of the person making the claim.

    This isn’t personal. Either a claim can be supported or it cannot, regardless of who makes it. If the person making the claim can’t or won’t support it, the honest response is to retract it.

    Perhaps you see this site differently than I do. I base my view on the site’s goals:

    But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie.

    and on this comment by Reciprocating Bill that Lizzie added to the Rules page:

    Participation at this site entails obligations similar to those that attend playing a game. While there is no objective moral obligation to answer questions, the site has aims, rules and informal stakeholders, just as football has same. When violations of those aims and rules are perceived and/or the enforcement of same is seen as arbitrary or inconsistent, differences and conflicts arise. No resort to objective morality, yet perfectly comprehensible and appropriate opprobrium.

    The game rules here are to apply the tools of skepticism (after all, “skeptical” is right in the name of the site). That means reason, logic, skeptical analysis, and, of course, evidence. In this forum all claims should be supported and any that are not are subject to challenge. If a participant can’t or won’t support a claim, that person should retract it.

    I’ll close with one final excerpt from your comments:

    Dude, admitting to subjective judgment is not a failure. It’s human, and trust me, being human is okay.

    This is The Skeptical Zone. We can do better than that.

    Realz before Feelz

  35. Patrick: This isn’t a dinner party. This is The Skeptical Zone.

    These are your claims, so you have the burden of proof. What evidence do you have?

  36. Mung: These are your claims, so you have the burden of proof. What evidence do you have?

    Start from where I wrote “I base my view on”.

    C’mon, Mung, you’re just phoning it in today.

  37. Patrick: My statement is an objective fact. walto made this claim at 9:20 pm on April 3:

    Me: You know X is rule-violative and yet you don’t remove X.

    Maybe take a look at Wittgenstein’s argument on the impossibility of following a rule.

  38. Neil Rickert: Maybe take a look at Wittgenstein’s argument on the impossibility of following a rule.

    Or just look at all of walto’s comments since he made his claim. There are none that provide evidence to support it.

  39. Just can’t get enough, patrick, can you? Typical trollertarian.

    I again encourage people to read the last several pages of this thread to see who has provided evidence for his claims and who has provided nothing but insults and sanctimony.

    ETA: Oh, and evasive weaseling. I didn’t mean not to give you credit for that stuff too.

  40. Patrick: My statement is an objective fact.

    How about your statement about whether I was trying and that I was content about some fantasy or other of yours. Was that an “objective fact”? Where’s your evidence for it?

    Here are some more objective facts for you that I’m stating at 12:22 pm Eastern:

    Patrick is a self-aggrandizing, sanctimonious trollertarian who has very little understanding of the nature of warrant but likes to talk about it anyhow.

    (Did you get that, or would you like me to restate it for you several more times? I think I could put it more simply for you, if necessary.)

    ETA: And don’t think I didn’t notice your little goalpost move. Now you want evidence for what I say you knew–not just that you’d actually said this or that. FWIW, I think I could provide that too, even though it’s not what you were originally asking for “evidence” for, but I think hotshoe is right not to play this absurd game that you and your buddy enjoy so much. It’s a very stupid game.

Comments are closed.