Sandbox (4)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.

0

3,277 thoughts on “Sandbox (4)

  1. Nonlin.org,

    I had been wondering where you get your information. So now we know:

    Nonlin.org: Even more recently, they “care” about black lives every election cycle: https://babylonbee.com/news/black-lives-predicted-to-matter-until-november.

    I especially enjoyed the next-to-last paragraph of the article you link to:

    “It’s a strange phenomenon,” said UCLA professor Azad Khanna. “Every few years Black Lives Matter comes onto the scene for a couple of months and then just sort of disappears in November. I’ve never seen anything like it.” Khanna paused for a moment, noticing a young white woman who had kneeled before him. The woman asked his forgiveness for her white privilege and her years of racism toward African Americans and then started kissing his feet. Khanna kindly informed her that he is from India.

    The “About Us” page of The Babylon Bee is also worth reading. Here’s a sample:

    What is The Babylon Bee?

    The Babylon Bee is the world’s best satire site, totally inerrant in all its truth claims. We write satire about Christian stuff, political stuff, and everyday life.

    The Babylon Bee was created ex nihilo on the eighth day of the creation week, exactly 6,000 years ago. We have been the premier news source through every major world event, from the Tower of Babel and the Exodus to the Reformation and the War of 1812. We focus on just the facts, leaving spin and bias to other news sites like CNN and Fox News.

    If you would like to complain about something on our site, take it up with God.

    Unlike other satire sites, everything we post is 100% verified by Snopes.com.

    1+
  2. Tom English: The “About Us” page of The Babylon Bee is also worth reading.

    I can’t spot Nonlin’s name among the contributors, so I guess he uses a pseudonym here. We should’ve known he was a Poe though.

    0
  3. Kantian Naturalist: This is almost as good as Fox News getting reporting a Monty Python joke as evidence of factional infighting in Seattle.

    Poor nonlin. I’ve met smarter cabbages than him. LMFAO

    0
  4. Kantian Naturalist: This is almost as good as Fox News getting reporting a Monty Python joke as evidence of factional infighting in Seattle.

    It’s worth pausing the Fox video on the reddit post to enjoy the completeness of their folly – “Raz can’t just simply expect to wield supreme executive power just because someone threw a sword at him.” THAT didn’t raise flags?
    On the page nonlin linked to, Babylonbee has awesome coverage of Iran’s threat to bomb the shit out of American cultural sites such as , y’know, Walmart and DQ…
    ROFL

    0
  5. A friend has a flat-earther friend who’s full-on into NWO lunacy; the works. He’d asserted that the Manchester Arena bombing was a government op using actors. For a giggle, I linked a satirical piece headlined “‘This was a false flag’ says arsehole who thinks everything is a fucking false flag”. His response, non-ironic as far as I can tell: “you’re going to have to do better than quote the mainstream media”…

    0
  6. Nonlin.org:
    newton,

    Cut the BS.

    Not even an omnipotent god could do that when quoting Trump. I figured to be a true Trump fan, bullshit was the coin of the realm.

    0
  7. Tom English: I had been wondering where you get your information. So now we know:

    What? Do you follow more than one news source?!? And it’s not even satire you say? No wonder you’re so smart and so much über alles. And what is – pardon me ‘are’ – your sources of wisdom o great one?

    Kantian Naturalist: This is almost as good as Fox News getting reporting a Monty Python joke as evidence of factional infighting in Seattle.

    That’s what Kant would say after a few dozen beers. So proud…

    Corneel: I can’t spot Nonlin’s name among the contributors, so I guess he uses a pseudonym here.

    What do you know? The number of smart people is greater than one. Wow!

    0
  8. DNA_Jock: On the page nonlin linked to, Babylonbee has awesome coverage of Iran’s threat to bomb the shit out of American cultural sites such as , y’know, Walmart and DQ…
    ROFL

    Hey, you’re alive! This means your “fitness” function is forthcoming? Or is it your resignation from the church of Darwin? What will it be, Hit-and-miss?

    Allan Miller: His response, non-ironic as far as I can tell:

    You give yourself way too much credit… this from an impartial third party.

    newton,

    Yawn. Lame.

    0
  9. Nonlin.org: kantian Naturalist: This is almost as good as Fox News getting reporting a Monty Python joke as evidence of factional infighting in Seattle.

    Nonlin:
    That’s what Kant would say after a few dozen beers. So proud

    Maybe so , I think it was Kant who first came up with “ You can’t fix stupid”.

    0
  10. Nonlin.org,

    You give yourself way too much credit… this from an impartial third party.

    I’ve seen the guy’s other work. Like you, he doesn’t have the wit.

    0
  11. Nonlin.org:

    Yawn. Lame.

    You never disappoint, nonlin. Hear your buddy tried to get the evil Chinese to help him get re-elected? What do you think the tremendous , very strong deal was? Taiwan? Hong Kong?

    0
  12. newton: Maybe so , I think it was Kant who first came up with “ You can’t fix stupid”.

    Indeed, I sure can’t. But I’m having fun with stupid.

    Allan Miller: Like you, he doesn’t have the wit.

    Haha. This from the guy that wants to define “fitness” into existence.

    newton: Hear your buddy tried to get the evil Chinese to help him get re-elected?

    Sure you “hear” from very important people. Btw, what’s Hillary’s cleaning lady’s opinion on this matter?

    Bottom line is all (except maybe Corneel) drew the stupid conclusion. One guy gets the cherry for trying to demonstrate that satire is “not true”. Is anyone a Dawinist by any chance? Haha.

    0
  13. Nonlin.org: Haha. This from the guy that wants to define “fitness” into existence.

    https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/MPMI-07-19-0187-R

    These results indicated that SdhC of B. cinerea experienced positive selection during evolution and resulted in amino acid polymorphism which is involved in intrinsic sensitivity to SDHIs and biological fitness.

    Soooo anyway I searched for ‘how the designer did it’ and came up with nothing. Care to share?

    0
  14. In a small piece of news: The site Panda’s Thumb is currently not responding. The problem is a hardware failure on the server. I am told the matter is being looked into, although social distancing issues will slow down the response. Apparently everything is backed up, and can be quickly restored once the hardware is fixed. I suspect that this will take a few days to a week. Spread the word, in case anyone is tempted to concoct conspiracy theories. We will be back.

    1+
  15. Alan Fox:
    Joe Felsenstein,

    Wesley says Reed Cartwright is hosting. Wouldn’t it be better to host it on a commercial Server?

    Maybe, but the downside of that is that one pays, and if the owner is unable to pay, say ill, the site would disappear. We will probably end up putting it at a site such as Github where it would continue to be available indefinitely, limited only by a storage space limit. (Right now the main files are at Github in Reed’s account, and a few of us can edit those and put up posts for ourselves and others).

    0
  16. Nonlin.org,

    Haha. This from the guy that wants to define “fitness” into existence.

    If one objects to a concept’s use, it surely helps to understand how it is defined. Otherwise, what is one opposing?

    It’s like saying I want to define ‘height’ into existence.

    0
  17. Joe Felsenstein,

    Joe, who are the moderators and what is the posting policy at pandas thumb? Doesn’t that site try to censor opposing viewpoints, views that don’t tout the materialist talking points?

    0
  18. Joe Felsenstein: We will probably end up putting it at a site such as Github where it would continue to be available indefinitely, limited only by a storage space limit.

    I guess that’s the difference between parchment and electronics. Back in the heady days of 2005 there were a large number of pro and anti ID sites. Where are they now? The Wayback Machine only saved a fraction of the stuff that was written.

    Probably for the best.

    0
  19. phoodoo: Joe, who are the moderators and what is the posting policy at pandas thumb? Doesn’t that site try to censor opposing viewpoints, views that don’t tout the materialist talking points?

    wahhh

    0
  20. Nonlin.org: newton: Hear your buddy tried to get the evil Chinese to help him get re-elected?

    Sure you “hear” from very important people. Btw, what’s Hillary’s cleaning lady’s opinion on this matter?

    No , the guy who was Trump’s longest lasting national security advisor. Out to make a buck , just like Trump. . Two peas in a pod . Only the best people.

    Bottom line is all (except maybe Corneel) drew the stupid conclusion. One guy gets the cherry for trying to demonstrate that satire is “not true”. Is anyone a Dawinist by any chance? Haha.

    Which conclusion is that? That are either bad at being serious or you are bad at satire? No seeing a big difference. Just don’t stop.

    0
  21. phoodoo:
    Joe Felsenstein,

    Joe,who are the moderators and what is the posting policy at pandas thumb?Doesn’t that site try to censor opposing viewpoints,views thatdon’t tout the materialist talking points?

    Moderators these days are Matt Young and I. There is no legalistic policy but we ban people for repeated trolling which disrupts threads. People making creationist or ID arguments are welcome — it is repeated diversionary disruptions that get one banned.

    Of course every troll who gets banned says that they made incisive and relevant points and got banned for that. If you want to know what would happen if we did not ban those trolls, well, look at the current state of TSZ. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

    0
  22. Joe Felsenstein: …look at the current state of TSZ.

    At least we are visible! 🙂

    Lizzie intended TSZ to be a venue that would allow people of widely diverging views to discuss their differences with minimum rancour. We’re not an advocacy site for any particular view – except perhaps reason and logic!

    0
  23. Alan Fox,

    I infer that Lizzie took a very “Quaker” view that if everyone was allowed to have their say, as often as possible and in any way possible, that they would calmly address the issues under discussion. This does not take into account high-volume, disturbed, narcissistic trolls, alas. TSZ has no way to deal with this issue. PT does not have to live with that approach, fortunately.

    0
  24. Joe Felsenstein: TSZ has no way to deal with this issue.

    Admittedly, trolling has to be pretty extreme to earn a suspension here. We are surviving, even so.

    0
  25. Joe Felsenstein: Moderators these days are Matt Young and I.There is no legalistic policy but we ban people for repeated trolling which disrupts threads.People making creationist or ID arguments are welcome — it is repeated diversionary disruptions that get one banned.

    Of course every troll who gets banned says that they made incisive and relevant points and got banned for that.If you want to know what would happen if we did not ban those trolls, well, look at the current state of TSZ.Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

    So two materialist moderators implementing the same policies as UD, policies which are described here and biased censoring of dissent by the materialists here at TSZ. So it would be fair to describe your site the same way right? I see how that goes.

    Alan, how do you feel about Joe saying your (coup) site sucks?

    0
  26. Joe Felsenstein,

    Are you currently recruiting for creationist moderators, Joe?

    Just joking.

    I hope Lizzie and Alan don’t contribute at Pandas Thumb, because I know they are narcissist trolls who can’t follow the rules at UD. Maybe you are too.

    0
  27. phoodoo,

    Now why am I totally unsurprised at the difference in perception as to who acts as a troll? Yawn.

    And I think the regulars here are well aware of the problems at this site.

    0
  28. Joe Felsenstein,

    Well if a site is leaving it up to you to decide who qualifies as a troll, while admitting you only have atheist moderators, what possible reason would anyone with an opposing viewpoint to your little echo chamber have for ever wanting to post there?

    0
  29. Joe Felsenstein,

    So all you are left with is a bunch of posters that say, ‘I think evolution is true. ” and then ‘ Yeah, me too! ” isn’t science wonderful!

    Is that what you mean by ‘yawn ‘?

    0
  30. Considering our site founder and owner, Dr Liddle, hasn’t made a significant contribution to public discussions here since August 2018 (and that was a drive-by on rules and moderation. Lizzie was last properly active here in 2015) it is surprising in some ways that TSZ is still getting hits and comments. Our site meter indicates traffic has increased slightly over the last few months and nearly doubled from a couple of years ago. (Admittedly it’s well down from the peak in 2015)

    Regarding trolls, I’m not clear what constitutes trolling. I get the idea of dangling bait in the form of provocative statements to get a reaction. I’ve never seen that sustained for long anywhere I visit on the web. Banning for trolling is a copout in my view. Persistent refusal to follow site rules is a more reasonable ground for action. (@ phoodoo: That’s a big difference between moderation here and UD. Barry bans dissenters arbitrarily, without discussion or explanation.)

    As I’ve said many times, this site is a “field of dreams” in the sense anyone with a point to make can post here and anyone else is welcome to attack that point. While enough people find that useful or entertaining, TSZ will carry on.

    0
  31. Alan Fox,

    You banned me for quoting other posters. I don’t think that is what you got banned from UD for.

    You and Lizzie just couldn’t follow the rules there.

    Do you think Joe explains to the posters he bans at PT? I guess just calling them narcissist trolls is enough for him.

    0
  32. phoodoo: You banned me…

    You are posting now and you have never ben banned. Your account was placed in pre-moderation some time ago for a short while, though not by me.

    0
  33. phoodoo: You and Lizzie just couldn’t follow the rules there.

    Is that so? Link to what Lizzie said then that got her banned.

    And, phoodoo, apologist for UD? Turns out the barrel has a basement….

    0
  34. phoodoo: You and Lizzie just couldn’t follow the rules there.

    You assert this yet you are unable to tell me what rule Lizzie or I broke. “You broke the rules” is simply your post hoc rationalisation.

    0
  35. phoodoo: So all you are left with is a bunch of posters that say, ‘I think evolution is true. ” and then ‘ Yeah, me too! ” isn’t science wonderful!

    Is that what you mean by ‘yawn ‘?

    Obviously not.

    And I don’t know whether my fellow moderators (Matt and the site owner, Reed) are atheists. One of them I know is a member of a synagogue. People who argue that evolution “is not true” are welcome, if they aren’t trolls.

    0
  36. phoodoo: Do you think Joe explains to the posters he bans at PT?

    I can only speak for policy here. I don’t know who has been banned at PT. I’d guess probably JoeG/Frankie. Anyone else?

    0
  37. phoodoo: Well if a site is leaving it up to you to decide who qualifies as a troll, while admitting you only have atheist moderators, what possible reason would anyone with an opposing viewpoint to your little echo chamber have for ever wanting to post there?

    And yet you post here daily.

    The thing is that I suspect that people with an opposing viewpoint do post and then find out when their views are challenged that they can’t actually support them in the same way that the views they are challenging can be supported.

    For example, colwed has solved the mystery of the origin of life today on a different thread by noting that a mind did it. I responded by simply asking him how he knew that and what the first life actually was? Ignored.

    So I think you have been tricked – it’s not an echo chamber as such rather it’s a chamber where only one side actually speaks.

    Your objections re: fitness could become a scientific paper that you publish. But you never will. KF’s and gpuccio’s arguments regarding protein space fall flat when they encounter people who know what they are talking about, that’s why they refuse to publish.

    It’s an echo chamber because only one side speaks. It’s something you can see clearly in the literal size of the comments and responses. People like you and colwed say something packing many misunderstandings into a sentence or two, then people spend paragraphs and paragraphs explaining. Then you come back with another one liner and it repeats.

    The echo chamber you perceive is in fact merely the gradual education of you and yours. Perhaps one day you will speak and hear your own voice reflected via the work of others via citations etc.

    There are not two sides. There is one side, and a child running around mewling at how unfair it all is and how hard science is.

    0
  38. phoodoo: What rule did I break for being “put in moderation” (shadow ban)?

    What rule did Lizzie break?

    0
  39. phoodoo:
    Alan Fox,

    What rule did I break for being “put in moderation” (shadow ban)?

    Repeated violations of the rule that individual moderation issues are to be raised only in the moderation issues thread. The result of your being in pre-moderation was that your comments were not visible until approved by an admin. All your comments did appear, nothing was deleted, though some may have moved directly to guano. Full commenting privileges were restored shortly afterwards. How was this “shadow-banning”?

    0
  40. Now, phoodoo,

    What rule did Lizzie break that resulted in a total ban at Uncommon Descent?

    0
  41. phoodoo: What rule did I break for being “put in moderation” (shadow ban)?

    Repeatedly posting comments on moderation in an ordinary thread (instead of the moderation thread).

    0
  42. newton: No , the guy who was Trump’s longest lasting national security advisor.

    Then the Clinton maid is not available? The butler? What kind of VIP do you “hear” from anyway? To spell it out for the dim ones, no one gives a fuck about Bolton… or Bush… or the other bush… or Romney… or… do you get it? Of course not.

    newton: That are either bad at being serious or you are bad at satire?

    Could it be – gasp – your fault? Not according to any Darwinista. Hilarious.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.