Thursday, May 7, 2015

In Response to the Ban


Victor has shed some new light on his decision to ban certain atheists from his blog (those certain atheists being, presumably, Papalinton, and yours truly).

Here is his original statement:
I am going to have to ask two people, whose names I don't think I need to mention, to stop posting here. I do this with great reluctance. The reasons are two. One, I think your positions are better represented by other people who agree with you for the most part. Second, your contributions always make discussion more inflammatory than they need to be, and you don't bring out the best in the rest of us.

I love the idea of a "free speech zone" but you end up dominating the conversation here. And even when I want to address a position like yours, I think other representatives of your views better represent them.
When Jeffery Jay Lowder pointed out that the same logic could apply to theist commenters on his blog, Victor responded:
Maybe, but the two atheists seem to dominate discussion. The theists I think you have in mind used to be typically ignored if their points were too far off-target.

But it took me a very long time to come to this decision, and this is precisely the reason why it did. If I start banning, then someone can say that someone on my side said something just as bad, etc. etc. etc. In fact, people here would pledge to ignore these people and then ended up not being able to do it.
I would like to summarize and address these issues.

1.  We tend to dominate the discussion.
I am guilty.  Papalinton is not.  It is worth mentioning, however, that Bob Prokop is the single most frequent commenter on the site.  Many of his comments are completely off topic.  While I try to stay on topic, I also try to reply to comments made to me (and there are many), and sometimes those comments stray somewhat from the main topic.  I don't think that's my fault.  As for Papalinton, he tends to provide supplemental commentary and information, but not so much to actively engage in the banter, as I do.
2.  Our positions are better stated by others.
Of the regular commenters (theist and atheist alike), everyone is guilty.  Aside from the occasional contributions of other philosophers, we are all less than perfect in making our points eloquently.  If you want your blog to be open to professional philosophers only, you'll have to ban more than a couple of atheists.
3.  Our contributions make the discussion more inflammatory by not bringing out the best in others.
Now we're getting more to the heart of the matter, I think.  People love to hate us, and they say some pretty nasty things.  That's what creates the vitriolic atmosphere that we so often see in your blog.  Again, I don't think that's our fault.  People like crude can be downright uncivil toward people that they regard as "the enemy".  And I think that's your biggest problem.  You may say that I earn this vitriol by saying things that are provocative.  Perhaps, but you should be aware that from my perspective, I hear many things said by theists that are quite provocative, too.  At least I generally try to keep my responses civil, if not understated.  And Papalinton does a much better job in that regard than most.  What you're doing is punishing him for the bad behavior of the Christian commenters in your blog.
4.  People have been unable to stick to their pledges to ignore us.
This is the most interesting thing you've said about this whole issue.  I always thought the whole purpose of having a blog like yours is to provide a forum for discussion, and that's exactly why I was there.  I know that people don't like what I say.  So why shouldn't we talk about it?  Do you really want to have an echo chamber?  But it seems I get mixed messages from you.  I think you really have been interested in discussing things with me at times.  If not, why do you so often reply to my comments?  In fact you have, on numerous occasions, made a new post specifically to address something I have said.  If that's not an invitation for discussion, I really don't know what is.




16 comments:

  1. HAHAHAHA! This is too dang good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. People love to hate us, and they say some pretty nasty things. That's what creates the vitriolic atmosphere that we so often see in your blog.

    Right. Because it just *CAN'T* be the pathetically hopeless, illogical, irrational nature of your "argumentation." LOLOLOL!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. What point would that be? Presumably that I'm "just as bad" as you, just as "vitriolic" as you, right? Here's the thing genius: yes, I talk straight shit to you, unashamed, because you deserve to be mocked (at least according to your own principles). However, I'm not a "vitriolic commenter" at DI. Hell, I comment there on average 6 times yearly now. And 3 of my last six comments there were directly at calling you out.

    So, no, you really didn't make any point - just like how you never made any points at DI. You never brought anything constructive to the discussions.

    And that's why Vic - the nicest dude on planet Earth! - finally got sick of it and banned you. You should be proud, Ex!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The irony here is that Dr Reppert did not ban Skep or me. He wrote an open comment informing his intention:

    "I am going to have to ask two people, whose names I don't think I need to mention, to stop posting here. ...."

    We technically don't know who they are, he doesn't name them. He did not ban me. I have had no direct request from Dr Reppert asking me to stop commenting. I do sense that he did truly feel as if making the decision was 'like pulling teeth'. I believe he was genuine in his concern. And it was with this in mind that I graciously withdrew, forthwith, from commenting on DI, without fuss. It was volitional on my part.
    To his credit no comment of mine has ever been deleted, no comment moderated. I thank him for that.

    But I think his contemplating a ban was wrongheaded and for all the wrong reasons. Indeed the reasons were abominably feeble. More, likely, he was protecting his flock, the Ilions, crudes, cls of the world who on their own would never have the intellectual capacity to differentiate fact from fiction, an outcome of decades-long religious inculcation that blurs the boundary between religious phantasy and existential reality. DI needed to remain a cosseted venting site for theists.

    I don't blame him for that. I just think it is wrongheaded and grievously mistaken. Secular humanism is inexorably becoming the lingua franca of the global society. And while there might be a place for christianity, as with many other socio-cultural manifestations, in pockets of communities around the globe, it will be predominantly local in nature and parochial in scope, just as Wiccan, Mormonism and even as Celtic Druidism is today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How am I "the flock" if I don't even comment there but 6-10 times a year now?

    Seems you lack the intellectual capacity to differentiate fact from fiction - but you've already been caught red-handed lying at Vic's blog so... not going to waste much more time there. If anybody wants the links I can dig them up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "you lack the intellectual capacity ..."
      "you've already been caught red-handed lying ..."

      This is the kind of stuff that I regard as outside the scope of civilized discussion. That's the only thing that I will not tolerate on my blog. I don't mind your disagreeing with what people say. I don't mind you making a spirited and forceful argument argument for your position. This is by no means an echo chamber. But there are certain bounds for fruitful discussion. So go ahead and give us your best. And we'll give you ours.

      Delete
  6. This is just a test comment to see if you put me on a leash...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Okay, apparently not. The other comment must have vaporized. Third and last try:

    This is the kind of stuff that I regard as outside the scope of civilized discussion.

    So then we agree that Paps was outside the scope of civilized discussion when he launched that attack on me with no provocation by me, or even so much as a comment to him? That's what I thought, hypocrite. Bust Paps' balls!

    As for the "lying" thing, it was technically plagiarism, and Paps copped to it (good on him). But hey, if you don't want me to state facts on your blog, I understand.

    So go ahead and give us your best. And we'll give you ours.

    I already tested the waters with you. Your "best" is to completely ignore the argument presented and instead unleash an ad hominem attack on the one making it. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is a put up an *actual* response, you know, one that shows you've read the evidence and are actually familiar with both the alleged facts and their ramifications.

    Until then, you're pure hot air - like Paps.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I went through the comments in this thread, and I don't see that you have made any argument. Perhaps I missed it. What exactly is your argument? I'll respond.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nah, it doesn't work like that. First demonstrate intellectual honesty by explaining why you didn't chastise Paps for a comment that you yourself defined as "outside the scope of civilized discussion."

    Then, and only then, will I consider indulging your request for further argumentation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Summary of cl' comments:

      "I'm laughing at you."
      "Your argumentation is pathetically hopeless, illogical, irrational."
      "You have made no point. You never make any point. And I'm, not vitriolic, but half of my comments at DI are."
      "Papalinton is a stupid liar."
      "You should bust Papalinton for his unprovoked attack on me." (see the previous comment)
      "You have ignored my argument."
      "If you demonstrate some intellectual honesty, I will deign to continue my commentary."

      OK cl. Here's some intellectual honesty. You are pathetic. You have absolutely nothing to say that is worth listening to. You haven't made any intelligible argument. All you do is make ad hominem attacks. I didn't beg you to come here, and I won't cry if you go away. But if you actually have a point to make, let's hear it. If you think my arguments are hopeless, illogical, and irrational, why don't you show how that is the case by presenting a logical case of your own instead of your endless stream of ad hominem attacks? I'll listen.

      Delete
  10. Test comment, because Blogger is bad software...

    ReplyDelete
  11. You have absolutely nothing to say that is worth listening to.

    Then how is it I ran a blog for years, with over a quarter million words and over 10,000 comments from a legitimate readership spanning the entire globe, while you sit here whining and crying to maybe three to five people about how unfairly you were persecuted over at DI? I'm a writer across print, screen and web. You're just an anklebiter with an irreligious chip on the shoulder and an internet connection. Harsh, but, fact.

    All you do is make ad hominem attacks.

    Not true, because I'm not using anybody's alleged character defects to detract from their arguments. You should study the meaning of these fallacies you seem so prone to invoking.

    if you actually have a point to make, let's hear it.

    I did! You've ignored it. My point is that you're showing favortism by chastising me for "uncivil" wording Paps introduced to the conversation. You've also implied I called Paps "stupid" when I did not, nor would I ever. Occasionally annoying? Sure. Often incoherent? Certainly? Sporadically spot-on? Yeah, I'll give him that, but, stupid? Nah. Paps - all else aside - is a very intelligent writer with interesting prose and flowery metaphors that I actually enjoy reading. You, on the other hand, are exactly what Dan Gilson described: a boring-to-read, self-styled "rationalist" or "skeptic" with a chip on the shoulder against all-things-not-atheist. Advance an original argument about something. Or, address an established argument with something besides what you think are witty-isms about how stupid religious people are. Do something.

    If you think my arguments are hopeless, illogical, and irrational, why don't you show how that is the case by presenting a logical case of your own instead of your endless stream of ad hominem attacks?

    Man, you're not getting it. I've never seen a single argument from you. Honestly. All I've ever seen is that boring Gnu atheist commentary at DI, and now you're whining about said boring Gnu atheist commentary here. You need to actually advance an argument before your interlocutor can critique it, sir. Or ma'am.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tryng to reason with you is a complete waste of my time. Go away.

      Delete
  12. Yeah, I didn't think you'd have much to say after having your ass handed to you like that. But please, by all means, do let me know if you make an attempt at reason at all, such that it might be critiqued.

    ReplyDelete