- This topic has 64 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
mods-cm-org, 20:38 – a case of “the doctor will sue you now”!
https://badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-Now.pdf
Duck, have you posted at this site under the username “Node”?
Yes, I know the rationalists who accept evidence get a bit intemperate sometimes, but it is exasperating to continually have to deal with dishonesty, evasion, neglecting to answer, cherry-picking, quote mining and hours-long YouTubing, and I can understand why the mods sometimes give them some leeway. Can’t you? Or do you think that 2 + 2 = 5 has to be treated as a fact just because it’s someone’s opinion?
Oh and Duck, I think you too are a dishonest commenter. Here’s the evidence; your own words:
– “I’ve seen 2 skeptics (3 including myself) driven from the thread and another driven off the entire blog.”
The “another driven off the entire blog” is clearly a reference to N_, so you are misrepresenting dishonesty as scepticism.
“Duck, have you posted at this site under the username “Node”?”
No. I had never heard of him/her until you began repeatedly inferring some connection. [ Mod note: This turned out, on subsequent investigation, to be a lie: evidence clearly shows that ‘Duck’ was one of a number of Node sockpuppets. ] I presume your intention is to undermine me with the moderation team. These sort of irrelevant smears are typical of the bullying behaviour I described above. I’ve replied on this occasion to make clear that there is no hidden agenda behind my previous comment which is an honest description of the situation as I experienced it. I won’t respond to any more of your taunting.
Ingwe, you should also remember this:
January 24, 15:13 – “All these comments without any discussion, evidence or argument, by posters who remain unmoderated.”
The moderators read far more of the comments across far more of the site than a typical reader, so they tend to become familiar with the various ongoing arguments, and the types of argument (or lack of it) deployed by specific commenters. The evidence may well exist; it’s merely that you personally have not seen it.
My experience is that conspiracy theorists are often also anti-Semitic. My opinion is that some additional conspiracy theorists are also anti-Semitic but just more careful about how they word their comments, ie. the ubiquitous but never defined “them” of the supposed conspiracy, as in “what they aren’t telling you” or “what they are really up to”, actually refers to Jews.
I think this is a widespread but barely recognised problem, and that it contributed to the success of the smearing of Jeremy Corbyn. It was never true that there was much anti-Semitism among Corbyn’s supporters, but there were far more who accepted examples of conspiracy theory. But from a Jewish viewpoint, this must have been terrifying, because the undefined “them”, the supposed conspiracy, can at any moment be replaced by “Jews”, just as in Nazi Germany. The conspiracy theorists’ constant accusations of “you just believe whatever is said by the MSM” also contributes to this by being indistinguishable from the anti-Semitic “Jews control the media” meme. Likewise “it’s all a plot by the bankers” morphs very easily into “Jewish bankers”, another age-old anti-Semitic meme.
So to effectively support the Palestinian cause, it is vitally important to learn to recognise conspiracy theory and reject it, because association with it makes your arguments vulnerable to being discredited. Like I said earlier;
– Truth, Justice, Peace.
Chill out Duck. You just remind me a lot of Node, probably just because conspiracy theorists have a very limited number of sound-bites. There’s no need to feel taunted.
Duck, I should probably also explain that Node used various sock-puppets ie. alternate usernames.
Why do you defend N_’s misrepresentation of source material as scepticism?
Duck,
You say this site was recommended by a friend who was playing a trick on you. That’s of no consequence for the moderation policy here. If she led you to believe that this forum is a hub for Covid-19 conspiracy theories, then she misinformed you – deliberately, it appears. At least she got a hearty laugh out of it (though it sounds like she was sneering at your gullibility as much as at this site). If you feel aggrieved, maybe you should seek reparations from your ‘friend’, not from us.
You’re quite wrong to assume that the people you identify as “protagonists” never get moderated. They certainly do, and the number of their deletions is roughly equal to those from the people you regard as consonant voices. We also ask them privately to tone down the rhetoric from time to time; it’s an ongoing project.
As regards the “abuse” you perceive here: if you would like moderators to quash the more acerbic criticisms, we would only do so on condition that people stop posting skewed conspiracy narratives and pseudoscience. If someone posits a sophisticated cabal comprising vast networks of disparate professionals co-ordinating a grand deceit within opposing political systems around the globe, then that view is quite correctly open to ridicule. Mockery emphasises the point that such fantastical conspiracy narratives are inherently ridiculous. So it has a valid role. Conversely, if you try to subject scientific evidence to ridicule, you’ll need to meet a very high standard of refutation. Unfortunately, references to maverick websites or unofficial videos on YouTube don’t meet that standard.
The notion that there should be some kind of parity between evidence-based reasoning and conspiracy theorising is utterly wrong-headed. Relativising the notion of “fact” to just “a form of comment” digs away at your own epistemic foundations. For the purposes of rational debate, a “fact” is a true proposition; if the objective truth conditions are met, it’s a fact. That’s what distinguishes it from other forms of comment. If you don’t subscribe to that basic standard, then kindly go tell your stories elsewhere. On the other hand, if you’re ambitious enough to aim at undermining an entire research paradigm, you’re welcome to visit a forum for philosophy of science. This isn’t the place to advance idiosyncratic theories of epistemological relativism. Assertions that rely on deconstructing the concept of facts aren’t valid in argument here, whatever their other virtues.
@ the moderator who replied to my previous comment.
“…it sounds like she was sneering at your gullibility…”
My comment is an honest description of my experience on this site. It is a fact that in 30 years of visiting moderated discussion forums and BTL commenting, I have never encountered such unregulated aggression. Thank you for your explanation. I now clearly understand how this situation has arisen.
I enjoy arguing, testing my opinions against others, but I don’t enjoy fighting. If someone can’t make their point without hostility, I don’t want to talk to them, so I’ll stop.
Duck, huh. So how come you had no criticism of Steph, nor indeed anyone pretending that there’s no pandemic or that it’s trivial? Steph repeatedly accused me of rudeness, condescension, utter disregard for human rights etc., while praising to high heaven anyone with a scientific background who provided any morsel to support that position. Is your key phrase here “unregulated aggression”, in that the behaviours of those who regulate and disguise their aggression politely (and (coincidentally?) provide support for the conspiracy theory) are acceptable in your book?
My comment is an honest description of my experience on this site. It is a fact that in 30 years of visiting moderated discussion forums and BTL commenting, I have never encountered such unregulated aggression.
Well thank you for your testimony, Duck. It sounds like a ‘fact’ that could easily be contested, but as the truth conditions are subjective to you there’s no way of anyone successfully refuting the claim. However, if you had visited the BTL section of this blog in the early part of the last decade, you would have found the verbal joshing much more boisterous and antagonistic. The tone improved significantly once the worst offenders were excluded.
For what it’s worth, the mod comment about your gullibility being a central element of the joke being played on you was also an honest evaluation. Honesty should be cherished, though the truth can have a sting.
Your point about hostile argumentation is acknowledged, and hopefully the participants concerned will take note. It doesn’t help the tone of debate to attack straw man caricatures, of which several have been deleted over the last few days. Nevertheless, it’s also advisable for anyone who makes farfetched, contentious or misleading claims to come prepared for sharp criticism and satirical banter. The moderators are under no obligation to insulate people against the mirth or outrage provoked by comments that are construed as fanciful or misguided.
Duck seems to have first started commenting in the now closed forum of SARS cov2 and Covid-19 on 9th of December 2020. He/She says that they were referred by a female friend, presumably Steph, who was commenting at that time. Duck then last posted in that forum on 18/12/2020. Interestingly after his disappearance, Dave started to post regularly and continues on this forum, so did Node ending with his link to the crass 2+2=5 video. Node has now disappeared, I am not sure if he has been banned again. Then on January 25th Duck comments again: “Just spotted this discussion. Here’s my experience for what it’s worth.” But Duck you have already commented on the other forum what exactly did you mean by this statement. BTW, Duck previously declared that he is dictating the agenda and will not answer questions unless he sees fit. So let us see.
SA “He/She says that they were referred by a female friend, presumably Steph…”
Once again I am forced to reply to protect the innocent. No, you presume wrongly, I do not know Steph. Nor am I Dave or Node as you imply. [ Mod note: Untrue – ‘Duck’ turned out to be a ‘Node’ sockpuppet. ] May I remind you that that wild conspiracy theories are not tolerated and “anyone who makes farfetched, contentious or misleading claims [should] come prepared for sharp criticism and satirical banter.”
Duck: May I remind you that that wild conspiracy theories are not tolerated and “anyone who makes farfetched, contentious or misleading claims [should] come prepared for sharp criticism and satirical banter.”
Hardly far-fetched, Duck! A couple of denialists here (notably the rather less than honest “Node”) have appeared as sock-puppets, which is itself an infringement of the rules.
Perhaps you were suspected of being one of the earlier denialists because you all sound so alike. Same weak arguments, same inability to discuss anything to any depth, and whining and bleating about how it’s all soooooo unfair.
Look at Dave the Denier – he pushes point after point, which get solidly refuted. Does he discuss the point? Of course not, he moves right along to the next. After a while, he’ll start pushing the first point again.
Does that strike you as honest, good-faith discussion? Or is it an attempt to wear down those countering this nonsense, so that his wild theory-free conspiracy theories eventually go unchallenged to fool newcomers?
Yup, it’s an agenda alright – a shared agenda. Being referred by another “narrative-skeptic” is how it works. These folks hardly represent an accurate cross-section of society.
On reading certain “skeptic” websites I noticed calls for people to spread the denialist propaganda on other forums. One person, after moaning about being unable to post here, admitted “I plead guilty to spreading anti-vaccination news.” Though it isn’t quite an orchestrated campaign, they do share notes about what and where to post. Ironically it bears the hallmarks of a genuine conspiracy! (Not a very powerful one, mind you.)
@ Duck
Well, go on then …now’s your chance to correct the record. How did the word spread? Did you get a tip off from another blog? Do you visit “narrative-skeptic” websites?
Duck, 11:07 – “I enjoy arguing, testing my opinions against others, but I don’t enjoy fighting.”
Huh. Then you could try answering some of the question I’ve asked you recently; there are quite a few apart from the one that you’ve answered. To me, evading engagement would seem more like fighting than argument – and discussion would be even better.
Dawg, 14:24 – “These folks hardly represent an accurate cross-section of society” and “it bears the hallmarks of a genuine conspiracy! (Not a very powerful one, mind you.)”
It was powerful enough to get Trump elected; I’m sure that his leveraging of conspiracy theory was far more powerful than any supposed “Russian interference”. It helped gather and motivate the rabble that entered the Capitol building in an attempt to extend his presidency. As I remarked to Ingwe at 01:01, it was used to discredit Corbyn. And it has dominated the discussion of climate change, stalling progress for decades. I think it’s far more powerful than generally given credit for, and always malign.
And it really shot to prominence after 9/11…
Duck, it was just such a cozy interchange with Steph, just saying. I did not say you were either Node or Dave, your styles are very different even if the aim is the same. But see Dawg’s comment above.
Dave – I very much appreciate you clarifying that, thank you. But it won’t make any difference. I knew, as soon as I read what you wrote about your friend, they would probably think it was me. And I was right. It’s just the way they view the world, and why I no longer contribute.
Sorry, my comment was addressed to Duck not Dave
I knew, as soon as I read what you wrote about your friend, they would probably think it was me. And I was right.
Sorry, Steph, who is this “they” exactly? The comments show it was only one person – SA – who said “presumably Steph” (note the “presumably”). But you just carry on lumping people together if it makes your thinking simpler…
Steph! According to you it’s all the rationalists fault; no fault of Duck’s for not being specific! What a surprise! “It’s just the way they view the world”.
Yep, science is a conspiracy of the closed minded. That’s what gave you and everyone else the technology to publish your opinions to the whole world. That’s what gave you antibiotics and contraception. Closed mindedness.
