Two points relating to my last post regarding the principles that ought to govern ‘freethought blogs’.
Was I talking about FTB?
Freethought blogger Kylie Sturgess of Token Skeptic comments:
From the comments here and elsewhere, it’s very clear everyone reads this as about Freethought blogs. Vagueness isn’t much help and detracts from your overall message, I think.
Kylie is right; I had FTB in mind while writing the piece, and I do think that, in general, FTB would benefit from my advice (although I don’t think her blog has any of the problems I mentioned).
Here’s why I did not make my article about the network ‘Freethought Blogs’. Firstly, I think that the principles I outlined should apply to any blog that considers itself a ‘freethought’ blog, and not just those on the FTB network. Secondly, I don’t think that the problematic blogs are all on FTB. Thirdly, if I was to make the claim that FTB doesn’t follow what I called the Principle of Rational Discussion (PRD), then commenters may justly expect evidence for that claim. This was a tricky one for me. I could provide one or two instances, or show vast amounts (and there really are vast amounts) of evidence. The former might not convince people that there was a widespread problem, and the latter would be very long and time-consuming.
I therefore preferred the constructive approach, thinking about how bloggers interested in promoting freethought might wish to police their blogs. If someone wishes to see the dirt on FTB (and the other blogs I had in mind), then the evidence has been documented all over the place. My advice would be to go there and look. Look at a contentious issue (especially involving social justice), and watch what happens when someone posts a reasonable disagreement. Better still, disagree yourself and see what happens. Follow the PRD, and see if they follow suit.
Dealing with disagreement
Anyway, here’s one example that dissent is treated less than favourably by one of the FTB leaders. Today PZ Myers posted a YouTube video about former FTBer thunderf00t‘s dismissal from the network. I commented:
I don’t recall thunderf00t saying anywhere that he didn’t support the idea of gender equality. I read him as disagreeing about the idea of extra harassment policies at conferences. You may disagree with him on that point (I do), but his position is quite compatible with a belief in gender equality.
I thought that was reasonable enough. Anyway, I tried to respond to another comment a few minutes later and I had been blocked from commenting by the channel owner, PZ Myers. The comment above was my only comment. Worse still, I notice commenters who say things like:
PZ IS ruining the image of atheism dude. He’s allowing the stupid dogmatic ultra feminist viewpoint to take over and divide us.
…have not been banned, and are still arguing hours later. It seems clear to me that PZ allows commenters who make the ‘other side’ look bad, and bans those who argue calmly and reasonably. This creates the illusion that one side is calm and rational (his side) and the other side is ranting and raving, and I say that is dishonest of him to do so.
It does seem bizarre that your constructive input results in a blocking while the more derpy comments are left. I’d hope that this is down to foolishness and slapdash comment policing rather than something with intent behind it as you suggest.
Given that from the moment this controversy began there has been a constant (and incorrect) claim by Watson, Myers and their gang that this entire conflict is just the enlightened feminists vs the crazy misogyinists, it doesn’t seem all that bizare to me at all.
Look how surprised they had to pretend to be over Paula Kirby’s input.
They ignore salient arguments against their position and pretend that the only opposition they have is people sending rape threats to Rebecca Watson.
As you indicated “.. watch what happens when someone posts a reasonable disagreement. Better still, disagree yourself and see what happens. Follow the PRD, and see if they follow suit.”
Pure gold. Like the man said, just do it.
This is the touchstone for the problem all The Bad Atheists have with these noisy lunatics.
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”
— Voltaire
“Bugger that for a joke. I’ll arrange that myself.”
— Peezus
Love it.
“It seems clear to me that PZ allows commenters who make the ‘other side’ look bad, and bans those who argue calmly and reasonably. ”
Any hope to avoid drifting from “idealistic and misguided” over to “calculating and slimy” has disappeared. Seriously, someone must have told him he’s naked, right? Did he not get the memo?
He blocked me on Twitter today for this tweet in which I included a link to this blog article:
@PZMyers – Do you block reasonable commenters and just let the trolls rant away? #FTBullies
At ;east your tweet remains visible to others (and to him, since it’s under the #FTBullies hashtag, which he follows).
But Notung, weren’t you already on his “known troublemakers” list? That would be another plausible explanation for your instant banning.
Well, I’ve never been banned on FTB (yet), and he hasn’t blocked me on Twitter (yet), and I don’t think I’ve ever ‘made trouble’.
Still, if I was on such a list then it would be at most for disagreeing (politely), so I don’t think it makes much difference.
Or for associating with known troublemakers, perhaps. Not that that’s any better.
This is off-topic, but I linked to your blog from mine, and I don’t see any new entries. I miss your writing!
Was there any kind of warning to accompany the banning?
No, just an immediate banning. I only made one comment.
“if I was to make the claim that FTB doesn’t follow what I called the Principle of Rational Discussion (PRD), then commenters may justly expect evidence for that claim.”
Good luck with all that logic stuff, Notung.
Can’t see it going down at all well in the FTB compound.
Like the ‘kafkatrapping’ chap said about a related subspecies:
“They’re not engaged in rational argument but in manipulation for the purpose of control; treating them as if they are engaged in rational argument is a courtesy they do not deserve.”
[…] make him look bad, but we’re more than happy to look the other way when one of our leaders deliberately ban commenters who argue calmly and reasonably while displaying trolls’ and […]
Hey very cool website!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your web site and take the feeds additionally? I am satisfied to search out a lot of helpful info right here in the submit, we’d like work out more strategies in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .
Hello, all the time i used to check web site posts here in the early hours in the daylight, since i like to find out more and more.
Heya i’m for the primary time here. I came across this board and I in finding It truly useful & it helped me out a lot. I’m hoping to offer one thing again and help others like you helped me.
[…] and appearance”? Does Ophelia Benson approve of Paul Zachary Myers‘ dishonest tactic of banning rational commenters to further the victim card? Isn’t such tactic the something proper of “enraged […]
I used to be suggested this blog by way of my cousin. I’m no longer
positive whether or not this post is written by means of
him as nobody else understand such precise approximately my problem.
You are incredible! Thanks!
Oh my goodness! Impressive article dude! Thank you, However I am encountering problems with your RSS.
I don’t know why I can’t join it. Is there anyone else getting the same
RSS problems? Anybody who knows the answer will you kindly respond?
Thanx!!
[…] rife with misogyny, bringing up a couple of anecdotes taken out of context (or YouTube videos where all sensible comments were deleted to let the availability heuristic do it’s thing) and get more people outraged and led to […]