Renaming the "Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions" subforum

As I said, it's either manipulative playacting or a sign that there is such a chasm between perceptions that we aren't going to see eye-to-eye.

I'm surprised you even suggested any other option - it's been clear for quite a while that there is such a chasm between perceptions that we aren't going to see eye-to-eye. It doesn't prevent reasonable discussion, on its own, though. Whether there is reasonable discussion depends upon what sort of culture is promoted by those who have control over this forum (which for sure isn't the skeptics)

I dislike bullies, and have no problem pointing out their hypocrisy when they try the skeptic tactic of marketing-via-insults. Not planning on stopping on calling out any bully casting aspersions to manipulate the debate, especially when the posts are lacking in substance/value.

You mean, you dislike the way someone you perceive as out-group behaves, on a forum which is devoted to your in-group. What about just following the guidelines laid out in the Forum Rules and approaching this with civility and respect? 

I notice you've ignored the specifics I've given of terrible behavior, but really I'm not interested in putting any member on trial unless there's a real outcome to it - such as their permanent banning from this forum to improve quality of discussion. Otherwise it's a trial that is a waste of time for everyone involved and unfair to the specific person being criticized.

Yes, I ignored the specifics. What's the point of getting into a list of poor behavior which is woefully lopsided? Why not try just try to be civil instead?

I don't see what this has to do with discussions of Psi, or any other subject, in general.

It don't see what it has to do with it either. It has to do with whether or not discussions could/should be civil, regardless of where anyone stands.

Linda

I'm surprised you even suggested any other option - it's been clear for quite a while that there is such a chasm between perceptions that we aren't going to see eye-to-eye. It doesn't prevent reasonable discussion, on its own, though. Whether there is reasonable discussion depends upon what sort of culture is promoted by those who have control over this forum (which for sure isn't the skeptics)


You mean, you dislike the way someone you perceive as out-group behaves, on a forum which is devoted to your in-group. What about just following the guidelines laid out in the Forum Rules and approaching this with civility and respect? 


Yes, I ignored the specifics. What's the point of getting into a list of poor behavior which is woefully lopsided? Why not try just try to be civil instead?


It don't see what it has to do with it either. It has to do with whether or not discussions could/should be civil, regardless of where anyone stands.

Linda

I'm quite civil, and return civility with civility.

But I'm happy to put a bully in their place with evidence highlighting their hypocrisy and ignorance.

Seems like an agree to disagree impasse, so unless the mods are willing to let me make a case for the person-in-question's permanent banning that could have a real result not sure there's anything left to say.

I can't do much more than reiterate what's already been said by others - I don't see any great need or point in changing the name. In theory, another name might promote a less confrontational atmosphere, but in practice, I can't imagine certain individuals here (from both camps) ever conceding enough ground to avoid it. Better in the long run that the name stays the same, and those same people work on either being more cordial, more willing to concede when they're in the wrong (or the unconfirmed/speculative), or both.

Sciborg_S_Patel
I'm quite civil, and return civility with civility.

But I'm happy to put a bully in their place with evidence highlighting their hypocrisy and ignorance.

Seems like an agree to disagree impasse, so unless the mods are willing to let me make a case for the person-in-question's permanent banning that could have a real result not sure there's anything left to say.

Following someone around and disrupting reasonable discussion in order to bring up what you perceive to be past examples of hypocrisy and ignorance (rather than contribute to the discussion), would also be regarded as bullying.

"A person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable."

Incivility (https://nicd.arizona.edu/research-report...s-civility):

Name calling              
Attack on a person (e.g., idiot, you’re dumb, Obamamama)

Aspersion
Attack on an idea (e.g., that policy is asinine, what a stupid idea)

Lying              
Implying disingenuousness (e.g., liar, dishonest, not trustworthy)

Vulgarity
Use of vulgar terms (e.g., crap, hell, bitching)

Pejorative for speech  
 
Disparaging the manner in which someone communicates (e.g., bellyache, blather, crying)

Hyperbole
Massive overstatement (e.g., makes pulling teeth with pliers look easy, like superman on cocaine)

Noncooperation
Discussion of a situation in terms of a stalemate (e.g., immovable, polarizing, rigid, gridlocked)

Linda

Following someone around and disrupting reasonable discussion in order to bring up what you perceive to be past examples of hypocrisy and ignorance (rather than contribute to the discussion), would also be regarded as bullying.

"A person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable."

Incivility (https://nicd.arizona.edu/research-report...s-civility):

Name calling              
Attack on a person (e.g., idiot, you’re dumb, Obamamama)

Aspersion
Attack on an idea (e.g., that policy is asinine, what a stupid idea)

Lying              
Implying disingenuousness (e.g., liar, dishonest, not trustworthy)

Vulgarity
Use of vulgar terms (e.g., crap, hell, bitching)

Pejorative for speech  
 
Disparaging the manner in which someone communicates (e.g., bellyache, blather, crying)

Hyperbole
Massive overstatement (e.g., makes pulling teeth with pliers look easy, like superman on cocaine)

Noncooperation
Discussion of a situation in terms of a stalemate (e.g., immovable, polarizing, rigid, gridlocked)

Linda

The hypocrisy and bullying are occurring in the present day, and are examples of unreasonable discussion. I bring up the past to show the claims being made about proponents apply far more to the person bullying with insults. The one who has disparaged, been vulgar, interrupted reasonable discussion, and attempted to attack the vulnerable is the person in question.

And in fact if anyone was being followed it was me as well as other proponents. Our attempting to ignore the person in question resulted in a trolling post of disabled persons and deformed infants.

Again unless the debate gets me something concrete - permanent banning of someone I think ruins discussion on this forum - I don't see much point in carrying on with this?

Vulgarity
Use of vulgar terms (e.g., crap, hell, bitching)

I’m often amazed at how ‘proper’ and ‘inoffensive’ language is seen as important by some, and how these terms ‘crap’ ‘hell’ etc are seen as vulgar. 

I suppose it’s the same way that some Catholic priests would expect their flock not to use vulgar language in church. Maybe some slack is shown when they’re being buggered? The same way that politicians are ever so proper even they vote to illegally bomb a foreign country   

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/27...CI79hRemyw

I’m often amazed at how ‘proper’ and ‘inoffensive’ language is seen as important by some. 

I suppose it’s the same way that some Catholic priests would expect their flock not to use vulgar language in church. Maybe some slack is shown when they’re being buggered? The same way that politicians are ever so proper even they vote to illegally bomb a foreign country   

That specific entry may need some better examples. "Crap", "hell" and "bitching" are the terms I use when I'm trying not to be vulgar ("shit", "bullshit", "f**k*, "c**t"). 

Linda

That specific entry may need some better examples. "Crap", "hell" and "bitching" are the terms I use when I'm trying not to be vulgar ("shit", "bullshit", "f**k*, "c**t"). 

Linda

Linda, you can be as vulgar as you please as far as I’m concerned. I’m not being flippant, I think Sci and you are very controlled individuals, but that doesn’t take away from my point. 

Would you go and see a comedian that swears a lot ?

Linda, you can be as vulgar as you please as far as I’m concerned. I’m not being flippant, I think Sci and you are very controlled individuals, but that doesn’t take away from my point.

Would vulgarity inhibit frank discussion? Not around here or on most adult forums, I would guess. I think it might if you have a forum which draws more on a real-world community (i.e. a group that isn't used to the rough-and-tumble of online forums elsewhere). For example, Ravelry, which is directed at knitters, is pretty strict about talking nice.

Come to think of it, the JREF forum had a strict "no swearing" policy, to the point where they had an auto-censor. That's why I stick asterisks in my swear words - because otherwise they would have been blanked out over there. I probably don't need to do that here?
 

Would you go and see a comedian that swears a lot ?

If they were funny. Some of my favorite comedians are pretty foul-mouthed. But some comedians use foul language in place of good jokes ("OMG, he dared to say "f**k". Ha ha ha."), and I find that uninteresting.

Linda

And in fact if anyone was being followed it was me as well as other proponents. Our attempting to ignore the person in question resulted in a trolling post of disabled persons and deformed infants.

I saw that particular exchange. The difference is that it was a shocking example in a post speaking directly to the topic of the discussion. In comparison, you bring up an episode when Steve001 went to the JREF forum to ask some physicists to look at Maaneli's posts (there were a good number of scientists at the JREF forum to draw on as resources http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...ht=maaneli), when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand and whose only purpose is to discredit Steve (I don't know why it would do so, Steve has never claimed to be a physicist) instead of addressing his criticisms.
e.g. https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...68#pid1168

Again unless the debate gets me something concrete - permanent banning of someone I think ruins discussion on this forum - I don't see much point in carrying on with this?

If a careful examination reveals that prejudice is what drives these complaints, I'm not sure what giving in to prejudice (instead of trying to address or gain insight into) is supposed to solve, other than making this an even more insular community.

Linda