Should we permit interviews on non-core subjects, esp AIDS/HIV?

It seems that people are going to post HIV/AIDS denialist propaganda here anyway, whether or not Henry Bauer is interviewed about it.

For the reasons I've already explained, I'm going to withdraw now.

It would be a shame if you left the forum. Just wait awhile.

Ha? A new poster who claims to be a gay man, but also praises Mormonism?

Take some new posters with a grain of salt, would you?

Haha I know what you mean but there are a lot of gay people who are religious and find some way to accomodate it - at least to their own satisfaction.  I’m sure you know that. Being gay doesn’t give anyone authority to speak about the wider community afaics. If he’s speaking about his own experience all well and good.

Haha I know what you mean but there are a lot of gay people who are religious and find some way to accomodate it - at least to their own satisfaction.  I’m sure you know that. Being gay doesn’t give anyone authority to speak about the wider community afaics. If he’s speaking about his own experience all well and good.

Yes, I get that, but he's a new poster, so therefore we don't know who he is as he doesn't have a "forum history" to judge whether he is real or not.

I have a few in-laws who are Mormon, including a gay man who married one of my cousins. He married her when she was 18, when he was 26. He seems lovely as a person, but she did have to convert to Mormonism, and I wonder what her life is now going to be like.

Dealing with Mormon inlaws is a PITA. They are worse than dealing with Southern Baptists, in my opinion.

So yeah, I would not trust new posters who claim to be gay, buy into the HIV denialism and exhort Mormonism, but that's just me.

I'm not saying he isn't for real, but I would take it with a grain of salt. That's all I'm trying to say.

Yes, I get that, but he's a new poster, so therefore we don't know who he is as he doesn't have a "forum history" to judge whether he is real or not.

I have a few in-laws who are Mormon, including a gay man who married one of my cousins. He married her when she was 18, when he was 26. He seems lovely as a person, but she did have to convert to Mormonism, and I wonder what her life is now going to be like.

Dealing with Mormon inlaws is a PITA. They are worse than dealing with Southern Baptists, in my opinion.

So yeah, I would not trust new posters who claim to be gay, buy into the HIV denialism and exhort Mormonism, but that's just me.

I'm not saying he isn't for real, but I would take it with a grain of salt. That's all I'm trying to say.

Absolutely. It’s a funny old world isn’t it? Time reveals all things.

It seems that people are going to post HIV/AIDS denialist propaganda here anyway, whether or not Henry Bauer is interviewed about it.

For the reasons I've already explained, I'm going to withdraw now.

I'd like you to stay but if this Bauer interview is posted and if this becomes another conspiracy theory led site I'm not sure I'll stick around either. I came here to discuss psi and related topics, not HIV denying nonsense (I've treated people with HIV receiving anti-virals before, the denial is nonsense I'm afraid). I am putting my credibility on the line by getting interviews here, I mostly will be contacting people as my actual self, how many people will want to appear on a forum where HIV denying apparently 'former' homophobes are given a platform?

I'm so fucking angry about this... Paul Monette get's this so right... the straights killed them by silence

You know what Max. I'm getting pissed to. That you decide to turn this tread, maybe this forum, into a conversation about this subject.

I don't give a damn about your's or anyone's thoughts about intimate relationships. 

Leave it at the friggin door!

And I would ask that this thread get some attention to see if moderation is in order, because I am offended by Max's implication that we, as a group, are making some sort of statement against his personal choices.

I agree with MaxB that on its face, Henry Bauer's criticism of science seems a good fit for this forum if, as Vortex claims, it's one of the most developed and well-informed in the field. But how good can it be when he is so deeply off the rails with respect to HIV/AIDS? Do we really want Psiencequest to give the impression that someone merely needs to be anti-science and have held some sort of academic position to be regarded as credible, when it will be obvious to most anybody else who looks at this forum that he is not? 

I take back what I said about wanting to see him interviewed - I was thinking about my own selfish desires rather than about the forum.

I think someone should be able to bring up his views on other parts of the forum, though. I just think the choice of interview subject reflects more directly on Psiencequest than the rest of the forum (where the opinions are obviously those of the posters).

Linda

[Laird]

It seems that people are going to post HIV/AIDS denialist propaganda here anyway, whether or not Henry Bauer is interviewed about it.

For the reasons I've already explained, I'm going to withdraw now.

Chris, please, please wait until this discussion concludes before making that decision. You are the poster I value most on this forum when it comes to our core subject matter, because you are both open-minded and skeptical, and you have the mathematical/statistical knowledge to dig in and really analyse papers carefully - which you do! Your leaving would be a massive loss to this forum.

A consensus seems to have formed that interviewing Henry Bauer on HIV/AIDS would be inappropriate for Psience Quest. The only question remaining is whether he might be interviewed on other topics.

David, I'd ask that you think carefully before posting further in support of Bauer's views. The reason I ask is that it is obviously offending at least one other poster, and that it is in any case pointless given that the consensus that these views are inappropriate for a Psience Quest interview has already formed, so continuing to try to justify them serves no purpose (it will not change the consensus). Perhaps, if you want to discuss this topic, you could invite folks over to Skeptiko to discuss it, as it seems a better fit there. This isn't a moderation directive, just a polite request from a fellow poster.

And I would ask that this thread get some attention to see if moderation is in order, because I am offended by Max's implication that we, as a group, are making some sort of statement against his personal choices.

I think consensus is that moderators not step in in cases like this (see the thread in this subforum on whether defamatory remarks should be policed), but that they might call out such statements in their capacity as ordinary posters, and so in my capacity as an ordinary poster: agreed, Max is way out of line in his claim that homophobia is the reason for other posters not wanting Henry Bauer's views on HIV/AIDS to form the basis of an interview. Posters have been up-front and open about their real reasons, which are totally valid, but for some reason Max is unable/unwilling to recognise them. I think that, as Ian suggested, Max has been emotionally triggered and is unable to see clearly at this point. Hopefully, as your anger cools, Max, you will be able to recognise the validity of the actual reasons that people have shared with you, and that homophobia is not one of them.

Here is a proposal that would be a lot of extra work and would also require particular skills.

The problem with Internet "interviews" is that it is just a bunch of questions, either spoken or e-mailed, and then the respondent replies. There is little or no context to what is said, and in any case, the respondent basically has an open platform to say whatever they want to say. 

If the interviews were more like an article that you may see published in the old Rolling Stone, for instance, or the New York Times Sunday Magazine and that article included the interview questions and answers, then a context is provided.

The article obviously would introduce the subject, explain their past work. Raise questions, present differing views on how this person's work is received. 

The problem with this is that you would need not only a writer who would undertake the article (It could be the person doing the interview, but it wouldn't have to be. Two or more people could work together.)

But more importantly you would need an editor. And the editor would need to make sure that contextualization met the "vision" that is trying to develop here at PQ.

Obviously, this is different than just e-mailing someone a bunch of questions and posting it. It is a lot more work and is really more suited to a site that also has a content engine.

I always think people mean they are just going to withdraw from the thread, not the whole forum. But I've been mistaken on that in the past.