Mendel
Senior Member.
Evidence contradicts you. See the first post in this thread.
Discussion of Metabunk's Politeness Policy
- Thread starter Mendel
- Start date
- Status
Mendel
Senior Member.
"Garden fairies have always seemed a bit far-fetched to me. I'm afraid discussing them would turn out to be a waste of both our time. Unless you have actual evidence, of course."
Last edited:
Certain threads on MB have entertained a stronger share of passive-aggressive posts, for sure. But in all, I think the forum manages to maintain a reasonable level of polite (enough) discourse.
I totally understand the purpose and intent of the Politeness policy, as Landru posted yesterday (for everyone's refreshment). It is interesting to me that, given as a group most members are trying to pull in a similar direction, some threads or subjects are still heated/personal/emotive, and we each still have our touchy spots. The fact that these don't descend into flame-fests is a nod to active, strong moderation, a willingness of most parties to toe the line, and some passive-aggressive commentary is not too unexpected, given we are only human. It is not ideal, no, but can it be realistically achieved? Perhaps Norcal Dave's on to a winner, ( if he can get royalties for his product).
That says it better than I just have, I think...
While that is a poetic turn of phrasing, I was making more of a point about theory vs. belief., not a statement about how I would express myself if presented with that topic. But even being so polite, Mendel, there is still the implication you don't trust them, or consider them rational to hold that belief, simply by asking for evidence. A lot of that will depend on how the last sentence is spoken, and where the stress and pauses are placed. And this brings us back full circle: some people can always take offence, despite how polite you are, because they take an attack on ideas (they hold) as an attack on them (as a person).
I think MB manages a generally high standard of not intending offence (occasional posts notwithstanding...)
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I would agree -- it doesn't take long on sites WITHOUT such a policy to see how bad it can get when discussing/debating these sorts of topics in a no-holds-barred atmosphere. It can be fun, but generates a great deal more heat than light.
Shifting topic --
One context where I find this approach may be helpful is in arguing on the Internet with a true-believer or dedicated troll (it is hard to be sure which you have!) in front of an audience. In that case, the goal is not to convince the one person (who is either likely-unconvincable or doesn't really believe it anyway) but rather to prevent them from misleading the other folks reading the thread. There a fine line in that circumstance -- you don't want to come off as the bigger jerk of the two of you, but using humor/snark/zingers/etc. can help folks who might be inclined to take a silly idea seriously to see that it is, in fact, silly.
I have not found it effective in convincing the person I am conversing with of anything. (With the recognition that there are some established relationships where slinging the banter is a part of the fun of being together...)
deirdre
Senior Member.
true. although spats between those on the same side aren't really what i was referring to at all. Those are often moderated eventually. i actually prefer those to stay up as it shows the true character of active members.
My concern is the constant little digs and condescension toward people not here. (Grusch, elizondo etc) and its even worse when those insults extend to large groups. like ..i cant believe im drawing a blank on the religion of the skinwalker ranch guys!.. Mormans!!
I dont know how life is in Scotland but here, if i and 3 others were saying the same type stuff constantly about Muslims and the nutty Quran (vs. mormans, catholics, christians) perhaps more members would be able to see why "nutty Bible" should not be allowed on MB and how it would taint MB -and debunking- to many outside readers.
I'm not sure some members here can SEE impoliteness if it is directed at "the opposition group".
I know they are capable of seeing impoliteness because when i do it on purpose backwards (to hold a mirror up) they instantly get mad and attack back.
and no, my comments are not removed in most of those cases. I've made 2 unnecessary cracks about that Weaponized guy's oddly shiny beard, and just last week i said this whole ufo thing is silly. yes 'silly' isnt as bad as stupid or moronic etc but its the same general sentiment as far as possibly turning off family members or people-on-the-fence and being against the politeness policy. I KNOW i've said unnecessary things about Elizondo. Maybe it's just easier for females to recognize when they are speaking in bitch-mode.
Anyway i dont care if MB staff is ok with impoliteness against conservatives, christians, ufo believers etc. (but as @Mick West reminded us with his excellent input on this thread..it makes MB look bad to large groups of people, imo. ) my only gripe in regards to this thread, is when members say MB Politeness Policy is enforced. To any outside reader who is not an atheist, left wing, [alleged] intellectual, UFO scoffer... Metabunk's policy is not enforced.
Last edited:
It probably could be better, like anything. But you're not see the actual enforcement, because those posts are deleted or edited.
Ann K
Senior Member.
I mentioned the beliefs of the LDS church in regard to the Skinwalker ranch personnel because, as Steven Greenstreet himself explained to us on Metabunk, they are germane to their belief in a number of paranormal phenomena. It's not an insult to their religion; it's just a fact that explains a lot about the efforts they've gone to in their so-far fruitless search.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Ok, so.
Disagreement is legitimate.
Expressing disagreement is legitimate.
Voicing well-founded criticism (critique) is legitimate.
And yet there are those who feel offended by it, think it's agressive (misnoming it passively-aggressive), and feel their ideas should be exempt so that Metabunk stays welcoming to them.
I don't agree with that.
I don't think it's insulting to not trust a stranger on the Internet.
I don't think it's bad to believe something without evidence.
And I don't think it's insulting to inquire whether an opinion or belief is founded on evidence, in fact, metabunk thrives when people are held to sourcing their claims.
"You implied I believe something without evidence and now I'm insulted" is not a legitimate reaction, in my opinion. If they believe something without evidence, then that's a fact, and in court it's an absolute defense against the accusation of slander. And if they have evidence, well, then I'm open to discussing it. We're not in an "Emperor"s new clothes" scenario here, where some truths are taboo.
But I think it's important to realize that some truths are very subjective, and to me politeness means that others may see things differently than I do, and that's not per se bad.
tinkertailor
Senior Member.
The politeness policy is what makes Metabunk great, in my opinion. I understand the frustration with stubborn believers and I understand how tempting it is to just tell people they're wrong or disparage their beliefs, but doing that stops the conversation.
What functional response is a person supposed to have when you treat them or their beliefs poorly? No good comes from that. If they take offense, you've made them emotional, which isn't going to further your cause or help them think logically about why they may be wrong. If they don't take offense, the discussion of the actual claim still stops. They think you're wrong too, so it just becomes a finger-pointing contest of "My beliefs aren't silly, YOURS are!"
If you want to go debate the bible or make fun of people's beliefs, there's no shortage of online spaces for that. Twitter and Reddit exist. You can still be snarky there. Metabunk isn't that.
What functional response is a person supposed to have when you treat them or their beliefs poorly? No good comes from that. If they take offense, you've made them emotional, which isn't going to further your cause or help them think logically about why they may be wrong. If they don't take offense, the discussion of the actual claim still stops. They think you're wrong too, so it just becomes a finger-pointing contest of "My beliefs aren't silly, YOURS are!"
If you want to go debate the bible or make fun of people's beliefs, there's no shortage of online spaces for that. Twitter and Reddit exist. You can still be snarky there. Metabunk isn't that.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
People who aren't stupid will recognise that your - whilst entirely respectable - response, was not an answer to a question asking "what adjective?".
If you aren't going to answer the question, either mine or the differently-sensibled, why are you answering at all?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Doesn't "They don't seem to make sense to me" do the work of the adjective there? Describing/modifying the "your theories" of the previous sentence? Yeah, technically not AN adjective, but the adjectival functionality has been acheived albeit with additional verbosity...
fizzBuzz
Active Member
A lot of us on here talk about how "nutty" some of these alien ideas are and people deeply believe those ideas. How is that different? How often is the term "woo woo" used on here? Why isn't the politeness policy used in those instances?
It seems to me that religion, as it often does, is just getting a pass here.
"Nutty" use on Metabunk
"Woo woo" used on Metabunk
Mendel
Senior Member.
The implied answer is to not use an adjective at all; use a pronoun instead. Your belief vs. my belief, non-judgmentally.
Talk about yourself and not about the other person.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Urban dictionary:A lot of us on here talk about how "nutty" some of these alien ideas are and people deeply believe those ideas. How is that different? How often is the term "woo woo" used on here? Why isn't the politeness policy used in those instances?
It seems to me that religion, as it often does, is just getting a pass here.
"Nutty" use on Metabunk
"Woo woo" used on Metabunk
Article: woo-woo
Woo-woo is a slang term used to describe those who believe in phenomena that lacks substantiated evidence to prove the claim of the phenomena. It can also refer to the explanations for the specific phenomena itself. It also describes the method a person uses to understand such phenomena, based on the subjective nature or their personal philosophy which can be neither proven nor disproven. In this sense, one could associate woo-woo with philosophy, religion, or any other branch of study concerning itself with knowledge that is open to interpretation or subjectivity.
by lineartimer March 12, 2010
I feel that this definition tracks fairly well with Metabunk usage. I fail to see impoliteness in it.
Article: Woo Woo
A cocktail composed of 25 ml vodka, 25 ml peach schnapps and 50 ml of cranberry juice. Served on the rocks in a highball glass. Can be served with a lime wedge as garnish, but only if aesthetic value is necessary. The perfect cocktail for getting wasted quickly, as the peach schnapps neutralises the bitterness of both the cranberry juice and the vodka, leaving an extremely smooth, cool and highly alcoholic beverage. Enjoy.
You want to get shit-faced fast with a decent tasting, highly alcoholic beverage? You drink a Woo Woo or three.
by Shit Happens, then You Wipe January 2, 2011
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I definitely intend it as an insult. It looks like that's one I'll be able to sneak through from now on. Other people will have to find their own.
Do you belittle Flat Earth doctrine?
If not, do you do so in the privacy of your own head? If you do do so internally, are you not guilty of belittling people, but keeping it hidden away and private? For the sake of truth and sincerity, would we not be better to see your opinions naked and unvarnished?
If you don't belittle this idea, well, some people may internally form the opinion that for a Metabunk leader not to do so would be a little nutty...
I think that more than context, intent matters. This is why my friends and I say such horrible things to each other: we all trust each other enough that we know we have love for each other, and the horrible things are said to make each other laugh. It also means that when we hear each other saying things that sound off in discussion, we can prod and talk further about what's been said, rather than take offence at a bad idea. We know we're not going to have (morally) bad ideas (or hold on to them if they're ideas that haven't been well though out), so we can either find out whether we've misunderstood what's been said, or take conversations into difficult and uncomfortable areas, trusting that it's for the right (usually philosophical) reasons, where there may be things to learn. This works when you trust each other enough to *know* that your intentions boil down to more love, less harm in the world.
Probably not ideal on text based fora. So, yeah, I guess context, in a roundabout way.
That's not the point. You cannot do it on Metabunk. It happens and when a moderator sees it, it is dealt with. We do not read every message. Nobody gets paid for what we do. If you see impolite behavior, report it.
Mendel
Senior Member.
People have a history at how they arrive at convictions, and it doesn't behove me to belittle that when I'm ignorant of it. The placing of trust, especially, is not a rational thing.
It is not obvious how to prove to yourself, from first principles, that Earth is a globe. (I have learned ways to do it, now.) Most people believe it because they trust someone else. Stop trusting "the mainstream", and then the shape of the Earth is up in the air.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Debunking it would probably be more on-topic.
No for the reasons Mick West stated. It is not conducive to conversation and education.
Interesting thread, which I have been hesistant to enter. But I do have a question from pesonal experience here. Is it (or should it be) considered impolite to call someone a "truther" if they have explicitly said they are not, or even if they just haven't yet declared? Is "truther" an insult -- and therefore impolite -- even if someone is here to defend the "inside job" thesis?
deirdre
Senior Member.
depends on the context. if it was in one of the threads specifically about whether the term Truther is impolite, then likely no.
if they say "you still haven't provided any evidence, you Truther, you" in a free fall thread etc, then it likely is.
Mendel
Senior Member.
"Truther" is shorthand for someone who is broadly aligned with "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".
https://www.ae911truth.org/
As such, I don't think it can be an insult?
"Truther" is shorthand for someone who is broadly aligned with "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".
https://www.ae911truth.org/
As such, I don't think it can be an insult?
IMHO we should avoid using "shorthand" descriptions for groups to the extent possible.
There are several threads that I have given up on because those posting there are using acronyms and shorthand descriptions that I don't recall.
The problem is not everyone, especially those new to this forum, knows what those shorthand terms mean.
Saying '9/11 Truther' instead of 'Truther' does take a tiny bit more time, but it makes the meaning a bit more clear.
deirdre
Senior Member.
why would link that link?
from that link:
Article: woo-woo
a propaganda word used by ignorant pseudo-intellectuals who think they are smarter, while they are absorbing all the programming from the mainstream media, government etc, that reject anything that they cannot understand or isn't studied enough, to discredit anything so called "spiritual/new age" such as Law Of Attraction, and more.
Do people who are thus "broadly alligned" call themselves "truthers" and do they think of it as a neutrally descriptive term?"Truther" is shorthand for someone who is broadly aligned with "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".
https://www.ae911truth.org/
As such, I don't think it can be an insult?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Some do, some don't.
It's like "Trekkie;" some Star Trek fans proudly call themselves "Trekkies," some find it belittling and prefer "Trekkers," some don't care. One thing about groups of people -- they don't all think alike about everything all the time.
When regulars here (I mean debunkers) call me a "truther", do they mean that in the possibly endearing sense that Trekkies sometimes do when they call themselves that? Or is it meant to suggest that I'm irrationally attached to a stupid movement?
Ann K
Senior Member.
"Urban dictionary", of course, gets its responses from the man-in-the-street. Some of them, as in your example, are intended to be insulting, apparently because they've been offended by previous responders, so it's odd that you'd single that one out. When I ask my browser I get this:
noun
adjective
- 1.unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine:"some kind of metaphysical woo-woo"
- 1.relating to or holding unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine:"quartz crystals that were so popular with the woo-woo crowd"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo-woodubiously or outlandishly mystical, supernatural, or unscientific
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
As I recall, we had this discussion in another thread (I don't remember which one) concerning the term "True Believers" for the ones who see an other-worldly craft in any unexplained dot on an image.
fizzBuzz
Active Member
Well, if belittling the Bible is, in effect, belittling the people who believe the Bible then it seems anything is fair game to be considered impolite.
deirdre
Senior Member.
instead of complaining and straw manning and moving the goalposts about the few things MB now DOES consider impolite, perhaps y'all should be grateful i am no longer a moderator. i removed 1,000% more content as impolite then is removed now.
like #50 above would be gone.
like #50 above would be gone.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
can you provide an example of this so we can see context? i'm curious in what situation someone would call you a Truther.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Metabunk policy prevents us from suggesting that.
And I think what you're implying about ae911truth is very impolite.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
It's always possible to define a neutral term offensively.
car: device intended to inconvenience other travellers as much as possible, to the extent of poisoning them, and maiming quite a few, while providing a shell for the occupants that insulates them from the consequences of their chosen selfish mode of travel. Waste of good urban space.
deirdre
Senior Member.
i'm not sure woo is generally considered offensive. i use it all the time. (although i believe alot of woo...mild psychic ability, mind-over-matter/placebo effect, still hoping for a cryptid to pop up somewhere etc ...and i dont know what else to call it.)
i like how this lady says it
Article: When people think of spirituality, science doesn't usually come to mind first. Recent research might change that. But first, a bit about my journey with woo...
i personally think woo-woo is offensive, but i've let it slide because i'm not sure if pther countries use woo-woo instead of woo, as you've pointed out the dictionary lists it as woo-woo, not woo.
I'm well aware there are those who would consider the term offensive depending on who is using it. But when CTers use 'debunkers' or skeptics i'm sure they are using it derogatorily many times. It is true most any word can be derogatory.
Hell, Mick's politeness is considered condescending to many. I even remember saying to him once when he used his overly polite thing on me "don't try using your tactics on me!"
Basically you can't win 100% of the time with 100% the people. I think that's why using people-on-the-fence as the target audience is key. They aren't overly sensitive, and yet they are empathetic enough to see blatant mocking of woo or CT believers.
The 'intellectual' extremes on MB or the extremes amongst CTers or woo pushers, will never be 100% satisfied. (and since they also are the groups least likely to change their minds... is there much point in caring about their feelings on the site rules?)
Mendel just provided us with a perfect example on another thread. Knowing that I don't like being called that, he just said my arguments make me "look like" one. In his defense, I would say that this thread is clearly part of the context of his utterance, so he's being intentionally ironic. No offense taken, in this case.
Mendel
Senior Member.
It's a reference to this thread, yes.
It's meant to convey that when an animal comes up to me that walks like a duck and quacks like duck and looks like a duck and says "don't call me duck", I'm still going to refer to it as duck.
You look like a truther, whether you think of yourself as one or not.
- Status
Similar threads
