taiji2 writes:
My chronology to the EVC forum:
I had googled for places to discuss Taoism on the net. Calling yourself Taoist is quite lonely. There are no churches. The one brick and mortar place I found turned out to be a place where they teach Tai Chi and also offer a thing called chanting .... which involves white people dressing up in chinese robes and little beanie hats and doing incantations in a foreign language. Not very fulfilling, hence I sought discussion on the web.
I fell across an interfaith forum. Not much in the way of Taoism, but I did try to discuss my cosmological views there with little reward. I then sought a better place to discuss cosmology and this led me to EVC. Entering the forum, the Intelligent Design thread caught my attention and that is where I went.
I read through the thread we have been on and entered with the reservations I have already discussed at length. What I said about what you people here are doing is not my imagination. You have some weird game going here where you presume anyone coming into the discussion is a phony out to make trouble..... a troll in your words. I expressed my observation of this game of yours early on and have been taking a raft of shit for it ever since.
You mentioned dog-piling in your post. That is a pale description of what goes on here. I found myself in single debate with a raft of hostile responders who issue insults, veiled or open, at almost every turn. I made conscious effort to not respond with name calling, and frankly until you pushed my veteran buttons I do not recall having done so. I found that any topic relevant bit of logic I presented was ignored unless it could be twisted and thrown back with derisive comments.
You say my language was sharp. Did I make derisive and insulting remarks? Outright insults?
You people here bait your guests with the deliberate intention of finding the right trigger for their emotional response. That is not debate. That is mind-fuck.
So,,,,,, long story short, I entered the forum honestly and was not treated honestly. I never told a lie or had a hidden agenda. What you saw was what I had. You treated me, and seem to treat all who enter here, with the presumption that they are liars. Maybe people are vetted into your "circle" at some point after passing some sort of test. Who knows, who the fuck cares. If you think yourself intellectually sophisticated, be fucking man enough to admit the game you play.
Anyhow, you sophisticates keep on going with your game. I do pity the poor fools who fall into here. And yes, despite all your posturing, what you do is intellectually dishonest.
I think taiji2's comments are worth further discussion, and the ID thread worth preserving. Perhaps we can pursue it here, and perhaps he will participate: I think the subject is an important one.
In the quote above, I've elided his military experience and his direct comments to me from his most recent post. I itch to respond to much of that, but then there will be no end. I will simply thank him for his service and agree that I am not a typical anything.
What struck me most from the above quote was this:
taiji2 writes:
You people here bait your guests with the deliberate intention of finding the right trigger for their emotional response. That is not debate. That is mind-fuck.
Taiji2 was not, of course, treated like a guest; he is not a guest. He is a member like any other, and his posts are as open to the same skeptical probing and strong disagreement that every poster risks. He has the same responsibility to familiarize himself with the forum guidelines and to respect the various subforum rules, i.e., the more stringent rules that apply to science forum threads.
This he didn't do, even after it was explained to him. Small wonder, then, that he was perceived as a troll.
I'm not concerned about the accusation of EvC as a community of mind-fucking vultures circling until the proper buttons are identified for pushing. That kind of button-pushing occurs universally once tempers engage; once his engaged, he pushed many himself.
For taiji2's benefit, dog-piling occurs when someone presents unevidenced assertions that have been examined many times. We are a science-minded community, so the chorus of objections is often large and loud. It is not a conspiracy; each member acts alone.
I don't think taiji2 was trolling the forum. His narrative and sense of injury ring true to me. He was clearly unfamiliar with the nature and constraints of scientific evidence. Is this just an unfortunate occurrence, one that went more badly wrong than most, or do we need to change something about the way we encounter new members?
The irony is that taiji2 was at least at first, treated more gently than most. Perhaps if he had lurked (that means reading without joining and engaging, taiji2) for a bit, much of the problem could have been avoided.
But I don't think an enforced period of observation-only for new members would work. I wouldn't join a forum that made me keep silent for any appreciable length of time before I could participate.
These questions seem worthy of reflection and discussion. I disagree with pretty much everything taiji2 had to say about the actual thread topic, but he is clearly intelligent and does have a perspective I'd have liked to hear more about.
{This topic is a spin-off of the "Is there a legitimate argument for design?' topic, Message 609 and upthread - Adminnemooseus)
Edited by Omnivorous, : general clean-up
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note in red.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
it's not on the menu--lesson.
™ Version 4.2