Discussion > Trolls and thread spoiling here
Radical Rodent
You were here at quantpaleo. They were very tolerant of your delusions.
Entropic man
"I've been insulted by a bunch of people who are largely anonymous,[..]"
Jan 3, 2016 at 5:03 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics.
Well I haven't insulted you yet. If you care to start commenting under your real name then I might be able to oblige you.
michael hart
Radical Rodent
You were also rude, unimpressive and tolerated at liberal democracy.org
You do get about!
Entropic man
..another global-warming site/article that started with a picture of clouds of water particles (aka "clouds"), as if there was something to be frightened about.
michael hart
EM: my, you have been wasting a lot of your time, pursuing my facile ramblings! Ah, yes, the Paleoclimate thread… I did have an enjoyable time with Latimer Alder on that thread, and stand by everything that I said – as yet, there has been absolutely no demonstrable evidence that the oceans have had any noticeable “acidification”. It was also interesting to note that the inestimable Richard Tol managed to contradict himself within a few sentences in his original post, then what contortions he and his cohorts were prepare to put themselves through, to cover such a major gaff.
As for the other site, one does have a problem being civil with someone who does insist on using skepticalscience as a reference; however, from what little I have seen, I am not sure what you mean.
Radical Rodent
Jan 2, 2016 at 11:15 AM ...and Then There's Physics
Ahhhh, there are some who actually think that it's possible to spoil threads more than they currently are. How cute.
...and Then There's Physics, if a student spoke to a fellow student using that patronising tone in one of you tutorial groups... what would you do?
Reprimand them?
Laugh along with them?
Be embarrassed for them?
I ask because you are the tutor, and so example, for your students.
Me? No-one looks up to me.
But I still try to be polite in the hope that they might.
M Courtney
Martin, I see you have commented at ATTP just once and received a perfectly polite reply. Have other comments of yours been deleted? If not how do you know that ATTP "regularly deletes comments that do not toe the line". As I said to Ratty, to get comments deleted or blocked at ATTP requires some dedication and leaves a trail of warnings. Can you point me to some that have caught your eye?
Ratty, I think it is clear that you haven't experienced the abuse and exclusion you accuse warmist blogs of dishing out. This supports my theory that the victimization you and other "skeptics" feel really is just another illusion that echos around your little bubble and which you all believe without actually experiencing it yourselves.
Mike Jackson, I thought the Bishop was quite strict about preventing skydragon slayers (if that is the right term) from discussing back radiation in the main blog pages. Wasn't 'RKS' excluded for a long time for pushing such arguments or did he go voluntarily after being hounded out by the rest?
This blog differs from ATTP in that ATTP usually replies to commenters. Even my few uninformed interjections receive a polite reply. I have rarely seen the Bishop make an appearance on the discussions and even on the main page he usually just struts his stuff and moves on, not entering into discussion. Also people visiting ATTP don't expect to be presented with scientific nonsense, so it becomes necessary for the moderators to challenge and if necessary to remove such content. Here, in contrast, scientific nonsense is de-rigueur and the Bishop probably wouldn't know which bits to chop and which to leave.
Raff
It is hard to imagine a meaningful response to a meaningless statement
I didn't ask a question EM I pointed out that Dana, in my words, had made a "blunder" and yes, could have made a case for the rise in temperature between 1910 and 1940. He didn't and came up with a figure of 0.29C being the rise expected by the theory, when the actual rise had been 0.45C. Dana went on to say that 0.29C was near enough to 0.45C for it to be attributable to human emissions. Clearly nonsense. At the time I told you I expected you to look into it and come back with what the blunder was.
I believe BTW that Dana would do any of the above to prove humans caused warming.
geronimo
Well, I suppose you must be right, Ruff. I mean, what do I know about my own ramblings, eh? Truth be told, I have no interesting in re-visiting past sites, and cannot remember the names of most of them, anyway (perhaps you have spent some time looking for me? How sweet, if you have!). And no, I do not feel “victimised”, so your theory does not really hold much water (well, with me, at least; I can’t speak for anyone else).
The rest of your post just goes to show that you really do not have much in the way of understanding of this site. You obviously think that you could do better, so, please, show us how.
Radical Rodent
Radical Rodent, do remember that Rarf considers comments about the Hockey Stick to be time barred from discussion.
Climate science appears to invent its own rules for evidence of climate science, but hypocrisy and double standards are always allowed to be used by climate scientists (and their trainees) when it suits climate scientists, and no one else. This is part of the Oath of Allegiance to the Holy Hockey Stick.
If Rarf breaks the Oath of Allegiance to the Holy Hockey Stick of Mann, he will be branded a Denier, and excluded from the true faith of financial enrichment.
golf charlie
aTTP, was it a typing error you posted to Richard Tol?
No doubt Rarf can find it by searching your site, or Wattsupwiththat
No doubt he had provoked you in some way, but it does seem to conflict with your expressions of honesty and moral integrity at 5:03 on this thread.
golf charlie
Do I have proof that no-one really reads my posts? On Jan 3, 2016 at 7:19 PM, I made the gross error of calling Richard Telford, the creator of the “Not pHraud but pHoolishness” post that Entropic man has linked to, Richard Tol, and nobody has pulled me up on it! Oh, the ignominy! Is it possible that others confuse the two, too?
Radical Rodent
Here is an interesting quote:
Changing was a long process. I initially got into SJW groups sort of through popularity- feminism was supposed to be THE thing for equality, and I wanted everyone to be treated well, so I joined a bunch of feminist forums, which branched into more garden variety SJW circles. Initially I had no idea there was a dark side to it.While the subject matter might be different, can anyone see similarities with some who frequent this site?I had some weird views before; I think in a lot of ways I was a stereotypical white knight. I was depressed at the time, and being applauded for being progressive definitely was an ego boost. Fighting people I perceived as bigoted made me feel better about myself.
My SJW tendencies were based mostly out of self loathing- I felt weird, like an outcast, had never had a girlfriend, hated myself, and thought that I was fixing myself by jumping deep into feminism. I armed myself with a lot of bad statistics (like the 1 in 4 rape stat) and felt smart because of it.
After a while it becomes second nature; you just sort of convince yourself that you’re on the right side and see your opponent as a stereotype out of reflex. That can happen here too, but SJW’s actively encourage it. You become utterly convinced that you’re part of an elite, enlightened group fighting an aging generation of uneducated racists and sexists.
But eventually I started to realize that I had incomplete information. I lost a lot of arguments to people I’d stereotyped as being dumb. The people I called allies just jumped to ad hominem attacks and semantic arguments, and that made them secure in their beliefs. That’s how they operate; when they lose, their mental gymnastics aren’t supposed to convince you. It’s to convince themselves, to justify not changing their sources or beliefs. And it’s very effective at that. It worked for me for a while.
But eventually it wasn’t enough for me. I started trying to revise feminist arguments with new, accurate sources. I’d correct people on my own side on forums and whatnot. They hated that, and jumped right to calling me a rape apologist and a woman hater. I was blown away, it contradicted my notion that we were the logical side.
I still find it funny that, though most of the class started out conservative and was roped into SJW mentalities, I started out SJW and by the end of the class it had practically ruined feminism for me. Because I’d been a part of it before. I knew when the professor was wrong. I knew how hollow the “peace and acceptance” spiel they preached was. I knew the counter points to their sources.
It felt like a bad joke to me at the time; I knew how my classmates felt, I’d felt the same way months earlier. But I was powerless to actually explain that to anyone, they just demonise and talk in circles until the argument goes away. As I had done months earlier.
At first I felt bad, ashamed, for going against everything. I wanted to be convinced again, I wanted to be a good SJW again. And all of a sudden I realized it wasn’t going to get better. I was in a university class about feminism, overrun with SJW’s, and they had worse arguments than I’d seen online.
There was no smarter next level to feminism that I was just too stupid to see. That was it. I was at the top and our arguments still sucked. [My bolding]
Hat-tip to Orphans of Liberty.
Radical Rodent
Martin, I see you have commented at ATTP just once and received a perfectly polite reply. Have other comments of yours been deleted? If not how do you know that ATTP "regularly deletes comments that do not toe the line". As I said to Ratty, to get comments deleted or blocked at ATTP requires some dedication and leaves a trail of warnings. Can you point me to some that have caught your eye?
Raff
Oh I was about to say BEFORE I saw Ken's post at the top of the page, that I used the word troll in the loosest sense of the word. And "thread spoiler" might be a better description of the main people I was talking about.
The whole point is not to pick on a particular person nor name call but just to come up with "nice" threads instead of disrupted one.
People who disagree, people who are wrong ..I've got no problem with that .. but I just wondered if people are spoiling threads deliberately and if anyone had any thoughts
==========================
I note there was a mention about ATTP before
This BH thread on Oct 5, 2015
- And in another discussion here 10 days ago I mentioned Steve McIntyre devoted a thread to ATTP.. after he called Ken out and Ken wenbt back to his own blog and didn't correct the page but added a note "What I say here isn’t strictly correct."
So Ken is never "wrong"............ just sometimes not "strictly correct" .. Is that how things turn out ? (just postulating)
stewgreen
Stew,
People who disagree, people who are wrong ..I've got no problem with that .. but I just wondered if people are spoiling threads deliberately and if anyone had any thoughts
Ever considered the possibility that calling everyone who disagrees with the party line here a "troll" doesn't really help? Maybe what you mean is there are some people who make comments that disrupt the threads by saying things that you don't like?
I also have no idea why a post written by Steve McIntyre 6 days after I updated my post is in any way relevant.
...and Then There's Physics
Actually "troll-types" was the word I used in my first post.
- Smooth threads come from people being civilised.. ie they resist the temptation to get snarky, angry etc.
..Showing empathy and treating other people better than they treat you instead of looking for vegeance.
==============================
MISREPRESENTATION is one of the major tricks that disrupt a thread
eg "So, just to be clear, " often means 'I'm going now going to throw a bunch of misrepresentations, of what you said instead of actually said.'
The problem is the replier is immediately on the back-foot and has to answer a series of strawmen points to get back to zero, before he can move the discussion forward.
If something is not clear, I would check by making a question, not by making a snarky statement.
eg. 'Hang on .. I have some questions.Answer
Q1 Are you calling me a troll ?
Q2 Are you trying to insult me ?
Q3 Are you saying "the complaint is that I'm not always as nice as you might you like"
Q4. Are you saying that the MAIN complaint against me is that I moderate my site more heavily than you would do ?
A1 not really, maybe a deliberate 'disrupter' maybe .
A2 No, cos insulting behaviour just reflects back on the person doing it
A3 No, I could elaborate.
A4 briefly No, you can moderate your blog how how you like, but the topic may have come up cos people sensed hypocrisy.
.....but people could elaborate more
etc.etc.
stewgreen
Stew,
- Smooth threads come from people being civilised.. ie they resist the temptation to get snarky, angry etc.
Yes, I agree with this. I'm just not sure why you would seem to think that this is a reasonable descriptor for what normally happens here.
..Showing empathy and treating other people better than they treat you instead of looking for vegeance.
Exactly, hence my suggestion. Why is it that you seem to think that the problem is those that you've described as trolls?
...and Then There's Physics
Radical Rodent
can anyone see similarities with some who frequent this site?
That almost precisely mirrors my journey/recovery from rabid environmentalist to climate sceptic. Having been there, it's very easy to recognise the cognitive dissonance that leads to attp and similar acting up on the pages of BH. I'm not without sympathy for their discomfort, but I feel no compunction to forgive their behaviour. I got a grip and they should too.
Trolling is different from differing/dissenting viewpoints. I recall that attp started out on BH pretending to be new to the debate and wanting to engage. It was a dishonest entry into the fray that, IMO, irrevocably set the tone for his interactions. He's as disingenuous today as then, and he's left himself no wriggle-room. He'll, consequently, never amount to more here than the troll he always was.
Simon Hopkinson
I'm told, by some of your own who chose to 'spoil' a thread, that such disruption is purely "free speech":
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2566129?currentPage=2#post2567012
So on yer bike with talk about 'trolls' spoiling threads.
Raff
You may contribute whatever you like, Raff, just do not expect anyone to listen to you. On this Discussion site, the Bish seems to leave us all to it, possibly moderating for language; on the blog site, though, he will pull anyone up, should they wander too far off-topic. What most people dislike is when the poster starts making blatant ad homs, without relating to the topic at all. Then there are those that rant off on a tangent, extrapolating the most bizarre concepts on next to no information, at all (now, who could I have in mind for that one...?).
Radical Rodent
As I have pointed out it seems self awareness is not your strong point Raff.
There is "discussion" and there is "prosecution before the court of absolutes".
And as far I as know I do not speak for anyone here, "as some of your own", and no one speaks for me. But that again is the tactic of the absolutist.
God bless.
Media Hoar
Ratty, yes but you do listen - you like pointless argument as much as I do.
Media, anyone who has actually read what I write, which I admit may not include you, would know that I stress over and over that I don't know. I get teased for saying I don't know. So how do you make an 'absolutist' out of me and what is an 'absolutist' anyway?
Raff
So how do you make an 'absolutist' out of meYou claim you don't know and proceed to pontificate anyway, all the while nit-picking at any sceptical comment.
In my book that defines you as a 'thread-disrupted', aka 'troll'.
'Absolutist' was Media Hoar's description but it seems to fit that sort of behaviour well enough.
Mike Jackson
So, just to be clear, on a thread about Trolls, of which I'm one, and in which I've been insulted by a bunch of people who are largely anonymous, the complaint is that I'm not always as nice as you might you like, and that I moderate my site more heavily than you would do. You'll excuse me if I don't take these complaints particularly seriously, especially - as Raff points out - you seem to be incapable of finding any real examples of abusive responses to your own comments on my site. I'm not complaining, mind you; I don't expect much else, but I do find the complaints a little odd since it seems that you want others to change how they behave before you'd consider doing the same yourselves.