Discussion of Metabunk's Politeness Policy

[deirdre]

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.

i'm asking for an example prior to this thread, prior to when you made the claim here.

(and you do look like a Truther. I'm sincerely confused why you would find the term offensive anyway when i've seen you often defend them and you call them that ex: How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here?

If i'm debunking bunk about Trump and someone calls me a MAGA republican, i'm not 'offended' even though i know it is meant that way. just say "i'm not a ____". Make America Great Again is a positive attribute anyway, just like the word Truther is a positive.

If you were a hoaxer (Sandy hook Hoax believer) and found that offensive you'd have a much better case, as 'hoaxer' is at least a negative word.

 

[Landru]

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.

What is more important on Metabunk is the discussion, not giving people labels. Dealing with Thomas B's contentions is fundamental to MBs purpose. Who cares if Thomas B is a duck or some other aquatic fowl.

 

[Mendel]

Dealing with Thomas B's contentions is fundamental to MBs purpose.

One of his contentions is that he's not a truther.

 

[Ann K]

If you were a hoaxer (Sandy hook Hoax believer) and found that offensive you'd have a much better case, as 'hoaxer' is at least a negative word.

No, a "hoaxer" is the one that perpetrates a hoax. The one that believes it is perhaps a conspiracist, or perhaps just duped.

 

[deirdre]

No, a "hoaxer" is the one that perpetrates a hoax. The one that believes it is perhaps a conspiracist, or perhaps just duped.

That's the word other online forums assigned to them (and i've never seen any of them complain about the label or complain when i referred to them that way in private conversations. So i assume they are called hoaxers which is short for Sandy Hook Hoax believer, just like Truther is short for 911 Truth Movement member)

Article:

Some Sandy Hook parents have fought back, battling online platforms to take down much of the hoaxers' content and suing Jones for defamation
...
It certainly pales as a whopping falsehood to any of these specious details that these "hoaxers" ... could possibly dig up showing anomalies in the reporting or initial errors in what was broadcast or strange reactions by parents.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/09/1084912392/sandy-hook-hoax-elizabeth-williamson

 

[Landru]

One of his contentions is that he's not a truther.

My contention is, as far as Metabunk is concerned, it doesn't matter.

 

[DavidB66]

In general I think Metabunk's politeness policy is about right, and I say that as someone who has occasionally fallen foul of it. The policy allows robust debate and disagreement but not insults or imputations of dishonesty. There are of course borderline cases. Personally I think the term 'truther' should be avoided, despite its convenience. It is likely to be perceived as an insult, even if that is not the user's intention.

I am even more uncomfortable with the term 'denier'. A search of the site shows that it has been widely used, and does not seem to be objected to (though I suppose if posts using the term are simply deleted they would not show up in a search!) Some of the uses are neutral and inoffensive, but often ( as in 'climate change denier') it is deliberately pejorative. So far as I know, nobody denies the existence of climate change, but they do deny or question the extent to which it is caused by human activity. The term 'climate change denier' (or even just 'climate denier') is a convenient but lazy abbreviation. Worse, whether intentionally or not, it has a 'dog whistle' association with 'Holocaust denier', which prior to the climate change debate was its major usage.

 

[Mendel]

Some of the uses are neutral and inoffensive, but often ( as in 'climate change denier') it is deliberately pejorative. So far as I know, nobody denies the existence of climate change, but they do deny or question the extent to which it is caused by human activity. The term 'climate change denier' (or even just 'climate denier') is a convenient but lazy abbreviation.

It's common usage, though.

Article:

Climate change denial (also global warming denial or climate denial) is the pseudoscientific dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.

Climate change denial includes doubts to the extent of how much climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action. Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism, pseudoscience, or propaganda.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

It has passed Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/denier

It's the right word for the job. (That dictionary also has an entry for "climate denier", btw.)

 

[JMartJr]

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?

Don't know, can't read minds, my assumption would be, like many other things, different people think different things. For at least some, I'd guess, it is the handiest short-hand descriptive -- saves typing out "people who believe in the claims being made by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" over and over again. Similarly to how somebody might use "debunkers" as a handy shorthand for those who don't, and who invest time in sharing evidence illustrating where the Architects, and the Engineers, are wrong.

Which leads me to the other side of the whole "politeness" question -- what responsibilities (or "best practices") should apply to the reader? It is probably best, in general, to try and assume goodwill on the part of the author of posts. Maybe best practice is to avoid taking offense if there is some doubt as to whether offense was intended, possibly reach out through a private message to clear the air? Just thinking out loud (or typing whatever the typing equivalent of "out loud" is) to clarify this in my own mind, sharing for whatever it is worth.

A site where people made an effort to avoid being offensive, to be polite, and also made an effort to assume goodwill on the part of the other person, with moderators stepping in when the politeness policy rules seem to have been transgressed -- and recognizing that NONE of them (us) will get it right every time -- that would be a pretty good site for discussion (rather than bickering and shouting) about contentious topics, yeah?

 

[Thomas B]

and you do look like a Truther. I'm sincerely confused why you would find the term offensive anyway when i've seen you often defend them and you call them that ex: How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here?

The reason I brought it up here is, in part, as a reflection on my own use of it. It may not have been wise to use it in that post, even though I declare my sympathy for them: "I am not a truther, but I have some sympathy for them." The problem is that the very people that I am, as you put it, "defending", might take offence at the label. Like if I said, "I am not an idiot, but I have some sympathy for them," and then when on to list a series of "idiotic beliefs". The people who hold those beliefs would not, I think, be grateful for my sympathies.

I don't know. You may be right that no truther takes offense at the label, nor takes it as implied that their position is kind of dumb. I think it is often used here as way of explaining someone's resistance to the presumptively reasonable debunker's arguments. I think it is generally impolite to imply that someone's arguments stem from something other than one's sincere reasons for believing, like when we suggest people only think something because of their ideological commitments or even their personal loyalties. And I think "truther" carries that implication.

For what it's worth, I think the word "truther" is a somewhat belittling way of talking about people who are more than a little skeptical about the official story of 9/11. To be a truther, properly speaking, you have to believe, not just that we were lied to about some aspects of the attacks, but that 9/11 was in some way an "inside job". You have to believe, not just that the building collapses were inadequately investigated and not quite explained, but that they were deliberately demolished. If, like me, you believe only that there are some puzzles left to solve, it is insulting to be called a truther because it implies you hold a bunch of unfounded beliefs.

And maybe, like I say, it implies that in any case. "Truthers" are people who claim to know "the truth" but don't know what they're talking about. Some of you here are saying it doesn't mean that. I'm not sure.

One final point about the meaning of "truther". I think it implies, not just that you hold certainly beliefs, but that it is very important to get the truth of 9/11 out there: a truther is an activist, a zealot. That in itself can be an insult.

 

[deirdre]

that would be a pretty good site for discussion (rather than bickering and shouting) about contentious topics, yeah?

the more you open up a site to opinion based chat, the more impoliteness (offense, anger etc) you are inviting also. More threads that focus (with off topic opinions moved or deleted) on specific claims of evidence would help alot.

 

[deirdre]

You may be right that no truther takes offense at the label,

i dont recall saying anything like that.

nor takes it as implied that their position is kind of dumb.

or this.

gaslighting the readers about me is impolite too, fyi.

"Truthers" are people who claim to know "the truth" but don't know what they're talking about it. Some of you here are saying it doesn't mean that.

I don't know what youre talking about now. and you still havent provided me an example of someone calling you a Truther (prior to your claim) so that i can look at the context .


Perfectly fine words can be impolite depending on how they are strung together and the context. Much of the impoliteness on MB is "indirect" (passive-aggressive) using perfectly fine words. That's why so much flies under the moderation radar. But of course all judgements would be based on the perceived target audience. If a site, for example, is ONLY interested in providing information for other skeptics (with certain attributes that align with their own attributes)..then it doesnt matter how much impoliteness toward CTers, other skeptics and woo believers (or each other) is allowed.

 

[Thomas B]

gaslighting the readers about me is impolite too, fyi.

I don't know what youre talking about now.

I apologize. I think I'll leave it there. It's not my intention to make you uncomfortable (which I think is the implication of "gaslighting".)

and you still havent provided me an example of someone calling you a Truther (prior to your claim) so that i can look at the context .

I'm hesistant about this because it risks relitigating some past grievance. Like I say, I'm happy to leave it there. I think I understand your position. I'm sorry mine isn't clear, but it's not because I'm trying to be obscure.

 

[Ann K]

Some of the uses are neutral and inoffensive, but often ( as in 'climate change denier') it is deliberately pejorative.

I don't think it is. Some of the terms being bandied about here ("denier", "hoaxer", "truther") are simply convenient shorthand terms that serve to avoid typing long phrases. Granted, there are always going to be a few people who are offended by ANY label, although they always seem to be those who do fall into those categories but just don't want the label.

I'm all in favor of shorthand terms for conversation. We just need to make sure they're not shorthand for thought.

 

[Thomas B]

Personally I think the term 'truther' should be avoided, despite its convenience.

I'm all in favor of shorthand terms for conversation.

I think I'm with David on this. I have used "truther" before as a convenience, and intending it to be purely descriptive, but I think it puts the people I'm trying to refer to off. I say this because I don't like it when people say, "You sound like a truther." (And now I hope I haven't insulted self-identifying truthers!)

Similarly to how somebody might use "debunkers" as a handy shorthand

Yes, I'm going to reconsider that too. I apologize if anyone took offense at this.

 

[deirdre]

It's not my intention to make you uncomfortable (which I think is the implication of "gaslighting".)

uncomfortable? no, it makes me mad.
gaslighting means youre lying.

I'm hesistant about this because it risks relitigating some past grievance

you can send it to me in private. i'm legit curious.

If i was only sporadically paying attention to what was happening on MB, then i likely would have removed Mendels latest comment (on the other thread) as impolite and unnecessary. But since i do pay attention to surrounding conversations I feel he was just giving you an example of why someone might think you are a Truther (if that is in fact the case). I dont mind investigating for you.

 

[deirdre]

(And now I hope I haven't insulted self-identifying truthers!)

you probably have

 

[Thomas B]

gaslighting means youre lying.

That is not all it means. But maybe that is all you meant by it?

 

[tobigtofool]

Evidence contradicts you. See the first post in this thread.

That evidence is specious.

You can't shame a flat earther.

All you're doing is making that flat earther and everyone they know, not listen to anyone affiliated with metabunk.

You can shame and shame a flat earther all you want, but it's evidence that eventually convinces them not the passionate round earther.

 

[DavidB66]

It's common usage, though.

It certainly is! That doesn't make it good usage. As I recall, many of the people who were labelled as climate change 'deniers' preferred to be described as 'skeptics' (or 'sceptics' in the UK), which is more polite, arguably more accurate, and only one letter longer than 'denier'. For comparison, I guess that most of us here would happily describe ourselves as skeptics about frequent visits to the earth by intelligent aliens, but would be quite annoyed to be described simply as 'alien intelligence deniers'.

 

[tobigtofool]

The only thing that really works in life is compassion and understanding.

 

[deirdre]

That is not all it means.

i dont think your attempt to distract me from my evidence request would fall under the term 'gaslighting'. ??

 

[tobigtofool]

I feel like if shaming worked conspiracies wouldn't exist.

 

[JMartJr]

Yes, I'm going to reconsider that too. I apologize if anyone took offense at this.

FWIW, I didn't. Can only speak for me of course. (I'll admit that the mocking "deboonker" used on some other sites is a mild irritant, which seems to be its purpose. Not so much offensive as just slightly annoying.)

 

[deirdre]

I feel like if shaming worked conspiracies wouldn't exist.

lots and lots of stuff wouldn't exist. Liberals wouldn't exist, Republicans wouldnt exist, religious people wouldn't exist.

 

[Mick West]

I use "woo" as shorthand for "the supernatural". I don't think I've ever used "woo-woo", which sounds both silly and mocking.

Garry Nolan (famous ufologist, founder of the Sol Institute, promoter of Dave Grusch) also uses it in that context, saying "we all know the woo is just around the corner (from UFOs)"

 

[davo27]

I use "woo" as shorthand for "the supernatural". I don't think I've ever used "woo-woo", which sounds both silly and mocking.

Garry Nolan (famous ufologist, founder of the Sol Institute, promoter of Dave Grusch) also uses it in that context, saying "we all know the woo is just around the corner (from UFOs)"

This is troubling for lots of we UFO believers. Many of us would have been in lockstep with the general outlook of this site, prior to 'conversion'. We're aware that entertaining the idea of woo is at once ridiculous, but also seemingly unavoidable with this topic. Speaking only for myself, the way I reconcile it is *if* there's anything to it, it's simply a part of nature that science hasn't yet caught up to.

I don't think I've seen any discussion of the stigma around the word in UFO circles - perhaps it's like reclaiming the word 'gay'. Once I used the word as a pejorative (and still do with many topics), but with UFOs, it seems to be a slightly uncomfortable marker that there's weird stuff that we don't know how to explain yet.

 

[Mendel]

Speaking only for myself, the way I reconcile it is *if* there's anything to it, it's simply a part of nature that science hasn't yet caught up to.

"science hasn't yet caught up to" = no evidence
Pure and simple.
And that's all we're discussing here.
You can describe Metabunk (in part) as debating the question, "has science caught up to phenomenon X yet?"
The answer is usually "no".
The meta-question is whether that's our fault, or if the answer can only ever be "no" (as with e.g. Flat Earth).

 

[steviemac]

There are people who believe deeply in the Bible and its tenets. For you to to belittle the Bible you are, in effect, belittling those people.

There are also people who believe in the possibility of alien life and visitation here. From what I see in here it's totally fine to ridicule them. Seeing as there is no more proof for gods in the sky than aliens, why are you choosing to defend the god believers? Just wondering

 

[steviemac]

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

Totally agree. The hypocrisy in this can be rather nauseating

 

[Landru]

There are also people who believe in the possibility of alien life and visitation here. From what I see in here it's totally fine to ridicule them. Seeing as there is no more proof for gods in the sky than aliens, why are you choosing to defend the god believers? Just wondering

It is not "totally fine" to ridicule them. If you have examples of someone (anyone) being ridiculed please use the Report function.

 

[Dan Burt]

There are also people who believe in the possibility of alien life and visitation here. From what I see in here it's totally fine to ridicule them. Seeing as there is no more proof for gods in the sky than aliens, why are you choosing to defend the god believers? Just wondering

Is there a "bible" UFO believers refer to as proof?

 

[steviemac]

Is there a "bible" UFO believers refer to as proof?

No I think they base their beliefs on hundreds of often very credible accounts from well respected people, over 6 decades. As opposed to something that was written in an 2,000 yo book, a hundred odd years after Christ lived…and also when they believed the earth was flat.
But if that makes it more believable, than maybe ufo believes should create a holy ufo book. So they won't get mocked anymore

 

[steviemac]

It is not "totally fine" to ridicule them. If you have examples of someone (anyone) being ridiculed please use the Report function.

Lol…I'd be hitting that report button 4 times a day. I was actually reading a post here about elizondo today and the mockery directed at him was intense and well received here. Not saying I'm a fan of his at all, but we might as well mock the pope, for his beliefs in a man with a white beard in the sky. Same difference really.

 

[Landru]

Lol…I'd be hitting that report button 4 times a day. I was actually reading a post here about elizondo today and the mockery directed at him was intense and well received here. Not saying I'm a fan of his at all, but we might as well mock the pope, for his beliefs in a man with a white beard in the sky. Same difference really.

Please provide a link to the example you state here.

 

[Ann K]

No I think they base their beliefs on hundreds of often very credible accounts from well respected people, over 6 decades.

People can be well-respected, and they can often clearly describe what they think they saw. Unfortunately that alone doesn't make reports of aliens, UFOs, ghosts, or bigfoot credible. If someone tells me they saw a bear wandering through Akron, I'd be inclined to believe them because that has been known to happen here before. If someone told me they saw a tiger wandering through Akron, I'd strongly question it, because we do know that tigers exist but they've not been known to live here. If someone tells me they saw Bigfoot on the streets (any place at all), or a ghost, or an extraterrestrial, I would definitely want to first see evidence that there WAS such a creature before believing it. That is immaterial of the respectability (or sobriety) of the individual who tells me. People can be mistaken.

 

[Scaramanga]

Whilst I agree with the politeness policy.....I also tend to agree with Daniel Dennett...

 

[JMartJr]

I also tend to agree with Daniel Dennett...

I would disagree strongly. There are very impolite and very polite ways to suggest that, and everything in between. Perhaps what he meant was there is no way to suggest this, such that the recipient might not get mad... but that's a different thing.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Lol…I'd be hitting that report button 4 times a day. I was actually reading a post here about elizondo today and the mockery directed at him was intense and well received here. Not saying I'm a fan of his at all, but we might as well mock the pope, for his beliefs in a man with a white beard in the sky. Same difference really.

I haven't brought this up yet, but thought about it. In the case of Elizondo or Grusch, or George Knapp or Linda Multon Howe and others, is there a slightly different bar. That is, these are public figures making public pronouncements and often have some sort of monetary interest in those pronouncements.

If Elizondo is going to claim to be the head of AATIP, a large government UFO program and it turns out there was likely no such program, he is open to being taken to task for that. He's a public figure. Pointing out when he appears to be wrong is going to happen. If he continues to make unsubstantiated claims, at some point I don't see it as impolite to call him on that, or at least point it out. After a string of similar incidents, is it impolite to no longer take him seriously?

Travis Taylor is similar. He has been making strange, fringe and unsubstantiated claims on Ancient Aliens for years. Then he made several erroneous claims while on the UAP Task Force. More recently he described obvious bugs as UFOs and bad LIDAR scans as "wormholes". At some point, as a public figure he is open to questioning if not outright ridicule.

I think public figures, especially if there is a monetary component to their claims, are open to intense scrutiny.

 

[Ann K]

I would disagree strongly. There are very impolite and very polite ways to suggest that, and everything in between. Perhaps what he meant was there is no way to suggest this, such that the recipient might not get mad... but that's a different thing.

I agree with Dennett. I think that "politeness is in the eye of the beholder" (OK, perhaps the "ear", but you know what I mean.) What you seem to be saying is like "...but I didn't MEAN to hurt you/your feelings!" The fact remains that in such a circumstance, protestations that you used polite language might still mean you've lost a friend. There's what is referred to as "sunk costs", and if the person has already devoted a large part of his time and effort in a pursuit that you think of as folly, he is going to cling to it even more stubbornly. That's not to say it's impossible to change someone's mind, but it might prove to be difficult indeed, and painful for that person.