govsks' chemtrail questiions
- Thread starter govsks
- Start date
MikeC
Closed Account
I disagree. These people come to a debunking site and are all aggressive to a greater or lesser degree - IMO they come here to tell us we are wrong, and to hell with whate3ver we may say in return - they are "drive by trolls" out to make a name, to be able to skite to their mates on censored sites that "they couldn't' debunk me (or this or that) at metabunk..." etc.
Govsk didn't come here to debate or learn anything - she came here to tell us we are wrong.
I think we owe them nothing beyond ordinary courtesy according to the rules of this site - if they find that every man and his dog jumps on them with the available evidence debunking their position then that is no more than exactly what this site is about.
Govsk didn't come here to debate or learn anything - she came here to tell us we are wrong.
I think we owe them nothing beyond ordinary courtesy according to the rules of this site - if they find that every man and his dog jumps on them with the available evidence debunking their position then that is no more than exactly what this site is about.
The site is about effective debunking though polite engagement. If it's not being effective, then why do it? It just clutters things up. There are other places in the internet for ephemeral arguments.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
One big problem with debunking things which are utterly ridiculous like chemtrails is that their position is soo absurd that it's hard to avoid directly pointing that out. I think that's why we seem like "government agents" to them, because we won't even begin to entertain what they say. We seem completely unwilling to listen to them because, well, we are! We know how dismally baseless the claims are, upon which the whole thing is built. I mean, a lot of them see Dane Wigington as a sort of science guru who has everything backed up with tests proving him right! How do you even begin to tell them that their idol has feet of clay? It's like you just can't get there from here.
MikeC
Closed Account
Who says it is not being effective?
There are many people who have noted that it IS effective for them - however it is never going to "be effective" for everyone, and there is no need to bend over backwards top treating everyone with kid gloves when in many cases the purpose of the posting is to ridicule and attack debunking with no intention of engaging in debate.
Govsk was not dealt with impolitely at all, and I fail to see why there is a problem here.
Metabunk as a whole is effective sometimes - enough to make it worthwhile. I just don't think this was one of those times because:
- She left
- The perception of the outside reader might be that we were ganging up on her.
- The perception of the outside reader might be that we were mocking her by picking on her use of the term "actual video" and poking fun at it.
http://contrailscience.com/politeness-policy/
A new friend of a close relative. Like if your wife invites someone from work home for dinner. Do you end up five minutes into the conversation saying "how convenient for you", or "actual video, lol"?As a general rule of thumb, imagine you are talking to a new friend of a close relative, and be as polite as you would in that situation.
J
Joe
Guest
No I think its the fact that they are outnumbered . Its like me spouting my beliefs or politics . So lets all Dogpile . Maybe only let a few engage that are a little less brash or cocky . There are a few here that are better and more convincing than others . No offense Mike but you are not one . IMO of course .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
One's home might not be the correct analogy . . . me thinks a better analogy would be inviting potential customers to your new business . . . and trying to get them to stay long enough to browse the merchandise to see how excellent their value is . . .That pretty much depends on whether they come into my home spouting gish gallops about all the things they know I believe in that I am wrong about - TBH if they did that then after 5 minutes they might not be in my home any more......having been politely asked to leave
One's home might not be the correct analogy . . . me thinks a better analogy would be inviting potential customers to your new business . . . and trying to get them to stay long enough to browse the merchandise to see how excellent their value is . . .
Although that sounds a bit too commercial, like shilling
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No, Shilling implies deceptive, high pressure or misleading tactics . . . I am recommending a period of adjustment and acclimation before a gaggle of salespersons descends on the potential customer . . .Although that sounds a bit too commercial, like shilling
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
I'm leaning towards a middle ground here.
Perhaps we were too... uhm, enthusiastic? And I'll apologize for whatever part I've played in that.
I don't believe she was an innocent lamb asking an honest question when she was suddenly pounced upon and scared away by the evil Metabunk wolves. It was a drive by gish gallop shotgun blast into the middle of a thread. govsks (GOVernment SucKS... I mean really?)
Perhaps we were too... uhm, enthusiastic? And I'll apologize for whatever part I've played in that.
I don't believe she was an innocent lamb asking an honest question when she was suddenly pounced upon and scared away by the evil Metabunk wolves. It was a drive by gish gallop shotgun blast into the middle of a thread. govsks (GOVernment SucKS... I mean really?)
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
In reading the OP again, it really does come across as sort of a 'shotgun-taunt'. Then saying she won't post any evidence because we will just debate it. Gee, well, there are plenty of places to post that sort of thing if all you want is agreement. Why post it here? What was the point?That pretty much depends on whether they come into my home spouting gish gallops about all the things they know I believe in that I am wrong about - TBH if they did that then after 5 minutes they might not be in my home any more......having been politely asked to leave
Self gratification for the OP.
JFDee
Senior Member.
It has been pondered about before - maybe it's worth recapitulating once in a while:
If we respond to chemtrail claims in this public forum, we don't do it just for the occasion. We are doing it for Google as well.
Everybody can see and judge the exchange.
How does such a tit for tat come across? Will it appeal to people just introduced to the conspiracy?
Remember the asymmetric politeness policy? Debunkers are requested to be polite (I would even suggest to add compassion sometimes) even if the "guest" is much less so.
Was Ghandi effective? By not answering aggression with aggression he exposed the attitude of the opponents to the world and ultimately to themselves.
With individuals, those who come only for provocation will leave after failing - those who come excited will likely calm down.
If we respond to chemtrail claims in this public forum, we don't do it just for the occasion. We are doing it for Google as well.
Everybody can see and judge the exchange.
How does such a tit for tat come across? Will it appeal to people just introduced to the conspiracy?
Remember the asymmetric politeness policy? Debunkers are requested to be polite (I would even suggest to add compassion sometimes) even if the "guest" is much less so.
Was Ghandi effective? By not answering aggression with aggression he exposed the attitude of the opponents to the world and ultimately to themselves.
With individuals, those who come only for provocation will leave after failing - those who come excited will likely calm down.
Similar threads
