How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here?

[Paz]

Well, I don't know if I can respond to anything without my posts being deleted as "off-topic"…

Join the club.. My post in a "current events" thread included peer reviewed studies, but was deleted and was told "perhaps this is not the place for you". Even my "username has been changed" because it was "generally considered offensive." lol

Ive subscribed to that thread so I can come back later when what I posted is common knowledge just to say I told you so and rub it in.

 

[econ41]

Well, I don't know if I can respond to anything without my posts being deleted as "off-topic"…

Simple. Just stop posting "Off Topic|" comments ignoring the repeated hints from the moderator. Why don't you post reasoned comments which are "On Topic" remembering that the topic is:
"How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here?"
Whilst you persist in posting specific WTC collapse examples AND without the slightest attempt to present EITHER a reasoned legitimate argument about the 9/11 WTC specific topic OR any attempt to use it to illustrate how a truther could gain respect.

And you do it again with yet another off-topic derail:

But how would you know what the collapse would look like if column 79 failed?

Which is: (1) Deliberate failure to offer a reasoned suggestion. AND (2) Engaging in a debating trick of derailing. When the comment gave you an opportunity to make a reasoned comment which COULD start you on a process of gaining some respect.

 

[Mendel]

But how would you know what the collapse would look like if column 79 failed?

First of all, I know what it looked like because I saw footage of the collapse.

Secondly, if you were research-minded, the answer to "how I would know" should be obvious. I don't believe you're clueless about what a research minded person like myself could do (and did) to find out, so why don't you tell me? (Hint: it doesn't involve youtube.)

 

[Gamolon]

Secondly, if you were research-minded, the answer to "how I would know" should be obvious.

This is the issue and why "no amount of research" will automatically get someone (truther or otherwise) respect. At least the way I see it.

Just one simple example of many.

Someone makes the claim that WTC7 fell symmetrically. They then post a video or animated GIF that leaves out the penthouse collapsing into the building about 7 seconds prior to the roofline moving down. And when confronted about it, it gets ignored.

The above scenario has happened on many forums, not just here.

 

[Landru]

Join the club.. My post in a "current events" thread included peer reviewed studies, but was deleted and was told "perhaps this is not the place for you". Even my "username has been changed" because it was "generally considered offensive." lol

Ive subscribed to that thread so I can come back later when what I posted is common knowledge just to say I told you so and rub it in.

For the purposes of the topic here is my reasoning for deleting your post.

 

[deirdre]

Even my "username has been changed" because it was "generally considered offensive." lol

what country do you live in?

 

[Landru]

Join the club.. My post in a "current events" thread included peer reviewed studies, but was deleted and was told "perhaps this is not the place for you". Even my "username has been changed" because it was "generally considered offensive." lol

Ive subscribed to that thread so I can come back later when what I posted is common knowledge just to say I told you so and rub it in.

And your original name was Spaz so it was changed.

 

[deirdre]

And your original name was Spaz so it was changed.

well you cant say it either!! lol

 

[econ41]

And your original name was Spaz so it was changed.

A bit of "cross cultural calibration". That word would also be considered offensive if used in Australia to refer to a person. And inappropriate as a name.

 

[Paz]

what country do you live in?

USA. Around here, my nick name means someone who is easily excited, or flies off the handle easily. Not "one who is considered clumsy or inept." But even it it was, why cant I belittle myself?

I will have to agree with you landru, that perhaps this is not the place for me. But why cant you simply delete the section of my post which does not comply to the posting guidelines, instead of the entire post?

 

[Landru]

USA. Around here, my nick name means someone who is easily excited, or flies off the handle easily. Not "one who is considered clumsy or inept." But even it it was, why cant I belittle myself?

I will have to agree with you landru, that perhaps this is not the place for me. But why cant you simply delete the section of my post which does not comply to the posting guidelines, instead of the entire post?

The Politeness Policy is not based on your sensibilities (or your region's) but on commonly accepted norms. It is the strictest part of the Posting Guidelines.

Your post was too far gone for me to correct and if you wish to argue that it wasn't why didn't you post a version which is in compliance with the Posting Guidelines ?

 

[jonnyH]

Around here, my nick name means someone who is easily excited, or flies off the handle easily. Not "one who is considered clumsy or inept." But even it it was, why cant I belittle myself?

That might be what it means to you, but the reality is it's a shortened version of a medical term that was used to describe cerebral palsy. In the UK it was thrown about as an insult so much in the 80's that the medical establishment had to stop using it so as not to stigmatise those with the disease. Over here a survey conducted in 2003 found it was

the second most offensive term in the UK relating to anyone with a disability

According to Wikipedia

 

[FatPhil]

In the UK it was thrown about as an insult so much in the 80's that the medical establishment had to stop using it so as not to stigmatise those with the disease.

Yes, but in 1981 it was part of the title of a single which was banned by the BBC and almost everyone else because it was obviously offensive, heck it even made reference to incontinence ...

yet in 2012 that same song was used in the opening ceremony for the paralympics, a show bearing the name "Enlightenment", proudly broadcast worldwide.

*Intent* is what should matter, and what should be evaluated. The singer/writer of that song clearly had his intent misjudged, which is odd as it was common knowledge that polio had left him partly disabled, and that attitude wasn't corrected until a decade after his death, so he never lived to learn he'd been vindicated, he never received an apology. Perhaps the banning shouldn't have happened in the first place?

Should I be fearing an enforced change of handle because in its current form I am found guilty of body shaming?

 

[deirdre]

USA. Around here, my nick name means someone who is easily excited, or flies off the handle easily. Not "one who is considered clumsy or inept." But even it it was, why cant I belittle myself?

i'm on the east coast and older. we use it as 'hyper', like when kids eat too much sugar (which, i know, they say is a myth) or its been raining for 3 days and they've been stuck inside. i called my kids spaz monkeys all the time. it was a loving term, not an insult at all.

i learned here on MB (because i used it once too) that the UK uses it like we used to use Retard. ie. as an insult. (PS. you can't call a murderer a psycho either, another uk thing)

Should I be fearing an enforced change of handle because in its current form I am found guilty of body shaming?

you should be PhatPhil anyway.

 

[Ann K]

Ive subscribed to that thread so I can come back later when what I posted is common knowledge just to say I told you so and rub it in.

Personally, I do not care what terms you choose to call yourself. But, on this thread's topic of getting respect, that statement is definitely not going to do it. I understand the (rather juvenile) concept of one-upmanship, but it poisons the dialog when your ego and your concept of being vindicated takes precedence over honest investigation of a claim.

 

[jonnyH]

*Intent* is what should matter,

The lawyer in me asks what level of intent should matter? Is it always OK if there was no intention to cause offence? Is using offensive language without caring whether or not offence is taken acceptable? or should people be expected to take reasonable steps not to cause offence? There is a really long conversation that could be had there but not within the scope this thread, besides Paz should now be aware that it's not a universally benign term and can do what he wants with that info.

Should I be fearing an enforced change of handle because in its current form I am found guilty of body shaming?

Maybe so, the rapidly expanding fat man in me feels called out but is taking it as motivation to eat fewer biscuits

 

[Ann K]

Maybe so, the rapidly expanding fat man in me feels called out but is taking it as motivation to eat fewer biscuits

<** puts down the popcorn and tiptoes away **>

 

[deirdre]

The lawyer in me asks what level of intent should matter?

I'm going to assume you are not American? A lawyer would know that hate speech is illegal, but ugly speech (in this context) is allowed.

Either way, this is a private website and they can do what they want.

 

[jonnyH]

I'm going to assume you are not American? A lawyer would know that hate speech is illegal, but ugly speech (in this context) is allowed.

Either way, this is a private website and they can do what they want.

I may have misread the room, but I thought the implicit off-topic topic under discussion was whether Landru was justified in changing Paz's name. If there is any law being invoked its the politeness policy and to what extent a members tag can be found to have contravened it. The lawyer in me just enjoys the scholarly exercise of debating the appropriate mens rea for crimes against good manners*.



*That being said, when FatPhil brought up the importance of intent it did bring to mind the Equality Act 2010 where UK law comes very close to dealing with hurt feelings. Intention is not required according to that Act, it is the effect or perception of someones actions that matter. A requirement for intent would mean indirect discrimination goes unaddressed. So the lawyer in me considers this sort of thing when mulling over the application of the politeness policy, not because the law is directly applicable here but because it can be seen as analogous. Should someones state of intent be taken account of when a moderator is deciding whether to delete an impolite post? Probably not because allowing even unwittingly impolite content to remain could reflect badly on the site.

 

[Landru]

I may have misread the room, but I thought the implicit off-topic topic under discussion was whether Landru was justified in changing Paz's name. If there is any law being invoked its the politeness policy and to what extent a members tag can be found to have contravened it. The lawyer in me just enjoys the scholarly exercise of debating the appropriate mens rea for crimes against good manners*.



*That being said, when FatPhil brought up the importance of intent it did bring to mind the Equality Act 2010 where UK law comes very close to dealing with hurt feelings. Intention is not required according to that Act, it is the effect or perception of someones actions that matter. A requirement for intent would mean indirect discrimination goes unaddressed. So the lawyer in me considers this sort of thing when mulling over the application of the politeness policy, not because the law is directly applicable here but because it can be seen as analogous. Should someones state of intent be taken account of when a moderator is deciding whether to delete an impolite post? Probably not because allowing even unwittingly impolite content to remain could reflect badly on the site.

1. I didn't change the name. I believe only Mick can change the name.
2. Intent is almost impossible to determine through the cold reading of an internet post.

 

[Mendel]

Should someones state of intent be taken account of when a moderator is deciding whether to delete an impolite post?

there's the secondary issue of the intent of the moderators when a problem is brought to their attention and they do nothing

it reflects badly on them, and could make them liable in some jurisdictions

 

[NoParty]

And your original name was Spaz so it was changed.

I think most of us who've been around for awhile are resigned to the fact that every year,
words that most people used 40, 30, 20...even 10 years ago, get moved into the
"not for polite society" anymore, pile. And sometimes we use one before we get the memo.

This one surprised me a little, though, because in my daily reading of news, I came across
--in mid-June--multiple stories criticizing Lizzo for using the word on her song "Grrrls"...the internet
roared, and she quickly changed it. And was widely praised for doing so quickly & graciously.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/arts/music/lizzo-lyrics-grrrls.html

But then--just six weeks later--it was in the headlines again: Cultural goddess Beyoncé got crucified
for using the word on her new album. It was a huge deal. Especially since the Lizzo kerfuffle had
seemingly put the issue to rest. While there's obviously still debate about what exactly constitutes
"ableist" language (or if there even is such a thing)...that Beyoncé, too, was compelled to admit
error, and re-cut a song, all in headlines of Rolling Stone, The Washington Post & The New York Times,
made me put the word on my 'naughty' list 5 months ago.

While I personally care about a speaker's intent...at the end of the day, in the public arena,
a wrong word can make a person appear insensitive.
And this site has a Politeness Policy, for God's sake.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/02/beyonce-spaz-slur/

 

[econ41]

I may have misread the room, but I thought the implicit off-topic topic under discussion was whether Landru was justified in changing Paz's name.

Which is at least doubly off topic. Topic: Debating gaining of respect >> using WTC collapse examples as examples of good and bad behaviour but NOT as discussion >> Therfore - first level of "off-topic" - dozens of examples in the recent pages of the thread - DEBATING WTC collapse issues rather than simply using then to provide examples of valid and invalid argument for the purpose of building respect >> THEN - at least two levels "off topic" -- discussion about the usage of words which have inappropriate connotations in some cultures.

If there is any law being invoked its the politeness policy and to what extent a members tag can be found to have contravened it. The lawyer in me just enjoys the scholarly exercise of debating the appropriate mens rea for crimes against good manners*.

Fully understood and agreed - I can also enjoy playing the pedant in both legal and engineering matters EXCEPT it is off-topic here.

*That being said, when FatPhil brought up the importance of intent it did bring to mind the Equality Act 2010 where UK law comes very close to dealing with hurt feelings. Intention is not required according to that Act, it is the effect or perception of someones actions that matter. A requirement for intent would mean indirect discrimination goes unaddressed.

And the same principles apply in other jurisdictions - esp. those of Common Law origin.

So the lawyer in me considers this sort of thing when mulling over the application of the politeness policy, not because the law is directly applicable here but because it can be seen as analogous.

Again fully understood and agreed EXCEPT >> the long-lost topic.

Should someones state of intent be taken account of when a moderator is deciding whether to delete an impolite post? Probably not because allowing even unwittingly impolite content to remain could reflect badly on the site.

And the reputation of THIS "marketplace" should rank higher than secondary considerations including "intent".

 

[econ41]

I think most of us who've been around for awhile ..... And sometimes we use one before we get the memo.

I've been around for a few years - there is a hint in the "41" of my username. In my youth I could refer to people as "queer" and not be misunderstood. We gave our daughter the second name of "Gai" after a friend. (She was born on 1st April and hasn't forgiven us for either of those two "errors". )

In my home Australian state of NSW some of us cynics are awaiting the attacks of the PC Terrorists on a couple of town names (Coonabarabran and Coonamble) And we already lost one re-branding - of US origin - "Coon" cheese named after the inventor.

And our state's "Cerebral Palsy Alliance" has been operating for over 70 years - allegedly the first such organisation in the world. And it operated under a now politically incorrect name until 2011.

Word meanings evolve. Some get commandeered for good causes and may become unusable for their original purpose. One classic that routinely frustrates me and should be free of emotive overtones? The word "meme" was coined by R Dawkins for a very specific and useful purpose but has been commandeered and denatured to refer to any captioned graphic posted online.

Bottom line - roll with the tide - We won't win if we play King Cnut (or "Canute")

 

[Mythic Suns]

In my home Australian state of NSW some of us cynics are awaiting the attacks of the PC Terrorists on a couple of town names (Coonabarabran and Coonamble) And we already lost one re-branding - of US origin - "Coon" cheese named after the inventor.

I live roughly 5 miles away from Exeter in the UK which started a couple of PC debates fairly recently. The first is with regards to their Rugby team, the "Exeter Chiefs" featuring a native American chief as their symbol, and the second being a street called "Black Boy Road".

Word meanings evolve. Some get commandeered for good causes and may become unusable for their original purpose. One classic that routinely frustrates me and should be free of emotive overtones? The word "meme" was coined by R Dawkins for a very specific and useful purpose but has been commandeered and denatured to refer to any captioned graphic posted online.

I've seen this happen with club music where people use a sub-genre name as an umbrella term for all club music. It frustrates me when a track with a 128bpm 4/4 drum beat and no "dubstep wobbles" gets labelled as dubstep. Or when all club music is referred to as "Techno" despite the fact that Techno has a very distinctive sound.

Bottom line - roll with the tide - We won't win if we play King Cnut (or "Canute")

That's a fair approach, though I'll still quietly mumble to myself whenever I hear someone misuse the words "like" and "literally".

 

[econ41]

Or when all club music is referred to as "Techno" despite the fact that Techno has a very distinctive sound.

That is a common problem - "set <> sub-set" confusion. ASSERTION: "Apples are round, bananas are long and bent" << RESPONSE: "BUT they are the same - they are both fruit."

The most common problem in the recent pages of this thread is a similar classification issue. In this case closer to "container <> content" confusion. Try this one if you want to confuse a lot of people:
Someone asserts "Richard Gates of AE911 claims that the WTC Towers were CDed" and you respond "I agree" or "That's true."

It is true that R Gates asserts it - the "container". It is not true that the towers were CDed - the "content".

Or try the legal one - "Assertion 'x' is a matter of fact". Independent of whether it is true or false. To a lawyer "Fact" =/= "True"
The lawyer's use of "fact" is as specific as the scientist's use of "theory".

That's a fair approach, though I'll still quietly mumble to myself whenever I hear someone misuse the words "like" and "literally".

And - just to see if I can drag the point back on topic. Anyone confusing word meanings, especially if they deliberately rely on obscure or ambiguous definitions, is NOT likely to gain respect. <<THERE that puts us back on topic.