Dan Klarman recently referred me to Pharyngula’s comment policies. That led me to Pharyngula’s High Crimes and Misdemeanors. I think that we have many of these covered in DI’s comment policy, but I do agree that all of these behaviors serve to hinder meaningful discussion. I anyone else has good comment policy ideas that they’ve seen elsewhere, let me know. I want to have free and open discussion, but I do want to keep the discussion moving and meaningful.
Perhaps more important, let me know what you think about the comments of Karl, who submits comments to this site almost every day. How much access should have have to this site? Unrestrained? Severely edited? How would you handle Karl’s many comments if you were administering this site? What is fair? How tired are you of Karl? Or do you see his points of view as a valuable foil that drives meaningful conversation?
Here are Pharyngula’s High Crimes and Misdemeanors:
Concern trolling A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms.
Godbotting Making an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive.
Insipidity A great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time.
Morphing Changing pseudonyms to avoid killfiles.
Slagging Making only disparaging comments about a group; while some of this is understandable, if your only contribution is consistently “X is bad”, even in threads that aren’t about X, then you’re simply slagging, not discussing.
Sockpuppetry Like morphing, but with a specific intent: creating multiple identities supporting a position to create a false impression of popularity
Spamming Using the comments to sell real estate, mortgage assessments, little blue pills, porn, or Russian mail-order brides. Spammers are not tolerated at all; they are expunged without comment.
Stupidity Some people will just stun you with the outrageous foolishness of their comments; those who seem to say nothing but stupid things get the axe.
Trolling Making comments intended only to disrupt a thread and incite flames and confusion.
Wanking Making self-congratulary comments intended only to give an impression of your importance or intelligence.
Perhaps, if I stuck to my own advice and ignored Karl, I wouldn't play the "give Karl another reason to whine about being bashed by the axis of evil atheists" game. So sorry.
Certain of our regular scratching posts certainly keep things lively as they play whack-a-mole with their responses. But hey, as long as commenters don't troll or abuse or preach, I say live and let live. If someone wants to wage a fruitless one-man battle against the evil forces of the godless amoral Atheobots, let them.
I think we should ban "creeching" and "Brianizing."
When we were younger a "creech" or "creeching" was an intentional act to stir up or annoy others, kinda like throwing rocks at a hornet's nest.
"Brianizing" was "creeching" for sport, kinda like waiting to throw the rock at the hornet's nest until someone else was near it.
We fined each other for these offenses. Group action was taken against offenders to ostracize them until they had made a full, public and abject apology, or bought us off with some other goody.
Personally, has anyone who has strong feelings against Karl asked to have lunch together and talk things over? That's what I would want if I was "trolling" and spending an inordinate amount of time stirring up trouble. Take the anonymous variable away and see if it changes, that may also discourage sockpuppetry.
Views aside, our common denominator is always our humanity. We all act out of motives, desires, and fears that are shared. So maybe Karl needs to get to know you Erich, and vice versa. Go for peace and diplomacy first, then war as a last resort (just like in real life 😉
P.S. Not to draw attention to me, but I realize that I am sometimes the voice of dissent here. I try to follow the policies and be respectful, and I would blush at the thought of a post like this being elicited by my comments. I would hope that someone would care enough to engage me and say "why the barrage of attacks?"
Danny, I'd have lunch with Karl. I would bring along friends and my daughters, though. I can think of a gay friend and a lesbian couple whom I would ask to join us. And Karl would be welcome to bring friends as well. I don't think meeting me, face to face, no matter how lovely I behaved, would have one bit of influence on Karl.
I'd like to think, however, that if Karl met some of the lovely people I know, people he believes are ultimately going to be doomed to hell for either their behavior or lack of beliefs, and he spent some time really talking to them and LISTENING to them, he might walk away wondering if his black-and-white beliefs might just deserve a teeny bit of questioning, after all.
But I don't believe Karl lives in St. Louis, and I'm not traveling anywhere anytime soon. 🙂
Karl has given us his work address in an earlier comment thread. He is in the middle of New York state.
I'd meet with him, were it convenient. I respect his persistence, daring, and creativity as he repeatedly enters our lion's den. His comments generally show more civility to us, as individuals, than ours to him.
A few of us got stuck into Karl, that much is true. Hell, I'll cop to that, but I won't say it was unjustified.
Let's play a mind game and look at Karl a bit differently. What if, instead of science, we were talking music, and Karl is the one guy in the room to consistently claim and defend the notion that The Monkees were the truly significant, revolutionary band of the Sixties. That really all that followed—from Yes to Journey—was because of the groundbreaking work the Monkees had done.
How would we have responded?
(The one thing that could not be argued, of course, is that there really was a band called The Monkees…)
Mark: I think in your Monkee's example those who disagreed with Karl would shake their heads and ignore Karl after one or two exchanges. That would be because those who overrate the Monkees don't try to extend their views into the science classrooms or try to deny civil rights to others based on their warped view of music history.
Erich,
Perhaps not, but if the Monkees defender began using music theory and history to defend the claim, then debate would expand beyond the Monkees and enter the realm of what constitutes music—arriving at the conclusion that the Monkees somehow trump, say, The Beatles or Leonard Bernstein using a skewed version of some of the same underlying components…
Perhaps I'm just expressing the viewpoint that Karl's preference really had more to do with taste than fact, but it is conceivable that passionate music lovers could get into a jeremiad of "re-education" faced with such an opinion.
I don't know that anyone really crossed verbs with Karl because they thought Karl was right, but to work through their own arguments. I know I did. An exercise in classical rhetoric more than valid scientific investigation.
Anyway, I thought it would be helpful to move the subject from one thing to another to see how it might play out.
The Monkees WEREN'T the quintessential band of all time?! My God. I had no idea.
In your example, Mark, I think you hit the nail on the head. It is taste. A person could argue til he was blue that the Monkees were amazing, and probably never change anyone else's mind. Nor would his mind likely be changed – music theory and history would be twisted and turned to try to justify what he enjoys, and what others do not, but none of it would "prove" anything. It makes him feel good. He is at peace, or happy, content, whatever, when listening to the Monkees. Same with religion. Some people need it to feel human, and cannot possibly imagine life without it, so defend it to absurd ends when questioned. If they simply said, "This is what I understand and enjoy. I believe it because it feels worse not to, and I respect you not believing it," then I'd have no problem with it at all.
It is, as Erich said, when it spills over into other, bigger issues and those who "believe" want to insinuate their dogma on all, which limits knowledge and impinges upon civil rights. That is what must be kept at bay, and where the arguments begin.
The line for me comes with proselytizing: when the commenter leaves argument behind and begins to preach.
Karl does attempt to preach on occasion: when his only argument is 'goddidit', resorting to preaching is understandable. I don't think he has ever begun a comment thread with preaching, and he's been called out and excoriated whenever he does (Mark has a *much* better grounding in the classics and in the bible than me, and has taken Karl to task on a number of occasions — arguing from accepted fact and substance, not stories).
I think his presence adds a little salt to what might otherwise be a bland stew of similar minds.
As Mark said above – he allows us to exercise our arguments.
For that I'd keep him — almost a mascot, really.
A note on Dan's comment about Karl's civility: In terms of language only, I would agree that Karl is more civil to me, specifically, than I am to him. But Karl has, so often and in so many words, insisted that I and many of my friends are doomed to hell that I can hardly consider him a 'civil' foil. I guess it depends on your perspective. Maybe I are too sensitive????
Doesn't it strike anyone a bit strange that we're having an entire comments policy discussion based on one poster who, I think it fair to say, is one of the least frothing-at-the-mouth rabid faith-based advocates I've ever encountered on the internet? I mean, Karl really IS a most civilized respondent, he's just annoyingly fixated on one set of ideas. If someone came along and began arguing passionately for Fred Hoyle's steady-state universe model, would we be inclined to lump him/her in the same category with Karl or be otherwise? I think this is a bit unfair. We're the ones who can't resist rising to the bait.
True enough, Mark. I suppose I am just not used to conversing, online or otherwise, with people who have their minds closed to science and who are simultaneously teaching that perspective to kids, in school.
I did make a pact with myself not to respond to him, broke it, made it again. And now I'm responding *about* him, which is almost as bad. Zipping it . . . at least for now.
What I wonder is, what's in it for Karl? Is he trying to save our souls, or the souls of visitors to the site who might be infected by our atheist cooties? Is he using us to sharpen his own rhetorical skills? Or could it be that he has doubts about his faith, or feels compelled to challenge it?
It's true that he's civil, and he's certainly intrepid. I see no reason to ban him. But I can't imagine going on a blog for Xtian evangelicals and arguing endlessly with them…I'm curious about his motive(s).
Mindy–" A note on Dan’s comment about Karl’s civility: In terms of language only, I would agree that Karl is more civil to me, specifically, than I am to him. But Karl has, so often and in so many words, insisted that I and many of my friends are doomed to hell that I can hardly consider him a ‘civil’ foil."
–I know what you mean. Atheists and science-boosters are often accused of arrogance. So be it. But fundamentalists never acknowledge the arrogance implicit in their own worldview (they think they're humble). It's like dealing with a passive-agressive person: you end up sounding like the bad guy because you're the one who's openly expressing your frustration.
Yes, Stacy! Exactly. That paragraph and Hank's quote about science from A.C. Grayley today pretty much sum up my philosophy of life.
Interestingly, I made a new acquaintance today, a gentleman who intrigues me and sounded worthy of a date (he was asking). We'd decided to meet for a glass of wine . . . then I found out he's a very active local Republican. Ack!! Not that this has anything to do with Karl and religion, but it was one of those panic moments – What to do, what to do?? Hell, give me a glass of wine and I guess I'll just argue with the guy!
Stacey, I have been around many true believers over the years, and can say that for most of them, the motivation is not arrogance. but compassion. They honestly believe that those who reject their religion will be punished for eternity, and that they must convince us to believe.
During my college career, I worked for a while with the school PR department as a campus photographer. One day the receptionist invited me to her church. When I told her that I am not a believer. she remarked "You know that when you die, you;re going to Hell, don't you?".
What made this memorable was the way she said it. Her tone of voice did not show anger or hate, but concern and compassion.
I think Karl is one of the believers who acts out of compassion. He does acknowledge most of us are intelligent and seeks to engage that intelligence to argue his points.
There have been other believers that did show some arrogance, by appointing themselves as our teachers to (in their view) instruct us on the errors of our ways. We have rejected them, though I have little doubt they lurk about from time to time. One of them from a few months back, would use uncredited quotes from DI in sermons he posted on his on blog.
Mindy:
I thought that standard operating procedure was to go on the date, marry the incompatible guy, then spend the rest of your life trying to change him. Don't shy away from a challenge, dog-gone-it.
Hey Erich? Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. But hey, one never knows – – –
You are probably right, Niklaus. But along with that compassion comes pity, and I, for one, don't want that. People who goes through life with a mindset that says "I KNOW and you don't, poor thing, but I will teach you," are hard for me to handle. Being plagued with doubt, as I fear I am, about just about everything, I find people who have none to be rather insufferable. Maybe I'm just jealous.
True believers can be insufferably (and probably unintentionally) insulting. One time a friend of mine and I visited someone at her home and got into a jam session. The mother of the woman we were visiting was there and was clearly delighted with our playing. But all through the performance, she would clap her hands and declare joyously, "Praise the Lord for your hands! Praise the Lord for your talent!"
I got quickly very tired of this. As we were leaving, she said it again. "Praise the Lord for your hands!"
I turned and pointedly said, "They are MY hands, you know. The Lord didn't teach me the songs or do my practicing for me."
She looked utterly baffled and probably didn't understand what I got all huffy about, but it made me feel better to say it.
But this same shit is what you see when some football player makes a field goal and drops to his knees to thank Jesus. Jesus didn't do it, he did it. Besides, if Jesus had helped him, that means Jesus was against the other team. How petty is that?
Mindy: BTW, I wasn't talking about you in particular–I was referring to people in general.
I mulled the Monkees metaphor and found it wanting.
It's more like saying that music reached perfection with the lyre. Anything composed for — or inspired by — newfangled inventions like the violin, organ, or piano are inherently inferior (un-true to music) because they are incompatible with an orchestra composed of lyre and earlier instruments.
I've always thought sports personalities who thank God for winning were particularly petty, yes. For a believer to thank God for the talent and perseverance it took to reach the top of his/her game is fine, but to thank God for trouncing another team? Nope.
It's like that expression, "There but for the grace of God go I . . . " Oh. So the other person wasn't deserving of God's grace? Why not?
It's a short extension to: "Thanks to God that we prevailed in this war by killing more of them than they killed of us."
In the past few wars in which the U.S. was involved, I didn't hear any Americans praying for the safety of the people firing bullets at Americans, but I constantly heard people praying for the safety of the American troops. They were clearly asking God to take sides.
Dan,
I agree, but one would then have to agree that the world of music was *older* than the Monkees, which we all "know" isn't true…