Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[laklak]

Self-felching?

[Jason]

Someone must have let the cat out of the bag.

[JimC]

Someone must have let the cat out of the bag.

Probably the bosun...

[Jason]

[rachelbean]

Well I disagreed with the decision but these days it is run by Corbynites who very sensitive to their space.

Mmmm, sensitive Corbynites :

[Scot Dutchy]

Well I disagreed with the decision but these days it is run by Corbynites who very sensitive to their space.

Mmmm, sensitive Corbynites :

Yes furry little things with a nasty nip.

[Forty Two]

I was banned from rationalskepticism the other day, apparently. I can't wait to log back on next week to find out what it was that I did wrong.

I went through some discussions there where it was pointed out to me that attacking someone's "posting habits and behavior" is perfectly fine, like, telling someone their posts are stupid, they're trolling, and their posting idiocy, etc., as opposed to "you're stupid, a troll and an idiot", are fine. So, for a while now, I have been very careful to couch everything in terms of a person's posting habits and behavior.

Folks there tend to dogpile on me there, and attack attack and derail - they love to get into derails over the "motive" associated with creating a thread. E.g., if you post some bizarre news item about the latest SJW fiasco, they will piss all over the thread and claim that it's just being created to give feminists or other SJWs a bad name. I've been told that I'm trolling, and that I'm lying and all that. Nobody ever can give examples of any lies - they just tell me to look at my general posting history and that everyone knows it.

It's a strange bunch that took over that site. I think leftovers from Atheism+ are there, because their modus operandi is similar.

[Strontium Dog]

I've been told that I'm trolling, and that I'm lying and all that. Nobody ever can give examples of any lies - they just tell me to look at my general posting history and that everyone knows it.

Yep, welcome to my world. It's like their minds cannot comprehend that someone might have a genuinely held opinion that differs drastically from theirs, so that person must be trolling. And when that person points out they're not trolling, and that they really do believe that (to use some recent examples) attacks on Donald Trump's appearance have no place in civil, rational discourse, or that they see little distinction between killing animals because they enjoy the kill and killing animals because they enjoy the taste, then that person is called a liar, and a provocateur, and any other nefarious accusation you can imagine.

The prevailing mindset over there seems to be that any deviation from the norm (I use "norm" figuratively, because, let's face it, opinions on that forum are far from normal when contrasted with the general populace) is indicative of a person who is posting in bad faith. For folk who pride themselves on being exemplars of skeptic rationalism, there are a great number who are remarkably intolerant to alternate viewpoints.

As a person who has only ever approached discourse honestly and in good faith, with a willingness to be civil to anyone, even if that person believes in precisely the opposite of the things I believe in, I don't really understand it, but I imagine Freud would have a field day with some of the folk over there.

[surreptitious57]

Well you are in no danger at all of being banned from here for that has happened just the once
Quite a few here are ex Rat Skep so you should feel right at home. Though I wonder if bill shall
miss you. You two did go at it like an old married couple. So now who is he going to argue with

[JimC]

The only reason for a permaban here would involve excess negativity towards either cheese or bacon...

Or gin...

[laklak]

Or titties and beer...

[Jason]

Cisgendered alcoholic whore mongers!

[Scott1328]

I was banned from rationalskepticism the other day, apparently. I can't wait to log back on next week to find out what it was that I did wrong.

I went through some discussions there where it was pointed out to me that attacking someone's "posting habits and behavior" is perfectly fine, like, telling someone their posts are stupid, they're trolling, and their posting idiocy, etc., as opposed to "you're stupid, a troll and an idiot", are fine. So, for a while now, I have been very careful to couch everything in terms of a person's posting habits and behavior.

Folks there tend to dogpile on me there, and attack attack and derail - they love to get into derails over the "motive" associated with creating a thread. E.g., if you post some bizarre news item about the latest SJW fiasco, they will piss all over the thread and claim that it's just being created to give feminists or other SJWs a bad name. I've been told that I'm trolling, and that I'm lying and all that. Nobody ever can give examples of any lies - they just tell me to look at my general posting history and that everyone knows it.

It's a strange bunch that took over that site. I think leftovers from Atheism+ are there, because their modus operandi is similar.

Or you were suspended for a week for making personal attacks and inflammatory statements.

[JimC]

"Inflammatory statements" is a pretty good catch-all for saying stuff outside group-think...

[Scott1328]

"Inflammatory statements" is a pretty good catch-all for saying stuff outside group-think...

He called his interlocutors raving hypocrites

Rationalia suspends members for personal attacks. No worse has been done to Forty Two, that what was done here to rEv