Rules of Engagement

[Rezwan]

Hi Folks,

I just split this thread from another post. There’s much to discuss regarding ROE.

Here’s where I split the thread from that last post:

Brian H wrote: I must add, of course, that many of the opinions in that write-up are my own, especially the snarky ones, and may well differ from those of the LLP principals and others here on the FFS site! :coolsmirk:

Brian, thanks for the disclaimer – best put that in your signature line. Also, take out the death threats to climatologists. Use the delete button. You’re a prolific poster, and people will get the impression that our site is one of pitchfork and torch wielding climatologist haters. It’s not. I’d like everyone to be able to work together and discuss things civilly, with compassion and respect. Learn how to play nice with people. As it is you’re making this forum a hostile, unpleasant environment.

[Brian H]

Rezwan wrote: Hey LINKed Up, I just sent you a message – reply to that directly to set something up.

Brian, thanks for the disclaimer – best put that in your signature line. Also, take out the death threats to climatologists. Use the delete button. You’re a prolific poster, and people will get the impression that our site is one of pitchfork and torch wielding climatologist haters. It’s not. I’d like everyone to be able to work together and discuss things civilly, with compassion and respect. Learn how to play nice with people. As it is you’re making this forum a hostile, unpleasant environment.

Death threats? Oh, you mean the “Terminal Confinement Homes For Disgraced Climatologists”. Merely a recommendation for future resolution of a problem that I expect governments world-wide to face. :cheese: I think you’d better look up the word “threat”. I have personally threatened nobody.

And as for hostility to those who wish to highjack the planet’s economy using a flimsy excuse for an extremely dubious speculation, playing nice doesn’t work with those who censor and fudge and blackball and bribe. (see Climategate. Also Glaciergate.)

P.S.
You may recall that I once warned you that opening discussion threads on the subject of Gore-Bull Warming was asking for highly inflammatory and divisive flamewars. You said you were curious, and thought it might be fun. It seems you overestimated your capacity for amusement (and tolerance of disagreement).

[Henning]

Well Brian, it isn’t funny anymore.

[Brian H]

Henning wrote: Well Brian, it isn’t funny anymore.

Humor was never the purpose, nor is it now.

[Rezwan]

I think you’d better look up the word “threat”. I have personally threatened nobody.

This isn’t the only place. You often use dehumanizing language to refer to people with a different opinion, and have asked for bodily injury and death elsewhere.

It may seem innocuous to you, but it’s not.

This isn’t about the content of the argument – it’s not about whether GW is right or wrong. It’s about how you approach engaging other people in conversation.

You keep going for alienating, ridiculing and polarizing. You have some good points to make, I don’t see why you wrap it up the way you do.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote:
P.S.
You may recall that I once warned you that opening discussion threads on the subject of Gore-Bull Warming was asking for highly inflammatory and divisive flamewars. You said you were curious, and thought it might be fun. It seems you overestimated your capacity for amusement (and tolerance of disagreement).

And, as I recall, you were the one who brought in all the inflammatory, divisive, flamethrower verbiage!

How are you measuring tolerance for disagreement? You’re the one who simply asserts things more shrilly when you hear a different viewpoint.

My issue is that I can’t even begin to GET to the topic on which to agree or disagree, if the procedure of talking about it is the way you make it.

In other words, when faced with someone who has a death grip on their topic (“My PRECIOUSSSSSS”) you can’t really explore the topic, because they’re stuck on a position and are just re-iterating it over and over. Nothing playful or interesting about that. It gets repetitive and boring.

Also, you set up the GW straw man bogeyman. You claim that they are obstructionist and forcefully consensus seeking and their science is based on nothing. And then you conduct the mirror image of procedure. Producing reputatious reports (and if those guys’ science is bunk, then who’s to say the reports you produce are not also bunk – it’s all bunk. Science doesn’t exist), and shout down any rebuttals.

This isn’t the way to get to the heart of the matter. It isn’t the way to connect with other people. It isn’t the way to arrive at revelations about what’s happening.

What are you trying to accomplish?

If you’re just trying to get people to see what a clever guy you are, nobody’s fool, someone who can stand up to those GW bogeymen – well, OK. Maybe that’s working. Kind of ego driven. And a big “so what” from me.

You just don’t get what I’m talking about. I can tell you’re about to get defensive and slip into a position. And then hold that position by grasping at soundbites. Hard habit to break. It’s hard to see the person beyond the position.

Hmmmm.

More to say. I’ll get back to this later.

[Rezwan]

And, to break the tension – here’s a humorous interlude:

http://prometheuscomic.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/prometheus-persuade-simpleton.jpg

[Viking Coder]

threat: a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course

Your choice of words does not show you to be cognizant and capable of critical, independent thought; rather, it shows a pridefully ignorant ideologue who values juvenile insults & word play, cherry-picking sophistry and “I’m not touching you” style threats over rational, primary resource based discussion. Yes, “people who reference the peer-review published & independently validated research should be put to death” is a threat.

Brian H wrote: asking for highly inflammatory and divisive flamewars

Why is that any different than opening threads on evolution through natural selection on a discussion board frequented by a creationist?

The strength of your belief & indignation does not transform a field of science into a hoax.

Brian H wrote: see Climategate

How do sliced and diced comments taken out of context show that 150 years worth of published & independently validated scientific research is nothing but a vast conspiracy?

Scientific consensus is reached through accumulation of peer-reviewed research. It is descriptive, not proscriptive. A scientific consensus is overturned when new research or new interpretations of old research that better fits the observations is presented. It is not refuted by calling it a political consensus and conjuring vast conspiracy notions to explain it without acknowledging the accumulated research.

[Rezwan]

Viking Coder wrote: Your choice of words does not show you to be cognizant and capable of critical, independent thought; rather, it shows a pridefully ignorant ideologue who values juvenile insults, cherry-picking sophistry and “I’m not touching you” style threats over rational, primary resource based discussion.

OK Viking Coder, as for ROE, this is also problematic. Well, actually – he’s capable of such thought, and has many lucid moments, he just seems to prefer baiting and such.

So, for me, it’s not about his ignorance or intelligence, and it’s not about primary resource based discussion. It’s more primal. It’s about intentions of engagement. Are you trying to touch the stranger’s mind, or just stomp around and trample them?

Viking Coder wrote: Yes, “people who reference the peer-review published & independently validated research should be put to death” is a threat.

Did he actually say this? Where?

Viking Coder wrote:
Why is that any different than opening threads on evolution through natural selection on a discussion board frequented by a creationist?

I don’t have a problem with that. I think that, if properly moderated, a conversation between creationists and natural selectionists can be very illuminating. As can conversations between any apparently polarized factions. Illuminating about much more than the topic itself.

Being Iranian American, with a Born Again Christian mother and an Mullah Grandfather, with enthusiastic NRA and Libertarian cousins and flaming liberal cousins, and another cousin who is all about “the secret” and the power of positive thinking…I have a lot of experience with dead-end polarizing conversations. They are only dead ends because the participants put a lot of energy into keeping them polarized, and blocking out others. It takes a lot of work – starting with a nice, deep breath – to get these participants to have a real conversation with each other and to see and hear each other.

I’ve done this work, on many occasions, and gotten to different points of insight. It’s really cool, too. Those moments of reflection when a person slips out of position and into that open space…. Of course, after that moment of appreciation, the participants invariably snap back into position. But at least for a moment there was a human connection and a glimmer of understanding and a possible way out of an ideological impasse.

[Viking Coder]

Rezwan wrote: Did he actually say this? Where?

The thread you linked to.

Brian H wrote: [‘Terminal Confinement Homes For Disgraced Climatologists’] where frequent unannounced fire and Carbon Monoxide evacuations will be called to keep them excited and interested (not all drills; a certain minimum fatality rate to be ensured to sustain realism.)

He clarified above that humor was not the purpose of that post.

Rezwan wrote: I think that, if properly moderated, a conversation between creationists and natural selectionists can be very illuminating. As can conversations between any apparently polarized factions. Illuminating about much more than the topic itself.

I agree, and don’t have a problem with it either. I sincerely like having a discussion with an intelligent, knowledgeable climatology dismisser. Unfortunately, they all seem to degrade into vast conspiracy notions and/or sophistic cherry-picking being presented in rebuttal of the available scientific research. A sparse few times I have found people who are actually willing to discuss this issue. Even more rare is when they are willing to put aside their preconceived notions when their questions are answered, rather than asking the same questions repeatedly in defense of their beliefs.

In my opinion, discussing the age of the planet with a young earth creationist is equivalent to discussing climatology with somebody who seriously uses the phrase “Gore Bull Warming”.

[Phil’s Dad]

I agree VC (long time no post – welcome back by the way). I also sincerely like having a discussion with an intelligent, knowledgeable climatologist. Unfortunately, there are a few who degrade into vast conspiracy notions of fossil energy lobbyists and/or sophistic cherry-picking being presented in rebuttal of the available non-AGW scientific research. A few wonderful times I have found people who are actually willing to discuss this issue. Even rarer is when they are willing to put aside their preconceived notions when their questions are answered, rather than asking the same questions repeatedly in defence of their beliefs. But we all do it I suppose.

I have been accused of being sweet (by a figure I respect) for thinking there might be a scientific answer to all this. I still do. I even had an e-mail from a Cabinet Member today saying I put an innocent and naive spin on the issue. I think I can accept being defined as a sweet, innocent politician. What ever the case I am here to learn, not preach, and even those with whom I disagree strongly have something they can teach me. I lose that advantage if I try to put up barriers. There is no stronger barrier to learning than certainty. (Probably.)

[Viking Coder]

How droll. Are you simply baiting with that or do you consider yourself skeptical of the field of climatology? If so, what is your basis and what questions do you have (in a new thread)?

Phil’s Dad wrote: There is no stronger barrier to learning than certainty.

True. Learning is accomplished by studying new findings or new interpretations that better fit old findings, not through word play.

[Phil’s Dad]

Viking Coder wrote:

True. Learning is accomplished by studying new findings or new interpretations that better fit old findings, not through word play.

If word play leads to a better understanding of intent then it too is a learning tool. In many ways language is the best tool we have for understanding, and play can be the best teacher. (and for some – yek zabân kâfi nist)

You ask

…do you consider yourself skeptical of the field of climatology?

No, not at all. However I am skeptical of the conclusions drawn by some scientists practising in that field. Since there are opposing and sometimes extreme views expressed by those scientists, how could I not be? Who’s choice of words is at play here?

To answer

Are you simply baiting with that…

No, not really (though I do sometimes). Just gently pointing out that you may be exhibiting here some of the fixed mindset traits you seem to find so unattractive in others. And then admitting that I do it too.

Will I post questions on how sensitive the world’s temperature is to man made CO2 emissions here (in another thread).

Also no. I would far rather this forum focused on, well, focus stuff. There has been enough exciting developments in recent days (high energy ions from FF-1 for example) that we don’t need to use this place for another polarized and ultimately fruitless tussle.

I look forward to taking the journey with you.

[Author]

Posts