Baron Max banned again?

[Doreen]

I am merely questioning your silence on the actual issue.

I am merely questioning your bias.

I thought that was blatantly obvious. As I pointed out in the other thread, if it had been Baron who had been banned, you would not have said a single word in protest. And here we are.

Reality.

Even if Tiassa is showing some kind of bias on this issue this does not show that he was wrong about SAM or that his alleged bias has the same negative effect as a bias against certain political positions by those who ban. If you could show that Tiassa bans people from his bias, that would be equivalent. But now you are trying to make his alleged lack of action the equivalent of biased banning. Which it would not remotely be.

That he might have had motivations for looking closely at the issue of SAM on his own time does not obligate him to look closely at the banning of everyone.

You could, likely, engage him however, if you provided evidence that BM was banned either unjustly or by the same criteria or a parallel kind of bias.

Otherwise this is just taking pot shots.

As an aside: I think there is a connection between the bannings. Both SAM and Baron often post obliquely, often asking questions and not always explaining all the connections they are making. I think SAM is a more clever in the leaps she makes - which actually is a compliment to those she is arguing against. They see her changing topics or avoiding the issue - which becomes 'trolling' - because they cannot see the relevence she does. BM does do this, but, as I said, with smaller leaps. Each of them from their own side is also poking at liberal assumptions. This combination is just too irritating for some.

Stupidity with the exact some rhetorical effects from a liberal or banal conservative position is tolerated. Pity is so much easier to experience, it seems, than irritation.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The creators of this site need to decide whether they want it to be open to provocative ideas or not.

I suppose I would be classed as a slightly left wing liberal, but I appreciate the presence of other people whose ideas are opposed to my own.
At least we are not killing each other.

There are also some people who I would half way go along with, but whose views are more extreme than my own. These also seem under threat.
We've lost enough good people on here already.

I know that the site is advertising based, and that the longevity of the site depends upon advertisers being willing to use it.
Does that affect the decision on what is acceptable, or not?

 

[BenTheMan]

The creators of this site need to decide whether they want it to be open to provocative ideas or not.

One must draw a clear distinction between ``provocative ideas'' and ``agents provocateur''.

 

[Gustav]

i see
sam now incites others to commit criminal acts
nice
ben ups the ante

troll much,buddy?

 

[Gustav]

You have a problem.

personal problems he foists on the rest of us
very sad

he really should step down
put sci interests first rather than his own petty bullshit

his myopia is such that he barely comprehends the written word when it pertains to sam
his agenda to remove sam from sci necessitates a selective reading to make his disingenuous points

very sad
we have two anti-intellectual thugs running sci

 

[Gustav]

No. It was me.

No. It was me.

No. It was me.

No. It was me.

No. It was me.

No. It was me.

ok ok!
its all you systematically raping sci up her ass
yes
we get it!

 

[S.A.M.]

Well I don't want James to step down. It wouldn't be sci without James either. They practically go together.

I just want him to stop being an arse

 

[Gustav]

fine
you leave me no choice
consider yourself an enemy

/smirk

 

[S.A.M.]

Take a number :shrug:

 

[Pinwheel]

I took a number: 'enemy number 876'.

Wow.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well I don't want James to step down. It wouldn't be sci without James either. They practically go together.

I just want him to stop being an arse

I've had a pm from him. He says he'll stop being an arse if you will become a Roman Catholic and emigrate to Bolivia.

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

I've had a pm from him. He says he'll stop being an arse if you will become a Roman Catholic and emigrate to Bolivia.

As realistic as that might sound, I would ask that you provide evidence of that private message—e.g., full text and the pmid number from the URL—as making statements about James that don't match his literalist interpretation of his delusions of brilliance and justice risks permanent ban.

Oh, right, you're not Muslim, are you? Well, then, no worries.

• • •​

It wouldn't be sci without James either. They practically go together.

It's starting to seem that way. Sad, though. We used to have much higher ambitions for this place.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well his inattention to details seems selective, so I assume there are powerful reasons for it. I gave up idealism a long time ago although I still rant about it occasionally

 

[Tiassa]

The dangers of assumption—I'll skip the cliché

Well his inattention to details seems selective, so I assume there are powerful reasons for it. I gave up idealism a long time ago although I still rant about it occasionally

Few assumptions are safe around here, as you well know. While I'm disappointed in Plazma's endorsement of administrative dishonesty, I'm not prepared to indict him outright of giving over to stupid bigotry.

There are, I would ... um ... er ... assume ... reasons for the intellectual decline Sciforums has suffered over the years, and especially its most acute recent assertion. But we don't know what those reasons are, how many of them there are, or how they work together. Giving Plazma the benefit of the doubt, I'd call the state of things around here accidental at present.

I mean, of all the things Plazma may have intended, I'm pretty sure the grotesque imbalance we see wasn't on the list. I mean, where is the logic in a community where disagreeing with the popular consensus is somehow a genuinely criminal act while repeatedly advocating open political violence is perfectly acceptable?

So much for science, eh? And rational discourse? And evidence and logical arguments?

It has to be accidental. I generally don't think that Republicans are that stupid and evil. Close, I'm sure, but they would draw the line somewhere before condoning advocacy of terrorism and political violence°.
____________________

Notes:

° condoning advocacy of terrorism and political violence — I know, I know. Just ... just work with me here. Accept the context for the sake of argument; there's still a morbidly funny bit at the center of all that intellectual nougat.

 

[Doreen]

It has to be accidental. I generally don't think that Republicans are that stupid and evil. Close, I'm sure, but they would draw the line somewhere before condoning advocacy of terrorism and political violence°.

Not with those words. But the Democrats would also advocate it, but also not with those words.

____________________

Notes:

° condoning advocacy of terrorism and political violence — I know, I know. Just ... just work with me here. Accept the context for the sake of argument; there's still a morbidly funny bit at the center of all that intellectual nougat.

Oh, ok, I guess you know this.

 

[StrawDog]

There are, I would ... um ... er ... assume ... reasons for the intellectual decline Sciforums has suffered over the years, and especially its most acute recent assertion. But we don't know what those reasons are, how many of them there are, or how they work together. Giving Plazma the benefit of the doubt, I'd call the state of things around here accidental at present.

Notably, moderation (or rather zealous over moderation) has become overwhelmingly "politically correct" and "conservative," almost "neo-conservative" thus diluting sincere freedom of expression.

The days of free intellectual discussion, debating and digression where par was the likes of Boris, Plato, Raithere, Wes Morris, Oxygen, Cris, and yourself (lets not launch the boat) is sadly, long gone.

 

[Tiassa]

All those cynical would not understand

Notably, moderation (or rather zealous over moderation) has become overwhelmingly "politically correct" and "conservative," almost "neo-conservative" thus diluting sincere freedom of expression.

The days of free intellectual discussion, debating and digression where par was the likes of Boris, Plato, Raithere, Wes Morris, Oxygen, Cris, and yourself (lets not launch the boat) is sadly, long gone.

What I miss about the old days is that the people who wanted most to dish it could also take it. I mean, I might recall some old names that I thought were gutter intellect once upon a time, but at least those folks had something approaching honor.

My personal theory is that at some point between my 2005 hiatus and the transition to new ownership, we began some sort of inclusiveness policy that has resulted in the mess we find today. I mean, I can actually remember when some people complained about their ideas being denounced as irrational.

Personally, I can't help it if one side of an argument is rooted in greed and superstition. And I can't help it if the greedy and superstitious don't like being called out according to their advocacy.

Here's a fun one. You'll occasionally hear that Sciforums was always a place for science. This is, in a very important context, not true. Sciforums began as Exosci; the original site development occurred under the eye and hand of Dave, who was previously the webmaster for the Alberta UFO Research Association. Indeed, AUFORA is how I found Exosci; one day Dave sent an email to everyone who signed the guest book, inviting us to his new site that wanted to consider issues beyond mere Ufology. Science, yes, but also fringe science.

Over the years, we've tried to purge that part of our heritage. Pseudoscience and Parapsychology are now realms for the damned.

And this is fine in and of itself, but consider the nexus of science and imagination involved in speculative science. Nearly every great and fundamental scientific discovery started out as a whack theory at some point.

And what kills me in this context is that if we were operating in some form over the centuries, we wouldn't be on the side of the pseudoscientists like Copernicus, Galileo, or even Darwin. At least, that's how I see our community behaving. As orthodoxy becomes enlightened, so, too, do the enlightened become orthodox.

In the end, this creates a strange conflict: The people who despise imagination and creativity also resent it when they are told they are not imaginative or creative.

We see this play out all over the board.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how disagreeing with community orthodoxy equals a real-world crime while advocating open political violence—that is, murder—is all well and fine.

It's a lack of imagination, which is a key component of human empathy.

But those who believe they are God have no reason to save their souls.

And the waves roll on.

Floater, "Milk of Heaven"

No, don't seek control, and the milk of Heaven will flow—
Why would you want to keep it from anyone?
Please, please, on my knees; my heart is on my sleeve,
And all I need is just one little taste of it.
And all my kingdoms rise when I'm dreaming:
We lie on the grass, just soaking in the life of the land.
So high, God rest our souls; all you cynical would not understand.
As all your kingdoms fall, and you hit the ground running—
Time will teach you to give in.
Yeah, we are born, we die, and the waves roll on.

Take it, taste it, feel it: This is real.
Shape it, seek it, feel it—
We lie on the grass, soaking in the life of the land.
So high, God rest our souls; all you cynical would not understand.
Pull up the shades today, welcome the sun on my skin:
And it feels like giving in!

We are born, and we die, and the waves roll on.
We are born to die, and the waves roll on.
Yeah, the waves roll on.​

 

[StrawDog]

What I miss about the old days is that the people who wanted most to dish it could also take it. I mean, I might recall some old names that I thought were gutter intellect once upon a time, but at least those folks had something approaching honor.

My personal theory is that at some point between my 2005 hiatus and the transition to new ownership, we began some sort of inclusiveness policy that has resulted in the mess we find today. I mean, I can actually remember when some people complained about their ideas being denounced as irrational.

Personally, I can't help it if one side of an argument is rooted in greed and superstition. And I can't help it if the greedy and superstitious don't like being called out according to their advocacy.

Here's a fun one. You'll occasionally hear that Sciforums was always a place for science. This is, in a very important context, not true. Sciforums began as Exosci; the original site development occurred under the eye and hand of Dave, who was previously the webmaster for the Alberta UFO Research Association. Indeed, AUFORA is how I found Exosci; one day Dave sent an email to everyone who signed the guest book, inviting us to his new site that wanted to consider issues beyond mere Ufology. Science, yes, but also fringe science.

Over the years, we've tried to purge that part of our heritage. Pseudoscience and Parapsychology are now realms for the damned.

And this is fine in and of itself, but consider the nexus of science and imagination involved in speculative science. Nearly every great and fundamental scientific discovery started out as a whack theory at some point.

And what kills me in this context is that if we were operating in some form over the centuries, we wouldn't be on the side of the pseudoscientists like Copernicus, Galileo, or even Darwin. At least, that's how I see our community behaving. As orthodoxy becomes enlightened, so, too, do the enlightened become orthodox.

In the end, this creates a strange conflict: The people who despise imagination and creativity also resent it when they are told they are not imaginative or creative.

We see this play out all over the board.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how disagreeing with community orthodoxy equals a real-world crime while advocating open political violence—that is, murder—is all well and fine.

It's a lack of imagination, which is a key component of human empathy.

But those who believe they are God have no reason to save their souls.

And the waves roll on.

Floater, "Milk of Heaven"

No, don't seek control, and the milk of Heaven will flow—
Why would you want to keep it from anyone?
Please, please, on my knees; my heart is on my sleeve,
And all I need is just one little taste of it.
And all my kingdoms rise when I'm dreaming:
We lie on the grass, just soaking in the life of the land.
So high, God rest our souls; all you cynical would not understand.
As all your kingdoms fall, and you hit the ground running—
Time will teach you to give in.
Yeah, we are born, we die, and the waves roll on.

Take it, taste it, feel it: This is real.
Shape it, seek it, feel it—
We lie on the grass, soaking in the life of the land.
So high, God rest our souls; all you cynical would not understand.
Pull up the shades today, welcome the sun on my skin:
And it feels like giving in!

We are born, and we die, and the waves roll on.
We are born to die, and the waves roll on.
Yeah, the waves roll on.​

Encouraging comment Tiassa and I absolutely concur.

I actually remember an epic thread (combative bordering on slander) between you and Wes where every second word was a cuss word beginning with "c". The fun thing was, this was condoned and nary an eyelid was battered. Free speech apocalypse, and most entertaining, enlightening and liberating it was.

I also remember the evocative post where FyreStar lost his religion. Quite moving and humbling. The Board was alive with creative JUICE.

AUFORA .... my word. :m:

 

[Bells]

Over the years, we've tried to purge that part of our heritage. Pseudoscience and Parapsychology are now realms for the damned.

And this is fine in and of itself, but consider the nexus of science and imagination involved in speculative science. Nearly every great and fundamental scientific discovery started out as a whack theory at some point.

Have you been paying visits to those two forums? What do you think the odds are that this will become a "great and fundamental scientific discovery"?

 

[Tiassa]

We'll have to measure that if ghosts are ever proven

Have you been paying visits to those two forums? What do you think the odds are that this will become a "great and fundamental scientific discovery"?

I'm sure you think there's a point to be had there. Maybe you could let the rest of us in on it?