21st Century Book Burning

[Drooper]

I've been reading the Luci RV saga as it has unfolded. Claus' brief foray into the Fortean realm was most entertaining, but sparked a thought.

What is the 21st Century equivalent of the practice of book burning? My guess would be the practice of banning contributors from forums. Shutting out any opinion from someone who is deemed rude, abrasive or any other social or personal quality judged to be contrary to the arbitrary whims of forum administrators or participants.

Book burning is an attempt to erase from view any ideas or even authors whom we find disturbing. This would include not only the mostly commonly condemned examples in the past, but also some more challenging examples of the present - for example, the treatment of the famed holocaust denier David Irving. I must admit that I find David Irving highly disagreeable from the content and presentation of his theories. Certainly, I would feel more comfortable not having to expend energy rebutting his claims when I find myself confronted by them. However, I accept the need for a world where people are free to expound their views, where they do not place others at risk.

So to the Fortean Times Message Board. Claus was abrasive, the sceptic we all know and love. Yes, he flew into a wild digression about the question of Luci's gender. But he did pose some serious challenges to Luci's claims, which were not satisfactorily addressed by anybody in that forum. He also, rather amusingly, left one particular administrator looking embarrassingly short of the logical capacity to see how he had formulated his on self-contradictory policy.

Now the Fortean Times Message Board is bereft of any real challenge or enquiry into some very extraordinary claims. That is fine, if the Fortean Times Message Board sees itself only as a virtual social club. If it sees itself as a forum of objective or even sceptical discussion and enquiry into paranormal claims and events, it is sadly deluded.

The JREF Forum must be one of the rudest places in which I have ever associated with other people. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

Nobody forces me to read the comments of others and my ignore button is there as a backup (wink, wink Ed). The Board Rules assure my personal protection from physical threat or illegal activity from others.

When I come here I know that I will almost certainly find the most logical and accurate explanation for anything I care to imagine. I may need to sift through other more, let's say, diverse opinions, but the answers will be there nonetheless.

When I want intellectual stimulation I come to JREF. When I find myself searching for an answer, I will come to JREF. When I want someone to test my own beliefs, I will come to JREF.

When I want someone to say, "there, there, if that is what you believe then that is all that counts", I will register at the Fortean Times Message Board.

[Ed]

"Wink wink Ed" ?

I think we have seen high handed Ministry of Truth activities on boards like JE and SS. Expunging all record of a post and/or a thread is very 1984ish.

[Darat]

Hi Drooper - I understand some of your points and agree to a certain extent with some of them but I've just posted this over there:

"The real shame is that there are some very interesting conversations here (and I will say also at the JREF) and I feel that some people won’t now give either place a fair chance because of what has been said in just one thread at both places."

And I do stand by that; as I said yesterday the remit of the FTMB is not the same as here and it does seem silly for both "sides" to use that difference as a reason to attack each other. (Plus are we so sure that our mods have never acted a bit inconsistently? ;) )


(Edited - I'd put "Plus are we so sure that our mods have never attacked a bit inconsistently?" – thank goodness Freud’s been debunked…)

[Drooper]

I agree with you. the FTMB and JREF Forum are two different things entirely. That was my central argument.

You say the the FTMB has some interesting discussions. My point was that the FTMB has just that: interesting discussions. They have no more substance than a chat with your own small circle of friends at the local coffee shop. As much as he makes me laugh, thump my fist in frustration, or have me cursing at my VDU, I am glad we have Luci and his ilk around here. I wouldn't have him banned however rude he became or whether he asked me the gender of my cat.

If Albert Einstein stumbled into both forums and happened to be abrasive or rude towards a forum member, he would be quickly lost to the Fortean Times Message board and his immense knowledge would depart with him, leaving the remaining contributors to continue with their "intersting discussion". However, at JREF, he would be reviled by some, ignored by others, but present to contribute nonetheless.

All this leaves me to question the claims of the Fortean Times Message Board as a forum of the Fortean Times. I quote from their web site:

It was founded in 1973 to continue the work of Charles Fort. Throughout his life, Fort was skeptical about scientific explanations, observing how scientists argued according to their own beliefs rather than the rules of evidence and that inconvenient data was ignored, suppressed, discredited or explained away (which is quite different from explaining a thing).

Fortean Times (http://www.forteantimes.com/mag_info/about.shtml)

What's that? inconvenient data ignored? suppressed? discredited (ad hominem)? Sounds like a fair summary of Claus' experience to me.

[edited for spelling and postscript below]

P.S.
Revisiting the infamous FTMB thread, my point above is proven. Luci returns following the banning of Claus and bestows on himself the last the last word. I have no malice towards the FTMB or its members, I am just pointing out that as a forum for debate, discovery and knowledge it is a lame duck. A more tolerant forum such as this that will always be the acid test of extraordinary or paranormal claims, because we can still read what Luci has to say, if he chooses to post, but Claus's contribution is lost the Fortean Times Message Board.

[JamesM]

I think you're being a wee bit unfair there Drooper. I think "book burning" is overstating the case. Claus wasn't banned (suspended in JREF terms) for his skepticism. Darat hasn't been banned, others have questioned the quality of Luci's predictions and they haven't been banned, either. The feel of the board may not be to everyone's taste (I personally favour the "getting down to brass tacks" attitude here), but you can present a skeptical attitude, I assure you, without being banned.

If no-one is engaging with Luci's claims, it's because a good old-fashioned flame war has broken out, and all the signal has been lost in the noise. This can happen rather a lot here, too.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by JamesM
I think you're being a wee bit unfair there Drooper. I think "book burning" is overstating the case. Claus wasn't banned (suspended in JREF terms) for his skepticism. Darat hasn't been banned, others have questioned the quality of Luci's predictions and they haven't been banned, either. The feel of the board may not be to everyone's taste (I personally favour the "getting down to brass tacks" attitude here), but you can present a skeptical attitude, I assure you, without being banned.

If no-one is engaging with Luci's claims, it's because a good old-fashioned flame war has broken out, and all the signal has been lost in the noise. This can happen rather a lot here, too.

Se my post above. I believe the reason given for banning is irrelevant. If you want debate you have to let it flow. Claus wrote nothing that would not be unacceptable in a face to face situation. However now his is no longer allowed to contribute to the FTMB on any issue.


I don't believe the term "book burning" is overstating the case. The arbitrary and forced censorship of persons or ideas that people find disagreeable, for whatever reason. That sums up Claus banning perfectly.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Drooper
now his is no longer allowed to contribute to the FTMB on any issue.
He is. The ban was temporary and has been lifted.

I don't believe the term "book burning" is overstating the case. The arbitrary and forced censorship of persons or ideas that people find disagreeable, for whatever reason. That sums up Claus banning perfectly.
You can be banned here for being a "jerk" or repeatedly swearing. I don't consider that equivalent to book burning, so perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by JamesM

He is. The ban was temporary and has been lifted.

Until next time ;)


You can be banned here for being a "jerk" or repeatedly swearing. I don't consider that equivalent to book burning, so perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

If people were banned from here for being "jerks" you and I would be left dodging the tumbleweeds. :D

Besides, Claus could described neither as a "jerk", nor as a perennial swearer. Even if he did, his enforced absence would leave this forum intellectually diminished

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Drooper
Until next time ;)
On this, we can agree!

If people were banned from here for being "jerks" you and I would be left dodging the tumbleweeds. :D
That's true, I've never seen it used to ban anyone. But the threat does exist.

Besides, Claus could described neither as a "jerk", nor as a perennial swearer. Even if he did, his enforced absence would leave this forum intellectually diminished
I agree again. I don't think Claus is a jerk either. I think his methods are necessary on many occasions. But I do think he can appear to be acting in a jerkish manner sometimes, particularly to the uninitiated. On the FTMB, Luci has been taking part of the threads and just being a normal member. Until very recently, there's been little acting up on his/her part. From his first post Claus came on pretty strong. It had all the hallmarks of a trolling personal attack in the making and it got people's backs up.

If we want to promote skepticism and critical thinking (and I do want to see this, despite not classifying myself as a skeptic), we have to consider ourselves ambassadors for skepticism in general, and for the JREF forum in particular, when venturing out to other boards. That doesn't mean pulling your punches, but it does mean moderating one's tone to what is appropriate for another board. It's simply good strategy and good manners.

[geni]

Drooper

Banning someone from a forum is akin to book burning?

By that logic if I throw you out of my house for insulting me I am denying your right to free speach. So you have been denied an arena for you view big deal. It;'s not like you don't have any other places. If you went into a southen baptist church and yelles praise be to darwin I don't think that you clould complain about being removed. If you did it on the street outside you would be free to do so.

I am assuming that you extend you critism of other boards stykes of moderation to the bad astromeny board? why did you not mention this in you post it would make it seem far more blanced?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by geni
Drooper

Banning someone from a forum is akin to book burning?

By that logic if I throw you out of my house for insulting me I am denying your right to free speach. So you have been denied an arena for you view big deal. It;'s not like you don't have any other places. If you went into a southen baptist church and yelles praise be to darwin I don't think that you clould complain about being removed. If you did it on the street outside you would be free to do so.

We are not in your house (I think), but in a public forum. If I did happen to insult you in your house, then you could well throw me out. But you could not then claim that your house is a place of learning, debate or knowledge. It is simply your house; a place of your opinions and views, with those of others tolerated at your discretion alone. Do you see?

I am assuming that you extend you critism of other boards stykes of moderation to the bad astromeny board? why did you not mention this in you post it would make it seem far more blanced?

Firstly, to clarify. It is not a criticism per se. It just appears to me to be a fact. In the past technology was such that we could live our lives without having to deal with the opinions of others by burning books. Now we can ban people from electronic forums.

Regarding you point. I didn't set out to write a "balanced" post. I wrote something that I thought had some substance and wanted to get other pepole to think about it too. Some (if not all, ;) ) disagree, like you.

So, in the interest of "balance" (actually to prove that there is no iconsistency in my thinking), I would indeed contend that the Bad Astronomy site is, in theory, inferior as a forum of knowledge, debate and discovery if it practises the same policies as the FTMB. However, I suspect that in practice, all astronomers are most polite, so people don't tend to get excluded.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The problem is that "jerk" is not a term that most people are capable of describing.

That's actually why I was banned from The Straight Dope. In a forum expressedly dedicated to flaming, personal insults, and "inappropriate" posting, I expressed views which the moderators found personally offensive. Their stated reason? I was being a "jerk".

Meanwhile other threads contained rampant speculation as to other posters' heritage, sexual preferences, drug use, fetishes, and so forth... which was just fine.

:nope:

[geni]

Originally posted by Drooper


We are not in your house (I think), but in a public forum. If I did happen to insult you in your house, then you could well throw me out. But you could not then claim that your house is a place of learning, debate or knowledge. It is simply your house; a place of your opinions and views, with those of others tolerated at your discretion alone. Do you see?

If sxomeone were to come onto my uni campus and start yelling that everyone was a pedophile I suspect that they would be removed quite quickly. My uni seems to present itself as a place of learning, debate or knowledge.


Firstly, to clarify. It is not a criticism per se. It just appears to me to be a fact. In the past technology was such that we could live our lives without having to deal with the opinions of others by burning books. Now we can ban people from electronic forums.

As histroy has shown in the long run burning books is not effective. Suspending people from forums is even less effective due to the nature of the internet. BTW could you name a recent debate on this forum that could not have taken place under the sort of rules that fortean times seems to operate under?

[Rolfe]

The homoeopathy forums have been at it too. HH a few weeks ago, H'pathy just now.

People go along saying they would like to be shown the objective evidence that homoeopathy works. They admit to being fairly sceptical, but open-minded and willing to look at the evidence on its merits. They try to initiate discussion on the merits and demerits of a selection of relevant scientific papers. They even outline objective tests which would convince them solidly, should the results be positive.

They are immediately labelled "trolls". And "closed-minded". Homoeopaths declare that they themselves will never even consider the possibility that homoeopathy doesn't work, because their personal experiences are more valid than any objective test. This is their definition of "open-minded". Those who continue to ask for objective evidence, or who recount personal experiences which have led them to the belief that it doesn't work, are "closed-minded".

The homoeopaths are some of the rudest people I've ever come across. Even genuine enquirers, if they don't profess slavish acceptance of the entire nine yards in their first post, are sent off with an abrupt flea in their ear. They castigate the sceptics in the strongest terms. The most flagrantly rude posts will be praised effusively by the choir of homoeopathy fans. They are also astoundingly rude about real medicine, of which they know nothing.

But at the same time, the sceptics must demonstrate a proper humility, and not criticise homoeopathy, because they don't understand it. "You are here to learn, Starburn." Even if they remain unfailingly polite, this will be hailed as rudeness, simply because questions are asked and assertions challenged. Let a sceptic slip so far as to return any of the insults in even the mildest kind, and the wrath of the swarm (sorry) will descend.

I've heard of a dialogue of the deaf, but trying to get anyone at all involved with homoeopathy to debate even the most simple, straightforward question is a surreal experience. They fall back on the assertion that homoeopathy doesn't come under scientific modes of thought, but that their way of thinking (which validates their subjective assumptions) is just as valid as science, and who are we to deny that.

I don't know if they realised just how thoroughly they'd been painted into a corner or not. The level of awareness of the essence of the arguments was not high. They may have realised that they had been argued into the ground, but they may just have got fed up and wanted to silence the opposition.

Whatever, they banned the dissenters anyway. They will no doubt continue in their little fantasy world, with nobody to challenge their views on the miasms that cause disease, or the little prods to the vital force that put it right, or the fact that they can cure any aliment known to mankind, given a free hand (note that they don't commit to when). It's a pity they don't just crawl up their own backsides. Unfortunately these deluded souls have practices, and patients, and real people are being robbed blind and kept from potentially effective medicine by these delusions.

OK, I'll stop ranting now. But I think there are living rooms where the householders are asking to be challenged, and should get what they're asking for as often as possible.

Rolfe.

Edited to add: OK, looking at the details, it seems that some bannings are more debatable than others. And this one is certainly in Geni's category of "counterproductive". But still, I think there are some boats that need rocking.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Drooper
This would include not only the mostly commonly condemned examples in the past, but also some more challenging examples of the present - for example, the treatment of the famed holocaust denier David Irving. I must admit that I find David Irving highly disagreeable from the content and presentation of his theories. Certainly, I would feel more comfortable not having to expend energy rebutting his claims when I find myself confronted by them. However, I accept the need for a world where people are free to expound their views, where they do not place others at risk.

Actually, it was David Irving who was the one who was trying to 'burn books'; it was he who sued the lady who wrote an article about him, not the other way around.

Worse, he sued in a British court, which means the lady in question had to prove her innocence, instead of him proving his case.

She not only only proved that he was indeed a holocaust denier; she did it in spades. David was shown again and again to make inaccurate points about the material he quoted, to the point where any assertion he made had to be checked to see if it was right (and his assertions frequently worked).

He had not tried to quash another's freedom of speech, he would not have been revealed to be the intellectually dishonest man that he is.

[Jaan]

I'm not trying to hijack this thread or whatever ... but something crossed my mind.

I think most "electronic book burning", or more rightly loss of data, is unintentional.

It seems to be an unfortunate side effect of the easily deleted mediums we have today and a great loss to future generations. How much of our past history comes from pictures, film and diaries that were tucked away in the back of a drawer? Today digital pictures can be erased 5 seconds after taken, videotapes can be recorded over, and BLOGs will evaporate along with hard drive crashes.

[waitew]

21 st century book burning = politcal correctness!!

[NullPointerException]

I criticize the ignorant by making the last word in every sentence part of another sentence apparent only to Me. It's like talking about Tarzan. Only there is no one around to give you a decent conversation about such a ridiculous topic so its a one sided discussion featuring you. Of course its not like anyone ever figures out how moronic I make them look by doing something like talking about a girl from a movie named Jane.

[scribble]

Some folks apparently think we should ban nobody. I say it's just another voice on the interent -- who cares? If we could assume that they had something to say that would be relevant - but that's a ridiculous if. I'm just going to have to disagree with you. That's how things are.

You listening, Tarzan?

[bignickel]

Originally posted by waitew
21 st century book burning = politcal correctness!!

I agree that burning books in the 21st century is an example of political correctness.

But then again: so was burning books in the 20th century, and and the 19th, and the 18th.... all the way back to the destruction of the Library of Alexandria by the Xtians and then the Muslims (the only thing that the 2 religions could agree on).

Whether by right-wings or left-wings, it's always disturbing.

[NullPointerException]

I think you take liberalism too far, even the founder of the concept of toleration realized that some people just need to be slapped.

*Slap*
I'm Rick James.