missing forums...

[Cosmic Id]

It was a video in which the President was attacking the press for demanding instant condemnation of one side in Charlottesville - before even it was clear what had happened - and ignoring the fact that this was a fight in which both sides were armed with clubs and suchlike. I thought he presented his case very well.

David

Really? you thought he handled it well? This is a man who finds any petty, childish excuse to insult and condemn people and flaunts it openly on twitter, but he couldn't find the least bit of passion to openly denounce the KKK or Nazis by name. Worse, this isn't even the first time hes had trouble doing it. Then After his dispassionate reading of an obviously prepared statement condemning the KKK and Neo Nazis he comes back and says there were some really good people in the crowd chanting "blood and soil" and the "Jews will not replace us". One who associates with the KKK and Neo Nazis enough to think they know that shouldn't be running a country.

Also I shouldn't have to say this but if you are in a line of people and they start chanting Nazi and KKK slogans and you don't leave, then the probability of you being a very good person spirals down to the single digits. This isn't about just looking like a mob, these people are horrifying just in the mere existence of their disgusting, ignorant, hateful, and violent ideology let alone as an armed crowd marching with torches.

Yes the media and anyone with a decent moral compass demand the instant condemnation of the Nazis and the KKK, because they are bigoted terrorist groups. They would especially demand it from someone who these groups support, especially when that person is the president. The real question is why does he have such a hard time with it? He has an easy time blabbing his mouth off about any other thought that pops up in that abyss of a mind of his. Why is white supremacy so hard for him to talk about? It's almost like he's bigoted or something...

 

[David Bailey]

Really? you thought he handled it well? This is a man who finds any petty, childish excuse to insult and condemn people and flaunts it openly on twitter, but he couldn't find the least bit of passion to openly denounce the KKK or Nazis by name. Worse, this isn't even the first time hes had trouble doing it. Then After his dispassionate reading of an obviously prepared statement condemning the KKK and Neo Nazis he comes back and says there were some really good people in the crowd chanting "blood and soil" and the "Jews will not replace us". One who associates with the KKK and Neo Nazis enough to think they know that shouldn't be running a country.

Also I shouldn't have to say this but if you are in a line of people and they start chanting Nazi and KKK slogans and you don't leave, then the probability of you being a very good person spirals down to the single digits. This isn't about just looking like a mob, these people are horrifying just in the mere existence of their disgusting, ignorant, hateful, and violent ideology let alone as an armed crowd marching with torches.

Yes the media and anyone with a decent moral compass demand the instant condemnation of the Nazis and the KKK, because they are bigoted terrorist groups. They would especially demand it from someone who these groups support, especially when that person is the president. The real question is why does he have such a hard time with it? He has an easy time blabbing his mouth off about any other thought that pops up in that abyss of a mind of his. Why is white supremacy so hard for him to talk about? It's almost like he's bigoted or something...

I don't have any sympathy for the KKK or other Nazi groups, but the AntiFA groups can be extraordinarily violent too. I think the real tragedy is that free speech is being curtailed in your country by mob violence, and if the President stands up against that, I'm full square behind him.

The problem is that the AntiFA don't just go after genuine KKK or Nazis (the term 'Fascists' is so loosely defined nowadays, they can make it mean anything), they attack anyone who doesn't fully agree with their entire agenda. You might want to read about the French revolution, to give you a taste for where mob rule can lead.

You will find that while most (but not all) people here are convinced that some psychic phenomena are real, we cover quite a spectrum of political views.

David

 

[Jim_Smith]

The real problem is not the fringe groups. The real problem is that ordinary people are getting drawn into conflict. Ordinary people see the news and see their biases confirmed and think it's true: the other side is "bad". But the news is fooling you ... except it is self fulfilling - people think the other side is bad and hates them so they hate the other side. But for most of us none of this is necessary. It is the news media and politicians and other people who benefit from the conflict - "journalists" want more viewers, politicians want votes - who are driving this. Like a person who thinks it's funny to start a fight between two people by lying to them about what the other person said.

Good people can disagree on policy because people in different circumstances will be affected by policy in different ways. Somehow the ordinary people need to figure out that they have been misled into distrusting the ordinary people on the other side who themselves are misled.

The only way out is to help people on both sides to see what has been done - to break through the illusion spun by the hate mongers that the other side is "bad". But people love to hate, and they love to be afraid - like from a ghost story or horror movie. In fact hate and fear are addicting, they involve the same system (dopamine) in the brain as drug addiction. So how do you wake people up from an illusion that is so much fun and so pleasurable to believe? We need public figures on both sides who will say the truth: that we should resolve problems by open discussion and democratic processes, but no one wants to say that because it is too risky to contradict what everyone "knows" and is too profitable to just go along with the war. I think people would see the truth if they heard it from someone they trusted. But we don't have leaders we only have hustlers who don't care about the damage they are doing to society as long as they can make more money and accumulate more power.

Everyone knows what the media says, I don't need to repeat that, but many people might not know what is in these two videos:

This video is by people from various groups that were protesting at Charlottesville and are not bigots or nazis. They were there to defend the first amendment. But the media painted everyone there, including them, falsely as bigots. Not surprisingly they are angry.

This video is about the free speech rally in Boston. I live in the area and followed the events leading up to the rally and the events on the day of the rally on the internet, local news, and live feeds from the rally. What this video say is true. The government and media lied about the rally. It had nothing to do with bigotry or white supremacy. It was a rally to promote free speech as an alternative to political violence. The police only let in about 40 people. There were 40,000 outside protesting against free speech. Since I live in the area I am greatly disheartened at this misrepresentation. I thought I lived in a free country, but now I feel like I am living in the Soviet Union where the media and the state work together to deceive the people.
[

 

[Vortex]

I don't have any sympathy for the KKK or other Nazi groups, but the AntiFA groups can be extraordinarily violent too. I think the real tragedy is that free speech is being curtailed in your country by mob violence, and if the President stands up against that, I'm full square behind him.

The problem is that the AntiFA don't just go after genuine KKK or Nazis (the term 'Fascists' is so loosely defined nowadays, they can make it mean anything), they attack anyone who doesn't fully agree with their entire agenda. You might want to read about the French revolution, to give you a taste for where mob rule can lead.

You will find that while most (but not all) people here are convinced that some psychic phenomena are real, we cover quite a spectrum of political views.

David

Well, French revolution was a founding event of a modern era - along with other democratic revolutions of that time... Whether we want it or not, we have what have today (and we have a lot of good stuff, compared to the people before us) only because of illegal violent rebellions against "legitimate authorities" that were ignited and enacted by our ansestors. The progressive changes that resulted in a modern Western civilization as we know it, were produced with the help of massive illegal violence which devastated countless innocent lives - and they couldn't be produced any other way. Whether we like it or not, such are historical facts.

So, we should either accept the current situation in toto, with all the constant, regular, "legitimate" violence it perpetuates, and give up any hope to change it, ever - or we should accept the necessity and inevitabilty of militant insurrection and armed revolution, with all their atrocities and broken innocent lives, as a method of achieving fundamental and persistent social change.

Or we should invent a way to achieve such changes without bloodbath of horrid proportions. I do hope one day such way will be shown... Yet, as for now, no one knows how to enact a strong social change without a lot of violence. Do you have some ideas?

And, until someone will invent a viable and effective path of peaceful social change, of conflict resolution beased on genuine equal nonviolent interaction, our choice is the one between passive submission to violence of "authorities" and active violence perpetuated by ourselves. It is an ugly choice, with both options being highly undesireable, but it is the choice we actually face nowadays.

So, I will not blame and condemn people who chose either of the aforementioned unpleasant options.

 

[Cosmic Id]

I don't have any sympathy for the KKK or other Nazi groups, but the AntiFA groups can be extraordinarily violent too. I think the real tragedy is that free speech is being curtailed in your country by mob violence, and if the President stands up against that, I'm full square behind him.

The problem is that the AntiFA don't just go after genuine KKK or Nazis (the term 'Fascists' is so loosely defined nowadays, they can make it mean anything), they attack anyone who doesn't fully agree with their entire agenda. You might want to read about the French revolution, to give you a taste for where mob rule can lead.

You will find that while most (but not all) people here are convinced that some psychic phenomena are real, we cover quite a spectrum of political views.

David

Hers the problem with that. Trump is not standing up for free speech. He has made it blatantly clear he doesn't care about freedom of expression or speech. He is child that just likes anyone who supports him and refuses to call out his problematic supporters. Again this is a man who will throw out insults like confetti for far less. Yet he didn't do so for the white supremacist groups. Why? If this were a Muslim terrorist, or simply a black man Trump wouldn't have waited to condemn them. He's made that clear on multiple occasions. Why is he so uncharacteristically careful when it comes to white supremacists? You cant remove his prior behavior from the context of this response.

If he had handled it well the white supremacist groups wouldn't still think he was supportive of them. They wouldn't openly say that trump loves them. If he had handled this topic the way any decent human would have handled it they wouldn't have shown up as an armed, torch wielding mob in his name to begin with. This man is obviously either bigoted or supporting bigots because they like him. Really in my book the difference is negligible because the negative impact is the same.

No freedom of speech is not under assault. This is an unfortunate misrepresentation of what free speech is. Freedom of speech is not freedom fro consequence for saying and doing horrible things. If you march upon a synagogue as a mob then decent people are going to defend those people from from your perceived violence. Thing is decent people get pretty angry and disgusted at Nazis or racists in general. It is an inherently violent ideology so violence follows it very swiftly. Nazis may be free to live here but they should never feel welcome.

 

[David Bailey]

No freedom of speech is not under assault.

That is not true. The AntiFA has used violence on a number of university campuses to stop speakers that it decides it doesn't like. That is loss of freedom of speech. You are talking about mob rule.

There are also plenty of peaceful people who don't want their statues pulled down. As the President pointed out, where will it end, George Washington was a slave owner - so should his statues go, and the city and the state be renamed?

David

 

[Jim_Smith]

Investigators infiltrate Antifa and similar groups and discover a coordinated plot for bloody revolution in the US.

 

[Cosmic Id]

Investigators infiltrate Antifa and similar groups and discover a coordinated plot for bloody revolution in the US.

Seriously? Alex Jones? Next you'll be showing clips of Richard Dawkins as a source for the validity of parapsychology research.

 

[Cosmic Id]

That is not true. The AntiFA has used violence on a number of university campuses to stop speakers that it decides it doesn't like. That is loss of freedom of speech. You are talking about mob rule.

There are also plenty of peaceful people who don't want their statues pulled down. As the President pointed out, where will it end, George Washington was a slave owner - so should his statues go, and the city and the state be renamed?

David

I agree on the Univerity thing. At least that the speakers should be allowed. Allowing stupid people to talk to educated crowds is like handing them a rope to hang themselves with. Even in the best case scenario for them its only a matter of time before they slip off that chair.

However not an attack on free speech. Freedom of speech is protection from government restriction on free speech and expression. This would be an example of an attack on those individuals or universities ect. If we had a push for legislation for government intervention then we would have an attack on free speech. Even if it were trending towards an attack on free speech Nazi and KKK tread on the very edge of the line that's covered by free speech. The KKK and the Nazis are violent and openly incite violence and harassment. That is not covered by free speech. The very reason the KKK are even still around in their current form is because of a culture of lingering racsim and hatred that leads to a double standard of how we treat them.I think we all know if it were a branch of ISIS Trump nor the government wouldn't care as much for their free speech. Just imagine that for a sec ISIS trying to spread their ideology in america, it would never fly. As I stated before Trumps response wasn't about free speech. He doesn't care about free speech. He cares about inflating his already overblown ego, and he'll celebrate anyone who does that, and unfortunately white supremacists love the guy.

I'm not talking about mob rule. I am talking about basic human decency. Nazi and KKK ideology should not be considered acceptable or condonable. It is something we must speak against. We wont curtail their freedom to say terrible things, but we will state unequivocally that these ideas are opposed to our country's ideals and basic moral decency. We have seen where these ideologies lead, never again. There's a difference between allowing some to free move about your home and making them feel welcome in it.

That is one heck of a slippery slope fallacy there. for one thing The statues are being moved to more appropriate places such as museums and confederate cemeteries. They are not being erased or anything(besides the ones that were vandelized dont know what the states will do with those). Also you are also either ignorant of or ignoring the historical context of these statues. The vast Majority of them were erected during the Jim crow and civil rights eras in order to intimidate black voters and civil rights activists. These statues were specifically erected to send a message of racism.

George Washington may have owned slaves but that wasn't the thing he decided to dedicate his life to. He didn't participate in a war dedicated to protect his "right" to own people. The confederates did. The confederates also betrayed the country that Washington created. So the confederates were traitors who were obsessed with owning people. The founding fathers had many, many flaws and the american education system does need to do a better job highlighting them. However we do not celebrate them for those flaws. We celebrate them for creating the country we live in. Tell me what is there to celebrate about the confederates? They betrayed America so they could continue owning slaves and they lost. They should be remembered yes, but not celebrated. To quote Dr Jones "It belongs in a museum!"

As for Trump he has not handled this or the presidency well. Thing is Trump is ok with white supremacy, he's ok with bigotry in general, and hes ok with violence too as long as its supporting him. He made that clear throughout the primary. Its why white supremacists like David Duke fancy him so much. If you are going to address this topic you need to cover that. The man is a best a joke and should not be used a serious source here. Same goes for Alex Jones I mean come on. It like taking James Randi seriously.

 

[Bart V]

That is loss of freedom of speech. You are talking about mob rule.

David, you are confusing freedom of speech with saying whatever you want without consequences.
The first is an inalienable right, the second is not.

You are free to say whatever you want, and i will defend that right, but nobody has the right to not being found out to be an asshole for what they are saying.
That is a bonus advantage of free speech, you can keep track of who, and where, the racists are.
It is now clear they are in president pussygrabber's base, and he is fully supporting them.

It is also hard to defend PPG, and portray him as a defender of free speech, if we consider his sympathy for press oppressing dictators.
He himself is constantly attacking the press if they do not agree with his obvious lies, and delusions of grandeur.
If it was up to The Donald, i bet 'Merica would have a completely controlled, Soviet styled, press with Fox as the state propaganda outlet.

The sort of free speech Trump wants, is the sort where you can say what you want, not be criticized for it, and forcefully shut up who does not agree with it.

 

[Steve]

The sort of free speech Trump wants, is the sort where you can say what you want, not be criticized for it, and forcefully shut up who does not agree with it.

Exactly.

 

[David Bailey]

The sort of free speech Trump wants, is the sort where you can say what you want, not be criticized for it, and forcefully shut up who does not agree with it.

I said nothing about not being criticised for what you say. I mean, people shouldn't riot on campus until the university backs down (often on public safety grounds) and bans someone from speaking. Those riots often involve setting fire to vehicles and extreme violence.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/21/violent-or-disruptive-protests-on-college-campuses-in-2017.html

That is mob rule

David

 

[Bart V]

I said nothing about not being criticised for what you say.

In previous discussions you often made comments in the style of "political correctness gone mad", to me that goes a long way in that direction.

I mean, people shouldn't riot on campus until the university backs down (often on public safety grounds) and bans someone from speaking. Those riots often involve setting fire to vehicles and extreme violence.

Freedom of speech also includes these kind of protests too, why shouldn't people have the right to have their voice heard if a university invites a right wing nutter to speak?
If these protests turn violent, and crimes are committed, i have no objection to appropriate lawful action.
But that stands loose from the right for these people to have their voices heard.

It is also the right of universities to refuse speakers, maybe in some cases the invitations of these speakers went a bit under the radar before the protests.
Maybe these people were invited under misleading pretenses, and these protests drew attention to them.

I am in two minds about universities giving these kind of folks a forum, but the protests, and consequent changing of minds, is all in the free market of ideas IMO, this has nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/21/violent-or-disruptive-protests-on-college-campuses-in-2017.html

That is mob rule

David

It is very hard to take anything that comes from fox serious, especially in this discussion.

 

[David Bailey]

Freedom of speech also includes these kind of protests too, why shouldn't people have the right to have their voice heard if a university invites a right wing nutter to speak?

Oh right - so the question of who shall speak on a campus is down to which 'side' has more muscle. Great!

David

 

[Bart V]

Oh right - so the question of who shall speak on a campus is down to which 'side' has more muscle. Great!

David

You know i did not say that, David. I said there is a free market of ideas, and i condemn any violence in expressing these ideas.
That said, you think people do not have the right to protest to a speaker that is obviously controversial? Is that not also freedom of speech?
University do not have the right to change their minds when confronted with reasonable protest?

You do not have to agree with someone to recognize their right for expressing their ideas.

 

[tarantulanebula]

I went back to my strenuous life earning several months ago and have seldom been paying attention to interests of the type here people talk about. And now I come back to here, dear all, but I'm confused what happened?

 

[Michael Larkin]

I went back to my strenuous life earning several months ago and have seldom been paying attention to interests of the type here people talk about. And now I come back to here, dear all, but I'm confused what happened?

Not that sure I understand it all myself, but a lot of the discussion has moved over to http://psiencequest.net/forums/index.php.

 

[David Bailey]

For anyone new here, do remember that there is an enormous number of interesting discussions going back many years that you can explore. Also, most of the worthwhile stuff from the two closed sections, was moved to whichever other section seemed most appropriate. Very little material was made inaccessible or lost.

I don't want to go into too much detail, but the disagreement was basically about moderation. Here at Skeptiko, we allow sceptics to post here, but if they start to bully others, we draw the line. The same goes for fundamentalist Christians. Both groups have to want to discuss their ideas in a meaningful way - not just lay the law down as they see it. We also require that all people post here in a basically courteous fashion.

Those who left, set up another forum in which there is very little moderation, which is done by committee. From past experience here at Skeptiko, that doesn't work too well, because there are a determined group of people who want to disrupt any serious discussion of non-physical concepts. I wish their new forum well - and Michael and I both post over there sometimes. Quite a lot of people are joining Skeptiko, and I hope discussion will soon be more lively again. Do remember, however, that excessively lively forums can just end up as shouting matches!

David

 

[tarantulanebula]

Ah, I get a little, I'm sorry I don't know whether it is me who violated the atmosphere here or I'm one of those ones who did.

Actually I don't exactly understand what does the word "skeptic" mean, I used to consider it as "someone who is defensive against being credulous and is prone to doubt everything", perhaps it must be, or for the most part be used relevant to religious stance, namely atheist or theist. So the "proponents" means "theists" and the "skeptics" means "atheists"? I originally thought "skeptics" means "a group of people who doubt everything including both atheism and theism.

So the major problem is that while this forum's etiquette is based on that atheists and theists should respect each other, there were bullying conversations which violated the rule.

 

[David Bailey]

Ah, I get a little, I'm sorry I don't know whether it is me who violated the atmosphere here or I'm one of those ones who did.

Absolutely not!

Actually I don't exactly understand what does the word "skeptic" mean, I used to consider it as "someone who is defensive against being credulous and is prone to doubt everything", perhaps it must be, or for the most part be used relevant to religious stance, namely atheist or theist. So the "proponents" means "theists" and the "skeptics" means "atheists"? I originally thought "skeptics" means "a group of people who doubt everything including both atheism and theism.

The problem is that some people out there in the rest of the world have hijacked the word 'sceptic' to mean a slavish adherence to materialism - even if that involves distorting or ignoring much of the evidence against materialism.

So the major problem is that while this forum's etiquette is based on that atheists and theists should respect each other, there were bullying conversations which violated the rule.

Actually it was more an argument about the way Skeptiko handles trouble of that sort! I don't really want to go into full details because I don't want to perpetuate those pointless arguments!

In my opinion, Skeptiko does need to be moderated - which is why new members are invited to a brief email discussion with Alex before they can post. Years ago we ran with far less moderation, and reasonable discussion of all types of opinion was drowned out by junk of various kinds. I like to compare this place with a dinner party. If someone attends a dinner party and just upsets people for no real reason - e.g. by monopolising conversation, they don't get invited again!

For example, members of this forum can (and frequently do) react sceptically to all sorts of ideas/phenomena, but if they just adopt a broad-brush scepticism and make disparaging references to 'woo' then Alex or I step in. Banning is, however, the ultimate sanction.

I am also aware that a few people come here to discuss their own extremely personal experiences of the paranormal. Such discussions are valuable, and I am particularly careful to ensure that such people are treated courteously.

We are all sceptical of some phenomena and some ideas - that is totally normal.

David