The Fortean times and its moderation failure (alt-right, atheist, materialist)

@Tarquin Rees, I feel you, but I've yet to encounter a situation where banning someone's ideas was productive or encouraging.

It's difficult to quantify I think though I tend to agree. How would we know though? As an example take the old Fortean Times boards: back in the day used to be a great place to discuss religion/politics whatever. No-one was ever banned because no-one needed to be. Disagreements happened but it was all self-policed.

Now it's full of Islamophobes, alt-right and Neo-atheists who shut down anything that is not a rinse-repeat of their views. So no discussion is possible and all the thinking reasoned members (like me! lol) stay away. A few judicious bans in the pre-virus stage there would have been very productive. Could have saved the forum.
 
It's difficult to quantify I think though I tend to agree. How would we know though? As an example take the old Fortean Times boards: back in the day used to be a great place to discuss religion/politics whatever. No-one was ever banned because no-one needed to be. Disagreements happened but it was all self-policed.

Now it's full of Islamophobes, alt-right and Neo-atheists who shut down anything that is not a rinse-repeat of their views. So no discussion is possible and all the thinking reasoned members (like me! lol) stay away. A few judicious bans in the pre-virus stage there would have been very productive. Could have saved the forum.
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks the FT forum went down the pan. From a site based on the theoretical possibility of weirdness it was colonised by New Atheists, virtue signallers and the smuggest brand of moderation available. I looked in a while ago and it was a silo of reflexive self regard and casual intolerance. I stopped taking the magazine when the on-line presence went from wry and parenthetical to archly sceptical.
 
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks the FT forum went down the pan. From a site based on the theoretical possibility of weirdness it was colonised by New Atheists, virtue signallers and the smuggest brand of moderation available. I looked in a while ago and it was a silo of reflexive self regard and casual intolerance. I stopped taking the magazine when the on-line presence went from wry and parenthetical to archly sceptical.

Yeah, it's weird. I think the phenomenon would make a good show or investigation actually: what is the process bye which a thing transmutes into it's own polar opposite while still claiming to be the original thing.

It's central to our themes/interests on here. Christianity itself would be another classic example writ large.
 
Yeah, it's weird. I think the phenomenon would make a good show or investigation actually: what is the process bye which a thing transmutes into it's own polar opposite while still claiming to be the original thing.

It's central to our themes/interests on here. Christianity itself would be another classic example writ large.
I've seen it happen too often in the internet age to believe it's anything other than targeted and organised. Fortean Times was a prized scalp, a index of possibilities and an affront to reductionist reasoning. Flood the board with sceptics, offer them a moderation job when everyone else is too weary of the shit storm, and turn it into a meta-brand. If people complain, ban them. I don't think it'll be long before someone pulls the plug on the magazine, too.
 
Not sure why no-one spoke out against it though.
FT was always Bob Rickard's baby, and he maintained a feeling of awe and wonder with a sense of humour, and without indulging credulity or cynicism. When BR retired the magazine slipped into a popular culture, media studies, post-modern spiral where the requirement to believe any of its subject matter might be objectively true was replaced by lashings of irony. There was always a sense that half the stuff in Fortean Times was fancy, but which half was left up to the reader. It became a joke explained and the joke was there was nothing to see. It was the Mornington Crescent of anomalous phenomena, something the forum has underpinned irrevocably.

Shame really, I took more than two decades of FT subscription to the tip early this year.
 
Really interesting discussion about the Fortean Times transformation. I'm wondering if this forum is susceptible to being undermined in the same way. Obviously it "could" be. But is there enough value for anyone to spend the time and energy to do so?

I would think moderating against such an attack would require intelligence and discretion to avoid banning everyone and anyone who didn't conform to the moderator's standards of a good dinner party guest.
 
It's difficult to quantify I think though I tend to agree. How would we know though? As an example take the old Fortean Times boards: back in the day used to be a great place to discuss religion/politics whatever. No-one was ever banned because no-one needed to be. Disagreements happened but it was all self-policed.

Now it's full of Islamophobes, alt-right and Neo-atheists who shut down anything that is not a rinse-repeat of their views. So no discussion is possible and all the thinking reasoned members (like me! lol) stay away. A few judicious bans in the pre-virus stage there would have been very productive. Could have saved the forum.
I have not looked at this forum, but it is interesting what you and Gabriel report . I hope very much that you don't think this forum is in a similar decline - I don't, and I mean to make sure it doesn't go that way!

David
 
I have not looked at this forum, but it is interesting what you and Gabriel report . I hope very much that you don't think this forum is in a similar decline - I don't, and I mean to make sure it doesn't go that way!

David

No... definitely not!! I think that forum went that way because no bans were happening! Just my opinion though! You're doing great!
 
No... definitely not!! I think that forum went that way because no bans were happening! Just my opinion though! You're doing great!
It was more subtle than that. A decision was made to carve the board up in a way that allowed a more sceptical viewpoint to flourish and ultimately dominate. Just as the academic study of anomalous phenomena has been overtaken by the study of why people believe weird things (a very different pursuit), FT moved from an inclusive, non-judgemental approach to personal testimony, to one that people on this forum would identify as having all the features of aggressive scepticism. Known trolls were indulged and open sceptical materialists appointed to moderating positions.

I can recall founding editor Bob Rickard being scathing towards "believers" in science, and dismissive of many of its polemicists. Today those opinions would get him reprimanded and if he persisted, banned from the forum. I assume they don't want to upset a shrinking constituency and have gone with the flow. They would probably claim moderation is a thankless gig. As we know, it's one lifestyle sceptics are only too happy to fill.
 
It was more subtle than that. A decision was made to carve the board up in a way that allowed a more sceptical viewpoint to flourish and ultimately dominate. Just as the academic study of anomalous phenomena has been overtaken by the study of why people believe weird things (a very different pursuit), FT moved from an inclusive, non-judgemental approach to personal testimony, to one that people on this forum would identify as having all the features of aggressive scepticism. Known trolls were indulged and open sceptical materialists appointed to moderating positions.

I can recall founding editor Bob Rickard being scathing towards "believers" in science, and dismissive of many of its polemicists. Today those opinions would get him reprimanded and if he persisted, banned from the forum. I assume they don't want to upset a shrinking constituency and have gone with the flow. They would probably claim moderation is a thankless gig. As we know, it's one lifestyle sceptics are only too happy to fill.

True but it's more than that even. It also plays into the current Zeitgeist and the rise of the alt-right.... I would contend that the main malefactors you describe here also share characteristics of Islamophobia, racism and various other toxic manifestations. Skepticism (and atheism) is just the mode of expression they choose as a carrier-wave.

If you want another example of the process check out Red Ice Radio which went full White Power in the course of 6 months. Actually I think Alex should maybe do a show on this (if he's interested) would be a great topic: the alt-right infiltration of alternative and 'conspiracy' media. On second thoughts he might not want to as you'd need to throw Pizzagate in the mix and we don't to go there do we?! ;)
 
To me the Fortean attitude is the polar opposite of the 'Crusader' mentality they have there now. It's not just that there's no discussion or debate - that's to be expected lol - it's more that the Fortean view is to see things from all sides... some of them that you've even made up yourself - and not be wedded to any of them.
Charles Fort challenged assumptions that the big narrative was right and gave exposure to the small story, treating both as equally curious and privileging neither. He scoured the British museum for anomalies in the Edwardian era, something that resonated with the hippie generation's appetite for strangeness. Fortean Times came out of that mind set, and the first edition (from 1973, which I have in front of me) carried stories on kestrel attacks, cows attacking a helicopter, a cobra loose in Windsor great park, the Chinese discovery of America, a mutilated body found during a bomb hoax, the kidnap of gram Parson's body, Ann Quin's mystery suicide, a toothless nude, cat telepathy, frog falls, mystery fires, Arabic writing on a fish, a phantom seen by coastguards, the Tunguska meteorite debate, prize dahlia cheats, feral children, a rector ritually cursing a thief, a ranger struck by lightning for the fifth time, mass hysteria, occult crimes, poltergeists, UFOs and witch trials. Testimony was valued equally and if anyone's tongue was in their cheek it was well hidden. At no point were the cases presented as evidence of errors in human perception, or include commentary why they didn't fit Known Science.
 
Charles Fort challenged assumptions that the big narrative was right and gave exposure to the small story, treating both as equally curious and privileging neither. He scoured the British museum for anomalies in the Edwardian era, something that resonated with the hippie generation's appetite for strangeness. Fortean Times came out of that mind set, and the first edition (from 1973, which I have in front of me) carried stories on kestrel attacks, cows attacking a helicopter, a cobra loose in Windsor great park, the Chinese discovery of America, a mutilated body found during a bomb hoax, the kidnap of gram Parson's body, Ann Quin's mystery suicide, a toothless nude, cat telepathy, frog falls, mystery fires, Arabic writing on a fish, a phantom seen by coastguards, the Tunguska meteorite debate, prize dahlia cheats, feral children, a rector ritually cursing a thief, a ranger struck by lightning for the fifth time, mass hysteria, occult crimes, poltergeists, UFOs and witch trials. Testimony was valued equally and if anyone's tongue was in their cheek it was well hidden. At no point were the cases presented as evidence of errors in human perception, or include commentary why they didn't fit Known Science.

Yeah I get that, I was reading FT when it was The News. Used to go to where Bob worked in the Post Office Tower to sort clippings back in the day. My point is that Fort was not wedded to belief. In anything. Today's FT Board Crusaders are more sure they are right than the atheists are. More often than not this is because they ARE atheists.

I have some Fort quotes for you:

"I believe nothing. I have shut myself away from the rocks and wisdoms of ages, and from the so-called great teachers of all time, and perhaps because of that isolation I am given to bizarre hospitalities. I shut the front door upon Christ and Einstein, and at the back door hold out a welcoming hand to little frogs and periwinkles. I believe nothing of my own that I have ever written. I cannot accept that the products of minds are subject-matter for beliefs."

And, perhaps more pertinently:

I conceive of nothing, in religion, science, or philosophy, that is more than the proper thing to wear, for a while.
 
Or just one on Fortean Times Alt-Right Extremism! That would be far more interesting. Or not.
I don't know what alt.right means? Do you mean the left? In the current FT regime you stand more chance of being banned for criticising one of the New Atheists than you would for promoting liberalism. The entire religion and cults board is a diatribe against belief and the science area appears to be moderated by a default materialist. Subjects that used to comprise the mainstay of the magazine have become marginalised in the forum with a dead hand moderating policy keeping things that way. The only right wing content is I noted was the lumping of Muslims in with any metaphysical belief as medieval nonsense. It's some time since I had a poke round but I didn't notice any right agenda, just the wall to wall debunking of anything outside the big story.
 
I don't know what alt.right means? Do you mean the left? In the current FT regime you stand more chance of being banned for criticising one of the New Atheists than you would for promoting liberalism. The entire religion and cults board is a diatribe against belief and the science area appears to be moderated by a default materialist. Subjects that used to comprise the mainstay of the magazine have become marginalised in the forum with a dead hand moderating policy keeping things that way. The only right wing content is I noted was the lumping of Muslims in with any metaphysical belief as medieval nonsense. It's some time since I had a poke round but I didn't notice any right agenda, just the wall to wall debunking of anything outside the big story.

No, I don't mean the Left but you're on the right track in some strange way - one of the main stock-in-trades of the Alt-Right is to transform something into the opposite, shout about it loudly and hope that people of a, shall we say, somewhat more unreflective nature just suck it up.

Surprised you haven't heard of them - seems like something you might like! Here's some example of the transmuting-speak to help you recognise them:

Politically Left = Fascists (in Alt-right speak)
Hitler = Communist
Support Rights of Minorities = Sleeper agent enabling Islamic invasion
Speak out against Racism = Shouting for Sharia Law
Ayn Rand = God

You get the picture.... Google them. You'll love it!
 
In the current FT regime you stand more chance of being banned for criticising one of the New Atheists than you would for promoting liberalism. The entire religion and cults board is a diatribe against belief and the science area appears to be moderated by a default materialist. Subjects that used to comprise the mainstay of the magazine have become marginalised in the forum with a dead hand moderating policy keeping things that way. The only right wing content is I noted was the lumping of Muslims in with any metaphysical belief as medieval nonsense. It's some time since I had a poke round but I didn't notice any right agenda, just the wall to wall debunking of anything outside the big story.

This is all true but it goes much deeper. Try this experiment if you have some hours to waste ;) Make up a Middle Eastern sounding name and log-on with a question pertaining to Islam. See what happens! That might shed some light on some things.
 
Or just one on Fortean Times Alt-Right Extremism! That would be far more interesting. Or not.
Do you actually have a good example of what you would call Alt-Right extremism? These terms rapidly just become terms of abuse - and nearly meaningless.

Traditionally 'right wing' meant above all militaristic views. That doesn't seem to characterise the Alt-Right (I think).

David
 
No, I don't mean the Left but you're on the right track in some strange way - one of the main stock-in-trades of the Alt-Right is to transform something into the opposite, shout about it loudly and hope that people of a, shall we say, somewhat more unreflective nature just suck it up.

Surprised you haven't heard of them - seems like something you might like! Here's some example of the transmuting-speak to help you recognise them:

Politically Left = Fascists (in Alt-right speak)
Hitler = Communist
Support Rights of Minorities = Sleeper agent enabling Islamic invasion
Speak out against Racism = Shouting for Sharia Law
Ayn Rand = God

You get the picture.... Google them. You'll love it!
As a lifelong Labour voting social and moral conservative, perhaps I'm alt.right? It was the constituency that used to get governments elected. One of the many things Jews and Catholics share is a profound suspicion of government and all its works. Read the Book of Job and you have all the Catskill comedian's material. I am a complete atheist towards the redemptive power of politicians. There have always been people who say Hitler was a national SOCIALIST. For those who see everything through the prism of politics everything is political.
 
As a lifelong Labour voting social and moral conservative, perhaps I'm alt.right? It was the constituency that used to get governments elected. One of the many things Jews and Catholics share is a profound suspicion of government and all its works. Read the Book of Job and you have all the Catskill comedian's material. I am a complete atheist towards the redemptive power of politicians. There have always been people who say Hitler was a national SOCIALIST. For those who see everything through the prism of politics everything is political.

True, politics is a false prism Imo and I am not invested in it either. But we do need to describe things when we discuss which is why I suppose the old left/right labels came into being. Some people don't want to accept the label or change it for some other reason (to win points?) though. Atheists do this a lot actually if you try to define the term atheist and what it signifies. They nearly always obfuscate and try to redefine.

Is all immaterial really as long as we know what we mean I suppose.
 
Back
Top