How To Set Up an Uneven Playing Field

[Recusant]

In another thread, I mentioned the fact that though I lurk at a Creationist forum on occasion, I won't ever post anything there, because to do so would be trolling. Sophus said that I'm too polite ( ), and (to paraphrase slightly) if somebody who perceived evolution as fact were to post there, as long as they were "being courteous and well intentioned," they wouldn't qualify as a troll.  Courtesy and good intentions are usually disqualifications for earning a nice snot-encrusted troll badge, but it really depends on how any particular site defines troll behavior.  Since the site that I visit is pretty clear about these matters, and their policy is 'to have as little editing or deleting of posts as possible, so instead we will seek to edit “people,”' I thought it might be mildly entertaining to look at what they consider to be unacceptable behavior.  Below is a list of warning signs that a new member is what they call an "evo-babbler," and thus likely to get a quick trip out the door. According to the site, an "evo-babbler's" ultimate goal is to waste your time. The quotes are shown as they appear at the site; emphases and spelling are theirs:

"Quibbles over trivial things (equivocation), such as a word in your post."

So apparently asking for a clear definition of a word that a fellow member has used (perhaps because they used the word in a context or manner that seemed to indicate that they had a totally different understanding of the definition than you're familiar with) is a sign that you're there to waste the time of the members in good standing. I don't see any way around this one.  In Chapter 22 of How to Think About the Great Ideas by Dr. Mortimer J. Adler, Dr. Adler gives some guidelines for conducting a productive discussion. One of these guidelines is, "Don't agree or disagree with the other person until you understand what that person has said."  If those involved in the discussion are defining a particular word differently they will inevitably fail to understand each other. But trying to clear up the definition of a word is a sign that you're "quibbling."  Though you may not be immediately ejected from the forum in question for this and other behaviors that I will list, they will issue an "alert" that an "evo-babbler has been detected."  I imagine that continued behavior which exhibits this and other of the "warning signs" will result in a ban, though it seems that one particularly egregious post would be enough.

The site defines circular reasoning in a particular way, and lists it as a warning sign.  It gives the following example of what it calls circular reasoning: "Since the deity is unreal, it's clear that it could have created nothing."  Now I would agree that the example statement is, as it stands, a bald assertion.  If the person making that statement had failed to prove that "the deity is unreal," (which is likely, since proving a negative is pretty much impossible) then the conclusion is a failure as well.  However, I don't see any circularity. To be circular, the person who made the statement would need to finish it by writing something like, "We see nothing clearly created by the deity, therefore the deity is unreal." Such a follow up statement is not given, however.  The first is apparently circular as it stands, according to their judgment.  If the moderators of the site can perceive circular reasoning in the example statement as given, then they will be able to perceive it in a wide variety of what otherwise might seem to be valid logical statements.  

"Quick to invoke Occam's Razor and declare victory."

Occam's Razor, while not infallible, is a recognized principle by which one might distinguish between the likelihood of two competing hypotheses.  The Creationist hypothesis doesn't stand up very well when subjected to it.  So somebody who's trying to use it when discussing Creationism is obviously there to waste the forum members' time.

 

"Fond of strawman arguments. This is actually prevalent among evolutionists who do not worship at the Talk.Origins alter, so you only have a 50% chance he/she is a genuine evo-babbler. Look for other symptoms to confirm the evo-babbler diagnosis. However, if the evo-babbler erected the strawman by putting words into your mouth, the disease has metastasized to stage 3 and you have an 85% probability the individual has been infected with evo-babble-itis!"

Now this is a valid point.  Erecting strawman arguments is indeed a poor way to conduct a discussion.  However, in Adler's guidelines to which I linked above, there is this:

'...in the course of discussion... say to the other person, "Now let me see if I can say in my own words what you have just said." And then having done that, you turn to them and say, "Is that what you mean?" And if they say, "Yes, it is; that's exactly what I mean," then you are for the first time privileged to say, "I agree with you," or "I disagree with you," and not one moment sooner.'

It sounds to me as if (in following this guideline in an attempt to understand your interlocutor) you try to restate one of their points in your own words, you will be guilty of erecting a strawman argument.  This is a gray area, but I think that it wouldn't be hard to interpret the warning sign strictly, to the detriment of good discussion.

"Claims you are quoting out of context."

So if a member of this site actually is quoting out of context, calling them on it is a sign that you're there to waste their time.

"Asks you to quote from the proper scientific literature (i. e. only pro-evolution literature)."

You know, because most actual scientists are involved in a conspiracy to hide the truth about evolution, so relying on them for an authoritative statement on an issue of science is a waste of the members' time.  As the site says, this one makes for, "a solid 90% probability you have a genuine evo-babbler on your hands!"

"And the number one sure sign â€" ballyhoos articles from the Talk.Origins web barracks, often with superficial knowledge of what the article says."

So whatever you do, don't quote from the TalkOrigins Archive.  That's a sure sign that you're an "evo-babbler," and are there to waste the members' time.

There is actually a list of ten "classic symptoms" of an "evo-babbler," but the ones I quoted stand out to me as giving a good picture of the principles upon which the site operates.  As I said in the post from which this thread sprung, if I were to post an honest answer to any of the members there, I would be trolling.  I wanted to clarify what I meant by that.

[Inevitable Droid]

That was really interesting, Recusant.  I have to admit, I have from time to time been accused of strawman arguments.  This happens when I string all the things I think the person might be saying, or might ever say, into one big picture and reject the whole thing.  I do this to save time, but often the person gets annoyed, because they really only said three absurd things, but I mentioned five, two of them implied by the same logic that resulted in their verbalized three.  

"I never said Hindus are going to hell.  You're setting up a strawman."  

"But you said Muslims and Jews are going to hell."

"They are!  But I didn't say Hindus."

"But you must have meant Hindus."

"I didn't!"

"How could you not?"

"Muslims and Jews are going to hell but Hindus maybe aren't.  You're putting words in my mouth."

"Why aren't Hindus going to hell?"

"Maybe they aren't!  The strawman tactic is unfair and marks you as having no valid argument!"

At this point my head is spinning and I give up.  The other person can't explain why Hindus, according to their logic, aren't going to hell.  But having never actually said it, the person will never, ever acknowledge having implied it, because, in this person's mind, being able to accuse me of the strawman tactic wins the debate.  Also, in this person's mind, we're only responsible for what we say, not for what we imply; whereas, in my mind, we're responsible for both.

[Inevitable Droid]

Incidentally, by my own standards, I could never post on a Creationist forum except as a troll.  This is because I lack all respect for their position.  I don't just disagree with it.  I utterly disdain it as ludicrous in the extreme.  For me to engage with them on their own message board would be trollish, in my opinion.  It would also violate one of my larger principles, which is to treat my host as king of the castle while I'm in that castle.  One doesn't treat the king as if he's ludicrous in the extreme.  For me to post on a Creationist message board would be boorish and obnoxious, which is enough to make it trollish, by my standards.

Would that all Christians thought similarly with regard to this message board.

[Sophus]

Their rules are remarkably stupid but not all that surprising. Like I said, it would be naïve for any of us to go to said forum thinking we could somehow engage in productive conversation. I don't know if the Flat Earthers have a forum of their own but I'm sure you would be greeted with the same suspicion and hostility. If the definition of a troll changes from site to site then, sure, Emily Post could troll them. Maybe we should abandon the word troll and just go with a term that would be applicable in the non-cyber world as well.

There is actually a list of ten "classic symptoms" of an "evo-babbler," but the ones I quoted stand out to me as giving a good picture of the principles upon which the site operates. As I said in the post from which this thread sprung, if I were to post an honest answer to any of the members there, I would be trolling. I wanted to clarify what I meant by that.

And you make a good point.

Now I'm curious.... how many "evo-babblers" does that particular forum get? Any daring souls at all?

[Gawen]

Any daring souls at all?

Not me. Psych wards give me the creeps.

[Inevitable Droid]

Maybe we should abandon the word troll and just go with a term that would be applicable in the non-cyber world as well.

I view trolls as falling along a spectrum.  The compleat troll is one who (1) goes to a message board to be a fly in the ointment; (2) lacks respect for other participants; (3) argues insincerely; and (4) self-identifies dishonestly.

In the time Ive been here, Chandler Bing has been the only candidate for the title of compleat troll.  I've noticed one Christian who does the first three bad behaviors.  I've noticed two Christians - one of whom seems to have left us - who do or did the first two.

If I went to a Creationist message board, I would be guilty of the first two bad behaviors, and for that reason, I don't go.

[KebertX]

I'd really appreciate a link to this Creationist Forum.  I would like to try some of my own trolling techniques, as I am a sad and lonely atheist what lives under a bridge...

*EDIT: I think I was able to find it on my own by Googling "infected with evo-babble-itis!"  Is this it: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?act=idx?

[Recusant]

I'd really appreciate a link to this Creationist Forum. I would like to try some of my own trolling techniques, as I am a sad and lonely atheist what lives under a bridge...

I deserve that for getting overly clever with my thread title. :raised:  I'll neither confirm nor deny that the site which you found is the one that I occasionally visit. It's easy to find Creationist forums if you want to go talk to them on their own sites, under their rules. Good luck.

**********************************************************************************************

Incidentally, by my own standards, I could never post on a Creationist forum except as a troll. This is because I lack all respect for their position. I don't just disagree with it. I utterly disdain it as ludicrous in the extreme. For me to engage with them on their own message board would be trollish, in my opinion. It would also violate one of my larger principles, which is to treat my host as king of the castle while I'm in that castle. One doesn't treat the king as if he's ludicrous in the extreme. For me to post on a Creationist message board would be boorish and obnoxious, which is enough to make it trollish, by my standards.

Would that all Christians thought similarly with regard to this message board.

Very nicely put, Inevitable Droid.  Except for the final sentence, what you wrote would serve to describe my views on the subject as well.  However, I appreciate even the trollish Christians who visit HAF, for various reasons which I won't go into here. As far as I'm concerned the only downside to them is that they make for more work and headaches for the moderators and site owner.  Speaking of which, I apologize in advance to both the moderating team and to Whitney if my ill-considered thread title does result in more work for you all. Feel free to change it to something like "How to Set Up an Uneven Playing Field."

**********************************************************************************************

I don't know if the Flat Earthers have a forum of their own but I'm sure you would be greeted with the same suspicion and hostility. If the definition of a troll changes from site to site then, sure, Emily Post could troll them. Maybe we should abandon the word troll and just go with a term that would be applicable in the non-cyber world as well.

The Flat Earthers do indeed have a forum; it's been mentioned here a few times.  I'm intrigued by your point about the variable perceptions on what constitutes trolling.  Were you thinking of any particular term?  "Gate-crasher" is perhaps applicable, but I think that "troll" provides so many opportunities for riffing off of the associated images and mythology that it would be hard to improve upon.

Now I'm curious.... how many "evo-babblers" does that particular forum get? Any daring souls at all?

Yes, they do have several non-Creationist members.  In fact, one of the members of HAF who no longer visits here (though he did stop by a few months ago) is a member of that forum, which is how I learned of it.  Many get banned after only a few posts though, as you might imagine.