What I've Observed Trolling Sic et Non

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oooooooh. SSS is Smokey. Makes sense with the whole failed doxing thing.

- Doc

[drumdude]

Dr. Peterson has spent a lifetime honing a single skill: the ability to superficially skim information in order to cherry pick it for laymen' consumption and to win arguments online. He's the living embodiment of the Plantonic ideal of Confirmation Bias.

As a hobby for a layman, I can understand doing this. But as the foundation for an academic career? Pretty disappointing, especially to those he promised books and other academic output.

He gets extremely touchy anytime the topic of getting paid by the church for this activity comes up.

[Moksha]

He gets extremely touchy anytime the topic of getting paid by the church for this activity comes up.

Why should getting paid for spin-doctoring be a more touchy subject than getting paid to teach Arabic? I could see being sensitive about being paid to teach Poly Sci, but that is different.

[canpakes]

Oooooooh. SSS is Smokey.

- Doc

I wouldn’t take that bet.

[Doctor Scratch]

Welcome, Sir Sam Steele! No doubt the Mopologists are very jealous indeed of your knighthood--just as Dean Robbers pointed out. And I would imagine that the Mopologists have been thrown into something of a paranoid frenzy over your OP. Which "troll" were you, after all? Dr. Detroit? Professor Tapir_Bukk? The Beef Experience? There have been dozens of posters who've been banned, which makes me think that Dr. Peterson's remarks from many years ago--about how he never asked for people to be banned on FAIR or ZLMB--were lies. It now seems clearer than ever that he at least exerted pressure for people to be banned. He simply cannot hold his own in certain debates.

[Sir Sam Steele]

Welcome, Sir Sam Steele! No doubt the Mopologists are very jealous indeed of your knighthood--just as Dean Robbers pointed out. And I would imagine that the Mopologists have been thrown into something of a paranoid frenzy over your OP.

Dr. Scratch - thank you for the warm and generous welcome. And I apologize for the delay in my response. With the rapidly declining health and eventual passing of Prince Phillip, I have been engaged in service to my beloved country with the Governor General. God save the Queen.

I think it would be presumptuous of me to believe that my small posting here would evoke any response. Although I will say that Dan has perfected the art of the Shadow Ban. It seems that Disqus has invested heavily in tools to enable the censoring of content within comment sections and Dan is using them to mold a specific narrative.

Which "troll" were you, after all? Dr. Detroit? Professor Tapir_Bukk? The Beef Experience? There have been dozens of posters who've been banned, ...

We are legion.

Unfortunately, I am not yet able to reveal my many Sic et Non identities.

... which makes me think that Dr. Peterson's remarks from many years ago--about how he never asked for people to be banned on FAIR or ZLMB--were lies. It now seems clearer than ever that he at least exerted pressure for people to be banned. He simply cannot hold his own in certain debates.

I remember those days very fondly. And I remember distinctly, reading through a post where Dan was arguing for his very odd conception of Libertarianism. His defeat was clear as his central propositions were easily shown to be lacking in both context and rigor. But he refused to back down; to give one inch. He was so invested in the view - and the argument about the argument of the view - and didn't seem interested in refining his own understanding given extremely compelling arguments.

That he attempts to manipulate conversations is beyond question.

[malkie]

Dr. Peterson has spent a lifetime honing a single skill: the ability to superficially skim information in order to cherry pick it for laymen' consumption and to win arguments online. He's the living embodiment of the Plantonic ideal of Confirmation Bias.

As a hobby for a layman, I can understand doing this. But as the foundation for an academic career? Pretty disappointing, especially to those he promised books and other academic output.

He gets extremely touchy anytime the topic of getting paid by the church for this activity comes up.

I agree that Dr Peterson can be superficial at times - clearly he does not always read well for comprehension. He is also very touchy on the topic of whether apologetics may actually damage faith.

In 2007, when the PBS special doc The Mormons was released, Dr Peterson was still participating in discussion forums like this one.

After the airing of the doc, there was (naturally) quite a bit of discussion about it, and I wrote about the reaction of one of my staunch member friends to something that Dr Peterson had said. (in the doc, interviewees were not always identified, nor were their affiliations always noted.)

In the doc, Dr Peterson said something about Joseph Smith that was, at the time, not very well known among faithful members - perhaps about the rock in the hat, I really don't remember what. Anyway, my friend was very upset, and asked me why people were being allowed to tell such horrible lies about the prophet.

In response to my story, Dr Peterson replied that he had often been accused of harming members' testimonies - and denied the charge. I'm not sure now, but he may also have cast doubt on my veracity.

I pointed out that I had said nothing about my friend's testimony being harmed, and that, in fact, it was not harmed at all, but that it would probably have given her pause to have been told that the person making that remark was a BYU professor, and a recognized apologist for the church.

Dr Peterson did not respond. I'd like to think that he was, perhaps, slightly embarrassed by his response to his misreading of my story.