Enjoy the trolls, folks

[_MrStakhanovite]

lol this thread

[_mentalgymnast]

...I just see the same pattern of offering excuses instead of taking responsibility.

Not true.

I see no sign of actual contention or trying to do better. So, no, forgiveness is not mine to give and I don’t see that you earned it anyway.

I understand that you might see things differently than me. After all, we have different brains, don't we?

Regards,
MG

[_Res Ipsa]

Are you seriously claiming that the percentages of trolling are the same? I thought you largely ignored terrestrial.

Yes, I'm making that claim.

I didn't say that I ignored Terrestrial. I said that I rarely participate on it.

I want to unpack this a little and talk about it, because, in my opinion, "that's not what I said" is a derail that largely flies under the radar. It's an accusation that a poster misrepresented was another said, but there is no way to defend such an accusation without continuing the derail. I started a thread on derails in general a bit ago, in which I talked about the shift into meta as a problematic derail. The reason it's a derail is that it shifts the discussion from substance related to later the threads topic to procedure -- the process of how the discussion is occurring.

This one is particularly ironic. Notice that Jersey Girl says "I didn't say I ignored terrestrial." What I actually said was "I thought you largely ignored terrestrial." I used the qualifier "largely" intentionally because I didn't think, based on what she had said, she completely ignored terrestrial. So, in accusing me of misrepresenting what she said, Jersey Girl misrepresented what I said.

Then Jersey Girl states what she said: "I said that I rarely participate on it." And that's correct -- she did say that. But that's not all she said. She also said: "I tend not to follow Terrestrial very much" and "But then again, I rarely participate in Terrestrial threads any more, spending the majority of my time in Paradise" and "Apparently he's still trolling Terrestrial or is perceived to be trolling. I haven't examined the threads to any extent." I had read all those comments when I used the term "largely ignored," and, given the full set comments she made describing the extent to which she paid attention to Terrestrial, I think "largely ignored" is a pretty fair description.

So, this is a pretty good example of why "I didn't say that" is a derail. It is an accusation that the person misrepresented what you said, perhaps intentionally. To avoid looking sloppy or dishonest takes a fairly lengthy explanation -- like the one I've given here. And that explanation has nothing at all to do with advancing the substance of the discussion.

What we're having here is a discussion. A discussion would be pretty damn boring if it looked like this.

Jersey Girl: I didn't participate much in terrestrial.

RI: You didn't much participate much in terrestrial.

Jersey Girl: Yup, I didn't much participate in terrestrial.

I think it would be unreasonable to expect us to parrot our words back to each other. In the process of normal conversation, we reformulate what someone says using other words. If you think someone hasn't correctly characterized something you've said upthread, it's not that hard to respond without derailing the conversation. Here's how that could have been done in the interaction between Jersey Girl and me:

RI: I thought you largely ignored terrestrial.

Jersey Girl: I've read enough of MG and LDSFAQs threads to know that they derailed at roughly the same rate in their posts.

Rather than derailing the argument into a fight over who said what three pages ago, the response simply states Jersey Girl's position, allowing the conversation to proceed.

Look, we all misunderstand and mischaracterize stuff that other people say in the posts all the time, and in varying degrees. There's no sin in Jersey Girl not remembering everything she posted a page or two back -- we all do that unless we are always scrupulous about checking before posting. And when I say "we" I'm including myself. If I think there is someone habitually misrepenting me in posts, I can handle that with a separate post rather than derailing post after post after post.

in my opinion, if we cut each other a little slack and not wait to pounce on every inconsistency or mistake we find in each others' posts, we can spend lots more time discussion substance and lots less time in pie fights.

[_Res Ipsa]

Have you gone back and read the interactions?

Which interactions?

The interactions between Grindael and MG.

And question. Do you find it at all odd that your word choice on this thread includes such hyperbolic phrases as...

"mob like hysteria" and "emotionally embroiled"

when there's only like a dozen people who have bothered to comment on the thread?

This is a good example of derailing by trying to shift the discussion into meta. The substance of the discussion is the nature of the interactions between MG and Grindael. Jersey Girl's question attempts to shift the discussion to my choice of words in an earlier part of the thread, where I was commenting on the emotional reaction to folks leaving. To respond requires me to abandon the subject being discussed at the time and explain why I chose certain words and why I thought it was appropriate to do so. As a general rule, if one tries to shift the subject of a thread to why a poster is using certain words or the tone of what they post, there's a good chance one is derailing.

[_Shulem]

...I just see the same pattern of offering excuses instead of taking responsibility.

Not true.

If that's what he sees, then that's what he sees. For him, it's verily true. You are free to disagree and try and prove otherwise. Can you promise to stay off what's-his-name's threads? Can you make that promise? Will you make that promise? Are you willing to suffer the consequences for failing to live up to your responsibility in making that promise?

Well?

Yes or No?

Which is it?

[_Shulem]

I understand that you might see things differently than me. After all, we have different brains, don't we?

As near as I can tell you're the only one that agrees with you.

All by yourself with your own brain.

[_Lemmie]

As a general rule, if one tries to shift the subject of a thread to why a poster is using certain words or the tone of what they post, there's a good chance one is derailing.

Interesting, Res Ipsa. In the interests of education, along the lines of your post, may I suggest an even more problematic version of this?

I am referring to when someone excerpts another's post, deliberately leaving words out or worse, adding words that actually change the meaning, and then trying to shift the subject of the thread to this erroneous interpretation. I would also consider this to be evidence of derailing, although clearly with a more disruptive intent.

We have a perfect example of this on page 9 of this thread, posted just yesterday. I thought Chap handled it well, so I'll just quote his shut down of the derailment:

I posted:

MG's dream is to create an environment that is so naggingly annoying and frustrating for effective (reasonable, fact-based) critics of Mormonism that they just quit. And he is succeeding in doing that.

He then pretends that I wrote this:

[We are]...effective (reasonable, fact-based) critics of Mormonism...

You think very highly of yourself.

This person is not even worthy of contempt.

I think you have an interesting handle on this situation, Res Ipsa, so my question is, when it is pointed out that one has been taken out of context, what do you think is the intent of the poster who then repeats the out of context error and responds like this?

[We are]...effective (reasonable, fact-based) critics of Mormonism...

You think very highly of yourself.

Is there anything untrue here?

Regards,
MG

Is it possible to interpret this in any other way than as a Tobin-syndrome-like attempt to disrupt? I ask because I am too close to this situation to make a dispassionate determination, and because I have appreciated your even-handed approach. My rule going forward is to simply ignore things like this, but since the topic of meta-discussion was broached I thought I would ask your opinion.

[_Res Ipsa]

Lemmie, you and I both made claims. Mine was about Grindael and reporting. Yours was that my statement was false. Each of us has the burden of proof on our claims.

No. You made a claim, I disagreed with your claim.

To respond requires me to talk a little about burden of proof. Burden of proof is a general concept that allows us to make sensible decisions about how to structure arguments about evidence and what it means. It's not a rigid set of rules, but is a fairly flexible system that, if used properly, is more about common sense than anything else.

In this case, let's take the question: Did Grindael ever report MG to the moderators? (I've simplified the question for purposes of this discussion.) Now, in general, we would place the burden of proof on the person making the affirmative claim (Grindael did report MG) and not on the person making the negative claim (Grindael did not report MG). The reason we do that is in recognition of the general difficulty in proving a negative.

However, in the argument I'm having here with Lemmie, I'm not just asking the question -- I'm trying to use the answer to that question as a part of my argument (something like, Grindeal wasn't simply bullied off the board -- he had options to address the problem that he chose not to use.) So, there's another general notion we also apply -- the person making a claim as part of an argument carries the burden of proof on that claim. As I'm the one bringing up failing to report as part of my argument, it's sensible to require me to carry the burden even though it's a negative rather than an affirmative claim. So, I think it's entirely reasonable to assign me the burden of proving that Grindael did not contact the mods.

Now, when a person makes a claim, arguments against that claim generally fall into two categories:

1. Failure to carry the burden of proof.
2. Evidence is against the claim.

Let's assume I claim "there is no small teapot orbiting Mars." The first type of response could be: "unless you've been to Mars, there's no way you could know that." (Failure to carry the burden of proof). The second would be "Here are pictures of a small teapot in orbit around Mars taken by a satellite also orbiting Mars" (Evidence is contrary to the claim).

Now, Lemmie and I got in a tussle over what it means to say a statement is incorrect. A claim that a statement is incorrect does not just say that the person making the statement hasn't carried the burden of proof. It is a claim that the evidence is against the statement. And if that's true, then there must be some evidence that is being relied on. And the person that is making a claim based on evidence should be given the burden of providing that evidence. Thus, when Lemmie said that my statement was incorrect, she should have the burden to come forward with the evidence on which she bases her statement. Why? Because she is the one with the evidence. I have literally no idea what that evidence is. To make me guess at what evidence Lemmie is thinking about is not a sensible way to structure an argument. All Lemmie has to do is say something like "Your statement is incorrect because Grindael posted on such and such a day that he reported MG. Easy peasy.

Looking at the issue from the structure of argument, let's say X=Grindael reported MG. ~X, then =Grindael did not report MG. We know that one or the other must be true, as they are mutually exclusive. I claimed X. Lemmie said that X is incorrect, which is equivalent to ~X. Both X and ~X are claims. If Lemmie is going to claim ~X, as opposed to "We don't know which is true", then she's making a claim and should have the burden to come forward with her evidence.

I’m asking you to prove your claim, not mine.

OK. When I make a claim, you can ask me to prove it.

The claim Lemmie made was ~X. That's just as much a claim as X is a claim.

If you don’t have any evidence that Grindael reported MG’s harassment to the mods during the three year period, then you have no basis to claim that my claim was wrong

I have made a number of statements about what happened, what I know, what I observed, and what I know about what grindael has done, and I have supported them as completely as I possibly could. Feel free to read any of my past posts, and I'll be happy to further discuss with you, at that point, any claim I have made. In the meantime, prove your own claim.

Again, the purpose of structuring the burden of proof is to provide a sensible way to structure and argument. Lemmie made a claim: ~X. All I'm asking is "tell me why you think X is incorrect." Her suggestion imposes on me the burden of sifting through all her many posts on this topic and would require me to read her mind. That's not a sensible way to structure an argument. The sensible thing is for her to type a couple of lines that explains the evidence she is relying on.

It would be perfectly reasonable for you to ask me how I know what I said is true. Had you said “You don’t have sufficient information to make that claim” I would have said something like “You’re right. I should have said that I don’t recall seeing any evidence that Grindael reported...”

But what you said was that I was wrong.

Yes I did. And now you are admitting you WERE wrong in making that claim. I appreciate the reformulation, that makes a lot more sense. It seems my stating you were wrong felt too confrontational for you, if that is the case, I apologize for that, I am pretty blunt.

Lemmie is equivocating here on the term "wrong." She didn't originally claim that I was "wrong to make the statement." She said that the statement was incorrect. I've conceded that it wrong for me to make the statement I did. But we still don't know whether the statement itself is correct or incorrect.

What's hard for me to understand is why you object to me saying you were wrong when you are now admitting that if I had phrased it nicer you would have immediately admitted you were wrong!!

Niceness has nothing to do with it. These are two different statement:

1. The statement you made was incorrect.
2. It was wrong of you to make that statement.

I've copped to number two because I agree that the statement I made was stronger than the evidence I had at the time. I don't admit to number 1, because I've outlined why I think it's reasonable to believe that the statement is correct and no one has offered any evidence to show that the statement was incorrect.

And I’ve been asking for the correct Information so that I can correct whatever is incorrect in my statement. And I find it weird that you continue to withhold that information from me. Why in the world would you do that?

Sorry, I didn't quite pick up on your message that by making a claim you couldn't prove and then telling me I was obligated to disprove your claim for you, you were actually just asking me for information! Tone is so hard to assess through the written word, isn't it?

This gets what occurred exactly backwards. First, I asked for information. Twice. In sentences that ended in question marks. Only after Lemmie raised burden of proof to avoid answer two pretty simple and straightforward questions, did I argue that she was using the burden of proof inappropriately. And at this point, with her claim that my statements were wrong and her unwillingness to explain why she said so, the topic under discussion is well and truly derailed.

Also, may I point out that we are both adults. If you want something from me, you can ask appropriately and specifically, without demanding it. And if I choose not to give you what you want, please note that that is not 'weird', I am not 'withholding,' and it is, frankly, none of your damn business 'why in the world' I would not just give you whatever you want.

If you'd like to have a conversation with me as an equal, please feel free to start over.

And that this point, the conversation is way, way off the rails. The fairly straightforward issue of "Did Grindael report MG to the mods" has morphed into "Did RI treat Lemmie as an adult?" "Did RI demand information from Lemmie instead of asking" (It's pretty easy to find the questions I asked in the thread). "Did RI treat Lemmie as an equal" Derail and train wreck complete.

And a mea culpa on my own derail. I should not have commented on Lemmie's motives or asked what they were. That's a derail into meta. I'm sorry, and I'm working on doing better.

[_Maksutov]

Ah, Christ. The Talmudists in ties are here.

[_Res Ipsa]

Lemmie, in response to your post about MG's "quote" of Chap.

Yes, I think Chap handled it quite well.

I would label MG's post a clear troll/derail. What MG posted after the edited quote is a simple insult that adds nothing to the topic. The use of the altered quote was unnecessary and silly. MG's point was that Chap's post implied that the critic here were reasonable. He could have just said that. If you throw in the context that MG himself made a huge issue out of Grindael changing the text of his quotes, what MG did could be interpreted as deliberately provocative. In terms of being Tobinesque, I don't know. The whole concept is a little mushy to me.

My suggestion: don't post altered versions of people's quotes, except to snip parts that you don't want to discuss. If you want to argue some implication from the quotes, then argue it. Don't change the quote so that it say what you think it implies.