Questions for Truthers

[Myriad]

No, this is not a thread of questions for Truthers.

It's a thread about questions for Truthers.

Specifically, why I think there shouldn't be any.

My suggestion is that members who debate with Truthers in this subforum stop asking them questions of any sort.

This is partly in response to Quad4_72's suggestion being discussed in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144656. I disagree that engaging with Truthers is a bad thing, or that stopping engaging with them altogether would be a good thing. (Some reasons for that are discussed in that thread.) But, in my experience there's a productive way and a counterproductive way to do so.

The easiest path to learning the productive way is to refrain from asking any questions in your posts. No Socratic questions, no rhetorical questions, no snide questions. State the facts, or your own opinion, or some combination, and leave it at that.

Here is a typical "debunker" 9/11 CT post asking questions: (Sorry to pick on you Shalamar, it was just the luck of the draw; I had thousands of examples to choose from.)

It could have been shot down or maybe it landed safely at Cleveland. The story of 93 is much more interesting than is commonly known Isusect.

You have evidence it was shot down?

You have evidence that it landed safely in Cleveland?

It seems there is a great deal of evidence that it crashed in Shanksville.

You have evidence that it was shot down and landed safely in cleveland? Great! Where is it?

It is very likely that Shalamar did not and does not expect any sensible answers to any of those questions, and was not at all surprised at the sort of reply they received: (Sorry to pick on you, bill smith. Again, it was the luck of the draw as I had thousands of examples to choose from.)

You have evidence it was shot down?

You have evidence that it landed safely in Cleveland?

It seems there is a great deal of evidence that it crashed in Shanksville.

You have evidence that it was shot down and landed safely in cleveland? Great! Where is it?

What about Camp David ?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/kiLHRpSnGfS2NuiONl

Now, some members might think that asking those kinds of questions and receiving those kinds of answers they are helping to discredit the Truthers, by showing up the Truther's inability to give straight answers to simple questions. I submit that they are wrong.

Here are the known possible results from asking Truthers a question:

1. Truther uses question as an opportunity to post more material on a related topic, as in the example quoted: win for the Truther.

2. Truther gives evasive answer to question: win for the Truther, by keeping the discussion going, which conveys an impression that there's something of merit keeping it going.

3. Truther ignores question: This is the best case, but it's still ultimately a small win for the Truther. If people are asking them questions (no matter how pointed or insulting the questions might seem to be on the surface), it ultimately conveys the general impression that the Truthers know things worthy of skeptics' curiosity.

What discredits the Truthers is the facts. Anything that distracts from that just helps keep them going.

Here's an alternative version of Shalamar's post, edited to remove the troll food avoid those problems:

You have presented no evidence it was shot down.

You have presented no evidence that it landed safely in Cleveland.

It seems there is a great deal of evidence that it crashed in Shanksville.

If you have evidence that it was shot down and landed safely in cleveland, please show it.

However, I'd go a little farther. Specific requests for information are a lot like questions, and should also go. Why say "please show," "please explain," "please prove," and so forth when you neither wish nor expect the person to do so? Do you really want to see the link to the YouTube video, or whatever, again? You're not censoring anyone by not asking. If they had actual evidence they'd present it, with no questioning or prompting or begging required. So, here's an even better version:

You have presented no evidence it was shot down.

You have presented no evidence that it landed safely in Cleveland.

There is a great deal of evidence that it crashed in Shanksville.

Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to take your claim seriously.

No questions, just the correct facts. Repeat as often as necessary. Which will be very very often. But much less often than when you attempt to achieve the same results with Socratic/leading/pointed/insulting/rhetorical questions.

With no questions or other requests-for-information to ignore, deliberately misinterpret, or evade, Truthers have much more limited options. They can disagree with your statements, by making statements of their own which in turn can be pointed out as false with contradictory evidence. Or they can ask rhetorical, leading, or insulting questions of their own, which puts them on the wrong side of results 1, 2, and 3.

The latter is what they used to do almost exclusively, before they apparently got quite a few skeptics to adopt their ineffective methods.

Meanwhile, several of them have learned (perhaps from skeptics?) that repeated confident assertions, rather than leading questions, get the biggest reaction over the longest term, which leads to wins on results 1, 2, and 3. That's why they keep going, keep feeling rewarded, no matter how pointed the questions and no matter how obviously inadequate their answers.

For instance, one of the reasons people find arguing with Heiwa rather frustrating is that he is using against skeptics a similar debating style to what I'm suggesting for skeptics. He does not ask questions. He just keeps posting his views and ignoring the substance of rebuttals, which may very well be exactly all he wants to do.

But it would quickly stop being effective if he didn't keep receiving gift-wrapped questions to play off of.

When skeptics use the same technique of confident assertion of their position, they don't have to actually ignore the substance of rebuttals, because the facts and evidence are on their side. So, when they do it it's even more effective.

I invite members to take a look through the posts of skeptics who they have perceived as most effective at debating Truthers. I believe that you'll see the general pattern I see, which is that in most cases they ask few or no questions.

Pretending that the question mark key is off-limits in the 9/11 CT forum would go a long way toward reducing the amount of conspiracist drivel posted, without asking anyone to leave Truther claims unchallenged or the actual facts unrepresented.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Hokulele]

That falls in line with my new personal policy.

ETA: This is my new method for dealing with the same 'ol, same 'ol stupid. Link to the most relevant thread(s), and wait until the poster in question has digested that information. Not that I expect this method to work, but it keeps me entertained.

 

[RedIbis]

No, this is not a thread of questions for Truthers.

It's a thread about questions for Truthers.

Specifically, why I think there shouldn't be any.

My suggestion is that members who debate with Truthers in this subforum stop asking them questions of any sort.

This is partly in response to Quad4_72's suggestion being discussed in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144656. I disagree that engaging with Truthers is a bad thing, or that stopping engaging with them altogether would be a good thing. (Some reasons for that are discussed in that thread.) But, in my experience there's a productive way and a counterproductive way to do so.

The easiest path to learning the productive way is to refrain from asking any questions in your posts. No Socratic questions, no rhetorical questions, no snide questions. State the facts, or your own opinion, or some combination, and leave it at that.

Here is a typical "debunker" 9/11 CT post asking questions: (Sorry to pick on you Shalamar, it was just the luck of the draw; I had thousands of examples to choose from.)




It is very likely that Shalamar did not and does not expect any sensible answers to any of those questions, and was not at all surprised at the sort of reply they received: (Sorry to pick on you, bill smith. Again, it was the luck of the draw as I had thousands of examples to choose from.)




Now, some members might think that asking those kinds of questions and receiving those kinds of answers they are helping to discredit the Truthers, by showing up the Truther's inability to give straight answers to simple questions. I submit that they are wrong.

Here are the known possible results from asking Truthers a question:

1. Truther uses question as an opportunity to post more material on a related topic, as in the example quoted: win for the Truther.

2. Truther gives evasive answer to question: win for the Truther, by keeping the discussion going, which conveys an impression that there's something of merit keeping it going.

3. Truther ignores question: This is the best case, but it's still ultimately a small win for the Truther. If people are asking them questions (no matter how pointed or insulting the questions might seem to be on the surface), it ultimately conveys the general impression that the Truthers know things worthy of skeptics' curiosity.

What discredits the Truthers is the facts. Anything that distracts from that just helps keep them going.

Here's an alternative version of Shalamar's post, edited to remove the troll food avoid those problems:




However, I'd go a little farther. Specific requests for information are a lot like questions, and should also go. Why say "please show," "please explain," "please prove," and so forth when you neither wish nor expect the person to do so? Do you really want to see the link to the YouTube video, or whatever, again? You're not censoring anyone by not asking. If they had actual evidence they'd present it, with no questioning or prompting or begging required. So, here's an even better version:




No questions, just the correct facts. Repeat as often as necessary. Which will be very very often. But much less often than when you attempt to achieve the same results with Socratic/leading/pointed/insulting/rhetorical questions.

With no questions or other requests-for-information to ignore, deliberately misinterpret, or evade, Truthers have much more limited options. They can disagree with your statements, by making statements of their own which in turn can be pointed out as false with contradictory evidence. Or they can ask rhetorical, leading, or insulting questions of their own, which puts them on the wrong side of results 1, 2, and 3.

The latter is what they used to do almost exclusively, before they apparently got quite a few skeptics to adopt their ineffective methods.

Meanwhile, several of them have learned (perhaps from skeptics?) that repeated confident assertions, rather than leading questions, get the biggest reaction over the longest term, which leads to wins on results 1, 2, and 3. That's why they keep going, keep feeling rewarded, no matter how pointed the questions and no matter how obviously inadequate their answers.

For instance, one of the reasons people find arguing with Heiwa rather frustrating is that he is using against skeptics a similar debating style to what I'm suggesting for skeptics. He does not ask questions. He just keeps posting his views and ignoring the substance of rebuttals, which may very well be exactly all he wants to do.

But it would quickly stop being effective if he didn't keep receiving gift-wrapped questions to play off of.

When skeptics use the same technique of confident assertion of their position, they don't have to actually ignore the substance of rebuttals, because the facts and evidence are on their side. So, when they do it it's even more effective.

I invite members to take a look through the posts of skeptics who they have perceived as most effective at debating Truthers. I believe that you'll see the general pattern I see, which is that in most cases they ask few or no questions.

Pretending that the question mark key is off-limits in the 9/11 CT forum would go a long way toward reducing the amount of conspiracist drivel posted, without asking anyone to leave Truther claims unchallenged or the actual facts unrepresented.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Basically what you're saying, and has been said many times on this forum, is that there is no debate. You're right, the "Truthers" are wrong.

You've labeled and marginalized your opponent, so there can never be sincere debate. Your advocating for a tactic that prevents discourse.

Jref should just make a decision whether or not they want to continue allowing this discussion to take place. As it is now, biased moderation will make it impossible to ask any of the legitimate questions, and continue to discuss the enormous amount of information that continues to appear, in any kind of a friendly, civil and productive way.

I think what is truly frustrating around here, is not how stupid and wrong the Twoofies are, but that there are aspects of the official story that are indefensible and buck up against anyone's critical thinking and reasoning skills.

I can understand why you want to limit the discussion because in a real debate on 9/11, you would have to rely on the complete honesty of the Bush administration.

 

[stateofgrace]

For instance, one of the reasons people find arguing with Heiwa rather frustrating is that he is using against skeptics a similar debating style to what I'm suggesting for skeptics. He does not ask questions. He just keeps posting his views and ignoring the substance of rebuttals, which may very well be exactly all he wants to do.

But it would quickly stop being effective if he didn't keep receiving gift-wrapped questions to play off of.

When skeptics use the same technique of confident assertion of their position, they don't have to actually ignore the substance of rebuttals, because the facts and evidence are on their side. So, when they do it it's even more effective.

I invite members to take a look through the posts of skeptics who they have perceived as most effective at debating Truthers. I believe that you'll see the general pattern I see, which is that in most cases they ask few or no questions.

Pretending that the question mark key is off-limits in the 9/11 CT forum would go a long way toward reducing the amount of conspiracist drivel posted, without asking anyone to leave Truther claims unchallenged or the actual facts unrepresented.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Ok fair enough and I admit that I as guilty of this as anybody. The reason I ask questions is simple, to give them a platform to expand on a statement that may have been passed off as fact. This gives the truther an opportunity to expand on what on the face of it is passed off as a fact. This was discussed in length a while ago and I believe it as given the name something like the “expending circle”. That being once a lie is told for it to be sustained other lies after to be told. Hence the circle gets bigger and bigger, up until the point it can no longer sustain itself and simply collapses. Simplistically put “give somebody enough rope”.

And yes I agree that this is giving the truthers what they want, a platform, but by asking question after question, the truther as no option to expand on the original lie, drop it, change the subject or withdraw once it is realised how massive the expanding circle as become.

Take for example, for example the recent exchange whereby one poster claimed that videos showed no wing marks from Flight 93 and asked for comments. After sustained questioning it was clear there are no video and the claim was false. Yes it would have been easy to say “There is no prove that such videos exist” and leave it at that but this does not address the claim, the claim still lingers and it is not fully expanded upon and fully exposed as a blatant lie. This was done by allowing the original claim to be expanded in the circle until it simply collapsed.

Or take for example my exchanges with Hiewa, I ask him to substantiate his claims over and over again, I know he will not, therefore the only way to show he is making unsubstantiated claims is to keep asking the unanswered questions again and again. If by chance one question is answered, then another one is asked and the circle starts to expand. I have no doubt that he is fully aware of how the expanding circle works, hence his reluctance almost point blank refusal to be drawn on any questions that are put to him. One could argue, as you appear to be that this is actually self defeating, I have a differing opinion, that being this is what would happen in the world outside of the net. If these theories and claims were put to unsuspecting public, then it is every bodies right to question them, it is everybody’s right to see the hugh circle of lies that these claims are suspended in.

I appreciate that there is a downer in the sub forum with addressing the same claims over and over again, but in my opinion the easiest, quickest way to do so is to simply ask direct questions, and keep asking then up to a point where a hugh circle of lies is produced and then simply summarise the answers. Then the final question can be asked.

So do you really believe all this?

 

[Shalamar]

*mutter mutter*

Yeah yeah. I'll stop the truther baiting.

 

[Quad4_72]

Myriad. While I respect your theory and understand where it is coming from, I don't agree with it. Even if you just simply post facts this means nothing to a twoofer. They are not here for facts. They are not here for any reason except to spew their twisted views of 9/11. I challenge you, Myriad, to give me one example of one of the old twoofers being presented a fact and that fact leading to them changing their view on the specific topic. I cannot recall an instance where this has ever happened. Everyone knows from years of experiece that even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence the twoofer is never going to accept the evidence. So I ask you, what in the hell is the point? Why engage one of these older twoofers if they are only here for themselves and to try and get people to take the bait? I still believe that ignoring these older twoofers is the best route to take.

 

[johnny karate]

I think what is truly frustrating around here, is not how stupid and wrong the Twoofies are, but that there are aspects of the official story that are indefensible and buck up against anyone's critical thinking and reasoning skills.

Start threads and name them. If threads on these topics already exist, bump them.

And then let's see how "friendly, civil and productive" your participation is in those threads.

 

[Hokulele]

Myriad. While I respect your theory and understand where it is coming from, I don't agree with it. Even if you just simply post facts this means nothing to a twoofer. They are not here for facts. They are not here for any reason except to spew their twisted views of 9/11. I challenge you, Myriad, to give me one example of one of the old twoofers being presented a fact and that fact leading to them changing their view on the specific topic. I cannot recall an instance where this has ever happened. Everyone knows from years of experiece that even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence the twoofer is never going to accept the evidence. So I ask you, what in the hell is the point? Why engage one of these older twoofers if they are only here for themselves and to try and get people to take the bait? I still believe that ignoring these older twoofers is the best route to take.

Gregory Urich and 911files.

I do agree with you regarding some of the obstinate ones (Heiwa and Ultima1 being the classic examples), but I wouldn't write off all particpants that quickly.

 

[240-185]

I agree that it is a better way to communicate with Truthers.
But then, I fear that their answers would be full of emptiness by doing so.

 

[Quad4_72]

Gregory Urich and 911files.

I do agree with you regarding some of the obstinate ones (Heiwa and Ultima1 being the classic examples), but I wouldn't write off all particpants that quickly.

None of them were ever full fledged twoofer that had a posting history of complete nonsense and mental illness. They never had a pattern of ignoring all facts and skewing every thread to an offshoot of what they wanted to talk about. They didn't spam the forum with lie after lie and ignore everything everyone else had to say. Do you see the difference?

Also, if you can direct me to the thread where the discourse led to them changing their minds. I would like to read through it. And from what I understand 911files was never really a twoofer per se.

 

[johnny karate]

Myriad. While I respect your theory and understand where it is coming from, I don't agree with it. Even if you just simply post facts this means nothing to a twoofer. They are not here for facts. They are not here for any reason except to spew their twisted views of 9/11. I challenge you, Myriad, to give me one example of one of the old twoofers being presented a fact and that fact leading to them changing their view on the specific topic. I cannot recall an instance where this has ever happened. Everyone knows from years of experiece that even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence the twoofer is never going to accept the evidence. So I ask you, what in the hell is the point? Why engage one of these older twoofers if they are only here for themselves and to try and get people to take the bait? I still believe that ignoring these older twoofers is the best route to take.

I think stateofgrace best articulated my feelings on this. Are we ever going to convince a Truther? No. But we can expose them for what they are: Liars and frauds.

And I know it gets thrown around alot, but this is for the benefit of lurkers. The uninitiated who come here looking for answers can see the Truthers for what they really are, and see just how ridiculous their theories are. Heiwa may carry on blithely unware of his irrationality, but do you think anyone reading his posts (and more importantly the rebuttals to his posts) actually takes him seriously?

JREF has become a symbol of contempt for the Truth Movement, and I think we have a certain obligation to garner the contempt of the contemptuous.

 

[Hokulele]

None of them were ever full fledged twoofer that had a posting history of complete nonsense and mental illness. They never had a pattern of ignoring all facts and skewing every thread to an offshoot of what they wanted to talk about. They didn't spam the forum with lie after lie and ignore everything everyone else had to say. Do you see the difference?

Well, sure. If you want to move the goalposts from CTists in general to "fullfledged twoofer that had a posting history of complete nonsense and mental illness" feel free. And how exactly does one objectively determine this?

Also, if you can direct me to the thread where the discourse led to them changing their minds. I would like to read through it. And from what I understand 911files was never really a twoofer per se.

Here is an example of Gregory Urich putting forth one of his theories for comment, and how he revised his theory after the comments.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3783806#post3783806

911files has often described himself as a truther, and although I will grant the bulk of his changing of his mind didn't occur on this board, you can see a definite change in tone and style between his first several posts and his last.

 

[Quad4_72]

I think stateofgrace best articulated my feelings on this. Are we ever going to convince a Truther? No. But we can expose them for what they are: Liars and frauds.

And I know it gets thrown around alot, but this is for the benefit of lurkers. The uninitiated who come here looking for answers can see the Truthers for what they really are, and see just how ridiculous their theories are. Heiwa may carry on blithely unware of his irrationality, but do you think anyone reading his posts (and more importantly the rebuttals to his posts) actually takes him seriously?

JREF has become a symbol of contempt for the Truth Movement, and I think we have a certain obligation to garner the contempt of the contemptuous.

At the "Truth" movements peak in 2006, they still only managed to convince a small amount of people who were probably already unstable. The twoofers are now almost all of the way fizzled out. By continuing to debate them, this nonsense is kept alive. If they weren't getting any new converts back then, they sure as hell aren't getting any now. Its time to bury this crap and leave the truly deranged twoofers to their fantasies.

 

[Hokulele]

One other note, over in Community, Damien Evans runs a poll for the most informative post of the month, sort of the anti-Stundies. For May, three of the finalists were from the CT sub-forum (ETA: And at least two of those were in response to Heiwa). Although this sub-forum could certainly stand to lose a lot of the "Yes, you are!" "No, I'm not!" posts, I would hate to see the baby get thrown out with the bathwater.

 

[Quad4_72]

Well, sure. If you want to move the goalposts from CTists in general to "fullfledged twoofer that had a posting history of complete nonsense and mental illness" feel free. And how exactly does one objectively determine this?

There was no moving of the goal posts. If you have read my pledge, I am referring to the old twoofers who are out of their minds. You know exactly who I am talking about so I don't think I need to clarify.

Here is an example of Gregory Urich putting forth one of his theories for comment, and how he revised his theory after the comments.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3783806#post3783806

911files has often described himself as a truther, and although I will grant the bulk of his changing of his mind didn't occur on this board, you can see a definite change in tone and style between his first several posts and his last.

In the thread you linked me to I didn't see any conclusions reached or at any point Gregory changing his mind. He agreed with a minimal amount of things, but there was no resolution to the thread. Again, he is not the kind of twoofer I was talking about ignoring.

Old twoofers such as Heiwa, Galileo, Christofer7, etc need to be ignored. New twoofers need to be debated until the decision is reached that after presenting all evidence they still refuse to accept it. At that point, ignore them.

 

[Hokulele]

There was no moving of the goal posts. If you have read my pledge, I am referring to the old twoofers who are out of their minds. You know exactly who I am talking about so I don't think I need to clarify.

Actually, you do need to clarify. I see you are talking about your pledge now, but I was responding to your response to Myriad's OP, which mentioned nothing about "old twoofers who are out of their minds". I do not know exactly who you are talking about, as everyone has a different opinion on what "out of their minds" means. You seem to exclude people like Gregory Urich and RedIbis from your list. Your reasons for doing so may be different from people like Gravy, who RedIbis chose to celebrate for making his Ignore list.

Simply stating that it is obvious who is and isn't crazy doesn't cut it.

In the thread you linked me to I didn't see any conclusions reached or at any point Gregory changing his mind. He agreed with a minimal amount of things, but there was no resolution to the thread. Again, he is not the kind of twoofer I was talking about ignoring.

If you had read his original draft of that paper and the second draft, there are several changes made, some of which were a direct result of the discussion in the thread. Just because he never stated, "Oops, I was wrong" directly in the thread, doesn't mean he didn't change his mind.

Old twoofers such as Heiwa, Galileo, Christofer7, etc need to be ignored. New twoofers need to be debated until the decision is reached that after presenting all evidence they still refuse to accept it. At that point, ignore them.

Heh, Heiwa had me on his Ignore list months ago. Although I do agree in principle that beating one's head against a wall isn't productive, I don't agree that ignoring them is necessarily the only solution. But hey, I can live with agreeing to disagree, particularly since I only rarely engage in the 10,000 post pile ons these days.

 

[Quad4_72]

Hokulele you said that I excluded gregory and ibis from my list. First, I never made a complete list. I stated a few names. Second, take note of when I said "etc". Those three letters imply that I am well aware that there are others but am simply not stating them at this time. I know there are more than, I stated, but I don't see the need to compile a list. I think its pretty safe to say that every member who posts in here on a regular basis knows all too well who is pointless to debate with.

 

[dudalb]

My question: How does it feel for the President of the United States to single you out as nutjobs in a highly publicised major policy speech?

 

[alienentity]

No, this is not a thread of questions for Truthers.

It's a thread about questions for Truthers.

Specifically, why I think there shouldn't be any.

<snip>

Good post, and good points.

I'm fairly new to these forums, and have a question for you guys - how long have you been 'debating' posters like Bill Smith or KreeL?

Have they really been keeping this stuff up for years? I find that really hard to imagine, and I'm curious to know...

Keep up your efforts, all of you.

 

[A W Smith]

Good post, and good points.

I'm fairly new to these forums, and have a question for you guys - how long have you been 'debating' posters like Bill Smith or KreeL?

Have they really been keeping this stuff up for years? I find that really hard to imagine, and I'm curious to know...

Keep up your efforts, all of you.

No there's a high turnover rate for truthers except for the occasional re-emergence of a sock. ive been here since Dec 06, Which is shortly after i learned of their existence. I believe this 911 sub forum appeared shortly before that and was separated out from the regular conspiracy forum .