The Scoffer Effect?

[T'ai Chi]

Was thinking about this today, after reading some acerbic private messages and posts from my fanboys:

Do those calling themselves skeptics who really 'stick it' to those they disagree with, actually do a disservice to skepticism by turning those people away from skepticism?

In religion, for example, in several texts from these wisdom traditions there are passages that warn the believer of scoffers, some that even say that scoffing is evidence for the holy (for various reasons).

So how does a skeptic balance 'getting the facts out' with 'not being a a**hole', and at the same time without being 'soft'?

 

[tkingdoll]

I guess it depends if you see 'skepticism' as a movement or philosophy that is higher than your own ideals, and therefore can be done "a disservice".

In other words, you would need to feel that you service skepticism in order to disservice it. Some people don't feel that way, and therefore act however they want in accordance with free will and their personalities.

Perhaps some people are not concerned about actively recruiting people to skepticism, and therefore aren't worried about people turning away on account of their actions.

 

[Freethinker]

I believe that most of the time when people are "attacked", it isn't just a sudden, one post event. There are people here who believe things that most of us do not, yet they are able to engage in discussions and disagreements without ridicule because of their attitude and willingness to attempt to see the other side. When someone tries to engage in debate but won't answer questions or belittles the argument without refuting it, there is a tendancy for posters to be less courteous towards them.

 

[hammegk]

... When someone tries to engage in debate but won't answer questions or belittles the argument without refuting it, there is a tendancy for posters to be less courteous towards them.

Who do you have in mind?

 

[Rob Lister]

Perhaps some people are not concerned about actively recruiting people to skepticism, and therefore aren't worried about people turning away on account of their actions.

Bingo! That would be me.

Don't wanna be a skeptic? I don't care. So long as you keep it to yourself and not try to bs others into believing it then that's fine with me.

Heck, for most people it's like professional wrestling -- they know it's all staged but they 'buy into' it for the entertainment.

 

[drkitten]

Was thinking about this today, after reading some acerbic private messages and posts from my fanboys:

Do those calling themselves skeptics who really 'stick it' to those they disagree with, actually do a disservice to skepticism by turning those people away from skepticism?

Translation :

(whiny voice) "Why do people always pick on me whenever I start a new thread with obvious ulterior motives to introduce arguments that have been refuted a dozen times before?"

 

[T'ai Chi]

Translation :

(whiny voice) "Why do people always pick on me whenever I start a new thread with obvious ulterior motives to introduce arguments that have been refuted a dozen times before?"

Posts like the above are examples. They don't really serve much purpose, except turning people away from the skeptical movement.

I know drkitten, and he's funny and harmless. But people new to the board might read it and think 'why would I want to join that? Such ridicule!', and be turned away.

 

[Complexity]

I hold each competent adult responsible for his or her beliefs and behavior.

I'm not responsible for anyone else's beliefs or behavior. Correcting the errant or foolish is not my job; its my hobby. If I think that someone is worth trying to salvage and I have the time and energy, I'll do what I can. I'm under no obligation to try or to care.

Skepticism is a way of looking at the world; it is not a movement or a club. I will not allow my speech or behavior be moderated out of fear of a fool's unreasoned responses.

T'ai Chi does not write out of concern for skepticism. He does not wish skepticism well. He is dishonest, disingenuous, and without honor. He is an enemy to much that I respect and hold dear. He is here to play mind games and wreak havoc.

He is unworthy and utterly ignorable.

 

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai Chi does not write out of concern for skepticism. He does not wish skepticism well. He is dishonest, disingenuous, and without honor. He is an enemy to much that I respect and hold dear. He is here to play mind games and wreak havoc.

He is unworthy and utterly ignorable.

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. Next time, if you are calling someone ignorable, you'd probably be better to not reply in a thread that that person started. LOL!

But back to the topic. If A is rude to B in addressing B's topic, A's effort is misplaced, because even if A is correct, B has tuned out, and others watching the events unfold typically side with the person who is not being nasty, so A has expended a lot of effort but got little in return.

How to balance this out?

 

[Lynx2174]

But back to the topic. If A is rude to B in addressing B's topic, A's effort is misplaced, because even if A is correct, B has tuned out, and others watching the events unfold typically side with the person who is not being nasty, so A has expended a lot of effort but got little in return.

How to balance this out?

by considering the fact that the person who wasn't so nasty about it in this case is the one who is almost certainly getting fooled or ripped off, or could be in danger because of questionable medicinal practice.

it is bad form to use ad homs in formal discussion, but really, it doesn't matter much. people can do what they want. it's not like skepticism is an organizaton or something with goals. it'd be nice to have more people around who think critically, but all in all, it's the other side which loses.

 

[KelvinG]

Posts like the above are examples. They don't really serve much purpose, except turning people away from the skeptical movement.

Actually, I don't see how you can immediately conclude that posts like that turn people away from the skeptical movement. It just as easily might attract some people.
While you might find it counterproductive, others might find it a refreshing bit of honest expression that cuts through the crap and tells it like it is.

Just because your "fanboys" as you call them attack your positions, and sometimes you personally, doesn't mean everyone is turned off by that. Maybe the more they stick it to you, the more some enjoy it.

 

[Flange Desire]

snip
In religion, for example, in several texts from these wisdom traditions there are passages that warn the believer of scoffers, some that even say that scoffing is evidence for the holy (for various reasons).

So how does a skeptic balance 'getting the facts out' with 'not being a a**hole', and at the same time without being 'soft'?

Just stick to the facts m'am.

btw, It seems to me that the religion example is irrelevent.
The warnings are aimed at the believer, and are wasted on the athiest.
And scoffing the woo does not alter the woo quotient in any way.
I mean to say -
I scoff god. Does this really make god any more likely?

Recon those warnings are just a way for the church to downplay critisism.

 

[Wheezebucket]

I'm 100% serious when I say that it's posts from people like Complexity and others that kept me coming back to the board in the beginning. You seem to have a negative attitude towards these posts, but when I was first reading them I was overjoyed to see people saying what I was thinking. To see that there are, in fact, other people out there in the world just as fed up with nonsense as I am. They're even able to maintain their composure and form legitimate arguments, which I respect even more considering they're, more often than not, arguing with lunatics.

If these people you're referring to can't handle that, who cares? If they can't participate in adult conversations, understand sarcasm, or explain their points, why go out of your way to herd them under your banner? I can see why religious people do it, they need all the souls they can get; if they didn't adjust their attitudes peope might actually see it for the lunacy that it is.

Don't change a thing!

 

[GregC]

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. Next time, if you are calling someone ignorable, you'd probably be better to not reply in a thread that that person started. LOL!

You may have started the thread, but I believe everyone has the right to express their opinion, even if the opinion is in regards to the original poster

But back to the topic. If A is rude to B in addressing B's topic, A's effort is misplaced, because even if A is correct, B has tuned out, and others watching the events unfold typically side with the person who is not being nasty, so A has expended a lot of effort but got little in return.

What you state may be true in other forums, but I don't think it's true here. In the short time I've been on the forum and during the time I lurked, it became evident to me that the large portion of the participants were not only skeptical but were critical thinkers. The people on this forum and for the most part those who come to it and stick around for any length of time are able to see what is being said above how it is being said. For those that cannot understand what is being said, well, they just might be in the wrong place.

How to balance this out?

Balance what? Everyone on this forum has equal time. All you have to do is type.

 

[T'ai Chi]

...I believe everyone has the right to express their opinion, even if the opinion is in regards to the original poster

Never said they didn't have that right. Just pointed out that their words are contradicted by their actions.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Never said they didn't have that right. Just pointed out that their words are contradicted by their actions.

No. Care to be a bit more specific?

 

[T'ai Chi]

No. Care to be a bit more specific?

If you read, there was one example already mentioned.

 

[Piggy]

Do those calling themselves skeptics who really 'stick it' to those they disagree with, actually do a disservice to skepticism by turning those people away from skepticism?

In religion, for example, in several texts from these wisdom traditions there are passages that warn the believer of scoffers, some that even say that scoffing is evidence for the holy (for various reasons).

So how does a skeptic balance 'getting the facts out' with 'not being a a**hole', and at the same time without being 'soft'?

We should distinguish b/t how this applies here, and how it applies IRL.

IRL, skeptics are well-served by understanding the particular delusions that true-believers are prone to, which include the "criticism as proof" fallacy. It's not surprising that many successful superstitions, such as Xianity, have such safety-valves built-in.

On this board, however, which is a self-advertised skeptic environment, that ◊◊◊◊ don't play. You post that kind of nonsense here, expect to get handed your a** on a platter.

 

[joller]

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. Next time, if you are calling someone ignorable, you'd probably be better to not reply in a thread that that person started. LOL!

What difference does it make who started the thread?

and others watching the events unfold typically side with the person who is not being nasty,

Do you have us all for idiots?
People on this forum can usually judge based on the arguments and not attitudes.
Some might disapprove 'nastiness' but not many will side with the other person just because the first one is as you said 'nasty'

 

[GregC]

Never said they didn't have that right. Just pointed out that their words are contradicted by their actions.

You forget:

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. Next time, if you are calling someone ignorable, you'd probably be better to not reply in a thread that that person started. LOL!

You contradict yourself.