h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hmm, lots of food for thought there, especially from azahar.

"although some on this thread seem to feel Justin was unfairly 'baited' by people they presume 'had nothing better to do' they seem to find it quite good and fair sport to bait the presumed baiters."

Yup. I consider evangelists to be fair game.

"He listed all sorts of people who were going to hell, said that many religions' deities were Satan or other demons, ect."

"Just about everything Justin ever posted was personally offensive."

I agree that Justin had some shocking opinions, but the problem is that these opinions originated in the Bible. The Bible *does* say a lot of terrible things about all sorts of people; the Old Testament in particular. Now, fundamentalism regularly leads to a great deal of suffering, when it is practised by people in power or by communities rather than individuals; but:

"Justin was usually in a minority of one."

Having said that, I did not know he contributed to Askh2g2. Was he a spammer after all? I remember a guy causing a great deal of upset on the BBC science boards: he'd take on the names of various scientific thinkers who posted there, and start mouthing off whilst pretending to be them. The science moderators repeatedly refused to ban him, even though he had been banned from the Christian messageboards. There certainly seemed to be an intent there to cause harm and disruption. Would this have been Justin, then, or somebody else who spoke like him?

"I will not discuss Justin with people who never knew him. People who only occasionally lurked and came to
their own conclusions. And especially people who think that baiting those who they feel once baited 'poor
ickle Justin' is somehow something clever to do. "

Azahar, you make some very good points. I did lurk only occasionally and I did come to my own conclusions. But that's what happens on h2g2 all the time. When someone, in all ignorance, visits Justin's space, the main impression is of someone under siege. Nearly all the threads started on his space are ones which contain actual personal attacks on Justin, and insinuations about his way of life. That's what a new visitor to his site is going to see, and it is upsetting to see such things said to and about him.

"when Justin was not being deliberatley
inflamitory in his postings. He was obstinately denying that anyone
else could ever be right."

Deliberately? Hmm.... I am coming more around to the possibility that it was deliberate. Still not sure, though. I'm not inclined to include his reponses to people who visited his space. After all, if you don't like it, you don't have to go there and read it.

"if you adopt the belief that you *are* a special minority of one and everybody else is doomed because they're not part of that minority, what do you expect, really?"

Psychiatric help. Justin said that he'd once lived a life of lust and debauchery, and had hurt someone so badly that there was nothing he could ever do to make it right. Now, when you have lived a life of avoiding responsibility and you have a major guilt issue to deal with, something which you cannot deny that you are responsible for, what can you do with yourself? Was Justin really ripping into other types of people, or was he ripping into himself? Was he a terrible person, or a vulnerable one? This is not something we can know--but might it be a reason why the mods looked so benignly on him?

(And, if he's likely to be still around, should I be speaking of him in the past tense like this? )

"None of you have had the on-going debates with Justin that many
others have had. You cannot know our reasons for doing so, though
you presume to know."

True.

"Well, if you say things like he did (or really anything) in public, you should expect those who disagree with you to voice their opinions."

Good point. It would be naive not to expect that. But why be forced to defend a point of view you've made on your own space? When I said he gave as good as he got, I meant he stood up for his right to preach without justification by repeatedly yikesing those who persisted in challenging him.

"he posted the sort of rhetoric designed to engender intolerance in
its readers..."

It certainly achieved that aim.

"...that ought never to see the light of day."


"One of the last posts I made to him said that
while he posted the rubbish that was his stock in trade he would
never find one of his posts not responded to by one or other of the
"pack".

Soon after he did an Elvis."

Well, perhaps, Blicky, you did him a good turn in pointing that out. Obvious though it should've been to him. Despite my quip above, I take your point that, if he's gonna put things like that on a public site, it can be seen as evangelism and maybe Justin could be seen as "fair game" for doing it.

"You might have asked before presuming. You have made some comments about myself and my friends that are quite insulting. I can only imagine that you find this somehow fun?"

Azahar, I know I have ticked you off, but I just love your replies. You are so forthright! I will try to do your comments justice if you return to this thread. To answer you now as best I can: my journal entry was my way of asking; I know I was extremely blunt, but I feel that my comments are on a par with comments you yourself have made about Justin. Fun, well, I guess I do. In terms of seeing how you like it, I do. In terms of encouraging a stimulating discussion about the interesting phenomenon that Justin has made himself into, yes I do, especially when I know that the people who spent most time on his page are intelligent and rational thinkers who, in every other way, seem like lovely people.

You say I'm using Justin. Perhaps you're right--but what were *you* doing? It's not as though you liked him. Why did you waste your breath talking to him?

good points here!

Wow, SR

"I agree that Justin had some shocking opinions, but the problem is that these opinions originated in the Bible. The Bible *does* say a lot of terrible things about all sorts of people; the Old Testament in particular. Now, fundamentalism regularly leads to a great deal of suffering, when it is practised by people in power or by communities rather than individuals; but:"

How does being in the Bible make it any more or less tolerable or acceptable? He certainly has a right to say what he wishes, but quoting the Bible doesn't give him a free pass to not be criticised for it. If you can say whatever you want without criticism if it comes from a holy book, then everything I say from now on is either divine revelation from the Galactic Spirit or quoted from the Book of Seldon! (I'll get around to writing it sooner or later, perhaps.)




"Having said that, I did not know he contributed to Askh2g2. Was he a spammer after all? I remember a guy causing a great deal of upset on the BBC science boards: he'd take on the names of various scientific thinkers who posted there, and start mouthing off whilst pretending to be them. The science moderators repeatedly refused to ban him, even though he had been banned from the Christian messageboards. There certainly seemed to be an intent there to cause harm and disruption. Would this have been Justin, then, or somebody else who spoke like him?"

It might have been, I don't recall him ever mentioning that he posted there, though.



"Azahar, you make some very good points. I did lurk only occasionally and I did come to my own conclusions. But that's what happens on h2g2 all the time. When someone, in all ignorance, visits Justin's space, the main impression is of someone under siege. Nearly all the threads started on his space are ones which contain actual personal attacks on Justin, and insinuations about his way of life. That's what a new visitor to his site is going to see, and it is upsetting to see such things said to and about him."

Though most of the threads begin with insults by him, if you go to their beginnings and not just the most recent comments.



"Psychiatric help. Justin said that he'd once lived a life of lust and debauchery, and had hurt someone so badly that there was nothing he could ever do to make it right. Now, when you have lived a life of avoiding responsibility and you have a major guilt issue to deal with, something which you cannot deny that you are responsible for, what can you do with yourself? Was Justin really ripping into other types of people, or was he ripping into himself? Was he a terrible person, or a vulnerable one? This is not something we can know--but might it be a reason why the mods looked so benignly on him?"

Perhaps he needed psychiatrric help, but when I suggested it he Yikesed me and my posting was failed. I'm pretty sure that happened to others, too.




"Good point. It would be naive not to expect that. But why be forced to defend a point of view you've made on your own space? When I said he gave as good as he got, I meant he stood up for his right to preach without justification by repeatedly yikesing those who persisted in challenging him."

Anything he posted on the guide was intended for public view. If he meant it as a private conversation with someone he wouldn't post it on a public forum. When a person posts things in public, they should expect responces. When they post viewpoints that many disagree with vehemently, they implicitly say they are willing to defend them

"You say I'm using Justin. Perhaps you're right--but what were *you* doing? It's not as though you liked him. Why did you waste your breath talking to him? "

I did for two reasons. To make sure that others didn't see his views without seeing valid arguments against them--I found them offensive and felt they deserved an attempted countering. But also because I did sort of want to understand him, if such a thing was possible.

Hello again, RDO. I do appreciate your taking the time to post to me on this issue.

With regard to post 24, I'm not being deliberately awkward, but I don't understand some of the points you are making. This, for instance:

"If you can say whatever you want without criticism if it
comes from a holy book, then everything I say from now on is either divine revelation from the Galactic Spirit or quoted from the Book of Seldon!"

All I can say is, absolutely. Quite right. Why *should* you have to justify whatever's in the Book of Seldon if you don't feel like it? I'm not saying that the Bible is right (I'm an atheist), but then again, the Bible is just one of many popular opinions against which I think there is strong evidence. I still stand by people's right to talk about them if they think they are the way to go. And whilst I think it's ok to criticise a point of view, I'm not usually so happy about the proponent of a view being criticised on a personal level just because they've said they're not going to be swayed by argument.

And then there's:

"Though most of the threads begin with insults by him, if you go to
their beginnings and not just the most recent comments."

I think this is just a case of crossed wires. I was talking about the threads started on his space--the ones which only outsiders have the option of starting. Don't forget, it was news to me that Justin spent time posting outside of his space on Askh2g2. But still, he wasn't posting on people's personal territory. Was any of it directed at specific individuals? (Sorry, I have looked on his space but, well, there's a lot of stuff there. I'm hoping you might remember something offhand.)

And you make this apparently groundless assumption:

"When they post viewpoints that many disagree with vehemently, they implicitly say they are willing to defend them"

I recall Justin explicitly saying he didn't need to defend them.

"It might have been, I don't recall him ever mentioning that he
posted there, though."

Then again, the guy I saw never mentioned having posted on the Christian boards. So I guess we're none the wiser. Ho hum.

"Perhaps he needed psychiatrric help, but when I suggested it he
Yikesed me and my posting was failed. I'm pretty sure that
happened to others, too."

Yes, suggesting psychiatric help to people is usually taken as being extremely patronising. It has more stigma than it should: people assume that if you need it then you must be mad. I probably shouldn't've mentioned it myself.

" did for two reasons. To make sure that others didn't see his views without seeing valid arguments against
them--I found them offensive and felt they deserved an attempted countering."

A very reasonable thing to do.

"But also because I did sort of want to understand him, if such a thing was possible."

Me too. I nearly spoke to him a few times, but really there was nothing I could say that hadn't been said by someone else, and I figured he wouldn't respond well to an atheist like me trying to strike up a convo. I didn't feel like being told I was going to burn in Hell.

"All I can say is, absolutely. Quite right. Why *should* you have to justify whatever's in the Book of Seldon if you don't feel like it? I'm not saying that the Bible is right (I'm an atheist), but then again, the Bible is just one of many popular opinions against which I think there is strong evidence. I still stand by people's right to talk about them if they think they are the way to go. And whilst I think it's ok to criticise a point of view, I'm not usually so happy about the proponent of a view being criticised on a personal level just because they've said they're not going to be swayed by argument."

It sounded to me like you had said I shouldn't criticise Justin much because his views came from the Bible.




"I think this is just a case of crossed wires. I was talking about the threads started on his space--the ones which only outsiders have the option of starting. Don't forget, it was news to me that Justin spent time posting outside of his space on Askh2g2. But still, he wasn't posting on people's personal territory. Was any of it directed at specific individuals? (Sorry, I have looked on his space but, well, there's a lot of stuff there. I'm hoping you might remember something offhand.)"

Well, many (I think most) of the threads on his personal space were started by him--they generally began as journal entries. I don't think he started any threads directed at specific h2g2 members, although he did dirrect them at the Prime Minister and the "pagan on the Tiber" (ie the Pope).





"I recall Justin explicitly saying he didn't need to defend them."

That doesn't mean that the act of posting them in public doesn't imply a willingness to defend them. If he wishes to post his view publicly and refuse to stand up to defend them, that seems more like intellectual cowerdice (or a complete detachment from reality/santity) than anything else. What he intended to do is not so relevant as what his actions warrented. ******




"Yes, suggesting psychiatric help to people is usually taken as being extremely patronising. It has more stigma than it should: people assume that if you need it then you must be mad. I probably shouldn't've mentioned it myself."

Then we can't suggest what might help him; the best we can do is challenge his views with logic and hope he cures ghi

<<...hope he cures ghi>>

I meant cures himself--I hit post too soon.



<>

You get used to it after a while--after all he tells everyone that.



<>

******--an example, if I can think of one.

I think that perhaps the moderators were so benign to this particular personality because he provoked so much response from everyone.

If your into people watching and happen to enjoy watching people from all educational backgrounds communicate on here, its a unique opportunity to be witness to personal thought processes.

Also I think, and I know its not true of everyone, but in this kind of environment where you can maintain a sort of protective anonymity there is the chance that people are more brutally honest than what they would be if you happen to meet them on the street.

For instance if you happened to meet such a personality as J on the street that was maybe preaching something you disagree with strongly, I wonder how many would actually stop to debate issues or just move on quietly?

It also might have been entirely possible that the J himself is a very quiet broody person in RL and would never be quite as strongly 'vocal' as what he was here.

I may already be repeating stuff that has been mulled over before by regs of Justin threads. I merely like mulling over peoples reactions to other people and the whys....its fascinating.

When I was younger, I had no patience for the human mind and prefered to work with animals a 'being' that I could understand and you knew exactly where you were with them. As I have got older and more experienced I have become more and more interested in exploring other peoples minds.

Ok, I started rambling there!

Vix

I'd say my reasons for posting on the Justin threads was pretty much that given by RDO in post 25, and that most of my comments were made with potential third parties in mind. After the early days he never actually replied to anything I said anyway.

I also agree that by posting on a public forum you are implicitly agreeing to have your views challenged, and that Justin continued to post stuff in his journal and on h2g2 long after he was aware of the reactions it would cause.

And the mods were probably relatively benign because all things considered the amount of yikesing was quite modest, constituting a sort of tacit agreement to "I disagree with what you say..."

Noggin

This post has been removed.

Gosh darn it, I missed it!

Who was that, and why I wonder?

SEF

No idea why it was yikesed though; it looked okay to me.

Noggin

Of course it was OK. It was just my usual evil stalkers at work again.

SEF, I think it was, as far as I can tell was suggesting that favouritism was the reason that Justins messages stayed up. Allegedly.

That essentially though from an atheist or non-fundy view point Justins posts can be interpreted as bigoted bile. Someone who may have a similar view of the bible would not look so harshly on things that they broadly believed to be true themselves. Conversly his detractors might have felt justified in saying some forthright things about a book they dont see as sacred while a moderator who thinks the bigG will send them to hell if they dont defend His word may take a very different view.

I dont really care I fully expect that no matter how hard a person tries they will always view anything fairly subjectively. Thats why I dont like to use the yikes button. Its funadamentally (get it) unfair.

All it needs is for whoever it is on the other end of the system to make their value judgement and you are deemed to be wrong or right when infact it is only their interpretation of right and wrong at the end of the day.

Id rather just post my counter point and be done with it.

one love

I suggested it was one *possible* reason, especially given that it was already a proven reason in other cases - even to the extent of it being acknowledged explicitly by another member of staff and implicitly by the belated (though half-hearted) actions of the BBC(!) - not that it was *the* reason.

I do get the joke. Have you seen the standard "putting the fundament into fundamentalist" one? There are various others.

apologies what I meant was that, that was the reason it had probably been hidden.

"Well, many (I think most) of the threads on his personal space
were started by him--they generally began as journal entries. I don't
think he started any threads directed at specific h2g2 members,
although he did dirrect them at the Prime Minister and the "pagan
on the Tiber" (ie the Pope)."

A lot of us write invective about Tony Blair. A lot of Christians view the Pope as an impostor. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

I saw Justin's last lot of journal entries: they were very long and rambling, and their main point seemed to be that, if you're a human being, then you're damned and that's that. I can't think of any group of people he didn't think were evil sinners destined for punishment. How he can be accused of prejudice when he viewed us all with equal distaste?

"What he intended to do is not so relevant as what his actions warrented."

Agreed. As I said before, it would be naive not to expect criticism when posting on a public site. But I stand by his right to stick to his views without justifying them. There are others on this site who take particular political standpoints, or eat only certain types of food, without any justification. People don't continuously demand that *they* explain themselves.

"I think that perhaps the moderators were so benign to this particular personality because he provoked so much response from everyone."

I remember the science board host saying that the mods weren't prepared to ban someone who was popular enough to receive so many replies from so many people, and that if people wanted him to go away, they should ignore him till he got bored.

Vix, I once had a RL friend who behaved like Justin on the internet. I'll tell you about him when I have more time.

"evil stalkers"

Uh-oh. So we can expect lots more yikesing then.

Another reason why I never tried to speak to Justin was in case I became a regular yikes victim. (Heathen that I am.)

Hi Snailrind

As one Justin's main antagonists/protagonists I thought I'd drop by and see what you were doing

Very interesting stuff, and you seem to have attracted about half the 'pack' too. Not bad going.

My relationship with Justin goes way back to his earliest appearances on h2g2 (after he had been banned by the BBC Religious Messageboards). At that time his main playmates were Noggin, Alji, Hoovooloo and myself. We enjoyed our discussions with him and he shared quite a bit about his past, much of which helped us understand why he was as he was.

Indeed when a few frustrated antagonists (mostly christians I seem to remember) tried to have him banned from h2g2, we merry few of 'the pack' (as you delightfully refer to us) led the campaign to save him. Strangely he hated us for that as we undermined the persecution argument that was one of the cornerstones of his faith. He soon left for an extended sabbatical.

When he re-emerged he did so with style. In a few short postings he had vociferously attacked homosexuality, feminism, 95% of christians, women, abortion, moslems in general, papists and pagans.

By now he was anathematizing many of his old foes and thus open discussion with him became impossible. Thus I took on the task of giving an alternative viewpoint to each of his hate/fear-filled sermons. I continued on this tack until he finally fled in March.

All through my relationship with him I have reached out the hand of friendship. Despite his obvious hatred of me and all I represent (being a practicing druid) that offer remains open. He is a man in need of spiritual healing of the most profound nature and I still hope one day he will return.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Friend of Justin and Co-Founder of the Sulphur Outfall No4 club.

Matholwch, a pleasure to hear from you. I'll try to give you a proper reply tomorrow: currently, my brain is made of papier mache.

Blessed be, and all that.