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

I posted this on another thread but it is kinda relevant here....

"My problem is irrespective of whether or not Ed and I are right in the specifics as to certain researchers.... we are deffo right about the generality.

By that I mean the Far Right in the UK now has a deliberate policy of being "racist" without being racist. They very cleverly allude to things and walk the line without actually crossing it at times at least in respect of the law. There is also a clear campaign to shift the empasis from "ethnicity" to cultural things in a bid to escape the "race hate" laws.

Specifically this has meant attacking "Islam" as a proxy for racism (previously it had been asylum seekers). I am dissapointed that our PTB either dont recognise this, or are choosing to ignore it. It has been pointed out to me that this is a case of being "through the looking glass". We are now in a strange situation where subtle racism is acceptable on hootoo, but calling it isnt'.

I am very concerned because I feel that racism is a very insidious ideology that ought, no *MUST* be challenged by right thinking idividual at all corners"

This is very interesting. I am grateful to kea for summarising the background, not having seen any of the thread in question.

I have to say that from the perspective of that (ignorance of the details, working from generalities) I can't see that Ed is totally innocent. Put it another way, I see the italics' point.

In particular I can't accept Ed's

That is an example of argumentum ad hominem, which is quite properly classified as a fallacy. You are required to show, not merely state, that the thinking is not decent. Similarly stepping over "the Bonobo Threshold" is not a valid move in my view. That is the abandonment of debate, and it is right to mod it.

All this I repeat is the view of an outsider, responding not to the conversation but to kea's (excellent) description of such a debate.

Yes, Kea's summing up is reasonable. I'm self-critical to accept that I acted - let's say - 'unproductively' on the previous occasion that I stepped over The Bonobo Theshold.

However...I think that the events that led up to my public censure were somewhat different. An uninvited and irrelevant statement was made against which there was no reasonable argument(*). Even though I knew that I'd be unlikely to change the poster's mind, I felt duty bound to say that his statement was publically unacceptable. (And I agree with FB on this one. It has to be said. Always.) I made my response calmly. I don't even think it was my original remark that caused the stooshie - it was more my sincere questioning of Jimster's reaction to it. I don't think he's gave the the benefit of the doubt. I was just another troublemaker in a tedious day's modding.




(*) OK there *are* arguments, but if someone haven't realised the fundamental equality of all humans by now, it's boring to have to keep going back to first principles.

Nobly accepted, Ed. But that's another thing: this ere is a very public place, and I can't see the value of "invited" and "uninvited" here. Once someone has signed up to the small print and logged on to hootoo they are free and welcome to post anywhere on the site, as far as I can see. Fundamental equality of all, and that.

'Uninvited' maybe doesn't quite describe it. It was more a matter of someone seizing on an adjective which was wholly tangential to the topic (which was the position of music in Islamic cultures) and gleefully taking the opportunity to use it to make an unacceptable point. Admittedly it was the same adjective I highlighted in a recent Behan/Thomas discussion but - I hope - with rather different effect.

You have used it before, as when Pilgrim4Truth entered the Atheist Fundamentalism debate. I thought it excessive then.

Hi Eddie

You'll have to forgive me but I've been laughing like a loon. Dear boy it is years since anyone inferred I was liberal, even if a conceited one.

I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself very well, but I wasn't expecting to reason these idiots into the truth. By arguing rationally and hard with them, exposing their inadequacies and lies, I merely hoped to expose them to those whose minds are not yet stuffed with crap.

I hope that this makes it clearer.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

I was excessive with Pilgrim4? . If so - unintentionally. I valued his contribution as a jolt out of atheist cosiness, and I do hope I didn't scare him away with any robustness.

(although I did possibly drop a gentle hint that there was a topic I wanted to get back to)

Math...

Please don't get the impression that I was Yikesed simply for shouting 'knickers'. My posts contained (I think) a certain level of reasoned argument - to the best of my limited ability. Most of the Yikesed ones did not even refer to another poster, but were questioning the limits of debate using as exemplars criticism of various public figures. I reason for the stooshie appears to be fear of libel (although I really don't think that I said anything actionable - and Blair, Cameron or Howard would have been unlikely to sue).

Sorry I called you liberal. If anyone called me that, I'd have punched him.

Ed is liberal!

Wear it as a badge of honor, Ed. When society is screwed up, anti-social behavior is the only honorable course. And there can't be a more screwed up society than internet communities in general, and this one in particular.

ASBO? Didn't they get taken over by Wall-Mart?

>>anti-social behavior is the only honorable course.

"All change is brought about by unreasonable men." (GBS)

Ah, George Bernard Shaw. I went to see a play of his at the local theatre the other week. Man and Arms, I think it was called. It had to do with a war between the Serbs and the Bulgarians and a Swiss officer hiding in a lady's bedroom. There was even an actress in it from Emmerdale Farm!

It was made into an opera as "The Chocolate Cream Soldier" I seem to recall. Oddly topical. It argued that a young soldier's bag was full of ammunition, while an old one's was full of grub.

Ed, I seem to remember that you told P4T that he was "uninvited" to the Atheist discussion group. I felt that a willing Christian was just the thing for you lions.

>>
That is an example of argumentum ad hominem, which is quite properly classified as a fallacy. You are required to show, not merely state, that the thinking is not decent. Similarly stepping over "the Bonobo Threshold" is not a valid move in my view. That is the abandonment of debate, and it is right to mod it.
<<

Maybe my summary wasn't so good after all The context was that there had been EXTENSIVE discussion of the issues, so even where EtB did step over a line on occasion it's not like he just turned up in the thread and started shouting racist! at people. It's also worth pointing out that he's pretty evenly matched by blicky in terms of rudeness, and afaik blicky hasn't been modded in that thread.

And as EtB has explained, it was the later challenging of the Ed's posts that appears to have caused the closure. I'm still really unclear what is going on. There's comment in the VC2 thread that the closure is not the result of one researcher, but it's a collective punishment. I'd really like to know what it is we've all done

Your synopsis gave just that feeling, kea, and my comments stand: despite enormous provocation, stepping over the line is just not a good move. Compare James Bond shooting the guy he had chased over the cranes to take alive. Understandable, but a punishable mistake.

Having little knowledge of the background beyond what kea mentioned, I'll just idly consider something only partially relevant.

I'm wondering what has motivated the seemingly sudden necessity to be "clean" (the profanity filter, the thread closures, etc). Is it a messageboard-specific thing, and h2g2 is just getting the flack? Was someone thinking about h2g2 when they formed this policy? Is it a BBC-wide policy? Did it come from the online communities head people, or did it come from the *real* head honchos? And why, all of a sudden? We used to live in splendid isolation.

As I said, I really don't know enough about the individual thread to question motive and rationale and reasonable behaviour. But good on you for making a nuisance of yourself, Edward.