'It could be worse' is not a justification. It could be better too.... I just want to have enjoyable and productive conversations, not constantly be insulted and belittled. Aaron is the only regular poster I have on ignore and it took a long time before I gave up and did that.

Appreciate that. And lol at Aaron saying in the bit you quoted that it's 'between two people'. Nope, it really isn't.

This is what a lot of my threads look like...

Why do you believe this? It wouldn't make a difference either way though, presumably?

Can you share anything that would help someone better understand this situation (e.g. if you'd reply regardless of that reply being seen, what's the benefit over shouting it into the ether?)?

I believe this mostly because it's one click to read posts, and extremely easy to do. It's not as if blocking makes it an extremely complex task to peek at what's actually being said.

If he's disciplined enough not to read it, more power to him. I find it unlikely.

And it doesn't make a difference. As I've noted, my posting is intentionally done in a manner not to draw attention to it. It just reads like I'm posting, so it would not make any difference.

MB is right insofar as I'm not really posting at him. He calls it "playing to gallery" or something like that, but I'm more doing something akin to a running commentary. I find some of my thoughts enter into the conversation through others. I believe I'm engaged with ideas and not just a specific person.

A lot of "your" threads look like the RGT random **** thread? And you're convinced that all those posts are really posts directed at you all day every day?

LOL indeed.

Lol at thinking Mightyboosh is reading your posts. Dude, he wants nothing to do with you, due to your failure to "respect the tone" - as the rules of this forums state- that he entirely reasonably wanted:
Bad posters often seem to care more about public mockery and launching the latest salvo in their diatribes against their opponents than fostering genuine dialogue. But you've shed all pretenses. When your bad behaviour got you ignore listed, it didn't seem to affect your behaviour at all, which is telling. The diatribes continued against someone you think is willfully ignorant. Heck you even still use the 2nd person as if it was an actual dialogue. It isn't!

Grow up and show some ****ing respect. Move on. Focus your attacks on others. You insulted your ex enough during the relationship, stop pinning your hate letters to him all over the school.

The "Impotent behavior police" needs to quit whining about his impotence.

Aaaaaaannnnd truth. You don't actually care about the tone. You just feel protective of MB. Such warm fuzzies.

Jesus Christ. Tone depends on who you are talking to. If someone is happy to fight, go have a fight with them. If they are not looking for a fight with you, leave them in peace. This is basic etiquette. And the forum rules.

As a side note, it's true that I view MB's argumentation as more "willful ignorance" than just "ignorance." I actually have significantly more tolerance for ignorance.

It would be quite a different thing if MB were to get beyond merely repeating his assumptions in the argumentation of his position. Rather, conversations get bogged down in strange and often false assumptions/statements, and when those falsities are addressed, rather than learning from the information he just continues further. His position is often immune to facts and logic because of this.

And it's not just something I experienced. You can find numerous examples of other posters attempting to persuade MB of various things and pointing out his flaws, and they very often run into the same roadblocks.

Here's the thread in which MB declared his initial block:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...6&postcount=34

Notice that my comments have been (and continue to be) consistent with that perspective. But in the thread, he was literally making demonstrably false claims and then trying to assert that it wasn't his argument at all. You see this echoed in the present discussion about "science" and "scientific method" and "scientific theory."

So I do see him and his arguments in an uncharitable light because the history does not provide sufficient reason for me to see it otherwise. When I refer to his arguments being as they always have been, I believe I'm grounded in a factual basis.

So.... you're literally complaining about something that even the person whose comments I'm addressing isn't complaining about. Oh, the peace MB must experience when he doesn't read the posts I don't post instead of not reading the posts that I do post (or so he claims).

Give MB a hug for me.

Impotent behavior police to the non-rescue!

I basically agree with you, except I probably wouldn't call his skin "remarkably thick", given that he has blocked Aaron.

As a street preacher, I endure all manner of verbal abuse and I either have to put up with it or go home. I can't "block" anybody. If I had ten dollars every time somebody hurled the "f-bomb" at me while I was preaching, I'd be a wealthy man. (Okay, maybe not "wealthy", but you get the idea. )

Hi, Mightyboosh. I'm certainly not trying to justify Aaron's behavior, and I don't blame you at all for blocking him.

Have a blessed day, Mightyboosh.

One more question for you Aaron:

Would you prefer MightyBoosh not post in RGT?




eta: do you remember me PM'ing you a while ago (couple of years) about this very issue? I believe I asked you about your being uncharitable. I was trying to remember your reply (it was a civil enough exchange) but I don't have the msg, even in my Outbox. I'd be Ok with you posting that PM.

Either way is fine with me. I'm pretty ambivalent.

Fast pony - I made an edit to my post

I have no recollection of this PM and also cannot find evidence of it. Was it maybe buried in a thread somewhere?

I have a fuzzy but otherwise definite memory of asking you why you were often uncharitable towards MB. As I said, it was a civil exchange. I recall you said something about how you changed the way you responded to him over time, similar to what you said more recently. It doesn't seem like the kind of exchange that I'd have initiated in public, and I didn't find anything in the forum. Oh well.

While I thought at the time I might be "I'm sticking my nose in", the notion that what is going on is only between two people is so wrong, it's RGT's little secret but everyone knows about it. I had also PM'd MB (I thought it was probably around the same time I thought I'd contacted you, but who knows?) because it was so uncomfortable to witness your behaviour. I took some time away from 2p2, and am only occasionally 'back', but it struck me that "Aaron is still up to it". Yesterday I checked that PM to MB - I sent it nearly three years ago.


I don't think anyone can or even should be forced to be respectful even at a basic level. That aside, what uke_master said is essentially the same way I have felt for a long time. When it comes to MB, I think Aaron's behaviour is inexplicable and irrational, whether seen as a low-level but relentless kind of abuse, or as someone who is shouting their thoughts at a radio broadcaster.


It's worth mulling over that MB (or someone like him) might have left this forum if not for the block feature.

I can/have explained it. It's not nearly as complicated as most people seem to think. I don't see this as particularly personal, but rather as working in the realm of ideas. The reason I don't care that it's MB is because I don't really care that it's anyone in particular. As OrP noted, I pretty much willing to respond to anyone who comes by.

For people who seem earnest in seeking information and knowledge, there are good conversations. For people who don't, it goes less well. Both types of conversations happen pretty regularly. MB's posts primarily fall in the latter category. Again, it's not just me. See also tame_deuces and some of your own observations about his positions.

What I believe is is basically just a psychological bias (availability heuristic). Because it's an "open secret" there's a more acute awareness of it, so that every time it happens you get the "there he goes again" reflex, and so it seems more prevalent than it actually is.

I think it's also true of the perception that I'm targeting him specifically to "insult" him fits into the same category. Yes, I will make comments about how he's not being intellectually honest, or repeating such-and-such an error, or that he's sounding like an anti-vaxxer, or whatever, but it's always the context of a reference to something specific. I don't ever just respond with "MB is stupid." I'm always pointing to specific errors when I do that. And I don't think it happens quite as often as it may seem. Many times, my comments are just pointing out errors and producing counter-arguments.

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know and don't care that much. As I said elsewhere, I'm not sorry this isn't a safe space for ignorance.

Ya, a few new people probably get confused for a bit, particularly because Aaron refers to Mightyboosh in the second person, as if he is having a conversation with him, even though he isn't. It's partly why it is a good idea to periodically remind people that this 3+ year behaviour is indeed occurring.


Ding ding ding.

Hi, Aaron.

The important difference between you and beaucoupfish and tame_deuces is that while all three of you sometimes have disagreements with MB, only you Aaron accuse MB of being "willfully ignorant", and the like. It's one thing to challenge the veracity of someone's argument, and quite another to impugn their character by calling them "willfully ignorant." Why not just let the arguments stand or fall on their own merits?

Have a blessed day.

Usually when we've reached the "willfully ignorant" part of the conversation, we're about 300+ posts deep going back and forth on the same idea.

I'll take the time to develop a deeper analysis of the following thread, in which MB un-blocked and then re-blocked me.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...ional-1682556/

Unblock: Post #36 - MB's post

The conversation between us then goes along the following thread:
Me: 37
MB: 42
Me: 46
MB: 48
Me: 49
MB: 52, 55
Me: 58, 60
MB: 61, 62
Me: 69, 70
MB: 75, 76
Me: 77, 78, 83
MB: 88, 89, 90
Me: 93, 94, 96, 97
MB: 122, 124, 127, 128
Me: 132, 133, 134, 135, 137
MB: 142, 144
Me: 145, 146
MB: 148
Me: 151
MB: 155, 159
Me: 165, 166
MB: 167
Me: 168, 169
MB: 185
Me: 186
MB: 188, 192
Me: 194
MB: 196
Me: 199, 209
MB: 214, 215
Me: 221, 222, 223, 224
MB: 226, 228
Me: 232, 233, 234,
MB: 236 -- Reblock

I am not quick to make the accusation of willful ignorance. And there's a very slow, patient, methodical increase in the level of rhetoric. I welcome someone to make a collection of perceived insults and look at the relative count of them over the progression of the conversation. I expect that the frequency is much lower than is largely assumed.

So with regards to whether to let the arguments stand for themselves, I give them all a fair chance to do that. But if the response comes back without any evidence of having reconsidered the position, then there's no value in continuing to repeat it and I'll move on to something else.

As an example, MB's position on "science":

#1:
#12:
#13: Emphasis mine. This is a statement that non reasonable person who understands science would accept.
#28:
#33:
#42:
#46
#48
#49
#52
#53:
#54:
#57
#58:
#61: (Note: The second paragraph contains the type of statements which lead me to view MB as willfully ignorant. Far from being ignorant, he's absolutely convinced he knows what he's talking about, despite the pushback from several sources.)
#63:
#69:
#73: Note here that MB is now expanding his position to include a sense of bewilderment that some people might believe in the existence of the supernatural while being scientists, while in fact there are such people in reality and those people do not seem to have issues.

#75:
#77: Notice here is where I begin to increase the rhetoric. It's *after* his position gets cemented in on the wrong side and *after* he has demonstrated that he's not willing to learn.
#82:
#86:
#88:
#89: Posted for irony.
I've been bored for a while, but I wanted to get to that post. The thing is that this goes on for at least another 50 posts before slowing down. You'll see tame_deuces providing insight and answers, and running into the same problem. It gets to this this challenge and absolutely nonsensical answer:

#151:
#155:
In post #288, he's *STILL* arguing this.

Through the *entire* thread, he has chosen to reject information and maintain a wrong position, despite all sorts of evidence to the contrary. Neither facts nor argumentation has been shown to persuade him. Furthermore, his argumentation for why it must (and the consequences of it) are terrible. His conception of what it would mean to observe a floating ball are way out of line with what *ANY* reasonable scientist would conclude and goes beyond any type of claim that is scientifically justifiable.

When someone doesn't know what they're talking about, while insisting that they do, and reject (basically out of hand) observations, argumentation, and information to the contrary... I'm not afraid or ashamed to call it willful ignorance.

You seem less interested in the specifics of these two posts of Aaron and more in criticizing my overall moderation approach, so I'll try to explain my general philosophy here.

We have different models of how to moderate. I view my role as akin to a judge enforcing the rules of the forum. This requires an understanding of the purpose of those rules and, done well, a coherent and consistent model of how those rules should be applied over time to the changing character of forum conversation and the specific situations that arise. But as with judges more generally, my authority doesn't extend beyond those rules. If I don't like how someone posts or I think it is harmful, but they do so within the rules of the forum, I don't have the authority as a moderator to enforce my view of how they should post. I don't view myself as a forum leader in that sense.

I think this approach provides protection for other members of RGT from me abusing my authority to make the forum more agreeable to my own beliefs, goals or style in posting. This approach also protects me from claims of unfairness or arbitrariness and so promotes the stability of forum moderation. Since my decisions are justified, not on the basis of my personal views, but rather on the public rules of the forum, people whose posts are being moderated are less likely to feel the victim of personal animus or unfairness.

I agree that there are drawbacks to this approach. It is less flexible in problem-solving than a more dictatorial style would be. It can be more easily manipulated by clever defectors than a less rule-bound model. It is less responsive to the patterns of abuse and harassment you worry about here. That being said, I still think it is best for this forum. Religion is a topic where almost everyone, including myself, are susceptible to personal bias against people with differing views, and so ripe for abuse by those with power. I think my record as a moderator also bears out the correctness of this approach. I've been moderating RGT for 6-7 years now, and remember only a single case of complaints about moderation reaching ATF - of which there were definitely more before my tenure. Traffic has definitely declined, but (a) that is universal across 2p2 and (b) my experience is that Aaron's style of aggressive and negative posting increases rather than decreases traffic.

You also ask me to be more forthright in condemning Aaron's posting, even apart from my role as a moderator. Here's my view. I think Aaron's judgement about Mightyboosh is incorrect. That being said, having had many conversations with Mightyboosh myself, and observing MB's interactions with others besides Aaron, I don't think he is unreasonable in making this judgement. MB is stubborn in holding onto his views, often on what seems to me very tenuous grounds. Aaron also believes that being blunt in describing the intellectual habits that lead to mistakes and mocking those who have those habits is useful and enjoyable. I don't agree with him about this either, (and have said so in the past), but hold this view only lightly. I don't enjoy that kind of posting and so am inclined to want to condemn it as well, but realistically I am only guessing about what kind of posting is actually most effective in changing people's minds.

That being said, I do think Aaron's style of posting deforms people's ability to reason well. We are all driven by ego in these debates, constantly tempting us to believe our own arguments and our own claims are right, and obviously so, and that those of people who disagree with us are not only wrong, but also stupid, immoral, and not worthy of serious engagement. I think Aaron's style of posting gives too much rein to ego and so accentuates this problem, and I think this is evident in Aaron's posting. As for the specific case of Aaron continuing to respond to Mightyboosh after being put on ignore, I view this as a peculiarity, but not a particularly objectionable one.

I didn't block Aaron because I have a thin skin, I've also suffered much much worse verbal abuse than that and shrugged it off. However, I'm here to enjoy conversations, and I wasn't getting that from Aaron, I was getting the opposite. Tell me, do you seek out the company of unpleasant people, or those with whom your interactions are simply unpleasant and un-enjoyable? Neither do I. And, my self control isn't as good as I wish it was and I sometimes couldn't stop myself responding. Also, not an enjoyable experience. Blocking him solved that problem too.

The people whose opinions matter to me on this forum understand that my ignorance isn't 'willful'. I'm content with that.

Your kind of posting, at least, that's what works on me. Calmly, rationally and most importantly, intelligently picking apart something I've said in a way that demonstrates knowledge and understanding at a much higher level than what I'm capable of achieving has a singularly instructive effect on me. I long ago stopped disagreeing with you (and Zumby) and started engaging purely to understand why I'm wrong and to learn. When my conversations with you have tailed off, it's almost always because I saw my error, or because I couldn't understand your counter and so couldn't reply. I still have the 'Divine Freedom' tab open in my browser and I'm digesting it slowly.

That's the effect it has on me, I get pissed off and dig my heels in even deeper and tend to start responding in kind. No one benefits from that. Blocking him was my only effective solution but it wasn't a decision I took lightly, I would much rather see, and engage with, dissenting viewpoints.

Hi, Mightyboosh.

Actually, for me the answer to that question is "YES." As a street preacher, I go out of my way to seek out people who are likely to disagree with me and proclaim the gospel to them. Given the provocative nature of the message that I preach, I expect and often receive a hostile response. In my case, I've endured much verbal abuse, but I've never been physically assaulted (although quite a number of street preachers have been physically assaulted). I'm willing to risk being in an "unpleasant and un-enjoyable" situation in the hopes that a lost sinner will repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Having said all that, there are no other times in which I seek out the company of unpleasant people. In fact, if someone is unpleasant to be around, I "make like a tree and leave." (I think that's the first pun ITT )

Have a blessed day.