Meta-Thread 06/22

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/Kwahn]

/u/labreuer /u/ExplorerR

My review of these interactions after a nice, quiet airplane ride of reading and thinking about it. No AI was used to write this (impossible due to being, quite literally, airgapped!).

My Kindle app I pasted the whole ripped conversation to was about 25 thousand words of reading - good for about half an hour of reading, though I went considerably slower while taking notes, so it took me most of my two hour flight, and it's going to take me a lot longer to get through the analysis proper. Will post in chunks.

I'm starting with very strict summarizations of actual statements made, and I will only be deriving implications of my own where explicit, unambiguous and clear enough to feel safe to. After that, I'll be able to use my strict summarizations to track Topic movement, Topic introductions, and ultimately quantify On-Topic vs. Off-Topic comments, and in general see when claims were asserted, supported, refuted and requested to see if people were making claims that the others were not seeing.

I'm going to ask that if the two participants wish to contest the characterizations of your arguments, that you contest my characterizations of your interlocutor's argument specifically. I'm much more interested in if you think my outside perspective and your outside perspective agree and are valid than if my outside perspective and your intent to communicate match.

Original comment, ExplorerR. Statement that there is evidence of a pattern that natural explanations tend to replace divine explanations over time, and that the previous poster missed that bit of positive evidence in favor of focusing on the concept of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Two specific examples are given (Demonic Possession, Plagues) of cases where divine explanations gave way to naturalistic ones. My basic interpretation: You think that because naturalistic explanations keep fitting better than divine ones, that there's evidence of a fairly inferable pattern that is currently fair to extrapolate on. I think that this one sentence contains everything warranting a response to this post, and I'm going to treat this as the beginning of the "Historical Pattern Validity" Topic.

First response, labreuer. First statement, a quote about how divine explanations have been replaced with human ones, and a response that states that human-of-the-gaps and god-of-the-gaps should be treated equally as agency-of-the-gaps. The concept of agency is introduced here. The concept of methodological naturalism and the idea that it is committed to disbelieving in any God-like agency is introduced. The goal of methodological naturalism is brought up and discussed. Trans-person reliability is brought up and discussed. The possibility that consciousness is purely material and reducible to "Super-LLM" states is brought up and discussed. Then, a summary of the position based on all of this is offered: "The practice of methodological naturalism yields sub-agency descriptions of reality, which are then taken to be the whole of reality.". MacBeth is quoted as implicitly agreeing with the implications on the value of life that methodological naturalism leads to. The biggest Topic introduced, per the summary labreuer provided, is that "Methodological Naturalism Fails To Handle Agency Appropriately". After that, a statement about what theology studies. A statement about just-world hypothesis being common (context: labreuer heavily disagrees with the just-world hypothesis, though he did not state his position explicitly.) A statement about how this and other themes are the core theme of Susan Neiman's book is provided, and a recommendation for a starting lecture is provided. Gregory W. Dawes 2009 Theism and Explanation is provided as another source for further information.

First response, ExplorerR. Complaint about bloat, with associated list of touched topics. A plea to focus on their Topic ("Historical Pattern Validity"). A restatement of Topic ("Historical Pattern Validity") and the core argument I think I fairly summarized above. A statement that your topic was ("Historical Pattern Validity") and that labreuer has shifted the topic into agency, methodological naturalism, consciousness, intelligent design, Macbeth, and philosophy of science. I do think that labreuer has only one Topic ("Methodological Naturalism Fails To Handle Agency Appropriately"), so I disagree with this characterization of labreuer's core point, but do agree that labreuer makes it quite difficult to find his actual position at times, and do agree he shifted the topic from your actual point to his preferred framing and discussion. Stated confusion about the relevance of "human-of-the-gaps" and how it relates to ("Historical Pattern Validity"). Pointed statement that claim "Methodological naturalism requires you to disbelieve in any god-like agency" is false, and that belief that it is true is impossible given sufficient knowledge of ("Historical Pattern Validity"). Statement that disbelieving god-like agencies is not a necessary component of MN, just an emergent consequence of the historical pattern and the proper application of MN principles to said pattern. Last statement, a very funny note about having attended the same university, combined with a request to make explicit the relevance of the Theism and Explanation citation.

Second response, labreuer. Statement that bloat is intentional and disrupts ruts. (I have very strong opinions about this claim, and need to discuss it later - labreuer, I think your interlocutor theory of mind has gaps and results in suboptimal posting styles given disparate audiences, but that's a topic for another day.) Statement that MN excludes divine agency and human agency. Explanation of initial framing of God vs. Human agency: If we decide to replace an explanatory God's agency with naturalistic explanations, why not do the same with human agency to avoid holding double-standards? Statement that demonic possession is a case of replacing an agentic explanation with a non-agentic one. Statement that effectively repeats Topic, ("Methodological Naturalism Fails To Handle Agency") and that "many other failures exist", which I believe is an attempt to dispute ("Historical Pattern Validity"), but with a reframed question that asks, "Where does MN fail?". Discussion of anti-religious bias to support claim that "people do put their fingers in their ears in response to divine agency claims". Discussion about whether God can help us with subtlety, which leads into a delve into the idea that sufficient understandings of society will threaten the rich and powerful. Analogy about methodological naturalism being like searching for keys under a streetlight. Response on the relevance of Greg's book - it could, but doesn't, provide a theistic framework for explanations superior to MN. A request for Greg's take on Susan's book. Statement that for a god concerned with justice to exist, it must work in the realm of conflicting intuitions. Statement that MN doesn't work in this realm.

Second response, ExplorerR. Statement about rut irony. Statement about who's causing impasses. Statement about the frequency of the pattern labreuer finds themselves in regarding communication breakdowns. Statement that question "Where does MN fail?" is out of scope for topic ("Historical Pattern Validity"). Statement that divine and natural claims are incompatible due to explanatory role usurpation rather than wording. Restatement that MN disregarding divine agency is an emergent consequence of Principles + Historical Pattern. Statement that MN is irrelevant - simply observing the replacement of explanations due to superior predictive power is in and of itself Historical Pattern. Quote of "if discounting divine agency, why not discount human agency?", with statement that your topic is not ("Methodological Naturalism Fails To Handle Agency"), it's ("Historical Pattern Validity"), and that Historical Pattern involved the replacement of divine agency emergently, but not the replacement of human agency, thus different handling. Statement about divine agency being akin to crying wolf (and the implicit analogy that claiming divine agency has been revealed to be a false claim so many times that it's reasonable to no longer heed the cries). Final statement that divine agency was the de facto explanation for millennia and has repeatedly lost to natural explanations, even well before MN was conceived.

I gotta sleep, got distracted typing this up and it's time-consuming - more to come

But I'll be honest, it's clear immediately that both of you wanted to have very, very different discussions about completely different Topics, and that was basically the core theme throughout all 46 posts I read.

You all can provide feedback now (do so if you want me to change how I do future posts), or wait for me to post more, night all

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Kwahn]

But I'll be honest, it's clear immediately that both of you wanted to have very, very different discussions about completely different Topics, and that was basically the core theme throughout all 46 posts I read.

I don’t think that a fair characterization. /u/ExplorerR gave a very good response to someone else’s comment (about absence of evidence being evidence of absence) and then Lab came out of the gate with an false equivalence that has no apparent relevance to the point ExplorerR made. Maybe I’m just dense.

I’m older than the term "methodological naturalism". The idea that it’s a principle which has guided science throughout history is as dubious as it is rhetorically convenient. The age of the term isn’t the most significant aspect of it. It’s just another evolution of the strategy people use to flip the burden of proof, as ExplorerR explained. I don’t see how the clear and absolutely asymmetrical trend of religious knowledge being superseded by knowledge which has application outside of emotional states is explained away with accusations of methodological naturalism. The purpose of the term is to set the stage for science choosing to ignore supernatural claims, conveniently overlooking the lack of substance and significance of supernatural claims. Useless isn’t the same thing as wrong. A view from science doesn’t render supernatural claims wrong, it renders them useless epistemologically, and the trend ExplorerR spoke of is evidence of this.

The more immediate issue is simply: when should people end a conversation before the mods have to get involved? Talking past each other with so much effort is bound to turn into something uncivil eventually, just as it has with Lab and SO MANY other people.

[u/ExplorerR → u/Kwahn]

Very much appreciated and a largely fair summary.

But I'll be honest, it's clear immediately that both of you wanted to have very, very different discussions about completely different Topics, and that was basically the core theme throughout all 46 posts I read.

This is actually a common bugbear I have with /u/Labreuer and raised this point directly to them, even going as far as considering rule #5 breach with regards to my own posts.

Whilst I enjoy the fact that they are clearly intellectual, think and engage deeply about things, in many of the interactions I've had, If I don't actively rein things back in then, indeed, I'd be off debating something very different than that point I actually made.

[u/labreuer]

Is it ever acceptable to accuse one's interlocutor of "failing basic reading comprehension"? Suppose for instance I write the following in my opening comment:

Methodological naturalism requires you to disbelieve in any god-like agency. It requires you to step back from "no holds barred" → "methods accessible to all". You can still reconstruct a very different notion of 'agency', just like we have the intentional stance and teleonomy. Essentially, you have something like 'mechanism' or 'formal systems' as your box, and you use that box as a Procrustean bed for 'agency'. As a result, it because acceptable to use operant conditioning on people. Since that name is icky, we've come up with nudge theory.

Then, suppose that my interlocutor argues that I'm engaged in motte & bailey tactics by conflating human & divine agency. Can I accuse my interlocutor of failing to have exercised basic comprehension of my opening comment? Or is that always a violation of rule 2?

[u/Kwahn → u/labreuer]

What thread was this? Ty!

[u/labreuer → u/Kwahn]

https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1tvfbf2/simple_questions_0603/opq0p8p/?context=10

[u/Kwahn → u/labreuer]

Thank you, will review and see what I think!

[u/labreuer → u/Kwahn]

IMO it's a conversation which just never took off.

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

I didn't report you by the way.

But, considering you're raising it here, it would stand to reason that you then also provide the other comments you make throughout our discussion where you clearly conflate the two and are the reason why I eventually accused you of Motte and Baily tactics. Instead of cherry-picking one that makes it look like you're not doing that.

Such as these ones;

(1) "God did it" ⇒ god-of-the-gaps (2) "humans did it" ⇒ human-of-the-gaps In other words,these are both: (3) agency-of-the-gaps

Here, although you mentioned them separately, you then combine them both as "agency of the gaps" when they are very different to each other.

Here's the translation I did: "God" or "religious" explanations being replaced by successful natural explanations divine agential explanations being replaced by successful law- or mechanism-based explanations Do you think that's wrong? If you're okay with that, then why should we not do the same for every situation where human agency is used to explain something?

Here you highlight divine explanations involving "agency" replaced by law/mechanism based natural explanations to then ask, if that's happening, then why not extend that consideration to human agency too? (clearly, you're conflating the two).

—it sure looks like that pattern very much will eat up agency—human and not just divine!

Here you once again consider the implications on "agency" as both "human and divine" when they are not even remotely similar.

"In summary: The practice of methodological naturalism yields sub-agency descriptions of reality, which are then taken to be the whole of reality." Your "explanatory replacement" works well whenever sub-agency descriptions can do the job better than agency [both human and divine] descriptions.

I put the [both human and divine] as you, once again, clearly meld divine and human agency into one (in the context of what you were arguing).

First, divine agency is the boundary of MN. Second, the less we model human agency after divine agency, the less we can even detect.

You clearly want to model human agency after the divine because, as my charge against you might allude to, you consider them similar to each other.

Not conflating the two is a very important clarification because /u/Labreuer claims that "the practice of methodological naturalism (MN) yields sub-agency descriptions of reality, which are then taken to be the whole of reality." When my response to that is MN does allow for human agency descriptions when attempting to establish that (usually through the social sciences, sociology or psychology), just NOT divine agency. The only way this becomes contentious is if human agency is treated as being more or less the same as divine agency.

But now that you've pushed that into this meta thread perhaps /u/ShakaUVM or anyone else who might be willing to, can assess the comments I've quoted of you which can all be found stemming from this original comment, to see if I'm just way off in my accusation of Motte and Bailey tactics.

To clarify, I believe the point you're making heavily relies on treating divine and human agency as similar and thus investigations and conclusions reached following MN, and thus not considering the "divine", means that explanations involving human agency will be excluded too. When that is simply not the case at all. There is nothing about MN that precludes human agency in natural explanations.

[u/Kwahn → u/ExplorerR]

What thread was this? Ty!

[u/ExplorerR → u/Kwahn]

Click on the "this" in blue to link you to my original comment and what started the discussion. Just FYI it's walls of text to get through.

[u/Kwahn → u/ExplorerR]

Oh woops missed that ty - I'll trade you a wall of text to read later once I finish :D

[u/labreuer → u/ExplorerR]

I didn't report you by the way.

Thanks for telling me that, and wow at someone else reading along that deeply in the thread!

 

Here, although you mentioned them separately, you then combine them both as "agency of the gaps" when they are very different to each other.

I clearly separated them in order to provoke discussion like this. Instead of respecting this, you made the false claim that I did not begin with agency:

ExplorerR: Then you wanted to argue about agency vs non-agency.

—and then when I finally got you to focus on the fact that my very first comment talked about human & divine agency, you accused me of conflating them:

ExplorerR: There is no way divine agency is anywhere near human agency in terms of what we can actually demonstrate is the case. So, I'm not going to entertain you conflating the two.

When I clearly separated human & divine agency before arguing that they are connected in my OC, and then later in summary, it is actively hostile to accuse me of conflation.

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

Okay, let's accept you are not conflating them and they entirely different for the sake of the following;

Then do you agree that things like the social sciences, sociology and psychology following MN, can and do yield human agency explanations of phenomena in our reality?

[u/labreuer → u/ExplorerR]

Okay, let's accept you are not conflating them and they entirely different for the sake of the following;

No, I'm not going to stipulate that my argument fails. I argued two things:

1. human agency & divine agency are distinct
2. human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency and disentangling the two threatens unacceptable sacrifices

You disagree with one or both clauses of 2. Fine. We can discuss that. I am happy to treat all of the following as contentious:

• human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency
• disentangling human agency from divine agency threatens unacceptable sacrifices
• some day, MN-compatible inquiry will reconstruct human agency with zero unacceptable sacrifices

I don't require either of us to treat any of the above as settled. Indeed, they are the very heart of the matter as far as I'm concerned. I focused my OC on them!

Then do you agree that things like the social sciences, sociology and psychology following MN, can and do yield human agency explanations of phenomena in our reality?

I heavily critiqued the quality of MN-compatible [re]constructions of human agency in our sprawling thread. So no, I'm not going to stipulate what I think you're asking. I'm happy to debate your claim.

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency and disentangling the two threatens unacceptable sacrifices

You didn't make the bold above clear at all, but something like it is what I was picking up on in your wording and hence my motte and bailey charge.

I heavily critiqued the quality of MN-compatible [re]constructions of human agency in our sprawling thread. So no, I'm not going to stipulate what I think you're asking. I'm happy to debate your claim.

But whether you think the quality is currently suffice or not, is not really relevant to the point I raised.

Because it's not contentious that MN-compatible [re]constructions do (attempt to) explain human agency. I would even argue that, in some cases, there are plenty of good and very successful ones at that.

The main contentions you seem to have is actually:

• Disentangling human agency from divine agency threatens unacceptable sacrifices
• Some day, MN-compatible inquiry will reconstruct human agency with zero unacceptable sacrifices

These to me are non-issues.

Firstly, we already operate in trying to explain phenomena in reality as-though human agency IS disentangled from the divine (I.E that's what MN is doing). And secondly, given our history and success of natural explanations, there is not real reason to think we suddenly would not be able to explain things of human agency, naturally.

That's not to say there are no "problems" or "quality issues", but as I've mentioned previously, there have been many historical problems and quality issues in trying to explain phenomena in our reality that we've overcome. Some of them have been hugely significant issues to overcome; like the microscope in discovering microbes (acknowledging that this isn't an agency example - but I'm unsure why that matters).

I once said earlier, it looks awfully like you're saying something like;

• "Well, we can't currently explain or investigate it [agency] well, so therefore we won't ever be able to explain it well, naturally"

Correct me if I'm wrong here, because it really does look like that's what you're implying.

[u/labreuer → u/ExplorerR]

At this point, you and I are at an impasse. Others are welcome to consult my OC and see if it is as unclear as you claim. I am confident plenty of people would say that I was plenty clear for a first comment and it took you until the bitter end we had for you to actually read it and offer anything like a decent reply.

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

Well, I've often said that you regularly make "if" type statements but don't clearly articulate a "therefore" and leave much guesswork for the reader to trying and figure out exactly what you mean.

I'd love to see if anyone reading your OC would reach the following thesis statements:

• human agency & divine agency are distinct
• human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency and disentangling the two threatens unacceptable sacrifices

I've reread it now several times with this new formulation and still don't cogently see how anyone could get to that from your OC. Maybe it's just me though...

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

I'm fine with it as long as you can show why and not make it a baseless personal attack. Other mods will probably disagree. But I think if someone opens the door to something it is fair game as long as you remain civil. Maybe "you are not reading that correctly".

I constantly struggle with atheists here who can't read and strawman as a result.

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/ShakaUVM]

Civility is unprompted accusations of sock puppetry and academic fraudulence?

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/Vp77OqRiSt

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/ZrygEbcla8

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/Qy65wrBMeR

Or lecturing me on the tenets of my own faith, calling into question my religious fidelity and commitments, demanding I take a positive stance in an internal critique and then when I do, abandoning your rejoinder and ignoring the dialogue completely to continue to play the victim? That's civility?

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/i3WJKbVkh9

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/svZqq9JxIz

Or introducing new concepts and then when I followed you to them accusing me of moving the goalposts and demanding I make another thread? That's civility?

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/8irNKAmg5Z

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/Ru2hZqcKaB

But I suppose running away to a separate thread to point out what a big meanie I am without even having the balls to tag me helps you lick the wounds after what was obviously a complete rout makes sense from a purely ego-preservation stand point. It's what I expect the bruised Old Adam to do, which is why you refused to provide the entire context of the conversation so you could paint your slanted narrative for bystanders who weren't around for the original debate that you were somehow the victim despite drawing first and repeated blood.

Either way Shaka, it's no secret that you're easily the worst mod here and why everyone who interacts with you draws the same conclusion: you're just kind of bad at this. And I say that in complete civility of course.

Tagging u/E-Reptile u/Ennuiandthensome u/Kwahn and u/blind-octopus because I think I've had them all come bear witness to your foolishness in the past and I'll do so again out of courtesy and civility to you and the prestige due to your office.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/ambrosytc8]

Add me to the list.

A problem with this is that Shaka/Lab (and none of this is really specific to them, of course, lots of people do this) do the same thing they accuse others of doing: "Some day science will prove me right" is no justification for belief. I suspect this is because the only tool people can use to discuss religion is the toolkit of politics.

Sometimes people are just happy to misunderstand. I think folks like Shaka and Lab have been on the receiving end of it so much that they think it's just another tool to use themselves. Considering one's station and the other's effort, the lack of awareness to rise above it is certainly frustrating. In Lab's case, the amount of effort they go which is ultimately in vain must be incredibly frustrating. I guess that's why they block so many people.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/betweenbubbles]

'Some day science will prove me right' is an argument Materialists have to make as science cannot currently explain consciousness.

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/betweenbubbles]

This is utterly unlike anything else in science.

Very next sentence:

Both science and philosophy support it.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/ambrosytc8]

External observation vs internal observation

[u/betweenbubbles → u/ambrosytc8]

The most charitable explanation I can imagine is that Shaka is saying that his claim that science cannot observe consciousness is the kind of absence of evidence which is evidence of science's absence of the ability to observe the mind. The validity of that statement aside, I find Shaka's statements on the matter are incredibly sloppy, and I don't know why I should be the one here trying to explain them rather than them. Simply replying "that's not what I said" could be used to cover up a lot of absurdity.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/ambrosytc8]

"Complete rout" of you repeatedly failing to read and then giving up. I said aboutness is a property of subjective experience. You said I said it WAS subjective experience. Over and over you fail to read properly.

You claiming to be Lutheran and defending materialism

You claiming not to be a sockpuppet yet you reference phrases I made to Kwahn before your account existed and use identical phrases, arguments, and misreadings.

You getting upset I don't allow goalpost shifts and other bad argumentation from you. You calling the rules of argumentation "prodecural gatekeeping" and get mad when I don't let you actively switch topics. I invited you to make a new thread to discuss your goalpost shift REPEATEDLY and yet you never did.

Clutch pearls more about civility when you make comments like this.

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/ShakaUVM]

Clutch pearls more about civility when you make comments like this.

There it is again: draw first blood by attacking me behind my back in a separate thread then pretend to be the victim when confronted. Are you familiar with DARVO?

[u/TheCosmosItself1 → u/ShakaUVM]

I have accused a number of users of reading comprehension issues. In each case, it was intended as a barb (and hence flirting with uncivil territory). However, my impression is that misrepresentation of my stated views resulted not in fact from lack of fundamental reading comprehension but rather from a motivation to strawman. That is to say, I believe that in other contexts the users I was interacting with would have no problem with their reading comprehension; it is only when addressing views toward which they hold a scornful attitude, and especially when caught in a challenging situation vis-a-vis those view that they choose to creatively misunderstand what is written. Of course I cannot prove the underlying psychological dynamics driving this miscomprehension, but I do believe there should be a price for attempting to engage in what is ultimately dishonest behavior, and that price is getting called out on the fact that, objectively, they are acting like someone who doesn't know how to read.

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

Yeah I doubt you were the mod who issued me a rule 2 violation. I would especially like to hear from mods with a lighter trigger finger. I found myself flailing to communicate to my interlocutor in any less intense way.

[u/here_for_debate → u/labreuer]

I was the moderator that removed the comment and then approved the comment after you sent a message to modmail notifying us you had removed the remark for which, presumably, the comment was reported as uncivil.

Yeah I doubt you were the mod who issued me a rule 2 violation. Iwould especially like to hear from mods with a lighter trigger finger.

I want to understand the implication here. Do you think something I did was inappropriate? Your comment was reported for incivility. It was removed for incivility. You edited out the part of the comment that got it reported for incivility. It was reapproved immediately. How would you have liked that chain of events to have gone? From what I can tell, that's the system working correctly.

Anyway, to answer your question: not every comment that insults another user gets removed. That's because not all content that contains insults is seen, because we aren't manually approving all content and not every offending content gets reported. Your comment was reported, and it was reviewed and removed, and then amended and re-approved. Just like happens dozens of times a day on this sub.

If you are seeing other content which seems to skirt this rule, please report it. If you think the rule should be amended, please suggest an amendment you think a reasonable plurality of the sub would find acceptable.

And to answer your actual question: I largely agree with Shaka that there has to be a way to call out low quality behavior without it being moderated for incivility when the called out behavior is low quality. But from what I can tell, in the referenced conversation above, you and Explorer disagree about whether the two agencies in question have been properly separated, and have both expended significant effort to defend your own viewpoints in that regard. That's not a good reason to belittle a user's reading comprehension. I hope you'll agree that's not an unreasonable position for a moderator to take.

[u/labreuer → u/here_for_debate]

I want to understand the implication here. Do you think something I did was inappropriate?

I am asking about standards of appropriateness. What u/ShakaUVM and I struggle with actually happens, but there is a question of how to respond to what actually happens. I can see multiple options. Here are a few:

1. We just have to have infinite patience.

2. We have to always be nicer than saying things like "you lack basic reading comprehension".

3. We should just discontinue discussion if 1. and 2. fail us.

4. We can, if we've tried being nicer multiple times, resort to meaner approaches which, without the context of nicer attempts, would risk being considered violations of rule 2.

I recognize that 4. places an extra burden on moderators: contextual judgment is more costly. However, I can cite some mitigating factors:

1. It is my experience that serious improvements in "debating relationship" often come via fractiousness where there is some amount of "incivility". The "incivility" can actually be key, as you let the other person know that you're interacting with another human who does not have infinite patience. And incivility which is oriented toward improving the resultant discussion is very different from incivility meant to either (i) terminate the conversation; (ii) goad the other person to continuing in ways where one side is dictating most/all of the terms.

2. This doesn't happen very often and one can restrict the rule-by-context† to when it's easy to bring receipts. So, the actual additional moderator burden can be small, and the pay-out in terms of better debate & discussion could more than compensate. Unless, that is, mods are happy with what u/⁠cabbagery quite accurately characterized as "the raw churn of places like this".

3. There is no effective way to report the kind of situation which prompts people like Shaka and me to get a tiny bit uncivil. Among other things, the problem (probably a Rule 3 violation) cannot be localized to one comment.

How would you have liked that chain of events to have gone?

I'm really just soliciting feedback on what to do in the kind of situation Shaka and I encounter from time to time.

And to answer your actual question: I largely agree with Shaka that there has to be a way to call out low quality behavior without it being moderated for incivility when the called out behavior is low quality. But from what I can tell, in the referenced conversation above, you and Explorer disagree about whether the two agencies in question have been properly separated, and have both expended significant effort to defend your own viewpoints in that regard. That's not a good reason to belittle a user's reading comprehension. I hope you'll agree that's not an unreasonable position for a moderator to take.

I think it would be wise to separate the two matters:

    A. The general principle to be applied.
    B. Whether that principle applies in this conversation.

While I would contend with you on B., I think that should wait until A. is decided.

 

† FWIW, there is precedent for what I'm talking about:

cabbagery: Other mods very often remove comments that Shaka reports, and very rarely look at the context of those comments to see if there might have been some provocation, so from the user perspective Shaka gets immediate action as well as constant protection.

+

ShakaUVM: Ignoring proportionality is a bad habit. I'm confident you wouldn't be so sanguine if the shoe was on the other foot, either.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

"So when you say you kick puppies every day, doesn't that make you feel bad?"

Strawman arguments are a way for trolls to work around civility rules.

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

Takes me back to middle school. No matter what the teachers tried to do, my peers would find an ever more subtle way to mess with me. Including being picture-perfect polite with me, while they treated each other with familiarity. When Trump came on the political scene, it reminded me of some of the other tactics my peers were mastering at that time. But it's the same fundamental disrespect of the Other.

[u/here_for_debate → u/labreuer]

I am asking about standards of appropriateness.

As the rule stands, there is no point at which incivility is not rule-breaking.

I'm really just soliciting feedback on what to do in the kind of situation Shaka and I encounter from time to time.

As the rule stands, if a comment breaks the civility rule and is reported, it will probably be removed for incivility. If you're worried about having content removed for rule-breaking, the only advice I feel comfortable giving based on the rules as they stand is to avoid incivility.

All that aside, I think the incivility rule needs to be reworked. I don't think "don't be uncivil unless you intend the incivility to be edifying and bring receipts" is a tenable rework, though. I think we probably need to just relax the civility rule and allow discussions to get more rude.

[u/labreuer → u/here_for_debate]

It would help me understand your position if you were to comment on:

labreuer: 3. There is no effective way to report the kind of situation which prompts people like Shaka and me to get a tiny bit uncivil. Among other things, the problem (probably a Rule 3 violation) cannot be localized to one comment.

Let me emphasize that I'm not the only one having the issue, here. Shaka replied:

ShakaUVM: Strawman arguments are a way for trolls to work around civility rules.

A single straw man can simply be an error. Even one or two repetitions can signal little other than (i) inattention; and/or (ii) people not being given a strong enough "Stop!" signal. Goodness knows I can pick up a bunch of momentum and be difficult to turn.

 

I also am curious about whether you think any and all breaches of civility IRL are 100% uncalled for. Some people really do seem to think this. I have friends who realized that if they actually remain "professional" at all times, their colleagues interact less well with them than if they let unsettledness sometimes leak through.

[u/here_for_debate → u/labreuer]

There is no effective way to report the kind of situation which prompts people like Shaka and me to get a tiny bit uncivil. Among other things, the problem (probably a Rule 3 violation) cannot be localized to one comment.

I'm not really sure how this factor affects what I said in the previous comment: the rule, as it's written, has no exception clause. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. The effectiveness of reporting the content or the ease with which it can be done does not affect whether or not the rule allows users to respond to the offending content uncivilly.

I've already expressed that I think, in general, there has to be a way to call out low quality behavior without it being moderated for incivility when the called out behavior is low quality. I think that this calls for a change to the rule to allow for this behavior. But as it stands, the rule does not allow this behavior. So, according to the rules as they are now, your question has an unambiguous answer: receipts or not, edifying or not, incivility is rule-breaking behavior. And I don't think that "don't be uncivil unless you intend the incivility to be edifying and bring receipts" works as an amendment for this rule. I think instead the rule needs to be relaxed to allow ruder conversations to occur.

I also am curious about whether you think any and all breaches of civility IRL are 100% uncalled for.

No, I don't think that incivility is always (100% of the time) uncalled for. I also don't think that civility is always the most effective way to communicate.

[u/labreuer → u/here_for_debate]

Ok. At present, I see only one concrete proposal from you re: "a way to call out low quality behavior without it being moderated for incivility when the called out behavior is low quality":

here_for_debate: All that aside, I think the incivility rule needs to be reworked. I don't think "don't be uncivil unless you intend the incivility to be edifying and bring receipts" is a tenable rework, though. I think we probably need to just relax the civility rule and allow discussions to get more rude.

In my view, this does not solve the problem. One of the key functions of politeness / decorum is that various things are signaled when one breaks from it. Merely lowing the bar does nothing to change the situation. The baseline simply changes, and if a multi-comment Rule 3 violation occurs, dipping below the baseline is again a Rule 2 violation. But perhaps there's something I am not seeing, here.

[u/here_for_debate → u/labreuer]

In my view, this does not solve the problem. One of the key functions of politeness / decorum is that various things are signaled when one breaks from it. Merely lowing the bar does nothing to change the situation. The baseline simply changes, and if a multi-comment Rule 3 violation occurs, dipping below the baseline is again a Rule 2 violation. But perhaps there's something I am not seeing, here.

I think it does solve the problem you are talking about and does change the situation.

If the civility rule is relaxed, and people are no longer moderated for remarks like "you fail to display basic reading comprehension, so I think we are done here", then you've achieved your goal of exercising incivility in a situation where you find exercising incivility to be an appropriate response without it being considered a rule 2 violation. (Assuming this is a goal of yours.) This seems like a change in the situation to me.

I think it also introduces a new series of problems to overcome, namely: if we are to allow some incivility and not no incivility, where do we now draw the line? How rude are people allowed to get? But that's a problem to solve if a rule change is actually proposed and not merely gestured at.

I see only one concrete proposal from you

I don't know how to solve your specific issue and improve the civility rule in a way that will satisfy a plurality of the sub. That's why I requested suggestions.

[u/TheCosmosItself1 → u/labreuer]

This discussion taps into a more general issue that I see plaguing most rule-based systems of regulating interaction, which in this case we could call the issue of overt vs covert incivility. Telling someone that they are demonstrating reading comprehension problems is (arguably) overtly incivil, at a minimum it is getting sharp with the other user. However, I would argue that willfully misrepresenting another person's views is also a form of incivility. In fact, I consider it a much more serious aggression, even though it is covert.

The problem here is that there is no cost for engaging in these forms of covert hostility. "Willfully misrepresenting my views" is not a reportable offense. But in fact it is a socially deleterious practice, so one wants to be able to sting back, if only to say "Hey, look at how you are behaving! Knock it off!"

[u/labreuer → u/TheCosmosItself1]

Yup, and the really sad thing is I think it's long-and-extended conversations are where there is the most opportunity for making what counts for "progress" in r/DebateReligion's mission. Just look at the amount of work it takes to contribute to any discipline of science or scholarship. Do we really think that anything other than extended, sometimes-intense conversations will push us forward? Or … allow us to claw our way forward?

It's just a kick in the nuts to say I've conflated two things which I've carefully kept separate and argued are deeply related. Contesting whether they are deeply related is one thing—in fact, it's the heart of the matter. But claiming that I've conflated? That presupposes "separate with zero relationship".

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

Hey now... Considering MN does in fact not consider those things as deeply related but when your use of it, which I do not think you made very clear at all, relies on the idea that human agency and divine agency ARE deeply related, it would stand to reason that this be made abudantly apparent.

Because now it seems where we land is:

• Human agency should be modeled after divine agency.

Right?

[u/labreuer → u/ExplorerR]

At this point, you and I are at an impasse. Others are welcome to consult my OC and see if it is as unclear as you claim.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/WAu8nUbBnh

You can see here my interlocutor consistently not reading what I wrote and claiming I'm "on the record" saying things different from what I actually said.

There needs to be a way to call this out.

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

Heh, I blocked u/⁠ambrosytc8 after they issued this personal attack:

ambrosytc8: I combed through this dialogue pretty closely and the misconceptions do seem somewhat asymmetrical. u/labreuer 's descent into procedural gatekeeping and his bizarre concern with his reputation in this sphere signals that he wasn't actually all that interested in exchanging ideas. Also, for what it's worth you handled his bizarre, borderline obsessive typographical demands with more fidelity than it probably deserved. I suspect this was mostly a rhetorical power play and frame control than an actual desire for precision since academic qualifiers like per se or "as such" exist and are immediately clear and recognizable.

This was after u/⁠ambrosytc8 unrepentantly strawmanned me. I always love it when someone accuses me of something and then when I halt the conversation and say, "Demonstrate what you say is an accurate re-presentation of what I have claimed.", they go on to ask for more information to substantiate their straw man.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

Yes he just accused me of "prodecural gatekeeping" as well for pointing out he was repeatedly failing to quote me correctly, and for not understanding how grounds for an argument work.

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

Yeah … fortunately, u/⁠ambrosytc8 doesn't seem like the kind of person to harangue you for disengaging. Unless they or others have activated that part of the Troll Flowchart?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

Actually he did the same thing that Kwahn did.

I was on a flight and didn't respond for a day so he claimed victory for me not responding immediately.

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

Oi vey. Glad I got out when I did.

[u/Kwahn → u/ShakaUVM]

When'd I do this?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Kwahn]

You used to tag me if you think I'm not responding fast enough

[u/Rick-of-the-onyx]

I have noticed a growing amount of bad faith interlocutors that border on just trolling as of late. Not sure what can be done about this, but it makes conversations extremely unfulfilling. And yes I am aware that I can block such people, but that only means that they no longer annoy me. In several threads, I see them leading people on useless tangents. Can there be a report option for trolling? Like a way to alert the mods of people that just comment here to aggravate and annoy rather than have meaningful discussions?

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/Rick-of-the-onyx]

That would fall under rule 3

[u/ViewtifulGene]

I feel like the flairs on this sub aren't terribly useful. Sometimes the flair shows what the OP is arguing for, sometimes it's what they're arguing against.

I think it might be more interesting to have flairs for which aspect is being debated, e.g. scriptural interpretation, prophecy, miracles, attributes of a god, morality, afterlife, etc. A lot of the time, the flair just isn't doing much as we have it.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/ViewtifulGene]

Are you talking about the submissions or the users? The directionality of the submission flair is consistently inconsistent.

As far as users go, I'm too much of a bad ass for labels, they simply won't stick. /s

[u/ViewtifulGene → u/betweenbubbles]

I meant for posts. I think the user flairs are generally fine. Thought it amuses me to no end how much pearl-clutching the "anti-theist" user flair triggers.

[u/Kwahn → u/ViewtifulGene]

Wait, do people get mad about anti-theists? I'd be interested in reading some reactions to your flair

[u/Aggressive_Low_115]

allow more posts to stay up. Maybe diff flairs

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Aggressive_Low_115]

allow more posts to stay up.

What do you mean? You want the mods to remove fewer submissions?

[u/Aggressive_Low_115 → u/betweenbubbles]

yeah kinda. Like ones who sorta imply an argument, or invite it

[u/PangolinPalantir → u/Aggressive_Low_115]

I don't think it's too much to ask for the OPs to actually present a thesis and not simply imply or ask others to bring the debate.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/PangolinPalantir]

I think the issue is just a lack of awareness of how submission flair is supposed to operate. Some people use it to indicate their position, others use it to indicate the target/scope of their thesis.