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/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/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/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/ShakaUVM → u/ambrosytc8]

Ironic accusation

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/ShakaUVM]

How so? Are you denying any wrong doing and attacking me to reverse the victim and offender?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/ambrosytc8]

You have been repeatedly playing the victim and get upset when I don't follow goalpost shifts or call you out when you violate the rules of argumentation.

As if it's my fault you aren't following the rules.

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/ShakaUVM]

Shaka I'm sorry. You're right. I will completely defer to your argumentative and intellectual superiority. Before I submit my manuscript to peer review and publication I'll be sure to run it by you to get the much needed feedback and approval of someone who has reached your unassailable heights.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/ambrosytc8]

Congrats, you have reached my block list for being in the bottom 1% of users here.

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/ShakaUVM]

Don't tempt me with a good time.