Posted on 01/01/2012 5:02:18 PM PST by grey_whiskers
One of the things that is fun about forums such as Free Republic is the sheer volume and scale of topics discussed. Everything from discussions of GOP primary races (come BACK, Sarah!) to speculations on the Middle East, from Kim Jong-un to fitness resolutions for the New Year, from Naughty Teacher threads to black helicopter speculations. If the Internet is a microcosm of the real world, then Free Republic is a microcosm of the internet. And all helpfully sorted by keyword, date, and author in order to make drinking from the fire hose easier.
But of course, not is all fun and games. Free Republic bills itself as “the world’s premier conservative internet forum.” And as such, it is a welcome place to hang out and talk with like-minded people, away from the “rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, sh*t-kickers and Methodists”
found on the rest of the internet. Unfortunately, that means that all kinds of people, from Paultards to Mitt-bots, from DU infiltrators to atheist crusaders (a little ironic, that), *all* consider it their dishonor-bound duty to try to worm into FR unnoticed or at least post here, to “set the record straight”. Free Republic has developed its own defense against such, the famed Viking Kitties and their famous ZOT!
And why is there the necessity for the ZOT? Are we not broad-minded enough, intelligent enough, magnanimous enough, tolerant enough to allow the existence of contrary or dissenting viewpoints? Sure. But that’s what the rest of the Internet is for. As G.K. Chesterton wrote, the purpose of an open mind, like that of an open mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. Or, as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, “I am balance.” Conservatives need a place to go to recharge without constantly being ridiculed, calumnied, mocked, and shouted down by main force.
So what happens? The voices of “tolerance” are so offended by the existence of an oasis for conservatives (and, what’s worse, most of them are Christianists as well -- of all the nerve!) that they seek to plant a flag for reason (as they proclaim it) right here on FR. Which leads to noteworthy fireworks when they try to do so, as many of the ideas which they hold to be axiomatic, are marked as heresies here on this site. As Scott Adams (author of Dilbert) wrote, “everybody is someone else’s weirdo.”
But how is that that people identify someone else as a weirdo? After all, with so many different subjects around, and different opinions available on each subject, conservatism is not nearly as monolithic as liberals and atheists assume (indeed, there are some conservative atheist, some of them even have remained unzotted on FR for years). May I suggest, for the purposes of insight, that we borrow a page from statistics, and in particular, from analytical chemistry? This is not meant to be a rigorous discussion, only a semi-humorous one to get the creative juices flowing. Say hello to my little friend, Student’s t-test.
Despite the name, and its use in classes, “Student’s T-test” was originally developed by W.S. Gosset, who went by the fictitious name “Student” and worked for the Guinness brewery. Come to think of it, maybe that had something to do with the name he chose :-) Student’s t-test is used when comparing two small sets of data, to decide whether differences in the data sets are due to chance, or are “significant” (that is, whether or not, the data sets “really are” different -- meaning, that is, 95% of the time, or 99% of the time, or whatever -- the differences in the data sets cannot have come about due to random differences). The idea is conceptually simple. Everyone has heard of a “bell curve” to describe data. The t-test is used to compare, not theoretical bell curves, but sets of experimental data, which have ranges of values instead of infinitely long tails. By looking at the mean of each data set, as well as the range of values of each data set, one can determine whether the two data sets are ‘most likely’ measurements of the same thing or not.
That’s fine, you ask, and how exactly does this relate to websites or social interactions therein? Consider someone’s political views as a set of data points, with the extent of “liberalness” or “conservativeness” for each topic being spread along the X-axis, and the *count* of topics of which a person is liberal or conservative to that extent as the height above the axis. If you plot out a person’s political views in this fashion, you will trace out a curve. It might be a symmetric bell curve, it might be somewhat asymmetric, it might even exhibit kurtosis. But in general, you will be able to get a feel for how a person “stacks up,” left or right, by talking to them.
And so it is on discussion groups, or in forums such as FR. Typically most of the posters in a self-identified, semi-autonomous site such as FR would, if their “political bell curves” were plotted, would be somewhat similar: a significant difference between two people could come about if either the overall shape of their bell curve were different, or if they had a particular outlier on a important topic, on which they differed *greatly* from someone otherwise similar. In either case, other people talking to the person would begin to feel that “something is amiss here”: something which bears an analogy to statistical sampling and comparison. And if the difference is significant enough, the person is outed as a TROLL.
“Everybody is someone else’s weirdo.”
Cheers!
I enjoyed your analysis and I’m looking forward to Part 2 - F-bombs and all. Your take is always spot on - imo.
Happy New Year!
An insight, of course, perfectly consistent with Sartre's: Hell is the Other!
And that's the best result you can get from the premise of a fundamentally "morally relativistic" universe.
I actually heard on NPR radio last evening (which I almost never listen to) that Hinduism/Buddhism is "superior" to Christianity because it fundamentally acknowledges that the "universe", being purely "flux" in principle, never can settle on "law." (In so many words.)
The script reader did not give further (logical) particulars. But from that ["progressive???"] point of view, I gather that "whatever happens" is okay: If the Eastern philosophical view of the ultimate nature of Reality is truly the natural case, then nobody can ever again speak legitimately of "right or wrong," of "good or evil" in human society.
Worse, there is no foundation of Truth.
I'm sure it seems I digress. For you were (at least in part) regretting the practice of "zotting" at FR. It happens I share your feeling about this; BUT....
To get to a more practical point: There is no reason in the world why JR should have his resources consumed and depleted by people who hold him in contempt and animosity. Ultimately, FR is the private enterprise fruition of a single, passionate and patriotic imagination, who staked his all on the enterprise, and rises and falls with its fortunes. He is our host; and we are all his guests here.
Zotting wouldn't happen, if people just adhered to the basic rules of civility appertaining to this Forum.
Which to the Occupy Wall Street types is both senseless and tyrannical. But then, so are they.
Christians DO dispute with anarchists over basic principles, to be sure.
But I have very strong doubt that anarchists can possibly prevail, on the "merits" of their "non-argument": You just can't get any sense at all from a "senseless" person....
I'll stop such tiresome musings now, and point to the actual problem I have in "corresponding" with certain other members of the Forum.
Because I have felt so frustrated by the seeming sheer pointlessness of "engagements" with, e.g., materialists, atheists, "doctrinaire" Darwinists, et al — I have tried to understand why such conversations never seem to lead anywhere.
I've been feeling this especially since I realized I couldn't even "get on the same page" with A_perfect_lady. Whatever the question posed, she and I will respectively be dealing with it, not only from "different standpoints," but "from different levels."
Anyhoot, I read both your recent, wonderful posts on this subject before responding to this, the first one. In which you seem to be proposing the absolutely fundamental need for a universal criterion by which the Truth of Reality can be reliably known. In the second, it seemed you presented a small sampling of effects which naturally proceed from any distortion of Reality.
It seems Reality can be distorted by minds — in ways that actually afflict human beings personally and directly and, from there, into society at large.
The reason I say that (FWIW): Nowadays, since both truth and morality are "assumed" to be "relative" (relative to WHAT????), people no longer discern that there is any substantial difference between "rhetoric" and "reality."
I'll just leave the problem there for now.
Thank you ever so much for your wonderfully thought-provoking essay/posts, dear grey_whiskers!
I've noticed this many times: atheists and believers can't find a mutually-agreed upon starting point. Literally, we don't even agree on how to begin. I think this is why the phrase "leap of faith" is so important. One does not move logically into faith. If you did, it wouldn't be faith. I think believers would be much better off not trying to reason or argue atheists into anything. There's no path from logic to faith. It really is a leap.
Internet Forums and Social Dynamics: Part II: Snapbacks
Cheers!
English just has the one, French has savoir (book knowlege) and connaître (acquaintance, as in "knowing" someone, or a town).
Science is savoir, about data; it was originated in the West in the hope it would be an aide to connaître of the Maker.
Faith starts out trying for connaître.
Cheers!
What about change and growth. 10 years ago I was a conservative Reagan republican. Now I have left the world systems behind? I have found out it is much more profitable to seek God’s kingdom first.
But we don't want the Irish!
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Faith is not the opposite of logic, or the natural result of the absence of logic.
I have faith in my car that it will start and get me where I want to go simply because of logic. It was intelligently designed to function in a certain way for a certain purpose and experience has verified the claims made about it.
Likewise, I'm sure that you have faith that gravity will act in a certain way if you jump off the edge of a building. Is that a result of the lack of logic?
Cheers!
Cheers!
One of my favorites. Good articles BTW.
I think you are correct, Perfect Lady. (As an aside, I think you chose an apt name for yourself. It shows confidence with no pretense or false modesty.)
However, there is a starting point. The argument always revolves around proof and you can't prove either God or No-God. That naturally leads to faith on both sides, not just the pro-God side. So, one good starting point is for the No-God side to recognize and admit that they, too, are operating on faith rather than just dismissing the God believers as fantasizers.
Still, betty boop and friends can do a masterful job with inductive reasoning to build a strong argument in favor of God. I personally am a believer but my meager efforts in these discussions lean toward the emotional aspects of life which deal with the abstracts which are beyond science to a large degree. Such things as beauty, love, awe, sadness, music, poetry, etc., are real, too, but trying to explain them scientifically basically destroys their intrinsic natures.
Evolution vs Creation is a similar argument with the evolution side leaning on what seems to be scientific theory and knowledge but, in reality, is just window dressing to support their theory. Yet, because it is, in most part, based on the physical rather than the mystical it has many adherents.
I think non-believers have three primary motives for favoring physical answers. First, that is our nature as physical beings entrapped within our senses, two, an ego which doesn't want to be embarrassed by their peers for a belief in fairy tales, and three, the desire to escape the confines of the strict moral code of an all-knowing, all-seeing Judge.
Faith in God is not easy. In fact, it is the harder course. First you have to want to believe. Secondly, you have to study and learn as much as you can about it. (I am talking about Christianity in particular but this is true about all religions.) Then you have to frequently and fervently pray for acceptance into God's Kingdom and, through the Grace of God, it is usually granted. That does not rule out the occasional epiphany, or sudden revelation of Truth, but it is the normal way.
Faith in No-God is not nearly as hard but it is a hollow victory. You call feel it, the hollowness, just as a Christian can feel the fullness and peace of their convictions.
I repeat, I agree with you, but that is not the end of the story.
This is what I mean when I say there is no starting point. I feel that believers always try to posit this very point, but it is not valid. We do not operate on faith. We simply lack belief. I do not really know why believers dislike this stance, but I notice that they really do.
I have no idea why you want to cheapen "faith in God" by placing it on the same prosaic level as our daily assumption that gravity still works. The fact is, if gravity stopped working tomorrow, we'd all abandon that assumption instantly. But do you abandon faith every time you don't get something you pray for? Assumptions and faith are not the same. Assumptions actually ARE based on logic. Faith is not. It's not even supposed to be.
I really don't get why so many believers snarl at logic on one hand, and then claim their faith is logical on the other. You needn't either hate logic or co-opt it. To admit that faith is illogical is an act of humility. I've known believers who say "It's not logical at all; that's why I believe!" (I'm usually kind of amused by that, but at least it's honest.)
"An insight, of course, perfectly consistent with Sartre's: Hell is the Other!" ~ betty boop
"....If one regards culture as a sort of boundary -- a necessary boundary, by the way -- anyone who does not stay within the lines will be regarded as an outlaw, a retrobate, a moron, or a fool, irrespective of whether they fall below or above its expectations. ......
In a certain sense, to be "normal" is to be partially dead, unless one is aware of the fact that one is only behaving normally in order to "pass." [ie]: "if you're not eccentric, you're wrong." But we do not necessarily advertise our eccentricity in the wrong circles. That's not proper madness, that's just stupidity. Why act the fool with people who'll just think you're nuts?
bttt :)
"....You know what it's like to have to be around people who cannot possibly make contact with you. Since they cannot resonate with, or conform to, reality in all its richness, in order to get along at all, you must conform to them and their little reality tunnel.....
"[This type of] person forecloses the Mystery and reduces reality to the superficial laws and regularities he is capable of comprehending with his object-mind.....
"Look at the childishly literal manner in which the radical atheist interprets revelation -- as if transcendence is a thing! Instead of going off the deep end, they have gone off the shallow end, head first. Which results in paralysis from the heart in and ego up."
EXAMPLE:
"Seems wrongheaded to deploy the tools of the tenured to try to prove or disprove the existence miracles, when the whole point of the miraculous is that it is outside or beyond the reach of these tools like trying to use physics to describe what is outside physics. The only thing your closed system of thought will have proved is that Gödel was correct, but we knew that already.
Besides, the sense of the miraculous obviously lies within the subject, not in the phenomenon (and is indeed its reason for being), the latter of which may be easily explained away by anyone with a little but not too much logic.
Our advice, which you are commanded to ignore not by us, of course! would be to stay within the confines of the empirical/rational/experiential, and testify that nothing has or will ever happen to you that is outside the system of thought you have constructed for yourself. Or, at least you won’t perceive it, which is something we can all agree on."
~ Gagdad Bob COMMENT on January 1, 2012 at this web site HERE
Whereas you interpret it with all the nuance, elasticity, and shadings with which a liberal interprets the Constitution. It's remarkable the subtle meanings you both can pull out. Why, by the end of your gentle kneading, texts say whatever you want them to say!
“Look at the childishly literal manner in which the radical atheist interprets revelation...” ~ Gagdad Bob
“Whereas you interpret it with all the nuance, elasticity, and shadings with which a liberal interprets the Constitution. It’s remarkable the subtle meanings you both can pull out. Why, by the end of your gentle kneading, texts say whatever you want them to say!” ~ A_perfect_lady
““Everybody is someone else’s weirdo.””~ grey_whiskers
“An insight, of course, perfectly consistent with Sartre’s: Hell is the Other!” ~ betty boop
(my "vanity" is offended, get it?)
Cheers!
Oops! I’ll get right to it! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.