Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[A'isha]

Had that post been made on A+ and been talking about, say, Gamergate or the Slymepit, the posters in this thread would have wasted no time in gleefully tearing it apart and mocking its over-the-top Godwinian hyperbole.

A Twitter blocklist, even one that says mean things about its blockees, is not a "blacklist", it's not an injustice, and it's definitely not comparable to what McCarthy did or what the *********** Nazis did.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The problem is how you define "damaging", and calculate compensation.

Well, no, the principle point of contention with the UK defamation laws in contrast to those of many other countries (most typically the US) is that in the UK the onus is on the person who made the defamatory statement to prove that their statement is true, as opposed to the onus being on the person the statement is about to prove that it is untrue. This is why I find it odd that it appears to be a position held by many non-UK sceptics - the burden of proof is the opposite of what is generally considered rational thinking, and the onus is on the person disputing a claim to disprove the claim being made.

I don't understand why the standards of evidence for claiming someone to, say, be a racist or rape-apologist should be different to the standards of evidence for claiming that ghosts exists or that someone has psychic powers. If you claim that your house is haunted, then it is up to you to prove that there is a ghost in your house, not up to me to prove that there isn't - and for good reason. Yet if you claim that I am a paedophile it's up to me to prove that I'm not, rather than up to you to prove that I am? No matter what harm your accusations do to me?

Sorry, but that's completely barse ackwards. Especially given the number of people who genuinely believe "there's no smoke without fire" and therefore that the mere existence of allegations about someone proves the veracity of those allegations.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, no, the principle point of contention with the UK defamation laws in contrast to those of many other countries (most typically the US) is that in the UK the onus is on the person who made the defamatory statement to prove that their statement is true, as opposed to the onus being on the person the statement is about to prove that it is untrue. This is why I find it odd that it appears to be a position held by many non-UK sceptics - the burden of proof is the opposite of what is generally considered rational thinking, and the onus is on the person disputing a claim to disprove the claim being made.

I don't understand why the standards of evidence for claiming someone to, say, be a racist or rape-apologist should be different to the standards of evidence for claiming that ghosts exists or that someone has psychic powers. If you claim that your house is haunted, then it is up to you to prove that there is a ghost in your house, not up to me to prove that there isn't - and for good reason. Yet if you claim that I am a paedophile it's up to me to prove that I'm not, rather than up to you to prove that I am? No matter what harm your accusations do to me?

Sorry, but that's completely barse ackwards. Especially given the number of people who genuinely believe "there's no smoke without fire" and therefore that the mere existence of allegations about someone proves the veracity of those allegations.

The problem with the calling someone a racist or a rape apologist is that those are kind of hard to come up with a universally accepted definition. As the UK law is viewed as being less favorable to those making claims while the US one is more that is also something to consider.

The point is the person claiming defamation needs to prove that it was defamatory and that it wasn't true. Well with things like that it is fairly easy to argue that the individual considers the target a racist or rape apologist even if the standards they use are rather at odds with those used by others.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The problem with the calling someone a racist or a rape apologist is that those are kind of hard to come up with a universally accepted definition.

Of course. But the standard, although still somewhat nebulous, used in UK courts is whether it's something that an ordinary person would believe or think.

The point is the person claiming defamation needs to prove that it was defamatory and that it wasn't true. Well with things like that it is fairly easy to argue that the individual considers the target a racist or rape apologist even if the standards they use are rather at odds with those used by others.

This makes no sense.

Person X: "Person Y is a rapist"

Person Y:"I have never raped anybody, and I will sue you for saying so, as I have been physically assaulted on the street and lost my job as a direct result of you calling me a rapist"

Judge: "On what basis are you saying that Person Y is a rapist?"

Person X: "Person Y wore a colourful t-shirt which I considered to be metaphorically raping my eyes. I've never said that this is how I define the term 'rapist' and didn't qualify the term 'rapist' in any way, but this is what I meant by the term 'rapist'"

Judge: "Well, that seems perfectly reasonable. Case dismissed"

Obviously that would never work. I would think you'd have a difficult time defending standards that were "rather at odds with those used by others" in a UK court.

No, it's entirely reasonable that if you call someone a rapist you should be able to demonstrate that the person you are calling a rapist is actually a rapist, by how an ordinary member of the public would understand the term "rapist".

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course. But the standard, although still somewhat nebulous, used in UK courts is whether it's something that an ordinary person would believe or think.



This makes no sense.

Person X: "Person Y is a rapist"

Person Y:"I have never raped anybody, and I will sue you for saying so, as I have been physically assaulted on the street and lost my job as a direct result of you calling me a rapist"

Judge: "On what basis are you saying that Person Y is a rapist?"

Person X: "Person Y wore a colourful t-shirt which I considered to be metaphorically raping my eyes. I've never said that this is how I define the term 'rapist' and didn't qualify the term 'rapist' in any way, but this is what I meant by the term 'rapist'"

Judge: "Well, that seems perfectly reasonable. Case dismissed"

Obviously that would never work. I would think you'd have a difficult time defending standards that were "rather at odds with those used by others" in a UK court.

No, it's entirely reasonable that if you call someone a rapist you should be able to demonstrate that the person you are calling a rapist is actually a rapist, by how an ordinary member of the public would understand the term "rapist".

But rapist is someone who has committed rape, that is way more of a defined action than being a rape apologist or racist. Those are a lot less tied to specific actions, as you are accusing them of holding abhorrent beliefs and not committing specific actions. So by changing from rape apologist to rapist you have moved the goalposts significantly.

So you need to not move the goal posts quite so much and stick to the kinds of claims made about a person.

But in that vein.

Bill Cosby sues me for calling him a rapist. I state that I believe he is a rapist based on all the claims made my dozens of women about him. This caused netflix and other companies to stop production on shows by him or not continue to air shows that he gets residuals on. This is directly costing him money.

So he can he win a case suing me for believing the accusations made against him or not?

 

[Kochanski]

Had that post been made on A+ and been talking about, say, Gamergate or the Slymepit, the posters in this thread would have wasted no time in gleefully tearing it apart and mocking its over-the-top Godwinian hyperbole.

A Twitter blocklist, even one that says mean things about its blockees, is not a "blacklist", it's not an injustice, and it's definitely not comparable to what McCarthy did or what the *********** Nazis did.

You continue to ignore the fact that they made this PUBLIC. That people on the list were publicly stated to be abusers and bigots on the BBC. That anyone can access their list of level 1, level 2 and level 3 blocked individuals and that if you click on the individuals from that list you get to their twitter account.

 

[A'isha]

You continue to ignore the fact that they made this PUBLIC.

It was already public. Their website has always been freely and openly accessible to anyone.

That people on the list were publicly stated to be abusers and bigots on the BBC.

Which means now you can sue the BBC too, if you want. Although, considering the BBC broadcast was almost two years ago, I wonder why it's only now resulting in the threats of lawsuits, and why only to the BlockBot and not the BBC - if you were fine with the public statements on the website before and it was the wider dissemination caused by the BBC broadcast (not to mention the additional comments about the blockees made by the show's presenter) which you consider actually grounds for a libel suit, I would think you'd want to go after the BBC.

 

[Myriad]

Had that post been made on A+ and been talking about, say, Gamergate or the Slymepit, the posters in this thread would have wasted no time in gleefully tearing it apart and mocking its over-the-top Godwinian hyperbole.

Do you think so? Anyone here is invited to do so, of course. I make an effort to explain the context and meaning of my comparisons, to avoid that very problem (and also as defense against aggressive responses that attempt to ridicule one phrase or comparison without taking the actual context and meaning into account). But perhaps I've failed in this case. It can happen.

Of course, you could tear my argument apart all by yourself, by providing those historical examples of positive social progress achieved through public blacklists. Did the American civil rights movement of the 20th century movement produce lists of the worst racists? (Their opponents did produce enemies lists.) Do abortion rights activists publish lists of the most dangerous anti-choice advocates? (Their opponents did publish lists, as I mentioned before.) Did the accused witches of Salem publish lists of the worst-of-the-worst accusers and prosecutors? (As far as I know all the list-making on the other side.) What does the historical pattern show?

A Twitter blocklist, even one that says mean things about its blockees, is not a "blacklist", it's not an injustice, and it's definitely not comparable to what McCarthy did or what the *********** Nazis did.

Do you think Niemöller's poem is only applicable if we're talking about actual Nazis, or evil on the scale of the Naziism of Niemöller's time? I've seen it referenced extensively, most often by supporters of human rights causes, for injustices on all scales.

And it's not about what the Nazis did. That's very important; you have to realize that to understand it at all. It's about what most of the people who weren't Nazis did, and didn't do. It's about people not speaking up about injustice when they weren't personally affected. Which is exactly the attitude you're expressing and supporting when you apologize for wrongdoing with "go ahead and sue, then." It's about what happens when "everyone must fight their own battles" is mistaken for moral social conduct. That and that alone can allow a local banal evil to grow into a horrific global one.

Perhaps you don't like people to notice how Niemöller's haunting words grate against the divisive philosophy of Atheism Plus. They're all about fighting your own battles and ONLY your own battles, OR ELSE. Instead of "First they came for the Socialists,..." it would be more in character for them to write "If you're not a Socialist, SHUT THE **** UP ABOUT SOCIALISM." To someone who sees history as more than a series of conversational taboos ("how dare you compare anything to anything else"), it's chilling; the best case is if it only leads to its own ruin.

 

[A'isha]

Do you think so?

Yes.

Of course, you could tear my argument apart all by yourself, by providing those historical examples of positive social progress achieved through public blacklists

I told you, I don't give a ****.

Do you think Niemöller's poem is only applicable if we're talking about actual Nazis, or evil on the scale of the Naziism of Niemöller's time? I've seen it referenced extensively, most often by supporters of human rights causes, for injustices on all scales.

Having someone block you on Twitter while calling you names is not only not an injustice, it's not a "human rights cause".

And it's not about what the Nazis did. That's very important; you have to realize that to understand it at all. It's about what most of the people who weren't Nazis did, and didn't do.

And what they "didn't do" was protest when the Nazis came for people to throw them into concentration camps and murder them. Not block them on social media.

That and that alone can allow a local banal evil to grow into a horrific global one.

Yes, first they block you on Twitter, and then the next thing you know they're unfriending you on Facebook and using a spam filter to delete your emails to them!

The horror. The horror.

Perhaps you don't like people to notice how Niemöller's haunting words grate against the divisive philosophy of Atheism Plus.

I don't really care what Atheism Plus does or says or thinks, frankly. Maybe, like the good pastor himself, I'll change my tune once their jackbooted thugs drag me off to the A+ Gulag for doubleplus ungoodthink along with the rest of you, but since the chances of that are somewhere between Pamela Gellar converting to Islam and Jesus returning, I don't think I'm going to be holding my breath.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But rapist is someone who has committed rape, that is way more of a defined action than being a rape apologist or racist. Those are a lot less tied to specific actions, as you are accusing them of holding abhorrent beliefs and not committing specific actions. So by changing from rape apologist to rapist you have moved the goalposts significantly.

No, I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm illustrating the point with an extreme example. The argument remains the same if you substitute in "racist" or "rape apologist". I could equally claim that you were the one moving the goalposts, given that you only mentioned my first two examples and not my third - that of being called a paedophile.

And all of which is entirely beside the point that I'm making, which is this - that the burden of proof correctly lies with the person making the claim. That's one of the foundations of rational thought. This should hold true when it's a defamatory claim made about a person just as much as it does when it's a claim about the existence of a paranormal phenomenon.

Bill Cosby sues me for calling him a rapist. I state that I believe he is a rapist based on all the claims made my dozens of women about him. This caused netflix and other companies to stop production on shows by him or not continue to air shows that he gets residuals on. This is directly costing him money.

So he can he win a case suing me for believing the accusations made against him or not?

I don't know. I'm not a legal professional, and I don't know what evidence you'd bring to the table in any court proceedings.

The point I'm making is that if you claim that Bill Cosby is a rapist, then the burden of proof should be on you to establish that Bill Cosby is a rapist (as in UK law), rather than the burden of proof being on Bill Cosby to prove that he is not a rapist (as in US law). Just as if you claim that your dog has psychic powers then the burden of proof should be on you to establish that your dog has psychic powers, rather than the burden of proof being on me to prove that s/he does not.

 

[Meed]

A Twitter blocklist, even one that says mean things about its blockees, is not a "blacklist", it's not an injustice, and it's definitely not comparable to what McCarthy did or what the *********** Nazis did.

If the we're talking about public accusations that are untrue, then I'd call that unjust (regardless of whether it's legally actionable).

I told you, I don't give a ****.

But you seem to give a **** about whether or not other people give a ****.

 

[A'isha]

If the we're talking about public accusations that are untrue, then I'd call that unjust (regardless of whether it's legally actionable).

If they're untrue, it's either legally-protected opinion, or it's legally actionable. If it's legally actionable, then file a lawsuit. If it's legally-protected opinion, well, then you're just going to have to suck up the free speech.

But you seem to give a **** about whether or not other people give a ****.

No, I don't actually give a **** whether or not other people give a **** about "historical examples of positive social progress achieved through public blacklists" either. If someone wants those examples, they can go look for them, and I hope they find what they're looking for. That's their business, though, and I'm sure as hell not going to do it for them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm illustrating the point with an extreme example. The argument remains the same if you substitute in "racist" or "rape apologist". I could equally claim that you were the one moving the goalposts, given that you only mentioned my first two examples and not my third - that of being called a paedophile.

And all of which is entirely beside the point that I'm making, which is this - that the burden of proof correctly lies with the person making the claim. That's one of the foundations of rational thought. This should hold true when it's a defamatory claim made about a person just as much as it does when it's a claim about the existence of a paranormal phenomenon.

But there is a very different standard for saying "you took any issue with what I have said, therefor you support rape" like for example when they banned that rape victim for not wishing she had been killed instead of raped. That totally made are a legit rape apologist right? After all by asserting she retained any value to herself or society reduces the view that rape is the worst thing ever. Total apologist. At least they banned her.


That line of reasoning would most likely stand up in court as there is no legal definition of being a rape apologist, so factual statements are rather harder to make the claim than it is associating some other action with rape by calling it rape.

 

[Kochanski]

If they're untrue, it's either legally-protected opinion, or it's legally actionable. If it's legally actionable, then file a lawsuit. If it's legally-protected opinion, well, then you're just going to have to suck up the free speech.



No, I don't actually give a **** whether or not other people give a **** about "historical examples of positive social progress achieved through public blacklists" either. If someone wants those examples, they can go look for them, and I hope they find what they're looking for. That's their business, though, and I'm sure as hell not going to do it for them.

If you really don't care, why do you persist in posting in this thread?

 

[A'isha]

If you really don't care, why do you persist in posting in this thread?

Because the issue of "historical examples of positive social progress achieved through public blacklists" is just one minor sidetrack, and has nothing to do with what I've actually been posting about in this thread.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But there is a very different standard for saying "you took any issue with what I have said, therefor you support rape" like for example when they banned that rape victim for not wishing she had been killed instead of raped. That totally made are a legit rape apologist right? After all by asserting she retained any value to herself or society reduces the view that rape is the worst thing ever. Total apologist. At least they banned her.


That line of reasoning would most likely stand up in court as there is no legal definition of being a rape apologist, so factual statements are rather harder to make the claim than it is associating some other action with rape by calling it rape.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say, or how it relates to anything I've said.

 

[A'isha]

I really don't understand what you're trying to say, or how it relates to anything I've said.

Calling someone a rapist is pretty clear-cut, because there are legal definitions of rape and what makes a person a rapist.

Calling someone a rape apologist, however, is not nearly as neatly, much less legally, defined. Let's say I call someone a rape apologist, and they sue me for libel. In court, I testify that a rape apologist is someone who says X, and since he said X he's clearly a rape apologist and I haven't libeled him. He testifies that no, a rape apologist is someone who says Y, and since he only said X, he's not a rape apologist and I've clearly libeled him.

Whose definition gets used when ruling whether I've libeled him or not?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Whose definition gets used when ruling whether I've libeled him or not?

That would be for the court to decide.

And this has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, which is about where the burden of proof lies when someone makes a claim.

 

[A'isha]

That would be for the court to decide.

And this has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, which is about where the burden of proof lies when someone makes a claim.

As I understand it, it's specifically related to First Amendment-related issues (in the US, at least). It's not so much a matter of "burden of proof of a claim" as it is that any given instance of speech is (generally, though not universally) considered to be protected speech unless proven otherwise in a court of law, rather than considered to be unprotected unless proven otherwise in a court of law.

 

[Kochanski]

Because the issue of "historical examples of positive social progress achieved through public blacklists" is just one minor sidetrack, and has nothing to do with what I've actually been posting about in this thread.

Still doesn't explain why you feel the need to comment on things you don't care about in the thread. I have been active in this thread but don't bother to comment or argue about issues that either have been better covered by others or I have little to no interest in.