Merged RD Forum shutting down

[Darat]

Take a good look at the time (and location) they were put up and the time the administrators went ape-**** on the forum. You're getting your cause and effect reversed.

Let's say I meet someone on the street and punch him in the face.
He says "you bastard, you punched me in the face!"
I say "I punched you in the face because you called me a bastard!"

That's only because you are a materialist and believe in this "cause and effect" crap.

 

[JihadJane]

I think Dawkins also needs to get a sense of humor. The extended rat's bottom analogy is very funny and will hopefully end up chronicled alongside other famous insults such as:

"The prime minister clings to data the way a drunkard clings to lampposts. Not for illumination but to keep him standing up." Romano Prodi on Silvio Berlusconi

or

"He's nothing more than a well meaning baboon." General McCellan on Abraham Lincoln

or

"An empty suit that goes to funerals and plays golf." Ross Perot talking about Dan Quayle

or

"It's like being savaged by a dead sheep." Denis Healey on being attacked by Geoffrey Howe.

 

[zooterkin]

Sadly, I suspect he is quite aware of the facts.

What, all of them?

As UndercoverElephant mentioned above, Dawkins looks like a person who's clueless about the Internet.

Exactly. Which means he probably does not understand the implications of the proposed change from a forum to a front page with comments for the existing users, nor does he seem to understand the timeline of what happened. Some, at least, of the comments he is reacting to were not posted on RDF but on other sites, but may have also been emailed to him. There are no responses to the reasoned posts that were emailed to him. Which is why I suggest it looks as though someone has said, "Look what these nasty people said, when I was only trying to make things better." He may have agreed to the proposed changes as explained to him, or even requested them, but his bafflement at the reaction shows he did not understand what they meant.

If you think that shows he is aware of all the facts, then I'm confused by your reasoning.

 

[remirol]

Take a good look at the time (and location) they were put up and the time the administrators went ape-**** on the forum. You're getting your cause and effect reversed.

No. No, I'm not. Not at all, in fact. And this post serves to illustrate just how out of touch with reality some Internet users really are.

Even assuming everything you say is true (and I am leaving the jury out on this; this is just for the sake of argument for the moment) the actions that were taken are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Some accounts were deleted and the forum was locked. The forum was going away anyway.

The response to these actions was completely disproportionate, to someone who walks in the real world. It is understandable that users will be upset about the forum being closed. And the closing wasn't handled gracefully. But in the end, adults do not conduct themselves in that manner in the real world for something so trivial as an account being deleted 30 days early.

They just don't. You can't walk up to your boss's boss and repeat some of those angry screeds word-for-word without being fired. You simply can't. And that's the real point here -- the RDF population that chose to fly off the handle and post a bunch of personal hate attacks has cost the rest of that population a chance to be heard.

 

[remirol]

Exactly. Which means he probably does not understand the implications of the proposed change from a forum to a front page with comments for the existing users, nor does he seem to understand the timeline of what happened.

I am certain he does understand at least some of the implications. And because of the hostile comments posted, he's now dead-certain that it's the right thing to do. Way to go. RDF fanboys. Way to go.

Some, at least, of the comments he is reacting to were not posted on RDF but on other sites, but may have also been emailed to him. There are no responses to the reasoned posts that were emailed to him.

That's because he made his decision. Holy crap, do none of you work in a position with any responsibility over a large number of people? I doubt he has TIME to go through the flood of responses and answer each one individually, much less wade through the ones that are "You scum-sucker, i hate you", etc. My inbox at work is constantly flooded; I use aggressive filtering and short responses to make sure I can actually deal with everything in the right order. If you recall, the original announcement said "please don't email Richard directly". There's a reason for that, and the most logical reason is not that the people in charge were trying to hide things from Richard. He knew there'd be upset people; he just didn't want to be overrun with complaints when the decision was already made.

Which is why I suggest it looks as though someone has said, "Look what these nasty people said, when I was only trying to make things better."

That's the point. The nasty people drown out the sane people. They always do. Most Christian fundamentalists don't go around carrying signs, picketing, and frothing at the mouth, but that's the mental picture we all have when someone says "fundie", isn't it?

Now, let's be clear. I'm not trying to defend the decision itself, and I think that the way the forum stuff has been handled is decidedly poor. But I do understand this -- when you want to get someone in power's attention, the worst way in the world to do it is to post hate-filled walls-o-text and try to escalate the emotional tone of the situation.

 

[95theses]

To highlight the unfairness of the 'Outrage' post, have a look at this.

Richard Implies that the barrage of insults caused the site to have to be shut down early. For example he uses this one :

Or that others expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat

And yet, when one looks to the source, at rationalia, that was posted after the RDF forums were closed you find it in context :

The bottom line is that I personally am far more offended by Josh's 'handling' of this debacle than I am of the initial decision.

When someone tells me they know that change can be frightening in order to at both times shut me up and patronise me, I get the sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails down their throat.

So, yeah, bad handling.



(I'm glad you've sent a letter. A few well known names with calm and honest opinions might at least wake RD up to what has been done, even if he doesn't care)

not a glowing bit of praise surely, but neither quite as vitriolic as Richard makes out is it?

 

[Dragoonster]

No. No, I'm not. Not at all, in fact. And this post serves to illustrate just how out of touch with reality some Internet users really are.

Even assuming everything you say is true (and I am leaving the jury out on this; this is just for the sake of argument for the moment) the actions that were taken are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Some accounts were deleted and the forum was locked. The forum was going away anyway.

Just about every particular fracas is minor in the grand scheme of things. But since you're assuming things for the sake of argument, also assume the following: A concerted effort was made to prevent former RDneters from relocating their community, before and after the premature forum closure--the PM system was intenionally slowed to a crawl, sigs suggesting alternate sites were deleted, and the initial letter warned that it would be unacceptable for mods to attempt to facilitate relocation, even though the forums were going to be coming down. Also warned anyone from contacting Dawkins. Also initially ensured that archiving would be allowed, but then the admins made simple archive attempts redirect to a rickroll. So, there's that too.

The response to these actions was completely disproportionate, to someone who walks in the real world. It is understandable that users will be upset about the forum being closed. And the closing wasn't handled gracefully. But in the end, adults do not conduct themselves in that manner in the real world for something so trivial as an account being deleted 30 days early.

How are mere words disproportionate to actual actions? No one firebombed Dawkins' home. No hackers shut down his site.

And yes, in the real world adults conduct themselves in that manner even for what appears trivial to others. Ever watch MSNBC, Fox, CSpan, or ESPN? There's verbal vitriol everywhere, the world isn't an unemotional bastion of pure and sober formal rhetoric only inhabited by Vulcans. Nor by the way was Dawkins' response to this mess, it was full of condemnation and dismissal, and generalized insults as well.

They just don't. You can't walk up to your boss's boss and repeat some of those angry screeds word-for-word without being fired. You simply can't. And that's the real point here -- the RDF population that chose to fly off the handle and post a bunch of personal hate attacks has cost the rest of that population a chance to be heard.

A chance to be heard? Where, how? The forum was shut down, people were warned not to contact Dawkins, or even attempt to relocate members. Presumably some contacted him anyway, he didn't reply and didn't modify his stance from the rather heavy-handed admin stance. The media reports on this so far take Dawkins' timeline and rationale as correct, despite calm explanations in comment sections noting that this is simply not so.

So...exactly where and how would you prefer the population have been heard? And why should any population be expected to have ultimate control over all its members, so as to risk even one offensive member from disturbing the delicate sensibilities of the abusive (who apparently have no such requirement of being delicate themselves)?

This whole thing is full of remarkable hypocrisy, irony, incompetence, and coldness. I've never even posted or visited RDnet, and aside from a few quotes have never read anything by Dawkins. But those affected have legitimate complaints to make, even if a few of them go overboard or get personal. Unfortunately the message being trotted out is one you seem to have fallen prey too--that a bunch of rabid crazed hate-spewing monsters forced poor Dawkins et al to close the forum. That's very far from the truth.

It isn't very important in the grand scheme of things. It is though very interesting that one of the premier champions of evidence-based rationalism has exhibited no such response in his own house. It's also interesting as a case-study on evolution of forum closure, those affected, the importance of handling such carefully, and so on. The interesting thing about some stances in this thread is that the admonition of a few vitriolic loud-mouths is being used to dismiss the entire reaction as overblown. That's like dismissing all complaints about the Iraq War because of Cindy Sheehan, or all faithful because of Pat Robertson...or all atheists because of Richard Dawkins.

 

[remirol]

not a glowing bit of praise surely, but neither quite as vitriolic as Richard makes out is it?

Dude. In what real world do you walk up to someone and say "When you say that, it makes me want to ram a fistful of nails down your throat."?

Seriously! Think about it.

 

[JihadJane]

Dude. In what real world do you walk up to someone and say "When you say that, it makes me want to ram a fistful of nails down your throat."?

Seriously! Think about it.

Who has walked up to anyone anywhere and said that?

 

[remirol]

How are mere words disproportionate to actual actions? No one firebombed Dawkins' home. No hackers shut down his site.

This is what I mean by out of touch with reality. If you haven't understood it from what I've posted already, I'm just not sure you ever will. The real world isn't the Internet, and vice versa. What passes by as "mere words" on the Internet doesn't fly in polite society, and never will.

And yes, in the real world adults conduct themselves in that manner even for what appears trivial to others. Ever watch MSNBC, Fox, CSpan, or ESPN?

Really? I don't recall ever hearing about a "fistful of nails being shoved down someone's throat" on any of those channels. Nor about "scum-sucking rectum", or any of the other fabulous over-the-top statements that have been made so far.

And if you're going to hold up the idiots like O'Reilly and Limbaugh, well, you know there's a reason a lot of people look at them as idiots who pander to the extremists. I bet it has a lot to do with what they say.

Now, that said -- Adults do not conduct themselves in that manner in any professional environment I've worked in. Again, would you go to your boss's boss and say those things to him? Really? How's the unemployment line these days?

So...exactly where and how would you prefer the population have been heard?

That's the population's job to figure out -- which they have already done quite nicely WRT rationalia, here, etc. But they also should have spent some effort trying to bring their fringe elements under control, rather than cheering them on from the sidelines.

No, no group can control all its members. But the sane elements should have immediately been shouting "STOP! STOP! Stop the personal attacks!" -- and instead, all I've seen was encouragement.

Unfortunately the message being trotted out is one you seem to have fallen prey too--that a bunch of rabid crazed hate-spewing monsters forced poor Dawkins et al to close the forum. That's very far from the truth.

It also isn't what I said. The rabid crazed hate-spewing monsters have caused Dawkins to stop listening. The forum was going to be closed no matter what.

The interesting thing about some stances in this thread is that the admonition of a few vitriolic loud-mouths is being used to dismiss the entire reaction as overblown.

Also not what I said. You may not have been addressing it to me, but I feel the need to make certain of this.

 

[Dragoonster]

Dude. In what real world do you walk up to someone and say "When you say that, it makes me want to ram a fistful of nails down your throat."?

Seriously! Think about it.

In this analogy he didn't say that to the object of his anger. He said that to a fellow also affected by the object's decision, on a completely different "street". The object had to work to find what was said, he could've chosen to simply keep about his business and only deal with what was said directly to him. If it's such a minor thing, why actively seek out evidence post-facto to reinvent the justification? It would've been better to cite examples from the actual forum in question, too bad the admin deleted it!

I have managed people, not sure if 30-40 count as many. But I was midmanagement and yes, some of those real workers of mine would cuss and be very angry at some decisions made. Did I dismiss them as uncouth rabble or fire them? No, I tried to defuse their anger, first by explaining the rationale behind the decision*, and only if that didn't work by stating that the decision wasn't going to be reversed, and trying to work with them on how they could manage it and not be too negatively affected.

*In this case a response from Dawkins et al would've been to explain why they deleted 30,000+ posts as a respone to a half-dozen contentious posts, or why they were taking active measures to thwart relocation. They made no effort to do this. They were poor managers of the community.

 

[JihadJane]

The insults are an irrelevant red herring.

 

[remirol]

In this analogy he didn't say that to the object of his anger. He said that to a fellow also affected by the object's decision, on a completely different "street".

If we're going to be precise about the analogy, he shouted that from a soapbox through a megaphone. It wasn't just to one person, after all, it was a public comment. And suddenly we're back in the land of "Things that aren't said by people who don't want to have others think they're disturbed". Hell, you can say that to just one person and they'll look at you a bit funny, like "Wow, anger issues much?"

I have managed people, not sure if 30-40 count as many. But I was midmanagement and yes, some of those real workers of mine would cuss and be very angry at some decisions made.

How many of them suggested to their co-workers they'd like to ram a fistful of nails down your throat? And how many of them just said things like "that's a ****ing stupid decision"? See the difference?

Did I dismiss them as uncouth rabble or fire them? No, I tried to defuse their anger, first by explaining the rationale behind the decision*, and only if that didn't work by stating that the decision wasn't going to be reversed, and trying to work with them on how they could manage it and not be too negatively affected.

30-40 is not really what I was thinking of -- you can actually make time to speak individually to the angry people in a group of 30-40. I'm thinking more like 500-600 -- where you KNOW you cannot address each person's concerns individually. In RDF's case, it was what, something like 85,000 members?

 

[Dragoonster]

This is what I mean by out of touch with reality. If you haven't understood it from what I've posted already, I'm just not sure you ever will. The real world isn't the Internet, and vice versa. What passes by as "mere words" on the Internet doesn't fly in polite society, and never will.

Society isn't always, or doesn't always need to be polite, from my experience, when it comes to reactions to things giving personal affront. Some things deserve strong reactions, did this? Perhaps not.

Really? I don't recall ever hearing about a "fistful of nails being shoved down someone's throat" on any of those channels. Nor about "scum-sucking rectum", or any of the other fabulous over-the-top statements that have been made so far.

And if you're going to hold up the idiots like O'Reilly and Limbaugh, well, you know there's a reason a lot of people look at them as idiots who pander to the extremists. I bet it has a lot to do with what they say.

Yes. But do O'Reilly or Olbermann make you dismiss all conservatives or liberals? Why should they set the debate or the reaction of people who should dismiss them? In this case Dawkins did not dismiss the vitriolic few, he used them as an example of the many.

Now, that said -- Adults do not conduct themselves in that manner in any professional environment I've worked in. Again, would you go to your boss's boss and say those things to him? Really? How's the unemployment line these days?

Perhaps factory work was less high-society than whatever work you do, but I experienced, and delivered, plenty of angry vile at terrible conditions and decisions. Perhaps it's that your business is run more competently than mine was, or than Dawkins' forum was, so you don't face as much rightful anger.

No, no group can control all its members. But the sane elements should have immediately been shouting "STOP! STOP! Stop the personal attacks!" -- and instead, all I've seen was encouragement.

It was already a fait accompli. The admins had already screwed the pooch, went way overboard themselves.

I'll just ask you this--what if anything do you think would've changed if there had been no personal attacks levied anywhere?

If nothing else one thing they accomplished was demonstrating that Dawkins can use such minority vitriol in a dishonest manner.

It also isn't what I said. The rabid crazed hate-spewing monsters have caused Dawkins to stop listening. The forum was going to be closed no matter what.

Also not what I said. You may not have been addressing it to me, but I feel the need to make certain of this.

Sorry if I misunderstood your position.

 

[plumjam]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[JihadJane]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited response to modded post.

 

[Dragoonster]

If we're going to be precise about the analogy, he shouted that from a soapbox through a megaphone. It wasn't just to one person, after all, it was a public comment. And suddenly we're back in the land of "Things that aren't said by people who don't want to have others think they're disturbed". Hell, you can say that to just one person and they'll look at you a bit funny, like "Wow, anger issues much?"

Really? I say brutal things like that all the time to friends, or on message boards. Have called GW several terrible things for one example.

How many of them suggested to their co-workers they'd like to ram a fistful of nails down your throat? And how many of them just said things like "that's a ****ing stupid decision"? See the difference?

I wouldn't know what they suggested to their co-workers, as I wasn't spying on them. As a common worker I'd hear some "I'd like to beat his ass" for current supervisors at the time. It was a very high stress, underpaid job which required a lot of venting, but no one acted on it.

I do see the difference, but also see it as similar venting. It's a human response.

30-40 is not really what I was thinking of -- you can actually make time to speak individually to the angry people in a group of 30-40. I'm thinking more like 500-600 -- where you KNOW you cannot address each person's concerns individually. In RDF's case, it was what, something like 85,000 members?

That's true, but his response didn't actually respond to any of the criticism. Even supervising hundreds or thousands of people, if one of your minions made egregious errors that seriously upset most of them, wouldn't you respond to those errors and not imply that it was all the fault of the workers?

You might, or corporations might whose bottom-line is dollars, if they feel the response to such a non-response would be insignificant to profitability. I guess I thought Dawkins' bottom-line was rationality and fair debate, so his response seems antithetical to what he's most known for, and to the purpose that his "employees" in the form of users had gravitated to his site for.

 

[remirol]

Society isn't always, or doesn't always need to be polite, from my experience, when it comes to reactions to things giving personal affront. Some things deserve strong reactions, did this? Perhaps not.

As I've said before, I think the users have every reason to be upset. It's not easy when a social community is effectively completely obliterated. But at the same time, I think many should have expressed their displeasure in a more constructive manner.

It's OK to be angry. It's even OK to show it (contrast, again, "that's ****ing stupid" with "fistful of nails") to a degree. But you gotta make sure people are willing to lsiten to you. :/

Yes. But do O'Reilly or Olbermann make you dismiss all conservatives or liberals? Why should they set the debate or the reaction of people who should dismiss them?

Not me; I recognize that they're entertainment, as opposed to actual logic. But it's also important to note that I walk in the same world they do ("real world", not "TV america") and I can understand that they're just shouting for attention.

Dawkins really is clueless about the Internet. He doesn't walk in this world.

Perhaps factory work was less high-society than whatever work you do, but I experienced, and delivered, plenty of angry vile at terrible conditions and decisions.

This actually is probably the (unexpected) best way there is to illustrate the difference. I've worked on factory floors _and_ in corporate America's conference rooms. And like the Internet, the factory floor is a completely different world. What is tolerated and "normal" there would horrify people who aren't used to it -- because a lot of what's said there _isn't_ said in polite society. And even on the factory floor, the people who can control their anger and get themselves heard will rise to the top -- because the floor needs people who can walk in both worlds, who can serve as an interface between the floor and the conference room. If the people in the conference room directly heard what's said on the floor, they'd flip their lids.

That's exactly what's happened in this case. On the Internet, the "fistful of nails" remark is an amusing turn of phrase. But in the real world, it's something completely different -- and all the forum members who weren't good at controlling their anger made an effort to be heard by the "conference room." Well, it heard 'em... and it flipped its lid, predictably.

I'll just ask you this--what if anything do you think would've changed if there had been no personal attacks levied anywhere?

I can't predict the future, sadly. Perhaps nothing would've changed. What I can say is that at least people would've been listening. Right now, though, the lines of battle have been drawn and everyone's got their ego invested in it. That means there won't be any backing down on either side, and that's a loss for everyone concerned.

 

[Ysidro]

The insults are an irrelevant red herring.

And taken out of context to make them even more vile than they already were.

And it's working.

*takes notes, joins a political party*

In other news, my girlfriend just gave me a copy of The God Delusion last night. I haven't read Dawkins before. If his arguments in that book are as specious, full of cherrypicked quotes, and misunderstanding of cause and effect, I may just want to take it back. It's not going to effect the fact I'm an atheist, but I'd rather not fill my head with ill-reasoned arguments.

 

[Dragoonster]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited quote of modded post.

Heh. I just want to make clear I'm not a RDF refugee, have never been to the site. I'd never associate with such uncouth angry forum-destroyers!