Posting it here is not an endorsement of Ben’s position, but he has reasonable arguments that I’m willing to give an airing.
PZ Myers
I imagine most readers of this blog are familiar with Jerry Coyne. If not, he’s a prominent biologist and atheist who maintains the blog Why Evolution is True. And apparently, he has taken to blocking commenters who disagree with him, even over substantive scientific issues.
First, some background: A conflict has been brewing over how to model the evolution of social behavior. At issue is a method called inclusive fitness theory, which emphasizes the role of genetic relatedness between interacting organisms. In 2011, Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and EO Wilson (hereafter, NTW) published an article arguing that inclusive fitness is a mathematically limited method, and that the role of relatedness has been overemphasized in the evolution of worker castes in social insects.
NTW’s article generated a strong response—most famously, a letter signed by 137 prominent researchers (also some talking bears). I happen to agree with Nowak, and have collaborated with him and Wilson on follow-up work. However, intelligent people can disagree on this issue, and I trust that science will sort it out.
Last week, a new critique of NTW was published in PLOS Biology. I won’t go into the substance of it here; Nowak and I have a forthcoming formal comment explaining where we think this critique goes wrong. Coyne, who supports inclusive fitness theory, summarized the critique on his blog.
Naturally, I wanted to participate in the discussion. I wrote a comment summarizing our forthcoming rebuttal and linking to my previous work on the subject. Initially, I got a message saying the comment was “under moderation”, which I thought was odd since I’ve commented on Coyne’s blog before. But the comment soon went through.
Then I noticed a factual error in Coyne’s post. Coyne says,
Nowak et al.’s paper, however, attacked this body of knowledge, claiming that kin selection and relatedness were not only unimportant in the
evolution of eusociality, but were unimportant in general.
This is a common misreading of NTW, which Nowak et al. addressed in their reply to the letter of 137:
One, we do not argue that relatedness is unimportant. Relatedness is an aspect of population structure, which affects evolution.
Pretty clear, right? I wrote a quick comment pointing out this error (which I believe to be an honest mistake).
But unlike my first comment, this one did not go through. I got the initial “under moderation” message, and then it never appeared. The next day I found myself unable to comment at all. The “under moderation” message stopped appearing; my comments would just disappear as soon as I hit “submit”. My initial comment still sits there, followed by thoughtful replies I would love to respond to but can’t. I’ve emailed Coyne twice to inquire, but have not received any response.
Soon after, I got an email from my collaborator Burton Simon, a mathematician who has recently been working on models of multilevel selection (an alternative to inclusive fitness theory). He said he’s been “virtually banned” from Coyne’s blog, where he used to comment under the pseudonym “Cooperator”. I asked him to elaborate and he said,
He apparently has a list of people whose comments aren’t automatically
posted. It goes into “moderation”, which I think means he has to
personally ok it, and he doesn’t always get around to it for one reason
or another.
And he’s never responded to any of my emails (maybe 3 altogether).
Interestingly, some dissenting comments besides mine made it through, although I don’t know if they also had to pass moderation.
Then my friend Blake Stacey linked me to a post on Daylight Atheism detailing other instances of comment-blocking by Coyne. In this case Coyne was defending Richard Dawkins against charges of sexism stemming from tweets that appear to blame rape victims for being drunk. (Coyne assures us that he knows Dawkins and Dawkins isn’t sexist, so… I guess that settles it?) At least three commenters report having comments deleted and/or being blocked for disagreeing with this post, or for suggesting that Dawkin’s tweets had anything to do with an accusation of rape-by-intoxication against Michael Shermer. One of the blocked commenters (Arthur) says
Jerry Coyne certainly does moderate the posts on his site. [I] posted a
comment critical of Richard Dawkins’s tweets, that was perfectly civil.
Jerry deleted the comment within 5 minutes, and continued to delete any
more that appeared from other posters that were similarly civil yet
critical.I also appear to be banned from commenting on the site,
for that one comment. After eight years of having friendly banter on
everything from sport to cats.
I can’t read Coyne’s mind, so I don’t know exactly why he’s blocking people. Obviously, he has every right to moderate his blog however he chooses. But it hardly needs mentioning that censoring substantive disagreement goes against the principles of rational inquiry that Coyne espouses. Given that many people turn to Why Evolution is True for updates on evolutionary biology, this one-sided moderation also gives a false impression of unanimity that is bad for science. And of course, the damage is much greater when the censored commenters are pushing back against rape apology and victim-blaming.
Coyne’s comment-blocking also goes against the stated “Roolz” of his site, which specify
I try to use as light a hand as I can consonant with keeping an atmosphere of civility and sanity.
and
Please don’t assume that your comment was trashed, as I rarely do that (except from those sent by trolls).
Given the multiple reports of civil, substantive comments being deleted, it’s hard to take either of these statements seriously.
He blocked me years ago because I disagreed with him once (politely) over bloggers/commenters using their real names. Despite several requests, I remain blocked, even though I probably agree with him on just about everything else. Rather pathetic, in my view.
Interesting. I too agree with J. Coynes right to moderate his blog however he considers appropriate. But I too disagree with how he does it in practice. He prefers civility over substance and allegedly has very heavy banhammer. I disagreed with him vehemently once, but I did not comment very often and I never tried to go into lengthy arguments, so I might still not be banned on WEIT. But I do not care.
I stopped reading WEIT long time ago. Not much later after I stopped reading anything from Dawkins (after Elevatorgate). Coyne and Dawkins (along with others) did strike me both as only paying lip service to the scientific&/rationalistic&/skeptical method when it comes to almost anything that makes them uncomfortable with regard to their privilege, their buddyism and their preconceptions.
After the stupidity that is called “Dear Muslima” I became more and more picky about what I read and currently Pharyngula is all that is left from my previous reading list.
For what it’s worth…I had posted a few comments at WEIT that argued that if you have a beef with extremist Islam, you have a beef with the US government’s alliance with Saudi Arabia. And I posted a few comments insisting that support for the Kyiv regime included supporting the neofascists in the new order.(Coyne was much more worried about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and conquest of Kyiv.) None of these brought a response of course. Then I wrote a comment, that included something negative about Sam Harris. From my reading, his usual response to what he perceives as attacks on friends is to insist on an apology, but that was the end. I’m pretty sure that despite no response Coyne noticed the other posts and that was the reason. I suppose you or others may agree with Coyne that’s trolling, though.
Coyne is fond of announcing that his blog is like his home. I think that’s nonsense. A blog is like standing on your front porch talking to passersby, who are most certainly not in the home. Coyne likes to share pictures of his food and his cowboy boots, but his personal life is off limits in his so-called living room?
The thing is, I’m not altogether certain why the scientific discussion should be any better conducted than ordinary discussion. For an instance, Coyne has lately been ranting how Islamic State is motivated by Islam. But Islam has been in northern Syria/Iraq for decades without causing Islamic State, just as the Quran has been around for centuries without causing a ceaseless crusade (er, holy war,) against all Christians everywhere. Nor does Coyne even wonder whether Christianity and its prophecies of Armageddon might “cause” mindless US support for Zionism. I think everyone who’s paid attention to anything besides the cat and wildlife pictures (hurray for them!) has realized Coyne has pretty much reduced himself to an affront to reason. Coyne is certifiably intelligent, an accomplished scientist and scholar. Surely such obvious issues have occurred to him.
If he’s willing to pursue his political agenda with such disdain for common sense, why not his scientific agenda?
.
I recall the “use your real name” discussion, and I think I argued against it, pointing out that not everyone has a tenured job and otherwise can afford to spout controversial opinions in places where search engines can link them to their meatspace identity. FWIW, I didn’t get banned. I did just quietly drop out a year or so back.
Coyne can ban people for any trivial reason he wants, and I actually think it’s good to police comments.
My objection, though, would be to the silent banning. I found it really annoying that people were claiming I was banning people left and right, because I was transparent about it, and documented every ban on a page on the site…which was used to feed the lie that I ban every critic who appears here. Coyne, on the other hand, just quietly blocks you…and despite the fact that he seems to ban people far more frequently than I do (which is fine!), it was rare to see anyone make similar claims about him.
So I basically got rid of the public ban list. But still, if I ban someone, I announce it in BIG RED LETTERS in the comment thread.
Oh, my. Why am I not surprised? Not in the slightest.
Here’s my funny story: I was an admirer of Coyne, a daily reader of his blog, and his popular book was one of the first general biology books I bought for my kids when they were old enough to understand Evolutionary concepts. I’m not a frequent commenter on any blog but in December 2013 Coyne posted a rather nasty video of a woman being attacked and scratched on the face by a cat. He seemed to celebrate the fact that the woman deserved it because she was trying to kick the cat. I thought the evident glee was inappropriate and I posted a short note asking for a little empathy for the woman, who seemed to be genuinely hurt (the cat seemed fine) . I said, “To jump to the conclusion that this woman was being mean and she deserved to be attacked by the cat is totally unwarranted. It’s obvious from the video that she’s only trying to get the cat to leave, and when you read the story you realize she had a good reason to do so and wasn’t trying to hurt the cat. A little more empathy for humans would not be a bad thing.”
Some responded, defending Coyne’s reaction and I tried to respond when I realized that my comment was deleted and I was banned, evidently for good. What I thought was odd is how another commenter knew that my comment wasn’t going to make it because it was apparently disparaging to cats (you can read references to my disappeared comment and how it was disappeared “reasonably”; I like cats just fine but, from what I gathered subsequently, apparently cats cannot be criticized at Coyne’s blog and nobody is allowed to ever write the word “dog”).
So, I was banned because of what seems to me a rather innocuous comment of little import or consequence. That’s why I’m not surprised that he’s deleting substantive comments and banning their authors: If you bother to delete comments and ban people for throwaway comments about cats, then you’re petty and vindictive enough to do the same for any comment. It’s a shame. I liked the guy until I saw this nasty side of his personality.
Really? Use your real name? What is your real name?
The name on my birth certificate is “Paul Zachary Myers”. I was named after my alcoholic grandfather. I was called “PZ” until I went off to kindergarten, and was told that “PZ” was my baby name and my real name was “Paul”. NO IT WASN’T. But I lived most of my life with that weird name, and it always felt alien to me. The internet let me use MY name.
I know a lot of people through this blog by their pseudonyms — and those are their real names as far as I’m concerned. They chose them. They weren’t assigned them when they were a shapeless little spud with no personality.
The only thing I would insist on is continuity. Don’t use a random set of letters and numbers that you’re going to throw away — define your internet identity, use a name that is tied to that identity (even if it isn’t on your social security card), and if you change it, because after all you might change, then let your friends know.
Almost everyone here is already using their REAL NAMES. They just aren’t the names filed at their church or social security office or the IRS. And that’s fine with me.
There was an unpleasant incident a few years ago, during the great You’re Not Helping sockpuppet kerfuffle, when Coyne edited somebody’s comment in-place to make them say things they hadn’t said – no typographical change, no note the editing had occurred, just a straight falsification. He then defended this on the usual grounds that it’s his site. I got blocked in the subsequent argument when I asked whether this my-place-my-arbitrary-rules attitude was the sort of morality he’d be providing to his children – I think his daughter was just a few years old then – and I got the all-caps HOW DARE YOU TELL ME HOW TO RAISE MY CHILDREN thud ban. I’ve never bothered going back there since – what’s the point of making or reading comments on a site where the owner falsifies what people said?
Well…. Coyne owes no one any explanation. He can ban whomever, for whatever (or no) reason. Just as he can refuse anyone entry into his house.
Same goes for here. PZ could wake up grumpy (or not!), see this comment, and *BLAM*, I’m banned. And that’s okay. I can write on my own blog(s), participate on other forums or just crawl into my shell and cry myself to sleep.
To think that I have a “right” to know why I was banned is a delusion, because I do not.
Grr…preview isn’t working for me and I forgot to close that pesky
em.@7: Yes, this, and I’ve thought so since Usenet days. You need an online ID that is consistent (so people know they’re always dealing with the same person), and which at extreme need (like the kind that requires a court order) can be tied to a flesh-and-blood person. But that’s about it.
Coyne has long banned people for defending views he disagrees with (for example). He can do what he likes with his blog, but one should not think that he encourages, or even tolerates, debate at his website.
I have had comments removed from WEIT on occasion. Notably, a couple that argued against his position that human races objectively exist. His claim was that they were removed because I was being “snarky”. Possibly, since that’s my nature. But I was responding to a very snarky line in his original post, and I think I was at the least less snarky that he was.
So, yeah, he can do that. But it’s not a virtue.
Well… on one hand, “I was being perfectly civil, guv” is a bit of a questionable line – I’ve seen plenty of “perfectly civil” commenters get booted off here, and justifiably so, so that part seems a bit iffy. On the other, it kinda seems like, unless you’re already blocked for other reasons and can’t comment at all, you should be allowed to point out errors, even if your last 80 comments were needless trolling.
Ok… what? Am I still asleep? That sounds like something I would invent for someone in a dream. I don’t even…
I am unable to comment on Coyne’s blog. I presume that I am blocked.
I have disagreed with Coyne on occasion. But my disagreement was mild, in the sense that I never tried to make it into a prolonged argument. My comments were always polite.
I occasionally comment on UD (Uncommon Descent). And I disagree there, too. My rate of posting at Coyne’s blog was even lower than my rate of posting at UD.
I have never been banned at UD. So Coyne’s banning practices seem to me to be worse than the banning practices of ID/creationist blogs.
Absolutely.
Of course it is.
Yep. Coyne blocks me because I made a comment on Butterflies and Wheels (NOT on WEIT) that I thought he was too fawning towards the Israeli government. I guess that could be construed as talking behind his back, but he makes comments about other bloggers on his blog, so I don’t really see that as a valid objection. Coyne is just really thin-skinned and rather immature.
I still read Coyne’s blog but rarely comment except on music videos or something of that nature. I would definitely be banned for supporting the SJWs, for example–a while back he posted some snarky cartoon about SJWs. You cannot disagree with him about whether Dawkins is sexist. You cannot dislike Hirsi Ali. You cannot diss Sam Harris. I love the nature photos, the silly things about cats (which I know many people cannot endure), and the discussions of atheism and separation of church and state. Also I love the food posts, because I am a foodie! His blog, his rules, but sometimes I wonder at his inability to tolerate such things as criticism of Dawkins, etc.
A public forum is not a private home, a private fraternity or a private club. The Internet is now like any other public accommodation. Banning anyone from participating in a public forum capriciously is wrong. No, it’s not illegal (at least not yet; I won’t be surprised if eventually Facebook, becoming as ubiquitous and often necessary to conduct business as it is, is regulated like a public accommodation). If you want a private online club, put it behind a wall and accessible only by approved username and password. When the discussion is public it should be open to anyone who’s reasonable and behaves, just like any public forum. Granted, comment threads should be policed and those who disrupt should be evicted, just like you would evict some blowhard insulting people in a restaurant.
It hurts to be banned. It’s a rejection, any which way you look at it; especially when you feel it’s undeserved and it’s by someone you thought was reasonable. So, an ethical person with the power to police comment threads will yield the power judiciously. Coyne does it in a really nasty, vindictive and petty way.
I’ve always found the debate about kin selection and multi-level selection quite fascinating but I’m not an evolutionary biologist and it’s tough to follow in all its technical glory from the source papers. I’d love if you did a post on this topic, PZ, aimed at the level your science posts typically are aimed at.
@ #18
“When the discussion is public it should be open to anyone who’s reasonable and behaves”
And the decision as to what is reasonable and what behavior will be tolerated is up to the person in charge of the discussion. It’s certainly not up to the person who is whining, “but I’m being reasonable.”
Athywren, Social Justice Weretribble:
Nope, You’re not dreaming. Coyne actually proudly posted this and banned a first time commenter, explaining that “From ian: why do you put a star in dog; My response: Every regular reader here knows the answer.” That was it. Coyne banned Ian because Ian had the audacity to spell out “dog.”
There’s something deeply disturbing about the guy. Even if you believe he has a perfect right to ban anyone for any trivial reason, it still doesn’t follow that banning people for thoroughly inconsequential nonsense doesn’t reveal something about Coyne’s personality. Hate to psychoanalyze people, but people who use authority capriciously, abusing any power to hurt, are compensating for something.
@21: Um, I think it was the other commenter being banned (which also seems a bit hair-trigger to me, though for an offense worse than merely spelling out “dog”). I note that I commented on that thread. I always thought the aversion to dogs was just an in-joke, anyway.
@ #21
“That was it. Coyne banned Ian because Ian had the audacity to spell out “dog.””
Bullshit. Even the link you provide shows that is not true.
” Hate to psychoanalyze people,”
but I’ll do it anyway, with pleasure.
Eamon, you may be right. I can’t be sure who was banned. But in the thread about the attacking cat which resulted in my being banned-by-Coyne, it’s obvious that the regulars know that there are special (and rather arbitrary) rules that can get you banned. Coyne may mean them as an inside joke, but it’s still a nasty thing to do — and time-consuming too; I don’t have a blog, but going around banning people left and right seems like too much work to me. It’s an odd thing to be engaged in. The motivation escapes me.
I was also banned from WEIT for civilly disagreeing over a small point in a post. Not only that, I was called a “hack” by one of the regular blog commenters, responded strongly but civilly, and I was the one that got banned.
In response to the content of this article, Dr. Allen contends that a main misinterpretation of NTW is that NTW suggest in the first article that kin selection and inclusive fitness are unimportant in general. I have read their article several times and that is an inescapable inference of the paper based on the language they use. At best it is a bait-and-switch to now say that this is an incorrect interpretation. Most people who read that paper, including those who have no dog in the fight, come away with an interpretation that NTW are suggesting that inclusive fitness theory has severely limited value. If you write something and the large majority come away with a similar interpretation, what is more likely: that you wrote it correctly and most people read it incorrectly, or that you wrote something incorrectly and most people interpreted it correctly?
You’re quite right. Only one was banned so we don’t know if Ian was the one. I assumed so because of my own experience. My declarative sentence “That was it. Coyne banned Ian because Ian had the audacity to spell out “dog” was obviously wrong.
And talking about psychoanalyzing people, I must wonder why you seem so hostile. Can’t you just tell me I’m wrong in a civil manner? Why assume I’m being an asshole instead of merely wrong?
“Only one was banned so we don’t know if Ian was the one.”
If you had bothered to read Coyne’s reply to the first comment you would know which one it was. Instead, you prefer to find something “deeply disturbing” about Coyne. It’s a blog, for crying out loud.
johnrockoford, have you ever heard the term ‘sealioning’? Because what you’re doing in your second paragraph there? That’s sealioning. Whining about tone will make you no friends. I was nuetral on you until that point. Now I’m fairly certain you ARE an asshole, though to what degree will depend on your future replies.
Or rather, more accurately, I was neutral because my eyes skipped over previous comments of yours. Now I”m entirely certain you’re an asshole.
You and I must have a different concept of morality. I pay for my own domain names and hosting. I write much of my own code and put sweat equity into my sites — you have paid not a dime and contributed not an ounce of sweat towards maintaining the sites. You can claim to have the right to access (read or write on) my forums, but in reality, you have no such right. I can ban you from doing either, because you don’t own my sites; I do.
You admit there is no legal recourse, so the only thing left is a moral construct. You say you have the moral right to post on my forums; I say otherwise. Since I hold the keys to my kingdom, my word overrides yours.
Your remedy is to fund your own forums, write your own code, and manage your own side. Post whatever you want, ban or allow whomever you wish.
Yep, simple civility is a very poor measure of obnoxiousness or not.
Coyne did not ban me, but quickly deleted a comment I made about basic arithmetic when he said I’ll quote just two sentences from Ruse’s email: … and quoted a number of sentences other than two.
I’ve been thrown out of lots better places than his, so the deletion didn’t bother me so much – but I’ve wondered ever since why he still hasn’t corrected that “two”.
Of course he’s free to police his own blog however he likes but it’s a bit hypocritical when he rants about universities creating safe spaces for students while running his blog as his own little safe space.
I think it’s kinda funny Coyne is blocking so many people (which, of course, he’s free to do), since he likes complaining about college “safe spaces” and how “political correctness” is supposedly stifling discussions.
FWIW, I comment on his blog occasionally, sometimes pointing out errors or disagreeing with his posts and have never had an issue with banning or deletion of a comment. Knowing that he likes civility in the comments section, I typically take a less snarky tone than usual.
Wut? Why the fuck would anyone care?
I’ve always found it amusing that the folks who decry PZ for (supposedly) “banning people for disagreeing” seem to give Coyne a free pass for actually doing just that.
And let’s not forget the hilarity of Coyne’s pronouncement that if you agreed with Adam Lee’s piece about Richard Dawkins, then you shouldn’t even be READING Coyne’s blog. Oops, website. I took him up on his suggestion and deleted my WEIT bookmarks (I’d already been banned as a commenter), and haven’t missed it.
@ #34
“I think it’s kinda funny Coyne is blocking so many people”
The number of people being blocked on WEIT is being much exaggerated here. I find myself in the odd position of defending Coyne’s blog here, while, in a recent thread, defending Pharyngula on WEIT, (where the comments about PZ and Pharyingulites are worse than what’s being said here about Coyne.) I really need to get a life.
I find Coyne’s application of his comment policy to be capricious enough that I don’t bother commenting there anymore. I’m always civil, but you get the feeling that you don’t know what will set him off.
However, I don’t think he’s any worse than a host of other bloggers, and he’s certainly better than many. I just think he’d have a more entertaining comment section if he were less prickly and more consistent.
Still, it’s his place and his rules. I’m just explining why I don’t read him as often as I used to.
tomh:
How so? i think there is a distinct lack of numbers here. Which seems to be a small part of the problem, with the silent bannings and all.
tomh:
How would you know?
Ha! I was blocked during the Dawkins’ sexism fiasco. Jerry gets to do whatever he wants in his blog, but i get to critisize him for using the excuse of civility to silence dissenting views that he doesn’t want around. He is pretty much ok with a lack of civility as long as it’s coming from someone he agrees with, though…
He does not like being told he is wrong…even though he is…with some frequency….
Woo boy, I’ve put a lot of thought into comment moderation. My own approach is to start from the premise that everyone’s time is finite and precious, and that each comment is a transfer of information between all parties viewing it. This changes moderation into a cost/benefit analysis: what do I and my readers gain from the time spent reading a comment, relative to the time saved by not reading it?
Someone expressing a view you know to be false can be worth posting, if your readers can gain some insight from it. If someone starts sealioning, the info content drops as you repeat common knowledge. Insults themselves don’t contribute any information beyond “I’m angry,” but when done with style can be worth the LULZ.
While Coyne is free to moderate his blog as he sees fit, by preventing comments from someone qualified to contribute useful information he’s denying his readers that information, potentially leaving them ignorant of why that person is wrong. For a scientist hoping to educate the public, that’s bad form.
“I can’t read Coyne’s mind, so I don’t know exactly why he’s blocking people. Obviously, he has every right to moderate his blog however he chooses. But it hardly needs mentioning that censoring substantive disagreement goes against the principles of rational inquiry that Coyne espouses. ”
Correct. I commented there over about a two year period, never defending religion, only arguing various contentious point. But when I brought up the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, and pointed out various contentious, or at least ‘debatable’ points regarding, I could no longer post there. But rather than an insult, I took it as a complement, since Coyne obviously regarded my logic as a threat to his. (◕‿◕)
Unless one trolls, comments superfluously or excessively, banning is simply a way to avoid facing conflicting facts. As well, after posting several times at sensuouscurmudgeon.com, and with a healthy exchange with other commentors, at one point I was told, “You’ve had your say.” which raised some objections from the group, who had enjoyed debating with me over.
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/the-new-theory-of-improvident-design/
In short, debating is the key to knowledge, and both I and others benefit from it.
@ #40
The same way people know who say there are “so many” people being blocked.
It is quite correct that the blogger has the software to moderate any comments as they wish. This a defense of property rights, though. The blogger owns a piece of the public forum in our system, just like the National Review or the Washington Times. They don’t have to publish uncensored comments any more than a blogger does.
So, if Coyne wants to censor comments taking him to task for praising Nicholas Wade’s recent book A Troublesome Inheritance for establishing the validity of the concept of “race,” he certainly has the power to do so. I do think however we can validly argue this is not the exercise of free speech. A censored exchange in a public forum is not free speech. This like Coyne on a bull horn haranguing any crowd that he attracts, then gagging or ejecting any hecklers on his whim. Personally if I was going to soapbox I would hope I was mature enough to cope with criticism, just as I would expect the audience to refrain from abuse.
azhael @ 41
You are right. The regular commenters (and Jerry himself) are frequently rude and aggressive to people who disagree even mildly and politely but that’s apparently fine. Then Jerry demands apologies from people for trivial reasons and always includes a threat of a ban for non-compliance. It’s really bizarre and seems to be rapidly escalating. I only read the comments to see if anyone has pointed out the flaws in his posts but people rarely do and that seems to be the way they like it.
I think you’re imagining that. How many? So many. Just so. It pretty much means as many as there are, a number of some indefinite magnitude. It’s difficult to make exaggerations that way. There is some connotation that’s it a considerable number, perhaps more than the speaker may have expected, more than they would have liked, enough to be suggestive of a significant pattern, but however it’s used that still does not look like exaggerating an actual figure.
Ironically, only one person in the thread used the words “so many,” but you refer to “people” doing this “much,” which very clearly does mean more than one and apparently doing it a lot. Is that not exaggeration, or is it the right kind of exaggeration?
I think silent bannings are bad form, but I have also not had to deal with any significant number of comments over at my own blog.
As far as the ongoing debate about if bannings are right/wrong/anyone can say anything they want in someone else’s comments, I’m going to formally disagree with that notion. An analogy that has occurred to me as an alternative to the “this is my house, my rules” that will maybe clear up a point of confusion for those who disagree with that idea. Picture Google as a University, and Blogger is the dorm I have a room in. I can choose to leave my dorm room door open for anyone to enter, and people can stop by for tea and a chat and move on to the next room. If there’s a conversation going and someone walks in and starts taking a shit on the floor, I am within my rights to kick them out of my dorm room. I can’t and wouldn’t kick them off of Blogger or out of the University. But they would be unwelcome in the space that I get to call mine. That’s all the ban is, and deleting the comment(s) of that person who took the shit is just cleaning up the shit.
(Use of Blogger and Google because that’s where I’m hosted, but can apply elsewhere, I think.)
***
Credit to the “shit on the floor” part of that goes to various Pharyngulites, as I can’t remember who said it first.
****
I would be sad if PZ ever decided to banhammer me, as this is one of the few places in still socially active on the Internet, but he’s more than within his rights to do so. His space, he gets to pick who he wants to interact with. Plus, I’m pretty familiar with banhammer worthy comments here, so if I were to get banned, I probably deserved it.
Wait…he didn’t praise Wade’s book, did he? Not really?
I stopped reading WEIT a long time ago. Every time the topic comes up, it seems it was a good decision.
tomh #44
And by “people” you mean “that single person”, right?
I was blocked around the time of the whole Elevatorgate business, after 1 comment was deleted and 2-3 never came out of moderation. That’s fine, he gets to moderate his blog as he sees fit.
I wrote “Coyne is blocking so many people” and based this on two things: 1) I visit his blog frequently and have seen some cases 2) People here providing examples.
I do enjoy his blog (wouldn’t frequent it otherwise), but do wish the ban hammer was used less often. Coyne is, again, free to run his blog however he wishes though.
There is a name for this type of behavior: acquired situational narcissism.
For sure JC is reading this. I’m guessing I just got banned.
Quite the contrary: you’re describing Freeze Peach.
The relevant bits:
tomh,
Just going from this post, the comments, and the posts linked in the OP, there’s a pretty good start on a list:
From the OP:
Ben Allen
Burton Simon (though he isn’t certain if he’s completely banned)
From the comments to this post:
skeptico
stevenjohnson2
johnrockoford
moarscienceplz
gml0011
azhael
Improbable Joe
screechymonkey
From the linked Daylight Atheism post:
Arthur
ahermit
(unnamed third commenter)
From the post linked by @12:
physicalist
Steve Maitzen
And this is just a partial list, from just the folks who frequent this or other atheist blogs who bothered to mention it in these three blog posts.
So which of the above people are exaggerating or lying?
I read Coyne’s blog way back in the day, and yes I too got banned maybe 3 years ago? For general disagreement with whatever Coyne happened to be blogging about.
It’s definitely not an isolated incident. It was pretty easy to tell around the time I got banned that he wanted his comments section to be his cheering squad. I’d post a comment one day, check back the next day and scroll through, and find my comment and multitudes of others gone.
ALL RIGHT, NEXT PERSON TO CALL ME A POOPYHEAD GETS BANNED. Gotta maintain the cheering squad.
I lied. You can call me worse names if you want.
Gosh, you could even call me a liar now and be perfectly correct!
@ #49
“he didn’t praise Wade’s book, did he? Not really?”
No.
I have read this book, and I think it’s pretty awful. – Coyne
In my experience it’s been true that criticizing Jerry Coyne’s friends on WEIT will get you moderated and/or banned without explanation. A few yeas ago on WEIT I said Steven Pinker doesn’t know enough about epigenetics to criticize it intelligently. My longer, substantive comments were ignored of course but this flippant remark met with a comment from Jerry Coyne assuring everyone that Pinker is a really smart guy and how dare I…or something to that effect. Another time my comments were not showing up on his site, so I emailed to ask why. His response for moderating/banning me–the specifics of which I’ll keep confidential–accused me of derailing a thread by calling one of his friends a pedophile or rapist or something. I was confused as I had no recollection of doing that and politely asked for when or in what thread this occurred. He never responded or apologized. I think I’m under permanent moderation now for something I’m innocent of. This whole culturing a living room atmosphere is one-sided bullshit anyway as there’s no expectation that the host of WEIT show any hospitality to his non-BFF guests.
Time for a new Roolz (sic): Criticizing, appearing to criticize, or reminding Jerry Coyne of someone who criticizes Jerry Coyne’s friends on Jerry Coyne’s website will get your comment trashed and you moderated and/or banned.
PZ, you are a… a… CAT MINION.
So there. THBPBPTHPT!
That bad enough* a name for you?
*Not really, as I’m a cat minion myself, and proud of it.
#60: Oh, good. That’s a relief.
I got banned at some point during World Cup 2014 so chances are it was for being less than enthusiastic about something he raved about (or vice versa) with a bit of a know-it-all tone (which I definitely still have when the subject is soccer).
So, no complaints on my part but… silent ban, I don’t see much value in being able to keep commenting so I never requested it be lifted. I still read the site though, mostly for links on poor philosophy/theology as I enjoy reading him and others take that stuff apart regardless.
hjhornbeck:
Very well put. Exactly right.
Usernames!:
Obviously we do have a different concept of morality. To me morality is how you treat other people, trying to cause as little harm as possible — basically, golden rule, empathy, and all that. I don’t doubt your legal right to ban anyone from your own blog and I don’t have a legal right to demand that I post on your blog. How you use that property right is what is moral or not. If you don’t use it with empathy, considering whether you’re causing harm, I think you’re not using it morally (yes, in the grand scheme of things banning someone from a freakin blog is hardly the stuff of great venality; but rejection is hurtful for most people).
Ah, your feelings are hurt. Tsk, Tsk. I’m certain we can dig up a tiny violin….
I self-banned from Coyne’s blog about a year ago. Not due to any one post of his or because I just couldn’t even with the fucking cat memes anymore, but through an accumulation of irritation at his passive-aggressive sniping at FtB and feminists in general (even in posts that were entirely unrelated to SJ), his victim-blaming of Palestinians and his general prickliness whenever challenged or seeing a friend challenged, over just about anything. His siding with the manly hysteria (histeria?) contingent during E-gate (especially his outspoken support for Abbie, patron saint of the Pit) was my first indication that we didn’t see eye-to-eye on a few things; after that it all started to add up.
Regarding the silent expulsions and ban-happy moderation, meh. If he wants a sanitised commentariat, it’s his clubhouse and he pays for it. He doesn’t owe anyone a soap-box; it’s just that how much rope you give someone who disagrees with you, especially when you have complete control of their communication with you, is a solid indicator of character. People whine endlessly about PZ’s ban-happiness but I’d rather take my chances here than at WEIT.
Coyne has always been a good soldier for science and against creationism & the vacuity of the Sophisticated Theology™ trade, but he’s always been highly defensive when criticised, even when it was done so gently. I’m well aware my lack of clicks won’t be doing any harm to Coyne; I just found it was no longer worth the good posts to have to scan past, among other things, the snide mentions of certain “drama bloggers” (which, considering how much drama he’s engaged in himself, seems slightly ironic).
Hanks_Says:
I think this nails it down nicely.
Really? That’s what got your goat and had to share?
Personally I really don’t give a shit what some douchenozzle on the Internets thinks or says about me (just see above; waste your time and call me an asshole and you just told me you have nothing meaningful to contribute and I can ignore you from now on).
However — get your violin out — for most people it hurts to be banned. Not for you, since you’re such a tough guy — and, yes, in the grand scheme of things it’s probably less serious than a paper-cut. But it’s a rejection, any which way you look at it and I don’t know anyone who likes rejection.
Were you here before log-in was required to comment? It was the fucking Wild West™. There was no way NOT to ban. We even did some surviver thing where the commentariat ganged up and banned the noxious. That shit was hilarious.
Sweet jebus, NoR, we got us a chew toy.
@Kamaka:
What? No. PZ suggested people nominate candidates for banning based on how annoying they were to the nominator. There was much discussion, not least because some people were obviously writers of comments well-beloved by many while also being nominated by others as thoroughly annoying. Then PZ did a reveal where it was discussed that the point of the exercise was that we have different ideas of what makes a good comment and/or commenter …and thus we shouldn’t be quick to judge. It was partly to get feedback on his style which attempted to make banning rare and permit the conversation to turn rude so long as it was somewhat productive and no one was being deliberately oppressive. The other part was community self-education.
I can’t remember if he even ended up banning anyone at the end. I don’t think he actually did.
Moreover, while PZ can’t read everything and thus relies to a certain extent on people drawing his attention to ban-worthy behavior, he has his own standards. He doesn’t ban because Tony! tells him to ban or Josh thinks a commenter is a complete waste of space. He actually reads the comment containing the allegedly bankable behavior and makes up his own mind.
It would be a bit silly to say that he is immune to psychological priming or that he doesn’t have commenters he trusts more or less or that if he did have differential trust for commenters, that the different levels of trust could never-ever result in approaching a potentially ban-worthy comment with a bit more skepticism or a bit more generosity based on those recommendations. I’m not saying PZ is immune to human interaction here.
But he makes up his own fucking mind. There is no one here -alone or in aggregate*- that can ban anyone here… save PZ.
*And I say that as someone who actually was stuck in aggregate when my parents poured a concrete patio decades ago.
Addendum: among the nominations was a self-nomination.
I am not at all sure that I remember who did that, but what memory of it I do have makes me think it was Anthony K (then Brownian).
Crip Dyke: Are you referring to Survivor Pharyngula or something else?
This is how I remember that event: Survivor mostly seemed like a joke at first, few people took it very seriously, and it didn’t seem like PZ took it seriously. Towards the start, there were plenty of people naming themselves or good commenters ironically. Some would name a few irksome trolls of the time. And then came Kwok. I think he was jokingly nominated by some, seriously by others, and his already irksome. But in the course of getting voted for, he flipped his shit, arguing in such a persistent and irritating fashion, acting ludicrously and invoking his prestigious high school, demanding some form of restitution (something about a camera) and on and on and on, Eventually people started seriously voting for him and, whether or not Survivor Pharyngula was meant to be serious from the start, it resulted in a serious ban for the Kwok.
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/John_Kwok
(Skimming the article, I seemed to forget that he threatened PZ with losing a lot of Facebook friends were he to ban Kwok. He is obviously a man with a lot of clout)
Were you referring to a different event?
@70, Kamaka: yup. I was here when “here” was back at Scienceblogs.com, through the days of Molly and the Endless Thread (I had the ‘nym mandrellian back then). Shit did indeed get heated. Still does, but sadly most of the heat these days tends to come from dealing with MRAssholes as opposed to the endless parade of creationismists and IDiots from days of yore.
[insert nostalgic comment]
I was never banned at WEIT, but I do think I had a few comments removed because I disagreed or pointed out something wrong (as in, factually wrong on some space physics topic, an area I’m an expert in and he isn’t), and I’m pretty sure I was in comment moderation even though I rarely posted except when I had actual scientific expertise to weigh in. I can’t remember specifics and it would have been several years ago. I have refreshed a comment section and seen comments by other posters disappear when they substantively disagree with him. What I can say for sure is I haven’t visited his blog since he said anyone who disagrees with him about Dawkins shouldn’t be reading his blog (see screechymonkey #36 above): I thought about that, and how I had to wade through a bunch of passive-aggressive comments about SJWs and FtB and bullshit about boots to find the one post in 20 that was actually interesting, and I said ‘okay man, your blog your rules’ and never went back. Haven’t missed it a bit.
FWIW If I just had to make a critical comment somewhere I have FAR more confidence that ‘banhappy’ PZ would let them stand than Jerry Coyne would.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/16/survivor-pharyngula-day-one/
Holy crap, John “You owe me a Leica!” Kwok! Now I’m feeling nostalgic :D
There were two Pharyngula: Survivor events. The first was real and involved the infamous Kwok, who threatened PZ with a loss of FB friends and then demanded PZ buy him a camera (seriously) . The second was PZ trying to teach everyone a lesson by lying to them (to be fair, it was a good lesson).
PZ and The Poopyheads.
Great band name.
I’m not convinced by the “rejection hurts my feelings” argument. Each time I’m called a race-traitor I relish that rejection. Then there’s the deep rifts and 100 other examples.
If a ban hurts your feels it’s because you invested a sense of betrayal into a relationship you didn’t know anything about. (Except in edge cases you wouldn’t have been banned otherwise, if there was actual loyalty owed to you for some mutually acknowledged reason, right?)
firstapproximation: And that explains that. (Either forgot about the latter or was not reading that regularly in 2010).
Thank you, chigau (違う)
@ Hank_Says
and heddle had a voice
@72: I seem to recall one commenter (conciousness razor? probably not) who both got nominated for banning AND awarded a Molly.
You’re right. Janine knows the name.
Eamon Knight
that was truthmachine
IIRC, Truth Machine was very close to being the only Molly winner to be banned.
/nostalgia
@ chigau (違う)
Yup. There was another one.
Once again, web archive has the comments for the threads in 2010:
http://web.archive.org/web/20111123060145/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/survivor_pharyngula_the_auditi.php
http://web.archive.org/web/20111123062936/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/survivor_pharyngula_the_second.php
http://web.archive.org/web/20110101171754/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/survivor_pharyngula_the_anti-c.php
Ya, he wrote some blog post once and someone criticised some of it by going into a discussion of some psychology or soemthing.
Then Coyne replied to that person with something like “jebus this is just living room talk, you don’t have to over analyse it”.
So I (having previously been able to post comments there) replied with a “jebus” right back to him, because his complaint seemed to lack substance adn was just a whine that he had gotten something wrong and was being told about it. (I don’t know what the post was, too bad becaue it would be useful for people to make up their own minds about whether my criticism was warranted or not).
My post never made it. And I could no longer post there. I guess I got banned.
@ Eamon Knight & chigau (違う)
Walton.
Owlmirror, too.
@screechymonkey @ #36:
That’s when I deleted my bookmark and subscription to Coyne’s BLOG as well. Don’t know if I’m banned… don’t care.
The whole “it’s not a blog” thing always annoyed me, though.
Sorry Coyne. It’s a blog. It’s not a website, it’s not a virtual store… it’s a fucking blog. You wanna website? Check out Squarespace. What you have, Coyne, is a B. L. O. G. blog.
Also, the not spelling out dog thing is weird. I fucking adore cats, but Coyne’s thing against dogs always came across as a tad bit more than “humorous” to me… but then maybe that’s because I love dogs, too…
Also… johnrockoford? You’re wrong. Blog’s and personal websites are the DOMAIN of the owner(s). They are the rulers… the gods… of that domain. You have zero right to participate on a person’s site. You have a privilege, and that privilege can be taken away at the sole discretion of the owner(s). Although I’ve only had to enforce it once, my own blog has a somewhat strict commenting policy, and I will enforce an even harsher one on certain posts.
Websites are not countries. They are not the USA. They are not bound by the first amendment. You do not have teh right of free speech, or of participation, on any blog or website.
Kamaka
Walton?!‽
When?
Where?
The Owlmirror Incident, I remember.
Perhaps I miscommunicated. Owlmirror has the links about the survivor banning game, an “incident” was never my implication. Sorry, Owlmirror.
Walton was a long time ago. Nearly banned then Mollied.
@ 95
The incident at the time might have been ‘Tis Himself.
In the end, truth machine was all volume and no content.
Kamaka
Once upon a time
Owlmirror mucked with HTML…
Now that you mention it….
What the hell was it you did, Owlmirror? I do remember you made a mess of things and borked the entire Internet.
Hmm. I was reading pretty sporadically from 2008 to 2010 (though I was reading). I am of course as familiar with Kwok as Kwok is with Stuyvesant High School. Guess I just somehow missed that Kwok’s banning came in the midst of a Survivor Pharyngula event. How did I miss that? I don’t know.
Honestly I think Coyne doesn’t keep a banlog or bother announcing when he bans or deletes comments because the sheer amount of comments he deletes and bans he executes already constitutes a full-time job.
I am mildly grateful for the way he handles his blog though, as many have said, as soon as he went passive-aggressive on social issues I was already considering leaving as the sheer amount of boot and cat BS was always irksome to me from the start. The ban just helped me get pushed over the edge and stop visiting his blog entirely, as opposed to skimming it biweekly.
Barb. It was Barb who was awful. She was the first voted out.
Only in your delusional mind. Who gives a shit about your whining? NOBODY HERE CARE ABOUT YOUR WHINING.
#60 Next sentence “I have read this book, and I think it’s pretty awful. One part of the book, though—Wade’s discussion of genetically differentiated subgroups, whether or not you want to call them ‘races’—is not too bad.”
“I think Steve and I are pretty much agreed about this book. In fact, I can’t see anything that I disagree with in his tweet, which looks like a short precis of what I said. . ‘Exploded’ is not too strong a word given the comments of people on this and other post that imply that race really is a social construct. What we’re seeing is the taboo in action!
I’m pretty sure that with the words ‘going beyond the data,’ Steve is referring to the thesis that societal differences and transformations are due to genetic evolution.” “Steve” here is Pinker, not Sailer.
Your call as to whether Coyne’s {and Pinker’s} remarks aren’t a diplomatic endorsement of the theory (rather the way Coyne endorses EP in principle while rarely venturing to support any particular work, on the grounds they go beyond the evidence.) Also your call as to whether Wade was better on race theory than race applications, though I can’t see how any of it was any good.
“Quite the contrary: you’re describing Freeze Peach.
The relevant bits:
Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere.
[snip]
Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to.
There are countless people who don’t understand this, or at least pretend not to understand it, and who insist that their free speech does include all these spurious rights…. The social-justice community has a punning homophonic description of this whiny, entitled behavior: not free speech, but ‘freeze peach’.”
No blogger is compelled to invite comments by adding a comments section. But extending the invitation does entitle comment. Fortunately, no one, not the blogger nor the other commenters are required to pay any attention (“listen”}to the comment. I don’t know how social justice community comes in here. I think the logic of your position is that you can do with your property what you want, including pretend to be a public forum. And anybody who doesn’t like it can buy their own domain, just as anybody who wants to exercise free speech can buy their own newspaper or radio/TV network or air time or publish their own book or rent their own auditorium or pay the bond for their own parade.
No, not entitle, allows at their whim. Funny how some people don’t grasp the obvious.
chigau @#99:
“Once”?
Kamaka @#100: IT WAS PERFORMANCE ART . . . !!
Thanks for being a good sport, Owlmirror. It was funny then, and I’m having a good laugh now.
Of course, it was better you than me.
Owlmirror
Can’t do alttitlewhatever on the iPad.
But that HTMLstuff was kinda funny
I really enjoy it when scientist, in this case evolutionary scientist, battle about explaining observable phenomena with explanations unique to their own field. This one is not nearly as enjoyable as the “junk DNA” debate where both sides are beating the dead horse (including ours truly PZ) but I would totally agree that NTW just made remarks to a special case with exceptional assumptions (independence from degree of relatedness) that in not generally relevant. None of the cited sources mentioned that relatedness in the same hive is unequal, at least for ants and probably bees afaik, for the queen stores sperm of multiple donors. I am not sure if they incorporated this in their model, someone more genetic lecture me on that please.
How more genetic one be does?
sawells @#8: You are confused. Coyne has no kids. Sounds more like Greg Laden.
CD @#73: it was me.
Coyne’s banned me twice. *shrug*
He’s a narcissistic control freak. Whatever.
yeah
I gave an actual link
Welcome to the club, PZ. It looks like it might even become a mark of distinction to be banned by Jerry.
In my own case, I had the gall to suggest that the reasons the burqa, hijab, etc are required in some countries are the same why various clothing is required in most other places, differing only in degree, not in kind. This is obvious to anyone who thinks about it (just compare the reasons given), and I’ve mentioned this in comments on several other blogs, usually with little or no reaction, though occasionally someone said “you know, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head”. No other blogger—some of whom I disagree with much more than Jerry—was offended enough to even mention that I might be crossing some line I shouldn’t be.
You can see what I did manage to post here, including several people defending me (who were not banned—maybe that would have been too obvious): https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/ditching-the-hijab-in-iran/ and I wrote about this on Sean Carroll’s blog, which he graciously allowed to stay up: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/11/11/unsolicited-advice-becoming-a-science-communicator/ so just read it and weep. (In both cases, just search for my name.)
I’m commenting here because this is a big problem. Sure, Jerry can do what he wants and no-one can claim the right to comment there based on free speech. It is somewhat ironic, though, that Jerry otherwise claims that discussion is good and so on. What really annoys me is the silent banning. Most readers won’t notice it. By allowing comments only from those who agree with him, or who don’t but are obvious jerks, Jerry is using one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the book: It’s much more effective to tell only part of the truth than to lie. I’ve since received some emails (my email address is easy to find and I comment under my own name) from others mentioning similar problems with Jerry.
His view of reality is just distorted. What a shame; I read his famous book and enjoyed it, which is how I came to his blog, IIRC (perhaps vice versa). I don’t think I’ll be buying his new one, not only because I don’t think that I will learn much from it. Another example: He posted a story about how he was surprised that, while at an airport in Canada (and even tried to put a racist spin on it: those damned Canadians etc), a) he thought it was OK to cut in line because he was late for his flight (other folks might be late too, Jerry) and b) he thought he was being polite by asking just the first person in the line, since he was cutting only in front of him. Of course the others were affected. Did Jerry even realize that? No, at least not until some comments steered him in the right direction. Another piece of evidence that he has a distorted view of reality and thinks that he is somehow more important than others. What a shame.
I exchanged a couple of emails with Jerry which I won’t reproduce here, in which he basically told me to shut up and mind my own business. I asked him to at least have the guts and say publicly that he had banned me and why. He didn’t. The moderation then disappearing is exactly what happened to me.
Another example: He often points out that Palestinian violence is often worse than Israeli violence. Fair enough. But he then says that because of this people shouldn’t be criticizing the Palestinians as much. Then someone pointed out that the death penalty in other countries is worse (because of how it is carried out and/or the crimes for which it is punishment) than in the States so, by his own logic, Jerry shouldn’t criticize the death penalty in the States. He didn’t even see it when someone pointed out that he was a very black pot complaining about the low albedo of a grey kettle.
Edit: But he then says that because of this people shouldn’t be criticizing the Palestinians as much.
Obviously, this should be: But he then says that because of this people shouldn’t be criticizing the Israelis as much.
Coyne’s been doing this for years. He blocks and bans people who express any criticism of his views, whether it be on science, Muslims or Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. It is of course woefully hypocritically considering that he claims to be a hardliner on free speech.
Wow. I had no idea I was in such good company. Maybe he should write a post called “Why Disagreement is Banned.”
NoR@104
Not only do I not understand the depth of enmity that Rockford’s seemingly commonsense position has inspired, I have to say I don’t actually understand how it is any different than the apparent consensus position of this thread.
Yes, people have complaints. Yes, the consensus opinion of it is Coyne’s blog, and he can run it as he wants. Then comes the magic “but” and a list of whines about rejection from Rockford. Very hypocritical to the concept that Coyne runs his blog his way, and it must be accepted. At least that is how I see it.
“can” in the sense that it’s within his legal rights—
Rockford: yes
consensus: yes
“can” in the sense that it’s ethical behaviour to do so—
Rockford: no
consensus: no
Still not getting it.
“I am a hard-liner when it comes to free speech: I think that no speech should be banned or criminalized save speech meant to incite imminent violence.” Jerry Coyne
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/are-the-french-free-speech-laws-hypocritical/
PZ @ 5:
Well, the claim you only ban people publicly is lost on me I’m afraid. Not that I was surprised you’d ban me without comment given how sensitive to perceived personal slights you seem to be, but I did find it pretty funny back in January to read you criticizing Jerry Coyne for being passive-aggressive and then passive-aggressively banning me! I guess you have lived in Minnesota for long enough to pass as a native, eh? Not that I care personally, but I do think some attention should be paid to you not quite walking the talk you’re talking here. You’re free to run your blog however you like as you say, of course. But for someone who I got to know as “Professor Jeykell” years ago, you’ve certainly turned into “Blogger Hyde” lately. Have a nice day. Oh, and April Fools! (I can pass for Minnesotan too, when the occasion calls for it, and it seems appropriate enough now.)
Is anyone else having trouble posting right here anything longer than a few lines? (Here I go, whining again).
johnrockoford
You probably used a word that tripped an automatic filter.
If there is nothing wrong with your comment, PZ will probably release it.
Thanks for the reply chigau; I’m new to this. I did use some profanity ironically. I thought it was OK. I’ll edit and resubmit.
vewqan, I appreciate your comment because I’m also at a loss. The evident anger, the name calling (one person decided I’m an asshole, which I may very well be, but he never even bothered to explain why, thus contributing exactly zero to the discussion) and the obsession with the fact that I said that being banned can hurt one’s feelings. How is that even controversial? A person spends time in a social environment, gets to know other people, makes connections, and an online forum becomes a hangout where everybody knows everybody else’s pseudonym. Then your comments are disappeared and you’re banned. It doesn’t feel good. I was a very infrequent commenter at WEiT, so I can imagine what a regular commenter would feel.
So, my feelings were hurt and I said as much. So what? Sure, for some that makes me a whiny little jerk (Hi NoR!). But how does that change the conversation and why is it even worthy of repeated attacks?
In terms of the issue at hand, a lot of the discussion has been about property rights: you own the blog, you do whatever the hell you please. Legally, right now, yes, there’s no doubt that indeed it’s your blog and you can do whatever you want. That doesn’t make your behavior above reproach though. I expected better, especially from a prominent scientist, rationalist and fellow atheist. I find Coyne’s behavior narcissistic and lacking in empathy. He can do whatever he wants and I can criticize him all I want. My problem is not with his property rights but with his ethics.
What may have confused some people is that I argued that blogs can be considered public accommodations. The whole “it’s mine I do whatever I want” argument for places where public online interactions take place sounds an awful lot like what a florist in Indiana must be arguing right now as a justification for preventing a customer he doesn’t approve of from using his services. It’s his store, right? Yet most of us recognize that a store accessible to the public is not the same as his house. We recognize that property rights are not the only rights (unless you’re a libertarian I guess).
Yes, of course, analogies between the outside and the online worlds are tricky and limited. No, I don’t think bloggers will soon be prevented from banning people for whatever reason they see fit. However, I can foresee litigation that may force a service like Twitter of Facebook to justify banning someone before they do so, since they’re fast becoming indispensable tools for business and social interaction. That’s the legal argument about public accommodations and sooner or later it’s bound to enter the Internet.
After reading this thread, I’m glad I’ve never commented at WEIT. I’d probably be banned for something in no time flat.
johnrockoford
Good job. You picked the right word.
#122: Wait. You’re complaining about being prevented from posting on my blog, by posting on my blog? I should ban you for a painful lack of self-awareness.
#123: Yes, you’re using a sexist word that is on my blocklist. Stop that.
Everyone should know that we use Akismet spam filtering software here, and sometimes it gets a little wacky and decides someone is a bad person based on manual blocking elsewhere, I think — it sometimes seems to decide on the basis of posting history or weird complaints elsewhere that a username or url belongs to a spammer, and then I have to manually unblock them here. Oolon is always getting blocked, no matter what I do; several of the regulars can tell you that every once in a while, even they get hung up for arbitrary reasons that none of us understand, and I have to manually approve their comments a time or two before Akismet gets the idea.
I don’t know if I’d bother sponging Wilford’s comments out of the spam trap now. They’re kind of not worth the effort if he’s going to be that stupid.
I’ve also been banned at Coyne’s blog. I was having a long but civil discussion AFAIK, and the other person grossly distorted something – I don’t remember what – and I called him out on it saying he lied. In the argument, Coyne was with them and against me. Apparently I at least got a warning in a comment that I shouldn’t call other people liars because it’s not “good atmosphere”, but I stood my ground and said that I’ll call out liars when they liar and when I have good evidence that they are lying. Then I was banned. Fun times.
As for “free speech”, there’s the legalistic reading, which I tend to favor. I like having very few legal restrictions.
There’s also Wheaton’s “don’t be a asshat” standard, which is true as well. It’s just that I don’t trust anyone else, government or not, to decide for me what is someone just being an asshat, vs an actually important issue. I’d rather decide for myself if the person is just being an asshat and block / ignore the person myself.
Then there’s the aspect regarding Coyne’s apparent hypocrisy, being a free speech hardliner but banning people at his blog; being against college safe spaces, but for having his blog be a safe space; purporting to be against rude and uncivil discussion, but allowing it when he agrees with the position and disallowing civil comments when it disagrees with his position; and so forth.
Finally, I think there’s some important nuance to the free speech argument which is lost in discussions like this. I’d suggest JS Mill’s On Liberty. I generally defend private property rights, and I generally have no qualm if you want to kick someone out of your house for any reason whatsoever, even if your motivation is to censor. I generally include that to other private property including blogs. However, JS Mill warns us to be careful to not take social shunning too far. The example I always like is the black lists of the McCarthy era. Social pressure can be far stronger than most government pressure, and for the reasons I’m against government censorship, I am also wary of extreme forms of social shunning such as McCarthy era blacklists.
fin
PZ @ 129:
I was formerly registered as davidwilford, not davewilford. It’s not as if you aren’t aware of thw possibility of reregistering, so you needn’t pretend otherwise. The former name doesn’t work anymore, and I sure don’t control that on your blog, you do. So either you did it or there’s another admin who did and I find that pretty unlikely given the circumstances.
davewilford @131:
Did you, by chance, miss this part of PZ’s comment @ 129:
I’ve been posting at Pharyngula for 5 years now, and while it hasn’t happened often, I’ve had comments disappear or wind up in moderation (I’ll add that these aren’t comments containing prohibited words).
Hell, Akismet was so screwed up at one point that I was unable to comment at any FtB blog other than Pharyngula for close to six months.
So maybe, just maybe, you could entertain the idea that the Poopeyhead isn’t being mean to you.
Almost forgot about David Wilford. He was good at alternating between constructive commenter and utter nuisance.
Some of his greatest hits.
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/06/14/just-how-racist-is-america/
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2015/01/15/we-got-mentioned-on-boing-boing/
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/11/02/who-needs-reason-evidence-when-youve-got-hurt-feelings/
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/01/19/sticking-it-to-this-pope/
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/11/25/what-would-mlk-say/
(Interestingly, he cites Jerry Coyne re: “atheist drama” in the Boing Boing link)
More examples
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1194239
Tony @ 132:
Well, given I could still post as davidwilford over on Mano Singham’s blog, it’s not FTB’s anti-spam filter that locked me out of Pharyngula. So the likely explanation is that PZ passive-aggressively banned me. It’s not a big deal, but I thought that sort of thing did deserve being noted for the record.
davewilford #135:
Uh, no it isn’t; otherwise your use of a new nym would have been counted as sockpuppetry, and rather than being replied to, you would have been re-banned. Cute persecution complex though. Very, erm, Fundy.
Daz @ 136:
You haven’t addressed the observation that the FTB spam filter only seemed to filter me out when posting to Pharyngula. Funny thing, that.
Oh and, FWIW, I’ve had regular commenters dropped into my blog’s (Askimet) spam-trap a couple of times, for no apparent reason, so yeah; it does happen.
davewilford #137:
I highly doubt there is an FTB spam-trap. There will be a spam trap for each individual blog.
Daz @ 138:
It occurs to me that a spam trap could be customized to block certain identites from commenting, which amounts to a ban. Kind of a distinction without a difference from the perspective of the one being blocked though.
Oh for fucksake. Yes, the spam trap can, and is, used to block unwanted commenters. This is not, however, what happened to you. Which part of ‘otherwise your use of a new nym would have been counted as sockpuppetry, and rather than being replied to, you would have been re-banned’ did you fail to understand?
You’re not a special snowflake, and no one is singling you out for persecution. Get the fuck over it already.
Daz @ 141:
Oh, being banned is nothing much, it’s just that PZ happened to crow about always doing it publicly and I was noting something contrary to that claim that I happened to experience personally, that’s all.
But hey, thanks for caring anyway.
Apparently this is Nuisance Week. I didn’t realize it came right after Easter. Did you get any eggs, Wilford?
davewilford
If PZ wanted to ban you, he’d do so and proubly announce it in big red letters.
You know, he’s not shy about doing so.
c r @ 143:
Oh, there were lots of naturally colorful free range eggs that my wife hard boiled, actually. Tasty too!
If PZ wanted David Wilford banned, a new ‘nym wouldn’t be tolerated. PZ doesn’t play cute games over this. If you’re obnoxious enough to get banned, then you’re actually getting banned. I cannot fathom what motive there would be to, with one random commenter, ban them secretly and then ignore when they come back with a new ‘nym.
You aren’t that special, davewilford. There’s some glitch. That’s all.
G. @ 144:
Well, that’s PZ’s claim about banning, but I’m a little data point to the contrary. Makes me wonder how many other commenters might have been covertly banned.
Not PZ’s style. The banhammer falls with big red letters, in public.
davewilford
I would indeed care if I thought PZ had banned you, or anybody, for no good reason. But you weren’t bloody banned, were you? As evidenced by your ability to post comments in which, ironically as hell,* you whine about having been banned.
*The word ‘spoing,’ doth spring to mind.
M.M. @ 146:
“Special” has nothing to do with how I (under my former name) was blocked from commenting here, but not elsewhere on FTB. Facts like that are what’s special as far as I’m concerned.
Gotta love how davewilford assumes his conclusion is true yet offers evidence to back it.
Drop the martyr complex you whiny prat.
Daz @ 149:
In case it wasn’t clear, it was my former name “davidwilford” that was blocked. Not “davewilford”, which is under another email account of mine.
david wilford
Your own little conspiracy theory. How cute. That’s why you’re still here whining, though I predict that there will soon be big red letters telling us the opposite.
Tony @ 151:
Deducing something based on observations is all I got, admittedly. But it is evidence-based, nevertheless.
davewilford #152:
Jebus, Wilford, were you born this obtuse or did you receive training? I ask again: Which part of ‘otherwise your use of a new nym would have been counted as sockpuppetry, and rather than being replied to, you would have been re-banned’ did you fail to understand?
I guess this fool missed my comment about how I was unable to leave a comment at most FtB blogs for almost six months. The only ones I was able to comment on were Dispatches and Pharyngula. For a second I wondered if I was banned from all the other blogs, but then I realized it was more likely that this was a tech glitch. For some reason davewilford is dead-set on believing he was silently banned.
Nitwit.
I vaguely remember when you got banned, knowing about it, feeling satisfaction about that and wishing it had happened sooner. I don’t remember the thread now, but it was public, not private or secret or concealed in some way. I know that because I know I don’t have access to whatever is going on under the hood with the site. And I’m also fairly sure it didn’t have anything to do with legitimate discussions of sciences, facts, theories, or anything remotely reasonable like that — just that your inane blabbering was getting to be too much. So what the fuck are you talking about?
Daz @ 155:
It may be that it was impractical to block me based on my IP address. Hence, I was able to reregister under a new name.
Regarding ‘s question: Yes, Wilford did indeed get an Easter Egg. They used the tinfoil wrapping to make a shiny new hat.
Tony, I had the same thing happen. I’m unsure if it’s fixed now or not, since I didn’t care enough about commenting elsewhere to check again or ask anyone about it. I’ve seen several other people mention similar problems. Lots of evidence of a tech glitch, in fact.
or a massive secret banning conspiracy with no rhyme or reason GASP
ops. Regarding C.R.’s question, I meant to say. PZ is obviously editing my comments on the fly, the utter git.
c.r. @ 157:
You’re probably remembering me being banned from the Thunderdome for the sin of being too nice to post there… ;^) This particular incident occurred back last January.
I’m not surprised. PZ is totally capricious and mysterious and secretive like that.
Links, or I’ll figure this is probably just more confusion and dishonesty from you.
M.M. @ 160:
Whatever happened, it’s not as if P.Z.’s animus (and prior banning) towards me is any secret, and that’s something to consider, no? Given P.Z.’s pointed comment about Jerry Coyne’s blog being more to my taste, and then finding I couldn’t comment further after that, it’s certainly a little curious at least.
c.r. @ 163:
Sorry, but that thread was munged by some rebuilding of the FTB website since. Hopefully someone else will also remember that though.
davewilford #158:
Look, I have done this, using the exact same system (Askimet) which is used here.
1: First, you ban someone by blocking their email address. Usually, that’s enough; they get the hint.
2: If they try again with a different account, you block that and the IP.
Possibly PZ, having less time on his hands and more unwanted commenters to deal with, blocks IPs straight off. I don’t know. (I don’t because I got the impression somewhere that there can be splash damage against others in the same range of IP’s. I don’t know if that’s true, but I tend to air on the side of caution.)
You’ll note, however, that step two has not happened.
Now and again, Askimet, which blocks much spam automatically, will block a comment which contains no apparent transgressions, and which has not been manually blocked (by IP or email address) by the blog owner. I can, and already have, upthread, confirmed this. False positives occasionally happen. Get used to it.
I see Wilford is back making all about him again. Which isn’t conducive to continuing posting here.
c.z. @ 163:
A link, since you asked for it, courtesy of The Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140124015550/https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/01/21/thunderdome-40/#respond
You’ll find P.Z.’s wielding of the banhammer at comment #202. Good times, good times… ;^)
Nothing like that has happened. You can find all of the FTB threads that there have ever been. Scienceblogs lost some info (which is still recoverable) but that was long ago and it was not FTB.
This is where google finds “David Wilford” written anywhere on pharyngula, whether in your username or elsewhere. You can narrow down the dates more with their search tools, if you want. If you cared about telling the truth instead of just bullshitting and trolling and whining at us, that is where you would have to dig. I don’t have the time to look through it now, so I’m not going to bother.
c.z. @ 169:
I see my timing… was… impeccable. How do you like your crow served?
c.z. @ 169:
Also, if you go to the Pharyngula Archives link, they only go back to February, 1st 2014. Have some more crow, I hear it’s tasty!
Wilford, you said that was not the thread in which you were banned entirely from this blog, and it was very explicitly and clearly and publicly stated by PZ as such, which you also said didn’t happen.
Thus, it was about hiding your bannination, google and other archives also don’t work to find out such things, and it wasn’t public to begin with?
You’re a lazy, stupid, dishonest fuck? Is that what we should conclude?
c.z. @ 172:
It’s about being partially banned vs. totally banned, if not with the banhammer in the latter case, back this past January of 2015. But as I said, I was publicly banned from Thunderdome and I have given you the link to prove it as you so foot-stompingly demanded. So eat your crow already.
I didn’t ask for a link to that. You said you were banned wholesale from the site, without that information being publicly available. That is what you haven’t given any evidence for. Since you presumably posted after that elsewhere on the site, you could look for your most recent comments and when they stopped appearing, not some other shit you were stirring previous to that and how that was handled, because it isn’t fucking relevant.
O.K., I do stand corrected on past comments being munged:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/01/21/thunderdome-40/comment-page-1/#comments
They weren’t there some time ago as I recall, but they’re there now. So I’ll have a little crow too then.
c.r. @ 174:
All the facts I have aren’t smoking guns proving anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I was blocked from posting on Pharyngula (under my old “davidwilford” name) back in January this year, right after being told by P.Z. I’d be better off at Jerry Coyne’s blog. I was still able however to post on Mano Singham’s blog at FTB as “davidwilford”. As to how anti-spam filters factor into this, I don’t know.
Jesus.
Wilford, your ‘smoking gun’ only points to me telling you to stay the fuck out of thunderdome. There was no general ban. Your name isn’t on the ban list — I just checked. Also, your initial comment here was to disagree that I , and then your only evidence is that I publicly told you to stay out of a thread.
You weren’t banned. You are now. Publicly.
You are unbelievably stupid. You’ve been whingeing on for 34 comments here, complaining that you were unfairly banned, when you fucking were not…when just the fact that you’re posting and posting and posting here tells you that you’re wrong.
Enough. Banned from the entire site. Don’t come skulking back under a pseudonym, either.
I mean, really — how can you repetitively post the claim that you aren’t allowed to post? Isn’t that clearly self-refuting?
You’re such a fucking weasel. This happened. Others had refuted your bullshit, so does PZ, and he concludes by saying you should go elsewhere and stay away. Now you’re back, and you’re whining about that.
No shit, because FTB isn’t one blog with PZ controlling it all. Each blogger blocks or restricts commenters independently of the rest.
#176: Incredible. You claim you were stealth-banned, and your evidence is that … I told you to go away? Man, I must suck at stealthy.
Thank fuck.
That was the most gloriously stupid thing I’ve seen in some time. Thank PZ it’s over.
Gee P.Z. you said in BIG RED LETTERS on Thunderdome I was banned, and I did try to post there as that happened and was subsequently blocked. Do what you will, but I know what I experienced there myself, thankyouverymuch.
For Sale:
Boxed collection of springs, cogs and spindles, one dial-face, pre-marked in five-degree increments, and an indicator needle.
Ideal for anyone thinking of building their own irony meter.
Also, you need to tweak your blocking, er banning procedures. They’re obviously in need of some help.
Oh, and Daz, Tony, Gillel, etc. thanks so much for affirming I was banned from Thunderdome. Er, not. What a nice clique you have, I must say…
p.z. @ 179:
No, I think you suck at being honest when it comes to your own self-interest.
I don’t care, Wilford, that you might have been banned from one particular thread. It has sod all to do with your claim to have been banned on all threads. Sheesh.
Oh, and Since PZ sems to have banned you upthread, I’ll be sending an alert regarding your continued commenting. How delicious: You used your main nym, which you claimed had been banned, as a sockpuppet!
What a twerp.
Wait. So now you’re posting using your old email address, the one you claimed had previously been banned, therefore demonstrating that no, I hadn’t blocked it after all? Do you have to practice to be that good shooting your own feet?
That email address is now banned, too. Normally I’d delete any posts added after a ban, but jeez, I can’t bear to remove such a beautiful example of idiocy.
amazing
I can’t help but wonder if I’ve been an unwitting an party to some strange and surreal form of performance art.
… An ‘an party’ obviously being completely different from a normal party. Ahem.
I haven’t been reading Pharyngula for a few years, so I’ve missed all the good times. I can hardly say how happy I am that I happened to tune in to this “party”!
Y’all are a lot more fun than the people I usually hang out with in meatspace. Guess I shouldn’t have listened to my folks when they told me to get off the computer and get a life. :)
WTF?
I have a life and I must say that I am not actually a genius who can remember each and every instance of somebody being banned, restricted, yelled at, etc. And I’m hardly obliged to support evidence for your claims, spending my time on googling shit.
Well I was going to talk about my experience with being trapped in some spam filters and not others (it was recent… you might remember, PZ… I think you may be one of the people I emailed about it… I know I email Jason about it… but of course it’s fixed now) and thus being able to post on some FTB blogs and not others, but I guess that’s a moot point, now.
But I was kinda excited about being a data point against Wilford’s data point (because why would anyone at FTB ban me? I’m… I mean… y’all don’t hate me enough to want me banned… right? :( ). Reading through his comments were incredible, though. I agree with Daz… that was like some weird-ass performance art. Very surreal.
It’d be wonderful if that idiocy was enshrined as a post… for future reference… :D
That tedious wanker is banned.
There is a tentacled god after all.
@98,
YHGTBK.