# Censorship and ideological conformity

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/censorship-and-ideological-conformity/1254>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [August 20, 2018, 2:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/censorship-and-ideological-conformity/1254 "2018-08-20T14:52:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 14

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 5:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/censorship-and-ideological-conformity/1254/14 "2018-08-21T05:09:25Z")

</div>

Okay @theman8469 let’s work this out. First of all, thank you for giving me insight into your thoughts. I appreciate it. I can see a bit more clearly what is going on.

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> I have no idea on how to respond. Disagreeing with you is not a lack of respect.

Please do disagree with me. I’m fine with this. It was the insults and aggressiveness that pushed it over the edge.

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> If you want to ban me or wish me to stop posting, then just ask.

I do not want to ban you. I want you to post. I just want you to communicate with respect and kindness, even with atheists, and especially with me. You when so far that even @Guy_Coe, and ID guy, was pushing back on you. Just be kind.

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> I posted a discussion between Hunt and Meyer, giving ID a voice and all Hell broke out.

I had no part in that. I was working. I need to remind you…

> [@Forum Disclaimer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/forum-disclaimer/186/1):
>
> . Swamidass, for obvious reasons, does not endorse most things said by others on this forum. He also does not have time to directly refute every statement with which he disagrees.

All I know is that there was a long thread of people arguing in circles about who one a debate. I do not care, and a debate about a debate is meaningless.

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> You personally claimed that it was an “imbalanced exchange, Meyer got the better of @Art on rhetoric in a crowd already convinced of ID. The crowd had no ability or desire to follow his scientific point" insulting both the character and intellectual capacity of Meyer and the audience at Biola.

I was not insulting Meyer or Biola. It is just a fact that the vast majority of undergraduates and public cannot follow the technical details. That is just a fact for any technical scientific debate, especially when conducted verbally.

You also misunderstand what I am getting at too with Meyer. I think ID is extremely effective with its rhetoric, even brilliant at times. Most scientific are genuinely bad at rhetoric. Meyers is great at his rhetoric too, as is Doug Axe, and also many of their big fish. It is a complement to them. This is one thing they do well.

I’m not insulting anyone’s intelligence. The problem is that science does not progress by winning public debates. So it just does not matter who won or not.

The crux of this, however, is here…

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> Stephen Meyer is also a Christian brother. He has consistently been vilified and personally attacked his ideas ridiculed without any attempt to understand them. Hunt posting on this forum was interesting but a strong undercurrent of uninformed anti-ID rhetoric was brewing.

Meyer is a Christian and I have no animosity towards him. He is welcome here, and I would insist every one treat him with respect. @Art deserves that same respect too. I tolerate everyone in the conversation here. I am a Christian too, even though @art appears to be an atheist, and I insist he be treated with respect too. I know this is surprising, but do not interpret my kindness as endorsement. I will be kind to people who treat ID people poorly. I will be kind to people who treat scientists and atheists poorly. My kindness is not an endorsement of other’s behavior. It is just kindness.

Observing anti-ID rhetoric is not a valid reason to post a link claiming that another person lost a debate with Meyers. Who the heck cares? I certainly don’t. Most scientists lose arguments to ID, because ID has strong rhetoric. Moreover, there is both anti-ID and pro-ID rhetoric “brewing” here. Get used to it. Many of us are opposed to bad arguments, and find a lot of bad arguments in ID.

All the same, I still aim treat ID advocates with kindness here. If you think I’ve been unkind, help me understand what I missed. Often, I’ve edited posts, and even apologized. I aim to treat ID fairly. I’m sure I will make mistakes ,but I am also correctable.

Disagree all you want, but be kind. Do not waste our time with “who one a debate.” Instead, let’s get into substantive questions and issues.

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> My triple-digit IQ remark was a parody of a comment by Patrick in context to these insulting comments. I

I did not know that was parody. I do not even know the insulting comment Patrick made. You have to note parody as parody. No one can tell.

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> But as I said to T.j\_Runyon I will not be threatened and certainly not cowed into safe compliant behaviour; terrified to support the ‘unworthy’.

He is not threatening you. He is giving you fair warning. You were on your way to being temporarily suspended. We were asking you to pause, as you have done here.

Now finally, thanks for your comments here:

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> I am fully aware that you are an outed Christian in a secular and hostile environment and have to be careful. I love you as a Christian brother. I even excitedly mentioned to my wife (who is not a Christian) about this site and its aims at attempting good dialogue between different world-views. That is the only way you learn - not sitting in an echo chamber. I also told her that I would make a serious effort to meet you if you ever came to Oxford and perhaps treat to a meal.

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> If you think I don’t respect you, then fine. But you could not be more wrong.

That is very kind of you. I hope I can take you up on that some time. I’d look forward to it.

@theman8469 you really are welcome here. You can disagree with me. No hard feelings from this. Let’s just find a better sort of interaction. The purpose of this site is not to debate. It is to understand and be understood. The next time things are being said that are difficult, ask questions to understand what is going on. Explain yourself so others can understand you. If anyone says something insulting, ask them to stop. If they continue, flag their posts. If I say something insulting, tell me and ask me to explain. I might even apologize and retract.

We are seeking peace here. I believe that we can find a different sort of community, that is not contingent on agreement. Don’t give up on us, and I will look forward to hearing from you soon.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/censorship-and-ideological-conformity/1254)._