Concerning The Ongoing Debate Over Skeptic /scofftic/denialist Participation On The Bff And Proving Bigfoot's Existence

[Bonehead74]

I know that this has been discussed ad nauseam here, but I wanted to give my thoughts on the subject...

For quite some time now I've been considering if I truly have a place here and whether I should end my participation on the BFF. My two main sticking points are the fanatical "Bigfoot exists", "No they don't", "Yuh-huh!", "Nuh-uh!" echo chamber and the insistence by both sides that the issue must be proven one way or another.

There has been much debate recently about the participation of the skeptic/scofftic/denialist (referred to hereafter as SSD's) on the forum. Often quoted is this paragraph from the intro to the forum's Rules & Guidelines:

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€.

None of this is given as a binding rule, but the principle that if one comes here with "preconceived and immovable notions about bigfoot" then there can be no expectation of "thought-provoking debate" is quite clear. The two viewpoints are mutually exclusive. Without conceding the possibility, no matter how small, that bigfoot might, might exist, then any "discussion" will inevitability devolve into a grade school ***-for-tat that stifles discussion and frustrates a significant portion of the membership who simply want to talk about bigfoot.

What is also vital to the debate is the idea that the above principle applies not only to the SSD, but to the True Believer (TB), those who are 100% certain of bigfoot's existence without a sighting of their own. If the TB's cannot bring themselves to admit that someone might have a legitimate reason for not believing that bigfoot exists, we are at loggerheads again.

That leaves us with the Knowers, those who claim clear, unambiguous, unmistakable sightings of an unknown large hairy biped. There is no respectable way to deny these claims, and not being present at the time of their encounter, I am happy to accept their claim barring other facts which come to light to contradict it. For the sake of argument, the Knowers exist as an entity unto themselves, and have no real bearing on the endless SSD/TB vicious circle.

It seems to me that the FMT, the other administrators, and the Steering Committee here need to decide if we can allow those on both sides of the debate (who staunchly refuse to give any quarter to the other side) to continue their blind-arguing-the-blind antics.

The fact we must all face (Knowers excluded. They have their personal proof) is that there is no proof either way. I am a proponent who tries to remain skeptical in the truest sense, and respect those who have thoughtfully reached a different conclusion. What I can't abide is the disrespectful and dismissive dogmatism of both the SSD and the TB, as well as their ongoing feud which serves only to derail many otherwise reasonable discussions, and poison the well here on the BFF. I understand that more rules here would further burden the good folks who volunteer their time as moderators, but unfortunately see no other alternative.

Please understand that I am not advocating a stifling of debate. The behavior I am describing, and arguing for the banning of such, is not debate or discussion in any reasonable sense, but is instead merely a peeing contest between two immovable and closed-minded factions who refuse to give one inch to the other side. I am interested in any respectful discussion or views on the subject.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Bonehead74

[1980squatch]

I don't think more rules are needed.  Maybe just lock threads a bit more often, or throw a few points around.  I don't agree with targeting skoftics for their views.  One can be very interested in the BF phenomenon and have zero interest in the creature itself.  

 

Also, don't really agree with your SSD group, as skeptics and skoftics are very, very different.

 

I do understand your exclusion of knowers, we do have a much more relaxed outlook on the existence issue after all.  But, since we participate here at the BFF the fighting here is of concern even to us...

[adam2323]

Debate on issue is good as long as it is done respectfully

[Bonehead74]

Adam, respect isn't just using nice words and being sure not to offend someone. It means having respect for other viewpoints, regardless of whether we agree with them or not. That is the problem.

 

 

I don't think more rules are needed.  Maybe just lock threads a bit more often, or throw a few points around.  I don't agree with targeting skoftics for their views.  One can be very interested in the BF phenomenon and have zero interest in the creature itself.  

 

Also, don't really agree with your SSD group, as skeptics and skoftics are very, very different.

 

I do understand your exclusion of knowers, we do have a much more relaxed outlook on the existence issue after all.  But, since we participate here at the BFF the fighting here is of concern even to us...

Nowhere did I suggest targeting anyone for their views. A closer reading of my post would reveal that I am advocating the targeting of behaviors, not beliefs. Also, I am knowingly using the term "skeptic" as it is mostly (incorrectly, as you point out) used here to describe a bigfoot non-believer. If you read my self-description in the post, it should become apparent that I am cognizant of the distinction.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Bonehead74

[1980squatch]

Sorry Bonehead, I understand you personally were not suggesting targeting beliefs, it was a general comment since there is an undercurrent in this issue overall that points to that.  There are certainly many here who would love to ban skoftics outright...

[Cotter]

Debate on issue is good as long as it is done respectfully

 

Exactly!  Working within the organics industry, I often am confronted (outside of work) with folks that want to 'debate' the pro's/con's. 

 

Most of the time I get parrotted decades old studies and a pile of straw man.

 

I strive for 'constructive conversation'.

[Bonehead74]

Sorry Bonehead, I understand you personally were not suggesting targeting beliefs, it was a general comment since there is an undercurrent in this issue overall that points to that.  There are certainly many here who would love to ban skoftics outright...

No worries. I agree that banning someone simply for their beliefs on a subject is a horrible idea, but the disruption caused by members not respecting differing beliefs and derailing discussions wholesale needs to be dealt with.

[WSA]

Let me just take a minute to step back from the role playing I'm typically doing here. It is really just that, because I have no personal identity bound up in Sasquatch being real, or not. I enjoy poking the incurious, no matter the subject, and this is just one outlet for that. Guilty pleasures I suppose.

 

I'm not confusing my own ongoing self-indulgent exercise of free expression with anything that approaches productive discourse, or even with believing such is even possible.  If I did have that that idea once, I certainly don't anymore.  For all the possibility and promise that a discussion board like this holds, in practice it becomes apparent over time that substantive progress on an issue with this many hot-button feelings held by so many is not going to happen.  After a point, you either just go away, or join in the fun.  

 

Across the internet, this realization has dawned on any number of communities who started with the idea of forming a consensus through reasoned discourse. If any have succeeded, I'm not aware of them. If they have, the issues must not be of much import.  We here are especially vulnerable to this devolvement. When there are periods (like lately) where the pace of events have slowed, all that is left is to rehash past ones.  This gets tedious quickly, and the merry-go-round cranks up.

 

For the time being, I'm predicting the animus displayed lately will tail off.  I am definitely resisting the urge to stir it up, and I think others have as well. Self-regulation is the only strategy that works in the long run.  Imposing external  limits on what should be a free-wheeling scientific discussion seems to me to be the last thing you'd want to do.  

[bipedalist]

Central point of rules, "This is not the ANTI-Bigfoot Forum".   Think that sums things up nicely. 

[norseman]

Dmakerwrote:

Interesting thread. I hope it gets some legs.

I think that people involved bigfootin' fall into all three of your stated categories: role-playing, pretend and worse.

I believe the bulk of them are just role-playing or playing pretend. The role players I would view as those that claim contact but then go a bit deeper and deck out in camos and head to the woods to bang sticks and feed peanut butter to bears. Sometimes they even start their own organizations to encourage others to join them in their play time. The motivation for this type of behavior has been mentioned here by others. The desire to be viewed as researchers or scientists without having to actually obtain degrees or training that would help them in that type of activity. A shortcut to accomplishment if you will. For others it may just be the desire to belong to something even if it is just a loose collection of online posters on a forum where their claims are not really challenged and are, instead, immediately accepted as bona fide research accomplishments.

The worse category I think would include those that are probably suffering from some sort of schizophrenia. The ones who, if we are to believe that they believe their claims, insist that they communicate with bigfoots or regularly see them up close and often attribute paranormal behavior to bigfoots. Things like cloaking and telepathy and the other more fringe claims made by these people. They are either taking the pretend to a next level, or they are indeed suffering some sort of mental illness.

There are also those that do it simply for profit. They do the role-playing and the pretend because it props up their business. Whether that is selling books, weekend expeditions or bigfoot garden statues. They have a financial motivation, not just a fun past time or something to talk about online.

http://www.internati...ad.php?t=278427

----------------------------------------

Pretty hard to have a honest convo with somebody with that mindset.....theres more below;

-----------------------------------------------

AlaskaBushPilotwrote:

I am curious about what a skeptic has to do, if anything, to have longevity there without being censored, suspended, or banned.

The shrike aka saskeptic wrote:

I have no idea why they tolerated me all those years. I think I received a warning once.

Other than being careful not to make a direct accusation of lying to any specific poster, there's not much I post here that I wasn't posting there. I think one of the things the 'footers liked about me was that I was happy to respond "I don't know" as an explanation for someone's alleged encounter. I always included "lying", "crazy," "not crazy, but hallucinated," "mistaken," "real bigfoot," and "I don't know" in my list of potential explanations.

No one forced me out and I was never suspended or banned. I just got tired of explaining the same crap to the same people every day until I decided that I must have been getting trolled because there was no way people could be that stupid.

------------------------------------------

1) We are being punked by an ORGANIZED group of people who think we are insane fools.

2) The best course of action is to simply put them on ignore, if all of us practice this religiously? Then they cannot turn ever thread into a debate about existence. But only a few of us doing it doesnt work, because if enough BFF members respond to denialist bait? Then they can steer the thread away from its purpose.

Edited August 24, 2015 by norseman

[Guest Stan Norton]

Agree Norse. Organised and determined trolling. Nothing relevant to bring to the discussion except scorn and duplicity. I actually liked saskeptic and felt he brought something valuable to the bff. Seems he was just amusing himself, or maybe he can't bring himself to show one iota of fallibility to his pals over at the other place...

[Rockape]

<Seems he was just amusing himself, or maybe he can't bring himself to show one iota of fallibility to his pals over at the other place...>

 

 

That's a big part of it Stan. There is no more of a closed minded group that that supposed skeptics forum. They are anything but skeptics for the most part. I believe there are some that have a genuine interest in BF and at least have an open enough mind to discuss the subject without ridicule, but to do so would subject them to ridicule at that forum. If they want to stay in good with the popular kids there, they must ridicule everything bigfoot. That's fine if they want to do it at that forum, but they bring it here and it ruins any chance at discussion.

[WSA]

I'm sort of the opinion if you are vulnerable to being punked by one of these jokers, you might need to tighten up your thinking anyway. Mainly I found them amusing for their lack of knowledge on so many topics, which didn't seem to limit their ability to pronounce some pretty ill-informed opinions.  It only qualifies as being "trolled" if you think it is anything other than what it is. I responded to those like Saskeptc and dmaker only because it was a lot of fun to see them chase their tails and stumble over the things they didn't ever consider. Really, they just didn't get out much as far as I could tell.  My description of them would be, "Often mistaken, but never in doubt." One thing I never, ever, did was treat them with any degree of seriousness.  At most, what they will do only is bore you to death, and you'll need to go looking for a greater intellectual challenge. That, and you learn to sort of feel sorry for them  for the world they live in.

 

And look besides. Who is still here discussing this topic with intelligence? That's right, we are. (O.k. some of us at least)

[norseman]

Agree Norse. Organised and determined trolling. Nothing relevant to bring to the discussion except scorn and duplicity. I actually liked saskeptic and felt he brought something valuable to the bff. Seems he was just amusing himself, or maybe he can't bring himself to show one iota of fallibility to his pals over at the other place...

Heck, I thought we were friends........little did I know.

All I do know is that in our time here, I was completely honest in my discussions with him, I have no ulterior motives, and if that makes me stupid I can live with that. Better that than to pretend something your not......if thats not BLAARGing I do not know what is.

[bipedalist]

Funny though how "the shrike" eventually came around to even explaining his own "might have been"Class B sighting before he left the board.  Got a good laugh out of that.  Saskeptic never directly addressed "any" of the comments I ever made that I can remember.  Almost like he was afraid I could out him in NC or something, never could figure that one out.  The lying, crazy, etc. comment is very telling to me and really tells me how shallow his thinking must have truly been.  

Edited August 24, 2015 by bipedalist