I'm sure it's at least partly true. However, I am not sure what to think about it yet. I am of the in-between school, and yet I think 100:1 is too great a difference. It would be instructive, I think, to compare this to natural miscarriage rates, including post-conception but pre-implantation. (I have found those numbers very difficult to come by, perhaps in part because the question is considered very politically incorrect.) My favorite almost-relevant quote is: "a million potential christians splattered against the ceiling." (I saw it in a Rudy Rucker book.)
I don't think the debating style described applies to me. I do sometimes like to discuss controversial subjects, and have let people like that draw me into their arguments before realizing that I was wasting my time. Politeness then requires that I not tell them they are an idiot and stop talking to them, so it takes time to disengage gracefully.
(In the ancient past I certainly participated in flame wars. However, that is a young man's game, as in college student, and something would be wrong if I had still been doing that even ten years later, much less thirty. Though I may have participated in one immediately post-divorce; my mail archive doesn't go quite that far back and my recall is too murky.)
Two particular trolls from U.S. East Coast Filk Fandom come to mind. One of them attacked me in the Con Suite at Contata a month ago. Such argumentation gets very tiring. I told him I would do some research to back up my position, and furnish it to him, but on further reflection decided not to bother. After doing the research, I decided he was too full of himself and the stuff I had found would be dismissed. He could have found it in five minutes on google if he actually cared. It was easily discovered that his whole argument was based on two or three pieces of misinformation.
The people who were there will know of whom I speak. The other has a similar reputation but hangs around Conterpoints, i.e., is more likely to be found in the MD/DC area. In spite of this thread being locked, I will not mention names.
The problem with being willing to participate in such discussions is that one should never argue with an idiot; the spectators will be unable to tell the difference, since you have to argue on the idiot's level, and both of you will look equally stupid.
When I remember this, my tactic instead is to give them lots and lots of rope rather than rising to their bait. Usually they get bored and stop trying to pick a fight with me, and go harass someone else.
Peer group pressure might change their behavior, or at least remove it. Fans are, however, mostly very accepting, having experienced exclusion much of their lives, and so presenting a united front against this kind of thing seems unlikely.
I know of one much worse case who hangs around Boston cons, and not only has peer group pressure not worked on him, but he fought a restraining order in court, and it could only be obtained for one convention rather than in perpetuity. Only when we catch him red-handed molesting a young fan, and press charges, will we be able to completely remove him from the cons. Our efforts are focused on prevention rather than apprehension, however, so any such would be a partial failure; I hope it never happens.
no subject
I'm sure it's at least partly true. However, I am not sure what to think about it yet. I am of the in-between school, and yet I think 100:1 is too great a difference. It would be instructive, I think, to compare this to natural miscarriage rates, including post-conception but pre-implantation. (I have found those numbers very difficult to come by, perhaps in part because the question is considered very politically incorrect.) My favorite almost-relevant quote is: "a million potential christians splattered against the ceiling." (I saw it in a Rudy Rucker book.)
I don't think the debating style described applies to me. I do sometimes like to discuss controversial subjects, and have let people like that draw me into their arguments before realizing that I was wasting my time. Politeness then requires that I not tell them they are an idiot and stop talking to them, so it takes time to disengage gracefully.
(In the ancient past I certainly participated in flame wars. However, that is a young man's game, as in college student, and something would be wrong if I had still been doing that even ten years later, much less thirty. Though I may have participated in one immediately post-divorce; my mail archive doesn't go quite that far back and my recall is too murky.)
Two particular trolls from U.S. East Coast Filk Fandom come to mind. One of them attacked me in the Con Suite at Contata a month ago. Such argumentation gets very tiring. I told him I would do some research to back up my position, and furnish it to him, but on further reflection decided not to bother. After doing the research, I decided he was too full of himself and the stuff I had found would be dismissed. He could have found it in five minutes on google if he actually cared. It was easily discovered that his whole argument was based on two or three pieces of misinformation.
The people who were there will know of whom I speak. The other has a similar reputation but hangs around Conterpoints, i.e., is more likely to be found in the MD/DC area. In spite of this thread being locked, I will not mention names.
The problem with being willing to participate in such discussions is that one should never argue with an idiot; the spectators will be unable to tell the difference, since you have to argue on the idiot's level, and both of you will look equally stupid.
When I remember this, my tactic instead is to give them lots and lots of rope rather than rising to their bait. Usually they get bored and stop trying to pick a fight with me, and go harass someone else.
Peer group pressure might change their behavior, or at least remove it. Fans are, however, mostly very accepting, having experienced exclusion much of their lives, and so presenting a united front against this kind of thing seems unlikely.
I know of one much worse case who hangs around Boston cons, and not only has peer group pressure not worked on him, but he fought a restraining order in court, and it could only be obtained for one convention rather than in perpetuity. Only when we catch him red-handed molesting a young fan, and press charges, will we be able to completely remove him from the cons. Our efforts are focused on prevention rather than apprehension, however, so any such would be a partial failure; I hope it never happens.