Der Kampf um richtig zu sein

Not only do we see what we want to see, we glaze over what we don't want to accept. Such is the nature of the "debate" in the online community. I hesitate to call it "debate", because so much of it is bogged down with fallacy and a bias so strong that it is fatal to the accompanying argument.

Objectivity easily becomes a distant memory here in this electronic sphere that is devoid of any tangible repercussions. It is a false world where the rules of conduct change drastically. We may discuss our views on "reality" while being, perhaps, as far distanced from it as possible. Thus, we may heatedly contest the views of an individual as though they held the masses in sway with their particular opinions when, in reality, they are nobody. They are the voiceless given the illusion of a voice through their fingertips. They are the powerless given the illusion of power through a box, plugged into the wall, and finally plugged into us. It is easy to lose sight of this, to get swept up in the self-importance of it all; to see one's own words published for the priviledged world to see, as though a digital representation of one's opinion gave it more weight.

Then we are struck by the pack mentality, when such heavy narcissism clumps together to reinforce itself. Not only are we struck by it, we can be victims and practitioners of it as well. In the fight to be right, we overlook the method and focus on the message, forgetting that the method was initially how the message was attained... or so it should have been, ideally. This is the main point of this affair: Do we sufficiently question our own peers? Are we critical not only of our opponents, but of our allies?

To provide two examples, at Dani Kekoa's "TRUTH"-proclaiming page, Generation X-Pose, a scholar from the U.K. passed himself off, for a time, as Richard Dawkins, adopting his moniker, likely to lend weight to his arguments. He did, after some skepticism concerning the likelihood of his actually being Richard Dawkins, admit to being someone else. Those that agreed with his message and who opposed Dani's said nothing of the matter. I, myself, only voiced passing skepticism of his identity before the fact, and said nothing afterwards.

Of more grave academic concern, Dani herself has been called out for grossly unscholarly behaviour that has taken the form of plagiarism and quote-mining. The ramifications of such practices, in support of her own quaint system of belief, are a topic for another discussion. What is important is the treatment of this behaviour. Even when confronted about it, not a single person that holds, to any degree, with her belief system has admitted that Dani has done anything wrong. It is to be expected, since she was willing to implement such reprehensible tactics in the first place, that Dani would attempt to deny/dodge the accusations. It is much more interesting that those in support of Dani's views continue support of Dani, herself, in spite of her markedly dishonest tendencies. Would it not be in a group's best interest to denounce such behaviour, rather than avoiding/justifying it and thereby sanctioning it too? Wouldn't a particular camp enhance their reputation and the intellectual validity of their argument by eliminating poor research, poor research tactics, and overall poor morals?

Further, wouldn't it be in Dani's interest to hear, from her own supporters, that such practices are not acceptable? After all, if she receives nothing but praise for her unscholarly tricks, isn't she likely to continue using them? And doesn't that get one further away from the "TRUTH" she is so keen on telling us she's preaching?

Such is the flexibility of "truth", as a result of the kinds of practices undertaken in such circles, that it can be readily bandied around in place of "opinion". This is one reason for why I will not discuss "truth" with such as them.