« More "truths" from the PLANS web-site | Main | Lies on the PLANS website »
August 8, 2005
Why have this blog?
The description of the WC-Watch blog is as follows:A lot of nonsense gets repeated on the WC list (that's "Waldorf Critics") as simple fact. Yet those who challenge these erroneous statements are frequently banned on the flimsiest of pretexts. This blog will examine the facts in an unrestricted forum.
Now I'm sure that some people are scratching their heads. I mean, the Waldorf Critics list is an unmoderated list, right? They have listed themselves as an unmoderated list over at Topioca. (List Type: Unmoderated discussion). The site description sounds rather liberal:
A free-speech public forum operated by PLANS, Inc., as an information resource for anyone interested in Waldorf education who wants to hear views from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner. Subscription is open to the public, and postings are not reviewed in advance. Not for the overly sensitive.
Wow. Public. Free-speech. I mean, what how can this cause any sorts of problems? Well, there are rules (on a "free-speech" list).
No ad hominem arguments. This means that you speak freely about the topics, but not about the other subscribers. ... Violation of either of these rules will result in immediate suspension of subscription privileges for a week, and repeat offenders may be permanently banned.This is where the peculiar interpretation of "ad hominem" comes in. The fancy Latin describes a type of argument based on the premise that the speaker can't be trusted, a kind of "don't listen to what he says, just look who he is". In classical logic, this was considered a fallacy. On the Waldorf Critics list, it is grounds for dismissal. Except that Dan Dugan interprets "ad hominem" slightly differently. To Dugan, an "ad hominem" argument is one that shows a rabid Waldorf Critic to be in error. Saying "you're wrong" is an "ad hominem" to Dugan. Of course, you have to say it more directly, for example, try saying "Peter Staudenmaier is a liar." This will get you banned. It doesn't matter if you have just proven that very point, with quotes, citations and references. Once you come to the logical conclusion, you have just committed a Dan Dugan "ad hominem": you have demonstrated a Waldorf Critic to be in error, to know that they are in error, and then to claim not to know that they are in error. For that, you are banned, from a "free speech" forum!
Additionally, I should point out the basic illogic of having any rules at all on a "free-speech" forum. Either it is free-speech, or it has rules. It can't be both. But that is how PLANS works: not through logic, but by propaganda – using attention-getting words in close proximity (just look at how many times Hitler's name comes up in proximity with Rudolf Steiner on the flimsiest pretexts).
So that is why this Blog is necessary. Over at PLANS' moderated "unmoderated", censored "free-speech" Waldorf Critics mail-list, they can't handle the truth.
Posted by Daniel at August 8, 2005 1:29 PM
Comments
Deborah, what you say here is completely false. What is the point of this blog if it isn't going be honest? Anyone who has spent any amount of time on the WC list knows that Dan has been extremely patient with the most harassing, most obnoxious posters. Free-speech is not what you claim it is, BTW. Try going into a theatre and yelling "Fire" - you will be arrested for expressing your "free speech". Go to your local courtroom and start interrupting the judge. Free speech is not about anyone saying anything they want whenever they want. The ad-hominem rule is a very, very good rule FYI. It keeps discussions that often get very heated from deteriorating into personal attacks on people. And this is something that differentiates the WC list from your own blog.
Pete
Posted by: Pete at August 8, 2005 4:26 PM
Daniel says: "On the Waldorf Critics list, it is grounds for dismissal. Except that Dan Dugan interprets "ad hominem" slightly differently. "
Make that "very differently".
The WC list is like a little Banana Republic, with Papa Doc,,, I mean Papa Dan, sitting on the throne. Sune was suspended first for pointing out that banning licensed MDs from practicing medicine if they also study Anthroposophical medicine was akin to McCarthyism. (Technically, not an ad hom.) He was suspended again for doing a google to determine if an a name he wasn't familiar with was a woman's name or a man's name. (Again, not an ad hom.) And he was banned permanently (I wish walden would *get* this...permanently, walden!) for describing Peter Staudenmaier as a liar, which wasn't an "ad hom" argument at all, but instead a direct accusation against someone who had published attacks against Steiner and Anthroposophy, an accusation which Sune immediately subsequent offered ample testimony in evidence.
Linda
Posted by: Linda Clemens at August 8, 2005 7:21 PM
Pete,
Dan may be patient with obnoxious posters, but when someone has a legitimate point that shows him or his favorites to be in error, then they get banned.
True "free speech" would be just that - entirely without restrictions. Your point that there is no absolutely "free" speech in the US is correct; the Supreme Court has determined that the First Amendment of the US Constitution has some limitations. Those limitations have no relationship or bearing on someone running an Internet mailing list. Dan Dugan's claim to be running a "free speech" mailing list is patently false.
I'm sure that you find Dan Dugan's "ad hominem" rule very convenient. It stifles any real debate, and ensures that Waldorf Critics will never be proven wrong on their own list. As soon as anyone gets close - they're banned!
By your very own definition, you can't state that someone is in error on the Waldorf Critics list (regardless of how well you have proven the point) without falling afoul of the "ad hominem" rule. To do so would be a "personal attack". I'm sure it is quite comfortable to spout off in such a sheltered environment. But that is why this blog is needed.
Daniel (not Deborah)
Posted by: Daniel at August 8, 2005 10:58 PM
Sorry about the mixup Daniel.
I disagree that critics will never be proven wrong - I've seen it happen - and it has happened to me. I've admitted when I was wrong - so have other critics.
When real debate deteriorates into namecalling, it is no longer real debate. Visitors to the list sometimes don't understand the ad-hom rule and don't know how to phrase things in a non-personal way. You could say someone's argument is full of falsehoods or inaccuracies, but calling them a liar would be a violation. Personally, I like this because every Waldorf-supportive environment I've ever debated in seeks to divert attention from the issues and put it on the person. The issues are what is important. It doesn't matter if someone is a "liar" if the points they are making are true.
Pete
Posted by: Pete at August 9, 2005 9:40 AM