The mods at the DU's 911 dungeon posted a call for more civility. I'll append a reply by HamdenRice that explains the situation in detail, and contains info that I was previously unaware of. Predictably, the mods posted a sarcastic, content free reply and then locked the thread. Anyway here's Hamden's post:
======================================================== I think there is some ambiguity about what the role or stature of the 9/11 Forum and discussion of the events around 9/11 are in terms of how this forum is moderated. One issue that has frequently been raised is that the Administrators basically believe that the official story is the correct story, and that "conspiracy theories" about 9/11 are wrong if not insane. Many people on DU and people who read DU and comment on it elsewhere have noted that it is moderated with that bias seemingly in mind. The point is not to hurl accusations or dredge up past resentments, or even criticize the administrators or moderators; but if you want more civility and dialogue, it may be necessary for the moderators or administrators to clarify certain things. I guess the basic question is: is questioning 9/11 a topic over which reasonable people can agree to disagree? Or is questioning what happened on 9/11 something that, in the minds of the moderators, only unreasonable people do. The point is not to litigate what view is correct; but to ask: is this a question over which reasonable people can disagree or is it not. Let me give you a more concrete example. Supporters of the official story often point to this and other posts by the Administrator: Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-11-06 05:57 PM Response to Original message 8. Why is it that people expect 100% perfection from the "official" story... Edited on Mon Sep-11-06 05:59 PM by Skinner ...but they do not hold the alternative "theories" to nearly such a high standard? Do I believe that the official story is 100% correct? No. Do I believe that the official story is WAY closer to the truth than the conspiracy theories? Absolutely. The conspiracy theories don't hold up to scrutiny. They are mostly a lame collection of faith-based wishful thinking. Wondering about what happened is not qualification for disdain and ridicule. But if someone believes idiotic claims about controlled demolitions or missing airplanes -- then yes, that person is deserving of disdain and ridicule. Except for the fact that doing so to another member of this website would be a violation of our personal attacks rule. So don't do it. <end quote> There are a lot of things going on in this post, and it has been taken to mean a lot of different things. Again I don't want to litigate the substance of the 9/11 debate, but it is clear that Skinner believes the 9/11 Report to be mostly true and that he lumps together all alternative explanations as equally "faith-based wishful thinking." That's fine. He and the moderators are entitled to their opinion. On the other hand many smart and sincere people have looked at the data and come to different conclusions. Ordinarily we would say reasonable people agree to disagree. But I think what was most damaging to the civility of this forum was the last few lines. Having lumped together all investigations and alternatives as basically the same and, moreover, false, he says they are "deserving of disdain and ridicule." Wow, now what do you think the effect, on supporters of the official story is, of the administrator saying one side of the debate is deserving of disdain and ridicule, even though that side seems to represent about 85% of DU membership's views? The throw away line of "don't do it," hardly counteracts the "wink-wink-nod-nod" which seems to say, "go ahead and ridicule and disdain the other side." I don't know what your intentions were, but you've set up Philip Zimbardo's Stanford psychology department basement prison experiment. You've created a dungeon and told a portion of the posters that they are the "prison guards" whose job is to "ridicule and disdain" the arguments of the other side, rather than engage them. And that's exactly what that side did, and it seemed that the moderators, taking the cue felt that this was the purpose of the 9/11 Forum. Not only did posters assume this role, but they frequently quote this very post as their justification for doing so. There were several others from DU officialdom, and I am only using this particular post as an example, and the one most frequently cited by supporters of the official story as their reason for being disrespectful to questioners of the official story. And let me be the first to admit, that having been thrown into that dynamic one's instinctive response is to give as good as one gets. Hence the 9/11 Forum became a Hobbesian venue of attack, ridicule, disdain and counter attack on both sides. People often complain that the 9/11 Forum keeps discussion of 9/11 out of GD. I couldn't care less. Because of this dedicate forum, I've gotten a chance to meet Paul Thompson (cited by New York Magazine as the "gold standard" of 9/11 research), Bryan Sacks, Nicholas Levis (Jack Riddler) and other prominent or just plain thoughtful 9/11 researchers here. Daniel Hopsicker has popped in here. As with any other subject, having a place where people can meet is great -- unless, consciously or unconsciously, purposely or by accident, the administrators and moderators have created a venue in which all ideas questioning the official story are set up for subjection to officially sanctioned "disdain and ridicule" -- in other words if the purpose of the 9/11 Forum isn't to allow people with similar interests on both sides, whether skeptics or truthers, to interact; but if the purpose is to allow one side to engage in name calling, ridicule, and heckling without any sanction whatsoever. I realize that DU administrators and moderators take a dim view of how DU is perceived in other forums, but sometimes outside views serve as a useful reality check, and the perception has arisen out there in "the internets" that this is indeed the purpose of the purpose of the 9/11 Forum. That's why not only 9/11 discusion is moved here, but so is discussion of alien lizard overlords. It would be a shame if this is still the purpose of the forum, because questioning 9/11 is going mainstream and a majority of DUers are interested in this research -- at least getting information so they can learn and decide for themselves. Unfortunately, DUers who venture here are turned off by the vitriol and don't stay for the available information, eg: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph <http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph> ... This forum could be a great resource, rather than an embarrassment. Most of all, it would be terrible if people like Paul Thompson, Bryan Sacks, Nicolas Levis and others with lots of data and very busy schedules simply gave up on this place because of the incivility. In conclusion, I guess what I am saying is that I'm not sure you can improve the civility here and get people to actually start interacting rather than yelling at each other simply by restating the rules unless there is some sort of official statement as to whether this is a subject about which reasonable people can disagree and therefore deserve equal respect on both sides; or whether it is still DU official policy that if you disagree with the official theory you should be subject to officially encouraged disdain and ridicule?
