Giantologists complain constantly that no-one considers their claims and listens to their ideas. Apparently what they really mean by "consider" and "listen" is "unconditionally agree with." My short tenure as someone posting on the Facebook group "REAL GIANTS" is now over, as I have been booted.
The description of the group reads:
"ANYTHING Pertaining or Connected to Giants
-Scientific, Serious Research & Theories are Welcome"
I think my work on giants falls under that definition. It turns out, though, that the unspoken rule is that you have to believe in giants or you have no business being there. And it really helps if you're a creationist. You can get lots of "likes" by posting pictures of Saharan rock art depicting cows and making the claim that it is showing dinosaurs.
It was actually better than that: the question with the photo was something along the lines of "is this a young dinosaur or a full-grown dinosaur surrounded by giants?" I can't get the exact quote since I am now banned from the discussion. My answer to the question was "It is not a dinosaur, it is a cow." They responded by posting pictures of other rock art from around the world purporting to show dinosaurs. And then they looked me up online (not too difficult). And then started talking about how evolution is wrong. Meanwhile I went and looked at other rock art from the same tradition that clearly showed cows with some kind of serpentine appendage, presumably depicting some ritual or ceremony. I offered those to try to get back to the original discussion, but my efforts were not appreciated.
At any rate, there is not a great deal of appetite for any debate about the actual existence of giants. Or really about much of anything rather than maybe a little daylight between "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" creationism. Other than that they already know all the answers. So I'm not sure what "research" is being done. I didn't see any of that.
But it was a great couple of days for me on "REAL GIANTS." I hoped to learn something about why people believe in giants and what they think giants are, but instead I learned that questioning the credibility or interpretation of any piece of evidence will get you labeled a "shill," a "troll," a "fool," "blind," and other things (I forget them all and I can't go back and check, since I am now banned). If you're looking for a "giants are awesome" echo chamber, this is the site for you: someone posts the same tired BS story about the Delavan skeletons or Joe Taylor's 47" femur sculpture and then the high-fives start. I posted a link to my post on Delavan and it got several "likes," but I'm guessing those people just had a knee-jerk reaction to the mention of Delavan and didn't actually read the piece.
The "REAL GIANTS" site was also a great place for finding people blissfully unburdened by the irony of using the internet to argue for the futility and "fantasy" of science. So if you're looking for some of those people, I can point you in the right direction.
So I guess maybe I did learn something.
I doubt I affected anyone's way of thinking over there, but who knows. Maybe some of them will follow me here. This would be a much better place to actually discuss ideas, I think, because I don't have an exclusionary theological litmus test. The downside for them is that someone outside of the gaggle of giant enthusiasts COULD potentially actually listen to and disagree with one of their ideas. I've got one example now of how that sort of thing is handled over there.
Don't worry, it will be different here: I won't boot you off or delete your comment if you disagree with me.
And I'm also not sure why some of you friended me on Facebook, but I think I'll pass.
The description of the group reads:
"ANYTHING Pertaining or Connected to Giants
-Scientific, Serious Research & Theories are Welcome"
I think my work on giants falls under that definition. It turns out, though, that the unspoken rule is that you have to believe in giants or you have no business being there. And it really helps if you're a creationist. You can get lots of "likes" by posting pictures of Saharan rock art depicting cows and making the claim that it is showing dinosaurs.
It was actually better than that: the question with the photo was something along the lines of "is this a young dinosaur or a full-grown dinosaur surrounded by giants?" I can't get the exact quote since I am now banned from the discussion. My answer to the question was "It is not a dinosaur, it is a cow." They responded by posting pictures of other rock art from around the world purporting to show dinosaurs. And then they looked me up online (not too difficult). And then started talking about how evolution is wrong. Meanwhile I went and looked at other rock art from the same tradition that clearly showed cows with some kind of serpentine appendage, presumably depicting some ritual or ceremony. I offered those to try to get back to the original discussion, but my efforts were not appreciated.
At any rate, there is not a great deal of appetite for any debate about the actual existence of giants. Or really about much of anything rather than maybe a little daylight between "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" creationism. Other than that they already know all the answers. So I'm not sure what "research" is being done. I didn't see any of that.
But it was a great couple of days for me on "REAL GIANTS." I hoped to learn something about why people believe in giants and what they think giants are, but instead I learned that questioning the credibility or interpretation of any piece of evidence will get you labeled a "shill," a "troll," a "fool," "blind," and other things (I forget them all and I can't go back and check, since I am now banned). If you're looking for a "giants are awesome" echo chamber, this is the site for you: someone posts the same tired BS story about the Delavan skeletons or Joe Taylor's 47" femur sculpture and then the high-fives start. I posted a link to my post on Delavan and it got several "likes," but I'm guessing those people just had a knee-jerk reaction to the mention of Delavan and didn't actually read the piece.
The "REAL GIANTS" site was also a great place for finding people blissfully unburdened by the irony of using the internet to argue for the futility and "fantasy" of science. So if you're looking for some of those people, I can point you in the right direction.
So I guess maybe I did learn something.
I doubt I affected anyone's way of thinking over there, but who knows. Maybe some of them will follow me here. This would be a much better place to actually discuss ideas, I think, because I don't have an exclusionary theological litmus test. The downside for them is that someone outside of the gaggle of giant enthusiasts COULD potentially actually listen to and disagree with one of their ideas. I've got one example now of how that sort of thing is handled over there.
Don't worry, it will be different here: I won't boot you off or delete your comment if you disagree with me.
And I'm also not sure why some of you friended me on Facebook, but I think I'll pass.
RSS Feed
