Skepticism
Skepticism
July, 2003
Just about everyone is familiar with the term Politically Correctness. The idea of it is modifying language and custom so as not to offend anyone, something very important to a politician who seeks the support of as many people as possible. This concept, for good or bad, has spread through society, with it's defenders demanding politeness in an effort to make sure no one is ever offended. Being polite and not wishing to offend people is normal for a civilized society, but it can go too far when it is used to defend the undefendable.
Does politeness and a desire not to offend lead to a defacto defense of the most illogical and downright silly of claims? There appears to be in the paranormal community an idea of, if not acceptance, at least a tendency not to directly criticize one another's paranormal beliefs. An atmosphere of all ideas must be respected exists. In the social circles of the paranormal respect includes not openly criticizing anyone's belief.
No moderation in moderation
Nearly all paranormal related message boards are moderated, if not outright censored, usually silencing the majority of criticism. The Séance, (www.suzanenorthrop.com) for example, includes in their posting policy:
"This message board is being maintained to provide a safe haven for discussion and sharing of experiences among those who believe in communication with the dead, mediumship, spirituality and the like. For skeptical debate, other internet forums are available,"Other sites use similar restrictions, though the policy is not always as clearly stated, if it is stated at all. But how far does this policy reach? On Séance even people who believe in mediumship are often not allowed to share experiences of bad readings, or questioning some mediums. On the ADC (after death contact www.after-death.com) website there are chat rooms and talks which promote alchemy, astrology, UFO's, crop circles, Reiki, and other subjects. In the chat room one time a person said how they never saw a UFO, but they often dream about them and aliens. Another person suggested they were a 'walk in', an alien masquerading as human and didn't know it. The person accepted that explanation. It seems that any belief, no matter how silly, is simply accepted there. As the host of the chatroom states:
"We will talk about a variety of topics within the paranormal, mystical and magical realms, with special emphasis on your own personal accounts and experiences, in an atmosphere free from ridicule and condemnation. All positions are honored in the "Phenomena" chat as we all search for truth."
The Di Diaries
Among all the excuses of why the information given by mediums is so vague and hard to interpret, one woman is promoted on that site for having written a book dictated by Princess Diana, and even had a regular newsletter dictated by her as well. No one seems to even question how someone like psychic medium John Edward struggles with letters, first names, and strange symbols he claims to have to interpret, while psychic medium and creator of a church, Sylvia Browne, gives detailed descriptions of the afterlife in her books, and Christine Toomey (Source 
) is able to get an entire book out of one famous spirit. If anyone does have any doubts, they are either keeping it to themselves, or forced to by board policies.
Do the people actually accept and believe all these claims, or are some just being polite? On one board a debate on psychic medium James van Praagh was going on when the webmaster deleted the thread. The usual reasons were given, to keep the peace and maintain the board as a safe place for people to express their beliefs without ridicule. However in private e-mail the webmaster did admit that James van Praagh was one medium they would not recommend to anyone. Yet his site still maintains a link to James van Praagh's website. This could be due to a difference of opinion with other people in charge of the website, it could be the atmosphere of acceptance without question, or it might be a matter of catering to their audience. After all, many of these websites have books to sell, or other paranormal paraphernalia. Why alienate a potential customer by revealing their belief might be a bit too much for even them to believe?
Putting the 'fan' in fanatic
Interestingly some boards that do not have anything to sell, such as 'fan' sites or ones run by people with strong beliefs for the paranormal, have been known to be far more aggressive in their censorship. Probably due to their not having to worry about driving away customers. Rather that seeking customers they only seek like-minded people, and anyone who does not toe the line can be treated very harshly. For example on the Survival Science board , 27 registered members were banned due to their also being members on the James Randi Educational Foundation board, even though many of these people had never even posted. A John Edward board run by Pam Blizzard would even ban members from comments made on other boards, even if the person believed in Edward as a real medium.
Rampant censorship
While it is claimed that the rules used on these sites are for the purpose of keeping the peace and avoiding offending or insulting anyone, is this truly the case? The answer is no. A post even politely questioning the validity of the medium de jour may turn up missing before the day is out, but one insulting or vilifying prominent skeptics, or skeptics in general, will often stand untouched. If a passing skeptic objects and starts arguing the issue on the board then it might be deleted. Then again one time on Séance in multiple threads only the posts by skeptics were removed, leaving the other side of the argument untouched. In such arguments it has been my experience that it is usually some of the believers that become insulting, abusive, and downright nasty regardless of how the skeptic presents their side. I myself have been accused of being incapable of love and being a tool of Satan, all this from people who often sign their messages "Love and Light".
Closing Notes
Of course this is not meant to reflect on all believers. Some can be quite embarrassed at the bad behavior of their fellow supposedly 'enlightened' believer. This does not change how politeness, or at least the illusion of it, appears to be used as an excuse to avoid critical examination of claims. Part of the way dictators, cults, and totalitarian organizations keep their control is through the control of information. Criticism is prevented in such organizations whenever possible. Are 'courtesy' and 'politeness' just the latest tools used to keep people from being exposed to opposing ideas and arguments?