Just ask questions

One of Skype's competitors, Paltalk, offers a somewhat similar venue to Skypeland for discussions. What is different is that Paltalk has fewer foreign language discussions, and many more English discussions than Skypecasts do (or did, since it is not clear if Skypecasts will return). In addition, Paltalk software only allows one person to speak at a time (although a beta version I tried some months ago seems to allow more than one to talk at once). Paltalk also makes a lot more use of a single text chat window accessible by all users than Skypecasts typically do. This is quite confusing, because a user is asked to respond to someone speaking, as well as potentially dozens of other interlocutors in a very fast moving text chat, as well as "whispers" (private messages between room participants). Although Skypecasts could have such a chat window, it would be a bit impractical since the participants would have to be added manually. It is easier for participants in Paltalk to hold forth for extended periods, lecturing the others in the room. Since they cannot be interupted by others, the only way to stop them is to silence them or boot them from the room, which is often done. Another difference is that Paltalk hosts have much more ability to silence discussion participants than Skypecast hosts, and Paltalk hosts can even ban certain users from a given room for 24 hours. Hosting a room in Paltalk appears to be a much bigger deal than it does in Skypecasts, and it is much harder in Paltalk for any user to become a host. It appears that this extra power given to hosts has resulted in much less discussion and debate in Paltalk than one typically finds in Skypecasts. The rooms are less interesting as a result, but calmer. I also think there is less information exchange in Paltalk; I have found fewer people able to support their positions with real evidence, since they just can drive people that disagree out of the room or silence them much more easily.

For example, someone invited me into a room entitled "Muslim Christian Debate". A Muslim was speaking and invited me to ask questions. I asked him what he thought of extremist Muslims. I was told that they did not exist and that all Muslims were moderate. So, I asked about the Supreme Ayatollah and his 3000 answers to a series of traditional "religious queries" published in his "thesis"; surely these were somewhat extreme positions. I was told that Ayatollahs do not count.

I asked if Ayatollahs were not Muslim, and I was told that Ayatollahs are not Muslim. Pondering this, I asked if Shiites were Muslim and I was told they are not. In response, I asked if Sufis are Muslims and I was told they were not. I inquired about the Kharijites and the Alevi, but I did not receive any answers.

I tried to ask why these groups were not Muslims but I was just met with more jeers and invective. I was told that all Muslims who called themselves something else were not Muslims, or who have hyphenated labels. I asked if this was true of Salafis and I was attacked and insulted for asking this. I tried to point out that I had been invited to ask questions, and now I was being assailed for doing so. All this did was increase the agitation of others in the room. Apparently, the room participants did not want to be asked questions and did not want to have a dialogue.

What was interesting to me was how I was repeatedly assaulted, criticized, and ridiculed visciously, for asking questions. Even though I had been invited to ask questions, I was bombarded with jeers for doing so. I waited and waited while I was hit with more and more personal slurs and attacks. Finally I stated that I had had enough and I would leave the room. I was met with a stream of insults for this statement. Still, after a good 10 minutes or more, no one had really addressed most of my questions in any reasonable way. I gave up and left. I was invited back but I did not see who had invited me, otherwise I would have talked to them in private. So I left. Such things can happen in Skypecasts, but I do not think it is as common in Skypeland as it appears to be in Paltalk.

A similar thing happened in a room supposedly about conservative politics. I asked what people knew of Governor Sarah Palin's views about creationism and the use of prayer to "cure" homosexuality. Again, I was beset with wave after wave of insults and snide remarks, expletives, execrations and imprecations from all sides, in text and by voice. My question of course was not addressed or even allowed to be discussed. This might happen sometimes in Skypecasts, but I noticed that usually a different culture reigns in Skypecasts in which people are allowed to state their position clearly. Often someone in Skypecasts will ask that someone who is "odd man out" and clearly holding a different opinion than most of those in a room be allowed to make at least one statement unimpeded. In Paltalk, most of the rooms seem to be populated only by one group with similar views. It appears that it is not common in Paltalk to find a room which is dominated by those with opinions that are different than that of the host, as is often found in Skypecasts. Paltalk hosts quickly censor anyone with a contrary position, or even remove them from the room very rapidly, at least from what I have observed so far. If someone is booted from a Skypecast room, they can immediately return, although they will not necessarily be allowed to speak. In Paltalk, someone booted from a room is not allowed to return for 24 hours.

I brought the Palin question to a room on "Christian debate" where I was again met with wave after wave of derision. About 10 or more speakers approached the microphone to tell me in extremely rude terms, often laced with assorted vulgarities, that no political questions were allowed there since this room was only for discussion of religion. I tried to point out that some topics like creationism or abortion or homosexuality or Sharia law overlap between religion and politics, but this was met with derision and repeatedly rejected. I was told over and over that off-topic discussions are not permitted.

Someone said that donuts were a permissable topic and so I sarcastically asked about donuts, and the room residents enthusiastically discussed their favorite donuts for a few minutes. I opined that the reason there are few "debates" in these rooms, even rooms labelled as "debate" rooms is that it is not permitted in Paltalk. I was told over and over that Skypecasts never had existed and that I must be lying and that the format I was describing for a discussion would never work. I was even told that sarcasm was improper and not allowed in a discussion, which I found curious.

Interestingly, an hour or two later, several people came up to lecture the "Christian debate" room about political topics, including someone who is clearly a Hindutva supporter. No one objected, even when I pointed this out. The Hindutva gentleman wailed on and on about how evil the US is and how God is planning to destroy the US and how all of Judaism is derived from the Dravidians and their religious ideas. It took me quite a while before I started to even understand his position because it was so confused. Others just let him spew away with little response. Apparently he does this regularly and no one objects. Possibly, this is because they cannot understand what he is saying.

I find it interesting how different sets of rules and powers for hosts and a slightly different communication medium has resulted in a completely different culture on Paltalk. The Paltalk rooms might be more orderly and less contentious, but they are also less interesting and less informative. I learned long ago that controversy is the lifeblood of these internet discussions. Without an exchange, rooms die. Paltalk hosts can filter out everyone who disagrees or states a contrary opinion. Therefore the Paltalk rooms tend towards peaceful armed camps where everyone agrees and any interlopers are swiftly dealt with and removed. Since an interloper in a Skypecast cannot be easily removed, and is at least allowed to listen and message many in the room by text, or even start a competing room easily, other methods have developed to deal with disagreements in Skypecasts. Many in Skypecasts have been forced to become experts in various controversial subjects, and to demand that anyone who enters into a debate be able to support their position with evidence. Except for people reading long passages directly from the Koran, the Hadiths, the Vedas or the Bible, I saw little to no supporting evidence being discussed or presented in Paltalk. Although there were Skypecasts rooms in which all contrary views were suppressed, these rooms tended to quickly whither and die because they just are not interesting. Also, the extra powers and privileged positions of Paltalk hosts tend to create tinpot dictators, smug and pleased with themselves. Although Skypecast hosts can become comfortable and familiar to many "fans", they are not as powerful and the atmosphere in Skypecasts is different.