Originally a comment by Brony on Thou shalt respect The Leaders.
Am I correct in remembering that Nugent was the one that tried to host the debate to heal the deep rifts earlier on? If so that matters.
On describing decency and demonization
So how does this,
I believe that atheist and skeptic people and groups, like all people and groups within society, should promote compassion, empathy, fairness, justice, equality and respect for people, combined with robust rational analysis of ideas.
…relate to this,
I believe that the approach taken by PZ Myers, and by some other people on (for shorthand) the FreeThought Blogs perceived ‘side’ of some disagreements, is counterproductive to these aims. It is also unjust and harmful in itself, because it routinely demonises decent people who support equality but who have a different approach to it.
…when it comes to the specific content of the characterizations PZ and others are making? He needs to define demonization.
I noticed that Nugent spared ZERO effort to actually describe the content of the controversies involving “decent people being demonized”. Is it demonization of me to suggest that Harris was dismissing his critics because he thinks that women are probably not good at criticism, because of estrogen? Those are not his literal words but I would be happy to defend that way of portraying his views. I don’t think that someone like that is acting like a decent person. If Nugent is willing to call out behavior he should be willing to get specific when he is taking sides. Otherwise this is a more complicated pissing on fire hydrants.
I don’t think that Dawkins is acting like a decent person when he literally gets personal in his rhetoric by dismissing critics as only in it for the money (and the other stuff that has been mentioned here). I don’t think that Shermer is a decent person after hearing Randi’s defense of him. Nugent is dry and tasteless without details.
I believe that the approach taken by PZ Myers has been central to the escalation of what some people call ‘the deep rifts’.
Actually some of us have decided to support him more openly BECAUSE is willing to escalate when appropriate. That is a skill I admire. Calling out behavior that is worth calling out is is critical to any society, especially among the leadership because they set moral and ethical tones for those below. I want a less hierarchical society but some parts of human psychology will be things to deal with as they are. I require Nugent to give me examples of when it is appropriate to escalate in order to take him seriously.
But something seems to happen to him when he gets behind a keyboard. He routinely demonises people in a way that he doesn’t do in person, and that he recognises as unfair when others do it to him. He routinely attacks people as individuals, as opposed to merely attacking their ideas or behaviour.
So why does Nugent keep making the claim that PZ demonized someone without actually trying to back it up? I don’t care if you are a commenter, a blogger, or the president of the united states if you are directing strong words at someone you have the responsibility to do a minimum level of demonstration. PZ and others at FTB outlined why they said what they said in specifics.
By specific I mean he should line these characterizations of what PZ said, with the reality to show why the are demonization.
*”He routinely attacks people as individuals, as opposed to merely attacking their ideas or behaviour.”
*accused “…Michael Shermer of multiple unreported serious crimes…”
*accused “…Russell Blackford of being a lying fuckhead.”
*”…described Robin Williams’ suicide as the death of a wealthy white man dragging us away from news about brown people…”
*”…a white lady who made racist comments looks like the kind of person who would have laughed at nanu-nanu…”
*”Richard Dawkins has been eaten by brain parasites and is grossly dishonest.”
*”Christina Hoff Sommers promotes lies about feminism and claims them as inalienable truths.”
*”Michael Shermer is a liar and an assailant”
*”Sam Harris has scurried off to write a tendentious and inexcusably boring defence of sticking his foot in his mouth.”
Some of these are worth talking about as problems too. But we can’t actually tell if a characterization is accurate without it being lined up with reality and I’m simply not satisfied that Nugent has even done that for himself with what I just read. He’s simply acting startled at tone towards authority figures and letting that direct his analysis. And of course he displays no problems with the tone or the content of Dawkins and Harris et al.
Dawkins inverted
Did anyone else notice the huge list of “atheists doing nice things” that was provided because Nugent was afraid of the atheist community looking bad because of press coverage? Dawkins was pointing at suffering that he believed was worse elsewhere in the world to get women to stop talking and to encourage others to stop paying attention to them. Nugent is now pointing at good stuff atheists are doing elsewhere in the world to get PZ to stop talking and encourage others to stop paying attention to him and FTB.
The measuring of “goods” is just as fallacious as the measuring of “bads” like suffering when figuring out of a behavior is appropriate. His piece could have been half as long and I would not have been insulted by him.
On tactics
I believe that this should include tackling sexism, racism, homophobia and other discriminatory biases in society, and making our groups and events welcoming to everybody who wants to be involved.
That is literally what is being done at FTB. Nugent is not helping by being an ally to sexists and creeps at best.
I believe that we can do this without routinely demonising good people who support equality but who have a different approach to it, without uncharitably misinterpreting tweets and impromptu comments as if they were formal pronouncements of misogyny, and without ignoring the principles of natural justice by publicly accusing named people of serious alleged crimes.
Given that we have no idea what he means by “demonization” there is no way to tell what he means by “ignoring the principles of natural justice”. Authorities calling out other authorities is probably part of natural justice for apes. Large numbers of people calling out authorities is natural for apes. But so is harassment and criticism can be harassment if done a certain way so I’m not saying that there is nothing that he could call demonization. I am saying that Nugent has done a terrible job of framing the conflict.
I believe that we should robustly question the ideas and behaviour of people who are, or who are perceived to be, authority figures in our own spheres of activity.
Why yes we should! So why did you ignore PZ, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan and others when they questioned Dawkins, Harris, Shermer and others? I get literally no impression from Nugent’s piece that he saw more than the twitter paraphrasing of this conflict.
Nugent is MASSIVELY mistaken in his piece and getting preemptively defensive should be unnecessary, unless he knows at some level that he did not do his homework.
I don’t think Brony addressed this (I didn’t read the comment fully), but another problem is Nugent doesn’t seem to bother determining if these “different approaches” are effective or not. Gosh, isn’t “intelligent design” just a “different approach” to explaining how humans came to be? I doubt Nugent would buy that, but that’s why I’m not impressed by his mere assertion that these are indeed “different approaches.”
Is this still going on? With the rising power of social media, any recognized person that slips or says something wrong, or that gets taken out of context by some “whatever” reporter, will be mowed down by everyone. Sam was wrong in addressing the issue again. He should have just shut up and said “it got taken out of context, i’m sorry” and leave it at that.
As to the other blogs… Now I remembered why I stopped reading them a few years back. Everyone expects everything to be “Politically Correct”. Never. Gonna. Happen.
As for equality, I’m all up for it. I mean, isn’t it unfair that women earn the same amount in Tennis than men but they play only “best of 3” in the Grand Slams?! Ludicrous! I want to see Serena wipe the floor against other players on a best of 5 match and can’t because some stupid males say that women can’t play best of 5.
One thing it seems like with Nugent is that he has no follow-through. “Let’s talk about the rifts!” Quickly loses interest. Somebody criticizes Dawkins? “I read his autobiography and it made him sound great!” Like he just can’t be bothered/doesn’t have the time to actually think about stuff.
I disagree. Mainly because whenever I see somebody promoting those ideas it always seems to be all about promoting them as ways other people should behave.
The ‘good society’ promoter to my mind spends a lot of time acting in ways directly contrary to their ideals they proclaim, and then appealing to those ideals when criticised. unfair, unjust, biased and disrespectful jerks whose idea of rational analysis is “coincides with my own views” – and never get called on it.
But that would be absurd wouldn’t it?
And with the concept of respect – which in this context means silence, the same voices who call for it within atheism over issues such as sexism or racism are quite happy to dismiss the concept when it comes to religion.
If we are to treat religion as we treat every other idea, then doing away with unwarranted “respect” is definitely implied – so why is it when we treat every other idea the way we treat religion suddenly we are accused of being “divisive” and “bullies”?
In fact, there is a lot in this debate that reminds me of the greater atheist debate – we talk with disgust about people building false equivalences between atheists writing books and religious groups actively beheading people, or shooting abortion doctors, or trying to enforce their religion as law…
Yet we are supposed to draw equivalences between feminists writing blogs or producing videos criticising sexism, with the people who send them graphic rape and death threats, or go further and photoshop feminists into porn. We are supposed to in this case accept both sides have their “bad eggs”.
I say screw the promotion of “compassion, empathy, fairness, justice, equality and respect for people, combined with robust rational analysis of ideas” – lets rather have some honesty and consistency.
But hey, that’s me and I’m weird.
Should read
Its been a long day.
Take out the “and getting called on it” too.
Is it possible to fix the block quoting in the guest blog above? I recognized some paragraphs as being what M. Nugent said, but (in my browser at least) I’m not seeing any quote marks or other visible differences in the text, so found it confusing to follow.
Whoops. Fixed. Sorry, my fault – rushing yesterday, short on time.
@Leo Buzalsky
That was the “I noticed that Nugent spared ZERO effort to actually describe the content of the controversies involving “decent people being demonized” part. I’m working on doing more with less words.
@brucegorton
I’ll go halfway with you. “The ‘good society’ promoter” should have their bad actions called out like everyone else. People promote good societies for reasons. Some good, some bad.
Remember atheist women, when someone rapes, assaults, harasses, threatens or says sexist shit, don’t say anything about it. Don’t support people who do talk about it. Don’t advocate for measures to protect yourself or other women. Men, do not believe these women or help them bring their mistreatment to the forefront in any way. Because when we do these things we are divisive and we are demonizing “good people” and that’s bad. Instead, why don’t we all pretend nothing is wrong and keep buying the books, attending the talks and supporting the orgs that tell us to shut up because it’s our fault we get raped anyway. Since women are not good at thinky, it’s probably best we let men decide when we should speak and what we are allowed to speak about. That’s what big tent atheism is all about! Anyone who says otherwise is a lying, greedy, thought police, witch hunter out for clicks.
/s
But hey everybody, look on the bright side. With feminists, their allies, SJW types, and so forth abandoning the atheist movement as fast as they can, at least the Deep Rift will finally be solved.
(buh dum dum!)
Yes, http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/ was Michael Nugent’s idea. I checked that site, and nothing has happened there for nearly a year and a half. Some “dialogue”.