Greta asks where you’d draw the line.
Is there any line that someone could cross that would make you unwilling to support them or work with them? Is there any line that someone could cross that would make you not link to their videos, not share their blog posts, not upvote them, not post admiring comments about them in public forums, not buy or promote their books? Will you really support the work of absolutely anyone, regardless of how vile their behavior has been, as long as they say one thing you happen to agree with?
Would you support the work of an avowed racist, who has publicly and unapologetically stated their opinion that black people are not fully human? Would you support the work of an avowed homophobe, who has publicly and unapologetically stated their opinion that LGBT people are mentally ill and should be locked into mental hospitals?
OK, atheists, think about it. Have you been outraged at the Catholic Church’s cover up of pedophiles, criminal behavior in orphanages or hospitals, or been horrified at their inhuman rejection of family planning in the third world? Have you ever thought to yourself that it was unbelievable that people actually remained in the church and even made excuses for that behavior? If you’re saying that all behavior must be tolerated in the name of the Big Tent, if you’ve been arguing that it’s just one little foible but that these cheerful misogynists have done good work otherwise, if you’re reluctant to call out the ugliness because it might besmirch the good name of atheism, go look in a mirror and say hello to the same damn thing as any Catholic apologist.
Atheists already have a PR problem, in that the stereotype is that we’re all amoral, horrible people. The only corrective is to make it clear that we stand for something more than just making fun of god — and everyone knows this. Atheists like to stand up for science (I approve), but some atheists freak out if we also use atheism as a rational justification for equality (I don’t even understand that). Neither science nor atheism dictate what you must do, but they are frameworks for seeing the universe free of the superstitious fog of human delusions, so that human beings can better pursue human virtues. All human beings. Not just the ones in your ethnic group or your socioeconomic class.
About that ‘big tent’ every movement aims to provide…atheism is a small tent. It was worse 15-20 years ago, when I’d attend atheist meetings and find myself the youngest guy there, but still fitting in as a white male academic. It’s definitely gotten better. But honestly, rather than simply expanding the tent, what I see is resistance, defensiveness, and a hardening of sexist and racist attitudes. And further, I see movement leaders acquiescing or glossing over these flaws because they fear antagonizing people already under the tent, rather than seeing that these same reactionary neophobes (or worse, disruptive trolls) are a major hindrance to further growth. And you have to be willing to adapt.
When you a non-white or non-male person joins your movement, like Sikivu Hutchinson, or Rebecca Watson, or Anthony Pinn, or Heina Dadabhoy, or Jamila Bey, or when LGBTQ atheists like Zinnia Jones or Chris Stedman join, they are not there to bring you cookies. They are not there to reassure you that straight white men are A-OK in their book. They are not there to allow you to check off an entry in your diversity bucket list. They are there to represent their interests, to criticize, to shape the movement to better fill the needs of more diverse people. You can disagree and criticize right back, because that’s what atheists do, but you must take them seriously, and you must try to change yourself, because that’s the only way we can grow this movement.
That’s our choice. We can either make atheism mean something, with substantial ideas that improve people’s lives — and science is one thing that does, but is only going to appeal to a niche audience — or we can fade out and die away, like any of the other tightly focused movements that sprang up in this land of a thousand religions and a thousand self-help movements. Diversify or die. Adaptation or extinction. Your choice.
I’m not making the choice that says we ignore the hidebound dogmatists and stiflingly loud haters in our midst. I’ve got lines that I won’t cross.
I don’t really do any of this anyway.
Is “the work” relevant and important?
If it is, I am willing to forgive a lot of assholery from the person who did it.
If it isn’t, there are a lot of more decent people out there doing almost the same stuff.
No. Why should you forgive assholery? You acknowledge both the good stuff and the bad stuff.
Good morning PZ,
This is always a hard question.
Jews in general, and Israelis in particular, have wrestled with the music of Wagner and the poetry of Ezra Pound for decades.
One of the current quandaries involves watching the films of Woody Allen or Roman Polanski.
Charles Dickens was a horrible husband and father.
Henry Ford was a notorious racist and anti-Semite.
Some have problems with the way Albert Einstein treated the women in his life.
Ernest Hemingway was, well, you get the idea.
The “is the work significant?” question is too squishy for me. I don’t think that there is one standard to apply here.
Do all you can to make today a better day,
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
Freodin, is the reason you are willing to forgive assholery because it doesn’t directly affect you? Because what you are saying is that basically you’re willing to overlook rape threats, racism, and homophobia et al as long as the individual does good work on the cause you consider important. So I am asking. How much racism do you think PoC ought to be forced to tolerate in the name of your cause? How many rape threats are too many for you to stop promoting the person who makes them?
I posit that any amount of uncorrected prejudice invalidates the relevance and importance of a person’s work. When you say to women that you are willing to forgive misogyny so long as a person does “important” work, you are saying to women that you don’t want them in your movement. You are indeed saying they don’t belong because it’s not their movement, it’s the movement of misogynists. When you are willing to overlook a person’s racism because their other work is relevant, you are saying to PoC that they are not welcome, that you will promote racism along with your atheism.
People seem to constantly be forgetting that women, LGBT folks, PoC, and disabled persons are themselves atheists. When you make allowances for movement voices which degrade and invalidate these atheists, you are taking a stand for a movement which is white, male, straight, and cis, and in which the only voices that are heard, the only interests represented are those of the dominant group. Period. Is that a movement you want? Fine, but you’re going to have to stop using women’s issues, LGBT rights, and anti-racism as tools with which to bash the religious. You don’t get to hijack other people’s issues when it suits you then turn around and tell them they aren’t welcome in their own movement.
I just try to compartmentalize these things. Such as, “Is General Relativity a wrong theory cuz Einstein was a misogynist?” “Is Ender’s Game a crappy book cuz Card is a blatant homophobe?” If the answers to those examples are not clear: GR is not affected by Albert’s personal shortcomings, nor is the latter book affected by the personality-failure of its author. The conundrum of the day is Woody Allen. Do I shred Annie Hall, etc. cuz he seems to be a ‘pedofile’, with no evidence in any of his movies? I have a hard time accepting the concept of “black-listing”, i.e. despising *all* the works of a person due to a single misdeed of that person. Even so, I do tend to do so with some who are extreme; I’ll refuse to even consider appraising their latest work cuz I consider them to be such a despicable person.
hyphenman @4
Is the work “significant” is not that complicated to me, for people within the atheist/skeptic community anyway. Is somebody debunking creationists or bigfoot believers in a humorous manner significant? Is tfoot or TAA doing anything that hasn’t been done better by someone who is not an asshole? I will not support them in anyway.
Most of you examples are long dead so it’s easier to take the good and denounce the bad. For active people who “represent” the atheist/skeptic community, it’s real time in how they respond to sexism/racism. I loved some of Dawkins books, but he has proved himself an asshole over and over, so I’m done with him. Many of the others that have said or supported problem things haven’t done anything as significant as far as I can tell. Really in this day and age, if they aren’t standing for the principles of humanism in actions and words, I don’t see how significant they can be.
The question we’re often asked by the religious is “without god, where do you get your morals”?
Here, the question isn’t “where” our morals come from, but what are they?
Are you a racist? Are you a child molester? Are you a rapist? Are you homophobic? Are you sexist? Are you anti-equal rights? Are you anti-choice? (And on and on.)
If not, why in the world would you want to associate yourself with people who are some or all of those things? “The work”? Bah! I’d rather have “the work” fail miserably than be associated with any of the above.
And if you are any of those things above, why in the world would you think that I would want to be associated with you? Sorry, I’m known by the company I keep. And that company definitely does not include you.
I have a lot of lines, but one is this: calling social justice “mission drift” for atheism while linking to the blogs and videos of people whose main contribution is trashing feminism or other social justice causes. If it was really mission drift, you’d just ignore that kind of content. Promoting someone like Jaclyn Glenn means you’re actively against my rights while trying to pretend that you’re not.
1. Sure do. MRA’s, homophobes, mysogynists, the fascist wing of Loonytarianism, forced birthers, female slavers.
2. That being said, you can’t expect perfection in your leaders or co-members. If you want purity, conformity, and uniformity, join a xian cult.
The Mormons do all that and you would love it.
3. So you balance all the above out and make your own decision, realizing that most likely no one will agree 100%. The lines will always be fuzzy and disappear into gray areas.
Greta Christina discusses shunning, but I think another way to look at it is as a boycott. If a business does something that crosses my lines, of course I stop buying their products. I’m not going to support Hobby Lobby or Chick-Fil-A if that money goes to pursue a political agenda I vehemently oppose. My distaste for evangelical politics is more important than chicken sandwiches or crafting supplies. Likewise, I don’t see why I should support or upvote or share videos by people who make rape threats. Anything I do to support them creates a bigger platform to share hateful views.
There is a segment of atheists that are net negatives, the MRA’s, mysogynists, the racists with a sheet labeled human biodiversity, some Loonytarians. Don’t forget, Ayn Rand was an atheist!!!
I call these atheism(–), atheists minus. As opposed to atheism(+).
They are just like fundie xians if you drop the xianity, a minor part of the fundie package anyway.
1. Fundie xianity is just right wing extremist politics with a few crosses stuck on for show. The driver is extremist politics, the xianity is minor, unimportant, and at best, a tribal marker.
2. The fundies own the Dark Side of our society. Satan and the demons have become redundant and are now unemployed.
3. The atheist(–)’s are Dark Siders too. I have no more liking, use, or respect for them than I do the fundies.
4. Oddly enough, I find much more in common with religionists, including some xian groups, then I do with the Dark Siders of atheism(–).
It’s not them, it’s me.
Dawkins is still basically the same guy as when he wrote his ground-breaking books.
Hell, he’s probably the same as he was as an undergraduate.
Hitchens died the same guy as when he ditto.
Whoever the other OldOnes are, also the same.
.
Not me.
I’ve changed.
And the times, they are a’changing.
@HappyNat
The Dawkins example is most apt.
I thought more about this as I was grocery shopping this morning.
Being an atheist is on a separate axis from being a “good” person, whatever we might agree that to be. Whether or not you adhere to magical thinking is divorced from your degree of assholeness.
Ultimately we have to decide if what a person says is true or false, irregardless of what their personal morals/ethics/behaviors might be.
Jeff
@hyphenman #4
I’m not so concerned with parsing out the morals of dead people. For one thing, they lived in different times and were exposed to different knowledge and different societal morés (doesn’t make their behaviour any more moral, but it does make it understandable and perhaps more forgivable to a certain degree). For another, the harms they caused are in the past and can’t be changed.
What we’re talking about here are people who have all the benefits of available knowledge and ability to be moral and empathetic as we are but who choose to be racists and misogynists and homophobes anyway.There’s no reason that Dawkins can’t choose to be a feminist and support women against rapists and harassers. Instead, he chooses to be a sexist and lend his support to rapists and harassers and those who are in their camp (not to mention racists). The harm that he’s causing is right here and right now. It’s time (long past time really) to say that harm is unacceptable. Change your behaviour or be pushed out.
hyphenman:
I disagree.
Thunderf00t is a good example.
He’s an atheist who has created videos criticizing creationism. Those videos are well done for what they are.
However, he’s also a misogynist piece of shit.
I think some people weigh his videos against his misogyny and find his videos to be more important than what he’s said about women. I don’t.
I’d rather someone not be a misogynistic piece of shit. Treating women as human beings is more important to me than someone not believing in god.
Besides that, it seems like you’re trying to avoid the discussion. PZ is specifically talking about the moral compass of people that we support. Do you simply not care what beliefs are held by the people you like or support?
Some people are atheists not because of Reason or human rights, but because if God existed, it would mean someone in the universe is more important than they are.
twas brillig @6:
I just try to compartmentalize these things
Why? It’s certainly a utilitarian stance – I don’t have to give up Ender’s Game if I ‘compartmentalize’ Card’s virulent hatred – but is it a reasonable or morally consistent one? I don’t see how.
Of course these questions are not simple. Wagner is dead, so my listening to his music doesn’t support him (unlike buying OSC’s books, which puts money in his pocket that he uses to support hateful causes); but his music was, essentially, the soundtrack of the Third Reich. Einstein was a misogynist, but his scientific achievements are unquestionable. Dawkins has great things to say about evolutionary biology, but he then leverages his scientific prestige to bleat about how Harry Potter is evil and that girls need to STFU about harassment.
But simply sticking our fingers in our ears and going, well, I separate the art from the artist, or ‘compartmentalizing’ those issues, is a cop-out. It leads to the exact tolerance of swaggering bigotry that PZ is talking about, where we do some kind of arithmetic operation and conclude that (contribution to atheism) minus (assholery) equals some small net positive so it’s all good.
Cross-posted from the Lounge thread:
A mayor in Michigan decided to ban an atheist booth at the city hall atrium, comparing atheists to the KKK and to Nazis (of course).
Think Progress link.
Fortunately, the atheist movement has a lot of people in it. While the work is important, there are plenty of non-assholes doing it, so there is no reason to tolerate unrepentant shitheads, when there are perfectly fine people to support. Sure, maybe Woody Allen made some good movies. But there are plenty other good movie-makers in the world, so I don’t feel particularly deprived by shunning Allen and his works. Seriously, fuck that guy. While The Amazing Atheist has made some good videos criticizing and deconstructing Xian ignorance, he’s hardly the only one. There are plenty others who are much more pleasant to watch, like Christina Rad, who are not raging assholes. Why would I want to cut TJ slack? Again, fuck that guy.
Re the Woody Allen/ Polanski example, solution is simple. You torrent the movies and they don’t see a cent.
What I don’t understand is why some actors work with them (Pierce Brosnan has spoken about his abusive childhood, but worked with Polanski, a child rapist)
I’ve also worked with some very pleasant, intelligent, kind, charitable religious fundamentalists. I also am friends with a guy who is nice guy, but his views on the middle east could be best be described as one-sided. I keep it off topic, and block his links from certain sources, because all I get is unreasonable polemic
“What I don’t understand is why some actors work with them…”
My guess is this: great, heaping, big gobs of cash.
@Artor… nope, I doubt that Woody Allen’s movies don’t make that much money, neither do Polanski’s. Their budgets are tiny.
I think it is a prestige thing… but if you care about the good opinion of your fellow humans, working with creepy or violent assholes is a strange way to get it.
My ingenious torrent solution will work with OSC’s books as well, BTW.
#15
Which examples of this are you thinking of?
#17
If I recall, what he actually said on such things being harmful was: “whether that has a pernicious effect, I don’t know”, and “whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s something for research.” and that he “didn’t know what to think about magic and fairytales”.
(By the way, I agree with Greta that the attitude and quotes by “The Amazing Atheist” should result in him being shunned.)
@Ibis3, Let’s burn some bridges
So, for instance, if you knew that [insert the name of any Nobel Prize recipient here] was a flaming homophobe secretly disseminating their vile hatred under a pseudonym and even devoting their entire Nobel winnings to furthering hatred of members of the LGBTQ community , would you demand the return of their Nobel and discount or ignore their work?
Jeff
@Tony! The Queer Shoop
I think ignoring, or actively opposing, inconsequential work by those we find objectionable is easy.
What happens, however, when that work has real consequences for us or those we care about?
Few people would reject a life-saving cure developed by the the most extreme racist they
can imagine.
I can boycott Walmart and Amazon, for instance, because I object to their business models.
I may not be able to boycott an antibiotic developed by an equally objectionable pharmaceutical company.
Jeff
@Jack Ingoldsby
So, stealing from those whose morals/ethics you find objectionable is acceptable?
That was the position of Edward I as regards the Scots, and I do find that objectionable.
Jeff
Thanks, but no thanks.
I don’t read OS Card’s books because he is a hate filled Mormon.
I don’t read them because they aren’t good books and a waste of time. He wrote one passable book and it all went downhill from there.
I stopped reading him halfway through a book long ago and before he became a born again Mormon. “Why am I reading this, it’s poorly written and doesn’t make any sense.”
What happens is that it has those consequences. What work is it, specifically?
Do you believe the problem atheists have is a bunch of Nobel Laureates going around and occasionally saying a few naughty things? Are these shitheads like pharmaceutical companies in any way whatsoever? Or is it not even remotely like that?
Pan Paniscus @25: I recall reading an interview where Dawkins spoke out very strongly against any fantastical literature and called out the Harry Potter books specifically as actually harmful, but now I can’t find it. The remarks you mention (which are easy to find documentation of) are pretty stupid on their own, mind, and his idiocy and bigotry extends well beyond carping about fairy tales.
Jack Ingoldsby @21: I don’t think a moral alternative is “I will still enjoy their work, I’ll just steal it instead”.
hyphenman:
I don’t think anyone is talking about discounting or ignoring the important work done by this hypothetical person you don’t seem fit to name. The idea is where do you draw your line in supporting this hypothetical person you don’t seem fit to name.
#31
Are you sure you aren’t remembering accounts where people have “re phrased” Dawkins, and it is the “re-phrasing” that you remember? This is very common with Dawkins: vast numbers of Christians “remember” that Dawkins has said that the Bible should be interpreted literally, but “can’t find” the quote when asked for it.
Some folks like hypenman seems to have trouble differentiating between acknowledging solid work by people, and the fact that they are assholes, and one might not want to associate with them. In atheism, the MRA/PUA faction, the anti-social justice folks, and the liberturds, are some of those I don’t care to associate with.
Acknowledge their atheism, yes. Anything beyond that, no.
Yes.
Or even if you support the good things this great godlike figure did for all of humanity, it would at least be a start if people didn’t fucking bring it up every fucking time somebody criticizes all of the other shit they’ve said and done, no matter how relevant it is.
Dawkins cured cancer single-handedly with the power of his pithy witticisms? Fan-fucking-tastic. Support that (not him) if you like. It’s got nothing to do with the subject of him being an asshole in every other respect. Don’t kid yourself that you can hide behind that irrelevant crap, because what you’re doing is fucking obvious.
Pan Paniscus @33: no, my recollection was of reading an actual quotation. However, since I can’t locate it, it would be unfair to insist that my memory is unquestionably perfect and Dawkins must have said exactly that. I’m more than willing to roll my eyes at what the record shows he said.
Citation needed here. It doesn’t sound like Dawkins!!!
If he said it, it is pretty silly. Much of literature is fantasy, including Shakespeare’s Midsummers Night Dream or the Tempest. AFAWK, Homer is fantasy, no cyclops, no witches, no sirens, no gods and goddesses from Olympus.
Almost all of TV is fantasy. Even Fox News is fantasy. Most movies are fantasy.
IIRC, Dawkins is married to an actress who starred in Doctor Who and he himself has appeared in some sci-fi productions.
raven @37: actually it does sound very much like Dawkins, but in any case, here is the article that Pan Paniscus and I were referencing, in which he is still pretty silly:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html
In typical Dawkins fashion, he appears to have reacted to criticism by backpedaling and claiming he was just misunderstood and didn’t say what he said:
http://www.channel4.com/news/richard-dawkins-fairy-tails-philip-pullman-scientific
On the children’s rationalist literature front, I don’t think Pullman should worry about the competition, frankly.
RE neverjaunty @17:
You got me! I know that stance is inconsistent. I just fear the ad hominem fallacy, i.e. hating the novel, cuz the author is despicable. re OSC, I boycotted the movie cuz I don’t want money flowing into his hands. But, to me, that’s a different matter. Refusing him $ is different than simply hating the novel cuz OSC is a homophobe. That’s where I draw that line. The book exists, I can read it then hate it for its own merits, then hate the author for his own “merits”. I hope I’m consistent about that, but I am error-prone, too. C’est la vie.
twas brillig:
I think you’re being consistent. I’ve never seen Ender’s Game, nor read the book, so I can’t comment on the quality of either. I can say that I won’t see or read it bc, like you, I don’t want money going into his pocket (and even if money doesn’t go into his pocket, I don’t want to provide any type of support for Card).
hyphenman #4:
No one is fucking saying because they’re assholes we don’t want to support that what they say is false. That’s fucking stupid. Might as well say we’re ad homing people.
twas brillig (stevem) #6
No one is saying that either.
Calling TAA a misogynist asswipe has nothing to do with whether his debunking creationism videos are true or false. Same thing with authors and movie directors. There’s so much media and entertainment to spend money on and promote why waste time hauling shit from a manure pile? (Unless you’re doing so to critique it and make something worthwhile)
As consumers and members of a society what you chose effects more than just you. So why send the message that an enjoyable hour is worth more to you than gay rights? If you’re too scared to say that, then it’s called denial since no one lives in a vacuum.
@Tony! The Queer Shoop
My line is simply: is the work true?
I don’t have to associate with the creator, I don’t have like or even pretend to like the individual who produced the work, but it the work is true, then to deny the work illogical.
Jeff
#38:
Or perhaps he really didn’t say it in the first place, but was indeed merely asking about such things and whether there was evidence either way? It is a sensible question to at least ask. Might of us might agree that the religious-conditioning of children can have long-lasting affects on their world-view, and that the effects can be harmful, so from Dawkins’s point of view it is worthwhile at least asking about other fantastical tales told to children.
39
twas brillig (stevem)
When I say “Fuck Ender’s game, the author is a homophobe” it matters not if I read it or if it’s a classic masterpiece. I’m saying I place values before entertainment.
But you can’t divorce the work from it’s author completely. They can’t do it when they write. That’s why so much of their view point and beliefs slip in. You honestly going to say his homophobic, racist, sexist views don’t effect how/what he wrote at all?
That’s impossible, it’s there. So why have to go through the rigamarole when you know an author’s views are in there and find them deplorable? Like that one sexist author, I can’t remember his name. Featured here several times posing with a sword and saying he doesn’t do female warriors in fantasy because it’s ahistorical.
Yeah, let’s all have to give him money and wade through awful sexist prose to call it a worthless piece of sexist shit when it’s blatantly obvious. Or just be a responsible, informed consumer very easily with the internet.
But if you’re more worried about ad homming a piece of fucking fiction then their effects on real people, whatever.
hyphenman:
I get that. But this is not what the discussion is about.
I’ll use Thunderf00t as an example again.
He’s made videos that eviscerate creationism. He does a good job with that. I acknowledge that. However, because of his anti-feminist statements, I’m not going to support him. I’m not going to follow his videos. I’m not going to advocate anyone follow his videos. I shun him because he’s an asshole. I have drawn a line in the sand.
Have you never drawn a line in the sand in your dealings with people? Have you never encountered someone so vile you want nothing to do with them no matter what their accomplishments are?
No one is asking you to ignore the accomplishments of an individuals. You’re being asked if you learn that someone has demonstrated horrible behavior, are you willing to not associate with that person, and where do you draw the line at unacceptable behavior?
Why are you so determined to change the discussion? It’s not about the quality of the work. It’s not whether someone has done something good or bad. It’s about the content of their character.
Tony! The Queer Shoop #40:
But there is the point that, yes, a homophobe is making money – but they’re not making money from their homophobia. As such, buying Ender’s Game whilst denouncing Card’s homophobia isn’t really contradictory – it’s basically saying that Ender’s Game is at least good enough to be worth buying, in spite of the author.
JAL:
You’re thinking of Vox Day.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
I have no problem separating the two. In my second comment I wrote:
Perhaps this illustration may be helpful. Suppose I am a graduate student considering where I want to pursue my PhD and I discover that the No. 1 person in my field is a total asshole. Now, do accept that I cannot study with the very best and accept a position at another school with an inferior program, or do I focus on my work and get the very best education I possibly can.
Some, perhaps many, will choose to walk away rather than associate with the total asshole. That will be a life-changing decision.
Jeff
@consciousness razor
Profanity works so well.
Don’t bother responding, I’ve put you on ignore.
Jeff
zmidponk:
It doesn’t matter to me if an author is making money off their homophobia. Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, who has publicly made horrible statements about gay people. Because of those horrible statements, I refuse to give him money. He has demonstrated a horrible character, and I refuse to support him in any manner.
Also, I think there is something to be said for the fact that Card-a popular author-has used his popularity and public platform to spew hatred. Giving him money helps feed that.
hyphenman:
That’s a damn shame bc consciousness razor is bringing up good points which you’re dismissing bc of tone. Substance is far more important. If you can’t deal with the substance of a comment, and tone is that important to you, I don’t think this is the place for you.
@JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
Ditto No. 49
Jeff
hyphenman:
I suppose it’s up to the individual to determine where they draw the line, which is the entire point of the OP (and Greta’s post).
hyphenman:
You know what. Just put me on ignore you tone trolling asshole. If you can’t be bothered to engage with the substance of peoples’ words, and are going to whine about harsh words, screw you.
@Tony! The Queer Shoop
That’s true. You’re absolutely correct.
Jeff
This is a rude fucking blog. If you can’t handle coarse words, words that often derive their taboo nature bc of fucking religion, then the problem is YOU.
50
Tony! The Queer Shoop
Not just spew it, fund it. Same thing with boycotting Chik-fil-a and Hobby Lobby. But the latter is only okay, because reasons. It’s not like there’s a specific person behind those entities pushing their agenda through their products.
Why do people have such a disconnect between boycotting a corporation and a person? Same fucking shit. Or is it just about the status quo and Dawkins blacklisting Rebecca is okay?
Monitor Note:
This is a rude blog. Expect rough handling.
[From the rules]
Please see also, The Desert Tortoises With Boltcutters Civility Pledge
@Tony! The Queer Shoop
First, No. 55 is the reply to your No. 51 (comment stacking can be so annoying: “Substance is far more important.” I am in total agreement with you there, so I’m glad you saw the point in my replies to consciousness razor and JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness.
As to your No. 53, again, that’s true, you’re absolutely correct. It is “up to the individual to determine where they draw the line.”
Jeff, The Tone Trolling Asshole
@Tony! The Queer Shoop (just in case)
Fair enough, your life is not diminished in any meaningful way that I can perceive by that decision.
However, would you continue to shun Thunderf00t if, instead of inconsequential videos eviscerating creationism he was the only brain surgeon on the planet sufficiently skilled to save the live of someone you loved?
Jeff
Downloading content you had decided not to buy anyway isn’t “stealing” – neither the creator (who is always trotted out to tug at the heartstrings) nor the soulless, psychopathic megacorporation that owns the copyright has been deprived of anything of value that they would otherwise have had. There may be other conceptual framings under which torrenting and the like is legitimately problematic, but the abusive, dishonest attempt to force-fit moral considerations arising from the scarce and finite natures of tangible property and money to digital content is an eyesore at best.
hyphenman:
What an insipid question.
The life of a loved one trumps my dislike for an asshole. If he or she was indeed the only person able to save my hypothetical loved ones’ life, then yes, I’d take that person to him or her in a heartbeat.
Now I have to ask why you’re dealing in hypotheticals rather than reality. This isn’t the first time you’ve done this. Can you not point to examples in the real world? Can you not make your point without imaginary scenarios?
hyphenman:
Is this really where you draw a line?
In a discussion about where you draw the line for acceptable behavior, you’ve chosen to draw a line at profanity, without engaging the substance of an argument bc you feel civility is more important. I get that. It shows that you don’t value actual arguments.
@Tony And yet this is the same person arguing that he’s willing to associate with the vilest of human beings if he likes their crappy sci-fi novel or whatever. But a bad word in a comment? Oh noes, gotta block ’em.
Why is this person #1? Is it really because there is no one else in the field doing worthwhile work? Why perpetuate the notion that this person is indispensable? I just don’t buy it. Do you have no consideration for those people toward whom this paragon is an asshole? You are then directly responsible for supporting this person’s abuse by giving them more prestige and more authority.
As for the Nobel Prize. Take it back (I dunno, can they do that?). Give it to another recipient–one who meets the minimum criterion of being a decent human being. Surely the world is full of deserving people. As to the work? Don’t ignore it if it is necessary, but there’s no reason to be giving out accolades or even new research grants to that person. They want to be a homophobe? Go over there and do it in the corner. No one is that important.
Behold hyphenman choosing to disregard the quality of people’s work (here, words) because of bad behavior (here, profanity). It’s a line in the sand!
TAA makes rape threats -> deep moral question.about rejecting their True Work, because harm somehow.
consciousness razor uses profanity -> justifies ignoring their argument
Remember, hyphenman, way back up in the thread you said:
Unless, of course, they use profanity.
Fucking logic, how does it work? :)
I see both Tony and Ibis beat me to it. Fuck you both! RAWR FUCK!
@Tony! The Queer Shoop
In reality, I revel in actual arguments. For most of 10 years I hosted and facilitated the longest running Socrates Cafe in the world—or so I was told by Socrates Cafe founder Christopher Phillips—and we managed to keep the passionate, and often very heated, arguments going without resorting to profanity.
I get that you don’t think civility is important, but from where I sit, that dovetails very well with the heart of this topic.
Sadly, I must go deal with other matters so I’ll leave the discussion to you and others to have the final word.
Jeff
Fixed that for you.
Also, as many have pointed out, this is a rough blog. You’re not in the Cafe anymore, sweetie.
hyphenman:
Please re-read what I said. I didn’t say civility was unimportant. I said that you’re placing too much emphasis on civility and not paying attention to the actual arguments being made. You’re not interested in having a discussion unless it’s under your terms, and you’re willing to ignore feedback and criticism of merit simply because of a fuck or shit. As if the coarse words being used somehow make arguments vanish. Get over your dislike of harsh words, and recognize that they are just words that add flavor.
67 hyphenman
Civility over content because….hate the sin, not the sinner bullshit? /snort
Ah, the smug self-important philosophical wanker. Where would we ever be without you?
What a load of crock. You are mentally masturbating without cogency, intellect, or honesty, since you are a tone troll. You are to be ignored for the fuckwit you show yourself to be. Hushfiled.
Good for you and some blog I’ve never heard of. If you don’t like profanity, then don’t use it. But don’t whine if someone lets the occasional or even the frequent “fuck” grace their posts. Nobody here is impressed by your disdain for profanity. Priggishness is not a virtue.
But, but, but Al Dente, hyphenman was making the point that this is where he draws the line at unacceptable behavior. Nevermind that the focus of this thread has been on harmful behavior- like calling for someone to be raped. Nope, he tried to equate harsh naughty words with rape threats, bc they’re totes the same thing (or even remotely comparable).
Fuck, whatever the fuck will I do now that I’m fucking ignored?
I’m sure you’ll see the error of your ways and stop fucking using profanity, right?
Not fucking likely, Tony — with all due respect. ;)
I’m pretty baffled by the idea that my use of “shitheads” in response to hyphenman somehow rendered it so uncivil as to warrant no response or explanation of any kind. If I had called them “kindly gentlemen” or crap like that instead, would that have made any real difference to the question? Is Socrates so civilized that even he himself could not have answered such a thing?
I bet somehow this is all proving their point, whatever it is; and I’m just too much of an uncivilized savage to get it. Otherwise, I don’t know how leaving the thread would be anything except a concession.
I get the impression that hyphenman was trying to pull some meta turnabout BS (i.e. Gotcha! You say the substance matters, not the profanity, just like I’m saying the substance matters, not what the content provider is doing in their off-hours). But yeah, not very sophisticated thinking for someone who prides himself on his arguing ability.
I’m quite sure Jeff would argue that his lofty discourse is simply above the plebian minds infesting this thread. Our brains are simply not able to comprehend his intricate points, because we’ve damaged ourselves with profanity.
So you see, by leaving, he’s conceded nothing. In fact, he’s doing us a favor by showing us how to properly behave. Inspired by his example — nay, humbled by his genius — we should drop to bended knee and beg for his return, vowing to only use the
Queen’sSocrates’ English. Perhaps then he would deign to communicate with us again, knowing our mental filters are no longer clogged by naughty words.Or something. Whatever, fuck it. :)
I always take the flounce of of tone troll to mean they know they are losing the substantive argument, and must find an exit strategy, like complaining about tone, to give themselves the illusion of winning.
Pro-tip for people like hyphenman: Learn how this fucking blog works before being the 10000th person to whine about language and tone.
Here’s a handy reference sheet!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/rules/
twag brillig @39: Hating the novel because the author’s an asshole is not an ad hominem. Deciding the novel is badly written, or a scientific theory must be wrong, because an author is an asshole, could be an ad hominem. But it’s not a logical fallacy to decide that you want nothing to do with watching Woody Allen movies, say, because you dislike the director or do not want to put money in his pocket. (And it’s also often the case that art reflects the artist’s values and opinions; artists not being sterile tubes who are merely conduits to the Elemental Plane of Art, but actual creators.)
hyphenman @48: It is also a life-changing decision to place your professional fate in the hands of a complete asshole. Are you not aware that there is a difference between ‘being good in your field’ and ‘being good as a PhD advisor’? Choosing the #1 person in their field is not going to do very much professionally if, for example, they completely ignore your professional development in favor of using you as uncredited grunt work, at the expense of your own academic success.
As for the ‘brain surgeon’ example, this is an absurd argument, as I would expect someone who claims to be a debate maven to understand. Presumably you would allow Ken Ham to pull you out of a burning car. That does not mean you therefore are a hypocrite unless you buy Ken Ham’s books and support Ken Ham’s efforts to get tax money for his latest boondoggle.
Nerd of Redhead @79: Assuming they stick the flounce, of course. Trolls who claim ‘civility’ and slink off when they’re losing an argument rarely go away forever; they pop up later in the thread, or in a different discussion, in the hopes that the flow has moved past the point where they can still be challenged for their illogic.
The Flounce of the Tone Troll sounds like a prog-metal instrumental piece. :3
Oh, and stop confusing “civility” for “not talking like a poor person.” Which is basically what all objections to non-slur “profanities” come down to.
True story. My brother overheard two schoolmates talking about me. One said, “Guess what, I heard Frank say a cussword.” The other said, “Oh, REALLY? What did he say?”
I worked hard on not picking up the habit of cussing so my schoolmates in high school noticed. Even late in life I seldom do it. So what do my kids do? My son cusses like a sailor and my youngest daughter is not as bad but still burns my ears. My oldest daughter will use the occasional cussword so I am going to remember her in my will. /I kid/
I am fine with the salty language here. Some people do deserve to be called shitheads. Some actions require the strongest possible responce. So fuck that noise.
#83 Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :)
Thank you.
frankb:
Wait, so that means you’re able to parse out the substance behind a comment that has profanity, despite not being a fan of coarse language?
You ought to teach a class to some of the commenters around here.
Yeah, I should:)
I’m having trouble articulating where my “lines” precisely are, but I know for sure I want to keep racist, homophobic, misogynistic, abusive, et al. bullshit on the OTHER SIDE of my lines.
The rest of it — at least for me — involves learning to set and stick with boundaries. You know how it is — socialized as female, you get a lot of the “nice girls do this” shit, much of which involves “don’t be ‘disagreeable’ or ‘bossy’.” And when you’re trained to go along to get along, it’s harder to assert yourself and say, “No.”
Azkyroth
Fuck. YES.
You know, I’m a human being (obviously) and subject to all of the failures of having a stupid, reactionary, frightened, tiny little human brain. With reason and care, I can change the things about myself that make me not likable. I can be more tolerant. I can listen to people’s experiences and not try to see them through the blurry, unpolished edges of my own lens. Importantly, I can see when other people do try to speak about the experience of others filtered through their own “reasoning.” I’ve done it and I can tell when it’s being done. I’ve decided that I don’t like it and want to avoid and correct it in myself and in the people with whom I associate.
I want to be a part of groups, but being the lone voice of dissent and challenge is a hard thing that I don’t always have the guts for. It’s one of the reasons I’m not in the SSA anymore. It’s one of the reasons I sparsely attend the local atheist meetup anymore.
gog, maybe drop by the Lounge (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/07/24/lounge-469/) and see what you think of it (if you don’t know it already, of course).
gog:
Seconding opposablethumbs’ advice. The Lounge is a nice place to interact with a variety of people in a social atmosphere (being kind to one another is PZ’s only rule in there, so you don’t have to worry about heated arguments).
WMDKitty:
Seconding this!
@opposablethumbs
I’m familiar with the lounge and have posted on the threads a few times. It’s fun. I’m not fond of linear comment structure, though, and quickly get lost in threads. It’s just another expression of being a bit scatterbrained.
@Tony
Heated arguments aren’t a problem for me. Heated arguments where I’m the only one questioning the status quo and attitude of the other participants is a problem for me. Being able to construct an argument is one thing, but being able to do so directly in the face of numerous opponents is another. It’s demoralizing and feels subversively hostile.
neverjaunty @81:
.
Woody Allen is IMHO a perfect example of “art reflect[ing] the artist’s values.” Every one of his movies is in some way about him; in fact, IIRC, Manhattan is kind of a celebration of his desire to fuck underage girls (and his dislike of women old enough to see him for what he is.) That, combined with his marrying his live-in girlfriend’s daughter, made it impossible to see him as anything but a narcissistic predatory creep, and I can’t imagine seeing even one of his early films without being constantly reminded of who we found out he really was.
.
With MZ Bradley, on the other hand, I can’t (yet?) see her abusiveness and abuse apology in her books, and there’s stuff I like about them. I’m in a quandry there.
gog:
Sorry, I should have elaborated more. I only meant that the absence of heated arguments (and one can still argue in there, you just have to be kind, which isn’t always easy in an argument) in the Lounge was intended to help foster a more social environment :)
Have you been reading Pharyngula a while? If not, generally speaking, few people engage in arguments alone.
(the following is meant to be a general observation, not so much anything directed at you)
Come to think of it, we’re often chided by anti-feminists, MRAs, PUA, and Slymepitters for dogpiling people, or being a hivemind (groupthink is a nice alternative they toss out every once in a while). The accusations are almost always made without anything to substantiate them, and IMO, without recognition that we ain’t that coordinated. When someone says something like “I believe abortion should be legal except in x, y, z circumstances”, they often get criticized by multiple people, bc the vast majority of the commentariat here supports full abortion access for women with *no* exceptions. So a lone commenter making arguments in favor of abortion restrictions may find themselves with 4, 5, 6 people arguing against them. Those people are commenting from across the world, at various times, and with no coordination. That many comments come in seemingly simultaneously doesn’t mean there’s a worldwide effort by the Horde to launch an attack on an anti-abortion proponent.
This thread is an example of multiple commenters sharing a similar view (on the subject of vulgarity). Many of us criticized hyphenman, but to launch from several people criticized one person on the same sujbect to several people criticized one person on the same subject, therefore this is a hivemind is a leap that’s not in evidence.
Also, a lot of our detractors criticize us for sharing similar values (i.e. the accusation of groupthink), as if that’s a ridiculous idea. There is a community here, and many of the people here share similar beliefs. I’d say for the vast majority of people, those beliefs were arrived at individually, not because we worship PZ Myers and fawn over everything he says. That said, we do agree on things that overlap with PZ’s ethics and morals, such as our opposition to gendered or bigoted slurs. Again though, our reasons for being opposed to such language developed individually, perhaps along similar lines of reasoning and evidence.
I find the claims that this is a hivemind to be strange. Almost as if people think we shouldn’t be in agreement about a diverse array of subjects. I’m actually still waiting for one of our detractors to explain how we’re a hivemind beyond basically, “ya’ll agree on things”. Such “arguments” don’t strike me as being terribly skeptical.
The claims that we’re a hivemind also ignore all the times, which come up on a regular basis, where multiple people *don’t* agree with one another, or PZ for that matter.
AMM, I agree with you: when I see how the person’s horrid views affect their work, I start shunning their work. This is how it is possible to not shun some people’s work: Einstein treating his first wife terribly didn’t affect his ability to derive E = mc2, for example.
As regards MZB, it is subtle, but one example of her gross meatspace views intruding in her works is the attitude that crops up from time to time in her Darkover books that if a woman “rouses” a man, it is her duty to satisfy him. This attitude is expressed uncritically, including by characters who the reader is supposed to empathize with and agree with. It’s a short jump from that to upholding the right of men to be sexually satisfied in any way they want.
gog, my apologies for not realising you had been there before. I do read the Lounge often, but I have a totally crap memory for names (in rl as well, and in rl it’s even worse because I struggle with trying to remember people’s faces too. I only remember names or faces after a lot of repetitions – only the most regular of the regulars, and only the people I see really really often. And even then only some of them. To the point that when I am introduced to anyone I now actually apologise prophylactically in advance for the fact that I will forget their name. It’s pretty crummy, really).
Sorry.
@Tony
I’ve been a Pharyngula reader for years. I know the ropes pretty well and I’m very much not afraid to get involved in discussions. The commentary structure and my work schedule usually means I’m late to the game and it’s hard for me to catch up. Not a problem, though.
@opposablethumbs:
I don’t comment very often, nor do I really have an original thought or perspective to contribute. This thread was a rare exception. :)
Not profound, but reminds me of the maxim that if people don’t actually have something interesting to say, there’s no obligation to listen to them. With, of course, the corollary that just because they have something interesting to say, there’s no obligation to ignore everything else.
The argument that we must listen to everyone despite priors because they might have something worth paying attention to is frankly contemptuous of the fact that most of us simply don’t have the time.
TL;DR: I know Einstein, and Woody Allen ain’t no Einstein.
Perhaps more on point to the op, The Amazing Atheist is really just An Atheist With A YouTube Channel. Got distracted by the comments section.