…and this is a 
I've been getting slapped upside the head with this "dick" meme that's roaring through the skeptic community lately, largely because it seems that any time someone makes a generic criticism of rude, abrasive, confrontational critics of foolishness, the audience all thinks of the life-size poster of PZ Myers they've got hanging on their bedroom door back home. It's a little annoying. Everybody seems to imagine that if Granny says "Bless you!" after I sneeze, I punch her in the nose, and they're all busy dichotomizing the skeptical community into the nice, helpful, sweet people who don't rock the boat and the awful, horrible, bastards in hobnailed boots who stomp on small children in Sunday school. It's just not right.
Of course, there's a range of criticism, too. I think Rebecca Watson is hitting the problem about right: it's about picking your battles, and making a scene over trivial customs practiced with charitable intent is not a good idea. So, really, I don't have to punch Granny in the nose—I can just say "thank you!", and that's fine. But when Granny tells you to get down on your knees and praise Jesus right now or you're going to burn for eternity in a lake of hellfire, then some dickishness is not only justified, it's necessary.
The thing is, the dickishness practiced is not nose-punching, it's not even howling four-letter words at Granny…it's a flat statement of "That's crazy, I'm not going to do that, and here's why." That, apparently, is the New Dickishness.
One recent flashpoint in this argument was Phil Plait's talk at TAM 8, in which he asked a rhetorical question, "How many of you … became a skeptic, because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged, and a retard?" And the Pharyngula switchboard lit up. Lots of people wrote to me via email or twitter, some gloating, some just unhappy, stating that Phil had just called me out.
No, he didn't. He didn't mention me at all. He opened up against a strawman New Dick, which is unfortunate, because there isn't anyone who fits that description in the skeptical movement. There are people like that elsewhere: drill sergeants and televangelists come to mind.
A few people are speaking out against the talk. Stephanie Zvan points out that Randi is one of these 'dicks', that his willingness to sneer at charlatans was an important factor in her own acceptance of skepticism. Matt Dillahunty thinks Phil was making a bit of a dick move himself, which actually demonstrates the utility of the making people think with a little harshness. I also fear that one of the reasons for the popularity of Phil's talk (it did strike a chord with many) is that it reassured many that certain aspects of belief were going to be walled off from skeptical criticism in the name of politeness and tone and courtesy.
There is a fair point being made, that there are multiple strategies that work to convince people to rethink bad ideas, and they don't all involve punching people in the face…and many of the best strategies do involve politely listening and criticizing. But I think the best ideas involve a combination of willingness to listen and politely engage, and a forthright core of assertiveness and confrontation — tactical dickishness, if you want to call it that.
I don't, actually — it also seems like a dick move to try and associate a strategy with gender, since some of the most wonderfully dickish skeptics I know are female. But that's a separate issue.
Comments
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 20, 2010 8:02 AM
Fantastic. You've already explained why it is that nobody is actually screaming in granny's face, and how just saying "I don't believe that" is somehow yelling at granny that she sucks. What I have yet to hear from any soft-pedaling accommodating is exactly how they get their message across. If any expression of unbelief is pearl-clutchingly awful, then how do they propose to criticize and reject theism at all? I've heard an awful lot of criticism for "new atheist" methods, but I've never heard word one on what their idea of alternative methods are, beyond the one where they just acquiesce to everything theists say.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 20, 2010 8:04 AM
Left a word out there. Should have been "any soft-pedaling accommodating advocate"
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 20, 2010 8:06 AM
But what you're neglecting, Mr Meyers, is that it's just intuitively obvious that calling someone an arsehole is not the way to go about it. And while you might be able to rhetoric your way around this point, have you considered how intuitively wrong you are to some people?
Posted by: Jayhox
|
July 20, 2010 8:12 AM
I was at the lecture and it was a very good one. I can be as big of a dick as anyone when justified or warranted.
Before this issue gets painted with too broad of brush, let me relate how I interpreted Phil's talk. When he asked how many of us "converted" to skepticism because of someone insulting us, he raised a valid point. If someone, no matter how delusional, gets into a respectful and sincere debate/discussion about their (or your) beliefs or the nature of the universe, don't be a dick. Be patient, compassionate, and non-confrontational. We all held (or continue to hold) irrational and untrue beliefs, and to think otherwise shows unmitigated hubris. Help them on their journey as we were once helped upon ours.
Now, when debating with the nutjobs and idiots of the world who have no intention of being open minded or willingness to change, then often being a dick is justified and sometimes necessary. There's a line there- undefinable, but we all can intuit where the line lies- beyond which it's ok to be a dick.
There is a time and a place for dickiness. Just know when and where.
Jayhox
The Skeptical Dentist
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
July 20, 2010 8:15 AM
I don't punch them in the face. I kick them in the goolies instead.
Posted by: skepchick
|
July 20, 2010 8:15 AM
You've represented my point fairly, PZ, but just to be thorough I want to confirm that my Don't Be A Dick videos and talk in Copenhagen were in no way an attempt to regulate how we (atheists/skeptics/etc) reach out and "recruit."
I very much believe (and have stated many times publicly) that we need a variety of methods to reach new audiences. We need the crassness of Bullshit and South Park just as much as we need the beauty and poetry of Cosmos.
My talk was focused on encouraging hardcore rationalists (usually those who have just come out of the closet) to not take their philosophy so seriously that they abandon their friends and loved ones. It was much more about interpersonal relationships than how we should or should not behave as part of a larger movement.
That said, I unfortunately missed Phil's talk so cannot comment on it. I hope to see it when the videos from TAM are released.
Posted by: startlingmoniker
|
July 20, 2010 8:15 AM
I think it's right to be honest about my unbelief when it comes up. PZ's situation of the hollering grandma strikes me as the right time. But what about things like visiting the creation museum just to make fun of it? I certainly don't like the place, but it strikes me as being pretty avoidable as well.
Posted by: Andyo
|
July 20, 2010 8:19 AM
Last time I was at a church (a lady's funeral mass) I did not kneel. I just kept silent and sat down and even stood up in the parts of the mass where people are supposed to. But kneeling, nope.
After the mass, someone asked me kind of joking why I didn't kneel (in front of a couple other people with which I barely knew). I didn't know to go off on him, cause he wasn't totally serious, but even as I tried to explain that why should I kneel (be submissive) for something I don't believe in (or anything for that matter), what was more annoying than the question was that then they reacted like I was the one taking it too seriously.
Fuck it, if there wasn't the photo of a dead lady there at the altar and the family and friends grieving, I would have slept through the whole thing.
Posted by: MoonShark
|
July 20, 2010 8:19 AM
Not to be a dick (har), but is gender the right word here? I'm thinking no; sexual identity isn't strictly limited to physical genitals. Seems like a weird line from a biologist.
Posted by: tdcourtney
|
July 20, 2010 8:20 AM
"The New Dickishness." Having a strong opinion backed by reason and fact. Awesome...
Posted by: jcwelch
|
July 20, 2010 8:23 AM
I dunno...my wife is a smartass of the highest caliber, with sarcasm and an evil mind to boot. (quite sexy actually.)
When she's engaging in her favorite game of "squick my husband out", i quite often look her in the eye, and say "you're a dick". She laughs a bit and says "yes. yes i am."
Being a dick is a state of being. Having a dick is a state of gender.
there's a difference.
Posted by: MetaEd
|
July 20, 2010 8:24 AM
"Telling someone 'Don't be a dick' is usually a dick-move — especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and it reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." --- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
Posted by: drunkenachura.wordpress.com
|
July 20, 2010 8:25 AM
The only thing I dislike more than someone calling me an idiot is when someone calls me an idiot and is right. It motivates me to learn about things before I open my mouth about them.
That, as much as anything, is what prompted me to finally accept the overwhelming evidence that Bigfoot is probably a myth and that UFOs are probably not aliens.
Posted by: JagyrEbonwood
|
July 20, 2010 8:28 AM
So, you're saying I should stop stomping preschoolers with hobnailed boots?
Really though, I see the dickishness divide in the community as a sort of good cop/bad cop thing when it comes to "recruiting" or making people question their beliefs.
Some people respond well to polite discussion, while others really need the jolt of being insulted to realize they might be wrong.
I used to call myself agnostic, and wasn't involved in atheist/skeptic activism at all. What really started me towards the community was watching videos of Dawkins' lectures. Him dickishly pointing out the flaws in irrational thinking got me squarely in the atheist skeptic camp, and left behind the last few woo-ish ideas I was still clinging to.
Posted by: MoonShark
|
July 20, 2010 8:29 AM
Curious to see this talk on video, BTW. I'm generally inclined to listen to Phil because he's actually quite good at the whole outreach and general education thing while still holding steadfast to skeptical principles. I often find myself trying to figure out where *exactly* my views differ from his. Rarely is it clear-cut.
And yeah, (online at least) I'm one of those angry new atheists who would be caricatured as the black to his white. Reality once again is actually more nuanced.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 20, 2010 8:29 AM
Considering that many of the religious think that we are dicks simply for not sharing their beliefs - and no small number claim grievous emotional harm when asked even the smallest, gentlest questions about the veracity of their claims - I believe atheists have very little to lose if they do choose to be vocal about it.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 20, 2010 8:31 AM
"Dick"?
That'd be Dick Dawkins", I take it.
Posted by: JagyrEbonwood
|
July 20, 2010 8:31 AM
Also...
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti
|
July 20, 2010 8:33 AM
Notice that part of the message is left out and only implicitly present. Where it says "don't be a dick" it should say instead "don't be a dick about this specific thing". Other things? Oh, yeah, you can sure be a dick about them. Some people have ever made a career of being dicks: comedians, pundits, movie critics... Some of them are even acclaimed for being professional dicks. But when it comes to religion or irrational beliefs? Oh, no, you can't be a dick about it. Because otherwise you are... well, a dick.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
July 20, 2010 8:34 AM
Dick to the the dock to the PhD...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Rib1npwvs
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 20, 2010 8:37 AM
No, gender was the right word. "Dickishness" is associated with male stereotypes in the same way being a "pussy" is tied to female stereotypes. It's a dishonest tactic because it's essentially telling people that if you do X, you're acting like a man, and that can be an attempt to convince women they shouldn't be assertive. It is perfectly womanly to stand up for what you believe in.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 20, 2010 8:41 AM
Fred, :)
Posted by: Samwise
|
July 20, 2010 8:44 AM
I think there's some far reaching strategy to how one responds to accusations of being dickish. If such accusations cow even the most vocal and passionate into backing off, then opponents know that all they have to do is claim offense and people will shut up. We'll then be plagued with pearl clutching and debates will degenerate into a contest to see who can be most offended. Wait, that's what's happened for quite a while.
To defeat this, there needs to be a nontrivial portion of skeptics (which now, thankfully, exists) who are *not* cowed. Be willing to endure such a false accusation, because the more religious people cry 'wolf' (cry 'dick'?) when presented with reason, the less impact it will have.
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 20, 2010 8:52 AM
In addition to being a strawman, it's also asking the wrong question. How about this one?
"How many of you became a skeptic because you had growing suspicions about charlatans/quacks/priests, and you saw somebody get in their face, screaming, and calling them an idiot, brain-damaged, and a retard?"
Phil Plait might be surprised how many people answer "yes" to that one. I know of at least one person who made the final transition from self-identified Catholic to self-identified atheist as a result of watching Religulous. She had already basically made an intellectual transition to atheism, though she never would have called it that -- and then watching Bill Maher get all up in the faces of a bunch of religious folks and call them brain-damaged retards was enough to shake out the remainder of her emotional investment.
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 20, 2010 8:54 AM
Stephanie Zvan, not Svan.Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 20, 2010 8:54 AM
As I suggest up there, there's also a defensive element at work here. The skeptics movement right now is facing an internal conflict, with religious people who are active and helpful skeptics on many subjects, but who do not apply that critical thinking to their own god beliefs, and get irritated when anyone else does. It's very helpful to them to have a fallback accusation: "You're being a dick when you question my faith in Jesus." And it's especially helpful when that phony tactic is endorsed by leaders of the movement.
Nobody gets a free pass. No one. Not the "dicks", not the Christians, not the nice person who thinks there might be something to reflexology but who doesn't believe in god.
Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY
|
July 20, 2010 8:57 AM
I am SO fucking sick and tired about hearing other atheists bitch and moan about the "militantism" of the likes of Dawkins and PZ. If they want to be accommodationist quislings then fine. However, their finger-wagging tone concern that the rest of us should shut up, as they've decided to, is absolutely galling. They claim to be all about "live and let live", but I doubt the convictions of their beliefs when they refuse to stand up to theo-bullies. I've read Dawkins, and I've seen PZ, and I don't see what the "militant" fuss is all about. What the hell is so militant about calmly articulating their views?
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 20, 2010 8:58 AM
Y'know, when I'm a jerk, it's usually because I've not had enough coffee in the morning and I'm over-reacting, or because the person on the receiving end deserves it.
Honestly, I've given up caring whether or not people "convert" to rationality. For me now, it's about intellectual honesty. If a person is allowed to proudly expound to me on their belief in God, I am at equal liberty to call them out and question them. If they get jerkish, I am justified in retaliatory jerkishness.
It gets even worse when they intend to disrupt knowledge, education, society, or my sleep. When encephalitic piglet-rapers like Ken Ham attempt to poison the well, they deserve all the sardonic vitriol they receive. They are not open for "conversion" (whatever the hell that means), and so polite and reasoned discussion is moot.
This isn't about "conversion" (whatever the hell that means). This is about open and (dare I say? Yes, I do!) intellectual debate. It is not intellectually honest to allow stupidity to rise to the same level as earnest discussion. It is not intellectually honest to quietly ignore idiocy simply because it is based on an alternate "world-view" (whatever the hell that means).
Sorry about the rant. It has been cathartic.
Posted by: ERV
|
July 20, 2010 8:59 AM
PZ--... and making a scene over trivial customs practiced with charitable intent is not a good idea...
Like when someone makes a silly list of 'Sexiest ____' and people turn into gigantic hypocritical douche bags?
*blink*
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 20, 2010 8:59 AM
Exactly. Talk to us 'dicks' sometime, and you'll discover that when we get in someone's face and rip into them hard, we already know that we're not trying to convert them to our way of thinking. We actually are smarter than that.
What we're doing is having a gladiatorial match for the benefit of the spectators. Our goal is to show how bad the other guy's argument is in a public demonstration. And that's a good strategy, because no one wants to be that other guy.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 20, 2010 9:00 AM
what if Granny's a dick?
Posted by: Rixaeton
|
July 20, 2010 9:01 AM
Maybe to avoid the gender stereotypes they should just be called assholes, as I am sure everyone has one of those?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 20, 2010 9:02 AM
ERV:
I hereby heroically refrain from exploiting this opening.
Posted by: Gerald Snit
|
July 20, 2010 9:03 AM
I suppose I might be more concerned about "dickishness" if the phrases "You are stupid" and "Your beliefs are stupid" were identical, or if the phrases "Your beliefs are stupid" and "Your beliefs are stupid, and here's why" were identical.
Sure, there's a time and a place for politeness, but if you genuinely don't respect your opponent's ideas, why offer false respect? Respectfully disagreeing is in a sense trivialising the disagreement and saying you don't think the argument is important enough to win.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 20, 2010 9:07 AM
Jeez, Abbie, could you possibly Not Get It more obviously and publicly? No? I didn't think so.
Posted by: byronjgrant
|
July 20, 2010 9:08 AM
We need to start a support group or something. ;)
My wife is delightfully sarcastic, abrasively atheistic, and enjoys finding and saying that one thing that will make someone stutter.
Posted by: gettingfree
|
July 20, 2010 9:12 AM
I recall that PZ gets about half a dozen messages a week from people who have been helped to convert from belief to skepticism by reading his blog...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/i_get_email_58.php
And there were many of us who chimed in with comments that we had already stopped believing before we started to read here, but this blog helped strengthen our skepticism. So there are people (like me) who respond to PZ's style.
I don't always agree with PZ politically, so I am not just an all-around enamored follower / fan. But I enjoy how he calls out religion with humor even if a little biting sometimes. As an ex-Xian I think religion is so harmful it needs to be bit, and chewed up and spit out. PZ isn't going randomly to Churches to "shout forced laughter at them" (hehe). He is writing a blog to skeptics and gives talks to skeptics. I like this blog as an environment where the skeptics are talking freely and not censoring themselves because some Xian might be coming here and reading.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 20, 2010 9:13 AM
Accommodationalism is the ID of skeptic movement."I just can't believe that
evolutionbeing strident actually works!""Well, how then would
believing in Godbeing polite solve the problem?""Hey! Don't change the subject!"
Posted by: raven
|
July 20, 2010 9:13 AM
I left xianity for a hell of a lot more than being called a brain damaged idiot.
It started when xian terrorists began assassinating MDs and bombing family planning clinics.
The end came when fundie creationism and hatred of science and dozens of segments of our society climbed out of its tomb and began lurching about.
The constant claim that we're all going to hell and occasional death threats weren't really needed. Verbal abuse is nothing compared to what death cult xians actually do if they can get away with it.
Posted by: byronjgrant
|
July 20, 2010 9:15 AM
On being a dick:
What, we should just shut up, and get to the back of the bus where we belong?
Fuck no. I'm going to be an ass about it.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 20, 2010 9:19 AM
When Christians are being polite when proselytizing, the are worse than abusive: they are condescending Nothing makes my back teeth ache like condescension while going on at length about obviously stupid things.
It'd be far easier to engage them if they said things like, "Dude, do you know how stupid you sound when you say we all evolved from nothing? C'mon, man, your smarter than that!"
Posted by: MoonShark
|
July 20, 2010 9:19 AM
Hm, I think that was once the case, but at least among my peers not so much anymore. Maybe I'm just fortunate to know plenty of assertive women?
Plus there's "cunt" as a more extreme version of dickishness; some females claim that label with pride. I'd suggest it sort of negates the "only males are assertive" stereotype, but since it's perceived as a far more vulgar term than "dick" I think it's use is more artificially limited.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
July 20, 2010 9:19 AM
LOL.
She's full of shit to. Just goes "LALALALA U DIDN"T TELL ME ANYTHING LALALALA [reverse sexism argument]"
Kind of like how there are no transitional fossils. Some people just don't give a shit about other people.
ERV, I consider you one of them.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 20, 2010 9:22 AM
And (ha-ha) they said "your smarter than that" (ha-ha) instead of "you're smarter than that" (heh-heh-heh) because they're Christians.
Not because I'm a grammar idiot today. Nope. That's not it.
<zombie>
Coffee. Need . . . coffee.
</zombie>
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 20, 2010 9:22 AM
Actually, Mike Wong's "dickish" replies to his email helped get me over the last hurdle to freethought.Posted by: Perspexo
|
July 20, 2010 9:22 AM
I'm a pretty non-confrontational guy and don't set out to upset people for fun but there is no way of standing up for your position as an atheist that doesn't offend religious fundamentalists.
If I want to avoid being called a dick for not respecting their beliefs, I respect their right to have them but not the beliefs, I have to remain silent. That doesn't seem fair to me, I can't imagine a religious being quiet in return.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
July 20, 2010 9:23 AM
"too"
whatever
Posted by: byronjgrant
|
July 20, 2010 9:23 AM
We offend them by existing.
Posted by: Ed S
|
July 20, 2010 9:28 AM
It's important that we have a few voices in the atheist community that are "dicks". They draw attention and bring the debate into a wider public consciousness. Heck, the blowhards on conservative talk radio figured that out decades ago, it works.
Do you think there would be any serious public discourse on the once taboo topic of atheism if it weren't for the dicks - the aggressive writers and bloggers who rattled cages? PZ, Richard "Dick" Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris... many others...
I personally am not a confrontational type, but I certainly value the ones who are. Keep it up, PZ.
Posted by: rhaguirrem
|
July 20, 2010 9:30 AM
Since the first two blogs I read in the morning are Bad Astronomy and Pharyngula, it is surprising for me that Phil Plait is considered an accomodationist inside the skeptical spectrum. I'm looking forward for his reply...
Posted by: vincit omnia veritas
|
July 20, 2010 9:33 AM
Both harshly honest criticism and polite nudging helped me deconvert.
The harsh criticism served me in two ways. First, it made me consider that what take for granted could be wrong, since someone else sees it in such a radically different way. Also, since non-Christianity carries a very high level of stigma in my community growing up, it gave me the courage to risk persecution.
Also, since I tend to assess the credibility of polite discourse much higher than impassioned rhetoric, I needed a more gentle approach to finish the job. It was a longer, sustained exposure to various kinds of skepticism about religion and superstition broadly that gradually convinced me to adopt skepticism.
And then, I had a brief phase of the "Bless you!? No, you go bless yourself!!" attitude. I do think Rebecca's videos would be effective for me back then, but that's just conjecture. The "don't be a dick" campaign emphasizes the importance of practical consequences of behavior. Similarly, on a broad scale, the only reason atheists/skeptics have for caring what others believe is because of the actual consequences their beliefs have upon us (oppression, exploitation, suffering, etc).
Posted by: Endor
|
July 20, 2010 9:43 AM
"Some people just don't give a shit about other people.
ERV, I consider you one of them."
Now, now, that's just not true. She deeply cares about those who agree with and never challenge her, and REALLY REALLY cares about those who will totes be sending her honorably shriveled snowpenis in the mail any day now, as long as she keeps up the tap dancing.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 20, 2010 9:44 AM
I'm a dick and it doesn't bother me at all. Here's why: the opposition often resorts to appeals to authority, and being a dick is a really easy way to erode that authority, publicly, therefore helping to neutralize it.
The faithful have been getting away with this dodge for ages, in which they assert that an all-powerful invisible man backs their play. So, if you say "that's stupid!! here. let your invisible man rain teh lightningz of wraff down on me, or STFU!" you've negated their strongest argument using itself against itself. You could argue epistemology all day with the wanker but obviously that's a wasted effort because if it was going to work, it would have worked by now. Meanwhile, any bystanders - who have been impressed by the appeal to authority, might now be standing around thinking "where's teh lightningz of wraff?"
You're not trying to win over the guy you're making fun of. You're trying to a) show all the people watching from the sidelines that, yes, you can make fun of the pope with impunity and that b) if they start publicly spouting bollocks they may wind up on the end of a bunch of jeering instead of the worshipful silence they've been getting for so long.
I put this to the test all the time. A few years ago, an "animal communicator" showed up at the barn where I used to keep my horse and I used Penn Jillette's takedown on them as soon as I got the chance:
animal communicator: "what a beautiful horse, what's his name?"
me: "you tell me."
Except that for the benefit of everyone standing around I walked off saying loudly "I can't believe anyone with a brain falls for this bullshit." Everyone heard. And the animal communicator never came back.
You're not being a dick to the pope, you're demonstrating that without the bloody-drenched secular arm to back him up, the pope's just an old nutter in a dress (and, admittedly, some pretty pimp shoes)
Posted by: CW
|
July 20, 2010 9:44 AM
Doesn't matter. The important thing here is that we spend at least 50% of our time and energy on infighting and snide backbiting, on deciding who is a "gigantic hypocritical douche bag" and who is Not Helping.Atheists criticizing atheists for being atheists wrong, it's pathetic.
Posted by: Shala
|
July 20, 2010 9:44 AM
We actually are smarter than that.
I can't say I entirely am. I always hope that the person being yelled at will stop acting like a fool, apologize, and start acting rationally.
It hasn't ever happened, but I'd love to see it.
As for how I discuss atheism with others, it depends on how they approach it. If they're acting intellectually dishonest, blatantly, then it's time to start being rude. If they are genuinely curious or unsure I avoid it.
If it's someone who is a total kook, I act like one right back for the lulz.
Posted by: James II
|
July 20, 2010 9:45 AM
I half-expected this to be an entry on some new Dawkins development---some crackpot's new anti-Dawkins book, or something. (Or perhaps simply an allusion to The Dawkins Delusion, which was already written.)
But, nope. And, I think this is much better. I, too, thought of Randi while reading this---before he was mentioned. So, it's an interesting irony that Phil would give such a talk. (Although, DJ Grothe seems to be quite non-abrasive by comparison to Randi, too. He'll likely be a good JREF leader, but in a very different way.)
Anyway, I don't think it's rude to effectively tell people to GTFO of your face. *They* are the ones being rude, trying to force you to conform to their silly ideas. Or else!
Posted by: Aquaria
|
July 20, 2010 9:48 AM
I'm not a dick. I just have a very low threshold for whiners, liars, cheats, chiselers, hypocrites, slimeballs, douchebags, users, abusers, creeps, bigots, sexists, religious nutbars, woo-fellaters, willfully ignorant asswipes and simpering fuckwits.
And I'm not ashamed to stand up to them. I may be an uneducated hick, but by damn I'm a feisty uneducated hick.
NB: I'm sure there's more annoying types of gits I could have listed, but I haven't slept in 38 hours, so I may be forgetting a few.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
July 20, 2010 9:48 AM
"PZ--... and making a scene over trivial customs practiced with charitable intent is not a good idea...
Like when someone makes a silly list of 'Sexiest ____' and people turn into gigantic hypocritical douche bags?
*blink*"
Ah yes, the ancient custom of making top ten lists on the internet, a ritual that goes back as far as ancient egypt when the pharoahs would round-up all the paintings of the fairest maidens they could find (difficult as most were on stone), upload them to a crude network of papyrus fibers (believe it or not: slower than dial-up), and rank them according to boob size.
Charitable intent? Of course! This practice has been used for eons to boost the self-esteem of the poor, otherwise-worthless, weaker gender. HOW ELSE WILL THEY JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE IF SOMEONE THEY DON'T KNOW ISN'T TELLING THEM THEY RANK WITH PORN STARS?!?
Posted by: MoonShark
|
July 20, 2010 9:50 AM
rhaguirrem (50) said:
Not sure who's saying that, but I think it's hogwash. I see Phil as largely taking the Carl Sagan approach. Both certainly focus on being informative and educational, but they also mince no words when it comes to pointing out that skepticism applies everywhere and that many people honestly do hold irrational beliefs which need to be constantly countered ("eternal vigilance").
From a recent BA post:
It's more about politics but still worth reading at length: The world is subtle... and what's why it's beautiful.
So no, Plait is definitely not an accomodationist. He makes no excuses for irrational beliefs and in fact works against them.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
July 20, 2010 9:50 AM
I guess "analogies aren't your strong suit" would have sufficed.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 20, 2010 9:50 AM
How many of you changed a belief that was never challenged?Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 20, 2010 9:53 AM
My dad is not a racist. Not at all. But he doesn't think much of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Doesn't like protest, doesn't like dissent.
"They should work within the system to change it," he used to say of those locked out of the system.
I'm ashamed at how long it took me to realize that on this particular subject my dad was not just being clueless, but was actually an enabler.
And so he sat out the civil rights movement, effectively just being one more person on the wrong side. That realization is why I've decided to be vocal about gay rights, MY generation's civil rights movement.
You can't go blowing things up, you don't threaten people or violate their rights - but if you want to change things, sitting there with your mouth shut, or coddling and respecting the attitudes you want to change just isn't fucking going to do it.
And where exactly were these worry-warts on the several occasions when I, as a student, had to face a room full of insulting, derisive and challenging fellow students AND THE FUCKING TEACHER, all telling me how stupid and bad I am... in a public school, when someone simply found out I was an atheist and spread it around?
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 20, 2010 9:53 AM
If the male version is a Dick Move, you would also have your Dan Move, so the sock-it-to-me-time female version of that must be a Goldie Move or a JoAnne Move. You bet your sweet bippy! Put that in your Funk and Wagnall's and smoke it.
Verrrrry Interesting...but silly-stupid-dumb.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
July 20, 2010 9:55 AM
This is the best summary of the purpose of Dickishness, and why the "screaming in Granny's face" is mostly a strawman. I think it unlikely that even the most rabid atheists that prowl this forum would do that.
I suspect people mistake the "tone" on pharyngula for a modus operandi employed in the real world; this is the source of the strawman, and if that was the case, it would certainly be a concern for the skeptical movement generally.
This is however unlikely to be the case; it's a little like thinking that the people who die in movies really die. Frying a troll online becomes an object lesson for proto trolls and educates those who are lurking. This is, I think, the primary purpose of being a complete dick/cunt (in my view these are now unisex terms) on the interwebs.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
July 20, 2010 9:56 AM
My wife is delightfully sarcastic, abrasively atheistic, and enjoys finding and saying that one thing that will make someone stutter.
I know that this can't be Mr. Aquaria, for he is at work and isn't allowed Pharyngula there.
But damn if that didn't sound like him!
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate
|
July 20, 2010 10:01 AM
Is that the clothed version, or the nude? ;)Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 20, 2010 10:03 AM
@#63: say goodnight, dick
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 20, 2010 10:03 AM
This bears repeating. Also, this:
While I was still fairly involved in religion, I had a friend say, very forthrightly, that he honestly didn't understand how anyone even halfway bright could believe any of this stuff.
I never forgot it. Still haven't, obviously. It was always there, in the back of my brain.
Now I suspect I probably would have dumped religion anyway, eventually. Don't honestly know. Honestly, by the time he said that, I think I was also already starting to think something like that myself, tho' I hadn't got within a mile of saying it out loud.
Regardless, it was definitely a little spur, let's call it. A little reminder: some folk are honest about this shit. So maybe I could be too.
So if Phil is saying there's no value to calling someone an idiot when they are, actually, being one (dunno if he'd go that far), he's just wrong. Very wrong. Extremely wrong. Stupidly wrong.
I'd also say, and in opposition to Kel's up there, honestly, it's not even that counterintuitive that calling bullshit bullshit works. Like drunkenachura says: when they call you an idiot and you know they're right, that stings. That's memorable. That's that little spur. A little reminder: don't leave yourself open to that. You don't want to look stupid? Okay: don't be stupid.
Further, my take is: it's not that it's counterintuitive that this can work. It's that being nonconfrontational is easier. Directly calling someone you like on their bullshit is a risk. People don't like doing it. Some will take any excuse not to.
Still my take: don't take that excuse. Be brave, be direct, call it like you fucking see it.
It may or may not work. But you'll respect yourself more in the morning, anyway...
And, seriously, I suspect they will, too. Whether or not they ever admit it as much.
Posted by: Darrell E
|
July 20, 2010 10:04 AM
Posted by: Carlie | July 20, 2010 8:02 AM
I've mentioned this before elsewhere regarding Chris Mooney, and I think the same applies here as well. Accommodationists, and Phil seems close to their party line in this speech, can't tell you enough about how not to go about trying to get theists to see reason. But I can't recall a single example of an accommdationist demonstrating their tactics for doing so. They seem to spend all their time defending theists from the mean and nasty nonapologetic skeptics / atheists.
Looking at their behavior it seems clear that their preferred tactic is to say whatever is necessary to ingratiate themselves to their mark and to appease them in the hope that the mark will then be suckered into believing some small aspect of reality in some distored way. Pretty much the tactic of a used car salesman or a carny.
I like Phil's blog and in general I think he does good work. But I am not surprised at all about this speech. This accommodationist bent is not a new thing for Phil. I think it is one of his weak spots though because he is pretty clearly being hypocritical. When the woo in question is one of his personal favorites, like moon landing hoax or anti vaxxers, Phil has often been every bit as "dickish" as any of the "New Atheists" I can think of. That is usually when he is at his best too.
Posted by: a.human.ape
|
July 20, 2010 10:04 AM
Of course it would be ridiculous to give a person a hard time just because she was trying to be nice.
When I hear the usual "god-bless-you' bullshit I consider it to be a good teaching opportunity. For example, I would politely say "Grandma, I don't think the magic god fairy gives a shit when I sneeze. Also, there's really no magical creatures in the universe, so please Grandma, please consider growing up."
I try hard to avoid commenting here, but while I'm here I might as well once again make a plug for my stupid blog.
Posted by: byronjgrant
|
July 20, 2010 10:08 AM
I think you'd get on famously.
Except the the last part, we're actually rather similar.
Or, as she puts it, 'You're in charge of nice.'
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 20, 2010 10:10 AM
Y’all’re missing the point. Even PZ.
Religious beliefs are fundamentally, inescapably, profoundly childish.
We are, after all, referring to a belief system founded upon a book that opens with a story about a magic garden with talking animals and an angry giant; that continues with epic magic wand duels between wizards; and ends with a zombie apocalypse.
There simply is no way possible to inform somebody that they’re being so childish without being a dick.
At least with a child who’s behaving childishly, you can have an engaging and fruitful discussion on the nature of make-believe, how much fun it can be, and the importance of never forgetting that it’s not real (even if you really wish it were). But if the child has made it more than a decade through life and still doesn’t know that make-believe isn’t real, you will, of necessity, be a dick. The more decades, the more dickish you will be. There’s simply no way around it.
You can try to dance around it all you want, but the least dickish thing you can do is explain internal inconsistencies in the faery tale by pretending for the sake of the argument that the faery tale is mostly true. Think about it for a while, though, and I’m sure you’ll realize that that’s really the most dickishly-condescending thing you could possibly do. And it’s also pretty damned ineffective, at least in my experience.
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: SpaceGhoti
|
July 20, 2010 10:13 AM
Hello. My name is SpaceGhoti, and I'm a dick. I've been a dick for about five years now, and I'm proud to say I'm in very good company.
Posted by: smackshack
|
July 20, 2010 10:19 AM
How about this: next year PZ can go to TAM9 and give a talk called "Don't Be a Concern Troll."
Because as far as I can tell, that's all Phil has really accomplished in this case. "Don't be a dick" is great advice as a rule. Offering compassion to the confused and the ignorant is great advice as a rule. But there's something inherently condescending and schoolmarmish about one adult standing up in front of other adults and lecturing them about how to behave, implying by doing so that most of us don't.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
July 20, 2010 10:25 AM
I saw that link coming a long way off.
On a serious note: I got "converted" by Dawkins and other "dicks" who pointed out that reality is important enough to be a dick about.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
July 20, 2010 10:27 AM
If outspoken atheists are the New Dicks, who are the Old Dicks? And how was the world better in their dicks, er, I mean hands?
Posted by: irenedelse
|
July 20, 2010 10:29 AM
smackshack #74:
Now, that would be a dick move. But oh-so-much to the point!
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
July 20, 2010 10:30 AM
He opened up against a strawman New Dick, which is unfortunate, because there isn't anyone who fits that description in the skeptical movement.
Um, remember Usenet? I'm thinking of the people whose first response to some new creationist or whatever is to open up with both barrels. Frequently, the politer respondents were the ones who made a little progress.
Just to ensure no one misinterprets me: I'm all for contextual dickishness. There are times when you really do need to call someone an idiot.
Posted by: otrame
|
July 20, 2010 10:32 AM
It does help if you know you have support at home. My eldest while in middle school had a substitute teacher who noticed that when they said the Pledge of Allegiance my son stood with the others but didn't say anything or put his hand on his heart. She asked, he told her he didn't believe in pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth and would not say "under God" because he was an atheist (he was about 13). After a brief "discussion" she said "why don't you move to Russia" and he said, "In Russia they would make me say it." So she sent him to the principle.
The principle called me, and made it clear that she was wrong to call attention and to argue with him on the subject and generally left me with the feeling that she was scared to death that I would sue. I was very proud of my son first, because he was not disruptive, he just didn't say the pledge and then because he stood up for his right not to say it.
Posted by: Darrell E
|
July 20, 2010 10:35 AM
Excerpted from Phil's speech:
Simplistic, simple minded, overly dramatic, off the mark and condescending. Much of this speech is really just not very good regardless of the ideas being expressed.
In a recent post Phil described the tactic at TAM8 was to arrange the speakers so that the first few speeches were about playing nice and being polite, while scheduling the more "contentious" speakers, such as Richard Dawkins, towards the end. I think it may have been better just to make a simple and direct statement at the beginning to please be polite, challenge ideas but don't resort to personal insults. Of course, you never can tell what some people will consider a personal insult, can you?
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
July 20, 2010 10:41 AM
Depends. Was it done with humor and insight? Were they right and highlighting the point with a calculated bit of hyperbole?
What people usually mean when they say that being a dick doesn’t help the cause is that they themselves aren’t very good at being a dick, and that the approach doesn’t work for them personally because they don’t have the finesse for it. If they’re a touch sanctimonious, they’ll insist that others should avoid it, also.
Posted by: dWhisper
|
July 20, 2010 10:42 AM
I was always far more of a dick when knead a believer. I mean, I'm still an asshole, but that's more of a general condition than anything else. To my eliever friends, they know exactly how to push me into dickish mode, and that's to start trying to inflict their beliefs on me.
I'll be perfectly tolerant of them and fight for their rights to have whatever silly beliefs they want, so long as it doesn't butt their head into my space. And they can be free to poke at my non-belief. As it should be.
I would like to say I'm surprised by Phil's comments, but since he went to Discover, he's slowly lost his credibility and edge on a lot of this. He was never in the atheist fold anyway, but it has certainly gotten worse since he went there. Posts are less frequent, less on point, and less skeptical unless it's an antivaxxer.
He loves to talk about schools being doomed, whole states being stupid, but throws on the kids gloves when it comes to
Explaining the cause. It's funny that he can attack homeopathy but at the same time wants to dilute the way you keep creationists out of school boards and governments. And it's just infuriating to read him when he's like that. He defends and sides with the side that wants all the atheists to shut up, but then complains when we lose the inroads we once had.
Comparing him to Sagan is interesting, but off mark. Certainly Phil has done his part for outreach, but Sagan was not afraid to take someone to task een if it wasn't popular. Maybe he wasn't confrontational in his work, but a lot of what he was saying was. And when asked, he certainly could show the claws. Phil does not, seemingly to scared at pissing off part of his audience.
It's a shame that there's this manufactured strife in the community, especially when it doesn't seem to reflect our world. Carrying forward the stigma of atheist to Comfort the shrinking majority hurts everyone. One in five in America believe as we do, but they've been taught to sit down and shut up, or see the term atheist as being bad. Any skeptic should know the title doesn't matter, the method does. And that seems to be what's being erased.
Posted by: moochava
|
July 20, 2010 10:44 AM
Here's a better question: has this ever happened? I mean, I've seen lots of religious debates, planned and extemporaneous, filmed and with my own eyes, and I have never seen an atheist get up in a believer's face like Terry fucking Francona after a badly-called strike and scream at someone and call them a retard. I'm sure that somewhere in the history of freethought this has happened, but is it really a problem? I've seen Dawkins and Hitchens and Myers debate, and it looks nothing like that. It seems like the argument above is predicated on either a delusion or a lie.
(Frankly, I've almost never seen a Christian behave this way to an atheist, and the one time I did the guy got dragged away by his religious friends because he was acting like a loon. People don't behave that way in civilization outside of a full-scale protest. This whole scenario reeks of fantasy and Hollywood logic.)
Posted by: MoonShark
|
July 20, 2010 10:56 AM
FWIW I'll definitely retract that if the whole speech carries the same trite message as the except from Darrell E at #80. I expect better outta Phil.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
July 20, 2010 10:59 AM
@70
"When I hear the usual "god-bless-you' bullshit I consider it to be a good teaching opportunity. For example, I would politely say "Grandma, I don't think the magic god fairy gives a shit when I sneeze. Also, there's really no magical creatures in the universe, so please Grandma, please consider growing up.""
Either you're full of shit, or we officially have our first actual Dick in the thread. Congratulations!
@79
"she said "why don't you move to Russia" and he said, "In Russia they would make me say it." "
This is awesome.
Posted by: sophia-daniels
|
July 20, 2010 11:00 AM
i hear that PZ curb stomped Chuck Noris for saying god bless you.
i hear that the flying speghetti monster calls on PZ when there's a bus of sunday school kids that needs kicked square off a cliff.
if Pirates of the Caribbean was real, Davie Jones would release the PZ, 'cause the kracken is PZ's bitch!
hehehe, the punching grandma for saying bless you, made me think of the Chuck Noris memes.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 20, 2010 11:01 AM
The problem with "not being a dick" as a skeptic is that dickishness in in the eye of the beholder (I can't believe I just wrote that sentence but moving swiftly on . . ) The Faithful think we are dicks anytime we apply skepticism to any aspect of their religious beliefs.
--If you question the historicity of Jeesus - you're a dick.
--If you question the evidence for the miracle of transubstantiation - you're a dick.
--If you ask for evidence that Saint Mary Mckillop cured Granny's "incurable cancer" you're a dick.
--If you point out that it is a geological certainty that the Grand Canyon was not formed by Noah's flood - you're a dick.
--If you question the Vatican's handling of child rape by priests- you're a dick.
The list is endless. There is nothing about religion that The Faithful TM will accept skeptical questioning about.
We can ask skeptical questions nicely and politely with a friendly tone of voice. Or we can kick the church door down with our hobnailed jackboots, drink the communion wine, spit it out and yell "ok you retards show me how this conse-fucking-crated cracker is any different from any other fucking cracker - oh and your "blood of christ" tastes just like any other cheap ass wine sold to winos. Both approaches sound exactly the same to The Faithful TM.
It's all the same to The Faithful TM because we're dicks because we don't believe. The fact that we exist and lead normal happy lives is a "living testament" (we call it evidence) of the absurdity of what they believe.
Posted by: interliminal
|
July 20, 2010 11:06 AM
Let me see if I can rescue some of the "don't be a dick" sentiment:
I think what some people do to try to change others' minds or behaviors on certain topics is to basically shame them or intimidate them into admitting they are wrong. So in the case of atheism you occasionally have people who try to use their (self-presumed) authority as an intellectual to stonewall the religious, woo-meisters, etc. into submission.
While this might be an acceptable strategy in certain cases-- public shaming of anti-vaxxers, etc. can be useful as a "lesson"-- it is not an acceptable strategy when dealing with your grandma, your college's Bible reading group, or a friend who bought a magnet bracelet. It is not any of our responsibilities to teach anyone a lesson, and especially not through insults or shame. It smacks of the schoolyard bullies trying to teach "that weird kid" not to talk funny through picking on him, or a mother trying to teach her daughter to lose weight by calling her a "fatty".
Of course, in this situation, it's atheists who are usually put in the persecuted position, who are mistrusted and discriminated against. I think it is perfectly acceptable for atheists to get angry about religion (and skeptics, woo), and it is perfectly acceptable to challenge another person's beliefs. Naturally it takes all sorts of strategies to challenge beliefs, all the way up to offending other people. I would never suggest that atheists or skeptics "back down" from challenging others, especially when there is so much at stake.
However, we have to be really careful to tailor our response to the audience and make sure we're not violating general terms of respect, unless it's absolutely necessary. We also have to be careful of our own privilege: the poor, women, and certain ethnic minorities tend to be more religious. Calling these people "stupid"-- even in some cases, calling their beliefs stupid or making fun of what they believe-- can hurt in ways that we might not be thinking of. Someone who has never been taken seriously as an intellectual being will not respond with the proper sort of righteous "I'm not stupid!" that will provoke change and critical thinking; they'll just feel even dumber. So we should never ever presume that mocking or shaming is the best medicine for everyone. Luckily, I think very few people believe that, but we all need to be reminded sometimes. (I do think everyone is right, in that a call to be non-dickish frequently comes as a call to sit down and shut up, which is reprehensible.)
As an example of non-dickishness that I like, here's an entry from Friendly Atheist that I thought had a good strategy for dealing with others praying for you: http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/07/16/why-i-care-about-prayer/. It is a good example, I think, of affirming the positive sentiment in a religious comment while redirecting focus to more humanistic concerns.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
July 20, 2010 11:09 AM
It all depends on the situation. Personally I think people should stick to their perceptions and be honest about them.
Usually if I'm an asshole to some one it's because I really really dislike them. At that point I don't care about converting them or changing their mind. I care about inspiring them to go away from me.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 20, 2010 11:21 AM
interliminal wrote:
Except, of course, when it is. Such as at a lecture, debate, or other such setting. Or even in casual conversation in many circumstances; think of how much of everyday discourse involves one person educating another or the two people educating each other.
I don’t recall anybody advocating insults. Can you provide a reference?
Except, of course, for when it is.
Nobody’s advocating storming Sunday Bible study classes and acting like the little girl from the Exorcist movie. We are advising that, when somebody goes out of the way to advocate a shameful position, the shamefulness of the position should be made evident.
If you can offer a better way to deal with somebody making an ass of themselves, we’d be all ears, I’m sure.
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 20, 2010 11:28 AM
I would hope that I would have enough respect for any friend of mine to tell them when they are being foolish and possibly risking their health, and would also hope that they would have enough respect for me to listen. And yes, if a little bit of ridicule helps them to see their inconsistency on this issue relative to the more rational positions they take on other woo, then ridicule is actually called for.
Posted by: LeAnne
|
July 20, 2010 11:31 AM
You know.. after a certain point, you basically stop caring if people see you as a dick. Most likely, if you disagree with them and back up your statement, they're going to think you're a dick regardless.
After having Christianity (or religious bullshit) forced in your face for so many years, sometimes it just has to happen.
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 20, 2010 11:33 AM
Going with the deep cuts there, McCthulhu. You must be positively ancient to use those references...just as ancient as I am to get them.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 20, 2010 11:46 AM
I didn't start hanging out at Skeptics in the Pub events because a self-proclaimed skeptic called me a brain-damaged idiot. I started mixing with that crowd because the folks there were willing and able to call people demented fuckwits, when necessary. The suffering in this world caused by uncritical acceptance of bunk takes moral priority over our desire to live lives free of inconvenient questions.
— St. Carl of Ithaca
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 11:47 AM
#8 Andyo:
You were wrong. When you are in someone else's house you follow their rules. If you don't want to follow their rules then stay out of their house.
As far as PZ being the nasty guy, the question is when is PZ the nasty guy? When he is on the radio debating with a Christian. On his website which is supposed to be about atheism. I'll bet if PZ picks up a dollar that an old lady drops and hands it to her and she says, "Bless you my son," that he doesn't rip into her. I am sure that PZ is just a regular guy under regular circumstances. But when the situation calls for tearing someone apart then that is what PZ does. But I'm not good at debating so I don't.
Posted by: dWhisper
|
July 20, 2010 11:47 AM
The whole point of skepticism is to teach a lesson. It's not a lesson of "you're wrong and I'm right," but a lesson of "question the why and how of the world and we will all be better off."
PZ's point has always been that skepticism, at it's base, does not play favorites. As humans, we certainly do, and all have our chosen favorites, but if you're truly trying to apply skeptical methodology to to your life, you have to question everything.
And the breakdown seems to be that some people want a free pass, which just makes others question even harder. And that seems to be where the offense comes from. If you want to play at being a skeptic, it needs to cut both way. You can't sugar coat it because someone might not like the answer. That just invalidates the whole thing, and really, the whole point.
A good skeptic should be uncomfortable, and should make others uncomfortable too. We question what everyone believes. That will lead to heated words, hurt feeling, an controversy. But it also leads to questions, it leads to doubt.
And those things are poison to religion. How can a skeptic question creationism ad intelligent design, spending government money for blessed gun scopes, or praying on the taxpayer dime... but condem others for going to the heart of all this things? Sit down and shut up never has worked. All change leaves someone's feelings hurt.
As a side note, to the topic at point, it was an interesting progression from believer to not. I got started just by liking Mythbusters and picking up a Skeptic that featured them on the cover. Later, that led to finding Bad Astronomy. But ready there led me to reading here, and it was the yelling and well formed arguments that got me to call myself and atheist. But to date, I've only been called an idiot (and never a retard that I know of) by believers who took great offense that I didn't believe what they did. So I suppose I did get converted by being yelled at, just from the other side.
And it's just hard to write these posts on an iPhone. I need to learn to write less.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 20, 2010 11:54 AM
Nope. You are wrong. And appallingly so. No one has any right to demand you kneel before anything. Including their gods.
If they have a problem with it, they may ask you to leave. And that, frankly, would make them the dick. And also incredibly. But honestly, I'd expect it would be unlikely.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 20, 2010 12:01 PM
Once upon a time, Jews and Christians rebelled violently at the demand that they bow down before foreign gods. Now they get to demand obeisance from others?
Posted by: dWhisper
|
July 20, 2010 12:01 PM
The rules aren't even consistent between the houses for the same guy. He needs to get those in order.
Personally, when I get drug to make-believe land, I don't sing, bow my head, kneel, or even close my eyes (unless I doze off). I sit there quietly and keep to myself. I respect their right to be there, but those rights end at forcing mento do it too. Regardless of where we are.
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 12:02 PM
I'm sorry but when you are in someone's house you follow their rules. No one forced Andyo to enter the church or to remain.
And in case you didn't realize it, Andyo would not have been kneeling before their god because their god doesn't exist.
Posted by: abb3w
|
July 20, 2010 12:03 PM
I suspect that insult, like ridicule, is only directly useful in conditions where it surprises. Surprise triggers cognitive dissonance; cognitive dissonance shifts from reflexive to reflective cognition. Unfortunately for would-be persuaders, Christianity has a meme to render them resistant courtesy of Luke 6:22-23 and 6:26 (plus the corresponding Matthew 5:10); being "persecuted" merely means "you're doing it right". As such, it is non-surprising and ineffective. For this, accomodationist Christians can be useful, in that they can say to anti-evolution YEC types "No, I'm not mocking you because you accept Jesus, since I do as well. I'm mocking you because you're a blibbering ignoramus." Purist skeptics may dislike this; however, I consider myself more a pragmatist. (And this doesn't mean atheist skeptics shouldn't poke fun at the Christian "skeptics".)
When used for advantage in "a gladiatorial match for the benefit of the spectators", there's also social contexts at play. On on the one hand, the audience is influenced by not wanting such derision directed at them; on the other, to the extent such derision violates social norms, the audience's social perception of the individual deriding may shift from acceptance as an in-group member to rejection as an out-group villain. This causes a loss of rapport between speaker and audience, which may be less conducive to assimilation of new ideas.
As a side note, I note that there is data to suggest ridicule is more effective than outright insult. Abstract of (doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.722):
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 12:06 PM
Yes, when you are in their house. If your neighbor invited you over but told you that you had to bow to their Wiccan altar before you came in, would you just go in their house and refuse to bow? Or would you say that maybe they should come over your house instead?
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 20, 2010 12:12 PM
Seriously, pal, you should be sorry. I hope you fucking are. And that was an incredibly trite response.
One: funerals are social events. Andyo may have any number of reasons for having to be there, effectively.
Two: it's irrelevant the god isn't there. By kneeling, you are sending a signal of compliance. This is inappropriate. They have no right to demand this. No one has.
So, again: you're just wrong. 'In my house, you follow my rules?' As if. I'm your guest, not your kid, dumbfuck.
So: Fuck. That. Noise. They want to kick you out, that's on them. And again: that makes them the asshole. You've every right to assert your own rights the way Andyo did; that strikes me as perfectly appropriate. Come and remember them as you feel appropriate, that's good. Kneeling? So not. Completely uncalled for.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 20, 2010 12:13 PM
It was a funeral. He didn't go to a Catholic mass for the hell of it. You don't get to just say, "Forget you guys, I'll have my own funeral next door." Demanding that everybody play by your rules for a funeral is a dick move!
Posted by: timpanogos.wordpress.com
|
July 20, 2010 12:15 PM
I'd swap every dick in Christianity for every dick in atheism. What would happen?
1. Atheism would be swollen to eight times its current population.
2. Christianity would be a lot more charitable, a lot more forgiving, a lot more living, a lot less dick-filled, and (here it comes) more Christian.
Those dicks who drove people into skepticism? They were "believers" who were calling people stupid for being sensible. They were believers, mostly Christian, claiming they have a rational basis to their superstitions, despite the complete lack of evidence to back such a claim. P. Z. Myers is not a Christian, and therefore, not described by Plait.
How have so many others missed that?
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 20, 2010 12:16 PM
More relevant: they wouldn't demand this. Because no one's that big a dick.
(/... well, apparently, almost no one.)
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 12:19 PM
So disrupting the people at the funeral who are trying to honor someone who died is perfectly acceptable to you? And a funeral MASS is not a social event to the people who are there. And I will note that they did not ask him to leave. He was the one saying, "Fuck you. I refuse to follow your ritual when I am in your house."
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 12:24 PM
And also, standing when you are supposed to does not show compliance? But kneeling does?
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 20, 2010 12:25 PM
Wow. You are stunningly dishonest, aren't you?
'Disrupting'. 'Fuck you'. Right. Did you even read what was written?
Allow me to repeat:
Honestly, pal, if not kneeling, and later explaining why when someone asked is being 'disruptive', here's your fucking fainting couch.
Posted by: ERV
|
July 20, 2010 12:25 PM
Ol Greg-- Some people just don't give a shit about other people.
ERV, I consider you one of them.
Yes, the person doing HIV-1 research (specifically, on dead babies, in the hopes of having fewer dead babies) and cancer research for well below minimum wage 'doesnt care about people'.
Touche!
Endor, we disagree on ERV all the time. If you cant follow the conversation and believe 'everyone is agreeing with me', then thats really your problem, not ours.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 20, 2010 12:29 PM
More critically, in most sane people's minds, kneeling shows subservience. Standing, hell, if Andyo's okay with that, that's his business. Hardly the same thing to most folk.
Seriously, again, Andyo had every fucking right. Hell, it sounds like no one present even saw it as that out of line. You're the only one insisting he should have. And honestly, again: that's the dick move, here.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkjHF7Apq0AT9lJwk3yvt0VErtK2d1IvdU
|
July 20, 2010 12:31 PM
I pretty much hated Phil Plait's talk at TAM 8. If he didn't have enough conviction to give examples and name names, he should have shut up about it and talked about astronomy or something.
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 12:33 PM
I think you have it backwards. I think Plait was asking if anyone became a skeptic because a skeptic was screaming in their face calling them an asshole. And I think the general consensus is that we don't expect the person being yelled at to become a skeptic. We expect the person watching the yelling to start thinking.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 20, 2010 12:35 PM
thomas paul @ 102
Nope, still wrong. Just because my favourite granny died catholic doesn't mean that all her friends and family who mourn her are.
As much as I loved granny, doesn't mean I am going to allow her from the grave to force me to 1) not go to the church ceremnony with the rest of the grieving friends and family or 2) go to church and submit to the bowing and scraping she knows I refused to do in life.
and now for the living:
My agnostic sister got married in a catholic church to please her husband's family. Are you really telling me I should have skipped my sister's wedding or gone and bowed and scraped? As it is, the fucking priest specifically excluded non-catholics in attendance (most of the wedding party actually).
Your "invited guest into house" analogy fails.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
July 20, 2010 12:39 PM
But PZ, by using the word "delusion", you're being insulting! *clutches pearls and faints*
Posted by: arensb
|
July 20, 2010 12:40 PM
My two cents' worth: it's not the pearl-clutching woo-woo peddlers who are offended at the very existence of atheists or skeptics who get to decide what is or isn't dickish behavior. Screw them.
The rule I try to go by is: some years from now, when I stumble upon what I'm about to write, will I be embarrassed by it? Will I think I came across as an asshole, or will it read as someone pointing out bullshit for what it is?
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 12:40 PM
You don't get it. The fact is that people at a mass might get distracted but would not say anything because they are not as rude as Andyo. It is rude to not follow a ritual when you are in a church. Why is Andyo even at the funeral mass since he has no belief in anything that the mass represents and has no intention of following the ritual? Why not stay home with a cold that day?
And are you seriously surprised that no one else here cares about what Andyo did at a mass? Why not go on a Catholic website and ask to see if that is a disruption to them?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 20, 2010 12:43 PM
From my experience, it has turned out to be the other way around. I did have an older man threaten to punch me in the nose after he brought up religion and I told him nonchalantly that I was an atheist. I also had an older woman make a huge scene on a city bus with the sign of the cross and calling me the Devil for the same reason.
Of course, I should have known that telling people you are an atheist is exactly the same as beating them over the head with a stick.
Posted by: CCabanita
|
July 20, 2010 12:43 PM
If Gramma pulls some religious mumbo-jumbo at you, it's not wise to say "I don't believe in that". It forces her to try to make you believe. You begin an argument and it gets sour quite quickly.
Remember it's your gramma, you don't really expect her to change her views.
You just want to keep things nice between you two.
You just say: "Gramma, you know I'm not religious."
Some FB friends of mine publish prayers and stuff like that. I never intrude into that, I think it would be rude.
But when I publish my atheist points of view, of course I have to defend them. There the discussion is open.
I can be pricky, but they have to be pricky first.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 20, 2010 12:44 PM
Am I to assume you don't go to funerals? Or did I miss the part where you mentioned that you're a believer?Posted by: JeffreyD
|
July 20, 2010 12:45 PM
Standing and not kneeling is not disrupting anything at a funeral. Why were the people who were supposed to be kneeling and praying paying attention to the one standing rather than to their god and prayer? The only disruption came from the people who made it an issue. The only ones not paying respect at the funeral were those who made an issue of it. Their house and their rules? Nonsense. How many xtians would participate in a muslim or wiccan ceremony without resistance?
The only time I kneel is to talk to a child. That is the only reason I can think of for kneeling.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 20, 2010 12:47 PM
Punch you in the head for JesusPosted by: truthspeaker
|
July 20, 2010 12:49 PM
Actually, Catholics consider it very rude for non-Catholics to take communion at a Catholic mass.
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 12:52 PM
I go to the mass and follow the ritual. I find that showing respect to the beliefs of the person who I am there to remember is hardly a great hardship.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 20, 2010 12:52 PM
thomas.paul @117
Jesus what kind of catholics do you know? I have been to catholic funerals with sobbing grieving catholic relatives who didn't give a shit about how atheist I am, they wanted me there with them and I wanted to be there to support them.
It's not all about the rites and tradtions of the mass it is *more importantly* about people in grief over loss.
These are old school New York City catholics and we all left church and got outrageously drunk for the rest of the day.
Apparently your catholics are the pearl clutching, fainting couch variety. I hate catholicism a lot but I love my catholic cfriends and family. Your catholics suck.
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 12:54 PM
Yes, but plenty of Catholics don't take communion for various reasons. Not taking communion is not a violation of the ritual.
Posted by: nastasie
|
July 20, 2010 12:54 PM
I think Phil's talk might have been relevant if this discussion were only getting started, that is, if the accomodationists vs.'new atheists' (or 'dicks' now, apparently) hadn't been discussed at length, ad nauseum, and if good arguments hadn't been presented for diversity of approaches one hundred fucking times. And Phil, imo, should be aware of the fact that this debate has gotten *old*.
But as with most accomodationists, he seems to remain oblivious (willfully or not) to this aspect: when you continue to complain about the meanies who don't agree with your idea that being nice is the right tactic, you come across as telling them to shut the fuck up, or, alternatively, as saying 'I'm an atheist, but a friendly atheist'(*groan*).
I never know when I'm rambling or being unclear, so, in sum, this discussion has gotten old, is futile, does not help.
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 12:57 PM
Just wondering, how do you get your shoes from under the bed?
Posted by: onkundig
|
July 20, 2010 12:57 PM
Ol'Greg @ 89
This.
interliminal @ 88
I would sincerely hope that any friend of mine who thinks I am doing something stupid will rap me on the head smartly and tell me what an idiot I am being.
I am an amateur photographer. I tend to think I am not bad at it. One of my closest friend, also my best critique tends to be quite harsh about his comments regarding my efforts. He also often shows me samples of what he thinks are good pictures. I treasure his honesty more than a 100 comments saying I take 'nice' pictures.
I also remember this one semester at college where a friend of mine, X , was acting quite stupidly. Matters of heart not going the way he wanted them to. We spent the entire term talking to him about it. Sometimes staying up all nights. Reasoning with him. Shouting at him. Castigating him. My roommate displayed his enormous repository of invective. Of course X responded with equal passion and fire. And he was no slouch at using four letter words either. Best fun in college any of us had. That was 10 years ago. And we still are a tight group where any stupidity can be happily expected to be met with the fire.
Posted by: nastasie
|
July 20, 2010 12:57 PM
Ugh, spelling fail. 'Accommodationists', I meant.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 20, 2010 12:58 PM
thomas.paul @ 126
I'm still interested to hear your response to my 114
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 12:59 PM
I assume she promised to raise her children as Catholics because otherwise they wouldn't have let her marry in the church. That sounds like more than just, "to please her husband's family." And did she kneel at the appropriate times during the mass?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 20, 2010 1:00 PM
KOPD, I love it! How come they don't realize how ridiculous they are being?
"I'm gonna punch you in the head for Jesus, because Christianity is all about God's love! Yeah, that's it! The sharp pain and broken nose will be all the evidence you need that Christianity is true!"
Posted by: raven
|
July 20, 2010 1:05 PM
Actually, it makes the crackers cry.
You aren't supposed to take communion in most sects unless you are a member. In some, you have additional rules such as having gone to confession or not being divorced or a bunch of other arbitrary rules.
No longer being a member makes it real simple to figure out though. Don't bother.
At life stage ceremonies in churches, I just follow along without worrying about anything. Weddings and funerals are not the time and place to make an ideological statement. I even went to a wedding reception at a fundie xian church once.
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 1:05 PM
Excluded them from what? I have NEVER heard of a priest saying that someone in attendance at a mass doesn't have to kneel. Were all those people so anti-Catholic that they couldn't even follow a ritual? I'm amazed that the church even allowed your sister to marry in the church if that was the situation.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 20, 2010 1:09 PM
(emphasis mine)Think maybe you answered your own ridiculous question? Was performing a ritual the purpose of going to the funeral? No. Of course not. You just admitted there are other reasons for going. So why expect the beliefs and ritual to be Andyo's only reason to go to a funeral. You are using a double standard, a dishonest tactic.
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
July 20, 2010 1:09 PM
I do not wear outside shoes into the house. The shoes are by the garage door.
Just wondering, how do you make it through the day without a clue?
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 20, 2010 1:11 PM
Catholic website schmatholic schmebsite. Honestly, pal, rather more to the point: I happen to know enough folk in various religions to know: there will be some who care, some who really don't. I'm betting despite your pearl-clutching here, you know that perfectly well, too.
And equally honestly, those who are are going to have to fucking suck it up. Their call: they can have me there, remembering with them, being with them. Or they can be the dick, try to insist my doing this means I also have to signal that subservience, too, and they can get called a dick by everyone else the way they so richly deserve for doing so, and, it being a funeral, I'll just have to smile and tell 'em how incredibly unclassy they're being, and how there really is a time to shut up, and now would be that time.
As to your dumbfuck question about why s/he's there: go fuck yourself. Seriously. You know there's a million reasons why, and that's his/her business, anyway. My feeling is: that's just a class act, generally, in the situation, showing. Something you, clearly, know exactly nothing about.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2010 1:12 PM
I don't know where you got that idiocy, but not joining in if you not a member is not rude. For example, I was recently at a funeral mass myself, and I didn't take communion. Those of other faiths, or atheists, weren't expected to. Likewise, if one is unfamiliar with those rituals, they can sit and keep quite. Rudeness is calling attention to such behavior by non-members. Rudeness is being a member and not following the ritual. At least for those of us who haven't lost their minds...Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
July 20, 2010 1:14 PM
Geez, thomas.paul, you're fucking clueless. Whatever the "rules" that may surround regular church services, at family/social affairs like weddings and funerals it's expected that non-adherents will be there to be part of the celebration or sympathy. Last year I went to an Anglican funeral for the father of some long-time friends -- I stood up and sat down, I sang the hymns 'cuz I like music, but I didn't mouth the joint prayers or follow along in the prayer-book. Standing up/sitting down on cue is arguably just part of the ceremony, but kneeling (usually accompanied by a congregational prayer) is an explicit act of devotion.
Moreover, I question whether this "rule" exists as you think it does. Seems to me that having non-believers go through the motions cheapens the ritual -- the "rule" would be that those in agreement with the ambient religion should join in, while those who aren't should remain quietly seated. Sort of like how the Catholics welcome anyone in the door, but only confirmed Catholics should receive Communion.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 20, 2010 1:16 PM
Who does this thomas.paul twerp think he is? You do not have to submit yourself to Catholicism and become a remote controlled godbot to attend a Catholic funeral. It just isn't true. FFS.
Posted by: Gerald Snit
|
July 20, 2010 1:22 PM
@thomas.paul (2 favourite saints?)
As someone who was raised Catholic in Ireland, I promise you that there is nothing unusual about someone not kneeling where they're supposed to, particularly at a funeral. Catholics are actually aware that non-Catholics might be at a funeral mass.
Posted by: CCabanita
|
July 20, 2010 1:24 PM
Funny thing, funerals. You go to pay homage to the dead. But the poor thing is dead, no way he/she will notice your homage.
You go to show your homage to the dead person to his/her friends and family.
You don't have to approve the funeral. It's not about you (thank your luck for that).
You need to go, but you don't want to make yourself an issue in any way. Bad form. So you go along.
I live in Portugal, where almost everybody says he/she is a catholic, but very few people attend mass or takes religion seriously.
Nobody will notice you if you stay afoot at the back of the church and not kneel or cross or respond to prayers.
Unless the priest is a fundie and challenges you. In that case you just turn your back and leave.
Or you can enter the church, present your condolences to the family and wait outside. I bet there will be people like you.
If somebody wants to make a fuss, you just say it's not the right time nor the right place.
The same thing at the burial. You are there for the dead, friends and family. Not for the priest.
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
July 20, 2010 1:34 PM
@121: Why were the people who were supposed to be kneeling and praying paying attention to the one standing rather than to their god and prayer?
Exactly. As an ex-Christian I can say: when you're praying, you're supposed to be paying too much attention to the state of your own goddamn soul to worry about whether some schmuck two pews away is assuming the correct posture. Maybe he's a flaming atheist, or maybe he's just got bad knees. None of your goddamn business. If you comment on it, then you're the one being a dick.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 20, 2010 1:36 PM
A point on the original topic, it's not actually true.
People have been "converted" by even the cartoonish abstraction he is referring to. My first awakening in feminism came at the heart of a comic book called Hothead Paisan. Hothead Paisan is not a mellow book. It is is not a nice book. It is a wholly unfair book that is based in the grossest exaggerations possible.
Yet, it awakened something in me, it made me realize there was a perspective I wasn't seeing in my "new chivalry" and was the beginning of a long educational journey involving Shakespeare's Sister, Feministing, Pandagon, and lots and lots of books.
Slacktivist also notes the power of a dick move noting that the most powerful motivator can often be making someone so mad they want to prove you wrong and so go back to the original source or research it on their own and find out, holy shit, you were right.
He said it helped him move from annoying evangelical to good guy evangelical and I've known other people who shared similar aha moments.
It also ignores that many people didn't change over because someone sat with them and really cared about them. I imagine many people changed over because someone on the whackaloon side said something so over the top it got them thinking or just hearing about something for the first time.
How many people on the blog have said Pharyngula contributed to their deconversions?
The dick move and the "there, there daddy's got you" move are all various tactics and approaches to truth-telling and some methods will work on some and others on others. Sometimes a combination works best with for example a dick move shaking a person up enough that they are willing to actually listen to a softly, softly approach or a softly, softly approach lowering defenses enough to be willing to sit still for some harsh truth telling.
That's why a diversity of approaches is a good thing and it's a bad thing when people sneer at the harsh truth tellers as if they would be better off if they didn't exist. You really need all kinds.
Posted by: grung0r
|
July 20, 2010 1:37 PM
I have been to quite a few catholic events in my life, and I have always gotten the feeling that participating in the rituals is the ruder, nay, more dickish thing to do. Furthermore, I would wager that most of the catholics in attendance feel the same way. They don't want you to take communion, so why would they want you to kneel or genuflect? Miming their silly little rituals without feeling just reflects how empty they really are.
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
July 20, 2010 1:40 PM
Cerberus - have taken myself off further posting and reading until the strike is settled. I am truly sorry I will be missing your posts. Hope the well deserved OM comes to you this time.
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 20, 2010 1:44 PM
Exactly. Prevent yourself from being noticed if it really is a problem to kneel. By the way, in the US, the The General Instruction of the Roman Missal specifically says that all in attendance at a mass of any kind (and that includes funeral masses) must kneel "beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer" unless they are prevented by illness. Some parishes are permitted to allow standing during this part of the mass because they lack space. This happens a lot in churches that have to use a gymnasium with metal chairs to hold their masses because they either don't have a church or because their church is being renovated.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
July 20, 2010 1:44 PM
The trouble is that all too many theists and accomodationalists consider any open and unappollegetic expression of atheism to be 'dickish'.
Simply saying "I do not belive what you believe because there is no evidence to support your position" is interpreted as a gross personal insult, even a borderline 'hate-crime', in itself.
The only ways to be atheist without being 'dickish' in the eyes of such people is either to hide away your atheism and generally pretend that you do not exist (the 'get back in the closet, freak' attitude toward atheism), or to be terribly sad to be a joyless, unfulfilled misanthrope who shuffles through your torturous, stygian half-life toward the grave. Unless you are someone who secretly longs to be 'saved' from your godlessness, then you are cast as a shrill, offensive bigot.
I for one refuse to allow myself to be defined by those who dearly wish that people like me did not exist at all. I would never punch Granny in the nose, but if Granny is determined to cast people like me as monsters who should be glad to have the theist boot firmly planted on our collective neck, then she cannot complain if I tell her exactly what I think of her backward, medieval worldview.
If theists want their freedom of religion, then fine, I will support them in that so long as it harms no one else. However, I demand that we atheists should also recieve our freedom from religion as a matter of course. It does not do to say "my freedom to believe in the unevidenced sky fairy only has value if you are forced to believe it too."
If that makes me a 'dick', then maybe the world needs more figurative 'dickishness'.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
July 20, 2010 1:58 PM
Posted by: PZ Myers Author Profile Page | July 20, 2010 8:37 AM
This is somethings that's puzzled me ever since I started reading Pharyngula.
Maybe its a case of words having different meanings or implications in Britain and the US, but the concern about "gendered insults" (or at least, the use of synonyms of genitals as insults) just doesn't seem to be an issue here (other than among people who complain about swearing in general).
For example, I've never heard anyone use "dick" to mean "acting like a man" or "being assertive".
Words like dick, cunt, arsehole, knob, knob-end, wanker, bastar, tosser, fuckwit, motherfucker etc all get used indescriminantly by men and women to describe men and women, and all to mean some varient of "stupid, obnoxious or dispicable person".
Just looking through my copy of the Oxford Dictionary of English, I get the following definitions:
cunt (noun, vulgar slang)
* A woman's genitals.
* An unpleasant or stupid person
dick (noun, vulgar slang)
* a man's penis
* Brit: a stupid or contemptible person
wanker (noun, Brit. vulgar slang)
* a contemptible person (used as a generalized term of abuse).
And as comparison:
arsehole (noun, Brit. vulgar slang)
1) the anus.
2) a stupid, irritating, or contemptible person.
And as an exception:
dickhead (noun, vuglar slang)
* a stupid, irritating or ridiculous man.
In all cases (apart from the last), the words are defined (and in my experience used) in an enterly gender-neutral fasion, both in who they are used to describe (i.e. everyone), and what they mean ("you are obnoxious", not "you are acting like a stereotypical man/woman"). If you wanted to make an argument about them having a corrosive effect on how people think, then IMO it would be more reasonable to say they are implying "sex is bad" rather than anything gender-specific.
I also don't think I've ever heard any British feminists complaining about these words and their effect on how people think about gender relationships (whereas I have heard such complaints about other gender-related insults like slag, slut, bitch, etc).
What may be of interest is this document I found on my computer yesterday [why I ever downloaded it I don't know, but by a freakish coincidence I found it while cleaning out my My Documents folder] about a survey of British attitudes to swearing on TV:
link
"Cunt" is generally viewed as the most obscene word there is, but as far as I can tell, nothing moe than that. It isn't seen as discriminatory on a par with specifically racist, sexist, etc language. (Although it seems that in general, swear-words are seen as more offensive when used as terms of abuse than when used otherwise).
Anyway, that's really just a few thoughts about how (in my experience) such words are used in the UK, and an explanation of why some of the discussions here seemed odd to me. I'll fully respect Pharangula protocol and not use them here. (And anyway, they're not words I use much anyway. Although it seems unfortunate not to be able to use words like knobend to describe some of the more obnoxious Republicans and religious-rightists).
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 20, 2010 2:02 PM
Also, I notice how they always hide behind "gramma". No matter what, you must be yelling at grandma, who is oh so frail and any truth will instantly kill her.
My partner internalized the "gramma" fear to delay coming out as bi and me as trans to her family. Oh, she shouldn't tell any of them, because it just might be too much for gramma who'd have to deal with the realities of a world that's evolved.
And you know what?
Gramma took it nearly the best of all of them. Okay, gramma turned out to be a little worried about the rest of the family, especially worrying that she might have been trusted the least and told last, but nope, no sudden heart-attacks, because hey, she's been a part of this world and grown up in it and had heard of queer people before.
The "gramma" tactic is an attempt to shut down discourse, much like "think of the children", limiting conversation between adults because of the assumed frailties of the very young and the very old.
And it is as always, bullshit.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 20, 2010 2:11 PM
JeffreyD @147
Right, the strike.
Well, I've never been one to be a scab or support businesses with active strikes, so I will follow suit until the strike is over and whatever becomes of Pharyngula, whether independent, back with Seed, or whatever, I will be there.
And now, I get to be a flouncer.
Farewell everyone and hope to see you all again soon.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
July 20, 2010 2:15 PM
And? Are priests now an authority on something? Rather than get into the ethical considerations of this kind of refusal to kneel (which are trivial and non-existant) I'm just going to state my own policy about such gatherings.
If a religious gathering is important enough to people I care about, I will come, but those who invite me and their clergy don't get to dictate to me how I participate. Its generally good manners to not call too much attention to yourself at such a gathering, but there is a line. Its called mutual respect. It would be disrespectful for me to sing your hymns using the guttural style of vocalization common in death metal or to make the lyrics more interesting, and it would be disrespectful of you to attempt to force me to sing your hymns and talk to my crotch.
The bottom line is that people might be skeptical of anything you do as a non-believer at a religious gathering, but most aren't assholes. People who fail to recognize a good faith effort to be an innocuous (non)participant in a religious ceremony and flip over some minor detail of (non)observance are assholes. And they richly deserve to have their day ruined by my non-attempt to piss them off.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 20, 2010 2:18 PM
Asking us to hunt down evidence for your claim? I should have caught that sooner. I guess we can add burden of proof fallacy to your special pleading.Posted by: CCabanita
|
July 20, 2010 2:20 PM
Catholics don't think it's rude for non-believers to take communion. They think it's a sacrilege, an offense to their deity.
That could get you in trouble with everyone.
When I was a boy my communions were all sacrilegious, because I had to confess first and get absolution for my sins, to be "clean".
In the end of confession, the priest would always ask: "And sins against your body?"
I knew he meant masturbation, but I faked ignorance:
"What, father?" "Well, never mind, son, go say those prayers in penitence."
So I went to communion in sin, knowing full well that it was a mortal sin and I'd go to hell.
Then I had nightmares about hell.
Until I had to face it: I'd go crazy or I'd quit.
I stayed sane (well, sort of).
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
July 20, 2010 2:30 PM
thomas.paul @148: in the US, the The General Instruction of the Roman Missal specifically says that all in attendance at a mass of any kind (and that includes funeral masses) must kneel "beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer"
Fine, I stand (or sit -- but not kneel!) corrected.
This just in: Catholic Church being dicks. Again. Film at 11.
Posted by: spurge
|
July 20, 2010 2:30 PM
@thomas.paul
I have been to countless churches for many different events but all for the same reason.
I was invited. My friends all know I am an Atheist.
Not once has anyone even peeped about my lack of participation in parts of the ritual.
As far as I can tell no one gives a shit.
As for telling other people how they must behave,go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Paul W., OM
|
July 20, 2010 2:45 PM
Cerberus,
I don't think commenting is scabbery, at this point. If Our Tentacled Overlord didn't want us to comment or read each others' comments, he could say so, and even turn off commenting.
At this point, I think he's intentionally giving a measured response.
(As soon as he says he prefers no comments, I'm out.)
I hope you and other valued commenters won't go away prematurely.
Posted by: oihorse
|
July 20, 2010 2:49 PM
The main thrust I have against this latest dick meme is that the more vociferous voices of the movement have shown people its actually OK to be angry and upset with the intellectual dishonesty that gets peddled throughout religion and pseudoscience.
While you still need to express your outrage sensibly, the 'dicks' empower others to speak out in the first place. It emboldens others to break their silence and express themselves.
Arguing against being vocal, arguing against calling out ridiculous notions because it might hurt someone's feeling, that it might make them think you are a dick, smacks of intellectual cowardice.
I don't see examples of what Phil talks about in his speech - and perhaps that's my problem. It was wrong of him not to include real world examples. His speech combined with Moody's fumbling continues stuffing the fattest straw man I've seen in years - definitely the biggest one I've seen in the skeptical community - and that type of crap will soon turn me off to the both of them.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2010 2:52 PM
@thomas.paul, still being an idjit. I don't have to obey any rules of the church, no matter which church. I may attend, like the funeral mass, to support the family. But their religion isn't mine. They can't force me into obedience. I won't purposely disrupt the services, but they should also not expect me to follow all their insane rules. To think otherwise is delusional on your part. Frankly, you seem to have lost your mind on this subject.
Posted by: H.H.
|
July 20, 2010 3:40 PM
"The iconoclast proves enough when he proves by his blasphemy that this or that idol is defectively convincing - that at least one visitor to the shrine is left full of doubts. The liberation of the human mind has been best furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe - that the god in the sanctuary was a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms." --H.L. Mencken
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 20, 2010 4:06 PM
I was just at a Catholic wedding on Saturday. Like thomas.paul, I try my best to follow the 'house rules' and participate in the ritual as much as I am able, but I couldn't find an altarboy to fuck so instead I lied to some Africans about the relationship between condoms and HIV/AIDS. I hope that was sufficient.
Posted by: Sharon Astyk
|
July 20, 2010 4:45 PM
There is nothing rude about not fully participating in any religious ritual in any faith I know of in any liberal country where the state religion isn't enforced by guys with sticks. Funerals and weddings, bar mitzvahs, baptisms and Baby welcomings, etc...are fundamentally cross faith communal events, and everyone in participation knows this, and knows it fully.
Moreover, in every faith I've ever met there are also people with physical disabilities who cannot kneel or stand or rock or dance at the moments that the rituals call for them, and while it is not unheard of for people to be jerks, most people grasp that also, and would not comment.
There are also cases where in the course of the ritual, it is not *appropriate* for everyone to fully participate - that is, it isn't appropriate for most non-Catholics to take communion at a Catholic baptism, nor is it appropriate for someone in mourning to take certain roles in some rituals in a synagogue, or a women who is menstruating to participate in ways in some Hindu rituals. Whether you think any of this is ok or not, there are lots of reasons why someone might not participate.
That is, in any given religious circumstance, it is almost never appropriate for everyone to follow everyone else - that's more of a sheep thing ;-). Asking the question "why didn't you kneel" is, IMHO, very rude - the potential answers always potentially impinge on things that are private to many people. So it is not in any way wrong to remain seated or standing quietly during a religious ritual, and it is rude to ask someone why they did so. It is even ruder to insist that anyone who behaves courteously and respectfully is being rude and making a scene.
Sharon
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 20, 2010 5:13 PM
I work with a looneytarian who's an accountant. He did actually take some economics in school but has forgotten almost all of it. Every so often he'll parrot some economic idiocy the Cato Institute or a tea bagger is promoting. All the heads turn to me as the resident economist to refute it. The conversation goes something like this:
Looneytarian Accountant: The country should go back on the gold standard.
Me: There's several reasons not to. For instance: (1) Going back to the gold standard would be deflationary. (2) Adjusting monetary policy in response to economic downturns is more difficult if the amount of money in circulation is fixed by the supply of some commodity such as gold. (3) The gold standard may be susceptible to speculative attacks when a government's financial position appears weak. Etc. Etc.
LA: We could work around all that. Besides the gold standard makes chronic deficit spending by the government more difficult.
Me: Discussion of Keynesian responses to economic downturns.
LA: Rand Paul thinks we should go back to the gold standard.
Me: Rand Paul is a fucking opthamologist who doesn't have a fucking clue about economics. Besides, the total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons. Assuming a gold price of $1,000 per ounce, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of all the money in the US, where more than $8 trillion is in circulation or on deposit. How do economic illiterates like you and Rand Fucking Paul going to work around that, dumbshit?
LA: Oh, so maybe going on the gold standard is a bad idea.
Sometimes going off on people is the only way to get their attention to the fact they're talking out of their asses.
Posted by: ritchie.annand
|
July 20, 2010 5:46 PM
I was in attendance at a Catholic wedding not too long ago.
The thing that ended up surprising me was that, out of the fair group of people that were there, five took communion.
I think everyone assumed everyone else was Catholic up to that point.
Or, I suppose, perhaps they all hadn't been to confession or somesuch.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 20, 2010 5:47 PM
No, THIS is DICK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obri6-6w238
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 20, 2010 5:51 PM
How many of you here became skeptics because somebody didn't challenge your beliefs?
Wingnut: "Uh-oh. Venus is ascending. Not a good time for me to make financial decisions. Suppose you pick up my venti Americano, sport?"
Nice 'Skeptic': "You bet. Also, I respect and validate your feelings on Venusian economics."
Wingnut: "Hmm, good point. Maybe there isn't a relationship between planetary motion and our daily lives. Why, it's ludicrous to think that barely detectable but regular gravitational perturbations can influence our personalities. I suspect there are studies of twins that bear this out. Oh, the other day I was checking my biodex while driving, and I almost went into the ditch. Good thing God was watching out for me. How anyone can be an atheist when there's so much evidence of His love is beyond me."
Nice 'Skeptic': "You're a beautiful person."
Wingnut: "Perhaps you're right. After all, why should God care so much about me when millions of orphans are starving while slaving in sweatshops? I'm never going to church again. But I still don't believe in global warming. Why, it was downright chilly yesterday, and it's always pleasant here this time of year. I betcha those scientists are in the pockets of the solar panel industry."
Dickish New Atheist: "Pardon me, but I couldn't help overhearing what you were saying. You are aware of the difference between 'climate' and 'weather', aren't you? Further, one anecdote does not constitute evidence on par with thousands of daily temperature readings by meteorologists around the globe—"
Wingnut: "That's it! I'm changing my name to Akbar Islam and will rain bloody vengeance down upon those who administer the MMR vaccine!"
Nice 'Skeptic': "I miss my frontal lobe."
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 20, 2010 5:59 PM
I was taught that. And practiced it.
Then I read something by MLK when I was in college. Can't remember the exact speech, but the gist was:
I had an epiphany and from that day forward I have spoken my mind. Sometimes quite forcefully as I do not believe that accommodationism and politeness will get people what they want. Change cannot happen without strife as those who wish to keep inequity in the fore-front will always make cause with the accommodationist who is, by his/her refusal to speak out, equally guilty.
Posted by: Neil
|
July 20, 2010 6:00 PM
With this!
http://i17.ebayimg.com/04/i/05/49/20/ae_2.JPG
I don't even have to get out of bed first!
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 20, 2010 6:27 PM
O'Rly? Because when someone in my family or a friend does that, I tell them that there were being stupid. That someone has just "had them" in the biblical-anal way because that shit didn't work in the middle-ages and they had to invent science-based medicine to find shit that did work.
The stuff that worked, they called "medicine," and the stuff that didn't, they called shit. What you just bought was shit.
Amazingly, the woo-peddling and other loads of shit have a tendency to drop when I'm around... :) And, some of my uncompromising attitude has worked, like my response to my Mom on a certain wing-nut piece-of-crap-lie-fest email (the debunking I linked in my not exactly Mr. Nice email is just below):
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/10/chain-email/w-2-tax-forms-hr-3590-health-insurance-pay-taxes/
I find being aggressive, sometimes to the point of being rude, actually makes her think about it, where being police makes her think she's "won" because I'm not acting like Glen Beck or some other wing-nut.
Posted by: sunnyskeptic
|
July 20, 2010 6:30 PM
Whoa, hold up with the whole 'Not participating in the ENTIRE church service' is being rude... For many, many years I worked weekends with adults with disabilities and took them to their church services. No matter what the service, I explained to them beforehand that I would not be participating, but I would be there to assist them with anything they needed, which sometimes was physical assistance with communion or hymnals or what not. Why the hell should I participate just because I'm there at work to assist others? Any other social occasion is the same, and yes, funerals count as a 'social' occasion. What if I had to bring one of my clients to a wedding, funeral, baptism, etc. Am I expected to fully participate? Or would you rather I was a butt hole staff and made them sit at home because I was not their same religion? No, the proper answer is you go, you don't participate, but you sit quietly and don't be disrespectful. Then it's over and that's that.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2010 6:32 PM
Evidently Thomas.Paul didn't get the memo...Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 20, 2010 6:41 PM
You know Dick-move, it's widely accepted that, in funerals, many people from different belief systems will be present. And that many of those people will not actively participate in the ritual of the head God-Botherer because they're in conflict with the religious beliefs of the people who are there (but otherwise never would be).
It's also accepted by all (apparently except authoritarian-dick-movers) that when you visit a church, you also do not have to follow all the rituals. In fact, it is sometimes a GRAVE SIN for someone not of the religious persuasion to follow the rituals, e.g., taking Catholic Mass when you're a Jew for instance.
So, way to dick-move, dick-head.
...
PS. I think PZ needs a new "award." This one will be the DM and will go to the anti-molly of the month. You should be the first recipient.
Posted by: Neil
|
July 20, 2010 6:48 PM
Also for thomas.paul:
I admit my experience is limited, but I have been to a cathloic funeral, two weddings in catholic churches, and numerous semi-public ceremonies of all kinds at protestant churches, when it was known that non-members would be attending.
Maybe the catholics where you live are a really touchy bunch of control-freak douchebags, but I have never once been expected to join in the ritual side, and have never been asked to leave or not show up, or even been noticed, as far as I could tell. Most church congregations that are active in their communities, even the highly ritualized ones, know that when a large group is gathered for more personal events like funerals, that there will likely be a large group of non-members in attendance. In a non-funereal situation, I have even been part of a group that was specifically excused (yet not barred) from the ritual aspect but still welcomed to be there.
Maybe my experience is unusual and quite liberal, but while I often find churchgoers to be an annoying lot, I have yet to see any big deal being made about expecting non-believing attendees to participate in official rituals at such events. The most I have ever been expected to do was sit quietly. I suspect that the more evangelical the church, the more this experience holds out. I wouldn't expect quite the same welcome and tolerance at a less public, congregation-centered event or ritual, or at the church or temple of a non-evangelical religion.
I get your point about "their house, their rules", and of course, any given church could enforce such things if they chose, but the only times I have encountered anything like that has been in the private homes of rat bastard conservative protestants and mormons who feel the need to force their bullshit onto others as much as possible, and for whom tolerance is a four-letter word and a well-oiled slip n'slide straight to hell. As in "In this house we give thanks to the Lord before we eat", making it clear that those who don't sing don't get any supper, or making it clear that if you wanted to have a sleep-over on Saturday, you were going to be shanghaied into church on Sunday.
You may be right about the customs on paper, but I've never met a leader of a popular church who was enough of a dick to piss on a private person's rites by enforcing the whole puppet act on a mixed crowd.
And like most others here, whatever the church rules or practices may be, I think you are overreacting and putting blame (if there is any to be assigned) on the wrong party. The church is already claiming to maintain the gateway to heaven and the secrets of life and death, pretty much forcing loved ones to be there if they wish to participate in the public remembrance of a loved one. Such moments are quite frankly not about the church but the people involved, church members or not. By expecting non-members to participate fully in the ritual aspects, they would be disrespecting the memory of the deceased, and disrespecting the grieving non-members and the grieving members by forcing the non-faithful to participate in a ritual in which they do not believe.
Of course, most religions give fuck-all about respecting others, but some do take a little effort if doing otherwise will make them look bad and possibly cost them members.
Anyway, just my experience.
Posted by: roguemedicblog
|
July 20, 2010 7:18 PM
I apologize if this has already been stated several times, but I could read a couple of research papers in the time it would take me to read through all of these comments - and I am way behind on my reading.
This is a problem of Granny, and defenders of Granny, defining who is being a dick. They are wrong.
Granny is the dick.
Confronting irrationality is not being a dick.
Refusing to acquiesce to irrational cultural norms is not being a dick.
Tolerance of irrational cultural norms is a custom
More honour'd in the breach than the observance.
.
Posted by: Trance Gemini
|
July 20, 2010 7:19 PM
Should atheists be "polite" and not be "dicks"?
I was explicitly told by a Christian on a debating site I belong to that the reason I was targeted by him and others for trolling and harassment mostly in the form of pathological lies, was because:
a. I was "nice"
b. Gave the appearance of being reasonable and truthful
c. "Nice" atheists are more likely to be believed than "rude" atheists.
This, according to him, was a bad thing so I deserved to be lied about and trolled in order to incite me into not being "nice" so that people could "see the real me".
Christians and other theists will always complain about atheists no matter how we behave, whether we're dicks or whether we're polite.
We should just be ourselves and not let them brow beat us on this issue since it really doesn't make any difference.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 20, 2010 8:15 PM
Who puts shoes under their bed? I put mine in my closet.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2010 8:26 PM
Got a waterbed, no storage underneath. My shoes spend the night under my computer desk.Posted by: Ophelia Benson
|
July 20, 2010 8:28 PM
I don't, actually — it also seems like a dick move to try and associate a strategy with gender, since some of the most wonderfully dickish skeptics I know are female.
Oh good, I was feeling excluded, since I would feel silly shouting, "Hey, over here, I'm a dick!"
Posted by: Victor
|
July 20, 2010 8:45 PM
I very much agree that Phil's speech was bad. And not all of it was a results of his topic being biased and unskeptical. It was also very unprofessionally delivered. He could have spoken on the same topic but delivered it much better. All in all, I would have loved it if he spoke about astronomy.
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
July 20, 2010 9:23 PM
Indeed.
I love and care about my religious and woo-believing family and friends. I try not to hurt their feelings. I try to be compassionate and understanding about why they believe as they do. I try not to alienate those I work with and for. So generally, when I encounter their irrational beliefs, I filter what's in my head so it doesn't come out of my mouth.
I never yell at them. I never call them names. I don't call them out on the silliness they're espousing. I (generally) don't even get sassy with them--at least not WRT religion and woo.
I say things on Pharyngula I would never say directly to my religious, woo-believing friends and family members, as much as I'd really like to.
OTOH, all the stuff that I'd like to say--but don't--to my friends, family, and acquaintances, is said, anonymously, on my blog. I feel so much better for the opportunity to vent, rant, and talk back to them, even if they never know it.
Posted by: englerbd
|
July 20, 2010 10:46 PM
I was at Phil's TAM talk and I didn't see a problem with it, although there apparently are several different interpretations of what he said and what he may have meant. I don't, of course, have any way of knowing the latter for certain, but as I listened to him talk the so-called 'dicks' that came to my mind weren't bloggers--not PZ who I admire, or anyone else in particular. (And PZ is right--neither he nor any other individual were mentioned or even alluded to in Phil's talk). Rather, the dicks I envisioned were what I might call admittedly cumbersomely "my-very-own-blogger-defenders." The cadre of sometimes rather over-enthusiastic (to use a polite term) frequent commenters who seem to lurk in fealty on certain popular bloggers' sites--Pharyngula being one. These are the folks who seem to descend en masse on any passing commenter who may take issue--even in a seriously inquisitive way--with "their" blogger. When this happens I see very little, if any, critical thinking going on. All I see are unthinking and ad hominem attacks, and a kind of dogmatic tunnel vision focused on shutting down all inquiry. These are the dicks that I see and these are the people who need seriously to reconsider what they're doing to the skeptical, rationalist, free-thinking movement. We aren't all in agreement on all issues--and almost assuredly never will be--but we do have a great opportunity to make a difference in this world as long as differences among ourselves can be addressed in the rational way we espouse to that world. Civil discourse is in no way equivalent accommodationism. I think all Phil was saying was that all of us need to consider rationally one anothers' opinions, form lucid and defensible arguments, and express them reasonably--or, to paraphrase the old saying, "think before you post."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2010 10:52 PM
Civil discourse is a two way street. And innocent looking questions are "gottcha" questions to those of us with experience to read the context. We don't the play the "gottcha" game here, as no critical thinking is going on with the other side behind their facade of politeness and innocence.Posted by: englerbd
|
July 20, 2010 11:11 PM
I'd have to agree with that in general, and I'd say very few if any holds need be barred when dealing with the "gotcha" questions true believers so often think they cleverly can get by with. Go for the throat if you have to, but do it with a well-thought-out and logical argumant. What I'm concerned with is that amongst ourselves we allow for a certain amount of disagreement and discussion that, in the end, may help each of us come up with better ways of dealing with the believers than will wasting time on the infighting that we sometimes see.Posted by: Marella
|
July 21, 2010 1:58 AM
The only time I go to church these days tends to be to sing at weddings and funerals. I'm usually there as a favour to someone whose loved one died and I do my best and sing beautifully, but I do not kneel or pray. The other atheists in the choir do the same mostly. I do stand up because my poor ass is usually grateful for the break from those damn pews!
This is a secular community choir but there's been a hell of a lot of great religious music written for choirs over the years and I sing it. Mostly it's not a problem though I do draw the line at "If You're Happy and You Know It Say Amen" That is fucking awful.
Posted by: Marella
|
July 21, 2010 2:00 AM
I really did lol at this one! Still sniggering in fact ...
Posted by: MadScientist
|
July 21, 2010 3:07 AM
That's so disappointing; it sounds like Dr. Plait is being converted to Mooneyism - fight that non-existent dragon, boy! Oh, before I forget, Atheist breakfast at my place tomorrow - bring your own children.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 21, 2010 4:44 AM
See, podblack cat, you missed out on my epic comment on this issue on your blog long before PZ took it up ! Have you fixed it yet ???
;)
If I understood Rebecca correctly in Copenhagen, the "Don't be a dick" meme was more of a "Pick your fights" message, like "don't argue about the existence of god with your dying grandmother if it's only going to upset her", and in a very general way I could sortof somewhat possibly weakly agree with that.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 21, 2010 5:20 AM
I lolled pretty hard at that. But you're completely misrepresenting thomas.paul's point! You're meant to turn a blind eye to the shit, just as if you're invited into a person's home you're meant to sit there and smile while the husband smacks the wife around the room. After all, you're the invited guest...Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 21, 2010 5:42 AM
I was being facetious up there (after all I referred to PZed as Mr Meyers), but I think my point stands for itself. That we see that being mocked can have positive outcomes isn't something intuitive but something reflective. It's upon reflection that we can see that being mocked has some effect, but I'd argue that intuitively it seems abhorred to think that to make your point you're going to get there by insulting someone, hence why this idea keeps popping up with little more than appeal to our intuitive nature... no hard evidence, no showing that any other way is damaging, just an appeal to our nature.Posted by: mjosefw
|
July 21, 2010 5:48 AM
Great comments, good honest writing from PZ, as usual, but this is getting more exasperating by the minute. Accommodationists are anti-atheists, ATINOS, (atheists in name only). In a society that is so economically and intellectually dominated by bizarre and deleterious monotheism, to censor anyone's forthright defense of rational sociology is traitorous. Growing out of this religious fascism is our ever-increasing mountain of BS, where fake plastic "tolerance" and "civility" masks virulent enmity towards others for having more integrity.
So for a "professor," in a field (higher education) riven by dishonesty, mindlessness, cowardice in the face of corporate ownership, self-censorship - hat's off for that, well, miraculous achievement.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 21, 2010 6:07 AM
It's upon reflection that we can see that being mocked has some effect,
think Dover, Kell.
Think Kansas Kangaroo Kourt.
no, mockery has the immediate and obvious power to marginalize entire cities or even states.
again, I highly recommend you read this:
http://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/detail/ridicule-an-instrument-in-the-war-on-terrorism
it has a nice overview of how powerful the use of ridicule has been historically.
once you are aware of its power, it no longer seems to need "reflection" to see it have positive impacts on behavior.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 21, 2010 6:13 AM
No, it should be "we aren't playing your gottcha game loser". To the point, and in their face. Make them present a real argument. Then, and only then, give them one return. Life is too short to waste on the "gottcha" folks. Ridicule is all they deserve.Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 21, 2010 6:27 AM
Ah, they're over-qualified to join in the rituals.
I'm in my low 40s. Not sure if that counts as ancient. I think I was born the year Laugh-In came on TV and only became cognizant of it during the '70s re-runs. I was five or six and Maltese Bippy along with the Matt Helm films with Dean Martin were my favorite movies (weird for a kid that age, I guess). I just recently rented the Laugh-In DVDs from a major snail mail renter so the catch-phrases are fresh in me head, much to the chagrin of the Phorangegulius crowd.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 21, 2010 6:36 AM
Two different things. I thought I was talking about gut reactions, not evidenced positions.Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 21, 2010 7:12 AM
thomas.paul @ 132 and 135
You missunderstood and/or I was unclear. Either way, you never responded to my question prefering to go off on a tangent (addressed below)
My agnostic, no religion, sister agreed to a catholic church wedding as a concession to her very nice, catholic, non-practicing, husband and his very catholic family. She wanted to start married life without totally alienating her in-laws who had a very deep expectation of a catholic wedding for their son (yes, they would have preferred a nice catholic girl)
Are you telling me I needed to either skip my sister's wedding or attend and kneel, pray, sit and stand up etc?
Posted by: Mike
|
July 21, 2010 11:01 AM
""How many of you … became a skeptic, because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged, and a retard?" He opened up against a strawman New Dick, which is unfortunate, because there isn't anyone who fits that description in the skeptical movement."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Stop it you're killin me!
Posted by: JBlilie
|
July 21, 2010 1:26 PM
I say "bless you" when someone sneezes because it's a typical custom. I don't say "god bless you." I do it actively: I am blessing the person (meaning I hope you aren't getting sick, nothing more) not invoking the favor of some airy sky daddy.
It's pretty harmless and greases social interactions.
If I happen to attend church for some reason such as a weding or funeral, I go along with the crowd as well. Someone asked Richard Dawkins why he was willing to say grace at Oxford meals (which each faculty member takes in turn) and he replied that though he didn't care to tell falsehoods, saying meaningless things did not bother him.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 22, 2010 12:13 AM
Mike:
Now, what's so funny?
--
JBlilie,
Heh. I say "cheers" when someone sneezes, and hope they ask why. Those who know me, don't.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
July 22, 2010 1:10 AM
OK. Now that you've mentioned it, I have to ask. Why do you say cheers when someone sneezes?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 22, 2010 1:41 AM
Hurin, because I recognise it's expected that I should say "bless you", but I personally think that's a silly thing to say.
"Cheers" is much more cheerful, don't you think?
No fake piety or insincerity about it, just a general sense of well-wishing and an ironic acknowledgement of social norms.
(It's always extemporaneous, but more-or-less that, and of course will elaborate if pressed.
Hardly ever, that's come up).
Posted by: JacobCH
|
July 22, 2010 1:46 AM
I'm going to steal that, John. I've been wanting else to say other than "bless you" for years. I still use it to be polite but my friends have learned to stop saying it to me. They've also learned not to watch "historical" movies with me.
Posted by: echidna
|
July 22, 2010 1:54 AM
I say "gesundheit". A wish for good health seems an appropriate response to a sneeze.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 22, 2010 2:00 AM
echidna,
Seems onomatopoeic to me. :)
Posted by: JacobCH
|
July 22, 2010 2:01 AM
But, but...that wouldn't give me the opportunity to preach my atheism at folks! :P
(I hated using that word but at this hour I just couldn't think of anything else.)
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 22, 2010 2:09 AM
JacobCH,
May you only use it for good, never for evil!
--
@205, never that. Not preaching!
You'd be raising awareness of the embedded theistic sentiments that remain in our language via idioms, and kept alive by custom long after the theocratic culture that spawned them has faded into the mists of history.
Or something like that.
Posted by: JacobCH
|
July 22, 2010 2:11 AM
Yes, that. Is there a word for that?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 22, 2010 2:19 AM
Word for that?
Depending on your perspective, 'enlightenment' or 'bullshit' could be applied, more-or-less justifiably.
My motivation, frankly, is to exercise a form of iconoclasm¹. The rest is rationalisation.
--
¹ (I'm petty that way.)
Posted by: JacobCH
|
July 22, 2010 2:24 AM
Let me amend my statement.
But, but...that wouldn't give me the opportunity to iconoclastically rationalize at folks! :P
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 22, 2010 2:33 AM
Jacob, hard-core activist militant atheist fanatics, we.
Grr! Growl!
--
(But I can be a pointlessly punctilious phraseology pedant, too. I have lots of bad qualities.)
</SelfPity "mode=Walton">
Posted by: JacobCH
|
July 22, 2010 2:39 AM
Me, too, my friend. Or, I try. I also use commas like they're going out of style. Of course, that means most folks don't understand every third word I say but c'est la vie.
Posted by: mikee
|
July 22, 2010 3:29 AM
Every time this argument comes up, it seems to me that people start making generalisations about those who they disagree with. You are either a raving, in your face, skeptic or a simpering accommodationist, and there is no middle ground.
I have been accused of being an accommodationist because I think insults are less effective that a cool rational approach. However, I don't back down from debate with a woo meister/religious nut if they are getting in my face. So I think accommodationist is an unfair label.
I don't think any two people have a completely identical approach to confronting irrational thinking and as PZ has pointed out even the most "hard core" skeptic is not going to punch granny in the nose.
I think having different people use different approaches which suit their circumstances and temperament is a good way forward. Repeated infighting seems less effective.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
July 22, 2010 10:14 AM
I say "bless you" when people sneeze, but I also say it when people let out a good burp (hey, why discriminate?). I've been doing it for years, and just the other day someone finally returned the favor when I let a particularly big one go. I really hope it catches on.
Posted by: JacobCH
|
July 22, 2010 10:22 AM
Eh, the way I was raised it's the polite thing not to acknowledge a burp at all. If the burper (I don't think that's a word) has some class they'll say excuse me.
Then again, I'm hardly Miss Manners.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 23, 2010 8:00 PM
Funny thing: most denominations don't require people to kneel if it's physically impossible or just straining for them. Most people would simply assume a non-kneeler simply had bad knees.
--o--
Danes say "prosit" (German: "prost"), a future form of "prosum" as I recall. Meaning "may it be good". Supposedly based in a superstition that when one sneezed, one's soul was blown out the nose, and one might then risk a devil taking its place.
Posted by: Kitz
|
August 17, 2010 3:56 PM
How to say this without being a dick? OK so most of the people I talked to at TAM8 felt it was clearly 100% about...Richard Dawkins. Not that you aren't as important or well known as Mr.Dawkins. But his early question and answer session with his comments that the "number one threat to the UK is ISLAM in all it's forms" was kinda a crowd "whooooaaa' moment. His anti Islam anti religion in any form made Hitchens (who was number 2 on the suspect list) look like a Sunday School teacher when he said it was "ok for people to pray for him if it made them feel better". People were reeling from a speech filled it everything but a "mater solution" to the problem (he didn't mention any "solution" but then again, that was part of the problem. Just WHAT was he meaning? "Number one threat" certainly is warlike enough that he must have SOME solution in mind and in his mind, it's probably not a nice one). When Phil got up to speak, it was rather "wow, I wonder how Dawkins is taking this?" I know people emailed and phoned, but probably not as many as emailed Hitchens and went up to ask Dawkins what he thought. I've heard you are annoying, I've thought you are darn good at "performance art to make a point", I thought you were funny and I've thought you were inspirational. But "dick" on the level of "any minute now he's going to want to start building camps, I know it" I never thought. The level of unease over the Dawkins comments, you had to be there. So you personally, hardly. You lumped in, well maybe in there about number 8 or 9.
Posted by: Kitz
|
August 17, 2010 4:02 PM
or as my grandmother says "when you think it's ALL about YOU, it isn't. Becuase it is NEVER all about YOU".
Posted by: LilaMae
|
December 22, 2010 11:22 AM
So many who seem a bit irked by Phil's talk either missed the central point completely or simply fail to address it:
What is your goal?
Posted by: KG
|
December 22, 2010 11:36 AM
LilaMae,
What is your goal in posting a content-free comment on an old thread?
Posted by: beachton
|
March 1, 2011 2:12 PM
I wrote a blog about this topic that included a story about Phil Plait as an astronomer and it was mentioned on Rebecca Watson's blog, which meant it got a lot of hits. Phil made a comment that just because he says something is Jupiter, he COULD still be wrong. That's just how he is. Just not that argumentative. Me on the other hand, I've been called out for telling another woman to suck it.
http://www.spasmsofaccommodation.com/2010/10/smart-blind.html