Pharyngula

Posted by: Rorschach | August 27, 2010 9:42 AM

That is the virtue of dickishness. It provides the social and psychological penalties that counter the draw of complacency

Hell, yes !

I've been totally unimpressed with the arguments from the side of nice

So have I.All the poor strawmen that got hurt during the course of this silly campaign !

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 27, 2010 9:51 AM

Amen, if you'll pardon the expression. Our society is drowning in ignorance and stupidity. The people who know better, but are afraid to call these things by their real names, are very much part of the problem.

Posted by: sunnyskeptic | August 27, 2010 9:57 AM

Thanks, PZ, for this.

I had to be in the audience during "Don't Be a Dick", and it was something I wasn't impressed with it at all. I see the value in being a 'dick' (ugh, hate that that's how it is phrased, too... whatever). I also see how the Mr. Nice and Ms. Nice people seem to think that if we're dickish about one thing or in one instance that we're somehow raving assholes all throughout our daily lives...

Thinking about you, and it's good to know that you do the right things for yourself, even if it's the dick that pushes you to do it... ;)

Posted by: dsmwiener | August 27, 2010 9:59 AM

I most likely will catch hell for this, but I there is a difference between attacking the belief and attacking the believer. We catch so much of that from the other side that it is hard, being human, not to respond in kind.

People are complex, and smart people can believe in stupid, illogical things for a host of reasons. I like many, if not most here, am a secular humanist, materialist, and atheist. As such, I find all religion silly and without any merit. The good it does do can be done better in different ways.

Yet, I know many religious people who are good and smart, and on most things outside of their religious views, reasonable. If we attack these people personally, we will back them into a corner. If we attack their beliefs, but leave open a chance for dialog, then progress can be made. Which is what I think PZ and Dawkins are talking about.

So, attack religion, mock it, etc. It does not deserve respect. But, so long as the religious folks are not being asshats, be reasonable with them. As I own no perls or fainting couches, I'll just get back to programming now.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | August 27, 2010 10:00 AM

I think that there are 2 ways of looking at it:

Personal/1 on 1: Yeah, try to hold back on being a dick until you're sure that you aren't getting anywhere. I'm a big fan of the where Stephen Fry comes from about being polite. However, if frustrated, insert dickishness for personal amusement.

Public: I agree with Dawkins in the linked post. Play to the crowd, not the other player. Educate, elucidate, and if required make the opposing position look stupid. Obviously there's no need to gratuitously swear and/or personally insult*, but ridicule does work. Someone once said that the English don't have revolutions, they have satire... I'm with that one!

Oh, as a note, anyone who acts like a troll deserves evisceration, whatever the situation!

*Unless it's particularly funny. FWIW, YMMV, etc.

Posted by: Dianne | August 27, 2010 10:05 AM

How is going to the ER and getting the help you need being a dick? From my perspective, the people who pull the "oh, but I didn't want to bother anyone" move when they have chest pain or a neutropenic fever or a lump are the ones being dicks-passive aggressive dicks at that. Paying attention to your body's sensations and using your knowledge of physiology to prevent a disaster-not being a dick.

If you have any doubts, ask yourself which your family would rather have: you alive after a day in the hospital in which it was discovered that your chest pain was due to a strained muscle or you dead from a massive heart attack when you chose to ignore the early signs. Dying unnecessarily and causing grief to your family: that would be the dickish behavior.

So, you'll have to try harder if you want to convince me that you're a dick.

Posted by: jerthebarbarian | August 27, 2010 10:09 AM

I want odds on how long it will take for this post to be quote-minded by someone as proof that even the notorious atheist PZ Myers believes in angels and devils.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | August 27, 2010 10:13 AM

As consultant physicians and surgeons have told me, there is nothing wrong with your tonsils, your lymphatic systems, nothing sinister about your rectal bleed - and that last without so much as a finger up my arse! Carry on being dickish, say I, you are your body's owner and operator, make waves until somebody does something. More quinsy scars than you could shake a stick at, an empirical diagnosis of lymphatic mycobacterial infection, and two Dukes Stage A cancers resected with eight inches of bowel; just to satisfy your curiosity.

You keep on looking after you - you're very probably the best-placed so to do! If you are as dickish as I am, you probably make a 'patient from hell', so please give TTW my deepest sympathy! She and the lads are well, I trust?

Posted by: Rachael | August 27, 2010 10:16 AM

None of the big names in the skeptical movement carry out the caricature of dickishness Phil was arguing against...

What, so only the behavior of the "big names" matters? :P

Glad that you're feeling better.

Posted by: ctroein | August 27, 2010 10:21 AM

@#16 Dianne: Perhaps there are big cultural differences, but at least in my neck of the woods (northwestern Europe) I'd be inclined to take an "oh, but I didn't want to bother anyone" at face value. I certainly wouldn't want to bother anyone without good reason (which, of course, I couldn't really know if I had until after the fact).

Posted by: johnsma11berries | August 27, 2010 10:22 AM

I had a little internal debate between the nice angel on my left shoulder, and the dickish devil on my right.

So your angel tempts you to the "Deadly Sin" of sloth? Amusing.

A skeptic who thinks their mission is to provide only positive messages and lead everyone along with affirmations and friendliness is going to be an ineffective skeptic.

I really don't understand this false dichotomy between "nice" and "dickish". A truly effective skeptic would realize (a) that different people respond to different approaches, and tailor his or her interactions with people according to his or her knowledge of them, and behavioral clues; and (b) that there is a whole spectrum of behavior between the two poles.

Posted by: Zeno | August 27, 2010 10:25 AM

Please keep dicking away in your usual measured fashion, PZ.

Posted by: Ken | August 27, 2010 10:35 AM

Far be if from me to divine what someone else (P. Plait in this case) meant in any detail...but...I believe he makes a valid point, though he develops it only superficially.

PZ's & R. Dawkin's points are valid as well.

But here's what I suspect is at least part of the issue: being a "Dick" is counterproductive, often to a significant degree.

AND MANY OF THOSE CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATING THIS BEHAVIORAL TRAIT HAVE AS THEIR MOTIVE THE OBJECTIVE OF ANNOYING OTHERS--and NOT trying to persuade anybody.

This has been observed with "skeptics" for nearly a century & H. L. Mencken wrote about it in the 1920s; here's an excerpt:

“This has been the main effect of skepticism in the world, working over long ages: that it has become gauche and embarassing to admit certain indubitable facts. Their unpopularity is due not to their destruction or abandonment but simply to the forensic talent of the skeptics, a bombastic and tyrannical sect of men, with a great deal of cruelty concealed in their so-called love of truth. It is not altruism that moves them to their assaults upon what other men hold to be precious; it is something no more than a yearning to make those other men leap.”

Read the whole item (& more) at:
http://www.mencken.org/text/txt001/elliott.leo.1998.mencken-01.htm

Curiously, Mencken (a journalist) seemed to agree with the vast majority of the sentiment/views here & similar sites...but...would appear to disagree with the approach.

Unlike P. Plait's superficial ramblings, Mencken's views are developed in detail and provide some intellectual stimulation, for those who enjoy that sort of thing.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | August 27, 2010 10:38 AM

FWIW Isn't Phil Plait's description of 'dickishness' closest to what creotard religioistas do? Only they add "So you're going to hell" on the end.
Bah.

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | August 27, 2010 10:42 AM

Your argument is a straw man.

.. which is an interesting statement considering you're about to build your own here ...

The "don't-be-a-dick" talk never said ...

The actual claim was that that our goal should be to convince people to change their (often strongly held) beliefs. Because people often personalize such beliefs it is a better strategy to not begin by insulting them or someone else who holds the same beliefs as they do.

And PZ has acknowledged that claim previously ...

PZ said ... "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."

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | August 27, 2010 10:46 AM

I think it's important for skeptics to match the level of debate of those they are discussing things with. Someone asking a legitimate question in good faith should get a concise, factually accurate, straightforward answer while someone trolling, lying, advocating bunk that harms people, or proselytizing uninvited deserve a swift rhetorical kick in the ass. It's not OUR fault so many on the other side fall into the latter category. It seems like they're the ones who need to get the hang of this Don't Be A Dick thing. I'll stick with Don't Be A Fucking Idiot for now.

Posted by: Tulse | August 27, 2010 10:48 AM

I often share links with this or that episode of Bill O'Reilly as evidence that a lack of civility can be positively harmful.

Do you really think that O'Reilly and his ilk have not dramatically shifted the political discourse in the US towards a far more conservative position? As I see it, Bill is an excellent example of the Overton Window in action.

Posted by: Andrew Hall | August 27, 2010 10:49 AM

I am a raving a**hole at times. A funny raving a**hole, but an a**hole just the same.

I think rationally about this irrational proclivity and I have learned to make it work for me. In terms of dealing with theists it's wise to know which road to walk (a**hole vs nona**hole).

Here is a case in point.

http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-we-can-learn-from-mormons.html

Posted by: otrame | August 27, 2010 11:02 AM

Mikerattlesnake, you are just right.

It depends on the situation. Public exhortations from public figures and/or trolls here get the verbal back of my hand. With no expletives deleted. An acquaintance asking me about my beliefs will get an honest answer and (usually) an agreement that we disagree. I am perfectly capable of being friends with people who are wrong about something. In fact the only time I have ever cut loose on a friend was years ago when she said she thought AIDS was a punishment from God to gay people. I let her have it with both barrels. I got nasty. We weren't friends any more after that, but just maybe I made her think a little. Maybe.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | August 27, 2010 11:06 AM

Dianne #35,

My old man, long dead, used to come back from Surgical conferences and exclaim every time that he had learned from role-play or some presentation that he should listen to the patient. Dunno if he ever put it into practice.

When was in haospital with pneumonia a year ago I had a physician snarl across the ward at me that I was an alcoholic, which he based on my hand tremor. Since he chose to bring this into the public domain I happily sneered back at him that he should do Nursing 101, when he might discover that damage to the right upper parietal lobe of the brain resulted in intention tremor which can be axacerbated by anxiety. He apologised later, but not in public.

Even experts sometimes need to be rounded up and pointed in the right direction. "First do no harm ...", is not a bad guiding precept, but some folks can't get their heads round the idea that doing sweet f.a. can sometimes be harmful.

Posted by: Manny Calavera | August 27, 2010 11:11 AM

Well said PZ you fucken' jerkwad, glad to hear you caught the heart problem in time and are now recovering, asshole. I really enjoy the mix of intelligent discussion, passion and real human honesty I find here and hope to for many years to come, you goddamn jerkholeasswadprickfuckshitraycomforthole.

Posted by: Michelle R | August 27, 2010 11:14 AM

I don't think it was being a dick... It was being rational. Unless you think that rationality is being a dick...

I think the other name would've been "How being a pussy probably saved my life" Not that you're a pussy. Absolutely not. But some people think that going to the hospital for a mild little problem makes you one.

Of course, you can be considered a dick for proving that real medicine works and that alternative "treatments" are goddamn bullshit.

Posted by: Shinobi | August 27, 2010 11:17 AM

I think Stephen Sondheim said it best in into the woods. "Nice is different than Good."

Also in the same musical: "You're so Nice, you're not good you're not bad you're just Nice, I'm not Nice I'm not Good I'm just right!"

Posted by: rnistuk | August 27, 2010 11:22 AM

Thank you, PZ. Since I listened to Phil Plait's "Don't Be a Dick" talk, I've been giving this issue a bit of thought with respect to maybe changing my approach to be a bit nicer.

But a simple fact is this: creationists, theists, terrorists, new agers, .... the nutters... will never follow the "Don't Be a Dick" rule. See banana man.

Yet, by and large, skeptics do. Phil is simply wrong on this point. It takes a great deal of prodding before most skeptics start being dicks. For example, look at Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience and Non-Prophets. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who is more tolerant of, well, abject stupidity. Yet Dr. Plait would probably choose him a one of the offenders.

Please choose the best doctors you can and get healthy.

Posted by: Robert H | August 27, 2010 11:24 AM

We're actually not the ones being the dicks; it's the other side that is unwilling to examine their beliefs. If it was good enough for the Bronze Age it's good enough for them now. Whereas our position constantly is in flux as we increase the horizons of knowledge and understanding. There is nothing that will modify their viewpoint while all we require to modify ours is proof. THey debate in bad faith. They're the dicks.

Posted by: RamblinDude | August 27, 2010 11:33 AM

Lynna, OM

There are times and places where you just have to keep your mouth shut. And at all times, I find a light hearted approach works better than a dead serious attack.
But there is no way to begin without insulting the believer. They are primed to be insulted.

Agreed. Not only that, but if you’re artificially nice—trying hard not to be a dick in order to better manipulate your audience—then it only makes you look like a manipulator, and communication becomes even more problematic. Whether people are otherwise deluded or not, they’re generally savvy enough to tell if someone is being phony in some way (even when they accept such phoniness in those who placate them).

Of course, a personal indulgence in unwarranted dickish behavior is also a form of dishonesty and is not motivated by our intelligence. So be honest! It resonates.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 27, 2010 11:38 AM

Honestly how many people really honestly go around insulting people to their face?

Why, according to Chris Mooney's sources, whole conferences full of Gnu Atheists. The fact that such an event never happened is completely incidental to the point that the Don't-Be-A-Dickers should not be disabused of such delusions since they obviously take so much comfort from them.

Interesting to note that Phil's definition of being a dick can pretty well cover his own treatment of Astrologers, Homeopaths, and Psychics. Something about frauds, baby murderers, and ghouls, but I can't remember the details at the moment. All of it very true, but also quite dickish.

Similarly covers Orac on anti-vaxxers.

The point is that it's totally okay to scream blue murder at those who believe vaccines cause autism or Saturn rising causes mercuriality, but if it's the belief that Jesus cures Evil you're screaming at, you're just being a dick. And hurting science.

That could be a bumper sticker: "Every Time You Yell at Baby Jesus, a Scientist Loses A Grant". I'll make a mint selling 'em to the milquetoasts-on-religion-but-firebrands-on-their-skeptical-issue-of-choice!

Posted by: matthew.v.greene | August 27, 2010 11:42 AM

So I'll go ahead and ask: How many of you have had your belief s changed because someone got up I'm your face and shouted at you? I realize that anecdotes hold little water, that having been said...........

I made a post on a feminism website honestly asking about the possibility of legalizing prostitution. Needless to say I was instantly attacked for being a misogynist, an idiot, and a jerk trying to derail the discussion.

It really didn't help their position much.

Posted by: irondanimal | August 27, 2010 11:46 AM

@matthew.v.greene You make a very good point.

Posted by: arensb | August 27, 2010 11:46 AM

the remote prospect of dying [...] was nowhere near as persuasive as the thought that I'd feel like an idiot if the iron spike of an infarct did nail my left ventricle at some time in the future

This line of reasoning reminds me of the classic argument for hyperactive agency detectors (HADDs): the guy who sees leaves shaking and thinks "tiger" even if it's just the wind is more likely to survive than the guy who thinks "it's just the wind" when it's really a tiger.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 27, 2010 11:52 AM

For example your "For the boys with boo-boos" post contained trivially abusive personal attacks and the argument contained within was another strawman.

Posted by: madeirapark | August 27, 2010 11:56 AM

You are (still) confused...from the anesthetic perhaps.

The voice on your left shoulder was the devil telling you to disregard what you know to be true. The voice on your right shoulder was the angel speaking reason.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | August 27, 2010 11:57 AM

I got into a huge fight with my younger brother this past xmas when he and his wife decided to forgo our family get-together in favor of her family's get-together. I told him that it was almost certainly the last xmas we would have with our father, that her family was certainly quite important but not facing imminent death, and that he would regret it for the rest of his life if he weren't there.

Both he and his wife chewed my ass out for saying that Dad wouldn't live to see next xmas. His wife forbade me from ever speaking about Dad's demise in front of them again because it "upset [Brother] too much." They were not there for xmas. Dad died in March.

Sure, I was a dick. And I failed. But maybe next someone lays things out for him, Brother will remember that someone else did the same and he didn't listen because it was too harsh, and maybe he'll be willing to make the hard decision next time.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | August 27, 2010 11:58 AM

I find I'll at least question my beliefs and research them a tad more if someone explodes all over me - won't always change my mind - but can do.

Me too.

Told the story before, will repeat it as often as necessary: I had a high school friend say to me, while I was still quite involved in the church, with a distinct attitude of scorn in his voice,: 'I don't understand how anyone with half a brain can believe this stuff.'*

No, I didn't run right out and paint a scarlet A on my forehead. But those words did echo in my head, quite some years, right up until I did walk.

People gotta give up on this 'being insulting can't help' meme. In its absolute form, at the very least, it's bullshit. Odds and returns might still be open for discussion, at best.

(*/Slight unavoidable approximation possibly slipping in, with the passage of time. Decades mess with memory. But the precise words were at least very close to this, and at least this strong.)

Posted by: SC OM | August 27, 2010 12:09 PM

For example your "For the boys with boo-boos" post contained trivially abusive personal attacks and the argument contained within was another strawman.

Just bookmarked this comment from latsot the other day, and already a chance to use it!

Posted by: Teshi | August 27, 2010 12:14 PM

I think there is a place for non-dickishness as well as the more forthright methods of people who I think are possibly being referred to as "dickish" and I think it's odd that people care so much that skeptics and atheists change their personalities when they become skeptics and atheists.

If you are forthright you will be forthright and should be "allowed" to be, provided you are not just pounding people with insults. And even though PZ does not do that often, there are people who do this on this site, even to someone who is being relatively polite. I have said things, innocently, without meaning harm or hate, and had people respond with "you're an idiot, f off" etc. (you'll note I, whom am not accomodationist and read PZ's writing with zeal, choose not to swear. Gasp!) as opposed to, "no, you're wrong, that idea is idiotic."

At the same time, people whose tendency it is to be more polite, calm, etc. also need to be allowed to do skepticism, atheism etc. their way without being told off for not being not themselves. Usually these people aren't at all accommodationary, they may just not go for the jugular in the same way. This should be fine.

The most important thing for "our" image, I think, is to allow ourselves to be diverse and not hate (and yes, it's sometimes hate) people like Phil Plait who hold exactly the same beliefs as the more insulting among "us" but just have another way of going about it. And nobody can accuse Phil Plait of pulling punches where he feels passionate.

I think it is very important to allow diversity because we want people to feel like they will fit in no matter what their strategy or method of being a skeptic/atheist is. If people are associating atheism with PZ Myers and other people who have the same personality, we are excluding those people who do not have that personality by presenting a red front to them. Throw some blue, some green into the mix without having the red people smack them down like they're criminally wrong, and all of a sudden people are getting that atheism and skepticism isn't anything to do with personality, it's to do with lack of belief. You can be yourself, but atheist. It's okay if you choose to be polite and that is what you value-- other people will be forthright.

This I think also gains converts in a bad cop, good cop kind of way. People are often taken aback by how vehemently they are argued against. This may stir some questions. Who can they go to to read the answers to questions? the calmer people who, far from being accomodationist, are telling it like it is but in a way that is more readable. This has nothing to do about where the new atheist (and I mean this in the more usual meaning of new) will end up on the "dick-not a dick" spectrum, but it may help them across the divide. And we want that, surely. We don't care how you get across, only that you make it.

We, of all groups, have no obligation to say this is the "one true path" to being an atheist and we should demonstrate this by allowing ourselves to be a diverse group. Lack of belief in god or gods is lack of belief in gods. There's no requirement to be "a dick" or not.

Posted by: Stephen Stralka | August 27, 2010 12:14 PM

I think it's also worth keeping in mind that the people you're arguing against are typically total dicks--people like Bill Donohue, James Dobson, creationists, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc. (I'm certainly not saying all religious people are dicks, but there's not so much need to argue against the ones who aren't.)

When you're dealing with creationists, for instance, you're usually not dealing with people who have honest doubts about the evidence for evolution, you're dealing with people who lie shamelessly, who slander scientists and impugn their motives, and who do everything in their power to spread ignorance and fear.

I certainly don't see any inherent virtue in being nice to people like that. The degree of dickishness you employ in response should always be measured by its effectiveness, but there's a lot at stake here. Maybe a truly educated society would not be a relentlessly polite one. That's a price I'm willing to pay.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 27, 2010 12:21 PM

How many of you have had your belief s changed because someone got up I'm your face and shouted at you?

This is not the point. IMO, about 90% of the time nothing that is said, nor how it is said, will change their mind. It's more about a show of passion. They need to be shown that they are not the only ones that feel passionate about their cause(s).

The differentiator is that the religiously deluded have no solid argument against honest skeptical inquiry. The religious skeptics have centuries of scientific progress and supernatural failure on their side. They (the deluded) only have trickery and deception to use in a debate to defend their position. They typically will admit that there is nothing that will change their mind and yet call the skeptic cowardly for not wanting a debate.

Remaining silent on the skeptic's part is foolish. Playing nicey with them is as well. These deluded people want to legislate their delusion and foist it onto society and our children. They need to be dealt with, with a firm grip and vocal scolding right up in their face.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | August 27, 2010 12:26 PM

Shorter 60&61 (and phil plait and chris mooney and...)

"I like skepticism because it challenges people's long-held irrational beliefs without pulling punches BUT OH WAIT NOT THOSE ONES."

Perhaps you fools should think about WHY you were admonished so harshly.

Posted by: Victor | August 27, 2010 12:33 PM

Once a coworker walked by my desk, saw my God Detector key ring and immediately started arguing with me. Has anyone ever done that when they've noticed someone's crucifix? As far as dickishness goes, I think we're all pretty tame.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | August 27, 2010 12:42 PM

How many of you have had your belief s changed because someone got up I'm your face and shouted at you?

This wasn't exactly a change of beliefs, but it was a change of attitude. My parents were strong fundamentalist evangelicals. My sister is gay. Ever since she came out, her partner had been ostracized from any family get-together at my parents' house. Dad got sick, and I moved back home. Some would say that it was wrong of me to push the issue with a sick man. But, you know what? Sister's wife, after 4 years of being alienated from a family she'd been very close to (prior to coming out), got to come into the house. Sister could bring her entire family over, and they all got to spend time with Dad, as a family, before he died. Sure, he never accepted her homosexuality, but he accepted more of her than he ever had before, and while I can't say she got full resolution in her relationship with Dad, I can say that she had a better relationship with him when he died than she'd ever had.

And her wife's shoulder was the first one Mom went to when the end finally came. It was the first one I went to as well.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 27, 2010 12:43 PM

I think part of the problem is Mooney et al have got confused. (Yes, Ok, that is not news)

They seem to confuse how you act when engaging with individuals face to face and how you behave when enganging an audience, be it online, on TV, in a book or newspaper.

I rather suspect that when it comes to being civil in a face to face encounter atheists may well be more civil than many believers. When was the last time an atheist came your house in an attempt to convert you to atheism for example ? Or how about the carrillion that PZ has to put up with where he lives that blasts out religious music every hour ? When did you last hear of an atheist equivalent ?

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 27, 2010 12:46 PM

Oh, and as for being convinced by "strident" and "dickish" argument, it was largely PZ that convinced me accomodationism was a deluded concept.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | August 27, 2010 12:52 PM

Wow, a Christian Googlemess not admitting to getting something wrong, and reading something literally that didn't need to be. I'm certainly surprised. Not that the ID'd ones typically are any better

So I'll go ahead and ask: How many of you have had your belief s changed because someone got up I'm your face and shouted at you? I realize that anecdotes hold little water, that having been said...........

I made a post on a feminism website honestly asking about the possibility of legalizing prostitution. Needless to say I was instantly attacked for being a misogynist, an idiot, and a jerk trying to derail the discussion.

What was the discussion on?

I don't know if you would consider yourself a "big name" but you have certainly been a "caricature of dickishness" in the past. For example your "For the boys with boo-boos" post contained trivially abusive personal attacks and the argument contained within was another strawman.

And you claim he's a 'caricature'..

Posted by: KG | August 27, 2010 12:57 PM

Teshi,
1) AFAIK, no-one on the Gnu atheist side is arguing against diversity of approaches - that's the accommodationists.
2) Do you really think leaving out three letters, as in: "you're an idiot, f off", means you're not swearing?

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | August 27, 2010 1:00 PM

The main issue, as mentioned above by Lynna and reiterated by others, is that there is no way to not be perceived as a dick by most of these people. I went out to eat with my mom, sister, and sister's wife. Mother announces very loudly and insists that everyone must pray over the food. But if I even said something as simple as, "I personally do not want to pray over my food," or, hell, just didn't bother to bow my head and close my eyes*, I'd be treated as if I'd punched her in the teeth (and not just by her). Why is it fair for her to make me pray, but it's not fair for me to even indicate that I don't want to (let alone prevent her from praying herself)?

*I actually do not bow my head and close my eyes because it would be dishonest. And she's begun to escalate.

Posted by: faisons | August 27, 2010 1:02 PM

So is this a "divine" message from PZ that I should stop waiting for my scheduled doctor's appointment, and instead, I should get my azz to the ER to deal with the burning, stabbing, debilitating abdominal pain that I've been dealing with for the past week? The pain that my regular doc said to just cover with vicodin until they can get a better look?

Oh, the decisions to make...

The thing is, the rational, logical side of me KNOWS what's going to happen, and it'll be five hours of wasted time in the ER.

Sometimes, the blunt, brutal "devil" of rationality cuts both ways.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 27, 2010 1:04 PM

...it was largely PZ that convinced me accomodationism was a deluded concept.

I think the ideas of Sam Harris about this topic can be applied. He thinks that the moderates (religious moderates) act as shelter to the extremists. They do this by not being vocal when extremists commit atrocities that are horrendously disproportionate and far beyond crazy.

Similarly, I think accommodationalists give safe-harbor to moderate religionists. Now this may be useful for keeping an active dialog, which is fine. But if the goal is simply about not upsetting the applecart because we're worried that we'll be labeled as "dicks", then that's wrong-minded IMO.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | August 27, 2010 1:10 PM

Once a coworker walked by my desk, saw my God Detector key ring and immediately started arguing with me. Has anyone ever done that when they've noticed someone's crucifix? As far as dickishness goes, I think we're all pretty tame.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | August 27, 2010 1:12 PM

Excellent article. It applies to a lot of areas in my life, past, current, and probably pending. Got me thinking, which is a good thing, usually. Gotta read all these comments next, too. Very interesting topic.

Glad you listened to your dick!

That may have come out wrong. Oh well! :)

Posted by: PersoninNY | August 27, 2010 1:23 PM

Only one problem here: The situation as he described it wasn't 'dickish' vs. 'non-dickish', at all. It was merely him making an informed decision, based on previous experiences and gained knowledge. There was no trivial belligerince[sp], and no offensive sweeping generalizations were made. In this regard, it seems more to be the difference between 'You look like a slut', and, 'Considering the circumstances, I think you're wearing too much makeup'. Overall, I might be wrong, but I don't see how comparing the making of an informed and reasonable choice vs. being offensive when it isn't called for, is valid...

Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | August 27, 2010 1:29 PM

The Quinn O’Neill article is objectionable to people like P. Z. Myers and Jerry A. Coyne, and probably would be to Richard Dawkins as well, although Neil deGrasse Tyson might agree with it to some degree. It's objectionable to me too, but after reading it I wondered, did anyone consider how that article might sound to a believer? It's interesting that if the article is simply redirected to religious people then it takes on the very attributes that Quinn O’Neill criticizes.

Of course it's not addressed to believers, but it is out there on the Internet where anyone can find it, and if believers do find and read it then they're quite likely to find it extremely offensive. From their point of view it will appear to beg the question of the invalidity of religion, arrogantly dismissing that aspect of the subject as not even worthy of discussion, and treating it as granted that religious people are irrational. And, of course, no one is happy about being called irrational.

So, given that one disagrees with the basic premise that religious people should not be offended or even compelled toward rationality, it will be interesting to see if any religious people read and comment on the Quinn O’Neill article. Perhaps it will actually help in a small way to achieve the very goal that it criticizes.

Dr. I. Needtob Athe
Founder of Atheism
(Rhymes with "Cathy-ism")

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/oipiHyMX057IBfghb1IGAQT1D9hAVlO_VSA-#e3b8e | August 27, 2010 1:38 PM

Really, PZ? You went to the ER cause you were afraid you would look "like a moron" #6 if you didn't? I'm surprised to read this. Since when do you care what ANYONE thinks of you on ANY given occasion?

You're a smart guy. Your survival instincts kicked in. You listened to your body. (Women do this all the time....and much better then men.)

Incidentally, I'm glad you did. I would miss hearing about the details of your life as a dick. BTW....do your kids think you're a dick? You think they tell their friends; "yeah, my Dad is a real dick"?

As for me, I tried the "dick" route re: my atheism. Everyone ran the other way. I'm sure that writing "LOL" in ashes on my forehead on Ash Wednesday(ask any Catholic what that means)didn't help matters. I thought it was funny. I've lost friends and family due to my "in your face" attitude. I finally took it down a few notches so as to keep peace in the family. All that matters to me is that my kids "get it". And, they do. I'm sure that they will pass the non-belief message on to their children...and so on....and so on. This will be MY contribution to free thought.

I don't have the desire to push buttoms anymore. My own diagnosis of brain cancer changed all that. As doctors performed scans, etc. to determine the original source of the cancer that was showing up on my brain MRI, I got to envision the end of my life. (No, I didn't turn to god.) I was too busy making plans as to where my 3 children (ages 15, 13 and 10) would go, since their Father was a lunatic and they hadn't really bonded w/ their step-father yet. Talk about perspective.

That was 10 years ago. Turns out it wasn't cancer in my brain...only MS. (Doctors (actually residents since I went to ER in the very early morning) were morons. They called in an expert from a leading hospital in Chgo, who took one look at MRI and said..."this is MS". (He actually kissed my forehead as he walked away.)

So, I don't want to be a "dick". I don't have the energy. If the opportunity presents itself, I will engage in a conversation about my lack of belief, always asking the other person what criteria he/she uses to BELIEVE. I stay calm. I get better results or at least more then five minutes before the other person shuts down.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 27, 2010 1:44 PM

I don't regard unforgiving skepticism as being dickish. Being dickish is all in the presentation. I could say "you're an idiot if you think that legalizing pot in California is a bad idea" and that would by a dickish and pointless way to put it, because it's not convincing anyone. However if you say: "pot isn't deadly, and is relatively benign compared to alcohol and tobacco, and nonviolent pot related incarceration is costing our bankrupt state billions of dollars, so I think legalizing pot is a good idea" then you might convince people, and have a constructive argument.

Bad example. There is a very good case to be made that people who oppose the legalisation of cannabis are idiots. They certainly choose to ignore the scientific evidence, and that to me is strongly suggestive of idiocy. If they are not aware of the scientific evidence then they are even more of an idiot, and do not deserve to be listened to on the subject.

Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | August 27, 2010 1:51 PM

Maybe if the accommodationists were nicer to us dicks we would come around to their side.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | August 27, 2010 1:56 PM

I'm sure that writing "LOL" in ashes on my forehead on Ash Wednesday(ask any Catholic what that means)didn't help matters.

I actually think this is pretty funny, but I agree that it could've been a genuinely dick move depending on where it was done. If you went to a church like that (or some other such specifically religious venue), you were being an ass. If you just went out and about, then I think it's funny.

Posted by: JediBear | August 27, 2010 2:06 PM

Okay, PZ. A couple of points here.

1) Your internal dialog is an internal dialog. Most people react differently to calling themselves names than to being called names by others. Further, it's anecdotal, untestable, and in all likelihood simply a figment of your imagination, be you ever so convinced it was real.

2) You, like many people who think they're on the "dick" side of the dick-vs-non-dick controversy are misunderstanding the meaning of "don't be a dick." You're not a dick. You're actually a very nice man, I'm told, especially in person.

Passion isn't dickishness. Dickishness is the kind of thing you shouldn't be expected to get away with in polite company. A better statement of "don't be a dick" is "be reasonable" or even "be rational." Passions are good, but when they're in the driver's seat, you're not only going to drive people away, but you're going to make a fool of yourself.

You're misunderstanding the problem and mistaking the proposed solution for a complaint. The problem, as Phil stated it is "people don't respond to meanness" -- do a study to confirm it if you like. Anecdotes aside, people really don't respond (defined here as altering their positions in the desired way) to meanness. The proposed solution, then, is not to be mean.

Because what you're really being told is that dickish skepticism is ineffective skepticism, and that even if you could manage to bully people into agreeing with you just because they might otherwise draw your disapproval, you'd really be no better than a woo-meister yourself.

But you frankly don't need to worry about that much. You're a very nice man, and name-calling and bullying really aren't your thing.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 27, 2010 2:10 PM

Rationality is an artificial state that we have to work to achieve.

Yes. Ignorance is bliss. Praying is easy. And just believing (i.e. knowing) things will all be a-ok feels good.

Confronting fear, figuring things out, and taking appropriate action, well that's work. Plus it's uncomfortable, and annoying, and dickish.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 27, 2010 2:14 PM

You, like many people who think they're on the "dick" side of the dick-vs-non-dick controversy are misunderstanding the meaning of "don't be a dick." You're not a dick. You're actually a very nice man, I'm told, especially in person.

Since Plait refused to give any examples we can only go on what is consider "dickish" in accomodationist circles. I can assure you that in such circles PZ is consider a dick. Indeed, if Jerry Coyne can be considered a dick for writing a perfectly reasonable, if critical, book review then anyone being slightly critical of religion qualifies as a dick.

The problem is not that PZ and others do not understand what is meant, within this context, of being a dick. It is that too many people qualify.

Your parting comment, that name-calling and bullying not being PZ's thing is simply disengenous. That is not what accomodationist mean when they accuse someone of being a dick.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 27, 2010 2:19 PM

That's my point though, don't say "you're an idiot" because that doesn't get anywhere with someone who perhaps is merely ignorant and mildly brainwashed, then it's better to make the factual and diplomatic case as to examining the causes of their ignorance, and perhaps idiocy. After all, ignorance alone is not a crime.

Ignorance may not be a crime, but it does disqualify someone from having their views taken seriously, or even treated with respect. We could tell them to go away and come back when they have some idea of what they are talking about, but that does not differ to any signicant extent from calling them an idiot. Futher, I note how you say we should not call ignorant people who refuse to stop showing us just how ignorant they are idiots. How about their extreme rudeness in speaking in the first place on a subject they know nothing about ?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/oipiHyMX057IBfghb1IGAQT1D9hAVlO_VSA-#e3b8e | August 27, 2010 2:22 PM

Jules #16 - I did it once years ago and showed up Easter Sunday to my sister's house. She laughed and told me to wash it off. I did.

But, this past Easter I did it again and posted it to Facebook. That's the one that really sent family off the deep end. I'm bad.

Posted by: ophelia.benson | August 27, 2010 2:26 PM

"What's wrong with some of you people?"

Hahahahaha - it's Phil Plait all over again.

@ 31 -

"If Plait, Ruse, etc. think that they are converting people by being nice, they can hold onto that delusion"

Nice?? Ruse?! Ruse is not nice. He's famous for it.

Posted by: KG | August 27, 2010 2:29 PM

The problem, as Phil stated it is "people don't respond to meanness" -- do a study to confirm it if you like. - Jedibear

[citation needed]

Posted by: bloodtoes | August 27, 2010 2:33 PM

I agree with Dawkins response as well. I don't know if they included it in the show because I haven't listened to it, but during the TAM podcast with Heidi Anderson, Swoopy, et al., when they were discussing this particular issue they asked if anyone had had their mind changed by someone "being a dick."

I was the one person in the room who put up my hand. Now, I wasn't expecting to actually be asked for a comment that would be recorded. Perhaps I should have, but I was caught unprepared and fumbled through a poorly recalled memory of having been influenced by a Bill Hicks skit on the JFK assassination.

Now, when I heard his skit, I wasn't a supporter of either side of the question (shot from the grassy knoll, etc.). I hadn't given it much thought at all, really. It was Hicks' berating and "dickish" manner of anyone who actually bought the so-called "magic bullet" theory which made me say "heh, yeah, I'm with that guy. I don't want to be one of these sheeple who buys what the gov't is selling." Yet, Hicks was wrong.. but it was enough.

Now, I did eventually drop the conspiracy mentality and come around due in large part to a TV doc which explained and demonstrated using science exactly how JFK could have been assassinated by Oswald from the repository window and cause the exact same wounds without need for a "magic bullet," and that the movement of JFK's head was what you'd expect, etc., etc. But that's not the point.. the point is that his manner was, at the time, appealing and enough to bring me, of a neutral stance, to his side of the argument.

It could have been any issue, and had he actually have been right then I would have been in a good position having been lured to the correct side of the issue by his condescending, mocking, indeed "dickish" manner.

Posted by: Finch | August 27, 2010 2:41 PM

@126:

It's a good point that I didn't mention that if someone repeatedly proves themselves to be willfully ignorant, then calling them an idiot is justified. One of the reasons I like reading PZ's blog is the colorful descriptions he gives to people in this category. My only point is that in situations where someone hasn't proven themselves to be in that willfully ignorant category, that it's good to give them the benefit of that doubt.

If they try and think they're superior to you after such an attempt to paint the factual picture, then "increasing the harshness of your rhetoric" (read: being more of a dick) is more than justified, it's practically mandated.

Admittedly, this whole argument is premised on a 1v1 or small group v small group atmosphere. I can't claim to know any data about efficacy of communications in mass media.

Posted by: halfdeaddavid | August 27, 2010 2:49 PM

Jedibear, thanks for stating that so well.

I'm starting to feel like something is going over my head. All I got from reading his post was PZ is not a dick, and we should not run around insulting people. But that can't be it. If that was it no one would be making any fuss over Phil's speech.

I will admit he writes nice, much better at getting his point across than myself.

oh and that he kinda missed PZs point.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | August 27, 2010 2:53 PM

The shock of something being seen, or potentially seen, as dickish, can make a person step back and examine just what is being mocked and why. It's a good thing, whether one is looking at what others are considering dickish, or what oneself is thinking might be dickish.

'Made you look', kind of thing. Makes one examine closer whether the situation is or isn't one of dickishness.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | August 27, 2010 2:55 PM

Jules #96

What age is your mother, pray? I don't mean to worry you but her behaviour is remarkably similar to that of my own natural mother, who was exhibiting signs of early onset Alzheimer's Disease long before she died at 68.

Posted by: Grandmaster | August 27, 2010 3:02 PM

If you want to see something really offensive in tone, it's Christians queuing up to proselytise to Hitch and Mike Celizic*. I'm not convinced anything but shouting about that is appropriate.

As the great Billy Connolly used to say, if you have an alternative to 'fuck off' I'll gladly use it, but it certainly isn't 'go away'.

* http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/mike_celizic_is_living_well_an.php

Posted by: Zabinatrix | August 27, 2010 3:08 PM

KG @143:

Saying "F off!" is just as much swearing as saying "Fuck off".

Quoted for truth, and because it's a personal pet peeve of mine when people adopt a holier-than-thou-attitude because they partially censor their swears.

There's nothing magical about writing or saying all the letters of the word "fuck". Just an 'F' is exactly the same thing when people know what you mean - the mind automatically fills in the rest. If it didn't, these videos wouldn't be so popular: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unnecessary+censorship&aq=0

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 27, 2010 3:21 PM

Maybe if the accommodationists were nicer to us dicks we would come around to their side.

Or is it just that the DBAD movement is a bit of a circle jerk of back-patting to congratulate yourselves for something that any reasonable person would do? Can we start a Tie Your Shoes Before You Leave the House meme so we can all feel SO GOOD about that too?

This thread is full of some very clever Dicks.

Ironically, what the Dick Party (heh) are asking the people who are calling for people to be less dickish to stop voicing their opinions...

Bull. Fucking. Shit. They can voice their opinions all they want. But when they mischaracterise us Dicks as "hurting the cause" without any fucking evidence whatsoever other than gut feelings and faked anecdotes, then we get pissed off.

Read up on the Tom Johnson fiasco. Read how TJ lied and sockpuppeted, and accommodationists like Mooney lapped it up with nary any scrutiny whatsoever because, frankly, he thinks he's the only one qualified to speak for The Cause Of Science and so he'll jump on any story that validates his worldview. And when called on it, he failed to apoogise to any of the Dicks he libelled, instead twisting the situation so that, in his mind, he and TJ were the only ones wronged, somehow.

As KG points out, "There is no "Be a Dick" campaign, while there is a "Don't be a Dick" campaign. See the difference there?"

We're not telling them to shut up. What we are doing is calling on them to provide evidence when they claim theirs is the only method that works. (Remember: we're "hurting the cause", as they say.)

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | August 27, 2010 3:26 PM

Teshi,

Disagreeing with someone is very different from being offended by them. The people I love are willing to start comments with "Vicki, I disagree." Sometimes their arguments convince me, sometimes not, but we can do this without offending each other.

Conversely, there are plenty of things that are offensive for which "disagreement" would imply too much coherence. If someone pushes me off a subway seat so he can have two seats and spread his legs wide, I suppose he may have as coherent a belief as "I am more important than she is, so I get to do this," but it's the act that offends.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | August 27, 2010 3:27 PM

Franklin Percival
She's 54. And early-onset Alzheimer's has occurred to me before, not necessarily because of the praying thing, but because her short-term memory is pretty bad, she loses things all the time, and (the biggest one) conversations with her are...unstructured.

Her maternal aunt was dead at 64 from it.

I'm curious what about my story made you think of that. I've talked to the sibs about it, but they think I'm just doing my armchair diagnosis thing again (although I gained some credibility after Dad's illness).

/Threadjack

Posted by: gillt | August 27, 2010 3:33 PM

Jedibear: "A better statement of "don't be a dick" is "be reasonable" or even "be rational." Passions are good, but when they're in the driver's seat, you're not only going to drive people away, but you're going to make a fool of yourself."

Passion and rationality are not opposed to one another. Your implication is that Gnu atheist are all passion, no reason, which makes what you're saying strange and ridiculous.

As to the fools comment, I can easily point to where prominent accommmodationists have made public fools of themselves in their attempts to make a point.

Posted by: Teshi | August 27, 2010 3:35 PM

You comprehensively miss the point in both cases. 1)There is no "Be a Dick" campaign, while there is a "Don't be a Dick" campaign. See the difference there? 2) Saying "F off!" is just as much swearing as saying "Fuck off".

2) I think it may have been you who misread my pinch-of-salt response to your second comment.

1) "New Atheists" have been defending behaving in a strident, rude manner for months. They were defending it to non-skeptics and non-Atheists. Now there's a Non-Dick argument from the skeptic/Atheist camp that is creating, simply by existing, a counter-argument. People on the "Be A Dick" side aren't saying, "Well, perhaps, but we want to be a different way." They're saying things like not being a dick makes you an "ineffective skeptic". That's a pretty clear way of saying that skeptics and atheists should be dicks.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | August 27, 2010 3:38 PM

@franklin percival

What, exactly are you going on about?

-You posted a story about not being a dick in a support group (I assumed there were meetings).

-I assumed that you were commenting on the DBAD (don't be a dick, if you've been paying attention) meme and giving an example of what it means.

-I responded that the dick-you-are-not-being doesn't exist and that congratulating yourself for not being that guy is like my congratulating myself every time I don't stab my parents.

Then you made two posts that I don't even understand. Did I misinterpret something in your original post? Is #151 as asinine and incomprehensible as it seems?

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | August 27, 2010 3:48 PM

I can assure you that even I, a moderate, liberal Christian, will not be dissuaded from my faith by a 'vocal scolding right up in [my] face.'

What about with reason? How about with someone not patting you on the head and telling you it's ok if you've found "another way of knowing"? What if someone doesn't let an irrational assumption slide and won't let an important point drop until you've confronted it?

Because for most honest people, that's the way opinions are changed. But for those who aren't interested in actually finding the truth, it's often characterized as being harsh.

You will excuse me if I do not participate in some acts, even though they are now completely legal.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 27, 2010 3:52 PM

"New Atheists" have been defending behaving in a strident, rude manner for months. They were defending it to non-skeptics and non-Atheists. Now there's a Non-Dick argument from the skeptic/Atheist camp that is creating, simply by existing, a counter-argument. People on the "Be A Dick" side aren't saying, "Well, perhaps, but we want to be a different way." They're saying things like not being a dick makes you an "ineffective skeptic". That's a pretty clear way of saying that skeptics and atheists should be dicks.

A couple things, Teshi. For one, this "Don't Be A Dick" campaign may be new, but the accommodationists have been criticising the New Atheists for years. (See the dynamic communications duo of Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney for examples.) They used to call it "Framing Science", but since they seemed to find such terminology ineffective, they opted for the distinctly more strident and rude, "Don't Be A Dick." Kinda undercuts the whole point IMO, but then, I'm a Dick.

Secondly, if you equate "I think your method is ineffective, and so I'm going to do something else" with starting an entire campaign around naming those you disagree with as dicks and then calling it "Don't Be A Dick", then I fail to see how you can at all cling to the idea that f*** is so much more polite than "fuck".

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | August 27, 2010 4:00 PM

Wait a minute.

F*** is a stand-in for fuck?

I never would've guessed. Tricky, tricky.

Posted by: Teshi | August 27, 2010 4:09 PM

We're not telling them to shut up. What we are doing is calling on them to provide evidence when they claim theirs is the only method that works. (Remember: we're "hurting the cause", as they say.)

I don't find it that much of an extraordinary argument to suggest that being slightly more polite is beneficial in attracting people to a cause. I also don't find it that much of an extraordinary argument to suggest that other people respond to the rudeness of PZ's method of discourse. Of course, it's possible I may not understand either argument at all and be totally misjudging what Myers and Plait are saying.

Do you have much evidence, aside from anecdotal stories like PZ's story above (which I consider valid, but only in the context of his own internal argument with himself) that being a dick is so much more successful to totally rule out the possibility that there are occaisions that being more polite is better?

I do not personally agree wholly with PP, which is why I am here. But I have had conversations with theists that I know I would not have had had I gone straight for the Dick side of thing (which is not my personality anyway, although, as I have said before, I value others who provide this service). And I think those more calm, placid conversations are valuable, even if they have less immediate impact. Think of that former atheist who made all those videos about his deconversion from Christianity whose name escapes me. His conversations with the professor were civil, escalating a little to rude when it was required. It was of value for that professor to show some patience with the deconvert.

Not being a dick does have value and I will continue to be not a dick in most situations, unless someone is very much a dick to me or requires (as with the professor) for me to be more direct in order to get the message across. The rest of the time, however, I find my default polite discourse to be efficacious in helping people understand what the ruder atheists (with whom I have no problem with their rudeness provided they are situationally appropriate) are ranting on about.

This is anecdotal, but somebody has, in the past, come to me and say, "so why does PZ Myers act this way?" I have had to explain to them the rationale behind this method the same way I am trying to explain to some people here the rationale for Non-Dickishness.

However, this requires me to also understand the rationale behind dickish theists who are often dickish becasue they believe, quite wrongly, that the world will end and people will burn in large amounts of fire if they aren't dicks. It's not an ineffective strategy but it doesn't work for everyone. Lots of people then need to be converted/explained-to by a Non-Dick priest.

Not that I'm comparing the evidence-based behaviour of people like PZ and the non-evidence making it up as we go along double-dickishness of many dick theists. I'm comparing the efficacy, not the content.

*

Lastly - Am I supposed to be somebody who is offended by your language? I said I can be, if it makes using swear words more fun for you, but my own use of language has nothing to do with my reaction to other adult's use of it. Provided, that is, if they aren't using it liberally out of context around small and medium sized children. For me, swearing often couples with low-level anger and I don't think we should exhibit constant low-level anger and slightly violently expressed sexual reference around young and medium children not because of the words but because of what they imply.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 27, 2010 4:13 PM

Wait a minute.

F*** is a stand-in for fuck?

I never would've guessed. Tricky, tricky.

It's Received Pronunciation, as I understand. All the most effective populisers and communicators of science use it.

Why, just the other day Tom Johnson told me about a suicide bombing that was thwarted when an intended victim screamed "I don't want to F-ing die!" and the would-be bomber became an atheist and built an observatory/cancer research centre on the spot that very minute. The former religious fundamentalist terrorist later confided that he'd rigged several other bombs around the neighbourhood with sensitive voice-recognition triggers set to detonate the bombs if they registered the words "fuck", "moron", or "wrong".

It seemed all he needed to deconvert was a kind word from a stranger. Once a year, he expresses his thanks to that linguistically conservative woman by arranging a big barbeque and the two of them bring their families together to eat and sing an a capella rendition of "From a Distance."

Posted by: halfdeaddavid | August 27, 2010 4:17 PM

A couple things, Teshi. For one, this "Don't Be A Dick" campaign may be new, but the accommodationists have been criticising the New Atheists for years.

Actually I think the Atheists are mean meme has been around since burning Atheists was outlawed. In fact I would be willing to bet that if you goto say Tehran to be an outspoken Atheist you will find you aren't called so many names based on being a jerk. They will just lock you up or kill you.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | August 27, 2010 4:19 PM

@169

Are you trying to prove that you're not a fuckwit? Does anyone else know this guy? Is he making any sense or is there just something wrong with me?

Sorry for assuming you were taking part in the samediscussion everyone else was, I guess.

Posted by: KG | August 27, 2010 4:24 PM

Teshi,

I think it may have been you who misread my pinch-of-salt response to your second comment.

Nope.

Do you have much evidence, aside from anecdotal stories like PZ's story above (which I consider valid, but only in the context of his own internal argument with himself) that being a dick is so much more successful to totally rule out the possibility that there are occaisions that being more polite is better?

Since nobody is denying that there are such occasions - simply saying there are occasions when rudeness is justified and effective, and since this has been pointed out to you numerous times, you're just being an idiot. Once more: here's PZ, in the first sentence of the post (emphasis added):

I've been totally unimpressed with the arguments from the side of nice, not because I disagree with the idea that positive approaches work, but because they ignore the complexity of the problem

Get it yet? Sometimes, dickishness is the way to go; sometimes it isn't. Is that really too complicated for you?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 27, 2010 4:30 PM

Do you have much evidence, aside from anecdotal stories like PZ's story above (which I consider valid, but only in the context of his own internal argument with himself) that being a dick is so much more successful to totally rule out the possibility that there are occaisions that being more polite is better?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 27, 2010 4:35 PM

I don't find it that much of an extraordinary argument to suggest that being slightly more polite is beneficial in attracting people to a cause.

"You're hurting the cause" is not the same as saying "being slightly more polite is beneficial in attracting people to a cause".

I also don't find it that much of an extraordinary argument to suggest that other people respond to the rudeness of PZ's method of discourse.

Then, we agree.

Of course, it's possible I may not understand either argument at all and be totally misjudging what Myers and Plait are saying.

I don't think you don't understand the argument, though I think you're mischaracterising both sides slightly.

Do you have much evidence, aside from anecdotal stories like PZ's story above (which I consider valid, but only in the context of his own internal argument with himself) that being a dick is so much more successful to totally rule out the possibility that there are occaisions that being more polite is better?

Since I'm not making that claim, I don't feel I need to provide evidence to support it.

I do not personally agree wholly with PP, which is why I am here. But I have had conversations with theists that I know I would not have had had I gone straight for the Dick side of thing (which is not my personality anyway, although, as I have said before, I value others who provide this service). And I think those more calm, placid conversations are valuable, even if they have less immediate impact. Think of that former atheist who made all those videos about his deconversion from Christianity whose name escapes me. His conversations with the professor were civil, escalating a little to rude when it was required. It was of value for that professor to show some patience with the deconvert.

Teshi, I and others here are not saying that one can never be polite. It seems to me that the "Don't Be A Dick" campaign is saying, well, don't ever be a dick.

Not being a dick does have value and I will continue to be not a dick in most situations, unless someone is very much a dick to me or requires (as with the professor) for me to be more direct in order to get the message across. The rest of the time, however, I find my default polite discourse to be efficacious in helping people understand what the ruder atheists (with whom I have no problem with their rudeness provided they are situationally appropriate) are ranting on about.

That sounds fine to me.

This is anecdotal, but somebody has, in the past, come to me and say, "so why does PZ Myers act this way?" I have had to explain to them the rationale behind this method the same way I am trying to explain to some people here the rationale for Non-Dickishness.

Yeah. And then we can discuss and even argue about it.

However, this requires me to also understand the rationale behind dickish theists who are often dickish becasue they believe, quite wrongly, that the world will end and people will burn in large amounts of fire if they aren't dicks. It's not an ineffective strategy but it doesn't work for everyone. Lots of people then need to be converted/explained-to by a Non-Dick priest.

Some say calling dickish theists 'dickish' is dickish in itself. But you've claimed you strive to be appropriate to the situation, so I'm not going to complain.

Not that I'm comparing the evidence-based behaviour of people like PZ and the non-evidence making it up as we go along double-dickishness of many dick theists. I'm comparing the efficacy, not the content.

Agreed.

Lastly - Am I supposed to be somebody who is offended by your language?

No.

I said I can be, if it makes using swear words more fun for you, but my own use of language has nothing to do with my reaction to other adult's use of it.

I don't swear because it garners a negative reaction, but because it garners a positive one. I'm a nerd who grew up in a poor, blue-collar neighbourhood. Proficiency with profanity is precisely how I reach those who are put off by language they associate with privileged eggheads.

There are times when the best thing you can do to arouse an interest in science is to be able to exclaim "Holy fuck, did you read about that fucking nebula in the paper? That's some crazy-assed shit right there."

Of course, if it saves me time by sending a tone troll straight to the fainting couch, then so be it. I'd rather they screamed and ran for the smelling salts immediately then dance around the garden pretending to be interested in a reasonable discussion only to seize upon the first instance of perceived lasciviousness as an excuse to drop the argument when their case is threatened.

Think of it as Anthony McCarthy repellent.

Provided, that is, if they aren't using it liberally out of context around small and medium sized children. For me, swearing often couples with low-level anger and I don't think we should exhibit constant low-level anger and slightly violently expressed sexual reference around young and medium children not because of the words but because of what they imply.

I'm in an office right now. There's a reason all most of my "fucks" are typed online instead of said out loud to coworkers.

Posted by: btthegeek | August 27, 2010 4:40 PM

Gary: Oh no we aren't! We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks! And the Film Actors' Guild...are pussies. And Kim Jong Il...is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks...because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes. Assholes who just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole... is a dick...with some balls. The problem with dicks is that sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't apporoporate...

This pretty much says it all for me.

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | August 27, 2010 4:46 PM

I actually brought this up when telling my DH what was going on: that youd had to choose, and decided to go with *knowlege*-- that these were the warning signs of heart trouble-- rather than the easy road of going home and waiting to feel better, and that it's your attitude that helped you make the smart choice.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | August 27, 2010 4:54 PM

Do you have much evidence, aside from anecdotal stories like PZ's story above (which I consider valid, but only in the context of his own internal argument with himself) that being a dick is so much more successful to totally rule out the possibility that there are occaisions that being more polite is better?

This has now been bashed to the subatomic bits it originally deserved, but allow me to take one more gratuitous swing at the shattered remains of the quarks all the same. I'm a dick that way.

(Clears throat...)

A bunch of really stupid dicks said, effectively, a little while ago, to people they thought were being dicks: 'Don't be dicks. It can't work.'

But it does, at least on occasion. And, of course, the people they thought were being dicks knew this much at least. And, of course, it is so very trivial to demonstrate, you'd have to wonder whatinhell they were ever thinking, saying what they did. Honestly, I've a few ideas, and you can probably imagine some of them. It's not especially relevant here tho', I'd think.

What is relevant is: they were, of course, wrong.

Meanwhile, no one I ever saw who was arguing for being a dick also having its strengths ever said to folk they thought were being too nice: 'Don't be nice; it can't work...'

Because this, of course, would be equally incredibly stupid. And they're not as stupid as those stupid dicks I just mentioned who said the other thing, thing is. Not that this takes much.

What's clear is: both being a dick and not being a dick works. What's not clear is when and why and how and at what percentage--that much is fair, and thus it's not that your question is entirely irrelevant...

But it is a bit off-balance in the situation that you're asking it here, seems to me. Seems to me you might find it more illuminating to please also ask Plait and Mooney and company how often being nice works, and just what their evidence happens to be for that, beyond anecdotes...

And perhaps if they can grasp the reality that the answers aren't actually 'always', and 'we just know', you might get somewhere...

Good luck with it, anyhoo.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 27, 2010 5:02 PM

C'mon people, can we stop arguing the merits of dickishness until they actually define what they mean by the term? Either Phil (et. al.) is one, or almost no one is.

About time someone called for some good, ol' fashioned dick measuring.

Are the DBADers hypocrites or needlessly self-congratulatory?

What's with the dichotomies? Can't they be both?

Posted by: Teshi | August 27, 2010 5:06 PM

A prime example of someone who is saying people should not be dicks shows himself to a bigger dick than all those he criticises.

1. She.

2. I consider myself a "New Atheist" insofar as I use the term at all. I approve of a certain level of situationally appropriate dickishness and what people like PZ Myers and Dawkins do.

3. I only use the word "rude" because this is the word that I believe is used by people who act in the way we are discussing-- including, upon occaision, myself. According to the traditional rules of dinnertime politeness, it is rude and I don't have appropriate vocabulary to discuss this in this new "rude by necessity world".

Teshi, I and others here are not saying that one can never be polite. It seems to me that the "Don't Be A Dick" campaign is saying, well, don't ever be a dick.

Well, I do try not to ever be a dick (although see above for difficulty in that respect). So I guess I personally espouse that view at least for myself. However, I think there is space for strident "rude" (see above for usage) behaviour.

For the record, I don't think anyone I am talking to at the moment is presently being a dick and I dont' think that Phil Plait would either.

Nerd of Redhead & KG:

You haven't been listening.

Considering I agree 99% with what you are saying (everything except for the glass of water in the toddler's face :P), I think I must be expressing myself quite poorly!

Get it yet? Sometimes, dickishness is the way to go; sometimes it isn't. Is that really too complicated for you?

No, since that is what I am saying also. Hurrah, we apparently agree!

However, I'd like to point out that, "Is that really too complicated for you?" is, in my opinion, a dickish statement. Is it necessary in this case? Clearly you think so. I disagree.

I think, possibly, therein lies our disagreement.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 27, 2010 5:15 PM

I apologise for getting your gender wrong.

2. I consider myself a "New Atheist" insofar as I use the term at all. I approve of a certain level of situationally appropriate dickishness and what people like PZ Myers and Dawkins do.

You have shown no evidence to that effect.

3. I only use the word "rude" because this is the word that I believe is used by people who act in the way we are discussing-- including, upon occaision, myself. According to the traditional rules of dinnertime politeness, it is rude and I don't have appropriate vocabulary to discuss this in this new "rude by necessity world".

Being dishonest is also rude, but you have no problem telling lies. You have been asked to support you claims more than once now. You have refused to do so. One can only conclude that is becuase you cannot, or to be more blunt, you lied.

Clearly you do not have a problem with dishonesty, and see nothing wrong with it.

Posted by: bjn.slc | August 27, 2010 5:19 PM

It was the id-dick that made you think whiner, not the rational drill sgt. that got you to do the right thing.

Not being a dick doesn't mean being treacly nice. It means not being a dick. Definitions and citations aren't needed for anyone with a modicum of social skill.

I'm very glad you're stented and getting better. I'd really miss those Friday cephalopods.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 27, 2010 5:25 PM

Well it does appear to have finally got the point through to you.

heh.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 27, 2010 5:28 PM

Not being a dick doesn't mean being treacly nice. It means not being a dick. Definitions and citations aren't needed for anyone with a modicum of social skill.

Exhibit A:

Chris Mooney complaining that Jerry Coyne's review of books by Ken Miller and Karl Giberson in New Republic was "uncivil". When pressed Mooney failed to explain what was uncivil about the review. I read the review, and Coyne made it clear he had problems with both books with the way they tried in shoe-horn god into science. I could see no sense in which the review could be regarded as uncivil, although I do accept (and I know Coyne does as well) that the authors would not have cared for what Coyne said.

So it would seem that not being a dick does mean being treacly nice to those who accept evolution but want a role for god in the process. At least as far as Mooney goes.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 27, 2010 5:38 PM

Well it does appear to have finally got the point through to you.

heh.

I, for one, love the fact that the accommodationists have ditched "Framing Science" for "Don't Be A Dick."

I only hope we can expect the next version to be titled something like, "We Fucking Told You the Only Effective Way to Get Your Point Across Is Through Being Polite, and You're Going to Listen to Us If We Have to Fucking Beat You Senseless, Asshole."

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 27, 2010 5:40 PM

I only hope we can expect the next version to be titled something like, "We Fucking Told You the Only Effective Way to Get Your Point Across Is Through Being Polite, and You're Going to Listen to Us If We Have to Fucking Beat You Senseless, Asshole."

You have hacked into the computers of Mooney and Kirshenbaum. How else could you know the title of the sequal to Unscientific America ?

However I expect there will be a subtitle Even though we do not like giving people labels asshole.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 27, 2010 5:42 PM

PZ:

it's even easier to demonize the cranky Cassandras and make them the problem, because they make people uncomfortable.

Yep. Facing reality is always the best thing, even when that reality holds unpleasantness.

Posted by: skeptifem | August 27, 2010 5:44 PM

Being an asshole didn't save you. Going to the hospital did

My grandfather went to the hospital with chest pain. They "didn't want to bother" the ambulance and were going to go to the doctor in the morning after dinner, but my dad freaked out and drove over and took em to the er asap. Then my grandma spent time filling out the forms and sat down, waiting her turn. My dad went to the front desk and said "I think my dad is having a heart attack" and they took him right in. Their indirectness at the hospital made it could have really had fatal consequences.

There are some really REALLY needlessly mean patients, but I actually mind them less than the needlessly kind ones. Being sick sucks so I understand why people would be mad. The people who put up with anything, always assume that everything is being done correctly, etc put themselves at risks for more problems and are the kind of patients that arrogant assholes become doctors to leech praise from. I have seen a doctor trying to plant an artline while the extremely polite patient confessed that he "didn't really know" what the doctor was trying to do. I was in during attempt #3, it involves fishing a catheter into an artery in the wrist, and it hurts a lot. I have seen people get their blood drawn 5 minutes apart without complaint or question. I have a million stories of people who just comply with anything the hospital says, I am not saying it is all the patients fault, schools fail to teach anything of this sort, but dickishness is a serious advantage for patients in the healthcare setting (well, not during traumas, but that is a pretty unique situation). The hospital is run by people, so how people act is still relevant.

This post from CPP talks about how being indirect and polite can kill people for pilots and healthcare professionals:

http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/korean-airline-pilots-arrogant-physicians-and-life-or-death-decisionmaking/

Another time dickishness helps out is when elderly people get confused. The super nice ones are too polite to say that they don't know where they are, and problems like alzheimers can go undiscovered for longer and worsen as a result.

Seems to me like being a dick just means being DIRECT. It is what we all owe to each other.

Posted by: Katharine | August 27, 2010 5:47 PM

Sometimes, you have to be a dick because it'll leave you and the world in a better place ultimately than if you aren't.

Posted by: flawedprefect | August 27, 2010 5:50 PM

Strawman fight! Watch the hay fly! :)

Posted by: duanerobertson | August 27, 2010 5:57 PM

Excellent original post (of course), and I have to agree with the folks who say there's room for both approaches, but I'll go further to say that it's best that some of us specialize in one or another and get a reputation for it. I think it helps people to get into a debate when they know more or less what's coming, and logic is definitely on our side in the end.

While the do-be's are hammering at the door, the don't-be's may manage to creep in through the window.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 27, 2010 5:59 PM

I am going to assume by this that you mean that I have claimed that being a dick is sometimes problematic and creates an image problem and you want evidence that it is and it does.

Don't.

I was referring to this statement of yours: "New Atheists" have been defending behaving in a strident, rude manner for months."

You have failed to provide evidence to support that claim. You may want it to be true, but that does mean it is true. Unless and until you provide evidence to support the claim you are being dishonest in making it.

Well, let's take KG's comment, "Is it really too complicated for you?" Which I regarded as an example of dickishness. Essentially, KG called me stupid at the end of his or her argument. Let's not bicker about the meaning of that phrase; we probably all know what it means and how it is said when phrased in that way.

You have made some stupid comments, at least in the opinion of KG, myself and I suspect others. You also seemed to not understand the point he was making. I am not sure if thar was willful on your part or not.

KG gave an opinion, not a statement of fact. You might not like it, but if you do not, tough.

Obviously, this doesn't exactly give me much cause to care about KG or his or her arguments. I did not call KG stupid, so I don't feel it is justified retaliation. It's just him or her expressing his or her frustration about my apparent inability to agree with him or her.

His frustration comes from the fact your refuse to supply evidence to support your claims. It is a frustration I share. You did not call KG stupid, but you did treat him with contempt in failing to provide evidence, so I am not concerned your feelings are hurt.

As we have already established, my modus operandi is not the back and forth bickering that many people, totally legitimately, engage in. I prefer to remain polite-- I apologise if something I have said today was taken in an impolite fashion, but I assure you I was trying to be polite-- and this is partially because it is the way I engage in discourse. Mild-insult-filled bickering makes me feel upset and turns me away. This is how I feel at the moment, for example. Thankfully, I'm used to the tough-talking society around here :).

Lying is not being polite. You did lie, in that you made claims you refused to support. Clearly you see nothing wrong with lying, which does say a lot about your moral character (or rather lack thereof).

I surely am not alone among this way of being. There are others out there who are of, we could say, a delicate constitution. Many of them are theists. The way to reaach these people-- some of whom Phil Plait discussed in his post about the fall-out of his speech-- is not to be a dick.

Yet you are being the biggest dick of anyone here. Care to explain why you are so hypcritcal ?

I'm not sure how to provide more evidence of this in the absence of studies.

How about not making claims you cannot support ? If you do not have evidence do not make factual claims. You can suggest it as a hypothesis, maybe, as long as you are clear you lack evidence to support your claims.

Just to be very clear to you. I think you are dishonest. You have made claims and refused to support them. That is not being polite. You then compounded your mistake by complaing people were being rude to you, thus adding hypocrisy to the list of rude behaviour you think is OK. Now hypocrisy is something for which there is evidence that people find impolite.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 27, 2010 6:11 PM

Insults and curse words don't phase faze me.

What about pedants?

You have hacked into the computers of Mooney and Kirshenbaum. How else could you know the title of the sequal to Unscientific America?

I'm an aquarist. The behaviour of tetras seems about as complex as that of Mooneybaum. It's not too hard to predict the behaviour of either.

At any rate, Shhhh! Don't you know that in the mind of Mooneybaum, a thing that is said, even in jest, is the same as if it happened? I don't need a lawsuit on my hands.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | August 27, 2010 6:17 PM

@214

Well, what I meant is that they don't split me into two almost identical versions of myself* and offset the tempo of one slightly to create a slow shifting effect. They definitely don't do that.

*HOWE DO YOU KNOW WICH ONEZ THE REEL ONE?! THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 27, 2010 6:32 PM

I see the dick Teshi still misses the point. Agreeing with us on points is meaningless, if you keep going back to never-never land of total accommodation. We won't be nicer to folks, just to be nicer. End of story. For example, there is a clueless creobot on an old thread promoting some known faked stones as proving dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Being polite makes him think he has a point, and he keeps arguing. Telling him upfront he has nothing scientific and therefore is wasting his time at least sets the bar properly.

Posted by: halfdeaddavid | August 27, 2010 6:50 PM

It is not unreasonable to expect people to do some work, after all

I Agree,but when you have 500 posts asking "umm I don't know what your talking about could you point me to what you mean." Including other known skeptical bloggers.

You probably should cite or explain something, Its even worse when even the posts agreeing with you don't agree with each other on what it is exactly you mean.

I can understand not wanting to have to cite every study showing vaccines are safe, but even here most bloggers would give a reputable starting point to look If only to keep people from places like AoA.

Posted by: halfdeaddavid | August 27, 2010 7:07 PM

Bing,

Stabbing people in the eye with a pen when they disagree is wrong too. Don't do it, its a bad tactic, people wont like it when you do. Also when your mom tells you shes going to see a Chiro don't kidney punch her and stuff her in a closet, really it will piss her off and not change her mind.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 27, 2010 7:26 PM

I'm a rhetorician by training,

Posted by: JediBear | August 27, 2010 7:56 PM

@#124

Matt,

Since Plait is not an accomodationist, it would be absurd to consider his remarks in that context. It makes far more sense to consider it in the scope of the definition actually used in the speech and his comments afterward, in which the definition was pretty nearly confined to shouting and name-calling.

Phil even explicitly excluded PZ from his definition here.

The problem really is that people don't understand. You clearly don't understand the definition being used and your disagreement appears to be at least mostly if not entirely a consequence of you using your own definition instead of the definition supplied.

There is nothing disingenuous about my claim that I don't consider PZ a dick. I don't. Neither does Phil Plait.

Posted by: Teshi | August 27, 2010 8:03 PM

Hm. Referring to the post above my last one (#226), I clearly have a slightly different set of dicks than Phil Plait. I have included a wider set of behaviour, which includes people who might otherwise be considered merely "rude".

However, my example of dickishness-- KG's comment that called me stupid-- I think is more what other people are using it to mean.

Gosh, a lot of this is what the definition of "dick" and "rude" is. That may be where our lines are crossing!

Posted by: JediBear | August 27, 2010 8:23 PM

@#154 --

gillt,

I take full responsibility for my implications, but none at all for your inferences. I did not imply that the New Atheists were all passion. In fact, I did not mention them as a group, and was not talking about them.

Passion and rationality are absolutely opposed to each other. If you can define those words in such a way that they are not, you are using one or more definition which I am not familiar with and do not accept.

I'm sure you could bring up examples of Accomodationists publicly embarrassing themselves. What would be the point? It very clearly has no bearing on this discussion, unless it's your contention (which I categorically reject, in case you were wondering) that Accomodationists (as opposed to New Atheists?) are completely passionless and fully rational as a class.

Posted by: FossilFishy | August 27, 2010 8:39 PM

Dhorvath #105.

Thanks for that, and sorry about the delayed reply, I'm in Australia.

Yup, I do ride bikes, took me 43 years to buy a vehicle with a motor in it. I've done very little hard climbing for a couple of years now. Despite living in "alpine" Victoria my daily ride is dead flat and between the bub and the business I no longer have much time for recreational rides. Also, my father had a fatal heart attack before he was 50. Still, I'm pretty optimistic that it'll be something muscular, and more so now hearing your story.

Anyway, this is totally off-topic. I'll post something on the endless thread when I have my results.

Posted by: Rixaeton | August 27, 2010 8:59 PM

Heh Bing #221: I note on your own blog that you can take up the dick-ish cause - White Supremacist Poetry Slam "This week, our rotten little hemorrhoid is called "Arise," and I'd rather be punched in the junk than read it again, thank you"

It looks dick-ish, but I can't really describe what you wrote as being dick-ish as your response to that sort of think is quite appropriate. So, is the definition of "being a dick" only being abusive or insulting when it is not appropriate?

BTW: what is a "hemorrhoid"? Sounds like a disgusting orbiting mass of biological excretion. As I know that you are an English teacher, this is me being a dick :)

Posted by: vksperr | August 27, 2010 9:04 PM

Thanks PZ for that right turn. There are probably hundreds if not more readers like me, who, a week or so ago, would have said "dull ache, gonna go away" and turned left. Now, if I ever get that dull ache, I'm gonna be a dick and turn right. Thanks again.

Posted by: j-brisby | August 27, 2010 9:07 PM

The problem is that there's a fine line between being dickish and being juvenile, and a lot of people, being unable to distinguish the two, seem to be patting themselves on the back for being dickish when in fact they're just making a virtue of their childishness.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 27, 2010 9:12 PM

You teach human physiology, you moron

you get that voice too?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 27, 2010 9:16 PM

I told the idjit creobot on the old thread, that unless he had new, and truly scientific information, he was wasting his time even posting here. At no time did I call him anything more than unscientific. The word delusional wasn't use. So you idjit accommodationists, was being a dick, or straight forward and assertive? Let's see where you fall in the continuum...

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 27, 2010 9:36 PM

The problem is that there's a fine line between being dickish and being juvenile, and a lot of people, being unable to distinguish the two, seem to be patting themselves on the back for being dickish when in fact they're just making a virtue of their childishness.

What about that line between honest questioning and clueless insipidity with a soupçon of aggressive entitlement?

You know, the one you tripped over some time back?

Posted by: Aquaria | August 27, 2010 10:17 PM

You know, I have been singled out as a poster child of dickish behavior. See: Mooney passing out from gasping so hard at me smacking him around for presuming anyone cared what he thought. Yeah, I said it about like that.

But I wouldn't be this way if it didn't work for me in real life. Oh, I'm nice enough when you don't trip my bullshit detectors. I'm hell on wheels if you do.

Maybe it helps that I care less about what people think of me than I do about the truth.

Then again, maybe what the tone trolls are ultimately afraid of is not being liked, to a ridiculous degree.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Posted by: Bing | August 27, 2010 11:01 PM

halfdeaddavid: I have no idea what you are talking about. Honestly.

Nerd of Redhead: Not rhetorician in the shitty sleazy bullshitting sense. In the "I teach writing" sense. The art of persuasive discourse is all I was suggesting. It is something that you can study.

Rixaeton: Oh, I can be a mega-uber-dick. :) But then again, my website does not really target believers. They almost never read it or leave comments. I'm totally fine with that.

HJ

Posted by: erikthebassist | August 28, 2010 12:04 AM

The problem as I see it: Dr Phil made a nebulous comment directed towards a vague group, at a major conference. When asked for clarification, he refused. His comment was based on the specious assumption that the skeptical/atheist movement actually has more than it's fair share of dicks, something for which he offered no evidence, and even refused to provide evidence for after the fact. He then when on to celebrate a self proclaimed victory by basking in the loving embrace of a couple of skeptical "believers" who were previously feeling like outcasts in the skeptical movement because of their religious beliefs.

So Dr Phil has decided that having a bigger tent is more important than, you know, the truth.

After all the bullshit bickering he's caused, we're left with one conclusion, the one which was obvious long before he opened his trap, that sometimes being a dick is useful and necessary, and at other times it's detrimental. IMO, the DBAD speech has done nothing productive, and to the contrary, has probably created a wider gap between two communities who have historically had a tenuous partnership to begin with, skeptics and atheists.

So, thanks Dr Phil, thanks for thinking that one through.

P.S. Glad you are better PZ, the stents mean you are part man, part machine, it's official, you are now a cyborg.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | August 28, 2010 12:50 AM

Jules #152

What rang a bell for me was the escalation you referred to in your first post. I also note the short term memory loss, tendency to misplace things, and the lack of conversational structure.

I have no qualifications, I hasten to add, but if one gets to 60 having led a full life and taken an interest, one has seen most ways in which change and decay can afflict the body.

Are you the black sheep of the family by any chance?

All the very best to you.

Posted by: circleh | August 28, 2010 3:32 AM

Take a look at this blog entry about how anti-vaxxers scare and mislead people:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/the-health-ranger-attacks-vaccines/

That is something to be dickish about, IMO!

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 28, 2010 4:54 AM

I don't buy that going to check on a soreness in your chest and left arm constitutes dickishness, especially if you have a history of heart disease in your family. A textbook dick move requires some kind of disregard or active contempt for the needs and feelings of others. Like cutting someone off in traffic. Or taking all the pennies from the "give a penny, take a penny jar." Or shooting a stranger in the foot for funsies. Or telling someone that what they believe is stupid.

This has already been addressed.

However since you clearly cannot be bothered to read the comments here I will re-iterate for you.

Ask youself what would have been the easy option for PZ. Then ask yourself why not taking the easy option can be equated to being a dick. Then maybe you will begin to understand what PZ was on about.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | August 28, 2010 5:31 PM

Mea culpa for not telling you in October '08 that you looked like a heart attack on the hoof, then. But I was too polite.... Is there a good way to raise the issue of continued physical fitness with a virtual stranger? I don't think so.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | August 28, 2010 6:28 PM

Jules, I think that's what the Flying Spaghetti Monster was dreamed up for. After your mom prays, you can add your own prayer aloud for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to touch your food and your lives with his **noodly** appendage, "Ramen." It sounds as if they won't be any LESS insulted if you do, and you've made your point.

Alternatively, rush off to the bathroom as soon as everyone else has their eyes closed.

I have an almost irresistible urge to send blasphemous humour and irreverent facts to one relative to counteract the religious propaganda she e-mails me. Maybe that's why? I don't want to rile up other friends who are religious.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | August 28, 2010 7:18 PM

Brownian, OM, wins two whole internets.

Can I quote you?

You should copy a few of these bons mots to your moribund blog to keep them easily available.

How did the Fringe Fest go?

Posted by: MosesZD | August 28, 2010 7:53 PM

Posted by: Lynna, OM | August 27, 2010 10:12 AM

Because people often personalize such beliefs it is a better strategy to not begin by insulting them or someone else who holds the same beliefs as they do.
Doesn't work.
I've tried that approach and it doesn't work. It doesn't work in the short term, and it doesn't work over time.

Anything you say that does not match what mormons believe, or what mormons are trying desperately to believe, is considered an insult no matter how carefully phrased. Kindness, lack of an intent to insult, offers of sources from their own archives etc. -- none of this works.

Practical experience, in the real world, has shown me that it just doesn't matter how kind or self-effacing you are. When the rubber meets the road, it is impossible to "not be a dick" when you push at people's cherished beliefs.

Look at crackergate. Some kid didn't immediately eat his cracker but wanted to show it to a friend then eat his cracker. It was no big deal, and even if it was it should have only been a big deal between him a God.

Instead he was receiving death threats within days and many people were trying to get him expelled and/or sanctioned. This, and millions of other examples people have suffered through-out the ages, shows us why the entire DBAD meme is such a load of horseshit. You cannot help but offend the terminally thin-skinned.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | August 28, 2010 10:14 PM

Teshi #141, we are only arguing with Phil Plait, someone who I normally have a lot of respect for, because he is basically saying that us gnu atheists are being dicks and it is counter-productive, yet offers, as Brownian for one noted, no evidence for his position. I.E. do things his way as it is the only way that works, again without evidence. We on the other hand, are simply saying that he is wrong as we accept that, unlike him, there are different strategies that work in different circumstances.

Additionally, to highlight another point that Brownian brought up, i.e. the whole Tom Johnson fiasco. Where a liar in support of the accommodationista was finally outed for his lies. Yet because his lies supported the accommodationista position, he of the hair appeared to bend over backwards to excuse what had been done and basically finished the post with a throwaway 'well it could have been true'. Thus giving the impression that as long as the lies supported the accomadationista position it was all right.

Further, and both ironical as well as hypocritical, Phil himself is, using the same standards he applies to us Gnu atheists, though rightly so in my opinion, as big a dick as anyone could be to anyone who promotes his pet peeves. E.G. homoeopathy, astrology, pro-dying through enabling the spreading of preventable diseases (i.e. the anti-vaxxers) etc. If being dickish doesn't work for us Gnu atheists, how does he expect it to work against the promoters of his pet peeves. Or is it only because religion deserves a pass yet the others don't, perhaps because of their numbers.

For overall, while his pet peeves are very definitely dangerous, I would argue that they are of less overall concern compared to the damage that religion has done and continues to do. After all, for all the damage that the anti-vaxxers do, because they are still a minority, their actual damage, regrettable as it is, is far less to that still being caused by religion. Just compare the additional deaths over the last ten years due to the ant-vaxxers against the number of AIDS related deaths in the third world due to the RC's lies about condoms and their use.

Of course, the reason I think that Phil is a dick about the promoters of his pet peeves is very much the same reason that we are dicks to all who deserve it. I.E. he is not actually wasting time trying to change the minds of the deluded, but writing for any who might be watching from the sidelines and to prevent them being taken in by the deluded.

And to repeat quotes by KG and Brownian to highlight it for anybody who has bothered to read this screed as it deserves repeating.

"As KG points out, "There is no "Be a Dick" campaign, while there is a "Don't be a Dick" campaign. See the difference there?"

We're not telling them to shut up. What we are doing is calling on them to provide evidence* when they claim theirs is the only method that works. (Remember: we're "hurting the cause", as they say.)"

* That includes you Teshi.

And To your #156: Again, we are not saying, as PZ is not saying, time and time again, that being a dick should be the default. What we are saying is that Phil Plait is not even honest to his own talk. For he is a much bigger dick when it comes to those who promote his pet peeves. In fact, his blog posts about them have often been at least as harsh as most anything PZ has written about religion. This is where the "not being dick makes you an ineffective skeptic comes from, especially when being a hypocrite when it comes to those promoting his pet peeves. I.E. Phil thinks it perfectly OK to be a dick when it comes to promoters of his pet peeves but apparently the religious should get a pass from the skeptics.

One other thing. To the majority of religious people, simply questioning or criticising a position based on faith, i.e no evidence, is seen as being a dick. What the accomadationista fail to understand, especially when some of them criticising us use dickishness as part of their own arsenal against their opponents (Phil, anti-vaxxers at al again), is that all the religious want us to do is to STFU, as any questioning of their beliefs, even in the most polite language possible, is to them us being dicks.

As to the "why does PZ act this way" question, how often has that person actually read PZ and not just heard about him from either someone on the accommodationista wing or from believers. Much like the criticism of Dawkins' book from people who have only read/heard about it from their pastor or similar. Hell, I've even seeing people on here and other blogs criticising Dawkins both for his book and his 'nastiness' to the religious, while admitting they have never read his book or seen him being interviewed or give a lecture.

Oh, and what halfdeaddavid said in #170

To everyone else, sorry for the length but I'm bored and can't sleep :).

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | August 28, 2010 10:37 PM

LOL

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 28, 2010 11:46 PM

I hope PZ lives to be 150 for his own sake, but if it also spites ghouls like Ross Olson, then that's icing on the cake.

Posted by: mikee | August 29, 2010 1:15 AM

@26

I really don't understand this false dichotomy between "nice" and "dickish". A truly effective skeptic would realize (a) that different people respond to different approaches, and tailor his or her interactions with people according to his or her knowledge of them, and behavioral clues; and (b) that there is a whole spectrum of behavior between the two poles.

Nicely put. I would have thought the rational approach would be to modify one's behavior to match the circumstances. I've found politeness can be incredibly useful even in the face of outright verbal abuse. Not many people can maintain being rude to someone who is being polite back at them (this is something I learnt when I worked in retail). However, on one or two occasions I've found that being very direct and terse has also worked.
Culture is also a consideration. While swearing, for example, may be considered appropriate for punctuating emotion in countries such as the USA and Australia it is likely hinder communications with people from some Asian countries or strongly religious backgrounds.

PZ,
What sort of medication do they have you on that has you "hearing angels and devils"? :-)

Posted by: FossilFishy | August 29, 2010 8:49 AM

Ross:

... an open mind...

This does not mean what you think it means. An open mind is one that can be changed. Unlike you, PZ and most everyone on this site have open minds. But here's the rub: in order to change a rational person's mind you're going to have to present valid evidence that what you're claiming is true.

So pony up godboy. Give it your best shot and go home crying when it turns out that the evidence for your sky-pixie is no more convincing than the evidence for unicorns.

Posted by: LuchinG | August 30, 2010 2:39 AM

1.- ¿But how efective is to be a dick? I understand the mecanism you have explained; I dont see the data suporting it.
2.- ¿Must I write this question like a dick to get an answer?

Posted by: John Morales | August 30, 2010 7:28 AM

LuchinG, if (2), then (1) is suggested.

And you've just been answered.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | August 30, 2010 11:47 AM

@269

I realize this is an old thread and almost pointless, but: fuck right off you intolerably pompous piece of human rubbish.

Posted by: LuchinG | August 31, 2010 11:16 AM

Therefore, I dont need to be a dick.