On civil disagreement

IMHO you touch on the single most important factor in forum moderation: The separation of what people say (write) and the person themselves.

As you point out the difference between saying what a person posts is idiotic and saying the person themselves is idiotic.

Fair point. However, if a person makes enough idiotic statements then one has to wonder...

There is of course, the Forrest Gump reply: Stupid is as stupid does.

But you're right, and I need to remember to restrain myself. Humans are capable of great paradox -- of being brilliant in one area, and howlingly silly in others.

Speculatively: are those of us with a Christian phase in our past (and I mean more than just the common pattern of family religion absorbed in childhood and rejected during adolescence) more likely to feel this way? The prohibition against saying "You fool!", and the whole "love the sinner but hate the sin" (however misused in some situations) ethic would seem to point in that direction.

Amen ... or "What he said!" ... whatever.

There are, however, idiots (and liars and assorted other miscreants) who insist on entering public debate. Your rule is correct in the same way as "innocent until proven guilty."

I have tried to follow the guideline of separation between the idiot and the idiotic myself, but often slip. Now, Nisbet is by no means an idiot but he has run off on an idiotic tangent, referred to here by Kevin Beck. Nisbet has repeatedly suggested that only certain people who don't bring up the "A" word should make public presentations on science so it doesn't scare the religious who would otherwise be allies against unreason.

I am now in the process of writing a post on Genie Scott's presentation to the Texas State Board of Education and Dan Mcleroy's introduction into the record of Peppered moths, the Piltdown Man, Haeckel's embryo illustrations and the supposed archaeopteryx fraud in relation to "macro-evolution." (Don't get excited, I will just be regurgitating what I learned from you and others at talk.origins.)

It will be very difficult in the context of the post and in the discussion to not call McLeroy an idiot, but I shall try to restrain myself, m'kay?

I think that calling other people idiots simply because they hold views you think are false is itself a major form of idiocy.

I honestly do not feel obliged to defend the religious except when the irreligious make idiotic claims.

I think I understand your point. This is a sarcastic posting about hypocrisy, right? :-)

I'm not in the business of defending Matt's claims - he can do that for himself. I do think that there's absolutely no need to tie accepting evolution with rejecting religion, and insofar as anyone does that, they are making claims that are unnecessary and hurt the overall acceptance of evolution in the community. I actually do not care if people are religious, or atheists, or, as I have said once before, have sex with trees. I do care if my community accepts factual information about biology (and other science) because if they do they are better equipped to make sensible decisions about the world.

And Larry can think whatever he likes about that. Larry is no idiot.

John,

Of course intelligent people can say idiotic things, but so can idiots as well. Is there not a point at which, after a person has reapetedly made foolish claims, that we can consider them to be a fool ? And if that is in indeed the case, and I think it is, then surely Nisbet has now reached the stage where we can call him a fool, and yes, an idiot. He does seem to have put a lot of effort into after all. It would be a shame to deprive him of recognition of that.

I also want to add that in some cases the position taken by a person tells us a lot about that person. For example the position taken by the Pope on condom use is evil. Given the investment by the Pope in that position, and the lies he has been telling in support of it, we can fairly conclude that not only is the position evil, the person taking that position is evil as well.

Matt does not strike me as an idiot or a fool. Nor have the things he has asserted shown him to be consistently stupid, as some have suggested. I certainly do not think that only professionals can communicate science to the public (or I would not be a blogger who talks about science) but I rather think he doesn't either. And if one assumes that the professional communicators have skills that make them good at what they do, as Carl Zimmer among others demonstrates is true, then it makes sense to suggest they do the heavy lifting of communicating to the widest audience. However, that doesn't mean that others should stop communicating, and anyway I deny that the media is the best way to inform people. The media is set up so that the best you can do is impart attitudes, not information. Education remains the best options for a science literate society.

So I do think that calling him an idiot is as bad as any sin he may have committed in Kevin's or your eyes, and probably a lot worse. And I say that without concurring in his major assumption that journalism can correctly impart scientific ideas (when it does, as with Carl, it is because the writing is good, not because the ideas are correctly imparted).

I am no philosopher, so maybe that is why I don't understand this. Isn't someone who says idiotic things an idiot by definition? Just as someone who tells lies is a liar, and someone who whispers sweet nothings is a lover. Am I missing something here?

John,

Do you not consider Nisbett's response to the blogosphere's reaction over PZ being ejected from that Expelled screening whilst Dawkins was allowed in pretty conclusive evidence that he has problems in the thinking department ?

I would have thought it was fairly clear that many times when someone says someone else is stupid or an idiot, they mean only in reference to what has been said. I think this phenomenon is common enough in English that it shouldn't be assumed someone is calling another an idiot in general unless the context indicates that.

Apparently the Director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard must be an idiot as well, since he said this:

âThe pope is correct,â Green told National Review Online Wednesday, âor put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the popeâs comments. He stresses that âcondoms have been proven to not be effective at the âlevel of population.ââ

âThere is,â Green adds, âa consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded âDemographic Health Surveys,â between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction âtechnologyâ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by âcompensatingâ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.â

Green added: âI also noticed that the pope said âmonogamyâ was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than âabstinence.â The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision).â

The key phrase "at the level of population" seems to be the thing Grayling doesn't grasp....

Well some of this would boil down to semantics it would seem.

If the pope's objection to condom use is based on contraception (it's something about saving lives, right?), then why doesn't the use of condoms to save lives carry equal weight?

I admit that my understanding of the Catholic birth control philosophy is not deep.

"Idiot" is just slang. It doesn't mean what it did when it was a medical diagnosis.

Saying "you're acting like an idiot" is no different in common usage to saying "you're an idiot" - and the second is snappier. Given the way language is used in real life, I think it's a fallacy to extend the intended meaning of this phrase too far. I say "you're an idiot" (with a smile and a shake of my head) to people I respect when they've done something stupid, and they don't take it as a pronouncement of irredeemable censure. That's not what the term means in real use.

Regarding Nisbet, I think he can justifiably be called an idiot on this issue for the simple reason that he is trying to educate a targeted segment of the scientific community on how to communicate diplomatically and effectively, but he communicates so poorly that he enrages them at every turn. Most people are too angry to even try to understand what he's talking about, and the few who do try, seem to fail. This from someone who is trying to teach others how to communicate!

It couldn't be more perfect irony. It's like using "you're igorant" as a favorite insult (I knew someone who did just that).

Lecturing people on "framing" while displaying such an abysmal grasp of framing... well, you can see how people might be both angry with him and have little respect for his view point in this matter. This feeling can be summed up by calling him an idiot. Most people use linguistic shortcuts, and in this case it seems apt.

The Catholics do not object to people using contraception on the basis that it somehow saves lives.

They object to it on the basis that the "proper function" of the sexual organs is procreative. According to the modern version of the doctrine, the "unitive" aspect of sex is okay, as long as it is joined with the "procreative" aspect. Otherwise, not. In other words, it violates the God-ordained natural law to use your genitals (or those of your lovers) for recreational purposes, or loving purposes, unless the act concerned also involves the possibility of a pregnancy arising. Similarly, the creation of human life without sex (e.g. by IVF) breaches the natural law in splitting off reproduction from the unitive activity of sex between husband and wife.

Yes, I realise this is batshit crazy, but it's what they believe. If you don't "get" this, you won't see how there's a mad kind of logic to the doctrinal positions adopted by the Cult of Misery. Nor will you realise just how mad it is in its arcane contortions. See:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi…

...though I myself would NOT call him an idiot, because it's rude.

I just see where people are coming from.

On topic, I am sometimes exasperated enough to call someone an idiot, and I'm sure I'll do so again. I agree with John, though, that it should be avoided. It is still a deadly insult, at least in my culture, and an expression of extreme hostility and contempt, verging on hatred. It can't be translated as "I disagree with you" or even "You are displaying a lack of rigour in your thinking on this particular topic; allow me to explain."

If you said to someone to their face, "You're an idiot!" you'd very likely be met with physical violence in response. It's much better simply to explain why you disagree, or at least use a term that isn't calculated to make the recipient go into a red rage. I don't see why we should use such terms just because it's the internet and we're safe behind our computer screens.

Russell: don't be such a mong.

(I was tempted to leave out the second, or indeed the FIRST, 'l', but we're in the same country and I'm not hard to track down).

Of course intelligent people can say idiotic things, but so can idiots as well.

I think the problem is who gets to decide that a person is an idiot. In intertube debates, it usually seems to be that the judge is someone who disagrees with the alleged idiot's position. I hope it's clear that that's about the last person able to make an objective decision. So "idiot" becomes synonymous with "someone I disagree with". How often is it that the accusation is as much a failure to understand the other's argument, or their worldview?

Wow, I've learned a new insult. lol So which of my regular readers is posting as "Magpie"?

Haha, I'm just Magpie (though I used to be SmellyTerror until too many people thought it was a terrorism thing). I'm a lurker over at the Metamagician because I either agree with (or am simply expanded by) pretty much everything you write, and who wants a fanboi clogging up the comments?

...which is why I rarely say anything here, either. I rarely have anything to add but admiration, and admiration is boring.

And I have to confess that I'd always thought "mong" was another example of the "defunct science -> insult" stream (via mongoloid), so I thought I was being extra clever. Sadly, online dictionaries tell me I'm wrong (from "mongrel"? Really?).

Bugger.

Wow, I've learned a new insult.

You mean "mong"? That's not new. I remember that being used when I was at school in the UK more years ago than I care to remember. IIRC, there was also "cret" for a while, an abbreviation of "cretin".

As for the dreaded A-word, both sides of the debate should be informed - politely - that only an idiot or maybe a Moran would think science leads to anything but agnosticism.

Comrade and Josh bring up the point that there is possible ambiguity in the phrase "You're an idiot", ie. whether it's just shorthand for "Your claim is reeeaaally stoopid, care to try again?", or a general assertion of pervasive stupidity on the part of the target. But I have to side with Russell Blackford on this: while it might mean either (depending on circumstance), the phrase's most obvious, literal, sense (and the one I usually understand it as meaning) is the second, and I shouldn't have to read your mind to figure out which sense you mean.

@ #15 I admit that my understanding of the Catholic birth control philosophy is not deep.

No need to worry on that account, as the Catholic birth control philosophy is not deep.

And Herr Ratzinger is not an idiot, just evil.

I find this rather interesting, being a relatively uncivil individual (uncivil being a euphemism for a more expletive driven descriptive, involving the biological system for solid waste removal). Because as rather harsh as I can get, I am generally keen on separating people and their arguments. The problem I run into with that, is people who so solidly view their positions as integral to their identity.

There is a gent on a forum I semi-regularly visit, who is dead against gay marriage. We have gone the rounds on a number of occasions and I have pointed out several times that his views on gay marriage are intrinsically bigoted. I have repeatedly tried to clarify that I don't believe he's a bigot - and I really don't. I just happen to think that he is taking a stance that draws on the reasoning of bigotry.

Bo -

Well some of this would boil down to semantics it would seem.

It is very much a question of semantics, but that makes it no less important. Language defines our reality.

CPP -

Isn't someone who says idiotic things an idiot by definition?

No, sometimes it simply means they are wrong.

For example, if I were to claim that all these college music programs that delve so heavily into theory are pointless, because so many great musicians and composers play and write by ear, I would be making a rather idiotic claim. However the inference cannot be made that I am personally an idiot, just that I am ignorant about the nature of the study of music.

The problem with you, Wilkins, is that you are a gorilla. All nice and gentle all the time then suddenly, in the middle of the night, INFANTICIDAL RAMPAGE....

Personally, however, I agree with your call for civility. I want to see other people be more civil, and I want to be more civil myself. We should all try to move in that direction.

What's a transistor?

I hate it when I level an insult, and then a fellow as fair-minded as Wilkins says something that prods me toward something bound to sound like a retraction of my overall position even when it isn't. John, you bastard! Oh, wait...

Okay, first of all, as far as the word "idiot" is concerned, Josh Spinks wrote:

"I would have thought it was fairly clear that many times when someone says someone else is stupid or an idiot, they mean only in reference to what has been said"

That's how I see it. It's not a comprehensive label or meant as a "deadly insult," which Russell notes it can be in some places. (I've hung with idiots--hell, even fucking idiots--all of my life, so the mores of my subculture are different.) Matt Nisbet strikes me as an intelligent person (not that this has any bearing on what I wrote; most idiots are simply idiots), but in the niche he's carved out for himself on his blog, he has, as I see it, willfully abdicated his intelligence. I know this one guy who's a supreme idiot with respect to how he handled his most recent romantic encounter, for example, despite being capable in most respects. He accepts that the shoe fits in this case and may well do something something different next time, if there is one.

And the whole issue of a pattern does matter. When someone consistently makes a set of inflammatory statements despite the evidence suggesting that the speaker/writer knows better, I'm more apt to see him as an idiot than as someone expressing ideas I myself disagree with. After all, it's not as though Nisbet has merely slipped up a time or two, as we all have.

That said, I know very well that "idiot" is an insult. This is what I was aiming for. I admit that at first I typed in "goofball," and even considered "well-intentioned goofball" (after all, Nisbet has been doing his thing for quite a while and seems to believe it has the potential to change the science-public interface for the better). Then I went back and re-read the post Nisbet made almost one year ago to the day in which he asserted that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins needed to stand down upon the release of Expelled and "let other people be the messengers for science," and I decided mitigation was unnecessary, both because Nisbet indeed sounds like an idiot and because the magnitude of that kerfluffle suggests that a single throwaway slap from a guy with about one-frigtillion of PZ's readership was not likely to make much difference.

I think what tipped the scales in the end is that Nisbet himself is consistently insulting. He uses the term "New Atheist" as a slur--in fact, that's the whole reason the label was coined. It may not be as familiar or ingrained as "idiot," but its use is tied to people presumed to be doing something wrong, e.g., "in the Year of Darwin, the loudest voice associated with science threatens to be Richard Dawkins and other New Atheist pundits" and "Battling the feeding frenzy of New Atheist complaints and attacks." If anyone can find an instance of Nisbet (or anyone) attributing any positive qualities to a "New Atheist," I'd be interested to see it.

Finally, on the general matter of "civil dsagreement": Although this is no excuse for terminal rudeness, the rules of engagement are simply not the same in the blog world as they were when Wilkins and dinosaurs were walking the earth together ;o). I wouldn't walk up to Nisbet and call him an idiot in person, not out of fear of physical or other retribution, but because it's simply not done that way. I strongly doubt that Nisbet would approach PZ Myers at a putative gathering of bloggers and ask them directly to kindly not blog for a while so that the release of Expelled could be handled by more capable voices of science. And PZ himself is startlingly low-key in person. We all use out blogs as pulpits of sorts; it's integrated into the whole purpose for our bothering, I think. But that's not to say we can't learn something about ourselves and reconsider what we present of our personas in the virtual world; when I met a couple dozen fellow ScienceBlogs dot commers a year and a half ago in New York, more than a few were surprised that I was a pretty pleasant and laid-back person. That's telling. So I have since redoubled my vituperative efforts to erase any traces of people's memory of me as a well-mannered individual.

Anyway, I was going to write all of this as a post on my own blog, but you know, I really don't want to make a big issue about Mr. Nisbet, his blog, and his reputation or whatever. Garnering a modicum of attention at the possible expense of someone's self-image strikes me as fairly vulgar unless the person seems to have expressly invited it, and Nisbet has done nothing lately to do so. Therefore, this need not morph into a dissection of Nisbet specifically, which it would if I posted further about this--as these coments show, there's no keeping the discussion of manners general. If people want to get into Nisbetian machinations, it's probably best to keep it under his roof.

It is worth pointing out that calls for "civility" are frequently used to silence those who seek to reveal the indecency of statements or actions of others. Those who behave indecently can fuck right off with their whiny-ass whining about civility. And those who are, themselves, decent, but who direct attention to "civility" are playing into the hands of the indecent.

Which bit of "don't urinate on the rug" did you not understand? First warning. - JSW

I think Nisbett is more a knave than a fool. The case that linking science and irreligion is harmful can clearly be made, but he doesn't engage with the "science kills god" crowd; he simply orders them to STFU. To me this speaks of unpleasantly authoritarian side to his character. He will base posts of falsehood and neither correct nor allow comments pointing out his nonsense ( an example, hint: look up Sacha Baron Cohen on wikipedia). This makes me think he simply doesn't care about truth. So I would say it's not idiocy; he's a bad guy. Those calling him an idiot are being charitable.

And the same is probably true of Pope Benedict. Either he doesn't know that he isn't qualified to make this statement, which dismisses the consensus on public health, or he does know that he is unqualified and is dishonest. For the sake of argument let's be charitable and assume the former. He's had plenty of education. He has plenty of advisers. Either he has remained wilfully ignorant of what science says and simply assumes he knows the truth, or he has honestly tried to understand what is known but has mangled the science due to a lack of intelligence. The last is the most charitable; I suspect it is false.

In my opinion, whether someone's an idiot or not depends not so much on how much I disagree with them, nor on how wrong I think their ideas are, but more on how they deal with counter-arguments. For instance, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "not listening, la-la-la" rightfully earns you the label of "idiot". You may still say it's impolite to call someone an "idiot" in that case, but ignoring counter-arguments isn't exactly polite either.

From this, I'd say that calling Nisbet an idiot is not indefensible.

Calling someone out for being uncivil is a strawman designed to minimize the importance of the other argument. If I recall, some of the greatest atrocities in history were committed by those who prided themselves on being part of "civil society."

Isn't the divide between Myers/Dawkins and Nesbitt one of strategy rather than 'truth' 'idiocy' or 'civility' or whatever? Why drag all those things into it? And isn't the important question in that debate "which strategy is more successful?" Isn't the goal to improve science education and increase acceptance and understanding of evolution?

I think Kevin Beck's connecting the valid complaint that groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are imploring the United Nations to ban the speaking out against religion to the above issues regarding science in the schools is sort of idiotic. The first is an alarming attempt at censorship, the second a reasonable debate, as far as I can tell.

I agree that science and religion deal with different questions, and that dragging attacks on religion into efforts to bring evolution into schools is not a good strategy. I heard that Richard Dawkins did come off badly in Expelled in that regard. I was curious to see the movie for that reason but my anti-ID friends said they would never see it that it would be supporting these assholes etc etc....I mean why not? Maybe I should rent the DVD.

I think it is fine to call people idiots if you want, but I think you should be willing to do it to the idiots face, at least some of the time, or imagine that you are doing so before publishing your attack, and should at least admit it's a major insult. In the case at hand, saying "...that's why idiots like M. N...." sounds much harsher than "...misguided goofballs like..." Also I clicked on the links and was not able to find anything particularly idiotic, the guy can't be that bad.

Peace,

Isabel

ps. like many fanatical atheists Richard dawkins has a strong personal issue he needs to deal with regarding, in his case, his ex-wife and her control over their daughter. I believe it was about sending her to Catholic School. I wonder if he is really being as rational and objective as he should be regarding this important issue.

Isabel:

Isn't the goal to improve science education and increase acceptance and understanding of evolution?

And some people have more than one goal: make sure atheism gets heard as well, and erode the position of privilege that religion has, for instance.

I agree that science and religion deal with different questions, and that dragging attacks on religion into efforts to bring evolution into schools is not a good strategy.

That wouldn't be needed quite as much if religion would stop attacking science to get their religion into the classroom.

ps. like many fanatical atheists Richard dawkins has a strong personal issue he needs to deal with regarding, in his case, his ex-wife and her control over their daughter. I believe it was about sending her to Catholic School.

I doubt Dawkins has any control issues with his ex-wife over their daughter any more, seeing how his ex passed away of cancer in 1999.

Isabel wrote:

"I think Kevin Beck's connecting the valid complaint that groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are imploring the United Nations to ban the speaking out against religion to the above issues regarding science in the schools is sort of idiotic. The first is an alarming attempt at censorship, the second a reasonable debate, as far as I can tell."

Isabel, my post didn't say a word about "issues regarding science in the schools." My comments about Nisbet were rooted solely on his ongoing insistence that scientists who don't interface with the public the way he wants them to should pipe down. So I have no idea what you're talking about, and based on what you wrote about Richard Dawkins, you may not either.

Interesting reading some of the links provided to Nisbet's recent rantings. I'm going to admit that the words that came to my mind were "Fucking idiot!"

Nsbet seeks to provoke by attacking people he dislikes, such as Dawkins, with very nasty insults, he never lets up, and I do actually think he does damage if anyone takes him seriously (and there must be such people, as he has no trouble getting prestigious-sounding gigs). The possibility of constructive interaction is poisoned by his attitude before any discussion can start. All in all, it's a recipe that does make it difficult for me to read some of his material without feeling the mix of exasperation and anger that gets expressed as "Fucking idiot!"

It's probably better, though, if I simply avoid reading material by someone like Nisbet. His influence in the world is not so great that it matters awfully. With someone like the current pope, though, it's a bit different - we can't kind of pretend he's not there, so we're almost forced to deal with his latest, um, idiocy on a day-by-day basis. Even in that case, it's probably ideal not to comment in anger, but leave it for a bit. Then again ...

Look, I do think that civility matters. Using words that are designed to wound feelings can only make it even more difficult to arrive at any sort of agreement, get people to see any strengths in each other's views, maybe deepen their responses, even if they don't fundamentally change. Those possibilities may not exist when we're dealing with some kind of nutjob fundamentalist, but they often do exist when we're dealing with other rational people. Besides, wounding feelings isn't really the point. Letting off steam may be the point if the person under discussion isn't present in the conversation, but even then that person may actually read it - as happened recently when a whole lot of people at Dawkins' site got stuck into Julian Baggini the other day.

I'm only thinking onto the screen here, not putting a structured argument or rationalising my own practice, but I do think it's worthwhile thinking before we poison the chance of constructive discussion by using insults. That said, I'm not really interested in discussion with people who a seem to be beyond the pale of rationality - as assessed by me - such as the pope. So, on reflection, I'll probably go on mocking those people and calling them idiots or worse.

By and large, there's more point in expressing our anger and exasperation to like-minded people than actually trying to engage someone like the pope in constructive dialogue. He's big enough to can take it if I'm nasty about him.

"Isabel, my post didn't say a word about "issues regarding science in the schools." My comments about Nisbet were rooted solely on his ongoing insistence that scientists who don't interface with the public the way he wants them to should pipe down. So I have no idea what you're talking about, and based on what you wrote about Richard Dawkins, you may not either."

Aren't the issues regarding teaching evolution in the schools and in general reaching the public at the root of the alluded-to disagreement with Nisbet? So why would I have had to mention it directly - it was obviously implied. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. You WERE comparing the two situations. Nisbet is arguing his case directly with the people involved. He's making some good points. So what's the big deal? has he actually attempted censorship? Did he run to the UN???? You all seem pretty thick-headed. Thanks for fucking things up. Idiots! Morons! Wheeeee this is fun!!!!

Seriously, I still say we should stay focused. Therefore I guess I agree with "the idiot" at least to the extent that his views have been represented in this forum.

Love,

Isabel

ps. Sorry I don't keep up with the details of Richard Dawkins' life. But just because his ex-wife died doesn't mean he's over his bitterness. Don't you know basic psychology? And that people tend to dig in their heels when their ideas (and by extension themselves) are attacked directly? SO WHY DO IT?

The call for civility is the method for the privileged to exclude the outsiders from conversation, because the only way to shock them out of their privilege is to tell them to fuck off. Didn't we just recently have a shitstorm of posts on this very questions after I posted this?

Isabel wrote:

"Aren't the issues regarding teaching evolution in the schools and in general reaching the public at the root of the alluded-to disagreement with Nisbet?"

You claimed that I was comparing the UN/OIC mess with the dispute over the best way to reach the public (or more specifically, the schools). I was not. I was criticizing Nisbet for suggesting--not once, or twice, or three times, but continually--that critics of religion either tone it down or recuse themselves entirely. I linked to two posts on Framing Science in order to highlight examples of him doing this; the matters under dispute in those posts isn't at issue. I could have selected other posts by Nisbet in which he exhibits the same cartoonish behavior with respect to other topics, and I suppose you'd be claiming that I was tying the UN/OIC mess to whatever the nitty-gritty was in those posts.

Isabel wrote:

"Sorry I don't keep up with the details of Richard Dawkins' life."

Then shut up about him.

Just kidding (I'm being ironic--get it?), but it does help to be informed if you're going to serve as a mind-reader. Dawkins has been happily married for almost 20 years now and was criticizing religion (much more lightly) in his books long before his second wife died, so I doubt he's being fueled these days by bitterness.

"... over the best way to reach the public (or more specifically, the schools). I was not. I was criticizing Nisbet for suggesting--not once, or twice, or three times, but continually--that critics of religion either tone it down or recuse themselves entirely."

Aren't those the same thing??? Specifically, 'suggesting that critics of religion either tone it down or recuse themselves entirely' is currently a big part of the debate 'over the best way to reach the public (or more specifically, the schools)' especially as far as Nisbet is concerned.

Okay I confess I am out of my league here. Sadly, I can no longer follow this conversation. I suspect part of the problem is out here in the blog'o'sphere, people just blab on and on, and respond to other's posts with off-the-cuff remarks, and here I'm trying to make sense of it all like an idiot.

Sincerely,

Isabel

Isabel: "...has he [Nisbet] actually attempted censorship?"

Well, he's the only ScinceBlogger who actively practices censorship.

Love and kisses,

MH

Isabel (#34): Good point about strategy. (I don't think of Richard as fanatical, though, FTR.)

Corturnix (#30) The call for civility is the method for the privileged to exclude the outsiders from conversation, because the only way to shock them out of their privilege is to tell them to fuck off. Didn't we just recently have a shitstorm of posts on this very questions after I posted this?

The reason that the UN does not use US troops (very often) as peace keepers is because US troops are trained to be kick-ass "armies of one." It is probably the case that if you wanted to pick a contingent of soldiers to do the soldier thing somewhere in the world, aside from obvious home court advantage, you'd pick US soldiers to do whatever asskicking you needed done. But as a whole, you would not put the blue hats on these individuals because it would not work well.

One could say that they are trained and self selected to not posses certain traits that could be used metaphorically to represent civility, and one could also say that we need, in this world (still in the metaphor here) shock troops, occupation troops, and peace keeping troops and we can't do with only one of these approaches.

To me, civility means not getting in every single person's face all the time, it means not pre-judging individuals based on group membership and then gratuitously attacking them whenever you get the chance, and it means, as Isabel suggests, being strategic. The civil argument can be very unmovable and strong and even shocking. It is perfectly civil to murder the Golem.

Being civil when a slap in the face is necessary and appropriate is passive aggressive. Slapping the face when listening or even just ignoring is appropriate is asshattery that does nothing other than draw battle lines where there are no real battles.

Isis: "Calling someone out for being uncivil is a strawman designed to minimize the importance of the other argument."

Coturnix: "The call for civility is the method for the privileged to exclude the outsiders from conversation"

Sometimes. However, incivility can also result from demonizing and caricaturing one's opponents, and that sort of incivility is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Rush Limbaugh's use of "feminazi" is an example of this.

Ramsey, what do you think the problem with Rush is? Is it that he's not civil, or that he's wrong?

I don't have a problem with "terms" like feminazi because it's not polite. Rather it's because I don't believe that feminists actually have much in common with nazis. Whining about civility and ignoring the actual argument being made is useless.

Coriolis: "Ramsey, what do you think the problem with Rush is? Is it that he's not civil, or that he's wrong?"

In his case, the incivility and wrongness are intertwined. AFAICT, he is trying to go out of his way to be uncivil, and the easy and cheap way to do it is to make crass and inaccurate insults. Greta Christina's "Gadfly Corollary" comes to mind.

Isabel: "...has he [Nisbet] actually attempted censorship?"

Well, he's the only ScinceBlogger who actively practices censorship.

Love and kisses,

MH

How the fuck does he do that? In his comments section or what? Can one of you so-called scientists give me some EVIDENCE please. I can't go by what some anonymous commenter says! Geez! That fact that this evidence is completely lacking in this conversation while it has been alluded to repeatedly is driving me nuts. Can't you just give me a reference - you don't have to tell the whole story...

Thanks,

Isabel

xxx

Isabel -

As one who has been in the process of losing a battle of attrition between his Faith and reason over the last couple years, I can confidently respond to several of your remarks.

Don't you know basic psychology? And that people tend to dig in their heels when their ideas (and by extension themselves) are attacked directly? SO WHY DO IT?

Not only do I understand basic psychology quite well thank you, I have also been heavily influenced by assholes saying nasty things about religion. While I will admit that my Faith was somewhat odd, it wasn't that odd. The very act of getting involved in some of the discussions being referred to here made a lot of difference to me.

And isn't the important question in that debate "which strategy is more successful?"

Not in the least. The grand failure of Matt and the reason so many, including myself, consider him an idiot is because as a communications "expert" he fails to grasp several important aspects of communications and marketing.

One, he assumes that everyone's goals are exactly the same. This is patently untrue and no matter how often it's pointed out, Nisbet refuses to accept this.

Two, he seems to think that there can be only one message, that there is only one audience. This is patent bullshit, as anyone who understands communications and marketing should damned well know. There are certainly people who really need to hear things the way that Nisbett puts them, but there are also people who are going to get something out of those you call extremists.

And finally, if Nisbett was as much the expert on communications as he claims, he would try to couch this discussion in terms that his target audience of "shrill" atheists are going to find more palatable.

I think it is fine to call people idiots if you want, but I think you should be willing to do it to the idiots face, at least some of the time, or imagine that you are doing so before publishing your attack, and should at least admit it's a major insult.

I actually do call arguments that are idiotic exactly that and to the face of the person spewing them if they are in front of me. And I really don't believe it's a "major" insult, whatever that is supposed to mean.

"And finally, if Nisbett was as much the expert on communications as he claims, he would try to couch this discussion in terms that his target audience of "shrill" atheists are going to find more palatable."

Okay, point taken there.

But I would still like to see an actual example of him being offensive, or censoring. I obviously share his concerns. Am I also being an idiot? I honestly am not familiar with him, except following the links above, which did not seem so offensive.

It's awkward when one viewpoint involves an effect on another viewpoint directly.

I'd like to see multiple approaches. But why aren't people offended by the aggressiveness of Dawkins' approach - how is he not proselytizing? Also it's distressing because he is so connected with evolution in the public mind, and I'm sorry - he IS a little crazy. I read on the internet that he publicly mocked a young comedic author's belief in God while they were both up for the same literary prize. That's pretty tacky, and HOSTILE. I am getting that atheists are very, very angry.

I didn't read his athesist books, but have read many interviews and heard him speak (RD) and his view seems simplistic as well.

Those of us who have not been harmed by religion, and do not want to throw out a big part of our cultural heritage and don't think that we know all the answers, can be easily offended by aggressive (calling believers idiots for example) atheists.

I can see you have multiple goals. But why do they have to be combined - if some people can believe in God and be passionate scientists why can't everyone.

Take care,

Isabel

Yes Isabel, Nisbet did not let through the comments of various people during the whole PZ getting expelled from Expelled fiasco - which led to alot of the discussion of his idiocy going on in other blogs. Comments that while perhaps not adhering to a strict notion of politeness were not nearly as abusive as what is routine on most scienceblogs on a hot issue. This has been an ongoing argument on these blogs since forever - if you want to read up on what happened, do a search. People aren't going to provide you a summary on things that most people either remember or can find themselves.

And Ramsey, you seem to be claiming that Rush just wants to make a splash - as if he doesn't have an actual political agenda or view. Certainly more publicity is part of it - but if that's all he was, he'd be howard stern or a stand up comedian - out there almost purely for shock value. And he probably would have no political influence to speak of, and I personally wouldn't give a damn about his insults.

The problem is that he does have a political agenda, and it's that agenda that's the problem, his method of delivery is just a choice he's making that determines who (and how many) his audience is.

@Isabel:

How the fuck does he do that? In his comments section or what? Can one of you so-called scientists give me some EVIDENCE please.

Yes, Nisbet has a tendency to block comments that are too critical. Of course I can't prove this, because you only have my word that I tried posting critical comments and he blocked them. Nobody can prove he does this, because you can't see the difference between him blocking a post or us not posting it in the first place, or even him blocking a post for good reasons, like excessive profanity. The only evidence you are ever going to get, therefore, is the word of several independent commenters with similar experiences, likely mostly pseudonymous. Whether you want to accept that is up to you.

Although I suppose you could try posting a critical comment on his blog yourself, and see if it'll show up. It wouldn't prove too much, though, as you'd only have a sample size of one.

Coriolis: "And Ramsey, you seem to be claiming that Rush just wants to make a splash - as if he doesn't have an actual political agenda or view."

That wasn't what I was trying to imply. He seems to want both to make a splash and serve his agenda. He furthers his political agenda by offering crude caricatures that keep his fans listening while gaining notoriety--and ratings--for himself.

I agree Ramsey. But the problem, that at least I have with him, is his agenda - not his method. I enjoy stand-up comedians who routinely spew much more offensive stuff then even he does - because they do not have a serious, coherent (and harmful) political agenda. As a society I don't see that much point in worrying about vile stand-up comics.

But on the other hand I would have a problem with Rush's ideology even if he was perfectly polite - although admittedly if he was perfectly polite he probably wouldn't have the following he has, and hence wouldn't be a problem.

@Isabel:

But I would still like to see an actual example of him being offensive, or censoring. I obviously share his concerns. Am I also being an idiot? I honestly am not familiar with him, except following the links above, which did not seem so offensive.

Maybe not an idiot, but maybe a little too eager to comment an issue you don't appear to have enough background info on. Start reading here. Money quote: "Lay low and let others do the talking". How much clearer do you want it to be spelled out?

But why aren't people offended by the aggressiveness of Dawkins' approach - how is he not proselytizing? Also it's distressing because he is so connected with evolution in the public mind, and I'm sorry - he IS a little crazy.

I don't believe you are sorry for that remark at all.

And as for Dawkin's "aggressiveness", as he himself has said, he doesn't actually use language that is harsher than what you'd accept from say a restaurant or movie critic. Only because he has the audacity to criticize religion do people think he's so aggressive or militant. Criticizing religion is simply "not done" in large parts of our society. But why would religion even deserve such a protected status?

I can see you have multiple goals. But why do they have to be combined - if some people can believe in God and be passionate scientists why can't everyone.

If some people can be passionate scientists and not believe in God, why can't everyone?

"This has been an ongoing argument on these blogs since forever - if you want to read up on what happened, do a search. People aren't going to provide you a summary on things that most people either remember or can find themselves."

Coriolis - Sorry my time is limited - and I didn't ask for a summary, just a single reference to a specific incident of idiocy. It all sounds like gossip otherwise, especially when everyone is being so vague. I don't have time to read and evaluate 5000 blog comments. I did check all the links, and didn't see any evidence of censorship or major stupidity...I concede I may have missed some major incidents but can you blame me for not wanting to wade through a bunch of old, heated arguments... Is asking for a specific date or other reference really asking too much? Or a good article that sums up the situation?

Your friend,

Isabel

"Maybe not an idiot, but maybe a little too eager to comment an issue you don't appear to have enough background info on. Start reading here. Money quote: "Lay low and let others do the talking". How much clearer do you want it to be spelled out? "

Okay I followed the quote, read 50 posts, and learned nothing new. Many commenters even agreed with me, and provided evidence for that view. Also, I seem to have as much background and investment in the subject as everyone else here.

Money quote: "Lay low and let others do the talking". How much clearer do you want it to be spelled out? "

Are you serious, or is that a snarky reference to Nisbet?

Being civil will always get you farther. Being civil does not mean being inappropriately nice (that is known as being passive aggressive), and it does not mean failing to be blatantly critical. Being civil does not mean failing to be relentless. Being civil means being a careful listener, a clear speaker, and reserving judgment until after you're pretty sure you foot is not going to go swinging up directly into your mouth. Being civil means NOT creating an environment that is habitually hostile to some subgroup of people because of the group they belong to, unless that group is truly organized and clearly self defined and opposing you (like, for instance, Orac could be civil and at the same time totally write off crazy denialists who show up in attack mode on his blog.)

But I want to be careful here, because being civil also means, and mainly means, being thoughtful. A thoughtful approach is not one in which you make up rules (no matter how logical they sound) in advance of things that have not happened yet. Such rules often end up in tool kits to be used later for the sake of making people feel unwelcome or to exclude people from the conversation sophisticaly. If that's a word, which it might not be.

Observe upstream. Where has any of the pistol whipping we see there been useful, where has it moved any opinion, made any positive difference, among the whipped, the others in the conversation, or the quite onlooker? No where, I submit.

As for Dawkins, he's totally civil all the time. British accent and everything. That does not make him nice, and it does not make him a warrior in his cause. But he's very civil about it all. So is PZ, by the way.

I know it is funny talking about civility on a gorilla-blog, but the blogosphere is a strange place.

I welcome any and all to disagree with me, but please be civil. And so will I.

quiet onlooker, he meant. Not a warrior he meant.

Isabel:

Many commenters even agreed with me, and provided evidence for that view.

I actually counted the comments that agreed with you among the first 50, and there were only 3, of which two by the same author (yeah, I like being right, which is why I check these things). What did you think your cherry-picking would prove?

Money quote: "Lay low and let others do the talking". How much clearer do you want it to be spelled out? "

Are you serious, or is that a snarky reference to Nisbet?

I'm trying to say that telling two biologists who are generally considered to be good science communicators to "lay low and let others do the talking" about a movie on "Intelligent Design" is not the most intelligent thing to say. Especially not since both of them are actually in that movie.

Nisbet even says it twice for good measure. The "This is not about censoring your ideas and positions" part can safely be ignored, just like people can safely ignore "I don't think you're an idiot" if it is followed by "but I think you shouldn't say all those stupid things".

You said you wanted a single example of attempted censorship and stupidity, well, there you have it: in very clear language, Nisbet tells people to stay quiet. About matters that directly concern them. Please don't ask me to spell it out even further.

In fact, this is a clear example that shows that being civil is not just a matter of avoiding certain words (like "idiot" for instance). There are clearly plenty of ways to use entirely civil language and still convey the message of "STFU".

But I would still like to see an actual example of him being offensive, or censoring. I obviously share his concerns. Am I also being an idiot? I honestly am not familiar with him, except following the links above, which did not seem so offensive.

I can only add my voice to the mix of those who made comments at his blog that didn't get posted. And my comments to him, were pretty much exactly what I said in my last comment here.

Beyond that, he has specifically told several of the Seed scibloggers that they should shut up and let others do the talking. He has managed to even alienate most of his old allies in these parts, people who have actually backed his bullshit in the past, because it has become increasingly obvious that if you don't say exactly what he thinks you should say, he wants you to shut the hell up.

Are you serious, or is that a snarky reference to Nisbet?

No, those were Nisbet's exact words - don't remember where not going to take the time to look for it.

But why aren't people offended by the aggressiveness of Dawkins' approach - how is he not proselytizing?

And what the hell is wrong with proselytizing? I did it for years as a fundie - I also happen to have issues with my old Faith and the serious psychological damage it did to me and continues to do to people I care about. I am sure and damn well going to spend some of my time trying to make it easier on people of Faith to give it up.

And why the hell would they be offended? Because he happens to be criticizing religion? Give me a damned break. Religionists say unbelievably offensive things about atheists all the time. He makes some reasonable critiques about religion and this is somehow offensive?

About the harshest thing he has said about religion, was claiming that inundating children with religion can often be a form of child abuse. Guess what Isabel, he's right. You want to argue that point, wander over to my blog and click on the tag "Faith." I damned well lived it and am still dealing with the repercussions at thirty-two.

I didn't read his athesist books, but have read many interviews and heard him speak (RD) and his view seems simplistic as well.

So you haven't actually read his books, where he can actually really get into the meat of things - instead, you base your opinion of his views on the shallow end - interviews and speaking engagements. You understand that this is why people are kind of critical of your grasp of the discussion at hand, right?

Okay I followed the quote, read 50 posts, and learned nothing new. Many commenters even agreed with me, and provided evidence for that view. Also, I seem to have as much background and investment in the subject as everyone else here.

I have a rather interesting investment into this whole discussion which has ultimately been going on for about three years now - at least as I've been involved.

This very discussion has had a rather profound influence on me and was a contributor to my finally getting out of the bullshit I have spent way too much of my life in. My position on Nisbet's attitude has changed not only as he has become increasingly irrational, but my base view on the topic of speaking out against religion has also changed.

Nisbet wants people like me to shut up and let others do the talking. Sorry, but I am not going to do that and frankly, I think the position he espouses is absolutely idiotic. I don't think he's an idiot, just ignorant, condescending and shortsighted. But I am sure as hell not going to shut up and leave it in his hands.

I concede I may have missed some major incidents but can you blame me for not wanting to wade through a bunch of old, heated arguments... Is asking for a specific date or other reference really asking too much? Or a good article that sums up the situation?

Give me a break. This is a discussion that has been going on for three years or so, across innumerable blogs. Three years of Matt whining and ultimately losing virtually all of the support he had early in this bullshit, because he is flat wrong. So yeah, you are asking a bit much - do a damned search.

Those of us who have not been harmed by religion, and do not want to throw out a big part of our cultural heritage and don't think that we know all the answers, can be easily offended by aggressive (calling believers idiots for example) atheists.

Do you have any idea how absolutely grotesque that sounds to someone who has been harmed by religion? Do you have the faintest clue how offensive that statement would be to someone who is engaged in their Faith absolutely?

Quite honestly, I don't give a pile of dogpoo for how offended you might be by my criticism of Faith. I'm not talking to you anyways, except to wish you would stop lending convenient numeric support to the fundies I am talking to.

I was damaged by religion. I know a lot of others who have been, who are in various stages of dealing with it. I am going to say things that people like you are going to find offensive, because saying those things can help others who are like I was. I don't care if you don't like it and I sure as hell won't apologize for it or even consider stopping.

Frankly, I find your position on faith rather offensive, even as I have espoused it myself at stages in my life.

Just to clarify, Isabel, while I find your position on faith offensive, I don't dislike you for it. There are many things that I find offensive, without translating that into distinct distaste for the person espousing them.

On the point made by Bora @39: yes, people who call for civility often intend to shut down the other side, but that does mean that one cannot have a civil disagreement (see post heading). I am not calling for a shutdown of others - Kemibe had every right to dispute the ideas and actions that he did. Imerely say that it is better to do so in a civil manner.

It all boils down to what you think disagreement is for. If you think it is a matter of vindictive struggle against one's enemies (who will be first against the wall when you get the upper hand politically) then civility is a failure of nerve. If, on the other hand, you think that disagreement is about, at least in part, having a rational debate in order to try to convince others that their position is unfounded, then civility is an untrammeled good.

Guess what I think?

And I also would like specific examples of the behaviour that Nisbet, Dawkins, and others are accused of; not because I don't think that they didn't do it, but because vague claims lead to uncivil disputes.

Like I said, I'm old fashioned.

untrammeled

Adj. 1.- not confined or limited; "the gift of a fresh eye and an untrammeled curiosity"- Russell Lord; "the untrammeled rush that the snows had shown in the first spring sun"- Farley Mowat

I got a million of 'em.

It all boils down to what you think disagreement is for. If you think it is a matter of vindictive struggle against one's enemies (who will be first against the wall when you get the upper hand politically) then civility is a failure of nerve. If, on the other hand, you think that disagreement is about, at least in part, having a rational debate in order to try to convince others that their position is unfounded, then civility is an untrammeled good.

There are more than those two options, but koodos on your framing abilities.

I tend to be civil for the most part, but there are limits. Is it always productive to call people names? No. But there are times when it is warranted. And there are even times when it is productive.

When I am arguing with someone, I am not simply arguing to try to convince my opponent - usually that is pointless anyways. I am arguing for one of two reasons, sometimes both. First, I want someone else to change my mind - the closer I get to convinced, the harder I will push - the more challenging I will be. Second, I want to foster an exchange that will be of the most benefit to the folks who are reading the discussion and making up their minds. I do it all the time and know that a lot of others probably do as well.

And as unpleasant a truth, there is no question that calling the unwaveringly dense out for it has an impact on the undecided viewer. When the argument is logical and solidly backed by evidence there are many people who will also react to the idea that people are likely to righteously mock them if they espouse said bullshit.

Beyond that, it is also cathartic - therapeutic at times.

And I also would like specific examples of the behaviour that Nisbet, Dawkins, and others are accused of; not because I don't think that they didn't do it, but because vague claims lead to uncivil disputes.

Sorry, but I really don't have time to go through three years worth of posts surrounding Nisbet's bullshit, for the very "best." It's not even that he's entirely wrong - framing is important and treating one's allies with nothing but derision isn't a smart thing to do.

Pointing out one single incident isn't showing the pattern and I doubt any of us has time to hash through possibly hundreds of posts over three years to really see the pattern. Bottom line is that Matt has repeatedly told people to shut up about things they feel strongly about. The sort of discussion that I tend to get into - mostly with the people around me, here in the midwest, are places that I do exactly the sorts of things that Matt says we shouldn't.

And sometimes I'm not civil about it. When people try to push their "but if you would only consider this" bullshit on me, I tend to snap and hard. I studied theology, theology that I agreed with and theology I thought was patently ridiculous, old and modern. I studied mainstream and fringe loon, liberal and conservative. I meditated, I prayed - I did everygoddamn thing possible. Eventually I lost the war of attrition, reason over Faith.

But not for lack of trying.

When people question my consideration of this issue, I get fucking angry. When people try to shove their faith down my throat, I don't sit back and politely take it. I respond. And quite often my responses are construed with offense - they aren't usually offensive, never on a par with the offensiveness of the person I am arguing with.

But Matt thinks I should shut the hell up and let others do the talking. Never mind that there are bullheaded asshats out there who really need to hear things that are put less politely - I know because I was one of those asshats.

But there is no one incident that would warrant calling Matt an idiot or accusing him of ignorance. It is the pattern of behavior that's indicitive. And in all honesty, after observing and taking part in this discussion for the last three years, accusing him of idiocy or ignorance is the kinder route, because the behavior indicates either ignorance or dishonest opportunism. From my view, ignorant or idiot is the prettier picture one can paint.

But if you want a good starting point - here you go. But don't stop there. Click on his framing science tag. Read some of the things he has to say - go through a couple years and especially focus on the posts that specifically criticize individual people and see what he has to say to them.

I would post a few more links, but don't want to muck about with spam filters.

DuWayne, I was not aiming at you directly, but thanks for the response. That makes it easier to see the behaviour that you and others find objectionable.

As to my framing abilities [insert grin here]: of course there are other possibilities (one may disagree in order to cast doubt on the probity of a disputant, for example), I have in mind the one argument of Plato's that I do agree with, as outlined in The Sophist - dispute must be based on reason and not rhetorical flourish. That is, of course, a moral claim, and one that is defeatable. But I'm making a moral claim, or rather taking a moral position. I have no fear of "full and frank" disagreement (read: full-on barney) when it is caled for. You make a case that it is called for here. I do not think it is, once one steps back a bit and puts this whole thing in perspective, but mileages vary. All I would say is that we should always keep in mind that scene from Life of Brian:

BRIAN:
Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG:
Fuck off!
BRIAN:
What?
REG:
Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS:
Wankers.
BRIAN:
Can I... join your group?
REG:
No. Piss off.
BRIAN:
I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA:
Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG:
Schtum.
JUDITH:
Are you sure?
BRIAN:
Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG:
Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN:
I do!
REG:
Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN:
A lot!
REG:
Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.:
Yeah...
JUDITH:
Splitters.
P.F.J.:
Splitters...
FRANCIS:
And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.:
Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA:
And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.:
Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG:
What?
LORETTA:
The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG:
We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA:
Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG:
People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS:
Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG:
He's over there.
P.F.J.:
Splitter!

Some people have done things or joined organizations that deserve no respect, one such person is the Pope. When you can question something that most people take for granted, like religion, then you can likewise question institutions people take for granted, like the papacy, and the people in them. Every time you respect the Pope, you give him power over people's lives. But it's not just the Pope; I only talk about him because you used him as one of the people that have said idiotic things but is not an idiot.

Sure you don't want to go around ridiculing everyone, but there is no harm trying to turn people against religious views or other misguided views by ridiculing those with disproportionate power or a contemptible veneer of authority. Also, there is no harm defending oneself against attacks. Please point me to a religion that (or more specifically to the leaders of a religion who) respects atheism. There isn't one because they are all so self-protective that they lash out constantly against reality to keep it at bay. Turning the other cheek is a fool's response (and intentionally a double standard created by the religious) when the relationship is not meaningful between the smacker and the smacked.

Greg Laden sent me here.

It's very strange. You are actively demonstrating one argument for refraining from calling people idiots. It's because, in an argument about matters of substance such as Vatican policy on birth control, or in the ongoing debate about the proper place of religion in a secular culture, or appropriate tactics for advancing atheism, there are some people who will completely ignore the topic at hand to clutch their pearls in horror that someone would see no virtue in the proponents of a stupid idea, and would actually address them rudely.

I'm afraid, though, that some of us see those timid paragons of propriety as part of the problem. If all you have to contribute to an argument is demands for civility, you aren't actually part of the debate, and should be ignored.

I think there is a big difference between timidity and civility, where civility = thoughtfulness and care in communication.

The real truth here is that some people are just plain good at this and some people are one trick ponies.

I really hesitate to ask which one am I...

"I do think that there's absolutely no need to tie accepting evolution with rejecting religion, and insofar as anyone does that, they are making claims that are unnecessary and hurt the overall acceptance of evolution in the community."

Or, as religion continues to fade, evolution/nature will be taught as a rational alternative to "god". Evolution DOES make sense, imo.

If your main concern is the overall acceptance of evolution, why throw away (one of) our best ally against the irrational creation stories of the bible/koran?

Wilkins, you are a gorilla. You are good at eating green salad.

But seriously, I thnk you are very skilled. Otherwise they would have not let you onto the internet!!!

PZ Myers: "there are some people who will completely ignore the topic at hand to clutch their pearls in horror that someone would see no virtue in the proponents of a stupid idea, and would actually address them rudely."

But it's not necessarily mere rudeness at issue. When the rude insults also entail a false claim, e.g. the pope is an idiot, then the other side can distract from the important issues by taking offense over the false claim. Heck, the false claim doesn't even need to be made outright. Insinuation works as well, and then the other side gets to taking offense at both the claim and the disingenuousness with which it is implied.

Of course, sometimes incivility itself can be a problem. There was one time (and not, AFAICT, "several times, after being warned" as you claimed) that you considered it a grave insult to use your daughter's own words as a counterexample to the remark, "Now, define 'strident'. Near as I can tell, it's simply being an atheist and publicly arguing against god-belief." I would think that being on the receiving end of that incivility should have made you a bit more sympathetic to others treated uncivilly.

The term idiot is not a slang term, but actually an archaic medical term.

Definition: Idiot - a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

Once again suggesting that that the term scienceblogs is an oxymoron.

It actually comes from the Greek for "own self" or "unique". But the English term is a term of abuse. This is argument. Or being hit on the head; I haven't quite decided.

It all boils down to what you think disagreement is for. If you think it is a matter of vindictive struggle against one's enemies (who will be first against the wall when you get the upper hand politically) then civility is a failure of nerve. If, on the other hand, you think that disagreement is about, at least in part, having a rational debate in order to try to convince others that their position is unfounded, then civility is an untrammeled good.

Third possibility: You consider the people you are disagreeing with completely irredeemable, and you are disagreeing to provide (1) entertainment and inspiration to the people who already agree with you or (2) (more importantly) an example to the people who may not have formulated an explicit opinion one way or the other. In both cases, there will be some in the target audience who are "turned off" by incivility but there will also be some who are "turned on". This is why there is room for both civil and incivil disagreement in the public sphere.

Comrade Physioprof, whom I think is a very smart but often misguided person, is correct. Unfortunately, he is a total idiot, and I say that with all due respect, when it comes to assessing people's standing on various important issues (for instance, he considers yours truly to be a racist, a sexist, and a misogynist, which simply is not true and demonstrably so). On top if this, he is, I'm afraid, an utter moron when it comes to deciding who is "irredeemable." Therefore, I submit, he lacks credibility and he ends up in the eyes of anyone with a brain attached to those eyes looking like a clown most of the time.

Which is unfortunate, because he cuddaben somebody.

He is also utterly predictable. Watch.

Therefore, I submit, he lacks credibility and he ends up in the eyes of anyone with a brain attached to those eyes looking like a clown most of the time.

Which is unfortunate, because he cuddaben somebody.

He is also utterly predictable. Watch.

Dude, that shit's too hilarious to even come close to getting me going. Decent shot, though.

utterly predictable

He does exactly what I trick him into doing every time. In this case, dropping it. Just call me Greg Svengali Laden. 'cept not evil.

utterly predictable

I gotta admit, that was kind of clever. Of course, if I had gone to town on your sorry ass, you would have claimed that I had done exactly what you predicted. In fact, now you will claim that you predicted that I would assert this.

CHECKMATE!

Exactly. In fact I wrote what you just did down on a piece of paper and sealed in in THIS ENVELOPE ... Including the word "Checkmate"!

Oh, I wouldn't begin to go that far John. For one, I am far too serious to get the voices right.

What it boils down to though, is uneasy alliances - I make them quite often. For example, I am very keen on personal autonomy, like a great many libertarians I know. At the same time, my strong support for universal health care puts me fundamentally at odds with those same people. Does that mean I am going to just disavow them altogether - no, hell a lot of them are my close friends. What it means is that I am going to have some very tough conversations with some of my friends, conversations that are occasionally going to be less than civil.

Likewise, I have a lot of rather harsh discussions about religion. Especially when I am talking to people who accept scientific explanations for how the world and the universe work, while also maintaining their faith. I'm not very nice about it, because I don't mince words. And sometimes folks get offended by my position, but I have yet to come across anyone who decided to quit accepting science because of what I have to say. OTOH, I have dealt with people who changed their anti-science views because of what I had to say. Likewise, I have dealt with people who found my anti-Christianity views rather compelling to varying degrees. Not that they turn around and denounce their Faith on the spot - many such people may never do so. But they can understand why I am angry and integrate that in their lives and into their Faith paradigm in meaningful ways.

Civility is a tool and nothing more. Like any tool, it has it's uses, but again, like any tool, those uses are limited. Being less than civil is also a tool and there are often times when it is very much the appropriate tool for the job.

Allies are great, but when there are very fundamental differences of opinion, your comical relief analogy really doesn't hold. I couldn't really splinter off from my libertarian allies, because I am not a libertarian. Likewise I cannot splinter off from my religious allies who support good science education - because I am no longer one of them. The alliances are limited to very specific issues.

It's for nisbet to give citations of all the comments he has censored, together with his reasons for doing so and, in most cases, an apology. This info is not difficult for sciBlog admins to collate and publish but nisbet should be given a week to try and salvage whatever shred of decency he may still have.

Sometimes civility is used to try and sneak obscenity under the radar. In these cases, it may take an impolite response to bring the obscenity to people's attention. Of course, this usually results in them trying to make the incivility the issue rather than the original offense, but that says more about them than it does about us.

In yet other cases, the incivility is so subtle and so wrong that a long, thought-out reply is not immediately forthcoming. You are rendered speechless and can only muster a cry of anguish and rage. The considered response does have to follow, else people may think you have fallen mad.

Everyone seems to make good points.

Most of what I read predates the internal combustion engine and the children of the enlightenment threw the words idiot, jackass, brute and monster around fairly freely. They did it ad hominem and without caveat.

I have noticed the bleed of Christian apologists in the comments sections of sciblogs is always accompanied by this creepy insincere Victorian saccharine prose. There is a lot of bowing and scraping and Milord happening. I think it is a set-up to shout "uncivil" at your opponent when you have run out of cerebral ammunition.

I have no use for that and "idiot" works for me.

As to the broader political issue of "staying under radar" until the immediate goal is fulfilled. I understand the pragmatism of the position. I have my doubts about the moral footing of choosing expedience and a wobble over swinging the whole pendulum back towards rationality.

I have a pin that belonged to my great grandmother. It is rose gold with a pearl surrounded by peridot stones. This was made so suffragettes could identify each other when they were incognito and supporting what they were told were "more pressing" causes like abolition prohibition pacifism integration free textbooks unionism civil rights universal health care blah blah blah blah blah. Women are still waiting for equal protection under law in this country while their supposed supporters are telling them be quiet and they will float to the top of the agenda.

I am not sure I have that kind of patience.

eddie:

In yet other cases, the incivility is so subtle and so wrong that a long, thought-out reply is not immediately forthcoming. You are rendered speechless and can only muster a cry of anguish and rage.

Your cry of "anguish and rage," that is, the claim that Joe Shelby "supports child abuse and wants our new pres to do also," looked like a claim that Shelby was a pedophile, which made no sense at all considering the context and was utterly confusing. To be fair, you did clarify later that you were using "child abuse" in the same sense that Dawkins did, that is, in reference to bringing up children in a religion. However, that just highlights how screwed up it is for Dawkins to trivialize the phrase "child abuse" in the first place. That's where incivility can take you.

It is difficult to be uncivil while staying intellectually honest. More to the point, the mindset that makes it easier to be uncivil, that is, being contemptuous and even hateful of one's adversaries, tends to cloud one's judgment. One doesn't dig as deeply in one's investigations, one gets credulous about factoids that make one's opponents look bad, and so on.

I welcome any and all to disagree with me, but please be civil. And so will I.

ROFLMAO!This Greg Laden?

JJ: nice post -

"It is difficult to be uncivil while staying intellectually honest. More to the point, the mindset that makes it easier to be uncivil, that is, being contemptuous and even hateful of one's adversaries, tends to cloud one's judgment."

Very well said.