The plea is from your host, Professor Ceiling Cat Emeritus. Matthew called to my attention a post written on the Times Higher Education (THE) blog by Matthew Reisz—a post that apparently was published earlier and has just been republished. Called “Torrents of bile: publish and be damned,” Reisz’s piece decries the invective heaped on people by Internet commenters, anonymous or not. Reisz is especially exercised by a post I wrote about him five years ago, criticizing his accommodationism in another of his THE pieces. I stand by my own piece, which is think is pretty civil, but Reisz says that some of the comments below it were rude, and I have to agree with him. Here’s some of what he says:
. . . the other day, when I was searching for something else, I happened to come across a post on the Why Evolution is True website, where I was subjected to some pretty startling abuse.
I was accused of “promoting a science-faith lovefest”, being “pretty much biased against atheists”, and producing “totally juvenile”, “massively tedious…bilge”, fit only for being “put in the recycling bin or better still in the cat litter tray”. I was called “an asshole” and a “so-called journalist” who managed not only to “miss the target when he shot his arrow” but to send it in “the wrong direction”, where it “came around and shot him square in the ass”.
One contributor to the thread wondered whether I was “really so blind or stupid” or just “a manipulative prick”. Another (don’t tell my boss) was “shocked at such an appalling article being in the Times Higher Ed”. A third – best of all – suggested I was “lying for Jesus”.
None of this was very pleasant to read, although it is pretty trivial compared with the kind of garbage women and minority groups have to put up with all the time. But what is really weird is just how distant it seems from what I actually wrote. Amid what strike me as a few valid criticisms and a few more I am happy to reflect on, torrents of bile were directed at me for minor irrelevancies, things I hadn’t said (and don’t believe) or comments I had quoted from others. Far from being “biased against atheists”, I am – for what it’s worth – a pretty convinced atheist myself. And although I am sceptical about whether science and religion are engaged in a battle to the death, that hardly means I want to “promote a lovefest”.
Some of these comments were more offensive than others, but calling Reisz an “asshole” and a “manipulative prick” is simply out of bounds here. What I’m asking for now is this: is when commenting on a piece by someone who’s not a known charlatan, miscreant, or historical jerk (i.e., not people like Deepak Chopra or Ken Ham), readers should try to ratchet down the name-calling and deal with the arguments at hand. In other words, try to be civil and battle over ideas.
The Roolz (read them again) specify that we’re not to abuse other commenters or call them names. I’d like to add that we should extend similar courtesy to people who write articles with which I or the readers disagree. I know this is a fine line, because I myself sometimes give in to the urge to characterize people as idiots or mushbrains. And sometimes, as in the case of Chopra et al., it’s appropriate. But have a look at Reisz’s post and see if you wouldn’t feel bad if those names were hurled at you. All in all, he handled it pretty well, and I’ll apologize on his website for the name-calling.
Thanks,
—The Management
As a digestif, reader Taskin informs me that the squirrels are very fat in Ottawa this winter, and the CBC has published a piece about their avoirdupois (be sure to go through the pix at the top), showing some tw**ts produced by readers. They also ask for Canadians to send pictures of fat squirrels to cbcnewsottawa@cbc.ca. One specimen:
https://twitter.com/kdtemp/status/674931074347229184
Be sure to feed the squirrels this winter, as they don’t hibernate and need food. I’ve just got a big bag of sunflower seeds.
Ok!! But everytning I have read on this site is very civil except for those who do not follow da rulz. And PCC takes care of those. I, for one, would not want to be reprimanded for not following da rulz!!!
I can no longer read every comment on every post, though I do try, so sometimes unwarranted rudeness can slip through the cracks. I won’t ask readers to snitch on each other for this, but try policing each other if you see it.
I ain’t no cop … but will nonetheless consider myself duly deputized under Da posse comitatus Roolz, boss.
Badgers? We don’t need no stinking badgers!
Bravo to Jerry for this post. I would just add that civility is best even for people like Chopra. Otherwise we can’t point our fingers at the people who uncivilly bash, say, Sam Harris. And I do so love to point fingers.
I prefer not to concentrate on the tone alone; Criticism ought to have some content.
And there are certainly valid grounds for criticising Harris. An example Harris’ fans seem entirely unable to perceive his faults, which contributes to the escalation of such discussions.
That article accuses Harris of inconsistency, hypocrisy, being a closet right-wing racist, etc. It seems to me that the author has fallen completely for the “Islamophobia” gambit, painting any criticism whatsoever of Islam as racism. There IS a sane middle ground between the extreme right-wing racism of Trump, and the mush-brained refusal of the liberal left to recognize the ideology of Islamic fascism as evil, as a threat to civilized liberal values.
There are valid grounds for criticising Harris on some issues, but they are not to be found in this article.
I disagree. The main point of the article was that Harris frequently contradicts himself within his own arguments. And this is so. He says “We shouldn’t stereotype Muslims, but…” That point was made very clearly, with multiple examples.
BTW, Harris himself has stated that Islamophobia does not exist. I hope we can agree that he was wrong on that one.
Harris has pointed out, as I did above, that the word “Islamophobia” is a deliberately deceptive and ambiguous term, invented by Islamists (and, astonishingly, embraced by the liberal left) to conflate criticism of Islamic ideology with racism. It’s a way to make odious Islamic ideology immune from criticism by demonizing critics as racists.
You are now using that very same deceptive and ambiguous term to make some claim about Harris’s views. So what, precisely, do you think Harris has claimed “does not exist”? Are you inferring that Harris thinks racism does not exist?
I’ve read and listened to a lot of Harris, though not everything, but I’ve never heard him come close to denying Islamophobia exists. It’s obvious from the fact that Donald Trump has millions of followers. It would be very inconsistent with his view that the claims of Islamophobia against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, and other X-Muslims, as well as himself, are misplaced because they are attacking ideologies not people. That is, Islam not individual Muslims. Do you have a source for that statement?
“I’ve read and listened to a lot of Harris, though not everything, but I’ve never heard him come close to denying Islamophobia exists.”
Read this.
Lifting the Veil of “Islamophobia”
A few weeks ago, Ayaan and I had a long conversation about her critics and about the increasingly pernicious meme of “Islamophobia”—which our inimitable friend Christopher Hitchens once dubbed “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” [NOTE 5/11/14: This wonderful sentence seems to have been wrongly attributed to Hitch (who was imitable after all). I’m told these words first appeared in a tweet from Andrew Cummins. Well done, Andrew!]
He’s quoting someone else there, but he clearly approves of the quote.
I don’t think this quote, or the article you reference makes the case that Harris believes Islamophobia, (that is bigotry against Muslims) does not exist. He really does not address whether it does or doesn’t. He simply makes the point that the term is often used to silence legitimate criticism of Islam.
“Increasingly, questioning Islam results in a person’s being vilified as an “Islamophobe” and a “bigot””.
Nowhere does he say bigotry against Muslims does not exist. I think you would have to be pretty ignorant to think that, and Harris is not ignorant. It’s clear from the context that the existence of bigotry against Muslims is simply assumed as a backdrop for the way it is used illegitimately as an excuse for attacking Ali and other critics.
I think the point is that “Islamophobia” is not a useful, precise nor accurate synonym for “bigotry against Muslims”. It’s very seldom used in that sense (”Muslimophobia” would be a more appropriate term, though I’d personally deprecate it), but rather to mean “unduly harsh criticism of Islam that implicitly and ineluctably demonstrates a hatred of all Muslims”.
/@
+1 with regard to this article.
I haven’t read enough of Harris to pick up on points of disagreement, but the examples of Harris’s given in the above article seem rationale, despite the author’s claims that they are inconsistent; the author seems to misunderstand Harris.
I disagree with Harris sometimes too. However, if you haven’t read his work yourself, you need to be careful, because there are several people out there who have deliberately lied about and mischaracterized his views. They include known charlatans like CJW, but also other more respected journalists like Greenwald.
Thanks, Heather. That’s good to know.
My comment above was intended to mean that I’d read the article critiquing Harris in the same way that Ralph had. That is, I didn’t think the author’s particular points about Harris made sense. I disagreed with the author’s logic, which I could do independent of reading Harris. Because I haven’t read Harris, I’m not a Harris fan, and I still couldn’t fault Harris based on the article provided.
If I’ve jumped in a firestorm, it was accidental. Perhaps I should read Harris and see what I think of his views 🙂
I wasn’t criticizing you, just sayin’. Also, I was commenting without even reading the article Jerry linked to, so I have no idea if that’s what has happened here, which is my bad.
There’s a bit of a firestorm going on between what Maajid Nawaz has termed the “regressive left” (I love that term!) and Sam Harris. It seems to me that a lot of those who don’t like Harris have heard misrepresentations of his views and oppose him based on those. Of course, many disagree with him for perfectly valid reasons too (whether I agree with their reasons or not). Because of the atheist in-fighting, it can be difficult to know where the truth lies sometimes when it comes to anti-Harris stuff.
Yes, Heather I agree but I grow so tired of defending Sam Harris. Many who hate him so vehemently have only read misquotes, outright lies and things taken out of context.
I don’t agree with everything Sam Harris says (he hasn’t convinced me to use the word, “spirtual” though I respect his argument) but I find as soon as you make a reasoned argument defending Sam, you are accused of being a fanboy (doubly funny when you’re female).
Give me a break, I argue with everybody (and get in trouble for it occasionally from authority figures).
“Perhaps I should read Harris and see what I think of his views :-)”
I couldn’t recommend that highly enough! You might start, as a lot of us did, with The End of Faith, a good introduction to his philosophy, style, and arguments. No matter what you conclude I predict you’ll come away impressed with his clarity and page-turning prose, often with material that by any other author could be dry & tedious. And after TEoF, be sure to follow up with Letter to a Christian Nation.
There, I’ve done your Xmas book-list for you. 😀
Thanks, Diane 🙂
From the consistency of kindness in your comments, I trust and value your reading recommendation and judgment and will pick up copies TEoF and A Letter to a Christian Nation.
Yikes, I’m not sure I recognize myself in your comment–but thank you, anyway!
Several people have complained about quoting Harris directly, and being accused of misquoting him. It has even happened to me.
“It seems to me that the author has fallen completely for the “Islamophobia” gambit, painting any criticism whatsoever of Islam as racism.”
Which doesn’t surprise me given that in the small excerpt above he seems to conflate insults he received for his opinions with insulting people receive based on their race, or gender.
One is a choice (determinism aside), perhaps deserving of criticism, ridicule, and even insults, the other an accident of birth.
I am trying to understand this. Could you give me an example of someone (or several) who constitute the “liberal left”. Obama, e.g., is _not_ a leftist, not even in the US of A. Well, now that I think of it, compared to the Repugs, maybe he is. Sigh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left
Leftists who view Muslims as a homogeneous oppressed group, and seek to demonize any criticism of the odious aspects of Islamic ideology as equivalent to anti-Muslim racist “hate speech” – even, bizarrely, when such criticism comes from Muslims themselves.
A recent extreme example was the surreal situation at Goldsmiths College, where Feminist and LGBT groups aligned themselves with the local branch of Islamo-fascist thugs who tried to silence Maryam Namazie.
Hmmm. Does this mean that only those (of us) on the left who do not recognize bigotry within certain groups for PC reasons are regressive? (This is not me, incidentally.)
What are we who are looking for the truth? Scientists, in spirit, yes; in practice, sometimes. Skeptics, certainly. Liberals, I think so, but that term is often ill-used too. Leftists, well most of the people in this group seem to be fairly leftist in their ideas, meaning that they lean towards collective solutions to the problems of society. Certainly not all and not always.
I wince a little every time somebody throws around a term like this without any sort of indication that it does not necessarily refer to a whole group. (Please do not consider that I am easily offended, like some we have talked about lately.) Yet, we can not just give up group labels.
I was surprised to see a Wikipedia article about the “regressive left”. Maybe I just don’t get around much anymore. (Good song.)
John, that’s my mistake. I should have been more explicit – I had no intention to imply that all people who would generally identify with liberal or left-leaning values should be tarred with the same brush. Most people on this site, including me, would generally identify with traditional liberal values.
In the context of this conversation on this site, probably most people understood what I meant. But it would have been clearer if I had used the specific term “regressive left” throughout, which may be unfamiliar to some, but which is more carefully defined.
“Harris’ fans seem entirely unable to perceive his faults…”
Wrongo. I guess I count myself as a fan of his, although I don’t agree with everything he says (I find his position on guns bewildering). All we fans ask is that when taking Harris to task on a particular issue (which is more than ok), just represent his positions accurately when doing it. Too often, his actual positions seem to be distorted by his critics.
Whatever Sam’s faults, he has at least two qualities that I admire. One, he is not afraid to challenge norms and the status quo, and he (seems at least) to be honestly interested in what is actually true. By contrast, a lot of his fiercest critics seem to be serial liars.
Well said. And apropos to a conversation on civility, I think. Whatever you think of Sam’s views, he is a clear and lucid writer, and the persistent misrepresentation and quoting out of context are unforgivable. It’s appallingly dishonest. I find this far more uncivil and offensive than accusing someone of having a lovefest of bilgemongering poopyheads.
Exactly. Just because you say it with an earnest expression and a lack of colorful metaphors doesn’t mean you are being polite. It may mean that you are being deceptive in addition to being impolite.
Yes, I agree. From what I’ve seen of Sam Harris, he welcomes honest disagreement and discussion but that’s not what is happening to him and I’m surprised he has the energy to deal with it. I admire his fortitude; I certainly would have told the world to kiss my white, anemic ass long ago if I were subjected to the kind of abuse he has had to tolerate and respond to.
That’s putting it very succinctly.
I think Sam’s only real mistake might be over-estimating the reading age of some people who see his articles.
As far as I can see, if you’re incapable of having a rational discussion with Sam Harris, you’re incapable of having one with anyone at all.
I called him coprochopra once. I hope that is still okay.
To paraphrase a line from one of my favourite films, “I’ve only had a few light ales officer” but I’m still feeling somewhat tired and emotional and “over refreshed”. At times like these, WEIT is an oasis of civility in a desert of internet nastiness. Long may it prosper.
+1
I agree! When I first discovered this site it was like a breath of fresh air after Twi**er. I now spend about twice as much time here as I ever spent on Twi**er, and enjoy it more.
Me, too. I still flitter through Twi**er for genetics and epidemiology mostly, but WEIT is teaching me more. I just learned from your comments above, Heather. I now have some context about the term “regressive left,” which was not in my lexicon until about a month ago! Though I’ve been atheist in my thinking for years, I wasn’t part of the atheist community until I discovered WEIT this past summer. I’m such a naive new atheist (pun intended), I haven’t even read the God Delusion yet. I’m learning from Jerry and all of you.
This is probably the only site I read comments on. I remember reading Jerry’s articles and thinking “oh god no I can’t read the comments” but when I worked up the courage to do so I was so happy to see how smart everyone was! I rarely venture to the comments of other sites and when I do I run away with a repulsed look on my face.
Every now and then I comment elsewhere, and I nearly always wish I hadn’t. There’s a much more decent community here imo.
Absolutely, I only leave a few comments here, but its still more than I leave everywhere else on teh interwebz altogether. For precisely the reasons above.
LOL “light ale”. Once in NZ, I asked for a “latte” and received beer. The server thought I said “light ale”. He wasn’t expecting my Canuck accent.
Or maybe your barista was just familiar with the 24/7 jones you Canucks got goin’ for Molson Golden and Labatt Blue.
Ugh. Did you see SNL this weekend with Mike Myers and Ryan Gosling singing about a Canadian Xmas?
No. Show’s lost its zest for me. Plus, you know, the Trump thing. If I hear there was something good on it, I’ll catch up to it during the week on youtube.
I’m guessing Myers & Gosling — not good, huh? (Let me know if it was really awful, so I can clock it for the schadenfreudes.)
My respect for WEIT and its management just tripled.
Brilliance and decorum. I’m a bit beside myself with how nice it is to see this modeled. Makes me feel like a better person and makes me want to brain as best as I can 🙂
There was a time when I used to outrage post. It felt good to insult horrible people and their even worse arguments.
I grew out of that. Because you know which people like to insult post? SJW’s. Heck, they jump on it every chance they get. It’s de rigueur for them.
And in fact, I am much happier now criticising folks without having to resort to insulting them. And it feels good to behave like an adult.
I’ve always preferred civil content over obnoxious ad hom, and I usually only resort to rudeness if I feel it’s really called for, which sometimes it is, imo.
And it is great to be able to read and participate in discussions that go somewhere because those involved don’t just get mired in insult wars.
Further, this is not my website. Jerry’s requests should be observed.
Having written that, I also think it’s kind of silly to get so upset over criticism from internet commenters, even if it is harshly worded ad hom. If someone responds to me with “you’re an asshole”, that’s his or her prerogative. I don’t think I’d go on a crusade trying to convince people you should never do that.
… I draw a line in the sand with my boot, responding “that’s Mister asshole, to you pardner” in my best John Wayne typing voice, then poise my hand above the keyboard awaiting the quick draw.
I type everything in an impossibly high-brow Dawkins English gentleman voice.
(In all seriousness, although I’m a native USian, when I read, my mind’s ear always hears an Engiish accent. For some reason.)
I hear those voices, too — some of ’em Brits. And whether they’re Cockney or Received Pronunciation, they tend to speak in amused sarcasm.
I’m fairly sure, based on all Hollywood movies I’ve ever seen, that this means you are both evil. Well, Cockney may be ok, it just needs subtitles.
It’s like a Guy Ritchie movie goin’ on up there in my noggin’ sometimes, I tell ya.
Or …
“Do you expect me to talk, Goldfinger?”
“No, Mr. Bond … I expect you to die.”
That makes me think of the Seinfeld episode where George gets a book recorded as a “book for the blind” because he can’t stand how his voice sounds in his head when he reads, only to discover that the guy reading the book sounds just like him.
+1
One of the reasons I’ve become a lot less belligerent on line is that such behavior acts as a barrier to learning new things. If you call someone an idiot, you essentially paint yourself into a corner with regard to your position. If you have framed the conversation as “you are an idiot because you believe in X”, what happens if you come to realize that X is correct? Does that mean that you are now an idiot?
At that point, the proper thing to do would be to apologize profusely to the person you have insulted. But 99/100, at least online, cognitive dissonance prevents us from admitting our error. In fact, we might double-down on the error with a variety of mechanisms to protect our pride and ego.
And therefore never learn anything new.
But if you had framed the convo in a civil manner, it would have been much easier to say “I’m wrong, you’re right” and still save face. And then a real transfer of knowledge can take place.
I think this can be applied to meat space too. I try not to call people names or mock them because I have instant karma for one thing. It’s often really hard…I have a list of idiots in my head and I’d love to let them know they are on the idiot list.
Well said Cindy, I agree!
Oops. Guilty as charged on the name calling, but I stand on the rest of what I said.
Yeah. Oops here too. But like you, again, I stand by what I said, though perhaps I could have left a hand full of words out.
And, heck, even Eric MacDonald was inspired to be a tiny bit insulting by that article and he is virtually a saint.
Critical remarks against Reisz’s suggestion that there is some correspondence between religion and science stand. Reisz is invited to show any compatibility can exist. And I am not the Kevin in that post. At the time of my birth the name was in the top twenty names.
I thought for sure I had done something bad but I hadn’t commented at all on that article. Phew!
Sounds good. IMO the internet is like a town full of eating establishments; you’ve got your high-end restaurants where jacket is required and every one speaks in hushed tones. And you’ve got your dive bars. Everyone’s lives are made richer by the variety being available. Jerry wants to slightly upscale his bar; scrape the sawdust off the dance floor and replace it with nice hardwood, as it were. Sounds fine to me!
But…but…but…Does the happy hour have half price drinks?
I think it’s BYOB.
Jazz Club.
/@ / LAS
… the internet is like a town full of eating establishments …
And Reisz is like the guy who always sends back the wine …
Agreed.
Funny, I thought it likely I was one of the offenders, but not so.
What got everyone’s goat was likely this:
“It’s terribly biased towards accommodationists, and quotes atheists only so their ideas can be dismissed.
The number of these types of articles is increasing, and believe me, it’s no fun to do exegesis on the same old arguments.”
The Old Accommodationists are so abusive to our culture, since they continue to dig in the same unproductive holes until the very rock foundation of rationality wears away. There is a roolz of holes…
Is there such a thing as an uncivil Scandinavian?!
I met one once who refused to share his umlauts and Ø.
Well as long as the Swede shared the å!
Time was when they just couldn’t help themselves from piling into longboats and sailing off to Britain for a spot of raping and pillaging. They seem to have grown out of that a long time ago and all the ones I know these days are very civil and civilized people!
It was those Brünnhilde-style helmets with the horns that drove them to it.
I think a lot of the invective is fueled by frustration of being unable to communicate with the offender. Just knowing that the author might be reading the comments is likely to produce a greater civility.
Being an atheist doesn’t preclude one from being biased against atheists.
I was thinking just yesterday about how much I appreciate the civility of comments here. A couple of times over the years I’ve made the odd ill-judged or poorly reasoned comment and been rebuked in the most decent way imaginable.
I would bet that this is one of the most civil sites on the internet. (I know that’s setting the bar pretty low, but I still appreciate it.)
And I appreciate the fully deserved exemption granted to Chopra.
I agree with all of the above. Civility, plus intelligence, insight, humor – and cats! What’s not to like?
Same thoughts re: Chopra.
I have often reflected on the civility here and it’s certainly a big reason I hang around. We all know sites where that isn’t at all the case, and after a while they become hard to endure.
And Chopra! I had the misfortune to stumble upon his little performance on Big Think about getting a good nights sleep. Pretty vanilla advice. Not the quantumspeak he usually effuses. The thing was, he looked tired and worn out like he’d thrashed about all night. He’s really starting to look unhealthy. I wonder if it might cut in to his magic pill sales?
Anyway, let’s keep it civil.
I’ve been coming here for years, too, and should I ever make my first ill-considered or poorly reasoned remark, I pray the same consideration be extended to me as well. 🙂 🙂
Same here, Ken. It would be presumptuous of us to presume we can continue to be perfect.
…or eschew redundancy.
Having been struck down by the heavenly vision from Professor Ceiling Cat, I went over to a certain public writing of mine recently posted elsewhere and changed my description of Donald Trump from a crude anatomical comparison to “bigoted narcissist,” which ought to be fairly self-evident and uncontroversial.
There is a point worth making, though: Sometimes you really have to characterize the kind of person in question to avoid giving any more credence to their views. In the unfortunate event I found myself discussing the vile ISIS-sympathetic spewings of Anjem Choudary, for example, I wouldn’t call him a “Muslim thinker” or some such. I think then I really would just have to go with an anatomical comparison of one kind or another.
In Trump’s case, that constitutes accuracy sacrificed on the alter of politesse … 🙂
I’m convinced it’s impossible — impossible, I tell ya, im-freakin’-possible — to say anything unfairly uncivil about Trump.
… although I intend to keep givin’ it a shot, every chance I get …
Thanks for this thoughtful reminder, Jerry. And if I can say something as a former-believer-turned-ex-Christian/atheist, it seems a fitting reminder at this time of year. I reject much of what I was taught and once embraced. Yet the Christmas season still inspires some hope and wonder in me, despite so many reasons for disillusionment and despair. So I hope that the holiday season encourages the peace and goodwill that it ought to.
As for those hungry squirrels, they used to get a large share of the seed intended for the birds when I fed them years ago. There’s a large black walnut tree in my yard, and I see the squirrels carting those off, so I think they’re probably doing okay. I might pick up some of those dried corn cobs on my next trip to the pet store, though.
“the Christmas season still inspires some hope and wonder in me”
Is that the Christmassy-iness of it, or the solstice-iness of it, Jeannine?
/@
Probably the Christmas-y part, although I know there’s plenty of pagan, Druid, secular, Dickens, what-have-you in the December stew.
My sister is actually a Pagan, and does Solstice and other rituals. She also celebrates Christmas, in a secular way.
Read Reisz’s THE post.
Of the comments he complains of here, a couple are over-the-top, but most seem pretty tame, within the rough-and-tumble you’d expect in the course of socio-politico-academic debate. (And the extended arrow metaphor in one comment struck me as kind of funny, if a bit snarky.)
To characterize these comments, as Reisz does in his piece, as “startling abuse,” smacks of hypersensitivity. If he finds the comment section here tough sledding, lord help him he should ever expose his innocent eyeballs to internet-world’s darker commentary recesses of 4chan, Reddit, and the like.
My thoughts also.
I was about to post the same thing. I glanced through those comments, and they relatively polite and restrained to me.
Yes, most are indeed civil. I was just putting myself in Reisz’s shoes, and realizing that it’s the nasty ones that sting. Believe me, I read the same kind of invective about me at other sites, and you never fully get used to it (though I guess Hitchens did).
Most indeed are civil on this site – the vast majority I’d say. It doesn’t hurt though to underline the need to maintain civility.
Aside from the fact that it is simply unpleasant to resort to insulting someone just because you disagree profoundly with them, I’d suggest that name-calling and insults can yield an undeserved moral high ground to the other side of the argument: “you can’t defeat my argument so you have to resort to name calling!.
Even in the case of chopra I would suggest that the nature of the insults that one permits oneself needs to be carefully chosen. Referring to his various apercus as ‘deepities’ is funny and to the point and succeeds in highlighting their essentially vacuous, false wisdom. Calling him an asshole, though (however strong the urge) merely allows him to pretend to have the better arguments.
“you can’t defeat my argument so you have to resort to name calling!”
I’d rather say, he can’t defeat your arguments and so he resorts to whining and “Madam, Johny called me …!”
Ya, I agree. Reisz includes both negative characterization of his ideas and name-calling under the header of abuse. To me, his beef with lovefest is oversensitive. While I favor decorum, I don’t think decorum means censor yourself from expressing possibly disagreeable ideas. And the idea conveyed with the lovefest metaphor seems solid. It is too bad that he didn’t filter through the tref</ to engage Jerry in a conversation about why he doesn’t see his view as accommodationist. Maybe the part of Reisz’s brain that gets triggered by imprecations was activated by some of the intendedly rude comments, maybe; however, it seems likely that Reisz saw an opportunity to politely character smudge new atheists rather than engage Jerry in the intellectual argument.
If our comments remain civil, Reisz and others should have to think harder themselves.
Agreed. Comparing compatibility to a lovefest is one of the mildest exaggerations I can think of…other than likefest, and who’s ever even heard of a likefest. Oversensitive.
I agree, if this is the worst abuse he’s suffered online, he’s going pretty well.
I just did–and ended up thinking–the same thing. If that’s the worst Reisz’s experienced I guess we can assume PZ never wrote about this guy…
Funny…was thinking the same thing.
I was thinking that if PZ did write about him, and he wrote an article complaining about it, it would not wind up with only two comments, one of which being a generous apology.
Ha, ha, so true!
Who is PZ?
(
To be brief–PZ Myers is a developmental biologist whose bl*g, Pharyngula, was one of the original and most popular of New Atheist websites for some time. Antithetically to PCCE, he famously refuses to police his commentariat, which consequently became one of the most scathing and clique-y communities online. Sort of jointly, IMO, PZ & crew gravitated completely to the regressive left, SJW POV and are since responsible for some very large percentage of internecine strife amongst the NAs and for some very justified anti-NA views amongst the non-NA public that still sees him as a spokesperson for the movement.
OK, so this is anything but brief. For a summary of his more positive contributions, see the Wikipedia article on him. (I just looked at it and felt that it seems to have been scrubbed of all controversy.) Perhaps someone else here will provide a link or two detailing his fall from grace, as it were.
Here is one example:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/04/08/atheist-ireland-publicly-dissociates-from-blogger-pz-myers/
Atheist Ireland is publicly dissociating itself from the hurtful and dehumanising, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric of the atheist blogger PZ Myers. The final of many, many straws were his latest smear that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is ‘happily exploiting atrocities’, and his subsequent description of Atheist Ireland’s chairperson as ‘the Irish wanker’. We are also asking all ethical organisations and individuals to consider how you can help to reverse his harmful impact on both individuals and the atheist movement generally.
That’s an excellent example–thanks!
Michael Nugent is a great guy too.
Now *that* is how you stand up to toxic sjw’s.
I wish I had his cojones (I am a woman and wishing I had cojones is suggesting that having ovaries is inferior ergo I am sexist please don’t punish me too hard :PPP)
I’ll never tell.
😀
@Cindy and Diane,
Thanks for the links and context on PZ Myers. I see PZ trained in the Pacific Northwest. This is good to know because it could influence people’s reactions to me if I say I’m an atheist and they connect atheism with him. My current mentor at the Hutch (who self describes as an atheist) hinted to me that he lost respect for some of the NA crowd. Some context for this: we in the public health sciences (epidemiology and biostatistics) tend to shy away from those who have a reputation for social misbehavior, as our field relies so heavily on collaboration, and well, frankly, not just being liked but managing public perception. I suspect this is why I don’t know of any vociferous epidemiologists who blog about atheism or humanism. So, being image sensitive, it’s helpful to know that saying I’m an atheist could be read as being a PZ-like confrontationalist–a perception I’d need to triage. This is especially so for me, as I’m more willing to take risks and voice dissension than most in my field.
@Diane. You used the word internecine, which was new to me. Thanks.
I had to look up SJW. Social justice warrior, right? I’ll be on the lookout for more context on this.
Social justice is a term used so often in bioethics and feminist circles that I wonder whether those who use it understand that there can be a dark side to their understanding of morality.
Charleen..
I really would not worry about people thinking poorly of you because PZ is also an atheist and trained the PNW.
He, and his blog network, Freethought Blogs, are becoming irrelevant.
See, when you work really really hard at being toxic and rude, you end up alienating well, everyone.
PZ is sliding into oblivion. He only preaches to the choir now.
Toxic attitudes don’t attract people. Toxic attitudes scare people off.
“I had to look up SJW. Social justice warrior, right? I’ll be on the lookout for more context on this.”
The closest thing to a decent definition for SJW, as I suspect it’s generally used by people here is probably as follows.
Modified from a definition I found on urban dictionary.
“These initials stand for Social Justice Warrior. This is a particular class of internet denizen who is on a crusade to push their liberal social agenda through tumblr/reddit/social networking. The SJW sees him/her/itself as a knight in shining armor who is fighting to right the wrongs of the world. They see the world as divided into two camps – the oppressors and the oppressed.
The truth, however, is that the SJW is a hypocritical, fundamentalist demagogue. Their morals only exist to further their own agenda, which is always right. An SJW holding a reasonable discussion or fair debate is almost unheard of. Their modus operandi is to spew a deluge of words rivaling Tim Buckley, filled with labels, slurs, and provocation. Their favorite tactic is to label their opposition as “privileged/cis/racist” etc. to instantly put them on the defensive.
They consider all disagreements with them to be the result of patriarchal oppression, sexism, bigotry, racism rather than rational thought, even while they blindly follow dogma. They champion equal rights, while trampling on the rights of anyone who upsets them through defaming, harassing, and ganging up on them. They are completely unaware of the sheer hypocrisy of this.”
Good summary, Diane.
There was a time before all that, I seem to recall, when PZ and Jerry would engage in a bit of good-natured persiflage on the crucial feline-versus-cephalopod question.
I remember that time! Every once in a while the tale of PZ’s dissent into darkness comes up here and we realize just how many of us emigrated from Pharyngula. I’d not have heard about WEIT were it not for the fairly frequent shout-outs PZ gave to Jerry back then.
Which reminds me that at about the same time it was also hard to watch Ophelia choose the path she did…
Now I’m feeling all sad and nostalgic. 🙁
I also agree. torrents?
Some comments may sting and that is sometimes the only way to get someone’s attention. I wonder if the commentary hadn’t been spiced with the more blunt words, would he actually consider he was wrong? Or would he consider any more measured comment just as offensive, having nothing to compare it with?
I was not around here 5 years ago but really makes no difference. I think PCC provides good food for thought with this posting. This is one of the best sites on the net but that does not mean it can’t be better. Also, there is no way anyone can control the comments fully when anybody can jump in. PCC would have to hire a group of site police to sit on this thing 24 hours a day to catch everything…impossible.
The standards should be as high as we can make them and not let other comments or subjects in the post drag us down that ladder into the muck and name calling. Most of you seem to be able to slice someone up pretty good without going there.
Also think it is safe to say that this environment lends itself to misunderstanding what the other party says. It sure happens to me and then I look like an idiot because I did just that. Enough from me on this.
I wonder how many of us started out convinced that we’d never stoop to emoticons and internet-speak when we began posting online? Looks like you’ve prevailed, as have many here, and I applaud you all…but I gave up and threw in the towel after just a couple of years or so. Apparently I’m extraordinarily bad at portraying my tone of voice and facial expressions in prose.
🙄
Yeah, Diane, I never foresaw that I would do something so fruity as mark-up my prose with smiley faces (especially after the smiley-face was used in meta-fiction as a reified symbol of our cultural debasement through hyper-commodification — or at least I think that’s what those novels were getting at anyway 🙂 ).
I’ve changed my tune obviously, realizing that some people — including some well-meaning, sincere, bright people — come equipped without the usual irony/sarcasm/humor receptors. Better to be fruity and safe, I always say, than misunderstood and sorry.
Hell, I even slapped two smiley faces on a comment upstream, trying to be doubly sure it wouldn’t taken at face value — the emoticon equivalent of a two-condom prophylaxis program.
😎
To which I can only reply, LOL! 😀 😉 (Thank god I don’t do emoji…)
With regard to Chopra, I’d like to suggest that however much his ideas and his bizarre Twitter behavior deserve to be mocked, making fun of his name ought to be out of bounds.
Making fun of anybody’s name ought to be out of bounds, but it seems especially egregious when the name most often made fun of here happens to be an exotic, foreign-sounding name to Anglophone ears. We really ought to be better than that.
Agree. And by and large I’d like to exclude most mentions of physical appearance as well.
The “by and large” part subsuming the “Trump exception,” right?
I won’t stop wailing on that candy-corn-colored douche until he withdraws from public life into one of those architectural monstrosities he’s littered the Manhattan landscape with.
I’d say Mr. Look-at-that-face-! is fair game, yes.
In principle, I agree.
But I also think there’s a time and place for strategic ridicule to undermine religious authority. For example, on my own blog (I wouldn’t do it anywhere else) I noted that Chopra called Professor Ceiling Cat (Emeritus) a “poorly evolved Neanderthal” on twitter — an entirely unprovoked attack, from a grizzling dummy who screams “ad hominem” when anyone calls his work “woo”. So I referred to him as D-Bag Chopra. I would argue that wasn’t racism, but an equal opportunity personal insult, aimed at provoking his followers.
Chopra was on Conan the other night.
I hit the FFW button.
Whether any given instance can be justified isn’t really the point. If personal insult is what you’re going for, just call him a douchebag and be done with it. Why muddy the waters by handing him an opportunity to portray you as a bigot?
You are right.
Sound science and civility, sans accommodation.
It’s a combination that makes WEIT one of my favorites, and better than the sites that shall not be named. Thanks to PCC for this.
I don’t spell ‘asshole’ like this, phew, my mother used to tell me I’d get a piece of her tongue, so behave!
Certainly Reisz’s is in a hole and in one,
accommodating religion is not for the ‘weak’ as it is getting harder to defend and tolerate.
This is good news, and long may we remember it.
But I take it that we can still let some razzberries fly in the general direction of Deepak and a few others. This is also good news.
“But have a look at Reisz’s post and see if you wouldn’t feel bad if those names were hurled at you.”
No, I would simply assume they were idiots because they didn’t agree with me. Why would I feel bad that idiots called me names? I’d be more likely to pity them.
I wanted to add that it’s a horse of a different color when talking about insults directed at someone based on race or gender, because of their race or gender.
I’ve been around long enough to see the rise of the Internet and Social Media. There is a magical power granted to the keyboard cowboy with the cloak of anonymity. They become incredibly insensitive jerks, hellbent on being as offensive as possible. I try to write my comments online like I would in real life but many people have told me what an insensitive egotistical jerk I can be to my face so maybe I’m not a good example. I rarely read the non-moderated comments section on most websites because it reminds me of being in high school. Lots of braggadocio, insults and sexual connotations that lack substance and significance in regards to the subject matter. I agree with so many others on here that WEIT is a haven for those of us who actually want to engage in constructive discourse.
“many people have told me what an insensitive egotistical jerk I can be to my face” – well, if you can say that then you are clearly not as egotistical as that but are aware of what you say.
😉
I can even be polite (to a point) with people like Chopra and even Ham. I sort of pity them in a way. So…as long as we don’t discuss Scalia or Ratzinger, there shouldn’t be a problem.
I am embarrassed that PCC[E] has to do this – I feel like when I was at school & yet we are not all having to stay behind because of one idiot…
This is hilarious, as you are the worst offender. And when I objected to just this sort of incivility towards others you attacked me, and asked why I couldn’t see the difference between US and THEM.
Thank you for this post Prof CC.
I’ve very much lost my stomach for invective
and insults these days. (BTW the most reliable depository of invective always seems to be the comments section of tech blogs discussing phones, especially if it’s a new iPhone being discussed).
I personally would prefer to see a dialing back in the use of the terms “liar/lying”
as this charge is flung from all sides – I think pretty much with equal sincerity – and it adds nothing of substance to arguments.
Kenneth Boulding once said, “We have only two choices, really—we can have an ‘I beat you down, you beat me down society,’ or we can have an ‘I lift you up, you lift me up, I lift you up society.”
My grandmother said (about insults) “Consider the source—and move on.”
Henry Geiger once wrote that the reason he didn’t supply by-lines in his pre-Internet periodical, MANAS, because he was interested in “ISSUES, not personalities.” (Italics, AS CAPS) mine.)
Like PCC (no pun intended), I would like to read every comment that appears here too, but there are many that I skip—but NEVER based on personalities (mostly because of deviation from the thread’s issue), pseudonym or not. I don’t use a pseudonym here, because I believe that I should stand responsible for everything I say—especially when the issue is “controversial.” (If it ain’t controversial, is it pseudo-intellectual pablum?) That’s why I rarely respond to any particular forum participant, and then I try to speak only when spoken to. Similarly, I seldom respond to rudeness, unless I believe that my post will contribute something substantial.
I often indulge in what I consider subtle humor (in my book, all humor must be subtle), and that is sometimes interpreted as being offensive. When an ox feels gored, I try to patch up the wound, but I don’t back down simply because some EST graduate (or natural-born facsimile thereof) howls or tries to bully me. Back to grandma’s advice.
But we are on thin intellectual ice here—mainly because of the free-speech conundrum. I’m not out to trump anyone in some silly sandbox spat, nor will I respond to trumped-up charges.
But censorship has occurred—one several years ago and another just recently. I suspect that I was in a hairs-breath (pi) of being banished. The problem here may well be “a failure to communicate,” but it is more likely that some PC doesn’t like the idea expressed. John Steinbeck brilliantly ranted on this subject in his “Log From the Sea of Cortez,” and I suspect that one could go all the way back to the Inquisition and beyond for plenty of examples of the burning of burning minds . . .