|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/13/2010 : 11:01:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
And most of us can't surround our message, while being assholes, with a whole bunch of great entertainment. |
It's carefully crafted ridicule, yes. Of the sort that I sometimes aspire to. And look at PZ's blog, for example: I pretty much know what he's going to say based on the titles of the posts, but I read 'em anyway, because he's got new angles on old controversies, or other interesting things to say, while he's spewing invective at idiots.
And nobody (except the tone critics) is suggesting that the warriors do nothing more than say, "he's just full of shit, closed case, end of debate." They're all well aware of the lurkers. If they weren't, they wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 11:29:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
And most of us can't surround our message, while being assholes, with a whole bunch of great entertainment. |
It's carefully crafted ridicule, yes. Of the sort that I sometimes aspire to. And look at PZ's blog, for example: I pretty much know what he's going to say based on the titles of the posts, but I read 'em anyway, because he's got new angles on old controversies, or other interesting things to say, while he's spewing invective at idiots.
And nobody (except the tone critics) is suggesting that the warriors do nothing more than say, "he's just full of shit, closed case, end of debate." They're all well aware of the lurkers. If they weren't, they wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are now.
|
For both Dave and Humbert, I indulged in some hyperbole. I should have re-read what I wrote. If I had I would have changed it. I know that we aren't just calling people assholes and then running from the actual debate. I agree that Myers and Penn & Teller are entertaining. (Which, by the way, again, is what Michelle means when she is saying that P&T are "attractive.")
Let me say it again. In my view, the whole tone issue might be bullshit. I'm not defending the "nice people" over those who are not "nice." With regard to skeptics, I don't know that anything at all has changed accept for some new over sensitivity to tone. Again, the issue may be a non issue, which, by the way, is interesting in and of itself. Even I got sucked in, probably because I'm big on being civil on a forum, at least to a reasonable degree.
I shifted to how I think we should play to lurkers on forum because that's what we do here. And I'm not sure I would change a thing. Do I think we should be reasonably civil? Yes. But I have always thought that, so perhaps it really isn't relevant to this debate, unless I consider how it is that I got sucked into this...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 12:50:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I know that we aren't just calling people assholes and then running from the actual debate. |
And I knew that you know that. My point was that the "tone critics" out there really do say that PZ Myers (for example) "just" spews insults. In other words, I'm not talking about how we do things here on SFN, I've been talking about elsewhere in the big, bad world.| Let me say it again. In my view, the whole tone issue might be bullshit. I'm not defending the "nice people" over those who are not "nice." With regard to skeptics, I don't know that anything at all has changed accept for some new over sensitivity to tone. Again, the issue may be a non issue, which, by the way, is interesting in and of itself. |
Well, what's not bullshit is the desire to put evidence behind the assertions that are flying this way and that. The "diplomats" are asserting that being nice is the best method, but the evidence they supply specifically misses the reality of what the "warriors" are actually doing and who the target audiences are. So far, I see the whole thing as an open question.
What is needed is a study wherein a physicist, Dr. X, tries to convince a whole bunch of humanities students about some "new" physics (which is entirely fictional) and talks about trying to get financial backing for further research and development of a product. Those who get convinced (who say they'd invest if they had money) then get split into two groups. One is then given a lecture by a calm person who patiently explains what's wrong with the "new physics" and how the product would unlikely to work and so is probably a bad investment, while the other group is subjected to rant about how much of a dick Dr. X is for trying to take their money based on bogus nonsense (and did I mention he's a peckerhead who's trying to steal your cash?). Then measure who's still willing to invest in both groups. My hypothesis is that the aggressive version will actually be better received, in that the willingness to invest will be much lower. Of course, more details would need to be worked out, but ask Michelle if there's any research already done along those lines, since that more-accurately models what's going on with atheism and skepticism today.| Even I got sucked in, probably because... |
Probably because you care, which is not a fault. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 17:38:28 [Permalink]
|
| I read this topic like 3 times and still have no idea what you are talking about. |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 18:57:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I read this topic like 3 times and still have no idea what you are talking about. |
Among atheists, there is a debate about whether being rude or even downright nasty in our criticisms of religion will hurt "the cause" of making atheism more socially acceptable. Some contend that being a "diplomat" is the only correct method, while the "warriors" among us insist that the use of ridicule and insults won't hurt, and may even help. Neither group has any actual scientific evidence to go on (just a pile of anecdotes) but the "diplomats" often speak as if their ideas have been verified, despite what history shows.
Phil Plait is obviously a "diplomat." PZ Myers is an example of a "warrior." And Kil is just sick of it all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 19:47:16 [Permalink]
|
| probably depends mostly on to whom you are talking |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 23:07:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
probably depends mostly on to whom you are talking
|
Exactly.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 06:35:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I read this topic like 3 times and still have no idea what you are talking about. |
Among atheists, there is a debate about whether being rude or even downright nasty in our criticisms of religion will hurt "the cause" of making atheism more socially acceptable. Some contend that being a "diplomat" is the only correct method, while the "warriors" among us insist that the use of ridicule and insults won't hurt, and may even help. Neither group has any actual scientific evidence to go on (just a pile of anecdotes) but the "diplomats" often speak as if their ideas have been verified, despite what history shows.
Phil Plait is obviously a "diplomat." PZ Myers is an example of a "warrior." And Kil is just sick of it all.
|
I think the whole debate is kind of a moot point. People are people and the more you try to point them to one particualr ideology...it becomes akin to religion!
Take "The Brights" as an example. While I agree with everything they stand for I feel that their delivery is so watered down that it is innefective.
Do the different religions have a history of similar debate? |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 08:53:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I read this topic like 3 times and still have no idea what you are talking about. |
Among atheists, there is a debate about whether being rude or even downright nasty in our criticisms of religion will hurt "the cause" of making atheism more socially acceptable. Some contend that being a "diplomat" is the only correct method, while the "warriors" among us insist that the use of ridicule and insults won't hurt, and may even help. Neither group has any actual scientific evidence to go on (just a pile of anecdotes) but the "diplomats" often speak as if their ideas have been verified, despite what history shows.
Phil Plait is obviously a "diplomat." PZ Myers is an example of a "warrior." And Kil is just sick of it all.
|
I think the whole debate is kind of a moot point. People are people and the more you try to point them to one particualr ideology...it becomes akin to religion!
Take "The Brights" as an example. While I agree with everything they stand for I feel that their delivery is so watered down that it is innefective.
Do the different religions have a history of similar debate?
|
Religions have, historically, just exterminated those who disagree within the ranks. Now days with murder and torture being frowned upon religions just kick you out, some of them even cast a spell on you when they boot you that damns you to hell with no chance of redemption. Such nice people.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 04:36:53 [Permalink]
|
| Personally, I don't care for the tone of this debate about the tone debate. (But maybe that's too harsh, and will alienate people.) |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 05:54:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Personally, I don't care for the tone of this debate about the tone debate. (But maybe that's too harsh, and will alienate people.)
|
Screw people if they can't handle the truth! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 08:47:03 [Permalink]
|
| If something is true, it is true regardless of who says it, why it is said, or how it is said. Introductory logic. This talk of being "dicks" is just a passive-aggressive way of dictating the discourse. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 11:19:18 [Permalink]
|
PZ Myers on The Dick Delusion:One recent flashpoint in this argument was Phil Plait's talk at TAM 8, in which he asked a rhetorical question, "How many of you … became a skeptic, because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged, and a retard?" And the Pharyngula switchboard lit up. Lots of people wrote to me via email or twitter, some gloating, some just unhappy, stating that Phil had just called me out.
No, he didn't. He didn't mention me at all. He opened up against a strawman New Dick, which is unfortunate, because there isn't anyone who fits that description in the skeptical movement. There are people like that elsewhere: drill sergeants and televangelists come to mind. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 12:25:16 [Permalink]
|
| One recent flashpoint in this argument was Phil Plait's talk at TAM 8, in which he asked a rhetorical question, "How many of you … became a skeptic, because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged, and a retard?" |
Screaming angry invectives at someone is only one type of ridicule. Phil totally ignores various other forms of mockery, including the power of humor to challenge deeply held beliefs. An individuals personal reaction to negativity depends on their character. Many people rise to a challenge. Some need validation and will slink away from anything that challenges their beliefs. I know in my personal experience, it was my father's laughing dismissal of my ideas that led me on the path to skepticism. I wanted so badly to prove to him that ghosts were real that I kept searching for new and better evidence that might convince him. What ended up happening is that the evidence I did uncover didn't strengthened my position, it undermined it. Eventually I had to admit that the evidence for ghosts was poor, better explanations existed, and my beliefs were untenable. None of that would have happened had he simply reinforced what I already believed.
Almost Diamonds wrote: [Phil Plait] asked how many of us used to believe in woo, and he asked how many of us had been converted by people being angry and mean to us. He didn't ask how many of us had been converted by someone being angry and mean on our behalf or on behalf of the ideals of skepticism.
I'd have raised my hand. High. |
Similarly, if Phil had only asked "how many of you became a skeptic because somebody laughed at or acted dismissively about your beliefs," I'd be able to hold my hand up high. I don't know why Phil is unable to fairly characterize and address this issue, but it doesn't seem any of the accommodationists are comfortable dealing with anything but straw men.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/20/2010 12:43:41 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 12:39:07 [Permalink]
|
I also think this Mencken passage needs to be quoted more often: | The iconoclast proves enough when he proves by his blasphemy that this or that idol is defectively convincing - that at least one visitor to the shrine is left full of doubts. The liberation of the human mind has been best furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe - that the god in the sanctuary was a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms. |
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The ‘tone’ debate
