A futile wish
I must say, I wish Mooney would not be at it again. I wish Mooney would go do other things now. I wish he would find other despised minorities to smear with accusations of aggression and assault and bashing and other forms of wickedness. I wish he would do that so that I could go back to ignoring him (also of course because then he wouldn’t be doing the thing which I resent his doing and thus feel compelled to rebuke him for doing). Of course, I could go on ignoring him, speaking literally – I’m not forced to retort to his manipulative campaign against overt atheists. But I think his campaign ought to be rebuked, so in that sense I can’t ignore new instantiations of it. I don’t think it’s enough to deliver one overall rebuke of his campaign and leave it at that, because he keeps on. I could ignore his blog with no trouble, but items in major media, which includes Huffington, I can’t.
That’s the main reason a critic told me I’m a nasty mean aggressive bully last week – because I was ‘relentless’ about Mooney. It’s true, I was. I didn’t like being so relentless myself – not least because I think all the repetition is just boring – but also because yes, it did feel too aggressive. Not, I’m afraid, in the sense of being unfair to Mooney and Kirshenbaum – because I thought then and still think that they needed to be persuaded to stop – to stop at least using violent rhetoric and other scapegoating tactics, and I thought there was some chance, however tiny, that persuasion would work. More in the sense of being ugly. More an egoistic concern than an altruistic one. No maybe that’s not quite it – because being ugly is harmful in its own way. Yes that’s it. I didn’t like being as ugly as I thought M&K were being. I didn’t like debasing the discourse that way, so often and so ‘relentlessly.’ But but but – there they were – in one national media outlet after another. It was a relief when they’d done all the media they could do, and I could shut up about it. So…I wish Mooney would shut up, or get a different subject. I would like nothing better than to ignore him.
But of course you can’t ignore them! How can you ignore anyone who publicly debases intellectual coinage in this way? It would be like letting counterfeiters get away with it.
Well that certainly is what it feels like! Ignoring them just feels wrong. I cain’t hep it.
I hear you, Ophelia. I have developed an extremely powerful visceral reaction to Mooneybaum over the past months. The very sight of them evokes intense feelings of anger and frustration, because I know that any article o’ertopped by their simpering faces will be just as poorly reasoned as the scores of similarly themed articles preceeding it.
I’m trying to be careful to despise their ideas, as distinct from ‘them’ (as individual people I’ve never met or communicated with in any way). There is indeed much to despise, as their ideas are rife with weasel words, abysmal logic, and infuriating misrepresentations that serve to marginalize a group of people to which I belong.
It’s for this reason that, unpleasant though it may be, I keep tuning in to their latest, and subsequently look forward to your eloquent responses.
For all the (completely justified) talk of their lousy communication skills, their sustained campaign against vocal atheists has been, and continues to be, damaging. *They* are the bullies, not you. Keep at it, woman. The A Team needs you.
Put all that productive energy elsewhere. Maybe write a nice book on accommodationism in science communication. I even have a title: “The Bridge to Nowhere”.
I can’t if he keeps talking smack about atheists. I haven’t got it in me.(I can write a nice book though – but in addition, not instead.)
Well don’t write it too quickly. I finally got my copies of TGSoE, Why Truth Matters, and DGHW, which at this rate I’ll be lucky to get through by the end of term.
Hmmm, come to think of it, if you could have it published by next summer that would suit my schedule just fine!
What really frustrates me about M&K and others like them is that they say ugly things cloaked in the garb of tolerance and civility.
They repeatedly label (rather than argue based on evidence) outspoken atheists as bigots, idiots, allies of the enemy, etc, but always append, “Let’s all be friends and love each other and reach out and other cliches” to the end of their accusations.
It’s incredibly frustrating to have to deal with someone who supports outreach and working together by deliberately marginalizing a group who makes an easy target. It’s almost as frustrating as their continued (and bogus) insistence that “new atheism” amounts to the claim that it’s impossible to be both scientific and religious. Almost.
Ophelia, you’re honest as the day is long, and hats off to you for questioning your own stance, and in public. But, you beat yourself up too much. Your “critic” is simply wrong, and Mooney deserved a lot worse. Please direct your critic to the nearest horsehair fainting couch, and go on about your business.
A commenter on PZ’s blog came up with a brilliant new formulation:
Addendum of the (should be) Obvious:
Intellectual dishonesty is more uncivil than an acid tone of voice. Deliberate, affected intellectual dishonesty to score political points with one’s political allies is even more uncivil. Baldfaced mendacity and mischaracterizing legitimate epistemological questions as “rude” is perhaps the most uncivil thing one can do.
Perverting substantive issues in theservice of petty, cliquish displays of allegiance is, to my mind, an unforgivable sin, and an outrage. People of good will ought to be shocked and insulted by those who criticize the tone of an honest critic while ignoring the epistemological violence done by the likes of Mooney.
For some unknown reason, Mooney presents himself as a science journalist. His knowledge of science has always been very shallow, so I have always considered him to be more of a political journalist. A sound political journalist, however, recognizes his own bias and does not tout one’s own agenda all the time. So maybe Mooney is just a politican? Wrong again, a competent politician is practical and engages in a meaningful discussion with his/her opponents to find solutions palatable for all parties.
I think the best description of present Mr. Mooney is: preacher. But how large is his congregation?
Ignore Mooney – he’s not important. After all, when Dawkins speaks, people listen. But when did a national newspaper on either side of the herring pond print a headline along the lines of: ‘Flaccid internet gadfly Chris Mooney takes another half-baked pop at people who are more honest, civil and successful than he is’?
Well valdemar national newspapers on the west side of the herring pond haven’t been printing headlines about Mooney but they certainly have been publishing articles by Mooney – so alas it’s not actually true that he’s not important. If he were, I would ignore him, I promise. But he’s been on national tv, he’s been on national radio, he’s been in major newspapers and magazines – he’s had frankly amazing access to major media. That’s why I haven’t been ignoring him – it’s because he’s been energetically poisoning the well for atheists for the past four months, and having huge success at getting platforms to do so, so I’ve been doing what little I can (which is puny in comparison) to counter his well-poisoning.
Apparently, the media likes people who are willing to kick acceptable minorities, especially when they’re willing to repeatedly play the “I obviously don’t have ideological issues with x, I am x. I just think they’re too strident/uppity/militant” card.
Mooney should be ashamed. But whatever you need to do to make a living, right?
“What really frustrates me about M&K and others like them is that they say ugly things cloaked in the garb of tolerance and civility.”
Same here. That’s why I called them the Colgate Twins – not, of course, to mock them for their appearance, but to mock their self-presentation which seems to me to be designed to ‘frame’ them as a coupla sweet friendly warm-hearted kids. In fact it seems designed to seize the territory of sweet friendly warm-heartedness for themselves and thus by implication to paint anyone who disagrees with them as sour hostile cold-hearted grouches.
That’s partly why I wouldn’t present myself as exceptionally warm and sweet even if I could. I don’t like that kind of thing. It seems to me like sort of helping oneself to the benefit of the doubt in advance. That’s why I don’t like Madeleine Bunting’s girly little voice – it belies her way of carrying on. I’m allergic to very ‘warm’ voices on the radio – they always make me want to kick things. I don’t want to be babied or nurtured or patronized by strangers – and I sure as hell don’t want to try to play that role myself. That doesn’t mean one should be as rude as possible of course – but I think a certain amount of asperity is…advisable.
I could go on about this for hours, so I’ll break it off now.
Paul, quite so, and by god atheists fit that bill better than any other minority that’s not actually criminal!
Ophelia – I somewhat agree with your critic on this point. When going after Mooney you got repetitive (in your comments on his blog) – hammering the same points over and over again – and then resorted to a petty insult (‘Colgate twins’). I wouldn’t say you were a ‘nasty mean aggressive bully’ – just that you detracted from your own position when you went down that road.
I understand your frustration with Mooney – he pretends to take the moral/intellectual high ground when he has neither.
I like reading your posts because you write clearly and rationally, especially when dealing with those who want to use language to befuddle their audience.
As long as Mooney keeps down the road of scapegoating atheists, you should hound him. But take on his arguments, not his person.
I didn’t think Ophelia’s repetitiveness on the Intersection is something to criticize. They never answered very basic questions to support the premise of their published work. That is something that very much merits pointing out. It is not as if she ignored the answers, none were ever given.
There is nothing available but to be repetitive in criticizing Mooney — he doesn’t take into account criticism to build a workable position, which means there’s never a new or more coherent position to criticize. It’s just a bunch of “hey, he called Dawkins militant again”, “he doesn’t seem to understand what we mean by incompatible”, “he’s making bald, unevidenced assertions and using them as the basis of another argument”, and “he’s quote-mining yet another atheist in a widely published newspaper/magazine”. He does the same things over and over again, so any criticism is going to be repetitive. It still needs to be done.
Blair,
Fair enough. That’s a reasonable view (and several people said the same thing at the time). As I said in the post, I did worry about it then. But as Paul says – Mooney makes repetition impossible to avoid if you address him at all, and I think he needs to be addressed. I don’t think his claims should go unchallenged. I don’t think he should win himself immunity just by wearing everyone out.
See above for why ‘the Colgate twins’ – it wasn’t just a personal insult (and strictly speaking it wasn’t an insult at all – they do have nice wide grins!) – it was about something.
I sometimes wonder if that “deeper well of anger and hatred” Mooney et al seem to draw from when dissing the so-called new atheists is empty. They’re not really that upset. Instead, they’re employing a calculated strategy for getting themselves more public platforms, so they might promote their advocacy of science to a wider audience.
First, they use outspoken atheists as their foil: yes, I’m an atheist myself, but I’m just like you — I can’t stand those rude, nasty, mean atheists either. Really! Aren’t they awful! I’d never do that.
And the audience relaxes. This atheist is okay. It’s never been that they were against diversity. They would have always welcomed hearing atheist opinions in magazine articles and newspapers: it was the shrillness that bothered them. And these guys aren’t shrill. They keep their place.
Except that, the ‘new atheists’ aren’t really shrill either. But Mooney and ilk are playing good cop, bad cop. They’re using the unpopularity of the popular atheists to wedge themselves into forums they would never have gotten before — because they would have been seen as the strident ones.
Boy that’s charitable, Sastra. You see them as trying to widen the audience that listens to their science advocacy, I see deception and throwing other atheists under the bus to sell books and get more speaking/writing gigs.
Add to that the fact that Mooney a few years ago was making the same incompatibility arguments that he calls people shrill for making today, and you get someone who sold out their principles for some filthy lucre. And it makes me feel dirty to read a post that frames it as “FOR SCIENCE!”
I know you’re playing devils advocate and giving the most charitable interpretation, and that’s quite nice of you. So I hope what I said doesn’t feel like an attack on you, as I have nothing but respect.
Paul wrote:
Ah, you misunderstand: it’s not either/or — it’s both. I suspect they’re trying to widen their audience by throwing some of their colleagues under the bus. The ends doesn’t necessarily justify the means, though.
It seems plausible.
And it still, still, to this day, mystifies me – because I just don’t think Mooney is that cynical. I don’t think he’s a bad guy. But he must be aware of the throwing under the bus aspect – since it’s been pointed out to him some ten million times. He must be aware of the creepily McCarthyite finger-pointing tone…yet he keeps doing it.
OB wrote:
And it still, still, to this day, mystifies me – because I just don’t think Mooney is that cynical. I don’t think he’s a bad guy.
Not sure what that’s based on. I never paid much attention to him until he went after Dawkins, et. al., but it seems to me that all the wordplay he has engaged in, in order to publicize and sell his book, is the very definition of cynical, “showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one’s actions, esp. by actions that exploit the scruples of others.” (Dictionary.com)
Based on his previous books, and the journalism he used to do. There’s a sharp, radical gap between that and what he’s doing now. They’re almost opposites (because integrity and truth-telling and opposition to political distortions of science were absolutely central to what he did in the past). I guess I just vaguely assume the prior Mooney is the real one.