Jesus said some good things
Chris Stedman is bizarrely indignant that some people disagree with him. Apparently if he writes an article for the Huffington Post, it’s somehow wrong and out of line to write a blog post that disputes it. Why would that be the case? What rule says that Chris Stedman’s articles on the Huffington Post are off-limits to disagreement? I thought it was pretty well known by now that if you write something that gets posted on the internet, there’s always a chance that someone will disagree with it.
Chris did three updates at Facebook to express this “you disagree with me! you really disagree with me!” outrage, along with a good few comments on same. The first, on my post, says
Hmm. Some of the comments on this… Well, I’m glad my “personality flaws” are diagnosable over the internet! Who needs therapy? Hey, at least I’m a master in jedi mind tricks? Okay, but seriously: I’d respond, but I’m about to give a talk at Carnegie Mellon. Perhaps some people who actually know me have some thoughts they’d like to share? Or, you know, perhaps this is best left alone. #dontfeedthetrolls
The second says
Um, woah. Came back from giving a speech / having dinner with the awesome folks at Carnegie Mellon Aha!: Atheists, Humanist, Agnostics to find myself at the center of SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS all over the atheist blogosphere.
The third (as I mentioned in a comment) says
Who knew that calling people to the ideals of love and compassionate action could ignite controversy?! Oh yeah, Jesus. Lulz. Oh internet, let’s move on to more important things now, shall we? (Like, you know, acting in love and compassion…)
That last is a funny question. “Who knew that calling people to the ideals of love and compassionate action could ignite controversy?!” Think about it.
Ok I’ll bite; I knew. I can explain why, too – one reason is the implied claim that the speaker is good and the recipient of the message is not; that the speaker is loving and compassionate and the recipient is something else. There are others: the suggestion to stop doing one thing and do another instead; the backround campaign of vilification of gnu atheists which makes this kind of positioning seem at least suspect; the fact that that kind of pious advice has more than a whiff of churchy missionary sanctimonious versions of “compassion” that not everyone admires; and so on.
Here’s a blunt statement to motivate Chris to make more outraged updates: not everybody wants “love and compassion” from strangers. As a matter of fact I think most people don’t want that. Love and compassion from strangers is intrusive and presumptuous; it’s too much; it’s not what’s needed or wanted. Chris probably knows that, actually, at some level – I don’t suppose he approaches people saying “I bring love and compassion!” But he doesn’t seem to know that talking about it in the way he does is too close to doing exactly that. There’s a vanity and self-display to it that is really not all that admirable. Check out Matthew 6:3 if you don’t believe me.
I think a lot of Chris’s comments last night were to Jen and her post at Blaghag, not to you necessarily.
Heh. The rapprochement not going all that well at the moment… :- )
Could be – but still – the indignation just seems silly, and entitled. So people disagree with him, so what?!
I just find it funny that he reacted to that other post in a way completely consistent with my description of his personality flaws. He’s such a privileged brat, all narcissism and self-congratulation, smugness about his place in the center of his own universe. It is the exact sort of “I’m doing it right, everyone else is doing it wrong, look how awesome I am” attitude I was describing.
I’m all for charity, love, compassion, and whatever else… but for their own sake, not as a way of placing myself above others the way Chris Stedman seems to require to satisfy his sense of self. UGH.
Compare to the gnu attitude, which is (to my mind) more: We’re doing it our way; you do it your way; we can have a discussion about which way is better, but must you demonize us for having our own way?
That’s the rub. One side thinks that this is something about which equally well-intentioned people can disagree, and the other side doesn’t.
Well… they can be well-intentioned when they disagree with us, but the other way doesn’t work for them at all. For instance, Chris Stedman has no problem criticizing people who disagree with him, and even less problem insinuating that we lack love and compassion in our lives, and that we are incapable of doing good deeds if we are also engaging in “intellectualizing and debating.”
However, if I were to suggest that Stedman is too busy sucking up to the theists to have any brain power left for anything vaguely intellectual, I’m sure we’d never hear the end of it. Also, look out for quote mining that makes it appear that I am saying those things, instead of just posing a hypothetical. Someone’s bound to do it unless it is preempted… and Carly Simon.
… just saying.
I really don’t grok this. Are we supposed to put up with this miasmic pile of horseshit in the courtyard of the gentiles so they can go on poisoning peoples minds for ever? It’s perfectly possible to work with people who believe in shit every day….you have to: you don’t have to help them spread it.
Shall we accommodate people who tell us a sugar pill will protect us from malaria or a bit of a back rub will cure asthma? I don’t think so.
I’m not going to say much, but I thought this from Andy Dufresne was interesting:
“Compare to the gnu attitude, which is (to my mind) more: We’re doing it our way; you do it your way; we can have a discussion about which way is better, but must you demonize us for having our own way?
That’s the rub. One side thinks that this is something about which equally well-intentioned people can disagree, and the other side doesn’t.”
From my perspective it is precisely the other way round. It seems to me that it’s the more “gnu” crowd that gets incensed and throws out personal attacks and demonization when presented with contrary ideas (Post #3 is a perfect example), and seems to be incapable of civil disagreement, while Chris seems to me much more balanced. I always find it fascinating when both sides of a discussion think the other is unreasonable. It’s a sign that there’s some deep emotions at play, and probably some fundamental value that is not shared. It might be interesting to work out what’s at the root of this.
I find it interesting you decided to compare a large group of people with just one.
“…just one person” that should have read at the end. Ugh. Sorry.
@designsoda Well, that’s who the blog post is about.
@Ophelia I find it interesting, too, that you felt it was somehow unnecessary for me to mention in my recent post some of the comments on this site, and you have now made a whole post based on someone’s Facebook status updates. Where’s the pot and kettle when you need them?
I want respect, not love and compassion. The number of people on this earth I want love and compassion from can be counted on two hands.
As the great Johnny Rotten has been known to say, it’s not about being nice, it’s about respect.
James – no – my point was not that it’s unnecessary – my point was that I was disputing Chris’s post, and you responded by disputing some comments on my post. Comments are a different category. (Some, indeed many, commenters here produce post-worthy comments on a regular basis, but still, comments are a different category.)
You’re right that Facebook updates aren’t the equivalent of posts, but I was at least still talking about the same guy, not people commenting on the same guy. I could have quoted the comments on Chris’s updates, many of which were plenty absurd! But what would be the point of that?
It’s pretty simple isn’t it? One bunch saying to the other bunch “Ur Not Doin It Rite”
Why…it’s almost religious!
But maybe I should. Since you’ve chosen to address comments instead of the post, maybe I should post some inane comments on Chris’s updates.
James,
You seem new here, so perhaps it is worth your while going back through some old posts. And what you will see, over and over again, is gnus objecting to anti-gnus who insist that the gnus are doing it wrong and should stop. For instance, in Stedman’s case, recall that his original article asked us to “set aside intellectualizing and debating.” (I’m not even going to touch his assumptions that atheists don’t do any charity work or community building except to note that it was another part of his message that deserved to be vigorously demolished.)
So, yeah, James, you’ve got it completely the wrong way around. Stedman asked atheists and humanists to stop debating. It doesn’t seem to occur to him that debate is important. It does not seem to occur to him that one can debate and perform community work…sometimes at the very same time, say by conversing with the people around you while you build a homeless shelter or take collections for a cause.
And Ophelia didn’t even mention what I consider to be the worst sin Stedman committed in his article:
No I’m not referring to using a Black Eyed Peas lyric as a moral argument (although that is pretty indefensible!). What I am referring to is his implication that if you don’t agree with him, you have no right to call yourself a humanist. It’s not an argument, it’s identity politicking designed to expel anyone who disagrees with him from the tribe. “If you’re not on my side, you don’t believe in love, and that makes you not one of us.”
It seems almost worthless to point this out again, but as I said in my reply over at my place, I did address your post, and said it was quite reasonable. I even quoted a chunk and expressed my agreement. Not sure how you missed that.
James,
It is worth pointing out that addressing specific points over at your place while not addressing them here and then complaining here about people not reading your arguments over on your place…is poor netiquette.
James:
Interesting that you say that—because I happen to (basically) agree. Chris Mooney, though, doesn’t. I mean, I think it would be a fair paraphrase of his point-of-view to say that he thinks accommodationists and gnus “share 99% of their intellectual DNA.” Not being sarcastic here, but I’m actually pleased in some small way that James seems to see what I see: that someplace down the line, there’s a fundamental value that, actually, both sides do not share. (Of course James’ side thinks we’re the ones who are value-deficient, and we think the same about his side. But I agree that in this discussion no one’s narcissism (so to speak) is that of “small differences.” There’s something philosophically fundamental that’s clashing.)
Awwww… have I been “shrill” again? I hope everyone notes how the nastiness from religious people and faitheists is fine, and answering it in even mild terms is against the rules?
James, no, that’s true, and I did notice it. Therefore it was stupid to say “instead of the post.” Beg pardon.
But the burden of your post was about an unreasonable response – yet it was comments here that backed that up. I didn’t address comments at Huff Post, but rather Chris’s post. No doubt many comments at Huff Post were srsly unreasonable!
Right – what I think that is, is the idea that there is a general duty to be deferential to religion.
Some of what Chris says sounds like that, to me. I dislike that idea a lot.
Normally I am all about a Gnu-ish “we do it our way, you do it your way” sorta deal, but in this case I’m going to break that protocol because I happen to have several years of experience in this. (I’m no longer involved in grassroots organizing in any way, but talking to people about compassionate behavior is precisely what I get paid to do. Weird, huh?) And in my experience, “calling people to ideals of love and compassion” is a terrible way to imagine yourself going about this sort of thing. Nobody wants to hear, “I think you ought to consider being a better person.” It is beyond presumptuous.
It is utterly inappropriate to go around inflicting your ideals on people and chewing them out if they don’t hop when you whistle. And if you’re working with people who do not actually have to put up with you, it’s often a greased slide to failure.
A clever, empathic organizer recognizes and validates those ideals in people as they already exist, and finds ways to help people put those ideals into practice in ways that work for them. A good organizer serves the people. You want to seize on the evidence that people feel love and compassion, and then nurture their expression of that. And maybe Chris imagines that he’s doing that, but if so, I sincerely doubt that he is correct.
There can be an age component here, too, which I think may be tripping Chris up. Shaming and pounding on people might work a little bit among college students, but confident, established adults are not so eager to please. Organizing people older than you are is something that takes a good deal of care. (Hey, you know what’s funny? A cocky, wet-behind-the-ears organizer in a roomful of opinionated old ladies. Heh heh heh. But I digress, and uncompassionately too.)
It’s known that I’m generally in favor of service projects and even (quelle horreur!) interfaith projects, but they have to be done well. That involves respect for participants and nonparticipants. A nonparticipant is not a particularly morally suspect person who does not believe in love — they’re someone you did not persuade to participate.
Uh-oh. R. Joseph Hasselhoff’s latest rant complains about “[t]he worst, rejectionist stream of atheism” (emphasis added). In context, it doesn’t appear to be a reference to gnus (Gnu Atheism is, by contrast to said stream, “nothing more than the triumph of the jerks”), but nonetheless I sense a meme forming.
[picking self up from yell of laughter at Cam’s parenthetical joke]
That rings true to me. It’s based on experience I don’t have, but it certainly jibes with my sense that I would not welcome anyone lecturing me about OR thrusting on me any package labeled “love and compassion” – it just wouldn’t work.
I wonder how cocky, wet-behind-the-ears Obama fared with rooms full of opinionated old ladies. It seems to me I recall reading somewhere that he had some learning to do…but also that he got that in about 2 seconds. I’m not sure I recall that; maybe I’m just confabulating what I think seems likely.
Aha! RJ picked up “rejectionist” did he – that’s funny.
Thanks for linking to that, Rieux. There were a few spots on my wall I still hadn’t slammed my head against.
It could be a random convergence.
In similar form on the other side of the aisle, David Barash (whom I hadn’t heard from before) has just derived the Courtier’s Reply, fable allusion and all, independently from P.Z…. and Ophelia, Russell Blackford, and Jean Kazez.
James Croft,
It think that gnu atheists and accommodationists disagree mainly over one thing: is there too much forthright criticism by atheists of religion generally, or too little?
Gnu atheists think more people ought to regularly speak up critically about bad religious ideas, and that those bad religious ideas are common to “liberal” religion as well as, e.g., fundamentalism.
The reasons why gnus think there’s too little forthright criticism and accommodationists think there’s too much vary considerably.
Accommodationists typically think some or all of the following, in some mix:
0. Distinctively religious beliefs aren’t all false, or aren’t all inconsistent with science, or aren’t so importantly false as to be worth objecting to.
1. In terms of its effects on human well being, religion isn’t a bad thing overall. A lot of religion (e.g., fundamentalism) is bad, but a lot of religion (e.g., theologically moderate or liberal Christianity) is actually good for the world, on the whole, promoting civilized conceptions of morality, or at worst harmless. If we dispensed with religion, or just diminished the mindshare of religion across the board, we’d lose a lot of good along with the bad.
2. Liberal religion is our friend, because liberal religious people are our main allies in the fight against conservative religion. If we talk people out of being liberally religious, that won’t help anything much, and may hurt because it will weaken institutions that we should be strengthening, or leaving as they are. Liberal religion is a crucial part of the solution to the problem of bad religion.
3. You can argue against the worst sorts of religion effectively without arguing against the best sorts. Fundamentalism is he problem, not religion, and critiques of religion should generally focus on distinctive features of bad religion. We should argue against theological conservatism, as liberals, more often than we should argue against religion, as atheists.
4. Even to the extent that it might be advantageous to undermine religion across the board, it is strategically unwise to attempt to do so. It will mostly alienate potential allies and generate backlash, doing more harm than good. It is better to be very “civil,” and only gently criticize religion, and mostly focus criticism on especially bad religion. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Gnus, in contrast, tend to think at least some of the following to a greater extent than accommodationists:
0. Distinctively religious beliefs are generally false, are generally inconsistent with science, and are false enough to be worth objecting to, out of a more or less free-floating commitment to truth.
1. In terms of its effects on human well-being, religion is a bad thing overall. Some religion (e.g., very theologically liberal religion) isn’t especially harmful in its direct effects on people, and sometimes is even good, but most religion is a net negative, and religion as a whole could be dispensed with, and that would be a generally good thing, with lots of pluses and relatively few minuses.
2. Liberal religion is our friend in some senses, and not in others. On average, if we talk liberally religious people out of being liberally religious, that will be a good thing because they’ll be even better allies against religion, including especially conservative religion.
3. You can’t argue effectively against bad religion effectively without arguing against religion fairly broadly, because the most important features of bad religion—belief in God and souls and divinely or supernaturally inspired morality—are common to almost all religion. Once you grant those mistaken premises, or fail to challenge them, you’ve mostly given away the store, and are reduced to making the kind of lame-ass arguments that liberal religious people use so ineffectively against conservatively religious people. (E.g., justifying certain ways of picking and choosing religious beliefs—rather than explaining why it’s all a load of bollocks, for which there are much better more basic, and correct arguments.)
The root problem isn’t fundamentalism, but central premises of almost all religion, which are themselves stupid and dangerous ideas, acquiesence to which enables fundamentalism—and basic nonfundamentalist orthodoxy, which is a bigger problem than outright fundamentalism.
4. Criticizing religion does generate backlash and alienate some people, but fears of backlash are overrated, and it is important to challenge religious privilege and especially to shift the Overton window of public opinion. Being too afraid of short-term backlash—and too pessimistic about major shifts of popular opinion about religion—is a recipe for perpetuating religion’s privileged position and dominance. It is demonstrably untrue that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar—successful social movements generally require a spectrum of opinion, including relatively “extreme” views. Excessive moderation is a recipe for stasis, and you need both reformists and “radicals,” who more or less play good cop / bad cop.
—
To summarize, gnus and accommodationists tend to differ in some or all of the following respects
0. How systematically false and/or antiscientific religion is,
1. How systematically harmful religion is,
2. Whether liberal religion is best thought of as part of the solution, or part of the problem,
3. Whether the most telling critiques of conservative religion apply to liberal religion as well, such that criticizing the only the former is pulling your best punches, and
4. Whether frequent forthright criticism of religion does more harm than good, strategically, in the big picture and the long run—is it worth the backlash? Is centrist triangulation a better political strategy than shifting the Overton window of popular opinion?
—
In general, gnus do recognize that there are important roles for both “radicals” and “moderates” (not that gnus are actually radicals—nobody’s talking about using force or anything like that).
They generally just don’t think we already have too many “radicals” (forthright critics of religion across the board), as accommodationists do.
What accommodationists say that sets gnus off is usually a criticism of gnus that implies that we’re wrong to be as “radical” as we are, and that we should sit down and shut up, or do something else instead, because our anti-religious fight
1) isn’t worth fighting in principle, because religion’s not so bad, or
2) isn’t winnable, to any particularly useful extent, so isn’t worth fighting in practice, or
3) isn’t winnable by our overt, backlash-generating means, so we should all be nice moderates like the accommodationists instead of being noisy troublemakers who undermine sound, centrist political triangulation strategy.
We generally think all those things are false, and get really tired of hearing them from people who don’t seriously address the issues of fact, of worthwhile goals, or of effective political strategy.
Every time we hear strategic advice that amounts to “you catch more flies with honey” by somebody telling us what to do, who is apparently entirely ignorant of Overton window strategies, it pisses us off.
We get really, really sick of people telling us what to do without addressing our very good reasons for doing what we’re doing, and actually showing that their reasons are better than our reasons.
One thing that does frequently bring deep emotions into play is the sense that accommodationists frequently advise us what to do as though they think we’re simplistic strategically naive zealots, as opposed to thoughtful people with well-thought-out positions, good arguments, and an arguably excellent strategic rationale that is almost never even mentioned, much less properly addressed, by people who proffer an “obviously better” strategy toward apparently different goals.
Until accommodationists are willing to talk very, very seriously about Overton issues, we’re going to dismiss their strategic advice as the shallow, platitudinous crap that we think it is. As long as they act like we don’t even have a strategy, and criticize us for not going along with theirs, we’re going to be seriously annoyed when they tell us to do what they want us to do, instead of what we’re doing.
Talking about us as though we’re simply strategically naive and gratuitously confrontational is straw-manning us, and we are sick as shit of it. Its been going on nonstop for years, and doesn’t show any sign of stopping.
We do understand accommodationist arguments. Of course we do. We always have. It isn’t exactly rocket science. (Or even passable political science.) And we’ve always had good reasons for disagreeing with them, which are almost universally ignored by accommodationists, who continue to talk past us, and talk systematically misleading cartoonish smack about us.
That’s just seriously annoying, isn’t? Should we not be annoyed by that?
The message I am getting is that Stedman believes new atheists are too intellectual and Hoffman believes new atheists are not intellectual enough. This means we are in the middle – so we must be right!
Rieux – thanks for pointing out the Barash post. That comment by B’blau is something else – all those words to say “oh yes there is too so a lot of substance to our criticisms of the gnu atheists” – without ever managing to offer any.
Paul W.,
I think the difference is that we are voicing our opposition to inequalities perpetuated by believers. Accommodationists don’t see any inequalities. Rather than listen to us, they listen to the poor believers who tell them how nasty we are, and since our voice has no weight compared to theirs, then we must be the ones that are wrong or disliked, and that we must shut up.
I think exactly the same things have happened in other political movements, whether it is civil rights, women’s rights or gay rights. Exactly the same inability to see inequalities exists within those communities.
And we’re perfectly happy to play both roles: accommodating when necessary and when in our best interests, while strongly confronting when necessary, and we’re perfectly happy with both strategies.
And I don’t think we can reconcile with them. They just don’t get it, and won’t understand our motives until they do get it.
Michael no I think it means that Stedman and Hoffmann should mind-meld and thus attain Perfection.
I just thought I had to say, I thought Paul’s post #29 was a great post. Seems like a great summary, from what I know of the arguments.
Not that I’m out there blogging or being particularly activist. But I’ve found the gnu arguments more compelling. And spelled out like that helps me fully grasp why.
Holy crap, Paul, is that ever a fabulous comment. It’s a shame that it’s only a comment, buried deep in a thread that not many people will read, rather than a more prominent publication of some kind.
I have two minuscule nits to pick: first, the “we can dispense with religion” formulation seems to me too easy to quotemine by gnubashers with visions of Stalin dancing in their heads. What you’re saying isn’t actually objectionable, but a minor rewording could help head off mendacious misrepresentation.
Then, I have to reiterate my objection to the image of accommodationists and Gnus as a “good cop/bad cop” pair. Because of the differences in outlook and goals you detail, not to mention the back-and-forth sniping, I don’t think that arrangement can really work. “Good cop/bad cop” is a perfectly good and useful model, but the differences between the “cops” are merely superficial tactical approaches; the two actually have to have the same fundamental goals.
So by all means let’s practice “good cop/bad cop” tactics; it’ll just have to be gnu-ish folks (i.e., ones who see matters in more or less the way you describe gnus seeing them) filling both roles.
All that is minor details, though. Wonderful job.
Paul W. – Thank you for your excellent summary. I think it does elucidate some of the difficulty here. Your analysis matches how I understand the problem re: “new” and “accomodationist” atheists. The aspect that is missing, which I think quite a lot of responses here are missing, is an appreciation of how Humanism fits into the picture. You see, Chris wasn’t writing the post which began all this as purely an atheist. He was writing as a Humanist, and calling Humanists to enact their espoused values. This is a very significant difference, because it’s not simply one atheist sayng to other atheists “do more service work”, but a Humanist calling to other self-identified Humanists to live up to the values they themselves have committed to.
There’s no sense in your description of the two positions of any goal apart from tackling religious privilege. But the Humanist purview is far broader than that, as I’m sure you know. So perhaps we have here a problem of different end-goals: some want to dismantle religious privilege, and that’s their main (and very worthy) goal. Others see that as only a relatively small part of a commitment to human flourishing in general and a better world for all humankind. This difference in priorities could lead, I think, to the misunderstanding we have seen here.
In short, your analysis seems to me to be missing the Humanist frame, which is the very frame from which Chris was writing (and the frame from which I write at Temple of the Future), hence the lack of mutual understanding.
Rieux,
Your entirely constructive and correct criticism is very well taken—as well-taken as the praise, which is high praise indeed coming from you. Thanks!
Egbert,
I agree with you, too. Points 2, 3, and 4 all have a lot to do with privilege, which is a connecting theme (and I guess point 1, too, now that I mention it). And such issues are entirely typical of social movements.
Paul W., when are you going to start a blog/website??? :-)
I agree of course, but I would suggest that a more fundamental concept to convey is the complete bankruptcy of ‘faith’ itself (which, incidentally, ties into the recent hoo ha over ‘interfaith’ stuff, which is folly precisely because it involves ‘faith’ as if that were something positive).
Belief in God, souls, divine morality, etc. are all subservient to the more foundational privilege that society places on ‘faith’ as a ‘way of knowing’ or as something worthwhile on its own. To the effect that people literally make arguments as silly as: It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you have deep faith in something.
This was the prime thesis of Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, and, IMO, it is what he got so dead-on right that he became effectively the first gnu atheist. Faith must go. In the long run, this is the only solution to the problems of religion (and, incidentally, all other faith-based dogmas that we might challenge).
Finally, I would simply add to your list of gnu atheist complaints against accommodationist accusations: 5) We have done nothing wrong, and we have nothing to apologize for. Speaking out, even in a way that ‘offends’ people is not immoral or unethical. In fact, a strong case can be made for us having a prima facie duty to challenge bad ideas with forthright, unapologetic free-speech, and even outright ridicule if those ideas deserve ridicule, as they so often do.
I’ve said it quietly in back corners before, but I’ll keep saying it, since I think it stands up: ‘GNU’ atheists are Galvanized, Non-violent, and Unapologetic. To me, that sums our position up nicely. As you so well put it in your prior comment, unless and until accommodationists and other anti-gnus actually address our real positions, rather than ridiculous and insulting straw people, their calls for us to shut up will only make us louder and louder. And there’s nothing wrong with that, and we have no need to apologize for that.
James Croft,
Please do not commit the Moving Goal Posts fallacy (consciously or not). It is very, very annoying. Here is what Stedman wrote, again, in case you need your memory jogged:
(Emphasis added for clarity.)
Paul, I was serious about that comment needing a broader audience. It’s a shame that it’s currently just #29 on a thread.
Maybe you could do some very minor rewriting and submit it to P.Z. Myers for inclusion in his guest-posters series? Conceivably he’d find the piece insufficiently “bad cop” (it is awfully fair toward accommodationists). It ends well by those standards, though, starting with “lame-ass arguments” and continuing through “sick as shit.”
I agree with Wonderist’s observation that you could use a sentence or two about Gnu objections to faith-as-such. Also, I thought of point that could be added on to Gnu point #4, to wit:
The Overton Window is indeed the main rebuttal to the flies/honey/vinegar cliché, but perhaps it’s worth noting that robust, vinegar-ish rhetoric is effective not only at enlarging the Window but at changing certain people’s minds directly. I’ve seen Jason Rosenhouse and Richard Dawkins both offering variations on this argument; here’s Rosenhouse:
…And here’s Dawkins himself (responding at Jerry Coyne’s blog to Phil Plait’s “Don’t Be a Dick”):
Dawkins and Rosenhouse are arguing for a value to harsh rhetoric that’s more direct than the (perfectly legitimate) enlarge-the-Overton-Window strategy. But accommodationists simply ignore both arguments entirely.
I don’t know if that’s worth adding to Gnu point 4, but it seems to me relevant.
Anyway, I’d very much encourage you to try to get a piece based on comment #29 published in a more prominent place. It seems to me a terrific distillation of nearly all of the relevant issues.
Wonderist:
Ha ha ha! Delightful.
@Wonderist It wasn’t ,y intention to move any goalposts – merely to add something of value to the discussion which I think has been missed thus far. In my reading of the whole post, not just the small section you quite rightly point out, it is clearly aimed primarily at Humanists. The title makes this extremely clear (“The Humanist Obligation to Serve…”), as does his description of himself as a “Secular Humanist”, his reference to putting the “human” in “Humanism”, and the paragraph abut my good friend Charlotte, a Humanist hospice Chaplain. I think that little sentence is probably unfortunate, because it then becomes a different sort of call, but the context of the article makes it crystal clear that it is written primarily for Humanists.
I wonder if anyone has anything to say about the point I raised? I’d be interested to hear people’s thoughts.
On the issue of the Overton Window (and I’m delighted an informed discussion about strategy is occurring here!), it’s important to note the reams of good empirical evidence that likability is a crucial factor when it comes to persuasive pursuits. Likability has typically been broken down into “similarity” (we like people who are similar to us) and “empathy” (we like people who like us). We also tend like people who are positive, respectful, appreciative and empathetic.
Every study of which I am aware demonstrates that those who harness similarity and empathy are more persuasive than those who don’t (this is drawn from the work of Dale Carnegie, and primarily from Gary Orren, with whom I helped teach a class on Persuasion at the Harvard Kennedy School in January).
We shouldn’t ignore these findings while trying to pursue an Overton Window strategy – they’re perfectly compatible. It is wrong, in my view, to think as Rieux says that “The Overton Window is indeed the main rebuttal to the flies/honey/vinegar cliché”. You can put forward an unthinkable idea in a likable way – there’s no necessary contradiction between them.
I always think of Robert Ingersoll here: he was a powerful, fiery rhetorician pushing agnosticism at a time which was considerably more opposed to it than now, but at the same time he knew how to be likable, and was loved by much of the public. This is the strategy to pursue, I think.
You’re move, James—let’s see you think of an acronym for “ACCOMMODATIONIST.”
I second, third, or fourth the fact that Paul W.’s post is fantastic. A clear summary of the differences between gnus and accomodationists.
@James re: Stedman being the subject of the post.
Yeah, I realize that. That wasn’t my point. My point was that you conveniently chose to drag a large net on one side (the gnu side) when you could have stuck to a single person (on the gnu side). In short, it wasn’t a fair comparison.
And sorry, that was some pretty obvious goal post moving you did there. What is the “very significant difference” between Humanists and accomodationists?
Also, this:
It sounds great and all. But chances of coming across as likeable diminish if the “moderate” wing of the movement keeps throwing the more “radical” wing under the bus.
Contemporaneous eyewitness corroboration required.
Where’s Ben Goren when you need him?
A: There is no evidence that a person named “Jesus” (or Joshua or Yeshua or whatever appropriate collection of Aramaic letters spelled backward) actually existed. Nor Joseph, nor Mary.
B: There is even less evidence that such a “Jesus” person — if he existed at all — said any of the things attributed to him. (The descriptions of his sayings do not coincide with one another — how is this possible if these are the words of the avatar of almighty god?).
C: There is also the exact same amount of evidence (which is for all practical purposes defined as exactly equivalent to zero) that this alleged person performed any actions which would have made him notable in the First Century.
D: This includes any alleged “miracles” — up to and including the “miracle” of raising his own self from the dead (a bad David Blaine magic trick if ever there was one).
Jesus is exactly the same as Hercules — a half-god with superpowers. But not as many muscles. If he had been real, surely SOMEONE of the time — of which there were plenty of chroniclers of that time and place — would have noticed. None did.
Only decades-to-centuries afterwards was this idea of a Jesus fixed to a specific place and time, with specific actions, and specific sermons/parables/homilies.
No kidding, every time we let anyone — theist, atheist, agnostic, apatheist, whatever — get away with the presuppositional bias inherent in “Jesus did/said/acted/lived”, we have lost a small battle in the war.
First, prove Jesus lived. Then, prove Jesus said/acted as any other normal human. Then, prove the miracles. With contemporaneous eyewitness corroboration.
Three steps. Prove all three, and I’ll convert (yes, I will — I’m an atheist, not an idiot).
BTW: Mythologies written in so-called “holy books” do not count. Heck, even Luke does not declare himself to be an eyewitness to the events described. Look at Luke 1:1-4. That is not the statement of someone who was there. Quite the opposite.
I’ve been asking for this type of corroboration for at least 5 years. First, theists trot out Josephus (born WAY after the alleged events, and any mention of Jesus in his histories was a forgery). Then Tacitus, Origen, Polycarp…all the same. Born AFTER the events happened. Historians who primarily speak of the cult of Jews who worship this new intercessor. Not eyewitnesses to the events. Not even close.
@designsode You say: “And sorry, that was some pretty obvious goal post moving you did there. What is the “very significant difference” between Humanists and accomodationists?”
I’m not sure what goalpost moving your referring to – could you enlighten me? I think I provided lots of evidence from the post that my reading was reasonable and consistent. Why do you disagree?
As for the difference between an “accomodationist atheist” and a Humanist, it’s that a Humanist is explicitly committed to a set of moral principles and values which they hope will guide their action in the world. They have “signed up”, as it were, to a series of ethical beliefs in a way an atheist hasn’t necessarily done. I’m wondering, are you really asking for a definition of “Humanist”? I think if so it would best if you read this. If this isn’t what you mean by your question could you rephrase it?
@designsoda
Not sure what you’re referring to re: goal post moving. I think I supported my reading of the article with copious evidence. Your disagreement is merely in the form of an assertion. I’m comfortable with my position for now.
As for your question, it seems like you’re asking for a definition of Humanist. I’d start here. You’ll see that a lot more than atheism is required for those who take that label. If this isn’t the force of your question could you please rephrase?
James:
Okay, but I’m not seeing the contradiction between that last sentence and my quoted statement.
And since when is it a settled fact that gnus like Dawkins, Myers, and Benson aren’t “likeable”? To whom? This is part of Jason Rosenhouse’s point in the excerpt from him I quoted:
I submit that P.Z. Myers, for one, is immensely “likeable,” more so than he’s even right. I’m annoyed with the recent stuff he’s written about “dictionary atheists” (meh), but I love the guy; I’ve very much enjoyed talking with him a handful of times at local atheist events, and when he went in for heart surgery at a hospital close to where I live, I hand-delivered a sympathy card to the duty nurse in the cardiac unit.
Seems to me that declaring certain much-maligned gnu advocates (or tactics) “not likeable” goes a long way toward presuming your conclusion.
And if it’s weightier analysis you’re looking for, there is this:
@Rieux: You say:
When you said “The Overton Window is indeed the main rebuttal to the flies/honey/vinegar cliché” I took you to mean that the idea of the Overton Window (that more unthinkable ideas make previously unthinkable ideas seem more reasonable by contrast) rebuts (your word) the adage that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar (the adage you referenced). My response was that this isn’t the case – unthinkable ideas can be presented in vinegary or honeyed flavors just like all other ideas. If you meant something different I’m not sure what it could be, but I’m willing to be corrected.
You ask:
Not sure why you address this question to me – I didn’t make the claim that they aren’t likable. But if I were to make that case I would point to: 1) the widespread perception on this very site that new atheists are perceived as abrasive by others, even though those others are mistaken. 2) Some of the statements of PZ Meyers, for example when he seemed to ridicule people praying for loved ones during the Japanese Tsunami, or Hitchens, for example when he said religious people were “fools”, surely do not endear them to those who don’t already agree. This is if I were to make that case.
As for attracting people on the fence, it is precisely these people who, according to the studies I’ve read, are attracted more by positivity, friendliness, authoritativeness without know-it-all ness and empathy, I’m just putting forward the empirical evidence, which I note that Rosenhouse doesn’t do.
You say:
You again make the error of putting words into my mouth. I didn’t say that any new atheists weren’t likable. This is a figment of your imagination.
And as for your “weightier analysis”, I can’t help but notice that the document you cite is about the uses of ridicule when fighting a war against an “enemy”. I don’t think it’s an appropriate source to look to when discussing how to effectively discourse with religious people who disagree with us. I find it rather disturbing you should look that that particular source. Do you consider yourself “at war” with religious people, and do you wish to inflict upon them a “fate worse than death”?
But that obviously strips the “honey” and “vinegar” of the context provided by Paul W.’s comment #29 (not that that should have been necessary):
That, and not a mere ancient “adage,” is “the flies/honey/vinegar cliché” I was referring to. (…In my response to Paul W.’s comment, as I expected readers would notice.)
The cliché is a specific argument presented, ad nauseam, by accommodationists who pretend that (what they deem to be) “likable” advocacy is the only variety that presents any hope of persuading anyone. I agreed with Paul that Overton issues are the “main” (i.e., most commonly cited by gnus such as Paul W.—sheesh) rebuttal to that fallacious argument.
Given the actual “unthinkable ideas” and (accommodationist) notions of vinegar/honey that are at issue here—again, Paul W.’s comment is the specific context of mine, though you appear to have missed that—I’m afraid that’s not in fact true. I defy you to find an accommodationist willing to agree that any of the “unthinkable ideas” Paul lists as Gnu positions 0-4 “can be presented in [a] honeyed flavor.”
Again, context. I made certain statements in direct response to a particular comment by Paul W. You replied to me and posed a challenge citing “likability.” I made what appears to be the error of thinking your assertions were relevant to the discussion I was participating in; if Myers (note spelling, please) et al. are in fact “likable,” then your point is irrelevant to my exchange with Paul. I presumed you were trying to say something relevant, ergo you were asserting that some prominent gnu(s) fail to be “likable.” My mistake, I guess.
How cute… and snide. Duly noted.
Then what you said had nothing to do with my exchange with Paul. You needn’t have bothered.
Oh, it’s mine now. Swell.
Look, I was responding to your imperious assurances that “similarity and empathy” are the end-all and be-all of persuasion. That happens to be seriously dubious; among other things, as that white paper explains, ridicule is in fact a powerful persuasive weapon. And you begin to look very much like the straw-manning accommodationists Paul is “sick as shit” of.
And?
Gee, now who’s putting words in mouths? I neither said nor implied that religious believers are “enemies”; to the contrary, in recent discussions on this blog I’ve identified three basic enemies I think gnus have: religious faith, religious authority, and religious privilege. Not incidentally, outspoken atheists have been employing ridicule against those three targets for quite a while now, and it’s paid off more than a little.
Nope. But it’s very nice of you to pretend that I said that. I would love to see the death of religious privilege and the discrediting of religious authority and faith. I’m afraid I don’t see how the shell games you’re playing on this thread are helpful in forwarding that or any other laudable goal.
Rieux, this is very frustrating for me. You misrepresent my writing and continually accuse me of holding positions I do not hold and have given no impression of holding. I am simply making the point that you can, as a matter of fact, employ Overton Window strategies while remaining likable. I’m not sure whether you agree with this or not – your reply entirely skirts the issue. I did not present a “challenge” to you – I merely expressed a disagreement which I supported with some evidence from studies and my personal experience.
I do note now that the honey/vinegar comment makes more sense in the context it was intended. You must admit it is sometimes tough to keep these discussions entirely on topic when one dips in and out – it’s harder than this would be in person. But the long quote you give from Rosenhouse seems to support my impression that you are making the argument that it isn’t that wise to consider tone in and of itself when we’re trying to persuade. I disagree with this because I consider it a matter of established empirical fact that presenting oneself as likable will, most times, be more effective than not doing so. I again refer you to the work of Orren and Carnegie, for starters. I can provide further information if you wish.
As to your questioning whether my comments are relevant, they seem to me clearly relevant to the question of how to effectively convey a message to an audience who may disagree, This is broadly what the discussion regarding the Overton Window is about. You say that “if Myers (note spelling, please) et al. are in fact “likable,” then your point is irrelevant to my exchange with Paul.” Not at all. It is relevant to the broader question of how to persuade. You’ll note I broadened the discussion when I opened my post as follows: “On the issue of the Overton Window (and I’m delighted an informed discussion about strategy is occurring here!), it’s important to note the reams of good empirical evidence…”
In any case, assuming I hold positions I haven’t stated I hold is not a legitimate strategy whether my comments are relevant or not.
I do wonder what voice you are hearing when you read my post, and why you seem to take it so personally. I can assure you, if we were having this discussion in person, nothing about my post would come off as “snide”. I’m not sure quite how that interpretation of my words arose, but it was not my intention. When I said it was “your” weightier analysis I of course meant that you provided it. I assume you won’t deny that.
As for my “imperious assurances that “similarity and empathy” are the end-all and be-all of persuasion”, I do not think what I wrote can fairly be read as imperious , nor did I ever say that similarity and empathy are the end-all-and-be-all of persuasion. Again you misread me. If you would like to point out what you felt was imperious, or where I made the totalizing claim you suggest I did, then I would reconsider this, but for now I don’t accept your characterization.
“And you begin to look very much like the straw-manning accommodationists Paul is “sick as shit” of.” Not sure what this means – so far nothing you have said has touched my (very simple, very minor) point.
Then this: ” I neither said nor implied that religious believers are “enemies””. And I did not say that you did. I asked whether you see religious people as enemies, and if not, why you use a source which suggests you might. I didn’t put any words in your mouth – I simply asked two questions about why you should use such a source to support your argument if you yourself don’t think the context is analogous.
I take a lot of time to consider my posts on here, and to try to frame them in a reasonable and fair-minded way. I do not think your reply either defeats or even seriously challenges the point I have made (which is entirely relevant to this continuing discussion): being likable is an important component of persuasion. You can be likable and put forward “unthinkable” ideas at the same time, thus pursuing an Overton Window strategy. Tone is important because of the empirical evidence we have which demonstrates that people respond to tone as well as content. If we want to be persuasive, we should consider this.
Nothing about my argument deserves your ire, nor was it expressed in a way that is disrespectful to you or to any atheist of any stripe. I do not say that people are wrong to use ridicule or to criticize religion. Nor do I say that people like Myers are nasty people. Nor do I am making a very simple point, supported by empirical evidence, which just happens (I think – I can’t tell from your reply if you agree with my point or not) to challenge a point of view you hold. I would hope you either to provide counter-evidence, or to concede the point, or say where I’ve gone wrong in my reasoning. I would hope not to be called “imperious”, “snide”, and a “straw-manning accommodationist” without the slightest provocation on my part. What is so ironic about this exchange is that you play right into the very stereotypes of new atheists others would put upon you. It’s unfortunate. I really don’t understand it.
Oh, cut the crap, James. From the moment you showed up here, your comments have fairly dripped with condescension and sniffy “Goodness, I may disagree with you, but <i>must</i> you be so vulgar? I am wounded, good sir!”
If that’s not the impression you want to convey, then modify your. . .wait for it. . ..tone. You consistently confuse honest disagreement with “rudeness,” you consistently default to allegiances with your personal friends (Chris Stedman) as an excuse to avoid reasonable criticisms of their positions, and you parade around your indignation with the most tight-lipped, tight-assed expression I’ve ever seen.
You’re a smart guy, and you’re often witty and funny. But you can also be an incredible fussy bore. Drop the affected, wounded prissiness. Aside from how affected it looks, it isn’t intellectually honest.
I think the one thing that all of us Atheists hate is being preached to, and perhaps that is what each of us is reacting to. Perhaps when we write on these issues, we could all take a little more care to be less preachy (the image of a minister lecturing to his congregation is sickening to many). I myself will promise not to tell anyone else how to do atheist activism. All I will do is talk about how effective my particular technique is, instead of slamming my fellow atheists’s strategies.
As for me, I think we have a lot to gain from Interfaith, if nothing else, we secularize the dialogue by forcing them to confront the fact that we don’t share a common faith in god, in addition to gaining a voice in the discussion. I use my particular seat at the Interfaith table to advocate for the rights of Atheist and non-theist students at Harvard. I would welcome anyone else who is interested in pursuing Interfaith activism to reach to me via email or facebook, or Chris Stedman, our Interfaith Service Fellow at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard.
@Josh “From the moment you showed up here, your comments have fairly dripped with condescension and sniffy “Goodness, I may disagree with you, but must you be so vulgar? I am wounded, good sir!”
Well, I AM British – it would be disingenuous of me not to be so proper!
“you parade around your indignation with the most tight-lipped, tight-assed expression I’ve ever seen.”
In my community, being tight-lipped and tight-assed is highly desirable, so I’ll take this as a compliment ;)
James:
Well, considering that we probably run in . . .similar. . .circles, I guess I’d better not elaborate:)))
And I was making entirely different points in response to Paul W.’s comment, a thread you have now dragged wildly outside its prior context and off topic. Thanks much.
With points I never made. And I interpreted it as a much more aggressive assertion, because if you had been following the thread, that was the unavoidable implication of your statements. You weren’t, and thus it wasn’t—but how was I to know that you’d decided to ignore the entire context of my comment?
I was not conducting a “discussion regarding the Overton Window.” I was conducting a discussion about various responses to a particular accommodationist tactic, of which Overton Window issues are one example that I noted in passing in order to get to what I actually wanted to talk about. You disputed my in-passing note by quote-mining it, entirely ignoring the accommodationist-tactic referent that was at the center of my point. I don’t appreciate that.
I guess you’re just straight-facing this, but I’m sorry, I don’t understand how anyone can read this paragraph as anything but disingenuous in the extreme:
The repeated and melodramatically overdone “if I were to make that case” line simply oozes slimy disingenuousness. The blatant message of that paragraph is that you are quite happily making precisely “that case” but then putting on a transparent mock-innocent pretense that you’re saying nothing of the kind.
If you were to pull a stunt like that on me “in person,” I think I’d shoot you an “are you from Neptune?” look and walk away. You can spare us the “hypothetical arguments” that aren’t actually hypothetical.
Think again. The first two paragraphs of #43 say what they say, and “reams of good empirical evidence” that strike your fancy fail to impact the Overton objection Paul cited.
Oh, bullshit:
Right there, in the first and last sentences of that paragraph, you made the “religious people”-for-“enemies” substitution, and you shoved it in my mouth. Which I think I have every right to take offense at.
Oh, god—are you really going to claim to be that unfamiliar with the concept of a rhetorical question? Are you seriously incapable of recognizing how the sentence “Do you consider yourself ‘at war’ with religious people?” accuses me of (and derides me for) considering myself “at war” with religious people?
I’m getting the sense that you simply have a woefully poor sense of the messages you convey in your writing. Pretending that Just Asking Questions(tm) conveys no message at all is just nonsense.
To the extent that this thread is an indication, you don’t seem to be very good at it.
“The point”? Hardly. Much as you are either blind to it or disingenuously denying it, you have communicated a host of other “points” in your past several comments on this thread.
I am not terribly interested in that particular “point.” I was far more involved (as I think my comments #35 and 40 convey) in the vastly more important points made by Paul W., but by brutally misconstruing and pretending to refute a passing point I made in #40, you have dragged this thread far from Paul’s masterwork. And by availing yourself of discursive tactics that convey far more, and uglier, messages than you want to claim you’ve been sending, you’ve raised the ire of more than one of us here. I know I’m not overly interested in further discussion with you at this point.
That’s your prerogative. Perhaps at some point we will be able to hash this out in person. I’m available by phone or email if you decide you’d like to discuss this further. I think you’d find we agree on rather a lot. Let me know, in any case, either on here or through the contact form on my website. I’m always open to opposing views and I enjoy the discussion!
James Croft, I am also British, and you can just sod off if all you have to bring to the table is stiff-upper-lip stereotypes.
You might wish to consider: you keep arguing that being likable is a really important part of persuading people, and you are spectacularly failing to persuade anyone of anything. What does that tell you about how you come across?
This is part of the problem which Chris Mooney has: he keeps advising people on how to communicate and persuade when he’s very very bad at communicating and persuading.
@James Croft
I’m sure you’re right about the likability thing, but you might be surprised how many people like honesty and frankness. People obviously don’t generally like being called fools, but there are a lot of people who like people who call fools fools.
@Hertta “People obviously don’t generally like being called fools, but there are a lot of people who like people who call fools fools.” You’re absolutely right, and I’d never seek to deny this. Problem is, they already agree with us!
@SAWells I think this is a good time for me to, as you suggest, “sod off”. Clearly my comment re: Britishness was an attempt to shrug of a personal attack with a little humor – I regret that it didn’t come off that way. You are correct that I’m not seeming to persuade anyone of anything apart from the fact that I am a huge prig. That this makes my point is, at this juncture, only a slight consolation ;D.
James Croft, I too am British; and I also find you insufferably condescending.
James Croft #60:
No, not necessarily. There’s the third party, the fencesitter.
“I say old boy, have you noticed how the empire is crumbling.””Why, yes, deuced inconvenient, what.””Do you think we should listen to what the natives are saying?””Good Lord no, they’re revolting. We’re here to rule them, not to listen to them.””I say, should we hand out some more mirrors and a few trinkets to appease them?””I rather think not….they just seem to use them to show us who we are….the blighters!”
I think Cam (#23) made a very good point about what pissed me off about Stedman’s piece
This. This this this. Stedman implies that people not involved in (his) service projects or interfaith groups are Bad People. Maybe this wasn’t his intent, I don’t know, but that was what jumped off the screen at me. Combined with the fact that these Bad People were made out to be Typical Atheists (as contrasted with Good Atheist Chris Stedman) and you have a nauseating combination of smug self-satisfaction and throwing most atheists under the bus to get himself on the good side of the privileged religious.
Gosh, what a lot of fun you all had while I was innocently asleep!
James – about “likability”…………I don’t think so. It’s a mug’s game. If you’re being consciously “likable”…decent people everywhere will dislike you.
Really. It looks either manipulative, or pious, that kind of thing. It looks like marketing, whether of a cult or a product. It looks fake, and somewhat contemptuous into the bargain. Ironically…people don’t “like” it.
Less “likability” and more campy lewd jokes; that’s the ticket!
@Rieux, #40
Indeed, those were excellent, concise arguments you quoted.
I would simply like to offer my favourite, humourous (IMHO) rebuttal to the flies and honey nonsense:
A: <blah blah blah> You know, you catch more flies with honey —
G: Well, actually, you’ll catch even more flies with bullshit than with honey. If catching flies is your goal, bullshit is your best bait. So, do you suggest we try to sell them bullshit?
A: Well, no, obviously!
G: So, then, obviously, merely catching flies is not the main goal, is it?
A: What?!
G: If it was the main goal, you could just sell them a bullshit story, just like religion does. But it’s not the main goal. And I don’t consider the people I discuss this stuff with as ‘flies’ in the first place, nor am I trying to ‘catch’ them. That’s bullshit.
My main goal is to awaken people’s senses, to have them taste something different for a change. For that goal, the sharp tang of vinegar is better than the cloying sugariness of honey. Sometimes honey is good. But not all the time. And sometimes vinegar is better. But I hope we can both agree that bullshit is just out!
I was first turned on to Paul W.’s knack for clarity and insight with his excellent comments at WEIT, beginning with this one on the history of the gnu/accommodationist frackas. You will want to read those ones all the way through!
Oh yeah? Well I got there even before that; I got there via his comments at The Intersection, so ha.
:- )
James,
Then how do you explain the fact that I really like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Ophelia Benson, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Greta Christina, Brian Sapient, and a whole bunch of other gnus who do not fit into your narrow model of what is ‘likeable’? In fact, I find them most persuasive when they completely eschew ‘likeability’ in favour of solid facts and reliable evidence. I often find myself liking them the most when they are at their harshest, least empathetic, most biting, and most witty.
And how do you explain the fact that I’m not the only one who sees things this way? How do you explain the massive popularity of their work, and the large numbers of testimonials from ‘deconverts’ who were convinced in part due to their criticisms of religion?
Clearly, you need to do a little more research on the wide variety of different means of persuasion.
And again, are you really sure that what you are shooting for is mere persuasion? Because if that’s what you’re really going for, then, again, I refer you to the massive evidence of the success of pure bullshit at persuading the masses of uncritical thinkers. Why are you not advocating pure and simple bullshit as your primary communication strategy? It works for corporations, PR organizations, advertising agencies, and, of course, all world religions. It is tried and true. It has a proven track record which beats ‘honey’ by many orders of magnitude. So why not go whole hog and advocate for selling pure bullshit?
What’s that? Because we don’t actually want to lie to people? Because we value the truth more than mere persuasion? Ah, I see. That makes sense. I happen to agree. Truth is more important than mere persuasion.
And I would go a step farther. I am completely against mere persuasion. Bullshit works, but I wish it didn’t. It doesn’t work on everyone, after all, right? It doesn’t work on me. It doesn’t work on other critical thinkers. Hmmm, I wonder what the connection might be. Could it be… critical thinking? Ah, yes, indeed it could be.
Even more than persuasion for political expediency, I am strongly in favour of challenging people to think more critically. To start using reason. To become more rational and less biased. To value evidence-based reasoning over faith-based belief. That is my real goal. And for that goal, I have found the direct application of harsh critique, and indeed even ridicule, as very effective tools for promoting critical thinking, as long as the harsh critique is itself backed by solid evidence-based reasoning, as I constantly strive to provide.
Ultimately, I am striving for a world where bullshit is disempowered, where people are not so credulous and easily manipulated by various ‘persuasion’ techniques, where they instead rely on reality and evidence to form their beliefs and to base their political actions on. It’s a lofty goal, but we are making undeniable progress. And giving up our most powerful tools for more short-sighted goals is not ‘persuasive’ to us.
I don’t like bullshit. I don’t even like honey that much. I find vinegar works very very well for my goals, thanks.
:-) I do not doubt your extensive background knowledge of this situation, Ophelia. From what I gather, you’ve been there from the beginning (or nearly so, if I’m mistaken). I’m late to the game, relatively speaking. (Though I’ve been following it for what seems like forever now, mostly lurking, but with an occasional outburst of enthusiasm.)
How’s that working out for ya? Having applied your ’empirical’ strategy here, how would you rate your success at persuasion in this thread?
Does the evidence of this thread influence your belief in the effectiveness of portraying oneself as ‘likeable’ positively or negatively?
Has your hypothesis been relatively confirmed or disconfirmed by your recent empirical evidence?
Wonderist:
Aw, man—and Jerry dinged Paul for posting it! Hmph.
Well, the upshot of Jerry’s complaint is pretty much the same as my suggestion from yesterday: Paul should be blogging on this, not (merely) commenting.
Wonderist:
I am not sure how much persuasion happens on this blog in general, whether it’s respectful or insult-laden. Perhaps people who already mostly agree with each other have moderately adjusted their opinions, but I have not witnessed many people arriving at drastically different conclusions based on what they’ve read others say here. To Paul’s credit, a few threads back he delivered a cold analysis of why even ‘moderate’ religious beliefs can be significant obstacles to social progress, and I admit that his analysis has enervated my convictions that moderate religious beliefs are virtually benign. I say cold analysis because it was devoid of personal slights(from what I can remember), and I think that is why I was able to focus solely on his logic and not be distracted by implications (or explications) that I was an ignorant imbecile. I personally am more likely to pay attention to someone’s reasoning when it’s not insult-laden. Thank you Paul!
Having done a wee bit of ADHD-inspired research, I think I may have found a couple nice prefixes that would alleviate the whole ‘interfaith’ thing. In order to be inclusive of atheists and others without faith, they should consider calling it ‘transfaith’ or ‘metafaith’ or ‘outerfaith’ or ‘exofaith’ or ‘ectofaith’ or ‘alterfaith’.
(KSHHHT) … Agent BC to Agent GC, Agent BC to Agent GC: Operation Rubber Hose proceeding according to plan, over…. (KSHHHT)
A couple random points from a long, and excellent thread.
I think MLK’s idea about positive vs. negative peace (negative peace is the absence of tension, positive peace is the presence of justice) go a long way towards explaining the accommodationist vs. gnu debate. Interfaith events, and much accommodationist writing, must ignore the contradictory content of the various faiths to gain a negative peace and allow cooperation on a particular issue. Gnus would prefer to remove the unjust privilege faith enjoys and provide a positive peace where conflicts over faith would be less likely to hinder cooperation on a wide range of issues. I think many people use something like Pail W’s excellent framework @29 to rationalize their inclinations.
People consciously trying to be likable always give me a ‘used car salesman’ vibe; insincere and condescending to think they can pull it off. Politicians of every denomination usually strike me this way. Reality TV show types too. Trying to be popular is never a good substitute for just doing something well and being popular for it.
James Croft,
I’m seriously not clear on what you’re saying in comment #43.
I think that most of the prominent gnus are quite likable. Given what they have to say, it’s hard to imagine them being much more likeable. Nobody’s perfect, but seriously, these are some very likeable people—much more likeable than the accommodationist weasels who specialize in attacking them, like Mooney and Ruse.
There are reasons why the four horsemen sell millions of books, and PZ’s blog is wildly popular by the standards of science blogs or atheism blogs. One of those reasons is that they’re widely perceived as saying what needs to be said as likably as possible, without pulling their punches. They’re humane and honest people.
Most of the perception of them as unlikable people seems to come from people whose real objection is that they simply don’t want the gnus to say what the gnus want to say.
If you’re going to say that people are unlikable, name names and give examples. I do believe that gnus are unlikable at times, but to nowhere near the extent that they are portrayed that way by people who don’t like them, or don’t want them to be liked, because they don’t like what the gnus have to say.
I’ve looked into the evidence that gnus, e.g. Richard Dawkins, are unlikeable—such as Nick Matze’s recent claim that Dawkins calls Christians Nazis in public speeches—and it’s generally quote-mines and bullshit generalizations.
That, and having actually read a lot of what the all the major gnus actually write, leaves me with the distinct impression that perceptions of their unlikeability are almost entirely due to where they are situated in an Overton Window. It’s inevitable that somebody at the edge of the window will be widely disliked, simply because they’re taking an unpopular position.
Another contributing factor is a years-long smear job by people like Mooney, Nisbet, Rosenau, Matzke, and Ruse, who paint the gnus as being gratuitously confrontational, call them terribly uncivil, and feign mystification as to why the gnus persist in doing what they do, but leave the obvious inference open: they do it because they’re ignorant, naive assholes. That is precisely the message that those guys are quite intentionally sending, because when you can’t rebut somebody’s arguments, you can always try to discredit the source and attribute their differeces of opinion to personality flaws.
None of those people has ever acknowledged what you have acknowledged here: that there are good Overton reasons for being “extreme” and “confrontational” relative to the center of public opinion. Not once, in literally years of nonstop bashing of gnus for being gratuitiously mean and pursuing a naive, hopeless strategy that “isn’t helping” and “can only backfire.”
That is not an accident. It is quite intentional strategy of misrepresentation and constant personal smearing. It’s dirty politics.
Unfortunately, to some extent, it works.
I don’t find that likeable.
A lot of accommodationists think that the gnus are fair game for that sort of thing, because the gnus are engaged in a “negative” campaign themselves—they’re going around telling people they’re wrong about their cherished beliefs. Gnus see it differently. That’s not a “negative” campaign, unless challenging the dominant ideology is lpso facto a negative campaign, and that would be stupid.
To us, our cause is reasonable and just, and I think we’re unlikable mainly because we are challenging the dominant ideology—including the entrenched privilege of religion that defines what we say as rude irrespective of how we say it.
The simple fact is that typical religious beliefs are a form of popular delusion. Not a delusion like a paranoid schizophrenics, due to an abnormally poor ability to distinguish fantasy from reality, but a popular delusion, due to a merely normally poor ability to make such distinctions, exploited by a cultural system that confirms the delusion.
There’s no nice way to tell people that they’re not just mistaken, but deluded—that their beliefs are not just wrong, but crazily wrong in an important sense, even if they’re not personally crazy in the stereotypical sense of having a particularly messed-up brain.
But that is a message we think it’s important to get across—that religious people are literally crazy in an important sense. They believe things that are not just false but ridiculous. and that sort of ridiculous belief is protected by the idea that it’s rude and morally wrong to ridicule people’s sincere religious beliefs.
That’s a problem. How do you likably get across the idea that people’s religious beliefs are ridiculous? How do you point out the ridiculousness of a particular common belief?
I say that sometimes it’s appropriate to explain why the belief is in fact ridiculous, and then to proceed to ridicule it.
You can cite studies that show that that’s a “bad” strategy, but the ones I’ve looked at are invariably quite limited and do not account account for many obviously important effects, known from other studies of other issues.
Typically the experiments that make likability seem like the dominant issue do not account for social belief fixation effects, especially long-term and big-picture ones.
People who cite such studies in criticizing gnus (e.g., Mooney) seem conveniently unaware of a host of very basic results in social psychology from the 1970’s and 1980’s about bracketing, diffusion of responsibility, and groupthink. Not to mention a whole lot of evidence from marketing and political science and sociology that what seems like a good strategy in a context like giving an isolated talk to a captive test audience is often not a good choice in in a diverse media market where (1) people self-select the channels they they listen to, (2) take messages they hear repeatedly more seriously than messages they hear once, (3) tend toward splitting the difference between common messages, and (4) exhibit strong generational effects, with young people more open to changing their minds, and those changes persisting in later life (notably with regard to ditching religious beliefs in particular—it’s easier for young people to accept antireligious messages, and to ditch religion, and they do not mostly go back to it).
When you have audiences that self-select the channels they listen to, it makes a lot less sense to worry about “likeability” at the expense of saying what you have to say as clearly as possible. People far from you in the Overton spectrum, who would not like you for saying those things, are mostly not listening to your channel anyway. And people who hear about you indirectly, through hostile channels, will mostly get a negative impression of you anyway, and you can’t change that much.
For example, theists and accommodationists whose main exposure to Richard Dawkins comes from Mooney and Matzke are likely to think Dawkins is an ignorant asshole irrespective of what he actually says, and especially of how he actually says it, because if Dawkins doesn’t say something ignorant or assholish, they’ll quote mine and misrepresent him, and say he did anyway. Even people who go look at what he actually said after that are likely to misinterpret him as they misrepresent him, because their “advance organizers” will work to bias their readers interpretations. (Their framing will more or less stick.)
James:
No. This is a prototypical example of the kind of baseless and unfair criticism that gets levelled at people like PZ all the time – just as much from atheists who have an emotional/political investment in seeing Gnus as mean people as from genuinely religious people. James, I’m not saying this to be provocative, but there’s no way to say it that isn’t going to raise your ire: I think this is exactly what you’re doing. You have an emotional (and inaccurate) disposition toward the meme of Mean PZ, and it causes you to say things that are just factually untrue. I don’t think you’re aware of it consciously, but it doesn’t excuse it. You really do have an obligation to be fair. You really do have an obligation not to perpetuate this stereotype that gives ammunition to the Shut Up crowd. You really should stop and examine whether you actually have a disagreement with people like PZ when you learn that what you thought he said was actually not what he said.
What did PZ really say? We don’t have to guess. We only to have read:
Do you see that? He was criticizing the reactions of people around the world who acted as though they were being helpful to the Japanese by praying for them. That’s perfectly clear from the context, the fact that he contrasted it to actually helpful response of donating to the Red Cross.
He did not make fun of people praying for their loved ones. He did not even “seem to.” Damn it, it’s this kind of lazy, emotionally based slagging off that gets people supremely and justifiedly pissed off James. It goes on all the time.
Are you willing to acknowledge that you were wrong, and also to think about how you might be unwittingly perpetuating unfair stereotypes? That there might be a reason people like me get so furious?
It’s also worth examining why you read PZ’s post that way, and why you recall it that way. It’s not controversial that, in fact, he didn’t make fun of people for praying for their loved ones. What’s bothersome is why you were inclined to construe it that way. What’s behind that?
That is not the impression I’ve gotten from Jerry. He might or might not think I should blog elsewhere—he’s never said anything positive about anything I’ve written—and if it’s a matter of posting long stuff on his blog or not, I should just stop posting.
Unfortunately, I rarely know how to say anything briefly and well that other commenters aren’t already saying briefly and well. (And often my long comments are explaining those things for people who are still Not Getting It.) Sucks.
I’ve been avoiding commenting on WEIT at all lately, but I couldn’t resist the Dawkins/Nazi thread, and sure enough, wrote a long comment without even realizing. I may have to have stop stop even reading WEIT, to avoid getting sucked in.
My long comments are clearly more popular with some fellow commenters than with bloggers I inflict them on. When I was voted the Order of Molly over at Pharyngula, PZ’s only comment was something ironic about how “everybody should write treatises in the comment threads from now on.”
I think that different response is understandable, partly because other commenters can just skip long comments they’re not interested in at the moment—or by commenters they don’t especially appreciate, but don’t feel the need to smack down—but bloggers generally want to have a handle on everything going on on their blogs, and read the stuff they’re not interested in. Long comments are big burden that way, and can mess up the ambient conversational rhythm too.
Paul, when Rieux said “the upshot of Jerry’s complaint is pretty much the same as my suggestion from yesterday: Paul should be blogging on this, not (merely) commenting,” I understood less as “Jerry also thinks Paul should be blogging” and more as “Jerry has observed (and objected) that Paul’s remarks often don’t fit well into the space comment threads allow; this is further evidence Paul needs his own blog.” I would endorse this sentiment strongly.
Indeed, it’s probably a toss-up between Paul W. and Rieux as to who’s my favorite commenter on the atheist blogs where I lurk constantly. If Rieux and Paul W. started a blog together, it would probably become swiftly essential reading. And Rieux, remember when in a previous thread you described yourself as a “mediocre blogger,” Josh Slocum pointed out that you’re a “stunningly clear thinker and writer” and the way in which you’re perhaps a mediocre blogger is that maybe you “can’t be arsed to update it that much.” Perhaps you’d be inclined to post more frequently on a blog of your own, if Paul W.’s there doing likewise. And vice-versa.
And Paul, while your last three paragraphs in #80 are sensible, I have to imagine that if you’d published as its own blog post somewhere else the giant comment Wonderist linked to in #67, Jerry Coyne might well have linked to it. Should have anyway. It was packed with great info and insights. Your comment thread challenges might keep Dr. Coyne from being a big Paul W. fan, but it was something of interest to everyone interested in the gnu debates and characteristically so.
Been there. I know the feeling.
Noooooo! </slow-mo hollywood melodramatic scene of impending loss>
No, no, no, that’s the wrong reaction, man. Seriously, don’t get discouraged by that. Instead channel it. Also, I understand where you’re coming from, so this is not intended as a scolding-no, but a please-reconsider-no.
Sounds like high praise to me, with a nod and a wink from PZ.
I’ve got an idea for you, which maybe will help you get started:
First, set up the easiest possible blog possible, just to get that rigamarole out of the way. Blogspot or WordPress seem to be the general consensus, with Blogspot erring on the side of easy-to-start, and WordPress erring on the side of easy-to-maintain. Once you’ve got the blog set up, all you have to do is….
Whenever you find yourself writing a long comment (or a comment you think is worthwhile for whatever reasons, such as not wanting to lose it if some blogger decides to delete his blog or whatever), just copy and paste that comment into your new blog, et voila, you have an instant blog post. No muss, no fuss, no extra work, just a copy of what you already wrote saved for posterity.
You can always include a link to the comment thread you originally posted in, for context, and/or you could just post a brief snippet of the full-length post on the original comment thread, with a link to your full-length blog post for those who are interested in more in-depth.
But basically, just get started. KISS, Keep It Simple, Smarty. Do whatever works to just get it going. It doesn’t need to be perfect. (The perfect is the enemy of the good.)
Once you’ve got it going, you’ll build it into a habit over time, and get more skilled and/or fancy. But just posting your informative, analytic comments right now (as straight-up unpolished/unvarnished as they happen to be, it doesn’t matter) would be a much better thing for you and for us, than the alternative which appears to be you getting discouraged from commenting at all.
(Fingers crossed.) Good luck. Oh! And, have fun! :-)
Also, Paul, I’m very intrigued by your mention in one of your WEIT comments that you’ve “been involved in atheist organizations, including being a founding member and sometime board member of an unusually successful local atheist organization.” The local freethought group in my very Bible-belt area is newish and small and could benefit from any insights you can give on how to make it grow. Perhaps Ophelia can put us in touch? (And perhaps she can forgive me for posting way off-topic?)
Steve, thanks for the kind words. I’m not convinced that I’m in Paul’s class, but it’s very nice to hear that folks like my comments.
The notion of blogging in concert with someone like Paul (though of course he’d, uh, have to want to join up) is awfully enticing. Mustering the energy to post, not to mention a worthwhile idea, proved very difficult during my previous attempt at blogging–but yes, of course, more hands make lighter work.
Actually, on those grounds I’d prefer to have more than two people involved. A team of three or four simpatico types could be great fun, especially if a certain blogmother (to steal Markos Moulitsas’s term) tossed an occasional link or two our way. And call me a flaming liberal, but I would want the team to have a little more demographic diversity than Paul and I can claim by ourselves.
I also think a fitting blog name would be a woeful pun on “gnu.”
Finally, the remaining concern I have is being outed. That could get ugly out here in meatspace.
Thoughts, anyone?
Definitely start a blog. I say don’t try to pre-plan too much. Just start writing, and you’ll work out the kinks along the way. It’s been really great to see Eric MacDonald go from stellar B&W commenter to stellar blogger. (He’s literally one of my favorite bloggers working today, on any topic.)
As a pseudonymous blogger, I get it. People choose anonymity for different reasons (my own are extremely complicated, but I’ve tried to use my anonymity responsibly—no bomb-throwing, no spreading misinformation, no trolling). But should push come to shove, it wouldn’t be the end of the world if I were outed, you know? It would be kind of problematic for me, sure, but it wouldn’t ruin my life beyond repair. If being outed would ruin your life, then, yeah, you should think carefully about things.
I sure hope you take the gnublogger plunge. And that goes for all of you who should be blogging but aren’t.
Hell, just do it! I blog about chikkins and gardening and still manage to trash religion along the way. You guys would be dynamite!
I’m generally a lurker, but I have to throw in saying a Paul/Riuex blogging alliance would be the best thing that’s happened to the internet this side of porn. Both of your comments here, on WEIT and Pharyngula, even occasionally on NFQ and the CFI sites and I’m sure wherever else you post that I don’t frequent have always been clear-minded and wonderfully eloquent.
Go for it!
Rieux:
Sounds interesting to me, but I have to warn you I’d be extremely unreliable. I might go months without posting, when I’m up to my eyeballs in utterly unrelated projects I need to work on, etc., and I need to be doing more of that stuff in the foreseeable future. (That’s the main reason I don’t have a blog of my own.) So more hands might help even things out as well. (I might be wrong, and might not be able to keep myself from posting, once I got started, but I should prioritize other things ahead of being a steady blogger; that’s another reason I’ve been hesitant to start a blog.)
I’ve thought for years that it would be cool to be in a group blog thing with Sastra (a.k.a. Sastra, OM—one of the first recipients of the Order of Molly at Pharyngula). I don’t know if she’d be interested, but whenever I think about about group blogging, I know she’s the first person I’d ask, irrespective of demographics. And she’s a she, too, so that’s extra good.
How woeful? Got any especially good (/bad) ones? I thought of “Gnus and Views” but that seems just so-so.
(It seems advantageous to have “New Atheist” in the blog title or subtitle, to get more hits when people search for “new atheist” stuff, even though it’s a dumb term.)
Andrew Lovley:
You are very much welcome, Andrew. I really appreciate the feedback, and I’m glad you took that in the spirit I hoped you would. (I was pretty hard on you at the start, and I could easily imagine very different responses.) Thanks for actually taking it seriously and for having the class to thank me for it.
(And thanks very much to Ophelia for letting that incredibly long laying-it-all-out post through at all. It’s really not the house style here, and I do push that boundary too much.)
Hey I like the group blog idea. Maybe I could join?
Would you consider calling it Offspring of B&W?
Hahahahahahahaha
Seriously. I think you should do it – Paul and Rieux, Rieux and Paul. Yes of course I would link to it – duh. Sastra please join.
Rieux – I don’t think your anonymity need be threatened. Lots of prominent bloggers have remained anon for years, haven’t they?
I’ll send Paul your address, Steve.
Also, would “All the Gnus that’s fit to print” be a woeful enough pun?
Thanks, Ophelia.
And Paul, I agree with Wonderist about a good amount of blog posts just coming from what you might otherwise put in problematically long comments elsewhere. Some of those wouldn’t easily stand up on their own, but many would. And you likely wouldn’t go months without posting if you’re putting up on your blog the substantive comments you’d be putting up elsewhere. Hard to imagine you often go a month or more without posting a good comment at one of these other sites.
Mind you…………….I’m not entirely thrilled to see the best commenters here hiving off to their own blogs! I’ve already lost Eric……….
How selfish am I.
Oh, and Paul, yeah, Gnus and Views isn’t a completely awesome name for a blog, but it’s good enough if nothing better arises.
Meanwhile, I’m glad Ophelia would link to such a blog (and I’d be astonished if it were otherwise), and I’d hope MacDonald, McCreight, Myers, Rosenhouse, and others would as well, but alas, Jerry Coyne seems to be saying he wouldn’t, as their full/real names wouldn’t be on it. It seems to many of us that a Rieux/Paul blog could really contribute meaningfully and prominently to the level of discussion going on, but I guess Dr. Coyne would try ignore those contributions. An awful lot of other people would find it valuable, though.
(I don’t doubt Sastra’s stuff is good, too. I haven’t taken notice yet, though, perhaps because I usually ignore the comment threads at Pharyngula. Where else does she comment much?)
Steve – here! Well not much, not nearly as much as I’d like, but now and then, and always brilliantly. Like Cam.
Gnu kids on the block?
The Gnu Statesmen
And the new bloggers have a moral responsibility to continue to post at B&W
Paul and Rieux, don’t infer from #98 that your posting load would have to double. I’d hate for that prospect to deter you.
Steve,
Agreed, I was thinking more on the lines of Eric, who still comes back to contribute occasionally.
More Titles:
A Gnu Hope
The Gnu Seekers
Gnus of the World
Paul,
It’s worse than that:
Jerry does not approve of the blog we’re thinking of starting, and evidently disapproves pretty strongly.
Not only should we not write essays on his site—an entirely reasonable rule—but if we post them essays elsewhere, we can’t even link to them in comments on his site, for reference. Yikes.
I may have been wrong in my last comment—it may be better, not worse, than that.
Jerry commented that he doesn’t want people turning their names into links that link to a pseudonymous blog, but something to the effect that good pseudonymous postings are good. Or something like that. I think he edited the original rule about that (#2) in the original posting, too, to clarify that.
Anyway, it seems not so bad. I think.
I had hoped to comment earlier today on this thread, but I had connection problems for several hours—and seemingly only to B&W. Was it just me?
Anyway! I’m fully in agreement with Paul @88 that Sastra is terrific, but frankly (given that “inaugural OM” thing, not to mention the subsequent years of great commenting on Ye Olde Cephalopod Blog) I wonder whether she’d be interested in a project that I worry could be, by the standards she’s set, slumming. Which is just to say that the two nominated participants seem less than assured about our blogging acumen. (Just so that doesn’t come across as false modesty, I think most of my comments are rather good, and Paul’s are invariably terrific. Blogging is just different, and (in my experience) harder.)
But the upshot is that if we can find one or two good gnus* to go in with Paul and me, count me in for a group blog. Sastra would be an unbelievably (heh) good “get.”
Ophelia, no, of course you’re not eligible. Pull the other one: no one with the record of success you have as an author and blogger should be sharing a masthead with the likes of me.
Finally, “Rieux/Paul” (@95, piggybacking on 91) is a rather, uh, interesting formulation. I’m not sure it fits the envisioned blog very well, but it’s… memorable. Several of us saw Berlinerblau blather something (at Paul, in fact) about “the ‘face gnu'”; failing that, do we have a “Supermodel”?
*: Bad pun, but not witty enough for a title.
“Breaking Gnus”?
“Start Spreading the Gnus”? (More problems with double entendres.)
“(G)No Gnus is Good Gnus”?
Short and Yiddish-inflected: “So Gnu?”
“What’s Gnu?” (Well, that would at least fit Paul’s recent primers.)
“Just Say Gnu”?
“Gnu and Improved”? (Shades of “Bright.”)
“Gnu Horizons”?
“Gnu Deal”?
Maybe my pun idea is a dead end. I’ll blame Jacobi.
No, it was down for a few hours due to a problem with the web host. I’ve upgraded some components, which I hope will help, and am keeping an eye on it for a while to make sure it stays up.
Gnu Labour *coat*
I’m too Gnu to have read Sastra……is there a way to isolate comments from an individual?
Many thanks, Josh.
I hope you all realize that it’s the technical skillz of Josh that keep this place running and that he does it totally pro bono as other people hand out energy-efficient light bulbs to The Poor.
clod (106) – see this is why she should have a blog. So that her stuff can be found.
On the other hand I’m still tempted to pretend I never said the group blog was a good idea, and throw cold water on the whole thing, so that P&R will just go on commenting here.
Want to put “The Good Gnus Bible” into the mix?
Ophelia, I missed the second sentence of your comment #90 the first time through:
Of course, if you’re at all seriously asking. (At least if you’re asking me.) I’ve just been assuming that your blog is your own thing, and it works and has its own momentum, and you wouldn’t want to divide your efforts.
One of the things I’ve been thinking about since this idea came up is that it might be a good idea for a gnu group blog to serve partly as a place to have meaty summaries of good stuff on “second tier” blogs like Russell’s and Jason Rosenhouse’s and Greta Christina’s—excellent blogs with some really good gnu stuff on them, but not among the top three or so “gnu” blogs that people go to to read the gnus.
One way to do that just happens naturally, with the group bloggers reading other people’s blogs and either responding to them or referring to them in support or elaboration of whatever points they’re making.
Another way to do it would be to have regular “around the web” postings where one or another of the group bloggers lists good stuff to check out on other blogs to check out, with a sentence or two or three about why.
A different way I was thinking about is to actually give select other bloggers posting rights, so that they can pimp their own stuff on the group blog, themselves.
For example, I don’t read Jason Rosenhouse regularly, because he only occasionally posts the stuff I most need to read on particularly gnu subjects—his thoughtful and deep laying-it-all-out and how-we-got-here posts on some major gnu issue. I usually only find out about them much later, when somebody happens to mention them in comments on some other site, in the middle of some discussion they’re relevant to. Then I wish I’d read them when he posted them, and had been directing others to them all along. Oops.
Ideally, Jason would be able to post a paragraph or three summarizing what he’s saying and what his angle is that’s different, or how his picture is bigger than the normal day-to-day “reactive” posts on most blogs, and quote crucial and choice paragraphs from the full post on his blog as well—ideally giving not just the gist, but some rhetorical punch, while still leaving enough people wanting more that they go to his blog for the full story, and give him traffic.
I haven’t put you in that second-tier part-time gnu blogger category because you do post on gnu subjects basically every day, and everybody in the gnu universe ought to be regular readers of B & W anyhow. I put you more in the category of PZ and Jerry in that respect. But if you wanted to do something like that, it would of course be awesome. It would be up to you to decide how much you were drawing attention to good stuff on B & W, vs. giving away good stuff that people ought to be coming to B & W for regularly anyhow, and how to finesse that with how you pimp your stuff.
Hmm, what springs off of Butterflies and Wheels? Larvae and Flying Hubcaps?
Ok now you have to figure out some kind of pun with the Flying Trilobite.
Haven’t finished reading all the comments after mine, but I have to jump in with a name I came up with a couple days ago when thinking about this:
Gnu’s Not New
The obvious implication is obvious, but it also has a nice tie to the original backronym: Gnu’s Not Unix. ;-)
While so-called ‘new’ atheism is vague to the point of meaningless and used almost exclusively as a pejorative, we take up the name ‘gnu’ with tongue in cheek to at once reclaim and reject the ‘new’ moniker. You see, we’re gnu, not new. There’s nothing particularly new in our criticisms of religion. We’re just a bunch of atheists who happen to agree on a few basic ideas about how to go about it: We’re Galvanized, Non-Violent, and Unapologetic. Nothing ‘new’ about that; it’s been a successful strategy in just about every peaceful social movement ever.
I think tackling the thing head-on opens up the discussion immediately to all the different points that Rieux and Paul have been developing, including (but not limited to): anti-atheist bigotry, religious/faith privilege, our proposed long-term strategies, the mainstreaming of atheism, being innocent-until-proven-guilty (which of course demands evidence that they don’t have), etc.
I would also be interesting in participating. There are some ideas I’ve had stewing for a while but which I only tend to mention in passing in blog comments, and my insistence for Paul W. to start a blog has kind of made my own lack of blogging appear hypocritical. That’s not the only reason, of course, but it’s a bit of a spur.
If you guys decide to go ahead with this, I’ll help as I can. I have a GMail account which begins with my name smushed together ‘thaumasthemelios’.
Regards,
Thaumas
Would it make sense to take this discussion of a Blog To Be off-list at this point (which would require Ophelia to connect us via the addresses in her possession), or are lurkers still enjoying this? (Or both?)
As for Ophelia joining, my only objection is that it seems crazy for such a successful blogger/author to share space with two or more unproven newbies. If that really sounds like a good idea to a certain “crotchety old lady who’s getting her kicks on the internet,” I suppose I’m in no place to argue (hell, it’s totally in our interests to feature such a big draw)—but srsly?
Um…you’ve got the stellar sites but I’d like to see loads more white dwarfs out there too. Gnus should be all over the intertubes like a rash, like starbux and Mc D’s and in yer face – collectives or individual bloggers. The sites that are quality will attract quality and be linked to. It is just such a shame that the hard work that goes into clearly thought out and insightful posts such as PW and R’s and many others disappears into the comment black hole. When people look out the Overton window they have to see us all over the landscape, no?
Count me in, Rieux. I just sent an email to you via your LiveJournal account/email.
Sure, I’ll connect you-all. I’ll send Rieux’s address to Paul (taking the above comment for implicit permission). Will connect others as requested. Feel free to keep discussing it here though, so that others can see.
Maybe I’ll start a new thread for the purpose.
Hmm, seems Rieux’ LJ email is dead, got a no-delivery message.
Why does Chris Stedmen wear fake glasses?
Chris Stedman does not wear fake glasses. Nor is he secretly a closet pope, a secret rabbi, or a stealthy minister. Chris Stedman is an atheist. While I disagree with many of his beliefs, let’s not go disparaging Chris for no reason. He is a great guy and is doing his best to advance the cause of Atheism. Maybe he’s not doing it your way (he isn’t doing it mine, either), but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t working towards the same end as the rest of us: a time when atheists, agnostics, Humanists, and the non-religious are no longer persecuted for our lack of religious beliefs.
Sorry, Wonderist—I’m not even sure which address that would be. Apologies for the confusion.
Ophelia, you’re welcome to give my c…@yahoo address out to anyone you’re confident is a friendly gnu.
Ok Rieux – I did give it to Wonderist yesterday, and W. got it, so that’s sorted, as they say in the UK.
Jonathan – I think the glasses comment was just a joke. I don’t think anybody has been saying Chris is a secret pope – correct me if I’m wrong! But frankly, people here who don’t know him personally and aren’t part of the Harvard Humanists don’t actually know that he is “doing his best to advance the cause of Atheism.” I’ll take your word for it, but I don’t know it independently of that, and neither does anyone else who doesn’t meet the above criteria. We know only what we see, and what we see often looks much more like Chris doing his best to advance some other cause (interfaith unity, unity in general, love and compassion – I’m not sure) partly by (however gently) maligning atheism.
That’s what we see. It’s there for the seeing. Now, given that you acknowledge he’s not doing what he does the way you would, it really can’t be a slam dunk for us that he is “working towards the same end as the rest of us.” I just don’t know that he is doing that, and I can take your word for it that he’s a great guy and has good intentions and that that’s how you see him…but I can’t entirely take your word for it that his goals are identical to my goals. (It would be odd if they were; I assume we both have lots of goals; they can’t all match.)
I agree about not disparaging him (or anyone, for that matter) for no reason…but ideas of what constitutes a reason may differ.
JamesF, not sure if you’re refering to a specific photo, but in some cases, especially for media photos and the like, photographers will take photos of people with their glasses lenses removed so that there is no glare in the photo, and so that you can see the eyes without refraction or distortion. So you see them the way they would appear in public (with glasses), but more photogenic-like for the photo.
If you’re familiar with Mr. Deity, they film it with lens-less glasses for these same reasons. Apparently it’s pretty standard practice in media circles.
[…] James Croft wondered about some fundamental value not shared among gnu atheists and accommodationists. Paul offered an […]
Hey Ophelia,
All I can say is that anyone who wants to ask Chris a question is welcome to email him at his Harvard Humanist email address (I won’t give out his email without his permission, but HINT, you can find it on our website http://www.harvardhumanist.org). If your goal is making America a place where Atheists and Humanists are not persecuted or discriminated against, then you share at least one important goal with me and Chris Stedman.
And I think Chris would agree that there need to be New Atheist voices in the Interfaith Dialogue, even if all they do is advocate for a name change and call bullshit on every project until they change the name (after all the New Atheist perspective is no less valuable than the Humanist perspective). No one’s gonna change their mind unless they’re presented with the arguments, and guess what, they’re not reading this blog (but they should because it’s great!).
[…] in parts directly from author Paul W. , comment#29, over at Butterflies and Wheels and an excellent overview of the issue why gnu atheists are so […]