The right to talk
As you doubtless know, the Montreal police have finally begun an investigation of Dennis Markuze’s ceaseless flow of death threats against atheists and scientists. The petition we signed a few days ago did what it was intended to do.
QMI Agency tracked down the mother of “David Mabus,” Eva Markuze, who
confirmed that her son, Dennis Markuze, 36, is the man police are looking
for. She said her son lives with her, and is currently in Ottawa and can’t be
reached for comment.Eva said she doesn’t believe the accusations. “That’s ridiculous,” she said. “(My son) would not even kill a fly. Maybe they don’t understand his message or something.”
No that’s not it. His messages have been quite unambiguous. Jen McCreight quotes one in a comment:
I guess I don’t understand what he means by “jen we are going to exterminate you, cunt.”
She said that her son has the right to talk and tell the truth.
Not to make death threats he doesn’t.
Believers have been saying that about each other for millennia, so it could be true.
The “currently in Ottawa” bit bothers me. I’d been naively hoping he’s too dysfunctional to drive a car, buy a bus ticket, etc….
We’ll be thinking about security at CFI events from now on.
In fact, given the things believers say, perhaps Markuze doesn’t understand his message or something.
Hell I can understand being protective about your child , but perhaps this lady needs help too.
Irony of ironies, Eva Markuze is quoted in the article as saying:
Denial? Is that a river in Egypt?
Oh Ottawa, right. Urgh.
I think it’s very cruel of bishops Spong, Armstrong and M**ney, that they don’t sit down with poor Dennis and tell him, that he doesn’t understand his religion.
This guy thinks we are being mean atheists infringing upon Mabus’ free speech… http://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-engraved-invitation-to-dm.html
Oh, so that’s what he looks like. I knew he was at AAI in Montreal, and we were looking for him so we could call security–people who saw him there described him as “sweaty, shaking, and wearing a large, bulky, black coat,” so you can kind of see how we might have been concerned. He had written a dozen emails to PZ Myers that morning telling PZ he was going to kill him.
Hope they get him on meds soon, because James Randi may be coming to Ottawa in October.
BREAKING NEWS
This just in, death threats are equivalent to differences of opinion!
Mabus makes local news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnba0abax1k&feature=share
Well, they’ve been hateful and irrational, but the (smaller sample of) comments I’ve seen didn’t leave me with the impression that they wish anyone dead.
This is tough terrain to negotiate, since Elevator Gate has left a lot of raw feelings in its wake… but methinks this comment is one that could easily (and perhaps eagerly) be misinterpreted.
It’s pretty ableist and (according to Wikipedia) mentalist to assume this guy is mentally ill just because he’s a fuck nugget. This kind of bigotry and demonization of the mentally illl impedes treatment of mental disorders and harms many people.
What does this remind me of? Oh, yes:
http://movieclips.com/S7DR-psycho-movie-she-wouldnt-even-harm-a-fly/
CLARIFICATION: ERV and Mabus like to call women cunts. In no way was Ophelia implying that ERV has made any physical threats.*
* But anyone following this would know that unless they wanted to misinterpret the comment.
History Punk, that’s not why the assumption is being made. Markuze has been obsessively cyber-stalking atheists and scientists for years, and many of his thousands of emails are incoherent and full-on delusional. It doesn’t take a psychiatrist for someone familiar with his, urm, “work” to know he’s mentally ill.
This man shows signs of mental illness. He’s been doing this everyday for 15 years. In no way does this mean that all mentally ill people are dangerous or threaten lives.
– From the daughter of a schizopherenic mother
<blockquote>
CLARIFICATION: ERV and Mabus like to call women cunts. In no way was Ophelia implying that ERV has made any physical threats.*
* But anyone following this would know that unless they wanted to misinterpret the comment. </blockquote>
First, Ophelia is a big girl and can speak for herself. Second, as the speaker, I do believe it is her responsibility and not that of her readers or those she attacks to make her views, beliefs, and so forth clear. Both on the first pass and during any subsequent passes.
Then again, this might be some privilege conspiracy theory talking here, so I may be wrong.
I expect a good tongue lashing from Ophelia if I misinterpreted her.
<Blockquote>
This man shows signs of mental illness. He’s been doing this everyday for 15 years. In no way does this mean that all mentally ill people are dangerous or threaten lives.
– From the daughter of a schizopherenic mother </blockquote>
And you know what, that experience wouldn’t get a single life learning credit at a community college.
Canada has freedom of speech “[…] only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Death threats? No, sorry. You lose.
Well, Elly, you definitely called it.
And here was me with my money on that affirmative action discussion being the one to get heated.
You haven’t a clue. Really.
For those of you who believe we misinterpreted Ophelia’s comment.
“I wonder if Ophelia has any qualms about what she has in common with Hitler.”
See what I did there?
Missed the point?
The comment in question followed immediately after the line where Mabus called Jen a cunt.
And I did (and do) genuinely wonder. It would give me a turn, if I were one of the people who throw around “cunt” and similar with passionate conviction.
Phyraxus, I think you got it backward. I think you meant to say differences of opinion are equivalent to death threats.
See, that’s where rational people differ from you, Ophelia.
You don’t feel any shame in being white like Hitler was, do you?
Why should anyone else who says cunt like this man who gives people death threats, feel guilt? Especially when they themselves have not given death threats?
Logical fallacy of guilt by association and nothing but emotional appeal. Try harder.
That Anything but Theist post that Melody pointed out is painfully stupid. As if death threats were just obviously nothing to worry about, because hey, obviously nobody ever actually goes on a killing spree.
Maybe it’s just another example of “any stick to beat atheists with.” Josh Rosenau did a weird tweet a few hours ago saying he hoped atheists would try as hard to get Markuze psychiatric help as they did to get the police after him. Wha? Because what, we shouldn’t have signed that petition? We shouldn’t want death threats against us investigated? Not to mention, we should act as if we know what Markuze’s mental status is or isn’t?
I don’t want Mabus to go to jail if he’s mentally ill, of course, but I don’t consider it my job to pressure anyone to decide that either way. That’s the job of people who have the necessary information.
Phyraxus. No, of course not, but that’s not the relevant thing in common. If I had had a habit of fulminating about the Jews before Hitler came to power, then I would have had something to feel worried about.
As I said somewhere earlier today, I now regret calling Mooney and Kirshenbaum “The Colgate Twins,” precisely because the mockery is something I have in common with the ERVites. I don’t want to have that kind of thing in common with the ERVites.
The author’s comments in defence of his position are even worse.
Surprise, surprise. That guy at Anything but Atheist is also a name-caller.
Thanks for sharing.
On the Markuze thread, he says
Ho hum.
Martin – quite.
Equivalency, by definition, makes it to where it doesn’t really matter which words come first. -_-
Same deal, the relevant thing is that he hated atheists, which drove him to send death threats, not that he said cunt.
As for “The Colgate Twins,” you shouldn’t feel bad about that. See, rational people can agree with each other on some things and disagree with each other on other things without committing character assassination or censorship.
I remember when ‘Mabus’ used to turn up on Russell Blackford’s blog; he was so bizarre he often had the effect of stopping me from commenting on something Russell had written, even when I just wanted to say ‘great post’. I must admit I had no idea that there was anything genuine in the threats, at least initially, but he became more unhinged over time and eventually Russell had to ban him.
Disturbing.
Phyraxus –
But why did he say “cunt”? Because he hates atheists (and women).
Yes, of course they can. But bitching and cunting doesn’t help.
As I said a day or two ago – I’ll believe the claims that “cunt” doesn’t equal hatred as soon as Abbie does 3 posts with 5000 comments talking about niggers and jigaboos. Until then I won’t believe it for a second.
Of course we don’t any of us know there’s anything genuine in the threats…but they are there, and we don’t know there isn’t, and he did show up at that atheist convention last October, and he is escalating. Some threats are taken seriously as a matter of course. So…these seem like reasonable candidates for taking seriously.
And it’s not exactly that I “feel bad” about “The Colgate Twins.” It’s too long ago, or I’m not good enough, I don’t know. But I regret it – I think it was wrong. The ERV threads finally convinced me of that. (I’ve argued with people about it in the past.)
Words aren’t just powerless nothings, you know, Phyraxus. Hitler wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without them. Words can incite hatred and, at the extreme, violence.
Hey, that news clip Melody linked to @11 is rather encouraging. The Montreal police are being goaded into taking this case fairly seriously. Hopefully the investigation will lead to the guy getting the help he needs, and the rest of us getting some modicum of security from him.
The focus of this post is on death threats on the web.. Even if the ‘C’ word were excluded from the threat, it remains equally grave. None of the other statements in the post have anything to say about the c-word. So whats the point in suddenly making a non-sequitur’y comparison to the folks at ERV, unless you just needed one more go at us?
I think it’s fairer to say it’s about an individual who posts threat on the internet alongside other troubling behavior. How he thinks and how he expresses those thoughts is kinda important to that.
Me, I read the line as saying something like ‘This guy uses cunt to demean, insult and humiliate (in this case) a woman he hates. The Monument is full of people who all do the same thing.’ I didn’t see the implication of you all being potential murderers.
astro –
I saw it. The thought occurred to me. (It was in parentheses, so obviously it wasn’t central.) The word and the thinking behind it has been an issue lately. The issue matters to me; it has always mattered to me. I’ve written about it before. No, it’s not just an arbitrary gotcha; it’s something that I think is important.
And yes – as julian says, it wasn’t to say or hint you all might be potential killers. It was to say that this way of talking about a set of people (races, ethnic groups, political groups, etc) does contribute to a climate that can foster violence and, at the extremes, killers.
That’s why we care about it. Don’t you realize that? We seriously don’t think it’s harmless. I think people who do think it’s harmless must be kind of clueless about history.
Wasn’t it Montreal that had that appalling student shooting a few years ago, where the fellow had given off all sorts of warning signals in the months preceding that he was going to go on the rampage? Maybe it would be worth reminding the local constabulary of that particular failure.
There are people who believe that their biblical truth gives them the right to make death threats just as there are people who think that it gives them a right to fly planes into buildings. “With God, all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26.
Words aren’t powerless, sure. That’s why censorship is used by authoritarian dictators like Hitler.
Didn’t you just censor some comments by History Punk? I know you’ve censored one of mine.
Which brings us back to the original question. Don’t you have any qualms about you have in common with Hitler?
Death threats need to be taken seriously and investigated. I guess in the internet age, with keyboard warriors everywhere, perhaps police take these things less seriously. In anonymous forums, a death threat could be pretty meaningless, and time consuming to investigate. Just finding out who is involved probably crosses international boundaries, companies and individuals. I wonder if that has caused some complacency in the authorities? The level Markuze had taken it to – including repeated death threats against people are far from anonymous – unquestionably requires action, and should not have required a petition to force their hand.
In other news:
I’ve also noticed that David Mabus has told people he disagrees with to “fuck off”. (e.g. here http://baconeatingatheistjew.blogspot.com/2009/07/getting-spammed-by-david-mabus.html)
I wonder if the gang at pharyngula have any qualms about what they have in common with Markuze/Mabus?
This is an example of the logical fallacy “affirming the consequent” (converse error). I’ll use Ophelia’s example, rather than my own reductio ad absurdum. It is observed that someone who hates atheists/women (prop P) uses the word “cunt” (prop Q).
It is *not* logically valid to argue the converse, i.e. that prop Q (use of the word “cunt”) infers prop P (that an individual hates atheist/women), based on that evidence – or even if that evidence could be generalised*. This is explained in more detail on the wiki page “affirming the consequent” (I’ve used consistent terminology here with propositions P and Q from that page).
* – which I sincerely doubt; I suspect some misogynists/atheist-haters are well spoken.
One of yours on this thread? No I haven’t.
Yes I deleted one by HP. It was very rude to Melody. No, you can’t do that here.
There went one. You can’t call me a liar here. You can’t call anyone else a liar here, either.
Yes of course I’ve deleted comments of yours elsewhere. I’ve already said I don’t want ERVites colonizing B&W.
On the other hand, if you/they can manage to talk reasonably about something relevant to the post, I may let the comment stay. It all depends.
And many other people besides.
Do you think men can call women cunts in the workplace for example? In some workplaces they can, but in most, HR would be down on them like a ton of bricks.
Do magazines and newspapers publish articles that freely call women cunts and blacks niggers?
Do schoolteachers call the girls in their classes cunts? Do they call the black kids niggers?
Do grocery clerks call their customers cunts or niggers or both?
Censorship censorship everywhere, and only ERV is free.
Right, Phyraxus, you’ve stopped trying to talk reasonably, so go away.
If I made any money from my site, I would thank you for the traffic.
I don’t make any money from my site either. Thanks for stopping by.
I have a message for Phyraxus, Spence, and the other visitors from ERV: You are not contributing in a constructive fashion. For everyone else, a reminder.
Anything But Atheist:
1. Takes pride in writing with an aggressive tone
2. Thinks death threats against atheists should be tolerated
3. Thinks those who receive death threats should just ignore them, apparently without exception
4. Thinks that death threats should not be taken seriously until after violence has been committed
5. Thinks that death threats should be protected free speech
Whatever you may think of these arguments, you can at least say that Anything But Atheist has a thick skin…oh, wait…
6. Calls people commenting to disagree with his views “bullies” and “a pack of rabid wolves”.
How pathetic.
^That should read “Anything But Theist” above, but I think the error is entirely appropriate as I certainly don’t want fools like ABT in my camp.
That xkcd is great, G. Thanks!
I just found a nice abusive email from ERVite Franc Hoggle in my spam folder. I’m silencing women. I’m doing authoritarian thuggery. I terrorize people into submissive silence. Men have a lot to learn from me about this woman abuse caper.
I have zero confidence this comment will last the hour either unedited or undeleted, but there’s no shortage of windmills…
Hitler wouldn’t have gotten anywhere had Germany not had a nigh-institutionalized anti-semitism, been treated horridly by the victors in WWI, not been in hyperinflation, etc., etc. The idea that Oh, no one in Germany at that time had any kind of bad feelings towards anyone, and it was HITLER’S WORDS that did it is absolutely ridiculous. Had the german people, (and most of the world. It’s not like the western world in general was all that kind towards jewish people as a group), not been perfectly willing to go along with Hitler’s ideas, he would have been laughed out of office. But he wasn’t, and people went along with it because they wanted to. Words don’t convince a group of rational, kind people to suddenly TRANSFORM AND BECOME LYNCHTICONS! The desire to do evil is already there. The words just give them the excuse and (theoretically) plausible deniability. Words do not change people into something they aren’t. You cannot, can.not. come up with words that would cause me to harm those I care about. In fact, I’d harshly ridicule you were you to try, because (contrary to Ophelia’s lurvely attempts to characterize those who don’t join her in her jihad against Abbie and ERV), that’s not who I am. At the same time, getting me to harshly ridicule someone doing something stupid and ignorant, say, oh, Michelle Bachmann is no work whatsoever, because I really, really like doing that. But please, do continue to believe that words like “Cunt” and “Bitch” have magicaly misgonyisting powers. It keeps you nicely distracted and focused on immaterial crapola, so the people who ARE misogynists have little to no threat to their power structure.
About what I said in # 38 – that I don’t feel bad about “The Colgate Twins.” I ought to, at least. What this train wreck has taught me is that mockery is evil. It’s done to draw emotional blood, and that’s evil.
The thing that’s really disgusting about ERV and the ERVites is that they’re doing this day in and day out, and enjoying it. They’re doing their very best to draw emotional blood with every comment, and they never seem to pause to recoil at their own malice. It’s a horrible display.
I don’t want to be like that. I abjure it.
Who said they did?
Really? Criticizing E*R*V is a “jihad”? Aren’t you sort of undermining your own silly argument?
John Welch –
I’ve seen a lot of falsehoods over there about my putative re-writing of comments. Not true.
And yet and yet and yet that’s apparently exactly what happened in the Balkans – people who had been amicable neighbors for decades suddenly turned. They turned because nationalists said things. Words.
Damn good thing I don’t gamble.
First I bet on the skepchick calendar discussion and then I bet on the affirmative action discussion. Both go by no problem.
Post about the man harassing atheists with death threats totally flies under my radar and that’s where it goes to shit.
Ha! I said the exact opposite of Stacy.
John Welch – but where did the institutionalized anti-semitism come from? It certainly wasn’t independent of words. None of this stuff is. Without language you just get rival tribes fighting for territory. With language you get all these fancy refinements.
Bullshit. Self-justifying bullshit.
Well, it was my fault, julian – I shouldn’t have mentioned the hyper-vigilant goons. Now I’ll have to close this thread for the night, when I’d rather have left it open. What a pain they are.
Ophelia: you draw parallels between ERV and Markuze and in the same thread you complain about ERVites seeking to draw emotional blood and cause hurt? Seeking to reduce the hostility between the sites at the moment may be a worthwhile goal in terms of drawing emotional blood, but it would only work if everyone takes a step back from the tinderbox.
Not really, Ophelia.
J.C.W. specifically mentioned “kind and rational people” and “suddenly turning” due to words alone. I don’t think it’s ever that simple. Is it?
Doesn’t mean words don’t matter.
I am sure your campaign re capture said words shall go down in the books as a turning point in the war against misogyny.
Spence
Yes. Why? Are you saying you think that will draw emotional blood? Seriously? Do you have any reason at all to think it will?
In any case, I was making a serious point. What I said wasn’t mockery. “Colgate Twins” was mockery – though not, as I said at the time, mockery of their appearance, because the whole point is that they’re attractive. I wouldn’t mock anyone for being ugly. But it was still mockery; that’s what I’ve decided is not redeemable.
I’m certainly not saying that no disagreement that might be painful to either side is allowable. I’m talking about personal taunting.
What is the difference between using Cunt or using Nigger? Did I miss the post that explained away the difference or is it the contention of those at ERV that Nigger is AOK to use too?
A lot of people who use misogynist epithets don’t use racial epithets. I haven’t seen Abbie Smith use racial epithets, and I haven’t seen any racial epithets on those threads. I think people who avoid the latter but have no problem with the former are being dishonest.
In other words, they shouldn’t call people cunts any more than they should call people niggers. Reasonable people already know that. Unreasonable people deny it, for reasons that are mysterious (but never cheering).
Cunt can be laughed off in polite company. An improperly timed nigger still leads to the suspicion of racism.
I’m getting confused here. Are some people arguing that words don’t really matter except when they do? Are others saying that mere words won’t turn “kind and rational” people into violent thugs in spite of the wealth of documented historical evidence and empirical psychological studies? Or are they indulging in a No True Scotsman fallacy (“no kind and rational person can become a nationalistic thug”)? And is all this really in defence of death threats from a fellow who is neither kind nor rational?
One meme which I see being recapitulated is that Ophelia’s desire for a ban on gendered epithets is a toothless, flimsy measure, because it doesn’t similarly condemn all sorts of other malicious forms of speech which don’t happen to use those epithets. This again seems the age-old technique of weakening or diverting the opponents’ case to strengthen your own. I don’t doubt if some of the “bitching” and “cunting” language were recast in an equivalently hateful form minus the epithets, it would receive similar opprobrium from people here.
Really, the call to remove the epithets is just one part of a larger strategy to foster civil debate: they make it too easy to spice the language with hatred, and it’s a much easier rule to spell out “no gendered insults” than to pin down exactly what consitutes hate-speech and what doesn’t – and let’s be clear: hate-speech is also on the censored list here too (there are many other places elsewhere for you to indulge that if you want to fully exercise your rights of free speech).
There may be an argument that epithets might be capable of being reclaimed, but the circumstances in which they could be reused among friends (or amongst a group where there is a shared understanding of that reclamation) is extremely limited: they are not readily purged of their insulting character in an adversarial environment like a discussion forum, or a blog’s comment thread open to readers from everywhere in the world. Claiming that they can be used here peaceably is simply not possible, and continuing to argue for their use is to defend the indefensible. Make your argument without the naughty words.
IMHO, using words like “cunt” and “bitch” to describe RW is stupid and ignorant. So presumably this is all the justification I need to harshly ridicule you and anyone else who believes those words are just fine and dandy to use as “general purpose” insults.
The fact that these same words are used liberally by people who are unapologetic misogynists should give you some pause. The reasons misogynists use them is because they’re not neutral. IMHO, that’s reason enough to avoid them.
The thing I find astonishing is the fact that you – and others like you – are so invested in defending them. Now, I could be wrong, but I always thought skeptics/atheists were – in general – better educated and more widely read than average folks. Well-educated people usually have pretty solid vocabularies – so coming up with alternatives to words that obviously upset many people shouldn’t be difficult (even if you don’t find them troublesome, well there’s this whole “playing-well-with-others” thing that most decent people consider important. Seriously – is this really a hill that’s worth dying on?).
For example, I loathe Bachmann, and think she’s a blight on our political system. She’s a shrill, ignorant, religious bigot and a pathological liar. But I would never consider calling her a “cunt” or a “bitch.” Not only are these ugly words, they’re also uninformative. All they communicate is that I dislike her enough to let fly with a crude insult. In other words, they say more about me than they do about her. On the flip side, “shrill,” “ignorant,” “religious bigot” and “pathological liar” are all terms that a) communicate that I dislike her; and b) communicate why.
So c’mon: quit defending the indefensible.
Phillip: didn’t mean to steal your line. Great minds, and all that.
Closed for the night, alas, to prevent ERVite colonization.
Open.
@Philip, @Elly 2 great posts
@Ophelia
One can choose to dampen the flames of these endless squabbles or to fan them, little digs do the latter.
If you don’t want your threads overun by ERVites then the best thing to do is to only mention them when necessary.
In other words I should let ERVites control what I can talk about. Sure, that’s fair.
Some of the commenters here seem to have misunderstood what censorship actually is.
Deleting a comment and/or banning a commenter from further appearing on one’s own website is not censorship.
If however, Ophelia tried to prevent said commenter from appearing everywhere else then we would be talking about censorship.
Mind you, I do understand your point. I realize the ERV mention could appear gratuitous. Nevertheless the issue is a real one – it is odd that they have that in common with Markuze and that it doesn’t worry them.
What Centricci said.
As I’ve said – deleting comments on one’s own site is no more censorship than is newspaper and magazine editors’ selection of letters for publication.
With respect, Ophelia, I think you’re stretching on the “cunt” thing, and it’s not helping. I agree, calling people “cunt”, “twat” etc. is Not Cool, whether its ERVites, Canadian Cynic, or whomever (never among my favorite epithets anyway, so it’s cheap and easy for me to take a Principled Stand). But trying to link it with DM’s pathology, which is all his own, is a stretch and hard not to see as a cheap shot.
On epithets in general, I agree whole-heartedly with Elly @76: there’s no shortage of punchy descriptive words for bad character, so why use a comparison to some random body part? (Exception for “asshole” — good term to convey disgust).
Skepticlawyer @45
Isn’t that some place in Scotland you are thinking about? I guess the Montreal Police failed to foresee that one too!
(Acknowledging that you have said that you understand my point, and that this isn’t rocket science …)
“In other words I should let ERVites control what I can talk about. Sure, that’s fair.”
No, that’s not quite right.
If you want to talk about elevatorgate, or ERV, or inter-atheist/skeptic squabbles then that’s (obviously) fine.
But if you would rather address issues outside this little bubble without distraction then don’t push people’s buttons; or you could say what you like and just keep comments closed like JS. :-)
If you choose to push people’s buttons then you have to accept the boring arguments (and administrative burden) that follow.
“it is odd that they have that in common with Markuze and that it doesn’t worry them.”
I’m with @Eamon on this – I don’t think it is at all interesting that one troubled individual in Canada uses a word that millions of other people also use that happens to be used by a group more closely connected with you whom you might expect to know better.
But I’m not trying to link it with Markuze’s pathology. That’s why I said “what they have in common” – which is quite different from “how they are exactly like.”
My point isn’t that calling people “cunt” is Not Cool. It’s stronger than that. People understand this about “nigger” and “kike” but not about words that name women. This is significant. Since I’m a woman, I take it personally.
Someone at ERV pointed out this bit of a talk by Steven Pinker, saying it showed that he disagrees with the above. No it doesn’t. He says words of that kind “evoke the emotions of hatred and contempt.” He doesn’t go on to say “and that’s a good thing.”
It’s not commonplace in North America.
It’s interesting. You’re both minimizing it – but I don’t think you would be if it were “nigger” or similar.
I still think this is odd. The more people repeat it, the odder I think it is. Group hatred on racial or ethnic grounds, recognized as bad and dangerous. Group hatred on gender grounds, seen as kind of normal even if possibly regrettable.
I have yet to see anything that makes that add up.
I read this and all comments here, and I’m a tad disappointed. I didn’t come here to insult anyone or to be offensive, and there’s no “but.” I just wanted to say my opinion on some of these, and I hope you’ll indulge me.
I didn’t accuse atheists of being “mean.” The atheists in this case are being bullies, in the plural, and they are. DM is a bully, as well, and I have been called a bully (and a troll and all that), but I find a difference between all three. People who band together to single someone out are one type of bully, a person who tries to scare people with threats is another, but I’m not sure how I’m a bully. Maybe this is a matter of perspective, and I am seen as a bully defending DM, but my views are not an apology for him. If anything, I’d like to be seen as a bully for free speech, because that is what I advocate, but I have no control over how I am seen.
Ophelia’s insults don’t really bother me, but her characterization of my argument does. I can understand a threat being seen as a true danger. I don’t have a clear line (unfortunately, I’m limited to an admittedly flawed and lame, “I’ll know it when I see it” view, at least until I give it more thought), but as an example, I understand restraining orders on stalkers or investigating organizations that disseminate hate speech (but again, if they are not found to be a credible threat with the means of actually hurting people, they should still be allowed to spout ignorance).
As for any objection to the comments on my blog: I fielded comments on other websites for without name calling, and I answered e-mails and comments on my post for hours. After addressing the same issues time and time again, I got to a point where I got frustrated and lost my temper, and I hoped my explicit comments would turn away some of the more tedious commenters.
I am a little hurt that Ophelia would take an article I wrote on expanding feminism and use the only offending sentences to quote. Why not include the rest of the paragraph:
“There is no pleasing some of them [feminists], and the small minority who engage in this sort of behavior [man-hating] make feminism a very hostile setting for men (thus ruining the reputation of feminism unfairly). No guy wants to fight for the rights of someone who is accusing him of flaunting his privilege every five minutes.”
I feel that was unfair of you to conveniently clip my words to suit your purposes. I’m sure you would never resort to name-calling… that would be “painfully stupid” to chide someone for doing something you had done in the same thread.
I did have a good laugh at Chris Lawson’s comment, since it was a little more my style (snarky, rude, to the point). I want to clarify that I didn’t feel felt bullied or victimized.I fel like atheists were trying to bully DM, and that these little atheist circles within various atheist and skeptical communities were then trying to bully me, but I didn’t feel bullied. Sort of like… DM threatens me in the comments on a daily basis, but I don’t feel threatened.
And if it’s any consolation, Chris, I don’t consider myself in your “camp.” I prefer to stay in hotels.
I really do apologize for the length of this, and I honestly did not come here to attack anyone (if you feel attacked, I am sorry, my intent is to just make my opinion clear in a place where I felt my opinions were being distorted, and I tend to be a bit rude with people I perceive as trying to attack me, which may not have been your intention… until we have an infinite loop of misunderstanding).
I do want to add this, to the little discussion pertaining to Hitler. I look at it a bit differently than Phyraxus. Silencing DM is nothing like what Hitler did. I know this, and everyone should realize that. Censorship is not tantamount to Nazism. What I think people must come to terms with, however, is that setting the precedent that people who are labelled “crazy” or “dangerous” can be carried away by the government when they have not hurt anyone. People have called atheists crazy and a threat to society, and plenty of people on the right in America and Europe are demonizing Muslims in a similar way. It’s not an abstract possibility that violating the principle that speech should not be punished will lead to other forms of abuse, and it need not be on the level of Hitler to still be destructive to society.
I think Thomas Jefferson summed up my views quite succinctly:
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
Thanks for giving me a forum to air my opinion, and thanks for the traffic to my site… I think. Maybe someone may feel compelled to try reading what I write (perhaps on other matters) for what good it contains, rather than going through it with a fine-toothed comb looking for things to nitpick. There’s no hard feelings on my end, and I hope none of you have burdened yourself with any on my account.
Found the Montreal massacre, complete with all the warning signs everyone ignored, including a broad streak of misogyny. It was in 1989, longer ago than I thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre
But if you’re not trying to link it to his pathology then he is just a random example plucked from a huge pool of people across the world who use the term.
A chap (call him Bob) I worked with once said to me “Don’t be a cunt” (and I wasn’t :-).
Therefore you could have said:
“I wonder if the gang at ERV have any qualms about what they have in common with a chap called Bob that Felix used to know.”
This would have had the benefit of not being open to the charge that you were suggesting that the ERVites suffer from mental illness or engage in making death threats … and it would have been totally pointless.
Ginx
Thanks for the civil comment. (Really! Not sarcasm.)
I’m not sure why you talk about being called a bully though – yours is the first mention of the word on this thread. Was that just a general thought about Mabus? But it sounds a little as if you’d been called a bully here.
About clipping your words – well I think those words matter. It bothers me that people who would never call people “nigger” think it’s fine to call people “cunts.”
I think people mostly get that we don’t want the gummint arresting everyone who is called “crazy” or “dangerous” – but at the same time, death threats should not be simply shrugged off. Markuze isn’t just nasty and sweary, he makes death threats. It’s not just self-evident that he doesn’t mean them.
Felix. True. But the point is, Markuze is (perhaps because of mental illness, so not his fault) thoroughly nasty. His mental world is a nasty dark place full of frothing hatred. Calling Jen McCreight (a total stranger to him) a cunt is part of that nasty mental world. I think sensible people don’t want to be like that.
“Markuze isn’t just nasty and sweary, he makes death threats” …
and turns up at public events featuring the people he has threatened.
I didn’t previously know that and to my mind it puts to bed the complaints by some (in blogs and on twitter) that PZ (in his posts) and the petition were out of line in dealing with a potentially mentally-disturbed individual in the way they did.
It was necessary to get someone to deal with this properly (which one hopes will involve professional psychiatric help if that is appropriate) and the people directly threatened should be given leeway by those criticizing their every word and nuance.
Funny – I almost added that about showing up at a public event (just that one so far) but thought “everybody already knows that and it’s not necessary to bore everyone into a coma” so I didn’t. But yes – his turning up in person was scary. I’d be scared shitless in that situation.
@Ophelia
at the risk of going round in circles:
“His mental world is a nasty dark place full of frothing hatred… I think sensible people don’t want to be like that.” – Agreed.
Making death threats and harassing strangers for 20 years “is part of that nasty mental world.” – Agreed.
Calling somebody a cunt, or arsehole, or dickhead, or pussy, or motherfucker, or bitch, or faggot is just what half of the population do everyday and is thus unremarkable.
I expect like me he often sits at his computer wearing a dressing gown; and I have no qualms about my similarites with him (I think :-)
Felix – you left out “nigger.”
My whole point is that it’s not unremarkable.
Half the population of any given spot may do something horrible every day; that doesn’t make it unremarkable, or ok.
I don’t know what to tell you. If you’re trying to start over from the beginning and convince me that calling people cunts or bitches or faggots is ok, you’re going to have to offer something more compelling than “lotsa people do it.” The fact that lotsa people do it is the problem.
Jesus Christ. Yes. Talk about having to say things one worries will bore people into comas.
Ginx,
I also appreciate the non-snarky response, but I still think you’re being obtuse for insisting that asking the Montreal police to investigate repeated criminal activity is bullying. If it turns out that Mabuse is psychiatrically unwell then the problem can be shifted from the criminal to the health system, but it needs to be addressed.
Like you, I do not feel personally threatened by Mabuse despite having received death threats from him (although this is partly because I live on another continent). He is probably physically harmless. But as someone who has dealt professionally with people with major psychiatric illnesses, I can assure you that there is no reliable way of assessing risk of harm. I have known people with persistent homicidal impulses who have never and in my opinion will never act upon them. I also know people who were considered well enough to live in the community who subsequently murdered a family member. I had one man who wasn’t even 20 assure me in no uncertain terms that his depression was not bad enough to drive him to suicide but who hanged himself 10 hours later; that one still lives with me even though I can’t think what I could have asked or done differently.
In short, Mabuse has demonstrated sufficient warning signs that his threats need to be taken seriously and investigated. I agree that nobody can expect 100% safety, but we can expect *reasonable* safety. And asking police to investigate repeated death threats and a pattern of escalating behaviour (i.e. physically attending a meeting of people he has threatened) is not unreasonable. And it certainly isn’t bullying. It’s actually the opposite — it’s about *stopping* bullying. I’m surprised you can’t see that.
David @ 71:
Well some nice men over at ERV’s place explained it all to me. Let me see if I can get it right….
Black people call eachother ‘nigger’ sometimes, and since we (none of us, not one!) are not black, we can’t really tell them what to do or not do with this word. Similarly, when women call other women cunts, everyone should be ok with it, because of course no one who has female genitalia would ever use slang words *for* that genitalia in a denigrating way. And, I guess, since women can and do use these words freely, then that opens them up for the men, as well…although I’m a little fuzzy on why this doesn’t cycle back around to unrestricted usage of ‘nigger’, but I’ve been told (by these same men, as it turns out) that logic is not my strong suit, so perhaps some better thinkers than I can work on this conundrum.
Also, when people in the UK say ‘cunt’, they don’t really mean ‘cunt’, they mean ‘idiot’.
Any questions?
I worry more about the condition of my MacBook. Having the ‘you’re just clutching your pearls over *naughty words*’ argument flung out there for the eleventybillionth time has pushed me close to smashing my keyboard in frustration.
serenity now!
“I’m not sure why you talk about being called a bully though – yours is the first mention of the word on this thread. Was that just a general thought about Mabus? But it sounds a little as if you’d been called a bully here.”
Didn’t mean to imply anyone here did, they clearly not have. No one here called DM a bully, either, but he has been called that, just as I have been called a bully, even though I tend to get called that when rushing to the defense of a person or action being (in my view) scapegoated.
“About clipping your words – well I think those words matter. It bothers me that people who would never call people “nigger” think it’s fine to call people “cunts.””
I do use the word “nigger,” though not in reference to black people. I tend to use it as you have, in reference to the word itself, rather than as an insult to people of any race (I find it’s actually been white people who get angry enough to send hate mail). Saying “the N-word” makes me feel like I’m a 5th grader who is incapable of talking about things like an adult, like a doctor asking me if I go poopy every day (that was the moment I knew I had to stop going to a pediatrician…).
I am fully aware of how offensive “cunt” is. I don’t put it at the same level as “nigger,” if only because I see the latter as being absolutely unique in it’s quality for being so offensive when used… except by those it is meant to insult. But they are equal in many significant respects, in that they play on stereotypes in order to imply the mere suggestion that being a woman or black is somehow bad (much like “gay” or “retard,” which I also throw around from time to time, despite supporting gay rights and increased funding for special education).
I guess I just feel entitled to say “nigger” freely because I once dated a black girl, and I can say “cunt” because I married a published feminist. I know that’s cheating, but I don’t think you’ll like the real reason I use abrasive language. Namely, I don’t blog for everyone. I know anyone can read it, but I live by the philosophy that unless I’m strapping your head down and prying your eyes open a la “Clockwork Orange,” anyone who is offended can stop and leave, or even tell me to fornicate with myself in some crude fashion.
I see what I write on my blog as almost a different language apart from what I use in polite company, or on another person’s blog. My blog is primarily meant to entertain, and my audience finds dead baby jokes to be rather bland, so that’s what I’m working with (and I like it just fine). I seek to reach out to those who are on the fringe, so I’m quite used to the average person turning their nose up at me (and exceptional people just ignoring me), but I just hope people realize that I don’t make anyone this way, I just speak to those who already talk the talk. I just want to provide a voice they’ll understand that might help them walk the walk of a tolerant person, even if their talk sounds like that of a bigot.
To avoid being a troll, this is my last reply on this matter. The last word is up to you guys if you’d like it. Just please don’t accuse me of being a martyr, because I’m not. I doubt martyrs enjoy what they do.
Ophelia,
“If you’re trying to start over from the beginning and convince me that calling people cunts or bitches or faggots is ok”
Not my point at all! And I really don’t see how you (or Josh or Jen with their recent comments??) would think that it was!
My opening comment on this issue was :
” I don’t think it is at all interesting that one troubled individual in Canada uses a word that millions of other people also use that happens to be used by a group more closely connected with you whom you might expect to know better.”
That is to say it is the logical basis of your connection of Mabus and the ERVites that I am questioning.
Let me try again:
If you have a bag containing 50 black marbles and 50 white marbles, and one of these 100 marbles has been making death threats and you pull this marble out of the bag and find that it is a white marble then you have no basis for saying to the other 49 white marbles (or a subset such as the white ERV marbles) “You should talk a long hard look at yourself and consider where you went wrong!”
Marbles = people
White marbles = people who say cunt
Black marbles = people who don’t say cunt.
I (really) hope that helps!
Absolutely the point. The point in a nutshell. No it isn’t. “Cunt” is at the same level.
I am so fucking sick of being told that the hate-words that just happen apply to me are not “at the same level” as hate-words that just happen not to apply to me.
And I’m sick to death of people like Ginx feeling “entitled” to spew their toxic insults because they married/fucked/talked to/let use the bathroom some black/gay/woman person. You are not so entitled. Shut the fuck up.
Argh. I hadn’t read past the bit I quoted.
There’s no such thing. That’s a completely incoherent idea. If your talk sounds like that of a bigot then you are already walking the walk of an intolerant person. There’s no fundamental split between walk and talk. If you talk racist sexist homophobic shit then that’s the walk you’re walking.
Talk matters. Language matters, words matter. This idea that they’re just the steam on the engine is so wrong-headed it’s beyond belief.
Gah, but he’s making death threats! He’s not just talking and it’s not the same thing.
Felix,
Things are not that simple. Suppose a hundred people were at a party and fifty had the fish meal and fifty had the meat dish. Now one of the people who had the fish turns sick. I don’t think it is unreasonable for the other people who had fish to worry about the fish being the cause of the sickness.
Seen, in most jurisdictions, as a criminal offence. Since we are dealing with a Canadian, here is some relevant Canadian law. Now it may be that because Quebec is a Roman law jurisdiction, the law will not be in precisely these terms, but it will likely be codified and have the same import.
http://www.defencelaw.com/utter-threats.html
I should point out that the governing legal principles on point have been in place since antiquity (Rome) and the early middle ages (England).
Just as members of different political groupings do not get to have their own facts, individual wingnuts of whatever persuasion do not get to have their own laws.
Felix – that (# 105) really doesn’t help at all. For one thing, I didn’t say “You should talk a long hard look at yourself and consider where you went wrong!” For another thing, marbles are inert. People are not inert, and neither is language. Your story is wholly arbitrary, but Markuze’s use of epithets is not.
That last line is poetry, skep.
It’s even an offence to threaten “to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that belongs to a person”!
Markuze’s threats must number in the hundreds of thousands.
What I find disconcerting is this:
Mabus/Markuze is evidently deranged – I am not at all surprised to see him use highly offensive insults like “cunt” in his tirades against atheists.
On the other hand, I expect people who value freethought and rational discourse to understand the impact of their words and (at least try to) choose them more carefully.
Re: “Bully.” In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means.” There’s a word for what Markuze was/is doing: cyberstalking. Cyberstalking isn’t “free speech” – it’s a crime. Reporting criminal activity to law enforcement is not “bullying.”
Likewise, equating cyberstalking with “bullying” is minimizing FAIL. “Bullying” can cause genuine psychological harm, even if no physical threats are made. Cyberstalking can escalate ( http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32458 ), which is why it needs to be taken seriously.
If you’re so pro “free speech,” then you should be firmly opposed to the kind of tactics Markuze is using to silence prominent atheists. Offering the guy a “safe place to rant” – as you did in your post – as a way of burnishing your “free speech” cred is repugnant.
Perhaps this is the time to develop that “clear line.” Of course, the best time to think things through is before you publish… but better late than never, I guess.
At any rate: who are you to prejudge whether Markuze represents a “credible threat”? How do you know Markuze lacks “the means of actually hurting people”? This is the job of law enforcement… which is why the petition to urge the police to act is entirely appropriate. In your post you assumed that DM is merely looking for “attention.” Ok, let’s run with this: what better way for him to get attention than by acting on one or more of his threats?
Like I said – think it though. If Markuze does act on his threat, are you willing to stand by this post?
Wow. Just wow.
By this logic, I should stop donating to “Second Harvest” (a local food bank) because a homeless man once yelled an obscenity at me. Or: I should turn my back on gay rights because I think “glitter bombing” is a pointless publicity stunt. Or: that I shouldn’t care about the welfare of livestock housed in feedlots because I find PETAs tactics offensive. The fact that you would take your cues about an entire, diverse movement from a “small minority” that happens to bug you tells me pretty much all that I need to know about your real commitment to equality.
You’re a feminist version of a “sunshine soldier and summer patriot.”
Maybe you should take a second look at those comments about your privilege. If you can’t bear to fight for what’s right because some activists hurt your fee-fees, then you could well benefit from taking a look in the mirror.
To my knowledge, no one has requested Markuze be “carried away by the government.” The petition is designed to call law enforcement attention to his behavior. It will be up to the authorities to investigate and determine if he actually represents a threat.
If you don’t care about the opinions of others (to the point where you’re fine with having them tell you to “fornicate with [your]self” – then why are you here? If you post potentially inflammatory comments, you shouldn’t be surprised that other people react negatively. If you can’t stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.
@Axxyaan
Analogies are slippery and I don’t think you have chosen a good one. (Although Ophelia says the same about mine).
In the example you cite I would say that until more than 1 person had fallen ill their would be no need for anybody at the party to worry. If they wished to worry then they should all worry equally about the water, the dessert, and the other guests rather than the fish. If 3 or 4 people who had eaten fish were ill, and none who had eaten meat then the fish eaters (or the chef) should be concerned.
@Ophelia
“I point to people who say cunt and I point to people who issue death threats. That is all” #greenfieldism
Yay!
(Cite: Ophelia “And I did (and do) genuinely wonder. It would give me a turn, if I were one of the people who throw around “cunt” and similar with passionate conviction.”)
“For one thing, I didn’t say ‘You should talk a long hard look at yourself and consider where you went wrong!'”
No, but you made a logical connection.
“marbles are inert.” Yes, but the purpose was to illustrate the entirely probabilistic nature of the argument.
“Your story is wholly arbitrary, but Markuze’s use of epithets is not”
Either Markuze comes from that large group of people who use ‘cunt’ or he comes from the other, slightly larger group, that does not. This is arbitrary.
Thus is cannot be used to impugn other people who happen to be members of this group or others which Markuze happens to belong to.
Consider Silence of the Lambs – two men living next door to each other (euphemistically)*, one says to Clarisse, “I can smell your cunt.”, the other politely says “I can’t”. Which one is the serial killer? [Don’t really think that helps, but it just occurred to me and I didn’t want to waste it]
* actually in adjoining cells
p.s. I hope this thread doesn’t desensitize me against using the C word.
Felix, I think the point you’re missing is this: some people, like ERV and co, use words like ‘cunt’ because they think they’re just insults like any others. Other people, like Markuze, misogynists and abusers, use them precisely because they’re not.
To Ophelia @113, a tip of the hat.
Now, a little non-law (with a legal point at the end).
One of the reasons I am chary of the casual use of filthy and abusive language (of whatever sort) is not just because I am a nasty old-fashioned toffie-nosed British Conservative.
It is because abusive epithets, in the days before it became (in a manner I consider to be puerile) ‘trangressive’ to turn them into a sort of floating noun, verb and adjective, were a fairly reliable indicator when prosecuting an attempt (what lawyers call ‘an inchoate offence’) that the accused meant to do harm.
Because people generally did not swear in public, if they did (coupled with, say, a threat to hit the other person with a cricket bat), then the fact that they had failed to hit the other party with said cricket bat did not detract from their violent intent and potential for violence in other circumstances. It was powerful evidence that, given the opportunity, they may have become violent, may do so again, and that it was only fortunate circumstance that prevented them from putting the cricket bat into action on that occasion.
Now we all swear like troopers, this very useful evidentiary short-hand has gone the way of the blue suede shoe. However, it has its echoes when a modern abusive threat or epithet is (a) persistent (b) written and (c) pervasive. Written abuse is always more serious than spoken abuse: think of the line from the Roman poet Ovid–
Now I realise that many people on the internet are card-carrying members of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Battalion, and would no more put their threats or hatred into action than they would be able to fly to the moon by flapping their arms, but not always.
And, as a society, having pushed the door so far open when it comes to sounding like the sort of talentless, potty-mouthed comedian who is never even going to get a gig in the ‘free’ section of the Edinburgh Fringe, I think it behooves us to pull back a bit.
Or, as one of my Tory friends says over here: ‘have you ever paused to consider how you sound?’
Felix – everything you say there is a misreading of what I’ve said. No I didn’t make “a logical connection.” I wasn’t saying – or suggesting – anything about causation. The Greenfield thing is about causation.
My point (for about the fourth time now) was to say “do you want to have the kind of mind that thinks of everyone as cunts niggers etc?”
Felix.
Yes analogies are slippery. That was the point. I gave another analogy that was just as similar to the original situation as yours. And if you accept an analogy for discussion, you can’t extend it to suit your purpose. Since there was no mention of water or desert in my analogy, it is no longer my analogy if you introduce those things.
The Discovery Channel hostage taker? He was a member of my local organization. He never directly threatened anyone. But for years he talked about how humans didn’t deserve to live, because they were hurting the environment. I kept warning people not to push him and that I was afraid he might act out and kill someone. The last time I warned my group, two weeks later he was shot by police. I’ve had to warn the authorities about another man with similar behavior. Take these warning signs seriously.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-enters-discovery-channel-headquarters-employees-evacuated/story?id=11535128
@MartinM
Thanks for trying to help.
Trying to analyse Markuze’s thought processes in choosing that particular word is a mugs game*.
However, even if I were to agree with you that he uses it in a misogynist manner I don’t see at all what bearing that has on my discussion with Ophelia over whether there was any logical basis for her to introduce linkage between Markuze and the ERVites.
You may say “Well, using the C word is a mark of a rude and nasty person” with which I would agree. But there exist plenty of rude and nasty people who don’t use it and use other words instead.
So Ophelia’s original sentence was:
“I wonder if the gang at ERV have any qualms about what they have in common with Markuze/Mabus.”
What do they have in common? They both use the word ‘cunt’.
Anything else? No.
She now says “My point … was to say “do you want to have the kind of mind that thinks of everyone as cunts niggers etc?”
Thus …
(Allegedly) Markuze has the kind of mind that uses the word ‘cunt’ and the kind of mind that issues death threats.
ERV has the kind of mind that uses the word ‘cunt’ ergo she should be concerned (‘have qualms’).
All I have been trying to say since the beginning is that I agree with @Eamon Knight #85 when he said:
“trying to link it with DM’s pathology, which is all his own, is a stretch and hard not to see as a cheap shot.”
@Ophelia I hope you understand that I hold you in high esteem and that I am not being intentionally obtuse. However, I think I have you ‘bang to rights’* on this and you should admit it and go and enjoy your weekend.
* Mugs game http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mug%27s+game
*Bang to rights http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bang_to_rights
*Crash*splinter*dust*cough*drywall*rubble*
*smooths hair*
Oh Felix. Please don’t reduce it to this. Please.
@Jen
That is not a major part of my argument.
If you think you can assist either me or Ophelia in understanding what the other person is saying and where they are misguided that would be great.
Felix the happy pussycat*:
I hardly know what to add to what Ophelia and others have already explained. Read more slowly perhaps?
* See what I just did there?
Felix…so you repeat what I said and then say you agree with what Eamon said.
That doesn’t really get you any closer to having me “bang to rights.” I already agree that I said what I said; I already disagree with what Eamon said (and I said why, above).
I am enjoying my weekend, and I’ll go when I go.
Felix I understand what you’re saying. I disagree with you.
@Opehlia
“I am enjoying my weekend, and I’ll go when I go.”
I am very glad and I certainly do not wish anyone to think that I am trying to kick you off your own blog :-)
“…I understand what you’re saying. I disagree with you.”
I am glad that you understand. I am sure therefore that if was intelligent enough and read the entire thread several more times I would come to understand the refutation of my position that lies therein.
However, alas, I am not. :-(
But wait!
Who is this I see?
Can it be the knowledgeable and incisive @Rrr ?
Yes, it is! Joy!
Surely he can help me?
<waits with bated breath and a faint tingling in his loins>
Happy bating…
Thank you, Mastur.
BTW, Eric MacDonalds piece from yesterday is astonishingly good:
http://choiceindying.com/2011/08/12/argumentum-ad-verecundiam-2/
@Ophelia
Jon Stewart must be the anti-christ then. Mockery can be evil ofcourse – but not all of it. I guess intentions and motivations matter. I think the problem is that mockery – like satire is hard to get right and few people can do it effectively. And the rest of us just look ugly when we attempt.
@Deepak
Ophelia said in #70 that “I’m certainly not saying that no disagreement that might be painful to either side is allowable. I’m talking about personal taunting.”
Thus we can mock people for their ridiculous beliefs when they refuse to change them in the face of evidence. We can mock them for being illogical and hypocritical.
There are certain other characteristics which are not acceptable targets of mockery.
For me it usually comes down to the target and the content. For example; mocking Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a very influential woman who was even once a viable (and may still be) candidate for Vice President. She has also shown herself to be ignorant of most things and perfectly happy that way (which is likely the really troubling part). Her views on the role of religion in society, America’s role world wide and the role government should play in everything from reproductive rights to marriage combined with how many people consider her opinion in those matter relevant make her dangerous.
So mocking her is almost an act of self defense (I still think it’s almost universally meant with malice though) when someone with much less influence and control (like Jon Stewart) ridicule her. Which is why it would be inappropriate for a House Speaker or Senate Majority Leader to do it. They’d have just as powerful a venue to rebuke or correct her.
Now if Sarah Palin were just a housewife with all the same views and she came to be under the same scrutiny it’d be cruel. She would be just some minor insignificant figure living out her life.Turning her name into something synonymous with fool would serve no purpose other then to give people who don’t like her something to snicker at.
Anyway, those are just the few thoughts I managed. Not entirely convinced myself but it’s kept my conscious quiet so far.
Well, we can mock public people for that. Non-public people, usually not.
Funny you should mention Stewart (whom I love with a dignified passion) – I once heard an interview with Steve Carrell in which he talked about being uncomfortable having to mock ordinary (non-public) people when he was on the Daily Show.
Yet again I say what someone else is saying while someone else is saying it. Yes what julian said – that’s what I’m saying.
I think we are conflating two things here: acceptable points for mockery and who can submit whom to mockery.
As Ophelia said it is not acceptable to mock a person for being ugly and, for the same reasons it is not acceptable to mock them for being attractive but you could mock them for being vain.
However, the mockery heaped generously and deservedly upon Sarah Palin by the media would be outrageous were it directed at my sister.
Whereas, if I wanted to mock my sister for claiming to understand international relations because she can see Russia from her window then that’s fair game.
This conversation, if nothing else, indicates the gulf between the US and Europe, and to a lesser extent the US and the UK. I’ve written a piece on the European view of the ‘great and the good’ (which has its origins in Roman law) here:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/04/07/be-civil-or-be-silent/
If nothing else, it will explain DSK for an American audience.
@Felix
Doesn’t Mooney somewhat fall into this category?
Agreed. But thats not in question here. I get that Opehlia regrets the Colgate twins comment since it is still a comment about someones physical appearance which should be out of bounds for mockery – it’s funny in my land a Colgate smile is a compliment – not mockery. Though I suppose it implies that they get attention because they are good looking which perhaps was unfair.
I think a more appropriate analogy would be if your sister blogged/commented the above. Would it be acceptable to mock her then?
@Julian
it seems to be arbitrary to say the level of influence that a person has determines whether her views can be mocked or not. Say Sarah Palin has influence over her church club – would it be alright to mock her then? Surely it is the view that matters not the influence of the person behind the views.
@Ophelia
You too, huh?
@Deepak
“Doesn’t Mooney somewhat fall into this category?”
He may well do, but … (not sure where you’re going with that thought) … that wouldn’t mean that we can mock him for his physical appearance.
“I think a more appropriate analogy would be if your sister blogged/commented the above. Would it be acceptable to mock her then?”
Sure, I could mock her in person or you could mock her in comments on the blog, but you couldn’t acceptably mock my sister over her blog in an op-ed in the Times.
“Surely it is the view that matters not the influence of the person behind the views.”
I think @Julian meant it would be cruel to mock a random housewife on the Daily Show rather than it would be cruel to mock her at all e.g. in her own kitchen.
The view is the trigger for mockery, the weapon depends on the target.
Generally speaking, views and opinions can be mocked to your liking. They’re abstractions and not people. I was trying to justify, at least to myself, mocking certain people. I picked Sarah Pain because there’s a lot that can be legitimately looked at with scorn and a lot that would fall under gray areas (her private life, her daughter’s pregnancy and marriage, rumors of affairs, ectectect).
In brief, Roman law protected the ‘great and the good’ from attack more than the average person, on the basis that people of talent and ability would not enter public life unless protected from defamation and invasion of privacy.
I am not suggesting that either the Roman or American or (intermediate) British position is correct; merely noting their substantive differences and providing some legal-historical background.
@Felix
Suppose I wanted to highlight the views of “ordinary” people – to point out how widespread a problem is?
Consider your sister commented at say a popular blog like pharyngula – where a hundred people will pounce at your every indiscretion. Acceptable? But evidently it would not be acceptable for P.Z. to blog about your sister since he has a very powerful megaphone – But it would be acceptable for me, a semi anonymous commenter to do so.
@Julian
Only in an ideal world. Mocking a view is usually received as mocking the person who holds that view.
See that’s just it. That’s how I defended it – and it’s true, as far as it goes; but the more than 5000 comments at That Place, many of which include savage mockery, have persuaded me that as far as it goes isn’t far enough. It’s the kind of thing that makes people feel silly, and it has nothing to do with the issue, so it’s a bad thing to do.
(Well it had a little to do with the issue. People do sometimes use “likability” or vulnerability or similar qualities to shield themselves from criticism. But still.)
Deepak, yes, me too. And don’t even get me started on Craig Ferguson. :- b
skep – the Romans weren’t wrong about that, either. Lots of people don’t go into US politics because it’s such a bear pit, and it never stops. (Journalists here have been prattling about “the election” for months – you know, the one that’s a year and a half away. It’s literally never not campaign season.)
@Deepak
“Suppose I wanted to highlight the views of “ordinary” people – to point out how widespread a problem is?”
Then you could do so without naming her but describing her as “a prominent member of the local hunting and fishing community, clad in tight black jeans, trailed by her pregnant teenage daughter” (too specific), or, better, without any information that would allow the identification of the person you were using as an example.
I agree with your examples re PZ’s blog.
In response to your comment to Julian:
“Mocking a view is usually received as mocking the person who holds that view.”
I would say that I agree with what you wrote above:
“I think the problem is that mockery – like satire is hard to get right and few people can do it effectively. And the rest of us just look ugly when we attempt.”
That’s true, and we should strive not to look, or be, ugly (in spirit).
But you _are_ mocking ‘the person’ because it is ‘the person’ who holds the view, you just shouldn’t do it in such a way that you seem to say the entire person is worthless because of this one idea. The idea is ridiculous, the person who holds the idea is ridiculous for holding it, but that doesn’t mean they are entirely ridiculous as a person.
But also be careful not to mock entire groups of people, strive to be very specific about mocking the idea itself.
But they are two separate things and easy enough to communicate (even if no one listens) what you’re aiming your ire at. I understand that it’ll be received along the same lines but that’s on the listener for not being able to distinguish who they are vs what they believe. It’s enough for me for an idea not to be a person or a living thing.
I think depending on how you do it, it would be fine. For me (feel free to insert this from now on at the start of everything I say) it’s how relevant the criticism and mockery is to the wrongful behavior and how it relates to whatever you’re discussing overall. Something entirely out of left field would be inappropriate because it not only adds nothing to whatever point you’re making it actually takes away from it. It also takes an unfair pot shot at your target who now has a black eye for no other reason then you wanting to give them one.
Of course this depends on how high profile the blog and blogger are. A NY Times Op-Ed wasted on the musings of a nobody no one listens to is a waste of time.
@Felix.
Ha! The old name the person or not argument. I guess that’s not going to get resolved.
The problem being that mocking a religious idea (born of a virgin, really?) does work out to mocking entire groups.
Well- If nothing else the entire Elevator Gate incident has us considering how appropriate mockery is , and what contexts it is appropriate in – which isn’t a bad thing. I think in general we are in agreement but some of the details are still grey.
The question of whether the ‘Colgate Twins’ epithet is acceptable is interesting.
At the time I thought it was acceptable and amusing and presumably Ophelia did too. She has since reconsidered.
I should say as this point that I have only the barest acquaintance with the looks, activities or behaviour (other than in writing) of Mooney and Kirshenbaum. Therefore any comments here are of a general nature do not reference them in particular.
As said, mocking someone for being ugly or attractive is not okay. But mocking an attractive person for the manner in which they flaunt their attractiveness is, I would argue, acceptable. (Remember Miss Piggy?)
(I find this a particularly easy stance to adopt as an over-weight, middle-aged, Englishman with characteristically bad teeth. Although I do still claim to have all my hair.)
Thus if M&K are given to bouncing on to talk shows with unrealistic broad smiles and putting on the beautiful people act (which to us Brits sticks out like a sore thumb but which you Americans may not notice so much) then I say mock away.
Equally if they do similar in loads of photos splashed all over their blogs, books, event posters etc. then sock it to them!
@Deepak said:
“it’s funny in my land a Colgate smile is a compliment – not mockery.”
That’s true but it is still an epithet refer to personal appearance.
and
“Though I suppose it implies that they get attention because they are good looking which perhaps was unfair.”
It would be unfair to allege that they get attention _merely_ because they are good looking, but since it is so much harder for a not good-looking person to get attention you could argue that it is true to say that they get attention because they are good looking and <something else as well>.
Well, Felix, that’s what I thought two years ago, and went on thinking until just maybe yesterday, but now…not so much. I’ll probably stumble into doing it all over again (though to someone different), but I’ve changed my official view of it.
“Yesterday”? At “That Place”? “5000 comments”?
I don’t know where you mean, but you’re entitled to be circumspect.
About the ‘Colgate Twins.’
I never thought of it as a dig on their looks. It was similar to something I used to use (“Bleached White Teeth”) aimed at anything that was done to create the appearance of perfection when in reality there were a million things wrong. So Colgate Twins ended taking a similar meaning in my mind.
@skepticlawyer
And the US is the opposite, correct? (Sorry, I went to your blog post, but I didn’t really understand the first two paragraphs, so I stopped reading. My fault, not yours.)
My gut reaction is that I wouldn’t want our system to be set up like the British system. Why should the average person have LESS protection than those that have more power and influence and choose to become public figures.
However, as Ophelia stated earlier, the current political climate in the US does drive away lots of people who don’t want to put up with the public scrutiny.
That’s not necessarily bad or good, but I wonder if the fact that public figures are legally more susceptible to defamation (or whatever the term is) and have fewer legal means of fighting back has led to the current state of affairs in US politics? I mean, of course, many other factors are involved, but maybe that’s one of them?
julian – right, it wasn’t a dig at their looks, it was about presentation. But that itself is somewhat mean – it has at least the potential to make people feel foolish and embarrassed. It’s fair game for politicians and the like, but it’s more dubious for others.
And Bachmann eating the corn dog is a cheap shot. [rolls eyes]
For what it’s worth, I think you’re being harder on yourself than is warranted, Ophelia (though it’s commendable to be so empathetic). The Colgate Twins joke isn’t anywhere near what’s been going on at the Place. In fact, I think you make a category error even thinking they’re in the same county. For all the reasons you defended it then, and for the reasons others here have articulated, it’s just not that. Power differentials, context, and all that do make a difference. In fact, all the difference. M and K did/do project that phony I’m So Pretty and Smiley thing, and they did deserve to get teased for it. It would have been entirely different if you’d picked on them for being ugly. See, there really is a vast difference.
And what’s going on at the Place isn’t even mockery proper, it’s vicious savaging.
Oh! That place! Haven’t looked but at least I know where you mean, I think, everthing remains vague.
Personally, I don’t think mockery is always a bad thing. The problem with mockery on the internet, however, is the speed at which it can travel. In addition, like the old children’s game of “Telephone,” a lot of details can get lost and/or twisted in the process.
The degree to which it wounds the target also has to be considered. For example, 6 – 7 years ago, Christopher Hitchens was widely derided as “Snitchens” in the progressive blogosphere, due to his support of the Iraq war. It wasn’t unjustified; and he doesn’t seem the worse for it.
I guess the lesson is: when you have a megaphone, it’s important to consider the following questions: a) who is the target? b) why is s/he being targeted? and c) is the (total) mockery in proportion to the act(s) that inspired it? (this is where “Colgate Twins” might have gotten out-of-hand… a snarky remark on a couple of blogs is one thing; contributing to a dogpile that isolates/alienates the target is quite another).
That is… you think about these things if you wish to use your megaphone responsibly. Unfortunately, one of the lessons of “Elevator Gate” is that many don’t.
The Colgate Twins is certainly better than MooneyTits. Guess who came up with that one.
Some time ago, when ERV was (quite rightly and generally quite well) taking down Casey Luskin, I (calmly and politely) asked it was useful or helpful (or even amusing) for her to call him “Caseytits”. I wondered what was wrong with tits, and why it should be an insult for someone to be one or have them. (Unless she was calling him a birdbrain?)