Board Post, February 2 2012

 

Irregular Business

 

As community members have noticed, TBAT has not been visiting all of the websites criticising Froborr's article to explain the situation. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the article has attracted a record amount of trolling in the Slacktiverse's history and we simply don't have time to keep on top of it and go around other websites as well. The second is this: the trolls have been coming in from other sites, and we felt that posting on their sites defending the article was simply too likely to attract more of them. We figured that the people who'd approach the article with open minds would investigate for themselves and wouldn't need an explanation, and the people who might need an explanation were probably too angry to listen to one anyway.

So we aren't going to go around all these other websites defending the post because we're tired and busy and we don't want to borrow trouble. However, we are aware that community members here may also be members of websites that are attacking us, and hence may be wishing they had an explanation to produce. So, here's our explanation: anyone who wants to has our carte blanche to cut and paste it where appropriate. We just ask that people exercise careful judgement about troll-baiting.

TBAT's position about Froborr's article:

A great deal of anger seems to have been provoked by Froborr's article, and many people seem to believe that it claims that:

1. We are arguing that anyone who tries to change anyone's mind is evil and, by implication, atheists should be quiet about their opinions.

2. Atheists in general are evil.

3. Greta Christina advocates the use of force.

We do not believe any of these position, nor would we publish an article we believed promoted them.

Why did we publish Froborr's piece? The simple answer is that we publish any article sent to us as long as it falls within a basic standard of quality, doesn't endorse criminal activity or infringe copyright and doesn't constitute hate speech. As the disclaimer we post to every article says, 'Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors.'

Some atheists seem to believe that Froborr's article was hate speech. We didn't think it was, which is why we published it. As we understood it, its argument was:

- A person's worldview, whether atheist or religions, can be an essential part of someone's identity and losing it can be profoundly traumatic - not to everyone, but to some people.

- There is no empirical evidence that faith is always harmful.

- To aspire to a world where everyone loses their faith is therefore to wish trauma upon people who were not harming anyone with their beliefs, which places the aspirant's personal interpretation of 'correct thinking' above the wellbeing of others.

We considered this a debatable position, but not one that should be censored on that account - certainly not in a debate forum, which is part of what we are.

1. To address the allegation that we are saying anyone who tries to change anyone's mind about anything is evil - which is a 'gotcha' allegation we've had a lot of - this is not what the article is saying. We believe it makes two important points that render this allegation incorrect. First, that if a faith or non-faith is an essential part of someone's identity, undermining it is a more serious business than 'changing someone's mind'. Second, and more importantly, Froborr's objection is not to disagreement or discussion, but to what he refers in the discussion to as 'eliminationist rhetoric', which he believes 'a world where [religion] no longer exists' constitutes - again, more serious than trying to change some minds on some subjects.

Not everyone on the site necessarily agrees with this position, but again, we don't censor for opinions. We certainly don't think atheists should shut up about their opinions: frankly we considered this piece an atheist expressing his opinion. Not the only atheist opinion we publish either: we have a lot of atheist commenters, have published atheist articles, and are currently working on two collaborative atheist pieces, which will present a lot of different takes on atheism from atheist community members.

2. To address the other word that's caused such anger, 'evil': we felt it was strong language, but we allow greater latitude to authors criticising their own group than we do to authors criticising outsiders. We would not have allowed such a comment from a religious poster criticising an atheist's position, but we felt that to censor a genuinely-held opinion by one atheist towards his own fellow atheists would be against the principles of the site. Fred Clark, the original Slacktivist blogger, was often strongly critical of his fellow Evangelicals, and we felt that publishing an atheist being strongly critical of another atheist was in the same spirit.

We would also point out that this word was not specifically directed against atheists, but against proselytisation in any form; the sentence that includes the word 'evil' specifically states that 'any adherent of any religion' is in the same category as an atheist employing such rhetoric. As such, we considered it to be applied to a goal rather than to a person or a group of people, which falls within our community standards. We do not consider atheists evil - or at least, no more prone to evil than any other group of people. (In point of fact, our admin team constitutes one Christian, one agnostic and one atheist.)

3. To address the allegation that it accuses Greta Christina of advocating force: the article directly quotes her saying 'We don’t want to see this happen by law or violence or any kind of force, of course.' The word 'force' was used in the context of an analogy: Froborr was suggesting that Greta Christina's rhetoric likened religion to a mental illness and pointed out that curing a non-dangerous mental illness by force was unethical - which is to say, it was referring to the history of abuses in the realm of psychiatry by way of pointing out that allegations of mental illness have a political as well as a medical history. In retrospect we probably should have picked up in editing that this phrase was open to misinterpretation, but since it's up there now, we'll have to let it stand.

We'd also like to point out something about our site that newcomers couldn't be expected to know: we treat articles primarily as the starting point for a discussion rather than as a firm statement of position. The whole website in its current form was founded because the original blogger, Fred Clark, moved to Patheos and many members felt that they couldn't in conscience join a site that published anti-marriage equality articles but were distressed at the thought of losing the community that had built up in the comment threads (in which Fred Clark never intervened). With no disrespect to the hard work of the people who submitted articles, we started running the site mostly to preserve the thread conversations. When we publish an article we expect its author to be challenged on it, and the threads form an important part of the whole.

We are sorry that the article has caused distress, but we believe that its basic position is, properly understood, neither a call for silencing nor an attack on a belief system.

Regular Business

Don't forget to send in items that you want included in This week in The Slacktiverse February 4/5 2012.

The three sections of the weekend post are:

The Blogaround

Any denizen of the Slacktiverse who has posted an article to their own website during since the previous weekend post is invited to send a short summary of that article along with its permalink to TBAT. That summary and link will be included in the next weekend blogaround. This will help to keep members of our community aware of the many excellent websites hosted by other members.

In Case You Missed This

Readers of The Slacktiverse can send short summaries of, and permalinks to, articles that they feel might be of interest to other readers.

Things You Can Do

Anyone who knows of a worthy cause or important petition should send a short description of the petition/cause along with its url to TBAT.

Deadlines

Please email all submissions to slackmods at gmail dot com. The deadline this week will be 2000 GMT on Saturday.

Urgent or time-sensitive announcements will be posted immediately rather than being held for the next regular "This Weekend" post.

---

 

The Board Administration Team
(hapax, Kit Whitfield and mmy)



Comments

[Froborr]

@TBAT, and everyone else involved with dealing with the influx of trolls or explaining what my position is here and elsewhere or arguing with me in a civilized manor: Thank you. I cannot express how grateful I am. I frequently have difficulty seeing myself as a member of any community, but you have reminded me that I am a member of this one.

[Mmy]

@Froborr: how does the song go? "We are family."

[Laiima]

@TBAT, that was awesome. Thank you so much for writing it all up.

[picklefactory]

Good stuff! Hopefully we can get back to the interesting arguments now, instead of having the old boring one over and over at different volumes.

[timberwraith]

TBAT, thank you for the stalwart moderation. That must have been exhausting.

Froborr, thanks for sticking your neck out there and writing the original article.

[Ross]

Rambow: [deleted a vile misogynistic personal attack]

You know, I've been thinking this for a while now, as New Atheists come in here and tell us all how stupid we are and how irrational we all are as they bully and mock PTSD sufferers and try to spread their cause by bullying and silencing, and generally making it seem like, in fact, it'd have been a lot better for all involved if we never published anything by an atheist again, and showing about the most piss-poor reading comprehension seen above the third grade (And that's even if I personally grant that "evil" is an emotionally charged word and maybe a different word would have been less distracting), And I'm finally ready to whip it out.

<kirk>Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect.</kirk>

[Kit Whitfield]

Totally off topic, but timberwraith, your icon's really pretty. :-)

[Nenya]

That is a really pretty icon. Is it a tree? I'm minded of the White Tree of Gondor, though in its physical form, not its stylized banner form.

It's good to have a summary. Looking forward to new posts too! (Am currently halfway through the Imbolc post, which I'm reading as I flip through the dozen tabs I have open tonight.)

[timberwraith]

Thanks for the compliments on my icon, y'all. It is indeed a tree. I didn't make it myself, although I altered the colors to my liking. I found in on the internet a long time ago. I can no longer remember where.

I love trees and I love forest lands. Hence, my icon. :-)

[Froborr]

Fits well with your name, too, it looks like it could be the ghost of a tree.

Aaaand now I'm thinking about Slender Man, so I'm going to spend the whole trip to work looking over my shoulder.

Eh, what're the odds I will see a tall bald man in a suit on a crowded commuter train?

...Oh. Right.

[Certainly Sylvia]

Good Summation :)

+1 to TBAT

[J-theist]

If you need an article as long as the original to come up with an interpretation that holds water, then the original article must have been deeply flawed. Why *can't* you retract the original or at least correct it?

Your apologia is pretty feeble. I think the low point is the claim that wanting to persuade your opponents to adopt your position is "eliminationist". That's the opposite of eliminationism - eliminationism would be saying that your opponents are too dangerous to be reasoned with so they must be isolated or killed. So although you try to paint yourselves as 'reasonable', you are actually doubling down by accusing Greta Christina of eliminationism, which puts her in the same category as the Nazis.

Throwing the e-word around is also appropriating the suffering of the real victims of eliminationism: Jews, Roma, the Boers, the Mau-Mau, those deemed to be 'intellectuals' by the Khmer Rouge or 'kulaks' under Stalin, the Tutsi and all the other victims.

So, you know, stay classy!

[Literata]

I invoke Godwin's Law as a reason to Not Feed The Troll.

[J-theist]

The TBAT broke Godwin's Law when they made accusations of "eliminationism".

[chris the cynic]

[I ask this at the risk of feeding the troll, though this question is directed at the community.]

Aren't explanations generally longer than the original?

If something could be said more clearly in fewer words, those would have been the original words. (With obvious exceptions for state of mind and "This didn't occur to me until later.") Even when there's a reason for the original to be less than clear beyond brevity, the explanations usually seem to be lengthy.

In my experience, for example, commentary is always longer than the poem.

[J-theist]

Eliminationist groups according to Frodor's theory: the UN (trying to impose its ideology of "universal human rights"), the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, any health worker aiming to discourage female genital mutilation...

[J-theist]

An article isn't supposed to be as ambiguous as a poem. It should BE an explanation, not NEED an explanation.

[The Board Administration Team]

@J-theist: The TBAT broke Godwin's Law when they made accusations of "eliminationism".

First, picky grammatical point -- TBAT stands for "The Board Administration Team" -- so the 'The' in "The Tbat" is redundant.

Second, TBAT has made no such accusation, they merely referred to Froborr's comment in the discussion thread "but to what he refers in the discussion to as 'eliminationist rhetoric'.

[Izzy]

Fucking hell. Suggesting not feeding the troll; also suggesting banning; on the other hand, banning all these twits would probably keep TBAT from doing anything else ever, including maybe eating.

[Will Wildman]

Aaaand now I'm thinking about Slender Man, so I'm going to spend the whole trip to work looking over my shoulder.

Eh, what're the odds I will see a tall bald man in a suit on a crowded commuter train?

...Oh. Right.

That would make me think Silence. It would have to be foggy and I'd need to see multiple arms before I would go Slendy. Although, in the worst case scenario, you can always strike up a conversation with someone about predatory tulpas and means of defence. (Or, if they've never heard of Slenderman, give a quick run down, followed by "Kind of like that guy over there. Also, he only hunts people who know about him." And then disappear into the crowd.)

---

I'd be far more willing to believe that these trolls had actually read the article if they displayed any ability to spell Froborr's name correctly.

[J-theist]

So does TBAT endorse Froborr's allegation that Greta Christina is guilty of "eliminationist rhetoric"?

[MercuryBlue]

J-theist: Greta wants to eliminate religion. What the hell
is that if not eliminationist?

(Sorry, Literata. Atheists tend to pride ourselves on reasoning
ability, so it can't hurt to give a chance or two for these people to
prove they can be reasoned with.)

[Ross]

How wrong is it that when I read some of these very angry comments from people who saw the word 'evil' and switched off their brains, my inner narrator replaces them with the voice of my son, doing the "hoo-waaaaah hoo-waaaaaah hoo-waaaaaah" sound he makes when he's upset and not hungry (Hungry is "laaaaaaa! laaaaaaaa! laaaaaaa!")?

Also, I keep wanting to bust out some Captain Kirk: Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect.

[sarah]

J-theist, while TBAT is made up of members of this community who make intelligent posts and therefore are, in general, listened to when they speak, they don't usually "endorse" what others have written. In other words, read the damn post:

"Why did we publish Froborr's piece? The simple answer is that we publish any article sent to us as long as it falls within a basic standard of quality, doesn't endorse criminal activity or infringe copyright and doesn't constitute hate speech. As the disclaimer we post to every article says, 'Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors.'"

[J-theist]

Eliminationism means wanting to eliminate *people*, not *ideas*.

For example, Abraham Lincoln wanted to eliminate slavery in the US. So was Lincoln an eliminationist? No, because he wanted to end the institution of slavery, not wipe out slaves.

By the way, ending slavery in the US changed a lot of slave-owners' identities against their will, so I guess it was also an example of "the purest form of evil"? You can't prove that every single person in the world was made better off by the end of slavery (which is the standard we're supposed to use to evaluate whether getting rid of religion would be a good idea).

[The Board Administration Team]

So does TBAT endorse Froborr's allegation that Greta Christina is guilty of "eliminationist rhetoric"?

TBAT is not a hive mind. It comprises three separate individuals who have differing opinions.

All that TBAT endorses in this case is that Froborr had the right to express his opinion about Greta Christina as long as he stayed within the standard submission guidelines, which have been explained before. Just like anyone who submits an article has the right to express their opinion within the guidelines.

[J-theist]

Accusations of eliminationism are hate speech. It's the same rhetorical strategy they used in Rwanda - "kill them before they kill or enslave you."

[Certainly Sylvia]

@J-theist

No - it doesn't.

Good grief. How can you have a debate with someone who does not know the meaning of the terms they employ.

Eliminationism was first defined by an American political scientist, Daniel Goldhagen in the late 90's.

It means using any means to target a group you do not agree with, including censorship, hate speech, propoganda and so on - where the end goal to to ultimately remove them.

It does include more violent options as well, but they are usually the result of preexisting eliminationist rhetoric.

You do not get to redefine words and then say 'Aha - see.'

*sigh*

[Lonespark]

Dave Neiwart did a fantastic series of posts, and some books, about eliminationism in the rhetoric of the American far right and the way it got mainstreamed... Perhaps he still does...haven't read him lately.

[Kit Whitfield]

I'm just giving up; too many of these guys are under the impression that 'hate speech' means 'criticisms of me and mine'.

It would at least explain why they're so disrespectful of things like trigger warnings and avoiding misogynistic language. To them, such concepts are simple power plays with no further meaning or reality.

Cease to feed the troll, please?

[J-theist]

"It means using any means to target a group you do not agree with, including censorship, hate speech, propoganda and so on - where the end goal to to ultimately remove them."

Right, but the end goal has to be to remove them. Remove the people. So you're agreeing with me.

Greta Christina's goal is to stop people believing in religion, not remove people who do by putting them in camps. That's why accusing her of eliminationist rhetoric is so inappropriate.

[Certainly Sylvia]

// Accusations of eliminationism are hate speech. It's the same rhetorical strategy they used in Rwanda - "kill them before they kill or enslave you." //

No again. Using eliminationist rhetoric is hate speech. Which is exactly what is happening in your 'example.'

[Froborr]

Ah, see, I have this pet theory that Slendy is the Shadow (in the Jungian sense) of the World Tree, in its capacity as the symbol of the collective unconscious. (Which might imply that the Shrike is Slendy after a few millennia of development? I dunno, it's been a couple years since I read Hyperion, and I never read the sequel.) Anyway, that's why he's associated with trees so strongly in the first stories, and it also handily explains the tulpa properties and contradictory nature of the mythos.

[Certainly Sylvia]

I agree kit. No more from me - just not worth it. :(

[J-theist]

Kit, I never equated hate speech with criticism. But if you accuse someone of being an eliminationist, you're trying to foster hate against them. It's like when people who don't like Israel's policies (including Jewish Orthodox groups, sometimes) call Israelis "Nazis".

[Izzy]

@Kit: Yeah, with you.

It's a thing I associate a lot with angry willfully maladjusted nerds: I've seen a lot of it during the various SF Authors Made of Fail controversies. Somehow, in what passes for their tiny little minds, criticizing someone (or just letting someone's public persona affect the way you deal with them) is exactly the same as censorship.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, for a population so fond of whipping out the Logic Cock, they don't really seem to have a good grasp of why the "slippery slope" argument doesn't work very well.

[Izzy]

@Froborr: I need to read the Slender Man stuff. Any suggestions for where to start?

[J-theist]

C Sylvia - but the false allegation of eliminationism against the 'enemy' is used to justify the call to violence against them. I could easily see some violent fundamentalist reading Froborr's article/comments and using it to justify an attack on Greta Christina. "She was an eliminationist! Her sort would have put Christians in camps! I had to kill her before she killed me!"

That's the kind of mindset Froborr is encouraging by throwing around the e-word. It's particularly bizarre when there's actual eliminationist rhetoric on the US right (death threats against that atheist girl who got a prayer removed from her school, a football player asking people to show his atheist roommate some "hate")

[Mmy]

Just a personal comment:

.

[Certainly Sylvia]

Personally not so sure tis a troll but I'll cede if it's to much for others, given the trollage of late. I definitely do not want to create more work for TBAT.

*sigh - and I have a really good response too* :) hehe

[J-theist]

Also eliminationist: declaring people whose opinions you don't agree with non-human "trolls" who mustn't be engaged with, lest they taint the harmony of the community.

[Froborr]

@Izzy: I would start by either watching the Youtube series Marble Hornets or reading one of the blogs Just Another Fool (http://jafool.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/this-is-what-happens/) and Seeking Truth (http://openthedoorandyouwillfindme.blogspot.com/2010/03/assignment.html).

For the blogs, definitely read the comments, they can be quite important. For Marble Hornets, certain video responses are important; there is a complete viewing order at the wiki (http://marblehornets.wikidot.com/the-entries#toc2) but I would avoid the rest of the wiki as it is spoilertastic.

If you like those, I recommend Everyman Hybrid (warning: starts out *extremely* cheesy but gets a lot better) and Tribe Twelve on Youtube, and the blog Dreams in Darkness (http://dreamsindarkness91.blogspot.com/2010/05/and-life-in-general.html).

Finally, if you still want more, TVTropes has an extensive list of vlogs and blogs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSlenderManMythosStories).

[Izzy]

@Certainly Sylvia: Considering it's got the same first initial as one of our pre-Froborr's-post New Atheist trolls, and also that it came out swinging dick, I think it's at least not worth the time or effort.

[Amaryllis]

Hey, J-theist, are you by any chance the Original J, from the old Slacktivist? Just wondering.

Re "eliminationist," once more, in simple terms: Greta Christina's avowed goal is world where religion no longer exists. Why is it surprising that someone who considers their religious outlook (note: I do not say "religious belief") to be a fundamental part of their identity, would understand that to mean, "a world where I, and people like me, no longer exist"?

Thanks to all the regulars who fought the good fight on these threads.

@Izzy: your comments have been a particular delight.

[J-theist]

Oh yeah, don't listen to people who have the same initial as someone else you disagree with. That's a sure way to tell the trolls/witches/Jews from us Decent People with Permissible Opinions.

[Amaryllis]

@Izzy: I see we made the same speculation.

@Mmy: you're right, there's no point in starting it up again.

Also, when I say "regulars," that of course includes all the new and new-ish community members who've joined in the debate.

[Izzy]

@Amaryllis: Thank you!

And yeah, that was my thought. Although apparently being suspicious of people with fairly-similar usernames posting in the same obnoxious style is now ZOMG OPPRESSIONZ and not, you know, standard Internet caution.

@Froborr: Dude. Reading JAF now, and...eeeerie!

On Marble Hornets: I generally avoid horror videos due to a dislike of jump scenes. Is this likely to be a problem here?

[J-theist]

The people would still exist, they'd just have a different outlook. People convert from one religion/worldview to another all the time. Are you saying that makes them stop existing?

[Froborr]

@Izzy: There are a couple of jump scares, but they are actually fairly rare. The type of horror is more that you're watching a completely mundane scene, it's a little boring, your eyes wander, oh gods has that been in the background the whole time!?

What makes it truly scary is that it trains you. You strain to find Slendy in every shot, whether he's there or not, become a hyper-sensitive Slendy detector, and then when you turn off the video... well, you still are one.

[J-theist]

What's more obnoxious - criticising someone's argument, or ad hominem attacks accusing me of being someone else I've never heard of, a "troll", etc?

[Izzy]

@Froborr: Oh, awesome!

I'm in a weird position w/r/t horror films. Love them in theory--and really like horror writing--but the SUDDEN!SCARY!MUSIC! thing is just a little too much for me. I'll check out Hornets, and thanks! (Also considering 1408, which I've heard is good in the same way.)

[Sixwing, tee hee]

@Froborr, thanks for the blog links! I've been wondering what this whole thing was about for a while.

[Michael Mock]

J-theist - Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I agree with you: "eliminationist" is imprecise/has too much baggage/equates people who would like to see the end of religion with people who would like to see the end of religious people, by violence if necessary.

In this context, what word would you suggest using instead? Is there something equally succinct and more precise? Help us out, here: what's the alternative?

Personally, I think the way that Froborr was using the word was clear enough from the context - words can have more than one meaning, after all - but I can also see a legitimate objection along the lines of, "Yes, but when you use that word you make it sound like prominent atheists want to kill off religious people." But in that case, could you at least suggest a word that you find less offensive?

(I had a similar issue back during Hurricane Katrina, when I discovered to my absolute bewilderment that American citizens cannot be "refugees" no matter how badly they need refuge. Apparently it just sounds bad. They must instead be... um... erm... how about "evacuees?" ...I suspect that Froborr et al. are having a similar reaction, here.)

[Kit Whitfield]

@Michael Mock - when someone takes exception to the word 'troll' because it's calling someone 'non-human', I think it's a pretty fair bet that he's just amusing himself.

On a completely different subject: I don't know very much about bears because there aren't any in England outside a zoo. However, my sister-in-law loves bears and I'm designing Christmas stockings to knit for the family, and I'd like to do something bear-related for her. I've got a pattern for a toy bear that I could make and stuff lightly enough that I could sew it to a stocking base in a 'sleeping' posture - but what would a bear sleep on? A log? Anyone got any ideas?

[Anonymous]

In a cave? You could modify a hat pattern to make a little grey cave.

[Kit Whitfield]

Hm. I could, but then you couldn't really fit presents in it...

[Wysteria]

In my experience with bears, in fiction they like pots of honey and in reality they like beehives and berry bushes.

[kisekileia]

In reality they also like garbage, but that wouldn't be particularly pleasant to portray or view.

[Sixwing, who lives in bear country]

A pile of leaves? That'd be a pain to sew, though.

They generally dig dens, or use a hollow made by roots or a fallen tree, or something. None of those work well as something easy to present in sewing, so maybe "on top of a log" would make a good, cute and relatively easy-to-sew alternative?

[Ross]

I have a small technical question, and now seems as good a time as any to bring it up. I recently noticed that Fred's site has an RSS feed that syndicates all comments on all articles together in a single feed. I started using it because it's an awesomely handy way to keep up now that he's ramped up his posting volume so much. Do we have something similar here? The new "You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post" links are a fantastic addition for people who want to follow one particular old thread, but sometimes when a lot of articles have active discussion going on all at once, I have a hard time keeping track. It's not a big deal, certainly nothing I'd want anyone to have to go to any trouble for, but for all I know it already exists and there's just not an obvious link

[chris the cynic]

Speaking of trolls amusing themselves, I recently came across someone on facebook trying to pass off a five year old picture of a protester defecating on the American flag as a representative example of the Occupy movement. While Occupy the TARDIS would no doubt be interesting, I have a feeling (don't ask me why, it's just a feeling) that time travel was not involved and he was just a lying jerk.

I found out about this because my sister responded to the attempt to pass off as an Occupy thing by looking it up and finding out where the image came from and that got the thing in my feed.

So first the troll responded by saying, basically, "Yes the single event on which I have based everything I've said is a lie, but everything I said still stands. Why do you do these things I've admitted you don't do and why are you like this person I've admitted you're not like?"

Then, finally, in the end (and this is a direct quote) "I had a blast to be honest. So thank you very much for your entertainment and brain numbing mumbojumbo."

I hate trolls.

-

It seriously seemed to be (paraphrased):

Him: "How could you do this?"

Occupiers: "We didn't."

Him: "Ok, I admit it, I was wrong, that wasn't actually you, sorry, but HOW COULD YOU?"

Occupiers: "We didn't."

Him: "I know that, I already admitted to my mistake. There's no reason to bring it up after I said I was sorry, but I Still Have My Questions. How could you?"

And so on.

[timberwraith]

Froborr said:

Fits well with your name, too, it looks like it could be the ghost of a tree.

Ah, that was my intent! ;-) I'm not Slender Man, though. First, I think my non-guyness would disqualify me from the position. Second, I try my best not to frighten people or wildlife, even though wraiths tend to have a reputation for being scary.

Now, on to other matters...

**rummages around house**

Oh dear, it seems that I'm fresh out of Purina Troll Chow.

Perhaps I will make an alternative offering.

For the general well-being of those on this thread, and in keeping with my affinity for trees, I offer a gathering of baby squirrels.

[Michael Mock]

@ Kit - Good point.

[Froborr]

I may be mistaken, but IIRC "trolling" in the Internet sense actually has nothing to do with goat-fearing monsters under bridges, it comes from a fishing term. IIRC it's something to do with disturbing the water, so that the startled fish do... something or other that makes them easier to catch?

@Izzy: Okay, just so you know, Marble Hornets isn't *devoid* of jump scares. It has no music except that which is audible to the characters (I can never remember which is which of diegetic and non-diegetic music, or I'd use the term), but there are one or two visual equivalents, and Slendy's presence can disrupt recording equipment, and those disruptions sometimes perform a similar function in the form of loud static. So depending on what exatly it is you don't like about them, you may still encounter a few? It's still not a lot, most of the videos go for more atmospheric horror.

[J-theist]

Michael: some words do have multiple meanings, but "eliminationist" is a recently-coined term of art with an unambiguous meaning. As Sylvia puts it: "It means using any means to target a group you do not agree with, including censorship, hate speech, propoganda and so on - where the end goal [is] to ultimately remove them."

It describes what the Nazis did to the Jews (not a Godwin, that's what it was coined to describe), what Hutus did to Tutsis in Rwanda, etc.

What Froborr is doing is misusing it to describe wanting to *convince* people to change their mind about a topic, rather than to exile/destroy a people.

A reasonable description of Christina's position would be anti-religious activism, or New Atheism, or maybe even "proselytising atheist". But of course, none of those terms has as severe a negative connotation as "eliminationist rhetoric".

Using the term has certainly confused quite a few commenters here, so I don't agree that his meaning was "obvious from context."

TW: FGM

He then employed the argument (reiterated by TBAT above) that one must prove that everyone in the world would be better off without religion before you can advocate less religion. Of course, that's an impossible standard to meet. I couldn't prove that everyone in the world would be better off if FGM was eliminated from the world. The practitioners would be out of a job, and would be forced to question their identity, perhaps realising that what they'd been doing (and had done to them) was harmful. But is that a reason not to seek to eliminate FGM? No, because the correct thing to consider is not "would everyone in the world be better off?" but "would people be better off on average?"

Now, reasonable people might disagree that the world would be better off with religion, but Froborr doesn't even address the question honestly.

[J-theist]

Kit: dismissing everyone who honestly disagrees as a troll is a persistent pattern of Othering I notice in this community. The fact is, Froborr's argument is full of sloppy logic and he now makes a very nasty accusation of "eliminationism" which TBAT is repeating, though not endorsing. It is objectionable and that's why you're getting pushback, not because of "trolls".

[The Board Administration Team]

@J-theist: the argument (reiterated by TBAT above) that one must prove that everyone in the world would be better off without religion before you can advocate less religion

First Exactly where in the article above did anyone write the phrase "prove that everyone in the world would be better off without religion before you can advocate less religion."

Second Your entire argument could be made without bringing up anything that required a trigger warning. Your choice of example seems to reflect a desire to raise emotions rather than employ logic and reason. In future we suggest that the thing you use in your analogies be something that doesn't arouse extreme emotions (for example, yellow legal pads or scented perfumes.)*

Third TBAT is not taking a stand on any side of the argument that Froborr was making.

*TBAT was initially going to suggest chocolate -- but many of our community have rather strong feelings both for and against chocolate.

[sarah]

Slightly off-topic, but apropos to the conversation as a whole: I just read this review:

A Whole Lot of Nothing

[Froborr]

@J-theist: Since you have managed to go quite a bit longer without descending into fuming insults than the obvious trolls, I'm actually willing to give you a chance.

(Apologies all, especially TBAT, if this turns out to be a troll trap.)

GC begins her article by stating that she believes it is easier and preferable to build a world devoid of religious people than a world in which atheists and religious people tolerate one another, because religious people will not tolerate atheists. In other words, she is saying that the elimination of religion is preferable to coexistance.

She then goes on to say that, therefore, the atheist movement should seek to convince as many people as possible to be atheists. The only method of convincing people she rules out is violence; she makes no mention of consent.

Thus, the article:

(1) Rules out coexistance as a desirable outcome.
(2) Blames the out-group entirely for this.
(3) Calls for removing the out-group from society.
(4) Does not consider the consent of members of the other group.

So yes, the article advocates eliminating religion from society, whether religious people consent or not. That is eliminationist rhetoric, no different from saying "There should be no liberal voters"--the particular brand of eliminationist rhetoric Neiwart has studied.

[Lonespark]

He then employed the argument (reiterated by TBAT above) that one must prove that everyone in the world would be better off without religion before you can advocate less religion.

That is not the argument (as I have understood it.)

The argument is twofold:

1) One must prove that everyone in the world would be better off without religion before you can advocate NO religion without Froborr thinking what you advocate is evil, and it is not possible to prove this.

2)One must prove that atrocities, jerkish behavior, etc. that is performed by religious people or in the name of religion is unique to religion before you can advocate eliminating religion as a means of fixing those problems without Froborr thinking you're more interested in proselytzating, which Froborr views as an evil action, than you are in actually fixing the problems.

[J-theist]

First "- There is no empirical evidence that faith is always harmful." or as Froborr put it in his original article: "Then prove that it is always better to be atheist than religious. Show that there is never a person better off as a religious person, never a person whose religious faith makes the world around them better. Because if there is even one such person, then a world with universal atheism is worse than a world of pluralistic belief."

Of course, there *is* empirical data to show that less religious countries are better places to live than more religious countries. But nobody can meet Froborr's ridiculously high bar.

Second In order to show the flaw in Froborr's standard of proof (that you must prove nobody benefits from a thing to oppose it), I had to pick something that is harmful, not something neutral. It is not an appeal to emotion if the underlying logic of my argument is sound, which I believe it is. By invoking "eliminationism" when he means "proselytism", Froborr is the one guilty of appealing to emotion.

Third I understand TBAT didn't make the original argument. But you are publishing it and defending it.

[Wysteria]

J-theist, I think there is a difference between less religion, as you put it, and the statement Froborr takes issue with, "[...] a world where it no longer exists," and your other example, which you advocate eliminating from the world. Do you think a high bar is not called for, when one is talking about eliminating all of something?

[Lonespark]

Well, that was kind of silly; didn't realize you were here to speak for yourself, Froborr.

Since you are here, I will ask why you chose to use Greta Christina's writing to prove your point. It seems that while she does advocate this attitude, it isn't her main point and she's not a jerk about it, in contrast to some other New Atheist figures. So did you choose it because it's a milder version that you still object to because it's part of the same not-respecting-others-worldviews continuum? Or because you didn't want to start a Dawkins-related flamewar? Or (probably) some other reason?

[The Board Administration Team]

@J-theist: No, TBAT is not defending the argument, we were responding to members of community who asked that the scores of pages of discussion be boiled down to a few points so that those same community members would not find themselves having to enjoin others to read over a thousand comments.

TBAT is explaining the long standing board policies on what does and does not get published.

[Lonespark]

So yes, the article advocates eliminating religion from society, whether religious people consent or not. That is eliminationist rhetoric, no different from saying "There should be no liberal voters"--the particular brand of eliminationist rhetoric Neiwart has studied.

Hmmm. I don't think it's that similar, if we're referencing similar parts of Neiwart's work, which we may not be. The hate talkers do tend to use violent language, and very Othering language. And even when they don't, they are mainstreaming fringe arguments that are, in their originating context, explicitly backed with threats of violence. That kind of thing does happen on atheist sites where the culture allows it, but from what I've seen Greta Christina avoids it on her own blog.

[Lonespark]

Of course, there *is* empirical data to show that less religious countries are better places to live than more religious countries.

In what way does that prove causation? And how is "religious" defined in that case?

[Morgan]

The only method of convincing people she rules out is violence; she makes no mention of consent.

As I mentioned on the original post, another article linked from the one you criticize specifically to clarify Greta's position spells out the ways in which your extrapolations are in error:

I would not, however, like to see this disappearance happen in any sort of coerced or enforced way. I would not, for instance, like to see laws passed against religious beliefs or practices. I don't even want to see social pressure exerted against religion or religious believers, except insofar as "arguments against the ideas" constitutes social pressure. I would like to see religious believers be completely free to practice their beliefs however they choose, as long as that practice doesn't unreasonably impinge on my life and the lives of everyone else around them.

I confess I don't understand what you mean by convincing someone without their consent. This is one of the things I found most disturbing in your original post - you've since talked about the obnoxiousness of prosleytizing by rudely pursuing a conversation the other party isn't interested in having, and worse forms of harrassment and intrusiveness, but in the OP your objection seemed to be not to trying to convince anyone, but succeeding. If someone doesn't want to discuss an issue and you keep trying to push it, sure, that's trying to convince someone without their consent. But actually convincing someone - actually convincing them, not just keeping at them until they say "fine, all right, I give in, just leave me alone!" - I don't understand where consent can even come in to that. An argument is either convincing or not (to a particular person at a particular time). One can consent to hearing the argument, but not to being convinced by it or not. If someone agrees to a discussion and finds that my arguments then change their mind on the issue, at what point should I have sought further consent after they agreed to the discussion and then remained engaged in it?

[Kit Whitfield]

Yes, I'd be interested in knowing why you chose Greta Christina, Froborr. I'd actually be interested in a calm and reasonable discussion, though sadly we seem to be swarming with people determined to prevent that happening...

Speaking for myself: I no longer know what I think of the article. I've spent the last week of my life dealing with such fall-out from abusive people who didn't like it that I've completely lost track of any opinion about the article itself. I suspect I might disagree with it if I had time to think about it, but I don't.

[Izzy]

@Lonespark: Thing is? I could totally buy "countries where church and state are separate are better places to live than those where they aren't" or even "communities where heavy authoritarian values predominate are worse places to live than those where they don't".

But RTChristianity is not liberal Episcopalianism is not Unitarian Universalism--and that's just starting from a hardcore Christian point.

[Mmy]

@Lonespark: Since J-Theist doesn't provide a link to the "empirical data" I presume that zie is referencing one of the many surveys I have seen floating around recently.

Important point (and I know that you are aware of this Lonespark but I wonder if some other people are)

1) correlation is not causation
2) two things can appear to be correlated because of a confounding factor (this is often called spurious correlation or spurious regression). In other words the measured variables are both influenced by a third or fourth variable not each other.
3) The surveys that I have been able to look at either have vaguely worded questions, measure "religiosity" by the answers to one or two questions rather than by constructing a robust scale, make little or no allowances for major cultural understandings of purpose of even belonging to a church and so forth.

And that is just a start.

[Lonespark]

invoking "eliminationism" when he means "proselytism"

Hmmmm. I know we had discussions of the terminology in the loooong thread of the OP, but I'm wrestling with it again. It seems that several things are getting conflated:

- Advocacy, which seems similar to "evangelism." Sharing your beliefs/opinions/positions and arguing for them.

- Proselytizing, which might be a sub-type of advocacy. Sharing your beliefs and explicitly arguing that other people adopt them; sharing them with the intent of persuading others, and doing all your advocacy in pursuit of that goal.

(I think I get tripped up by this because I tend to think of advocacy as kin to activism, which works in contexts where you want your audience to do something and changing their beliefs is not the goal, but could serve the goal. And then I think as religious freedom activism as never involving changing people's beliefs; rather the goal is to change their behavior, and if their beliefs change, too, that's tangential.)

So where does the eliminationism come in? If you're proselytizing with the explicit goal of converting everyone then that seems like a variety of eliminationism.

[Morgan]

I'm curious as to "why Greta", too, Froborr. I'm especially curious as to how much else of her writing you've read. Part of what so disturbed me about the original article was how silencing it came off as, given how measured Greta's advocacy actually is. Subsequent comments have made it seem you may have a mistaken impression of the goals and methods she proposes, in which case the article is simply based on an error, rather than deeply messed up as I found it at first.

[Kit Whitfield]

Part of what so disturbed me about the original article was how silencing it came off as

'Silencing' is a heavy word to throw around. Justify?

[Izzy]

TW: Cursing, possible eliminationist stance.

@Lonespark: That's my take on it as well. Eliminationism is the goal; proselytizing is (or can be) the means.

And...you know, there are beliefs I will take that stance on. I would like a world where nobody was sexist. Where nobody was homophobic. Where nobody was racist. If being a bigot is an intrinsic part of who you are, then the world is probably better off without you. If bigotry is an intrinsic part of your faith, then the world, indeed, is probably better off without that form of your faith.

However, those are a) very specific beliefs and b) beliefs that actively, provably harm people. Classing any of the millions of varieties of spirituality on the same level as bigotry isn't just insulting; it's nonsensical.

[Kellandros]

J-theist- I want to respond to your complaints of being called a troll briefly. I am excluding your last response to Michael from this discussion; I think that was a much better post.

The main things about your style that I see that appear like trolling are these:

- Focusing on a single point exclusively. i.e. "Won't someone please think of the children?"
If you feel there are multiple things wrong with Froborr's article, break them down. Parts of it were based upon their life experience; you can explain where you differ.

Better example- only one of your posts does not use some form of the word "eliminationism". It isn't a discussion when there is nothing new being said.

- Applying uneven standards.
"Kit, I never equated hate speech with criticism. But if you accuse someone of being an eliminationist, you're trying to foster hate against them. It's like when people who don't like Israel's policies (including Jewish Orthodox groups, sometimes) call Israelis "Nazis"."

"but the false allegation of eliminationism against the 'enemy' is used to justify the call to violence against them."

"Also eliminationist: declaring people whose opinions you don't agree with non-human "trolls" who mustn't be engaged with, lest they taint the harmony of the community."

You argue heavily what meaning Froborr intended with eliminationist, equating it with censorship/violence/ethnic cleansing. Then you apply it to those who are accusing you of being a troll. Which you claim is a way to incite hate against a group. Just to be clear, no one has threatened violence against you.

Try to give others the benefit of the doubt. Froborr didn't write an article of just the word "eliminationalist"; it was just one extra adjective applied to to a longer description. It brought along extra meaning that may not have been intended.

- Responding constantly and immediately. Looks like needing to have the last word.
(about 20 new replies were added in the time it took me to write this)

- Refusing to accept any disagreement with your position.
At some point, people have to agree to disagree.

[Lonespark]

You know what would also be super-interesting (to me)? An article about evangelism from a Pagan perspective. Pagans and Pagan groups have a huge range of attitudes on the subject, from "Actively turn away seekers because only if they are so committed they'll leap any obstacle are they serious enough to teach," and "Passing on religious traditions to children is indoctrinating people who can't consent" to "Answer those who ask and teach those who want to learn," "Advertise on all available channels," and "Bring your kids up in the tradition to keep it strong." And of course one person may hold several of those opinions over a lifetime, or possibly all at once.

[Lonespark]

Eliminationism is the goal; proselytizing is (or can be) the means.

Yeah, ok. Although I feel like in a lot of cases, power is the goal, and tasty eliminationist rhetoric for the authoritarians followers is the means. Plus also the black-and-white recasting of the world is insidiously attractive even to people who wouldn't go along with the eliminationism if they parsed it explicitly.

[Morgan]

I'll withdraw it rather than attempt to justify it, since I'm not sure what makes it heavy and so should probably just not use it here. What I mean is that Greta's "prosleytization" amounts to:
- making more people aware that atheism exists and is not a scary boogeyman but an actual view that actual people hold.
- talking about why she holds it and engaging with arguments for and against it, making them available for others to see and consider.

The original article came off to me as saying that just that was out of bounds, that just having an argument for why you believe what you believe and being willing to make it to someone who may then actually find it convincing and change their mind as a result is in itself bad and wrong. That the Irresisitable Truth of New Atheism is just so powerful that it must not even be spoken of carelessly for fear the innocent will have their faith stripped away. It struck me as very literally a call to shut up and stay quiet.

[Morgan]

Sorry, should have included a quote rather than assuming no further comments would show up in the meantime. My last was in response to Kit Whitfield at 12:38 PM if that's not obvious.

[MercuryBlue]

TW, FGM

J-theist, your metaphor is still screwed up. Religion is not 100%
harmful the way female genital mutilation is. Try...puppies. Are
puppies harmful? Unquestionably; allergies, also dog-bites-man
stories. Should puppies be eliminated? Uh...seeing-eye dogs, dogs
trained to respond to incipient seizures, and those studies where
church attendance correlates to well-being (I'll look 'em up after
work).

Do you better understand why even the atheists around here are going
'wtf no' to your idea of eliminating religion?

[J-theist]

There may not be overwhelming empirical proof that religion is definitely harmful, as I acknowledged "reasonable people can disagree". But Froborr is not having that debate - he's advocating the standard that atheists must show that every single person in the world would be better off without religion, as the quote from him I cited above shows.

As to the distinction between "seeking to eliminate religion" and "seeking to reduce religion", since realistically removing all religion is an idealistic goal that will probably not be achieved until the far future, I don't see that it's a meaningful distinction. The key point is what tactics you use to decrease religion, and GC has specifically disowned anything even vaguely eliminationist (such as passing laws). Instead, she advocates persuasion. Which Froborr persists in portraying as a "non-consensual" process which results in "removing people from society" rather than changing societal attitudes. Again, health workers seeking to reduce harmful traditional practices are eliminationists by Froborr's standard.

A common rejoinder on this board is that anyone criticising Froborr's article hasn't read it. To me, it seems like he hasn't read GC's writing if he thinks she's an eliminationist.

[Ross]

Did these studies which show that life is better in places with less religion include places with zero religion? Because the few of those I can think of seem like pretty unpleasant places. Which might make one suspect that any correlation between goodness-of-life and religiousity is some kind of poisson curve, and what would actually be optimal is, pulling out unitless numbers at random, 12% religiousity.

[Mmy]

@J-theist: There may not be overwhelming empirical proof that religion is definitely harmful, as I acknowledged "reasonable people can disagree".

This is not a matter of "reasonable people disagreeing" this is a matter of you first stating:

Of course, there *is* empirical data to show that less religious countries are better places to live than more religious countries. But nobody can meet Froborr's ridiculously high bar.

but not providing a link to that data (a link that would include the information necessary to judge the quality of the survey and survey analysis.)

Reasonable people (by which I mean people who are reasonably informed about surveys, data analysis and the problems of conducting cross-national studies) don't disagree that the surveys may give some interesting insight into differences across countries and cultures but since they cannot even be sure that what a Canadian means when they say "yup, I am a Catholic" it means the same thing as what a Ecuadorian means when they say "yup, I am a Catholic" (indeed they are fairly sure that two individuals mean something different) -- then I suggest you quit making reference to those surveys in this discussion.

[Izzy]

Unlikeliness of achieving a goal doesn't mean that goal is good, or even defensible.

Absurd example to avoid triggers: it is extremely unlikely that I'll ever be able to eat the Sun. But if I go around talking about how much the sun sucks because of UV rays and so on, and how awesome it'll be if someone eats it, then people are going to judge me accordingly.

[Kirala]

If we're going to be mentioning "surveys I can't find just now, but I know I've read about," can I include the one that showed a strong correlation between the presence of Christianity and improved women's rights?

Actually, if anyone can actually find that one, I'd like to see it for myself. It sounds like too good a piece of evidence to be true.

But as I have not personally seen the study (let alone have it available) and have no intention whatsoever of trying to use it, I suppose it's not really a fair comparison to J-theist's evidence. Still.

[Wysteria]

@J-theist That's actually a very interesting point. I tend to take people at their word - if they say they want to eliminate all religion, I try to figure out how they intend to get there and what that world would look like, and get bogged down there. So your argument is that if someone says they want to eliminate all religion, we should assume that they actually mean something less unlikely, they're just using extreme language because it's easy? I feel like assuming people are being hyperbolic is a little bit - disrespectful? Assuming people don't mean what they say seems like you're limiting the possible things people believe. Like that one guy last thread who said GC couldn't possibly mean non-heirarchical religions because he didn't mean non-hierarchical religions, and then when he was called on it he was a mite grumpy.

I feel like I could repeat my whole tangent from last thread about how logical argument can't argue with what we think people are trying to say, we have to argue with what they're saying, but I don't want to bog the thread down in me rambling about logical theory I'd probably get wrong anyway.

[Izzy]

@Wysteria: Yes, thank you.

I still say we need an "If that's what you're saying, SAY THAT," icon somewhere.

[J-theist]

@MercuryBlue

TW:fgm

I am not saying religion is exactly as harmful as FGM. I am saying that if we need to prove that not a single person would be worse off if something is eliminated, then it's wrong to even try. The FGM practitioners who make their living from it don't agree that FGM is 100% bad - therefore, by Froborr's reasoning, it's wrong to advocate eliminating FGM.

@Ross

Of course, there's a confounding factor where most atheist regimes so far have also had planned economies, very low individual autonomy, secret police and so on. The question is are ''open" or "democratic" societies (not that so-called "democracies" dont tend to serve the interests of their elites better than they serve the common people) better off without religion? And yes, there are also different balances of market regulation/social democracy to consider as confounding factors. However, it seems that open societies with less religion are generally better off.

In general, a society where people perceive reality and act on it is better than the alternatives. Religious voting blocs are one way to distract people from reality, but climate change denial or demonising the poor or sick to distract from the corrupt practices of the elite (as we see in British politics) are also bad.

[J-theist]

Correction: "I am not saying religion is exactly as harmful as FGM. I am saying that if we need to prove that not a single person would be worse off if something is eliminated, then it's wrong to even try" is a silly position.

[Wysteria]

@J-theist Actually, I feel like I'm not addressing the meat of your recent post, so I think I'll add something. You're talking about persuasion and consent, but I feel like you aren't addressing the point that formed the center of the discussion we've been having, using the same standard as in medical care / mental health. Particularly, intervening if someone is going to harm themself or others, or if they sought out your opinion. For example, going to a blog implied consent to be persuaded by the writer. Reading a book consents to being persuaded by the author. Did you catch this thread of the discussion, and if so, do you have an opinion on it as a way of seperating consensual persuasion from non-consensual treating a person like a checkbox?

In addition, are you sure Froborr said that it was pointless to try? Because that is a silly position, but I don't think it's the position he holds, so.... In my reading, he said that the goal of our world without any religion needed the prerequisite of everyone, individually/personally, in the world being better off without their religious belief of choice.