Managing the discussion

 

It's been over a week since Froborr's controversial 'The Problem of Proselytizing' appeared on the Slacktiverse, and repercussions are still going around the Internet. One of the unfortunate consequences is that we've seen an unusual amount of trolling, including some really vile and misogynistic language. To avoid this being overly distressing to various readers of our board, TBAT has had to keep an almost constant eye on things and add trigger warnings to and/or ROT13 the most abusive remarks as fast as we could, but this has been time-consuming to the point where it's seriously interfering in our lives.

We cannot sustain this pace, so we're going to have to change tack. We need to get our lives back, but we don't want to shut out free speech either. This is the closest we can get to a solution:

The posts where most of the trolling has taken place are 'The Problem of Proselytizing' and 'Hello to anyone who's clicked over from Pharyngula.' At midnight on Saturday February 4, we will be closing comments to those threads as well as 'Board Post, February 2 2012.' Anyone who wishes to continue discussing can do so here; any visitors or trolls who appear in other threads to discuss Froborr's piece should be requested by whoever spots them first to move their discussion over here.

However, fair warning: this thread will not be moderated. Since regrettably few of the visitors have managed to avoid descending into insults and invective and we can't keep on top of it for ever, we are simply going to have to declare this whole thread under the warning that it may very well contain triggering material. We advise anyone who's feeling vulnerable to err on the side of caution.

Also, Froborr plans to write a clarification of his position, which we hope to publish in the next few days. This will be footnoted on the original piece; any discussion of it to be held here, please.

We realise these are unusual measures and we're sorry to anyone who feels shut out of the discussion by the lost guarantee of monitoring. This is a compromise, and about the best we can come up with.

We advise people who do participate in this thread not to feed the trolls.

---

 

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



Comments

[Mmy]

@Bruce Gorton: It is hard to parse exactly what you are arguing here The fact that people on both sides of the argument are independently seeing the same basic intention to it, indicates how badly written it was and that the criticisms it has received are fairly legitimate.

What argument are people "on both sides of" are you referring to here? That treating people instrumentally is always and ever wrong? That violating the Categorical Imperative is, in the Platonic sense, evil?

TRIGGER WARNING: USING OVERLY BROAD SHAKESPEAREAN LABELS FOR MENTAL ILLNESS

Or are you saying that when people can argue about the "real meaning" of a piece of writing that indicates bad writing -- in which case I would direct down the hall to the room where the enthusiasts of Shakespeare are getting very loud and very heated in their arguments about whether Hamlet is truly mad and if so was he always mad or did he lose his reason somewhere along the line?

[Izzy]

@mmy: Well, you know. *Shakespeare*. Nice fellow and all, but he did write for money, and he did include bits for the common man, so *clearly*...

[Will Wildman]

If I come back then I get "ooooh, you said you weren't coming back!" posts.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.

You know what else would prevent that? Not ending every third post with the declaration that you're not coming back. If you're not going to come back, then just... don't. Actions > words, that type of thing. Announcing it, again and again, doesn't serve any purpose except to emphasise how much you think this is about your feelings.

I still like the majority of the members of this community and do not want to leave with them having ill will towards me, so I am posting this.

You're posting this stuff that is not in any way what the members of the community have said you need to post in order to prove that you understand the magnitude of the offence and harm you have caused? You're posting this stuff that is even more and more about how badly you have been treated? You think that ongoing self-righteousness is going to reduce people's ill will towards you?

I'm skeptical.

[Literata]

Jason, either leave, or don't. Do us all a favor, and don't show up time and again to whine and moan. Mmy is right, Kit is right, Izzy is right. (Thank you, Izzy, for making me laugh several times.) I have not engaged in any of the things you are complaining about, as far as I know, nor have you responded to any of my rather direct posts about how you are doing things wrong. So, as someone who does not owe you an apology, let me skip right over that bit and repeat: either straighten up and fly right, or go the fuck away.

[Jason]

Blocking this site so I won't be tempted to read it anymore.

[Kit Whitfield]

little patronizing names like "honey pie"

Would you prefer 'Skippy'? I believe that's what you used to call people you didn't like.

I get the impression from the language used that a number of you think I am some sort of emotionally stunted, developmentally disabled, socially regressed man-child and I do not appreciate it.

Here's the impression I get from you: that you are totally self-involved, have astonishing double standards when it comes to your feelings versus other people's feelings, and you and have the nature of an abuser. You expect everyone to care for your feelings but insult me if I ask you to respect mine, and feel entitled to punish me for asking.

I am afraid for that woman you say you are dating. Maybe you wouldn't hit a woman, but I have become convinced that you are liable to emotionally abuse one. I hope she leaves you quickly for her own safety.

You said you learned from this board. Learn this: if you treat people badly enough, they will cut you off.

You have a serious problem, and you should get help with it. But not from me. You messed things up here through selfishness and spite, and you can just deal with it. I'm done with you.

[Certainly Sylvia]

Wander back to life stuff for a few days and ... wow - come back to a virtual game of privilege whack-a-mole.

[Lonespark]

I hope I could possibly join the English/Writing STEM people auxiliary.

[Froborr]

@Bruce Gorton: I think the confusion arises from confusing force the noun (physical coercion) and force the verb (to coerce--no requirement to be physical). Greta Christina does indeed make clear she does not endorse physical or legal coercion, but since she starts by positioning the relationship between theists and atheists as the inevitable intolerance of and marginalization of atheists so long as theists exist (positioning theists as an existential threat and alien Other), then states a goal which cannot be achieved without coercion, she is endorsing the coercion of theists. Oh, in the bright future of Antitheistopia it would be through social marginalization, economic pressure, and similar means rather than outlawing religions or killing people, but still just as coercive and still just as willing to stomp all over the rights, common humanity, and well-being of one group of people to achieve what is seen as the greater good by another.

I am very sorry some people have had a bad experience with being called evil. It's a good thing I didn't call anyone evil, huh?

[Kish]

The fact that people on both sides of the argument are independently seeing the same basic intention to it, indicates how badly written it was and that the criticisms it has received are fairly legitimate. What Greta argues for is far milder than what Froborr gives the impression she is arguing for is.

Oh, of course. If people arguing about the article say it says something different than what it says, that must indicate something wrong with the article, right? *eyeroll*

No. We had weeks of lots of self-proclaimed atheists posting some variation on, "Greta Christina doesn't advocate forcible conversion, how dare you say she advocates something evil!" when the article was first published, and they did not stop repeating this with slight variations when it was pointed out to them that the article never claims she advocates forcible conversion. It's indicative only that those people came in here to make one argument to counteract one particular obviously false claim, and they did not want to refrain from making the argument just because the claim they were looking for wasn't here.

[Kish]

My kingdom for an edit button.

"What Greta argues for is far milder than what Froborr gives the impression she is arguing for is" is not true, but hints at something else that is true. The statement that it is evil to proselytize/evangelize (whatever term you prefer) is a position that all our new trolls (meaning the people who showed up and started throwing around misogynist language and laughable arguments that the words they're using aren't misogynist, not Bruce) apparently have such cognitive dissonance where it's concerned that they edit it reflexively to a claim they're prepared to argue with. None of the recent commenters (this terms includes the trolls, Bruce, and one or two other people who showed up recently but didn't troll) has, to my knowledge, ever addressed it--with or without having it clarified for them first. It's strictly about attacking the article as either dishonest, or badly written because more than one person thinks it says something dishonest that it doesn't say.

Of course, I don't read the forum religiously (no pun intended). I could have missed it.

[jemand]

"Greta Christina does indeed make clear she does not endorse physical or legal coercion, but since she starts by positioning the relationship between theists and atheists as the inevitable intolerance of and marginalization of atheists so long as theists exist (positioning theists as an existential threat and alien Other), then states a goal which cannot be achieved without coercion, she is endorsing the coercion of theists. Oh, in the bright future of Antitheistopia it would be through social marginalization, economic pressure, and similar means rather than outlawing religions or killing people, but still just as coercive and still just as willing to stomp all over the rights, common humanity, and well-being of one group of people to achieve what is seen as the greater good by another."

^^ that. That right there is where I think you mistake what Greta is calling for. It means wanting a world where commitment to ideals never takes primacy over commitment to humans, to human reality and relationships between humans. Greta would argue that once you add something that is not human, some fraction of people will tend to codify it, to bring their kids up coercively because of it. I.e., the, one can't really edit a perfect divine text situation, as long as people are following a divine text, even if it doesn't hurt most of them, it's going to eventually hurt some subset. As people who are defending Froborr's argument say, it may be a debatable position, but it is not, itself, offensive or eliminationist I believe.

Critics like yourself are *right* when they point out, in opposition, that such a world is never going to be possible at least in a society that is one that we can more or less imagine being right now, but where I think it goes right off the rails is when one assumes that Greta would hold to THAT stated goal until it does all the harm for which she criticizes entrenched hegemonic ideal structures that are present *today*... rather than abandoning that goal as unreachable. It's like, yeah, maybe the terms used are done so incorrectly, maybe one could take issue with and criticize that (debatable positions, like I said above), but the *reasons for which* religion is criticized by Greta, are *reasons* that would apply to shunning, economic pressure, etc. focused against her ideological opponents as much as anyone else.

[Kit Whitfield]

_It means wanting a world where commitment to ideals never takes primacy over commitment to humans, to human reality and relationships between humans._

Which sounds good in theory - but what if the human reality is that some people will always be religious? If you argue that belief is inherently harmful, that sounds close to saying that improper ideals mean people are excluding themselves from human relationships. That doesn't sound as committed to humans as I'd like.

[jemand]

yeah but we are going down the rabbit hole now. If that is indeed the human reality, than a commitment to humanity and to reality *recognizes that.*

I don't know, it seems like people are finding what they consider an inconsistency in people like Greta's writings, and instead of exploring the inconsistency, are assuming that one of the other side (of the inconsistency) will have "primacy" in a hypothetical type of society we really are never likely to see, at least in our lifetimes.

It seems that to assume she would be fore coercive social pressure is a bit uncharitable, but perhaps to assume that she would hold truer to her reasoning before getting to her goal, if the goal is unreachable without abandoning those principles, like I tend to think, is unrealistic.

[P J Evans]

that is one of the reasons why Froborr's post got such a hot reaction, and why so many of us think he is a fucking dishonest wanker.

I happen to agree with Froborr. Someone who wants to eliminate all religions, by whatever means they think necessary, is just as bad as someone who wants to force everyone to join their particular religious sect.
(I can't see any great difference between anti-theists and any religious sect, in this area: both are evil, because they're both treating real people as objects to be manipulated to suit their personal views.)

[jemand]

"Someone who wants to eliminate all religions, by whatever means they think necessary"

Is bad. I fail to see that's what was being called for. I fail to see, even, the more minor point that social exclusion, economic pressure, shunning, excluding physical force, were being called for, either.

[Kit Whitfield]

-yeah but we are going down the rabbit hole now. If that is indeed the human reality, than a commitment to humanity and to reality *recognizes that.*-

You'd certainly hope so. An explicit goal of a religionless world, though, doesn't suggest a willingness to accept the possibility. I hope this impression is a false one.

[The Board Administration Team]

For transparency:

Some may notice that a particular blog has been removed from the blogroll; that was done at the request of Jason.

[The Board Administration Team]

There will be a blogaround this week although it may appear on Sunday rather than Saturday. Submissions will be welcomed but may be responded to more slowly than in the past.

[chris the cynic]

I've missed many pages of this thread and may never catch up, so maybe this has already been said. Maybe it's already been effectively argued against and rejected.

yeah but we are going down the rabbit hole now. If that is indeed the human reality, than a commitment to humanity and to reality *recognizes that.*

I don't know, it seems like people are finding what they consider an inconsistency in people like Greta's writings, and instead of exploring the inconsistency, are assuming that one of the other side (of the inconsistency) will have "primacy" in a hypothetical type of society we really are never likely to see, at least in our lifetimes.

My primary point of disagreement with her article is that it seems to ignore the humanity of other people instead treating them as abstractions whose being and agency can safely be ignored while they are considered as nothing but inferior things in need of fixing.

That's not because I'm ignoring the inconsistency I see, it's because of the inconsistency.

If I am correct that the nature of a certain subset of people means that religion could not be eradicated from ones such as them without the use of coercion, then that means that anyone arguing for achieving a world without religion without coercion is treating actual people (who actually exist in the here and now), as well as any people like them who might come into being in the future, as if they don't exist.

The person making that argument is treating them as disposable non-persons that can be discarded from the public discourse in order to score cheap rhetorical points.

I don't care how hypothetical people are treated in a never going to happen future. I care how people are being erased from the discourse in the here and now because their existence is inconvenient to the points certain people would like to make.

-

It will never be the case that everyone on earth thinks the way I think unless I use a hell of a lot of force in ways that are morally wrong on every conceivable level.

If, knowing that, that say that my goal is to get everyone on earth to think like me without the use of force then what I'm doing is pretending that real life people do not exist. That's not nice.

If, not knowing that, I say the same then that means that I'm advocating changing the lives of a hell of a lot of people without even bothering to know the first thing about them, and that's not nice either.

There isn't a third position, either I know or I don't know and, while the two are different, neither one speaks well of me.

[L. David Wheeler]

chris the cynic - Agreed. As I posted in ... one of these threads, I forget which now: Suppose that goal of a Perfect Athetopia is realized, and you have a world that -- at one moment -- has no believers. What happens when one pops up? What happens when someone posits the existence of the supernatural -- or even claims an experience with such? What happens to that person?

I don't imagine it would be all that pleasant.

"Force" can take many forms, including societal pressure and ostracism. I don't think a society in which everyone, 100 percent, holds to the same belief or, in this case, lack of belief, is possible without some kind of force. Because either this One Religious Person is tolerated -- in which case you don't have the 100 Percent Pure Athetopia -- or he/she is not, in which case you have used force.

Seems to me that mutual respect is a better and -- hard as it may seem sometimes -- more attainable goal.

[jemand]

If I am correct that the nature of a certain subset of people means that religion could not be eradicated from ones such as them without the use of coercion, then that means that anyone arguing for achieving a world without religion without coercion is treating actual people (who actually exist in the here and now), as well as any people like them who might come into being in the future, as if they don't exist.

The person making that argument is treating them as disposable non-persons that can be discarded from the public discourse in order to score cheap rhetorical points.

^^ If they were convinced of the first, yes. Maybe they just think you are incorrect though, on the first part, then they are operating under their own beliefs that such people *can* be persuaded with no coercion (physical or not). Then they are not treating others as disposable non-persons. Your position may be that they'll always stay the way they are absent coercion, and if you are correct your opponent may continue non-coercive persuasion they'll be frustrated in their goal forever, but that doesn't mean they will abandon their plan and resort to coercion...

[Madhabmatics]

@Jemand

The problem is that it does treat religious people as non-persons. If you think religious people are just carriers of a harmful thought-disease that needs to be cured, you aren't treating them like people, you are treating them like a rabid dog.

I also don't think you are actually getting how sinister "A world where everyone thinks like me" is. Atheists often criticize Christian attempts to proselytize for exactly that reason, and it's a good reason - "I cannot wait until we have a world with no atheists... not that I would force them to give up atheism..." is absolutely terrifying and it's clear that the second part is nonsense.

[chris the cynic]

jemand, I don't understand how anything in what I wrote could possibly lead to you saying:

but that doesn't mean they will abandon their plan and resort to coercion...

Did I ever imply otherwise? That's an honest question. Because, as near as I can tell the answer is, "No. Not remotely. Not even close," yet you seem to be acting as if the opposite is true. Do you think anything in what I wrote in any way indicates even an inkling of something like a claim on my part that coercion would be resorted to?

If so, what? Because I certainly didn't mean to imply anything of the sort and if you think I did that means that I have utter failed to get across my point in all possible ways as that is almost the exact opposite of what I was saying. Everything that I have said, everything that I have claimed, has rested on the idea that the claim that force will not be used is completely sincere and should be taken at face value.

I'm not talking about what someone might do in the future when they are frustrated, I'm talking about what they are doing in the here and now when making an argument.

-

Maybe they just think you are incorrect though

In that case I'd see their lack of addressing the available scientific evidence in any way as extremely sketchy, but that's just me. It would be one thing if they said they thought it didn't point in that direction, or whatever, but to look at it, grok it in fullness, conclude it is false, and then not even mention that it exists seems suspicious.

Then again, neurology is not my field. Maybe all of the work done on the biological basis of religious thinking is easily dismissable BS and not mentioning it is like not mentioning the theory of aether when talking about light. In that case it might be nice to mention that at some point, though.

-

Also L. David Wheeler's point is supported by, at the very least, giant gobs of anecdotal evidence. In fact, I've been present when someone was converted to a religion simply by learning about it in a history of philosophy class. People who will spontaneously convert to a religion that, so far as they know, no one else believes in do exist. Even when they know the scientific explanations. The only way for a world without religion without coercion is if they don't exist. Saying that people who do exist do not exist is hurtful.

For me it's not about hypothetical coercion in the future, it's about the actual hurtfulness of the arguments being made in the now.

[Bruce Gorton]

Posted by: chris the cynic | Feb 11, 2012 at 03:20 PM

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2009/12/09/atheism-and-diversity/

The atheist movement is passionate about the right to religious freedom. (With the notable exception of a few assholes on the Internet. Name me one movement that doesn’t have its share of assholes on the Internet.) We fully support people’s right to believe whatever the hell they want, as long as they keep it out of government and don’t shove it down other people’s throats. We see the right to think what we like as a basic foundation of human ethics, one of the most fundamental rights we have — and we have no desire whatsoever to overturn that.

Yet at the same time, we see the right to free thought and free expression as including the right to criticize other people’s thoughts and forms of expression. We passionately defend people’s right to believe what they want. but we defend with equal passion our right to think what we want about those beliefs, and to say so in the public square. We express our disagreement in a variety of ways — some more polite and respectful, some more insulting and mocking — but we damn sure think we have the right to express it.

Not only that, but Greta has been consistent on this:

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/09/their-right-to-not-say-it.html

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/03/28/fred-phelps-loopholes-in-first-amendment/

The mistake made is equating wanting to persuade people by evidence and honest argument, with coercion.

[AnaMardoll]

Chris, I want to say that your last two posts have (a) brought up an angle I hadn't thought of and (b) have made perfect sense to me. Thank you! They've been pillaged to my Evernote account for future navel gazing. :)

[Mmy]

@Bruce Gorton: The mistake made is equating wanting to persuade people by evidence and honest argument, with coercion.

My own experience (and I speak here both as an atheist and as someone who has been involved in politics) is that persuaders begin by presenting evidence and honest argument. And then when the persuadees are not convinced/moved by the argument the persuaders come back and argue further. And then when the persuadees say "yes I heard that argument, I read the books and I have looked the literature and nope, still not persuaded" the persuader tends to presume that either a) making the persuadee listen to another 35 iterations and variations of the argument will do the job and/or b) the persuadee is too stupid/stubborn to be persuaded.

That process should be familiar to most atheists since they themselves have been in situations when someone (let us posit for this example, a Baptist missionary) feels that if they just tell you one more time about Jesus' mission on earth you will be saved. When you respond that you know the story well and have read the Bible several times the missionary will refuse to believe that you have or argue that if you did you read it wrong and should therefore listen to their take on the Bible or that you are just too stubborn to accept the message of the word.

It happens in both directions. People begin with wanting to persuade but when persuasion doesn't work things move to something that feels more like coercion than persuasion.

(Leaving aside the always contentious issue of what you "do" with the children of people who are religious and therefore are socializing their children to be religious.)

[cjmr]

mmy said: My own experience...is that persuaders begin by presenting evidence and honest argument. And then when the persuadees are not convinced/moved by the argument the persuaders come back and argue further. And then when the persuadees say "yes I heard that argument, I read the books and I have looked the literature and nope, still not persuaded" the persuader tends to presume that either a) making the persuadee listen to another 35 iterations and variations of the argument will do the job and/or b) the persuadee is too stupid/stubborn to be persuaded.

This has been my experience as well.

In fact, on one of the homeschooling fora I frequent, there was a member who operated like that about his devout fundamentalist evangelical version of Christianity and Creationism, seemingly right up to the day he lost his faith, then became (within weeks) an equally loud and vocal apologist for New Atheism and evolutionary science. Any people who didn't see things his new way were now too stupid/stubborn to be persuaded, instead of staunch defenders of the truth. It made my head spin.

[AnaMardoll]

seemingly right up to the day he lost his faith, then became (within weeks) an equally loud and vocal apologist for New Atheism and evolutionary science.

+1, I've seen this as well. And -- be honest -- I've been this way about certain things I've been passionate about. And probably will do so again in the future. *sigh*

[Laiima]

@mmy, conversely, I'm finding your comments helpful and hopeful. I have the idea in my head from somewhere that I *should* be 'persuasive', and since I am demonstrably *not* persuasive of almost anything, at almost any time, then I start feeling like I'm a failure. So I get periodically obsessed with, "how can I improve my persuasive abilities?"

But if it's actually really difficult to persuade people to change their minds, then I can stop feeling bad about not being skilled at it.

Besides which, my preferred method to 'persuade' would always be 'by example' anyway. It seems much more respectful in its open-endedness. For all I know, I might be influencing people all the time with *something* in my manner, but not realizing it because it's not the effect I was hoping to have.

[Certainly Sylvia]

@Bruce Gorton

I begin by saying thank you - for arguing your case.

If we are are to take Greta's body of work into consideration - and I agree that it is pertinent - then let us also be honest about another contradiction.

Firstly, she argues elsewhere that even progressive and moderate religions are dangerous, not just because they are built upon an inherent 'wrongness', as she puts it, but also because their mere existence makes space for the authoritarian, rigid and more dogmatically fundamentalist religions.

Secondly, in the article Froboor critiques, she finishes with a call to move toward a world without religion. It does not matter if she believes it will not be attained - that is not what she says. But let's give her our good faith and say we either accept she doesn't want to reach that goal, or accept that she'd like to but thinks it unrealistic. Let's assume she was using a rhetorical flair.

So we come to thirdly: any student of history knows that an aspiration based in certainty - that is, where the aspirant 'knows' they are right and the other is wrong - all such calls toward any kind of hegemony, all such goals give rise to those who WOULD use more forceful methods, if and as they can.

So .. by her own logic - that a not-very-dangerous belief, just by existing, makes space for the actually-dangerous-beliefs to prosper - well, her not-very-dangeous call for a world without religion ...

I'm sure you can fill in the missing bit there ?

*I have more to my arguments and hope to continue later - woke badly so came to type over the ick - but I should get back to sleep, before I wake too roundly. Look forward to seeing arguments by any and all when I returns*

[jemand]

I am still not persuaded :P

I think Bruce Gorton is currently doing a pretty good job expressing views similar to mine at the moment... And I really should spend most of my focus/mental energy on other projects right now.

So, thanks for the discussion and insights everyone, makes me think, but if I can manage to get my self-control to work as wanted, I'll leave this debate and come back later and talk about pies or something.

[AnaMardoll]

@jemand, sweet or savory? :D

[AnaMardoll]

@Certainly Sylvia, that was an awesome post. I think my brain grew just reading it. o.O

[Froborr]

Joining AnaMardoll in +1-ing Certainly Sylvia's comment. Also, I completely understand, jemand. I have been reading all comments but only occasionally making my own because I have other things I need to work on right now, too.

[chris the cynic]

The mistake made is equating wanting to persuade people by evidence and honest argument, with coercion.

Except that's not at all what I'm talking about. Other people have discussed that, and if you're interesting in talking about it you should be responding to them, not to me.

What I am talking about is that by treating the idea that the whole world can become atheist by means persuading people by evidence and honest argument as something that applies to reality it is denying the very existence of those who are not able to be converted in that way.

The evidence we have available seems to indicate that some people are in fact wired for religion, this does not seem to be a discrete on or off thing but instead a continuous spectrum with some people being much more strongly predisposed to religion than others. This says certain things about the way of things. Furthermore we have thousands of years of evidence as to how religion propagates. We also have a certain amount of insight into the way that religion can spring up anew.

All of this combines to indicate that persuading people by evidence and honest argument will not in itself result in a world without religion*. Some people will remain religious and some will actually become religious.

To act as if those people do not exist is hurtful. This point has nothing to do with how those people will or will not be dealt with in some hypothetical future. Their existence is being denied in the here and now.

I'm not saying that the people who will not be persuaded to give up/not take up religion by evidence and honest argument will instead be subject to force. I'm saying that they exist. I'm saying that acting as if they don't exist, which is what one does when presenting the idea of converting the whole world by means of nothing more than evidence and honest argument as something that can be applies to the real world, is not a good thing. It is hurtful.

What will happen to such people under the proposed course of action is a very important question, one that ought to be discussed. I'm glad it is being discussed and I think it's good that you're taking part in that discussion. But it is entirely tangential to the question of whether it is acceptable to act as if they don't exist in the first place. Which is what I, personally, am talking about. My position on that is a firm, "No." It is not acceptable. They exist and using rhetoric that claims otherwise is rude and hurtful.

-

* If there's an argument that's been made to the contrary, I have yet to see it.

[Izzy]

What Chris said.

Plus, honestly?

Even if I'm making a choice, even if hypothetical-your attempt-at-conversion involves no force at all, *I still find it offensive.*

I choose to have casual sex. I choose to read fantasy and romance. I choose to eat meat. I choose not to have children or get married. I choose to live where I do, date who I do, wear what I do--and I have gotten shit for each and every one of these decisions. I don't have a lot of patience for "evidence and honest argument" about my life choices, thanks.

Which doesn't mean everyone has to think like me. If you like mysteries and can't stand Lord of the Rings, if you want marriage and kids, if you want to wait for a serious relationship before getting naked, if you want to live in Kansas and be a vegetarian and be an atheist and be visible and happy doing that? Awesome. Go you. If you want to talk about your experiences with those things? Great!

But if you state, in public, that you desire a world without any of *my* things...yes, I'm going to be deeply offended. I *like* these things. I *like* being religious. Unless you can show some pretty clear evidence--and not just handwaving nebulous slippery-slope arguments, which I have also heard for just about all of the above--that my life choices directly harm other people, then my response to your wanting a world in which nobody makes those choices is going to be that hypothetical-you can go fuck yourself.

[Froborr]

@jemand: Actually, you raise an interesting point I had not thought about. I usually think of outcome-based moralities such as utilitarianism or tikkun olam in terms of phase spaces. The current state of the universe is a point in that phase space, and the goal or ideal is another point in that phase space. Moral action then consists of moving the universe along a path from the current point to the destination point.

My belief is that, if every possible path from here to the goal requires immoral action, then the goal itself is immoral. You can envision it as a sort of wall of immorality across the phase space, blocking paths to the goal. Even if the goal-state of the universe seems good, it is not, because you must be immoral to get there.

However, I had not considered that one might be aware of the wall, and still move toward the goal with the intent of stopping just before the wall. It is a very interesting concept, and I will have to think more about it.

That said, in this case I still think chris the cynic's and Certainly Sylvia's points apply.

[Froborr]

Also +1 Izzy.

Also-also, unrelated, but holy smokes, people, I just made the best curry *ever.*

[Kit Whitfield]

Ooh, recipe?

--

This isn't particularly pro or con Froborr's argument, but I did want to take up something that Bruce Gorton (gives a friendly wave, thank you for being so civil and providing us with a discussion that's actually a conversation rather than a slanging match!) quoted from Greta Christina:

The atheist movement is passionate about the right to religious freedom. (With the notable exception of a few assholes on the Internet. Name me one movement that doesn’t have its share of assholes on the Internet.)

...Okay. Now that's fine in principle; she's absolutely right that every group has its share of assholes on the Internet, or at least, every group that's over a certain size. Get big enough and Netholes will be a statistical certainty.

But dismissing it as 'a few'? That does not reflect the experience we've had here.

I'm not just talking about the way that screamy bigots outnumbered civil disagreers. That's part of it, and a very regrettable part, and casts some question on the number estimate implied in 'a few'. But we also had one of the biggest leaders of the New Atheist movement swing by while we were in the middle of dealing with a massive flame war, including a troll so severe he got the distinction of being the first person we had to ban...

And Myers's reaction?

Not to disagree politely. Not to engage with the arguments in an angry but decent way. Not to show any 'passion for religious freedom.' No, what Myers did was to drive by, throw some insults, fan the flames, and bugger off again.

There was a reason we didn't think it was Myers to begin with. His courtesy was about on the same level as the 'few assholes on the Internet'. (Also, at least in my case, I didn't think a man with a PhD would come up with such an inarticulate response.)

Now, I'll try to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is on the right side of many issues. He may be a nice guy most of the time, and just happened to encounter this piece, get too angry to read it carefully, and dash off a response without thinking about it very much. Everyone has their off days.

Myers as an individual is not really what I'm interested in. But I think it is legitimate to point out that when we published a piece that expressed serious criticism of the 'atheist movement' - from an atheist, let's not forget - one of the leaders of the movement came by and behaved in a way that a man of his intelligence can surely not fail to realise would only stand to encourage the 'assholes on the Internet'.

Disclaiming the assholes as an unfortunate consequence of human nature is fine - if the assholes are not actively encouraged and supported by the movement's leaders. If the assholes do not resemble the leaders, fine, but if the leaders act in a way that is genuinely hard to distinguish from the assholes?

If a leader decides that the way to advance and defend the movement's interests is to drive by a community beset with sexist trolls and drop a comment that could not but be read by the assholes as a message of 'Hell yeah! Sic 'em, boys!' ... Well, I do not think that saying 'Other groups have assholes too' goes any distance towards addressing the problem. If the leaders do not have a basic standard of discouraging rather than encouraging the assholes no matter how pissed off they feel, of exercising some judgment and responsibility regarding the assholes ... then I think we're looking at a movement that treats bullying as a legitimate tactic.

And I'm consequently sceptical when they say they should never be accused of coercive tendencies.

[AnaMardoll]

Kit, I think that's an extremely good point.

[jemand]

Yeah, Kit, this episode did make me think a bit less of Myers...

Also, I am interested in Froborr's curry recipe :)

I think, today, I would want a savory pie. But I only know how to make sweet ones, and I don't have any flour for the crust anyway.

[Froborr]

@Kit: An excellent point as well.

I cannot give a full, true recipe since I was eyeballing the ingredients, but...

*2 russet or baking potatoes
*2 largish yellow onions
*Vegetable oil (not olive, something like peanut or canola works well)
*About 1 lb chicken (for vegetarian version, substitute mushrooms or maybe tofu, but I dunno how to cook tofu)
*About 2/3 to 1 cup strained (aka Greek) plain non-fat yogurt
*About 1/4 cup chopped broccoli or cauliflower, either frozen or previously cooked.
*About two tablespoons of green peppercorns, crushed.
*Lots of curry powder.
*Lots of black pepper.
*A good amount of garam masala, cumin, turmeric, mustard powder, cayenne pepper, and either garlic powder or crushed/minced fresh garlic.
*A pinch of sea salt.

1. Pop the potatoes in the microwave and cook them halfway.
2. While they cook, slice thin the onions and put in a wok or large saucepan. Toss in enough vegetable oil to coat, and then add about 2 T more (American tablespoons, IIRC different from British tablespoons). Cover and cook on low heat, stirring occasionally. (If using mushrooms, slice and add them at this stage, too.)
3. Once the potatoes are half-cooked, peel and cut into slices, then cut those slices into half.
4. Chop chicken (if using) into bite-size chunks.
5. When the onion is soft (you do not want it to brown!) add the potatoes, chicken (if using), about 1/3 cup of yogurt, and the spices.
6. Continue to cook covered on low heat, stirring occasionally to keep the bottom from burning, until the chicken and potatoes are cooked through.
7. Stir in broccoli/cauliflower until heated through.
8. Stir in additional 1/3-1/2 cup of the yogurt and remove *immediately* from heat to prevent it from curdling.

Results should be creamy, yellow-brown, and delicious. THe potatoes in particular were like little flavor explosions. We had it served over brown rice.

Half-cooking the potatoes in the microwave is just a short-cut I use whenever I make potatoes, it cuts down the cooking time without the nasty things microwaves usually do to foods. The thing with cooking the onions in low heat and lots of oil is from an Indian cookbook my Mom gave me; half the recipes start with it, and it creates a really flavorful oil to cook the rest of the ingredients in. Saving most of the yogurt and adding it right at the end for creaminess is something I figured out while making stroganoff, this was my first time trying it for curry and I am very pleased with how it turned out.

[Froborr]

@jemand: If you have any good stew recipes or relatively thick cream-based soups, I have found you can generally make a good savory pie by putting any of those in a crust.

[jemand]

Wow that sounds delicious. And the thick stew pie idea is also fantastic. I'm getting 25 lbs of flour soon... super excited to play with it. I'll keep in mind that savory pie is a possibility :)

[Mmy]

Echoing Kit's friendly wave to Bruce Gorton

(btw Bruce, the reason TBAT moved your earlier comment from one thread to another is because we wanted to encourage the discussion we saw you as trying to open rather than having a "right place, wrong place" argument unfold.)

The recent argument / dustup (by the FSM arguments similar this have been going on for over a month now) needs also to be contextualized in the light of other discussions we have had on this board. I am thinking here specifically of the rather heated arguments/discussions about the question of "why so many women feel unwelcome in the New Atheist movement." The questions that I asked (the questions that many other people were also asking) were:

1) where are the "leaders" of this movement and what are they doing to moderate/civilize the discussion/language/behaviour

and

2) why do the "lurkers" and "readers" out there not do something about this. Silence, after all, is usually read as consent if not approbation.

In this case of this board and the article that attracted so much negative attention -- we did not go out anywhere and post announcements about it. We just quietly published it as we have published articles about a wide variety of things from the recent elections in Scotland, to cbeebies shows, to Samhain, to our cats, to depression, to ableism, to how to live an ethical life, to lessons one can learn from reading Twilight, to........you get the idea. We publish articles on a wide range of topics. To make a very loose analogy imagine if Thomas Spencer Monson had swung by here after we published Baptizing Dead Quakers only to be followed by wave after wave of angry Mormons who personally vilified members of this community.[1]

Members of the very community that was angrily insisting that the only thing they would ever do to (as they styled it) "de-convert" others would be reasoned argument and persuasion soon descended to behaviour that was extremely coercive.

a) It is a tried and true tactic of both programmers and deprogrammers to send wave after wave of people who confront the target with what is fundamentally the same argument phrased with slight differences. This went on for days. One person would come by and pose what they clearly thought was a "clincher." Initially someone here would walk they through the discussion of a previous day that provided rejoinders. After the first several times this happened people in this community started to simply point newcomers to the previous discussions. At which point we were attacked for "demanding people read pages of [boring/stupid/idiotic/inane/ fill in your own insult] discussion.

Yes, I know that it is frustrating to come into the middle of a long discussion and find that much of what one thinks is "brilliant insight" has been worked over for days, but that is the nature of an asynchronous argument.

b) Another tried and true coercive argument tactic is to constantly move goal-posts. Prove A ever happened someone would demand. When one proved A had happened then one was told that one A wasn't enough, there needed to be more than one instance of A for it to count -- but one was never told how many would be adequate.

c) A third tried and true coercive tactic is to attack the person rather than the argument. It was not long before people who began by arguing that Froborr's piece mischaracterized GC's argument moved to personally attacking the people with whom they were arguing. These attacks were predominantly misogynist but they were also racist, classist, ableist, anti-QUILTBAG and anything else they could think to throw at people.

To relate this back to point 2) [Kit having spoken well to point 1] while members of our own community were supportive of those attacked and expressed disapproval of those using all of the tactics I outline (and particularly tactic c)) the successive waves of "newly outraged posters" would make allowances for the behaviour of earlier "newly outraged posters" or engage in victim blaming.

None of this redounded to the credit the New Atheist movement. Indeed, it functioned as a demonstration of exactly what happens when the first efforts at "gentle persuasion" don't reap their expected outcome.

[1] Note: if you look at the comments to that post there were angry Mormons who posted to the comment thread. They managed to express their anger / concern / disagreement without repeatedly stepping over the line of "what is acceptable" in our community and I, for one, learned much about the LDS from the arguments in the comment thread.

[burgundy]

I also can't help noticing that a comment criticism levied at religious moderates is that they don't do enough to rein in or at least vocally condemn their extremist co-religionists. There are plenty of atheists/skeptics who do address the Netholes; I don't want to erase or devalue the very real work that they are doing. But anyone who tries to discredit all religion by focusing only on the worst examples while also ignoring or minimizing the worst of the atheist community gets a big old eye-roll from me.

[Kit Whitfield]

Agreed, mmy. I'd add another coercive tactic to the list: punishment. we were obliged for the first time in our history to ban someone - not because he was being rude (we had many rude visitors we didn't ban), but because he was deliberately trying to induce panic attacks in people with psychological scars. And why? Because we published something he didn't like.

Never tell me that isn't violence.

[Mmy]

@Kit: I'd add another coercive tactic to the list

And if we are describing what it was like for the moderators -- sleep deprivation. Since there was only three moderators and "problematic" posters were coming from many time-zones (and I would venture are not involved in the type of work / family obligations that limit one's internet time) the moderators found themselves spending time on the board which could have been better spent sleeping, eating and recharging their own circuits.

@everybody: Kit received some emails from me during the height of the infestation that could be used as "exhibit A" in any discussion of what weeks of sleep deprivation do to the written output of someone who has dyslexia.

[Kit Whitfield]

Yep, some of those e-mails had me worried.

Since we're talking mods, I'll add that a month of constant stress has NOT advanced me towards my goal of reducing my anti-depressant medication. Which is for postnatal depression caused by a bad birth, so all that crap about birth not meriting a trigger warning was just the crap cherry on the crap sundae.

[MercuryBlue]

*hugs Kit and mmy, and hapax if she's around, and anybody else wanting hugs*