So one of our commenters who shall not be named unless xe comes forward used memegenerator.net to create a meme generator to parody DJ Grothe’s latest bout of intractability.
It’s crude, it’s crass, it’s even gross mischaracterization in many cases, and I’m willing to admit that I’ve participated in creating at least one. I’m honestly hoping it’s enough of a slap in the face to wake DJ the hell up to the fact that he’s running around being a douchebag to those women who are identifying the problem and working to solve it, instead of actually fixing the problems people are having with harassment.
He can start by listening to the recommendations of the community and implementing a strong harassment policy that covers this year and all future years. Because there’s a lot of questions floating about regarding his, and JREF’s, willingness to do either. The fact that they haven’t yet is telling.
Update: Before you get all up in arms about “douchebag”, read this.
Oh, I’m sorry — judging by the conversation and other blog posts I thought this was a forum where logical fallacies were allowed.
It might be best if you do some research and write a proper post about this. They do have some good books that go in depth on these fallacies, I would be happy to point them out to you.
So, again and worded better for your understanding: Disregarding any other group, the posts above do not cast you or those defending you in a good light, but since this is not for populartiy: The fallacious attacks from your side do not bolster your arguments.
Rationality and Defensibility do correlate.
Unfrocked:
“Oh, I’m sorry”
That’s the only honest thing you’ve said so far. You ARE pretty sorry. You should start apologizing now.
Unfrocked is right, I made a fallacious argument. DJ Grothe is not LITERALLY a douchebag, as he does not store vinegar or other potentially harmful chemicals in his person for the purposes of “cleansing” a woman’s vagina. In fact, I hear he wants little to do with women’s vaginas.
Edit: I have amended this statement slightly. Please read that linked post.
This is fun.
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/21483975.jpg
Go ahead. Point out the fallacious arguments then, jackass.
Most of what is being said is taking DJ to task for things he literally said and did.
“Boo hoo. DJ behaved disgustingly and people were telling him to cut it out and didn’t hold his hand and suck him off while doing it. Oh the trauma! Ohhhh the victimhood!”
Thank you Joe, Jason, and LSP for proving my (and many of the other watchers) points in a way far better than I every could have.
“Feminazi”
“Douchebag”
“C*nt”
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZ6tvqhk8U&w=420&h=315%5D
I’ll give you a hint: the word of the day is “slurs.” One of them isn’t. One of them is just an insult, not a slur designed to insult a person for what they are.
I love it when the tone trolls go on parade, because it’s so selective. I mean, I haven’t done the Google search, but somehow I bet that Justin Vacula and others didn’t jump all over Phil Plait for tarring a whole swath of skeptics with the “dick” label (or Barbara Drescher, Jason Loxton, Skepdude, and others who then applied it to specific people), or Randi for calling Montel Williams a “whore” or Sylvia Browne any number of things, or every episode of “Bullshit” with its “asshole” and “dick” and “motherfucker” and so forth, or the SGU’s clearly mean-spirited, crass “G Hunters” parody of the Ghost Hunters, or D.J. Grothe’s accusations of gossipy lying attention whores, not in so many words.
Strange how the tone trolls only seem to care about tone with regard to certain people or groups within the movement.
When people say and do ridiculous things, they open themselves up to ridicule. Ridicule and insults are argumentatively neutral on their own, and only amount to fallacy when they are used as reasons to dismiss an argument, or as evidence that a claim/argument is invalid. “Socrates is wrong because he’s an asshole” is an ad hominem fallacy. “Socrates is wrong because the evidence contradicts his claim. Also he’s an asshole” is not fallacious in the slightest.
Ridicule and insults are instead a different mode of persuasion; logical, evidence-based arguments address the logos (reason), while ridicule and insults go after ethos (character) and pathos (emotion). Good persuasion requires a combination of the three. And sometimes people are going to be convinced by something other than pure logic, because people are not Vulcans.
Again, “Bullshit” is a key example: I don’t always agree with Penn & Teller, but that acerbic, passionate style certainly got me thinking about some of the things I assumed, and I know I’m not the only one. See also: Tim Minchin, George Carlin, Dara O’Briain, etc.
Using insults and ridicule is a double-edged sword, of course. Some people are going to see the object as ridiculous as a result, and others are going to see the ridiculer/insulter as having low character for stooping to such methods. That’s the risk you run. Similarly, some people are going to see the dispassionate, coldly rational only-relies-on-evidence-and-logic person as detached, inhuman, or a know-it-all. It takes different strokes to move the world, or something.
If you don’t like ridicule, don’t use it. Think people who use it are beneath you. Go right ahead. Here, I’ll even give you some places to express your thoughts: Encyclopedia Dramatica, Quickmeme. Surely you’ll find those just as crude, crass, and uncalled-for as calling D.J. Grothe a douchebag.
Really, Unfrocked? You’re going with “I know you are, but what am I?” as your entire position? Is “I’m rubber, you’re glue” not far behind?
Tom: I rescued your comment, it’s now @40.
Also, I wrote Owning The Slur some time last year. It’s probably still worth a read.
Unfrocked: It’s interesting how you make accusations of fallacies, but can’t actually cite any that have actually been used. All those words, and you’ve said nothing of any substance. Except, of course, ‘all you people are stupid and everyone can see how stupid you are.’
But I’m sure you’ll pull the ol’ rubber/glue routine on this post too, suggesting that Jason’s post and the whole conversation is just as devoid of content. And you’ll do so ignoring that even the Grothe meme images are using Grothe’s words in a reductio ad absurdum, and ignoring that this is one of several posts following a series of detailed explanations of what Grothe’s been wrong about and why, and how he and the JREF can fix things.
I predict you’ll do that because your entire participation in this thread has been just that sort of false equivalence (making fun of someone for what they’ve said/done is apparently equivalent to calling someone a gender-based slur) and holier-than-thou posturing, without any actual substance. But I’d sure be glad to see you buck the trend and prove me wrong.
So go on. Cite the fallacies you’ve seen here. We’re all waiting.
I’m waiting too – I’ve almost filled up my MRA Douchebucket Bingo card!
Thank you Justin for reminding us that we should be respectful of someone who says women discussing sexual harassment, oh excuse me “sexual exploits,” are engaging in “distasteful locker room banter.”
Thank you for informing us of the proper tone we’re allowed to use when the head of a major organization tries to stop us for speaking out publicly.
He brought his sexuality into the discussion as a preemptive defense against being told he’s being insensitive to women’s predicaments while defending Ryan Grant Long. Before anyone else brought it into discussion, even. Thus preemptive.
I don’t think his sexuality actually informs his blatant pandering to antifeminisits, except insofar as gay folks found it offensive themselves.
Justin: Tone may be important to you; I’d venture to say it’s important to everyone. The thing about tone, though, is that each person chooses their own. What may seem inappropriate to you is another person’s accurate expression of their own feelings–and strong feelings may evince strong language. You may think that calling someone a “douchebag” is “immature, disrespectful, and unprofessional.” That’s up to you. I suspect many of us here find D.J.’s comments, cleaner though they may be, just as disrespectful and unprofessional (especially for someone who is speaking from such a professional position), and may equally feel that they betray such a lack of thought and consideration that an immature response is among those warranted.
What I don’t see is how it’s relevant to the discussion. If you don’t like the tone that others use, then judge them for it and express yourself with a different tone. The tones we choose and how we interpret other people’s tones is ultimately a matter of personal taste, not one of absolute standards.
You say you’re concerned with a discussion of ideas, but that’s not what you’re doing. Many here and elsewhere have discussed D.J.’s claims, arguments, and ideas, with a wide variety of differing tones, from Rebecca Watson’s sharp sarcasm to Ashley Miller’s patient exasperation, to the satire of the meme. I haven’t seen you among those discussing the ideas, though it’s possible I missed you in there someplace.
Instead, you’re one discussion removed from all that, trying to discuss how we discuss ideas. To be fair, there’s been quite a bit of that in response to D.J. as well, mostly because he seems to be choosing words and phrasing that poorly reflects his actual positions, if we are to take his words in the most charitable fashion. Of course, the reason for that is largely because Grothe has levied the accusation of “irresponsible messaging,” while his own reaction to the general response to his posts suggests that he’s engaging in the same.
We’ve seen the discussion of tone before, and it usually seems to involve two camps: those who think their way is right but can’t seem to back it up with anything more than personal preference, and those who don’t give a damn. I haven’t yet seen a productive result from any of these discussions, except from the perspective of someone who wants to derail the substantive conversation.
Point: if you want to discuss ideas, go ahead. No one is stopping you. If you want to discuss tone, go ahead, but be warned that no one will likely care what you think about the tone they’ve chosen. It’s like trying to convince someone to stop liking the taste of chocolate, or that licorice doesn’t taste like sweaty tar.
I do want to touch once more upon a matter once further removed from the actual discussion of ideas. Not discussing how we discuss them, as you have, but discussing when folks like yourself choose to bring up the discussion of tone. I haven’t seen you chastizing D.J. for his condescension and dismissive language in other threads. I haven’t seen you on Twitter or at Crommunist condemning Ian Adelstein for calling Rebecca Watson an “uppity c*nt”–or chastizing yourself for not realizing the difference between an insult and a slur. You haven’t popped up in the Encyclopedia Dramatica page I linked yet to correct them or issue any strong words of disapproval. So I wonder, why are you taking issue with this one, comparatively mild, use of the word “douchebag”?
I have my suspicions, and they speak louder than your tone.
I love how the pro-DJ faction made a meme that says “all the women who were there on merit agree with me.” Yowza. Care to address the multiple levels of deeply-ingrained sexism, there?!
DJ, take note: when these are the people you’re attracting (and, as near as I can tell, only these people), you may want to seriously reconsider your worldview.
Justin Vacula #62
Your concern is noted.
Do you have anything substantive to say or are you going to continue whining (and yes you’re whining) about tone? If the latter, could you just whine quietly to yourself? The adults are having a conversation.
LeftSidePositive: I’m curious what they think Rebecca was there on. I mean, I realize she’s the Kim Kardashian of skepticism now (I guess Paris Hilton is becoming passé), which implies that she’s famous for no good reason (or her dad represented Carl Sagan in a murder trial or something). So are they implying she slept her way to the top? Wouldn’t that contradict with all the prude-y commenting about Elevatorgate? Do they think she’s getting by on looks? Commentary on the Encyclopedia Dramatica page suggests they don’t think too highly of that. And what of the SGU? Do they attack Steve & Co. for inviting her on, since she’s apparently there for no good reason?
I should probably stop looking for consistency among the spittle-flecked.
Exactly.
And he has failed there as well. The second someone gets praise from awful human beings they need to distance themselves from the scum. But yet….I’ve seen nothing to convince me he doesn’t want these mutants defending him. He hasn’t distanced himself (as far as I can tell and probably wont) and he certainly wont call them out. He can’t pretend he doesn’t know about it. So…anyone keeping count?
Does anyone have a comprehensive list of all of Grothe’s massive failings during this mess?
I was under the impression that “Douche-bag” was originally a slur against misogynists. A word describing a tool that pretends to benefit women, yet is actually useless and potentially, if not probably, harmful to them seems perfectly suitable in regards to Grothe’s actions.
@70–well, to be fair, you can’t exactly control who praises you, so I’m not going to quibble at him for not calling them out. It’s not, in the strictest sense, his fault that slimebags defend him…but shouldn’t it give him pause that there doesn’t seem to be anyone ELSE?!
@71–I’m not clear on the history (& I have no idea WHERE you’d find a link for this sort of thing???), but my understanding was it was first used just as “vaginas…eeewwww!!!” and then feminists looked more skeptically at its meaning and reclaimed it.
Tom Foss: Thank you for the truly thoughtful comments you left here. The idea of tone, for me, is actually quite an important one…and so much so that I have talked about it in my podcast episode “Respecting Beliefs,” numerous blog posts (Disagreement is not disrespect:Attacking beliefs, not persons,” “Belief intolerance,” and many more), and in a podcast episode I had with Dr. Peter Boghossian. Do the Google search and find them 🙂
I generally fall, as you’ll see what I have written and said on the matter, on the side of strictly sticking to discussion of ideas, engaging in respectful discussion, etc (especailly with skeptics and atheists). This can be further evidenced by my blog post concerning Lawrence Krauss’ dismissal of philosophy (at American Atheists’ 2012 convention. I note all of this because this is a serious issue for me and so that you know I am not just making stuff up following your post.
No matter what you think of Dj, calling him a douchebag, as it overwhelmingly seems (and using, even, the phrase asshat in the tag of this post) is very immature, disrespctful, and unprofessional regardless of what you think he has said or assumed.
Jason, care to explain your mentioning of how DJ “cares little about women’s vaginas?” Are you seriosuly bringing his sexuality into this or attacking him because of it? I really hope not. The comment, regardless, in light of DJ being gay, is really off-color.
a) I have spent thousands of words explaining exactly what was wrong with his actions.
b) I have spent thousands of words making suggestions of how to actually fix the problem.
c) You’re taking issue with exactly one word.
So attack my words on their merits — specifically the ones I spent all that time actually arguing for/against things. Stop laser-focusing on *two* of them, that makes you a tone troll and a waste of everyone’s time. Especially not when I’ve good reason to use those words and have promised to apologize for using them when DJ apologizes to the women he’s slut-shamed by saying it’s just “locker room talk”, “sexual exploits”, etc.
Seriously, do you not get that? He’s slut-shamed victims of sexual harassment. If he didn’t mean that, why has he not yet “clarified” in his usual manner, dumping a two-thousand word “apology” that includes more “but it’s those damned feminists’ and FtB’s fault!” assholery?
And why why WHY is this about Rebecca Watson at all, except that she’s fed up of the bullshit and said she can’t support it? I know you really want people to go to your blog and read your whargarbl about how terrible it is that she handled things, but this “pox on both your houses” is really irritating. Either she has every right to listen to the very clear message that she’s not welcome and take her leave, or he should make amends by actually implementing a real policy — and not this “we posted something on a blog post last year that says ‘we totes hate harassment’ but has no teeth or actual rules behind it” nonsense that they won’t even post somewhere near where con-goers are supposed to register.
Which, by the way, is only in existence because last year some asshole suggested he would corner her in an elevator.
Count Vacula sucks the substantive lifeblood out of reasoned discussion…
…pale corpse of tone-trolling remains.
@Justin:
Important, but not absolute. Sometimes people need to be shocked. Sometimes people need to vent. Sometimes people have acted in a way that deserves no respect. Andrew Wakefield is a slimy fraud, and it does no one any good to treat him with undue respect as they’re demolishing his claims. Eric Hovind is a sleazy liar, and treating him with undue respect only serves to legitimize his claims to an authority that he has not earned.
And D.J. Grothe is a good skeptic who has done a great deal of commendable work for the skeptical movement and community. He also has a nasty tendency to stick his foot in his mouth on issues of sexism, and to double down rather than examine his own prejudices and assumptions, which are poor qualities in a leader and a skeptic, respectively. He has, understandably, lost the respect of many through his words and actions, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who doubts his fitness as a leader in the movement.
But then, we wouldn’t be having this conversation if D.J. had shown the same respect you demand we show him, and that he demands of others. If he had approached the “irresponsibly messaging” women in private, rather than commenting publicly, this might not have happened. If he had not dismissed genuine concerns as “locker room banter,” this might not have happened. If he did not continue to shirk responsibility and hold up a survey and a program statement as if they were the absolute most he could possibly do, this might not have happened. Your calls for respect are misdirected, and you’ll find that D.J. will receive that respect once more when he has earned it.
Now, however, he has earned ridicule and derision.
Agreed. So why single out one use of the word douchebag on a whole Internet full of vulgarity?
Then why are you here? Did you throw a dart at a map of the Internet? What burning desire said “all those other vulgarities, the slurs and threats and disrespectful comments, I’ll let those slide, but these people here on Lousy Canuck they are where I should focus my concern about tone”?
But you don’t expect better from the President of the JREF? You don’t expect better from the celebrities like Penn & Teller or Randi? I’ve done five minutes of googling, and you don’t seem to be in the trenches at Pharyngula condemning PZ for his language. You don’t seem to spend your time at ERV (over on the slightly less premier network of skeptical/atheistic bloggers) mucking out the slimepit, you don’t seem to spend much time at r/atheism calling out the misogyny and so forth there, on the world’s largest network of atheists.
No, it seems like your concern about tone is very tightly focused. It’s very tightly focused on criticisms and satire of one figure who you clearly view as an authority because of his title and work, which somehow apparently puts him above the sort of criticism we readily hurl at others. It’s very tightly focused on a guy who repeatedly minimizes sexist remarks and harassment while claiming to be an ally who cares. It’s very tightly focused on a guy who publicly labeled Rebecca Watson part of the problem.
I don’t want to armchair psychoanalyze, so I won’t. You have your reasons for choosing this post over all the other posts you could go after, and for apparently holding critics of D.J. Grothe to a standard that you don’t hold others, including D.J. Grothe, to.
The shame is the amount of time wasted on this circle-jerk of a tone discussion, rather than actually discussing ideas.
You are all a bunch of asshat, c*m guzzling, d-bags.
I approved the earlier morpher this time around because I wanted everyone to see the drop in the ocean of misogyny that is the internet. If my “douchebag” is horrendous, where’s the vituperation about this morpher’s messaging?
Jason…man you have courage.
First on a public forum you call DJ a “douchebag” and hold him to ridicule.
Then, again on a public forum on 54, you double down and ridicule him again with sexually explicit perjorative.
Dawg, that’s a text book case of sexual harrassment and if the blogs are considered workspace you can add hostile work environment.
You have held this brother up to offensive ridicule that has been defamatory in word and sexual in nature…and…
your excuse at #75, “I only said the word once”…is that the same as,”I have helped humanity in my lectures but only grabbed her ass once.
Man oh man, you must have absolutely ice water in your veins and couldn’t care less if DJ takes this to an attorney and asks about defamation and sexual harrassment looking for remedy and relief.
You could argue first ammendment but wow…these suits get costly and most people settle…deep pockets really help.
Don’t you find it ironic that the very thing you are railing against you are committing.
You must be a scream at conventions. I know great attorneys so man I want to party and hang with you.
Jason says:
“Either she has every right to listen to the very clear message that she’s not welcome and take her leave, or he should make amends by actually implementing a real policy — and not this “we posted something on a blog post last year that says ‘we totes hate harassment’ but has no teeth or actual rules behind it” nonsense that they won’t even post somewhere near where con-goers are supposed to register.”
The false dichotomy should be obvious. She can take what DJ says and say something like “While I don’t appreciate what you’ve said or how you’ve handled this, I can act like an adult and understand that there’s going to be disagreement amongst people in the skeptic community rather than sitting home.” She can also have many other various responses.
Like I said in my Twitter conversation with her and my post, I have severe disagreements with some people in the atheist/skeptic community, but I’m not going to sit home and pull out supporting a convention. If the basis of severe disagreement — as what seems to be the bulk of her argument/objection — should be good reason for people to sit home, lots of people would end up sitting home. I can ‘get past that’ and so many others likely do. I even recall reading posts of bloggers talking about how they have severe disagreements with some speakers and just tolerate them, don’t listen to them, or do something else.
I won’t go into those details about said personal disagreements because I’d rather ‘take the high road’ and not cause strife (like what’s been going on in the past week or two). Again, one can discuss effective responses to sexual harassment/disagree with Grothe…Rebecca’s option, though, isn’t a forced one as many are claiming.
“Stop laser-focusing on *two* of them, that makes you a tone troll and a waste of everyone’s time”
Continuing to talk about me being a ‘tone troll’ isn’t even addressing my objections to your associating the terms ‘douchebag’ and ‘asshat’ with DJ. Suppose, for sake of argument, as you said, that DJ said some really bad things. I’ll agree, for sake of argument, with your thousand-or-so-word explanations for why you feel the way you do. I still don’t understand why it should be permissible to associate the words ‘douchebag’ and ‘asshat’ with Grothe. Why do you feel the need to do that? How is that constructive. If you words/arguments have merit, as you say (and tell me that I should take your words on their merits), why even bother using the terms ‘douchebag’ and ‘asshat?’ Leaders of the skeptical movement and people who do great things for the skeptical movement deserve better than that…no matter how much you disagree with them or how bad you think they are.
I wonder…would you use the terms ‘douchebag’ and ‘asshat’ in relation to James Randi? Michael Shermer? Neil Degrasse Tyson? Sam Harris? Rebecca Watson? Greta Christina? Jen McCreight? J.T.? Jessica Ahlquist? Do these people deserve such disrespect as you’re giving to D.J.? …and I don’t care what they say or how disrespectful you think their comments are. They don’t deserve it and neither does D.J. I think we can and should behave better than 4th graders might.
“I know you really want people to go to your blog and read your whargarbl about how terrible it is that she handled things”
Actually, people have asked for what I had to say on the matter (and mentioned something about failing to Google), so I mentioned it. Comment 14, actually, if I’m not missing something, was the only link I gave. …and, yah, I don’t see what the problem is with giving my opinion on the matter? Shall I instead link the lengthy post here with its full-text? That would be obnoxious and uncalled for, I think. Further, you mentioned how many words you’ve written addressing the issues, so I don’t see what the problem is with people knowing about mine (as if the lengthy writing even matters, anyway, or somehow makes one’s position more tenable).
“Seriously, do you not get that? He’s slut-shamed victims of sexual harassment. If he didn’t mean that, why has he not yet “clarified” in his usual manner, dumping a two-thousand word “apology””
Are you asserting that he’s doing this:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/what-is-slut-shaming/?
Anyway, I don’t buy this “If he didn’t mean that, why has he not yet “clarified” reasoning. One can raise any sort of objection or claim to anyone’s writing and follow up with “If he didn’t mean that, why hasn’t he yet clarified” (as if somehow a lack of clarification of something someone assumed someone was asserting implies that the person’s assumption was correct). That seems quite close to what’s often called an argument from ignorance, it seems.
That’s right. Arguments stand on their merits, not the number of words, or which words were used to make it. “All men are mortal; Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal” is no more or less valid than “Socrates is a fucking asshole of a man; all fucking shitbag men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal, asshat.” That one is not to your taste is irrelevant.
Thank you for arguing yourself out of the discussion.
If they did the kind of asshatish, douchebaggy things that DJ has to several women now, then YES. They would have a nobody from Canada say “hey, that’s an asshattish, douchebaggy thing you just did”. And I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. Just because DJ didn’t use any swear words, doesn’t mean that he was being any more polite to the victims of harassment whose stories he called “locker room talk”. For the last time, I’ll apologize for my transgression when he apologizes for his repeated ones.
That was your last post here until you could get serious about the actual arguments we’ve all made.
83: turning DJ’s words against him may feel really bad to be on the receiving end, if he’s actually reading them, but I’m not chasing him around with them. Whatevz.
Re: Comment 68
Apparently, discussion about conversation and civility is whining? I think it is quite important, actually, as far as communication is concerned. As a skeptic, it is difficult to cite, I think, one primary goal…but if we are concerned with challenging others’s ideas, I would wager that respect in communication should be important. Also, I have offered my thoughts on the entire matter on my blog (you mentioned you may have missed them).
To others:
Proposing that I ought to rebuke all people (or more specifically, some orof certain people) calling Rebecca names or saying uncouth things about her is a pretty unreasonable demand/expectaction. I can’t possibly address every stupid thing every person (or even specific persons) say on the matter and don’t really care to. I have, though, addressed commenters on my blog post and elsewhere who have said nasty things. Anyway, I can throw it back on commenters here and say (Why haven’t you rebuked persons a, b…). Obviously, this would be silly for me to say. Implying that my lack of rebuking certain people is indicative of some sort of hidden motive or lack of true concern (or whatever else)women is ridiculous.
I mainly posted here because I expect better from bloggers who are featured on what might be the premier network of bloggers in the atheist movement. It is quite a shame that a platform would be used to call the president of the JREF a douchebag (or really anyone with a position of influence who has done great good for the skeptic/atheist community) in addition to the post having the tag of asshats. What is this, 4th grade?
Yes, I am talking about one word (actually two, don’t forget your ‘asshats’ tag). So what? Does the fact that it is one word make it less of a problem? Does the fact that your noting of a and b somehow make the word less of a problem? Besides, my issue is a larger one of communication. I am voicing my concerns here on this blog. You know, this whole frackas isn’t just compromised of one thing that ought to be focused on. People can comment and express disagreement/concern with whatever they’re concerned about -they don’t gave to focus on what you seem to want them to.
Also, I’ve spent a considerable amount on words on why I think Rebecca Watson’s response was not, as I see it, a good/effective one. So what? Suppose I spent one million. Suppose you spent two. Who cares? Arguments stand on their merits, not on how many words someone wrote on something.
Tom Foss:
Thanks for the follow-up and the conversation. I’ll consider your thoughts surrounding effective approaches concerning satire, language, and general approach since you brought up Penn and Teller and other considerations. (I also wasn’t aware of Randi calling Montel a whore. I see that he called Montel a media whore…and don’t think that is productive, either, for whatever that is worth).
Penn and Teller are known for being comedians and often employ humor to prove a point or just generally fit their ‘characters’ they play. Many people know this, expect this, and ‘get it.’ Penn calling someone a douchebag or an asshat (or many other things which of course I have heard) is much different than Jason here calling D.J. Grothe an asshat or douchebag.
As far as PZ is concerned, he generally has that ‘offensive/crass’ approach…and I’m not a huge fan of it although, as it seems, I tolerate it and am a frequent reader of his blog (I addressed PZ’s dismissal of Massimo Pigliucci, too, in a blog post of my own in December of 2011). When I tackle arguments people make, others’ behaviors, etc, I keep my content free of personal attacks, name-calling, etc even if these people have said abominable things.
I’ll concede some ground, though, and say that everyone has their own approach and it can be effective and reach some in some ways that otherwise wouldn’t reach people. This shouldn’t entail, though, that ‘anything goes’ or hold people to no reasonable standards of professionalism, behavior, conversational tone, etc. If that were the case, any objection to name-calling would have to be immediately thrown out. If that were really obvious (that conversational tone is not an issue because everyone has a different approach), I wouldn’t expect to see outrage when people use the terms ‘feminazi,’ for instance. (I think it’s a ridiculous term, personally, and would never use it…many others might agree). While there may be many right ways to do something or many different approaches, this doesn’t mean that there are no wrong or inadvisable ways.
I’ll further consider your ideas on Hovind and Wakefield as those seem to be tougher cases (although I still don’t seem to be a fan of name-calling even them). It’s food for thought. When I see effective uses of satire and name-calling, though, I generally see an element of obvious humor in a situation which should be apparent for everyone. I don’t see that here. Admittedly, there may be other options. I’ll leave room for that.
I kind-of already explained why I am here having this discussion above (or perhaps more in the latest comment I made) and why it just seems to happen that my ‘dart’ landed here. Let me elaborate (although I don’t think it is relevant, but let’s assume for the sake of argument it is):
I think the entire ‘drama’ about the discussion of sexual harassment and Watson’s response to it and DJ’s responses to it have gotten really out of hand and wild accusations have been made by many parties in which people claim to know the content of others’ minds and claim to know that people have malicious intent (such that DJ “doesn’t care about women or how they feel.”)
I wanted to stay out of the issue initially because the last time when I made an effort to comment on Watson’s posts or assertions she was making seemed to be a waste of my time. When I expressed skepticism to her general assertion of, as it seemed to be, “Not having a woman in a poll of five people is sexist or indicative of a person ‘forgetting about women'” and asked her to defend her position, I seemed to have received nothing more than glib dismissals, charges of sexism, and wild distortions of what I was saying (you can see this in the comments of Watson’s “I won a major award!” post on Skepchick in which I post under the handle ‘justinvacula’ if you care to).
After Watson responded the way she did and many commenters followed suit, the bells of skepticism started ringing in my mind. Following this, I noted various other dubious assertions of Watson but mainly avoided the discussion and went on with what I was doing instead of participating in ‘in-fighting.’
I’ve heard some people in the skeptic/atheist community who are afraid to challenge the claims of Watson because they fear character assassination, personal attacks, being blacklisted, etc. Some people have told me that they believe Watson is a ‘sacred cow’ of sorts in the skeptic community in which she seems to be immune to criticism (and even some say feminism or any self-identified feminist bloggers is/are the sacred cow, but I don’t agree with that at all).
I found it important to weigh in on the issues and challenge Watson’s claims while sticking my neck out there and hopefully encouraging others to do the same and not fear the repercussions of criticizing her ideas.
Additionally, I (and I am sure many others) consider the work of the JREF to be very important. I don’t want to sit by while people besmirch its president and the organization itself.
Perhaps shorter: while browsing FTB, a source from which I get much of my information regarding the ‘atheist movement’ and generally quite the respected source, I saw this post and felt the need to comment…and now I’m here. Also, I don’t comment on blogs too much. I would rather talk to people about ideas on the phone, in-person, write posts of my own, etc.
Either way, it’s possible to have a strong conviction on a matter and simply not express it. A lack of commenting in places x, y, and z and only commenting in place a shouldn’t lead one to believe one isn’t genuine or some ulterior motives exist. Surely the often glibly referred to ‘ivory tower academics’ have very strong convictions and only might comment in one or few places on an issue.
P.S.: Psychoanalysis (or at least most of it) is bunk – at least according to many in the mental health community. Consider this a bald assertion, argument from authority, or whatever else, but I don’t want to go into that much here and I also don’t think you want to either.
…and I think time can be well-spent discussing matters of tone…and so much so that I am actually going to be giving a speech about related issues under the umbrella of ‘reframing conversation’ this September to a humanist group which invited me to do so…and, as I mentioned, I have written and spoken about this before. One’s ‘waste of time’ might be another’s time well-spent.
@Tom Foss #85.
I think I love you…
Justin hit my mod wall with a rather long post. It’s a significant gish gallop, but aside from the tone nonsense, significantly less objectionable than the other crap he’s said so far. Before I release that post though, I want to remind everyone of exactly what DJ said:
The instant he walks back this paragraph in its entirety, I report it top-level in a blog post, and apologize for calling him a douchebag. This is my solemn vow.
I of course reserve the right to take him to task for the other shovels full of dirt he throws in our eyes while he’s apologizing for that stuff though.
Also, you should all read this post if you want criticism of DJ without all that TERRIBLE TERRIBLE SWEARING THAT I DO ZOMG.
It’s released, @88. Now could someone tell me why Penn and Teller’s “douchebag” and “asshole” is different from mine? Is it because they’re known to do it all the time, whereas I only get really mad when people are intractable over extended periods of time despite good argumentation clobbering them in the face from all sides repeatedly?
FYI, this person I don’t know felt it was “social” to message me on Twitter to get my opinion on your behavior, Jason. I gave it to him in exchange for his thoughts on D.J.’s “sexual exploits” statement, such as they are:
Another one of those idiots who think that D.J. deserves more benefit of the doubt than D.J. is willing to offer the women who are complaining about having been harassed and assaulted.
Also, FYI. Apparently “no one” uses “douchebag” to mean something sold to women as being good for them but which is actually harmful, despite you and I having discussed that usage. Justin can totally tell you mean something else by it because…because…well, apparently because you’re talking about D.J. treating women poorly. Maybe he can explain how that works.
So, DJ slut-shames women but I don’t think it’s relevant to the discussion in which people are calling him out for slut-shaming? I don’t think it has any relevance to how the people being slut-shamed should approach DJ?!
And, I’m sorry, he used a term connoting consensual sexual activity “as a replacement” for non-consensual sexual activity? What the fuck is that called again? Oh, yeah SLUT-SHAMING!!!
WHY does DJ get the benefit of the doubt that he misspoke, when he has never apologized or indeed offered ANY explanation of this behavior?!
And is there ANY other context in which things just get replacements like that?!
“Mr. Jones has some comments at this time about the generous donation he made to Mr. Smith–no, wait, I’m sorry, Mr. Jones was speaking about how Mr. Smith stole $5,000 from Mr. Jones via a fraudulent check.”
“Miss Weatherby was wondering if Mr. Rutledge will remember to fill the tank since she lent her car to her–no, wait, I’m sorry, Miss Weatherby is reporting a grand theft auto.”
“Will the Fredericks family be making waffles for their houseguest? Oh, I’m sorry, I meant home-invasion-robber…I always get those two mixed up…”
Seriously…WHAT THE FUCK?!
Precisely, Stephanie. All men automatically mean the best and have everyone’s best interests at heart, whereas women default to being lying and capricious.
@Jason :
Is there a reason to take morons seriously on your own blog? You’re not going to lose any support or appreciation from anyone sensible by just banning these fools outright. They’re only here because they’ve already been blocked from Skepchick and other blogs, where they likewise attempted to suck all the air out of the room.
Anyone who reflexively responds to a long-running discussion about a person who has discredited themselves over the course of months with the thousand-word equivalent of “you’re so mean and childish for using that word!” is functionally disengaged from the argument and almost certainly simply doing their best to waste your time and bury the issue under an avalanche of irrelevant tripe.
Justin: I’ll try to keep this briefer.
Boycotts and protests are an adult reaction, and one is not required to be present at every venue that would have them. When Unions strike to protest unfair working conditions, it is not more “adult” for scabs to cross the picket line and go to work. When bands refused to play Sun City to protest its pro-apartheid politics, it was not more “adult” of the Beach Boys to play there anyway. There is nothing childish in recognizing that one’s appearance at a venue may appear to be tacit or explicit approval of the people who run the venue, or carefully choosing the people you associate with.
It’s permissible because insults may be in bad taste, but they are not illegal, immoral, or irrational. As I mentioned before, they form an entirely legitimate appeal to ethos and pathos, which may or may not benefit the person hurling them.
To put it in less charged terms, we can cite statistics and science about why the anti-vaccination movement is harmful; why, then would we have things like the Jenny McCarthy Body Count; why would we talk about the children who die because their parents deny them life-saving vaccines? Because we are appealing to emotions and character in addition to logic and reason.
Also, skeptics are allowed to get fucking angry, just like anyone else. And when people are angry, they sometimes say harsh things. Deal.
Further, it doesn’t matter if the insults are constructive. They don’t need to be. The constructive part is the argument. The insults are flavor and flair; logically irrelevant but possibly rhetorically useful.
I think this gets to two different hearts of the matter, because apparently the matter is a Timelord.
First, it’s interesting that you don’t consider Rebecca Watson among your “leaders of the skeptical movement” or “people who do great things for the skeptical movement.” Nor, apparently, do you consider the other women and bloggers that DJ has casually trashed.
And second, like hell they do. Having a title or a history of good work does not elevate a person above criticism any more than it makes them incapable of error. It may, at most, entitle them to some benefit of the doubt, some patience and chance for clarification. But it does not, and should not, inure them to criticism.
Moreover, when these people are the public faces of our community, it falls to those in the community to call them out quickly and swiftly when they do make an error, because you’d better be damn sure that our opponents would seize on any and every chance to do that calling-out for us. Being in positions of power in the community means that when they misspeak, they misspeak for all of us. When they step in it, we all stink, and the responsibility to keep a clean house falls to us.
If we are to have a moral leg to stand on in calling out irrationality, hypocrisy, and immorality in other groups and communities, then we need to be particularly vigilant in excising it from our own.
No, those people (in general) do not deserve that disrespect. Were those people to earn such disrespect, however, then I certainly would have no problem in using harsh language to describe them. I think Neil Tyson was kind of a jackass for throwing atheism under the bus in a recent BigThink interview, playing the same misleading word-game that Carl Sagan did with the term. I think Michael Shermer is a douchebag for propping up libertarian politics and economics as some kind of inevitable outcome of evolution, and for playing the “golden mean” agnostic thing like Bill Maher does. Speaking of Maher, I think he’s a giant asshat for his continued denial of the germ theory of disease and basic medicine, and I think Dawkins was an equally big asshat for not repudiating the science award that was given to him a few years back, and for basically saying that atheism trumps science. Dawkins was a douchebag during the Elevatorgate/Dear Muslima thing, making a fallacious argument that he himself has debunked in non-sexism contexts. J.T. Eberhard is behaving like a douchebag right now in his posts and comment threads. Even Randi conducted himself like a prize idiot over that whole Global Warming fiasco a few years back, and even after Phil sorted him out, I’m reasonably certain that he doesn’t understand AGW science one whit.
Please explain how in a way that is not special pleading.
And that’s your choice. You do not, however, get to make that choice for everyone. And that it is your choice does not make it, in any objective way, the right or best choice.
“Feminazi” is an utterly meaningless term designed to denigrate and dismiss feminists. It is not quite as strong as a slur, but it has the same basic value and intent.
A major difference, you’ll find, is the difference between insulting people for what they are and insulting people for what they’ve done. Even the harshest of atheist/skeptical communities generally frown on the former. You can frown on the latter too (subjectively, in the case of Penn & Teller), but not everyone is going to agree with you.
Satire is rarely obvious to everyone. Consider that numerous watchdog groups and politicians have treated stories from The Onion as factual.
I agree. Why, there was this one person who claimed that “atheist blogs […] often seem to present controversies, possibly unduly fomented just to drive readership,” and made further statements that bloggers wrote posts simply to improve blog hits or increase pageviews, something I suspect would require a MDC-worthy bit of telepathy.
As an expert in statistics, I can verify that 1 in 5 is an accurate representation of the number of women in the world.
Are those the same “some people” who were “personally involved with one of the controversialist blogs that there has been explicit direction from that blog’s founder to this effect [i.e., to write posts calling out various people in skepticism in order to boost pageviews]”? Because I have some skepticism about those “some people.”
But yes, a casual glance at the evidence shows that Rebecca Watson mobilizes huge numbers of people to engage in character assassination and personal attacks, and no one is ever brave enough to stand up and tell her what a c*nt she is for doing so.
You’re so brave, expressing your totally normal and not hyper at all skepticism about Watson’s truly outrageously extraordinary claim that a “top five atheists” list, in a year where Jessica Ahlquist made national headlines for standing up to abuse, threats, and an entire community to fight for church-state separation, might be the result of some sexist or at least privilege-induced blindness when it doesn’t include a woman but includes at least one person that most folks wouldn’t realize is even an atheist.
You deserve a medal.
I agree that the work of the JREF is important. That’s why I don’t want to sit by while the president of the organization behaves like an ass, alienates supporters, and makes the organization look like it’s being run by someone so incompetent that he doesn’t understand that Facebook is public or that leaders are supposed to take responsibility for the mistakes and failures of their policies.
I agree. The problem is that you’re choosing to comment on Problem A in place X, when the same problem is clearly orders of magnitude worse in places Y and Z. And, in fact, when problem A in place X only arose because of the prevalence of problem A in Y and Z. Plus, you’re explicitly willing to ignore, overlook, dismiss, or forgive problem A in certain places when those places have special titles that elevate them above other places in your mind.
And that speaks to a bigger problem.
And armchair psychoanalysis is twice as bunk. It’s a bunk bed.
Hm. I failed to keep this brief. Apologies, all.
LeftSidePositive: Thanks *blushes*.
Kagerato:
“Mommy, mommy, he said a swear!”
Yeah, seriously. Name-calling may be childish, but the whole notion (tacit or explicit) that there are “bad words” which somehow are worse than the attitudes they express, is about as juvenile as it gets.
As Shakespeare said, “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” Similarly, one may use very polite language to express some very douchey sentiments.
Tom: a most excellent evisceration!
Seconded on that whole thing where apparently boycotting is just ipso facto wrong…WHY?! Boycotts have been hugely successful for tons of movements. If you want to make an argument that issue X isn’t worthy of a boycott, go ahead and make it, but mostly I just hear the word “boycott!” in shocked, indignant tones. And part of this I suspect is that so many people just take for granted that women’s issues can’t be important enough to boycott over.
You know, I make fun of those “War on Christmas” boycotters all the time–but I respect that is an appropriate means of social pressure for what they’re trying to accomplish, better than say, passing a law! But when I criticize them, I do so on the grounds that their cause is FUCKING STUPID, not that it is wrong to boycott!
And I must say I love the “we’re afraid of Rebecca’s gang!” memes going around…why is it that a not-insignificant part of me thinks it means “we’re afraid they’ll come up with an argument we can’t answer” or “when we strawman disgracefully and remain willfully ignorant, they will unflinchingly call us on our bullshit!”
See the hyper-skepticism thread for just such an insinuation of a “personal attack.” It was equal parts infuriating and hilarious.
Finally, did it ever occur to these people that, yes, they may disagree with Rebecca, but on the vast majority of these issues THEY WILL BE WRONG?! And that we don’t have to stop saying that they’re wrong if they refuse to consider counterarguments? Like you showed with Jessica & the “top atheists”–of course your free to your own opinion, but that doesn’t stop us from judging it or making obvious assessments about what your opinion brings to light!
Is that really so hard to understand?!
Stephanie at 93:
It should be quite obvious that Jason’s calling D.J. a douchebag was not an allegory as you claimed (although allegory is not the proper term…perhaps metaphor is), but rather was used in the common way almost everyone understands it when compared to a person… perhaps likely as Urban Dictionary defines it.
Do you actually think, when you, in real life, hear people using the term ‘douchebag,’ that they are making some sort of higher-level joke comparing the person to a product sold to women?
Is Jason’s calling D.J. an asshat also some sort of higher-level joke that doesn’t mean what we commonly believe it to be?
I can’t believe that we’re actually having a discussion about what a person means when someone is calling someone a douchebag. Perhaps Jason can clear this up, be honest, and state that it wasn’t a reference to the product sold to women. He’s been defending his use of the term here.
“Justin can totally tell you mean something else by it because…because…well, apparently because you’re talking about D.J. treating women poorly. Maybe he can explain how that works.”
Have you STILL not read what Jason wrote in the original post after Tom Foss pointed it out in 45 following your assumption that I was the one who introduced it on the conversation [which seems to makes no sense because this entire time I have been objecting to the use of the term] pointed it out?
“I’m honestly hoping it’s enough of a slap in the face to wake DJ the hell up to the fact that he’s running around >>>being a douchebag to those women who are identifying the problem and working to solve it, instead of actually fixing the problems people are having with harassment.<<<"
(arrows added for emphasis)
…and yes, I do think D.J. deserves the benefit of the doubt and perhaps you (and commenters here) would understand why I believe this if you linked the quotes I used in my answer to your question here.
If you linked the first paragraph of my response to you (or the entire response), perhaps commenter 94 would think differently and I wouldn't be, as it seems, mischaracterized:
"I'm not really interested in answering the question of my thoughts on DJ using sexual exploits as adescription of harassment, but I will. When I initially posted about the recent issues of harassment and thediscussion of such, I didn't talk about whether persons' appraisals of DJ's comments were accurate…andactually assumed they were for sake of argument in regards to whether Watson's behavior was aneffective response to what she (and others) construed DJ as asserting. Read on http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/06/my-twitter-conversation-with-rebecca.html if you care to/didn't already."
On other assorted comments:
This use of the term 'slut-shaming' (and alleging D.J. is partaking in such) is quite interesting and really bizarre considering D.J. said "No woman — no person — should ever be blamed for being a victim or speaking about sexism or any social problem. I was wrong to write anything that could even be construed that was, and it was never my intent. I am sorry.
I said (#10): Don’t you know that you can’t criticize a woman’s thoughts or behavior in the atheist movement…unless she’s Republican?
Ignorant Joe said (#16): Comments like this let us know that some of the people commenting aren’t even really engaged in the issues currently being discussed. They are just looking for an excuse to lash out in the general direction of people who they feel have wronged them. In this case, some Republican who should be embarrassed that Republican politicians say stupid and wrong things pretty much constantly, because their political philosophy is intellectually bankrupt, and are instead mad at the people who point out the stupidity of those politicians and pretend that the female Republicans are being singled out for sexist reasons, when they are simply being called out as being just as stupid as their male counterparts.
I say: Try again, Joe. I’m a registered Dem, who usually votes Dem (usually the lesser of the evils), but I hate both parties and I’ve been following this whole thread. I don’t have any loyalty to DJ or to TAM. And I most certainly don’t have loyalty or particular respect for any mere blogger who thinks he/she is self-important when he/she hasn’t really ACCOMPLISHED anything for the atheist (don’t get me started on the word “skeptic”)movement. While I would not behave like the jerks Rebecca has encountered, she needs to get over it, or she needs to NAME NAMES. Because by being too chickens***t to name names, she is basically smearing the entire male population who speak at, or attend, atheist (F**K “skeptic”) conventions. (And F**K the term “con”…”con” has many other definitions, and mere laziness amongst the youth in America has spawned its use in place of “convention” or “conference”.) She clearly has “issues” with men in general. (And, although I am male, my wife has always been the main breadwinner, I have two bright daughters, and one of MY favorite TV shows is actually ‘The View’.) So don’t dare insinuate I am anti-female. I do however, like the term “FemiNazis”….the one thing Limbaugh has ever done that I admire.
Bloggers…TAM…podcasts….these are nothing but mere entertainment for the vast majority of their patrons. They are “preaching to the choir”. Big deal. Give me instead people who are actually on the front lines fighting legal battles for church/state separation (and atheist civil rights) via lawsuits, confronting elected officials, confronting religionists, challenging discriminatory practices, etc.
Get out from behind your keyboards, get out of your “cons”(sheesh), and actually DO something, as people like Justin “Not-So-Vacuous” Vacula have done.
Oh yeah, and another thing. Feminism has nothing to do with atheism, and I’m sick of bleeding heart liberals trying to tie the two together, just like they tie “gay marriage” or “pro-choice” or the Democratic Party to atheism. Gay marriage and abortion are NOT strictly religious issues, but the liberals will try to convince people that they are. And if an atheist DARES oppose gay “marriage” (as if there’s no BIOLOGICAL component to marriage) or unrestricted abortions (as if abortion is a really HUMANIST procedure), they will be attacked as traitors.