= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pragmatist comments on False Friends and Tone Policing - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
Relevant SMBC. It illustrates my political theory that in every political conflict that seems to be between Greens and Blues, there are actually four sides of the conflict, let's call the "Nice Greens", "Nasty Greens", "Nice Blues" and "Nasty Blues". And there is more than one line of conflict.
Officially, "Nice Greens" + "Nasty Greens" and "Nice Blues" + "Nasty Blues" should be the only existing coalitions. But there is also the value of niceness, which somehow connects "Nice Greens" and "Nice Blues", and puts them into often unconscious opposition against the "Nasty Greens" and "Nasty Blues". Being nasty is a personality trait... for a "Nasty Green" it is often easier to become a "Nasty Blue" (different slogans, but generally the same behavior) than a "Nice Green" (different everyday behavior both among the enemies and the allies).
It's probably the Nasty person's greatest fear that one day the Green/Blue conflict will stop being important. Because then they would stop being "a person in service of the great Green/Blue cause, who happens to be a bit nasty, but is a great fighter on our side, so we should support them", and become merely "a nasty person who is better to be avoided".
Specifically in this case, PZ Myers seems to me analogical to those religious people who bring hate banners to funerals of gays. (As oppossed to people like Dawkins who are analogical to priests, that is, legitimate speakers of their movements' beliefs. I am making this contrast to prevent putting both of them to some general category of "militant X". There is a difference between being frank about your opinions, even if it offends those who believe otherwise, and being an asshole.)
Also, I don't like that PZ Myers is hiding behind the banner of "atheism" when doing his nasty things. Because this is not his true banner. As far as I know, he has his own set of values that he is trying to impose on all atheists: the whole "Atheism Plus" stuff. He hates the non-Plus atheists. ("Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys. You’ve got a discussion going, talking about why you’re an atheist ... and some smug wanker comes along and announces that “Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.”" -- source) So I hope he will proudly wave the banner of "Atheism Plus" when doing controversial things, not to be confused with the average boring atheists. Because I certainly don't want to be confused with him.
I don't think he's saying he hates all non-Plus atheists (whatever that means) here. It seems to me he's saying that he hates atheists who don't see atheism as a part of a broader network of commitments or values, or resist the idea that it should be seen as such. He goes on to say, "there is more to my atheism than simple denial of one claim; it’s actually based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world".
That actually seems like a pretty reasonable position to me (although "hate" is admittedly a strong word to use in this context). If indeed there are people who see atheism as fundamentally disconnected from general-purpose rationalism, or who don't see the promotion of atheism as a mere corollary of the promotion of a general rationalist worldview, or who object to making the atheist movement about rationality and science rather than mere disbelief in god, then I do think those people are wrong.
It does seem odd to me that there would be a significant number of atheists who adopt this kind of view, though, so maybe Myers is attacking a strawman here.
And he has a very specific set of values in mind. Something like feminism or social justice warriorism, or whatever it is they call "Atheism Plus". (RationalWiki calls it: "a wedding of the New Atheist's in-your-face attitude about religion with social justice concerns"; and RationalWiki is very positive about this movement, because it's very close to their own beliefs.) And there is some internet drama about it, which I don't follow closely, but it seemed to me that all influential atheists who disagree with Atheism Plus soon get anonymously accused of sexual harassment, and then Atheism Plus fans demand their removal from atheist conventions. Or something like this. And PZ Myers is an important figure there.
Essentially... there is a political faction within the atheist community, and the idea is that the atheists who don't subscribe to this specific political opinion, are not the true atheists. To me it seems that this is not really about atheism, but about a political movement infiltrating another movement which was originally apolitical.
So, if these people dislike (and allegedly fight dirty against) the atheists who don't join their political faction, I would like to see them starting their conflicts with the outsiders under their own flag, not including the people who disagree with them. So that the natural and predictable reaction would be "Atheists Plus are assholes", not "(dictionary) atheists are assholes". If someone starts their own fights, I don't want them hiding behind my back, especially when the next day they are likely to stab me in the back.
The problem is that's not what Myers was trying to do with Atheism Plus. The values he wanted to introduce were those of the "social justice" crowd, a.k.a., the people who believe that certain scientific opinions are inherently "unjust" and shouldn't be heard, that their cause is so noble that it justifies lying and falsifying science.