So, there’s been controversy on this network and others concerning a talk by Rebecca Watson and a critique of that talk by Ed Clint. I’ve seen the videos and read the main posts, and read some extra material, too. I’d like to say that I think I understand what Watson was going for in her presentation, and she did a good job. I also think I understand Clint’s critique, and I see he has several points that must be granted.
In the controversy, there’s a really important discussion here that we should be having about skepticism, reason, reasoning, sexism, behavior, manners, community (online, conference-generated, and general), and…fun. I’m glad it’s happening because I think it’s healthy. Or, at least, it can be healthy.
Now, I should say I am strictly an online participant in the atheist community. Everything I know about it, everything I do in it–writing this blog, commenting on others’, and reading–is done via my computer. But I really enjoy all that activity, especially reading the atheist blogs and news sites.
Sure there are online jerks, and sure some people make supremely crude, threatening, or scary posts. In very rare instances, I’ve been on the receiving end of these. They don’t bother me because I use a pseudonym; I never feel actually threatened. But I generally don’t care about what some fucker on the internet has to say.
If I were using my real name and showing up in person at conferences–you can bet I’d feel differently. What if some angry jerk knows where my family sleeps at night? What if a person who regularly made creepy, violent threats was alone with me in a confined space? Yeah, I’d feel differently.
I guess I’m saying (I’m still figuring it out) that we need some mutually agreeable rules of engagement for online inter-atheist argument. As a start, how about whenever we create a new post or respond in a comment, we use a writing template like this:
- Part 1. State who’s being addressed.
- Part 2. Give your main point in 20 words or less.
- Part 3. Tell the person you’re addressing what you want her/him to do with the main point (e.g., bow to your wisdom? isolate points of agreement/disagreement? go read? acknowledge it?).
- Part 4. Lay out the case behind the main point, and for fuck’s sake let’s all try to keep it to 200-1000 words. There needs to be some verbiage, but online arguments start to get tedious (IMO) at about 750 words.
- Part 5. Directly address the main point given by the other person. The key here is to try and do what the other person asked you to, or at least decline and say why.
- Part 6 (optional). Have a separate section for insults and creative uses of profanity. Mama jokes are cool, threats to personal safety are not. Let’s say tops of 250 words?
- Part 7 (optional). Call foul on insults/profanity used by the other person. If you were really agitated by something the other person wrote, tell her/him now. And remember, if someone calls foul on you, you have to stop. That’s it.
- Part 8 (optional). Apply appropriate irony in a closing line. You know how our religious friends always close their fire-and-brimstone emails with “Good Day,” “Yours in Christ,” “I’m praying for you,” and so forth? We should do this, too. It amuses me.
Other bits; by context and preference these will either be must-haves or nice-to-haves:
- Offer relevant citations.
- Give proper context for quotations and be restrained in interpreting them. Connotations and implications are funny things. We humanities folk make a living off of seeing things that aren’t there, but the practice isn’t very good for solving real problems.
- Avoid all caps, even ironically.
- This has nothing to do with anything but it’s on my mind: P.Z. Myers, not Meyers or some other spelling.
Feedback welcome.
All praise to Cheez-Its,
LT
