Learned Hand
Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote | | You might have noticed that Learned Hand said "UD regulars". Can any of you who think that I'm out of line name the IDiot-creationist UD regulars who have discarded their IDiot-creationist beliefs and agenda due to 'considering' rational, civil, logical, and/or scientific points made by non-IDiot-creationists here at AtBC or anywhere else? |
I would be very surprised if any of the regular posters suddenly up and changed course; as I've said over there, in response to BA's sophomoric challenges, that almost never happens no matter how indisputable or vitriolic an argument might be. See, for example, BA's arguments, which he says are indisputable and I say are vitriolic.
But that's not the point I was trying to make. I really would like to elevate the conversation. Look, creationism isn't going to go away in our lifetime. And spitting on creationists won't change that, or accelerate defections from the faith. It only discredits the critics. The uglier we look, the easier it is for the UD regulars to say, "I don't have to think about or have conversations at TSZ or AtBC because they're cesspits."
Now, I think they'll say that regardless of how polite we are (given realistic limits on how polite people in a debate like this ever are). They don't shy away from conversations outside UD because of an actual concern over manners, else Joe would be (or would have remained) toast. It's just easier to have a conversation in a room full of boosters, and most people are uncomfortable giving speeches in someone else's clubhouse.
But I still think there's an important point there. The more vitriolic we are, the more writers and silent readers at UD can justify not listening, even if only to themselves. It's easy to disregard a good point made by someone you don't respect. It's harder if they're reasonable. That's one value to elevating the conversation. In a lot of public debates, the primary good an advocate can do is just show up and make a positive impression. Opinions change slowly and based as much on social pressures as reason. We should make an effort to be both reasonable and appealing. If we can only be one, I'd rather be reasonable, but we can try for both!
Obviously I don't think this excludes ribbing creationists or making fun of them. I subscribe to a standard I think I read on the Volokh Conspiracy (which has one of the best commentariats out there), which is that online conversations shouldn't differ materially from conversations around the dining-room table. What that means depends on who's table we're talking about, so it's a flexible and subjective standard, which is OK because I don't really see how an objective one would be possible or wise.
So to me, clever and gentle jokes are fine and dandy. Crass and abusive ones aren't. The distinction is also completely subjective, which is OK because I neither have nor would exercise a power to shut you up. (And I won't pretend that I don't overvalue my own humor, and devalue that of people I recall being crass or abusive in the past.) I just wish you'd restrain yourself.
This is all besides the point that I also think it's morally wrong to be a jerk for fun. Subject, as you can tell, to once again totally subjective standards for what it means to be a jerk. In this case, I think it's jerkish to carefully, explicitly name someone who pretty reasonably would prefer to remain anonymous. (That's not to say there isn't a time and a place for using his name, given that it's widely known, but not just to pick on him. I'm not 100% sure that I've never broken that rule, but there it is.) I also think it's jerkish to use words like "monstrous," "impotent," "delusional," and "deranged" against someone who's really just pompous and a bit thick. It would probably be different if you had used the image or the caption to make a really interesting point, but I don't think you did.
So, that's that. Behave as you like. I'll disapprove or not, and neither affects you very much.
|
