Literary criticism
Just for completeness, or pedantry.
You are simply hosting the Gnu atheist admirathon. No wonder B&W has been disowned by more rational voices.
Which more rational voices? Wally Smith? Chris Mooney? Tom Johnson? Josh R? Steph the Pixie?
Do you really think it’s the Feast of Reason?
Of course not. Did I ever say I did? No.
There is nothing any longer on B&W worth reading that isn’t cut from the same cloth.
Really? Not Leo Igwe? Not Allen Esterson? Not Phil Molé? Not Franco Henwood?
Sorry; I just don’t buy it. Even if you hate the blog part of B&W, there is plenty that’s worth reading.
It’s a hornet’s nest to any disagreement.
Mirror. Look in it.
Your readers aren’t the least bit interested in civil discourse: when challenged they revert to the same tropes, and when that fails, invoke the myth that atheists have been persecuted historically. It is pure crap, it is untrue, and it really deserves to be outed.
I think the reality is that many of the people who read B&W aren’t very interested in lectures on civil discourse from you at present, because you have been throwing around insults as if you had to use up your stock before midnight. And if you think atheists are not stigmatized, you’re not even listening to yourself, let alone the rest of the commentariat.
And why so brave–did they talk to you to talk back to Hoffmann and show some spine? Just asking?
No. Just answering.
No, Ophelia: B^W is just a sounding board for like-minded hard atheist opinion.
See above.
There are no butterflies there anymore just gasbags like the seminally under-qualified Eric McDonald and clowns like PZ Myers, who could benefit from a reading comprehension course with an emphasis on analogies. As I recall, Myers was lambasted as such at last year’s CFI 30th, so why don’t we say we are dealing with an atheist fringe that threatens always squandering its capital on its worst instincts?
This is civil discourse is it?
Like I said, wave your credentials. Otherwise you don’t have his ears.
Whatever the fuck it means to be seminally under-qualified, I hope I can find more people who are.
Good on ya! The old ox – onion needed to be answered, and answered he has been! It is really beyond reason to suggest that the blog part of B&W is, as RJH says, merely sychophantic admiration — or whatever it was he said. There is a lot of good commentary that goes on here. Interesting that RJH should have “opened the floodgates” with a pretty slim comment, and then his next was even more inadequate. If he wanted to join the conversation, and thought he had something to contribute, then he should have done so, but if all he has to deal in is insult then he might just as well have kept his fingers still. Too bad. I thought RJH had some smarts. Now, I’m not at all sure.
His posts have become long on invective and short on evidence.
I thought he must have meant seminary-ly under-qualified – Hoffmann has something against the particular seminary that Eric attended. Hey … it doesn’t make much sense, but it makes more sense.
RJH definitely has some smarts. If he didn’t, all this would be unsurprising. As it is…I’m simply baffled.
After reading through Hoffman’s silliness and drollery, I’ll stick with reading Ophelia, Eric, Jerry, PZ…
Wow, I for one have always admired your ability to get people to say exactly what they think. Gone is any pretense of taking the high ground. Just an all out attack, civil discourse seems to mean not disagreeing with him, anything short of this means you are naive, unqualified and a sychophant. I don’t think this clown is worth it, but I’m just another random gasbag.
Give it up, Ophelia. You’re dealing with one who is evidently the most erudite and worldly-wise person on the planet — probably in all of human history — so you might as well just tuck your tail between your legs right now and admit defeat.
It’s unthinking invective like this that ruins people’s online reputations. Hoffmann will never again have the credibility he did a week ago, and it’s sad. “Clowns”? “Gasbags”? And he beefs about too many similar opinions here when he expunges dissent from his own website and changes his own posts in response to criticism without admitting it?
Hoffmann is doing what Mooney did: realizing that he’s losing fans, he starts flailing about even more. But it’s too late for him. He will be strutting and preening in front of fewer people from now on.
When I read many of the commentators here, I usually learn something new and often am offered a thought or a point I simply hadn’t considered. Unlike Hoffman, I don’t know it all because of my education but am doing my best to fill in some of the many gaps my education has made we aware I have.
Without question, all those contributors RJH mentions have been teachers to me even if we do share a similar base line of non belief. Specifically, Ophelia provides thought provoking commentary as well as access not only to many women’s issues as they relate to faith-based beliefs I otherwise might not come across but authors like Leo Igwe who provides unique insights into local issues. Eric has opened my eyes to end of life issues and reading his writing is one of my daily pleasures. Russell offers very pointed and excellent critiques and is one to whom I pay attention when he does write. PZ I find delightful and consistently so even when his position on some matter challenges my own. His horde is a force of nature – unpredictable in both benevolence and malice. To the rest of the people who comment often, I sincerely thank you for your efforts to write what you think and criticize what you must.
I am richer for B&W and the issues and comments it provides helps stimulate many discussions I have with many others.
Thanks, all.
Now get back to work!
At the risk of being part of the admirathon, I’ll second what tildeb has just said. It’s easy to say it’s “just a blog” and be dismissive, but there are still ways of handling the discourse and taking some pretty solid info from it. Jerry doesn’t instantly become scientifically illiterate because he’s “just” posting on a blog. Likewise all of you who post on your various blogs. The comments section is a different kettle of fish, but still, unless I am being completely paranoid, a well handled comments section can be as enlightening as the original post. See Beattie’s piece about Harris here recently. Or the “robust” comments at Jerry’s.
It really is better to err on minimal moderation, it seems to me, and also to be particularly careful to make sure those that disagree with you are, in particular, heard. RJH’s handling of his comments and criticism has been piss poor, Jeremy S’s handling of his blog has been poor. It is “just” a blog, but it is public, it can, done well, provide for excellent discussion, even with the great unwashed. I don’t want it to seem that I’m saying that “Google University” is all you need, but at the same time, treating a comments section as beneath you is closing yourself off to a vauable tool, surely?
Until I see them together in the same room, I’m going to assume that the person we know as “R. Joseph Hoffmann” is a sock puppet of the “fuck off!”/”my writing is just fine!”/”You are a big rat and a snake with poisenous venom!” lady.
Ceiling Cat is right. It is kind of like Mooney—the flailing, the lashing out, the weird stridency. The only difference may be that Mooney actually did have some fans to lose. Really, was anybody a fan of Hoffman’s?
I, erm, borrowed, an ebook version of Ibn Warraq’s ‘Why I’m not a muslim’ yesterday after Eric mentioned it. The forward is by an R. Joseph Hoffman. Is this the same dude?
Hoffman is just showing off his mastery of tone and technique, leading by example if you will. Accuse people of being cowardly, refuse to justify the relevance of the accusation, then run away and call my opponents closed-minded. I shared Brian’s (#15) sense of incredulity when I read in an essay by Ibn Warraq about how one Joseph Hoffman’s attempt at a critical examination of Islamic texts in a public setting was derailed by a local mullah. It strains credulity that there could be two Joseph Hoffmen–but here we are, and so it is.
Sorry to comment twice in a row but for clarity’s sake I meant to write: Accuse people of being cowardly, refuse to justify the relevance of the accusation, then run away and call my opponents closed-minded: this is how I have just learned to gently guide the misguided to the truth.
Miranda (@13) wins the internets for at least this whole week!
As for Hoffmann, I’ve rarely witnessed such a swift descent into petty parochialism and self-parody from someone I formerly thought was a reasonable participant in thoughtful public discourse even when I disagreed with him wholeheartedly. Anyone who hops on the “let’s bash those horrible, intolerant, militant, dogmatic, horrible, fundamentalist New Atheists” bandwagon — with the exact same evidence-free rhetoric and skewed priorities as the last thirty people to board that tiresome hayride — has no room to talk about civil discourse or familiar tropes. As several people have noted above, the behavior pattern is all-too-familiar. Et tu, RJ?
And if you think atheists are not stigmatized, you’re not even listening to yourself
Even in the face of the danger of appearing to be a mindless flatterer, just gotta say this is one of those beautiful, clear, concise, to the point sentences that always make me happy when I find them, and that I always wish I could come up with myself. Bravo!
Of the Gnu Atheists, I come to Notes and Comment for not only Ophelia’s clarity, but also her concise wit. I love the writing PZ, Jerry, Russell, Eric and commenters like Josh Slocum and Miranda Celeste Hale have to offer – and so many others, sorry to namer some names- but I must say none can come close to handling the style and form of Ophelia’s writing. In this recent post alone, Ophelia holds it up, and says it all.
I am proud to be part of this particular echo chamber of discivility on a blog whose owner doesn’t shut down comments.
What Jerry Coyne writes above strikes a chord. This is not some unknown stranger with a distaste for us, but someone whose writing was a familiar feature here and it’s disturbing because it leads to what I would almost call cognitive dissonance. It probably will not be at all obvious to RJH, but it’s clear most of us perceive this as following a pattern we’ve seen play out before and I, for one, was trying to hope that the first symptoms would not lead to a full-blown case. And, yes, I didn’t put it like that by accident, because the similarities in the progression of the anti-gnu sentiments and their intensification and the regrettable descent into what seems to be worse than the incivility being criticised – you could put it in a medical textbook and say: this is the course usually seen when the anti-gnu virus strikes.
Gak! – followed the first link – he wants to talk about echo chambers and fawning sycpophants? Ok, so I may be using my own words, but WTF? Why is it that when people do these things (offensive free speech, that is), some people have the reaction of “It’s better to show we are sensitive to their values and not offend them” rather than “Hey, you need to realize that not everyone shares your values, and some people actively oppose them, and if you want to live in a world filled with people who feel differently, you’re going to have to grow up and learn to accept that, and realize that if you get offended, you don’t have the right to kill innocent people!”
After (trying?) to get over an infection in my eyes, I hadn’t gone back and read the original thread where he was commenting here, so I have no idea how that went, but if it is anything like his comments, then I have no respect for him anymore.
I replied to one of Hoffman’s comments with the following:
[i](Hoffman replies to an interracial dating analogy by asking if the “Jones” of the analogy started the relationship with the intent to or knowledge that it would, piss off the klan).
So you couldn’t simply add or assume in his analogy that the black man chose to date the white woman either specifically to piss off the Klan or at least knowing that it would but choosing nonetheless to do so?
It’s a perfectly good analogy.
Another analogy that works for me is that of a “true friend”.
If it were just you and one individual (as opposed to a generalized group of muslims) we’d simply say you’re not a true friend because you’re not willing to tell them the harsh truth (“hey dude, it’s a book, you need to not murder people over it”).
I think the comparison is apt. You point out that others shouldn’t talk because you know the region/people better. But you’re engaging in a horrible kind of prejudice: that of lowering your standards and patting yourself on the back for “understanding” them instead of dealing with the issue frankly and demanding a higher standard from them – the same one you might demand of yourself.
I won’t claim it would be easy, nor that anyone should go and say those words to their face. But I also won’t be fooled by the notion that what you’re doing isn’t a veiled form of prejudice – the worst kind of prejudice according to some.[/i]
I’ll add a little more here at the risk of being more muddled though I’m trying to be clearer:
I really see this as a sort of prejudice. Defend the mob, claim to understand them better than others and settle for their standard, rather than explaining why it is wrong or why you believe your standard is right or why they shouldn’t murder over a book. Maybe though he’d consistently defend other similarly abhorrent behavior for similar reasons? If so it still strikes me as a smug kind of superiority – hey they’re not like me, let them have low standards and get murderous over something I would be rational enough to overcome.
I want to add another voice for free speech – Ed Brayton (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/04/wrong_reaction_to_quran_burnin.php). He’s written a few posts on it, and has links to others (Glenn Greenwald was one link in that post).
It’s funny how that works, isn’t it? A Christian burns the holy book of a competing religion, and somehow it turns into a criticism of gnu atheism.
Somehow? You forget that until the emergence of what is now called Gnu Atheism, a few short years ago, the world had never known any kind of religious strife; all was harmony, tolerance and mutual respect.
There are some outbursts to which the only proportionate response is, “Dude, are you high?”
This appears to have been one of them.
Deen
The funny thing is this:
The horrible, nasty, bigotted, intolerant, Gnu Atheists, are the ones who are arguing that the religious guy shouldn’t be arrested for his religious statement.
It kind of puts the whole accomodationism debate in stark relief if you ask me.
Mental breakdowns are unpleasant, but I have witnessed this before. A very intelligent atheist I once knew completely changed after his catholic wife threatened to leave him. He changed from vehement and intelligent debater to a believer that atheists were contaminated by demons.
Once their credibility is gone, it’s best to leave them in peace.
I find the accusation that the B&W comments are a sycophantic echo chamber utterly bizarre.
People take contrary positions here all the time. The Wally-related threads are a classic example of this.
What I find is that I *learn* here. Both from OB and from the comments. Including the dissenting ones.
I don’t read bloggers who I think write tosh. Not regulary anyway. Of course, on any blog, you’ll find the commenters mostly liking the bloggers style and choice of topics, if not always agreeing. Show me a blog, where the readership tend to disagree with the blogger’s views and I’ll show you a heavily moderated comment section.
There are plenty of people who disagree with Ophelia, they are not hard to find at all. It’s hardly her fault that they tend to express their dissent elsewhere.
I don’t know. I think it’s that there’s more than one emperor about. Some are in academic robes and, after awhile, the snickering gets to be a bit much. You must admit that, when the sycophants hereabouts wander to locations such as New Oxonian, the comments do tend to be on the sharp side. I wonder if I wouldn’t get pissed in RJH’s position.
@Russell, #5. Actually, given the character of the discussion, that would make perfect sense.
The citation, taken from New Ox. comments (thanks for sharing) sounds more like turnabout, or just good old fashioned polemic to me, but if you insist on calling it something soft like “pedantry,” it seems to be in the Gnu lexicon along with about a dozen other usages designed to evade messages and focus on messengers (“courtier’s reply,” troll, etc.) In fact, it would be really useful if your group produced such a lexicon instead of focusing on the metaphysics of unbelief. I especially love the new focus on “academic robes” and ivory towers when it comes to critics weighed against authority” if the authority is a Gnu.
Just another comment from a regular reader and very occasional commenter. I disagree with OB about many things, but that is something grown-ups can do without getting too upset. A little disagreement stimulates the thought processes. The terms “troll” and “concern troll” have been in common use for years – anyone unfamiliar with them might try the online urban dictionary for definitions. I’m not aware of any new jargon atheist terms, though the internet is large so maybe they have passed me by. It is always a good idea to wait a while rather than post when the red mist is in front of your eyes, otherwise one runs the risk of just digging a deeper hole.
Am I the only one having trouble parsing comment #34?
Obviously Ophelia can clarify, but I took “pedantry” to refer to the act of recording and responding to your comment, rather than the comment itself.
As to us concentrating on the meat of what is being said rather than the chef; that suggestion would sound a great deal more worthy from someone who hadn’t just claimed those who have the temerity to disagree are “seminally under-qualified”.
Deen
“You are bad, bad, stupid, bad, stupids.”
…and I now realise that I mistyped my email address in those last two posts.
So it would appear the stupid shoe fits quite snugly.
Bugger.
Times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.
We are at war with the Gnu atheists. We have always been at war with the Gnu atheists.
Damn, I’ve always tried to maintain a kind of balanced sycophancy. I’m sorry.
I’m not aware of anything particular to the gnu lexicon apart from the term ‘gnu’ itself and a couple of other expressions, namely PZ Myers’ term “the courtiers reply” (meaning a defence used by theologians against those who criticise the subject as being based on fiction) and Jerry Coyne’s term “faitheist” (meaning an atheist who advocates religion for the public despite personally thinking it to be factually untrue).
That’s not to say the lexicon is complete. I think as with any living language there will always be new opportunities for growth. Just this week I suggested a new addition “issuing a hoffwa” – meaning calling for someone to be imprisoned for the crime of exercising their first amendment rights to free speech in a way that offends religious people.
Re #42
…issuing a hoffwa!
That is very funny indeed and too good not to use.
Droll.
I focused on the message. The message is, precisely, the subject of this post. I focused on it sentence by sentence. I did not make any wild generalizations about the messenger, much less the putative group the messenger belongs to. Can you say the same?
Why do the replies I see sound like they should be coming from Hasselhoff, not hoffman – are we sure it’s the right Hoff?
Concern droll.
I agree with Polly-O!
Lexicon!
:- )
“Concern droll” is utterly brilliant. One Internetz for Stewart!
Huh. Who knew that I wasn’t interested in civil discourse? I also did not know that an old man threatening to punch me in the face and a woman giving me the sign of the devil on a public bus, both because I said I was an atheist, were not forms of persecution. I’m so glad that Hoffman is there to enlighten me about my own life.
No, you’re not alone.
I think Aj is on the money. Now I could be wrong, but now that post from RJH just looks like posting in a hurry and not taking the time to read what was written. I’m now thinking his avatar photo is actually a webcam shot of him as he’s typing these replies, tbh. But maybe that’s a touch mean.
Mr. Hoffman, I don’t think “Courtiers Reply” is ad hominem. It criticizes a kind of argument, the argument a courtier might make. The point isn’t that you or anyone so criticized is a courtier, and anyway if I wanted to insult someone (which I don’t want to do) I’d probably say something stronger than that.
There is quite a bit of agreement among the crowd of regulars here. Since the site appears to be lightly moderated the conclusion I draw is that people with contrary views refrain for their own reasons from contributing on a regular basis. There seems to be more free give and take at B & W than many other places where these issues are debated, so it’s too bad if gnu opponents don’t take the opportunity to defend their views here. It’s a good place to do it IMO. Of course one must argue well, or at least pound the table in a charming and entertaining fashion. Not everyone can do that.
That’s the thing; ordinarily, Joe can, and then some. He’s funny as hell. But…this clearly isn’t ordinarily.
Maybe when we move beyond Terry Jones there will be time for rapprochement. But there should never be a point at which atheists, gnu, old or in between, shouldn’t take critique on the chin and engage in constructive discussion about ways to make the philosophy stronger. To call any “fellow” unbeliever soft because they disagree with the “strongs” augurs a sensitivity that doesn’t bode well for the future. I am not advocating dialogue with religious crazies, Christian or Islamic. I won’t buy into the fool’s dilemma. So I’m going to follow Ophelia’s advice and go back to doing satire. It’s much safer and a lot more fun. :)
Show us where we’re doing that. What’s “soft” is to make this accusation without supporting it. And while you’re at it, perhaps you might explain your method for distinguishing between the two following situations:
1) People are disagreeing with you and agreeing with one another because they’re wrong and you’re right but they can’t see it.
2) People are disagreeing with you and agreeing with one another because you’re wrong and they’re right and you can’t see it.
There are more options of course, but let’s focus on the ones relevant here. I think it’s important for you to show you can tell groupthink apart from a reasonable, reality-based consensus that goes against whatever belief you’re invested in.
I think RJH puts his finger, perhaps not quite consciously, on a problematic element when he talks about making “the philosophy stronger.” I think few of us wish to be seen as mere negators of religion and PZ has written about how no atheist, no matter what she/he thinks, is actually only a dictionary atheist. But this question of whether atheism is a thing or the absence of a thing has implications. When it’s a thing (which is the direction calling it a philosophy hints at) it’s so often used against us (has anybody not seen debates where the theist side tried to make the issue one of “is atheism true?”?). Also, important as developing philosophies not reliant on belief in the absurd may be, we can’t escape the fact that we are in constant conflict forced on us by “religious crazies.” We can’t ignore it, because if they win we will return to an age where dissent from their ideas is punishable by death, as it still is in parts of the world. But surely it can be turned to our advantage that some of us are working on the positive side of what we can represent while others are more heavily engaged in fighting the forces that would put a stop to anything except blind and obedient worship.
We have a new ally, Bishop Gene Robinson.
http://www.stargazette.com/article/20110406/NEWS01/104060415/1113/Gay-bishop-Bible-silent-gays?odyssey=nav|head
Of course, there is the small matter of his religious beliefs.