|
Post by happycheeze on Aug 30, 2010 23:44:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Aug 31, 2010 8:24:55 GMT -5
Sounds more like EDers or YouTube trolls than most atheists I've seen. I'm not denying there are dickwad atheists, of course there are! We're human like everyone else and have the same variability among those who call themselves atheists as do Christians, Muslims, etc. However, just like we're lectured about "those people may be Christian but they don't represent ALL of us", those atheists don't represent everyone else.
In debate situations, I try everything I can to make the other person think critically about their claim(s) before writing them off as a lost cause. And if that person is going to continue on zir merry way spouting the same bullshit as before, why not laugh? It's better than thinking about how much of the human population that moron may represent.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Aug 31, 2010 9:56:53 GMT -5
We have a handful of these idiots in the public admin queue at the moment, and unlike usual people aren't complaining as they are that fucking stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Aug 31, 2010 11:35:07 GMT -5
Having finished the speech, he's right.
I've chased off more trolls by pointing out the people they were arguing with where in the minority, than I have by harassing them(thought I do have a few of those I will admit). Being a dick just entrenches them, and if no one believes me I'll go over my conversations with DOS that occurred AFTER everyone here had labeled him a troll, idiot and what have you that got him to relax and more or less stop giving a shit about the site. Being assholes just reinforced his opinion that he was correct, I spent quite some time explaining to him exactly how he came off, and explaining why some of you believed what you did in less offensive terms, and guess what, he fucking got it. Guess what, he still thought most of you were dicks. But I managed to point out that just because other people are dicks does not mean he is correct.
You'll note less spamming from him now, in fact it pretty much stopped at that point. That'd also be why we have the no posting in Mabus threads rule for those who wondered.
Anyone who acts like a dick gives them the one argument they will argue against, while ignoring all of the others. Look at the how can you not be Christian thread, look at pretty much any conversation with AA. Be a skeptic, not a skepdick, and you may actually get somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Aug 31, 2010 15:44:39 GMT -5
@ Deadpandoubter: the "zir" pronoun is extraordinarily annoying.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Aug 31, 2010 15:48:33 GMT -5
I heartily endorse this pun or service, but seriously this sounds like something that involves a painful discharge.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Aug 31, 2010 17:01:33 GMT -5
The "dick or no dick" thing is not about internet trolling. At least, none of the people on the "be a dick" side that anyone cares about argue that you should go all 4chan on the believers' asses. It's about mockery and ridicule and not affording respect to that which does not deserve it. Creationism is not just another theory. Homeopathy is not an alternative to medicine. Abstinence-only is not on equal standing with real birth control. "God hates fags" is not a valid perspective on alternative sexuality. It's not wrong to carefully point out the flaws in them, but laughing at them and calling them ridiculous isn't wrong either. And, as someone who may or may not be Richard Dawkins said: Tl;dr: Being a dick is not necessarily about the guy you're talking to, which odds are you won't convince either way, but about the people listening, who still haven't made up their minds. @old Viking: Well, "they" as third person singular often gets criticised as grammatically incorrect and "He or she" is awkward and inefficient, especially in after repeated uses, plus being rather heteronormative. Zie/Zir works, at least in a context where people know the term, such as this forum.
|
|
|
Post by faythofdragons on Aug 31, 2010 18:23:00 GMT -5
Tl;dr: Being a dick is not necessarily about the guy you're talking to, which odds are you won't convince either way, but about the people listening, who still haven't made up their minds. @old Viking: Well, "they" as third person singular often gets criticised as grammatically incorrect and "He or she" is awkward and inefficient, especially in after repeated uses, plus being rather heteronormative. Zie/Zir works, at least in a context where people know the term, such as this forum. But being a dick usually isn't the best way to convince bystanders that your position is better. If anything, dicks usually get me to side against them. Also, I find the zie/zir thing irritating too.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Sept 1, 2010 3:41:39 GMT -5
But being a dick usually isn't the best way to convince bystanders that your position is better. If anything, dicks usually get me to side against them. I'd say it depends on how far you go with the mocking before one crosses into 'being a dick' territory. If you go in calling names and whatnot, and generally act like an ass, then yeah, you've pretty much lost in terms of getting a point across even to bystanders. However, mockery can be employed in other means, particularly when it comes to highlighting absurdities, taking particular arguments TO absurdities, and so forth. You can be very scathing and yet never stoop to name-calling and derision. Does highlighting absurdities and mocking ideas for what they are go into 'being a dick' territory too? Also, I find the zie/zir thing irritating too. Why? Unfortunately, the English language sucks when it comes to agendered pronouns. 'It' isn't exactly a nice pronoun to use for people, and as pointed out, use of 'they' is frowned upon grammatically, and 'he/she' can get awkward. I don't see a problem with zie/zir as a consequence of that.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 1, 2010 11:11:34 GMT -5
Because it just is?
It makes far more sense just to get "it" into common usage. The stigma surrounding it is entirely irrational. It IS a gender neutral pronoun, & the only reason it's thought of in relation to objects is because that's what the English language has been considering gender neutral for the longest time.
Also, "zie" & "zir" sound way more awkward to me than "he/she."
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Sept 1, 2010 12:00:05 GMT -5
Because it just is? It makes far more sense just to get "it" into common usage. The stigma surrounding it is entirely irrational. It IS a gender neutral pronoun, & the only reason it's thought of in relation to objects is because that's what the English language has been considering gender neutral for the longest time. Also, "zie" & "zir" sound way more awkward to me than "he/she." I don't think people in general take it well when being referred to on the same level as inanimate objects. Besides, "it" is in common usage, but in referring to inanimate objects. And yes, whilst you are correct to point out that inanimate objects is what the English language has considered to be gender neutral, however, you are going to be hard-pressed to change the usage of 'it' towards referring to people when it has particularly rude and negative connotations in that context (regardless of how irrational it is). It makes more sense to apply a new set of pronouns to achieve that purpose. And of course it is going to seem more awkward because English-speaking people just aren't used to applying gender-neutral pronouns towards other people. If it is more of a sound/pronunciation thing, then I'm open to suggestions on other potential gender neutral pronouns to use.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 1, 2010 12:01:23 GMT -5
I for one would be absolutely offended if I were referred to as "it," even though I know the intentions behind it. "It" is pretty much entirely associated with "things", and I doubt that will change anytime soon.
Just look at that one movie... "It puts the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again." That scene has that impact BECAUSE the word "it" refers to an object, a thing.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 1, 2010 12:08:23 GMT -5
Thing is, it's not really my problem.
Look at it this way: Changing the meaning of an existing word vs. introducing a completely new word to the English vocabulary. I'm saying that the former is easier because you at least have something to work with.
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Sept 1, 2010 12:24:37 GMT -5
The problem is, you have to work against the fact that most people would really rather not be referred to as "it", the association with inanimate objects, and animals who are not considered important enough to have genders.
Most people seem to prefer the singular "they" as a solution, but that's technically ungrammatical.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 1, 2010 12:31:31 GMT -5
I agree with Plait that we skeptics need to work on (or at least be aware of) presenting our side in a friendly, non-threatening way. But I also think there's a time and a place for a good firm verbal bitch-slap. There's a difference between pointed ridicule and dickish name-calling, though.
I don't think it's ever helpful to sling childish insults, but both friendly, rational discussion and occasional verbal beat-downs are not only appropriate, but necessary.
Sort of a Good-Skeptic, Bad-Skeptic routine, you might say.
|
|