Since Atheism+ has sought to unite the worst elements of FTB, Skepchick, and elsewhere under a common banner of emotional outrage, I have wondered what it would look like where those who opposed these people were to have a common set of principles. The A+ contingent and allies already believe that their critics have such a set of principles, but they are wrong about them; they simply refer to their critics in such collective terms as ‘The Bigots’.
What I’m going to attempt to do is write out a set of principles for conducting debate, ones which I think are (reasonably) common to those within the atheist and skeptic community that have rejected the Myers/Watson/McCreight dogma. I have chosen to describe this as ‘rationalism’ as I suspect that an objection to the anti-rationalist stance of those promoting such ideas (‘privilege’, elevating the anecdote of the Oppressed Woman to the status of actual evidence etc.) is the key cause of the current schism.
So, here it is. I present the first draft of these principles:
A Rationalist Charter (V1.0)
1. The Charter – The charter is a set of ideals to strive for in order to create more productive debates. It is a living document, subject to revision when it does not meet its goals, and is not to be treated as a set of commandments
2. Disengagement – No sanction is to be used against someone for not accepting the principles of this charter, except to disengage from discussion with them, and direct them to this charter as an explanation why.
3. Good Faith – Assume good faith until shown otherwise. Failure to follow the principles of this charter in a debate does not indicate a lack of good faith, so long as a participant at least tries.
4. Labels – Do not apply to anybody a label they would not apply to themselves.
5. Definitions – Debate can only proceed when all participants agree on the definitions of the terms in use. Do not attempt to force your definitions on the debate.
6. Dog piling – Do not dog pile. Do not enter a debate in progress unless you have something constructive to add. Do not engage with someone purely to attack them.
7. Misrepresentation – If summarizing a position someone else holds, try to show it in the best possible light. Avoid summarizing where possible, in favor of quoting or linking.
8. Personal Attack – Do not dismiss the argument of someone because of their in-born characteristics (race, gender, etc…), and do not attempt to find personal information about them.
9. Authority – Do not claim to be an absolute intellectual or moral authority. Do not assert expertise that you do not have, nor claim a level of experience you do not have.
10. Evidence – When asking for evidence, always first offer evidence of your own position. When disputing evidence, first ensure your evidence is of a higher standard.
This is a casual whim of an idea. I won’t flounce off like Jen McCreight if this doesn’t go down well. I’m unlikely to start a website or a forum to promote these principles. As implied by the version number, this is subject to revision and I welcome feedback. As implied by the indefinite article, I don’t consider this to be the only description of how to be rational.
I don’t even claim to adhere to all the above myself. I simply think its a good set of things to aim for, and also a set of things that seem to have been forgotten in much of the recent drama.
All I am thinking here is that the grievances many of us have can be expressed formally and clearly so they can be understood better, and that we can lay down some ground rules for how to conduct discussions so that the crap we are seeing right now in the atheist and skeptic communities won’t continue to occur.
I eagerly await feedback.
11 Comments
Good idea. Though I still think you will never ever be able to herd real cats, but this is not the totalitarian drivel that is a+theism.
Two ideas then:
ideas and thoughts should be assessed on their merits alone; the origin of those ideas or the perceived privileged position of whoever is expressing those ideas should not be regarded as weakness of the point that was made.
2.) Conventional ways of thinking and perception should not be confused with established facts. Constant repetition of a cliché, no matter how perseverent and persistent the repetition, does not elevate the repeated claim to the status of an proven fact.
Thanks, I’ll see if I can work those in; although I thought I had said enough to stop the misuse of the word ‘privilege’ in points 4 and 8.
I like the bit where after the author set out the guidelines then has a dig at someone from the other side lolol
Where does it say in the charter than I can’t criticize Jen McCreight for storming off the Internet in a huff when her new idea wasn’t well received?
In points 3, 6, and 7. You are misrepresent her explanation of why she left, in order to pile-on, in a show of bad faith.
Hey, you asked.
I didn’t pile on, because I am adding something specific to the debate rather than just sending out a criticism of her. I’ve no idea where you are getting the idea I am showing bad faith from, and if you think I am misrepresenting her exit from Internet activity, it is right here http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/09/goodbye-for-now/
I looked at hear post (once again) and it didn’t read at all like “storming off the Internet in a huff when her new idea wasn’t well received.” It looked like someone getting depressed from the collective effect of various personal attacks. As the umpteenth person to mischaracterize Jen and attack her character instead of her ideas, welcome to the bad-faith dog-pile. It took you all of two hours to undermine your own proposed principles. If you wanted those ideas to be taken seriously, you’re setting a terrible example here.
That is just your opinion. But, fine, if you are going to pick at this I will withdraw the ‘flounce’ comment and let people judge her for what she has said.
D4M10N, the problem here is defining what a flounce is. The perceived ‘tone’ of the announcement that one will no longer part of the debate/discussion and the perceived ‘personal attacks’ that Ms McCreight was seen to be subjected cannot be objectively assessed as such.
Thus, Jen McCreight’s demand that other people stick to their flounces should be applied to her as well. Alas, it took her six days to break her own rule and return from her flounce.
“Where does it say in the charter than I can’t criticize Jen McCreight for storming off the Internet in a huff when her new idea wasn’t well received?”
Dunno if you apply the label “fuckwit” to yourself but you may find it is a good representation of you given your comments.
I support the idea of A+, but not been on the forums to actively support it myself, but I see there are 1600+ members – which is something you could only dream about. By way of contrast the slymepit has 200+ members. So the ‘evidence’ for a general statement of not well received is a bit lacking in terms of raw numbers. Not well received by a small number of people, some of which then engaged in an unpleasant campaign to ridicule her for having an idea, would be a more accurate statement. I won’t even go over how wrong the ‘stormed off’ bit is… Maybe I will – analogy to someone you know might help ->
Seems since the CLS on this blog had an unpleasant experience over a few tweets from a couple of people intimating he called a woman a c*nt this place has become little more than a FtBs/Skepchick hater site. Incidentally the CLS was imo right to complain and should have got a better apology… Maybe you should ask him if the subsequent fall-out was a pleasant experience and why his “break from the internet” was not “Storming off”?
What a pile of bollocks. Oolon being Oolon again – a slimy turd. Here is the breakdown of A+ forums:
http://pastebin.com/Zy8G9x9J
Around 5% of the members are accounting for 90+% of the comments. Complete and utter nonsense and typical of tin-pot ideologues manipulating reality to create an illusion of authority and being somehow “representative” of the popular mood. Oolon, A+ is a farce – and the world outside your collective echo chamber has expressed as much loud and clear. Most of the memberships are trolls and the kinds of curious folks that slow down at car accidents. The ugly reality is that it is an online ghetto no one really wants anything to do with.
A+ has more in common with Stormfront as far as these kinds of movements go than with any actual sentiment within what passes as the godless community – like Stormfront, you are the ugly, stupid and boring kids no one else wants anything to do with. Like Stormfront, you have created your own gated community where you can spout bile blaming others for the fact that you are all losers with complete impunity, whilst backslapping and circle jerking and telling each other how smart and brilliant you all are.
It’s Jen’s Town, the People’s Temple. Come on in, we have free Kool-aid! What a farce, and you Oolon are typical of the kind of loser/liar it attracts.
One Trackback
[...] of the more noxious of the FfTB entities, and can frequently be found poisoning other blogs with his own special brand of baboon propaganda and disinformation. One should not assume the Oolon was the author – far [...]