8.27.2015

Ignoring #GamerGate Was a Mistake

Anita Sarkeesian 2013I really missed the boat on #GamerGate. I made the choice not to comment on it because I did not feel like I knew enough to say anything remotely useful. Not being a gamer or someone familiar with gaming media, I figured I was the last person who should speak on the subject. Moreover, I was exhausted by what seemed like similar efforts by social justice warriors to disrupt atheist/skeptic/secular communities. I had outrage fatigue, and I wasn't eager to investigate these tactics in another context. I don't regret refraining to comment on something about which I was uninformed, but I do regret not making more of an effort to become informed. It led me to miss one aspect of #GamerGate that I have since found to be quite interesting.

I must acknowledge at the outset that I probably still don't know as much about #GamerGate as you do in spite of reading quite a bit about it and watching several videos, including both of the SPJ Airplay panels. What I have learned is that there are at least two important parts to it, only one of which I felt like I understood previously. First and foremost, at least in terms of where things started, #GamerGate is about ethics in journalism. Gaming journalism was the beginning, as gamers became frustrated over blatant conflicts of interest (e.g., a gaming journalist writing a positive review of a game developed by a close friend or partner without disclosing the relationship). Concern over journalistic ethics would soon spread beyond the gaming media to include many mainstream news outlets who reported on only one side of the second part of #GamerGate.

8.26.2015

Offending for the Sake of Offending

The building housing the Danish embassy in Dam...
The building housing the Danish embassy in Damascus, Syria burning after being stormed by demonstrators. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I support the free expression of ideas. This includes ideas with which I disagree, and it certainly includes ideas which many people consider to be offensive. In fact, I'd suggest that the free expression of ideas has little value if it does not include the freedom to express ideas which many people find offensive (e.g., the criticism of cherished religious beliefs). If we allow fear of causing offense to limit the expression of ideas, we are not sufficiently free and are doing a poor job of protecting our right to free expression.

At the same time, I acknowledge that there is a difference between expressing ideas which many people regard as offensive and deliberately trying to offend merely for the sake of offending. Admittedly, this is not always an easy difference to detect. For that reason, I'm inclined to err on the side of free expression even when confronted with cases where it appears that the only goal is to offend. That is, even if I'm not sure that the person expressing himself or herself is trying to do anything more than offend others, I support his or her right to do so.

8.25.2015

Trolling Jesus

Gay couple for wedding cake. Picture by Stefan...
Gay couple for wedding cake. Picture by Stefano Bolognini. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
You are all familiar with the concept of Internet trolls. There are many different types of trolls, each of which operates in somewhat different ways and may have somewhat different aims. Still, I think it might be safe to say that what most have in common is the desire to agitate, upset, and stir up trouble for their own amusement. The skillful ones know just how to push your buttons to achieve the sort of response they seek.

Not all trolling is malicious; in fact, some is both harmless and quite humorous. I suspect you've all seen atheists cleverly trolling creationists as a way of highlighting the absurdity of some of their beliefs. They aren't generally doing it to be mean but to reveal some of the more ridiculous aspects of what the creationist believes. Recently, you may have noticed some on the political left rooting for Donald Trump. For some, I suppose that could be considered a form of trolling even if others of us are more serious about supporting his candidacy (maybe).

8.24.2015

Elected Officials Promoting Religion

Rick Santorum praysIf you have been following the political news out of the U.S., you are undoubtedly aware that some are taking offense over the use of the term "anchor baby" by Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, and others on the political right. Not surprisingly, others are arguing that this is yet another example of political correctness run amok and that there is nothing inherently offensive about the term.

This post is not about whether I find the term offensive, whether they should have used it, or even about the intriguing subject of outage culture. Instead, I'd like to use this recent controversy and the outrage around it as an excuse for discussing a broader issue that I suspect may be of somewhat greater interest to secular activists who are passionate about the separation of church and state.

Suppose that an elected official in your local community (e.g., someone holding a city or county position to which he or she was elected) was to take to Twitter in the wake of the "anchor baby" controversy and tweet something like this:
Trump is right. We need to deport the anchor babies...all of them! They are a drain on society.
Imagine that your local news media covers this story so that the tweet is shared far and wide. Everybody sees it, and it is widely discussed. Not surprisingly, it generates controversy. Many of your friends and neighbors are outraged.

8.21.2015

How to Talk About Feminism on Social Media

DANGER: DO NOT ENTER COMPACTOR

 People mean many different things when they refer to feminism or describe themselves as feminists (or anti-feminists). For some, feminism signals one's belief in the equality of women and nothing more. For them, a feminist is simply someone who believes that women are equal to men. Using this definition, most of us are feminists even if we might not chose to identify ourselves as such. Others use much more expansive definitions of feminism, adding all sorts of things that reach well beyond equality (e.g., patriarchy theory, "rape culture," microaggressions, and so on). For them, feminism is a complex socio-political ideology with many components that occupies a prominent part of their worldview.

In order to move past yelling at each other and engage in any sort of meaningful discussion about feminism or closely related topics, we must begin by asking each other what we mean by feminism and what we are saying when we refer to ourselves as feminists or anti-feminists. If we do not, misunderstanding and conflict are inevitable. We will make the mistake of assuming everyone defines these terms as we do, and we even may end up attacking someone who shares our views without realizing that we are in agreement. This may sound far fetched, but I have seen many heated arguments during which it has become obvious that the parties arguing were actually in complete agreement the entire time and did not realize it.

8.19.2015

Are Christians More Moral Than Everyone Else?

holding a bible

In the U.S., Christianity is frequently equated with morality. Christians are assumed to be more moral than the rest of us simply because of their Christianity. This assumed link between morality and Christianity is quite explicit for some people (e.g., the evangelical fundamentalists who derive so much joy from threatening others with their imagined hell). For many others, it is more implicit. That is, it is not something about which they regularly think but more of a background factor. Along with many other implicit beliefs, it forms what we might label as Christian privilege. This presumed link between Christianity and morality is undoubtedly the source of much bigotry aimed at non-Christians and secular persons.

8.18.2015

What You Believe Is Sometimes Wrong

science
"But that's what I believe" is used far too often by religious believers as a way of shutting down conversations. And it is a very effective way to shut down conversations because many of us are so damn reluctant to offend others or hurt their feelings that we let the matter drop when we hear it. It is almost as if this phrase has become some sort of safe word whereby the other party signals that he or she has had enough and we let up.

Of course, this phrase is not something one hears only from religious believers or only during the course of religious discussions. It has become an unfortunately common tactic for many people in many contexts. And again, it works because we allow it to work.

Instead of changing the subject, letting the matter drop, or giving up, we could consider what we might do to make this tactic less effective. What if, for example, we were to respond with something like the following:
I understand that this is what you believe. The fact that you believe this does not stop this particular belief from being incorrect. And what you believe in this particular instance is wrong. In fact, there is ample evidence suggesting that this particular belief is incorrect.

8.16.2015

Churches and Other Public Nuisances

Church bells. Narikala, TbilisiI have seen quite a few stories over the years involving people filing noise complaints against one of their local Christian churches. Most of the complaints involve unreasonably loud church bells on Sunday mornings. I can easily empathize with the people who file these complaints.

The church I was forced to attend in my childhood used loud bells to summon the neighborhood every Sunday morning. My family lived just far enough away that I could clearly hear the bells from inside the house with the windows closed. They were just loud enough that I believe they would have woken me if I had ever been permitted to sleep at the time they were sounding. Had we lived a few streets closer to the church, I imagine they would have been a real nuisance. From what I remember, they sounded for at least 10-15 minutes. Promoting their services was clearly deemed more important than allowing neighborhood residents to have some peace and quiet.

The church described in this story (update: link no longer active) is within 30 miles from where I live now. Bells waking up the neighborhood aren't the problem with this particular church. They have a "praise band" that plays every week, sometimes late into the night. Can you imagine trying to sleep when your bedroom was only 50 feet from this church? Again, their worship and/or celebration is given more importance than the sleep of the hardworking residents nearby.

8.13.2015

Don't You Fear Death?

death

Here's a recent email I received from a Christian posing a question I'd like to answer:

Hello, My names J and I'm a Christian, I'm not here to preach to you lol, I just had a question, Don't you ever think about the day you die? Does it not scare you? I hear this saying that people usually say that "It's easy to be a atheist your whole life but hard to be one on your death bed." Please don't be feisty with me, cause most Atheists are mean. I just want to know your thoughts! Thanks for taking the time to read this message!!
I replaced the name provided with the letter J for the sake of privacy but did no other editing.

8.12.2015

Social Justice Warrior: A Brief Definition

social justice warrior
The term social justice warrior is not easy to define in a concise way. Since it describes people who behave in certain characteristic ways (e.g., eagerly participating in online shaming, outrage, dogpiling, vigilantism) and is often confused with terms like social justice advocate or social justice activist that bear little overlap, lengthy definitions with lots of examples tend to be necessary to communicate the intended meaning and clear up the inevitable confusion.

But what if we wanted to come up with the briefest definition possible, one that captured the essence of what it means to be a social justice warrior without getting bogged down in all the details and behavioral examples. Such a brief definition might have utility, especially when responding to questions about what the term means. But what might such a definition look like?

This is merely a starting point for the purpose of generating discussion, but I think a brief definition might look something like this:
A social justice warrior is someone who actively condemns and seeks to harm those who express socio-political views contrary to his or her own while claiming to promote social justice.

8.11.2015

Expanding on the Subject of Intelligent Christians

intelligence

Right about the when I'm not feeling particularly inspired to write, I received an email from a reader about a recent post. The timing could not have been better. And since the author of this email requested a response, I thought I'd provide it here. After all, it has been my experience that if one person has a question about a post, someone else probably does too.

Here was the email (unedited):
Intelligent,kind ,thoughtful christians out there ..Where???? If they were they would not be christians they would be non-believers Please expand on that bunch of garbage..especially the intelligent part. I.m sorry but I consider myself leaps and bounds smarter than any religoius nutcase. Why don;t you consider yourself the same or maybe deepdown you think you are going to fry...
Yes, as I said in the post, I have had the good fortune to know many intelligent, thoughtful, kind, and compassionate Christians. These descriptors certainly don't apply to all Christians, just as they don't apply to all atheists. But they do apply to some Christians. I cannot tell you where you might find such Christians, but I've known several over the years. And I have reason to believe I'm not alone in knowing such Christians.

8.06.2015

Atheism and the Rejection of Gods

English: Dead Gods symbol for Atheist pride
Dead Gods symbol for Atheist pride (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is possible for someone to believe in a particular god (i.e., to believe that a particular god exists) and stubbornly refuse to worship that particular god. It could even be accurate to say of such a person that he or she is actively rejecting this particular god. He or she believes that this god exists and makes a conscious decision not to worship it and to focus his or her attention elsewhere.

Such a person, whatever else he or she might be, would not be an atheist. An atheist is, by definition, someone who does not believe in any gods. It is nonsensical to speak of an atheist stubbornly refusing to worship any particular god. How does one refuse to worship something one regards as fictional? Isn't believing that something exists a necessary precondition for worshiping it? Nor does it make any sense to characterize atheists as having rejected any particular god. How does one reject something in which one does not believe? Again, it is not at all clear how one could meaningfully reject something which one did not first believe to be real.

8.05.2015

In Condemnation of Public Shaming

ME 333 PublicShaming2

The risk of writing an extremely snarky or sarcastic post is that those who are not regular readers cannot be expected to recognize it as such. When it comes to certain topics, the real thing is almost impossible to distinguish from parody, satire, snark, or sarcasm. And so, I feel the need to preface this post by noting that its title accurately reflects my stance in a way that the non-italicized portion below does not.

Imagine that you are perusing one of your social media accounts one day when something truly awful happens. Someone who somehow managed to find his or her way into your group of Facebook friends or onto your Twitter timeline says something with which you disagree. But it is worse than that. Much worse. Not only do you disagree with what this person just said, but you experience strong negative feelings in response to it.

The time to act is now, and you do so swiftly by un-friending, unfollowing, and/or blocking the "offender." Never mind that there are some excellent reasons not to do this; your feelings must be protected at all costs. I mean, what kind of person would allow oneself to be exposed to ideas with which one might disagree and find potentially upsetting? A freethinker? Well, yes...but you are experiencing unpleasant feelings, and that is somehow more important than everything else. You deserve better!

8.04.2015

The Appealing Sort of Christian

reading the bible

When one reads atheist blogs written by authors who live in the U.S., one can count on hearing quite a bit about a certain type of Christian. One hears mostly about the evangelical fundamentalist Christian who hates LGBT persons and atheists, clings to a particularly angry form of conservative politics, and seeks to dismantle separation of church and state by persuading our government to impose his or her religious dogma in such a way that it restricts our rights. It makes sense that one would hear so much about this sort of Christian. After all, most of us consider such Christians to be a threat to virtually all we hold dear.

In this post, I want to mention a very different sort of Christian. I was recently asked by a friend whether I was ever tempted to return to Christianity after all these years (nope) and what sort of Christianity I found most appealing. That's an easy question if I think about the sort of Christian I find most appealing rather than running the risk of getting bogged down in various denominations, dogma, faith, and the like, none of which is particularly appealing to me.

8.02.2015

Complaining About Clickbait and Outrage Media

Clickbait at the expense of credibility with your core audience is very bad marketing

We love to complain about websites that seem to be about little more than clickbait and the latest outrage. We worry that they fuel polarization and tribalism, contribute to incivility, diminish the chances of meaningful political compromise, promote unhealthy behavior, and reduce our culture to a baser form we don't like to acknowledge. None of this is a new annoyance; we've been complaining about this sort of thing for some time. Some have referred to an outrage industry, and others have suggested that Americans are addicted to outrage. Books have been written about this phenomenon (e.g., The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility). Thus, the problem is one that seems to be widely recognized.