Where do you stand on the "Don't be a dick initiative"

[YaarghMatey487]

I'm definitely against "being a dick on purpose." I can understand losing self composure over being yelled at because of impending "ETERNAL DAMNATION AND HEELLFFIIREE." I think that a swift kidney punch to the offending party would be the most rewarding thing for me in a situation like that. However, physical violence isn't cool so I just make a cup of tea and go on with my day.

[terranus]

I'm against being a dick to a religious person without provocation.

But sometimes you have to fight dickyness with dickyness.

[Melmoth]

I'd like to be totally non-dickish, if I could help it. And I can cope with most kinds of rudeness. I think the only two things that can break me are people who put words into my mouth, and passive-aggressives who deliberately muddle communication to avoid looking stupid. There's an overlap between the two, obviously.

Some people will pretend not to understand you, for example, if they can get away with it. It's an attempt to make you feel insecure about your communication skills, if not the ideas themselves.

Also, @Recusant, I'm glad you shared that. That man had some good things to say.

[Sophus]

By all means, be a dick. I think the whiners are a bunch of delicate little flowers anyways.

[Asmodean]

By all means, be a dick. I think the whiners are a bunch of delicate little flowers anyways.

Then again, some, like me, whine to make your ears wilt about small scrapes, but just soldier on through the big and possibly fatal ones. (Encompasses all kinds of scrapes, not only physical)

[Sophus]

Part 1 of the talk by Phil Plait:

[youtube:14hg6swy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQNZ3CVGxvQ[/youtube:14hg6swy]

P. Z. Myers in my opinion leans toward being a dick sometimes.  Usually when provoked.

[youtube:14hg6swy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ASBBIVFb8c[/youtube:14hg6swy]

The cud-chewing individual deserved Myers' scorn, in my opinion...

No one can call somebody an ignorant fool with more class than Professor Myers. 

[Twentythree]

Being a dick to someone, if anything, will increase their resolve to believe what they believe in. As a rule, at least. There's a time and place for everything.

The issue an Atheist faces when trying to reason with a religious individual is that the fact that we're questioning their faith AT ALL makes us a dick to them. "OMGOMG WHY ARE YOU PERSUHCOOTING ME?!!"

Anytime we suggest they might be wrong, that their holy texts might not be true, or present scientific facts that contradict what they believe in, we're labeled as the bad guys.

*you cannot discuss the matter without it leading to a claim of the existence of a Great Spaghetti Monster or the like all the while knowing there is no such thing NOR is there ANY historical evidence of a GSM.

Aww man, if you are going to clown you should get the reference right it's the FSM not the GSM, flying not great.

[Twentythree]

I'm new to forums specifically but what I've noticed is a whole lot of dickishness and not a ton of discussion. For the most part in the posts I read, questions are asked as a set up. Most often questions are not asked out of general curiosity. They are more often directed like a cross examining prosecutor, each phrase and nuance criticized in an attempt to destroy the witnesses credibility. From what I can tell most people know what they know because they learned it from someone else, none of us come up with the theory of natural selection, none of us imagined the DNA double helix and I'd e surprised if any of us have a PHD or occupy ourselves conducting research and publishing peer reviewed papers. So I think a certain level of cordial consideration has to be given of the fact that we should not be seeking out forums and discussions in an attempt to flex our knowledge muscle but to learn and be taught. We do not know anything about one another really. By conducting ourselves in this manner the only thing we will learn is what we have all read. I recently accepted an invite to join a Catholic forum. I have been the victim of insincere lines of questioning and tactics aimed at forcing me to double back or trade in ideas for restatements of ideas, muddled in semantics and definitions. I am not learning anything and I feel like I'm not teaching anything that can't be learned from Google. This should be a place to learn about people to give and take and if someone walks away with new found skepticism or the motivation to crack a book it should be looked at as the icing on the cake. We will not get there by berating and demanding more of others than we demand of ourselves. This is just the way I feel as a new guy to these forums, it seems like they absolutely pulse with vitriol and smug haughtiness on both sides of the isle. When a theist asks me, "how do you reconcile your atheism with moral conduct?" I have learned that they are not truly interested they are lying bait in hopes that I will give them an opportunity to berate me with talking points and logic tricks. And just like in a recent post I read here. Someone asked a math teacher, not a math professor or PHD how he reconciles logical thought with his faith. His response was not regarded as an honest response from an individual, but as an opportunity to pick apart his writing and deliver blow after blow to his reasoning. I find this counterproductive and it's quite enlightening to visit a forum of the away team and see how very similar we are.


Sorry about the terribly long post I had a lot on my mind.

[Davin]

I'm new to forums specifically but what I've noticed is a whole lot of dickishness and not a ton of discussion. For the most part in the posts I read, questions are asked as a set up. Most often questions are not asked out of general curiosity.

How do you know the motivation behind why any one other than yourself asks a question? I'm pretty sure that you don't know and are just baselessly asserting. But if you have some kind of way to know, I'd really like to understand how.

They are more often directed like a cross examining prosecutor, each phrase and nuance criticized in an attempt to destroy the witnesses credibility.

I think you may be interpreting this incorrectly. In my case, the reason why I question every nuance and phrase is because I want to understand what the person is saying not because I want to destroy another persons credibility. I try my best to be very upfront about my intentions by explaining my intentions if there is any other reason I would ask the question other than simply wanting to know the answer.

Like here, where you're confidently stating what the intentions are behind most peoples questions doesn't make sense to me, so I question it. I don't question you to destroy your credibility, I question you to understand how this seemingly impossible, never been done before, feet of remote mind reading is taking place. If you intended to have qualifiers like: "It seems to me like", "I get the impression" etc... then I'll accept that while disgreeing with you that most of the questions that are asked seem to me to have the intention of understanding the other person. However it appears that you're assuming peoples intentions and goals incorrectly. I also pick a part each thing that doesn't make sense to me because I'm a skeptic and question everything.

From what I can tell most people know what they know because they learned it from someone else, none of us come up with the theory of natural selection, none of us imagined the DNA double helix and I'd e surprised if any of us have a PHD or occupy ourselves conducting research and publishing peer reviewed papers. So I think a certain level of cordial consideration has to be given of the fact that we should not be seeking out forums and discussions in an attempt to flex our knowledge muscle but to learn and be taught.

I agree, I'm sure most people on forums aren't authorities, so consideration should be given to make sure the person knows what they're talking about and can provide evidence to support their claims. Of course I ask that of any authority as well so no real difference for me.

We do not know anything about one another really.

I really agree with this, even going so far as to say that we do not know what the motivations are behind eachothers questions.

And just like in a recent post I read here. Someone asked a math teacher, not a math professor or PHD how he reconciles logical thought with his faith. His response was not regarded as an honest response from an individual, but as an opportunity to pick apart his writing and deliver blow after blow to his reasoning.

How do you know that the person who asked the question did not take the answer as an honest response? It is possible to take the response as an honest response and rip it a part by pointing out how the reasoning doesn't make sense.

I find this counterproductive and it's quite enlightening to visit a forum of the away team and see how very similar we are.

Until I understand how you have gained this insight into other people's minds, I can't agree or disagree with you other than I'm certain that there are similarities between humans even ones who have chosen to separate themselves into teams.

Personally, I find it dickish to tell other people what their motivations are and then assert that asking questions is counter productive because of your assumptions about their intentions.

[Twentythree]

For the most part in the posts I read, questions are asked as a set up.

If this phase is not clearly represented as opinion then allow me to reword it to satisfy (what i interperate to be) your clearly unnecessary desire for detail. Do you not understand implied meaning?

"For the most part in the posts i read, (A majority of directed) questions are asked (in my opinion) as a set up."

It appears as though our positions differ because (in my opinion) your entire post crackles with the very haughty sense of superiority I discussed in my post. In the very way that you dissect an entire thought into snippets and soundbites (it appears as though) you are misrepresenting the intent of the entire idea.

Let me edit yet another part of my post so that it suits (what i assume to be) your desire for (what I deem as) unnecessary detail because (based on our limited interaction i believe) you are unable to imply meaning without (What i see to be) explicit verification.

"Someone asked a math teacher, not a math professor or PHD how he reconciles logical thought with his faith. (Based on my interpretation it appeared as though), his response was not regarded as an honest response from an individual, but as an opportunity to pick apart his writing and deliver blow after blow to his reasoning."

Holy cow, (in my opinion, and based on our previous interactions i feel as though) you are a pain in the ass. (if it so suits you) Reread the last exchange and see where this got us, (in my estimation) you are overly nitpicky and have a tendency to distort the intention of these posts.

Let me ask you sincerely, did you get the overarching thesis of my post and do you agree or disagree?

Seriously, do you ask each professor or author to stop and expound on the implied meaning of every phrase, every line of text. Do you scoff at the use of personification and anthropomorphism, and demand clarification?

[Davin]

For the most part in the posts I read, questions are asked as a set up.

If this phase is not clearly represented as opinion then allow me to reword it to satisfy (what i interperate to be) your clearly unnecessary desire for detail. Do you not understand implied meaning?

Implied meaning is not clear and is very much subjective to the person expressing themselves. It's best left to people that know eachother. I do as little assuming as possible with people I do not know, therefore I take was is said for what is said and ask questions and make responses to both make sure I understand the points being presented as well as giving my objections to the points as I understand them.

"For the most part in the posts i read, (A majority of directed) questions are asked (in my opinion) as a set up."

It appears as though our positions differ because (in my opinion) your entire post crackles with the very haughty sense of superiority I discussed in my post. In the very way that you dissect an entire thought into snippets and soundbites (it appears as though) you are misrepresenting the intent of the entire idea.

While I cannot stop you from assuming some kind of air of superiority from me, I don't understand where it's coming from. I cannot be faulted if another person chooses to attach emotions I am not feeling to what I type. I suggest not doing it, and further I heavily suggest that you refrain from baseless assertions.

I've never even speculated as to the intent of the entire idea so I don't see how I could have misrepresented it.

Let me edit yet another part of my post so that it suits (what i assume to be) your desire for (what I deem as) unnecessary detail because (based on our limited interaction i believe) you are unable to imply meaning without (What i see to be) explicit verification.

"Someone asked a math teacher, not a math professor or PHD how he reconciles logical thought with his faith. (Based on my interpretation it appeared as though), his response was not regarded as an honest response from an individual, but as an opportunity to pick apart his writing and deliver blow after blow to his reasoning."

Holy cow, (in my opinion, and based on our previous interactions i feel as though) you are a pain in the ass. (if it so suits you) Reread the last exchange and see where this got us, (in my estimation) you are overly nitpicky and have a tendency to distort the intention of these posts.

If you think that I am "a pain in the ass" then you are free to not respond to me, it will most likely not have any effect on me. I do not need to reread the last exchange, I don't forget very much. However I just did reread to make sure my memory was accurate and I find no problems with our discussion. If I distort the intentions of any post, then please point to and explain how I am doing so and I will correct it.

Let me ask you sincerely, did you get the overarching thesis of my post and do you agree or disagree?

As far as I saw it, you said most posts are made without an honest intention for discussion because you interpret them to be set up questions and dissections. I will cover both:

A lot of anwers to questions often cause even more questions in order to be sure of what the other person is saying. This is a part of discussion. So how would you differentiate between these kinds of well intentioned questions that happen to chain from what you call "set up" questions? And please do refrain from baseless speculations (like a persons intentions) and requirements that rely on subjective details (like a persons intentions).

You also called out those who dissect arguments as having the dishonerable motive of an ad hom attack. As a skeptic, I consider the dissection and reassembly of an argument the very definition of an honerable discussion. It's not meant to destroy, but to strengthen. It's meant to find problems in the argument so that the problem can be removed or corrected. Why do you choose to see this as a bad thing?

Seriously, do you ask each professor or author to stop and expound on the implied meaning of every phrase, every line of text. Do you scoff at the use of personification and anthropomorphism, and demand clarification?

Everything that I do not understand, yes. An authority should not be an authority just because they can say things, they should also be able to understand the things they are saying, I would be wasting my resources if I went away from an explanation without gaining as much understanding as possible. With professors, scientists, teachers... etc. I rarely have a problem because they have said knowledge and usually the experience to clearly communicate their understanding to a varied audience. For those scientists who lack that skill, I often prefer the published article anyway, where if it's not expressely clear, it's not a good scientific paper. As far as demanding clarification? No, I've never demanded it, but I do ask for it.

The reason I am responding to you about this in this thread, is because I think that the things you pointed out as people being dicks (in the context of the thread), are actually not people being dicks, you just choose to assert that the intentions of the people, who ask most questions and dissect most arguments, are ill intentions. I dissagree, I think that most people here are genuinely seeking understanding and are showing where an arguments logic does not follow.

[Twentythree]

Ok, I get what you're saying. I like the fact that you were able to respond to the overall meaning of my post instead of pulling snippets out of their context and trying to break them down.  I would implore you though to read trough this post and tell me how you would interpret some of the following questions:

So what you seem to be saying here is you believe in ancient goat herder beliefs; that your rational and critical thinking skills that you use throughout your livelihood (math), stop functioning when it comes to superstition?
Or to discriminate between history and myth, but when it comes to the literature of the Jews and proto-Christians, it's moral, aesthetic and oh so believable?
Good grief. What manner of gobbledegook is this? Is this omni-god of yours so wishy washy that he just can't 'poof' himself in front of everyone? At the same time?

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7650.0

Do these seem like questions born of curiosity in hopes of seeking a deeper understanding or do these questions seem posed tongue in cheek or with the intention to incite?

[Davin]

Ok, I get what you're saying. I like the fact that you were able to respond to the overall meaning of my post instead of pulling snippets out of their context and trying to break them down.

I take snippits out to make it clear which parts I'm addressing, it saves time for both writing and reading, it's a more efficient process that isn't always necessary. However I do make very sure that I do not pull them out of context, if I have then show me where I have pulled anything out of context.

Either demonstrate where I'm taking things out of context or stop accusing me of doing things that I'm not doing. With all your gripes about how people are being dicks, it is very hilarious that you're doing the very same thing that you're complaining about. This would be like a person complaining about the smell of cigarrette smoke coming from smokers, then lighting one up.

Do these seem like questions born of curiosity in hopes of seeking a deeper understanding or do these questions seem posed tongue in cheek or with the intention to incite?

The statements that I'm objecting to are, "For the most part in the posts I read, questions are asked as a set up. Most often questions are not asked out of general curiosity. They are more often directed like a cross examining prosecutor, each phrase and nuance criticized in an attempt to destroy the witnesses credibility."

However listing a few questions that seem to be in a negative light (when I've likely seen tens of thousands of questions asked on this forum over the last year and some odd months), implies that three to ten questions justifies your use of the terms "most" and "more often" when it is more likely "hardly any" and "not very often", shows a possible disingenious nature to the question.

If I answer "yes, those questions do not seem to be asked in good faith" then that implies that I agree with you because those few questions do seem to support what you're saying even though I still disagree that most of the questions asked are of this nature. If I say "No, they do seem to be genuine questions for understanding" then it would appear that I am biased towards treating theists poorly or I just have no idea what makes up a disingenious question. However this question even if answered does not have anything to do with my original objections and would only be a decent question if I had said that no one has ever asked a question with ill intentions. Hence why I call it a loaded question. It's like asking someone "when did you stop beating your wife?" when it hasn't even been demonstrated that the person even beat his wife to begin with.

I suggest rethinking your question to be geared more around an honest discussion instead of attempting a "gotcha" question. I also recommend a quid pro quo, I answer each of your questions while you keep avoiding my questions. I don't even know if you disagree or agree to many of my points because you avoid addressing them. So in the interest of consistency, you should answer my questions and address my points... or stop trying to complain about people being disingenuous. The term hypocrite does apply to one who admonishes a behavior that they themselves continue to perform regularly.

[Twentythree]

You have this air about you and the way you post that just makes me uncomfortable. You don't really reply in a manner that makes me feel like I can be honest and candid. I feel like I have to follow all these rules that you stipulate about how I engage in a conversation on the web. You demand all the facts and proofs about things that were clearly, clearly states as opinion. I mean I don't know how else to put it. I'm sure if we did a scientific breakdown of every single sentence that ended with a question mark on the entire site then we would find more neutral or positive questions than negative ones. But that is not the nature of this topic. And my adding to it was more of an appeal to regard each other with respect and gentility. But instead of taking that meaning from it you isolated parts of my writing and drove this conversation down this path, far away from the spirit of the topic posted. I wasn't trying to post a "gotcha" question, that was what I was upset about in the first place. I don't really see how agreeing with my examples forces you into a position to agree with the overall meaning of my post. And as far as context, I think in order to get the meaning of something you have to read the whole thing and react.

If I were to post:

"Bears are monsters. They ate my grandmother and now I am terrified of them. I know lots of people agree with me. That is why all bears should be executed."

Would you in turn respond with the following?


[Quote From Twenty Three on Yesterday at 12:13:46 pm]
Bears are monsters.

Actually bears are not monsters bears are caniforms closely related to dogs in the evolutionary tree of life. Furthermore monsters do not exist, so I therefore can conclude the preceding statement is false as it is based on a myth.

[Quote From Twenty Three on Yesterday at 12:13:46 pm]
I know lots of people agree with me.

How can you be certain that lots of people agree with you? Do you have facts or evidence that supports this. Please refrain from making broad generalizations about the nature of other people's consciousness until you can back it up with facts.

[Quote From Twenty Three on Yesterday at 12:13:46 pm]
That is why all bears should be executed.

Bears should not be executed as they are crucial to many of the worlds ecosystems. Unless you can provide evidence as to why bears should be executed please refrain from making these types of statements.

[Davin]

You have this air about you and the way you post that just makes me uncomfortable. You don't really reply in a manner that makes me feel like I can be honest and candid. I feel like I have to follow all these rules that you stipulate about how I engage in a conversation on the web. You demand all the facts and proofs about things that were clearly, clearly states as opinion. I mean I don't know how else to put it.

I'd really like to know more about this, how you don't feel like you can reply honestly because of how you feel about how I post. However since you don't know how else to put it, I will be left with not knowing how I could correct this.

I'm very sure that I've never asked for evidence when someone has clearly stated that it's their opinion, only if they do not stated that it's merely their opinion and especially if someone states something as if it were a fact. Without qualifiers like "I think" then statements like, "all people have a tail." appear to be statements of fact and not clearly an opinion at all.

I'm sure if we did a scientific breakdown of every single sentence that ended with a question mark on the entire site then we would find more neutral or positive questions than negative ones. But that is not the nature of this topic. And my adding to it was more of an appeal to regard each other with respect and gentility. But instead of taking that meaning from it you isolated parts of my writing and drove this conversation down this path, far away from the spirit of the topic posted.

Perhaps instead of providing what you thought was an appeal to something, you should have just said it to leave very little room for interpretation. I assume as little as possible, that includes refraining from assuming another person's non-explicit intentions.

I wasn't trying to post a "gotcha" question, that was what I was upset about in the first place. I don't really see how agreeing with my examples forces you into a position to agree with the overall meaning of my post.

I explained how in my post.

And as far as context, I think in order to get the meaning of something you have to read the whole thing and react.

I do read the whole things in their entirety, but in order to ensure the whole thing is at least valid, one must examine every piece that makes up the support for the whole thing. Examining parts of an argument is not in itself taking things out of context.

If I were to post: [...]

I'm not even close to being able to speculate what this last part was supposed to be or mean.