Here\u2019s a quote from reader Ibis3:<\/p>\n
This topic really drives me crazy. I don\u2019t know why advocates of a more gentle approach can\u2019t just do what they want to do, what works for them, and leave the advocates of a harsher approach to do things their way. I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever seen the firebrands trying to convince the diplomats to forego their gentle tactics. Perhaps you could do a post laying out the case for why you feel it necessary? I\u2019d like to understand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Here\u2019s a quote from\u00a0a recent post by James Croft<\/a>\u00a0in which he addresses this very question:<\/p>\n
This sort of talk annoys me because it serves, frankly, to dumb down the discussion of strategy which our movement really should be having. As the number of nonreligious people in America grows, we will need mre and better discussions of how we communicate our ideas to the public, and these discussions will have to be nuanced and sensitive. It is simply not the case that everyone who object to a certain communication strategy because they judge it to be counter-productive is a \u201cconcern troll\u201d trying to \u201crob the movement\u201d of an \u201ceffective weapon\u201d. They may be making a serious and thoughtful judgment regarding a particular campaign or persuasive technique.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In other words, there is nothing illegitimate about discussing strategy. Were we generals in a war, would we say \u201chey, just use whatever strategy you like best and I\u2019ll use whatever strategy I like best\u201d? No<\/em>. If you became convinced that the strategy another general was using was doing more harm than good, wouldn\u2019t you think it important to bring that up? There is nothing inherently wrong with having a conversation about which tactics, and in fact, I would argue that having conversations about tactics is actually extremely important.<\/p>\n
Yes, This Is Complicated!<\/strong><\/p>\n
\u201cTone arguments are used to silence the underprivileged.\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s not my<\/em> job to educate those with privilege.\u201d \u201cWe\u2019ll be accused of \u2018just being angry\u2019 no matter what<\/em> we do.\u201d Well, yes. Absolutely yes. Just recently a reader pointed me to one of the many posts and articles addressing all this, titled \u201cThe Privilege of Politeness<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n
One thing that is very true is that in any conversation in which the first party has a lot on the line and the second party is detached, the first party will expend more emotional energy in the conversation and have a harder time staying calm. If the more invested party responds by becoming visibly or audibly angry, the detached party often uses that to claim victory. I\u2019ve experienced this myself, and it is maddening<\/em>.<\/p>\n
Beyond this, it\u2019s also very true that being expected to be always educating those with privilege on this issue or that can become exhausting, especially when the privileged person isn\u2019t making a good faith effort to understand or listen. This sort of \u201cit\u2019s your job to prove to me that that\u2019s sexist or I don\u2019t have to believe it\u201d attitude is especially maddening when you consider that it\u2019s usually combined with the sort of emotional investment that makes the conversation difficult in the first place.<\/p>\n
But even with all this, there are a few things I just keep coming back to. First, while it\u2019s true that we don\u2019t have<\/em> to educate those who are privileged, it\u2019s also true that someone ought<\/em> to be out there educating people. In other words, the fact that it\u2019s not required doesn\u2019t mean we shouldn\u2019t be doing it anyway. (I actually really appreciate it when allies take up some of the burden of educating, because they can have these conversations without the emotional rawness underprivileged groups bring to these discussions.)<\/p>\n
Second, while some people will never change their minds, there are people out there who may make sexist comments or hold anti-LGBTQ rights positions but who are actually open to changing their minds. In other words, there are potential allies out there, and if we simply decide to stop having these conversations and opt to instead take our anger out on anyone who makes a sexist or racist or homophobic comment, we risk\u00a0alienating\u00a0these potential allies. At the same time, there are plenty of people out there who will never stop holding sexist or racist or homophobic views. The trouble is that it\u2019s not always easy to tell the two apart.<\/p>\n
Third and finally, I don\u2019t think calling for civility means demanding that people not be angry. For instance, the post I linked several paragraphs up<\/a> contains this bit:<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not saying it\u2019s okay to say \u2018You stupid shit how dare you write this!\u2019 There is a difference between being angry when addressing racism (or sarcastic or \u201crude\u201d) and insulting people.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
You see what I\u2019m saying? Being angry is not the same thing as simply resorting to insults and abusive language.<\/p>\n
Fourth and finally, I think we need to be clear about goals. In a given instance, is the goal to shame and alienate those who hold a certain set of beliefs, or is the goal to change their minds? It should be obvious that the answer to that question ought to affect the approach we take. This actually leads into my next point\u2026<\/p>\n
The Bystander Effect<\/strong><\/p>\n
When I posted about my concerns about some of the displays atheist groups were putting up beside nativity scenes outside of county courthouses, a lot of commenters pointed out that even extremely civil and intentionally noncontroversial atheist billboards stir up controversy and are sometimes vandalized. These same commenters were often the ones pointing out the affect harsh tactics can have in influencing bystanders: hurling\u00a0invectives\u00a0at a young earth creationist speaker might lead young earth creationists listening in to give their beliefs a reexamination, they informed me.<\/p>\n
So let\u2019s combine these two points. In order to do this, I\u2019m going to have to introduce a couple of characters. Tom is the leader of the local atheist group, which wants to put up a billboard. Tracey is a moderate Christian who hasn\u2019t spent much time thinking about atheism or what it might be like to be an atheist in a Christian country. Adam is a fundamentalist Christian who thinks atheists worship Satan and are threatening the moral fabric of America. If Tom puts up a billboard reading \u201cDon\u2019t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone\u201d and Adam burns it down, what message will that send to Tracey? In contrast, if Tom puts up a billboard reading \u201cAll Religions Are Fairy Tales\u201d an Adam burns it down, will the message Tracy receives from the incident be different? I would argue yes<\/em>.<\/p>\n
In other words, the fact that some people will react negatively to what you\u2019re saying no matter how you say it, whether you\u2019re discussing atheism or feminism or LGBTQ rights, is no reason to determine that you might as well abandon civility.<\/p>\n
But What Do You Mean by Civility?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
A few weeks ago, a reader left the following comment<\/a>:<\/p>\n
Actually, I think more discussions that are focused on \u201cWhere to draw the line?\u201d on the gentle-versues-harsh question, instead of the \u201cGentle or harsh?\u201d binary, would be really helpful. A lot of people are afraid that putting down shaming and mockery and similar tactics would mean accepting an overwhelming obligation to stay gentle in the face of being hurt, and a lot of people are similarly concerned that accepting harshness means a license for unlimited cruelty. Getting away from the binary could help correct these misperceptions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I think this is an excellent point. I also think that making the discussion about \u201cwhere to draw the line\u201d rather than about \u201cgentle or harsh\u201d has the benefit of dispensing with the idea that people who talk about tactics are suggesting that everyone has to do exactly what they\u2019re<\/em> doing.<\/p>\n
For the\u00a0simplest\u00a0explanation of what I mean by \u201ccivil discussion,\u201d I would point to my comments policy. I actually only have two rules:<\/p>\n
1. Attack arguments rather than people. In this vein, refrain from personal insults and avoid needless vulgarity.<\/p>\n
2. Engage other commenters in good faith and with the goal of understanding. In other words,\u00a0no trolling\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0no proselytizing<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That\u2019s it. I\u2019m really and honestly not trying to make this complicated. That really really really is all I\u2019m talking about.<\/p>\n
I have to say, as a blogger, one of the things that makes me happiest is seeing conversations in my comments threads in which a person will engage with other commenters to argue against a given point and end up stepping back and saying \u201coh, I\u2019d never thought about it like that.\u201d Or, \u201cthanks, I\u2019ve learned something.\u201d In contrast, one of the hardest things for me to see is when a reader engages with other commenters, and ends up bowing out and disengaging with mind unchanged or opinion hardened because the conversation devolved into insults. This doesn\u2019t happen often, but it\u2019s difficult to watch when it does (Here\u2019s<\/a> an example).<\/p>\n
One common argument I hear is that unscrupulous commenters will find ways to twist and abuse the rules no matter what, thus gaining an upper hand. I\u2019m really not entirely sure where this idea comes from. I would offer, as a counter to this point, the case of a commenter named JW. JW was a frequent commenter on my blog for the entirety of 2012. Whatever comment he made, he always seemed to find away to make it offensive, and he always claimed innocence and ignorance when called out on it, which was often. He usually played by the rules, but I finally had to lay down the law last month because he violated my comment policy by personally attacking readers rather than addressing their arguments<\/a> (in his case, he had made a habit of responding to criticism by calling his detractors were being angry and mean when, for one thing, they weren\u2019t, and for another thing, violated my comment policy as stated). And in fact, JW had a second violation as well: he admitted to posting comments designed specifically to rile people up, which is in violation of my comment policy\u2019s requirement that people argue in good faith<\/a>. I called JW out and told him he would have to change his ways and follow my comment policy if he wanted to stay, and he responded by leaving<\/a>. In other words, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s true that comment policies like mine protect the abusers or give an advantage to the privileged.<\/p>\n
![\"Disagreement-Graph1\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/166\/2013\/01\/Disagreement-Graph1.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n