Leave the Nutters Alone (But Only When They’re Home)
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Or at least, keep quiet about your opinions on their stupid customs. Is there really a point to visiting the blogs of those who disagree with you and telling them they’re wrong?
Via Friendly Atheist I found this post on an astrology blog. It’s an astrological analysis of an author who committed suicide. I must admit I haven’t heard of him before and hence I’m not particularly affected by his death. The astrology post conjures up no feelings in me beyond the usual vague disdain for nonsense.
There are a couple of critical comments on the blog though. One guy says:
Perhaps your head is up Uranus, If you think that the stars had anything to do with this sad situation. I prefer the condolences thanks, not some arcane w@nkery that makes you feel better about yourself.
He probably feels a bit more strongly about this author’s death than I do, which is fair enough really. But one of the astrology-fans replied with this:
I find it highly amusing that people who don’t ‘believe’ in astrology came by to read this post after a couple critics “dissed” it. Isn’t that like looking at pictures of a naked woman and then being offended that she is naked?
And that, I find to be an insightful comment.
See, I don’t think enroaching on other people’s territory and telling them they’re wrong is a good idea. Unless they’re directly harming people, I think it’s respectless to bring our protests not just to their doorstep but into their homes. When I’m in a church, I don’t start arguing with the priest about god’s existence - I’m on his territory (or hers, as the case may be). I think that when I’m invited somewhere, it sort of goes without saying that I should apply at least a little bit of “when in Rome”-thinking. And of course the reverse applies as well. Let’s say a religious person is invited to a debate with atheists. It would be respectless of that person to start trying to practise laying-of-hands on the disbelievers, or even trying to bless the audience.
This obviously doesn’t mean I immediately respect people’s opinions the moment I in some way find myself on their home turf. Nor do I expect them to respect mine. But going to an astrology blog, or a religious forum, or whatever, and starting to argue with them… it rings of “if I don’t like this one particular thing, no one else should be allowed to like it either”. It’s like wanting to forbid sex and violence on TV because you’re too lazy to change the channel. Not exactly like that, but a bit.
In short I really don’t see the point in going to astrology-nut territory and saying astrology is nutty. No one there’s going to agree, and a fair few are going to be offended, and you have accomplished nothing but making yourself look like a spoil-sport. When a person of faith comes over to an atheist blog and starts going on about being offended, a very common response is: “This is an atheist blog! No one forced you to read it. Go somewhere else if you don’t want to be offended.”
And the same really should go for us. I for one very rarely read religious, superstitious or pseudoscientific blogs. They’re not written for me and I know I’ll just end up annoyed or even offended. So why would I expose myself to it?
Now of course, when religious, superstitious or pseudoscientific nonsense is peddled to the general public through for instance mainstream media, we should be there, screaming at the top of our lungs arguing reasonably in a calm voice. But if we truly believe in every person’s right to believe whatever the hell they want to believe, why don’t we just - as a general rule - simply leave them to it, as long as they’re doing it in their own homes, churches or blogs?
I disagree (heh, kinda ironic).
If this astrology “blog” was, say, a meeting held in someone’s home where people discussed their beliefs in a private way, then yes, appearing in the home and openly criticising their statements would be a bit rude and pointless.
Similarly, if this was a printed newsletter / flier, then buying it and reading it, then writing in to complain, would be a bit odd (still a common practice though).
But this is an internet blog. The very purpose of them is to put your ideas and opinions out to the public and, in most cases, invite feedback for them. To then complain that some feedback is negative is even odder than someone going there to complain in the first place.
Comments on most blogs can be set to be moderated (i.e. they have to be checked and approved before they appear on the site), or at the very least, can be deleted after posting.
Plus, if nothing else, maybe this person *was* affected deeply by the author’s death. They would then take what they clearly believe to be utter nonsense (an astrological reading) about the death to be insulting, and definitely have the moral right to make that feeling known to the writer, especially on an open-comments blog.
Comment by Mee — Thursday, September 18, 2008 @ 02:02
Mee, Thanks for your comment! I was hoping someone would bring up the point about blogs being essentially public places.
I think there’s something to be said for both sides here though.
Let’s try a different metaphor, to begin with: A fair or convention of some kind. Could be about anything. If there’s a stall marketing something you strongly disagree with, do you walk up to the people standing there telling them they have their heads up their asses? Would you go up to them and talk to them at all? Usually, you’d just move on to something more interesting, rather than hanging around people you don’t like trying to sell you something you think is bunk. You’d simply not expose yourself to what you think is pure stupidity. On the internet on the other hand, a lot of people seem to take pleasure in dredging up stuff they think is idiotic and then complaining about it.
While I agree that blogs are more or less open arenas by definition, there is still the point to be made that people get a lot more argumentative and also rude when protected by the anonymity of internet interactions. Personally I take internet debates very seriously and always see my opponents as real people but this doesn’t seem to apply to everyone.
Still, this wasn’t supposed to be about rudeness but simply the point that when in real life, most people will simply walk away from topics and people that offend them - or switch channel or read a different newspaper article - on the internet, we suddenly turn confrontative. It’s one thing to enter into a dialogue, quite another to simply drop a one-time comment on someone’s blog telling them they’re an idiot. It doesn’t matter if you’re right or not: That’s not feedback, that’s just trolling.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Thursday, September 18, 2008 @ 02:17
I always find it helpful - if a little upsetting - to remember that many of the people on “your side” (in whatever debate) are dickheads too, in fact, a similar number of people are probably dickheads on either side. It doesn’t make me happier but it does make me more tolerant. Sometimes…
Comment by Glynn — Friday, September 19, 2008 @ 00:14
Glynn, Tolerant of what? I don’t do “tolerance”. I also don’t think there’s ever an excuse for being a dickhead and I really wish there was something that could be done about people acting like they do on the internet…
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Friday, September 19, 2008 @ 00:29
What happens if a guest blogger who happens to be Mormon writes on an atheist blog, and answers questions about her religions theology, and the atheists say, well, that’s dumb. Then the guest blogger says , “Nuh-uh! You don’t know me!” then takes the original post down?
Comment by Bjorn Watland — Tuesday, September 23, 2008 @ 16:27
Bjorn; Is this a trick question? Because you know what happens.
I’m not entirely certain what you’re getting at… I think the mormon in question was being incredibly naive about the kind of reception she could expect from a very skeptical crowd, and her reaction was childish. (Btw, just out of curiousity, is your name really Bjorn, not Björn?)
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, September 23, 2008 @ 16:43
No umlaut. And, I have an irrational fear of bees.
Comment by Bjorn Watland — Tuesday, September 23, 2008 @ 16:55
That’s cool. I have never encountered anyone whose name was actually Bjorn. Björn is to me a very Swedish name and removing the umlaut completely changes both the sound and meaning…
Bees can be dangerous, so there’s nothing particularly irrational about being afraid of them.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, September 23, 2008 @ 17:10
And I’m not even Swedish. My mother liked the name from a student exchange program she went to in high school to Sweden.
I think my fear is more about pain avoidance, and also about causing unnecessary suffering for bees.
Comment by Bjorn Watland — Tuesday, September 23, 2008 @ 17:29
Bjorn, that’s ok, we don’t mind exporting the occasional word like ombudsman and smörgåsbord so why not names!
I hear ya on the pain avoidance. I have only gotten stung thrice over my career as a beekeeper and that was really three times too many.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Wednesday, September 24, 2008 @ 14:38