Comments on: Be a smart dick

By: Becky

Becky — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:13:18 +0000

Hmmm…I’m not sure whether PZ Myers considers me as a “dick” or a “cunt”;)

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:19:50 +0000

Pinky, I think the closest I can get right now to a definition of “dick” in this context is someone who engages on a personal level in the place of engaging on ideas with someone they disagree with. I don’t think the amusement is necessary, but it certainly provides a plausible motivation.

By: Pinky

Pinky — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:01:54 +0000

After reading the comments above carefully and thinking about dickishness for a while, I am sticking with my thought that Richard Dawkins is not rude. I agree he may seem that way to many theists, but I’m not basing my opinions on their feelings.

Keeping in mind: “Language is a tough way to communicate”, we are ships passing in the night if we do not share the same definition of dick.

The clearest way I can define what dick means to me, when referring to communications with a group that has a radically different world view, is: “A person who obtains amusement for themselves or a peer group by ridiculing those whose world views are different from their’s.”

Dickishness is determined by intent.

Thoughts? Is anyone still reading this post? I know in blog time, there are 30 new things to consider and comment on – just on this blog alone.

By: J. J. Ramsey

J. J. Ramsey — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:18:32 +0000

Anne H: “some tone trolls will never be satisfied”

True, but one shouldn’t use that as an excuse to be a dick, or at least not a “stupid dick,” to use our blog host’s turn of phrase.

(I submit that if stupid dickery were to have been purged from the anti-theist and skeptical movements, probably the only ones to continue to complain about dickery would be “tone trolls,” and Dr. Plait wouldn’t have made the speech that he did.)

By: Anne H

Anne H — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:41:44 +0000

Tulse @45 – you’re absolutely right; that’s a distinction I missed. Itzac @ 49 brought up what I was trying to say when I said Tyson speaks to inspire – Tyson uses appeals to emotion very effectively.

I think skeptics need to remember that some tone trolls will never be satisfied, and will take offense no matter what we say because we dare to criticize religion. They’d still complain, even if we set our ‘offensive’ message to really bouncy upbeat music, like this-
(/tonguefirmlyincheek, and NSFW because of f bombs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAV0XrbEwNc

By: itzac

itzac — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:46:08 +0000

To add to Stephanie’s comment, can we also quit whining about the emotional appeals. This is an emotional issue. Because people have emotions. If you want this all to be perfectly rational, then why even try to defend being a dick?

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:01:53 +0000

David @ 41, no. It was not “clear” that Phil was talking about atheists only. In fact, in some of the discussion surrounding this, he’s talked specifically about the Bigfoot section of, I believe, the JREF forum. He also, within the speech itself, talked about his own dickishness. Considering that he really doesn’t talk about atheism much, that should perhaps be an indicator that things aren’t as “clear” as you may want them to be.

And enough with the fucking “strawman” spam. When you have a number of skeptics who reacted to his speech with “I saw myself in that, and I think I can do better,” it’s completely unsupportable.

By: articulett

articulett — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 07:29:17 +0000

Dickishness is in the eye of the beholder. I think Chris Mooney is an uber dick, but I’m sure he’d beg to differ.

By: David

David — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:56:37 +0000

Anne H, I liked your links. I agree Tyson is great, Here is a link to another one of his talks. I think it pertains to this discussion, just replace scientists with skeptics when he says them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEP50dxfRAw&feature=related

By: Tulse

Tulse — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 03:59:55 +0000

Neil Degrasse Tyson is extremely civil, but he doesn’t need to be a dick because he has the gift of speaking to inspire.

Perhaps, but he is also in an area that is far less directly challenged by religious faith than Dawkins is. Evolution is far more of a problem for most forms of theism than astrophysics, and most astronomers don’t get told that the Nazis happened because of Copernicus.