From Orac today I learnt of the latest attempt by the religious to claim the entitlement they clearly believe is their birthright, namely to prevent anyone from criticizing their delusions. Apparently the United Nations has just backed an anti-blasphemy measure proposed by Islamic countries. Although this is currently only advisory to other UN members, the religious nuts clearly won’t stop there unless they absolutely have to. This is an issue of free speech – no one has a right to never be offended. Orac has a good expose of the dangers with this, and there’s no need for me to repeat the arguments here. Check out Orac’s post Anti-blasphemy = anti-free speech for the details.
I wanted to comment on one point though – fallacious logic from the Dutch government. Apparently the Dutch may scrap the current legal ban they have on blasphemy, effectively expanding hate speech to include it. The bit that caught my eye was the flawed justification for it:
The statement said there was no difference between insults aimed against people based on their race, religion, sexual orientation or handicap.
No no no no wrong wrong wrong. (Sigh.) We’ve been through this before. The argument is a false analogy. It’s quiet simple really. Race, handicap, sexual orientation are things that people ARE. Religious beliefs are IDEAS. They are not analogs. They are different things altogether. You should not criticize people because of their race, sexual orientation etc because these things can not be right or wrong, they just are. And we are all human beings, we should not be criticized for being black, being gay, whatever. But an idea (such as believing in the tenets of a religion) can be right or wrong. (Usually wrong, actually, in the case of religion, although that is besides the point with respect to the logic.) It’s really discouraging that the government of such a modern democracy apparently relies on such piss poor logic.
And look at the argument – it is nothing more than an argument by analogy – almost always fallacious. Here is their argument. It goes something like this:
- We all know that ________ (insert preferred thing - racism, homophobia – something no one can disagree with) is bad.
- Criticizing religion is just like _________ (same thing as in 1. above)
- Therefore criticizing religion is bad.
You’ll notice, no actual evidence facts or logic are offered to show that criticizing religion is, actually, bad. And as I wrote before, when someone argues by analogy, you can be pretty sure it’s because they don’t have any facts, evidence or logic to support their position. Because if they had any facts, evidence or logic they would presumably present it. Now maybe someone can come up with a reason we shouldn’t criticize religion. I can’t think of a valid reason off hand, but perhaps there is one somewhere. But one thing is for sure, saying it’s just like racism isn’t it.
All ideas should be open to criticism. But no ideas should be subject to criticism more than religious ideas – they’re the ideas, out of all the ideas out there, not backed by evidence and in many cases clearly contradicted by the evidence. Which is of course why they want to ban criticism – because they know their delusions won’t stand up to investigation.
It's been part of what's won us all these victories, but I don't think "sexuality is something you are" is really good philosophy or good politics. It's not that I can't help it. I could help it perfectly well, I just don't see why I should.
Posted by: Paul Crowley | December 02, 2008 at 01:04 AM
So what does this mean for the likes of skeptical blogs? The UN's backing this anti-blasphemy measure, but what does it mean in real terms?
Excuse me for being slow, but how far is "UN backing" from it actually becoming law?
I find the whole thing quite scary, actually. How they can't see the idiocy of this is beyond me. Is shopping on a Sunday blasphemous? With so many ridiculous religions in the world, how will it be possible to do or say anything without offending someone's beliefs?
FSM help us!
Posted by: Fleegman | December 02, 2008 at 03:17 AM
This sort of stuff makes me really despair. We seem to be going backwards as a human race and abandoning ourselves to dictat by the religious. What the hell are the politicians doing pandering to this nonsense!
On one thing I am clear, nothing will stop me being critical of religion and pointing out stupid religious beliefs. We must not give in to this kind of thing!
Posted by: Bunc | December 02, 2008 at 04:08 AM
In real terms, it means less that the Nuremberg prohibition on aggressive warfare, or the long-standing commitment to nuclear disarmament in the Nulcear Non-Proliferation Treaty - i.e. sod all. The distance between "UN backing" and "actual law" would make an excellent unit for when parsecs are too small to be useful.
To return to the post: I have to say that I disagree with your reasoning here Skeptico. While the contents of religious beliefs are "IDEAS", the membership of a religious community is just as much something "that people ARE" as race or nationality. It is a key component of how many people define their identity, and often no more susceptible to choice than race, nationality, or sexual orientation. (I should perhaps note here that I regard "race" in the conventional sense as an entirely social construct.)
To my mind, the important difference is not between "ideas" and "characteristics", but between defamation and oppression. You can make all the derogatory comments about [insert minority of choice] you want. When it becomes a problem is when you start actually oppressing [insert minority of choice] in some form.
What this resolution calls for is, in fact, a greater level of protection than that typically afforded to [insert minority of choice].
Now, the Dutch case is a bit different, because they already have laws against offending people. Once you have that, it's not clear to me that the precise basis for the offence matters. If I abuse someone for being Catholic, is that really (morally) any different from abusing them for being Irish?
Defaming adherents of a religion is a completely separate matter from criticising the content of that religion. Saying "Catholicism is a vile doctrine" is quite different from saying "Catholics are vile".
Posted by: Dunc | December 02, 2008 at 05:48 AM
Dunc, the thing is anti-blasphemy. That's criticizing the religion, not the adherents.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | December 02, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Well, I haven't read the detail of the UN resolution, but I was mainly referring to the proposed changes to the Dutch hate speech laws, as quoted by Skeptico, which seem to be the principle topic of this post:
[My emphasis]I should also note that I may have been over-hasty in saying that the Dutch law is about "offending people". I am not a lawyer, especially not a Dutch one, and I should know better than to make an off-the-cuff interpretation of a law based on someone else's one sentence summary. I don't know exactly what the law in question says, or how tightly it is drafted. I'm pretty sure that here in the UK, "incitement of racial or religious hatred" has to rise to the level of credible threats of immediate violence against specific individuals before it becomes legally actionable. But, as I say, I am not a lawyer...
Depending on exactly how the Dutch laws are drafted I don't necessarily have any problem with them, and think it is likely to be a vast improvement on their existing laws against blasphemy, which, as you so rightly say, is a different matter.
I apologise for the lack of clarity in my previous comment, but I should point out that it wasn't me who originally conflated these two seperate issues, and I was trying to disentangle them. Unsuccessfully, apparently...
Posted by: Dunc | December 03, 2008 at 01:53 AM
Dunc wrote:
Hum, you may have a point there. I was considering this as an anti-blasphemy law, due to this piece in the article I cited:
…which would be protecting criticism of religion (the idea, not religious people per se). But upon re-reading it, the actual piece I quoted in my post did just refer to “insults aimed against people based on their race..” etc, as you pointed out. So perhaps it will just give the same penalty to insulting the religious as insulting any other group. In which case you would be right – it would be no different. I think it’s a little unclear, to be honest. Good point, anyway. Regardless, I’m sure the religious would like the full anti-blasphemy law.
Of course, as I think you imply, “giving offence” shouldn’t be against the law anyway, but that is a different discussion.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 03, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Yeah, one of the problems with this whole area is that lots of people, both pro and con, like to conflate lots of different issues to further their own ideological axe-grinding. You've got to be careful that the things you're commenting on actually say what you (or your source) think they say.
Given that I can't for the life of me find the actual text of the UN resolution adopted, and no-one writing about it seems to have seen fit to either link to it or quote from it, I have to remain sceptical that it's really as bad as people are implying. Everyone seems to assume that it would apply to the sort of criticisms of religion we deal in on a daily basis, but I've not seen any evidence presented to support that. All I can find is a round-up of the relevant session, which states:
Given the well-attested upswing in racist violence and eliminationist rhetoric against Arabs and Muslims (not to mention the justification of actual warfare, which was supposed to be the thing the UN was set up to prevent), I'm not sure that that's so unreasonable.
If anybody can find the full text of the resolution in question (E/CN.4/2004/L.5), I'd much appreciate it. As for the Dutch law, I don't speak Dutch, so I guess I'm boned on that one...
One thing that does worry me in these types of discussions is that the more libertarian / free-speech-absolutist side often fails to recognise the distinction between reasonable criticism (or slightly off-colour jokes) and the sort of eliminationist propaganda that led to the Rwandan genocide... Whilst I'm generally in favour of freedom of speech, I do think a line has to be drawn somewhere short of deliberately inciting mass violence.
Posted by: Dunc | December 04, 2008 at 05:25 AM
Definitely. The line not to be crossed is when you incite violence. Free speech should not extend to that.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 04, 2008 at 07:13 AM
My interpretation: Another person's right to free speech ends when it starts messing with your right not to be beaten to a bloody pulp or murdered.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | December 04, 2008 at 02:02 PM
"Regardless, I’m sure the religious would like the full anti-blasphemy law."
Well you can think that all you like, but that doesn't make it true.
1) We're not a coherent group. 'We' don't believe anything. Some religious people would like the full anti-blasphemy law. Some atheists would like to see religion prohibited.
2) That bears repeating. I think anyone who says 'the religious' or 'the blacks' 'the athiests' 'the jews' should have their opinion automatically struck for gross generalisation. Unless the generalisation is a characteristic of the group in question, only some of the people being generalised about will fit that generalisation, and we want facts and figures. 'Surveys show that 86.2% of religious people want their religion to stomp all other beliefs or unbeliefs' That's fine. That's a statement with veracity (apart from it's hypothetical nature)
And for your delectation, here's a few phrases that contain truth, in that some maybe even a majority of them do believe what I say, but the phrasing is obviously rubbish:
I’m sure the Mexicans would like to illegally enter America and benefit from her resources.
I’m sure the Blacks would like to see Prop 8 fail.
I’m sure the Jews would like to see Palestine wiped out and the land reclaimed by Israel.
I’m sure the Atheists would like to see religious people mocked and scorned for their stupid beliefs.
I hope I've communicated what I'm saying clearly.
p.s. In case it isn't clear I'm one of the religious people who wouldn't like anti-blasphemy laws, though I'm for the prohibition hate speech and incitement to violence against any group, be it Muslim, Gay, Transgender or Christian. (And that doesn't include things like 'Religion is wrong' or 'God said being gay is wrong')
Posted by: Jim | December 05, 2008 at 09:25 AM
Wait, wait, are you trying to tell me that different religious groups believe different things? That religious groups sometimes disagree and aren't a monolithic hive-mind, droning on about assimilation and joy? And you honestly think we weren't aware of this?
Here's a hint: if the general statement's not true about you, then it probably wasn't about you. Yes, we recognize that different religious people want different things and hold a wide variety of political opinions and degrees of liberalism or conservatism. We all know and understand this, even if we don't add the disclaimer every time we talk about religions in general or a given religion in specific. Just because we don't say "religions (except, of course, the ones who don't want this and recognize the value in church/state separation, respect the rights of others to believe according to their individual consciences, and are not so insecure in their faith that they fear dissenting opinions) would like the full anti-blasphemy law" doesn't mean that's not what we mean by it.
Meanwhile, we've seen plenty of representatives of religions--from the fundamentalist Muslim backlash against the Danish cartoons to Bill Donohue's outrage against PZ Myers to the outcry over atheist billboards and advertisements from believers of various stripes--to demonstrate that there are an awful lot of religions and religious individuals who would support strong anti-blasphemy legislation, regardless of their degree of moderateness or fundamentalism. It may not be true for you, it may not even be true for the majority, but it certainly would be true for a large number and wide variety.
Posted by: Tom Foss | December 05, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Jim:
You're right - I should have said "some religious people..." or "many religous people..."
Posted by: Skeptico | December 05, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Thanks, Skeptico. And sadly you're not wrong plenty of religious people would be in favour of such a measure. Not so much here in England though.
So, Tom Foss, given that a large percentage of black people did vote against prop 8, and some transgender people are confused and unsure about their choices/gender, you're also ok with the following sentences?:
The blacks oppose gay marriage.
The transgenders are confused. (... about their gender)
Posted by: Jim | December 06, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I mean for prop 8... I think
Posted by: Jim | December 06, 2008 at 11:32 AM
If those situations were even remotely like anything I discussed above, then in discussions where the collective terms were used as shorthand for a disclaimer that the general group would already assume before the discussion even began, those phrases might be acceptable. Since the numbers regarding the black vote on Prop 8 are not as damning as many believed, and since no self-proclaimed, highly popular spokespeople for "blacks" or "transgenders" have repeatedly and loudly acted and spoken in manners consistent with (let alone promoting) those statements, then I'm not "ok" with the preceding sentences.
Posted by: Tom Foss | December 06, 2008 at 08:27 PM
A very late comment, but last night I heard a supporter of this anti-blasphemy nonsense say the following on BBC TV; "How would you feel if someone stood outside your parents' house and shouted obscene comments at them every day?". What? This is supposed to be an analogous situation? My reply is simple. If somebody stood outside MY front door and shouted obscene comments condemning the anti-blasphemy idiots I would be upset! It's a common law infringement, a public nuisance; somebody FORCING me to hear their views and comments when I don't want to hear them, and harrassing me. If I publish anti-religious polemic, or even 'blasphemous' insults in a paper then you can only be upset if you CHOOSE to read them. DON'T READ THEM! I'm not standing outside anyone's front door! But some of my muslim friends, particularly, are upset that the comments have been allowed to be printed, NOT that THEY personally have been affronted. So this a type of second hand offence; I know that there is a programme on TV tonight which pokes fun at one of MY sacred cows. Tough! I get myself a good DVD to watch, shake my head, and mutter a few choice words under my breath. I DON'T ask for a change in the law, because MY views are no more or less important or sincere than anyone else's.
Posted by: derek hudson | December 11, 2008 at 08:36 AM
It isn't clear to me that religion isn't similar to race at some level. Religion has a strong inherited element.
Moreover, this post to some extent misses the real issue. Just because one disagrees with speech doesn't mean it should be censored. Sexist speech and racist speech is free speech that should be allowed. Sure it is disgusting but that's not a reason to not allow it. That's true for both religion and categories like race regardless of the nature of the categories.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 11, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Honestly Tom, I don't see why you're arguing so uch over mere addition of the word 'some' or other qualifiers.
Which 'highly popular' 'religious' commentators have said that they would like a full anti-blasphemy law? Quite. Your defence is disingenuous, you have an opinion, you don't want to qualify it, and thus you're left arguing yourself in circles.
The only result of not qualifying your statements is that people will start to think that you're referring to all religious people, or a clear majority - and from there, either be mislead by your statement, or think that you're an idiot.
The only result of qualifying your statement, is more accuracy, less confusion, a minute more of your time used, and no possibility of equivocation over the extent of your view.
I see no motive to generalise other than emotional ties to the sweeping feeling of being generally inaccurate, or deliberate intent to deceive.
Posted by: Jim | December 15, 2008 at 01:49 AM
And the same with any collective term. When we say "Christians believe in the Trinity," we generally realize that not all Christians are Trinitarians. When we say "Creationists think the world is 6000 years old," we generally recognize that not all Creationists are Young Earthers. And when we say "the religious," we generally recognize that religious people are not a homogeneous group who all believe and want the same things.
So perhaps instead of coming in, getting hot and bothered over a single line, making a variety of unwarranted assumptions, and proceeding to dole out condescending advice based on those assumptions, you could pause briefly and make sure that your assumptions have merit and your advice is necessary. In this instance, neither was the case.
Posted by: Tom Foss | December 15, 2008 at 08:33 AM
"The language may be imprecise, but the sentiment isn't"
I'm not worried about the sentiment, since I'm not telepathic, and am therefore unable to know what the sentiment is, when I read the words on a blog. The imprecisity of the language (no I don't have a problem with making up words) is exactly the problem.
I didn't ask for examples of religious people who are angry over perceived blasphemy or insult, I asked for highly popular commentators that had demanded full anti-blasphemy laws.
You felt it was appropriate to make that generalisation about 'religious people' because these commentators exist, but I don't think they do. Some self appointed douches may have stupid opinions, but you haven't even mentioned any of them.
"You made a variety of broad assumptions based on virtually no evidence, and proceeded to talk down to us as though we had never even considered the blatantly obvious things you said."
No, I objected to one sentence on the grounds that it was a gross generalisation. Skeptico agreed that a qualifier was appropriate. You disagree, and we're discussing the issue now.
Please quote a variety of broad assumptions I've made, otherwise I'll have to assume you withdraw that comment.
"You act as though I'm arguing for a blanket statement, that we should never qualify our statements. I'm not, nor have I been."
I didn't think you were. I do think you're arguing that you shouldn't qualify statements like this. Which you are, and have been.
"So perhaps instead of coming in, getting hot and bothered over a single line, making a variety of unwarranted assumptions, and proceeding to dole out condescending advice based on those assumptions, you could pause briefly and make sure that your assumptions have merit and your advice is necessary. In this instance, neither was the case."
I'm neither hot nor bothered, nor have I made any assumptions. (See request for quote). And I don't think my 'advice' has been condescending at all. In fact, I don't think I've given any advice at all, and again, if you'd like to show how I have, please quote me.
As far as I can see, all I've done is object to imprecise phrasing of an opinion, and illustrate why I think it's misleading and why I don't think it's appropriate.
Skeptico doesn't seem to have been offended (he may have changed his mind by now) in fact, he agreed. You however have been very riled by this, as if I'm accusing you of being a bigot or something nasty. You've also taken it upon yourself to think that it's me versus an 'us' that includes you, Skeptico and other people(maybe).
Well I'm not. And I was talking to Skeptico, not you, and I don't think I was being condescending either. I can't have made any assumptions about him, since my only opinion about him is that he phrased something in a way I didn't like, and when I objected politely enough, he responded politely and fairly.
Now you, I can make some assumptions about:-
You didn't understand what I meant to say with my first post (that's not a criticism, merely a statement of fact, I'm not placing blame), as you are arguing that "the claim that the lack of constantly explicitly stating such qualifiers means that we do not believe the qualifiers exist" is not true, whereas my original post was merely about how the phrasing was misleading, and people would not accept that kind of loose phrasing about other similar (in my opinion) situations.
You're bothered by my objection, as you feel I'm rude, condescending, etc etc. That in your opinion justifies a sarcastic first response. Well I'm not trying to condescend to you, I'm merely explaining my opinion. I've made no assumptions about any of you, because I'm talking about the use of language, not about anyone as a person.
You also don't seem to have a consistent reason for your opinion that I am wrong. - at first it was because 'if it doesn't describe you, then it wasn't about you!', then it was 'and also you can't say that sort of thing about other groups, unless they have widely popular spokesman who say that sort of thing.', and now it appears to be 'except in this case, where there don't have to be popular spokesman who've actually said that they want a full anti-blasphemy law, just plenty of religious people who get angry about blasphemy and insults', and also 'skeptics and atheists know what we mean, so why do we have to speak in ways that other people will understand' as if skeptics and atheists are a homogenous group who all operate from the same textbook, and thus understand when you're being literal, and when you're being careless with phrasing, and adjust their interpretation for that. Which is not true.
I couldn't cover everything in your post as this was long enough already, I tried to cover all the most important bits, if you feel I skipped over anything important, please copy and past it into your next comment, or say it again, and I'll respond to it then.
Posted by: Jim | December 16, 2008 at 03:39 AM
p.s. "Have you ever seen how the Vatican responds to perceived blasphemy?"
Yes, I went to your link. The Pope sent a letter with a request that the offending piece be removed as he felt it 'wounded the religious sentiments of so many people who see in the cross the symbol of God's love'. He made no demands for an anti-blasphemy law, he made no demands that anyone be arrested or prosecuted, or even that he wished one day that people could be arrested.
So as far as answering my question: "Which 'highly popular' 'religious' commentators have said that they would like a full anti-blasphemy law?"
The highly popular Pope commentator said nothing about wanting a full anti-blasphemy law. Just like the rest of the examples you gave there, where no-one said that.
Posted by: Jim | December 16, 2008 at 03:46 AM
Or, instead, you could phrase your objection in a manner that isn't combative, presumptive, and condescending. "You do realize that not all religious people believe and want the same things, right?" would have been far more reasonable than your inane little lesson.
And I don't care what you asked for, because it has nothing to do with what Skeptico's post was about. What I provided, what Skeptico was responding to, were examples of prevailing attitudes in a variety of religious traditions that would be consistent with desiring anti-blasphemy legislation. Skeptico said nothing about "the religious have made specific calls for full anti-blasphemy laws," he said "I’m sure the religious would like the full anti-blasphemy law." These are different statements. Perhaps if you were more precise in your reading, you would have realized that.And it is precisely examples like the ones I listed--Catholics attacking Webster Cook and trying to get him fired and expelled, Catholics claiming that PZ Myers' actions were "Unconstitutional" and that there should be limits on freedom of speech to protect religions, Turkish Muslims banning publication of The God Delusion, Muslims rioting against the Danish cartoons, the Vatican railing against blasphemous art, Mormons saying that gay protests and boycotts are Unconstitutional, Christian billboard companies breaking contracts to remove atheist advertising, and so on and so on--that would give one the impression that many religious people--not even just limited to fundamentalist dominionist theocrats--would like a full anti-blasphemy law.
I don't. A qualifier would be appropriate. It was not, however, necessary. That is the point of my disagreement. "Well you can think that all you like, but that doesn't make it true." Assumption: Skeptico thinks religious people in general would like a full anti-blasphemy law."We're not a coherent group."
Assumption: 'We' don't already know that religious people aren't a coherent group.
"Unless the generalisation is a characteristic of the group in question, only some of the people being generalised about will fit that generalisation,"
Assumption: We don't already know, recognize, and assume the point you just made (which, you'll note, was largely the crux of my first comment).
I mean, I could be wrong. Those statements only clearly connote those particular assumptions. Perhaps if you didn't want to give the impression that you thought we were naive bigots who needed a good talking down to and a lesson on individuality, you should have used more precise language that wouldn't make you come off quite so condescending.
I'm not, nor have I been. You've grossly misunderstood my argument, which isn't that one should not qualify statements like this (and I fail to see how that's different from the particular quote this was in response to), but that in this context, in this instance, the meaning should have been clear as it was. A qualifier would have made the point more clear (and more qualifiers could have put a very tiny point on it), but even as it stood, it should have been clear that no one in their right minds would suggest that all religious people want the same thing. It was a linguistic shortcut, and you've filled it with unwarranted meaning. How does that go again? "Well you can think that all you like, but that doesn't make it true."You came in, saw a generalization, assumed it was a blanket statement that all religious people want the same thing, and proceeded to lecture us on the fact that that simply wasn't the case, and how would we feel if someone did the same thing to us, and you don't find any of that condescending?
I think it's the matter of appropriateness that's the real point of contention here. I understand that you saw the language as imprecise, and I agree that it could have been more precise. I understand that it could be misleading to someone who was basing their entire judgment on this one page of posting and comments. My point is that one shouldn't make such rash judgments, and one would be better served by making sure that the generalization is actually representative of the poster's opinion before one proceeds to lecture the poster and community on the problem with making generalizations and the fact that groups are made of disparate individual entities.Yes, the language could have been more precise. Yes, to someone who read this page and only this page, the generalization could be misleading. One could clear up that misunderstanding very quickly by doing five minutes of reading in the archive. If, after examining the writer's other material, one still came to the conclusion that the writer thinks all religious people are a homogeneous group with a single goal, then it might be appropriate to lecture the writer on the truth of the matter.
Do you disagree that we should put more time and effort into our judgments, or should we all just drop into lecture mode as soon as we see something that might be misleading?
No, I'm riled by this as if you think I'm a child who needs a lesson on individuality. That's a legitimate point; while I don't presume to speak for Skeptico or any of the other commenters here, I took your post as talking to this blog community as a whole, and that may have been unwarranted. You're posting in a public forum, so it's easy to interpret your comment as applying to the group rather than one individual.And then again, if you were only meaning to lecture Skeptico, then perhaps it would have been better to use the e-mail link on the sidebar. Public comments open themselves up to public criticism.
And I think, in similar situations, such loose language is the norm. We all take linguistic shortcuts and make generalizations for brevity. When men talk generally about the personality traits and desires of women, chances are they aren't talking about their mothers and sisters, even if they don't say as much.I may digress here, because I've been thinking about this, and I think I may have found a root of the issue. There's a difference between causal generalizations and bigoted generalizations. We all make casual generalizations for the sake of brevity, when we talk about women or Mormons or politicians (and so forth). I think we all, in general, recognize when making such generalizations that the trait does not apply to all members of the group. If I say "gays want to be able to get married," I recognize that there are gays who don't care, and gays who oppose marriage altogether. If I say "women like foreplay and cuddling," I recognize that there are women who are utterly uninterested in such activities. Pointing that fact out to me does nothing, since I already recognize that the generalization is not universally applicable.
On the contrary, when a bigot makes such generalizations, they believe the traits apply universally to all the individuals within that group. When a bigot says "Mexicans are lazy" or "black men have extraordinarily large penises," they believe that to be universally true. In that case, it may be useful to point out that there are members of the group for which that trait is clearly not true, or that the bigot does not actually believe the statement, since he does not apply it consistently ("well, yeah, Juan's industrious, but he's one of the good ones"). The epiphany that not all people in the group share the stereotypical trait, and that the bigot already recognizes this but rationalizes it due to some kind of cognitive dissonance, can be incredibly powerful in shocking people out of their bigotry.
The difference--and I know I'll be oversimplifying here, because there's quite a bit of gray area--is that casual generalizations are borne out of personal experience. One man might say to his friend "women prefer circumcised men," based on the women in his acquaintance; his friend may disagree, "I don't know, all the women I've been with have preferred uncut men," again, based on his experience. They no doubt recognize (if not before this conversation, then certainly afterward) that neither of their opinions represents all women, or even a majority of women, but it may represent a majority of women in their individual acquaintances. I would think that most people making casual generalizations recognize that they are not making universally true statements.
Bigots, on the other hand, fit their generalizations to preconceived biases, and are likely to do the same with their observations, experiencing confirmation bias. A racist will likely not notice when Latinos around him are speaking normal English, but will go off the rails each time he hears a Mexican couple speaking Spanish in public. The observations that fit the bias get remembered, the observations that contradict get forgotten, and the bigoted opinion is strengthened.
So, having thought about it, I may have been wrong when I said I didn't think you were calling me a bigot; it wasn't a conscious reaction, certainly, but having sussed out the differences between these generalizations, I've realized that the tactic you used is a tactic that I would use for people who were, clearly, espousing bigoted views, rather than the tactic I'd use when responding to people making casual generalizations. I read Skeptico's comment as a casual generalization, knowing that neither Skeptico nor anyone here believes that such a statement characterizes all religious people, and you read it as a bigoted statement that he may have believed was universally true. I stand by the point that you could have cleared that up with a little reading elsewhere on the site, but I understand the distinction.
Moreover, getting to the root of the casual generalization issue, as atheists we likely have different experiences with theists than theists do. We are,I imagine, more likely to encounter the kinds of vehemence and vitriol and anti-freedom commentary that various religious people espouse casually or formally, than the average theist. That is naturally going to color our viewpoint of what the average or majority of believers believe. Again, I can't feel entirely too bad about that; the moderate and liberal Christians largely allow the nuts to run around with their banners and declare themselves the voice of Christianity. While I recognize that the fundamentalists are a vocal minority, the silence and complacency of the moderate majority leaves me wondering how much they actually disagree, and what their standards would be for "too far," for fundies doing something that would make moderates stand up en masse and say "they don't speak for me." As far as I can tell, anything less than protesting soldiers' funerals earns a collective "ignore them and maybe they'll go away."
I'm bothered more by the way you made your objection than the fact that you made it. Indeed. I realize that I was probably too harsh at the time, and I apologize. Just over the course of this post, I've put a lot more thought into this situation, and if nothing else, it's been interesting thinking. And I think you explained your opinion in a condescending manner. And I think your opinion was blatantly uninformed, a problem which you could have easily corrected before you hit the Post button. Which was an admittedly glib way of phrasing what has been my point all along: we already recognize that the generalization is not universally applicable. That was responding to a different point entirely. You were making an analogy between Skeptico's statement and a statement about the black vote on Proposition 8 (and something about transgendered people), which were not remotely similar. My objection there was to the false analogy, not to your argument about qualifying the statements. Why not actually go back and look at what I said, which has nothing to do with people who "said that they want a full anti-blasphemy law," but people who spoke and acted consistently with such a desire. Skeptico didn't say "I'm sure the religious would specifically ask for the full anti-blasphemy law," he said they'd like it. Not want, not request, but like. My examples, each one an instance where religious groups or officials have attempted to censor, indict, or call for laws against incidents of blasphemy (or have claimed that such laws already exist), illustrate what Skeptico was implying: religious people who would like a full anti-blasphemy law. Wow, what a gross misrepresentation of what I said. The reason why I understood Skeptico's meaning is not because we share the Atheist Handbook (I sold mine back at the end of the semester), but because I've actually read things Skeptico has written. Which is not to say that there aren't things that I can generally count on people in the atheoskeptic blogosphere to understand--we run in similar circles, encounter similar arguments, and deal with similar circumstances, and so we share a similar vocabulary. And in that vocabulary, yes, are some casual generalizations. We talk about woos and alties and creationists and--yes--religious people, and we make statements that are not universally applicable, which we recognize are not universally applicable. It may be imprecise to someone coming in from the outside, but it's not imprecise to those of us who are familiar with each other's writing and arguments, who recognize the common sets of circumstances, and so forth. Not every comment is written for the person coming in off the street with no prior knowledge of the blogger's previous writings and beliefs. Perhaps that's imprecise, perhaps it's even a little insular, but it's the nature of these little blog communities. I don't respond to Jimmy_Blue (for instance) like it's the first time I've talked to him, or the first time I've addressed the subject, so that any new person reading it can be sure not to be confused.If the sentence were in the main post, or were in a comment on a Christian blog, or were in a comment on a blog with a more clearly mixed readership, I think the qualifier (and perhaps more specific qualifiers) would have been necessary. I could say that about any number of sentences. Necessary clarification depends on context, and until you entered, unaware of any larger context (coming in fresh, with no apparent familiarity with any of Skeptico's writing), the context of the comments was mostly (if not entirely) frequent visitors who are already familiar with Skeptico's views.
Ah, I see. So censorship is acceptable, so long as no one is arrested for it. But then, are the anti-blasphemy laws being discussed here laws that propose arrest as a consequence? I'm seeing statements that link blasphemy to hate speech, but hate speech is generally not an arrestable offense. At most, it seems like a call for censorship and potentially fines or some similar punishment. And I never said anything about people wanting or calling for a full anti-blasphemy law; in fact, you're the only one who has made such a claim. Skeptico talked about people who would "like" such laws, I talked about people who would "support" such laws, and whose actions and statements are consistent with such laws, but only you have talked about people who specifically call for such laws. Your challenge was based on a straw man that only you were discussing.I admit that I was too snarky in my initial response, and I apologize. I remain convinced that you posted too hastily and should have done the small bit of reading that would have been necessary to correct your misperceptions, or at least inform your opinions.
And, for what it's worth, I thank you for making me think a bit about language and the difference between kinds of generalizations, which has been quite informative.
Posted by: Tom Foss | December 16, 2008 at 03:08 PM
"Unless the generalisation is a characteristic of the group in question, only some of the people being generalised about will fit that generalisation,"
Assumption: We don't already know, recognize, and assume the point you just made (which, you'll note, was largely the crux of my first comment).
To rephrase, unless everyone in a group has a characteristic then not everyone in a group has a characteristic. I would say the assumption is that you don't know what words mean. Tautology ftl.
Posted by: wikinite | December 17, 2008 at 06:08 AM
"To rephrase, unless everyone in a group has a characteristic then not everyone in a group has a characteristic. I would say the assumption is that you don't know what words mean. Tautology ftl."
Reading comprehension Fail! It's best to ensure you understand someone's (simple) point before you attempt to rephrase it.
Posted by: Jim | December 25, 2008 at 01:19 PM
See - you think I was being condescending Tom, by explaining in detail exactly what I meant - and that garnered from you a whole load of accusations of condescension ('unwarranted assumptions' 'condescending advice' 'combative, presumptive, and condescending' your inane little lesson 'talking down to [us]' 'condescending' 'I'm riled by this') but even with my attempt to explicitly explain what I meant wikinite above still didn't get it.
So what am I? Too explanatory to be anything but condescending, or too obscure to be understood?
I get that you were offended a tiny bit because I was acting the way to Skeptico that you might to a bigot - but I am not you, I would be rude to a bigot - I engaged Skeptico with an opinion and an explanation of that opinion with pertinent examples of why I held that opinion specifically because I didn't assume he was a bigot. I assumed (and was right) that he was merely being a bit sloppy with his phrasing.
We appear to have had most of this conversation at cross purposes. I'm sorry if I inadvertently offended you - but that was not my intention - nor was my intention (as you seem to have felt) to imply that you (skeptico actually) are an idiot incapable of understanding my point, or in fact not already agreeing with it, I was merely being explicit. I would do so again.
Posted by: Jim | December 25, 2008 at 01:33 PM
To sum up Jim, we don't need to be told that certain people don't automatically go into the moron bin; on the contrary, we only place them there when they open their mouths and request it.
Yes, I will say that I speak for the entire skeptical community when I say that.
Posted by: Ryan W. | December 26, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Well look at that. Who'd of thunk it. I'm actually conversing with the official spokesperson of the skeptical community. I love hanging round with royalty.
Posted by: Jim | December 26, 2008 at 07:07 PM
Uh-oh. Sumbuddy don't know me here. And after that looong Tom Foss scolding we still haven't learned?
Thank you Jim, you should feel priveledged that I chose to respond to you. And I like the new handle.
Love,
Ryan W.
Posted by: King of Skeptics | December 27, 2008 at 03:24 PM
Indeed. Who the fuck are you?
/end of drunk
Posted by: Martin | December 27, 2008 at 06:37 PM
He's the Rockstar. What else needs to be said?
Posted by: Akusai | December 27, 2008 at 08:21 PM
Lol. Call that a scolding? More like a long complaint "But you don't think I'm smart and that's so mean!" Then he learned something, and thanked me.
Sorry, though. The King does not act as spokesperson, that's delegated to say, a Prince, or a minor royal.
Posted by: Jim | December 28, 2008 at 09:30 AM
Hey, hey, hey! There can only be one king around here! I resent this infringement upon my turf! Duel me, cur!
Posted by: King of Ferrets | December 29, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Sigh...
You said: "Unless the generalisation is a characteristic of the group in question, only some of the people being generalised about will fit that generalisation." It is tautological. In fact, in that case, it's not really even a "generalization," it's a group characteristic. Generalization requires (or at least implies) smoothing over some detail. "All women are female" is not a generalization, it's a definition. No, Jim, I think you were being condescending by the manner in which you explained in detail exactly what you meant. It's not "We're not a coherent group" that I found particularly condescending, it's "Well you can think that all you like, but that doesn't make it true." Wikinite went after one particular problem, not your entire post. And yes, he got it; in fact, he got something that I missed: you apparently don't understand the difference between generalizations and defining characteristics. "Blondes have more fun" is a generalization; "blondes have light-colored hair" is not. What are you? Proposing a false dichotomy is what. First, it's not being overly explanatory that leads one to seem condescending, it's the manner of the explanation. As I said above: Second, it's entirely possible to be explanatory and respectful, though it might require you to do a little work--like, say, doing a little bit of reading to make sure that the lesson is necessary. It's not just the fact that you provided an explanation of your position that was problematic, it's the facts that you thought it was necessary, and you thought that the best way to do it was to start off combative (I fail to see how "Well you can think that all you like, but that doesn't make it true" is anything but) and to move through the typical parental tactics: "Don't say that," "Here's what you should say instead," and "How would you feel if someone said that about you?"
There were any number of ways you could have made your points, you chose a particularly pedantic one.
Then no, you don't get it. Once again, the offense was from you talking down to Skeptico. The bigotry aspect was a secondary point, attached to how different groups perceive and use generalizations. Indeed, I think you approached the matter as if we used generalizations the way bigots do--as universally-applicable truths, as defining characteristics of the group being generalized--as opposed to the way that everyone else uses generalizations. Your response treated us not as reasonable people, but as people ignorant of the basic concept of individuality. No, you just apparently believed that he actually thought that all religious people share some sort of fundamentalist hive-mind. Really? Because there's only one line in your original post indicates that you merely thought he was being sloppy with his phrasing ("here's a few phrases that contain truth, in that some maybe even a majority of them do believe what I say, but the phrasing is obviously rubbish"). The rest of the post seems predicated on the belief that Skeptico actually "think[s]" all religious people want the same things, and that he is in need of a lesson to the contrary (i.e., your two-part elucidation of your opinion that not all people in a group are the same, and your musings on people who use generalizations).In other words, if your assumption and point in your first post were that Skeptico had simply used some sloppy language, then you probably should have used less sloppy language to communicate that assumption. Because to onlookers, it came across not as "Hey, Skep, don't you think that's an overly broad generalization" but as "Skeptico! That's not a nice thing to say! How would you feel if someone said not-nice things about you?"
And sadly, we continue to be having this conversation at cross purposes. Great, and I understand that. But tell me, do you see where I'm coming from? Do you see how your post might be interpreted as condescending? If not, then you may want to seek such understanding before engaging in further conversation on the Internet. See, when talking on the Internet, you have to be fairly careful with the words you use, since the inflection and intonation that would exist in speech are absent from the text. Being able to imagine how an outside reader might interpret your words is key to making clear points online.That last bit I wrote there? That was pretty condescending. I apologize; it was in the service of the larger point.
And here's where it falls apart a little for me, because you saying "I was merely being explicit" suggests to me that you don't know why you came across as condescending. The "I would do so again" suggests to me that you don't understand nor particularly care how your readers will interpret your points, and sets you up for more of what you've been railing against (supposedly) since the start: sloppy language that obscures your actual point.And nowhere, so far as I've seen, have you even acknowledged the point about making rash judgments.
"Official spokesperson" is a royal title? Where does that fall, somewhere between Duke and Viscount? And what's that, exactly? Here's a generalization for you, Jim: you're a condescending hypocritical asshole with no particular reading comprehension, an undeserved sense of superiority, and a vocabulary two sizes too large for your brain. Feel free to return once you've removed your head from your ass with a barbecue fork. Yes, and I've learned something again: there's not much point in carrying on a conversation with an asshole: it's just going to say the same thing when you're done, and it'll still stink.Rockstar: Good to see you posting again, however infrequently.
KoF: Hey, as long as your domains don't overlap, there's no reason for dueling. How many skeptical ferrets are there, anyway?
...and knowing is half the battle!
Posted by: Tom Foss | December 30, 2008 at 02:21 PM
Well, I'm a skeptical ferret. I can't be a king with another king ruling me!
Posted by: King of Ferrets | December 30, 2008 at 03:46 PM
"it's entirely possible to be explanatory and respectful,"
You are one to talk. It's best if you don't give lessons in what you seem to be unable to do yourself.
"Because to onlookers..."
You keep acting as if I was talking to you. I wasn't. You didn't get it. Skeptico apparently did. That's lucky, because I was talking to Skeptico.
"Then no, you don't get it..."
Yes I do, that's why I used the word 'tiny' in the paragraph you quoted. To indicate its secondary status in your motivation. Again, you miss the point.
"And nowhere, so far as I've seen, have you even acknowledged the point about making rash judgments"
Indeed I haven't, because the judgements, that you rashly ascribe to me, aren't accurate. The irony of that was delicious. But also evidence that I'd have trouble getting through to you.
In fact, this entire conversation has been one long lesson in projection. You think I'm arrogant, so you talk down to me arrogantly. You think I'm rude, so you're rude to me. etc etc. We're not discussing anything substantive, so there's no point me putting any effort into the conversation, and it would take effort to point out all the ways you're doing it, you're unlikely to just take my word for it, so why bother?
Quite.
And that comment that riled you so much, wasn't aimed at riling you, but the other dodos who didn't get it. You just got caught in the crossfire. Oh well.
Posted by: Jim | December 31, 2008 at 04:45 AM
p.s. just because it takes no effort, or quotes; check out if you will who the only person in this thread to make direct personal attacks on anyone else in the thread, ad hominems if you will. Yes. And who was it who is rude, aggressive and condescending? Indeed.
And who is the only person to have apologised for any misunderstandings caused? Again, Indeed.
I rest my case M'lud.
Posted by: Jim | December 31, 2008 at 04:48 AM
obviousapparent motivations. What you have said about your reasoning, and what you actually said in your initial posts, have not matched up in the slightest. If your initial post was about using sloppy language, why all the initial commentary that assumes Skeptico believed the generalizations? Yes, the irony of "making rash judgments based on one sentence in one comment on a blog with years of posts" versus "making judgments based on one whole post by someone with no apparent links to any prior writing." So ironic that I would make such rash judgments without taking five minutes to read what else you've written to make sure that your one comment is indicative of your actual beliefs, when that's precisely what I've said was problematic in your post. I suppose I should have gone back and read some of your other posts on religion and generalizations before I replied to your comment on religion and generalizations.Or perhaps, since you have no links to any outside sources, and since "Jim" is a relatively nondescript name, I should base my judgments on the full content of your posts so far, carefully reading and re-reading it before I reply. Yes, that's what I ought to do. I'll be sure to do that in the future.
Believe me, I know the feeling. Yes, that's obviously it. It couldn't possibly be that "Well you can think that all you like, but that doesn't make it true" is a rude, condescending comment. Oh, hey, it's #59. Putting no effort into the conversation has been part of your problem from the beginning. Once again, your aim is piss-poor. You may have aimed to be clear, but you hit condescending. You may have aimed for a private consultation, but you hit a public forum. You may have aimed to rile the "other dodos," but you "riled" me instead. Of course, you would have "riled" me either way, since those "other dodos" are a large part of this little blogging community. I won't, because that's not what ad hominem is. If you will, show me where I said "you're wrong because you're a dick," if you will. Again with the false dichotomies. Even if I were being rude, aggressive, and condescending (and I certainly have been all three, at different points in this conversation--I know how my words come across), it wouldn't therefore mean that you weren't. Gosh, it might even be that I was rude, condescending, and arrogant in response to your rudeness, condescension, and arrogance. Yes, who's the only person to apologize? Oh, but I guess I was only apologizing for my harshness, not any misunderstandings, so your qualified point is still technically correct. Still with the false dichotomy, though: 'I've apologized, therefore I wasn't rude, arrogant, or condescending.'And all that aside, I'm not entirely sure how much value there is in an apology that's followed by "I was merely being explicit. I would do so again," which sounds an awful lot like "I'm sorry, but I didn't do anything wrong, and I won't do anything differently in the future." But I shouldn't make such rash judgments, obviously what you said and what you intended were completely different.
Posted by: Tom Foss | December 31, 2008 at 04:19 PM
"And all that aside, I'm not entirely sure how much value..."
Indeed. And it pretty much is. I didn't intend to piss you off, merely point out the actual point I made, so I'm sorry you're annoyed. However, combatative in your eyes or not, my point was correct, and I spoke directly, as I tend to do. Though I rarely call people names. (h/t you)
"Yes, who's the only person to apologize?"
You're right, this conversation has gone on so long I'd completely forgotten. That and it keeps getting drowned out in your constant pointless attacks. You're not going to make me feel bad, I don't think your complaints have any merit, so what... is it all for the audience? A little grandstanding? Make yourself look good?
"...either way, since those "other dodos" are a large part of this little blogging community"
Oh I see. A little blogging community. So it's one of these eh? Friendly, slightly echo-chambery. People know what they like, and get pissed off if people don't behave like that when they initially arrive, as if we're all psychic? I should have realised from your initial response. I guess I was thrown by Skeptico's reasonable response, and my lack of knowledge that you're a big man commenter around here.
"Well you can think that all you like, but that doesn't make it true" is a rude, condescending comment."
So says you. It's certainly direct. Combative, I suppose, if you're used to soft-pedaled disagreements. Condescending? I don't see it. But I've explained my intention, over and over, but since you are obsessed with your original interpretation we go round and round and round. And you put more effort into your replies, and I put less, and you get angry and I get bored, and la di dah. I've given up making an effort. Oh bli dop. Dop de do.
You're right, though there were no ad hominem fallacies, I was using it colloquially. What they don't use it like that where your from? You think I'm rewriting history? I'm shocked... which leads us to:
"You're trying to rewrite your comments after the fact...etc...or everyone to see what they actually say"
Indeed. Except not. You don't have to believe me, hell I'm assuming you won't which is why I'm making no effort to persuade you, but like you say, comments down in black and white, it's nice to put out the truth, even if a person I'll never meet, or even likely encounter on the net again doesn't believe me.
Fact is, that is why I used the word tiny. I didn't address your primary concern, but oh look! a false dichotomy, merely because I didn't address that concern, doesn't mean I don't think that your secondary or 'tiny' motivation was in fact secondary. Petard --> you.
Your comment about "actually say" is unfortunate, as it indicates that you believe language has a "true" meaning and if I say "A" there is a true meaning to that statement, regardless of my intention. That's just silly.
"If your initial post was about using sloppy language, why all the initial commentary that assumes Skeptico believed the generalizations?"
a) No original commentary assuming Skeptico believed the singular generalisation he made. That was all in your own head. Fantasy. (Or more accurately in your incorrect interpretation of my words)
b) It wasn't about sloppy language. If it was, my last five posts or so would be very hypocritical, since I'm making no effort to be clear, and am being far sloppier that merely making one generalisation. Hell I'm on such autopilot now that I haven't even looked at the screen for a while.
It was about a specific instance of a specific type of sloppy language ---> generalisations. They're offensive to those on the receiving end. Sloppy language in general is only a problem when you're trying to communicate a point to people unwilling to listen.
If I can be serious for a moment, and put a little effort into communication: I don't think you're a bad guy Tom Foss. You also seem like a smart guy, and one willing to put a lot of effort into a conversation on the net. Yes, you're a little defensive, and feel that your interpretation of my words is more important than my intention of my words, even after the purpose of my words was already fulfilled. But, I'm sure if we'd conversed in another thread, where I'd put in some effort to converse with you, we'd've got on fine. It's probably my fault that you haven't a clue what I'm saying, you're making yourself very clear, and I get it, and I've not bothered to be communicative or clear. And to be honest, that's because a) my message had been accepted b) your initial hostility in response to my apparent hostility was irritating, so I wrote you off early on, and was only arguing out of contrariness, not the urge to persuade. c) your flip-flop tone between hostility and neutral communicativeness intrigued, and irritated simultaneously, so I didn't just write you off as a trollish type, but neither did I bother to modify my tone or phrasing to suit your understanding and thus communicate successfully.
Thus it goes. It's ok though, what have we lost? A few minutes of time, and... well nothing. You learned something I forget what and don't really care. I learned that even when talking to smart people, you have to remember about outgroup hostility bias (yes I just made that up, but I bet it's right) and that certain skeptic types assume you're in the outgroup because you're religious. Or defending religious people from inaccurate generalisations.
Posted by: Jim | January 01, 2009 at 07:15 AM
Well where did that comment go? Will this one work?
Posted by: Jim | January 01, 2009 at 07:16 AM
Well damn. That comment went into the aether. So much for that. I just wrote you a long comment. Half was pointless waffle, pointing out again your misunderstandings in a lax and haphazard way. The other half was me actually making a little effort to communicate with you, since apart from being a little defensive, you don't seem a bad guy.
I'm not going to bother rewriting it. Since I know you wouldn't have believed my corrections of your interpretations of my own words. I only wrote it out of the pointless desire to put the truth down in black and white, regardless of the no-chance-at-all of anyone believing it, so instead of that - consider yourself told. You can then consider the telling wrong. But you canna complaina' bout it, since I didn't actually do it.
My points though - mere assertions now, but hey, you wouldn't have listened anyway:
You're right. You did apologise. My bad.
You gotta me all wrong! You donta getta my words!
You don't seem like a bad guy. It's probably my fault you don't understand a thing I've said, since I've put no effort in to be particularly clear. Since my initial point was made successfully and all this has been contrariness and time wasting. But the fact stands, none of your characterisations bear any relation to reality.
Posted by: Jim | January 01, 2009 at 07:24 AM
Jim:
The spam filter held the first comment. My apologies - I have no control over the spam filter, but I did just release your original comment, and it appears above the other two.
Posted by: Skeptico | January 01, 2009 at 08:46 AM
Well you're so polite, I now feel bad about messing up your thread with a long and pointless argument, where I've made provocatively little effort. Especially in the main body of the one you rescued. Feel free to delete all my comments after Tom's had a chance to read them.
Posted by: Jim | January 01, 2009 at 04:54 PM