joreth | Nov. 18th, 2012

Nov. 18th, 2012

I'm archiving this bizarre exchange:

To all skeptics: Natalie Reed has requested to be disassociated from other skeptical people like Richard Dawkins & Michael Shermer. Please respect her wishes to no longer be associated with important skeptics of note.

Shame to see a skeptic who actually cares about trans, women's, & LGBTQ issues go off on a rant w/o understanding the topic. We have so few trans/lgbtq/feminist skeptics doing activist work for the rest of us that it hurts when 1 goes off the rails.

For the record, there is a service called paper.li which allows Twitter users to create lists of people (or hashtags or whatever) to follow. Then paper.li will comb through the Twitter feeds of those on the list (or the hashtag or whatever) daily or weekly (you set the time), and when someone posts links, paper.li will aggregate the posts into a single page, designed to look a bit like a newspaper.

It will then automatically send out a tweet under the creator's Twitter account, announcing the new edition & highlighting a couple of the people whose links are included in the edition.

Natalie Reed posted a link on her feed, which paper.li aggregated and included in today's edition of The Skeptic's News, along with half a dozen other people's links, including Michael Shermer & Richard Dawkins.

Without asking what paper.li was or how it worked, Natalie demanded to be disassociated from Dawkins & Shermer (she named them specifically, although the only thing they had to do with it was being listed along with her as contributers) and insulted me for associating her with the link that she posted.

Without even looking up who I was to see that I am a trans-friendly, LGBTQ-friendly, feminist, sex-positive skeptic, she just assumed that, because the automated aggregate reposted the link that *she posted* originally, I must therefore be on the same side of whoever was in that link she posted. Which I have not read.

Now, in my opinion, forming a conclusion without having all the facts and being dismissive of one's supporters actually makes her *more* in a class with Richard Dawkins, but as someone who thinks skepticism requires research & understanding the subject material before getting into arguments about it, I am more than happy to remove her from my personal list of "skeptics of note", as this reaction is not very skeptical at all.

But, as per her request, I am announcing to my friends & followers that she does not wish to be associated with me or the other skeptics included in the aggregate, so please respect her wishes and no longer associate her with other skeptics.

http://t.co/OzfdM9w1

Here are the actual Tweets that prompted this:

Joreth
The Skeptic's Daily News is out! http://paper.li/Joreth/skepticism ► top stories today via @RichardDawkins @michaelshermer @nataliereed84 #skepticism

Natalie Reed
@Joreth @RichardDawkins @michaelshermer Why are you sharing Justicar's nasty, petty little video and tagging it "shared by Natalie Reed!"?!

Natalie Reed ‏@nataliereed84
@Joreth @RichardDawkins @michaelshermer I have no idea who you are, but if you ARE sympathetic to that "camp" of "skeptics", please leave...

Natalie Reed ‏@nataliereed84
@Joreth @RichardDawkins @michaelshermer ...me out of anything you do now or in the future. Thanks.

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@nataliereed84 I'm not, the automated online make-your-own-newspaper paper.li is. It sees what links ppl posts & aggregates them

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@nataliereed84 Please do some research before you get angry & start falsely accusing ppl of things. I have no idea what you're talking about

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@nataliereed84 I didn't watch the video, I didn't choose that particular link. If you posted it, paper.li picked it up

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@nataliereed84 But I'll be happy to remove you from the list of respected skeptics & scientists who provide news & links to twitter

Joreth ‏@Joreth
To all #skeptics: @nataliereed84 has requested to be disassociated from other #skeptical people like @RichardDawkins &@michaelshermer.

Natalie Reed ‏@nataliereed84
@Joreth @RichardDawkins @michaelshermer No, mainly from you. But thanks for indicating what kind of "skeptic" you are.

Natalie Reed ‏@nataliereed84
@Joreth @RichardDawkins @michaelshermer (not that I'm much of a fan of Shermer or Dawkins either)

Joreth ‏@Joreth
Please respect @nataliereed84's wishes to no longer be associated with important #skeptics of note. #skepticism #skeptic

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@nataliereed84 that is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know me & didn't bother to research what happened before getting pissed off

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@nataliereed84 Look up paper.li, look at what it does & how links get added before you start trolling about it

VixenVivienValentine ‏@vae_victae
@nataliereed84 paper.li does automatic aggregation of links. Since you posted that video it attributed that to you. It's not @Joreth fault.

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@vae_victae I did try to tell @nataliereed84 that, but she seems to prefer to jump to conclusions & get angry at supporters. Shame.

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@vae_victae Oh, I guess @nataliereed84 blocked me, so she won't see my responses anymore. Again, it's a shame.

VixenVivienValentine ‏@vae_victae
@Joreth indeed a shame. While I understand your aggressiveness to her, I feel that maybe if you had responded differently it'd be different

Joreth ‏@Joreth
Shame to see a #skeptic who actually cares about trans, women's, & LGBTQ issues go off on a rant w/o understanding the topic@nataliereed84

Joreth ‏@Joreth
We have so few trans/lgbtq/feminist #skeptics doing activist work for the rest of us that it hurts when 1 goes off the rails @nataliereed84

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@vae_victae I'm not sure if you read my responses to her, but I was the opposite of aggressive. I am also tired of these misunderstandings

Natalie Reed · Friends with George Hrab and 1 other
:eyeroll:

Look, you decided to use this auto-link aggregating software to make a "newspaper". Therefore you're responsible for the outcome.

This ranty reaction trying to discredit me, making ridiculous claims about me "asking to be disocciated from all skeptics" (though frankly, at this point, I wouldn't really mind) is unbelievably petty and childish. That's not what happened and you know it. I asked that IF you were one of the people sympathetic to Vacula and such that I would no longer be included in whatever YOU do. That much was explicit.

I didn't like having a nasty, trollish video of me posted to a site with my name appearing as though supportive. YOU are responsible for the content that appears on YOUR site, regardless of how it got there. Sorry, but "it was my software's fault!" doesn't change that. It's not an excuse.

A mature, responsible, reasonable reaction would have been to remove the video from your site and remove me from your aggregating software.

THIS response is anything but.

Joreth InnKeeper
I can repost the tweet where you asked me to do so if you would like.

Joreth InnKeeper
Also, I can't remove the video, it's not my site, however I *did* remove you from the aggregation, as you requested. That's what I tried to explain to you, but you don't seem to want to hear that.

Natalie Reed · Friends with George Hrab and 1 other
And that's not your site? Really? You have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it? Which is why you were promoting it, and why you've had this enormously emotional childish outburst?

Joreth InnKeeper
No, it's not my site. I will ask you only one more time to actually research the topic. I have no connection to paper.li, I do not know its owners, I have no say in its algorithms, or its programming. It is as much my site as Twitter is. I am not "promoting" it, I am using it the same way you and I are both using Facebook and Twitter. I cannot help that it chose that particular link that you posted and I cannot remove it. All I can do is provide the list of people to aggregate, and your name has been removed.

Joreth InnKeeper
As for "enormously emotional childish outburst", I'd like to introduce you to the kettle. Out of the two of us, I am not the one using emotional language and running off at the mouth about things I don't understand. I added you to a list of respected skeptics because I thought the things you posted should be shared with a wider audience. You have done nothing but behave emotionally, accusatory, and angrily about it and I have complied with your request without calling you names or getting upset myself.

Natalie Reed · Friends with George Hrab and 1 other
If you have no say in it, how the hell were you "happy to remove me from the list... who provide new..."?

And again, why were you the one promoting it? If not you, who DID set up Skeptic Daily News, and who chooses which feeds do or don't get put there? What is your exact involvement?

Also, look again my tweets: IF you're part of THAT CAMP OF SKEPTICS (ie. Justicar etc.) please leave me out of anything YOU do now or in the future. THANKS.

Natalie Reed · Friends with George Hrab and 1 other
It's completely disingenuous for you to act like you're being totally calm and friendly and nice here. You know you aren't. At least do me the courtesy of assuming I'm not THAT easily manipulated.

Natalie Reed · Friends with George Hrab and 1 other
I have to go, though. Fortunately, I've got some stuff I have to do. Bye.

(though I have to admit, it's things like this that make me feel like yeah, I really DON'T want anything to do with any self-professed or skeptics or atheists)

Joreth InnKeeper
Seriously, please stop talking about things you don't understand. I'll try to explain this slowly, to get through your emotional outburst.

I have no say in how the service is provided, just in the same way that you have no say in how Facebook offers its services. However, just like how you can use Facebook, according to how the creators of Facebook allows you to, I used paper.li in the way that they allow me to, without actually being associated with it. I do not own stock in it, I am not employed by them, I receive no kickbacks or payments or incentives. I am not associated with paper.li anymore than you are associated with Facebook. Unless you are "promoting" Facebook every time you use it, I cannot be accused of "promoting" paper.li simply for using the service.

However, they offer a service the way that Facebook offers a service. That service allows me to create lists of people for it to aggregate, but I do not choose *what* paper.li aggregates. Since I can create the list, I also have the power to remove people from that list. That is the extent of my association and "power" over paper.li. You have more control over the content that shows up on your Facebook feed than I do on paper.li.

ALL I DO IS PROVIDE THE LIST OF PEOPLE. That's it. I cannot tell it which of your posts to re-post and I cannot tell it which posts to not repost. I can't even single out which people on that list get chosen for any specific edition. I can tell it which people to follow or which hashtags to follow and IT decides which posts to post.

YOU posted that video. paper.li reposted it and I had no say in what it chose, other than to list you as someone to pull from, but not which of your posts to choose. If you don't want people to re-post what you post, you might want to consider not posting things.

Natalie Reed · Friends with George Hrab and 1 other
(also, regarding the comparison to twitter and facebook: you're responsible for your twitter and facebook feeds too. You can't absolve yourself from posting something damaging or libelous on a social networking site by saying "I don't own the site ITSELF". You're still responsible.

Joreth InnKeeper
And, no, actually, I am not responsible for the content of my twitter or facebook feed when that content is a re-post of someone else. Just like you, I often post things I am offended by, to complain about them and express my outrage. If we were held responsible for that content, then you would have to accept responsibility for the content in this video you are so outraged about now (which I still haven't seen), since you posted it on your feed. According to your logic, that now makes you responsible for its content.

Joreth InnKeeper
Also, I'm sure you have run into trolls on the internet who claim to know what you are thinking and feeling and completely dismiss you when you say they are wrong. At least do me the courtesy of NOT assuming that you know what I think or feel and stop accusing me of having feelings or associations that I do not have.

Again, if you had bothered to do any research, it would be clear to you that I am, indeed, not upset or having an emotional outburst, as there are plenty of examples of me doing so on the internet. And anyone who has ever seen me have one could not possibly confuse this exchange with one of my emotional outbursts.

I can't tell you how much I hate the phrase "Don't Be A Dick". I greatly admire & respect Phil Plait & Wil Wheaton, who have made that the catchphrase of the Nice Guy Skeptical Movement (TM). I will go so far as to say that I even happen to agree with their point - that people don't tend to change their minds when you're insulting them, so if we want to change someone's mind directly, we shouldn't call them names on the internet when we disagree.

The reason I hate the phrase is because it is subjective. There is no criteria for what being a "dick" means. So it gets used every time anyone says anything that anyone else disagrees with. Sure, we can point to examples where one person is clearly being an asshole, clearly being antagonistic, and not at all interested in dialog and an exchange of viewpoints. But that's not usually under debate by either side in the DBAD debate.

To clarify: Don't Be A Dick is not when you complain about someone doing something harmful and you call him out on it, like calling the sexist asshole who fired a movie reviewer for daring to write a movie review about Snow White because it propagated "alpha females and beta males", a sexist asshole. You're not a dick for calling an asshole an asshole. Don't Be A Dick is also not when you complain about a person holding a harmful, offensive, or dangerous position or worldview, like the fucktard who thinks children should be killed for disobeying their parents and calling that person a fucktard. You're not a dick for being appalled by someone's harmful and offensive worldview. Don't Be A Dick is not when someone says something sexist/racist/bigoted/offensive and you try to tell them that it was sexist/racist/bigoted/offensive and they shouldn't do that - you are not a dick for trying to eliminate racism/sexism/bigotry.

Don't Be A Dick is when you hold some position or make some claim, and you are told, sometimes by someone who actually agrees with you, to adjust your delivery so as to not offend the people who disagree with you without necessarily changing the message. This is when you say "you're being racist" and someone says "you are correct, but you should say it nicer, without using the "r" word, so that he doesn't get upset and he will be more likely to listen to you".

There are 2 times when I see this catchphrase being used:

1) Nice Guy Skeptics talking philosophically about tactics for converting people to skeptical or atheist viewpoints, but not giving any specific examples or pointing any fingers.

2) When one person says something that another person finds offensive, regardless of how the original message is phrased or the intent of the speaker, simply because the offended person doesn't like what was said, and the original person is told to change how he phrases things without changing the message, as if that would fix the offense.

There is no clear-cut way to determine when one is being a dick or how to avoid being a dick, when these are the 2 instances of use for the phrase. I admit that I can be an asshole. There are times when I lose my temper and I have ceased having a productive conversation and have resorted to expressing my anger without using that anger as a tool to motivate others. One such noteworthy exchange is when I asked, and then demanded, that someone stop tweeting at me & demanding that I engage with him in a religious debate, and after he refused to stop, I spent the next 2 days tweeting nothing but insults at him to get him to block me. I was not being productive or trying to have a dialog, and there was never any illusion that I was.

But then there are times when I just state something, not even an opinion sometimes but a statement of fact, and I am accused of being an asshole, a dick, "aggressive", mean, bullying, etc. If I happen to say something, and someone out there on the internet doesn't like the statement, whether it's an opinion or a fact or even when I sympathize with them, I will be accused of being mean and of hurting someone's feelings, or worse, hurting "the community/movement". Confidence and pragmatism are often confused with arrogance and aggressiveness, especially online. Someone who seems confident to me will seem arrogant to someone else. How do we know which one is correct? Most likely, the answer is both and neither.

Take the most recent post, for example:

Natalie Reed
@Joreth @RichardDawkins @michaelshermer Why are you sharing Justicar's nasty, petty little video and tagging it "shared by Natalie Reed!"?!

...

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@nataliereed84 I'm not, the automated online make-your-own-newspaper paper.li is. It sees what links ppl posts & aggregates them

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@nataliereed84 Please do some research before you get angry & start falsely accusing ppl of things. I have no idea what you're talking about

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@nataliereed84 I didn't watch the video, I didn't choose that particular link. If you posted it, paper.li picked it up

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@nataliereed84 But I'll be happy to remove you from the list of respected skeptics & scientists who provide news & links to twitter

...

VixenVivienValentine ‏@vae_victae
@nataliereed84 paper.li does automatic aggregation of links. Since you posted that video it attributed that to you. It's not @Joreth fault.

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@vae_victae I did try to tell @nataliereed84 that, but she seems to prefer to jump to conclusions & get angry at supporters. Shame.

...

VixenVivienValentine ‏@vae_victae
@Joreth indeed a shame. While I understand your aggressiveness to her, I feel that maybe if you had responded differently it'd be different

...

Joreth ‏@Joreth
@vae_victae I'm not sure if you read my responses to her, but I was the opposite of aggressive.

It's hard for me to even see where someone could have interpreted what I said there as "aggressive". Natalie asked me, angrily, why I was sharing some video and associating her with it. I told her, immediately and clearly, that I wasn't doing so and I explained about the link aggregate service. I didn't cuss, call her names, or use emotional language. I was also limited to 140 characters.

Some of you will remember another post I made a couple of years back about the polyamory.com forums, in which someone made an offensive statement. I and a couple of others pointed out the factual inaccuracy of the statement & the offense in making it, several people responded angrily & emotionally, those on my side again pointed out the inaccuracy (calmly, I thought), and then those on my side were accused of being angry and hurtful, apparently without irony to the original angry and hurtful comments that prompted our responses. Only after I lost my temper at being insulted, did my posts get deleted, but the original offensive posts never did, nor did the insults that caused me to lose my temper.

Then there are the numerous times when someone just doesn't like me personally, and they will disagree with me no matter what I say, even while I am agreeing with them. We end up in this "duck season / rabbit season" argument where they say something, I agree, then they argue with me over it. For instance, someone posted something not too long ago about Unicorn Hunters that was derogatory. Someone else jumped in with "I see nothing wrong with unicorn hunting, because I do this thing that is totally not unicorn hunting". So I said something like "it doesn't sound like you are the kind of jerk that the OP is talking about, so don't worry about it". And they proceeded to defend their right to call themselves Unicorn Hunters and insist that unicorn hunting isn't bad. I believe my response was something along the lines of "I'm trying to explain to you why you're not an asshole, but if you want to keep insisting you are, I'll stop defending you".

tacit gets this all the time too. The Polyamorous Misanthrope once made a blog post that was, essentially, the exact same kind of post that tacit makes. Or maybe it was even a re-post of his, I don't remember. One of her followers complimented her on the post, and she responded that it was the same thing that tacit always says. They replied that they can't stand tacit. She posted on tacit's page that she doesn't understand why people like her but don't like him, because she says the same thing, and in no less of a blunt, holds-no-punches sort of way. Same message, same delivery, yet people like her and don't like him. Sometimes there is no helping this.

This, by the way, is primarily the problem happening in our Congress at the moment. The Republicans in office are doing their damnedest to disagree with Democrats, even when the Democrats agree with them. They seem to want to disagree on principle, not because they actually disagree. Consequently, we have one of the most fucked up Congresses ever in our history, with decisions being made to the detriment of our country, deliberately and intentionally, out of spite.

Then there is when I, fairly regularly, post exchanges where I am accused of having some emotional state that I do not currently have, and I have posted several examples of the differences between a calm difference of opinion ("what you said was incorrect, here is the evidence") and an emotional outburst ("you fucking shithead! I hate you!")

And yet, every time I have a difference of opinion to someone, regardless as to how calm I state my position or how much to the facts I try to stick or even, on occasion, when I try to be conciliatory, I am accused of being the one to have some emotional outburst, some angry reaction, some feeling that I am not feeling.

So I strongly disagree with the whole "Don't Be A Dick" meme, not because I disagree with the underlying premise, but because I think it is subjective and, ultimately, futile. If people don't like what you have to say, someone will think you're being a dick no matter how you say it, and having this ambiguous, undefined moving goalpost of "dick" that we're all supposed to follow won't change that.

I can try to hold myself to a certain standard of exchange, but in the end, we all usually feel justified in the position we take (or if we change our minds, then the willingness to change further confirms our own opinion of ourselves as being Good Guys), and besides that, the phrase "Don't Be A Dick" is a message from one person to another, not a personal standard. It's not like edwardmartiniii's Bue Button project - a reminder to ourselves to hold ourselves to a standard that we, ourselves, set. Don't Be A Dick an admonition from other people that you are not behaving the way THEY think you ought to behave.

As an aside, even though edwardmartiniii's Blue Button is intended as a personal standard, even that gets used as a weapon with which to bludgeon those with whom people disagree. In some other disagreement that I had online that I don't even remember the details of, some friend of his told me that I needed a blue button for daring to hold a position that the commenter did not hold - again, people trying to tell others how to behave, and mostly surrounding "tone", not actual behaviour - completely contrary to the spirit of edwardmartiniii's Blue Button, which is about protecting one's community from bullies by making a personal vow to stand up to bullying when one sees it and explicitly not trying to "stop other people from being creepy". In fact, telling other people that they need to wear a blue button is, again explicitly, against the rules for how this concept is to work.

There is a quote that I can't find, so I can't give you the exact wording or proper attribution. But it says, essentially, that there is no nice way to tell someone that they wasted their entire lives on a lie. Which is, essentially, what one is saying when one claims that religion & the god myths are not true. But it's even less world-shattering than that. There is no nice way to challenge any belief that a person holds strongly, whether it's something as deep and profound as our purpose in life or as ultimately unimportant as who is the best football team in the NFL (seriously, I watched this argument nearly come to blows last week when a customer at Little Ceasar's asked the cashier who her favorite team was, and he, shall we say, did not agree).

If the other person has a strong emotional attachment to their position, you can try different tactics to get through to them, but, ultimately, you are telling them that you think they are wrong and they have an attachment to the belief that they are right. Because some positions are, by their very nature, mutually exclusive - you can't hold one without simultaneously believing the other is false. If you think the moon is made of green cheese, then, by necessity, you have to think that anyone who thinks it's made of rock is wrong. Even if you refuse to go so far as to use the words "they are wrong".

And sometimes, with some people and some tactics, it won't be a big deal. If you think I'm wrong to have been a fan of the 49ers back in my sports days, I won't really care, unless you try to attack me over it. And then, I'll only care that you're attacking me, not that you like the Steelers (that's still football, right?).

But other times, with other people, and other topics, the tactic won't matter - especially if part of their position is that *you* are A Bad Guy for holding that position in the first place. Someone, sometime, somewhere, will think you're a Dick, and if we insist on flying the DBAD banner, we will forever be derailing into the Tone Argument, when we should be focusing on the topic under debate.

And I am fucking sick to death of having the motherfucking Tone Argument or having people tell me that I'm feeling things that I'm not feeling, especially when I have gone out of my way not to lose my temper or devolve into yet another flame war. Your feelings are your own, and just because you have them, it does not mean necessarily that I am the reason you are feeling them. There is only so far anyone should be expected to go to make *you* feel better about what they're saying.

If you don't like my message, then you don't like my message, but for the love of all that is good in this universe, STOP fucking derailing the argument into whether or not I was properly conciliatory when I said that thing that you didn't like. Maybe I wasn't being a dick, maybe I wasn't being aggressive or rude or mean or an asshole. Maybe you just didn't like what I had to say, or maybe you had an emotional reaction to the topic and misunderstood what I was saying, or maybe you don't like me personally and it doesn't matter even when I'm agreeing with you. And maybe the message is actually something worth being a dick about - maybe the message is something that the messenger ought to be angry about or posting in angry, emotional language.

Just please stop telling people when they should or should not be angry, stop accusing them of being angry (or any other emotion) when they have said that they're not, and stop this bullshit meme about "don't be a dick" - it is a totally subjective standard that cannot possibly be enforced. Even the honorable Phil Plait & Wil Wheton have gone into "dick" mode when they were sufficiently pushed, and they will defend those times as "but that's different!"

Yeah, it's different - a different perspective. When it happened to them, it was either justifiable, or they salvaged their opinions of themselves as Nice Guys by later admitting that they were wrong. But when it happens to someone else, that someone else is being "a dick". Just like when you cut someone off in traffic, it's because you're in a hurry, but when that guy does it to you, he's an asshole.

We are all "dicks" to someone else, and there are times when it doesn't matter how you phrase it, holding the position that you hold makes you the "dick" and there are no collection of pretty words to make the other person see it otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLX5dwy8Leo#t=3m50s

(if it doesn't start playing at 3:50, skip to that point - that's the only part that's relevant)

Profile

Joreth

The Inn Between

August 2024

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

The Journal Of The InnKeeper

Ranty Lessons by Joreth

Nov. 18th, 2012

Nov. 18th, 2012

Archiving Bizarre Exchange

On Being A Dick

Profile

Links

Page Summary

Tags

August 2024

Banners