• Thoughts On Secular Community’s Open Letter

    Recently, some of the leaders of organizations from the greater community of reason have signed on to an open letter to address the infighting within the atheist online community. I hate talking about this and I sincerely hope this will be the last time.

    I want to say that I agree with this open letter on every issue however, there is one issue that while I agree I am also concerned about. The issue for me is the call to moderate blogs and forums.

    “Any organization or individual engaged in blogging or administering a forum has an obligation to moderate comments. Slurs, threats, and so forth beget more of the same. Keeping our online spaces free of these elements creates a civil climate that makes it much easier for people to engage issues productively.”

    This is a pretty sensible approach and most atheist bloggers do this already. I do that here on Dangerous Talk and I try to do that when I can on Examiner. However, sometimes I get a lot of comments on an Examiner or HuffPo article. When this happens, I don’t always read through all the comments. But that isn’t my real concern here.

    I am concerned that atheist blogs and forums will become overly moderated. I hate when I make a long comment on a blog or forum and then when I hit post, I get a message that says that my comment will be held for moderation before it actually posts. I see this on a lot of religious blogs and forums and eight times out of ten, my comment never actually posts and I wasted my time.

    The internet is not a safe space. It is a public forum to share ideas and those ideas are open for criticism. Religious websites often fear open discussion because their ideas are weak. They fear criticism so they shut down or heavily moderate comments, discussion, and dissent. Within the atheist community online, most bloggers and forums rarely restrict or delete comments. While we moderate comments in the sense that we are willing to delete comments that contain threats and sometimes slurs, we tend to let most comments stand. If someone says something insulting, I would rather that comment stand so that people can see what an ass that person is for themselves.

    Threats of course are deleted and I have even had to block a few people who were genuinely abusive. But this is very rare. I am concerned that this will be less rare do to the real need to prevent the infighting in our online community. Atheists are becoming too quick to be offended or to fear offending others. Hello? We are atheists! We offend many religious believers by our very existence. We have to have thicker skins. If some assclown says something offensive, who cares? It just shows them to be an assclown (Disclaimer: that is not a slur with regard to clowns. Not all clowns are asses. Some clowns are very nice people).

    I bring this up because the largest atheist Facebook page (The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason) has recently restricted posts from non-administrators. This happened after the page was hacked, but the restriction appears permanent. This is disappointing. No other atheist Facebook page restricts posts. However, most Christian and Muslim pages do exactly that.

    One point that I really like about this Open Letter is the call for private communication before attacking someone and to give the person the benefit of the doubt in those communications. I have written about this before and I think it is vitally important. We need to recognize that the people in our community all value reason and honest discourse. Most of us have changed our position on one of the most difficult things to change our position on (i.e. religion). We are open to changing our position and/or behavior if given good solid reason for doing so. Conversation before condemnation.

    Also, I want to remind everyone of my Anti-Drama Pledge in which I have stated that the best way to end the drama is to not read blog posts dealing with it. The exception to that rule is for posts that are part of the solution (like the Open Letter).

    I support this Open Letter and I have signed it and am reposting it below:

    An Open Letter to the Secular Community

    It is an amazing time to be part of the secular movement. Look at what’s happened in 2012 alone. We held the Reason Rally, the largest event our community has ever had, which brought over 20,000 atheists, humanists, and other secular people together on the National Mall. We are growing, attracting new people, and drawing more attention than ever before. A big part of that growth is thanks to our large and dynamic online community. Online secular communities have helped people encounter new ideas, deepen and broaden their thinking, and even change their minds.

    A Problem with Online Communication

    At the same time, the fact that so much of our community is online brings with it certain challenges. Communicating primarily online can make it difficult to recognize each other’s humanity. Online we don’t have the same vocal and physical cues to tell us what another person means by his or her comments, so it’s easier for misunderstandings to develop. The instantaneous and impersonal nature of online communication also makes it much easier for these misunderstandings to escalate, or for civil arguments to turn into bitter fights. Like many online communities, our comment and forum threads all too often become places for name calling and even threats, rather than honest dialogue based on mutual respect. Between the small but vocal number of abusive participants (often called “trolls”) who hurl threats and insults, and the overheated rhetoric of some ordinarily friendly and reasonable people, our online environment is in danger of turning toxic. Fortunately, our secular values of reason and compassion give us tools to rise above the lowest common denominator of online communication.

    Our Position and Our Pledge

    We, the leaders of the undersigned national secular organizations, pledge to make our best efforts toward improving the tone and substance of online discussions. The secular movement as a whole is friendly, welcoming, and committed to the use of reason and evidence as a means of resolving disagreements. We refuse to allow the deplorable conduct of a few to debase the reasonable, appropriate, and respectful conduct of the overwhelming majority of our community.

    We seek to promote productive debate and discussion. We firmly believe open and candid discussion is the most reliable means of resolving differences of opinion and bringing about needed change.

    Insults, slurs, expressions of hatred, and threats undermine our shared values of open and candid discussion because they move us away from an exchange of views supported with reasons.

    Of course we will disagree with each other on some issues, but we can do a better job of expressing our disagreements. We can resolve to avoid mischaracterizing the positions of others, relying on rumors as the basis for our opinions, and using inappropriate tactics such as guilt by association. Instead, we can give one another the benefit of the doubt, strive to understand the whole story, and de-escalate rhetoric to foster more productive discussions. We can become better at disagreeing by treating each other like reasonable human beings.

    It takes patience to educate people, but we can change how people think by having a constructive dialogue. If that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t bother in the first place to communicate online about important issues.

    The Debate over Sexism and Feminism

    Before listing some specific recommendations regarding improvement of online communications, we have observations about one particular set of interrelated issues that has engaged much of the secular community in the past year, namely sexism within the secular movement, the appropriate way to interpret feminism, and the extent to which feminism, however interpreted, should influence the conduct, policies, and goals of movement organizations. This set of issues is worthy of careful consideration, but in a few areas our positions should be very clear.

    The principle that women and men should have equal rights flows from our core values as a movement. Historically, there has been a close connection between traditional religion and suppression of women, with dogma and superstition providing the rationale for depriving women of fundamental rights. In promoting science and secularism, we are at the same time seeking to secure the dignity of all individuals. We seek not only civil equality for everyone, regardless of sex, but an end to discriminatory social structures and conventions – again often the legacy of our religious heritage—that limit opportunities for both women and men.

    Unfortunately, the discussion of these issues has suffered from the same problems that plague online discussion in general—although arguably to a greater extent. Some blogs and comments actually exhibit hatred, including rape threats and insults denigrating women. Hatred has no place in our movement. We unequivocally and unreservedly condemn those who resort to communicating in such a vile and despicable manner.

    Our Approach

    Here are some things that we plan to do to make our online secular community a place where we can exchange ideas and views instead of insults. We hope that others may also find this approach useful.

    Moderate blogs and forums.
    Any organization or individual engaged in blogging or administering a forum has an obligation to moderate comments. Slurs, threats, and so forth beget more of the same. Keeping our online spaces free of these elements creates a civil climate that makes it much easier for people to engage issues productively.

    Go offline before going online: pick up the phone.
    When you hear that an organization or member of our community is doing something that you think is wrong or bad for the community, call and talk with them, find out what they are actually doing and why they are doing it. If you don’t have a phone number, send a private email and arrange a time to talk. So much of the time there’s more to the story, and talking to another person on the other side of the issue can help us more fully understand the situation. Plus, a phone call makes it easier for people who are making mistakes to change course, because they aren’t on the defensive as they would be after being called out publicly.

    Listen more.
    We miss the nuances and differences within “the other side” once an issue becomes polarized, while continuing to see our side as filled with nuance and distinctions. There is a tendency to stop listening and treat everyone associated with an opposing position as a monolithic group. People can be painted with views that aren’t their own just because they may disagree with some aspects of your own position. We should listen more so we can see distinctions among those with opposing views and start to move toward a more accurate understanding of the issues rather than being deadlocked into two entrenched camps.

    Dial down the drama.
    It’s tempting to overuse inflammatory and derogatory rhetoric. It gets attention. We should be cautious about using this tactic within our community because of the long-term damage it does to relationships and morale. When critiquing people within our community, everyone should remember that our goal is to persuade our allies to see our perspective and modify their opinions. Insults don’t change opinions; they harden them.

    Be more charitable.
    We should remember that the purpose of argument within our community is to come to shared and correct conclusions that move us forward, not to score points against the opposing side. To that end, we should apply the principle of charity, which tells us to aim our argument against the best interpretation of the opposing arguments rather than picking off weaker versions. By applying the principle of charity we will elevate the discussion so we’re actually talking about our real differences, not just engaging in a pointless exchange.

    Trust but verify.
    Before we believe and repost something we see, we should ask ourselves about the evidence provided and the context. It’s easy for multiple people saying the same thing to look like a lot of evidence, but if their statements are all based on the same original source, they do not constitute independent verification. We should look for the original data and corroboration from independent sources before believing and spreading claims.

    Help others along.
    We should remember that we weren’t born knowing the things we know now. To get to the reasoned conclusions that we’ve reached, we learned by reading, thinking, and talking with others. When we encounter someone espousing a view we think is based on lack of knowledge or experience, we should remember that we have all held ill-informed views. We should cultivate patience and try to educate instead of condemn.

    By improving our online culture, we can make this movement a place that engages, fulfills, and welcomes a growing number and increasing diversity of secular people.

    Sincerely,

    David Silverman, President, American Atheists
    Rebecca Hale, President, American Humanist Association
    Roy Speckhardt, Executive Director, American Humanist Association
    Chuck VonDerAhe, President, Atheist Alliance of America
    Richard Haynes, President, Atheist Nexus
    Ayanna Watson, CEO, Black Atheists of America, Inc.
    Mandisa L. Thomas, President, Black Nonbelievers, Inc.
    Mynga Futrell, for Brights Central, at The Brights’ Net
    Amanda Metskas, Executive Director, Camp Quest
    Ronald Lindsay, President and CEO, Center for Inquiry
    Tom Flynn, Executive Director, The Council for Secular Humanism
    Jan Meshon, President, FreeThoughtAction
    Joseph McDaniel Stewart, Vice President, FreeThoughtAction
    Margaret Downey, Founder and President, Freethought Society
    D.J. Grothe, President, James Randi Educational Foundation
    Stuart Jordan, President, Institute for Science and Human Values
    Jason Torpy, President, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
    R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Executive Director, Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
    Edwina Rogers, Executive Director, Secular Coalition for America
    August E. Brunsman IV, Executive Director, Secular Student Alliance
    Todd Stiefel, President, Stiefel Freethought Foundation
    Fred Edwords, National Director, United Coalition of Reason
    Staks Rosch, Dangerous Talk & National Atheism Examiner

    Enhanced by Zemanta

    Category: AtheismAtheist Infighting

    Tags:

    Article by: Staks Rosch

    Staks Rosch is a writer for the Skeptic Ink Network & Huffington Post, and is also a freelance writer for Publishers Weekly. Currently he serves as the head of the Philadelphia Coalition of Reason and is a stay-at-home dad.

    4 comments

    1. Moderation is a delicate process. You need to be fair, allow free expression, and keep a lid on potential problems. It’s possible to have a great, moderated discussion. Moderation is far preferable to dog piling, name calling, and other activities I’ve observed on some “skeptical” blogs. Those blogs are an embarrassment and a marketing nightmare. It’s quite difficult to promote skepticism with that kind of malarkey going on. (I’ll dismount my high horse now.) 🙂

    2. The senior clergy of Atheism/Scepticism have spoken. Telling us what kind of people we are and how we should behave. As a long time vocal atheist, I strongly resent this letter. Not the call for civility, I applaud anyone would argues for less asshatery online. I resent that this has been delivered from “authority”. We should, no dount, be suitable impressed. I have watched with a great deal of dismay as a very poisonous brand of feminism has divided this community. What does this letter have to say. People who say mean things about women are evil. Let’s completely ignore that it goes the other way too. Rape threats. These kinds of threats contain 50% more evil than the death threats male activists have been getting forever and consider par-for-the-course. It is a nearly beautiful irony that women are unwittingly justifying the stereotype of women being less able to handle people being mean to them by constantly complaining and getting bent out of shape about people being mean to them.

      There was once a time where ahteists would have roundly rejected an attempt like this for self-appointed “leadership” to impose rules. That was back in the days when we worked hard to explain that atheism was NOT a worldview or a political movement. Now we have the like of the embarrasing A+ movement with the likes of Richard “intellectual artillery” Carrier embodying everything atheists once railed against. While I fail to muster even the first modicum or respect for him, I would never suggest he was any less of an atheist than me or any less entitled to contribute to the atheist community online.
      While I don’t object to moderation of intentionally disruptive posts (what trolling actually is), the idea that insults “slurs” should be moderated most have broken some kind of hypocracy record for a community that has delighted in insulting and intentionally offending religious people since it’s inception. One of the true ironies of this whole thing is the call for an end to us and them, to make an effort to recognise the humanity in those we find ourselves opposed to. The othering of religious people has been nearly doctrinal in this community. It seems our taste for causing offence seems to have been seriously diminished by the turning of that offence causing against ourselves. The same people who are pushing relentlessly for growth of the atheist community seem to be unwilling to accept the price that has to be paid. There was a time when most people who self-identified as atheists were critical thinkers and sceptics. Those days are long gone.

      I think the key issue I have is that this letter and those that endorce it see atheists/sceptics as ” friendly, welcoming, and committed to the use of reason and evidence as a means of resolving disagreements.” Having been online since the first days of the internet and having watched the atheist community grow online; this is demonstrably untrue.
      It was inevitable that atheists would eventually start thinking this way. It is dissappointing that it has happened so fast. Apologies for the length and rambling nature of the post!

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *