This video is going to be as brief as I can make it.
I'm still working on the Science of Race, Part 2, and it should be up shortly.
Be sure to join us on the MagicSandwichShow tomorrow: our guest will be TheoreticalBullshit,
and I think we'll have an interesting and lively discussion.
It's the usual time, usual place.
I want to talk about Thunderf00t and his recent expulsion from FreeThoughtBlogs by PZ Myers.
I consider Thunder a friend, even when we don't always agree, and I thought PZ's actions
were pretty dodgy.
What I want to address, though, is the psychology behind this interaction.
To briefly recount the events in question, Thunder kicked off his new blog with posts
on the issue of sexism at atheist conferences.
He tried to apply his usual rational, objective perspective, to come at the issue as an outsider,
a neutral party, a non-combatant.
It's the same thing I try to do with controversial issues.
That's precisely the problem, though.
Thunder hasn't been involved in the long history of feminist thought in the secular movement.
PZ has.
Thunder doesn't have a strong opinion, hasn't engaged in debates, and hasn't fought this
battle for the last few decades.
PZ has.
I'll give an example of what it must have looked like to PZ: Imagine that Stephen Hawking
was asked to speak to a group of evolutionary biologists.
He offers, as an unbiased observer, the position that perhaps intelligent design really ought
to be taught alongside evolution in the public school classroom, as an exercise in critical
thinking.
Genie Scott of the NCSE is sitting in the front row.
How would she feel?
She'd have a headache from the light speed facepalm.
She'd feel that her movement had been set back, and she'd certainly want to distance
herself from Dr. Hawking and his comments.
He'd never be invited back, if she had her way.
In every one of these controversial debates, the process of discussion, the process of
defending a viewpoint, almost inevitably leads to a radicalization, a pulling towards one
polar position.
Eventually, we have two sides trading barbs, the discussion brought to a halt by too many
harsh words, like two armies lined up across a no-man's land.
Some new-comer blunders in, Thunderf00t, and makes a statement that seems to slightly favor
one position, or that repeats some old position held by one group.
Instantly, the other side identifies the person as a future opponent, and they immediately
distance themselves.
This isn't about malevolence, it's just the nature of intractable debate.
I find myself falling in the same trap.
There is nothing like a debate with a radical to radicalize me.
I find that the more I engage with marijuana evangelists, the more fervently I assert the
harms of cannabis.
Every time I engage with anti-GMO campaigners, it pulls me inexorably towards a pro-GMO position.
Being presented with outrageous statements makes us rush to the defense of a position
of reason, but it generates a momentum towards the opposite pole.
It takes a concious effort on my part to maintain my open-mindededness, and I don't always succeed.
I don't particularly care if Thunderf00t's position was right or wrong, mostly because
I have no investment in feminism or it's opposition, no reason to engage on this issue.
His video may have oversimplified the issue, or it may be outright wrong, and hurt the
cause of a diverse secular community.
I think his conflict with PZ was just that he wasn't a partisan.
By not supporting that position, he necessarily became the enemy.
I don't blame PZ, because I can understand what this looks like to him as well.
He cares about the diversity of the secular community, and to him, Thunder's post threatened
that cause.
The only victory to be had in these situations is peaceful coexistence.
PZ saw to it that Thunder no longer had a home or a voice at FreeThought Blogs.
That I WILL condemn.
It would have been better to simply acknowledge the disagreement, maybe attempt to expose
the flaws in Thunder's position, and move on.
There is a certain irony to being dropped by a blog created for the purpose of free
thought.
FTB was created specifically in response to this kind of restrictive editorial control
of content by National Geographic.
Even the issue at hand is the topic of how we maintain a diversity of people and opinions.
I think that cause was harmed by the example PZ set here.
I can appreciate his perspective and goals, but I think he went about it the wrong way.
Right or wrong, clueless or enlightened, the community thrives on diversity of thought.
The smartest people I know are the ones who surround themselves with opposing viewpoints.
Thanks for watching.