Phil Plait - Don't be a dick

Questioning people's cherished fantasies and telling them they're wrong is going to be perceived as "dickish" no matter what tone you use. Believers interpret any expression of atheism as "uncivil."The theist definition of a "militant atheist" is "one whose lips are moving." Worrying about "tone" and "being a dick" is concern trolling, and Phil Plait fell for it. The goal is to poison the well again skeptical and atheist discourse by referring to any honest expression of it as "being a dick."

That's always what it's about - insufficient deference for the delusions of theists is described as "being a dick." Being "militant." I mean, is there anybody here who honestly wouldn't call me a dick, who wouldn't say I'm a militant atheist?Have I ever done anything but disagree with the truth of people's religious beliefs?And frankly plain confrontation works: Almost Diamonds: On the Utility of Dicks

quote:

---

Then a friend gave me Flim Flam. James Randi told me how people had lied to me under the guise of nonfiction, under the guise of science. He was, in fact, kind of a dick about it. That's not a very nice book by any definition of the word. It uses name-calling. It sneers.

​

But oh, it was exactly what I needed. I needed it both for the information it gave me and for the anger and vitriol. Without Randi's vitriol, I wouldn't have been able to make the clean break in thinking that I did. If he hadn't been so clearly and visibly and sometimes nastily angry about the perversion of systems that were meant to uncover and convey the best knowledge we can have, I'd have been faced with the choice between a more classical skepticism, doubting everything that came my way, and clinging to the idea that what I believed had to be true.

​

Randi's anger defined a space where I could safely land.

---

Braid a whip and run out the moneychangers?Not bring peace, but a sword?

Isn't that why you're here?Or is convincing people only OK when creationists are doing it?