Comments on: Some More on Not Being a Dick

By: arensb

arensb — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:47:53 +0000

Matt: First of all, if you'd come to TAM, not only could you have heard the talk live instead of relying on second- or third-hand testimony, but I would've bought you a beer or six. Just letting you know what you missed out on. Secondly, yes, Phil was intentionally quite careful to not name any names. And while this may have helped prevent a feud between him and whoever he had in mind, it also means that we have to come up with our own examples of dickishness and non-dickishness. Though I might as well link to this article, since the comments include examples of both, IMO. Some of the comments from people on my side made me roll my eyes and wish I could delete comments on other people's sites. Thirdly, I stand by what I wrote above:

imagine that you’re in the future, after the woo that you’re railing against has gone the way of phlogiston and leeching, and that you’re rereading what you once wrote. Were you standing up for reality, or were you being an asshole?

We live in a post-phlogiston world and, for most purposes, a post-UFOlogy world. So is it okay to make fun of, or insult, the remaining UFOlogists, and to what extent? Presumably the same rules should hold in a post-theist world (or post-homeopathy, or post-).

from what I read of his talk, the description seems to be a sweeping exaggeration that doesn’t seem to map to anyone that I’m aware of.

That's why I transcribed so much of his talk: I wanted to be sure to report what he said, not what I thought I remembered him saying. The rest of it will have to wait until the JREF posts the official video. Anyway, no, I don't think Phil meant "don't contradict people" or "be nice, and refrain from calling bullshit". And if he did, then fuck Phil, because that's bogus. You know better than I do that there's an awful lot of bullshit out there, and it needs to be pointed out.

By: Matt Dillahunty

Matt Dillahunty — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:26:52 +0000

One of the things that I pointed out was that Phil didn’t seem to actually identify what he meant by being a dick. More accurately: from what I read of his talk, the description seems to be a sweeping exaggeration that doesn’t seem to map to anyone that I’m aware of. When I think of the skeptics who I’d suspect are most likely to be perceived as dicks by others, I not only don’t consider them to be dicks…I’m not sure Phil does either. I wish he’d have given more specific examples (as I’ve heard Massimo Pigliucci did).

Without better information, he seems to simply be knocking over straw men that someone has put between him and the windmill…

By: TAM 8 Link Roundup « G.E.S.S.

TAM 8 Link Roundup « G.E.S.S. — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:17:39 +0000

[...] Some More on Not Being a Dick from Epsilon Clue: “After all, we talk and write for all sorts of different reasons. Not all of us can, or want to be, teachers. Nor is that all that our readers want to read. FSM knows I enjoy reading Phil Plait and Ed Yong, but I’d go spare if those were the only voices on my side on the Internet. I also want there to be George Hrabs, Roy Zimmermans, Christopher Hitchenses, Hunters, and so on. And let’s face it: a good rant is fun to read.” [...]

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:14:00 +0000

“For one thing, there’s a vast difference between being frank, direct, or blunt; and being a dick.”

This, I think, is key. Well, said. I completely agree.