The Hypocrisy of the Nice Guy

For those of you who don’t follow the skeptic movement (yes, there is such a thing) it’s basically a group of people who are fans of critical thinking, science-advocates, and debunkers of “woo.” Woo being magical thinking in general, and things like homeopathy, ghosts, bigfoot, astrology, psychics, vaccine denial, moon hoaxers, conspiracy theorists, some forms of religion and so on ad infinitum. And this group has a loose organizational structure, and meets and gathers in forums, and has conventions and leaders. So, that’s the background there.

Recently, within that group, there was a minor stir when Phil Plait, former President of the James Randi Educational Foundation, made a little speech about the tone of skeptical arguments. His message, as he often sums it up, was simply “don’t be a dick.” It’s a catchphrase he borrowed from internet maven, Wil Wheaton. He is “concerned” that skeptics are engaging in “childish, demeaning behavior” and “taking the low road.” He’s afraid that people are being aggressive, and calling people “retards” and “idiots.” He’s playing the role of the tone police, for lack of a better term.

Now, ignoring the roots that I think that this entire speech has in some higher profile atheist disputes within the community, I can’t help but laugh at this topic.  Looking at this commentary, and the way in which it’s delivered, I can’t help but think of a whole range of conversations in my life.  The thing that sticks out to me, here is the hypocrisy of the “nice guy.” This is the guy who says, “I’m nice. You are not. You need to be like me.” He says, “I’m doing things right, and you are ruining it.” He says, “My way is the only way. Yours is abhorrent.” So, what bothers me about this argument? It’s fucking rude, for one. It’s wrong on top of that. But most of all, in telling you so very frankly how you should be acting (namely nice, like him), he is becoming the very thing that he wishes you were not. He’s being a dick.

Go back to that link and watch Phil’s speech, and tell me what words come to mind with his tone. Friendly? Fun? Scientific? Sorry, no. Try sanctimonious. Try preachy. Try accusatory. (Try unfounded…while we’re at it.) This is the irony of the tone-nazi. In an attempt to call out the imaginary devils of the skeptic movement, he becomes a devil himself. He’s stirring the pot, creating internal strife, and deriding his fellows. And worst of all, he’s doing all of it in the most unskeptical manner possible: with assertion, after assertion, after assertion. This is the “just-so” fallacy of skeptical speeches.

And did I mention it’s pretty fucking rude too?

Note: Am I being rude, in turn, by calling out Plait on his speech? Sure, possibly. But I’m not the one advocating his “don’t be a dick” policy. I happen to think that a firm and strident approach can be quite effective. Hell, I’d even defend a skeptic calling people “retarded” in certain circumstances. But Tone-Nazis are after one thing, and that’s to exercise control over you. Why do you think it was long considered taboo, for example, to discuss religion and politics in “polite company?” And notice, that the only two examples even lightly touched on in that video (one by Plait, and one by Bidlack in the Q&A) were….yep….religion and politics. I say, talk it up. A skeptic has nothing to fear from scrutiny.

Update: Phil has posted another addendum to his blog on this topic. Sure enough, his speech is really ringing true with, guess who? The religious skeptics! They feel that when other skeptics critically examine their beliefs, they are being personally attacked. I wonder if, as a thought experiment, we replaced all the crying religious skeptics he mentions with crying psychic skeptics. Would there be as much “let’s be nice” sentiment? I think not.