Tag » Tone debate
The tone debate, in atheist, skeptic and freethinker circles, is a long-running discussion on the propriety of presenting arguments against religious or irrational belief in the form of mockery or condemnation.
The two sides of the tone debate are commonly referred to as: “confrontationalists”, who insist that mockery and condemnation is a perfectly valid, and sometimes effective, way to criticize; and “accommodationists”, who prefer to be more subtle and tactical in their approach.
I’ve been busy helping my dad bring his music career into the 21st century, so I’m going to offer this old post I wrote. It was originally a Diaspora* post made after yet another complaint about atheists who speak out. Recent events have brought an old issue back up, and I posted an old Diaspora* post in anticipation of writing about them. That older post references and links to the previous version of this post, but unfortunately, you cannot view it unless you’re on the Diaspora* network. So, for completeness, I am reposting it here.
When people started fighting the evils of racism, there were inevitably those who claimed they were above both sides of the debate. They condemned those who were racist. But then they also condemned those who spoke out against the racists, calling them “uppity”, and accusing them of merely wanting to reverse the racism rather than ending it. (more…)
Yesterday, I took blogger vjack to task for an article at Atheist Revolution titled Recognizing Bigotry. My response, titled Recognizing bigotry is trickier than you think chided vjack for zir sloppy argument. But while zir argument may have been sloppy, zir intentions were good, right? That is, while dismissing Anne Graham Hotz as a bigot for the reasons given were wrong, dismissing her as a bigot – assuming one could reasonably show she is – isn’t wrong, right? (more…)