Part 2 with Ben Bell. For a description and if you haven’t heard part one, refer here: http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as129-reddit-toxicity/
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 43:14 — 49.6MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Part 2 with Ben Bell. For a description and if you haven’t heard part one, refer here: http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as129-reddit-toxicity/
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 43:14 — 49.6MB)
Subscribe: RSS
The first several minutes of part 2 clarified, and verified much of my commentary on part 1. Yes there’s going to be more “toxicity” when a minority community is responding to toxicity directed at it, and there’s a difference between “good”, and “bad” toxicity. A reddit group that is responding to racism, and bigotry may well score the same, or as more toxic than a racist. or bigoted reddit group.
As I pointed out in an earlier comment I don’t r/atheism either. That being said I assume it’s much like many other atheism groups. It’s not about having a discussion with theists. It’s about members of a hated minority group having what might be the first opportunity in their lives to have conversation, and share opinions with like minded people. I would also imagine that the overwhelming majority of theists who might comment on r/atheism wouldn’t be there to learn about atheists. They would be there to tell us we need to be saved, and are going to hell. We get more than enough of that in the real world.
Good points in your commentary, and I agree. That being said I think what I was shooting for in my comment was more about an internal response. From what I understand r/atheism is largely news posts. Something for example Pat Robertson, or the WBC might make headlines for having said. I might respond to, and would understand that being responded to with ridicule. Such ridicule might be considered toxic, While it might score as toxic I think ridicule can be effective. particularly if the person who is holding ridiculous beliefs considers himself intelligent. The target often recognizes that yes their position is indefensible using logic, and reason.
Very good discussion BTW, you asked all the questions, and brought up all the criticisms I would have. I still suspect there is a bias. I mean look how often remarks by Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins are labeled toxic (strident, bigoted), and they are among the least “toxic” atheists I can think of. I imagine suggesting indoctrinating your children into a religion is a form of child abuse might be considered a toxic comment by many.
What are your thoughts on the most recent (episode #112) Scathing Atheist ‘Diatribe’? It seems to be right in line with this Reddit subject.