I’ve given Russell Blackford quite a bit of stick on here over the last year (see the post immediately below this one, for example!). There was always a sense in which this was a little unjust because in my view he is by quite some margin the most reasonable and civil of the high profile new atheist bloggers. There are things things he was involved in that I don’t think he should have been – particularly some of the stuff that happened to Chris Mooney – but, of course, one could come to that judgement about the behaviour of just about anybody (and, certainly, there’s stuff I’ve done of which I’m not proud: for example, in the early days of Butterflies and Wheels, I was involved in the online evisceration of some well-meaning Christian fella, which was completely out of order, and for which I later apologised by email); and, generally, I would have no particular problem with the new atheist phenomenon if it were peopled by thinkers of the style of Blackford (or indeed Dawkins or Dennett). (Unfortunately, it isn’t, which, of course, is why I do have a problem with online atheism/skepticism).
Anyway, Blackford has got caught in some of the crossfire tied up with the Elevator debacle, which has led to him being dismissed as a liar, condemned as a misogynist, and all sorts of other stuff. (I’m not linking to it here because I don’t want to give it any more publicity than is necessary for this post to make sense). These accusations are scurrilous and entirely unwarranted (and, unfortunately, absolutely characteristic of the modus operandi of large chunks of the online new atheist/skeptical community, though I mention that only in passing since it isn’t the point of this post).
Blackford has has this to say about the latest round of bloodletting:
Likewise, we’ve been getting totally unnuanced discussions of insults like “twat”. I don’t actually like these, either, as it happens, because I think there is at least tendency for them to express and reproduce sexist attitudes …but not everything is the same, and it’s possible to tease out the distinctions analytically and dispassionately. (E.g. I’m far more worried about the use of “cunt” as an insult, because its primary meaning is still the female pudenda; whereas “twat” has lost that meaning to some considerable extent. I think that “fool” is now its *primary* meaning.
He’s been subject to an extraordinary outpouring of vitriol as a result of this statement, but he’s absolutely right here. Not everything is the same. And the idea it isn’t possible to look at why everything isn’t the same, the idea it isn’t possible to take a different view about how a word such as “twat” functions, without being immediately dismissed as a misogynist by a mob is ridiculous (and the antithesis of anything that could be considered free enquiry). (For what it’s worth, I think labelling somebody a “liar”, or “gender-traitor”, is worse than calling them a “twat” or “prick”, for example, mainly because the former have propositional content, and the latter do not – which, presumably, is part of the reason why in the UK, at least, labelling somebody a “liar” is actionable, whereas calling somebody a twat is not).
I should also say that I’ve officially retired the “Polite Professor” designation. I fully intend to continue to call out the new atheists as and when I think it’s warranted (though, frankly, given the shenanigans of the last month or two, it’s hard to see how anything I can say can possibly compete with the damage they’re doing to themselves), but I can’t in good conscience continue to give Russell Blackford a hard time while it remains true that in comparison to the other high profile figures in the community he actually is rational and civil.
Comments are closed.