And You Shall Know the Free Thinkers By Their Cussing?

Last updated on: September 18, 2014 at 8:09 am by Leah Libresco

And You Shall Know the Free Thinkers By Their Cussing? 2014-09-18T08:09:09-04:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Last week, an atheist friend of mine posted a link to Mark Oppenheimer’s feature article on misogyny in the atheist movement, sharing a quote and a comment:

“Jillette embodies that side of the freethought movement that prizes absolute free speech above feelings.”

In other words, the only side that enables free thought, period.

The Oppenheimer article had written up several instances of alleged sexual abuse or harassment, but Penn Jillette had wound up included in the piece because he “famously revels in using words like ‘cunt.'”

I think the steelmanned version of my friend’s comment is that, if your free thought movement doesn’t have some people around that it embarrasses you to be associated with, the odds are pretty good that you’re excluding some other currently-embarrassing ideas that will eventually turn out to be right. Employ as few filters as possible, and let the truth rise to the top.

I think that this is a consideration all movements should keep in mind, but that it isn’t a trump card — just another factor to weight in your decisions. Just like you’d weigh the dangers of losing correct ideas that come from the sort of people who don’t attend meetings where it’s common to use the word ‘cunt.’ Or for attendees to turn up naked. Or for some people to only respond to questions in Esperanto. All are generally frowned upon, and make it harder to have a conversation with your possibly-correct contrarian.

But there’s another part to this defense of Jillette and scolding of his detractors that isn’t just about offensive speech as a proxy variable for out-of-the-mainstream thinking. It’s in the dichotomization of free speech and feelings, which assumes that “that offends me” limits our ability to look at data, as surely as smashing a microscope does. Here, the instrument in danger of being crippled is the intellect, which isn’t allowed to use all of its settings once people like me come along and say, “Hey, could you watch the Nazi analogies? They’re distracting/upsetting me.”

My objection is that offense is also data about the world. And mighty interesting data, too, since it’s information about how humans think and feel, and what those facts imply about how we should treat them. That’s the sphere of inquiry that’s most urgently relevant to all of our lives. And, as we get better at investigating it, we should expect the set of actions we feel it’s appropriate to take to contract at times. That’s not a limitation placed on free inquiry — it’s the fruit of rational inquiry.

The point of considering ideas is to wind up believing the right ones. The point of analyzing behaviors is to wind up practicing the right ones. Feelings are as relevant to the latter category as solar eclipse astronomy is to ideas about relativity.

It might be that, after listening to the people who are upset, you think that they are upset in error — that, if they were in possession of all the facts, empirical and ethical, they wouldn’t find whatever you did repulsive. Or it might be that you’d wind up changing your own behavior, and taking an audit of your assumptions, to see where your model of the world went wrong–how you mistook your action or speech as morally neutral. Or you might both wind up agreeing that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the behavior or speech in question, but it tends to derail the conversation between the two of you, and it would be worth figuring out a workaround. (For an example in this category: I find it gross to talk to someone who is in the act of brushing their teeth, so I don’t).

But it’s only possible to come to any of these three conclusions if you’re willing to treat people’s discomfort with the same honest interest that you have for the subject you were originally talking about, prior to the interruption.

Atheism

Debate Tactics

Previous Post

September 17, 2014

Debunking the NYT's Numbers on Contraception

Next Post

September 19, 2014 7QT: The Hat of Scotland and the Sleeves of Me

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land. Seek righteousness, seek what else?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Justice Mercy Humility Peace