Mockery, Stunts and argument

[FireGarden]

I've had a particular debate on this forum a few times. Basically it amounts to: Debate ain't enough. Mockery is the way to convince people. Some kind of stunt -- Quran burning or nailing a wafer.

Personally, I compare that kind of thing to the 'exploding tomato':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6650545.stm

It's not something to aim for.

But people tell me that I have to go further.

Perhaps it requires koran burning, or koran page burning, or cutting out certain lines and verses and burning them, to make that point. Quiet diplomacy, however, won't cut it on its own.

[...] Metaphorical burning doesn't quite make the point as strongly.

I think quiet diplomacy makes the point rationally. It makes the point in a way which allows people to remain receptive enough to listen to the argument. It makes the point while setting an example which favours rationalism and tolerance and dialogue.

I remember having a similar argument with Articullett:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120570

She brought up convert's corner at Dawkins' site:
http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

They used to be numbered, but they're not now. I read a few of them back when I posted to that thread. I've read a few of them today. I didn't see people saying they were converted from religion by mockery or offensive stunts. There's currently a letter from an ex-Muslim at the top of the page. Though he is, himself, mocking of Islam in his post, he was converted from religion by arguments. He mentions Dawkins, Hitchens and quotes al-Razi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi#On_Religion

Of course, Converts Corner may be self-selecting to an extent. Many of the people who converted after reading Dawkins' books may well look for him on the web. Many of the converts do mention some of his books or TV programs.

So this thread is for debating the effectiveness of mockery, stunts and argument. I'd especially like it if people could post more pages like Convert's Corner. It doesn't have to be conversion to atheism. Conversion to religions via mockery, stunts or argument. Political conversions, etc.

And, okay, they're pretty useless but quite fun. So I'll also have a poll. But I'd like answers limited to what changed strongly held views.

 

[FireGarden]

Darn...
I meant to allow multiple choice. Guess you'll have to choose the best method of conversion.

 

[Cavemonster]

Yes, for most people, in the immediate moment, mockery puts them on the defensive, makes them less receptive to arguments and less disposed to consider or be sympathetic to what the speaker has to say.

But that's not the whole picture. A very important phenomenon, here on these boards in fact, is that the people involved in any public discussion are not just the people you see talking, and not just the people with strong positions. In an internet debate, or any public debate, there are a number of people who don't know what they think, who aren't in any camp enough to be offended, and if mockery is actually clever instead of merely mean-spirited, they can see and appreciate the ridiculousness of what's being mocked.

Even people with strong religious (or whatever) positions, even if they are defensive at first now have an emotional argument against their position rattling around in their head. And that's important. You've heard the saying that you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into? It's true.

A lot of people who embrace religion (pr whatever) do so at least partly because of emotional benefits, and they need an emotional reason to change course. I don't want to start an argument about it, but I believe that even the most rational skeptic is more moved by emotional forces than we'd like to admit. The difference is that we see that as a problem and try to recognize it and compensate, while many religious people find that the way they "feel" about something is a perfectly valid reason for deciding it's truth value. By planting the seed that makes them feel that their beliefs may be ridiculous (and from many places, we know this happens) you're giving them a negative emotional argument against their theist position.

Now, that won't work for everyone, that's why we also need positive emotional arguments! And purely rational arguments too. Personally, I think most theists will need at least some small level of emotional argument to change their mind, and positive emotional arguments are the most overlooked of the three areas.

 

[Robin]

If it is just mockery I am not swayed.

If the mockery has purpose, for example to point out an inevitably absurd consequence to a particular position or statement, then, yes, I can be swayed by it.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

This topic was mentioned on the AE more than a couple of times.

While generally speaking, being rude is never a good idea, sometimes snapping someone out it can be done by a slightly harsher tone.

The most common example given is: "You still believe in Santa Clause?"

There are some mertis to this approach as well.

If there was a specific formula to help bring people back to reality, we would administer it daily and the JREF would retire.

 

[Mark6]

No, I do not believe mockery ever convinces a person that he is wrong. However, it can convince the fence-sitting witnesses, by showing that the person being mocked is silly.

 

[Piscivore]

No, I do not believe mockery ever convinces a person that he is wrong. However, it can convince the fence-sitting witnesses, by showing that the person being mocked is silly.

It can also go the other way, convincing the fence-sitter that the mocker, despite claiming to hold the "high ground" of logic and reason, doesn't have anything to offer but insults, venom, and cheap emotional appeals.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I am not sure if asking people if or if not they are converted by mockery will yield any good and valid results. Just who would say yes?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't see conversion as a worthy goal.

 

[MLynn]

I didn't vote - no option for thinkers who aren't swayed willy-nilly by anybody.

 

[BillyJoe]

I voted for option 4 only to vote against the incompleteness of option 3.

But both are incorrectly worded.
The versions that I would both support are as follows:

Option 3: I can be persuaded by argument to the point of view of he arguer.
Option 4: I can also be persuaded by metaphorically banging my head against a wall.

Sometimes option 4 is required.

And these options are more in the spirit of the thread referred to by FireGarten and more in line with my point of view rather than that burning straw man suggested by the options given by him.

CaveMonster actually puts it very well:

Yes, for most people, in the immediate moment, mockery puts them on the defensive, makes them less receptive to arguments and less disposed to consider or be sympathetic to what the speaker has to say.

But that's not the whole picture. A very important phenomenon, here on these boards in fact, is that the people involved in any public discussion are not just the people you see talking, and not just the people with strong positions. In an internet debate, or any public debate, there are a number of people who don't know what they think, who aren't in any camp enough to be offended, and if mockery is actually clever instead of merely mean-spirited, they can see and appreciate the ridiculousness of what's being mocked.

Even people with strong religious (or whatever) positions, even if they are defensive at first now have an emotional argument against their position rattling around in their head. And that's important. You've heard the saying that you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into? It's true.

Nothing much more to add really

 

[autumn1971]

Mockery may not be the best method to convince someone who has a tightly held position, but it does serve the purpose of reiterating one's right to not hold the same position. Open mockery reminds everyone within earshot (or eyeshot) that a particular position isn't the sacred cow that some people assume it to be (unless it actually is a sacred cow, but I digress,).
Also, a constant level of some mockery tends to keep the tightly-held-position holders from being allowed to define what "mockery" is, and weather or not it is acceptable. Remember when a sizable portion of America declared that saying "Happy Holidays" was an intolerable mockery of christian beliefs?

 

[Fnord]

[X] - Other

I have been convinced by discovering contradictory evidence on my own, such as Bible verses that do not match up with real-world physical principles or that contradict other Bible verses. Thus, to me the Bible is no longer as accurate an account of history as it once was to me.

 

[INRM]

Personally I thinking mocking and such just offend people and make them dislike you.

 

[Cavemonster]

Personally I thinking mocking and such just offend people and make them dislike you.

It's certainly not a great way to make friends with the person you're mocking, but it does a lot more than that.

You've never (especially as a kid) been mocked for something and decided to ditch it and distance yourself from it? If a kid get's made fun of for wearing a dorky hat, it's quite likely he'll stop wearing the damned thing. And most people aren't much more emotionally mature than those kids.

Look at politics, when an issue/ turn of phrase/ person becomes a laughing stock publicly, whoever is associated with it moves to drop it like a hot potato most of the time. Remember Howard Dean? Do you know why he wasn't the Democratic Candidate in '04?

Is it a noble and kind approach? Absolutely not. Does it have a range of effectiveness? Absolutely.

 

[Piggy]

It's certainly not a great way to make friends with the person you're mocking, but it does a lot more than that.

You've never (especially as a kid) been mocked for something and decided to ditch it and distance yourself from it? If a kid get's made fun of for wearing a dorky hat, it's quite likely he'll stop wearing the damned thing. And most people aren't much more emotionally mature than those kids.

Look at politics, when an issue/ turn of phrase/ person becomes a laughing stock publicly, whoever is associated with it moves to drop it like a hot potato most of the time. Remember Howard Dean? Do you know why he wasn't the Democratic Candidate in '04?

Is it a noble and kind approach? Absolutely not. Does it have a range of effectiveness? Absolutely.

I was going to post something very similar to that.

Once an idea becomes laughable, the fellow travelers tend to wander away.

(Of course, there can be a hard core of believers who become even more zealous, perhaps even dangerous, when that happens.)

The whole Stewart/Colbert thing on October 30th is, from what I can tell, an effort to defuse some of the current extreme political rhetoric by mocking it.

And I say more power to 'em. It stands a good chance of having its intended effect.

Won't make the teabagger nuttery go away, but if it changes the mood so that more people feel comfortable laughing at it, then it will have done some good.

 

[Resume]

I like stunts, cunning ones.

 

[autumn1971]

I like stunts, cunning ones.

And I like . . . wait, I have to go save an orphan from a Catholic priest.

 

[FireGarden]

But that's not the whole picture. A very important phenomenon, here on these boards in fact, is that the people involved in any public discussion are not just the people you see talking, and not just the people with strong positions. In an internet debate, or any public debate, there are a number of people who don't know what they think, who aren't in any camp enough to be offended, and if mockery is actually clever instead of merely mean-spirited, they can see and appreciate the ridiculousness of what's being mocked.

Of course, what's mean-spirited may be subjective.
I find that Jon Stewart is good natured, but I can imagine that others disagree or dismiss him as a clown. He does the latter himself sometimes: when people say he doesn't ask his guests the tough questions he responds by saying he's on a comedy show not a news show.

Also, the Dean Scream example which you gave... I don't think that mockery was clever. But it still seemed to have an effect.

You've never (especially as a kid) been mocked for something and decided to ditch it and distance yourself from it? If a kid get's made fun of for wearing a dorky hat, it's quite likely he'll stop wearing the damned thing. And most people aren't much more emotionally mature than those kids.

Hat's aren't strongly held beliefs. I realise you didn't say they were, and are merely pointing out that strongly held beliefs aren't the only beliefs that can be changed. Fair enough, that's true.

Look at politics, when an issue/ turn of phrase/ person becomes a laughing stock publicly, whoever is associated with it moves to drop it like a hot potato most of the time. Remember Howard Dean? Do you know why he wasn't the Democratic Candidate in '04?

That's a better example. The Dean Scream:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#Iowa_results_and_the_.22Dean_Scream.22

On January 27 Dean again suffered a defeat, finishing second to Kerry in the New Hampshire primary. As late as one week before the first votes were cast in Iowa's caucuses, Dean had enjoyed a 30% lead in New Hampshire opinion polls; accordingly, this loss represented another major setback to his campaign.

Personally, I would have found this kind of thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/506298.stm

would take the shine off a candidate more effectively than the Dean Scream. But I concede that mockery probably did play a big part in ending Dean's campaign.

Maybe a lot of people couldn't name Musharraf. But don't identify with screams. Or...

And President Bill Clinton showed his charitable side when told of the interview.

"If Mr Bush is president he will soon enough learn their names," the president said.

Maybe it was an opportunity missed.

I am not sure if asking people if or if not they are converted by mockery will yield any good and valid results. Just who would say yes?

That's a good point. Like I said, the poll's for fun only. But two people have said yes, so far -- the fools!

I'm more interested in reading personal accounts as to why people converted. Those could also be inaccurate, since people don't keep a diary of all the events which might have had an impact upon them. But it's a place to start. That's why I linked to Convert's Corner.

The whole Stewart/Colbert thing on October 30th is, from what I can tell, an effort to defuse some of the current extreme political rhetoric by mocking it.

And I say more power to 'em. It stands a good chance of having its intended effect.

Won't make the teabagger nuttery go away, but if it changes the mood so that more people feel comfortable laughing at it, then it will have done some good.

I approve of the rally, actually. I've appreciated the humour on another thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6344539&postcount=7

"I disagree with you but I'm pretty sure your're not Hitler", is a great line. I don't think it mocks the people it's trying to reach out to.

Like you, I don't think it's going to change the Tea Party. But who knows?

 

[FireGarden]

I didn't vote - no option for thinkers who aren't swayed willy-nilly by anybody.

Fair enough. I should have said, "Now and then I have been converted by...."